ems price · mental age of 6.8 in verbal meaning (pma). in grade2 in 19735 these same pupils were...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 090 339 UD 014 157

TITLE Elementary Basic Skills Program State Report,Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I. PartI--Regular Term 1972-73; Part II--Summer Term1972.

INSTITUTION Maryland State Dept. of Education, Baltimore. Div. ofCompensatory, Urban, and Supplementary Programs.

PUB DATE Nov 73NOTE 288p.

EMS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-$13.80 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; *Basic Skills; Basic

Vocabulary; *Early Childhood Education; EducationallyDisadvantaged; *Elementary Education; ElementarySchool Students; Kindergarten Children; LanguageDevelopment; *Program Evaluation; Verbal Ability;Writing Skills

IDENTIFIERS Elementary Secondary Education Act Title I; ESEATitle I Programs; *Maryland

ABSTRACTThe Elementary Secondary Education Act Title I

Elementary Basic Skills program operated in 72 schools during fiscalyear 1973. There were approximately 23,443 identified Title I pupilswho received the services of the program. The first majcr programobjective pertains directly to readinecomprehension and anticipatesa gain of ten school months in a ten-month pericd (April 1972-April1973) for between 70-80 percent of all Title I participants. E.S.E.A.Title I kindergarten and grade one pupils, for example, received thePromary Mental Abilities Test, a reading readiness test which wasreported in a raw score equivalent to mental age. The Spring 1973data indicated that almost 69 percent of the kindergarten pupils hada mental age of 5.8 in Verbal Meaning. In terms cf growth of thepupils in kindergarten in 1972 and grade one in 1973 who wereeligible for Title I based on test scores, almost 48 percent grew tenmonths and more in mental age in Verbal Meaning. The second primaryprogram objective relates to the ability of the pupils in grades onethrough four to express themselves in writing. Evaluation of thestudent's writing was based on pre-established criteria. Data wererequested from all Title I elementary schools for Title I pupils bygrade. A systematic sampling of students was dra,.:n and their writingwas evaluated according to the pre-established criteria. The dataexamined in relation to specific objectives for the FY 1973Elementary Basic Skills Program suggest that the program is workingtoward the total accomplishment of the objectives. Gains were made ateach grade level. (Author/JM)

BEST COPY AV' ILABLE

Elementary Basic Skills Program State ReportElementary and Secondary Education Act, Title 1

Part I - Regular Term 1972 - 73Part II - Summer Term 1972

U 5 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION', DOC u h! PIA!, {I EhEXAcf r AS 410E.VED 40..4

PEnON 04 OPC.AN,ZA r 'ON 0+ 'n.NAT' NC; OF,N.D%S

110 Nn' 4FP4ESF .-`1. 1AL .44,JONAt Nr),. 'E

,Tha 'ON C,4 PO(

Baltimore City Public SchoolsDr. Roland N. Patterson

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Center For Planning, Research and EvaluationJohn L. Crew Sr., Ph.D.Deputy Superintendent

Office of Pupil and Program Monitoring and AppraisalEdward N. Whitney, Ph.D.

Staff Director

Report Prepared byESEA Title I Elementary Team

Beverly W. Ellinwood, Research Specialist

November 1973

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The work of many people contributed to the report of the 1972-

73 Elementary Basic Skills Program in Baltimore City. It was pre-

pared according to the Maryland State Department of Education, Divi-

sion of Compensatory, Urban and Supplementary Programs guidelines.

This document includes basic information describing the status of a

program made possible by Title I of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (PL.89-10). It is the product of the combined efforts

of the Baltimore City Public Schools Office of Pupil and Program Moni-

toring and Appraisal ESEA Title I Elementary Team, with the cooperation

of project and school personnel and many others.

John L. Crew Sr., Ph.D.Deputy SuperintendentCenter for Planning, Research

and Evaluation

Edward N. Whitney, Ph.D.Staff DirectorOffice of Pupil and ProgramMonitoring and Appraisal

Beverly W. Ellinwood, Research SpecialistOffice of Pupil and ProgramMonitoring and Appraisal

ESEA Title I Elemental", TeamNettie HarrellErnestine Reid, Ph.D.Juanita M. SmithSondra Timoll

Part I

ESEA Title I Elementary

Regular School Term 1972 - 73

ESEA Title I Elementary Team

FY 1973 Elementary Basic Skills Program State ReportElementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I

Abstract

The ESEA Title 1 Elementary Basic Skills program operated in seventy-two schools during FY 1973. Thepupils attending these schools were determined eligible to participate in the Title I program on the basis of theSpring 1972 city-wide test scores which were related to pre-established criteria and teacher judgment. Therewere, excluding the 10 percent teacher judgment factor, approximately 23,443 identified Title I pupils who re-ceived the services of the program. This abstract will cover the three program objectives and test score compari-sons for selected sub-tests. In the state report, reading is synonymous with the subtest Reading Comprehensionof the Primary Reading Profiles and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills.

Objective I

Program Objective I pertains directly to reading comprehension and anticipates a gain of 10 school monthsin a ten-month period (April 1972 - April 1973) for between 70 - 80 percent of all Title I participants. ESEATitle I kindergarten and grade one pupils received the Primary Mental Abilities Test (PMA), a reading readinesstest which was reported in a raw score equivalent to mental age. The Verbal Meaning sub-test was interpretedas predictive for the Reading Comprehension sub-test administered in higher grades. The Spring 1973 data indi-cated that almost 69 percent of the kindergarten pupils had a mental age of 5.8 in Verbal Meaning. In terms ofgrowth of the pupils in kindergarten in 1972 and grade 1 in 1973 who were eligible for Title I based on testscores, almost 48 percent grew ten months and more in mental age in verbal Meaning. Ten months growth wasaccomplished by almost 33 percent of these pupils who were eligible for Title I based on teacher judgment re-spectively were at a mental age of 6.2 and better in Verbal Meaning, which was the criterion for readiness tobegin the second level.

Pupils who were identified as being eligible by their test scores and who were in grade 1 in 1972 had a meanmental age of 6.4 in Verbal Meaning (PKA). In grade 2 in 1973, these same pupils were at a grade equivalent of1.7 on the Reading Comprehension sub-test of the Primary Reading Profiles (PRP). By April 1973, a little morethan 69 percent of the pupils were at a grade equivalent of 1.5 and more.

Pupils who were identified as being eligible by teacher judgment and who were in grade 1 in 1972 had a meanmental age of 6.8 in Verbal Meaning (PMA). In grade2 in 19735 these same pupils were at a grade equivalentof 1.9 on the Reading Comprehension sub-test of the (PRP). By April 1973, almost 61 percent were at a gradeequivalent of 1.5 and more.

Objective I stated that for grades 3 and 4 that 70 - 80 percent of the pupils would grow 10 months in oneyear and/or would have attained a grade equivalent not less than one-half year below Large Cities norms. Com-parisons for the pupils who were in grade 2 in April 1972 and grade 3 in April 1973 were based on the ReadingComprehension sub-test of the (PRP) and the Reading Comprehension sub-test of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills(ITBS). For the pupils who were identified as eligible by their test scores, a little more than 23 percent were ata grade equivalent of 1.5 and more by April 1973 as measured by the (ITBS).

Of the pupils who were identified aS heing eligible by teacher judgment, and who were in grade 2 in 1972 andgrade 3 in April 1973., a little more than 30 percent were at a grade equivalent of 1.5 and mere based on the ITBS.

IThe individual pupil gain in months for matched test data in Reading Comprehension for the pupils who were

identified both by teacher judgment and by test scores combined were as follows:

Grade 4 FY'73

Gain Grade Equivalent

43.3 9+ 3.1+

47.7 8+ 3.0+

51.4 7+ 2.9+

Based on the 1972 grade equivalent mean 2.2 in April 1972, a ten month gain would equal a grade equivalent

of 3.2. Almost 40 percent of the fourth grade pupils with gain scores between April 1972 and April 1973 were at .

or above this level. Almost 14 percent of this group attained a grade equivalent of no more than five months below

Large Cities norm (4.0 and better).

Objective IIProgram Objective II relates to the relationship between the number of books an individual pupil read and reading

growth. It was established that the objective was unmeasureable due to specious data.

Objective IIIProgram Objective III relates to the ability of the pupils in grades 1 through 4 to express themselves in writing.

Evaluation of the stud...at's writing was based on pre-established criteria. Data were requested from all ESE,' Tine I

elementary schools for Title I pupils by grade. A systematic sampling of students was drawn and their writing was

evaluated according to the pre-established criteria.

Grade

% Accomplishing

Objective

1 92%

2 81%

3 79%

4 60%

Conclusion

The data examined in relation to specific objectives for the FY'73 Elementary Basic Skills Program suggest

that the program is working toward the total accomplishment of the objectives. Gains were made at each grade

level.

MAAYURD STATE DEPART:ENT OF EDUCATIONDivision of Compensatory, Urban and Supplementary Programs

ESEA, TITLE I PROJECT EVALUATION REPORTFOR SM-744ER TERM 1972. AND

REGULAR SCHOOL TERM 1972-73PROGRAMS

I. LOCALE OF PROGRAM

A. Local Educational Agency: Baltimore City Public Schools

B. Authorized Representative for LEA:

1. Name and Title: Dr. Roland N. Patterson

Superintendent of Public Instruction .

2. Mailing Address:

('Title)

3 East 25th Street

Baltimore, Mar land 21218

3. Telephone Number: 467-4000

4. Signature:

C. State Project Number:

D. Title of Project

Date

(Summer Term 1972)

26 72/73

(Regular School Term 191243)

Elementary Basic Skills

(Summer Term 1972)

E. Length of Project

Beginning and Ending Dates:

(Regular School Term 1972-73)

(Summer Term 1972)

September 1972 - June 1973


II. NEEDS OF CHILDREN WHO PARTICIPATED IN TEE ESEA, TITLE I PROJECT FOR FISCALYEAR 1973

A. The tables below should be used to summarize the needs of children whoactually participated in the ESEA, Title I project(s) under considera-tion. Indicate the number of participants who demonstrated needs inthe areas listed acccrdingro the degree of need. A separate tableshould be used for each grade level of participants. In instanceswhere children are grouped in a nongraded pattern, circle the gradelevel that would correspond to the children's chronological age.

a Summer Term 1972 tY Regular School Term 1972-73

Circle One: Pre-K 3 4 5 6 7

Ability Levels

1. 2

9 10 11 12

AREA OFDEPRIVATION

DEPRIVATION BELc-.7 roams*

MEASURES USEDTO IDENTIFY a/

..... WEDPrimary Mental Abili-ties Test - Verbal

Perceptual

Over 2.0years below

1.1 through10.0.0 years

22A1C,..L.,23Cael

543184559

through11.0 years

a4' __

7327151010

1. DEVELOPMENTALREADINESS

2. LANGUAGE ARTSReading Comp:

Vocabulary

3. MATHMATICS______I .-.......

Sub-1

test

*Check Norms Used: Er National a County 0 Large City 0 Other (specify)

a/ See Table 1, page 2d and 2e, Guide For is ,tifying Title I Children.

II. NEEDS OF CHILDREN WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE ESEA, TITLE I PROJECT FOR FISCALYEAR 1973

A. Th.: tables below should be used to aummarize the needs of children whoactually participated iu the ESEA, Title I project(s) under considera-tion. Indicate the number of participants who demonstrated needs inthe areas listed according to the degree of need. A separate tableshould be used for each grade level of participants. In instanceswhere children are grouped in nongradd pattern, circle the gradelevel that would correopoud to the children's chrouological age.

a Suer Term 1972 itg Regular School Term 1972-73

Circle One: Pre-K K 3 4 5 6 7

Ability Levels

t 2

10 11 12

AREA OFDEPRIVATION

DEPRIVATION E37.C.0 roams*

MEASURES USEDTO IDENTIFY

EELL__

Over 2.0years below

1.1

.0 yearsa/

1061698991

through1.0 years

a/

1430. 12081389

1. DEVELOPffENTALREADINESS .

.

Primary Mental Abili-ties Test - Verbal

PerceptualSpatial

2. LANGUAGE ARTSReading Comp.

Vocabulary

3. MATHEMATICS

Sub-test

?'Check Norms Used: Br National County a Large City 27 Other (specify)

a/ See Table 1, page 2d and 2e, Guide For Identifying'Title I Children.

b


A. Th.: tables below should be used to summarize the needs of children whoactually participated in the ESEA, Title I project(s) under considera-.tion. Indicate the number of participants who demonstrated needs inthe areas listed according to the degree of need. A separate tableshould be used for each grade level of participants. In instanceswhere children are grouped in a nongraded pattern, circle the gradelevel that would correspond to the children's chronological age.

aSummer Term 1972 7 Regular School Term 1972-73

Circle One: Pre-K- . 6 7 6 9 10 11 12

AREA OFDEPRIVATION

DEPRIVATION DELM ECRMS*MEASURES USEDTO IDENTIFY

Over 2.0years below

1.1 throughi0.09.0 yearsf.plgirr.

through1.0 years,

. DEVELOPMENTALREADINESS .

.

.


131 1920 941

Primary Reading Profile-- Reading Comprehensioevel 1 (Norm. for Levesed to identif eli 1

"Vocabulary

.

students) .

.

3. MATIIMATICS.

*Check Norms Used: r National

See note on previous Tables.

2

le

County Large City 27 Other (specify)

Page '2 c

II. NEEDS OF CNILDaEN NNO PARTICIPATED IN TILE ESEA, TITLE I PROJECT FOR FISCALYEAR 1973

A. The tables below should be used to surzwrize the needs of children whoactually participated in the ESEA, Title I project(s) under considera-tion. Indicate the nunber of participants who demonstrated needs inthe areas listed according to the degree of need. A separate tableshould be used for each grade level of participants. In instanceswhere children are grouped in a nongraded pattern, circle the gradelevel that would correspond to the children's chronological age.

Sim-mer Term 1972 5 Regular School Term 1972-73

Circle One: Pre-K K 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

AREA 01'

DEPRIVATION

DEPRIVATION DELCU UGTS*MEASURES USEDTO IDENTIFY

UZED

Over 2.0years below

1.1 throughq).0 through2.0 years 1.0 yearsh 1 c*,w rq.(-7-..,

.1. DEVELOPMENTALREADINESS

2. LANGUAGE ARTSReading Comp. 695 2369 777

.Skills--Reading:

Iowa Tests of BasicCom-

prehension Subtest

Vocabulary .

3. MATHMATICS.

*Check Norms Used: E National a County a Large City a Other (specify)

See note on previous Tables.

2dTable 1

Number Of 1972-73 Identified ESEA Title 1 Pupils ByOctober, 1972 Grade Who Met The Educational DeprivationCriteria Based On April, 1972 City-Wide Test Results

Areas of Deprivation and Measures of NeedGrade as of Primary Mental Primary Reading Iowa Tests of BasicOctober, 1972 Abilities, K-1 Lv. Profiles, Level 1 Skills, Form 3, Level A

Verbal MeaningPerceptual Speed Reading ReadingSpatial Relations Comprehension Comprehension

a/

Kgn.

Below AverageWhen Tested

b/Gr. 1

Below AverageWhen Tested

c/

Gr. 2Below AverageWhen Tested

17

3,802

5,526

Gr. 31/2 Year Below Nat'l N/ANorm When Tested

Gr. 41 yr. Below Nat'lNorm When Tested

Total

N/A.

9,345

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

4,566 N/A

N/A

4,566

3,801

-.11 3,801

Note: 1/ Data do not include students identified as eligible to receive ESEATitle I services based on teacher judgment.

a/

b/

2/ Total number of participating students in kindergarten through gradefour based on test results is 17,712.

3/ N/A = not applicable.

Kindergarten failures.

Any pupil with a raw score of 29 or less in Verbal Meaning, a raw score of12 or less in Perceptual Speed, or a raw score of 13 or less in Spatial Relations.

c/ Any pupil with a raw score of 39 or less in Verbal Meaning, a raw score of18 or less in Perceptual Speed, or a raw score of 19 or less in Spatial Relations.

Source: Office of Pupil and Program Monitoring and Appraisal print-out ofIdentified ESEA Title I pupils--tested April, 1972 and Grade by October,1972, Class Organization.

2e

GUIDE FOR IDENTIFYING TITLE I CHILDREN

Title I children are those children in an E.S.E.A. designated schoolwho are not achieving educationally, especially in the area of reading,like other children of their age as measured by criteria listed below.

TEST GRADE WHEN PRESENT GRADES BELOW NATIONAL NATIONALUSED TESTED GRADE NORM WHEN TESTED NORM

ITBS 3 4 1 year 3.7

PRP I 2 3 1/2 yeara/

2.8

PMA 1 2 Below Averageb/

PMA Kgn. 1 Below Averagec/

PRP II Sp. Curr. Sp. Curr. Below Average

ITBS Iola Tests of Basic Skills (Based on Reading Comprehension)PRP Primary Reading Profile (Based on Reading Comprehension)PMA Primary Mental AtAlities (A child testing below average in

any area tested except the numberarea)

CRITERIA FOR TEACHERS JUDGMENT IN IDENTIFYING E.S.E.A. TITLE I PUPILS:

1. A pupil whose test score does not qualify him as an E.S.E.A. Title Ipupil but whose daily performance would suggest that this pupil mightpotentialize through additional services under E.S.E.A. Title I.

2. A pupil exhibiting behavioral characteristics which deviate sufficientlyfrom the standard classroom behavior pattern as to interfere with hisown progress.

3. A pupil exhibiting excessive home deprivation.

a/Any pupil with a raw score of 39 or less in Verbal Meaning, a raw score of18 or less in Perceptual Speed, or a raw score of 19 or less in SpatialRelations.

b/Any pupil with a raw score of 29 or less in Verbal Meaning, a raw score of12 or less in Perceptual Speed, or a raw score of 13 or less in SpatialRelations.

c/Primary Special Curriculum pupils were considered eligible for Title I services ifaccording to age their grade level would range from kindergarten to grade four.

II. B. Using Table I, indicate for each applicable method the individuals involvedin determining students' needs.

TABLE I - TYPES OF MEASURES AND PERSONS INVOLVED IN THEDETERMINATION OF NEEDS

MEASURESUSED

PERSONS INVOLVED

Local School Staff

(Teachers, Aides,Principals)

ParentsCentralofficeStaff

NonpublicSchoolPersonnel

Other(Specify)

Standardized

AchievementTests

X X X

Staadardi zed

IntelligenceTests

X 'X

.

InterestInventories X X

AttitudeInventories X X

Locally Re-vised SkillsTests

X X

Teacher-madeSkills Tests X X

TeacherRatings X X X

AnecdotalRecords

ObserverReports X X . X X

HealthRecords X X X

Health Dept.X

PupilPersonnelReports

X X X

AttendanceRecords X X X

Other(Specify)

age 4(See page 4a)

II. C. Using Table 1I, indicate the total number of pupils by grade level whoactually, participated in the program.

TABLE II - TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE1972-73 ESEA, TITLE I PROGRAM

GRADE LEVELOF

PARTICIPANTS

NUMBER OF TITLE I PARTICIPANTS

R,1,--x_1=_Lan1_1=ularTLL.fs,........__j Ncnpullisj

Seloci,Tem 1972-73Pv.- 14c i rorvublic

t

Pre-K

r

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 .

8.

9 .

10

11 .

12

Out-of-School(Specify)

Total

What was the average daily attendance of the Title I participants?

1. For the Summer Term 1972:

2. For the Regular School Term 1972-73:

4a

II. C. Using Table II, indicate the total number of pupils by grade levelwho actually participated in the program.


GRADE LEVELOF

PARTICIPANTS

NUMBER OF TITLE I PARTICIPANTSRegular School

PublicIerm 19/2-73Nonpublic

Summer Term 19/2Public Nonpublic

Pre-K

K 2,897

1 4,360

5 6742

3 _1,003

1,3094

SpecialFducation 1 200


Total - 23,443


1. For the Summer Term 1972: See Separate Report

2. For the Regulai- School Term 1972-73: 20,860

Page

:I. D. Using the table* below, indicate by grade level the number of partici-pants in the fiscal year 1973 Title I project who also participatedfor one or more consecutive years in earlier regular school termTitle I projects.

GRADE LEVELOF

PARTICIPANTS

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN PAST REGULAR TERMTITLE I PROJECTS

Fiscal Year1972*

Fiscal Years1971 and

1972

Fiscal Years '1970, 1971,and 1972

Fiscal Years1969, 1970,1971, & 1972

K N/A N/A N/A N/A

1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

3 N/A N/A N/A N/A

4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

*This table is included for the purpose of establishing some baselinesfor longitudinal studies of the impact of Title I. Such informationis being increasingly requested by federal and state agencies assessingthe effectiveness of Title I.

Information will be available for FY '73 and FY '74 since FY '73 uasthe first time they have been specifically identified by grades.

THE DATA FOR SUMMER 1972 WILL FOLLOW AS A SEPARATE REPORT

III. EVALUATION

A. Project Objectives and Actual Outcomes: List the measurable objectivesestablished for the fiscal year 1973 Title I Project(s) and the extentto which each objective was actually achieved. Listed objectives shouldinclude the skill or area to be improved, the amount of improvement ex-pected, and the time period in which improvement is to occur.

Example

Objective: To develop the reading skills of the Title I participants8o that they will be able to achieve 10-months' growth in reading fora year (10 months) of instruction.

Degree Achieved. Second-grade pupils achieved eight months of growthin reading for a year of instruction as indicated by the differencebetween the pre- and post-test score means (see Table III, page 10).


a. Objective:

Page 6

Degree Achieved:

b. Objective:

Degree Achieved:

c. Objective:

.111=M,

Degree Achieved:

A. (Confirmed)

2. For the Racalar Vchool Tara 1972-73*

a, CWantivo: 1 Paps 7a through o

Riga 7

'ays Achicr,mis

the espe,irze 2 Page 7p

D37ro0 AC:am-efts

a. Gaqoatiros 3

asmiomI

Pages 7q through v

Dafrreti t olligr:211

tivrn1E1 1111.111=1

Dr --ma t.t-1._;::

7a

III. A. (Continued)

Objective 1

a. Kindergarten participants by the end of April 1973 will exhibit

a level of mastery in verbal comprehension which indicates they

are ready to begin to learn to read.

1/ It is anticipated that 70% - 80% of the participants will

attain a mental age of 5 years 8 months or better based on

the Primary Mental Abilities Test (PMA).

Degree Achieved: The kindergarten pupils tested in April 1973,

who participated in the Title 1 Program FY'73 were either identi-

fied by teacher judgment or kindergarten failures, of whom there

were 13. There were 2426 Title 1 pupils for whom verbal meaning

(comprehension) test data were available, in this group 1666 or

68.7 percent had a mental age of 5 years 8 months and more.

b. Grade 1 participants by the end of April 1973 will exhibit a

level of mastery in verbal comprehension which in "icates they

have grown 10 months in reading comprehension mental age in one

year and/or arc ready to begin second grade level reading based

on the Primary Mental Abilities Test.

Degree Achieved: There were matched test scores for 3071 pupils

identified by test scores and tested in kindergarten FY'72 aLi

grade 1 FY'73. In this group, 1464 or 47.7 percent grew ten months

and more in mental age based on the verball meaning (comprehension)

sub-test of the PMA Level K-1.

7b

III. A. (Continued)

Objective 1

For the group of Title 1 pupils identified by teacher judgment,

October 1972 -- 114 or 32.6 percent of the 350 pupils with matched

test scores grew ten months and more in mental age based on the

verbal meaning (comprehension) sub-test of the PMA.

1/ It is anticipated that 70% - 80% of the participants will attain

a mental age of 6 years 2 months or better.

Degree Achieved: There were 3071 Title 1 pupils who were identified

by test scores for whom test data were available. In this group, 1867

or 60.8 percent were at a mental age of 6 years 2 months and lore in

verbal meaning (comprehension) based on the PMA Level K-1.

There were 350 Title 1 pupils identified by teacher judgment, October

1972 for whom matched test data were available. In this group, 269 or

76.9 percent were at a mental age of 6 years 2 months and more in verbal

meaning (comprehension) based on the PRA Level K-1.

Sec Tables 1, 2, and 3, pages 7c, 7d, and 7e.

7c

Table 1

Mental Age of Pupils By Sub-Test On ThePrimary Mental Abilities Test FY '73

ESEA Title I, Elementary Basic SkillsFY 197 3

Primary Mental Abilities K-1 Level Kgn. FY '73

Total Number ofPupils For Whom

VerbalMeaning

PerceptualSpeed

NumberFacility

SpatialRelations

Test Scores Were 2426 2375 2345 2369Available

Number and Percentof Pupils Who WereAt Mental Age 5.8 1666 68.7% 1742 73.3% 1501 64.0% 1077 45.5%Or More

Mean Mental Age 6.0 6.2 5.10 5.6

Median Mental Age 6.0 6.2 6.0 5.6

70% Range For MentalAge 5.6 - 8.10 5.4 - 9.0 4.10 - 8.6

80% Range For MentalAge 5.4 - 8.10 5.4 - 9.0 5.0 - 9.0 4.4 - 8.6

Note: 1/ ESEA Title I pupils identified by teacher judgment, October 1972.

I/ The range between which 70'and 80 percent of the pupils were.

Source: Center for Planning, Research and Evaluation, Office of Pupil and ProgramMonitoring and Appraisal Alphabetical Print-Out of Test Results FY'72 andFY'73.

7d

Table 2

Mental Age Growth of Pupils By Sub-Test On ThePrimary Mental Abilities Test FY'72 - FY'73

ESEA Title 1, Elementary Basic SkillsFY 1973

Total Number ofPupils For WhomTest Scores WereAvailable

Number and Percentof Pupils Who GrewTen Months or MoreIn Twelve Months

Number and Percent ofPupils At 6 Years 2onths Mental Age andore

can Growth Inelve Months

edian Growthn Twelve Months

0% Range for a/ental Age ChangeIn Twelve Months

0% Range For a/ental Age ChangeIn Twelve Months

Primary Mental Abilities K-1 Level, Kgn. FY'72 Gr. 1 FY'73

Verbal Perceptual Number SpatialMeaning Speed Facility Relations

3,071 3,035 3,005 3,035

1464 - 47.7% 2038 - 67.1% 2076 - 69.1% 1966 - 64.8%

1867 - 60.8% 2619 - 86.3% 2431 - 80.9% 1624 - 53.5%

10 1.3 1.3 1.2

8 1.2 1.0 1.0

6 - 5.4 8 - 5.4 8 - 6.2 8 - 5.6

- 5.4 4 - 5.4 4 - 6.2 4 - 5.6

ote: 1/ ESEA Title 1 pupils identified by test scores.

a/ The range betwevn which 70 and 80 percent of the pupils were.

ource: Center for Planning, Research and Evaluation, Office of Pupil and ProgramMonitoring and Apprasal Alphabetical Print-Out of Test Results FY'72 andFY'73.

7e

Table 3

Mental Age Growth of Pupils By Sub-Test On ThePrimary Mental Abilities Test FY'72 - FY'73

ESEA Title 1, Elementary Basic SkillsFY 1973

Total Number of Pupils ForWhom Test Scores Were Avail-

Primary Mental Abilities K:-1 Level, Kgn. FY'72 Gr. 1 FY'73

VerbalMeaning

PerceptualSpeed

NumberFacility

SpatialRelations

able 350 341 346 345

Number and Percentof Pupils Who CrewTen Months or MoreIn Twelve Months 114 - 32.6% 201 - 59.0% 175 - 50.6% 138 - 40.0%

Number and Pefcent ofPupils at 6 Ye2ts 2 MonthsMental Age and More 269 - 76.9% 307 - 90.0% 286 - 82.8% 237 - 68.6%

Mean GrowthIn Twelve Months 7 1.6 10 8

Median GrowthIn Twelve Months 6 1.0 10 6

70% Range for a/Mental Age ChangeIn Twelve Months 0 - 3.2 8 - 4.0 4 - 3.6 2 - 3.8

80% Range for a/Mental Age ChangeIn Twelve Months 4 - 3.2 4 -4.0 0 - 3.6 2 - 3.8

Note: 1/ ESEA Title 1 pupils identified by teacher judgment, OcLuber 1972.

a/ The range between which 70 and 80 percent of the pupils were.

Source: Center for Planning, Research and Evaluation, Office of Pupil and ProgramMonitoring and Appraisal Alphabetical Print-Out of Test Results FY'72 andFY'73.

7f

c. Grade 2 participants by the end of April 1973 will exhibit a

mastery in reading comprehension which indicates they have grown

10 months in one year and/or are ready to begin third grade level

reading. It is anticipated that 70% - 80% of the participants will

have grown 10 months in educational age from April 1972 to April 1973.

Degree Achieved: There were 4298 Title 1 pupils identified by

test scores for whom test data for FY'72 were available for the

verbal meaning (comprehension) sub-test of the PMA Level K-1.

The mean mental age for the group was 6.4. By FY'73 test scores

for reading comprehension were available for 4173 pupils. The:

mean grade equivalent for the group was 1.7.

Of the Title 1 pupils identified by teacher judgment, October 1972

test scores for FY'72 were available for 434 pupils for the verbal

meaning (comprehension) sub-test of the PMA Level K-1. The mean

mental age for the group was 6.8. By FY'73 test data for reading

comprehension were available for 528 pupils. The mean grade equiva-

lent for the group was 1.9 based on the Primary Reading Profiles

Level 1.


a grade level of 1.5 or better on the Primary Reading Profiles.

Degree Achieved: There were 4173 Title 1 pupils who were identified

by test scores for whom FY'73 test data were available for the reading

comprehension sub-test of the Primary Reading Profiles (PRP).Level 1.

These data showed that 69.5 percent of the pupils were at grade

equivalent of 1.5 and more.

7g

Degree Achieved: There were 528 Title 1 pupils identified by

teacher judgement October 1972 for whom test data were available

for the reading comprehension sub-test of the (PRP) Level 1. These

data showed that 60.6 percent of this group were at grade equivalent

of 1.5 and more.

c. Grade 3 participants by the end of April 1973 will exhibit mastery

in reading comprehension which indicates they have grown 10 school

months in one year and/or have attained a grade level not less than

one-half year below Large Cities norms.

Degree Achieved: There were 2907 Title 1 pupils identified by test

scores for whom FY'73 test data were available for the reading com-

prehension sub-test of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) Form 3

Level A. These data showed that 671 or 23.1 percent of the pupils

were at grade equivalent of 1.5 and more.

There were 724 Title 1 pupils identified by teacher judgment, October

1972 for whom test data were available for the reading comprehension

sub-test of the (ITBS) Form 3 Level A. These data showed that 219

or 30.2 percent were at a grade equivalent of 1.5 and more.

See Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7, pages 7h, 7i, 7j, and 7k.

71iTable 4

Primary Mental Abilities Mean and Median MentalAge Status and Primary Reading Profiles Grade Equivalent Status By Sub-Test

FY 1973

Primary Mental Abilities K-1:Level Grade 1 FY '72

Total Number of PupilsFor Whom Test Scores

Verbal a/Meaning

PerceptualSpeed

NumberFacility

SpatialRelations

Were Available 4298 4295 4298 4298



Total.Number of PupilsFor Whom Test Scores

Primary Reading Profiles K-1 Level Grade 2 FY '73

AptitudeAuditoryAssociation

WordRecognition

WordAttack

ReadinelComprehension Composite

Were Available 4188 4187 4183 4177 4173 4158

Mean GradeEquivalent 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7

Median GradeEquivalent 1.2 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8

Percent of PupilsAt Grade Equivalent1.5 or moire 41.0% 61.1% 65.3% 67.7% 69.5% 69.4%

Note: 1/ ESEh Title I pupils Identified by FY '72 test scores.

a/ ESEA Title I Elementary area of concentration.

Source: Center for Planning, Research and Evaluation, Office of Pupil and ProgramMonitoring and Appraisal Print-Out of Distributions of Test Scores By PartWithin Grade FY'72 and FY'73.

7i

Table 5

Primary Mental Abilities Mean and Median Mental AgeStatus and Primary Reading Profiles Grade Equivalent

Status By Sub-TestFY 197 3

Primary Mental Abilities K-1 Level Gr. 1 FY'72

Verbal a/Meaning

)tal Number of Pupils

PerceptualSpeed

NumberFacility

SpatialRelations

31. Whom Test Scoresare Available

434 397 391 398

..an Mental Age 6.8 7.2 7.0 6.6

Mental Age 7.2 7.8 7.2 6.8

)tal Number of Pupils31. Whom Test Scoresere Available

aan Grade Equivalent

adian Grade Equivalent

mnber & Percent ofapils At Grade Equiva-ant 1.5 or More

Primar Readin Profiles Level-1 Grade 2 FY '73

Auditory Word Word Reading 2/Aptitude Association Recognition Attack Comprehension Composit

537

1.4

1.4

230 42.8%

543

1.6

1.5

C88 53.0%

541

1.7

1.6

303 56.0%

535

1.8

1.7

325 60.7%

528

1.9

1.6

320 60.6%

539

1.8

1.6

318 59.0'

)te: 1/

a/

)urce:

ESEA Title

ESEA Title

Center forMonitoringFY'73.

I Pupils identified by teacher judgment, October 1972.

I Elementary area of concentration.

Planning, Research and Evaluation, Office of Pupil and Programand Appraisal Alphabetical Print-Out of Test Results FY'72 and

7j

Table 6

Primary Reading Profiles Mean and Median Grade EquivalentStatus and Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Mean and Median

Glade Equivalent Status and Number and Percent ofPupils At Five Months Below The Large Cities Norms Or Better

FY 1973

Total Number of Pupils

Primary Reading Profiles Level 1 Grade 2 FY '72Auditory

Aptitude AssociationWordRecognition

WordAttack

Reading a/Comprehension Composite

For Whom Test Scores 2986 2987 2982 2986 2992 2978Were Available

Mean Grade Equivalent 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6

Median Grade Equivalent 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Form 3 Level A Grade 3 FY '73

Total Number of PupilsFor Whom. Test ScoresWere Available

Mean Grade Equivalent

Median Grade Equivalent

Large Cities Norm

Five Months BelowThe Large Cities Norms

Number & % of Pupils AtFive Months Below TheLarge Cities Norm orMore

VocabularyReaulng aComprehension

anguageComposite

rithmeticComposite

2907

2.6

2.4

3.5

3.0

782 27.0%

2907

2.4

2.4

3.5

3.0

671 23.1%

2821

2.6

2.4

3.5

3.0

629 22.3%

2920

2.7

2.6

3.5

3.0

746 25.51

Note: 1/ ESEA Title I pupils Identified by FY '72 test scores.

a/ ESEA Title I Elementary area of concentration.

Source: Center for Planning, Research and Evaluation, Office of Pupil andProgram Monitoring and Appraisal Print-Out of Distributions ofTest Scores By Part Within Grade FY '72 and FY '73.

7k

Table 7

Primary Reading Profiles lean and Median GradeEquivalent Status and Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Mean and Median

Grade Equivalent Status and Number and Percent ofPupils At Five Months Below The Large Cities Norm or More

FY 197 3

Primary Reading Profiles Level 1 Grade 2 FY '72

Auditory word Word Reading 1/Aptitude Association Recognition Attack Comprehension Composite

Total Number ofPupils For WhomTest Scores Were 530 522 526 523 518 516Available

Mean Grade Equivalent 1.6

Median Grade Equivalent 1.4

1.8

1.8

2.0

2.1

2.0 2.2

2.0 2.4

.01111,1.

2.2

2.2

Iowa Tests of Basic Ski1l7 Form 3 Level A Grade 3 FY '73Reading 31 Language Arithmetic

Vocabulary Comprehensien Composite Composite._Tetal Number of PupilsFor Whom Test Scores 725 724 707 725Were Available



Large Cities Norm

Five Months BelowThe Large Cities Norm

Number and Percentof Pupils At FiveMonths Below LargeCities Norm or More

2.6

2.6

3.5

2.7

2.5

3.5

2.7

2.6

3.5

2.8

2.7

3.5

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

276 38.1% 219 30.2% '23 31.5% 266 36.7%

Note. 1/ ESEA Title I pupils identified by teacher judgment, October 1972.

a/ ESEA Title I area of concentration.

Source: Center for Planning, Research and Evaluation; Officf, of Pupil and ProgramMonitoring and Appraisal Alphabetical Print -Out of Test Results fY '72 andFY '73.

O

71

d. Grade 4 participants by the end of April 1973 will exhibit mastery

in reading comprehension which indicates they have grown 10 school

months in one year and/or have attained a grade level not less than

one-half year below. Large Cities norms.

1/ It is anticipated that 70% - 80% of the participants will have

grown 10 school months in grade equivalent from April 1972 to

April 1973.

Degree. Achieved: Of the total number of Title 1 pupils identified

by test scores and teacher judgment, October-1972, there were 3,725

fourth grade pupils who had matched third - fourth grade Iowa Tests

of Basic Skills Reading Comprehension scores. Of this group, 1,916

or 51.4 percent made seven or more months gain and were at a grade

equivalent of 2.9 or more. 1,776 of these pupil or 47.7 percent

gained eight months or more and were at a grade equivalent of 3.0 or

more. There were 1,616 pupils or 43.4 percent who made nine months

gain or more and were at a grade equivalent of 3.1 or more. Based on

the mean, ten months gain from 2.2 in April 1972 is a grade equivalent

of 3.2. 1,470 or 39.5 percent of the fourth grade pupils with gain

scores between April 1972 and April 1973 were at or above this level.


a grade level not less than one-half year below Large Cities norms.

Degree Achieved: Of the Title 1 pupils identified by test scores and

teacher judgment, 3800 grade four pupils were tested in ESEA Title 1

schools and received the ITBS Form 3 Level B sub-test reading compre-

hension. In this group, 521 or 13.7 percent attained a grade equiva-

lent of no more than five months below Large Cities norm (4.0 or better).

Supplementary Data

In the group of seventy-seven Non-ESEA Title 1 schools, there was a total

fourth grade population of 8,080 April 1973 for whom test data was available.

Approximately 1/3 of this group (twenty-five schools) with a fourth grade

population of 2,474 or 30.6 percent who were tested, attained a grade equivalent

of (4.0) five months below Large Cities norm or better based on the school

median. Based on a frequency distribution of school medians that range from

a grade equivalent of 2.8 - S.S, the data show that the median grade equivalent

for this group of schools is 3.7 as compared to Title 1 schools.

See Tables 8 and 9, pages 7n and 7o.

71%

Table 8

ESEA Title I elementary Basic Skills DistributionsFor Identified. Title 1 Pupils April 1972 Grade

Three and April 1973 Grade Four

iTBS Form 3 Level A - Reading ras Form 3 Level B - Reading

LargeOne. %Marl Cif..

Pew Wm.Score Molt ale .ile

Grade 3Nimawrof

April 1972PewScore

GradeEquiv.Meat

%mama%

ale

LemWites%

-lie

ands Am.Number ofDaigleApril 1973

43 5 -s 88 91 1 59. 7-0 95 97 1

42 5 -z 86 99 0 58 6-9 94 96 041 5-1 84 89 2 57 6-8 93 95 040 5-1 84 89 0 56 6-7 92 94 039 5-11 83 87 0 55 6-6 91 93 038 4-9 81 86 3 54 6-5 89 92 337 4-8 78 84 1 53 6-4 88 91 1

36 4-7 76 82 3 52 6-3 86 89 035 4-b 74 8U 1 51 6-2 85 88 134 4-6 74 8U 3 SO 6-1 83 86 033 4-5 71 78 5 49 6-0 81 85 332 4-4 68 76 0 48 5-9 80 84 1

31 4-3 66 73 5 47 5-8 78 82 1

30 4-2 63 70 6 46 5-7 76 80 1

29 4-1 60 68 10 45 5-6 73 78 228 4-0 57 66 8 44 5-6 73 78 227 3-9 S5 63 16 43 5-5 70 76 326 3-8 52 60 15 42 5-4 68 74 325 3-7 49 57 15 41 5-3 66 71 524 3-6 47 64 25 40 5 -2 63 69 323 3-5 44 SI 31 39 5 -1 60 66 322 3-4 38 48 37 38 5-0 58 64 1021 3-3 38 45 42 37 5-0 58 64 1020 3-2 35 42 48 3b 4-9 55 61 1319 3-0 29 35 7b 35 4-8 52 58 1718 2-8 23 28 108 34 4-8 52 58 1317 2-7 21 24 395 33 4-7 50 56 2016 2-5 16 18 423 32 4-6 47 53 2615 2-4 13 16 381 31 4-5 44 50 2414 2-2 09 11 43U 30 4-5 44 50 2513 2-1 07 09 368 29 4-4 41 47 4112 2-0 05 U7 331 '28 4-3 39 44 4611 1-S 02 04 247 27 4-2 36 41 651U 1-7 U2 02 189 26 4-1 34 38 769 1-6 01 01 159 25 4-0e/ 32 35 1028 1-6 01 01 144 24 3-9 29 33 1327 1-5 01 01 134 23 3-8 27 30 1266 1-4 Ul 01 77 22 3-6 26 25 io2S 1-4 01 01 60 21 3-5 21 23 2174 1-3 01 Ul 53 20 3-4 19 20 2363 1-2 01 01 31 19 3-2 16 16 2882 1-1 01 -01 19 18 3-0 12 12 2611 1-1 010 1-0 01

0101

99 176

2-82-6

0905

0906

306281

Total 3,920 15 2-5 04 04 237

Mean Raw Score 13.6 14 2-3 02 02 247

Mean Grade Equivalent 2.2 1312

2-22-1

01

0101

01

188140

Median Raw Score 14 11 2-0 01 01 117

Median Grade Equivalent 2.2 10 2-0 01 01 779 1-9 01 01 76

(Mean Grade Equivalent 2.9 8 1-8 01 01 SS

(Total City 7 1-7 01 01 426 1-6 01 01 34

(Median Grade Equivalent 2.85 1-6 01 01 21

(Total City 4

3I-51-5

0101

01

01

17

10

National Norm 3.72 1-4 01 01 6

Large Cities Norm 3.5 1

01-41-3

01

0101

01

2

1

Total' 3766

In

Table 8

(Continued)

ESEA Title I Elementary Basic Skills DistributionsFor Identified Title I Pupils April 1972 Grade

Three and April 1973 Grade Four

ITBS Form 3 Level B - Reading

Mean Raw Score 18.6Mean Grade Equivalent 3.0

Median Raw Score 18Median Grade Equivalent 3.0

(Mean Grade Equivalent 3.6

(Total City

(Median Grade Equivalent 3.5(Total City

National NormLarge Cities Norm

4.74.5

a/ Five months below the Large Cities Norm.

Source: Center for Planning, Research and Evaluation, Office of Pupil andProgram Monitoring and Appraisal print-out of test results forIdentified Title I matched pupils grade 3 FY 1972 and grade 4FY 1973.

a

70

Table 9

Iowa.Tests of Basic SkillsMean and Median Grade Equivalent By Sub-Test and Months of Gain

Grade Three FY'72 To Grade Four FY'73FY 1973

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Form 3 Level A Grade 3 FY'72

VocabularyReading a/Comprehension

LanguageComposite

ArithmeticComposite

Mean Grade Equivalent 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.8

Median Grade Equivalent 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.7

N V 476 476 501 513

Large Cities Norm 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

National Norm 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Form 3 Level B Grade 4 FY'73

VocabularyReading a/Comprehension

LanguageComposite

ArithmeticComposite

Mean Grade Equivalent 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.5

Median Grade Equivalent 2.9 3.2 3.1 3.4

N 13/ 476 476 501 513

Large Cities Norm 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

National Norm 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7

Months of Gain Based On The MeanFY'72 To FY'73 6 2 5 7

Note: 1/ ESEA Title I pupils Identified by Teacher Judgment October 1972.

a/ ESEA Title I area of concentration.

b/ Number of matched pupils for whom test results were available.

Source: Center for Planning, Research and Evaluation, Office of Pupil and ProgramMonitoring and Appraisal Alphabetical Print-Out of Test Results FY;72 andFY'73.

OBJECTIVE TWO:

It is hypothesized that those children who read 30 or more books willmake more reading growth from April, 1972 to April, 1973 than those whoread less than 30. The Iowa Test of. Basic Skills will be used to measureparticipants' reading growth.

Relationships Between The Number of Months Gained InReading and thee' Number of Books Read By Pupils Enrolledin the ESEA Title I Elementary Basic Skills Program atthe Grade 4 Level Based On a 20% Sample.

1972-73

Number of Months Gained in ReadingBased on ITBS Reading Comprehension Pupils Reading Pupils Reading

Scores 0-29 Books 30 Or More Books Totals

Less Than 1 105 34 139

1 21 10 31

2 11 8 19

3 20 6 26

4 23 4 27

5 17 12 29

6 20 11 31

7 14 3 17

8 1,13 11 24

9 19 S 24

10 16 6 22

11 10 3 13

12 25 4 29

13 & Above 87 49 136

Totals 401 166 567

Results: Data supplied by the schools indicated that the objective as proposed wasnot met. .Chi square analysis was computed on the above data which showed nosignificant difference between the two groups. (X2= 20.79, df=13)

Recommendations:

1. The method of reporting the number of books read should be revised.

,2. The pleasure reading data should be reported every three months ratherthan at the end of the school year.

Source: Data was reported by the 4th grade Title I Teachers

OBJECTIVE THREE

7q

A. All children, except those in kindergarten or other preschool levels,

will be able to express themselves in writing by May, 1973 using a mini-

mum of the following on the level indicated:

the first level, one complete sentence of at least four words

the second level, three complete sentences of at least ten words

the third level, four complete related sentences of at least six-

teen words

the fourth level, one or two related paragraphs

Degree Achieved:

In June, 1973 data was received from 64 of the 71 ESEA Title I public

elementary schools. Writing samples of 2,584 first to fourth grade

students were evaluated. Of those students, 2,134 or 83% received

ratings of fair, good or excellent. That is, 83% of the sampled popu-

lation achieved the objective. The following figure gives a graphic

presentation of the achievement by grade. See pages 7 is j, k, and 1

for scoring key.

Grade Grade 2. Grade 3 Grade A

LEVEL OBJECTIvE sr. 1 1 ,, I

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

All pupils will be aSle to write at least onecomplete sentence of at least four words.

All pupils will br able to write at least threecomplete, related sentences fat least tonwards.

All pupils will be able to write at least fourcomplete, related sentences of at least sixteenwords.

All pupils will be able to write one unifiedpr.v.pn or two related paragraphs.

All pupils will write a sentence about an eit.porience with at least fair quality.

All pupils will write /bout an experience withat least fair quality.

All 'wells will write about an experience withat least fair quality.

All pupils will write about an experience withat least fair qui.1tY.

-------*

The objective was achieved by S2% of thesampled pupils.

The ill: of the second graders whomet toe onjective wrote with eithergood or excellent quality.

The objective was met by 7ST of tne sampledpupils. The majority scored "excellent' or'coo.'

OF the AO% who achieved the objective, themajority were rated felr.

Pig. I. fercentaia of writing sample ratings by grace FT 73 ilwrientery basic Skills Program

7

7r

B. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills language scores of one-half year below Large

Cities norms or higher will be achieved by 70 - 80% of third and fourth grade

pupils.

Degree Achieved:

The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills capitalization, punctuation, spelling, language

usage and total language scores were tabulated for a sample population of 1,371

third and fourth grade students--first for each grade individually and then for

an :.verage of the two grades. On the spelling subtest, 22% of the averaged

group scored at five months below Large Cities norms or higher. For the combined

group, 27% achieved the objective on the Capitalization subtest; 37% on the

Punctuation subtest and 21% on the Language subtest. On the total language

section, 22% of the group's scores were one-healf year below Large Cities norms

or higher. See pages 7 i, j, k, and 1 for scoring key.

100

so

40

Iowa Tests of Bask Skilti Sub.Terts and Total Language

Fig. 2. 'Wand of Si Aeons Achitewins One-Half l'eur Below taro Cities Nom; or [fisher On the iLanstwite Suh-Tests of the tows Testa of BasicSkill, FY 13

7s

WRITING SAMPLE SCORING KEYFY 73 ESEA Title I Elementary

1st LEVEL

A = Complete sentence

2 More than one complete sentence1 One complete sentence0 No complete sentence

B = Four Words

2 More than four words1 Four words0 Less than four words

A B Rating

2 2 - Excellent

1 2 Good

2 1 Good

1 1 Fair

2 0 'Poor

1 0 Poor

0. 2 Failing

0 1 Failing

0 0 Failing

Note: Criteria are based on objective three in the FY 1973 proposal forthe Baltimore City ESEA Title I Elementary Basic Skills Program.

it


2nd LEVEL

A = Three complete related sentences

2 More than three complete related sentences1 Three complete related sentences0 Less than three complete related sentences

B = Ten words

2 More than ten words1 Ten words0 Less than ten words

A B Rating

2 2 Excellent

1 2 Good

1 'Good

1 1 Fair

2 0 Poor

1 0 Poor

0 2 ,Failing

0 1 Failing

0 0. Failing


7u


3rd LEVEL

A = Four complete related sentences

2 More than four complete related sentences1 Four complete related sentences0 Less than four complete related sentences

B = Sixteen words

2 More than sixteen words1 Sixteen words0 Less than sixteen words

A B Rating

2 2 Excellent'

1 2 Good

2 1 Good

1 1 Fair

2 0 Poor

1 0 Poor

0 2 Failing

0 1 Failing

0 0 Failing



4th LEVEL

A = One or two related paragraphs

2 More than two related paragraphs1 One or two related paragraphs0 No unified paragraph

B = Punctuation (correct use of comma, period, quotation marks,question marks)

2 No punctuation mistakes1 Five or less punctuation mistakes0 More than five punctuation mistakes

C = Spelling/Capitalization

2 No spelling or capitalization mistakes1 Five or less spelling or capitalization mistakes0 More than five spelling or capitalization mistakes

A B C Rating

2 2 2 Excellent2 2 '1 Excellent2 1 2 Good2 1 1 Good1 2 2 Good1 1 1 Fair1 1 2 Fair1 2 1 Fair1 1 0 Poor1 0 1 Poor1 0 0 Failing0 0 0 Failing0 1 0 Failing0 0 1 Failing0 i 1 Failing

Note: Criteria for item A are based on objective three in the FY 1973proposal for the Baltimore City ESEA Title I Elementary BasicSkills Program.

Criteria for items B and C are based on the evaluation design inthe FY 73 proposal (see section B.2.A, p.28) and on the list ofskills for written expression in the BCPS's Guide to ElementaryEducation, P. 107 (January, 1955).

III. B. Conclusions Based on Evaluation Data:

1. Are any modifications being considered for future programs as aresult of the evaluation data gathered for this project? Describebriefly.

Yes, several modifications have been envisioned for the ensuing year.First, the role of the reading resourse teacher will be expanded forthe teacher in her classroom as well as her encounter with flexiblesmall groups or individuals outside the classroom as the need arises.Second, the children's aides will be directed to work with Title Ipupils in subject areas other than reading; since reading can andshould be taught and reinforced In the content areas. Third, we willencourage the local schools to focus on two or three reading programsthat will spiral through the grades. Administrators will be guidedin organizing their classes so that pupils will have continuity inthe utilization of programs in which they are gaining skills in learn-ing to improve their ability to read. Fourth, the focus on in-servicetraining will be at the local school level according to needs ratherthan a concentration on mass regional or city-wide training sessions.Fifth, we plan to identify and pay a teacher at each school who willbe responsible for monitoring the tutorial program. This should re-sult in improved instruction and continuity of experiences accordingto pupils' needs.

2. Frequent requests are received for examples of successful Title Iactivities or projects, the success of which can be supported bystandardized achievement test scores. Please supply the name(s)of several schools, classes or project components which havedemonstrated unusual success in improving the achievement of educ-ationally disadvantaged children.

Fortunately, we have on file a compilation of data representing thekinds of individual and composite pupil growth evident in severalof our Title I schools. Visits the schools will indicate theconsistent attention by the staff to individual as well as groupneeds.

III. C. Summary of Evaluation Data:

1. Use Table III to indicate the results of standardized achievementtests fcr all students for whom both pre- and post-test data areavailable and who participated in both Summer 1972 and Regular.School Term 1972-73 Title I programa.

2. Use Table IV to indicate the results of standardized achievementtests for all students for vhom both pre- and post-test data areavailable and who participated in the Eogular School Term 1972-73Title I program only.

3. Use Table V to indicate the number of students making gains, ex-pressed in terms of months of growth.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS

The means and ranges of scores are to be reported in grade equiva-lent form for Tablet) III and IV.

Separate tables should be used for data on nonpublic school par-ticipants.

Other graphical or tabular presentations may also be included tohighlight the evaluation findings.

TEST DATA SHOULD LE SUPPLIED FOR ALL PARTICIPATING TITLE I STUDENTS.

Grade

TABLE III - STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE I 1972-73

STU

DE

NT

'SWHO TOOK BOTH THE FRE- AND POST-TESTS AND WHO PARTICIPATED

IN BOTH THE SUMMER TERM AND REGULAR SCHOOL TERM PROGRAM

-NOT APPLICABLE

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1

Grade

Equivalent

Hera

,

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS

POST-TEST RESULTS

111STRUCTIONS

1/

Include only those students who took both the

a)

Report data on the achievement tests used most

pre- and post-test and who participated in

widely in this program.

both the summer and regular term

programs.

b)

Use a separate sheet for each grade level and

subtest being reported.

c)

Mean scores should be reported is grade equiv-

alent form.

d)

Report data for nonpublic students separately.

TABLE IV - STANDARDIZED ACHIEVLHENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA,TITL! I 1972-73

STUDENTS WUO TOOK BOTH T:IZ IRE- AND MST-TESTS AND

:4E0 FV.RTICIPATED

IN THE RZSULAR ECEOOL TZ2li FAIOSRAM C:1.Y

Grade Kgn. Pre-Test

Grade 1 Posttest

r=e of Test avid

Each tubacction

4

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/

Mean

Mental

Age

1

Mental

Age

R.In..:0

PRE-TEST RESULTS

Primary Mental Abilities

Verbal Meaning

April 1972

Level

K-1

350

6.2

3.8 - 8.10

POST-TEST RESULTS


Verbal Meaning

April 1973

Level

K-1

350

6.6

4.2 - 8.10

1/

Include only those students uho took both the

pr.:* Ltd :oat -teat Ind who particirsted in

rc3uler term progrcm only.

Note:

a/

Data includes only those pupils who were identi-

fied by teacher judgment October 1972.

..

b/

Data includes only those pupils with matched

test scores.

INSTRUCTIONS

a)

Report data on the echo -eve:et: tests used most

utdely in this prozr=.

b)

Uce a sc2arete rn.et

or ecch grade level and

subtest beir; reported.

Menn scores should be reported in grade equiv-

alent form.

d)

Recort data for nornablic students nenarAtelv.

.,mow

...=

TABLE IV - STANDARDIZED ACHIEVCZNT TEST RESULTS, ESZA,

TIT U I 1972-73

STU

DE

NT

S U

110TOOK BOTH THZ

AN

DFOST-TESTS AND 1,30 PARTICIPATED

IN THE REGULAR SCHOOL TERM PROGRAM ONLY

Grade Kgn. Pre-Test

Grade 1 Posttest

Name of Test and

E;ch Subsection

l-frith and Year

Administered

Porn

Fueuer

of

Students 1/

Mean

Mental

Age

'4,ntAl

Age

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Perceptual Speed

April

1972

Level

K-1

350

6.4

4.4 - 9.0

POST-TEST RESULTS

1


Perceptual Speed

April

1973

Level

K-1

350

.

7.2

4.10 - 9.0

II

Include only those students who too!: both the

pre- trd poet-test and who participated is

the rcgult.r term prozramanly.

Note:

a/


fied by teacher judgment, October

1972.

b/

Data includes only those pupils with matched

test scores.

INSTRUCTIONS

a)

Report data cn the rehievement tests used most

widely in this prozrz.m.

b)

Uce a separate ;hcet for each grade level and

subtext being reported.

c)

recn scares should be reported in grade equiv-

alent 1:)rn.

d)

Rcnort data for nonpublic fitudents separately.

unn iv - STANDA7.DIZED ACHIEV1=NT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE 1 1972 -73

STUDENTS WHO TOOK EOTH THE ME- 2ND POST-TESTS AND I-720 PARTICIPATED

IN THE RECULAR SCHOOL TERM PROGRAM crtY

Grade Kgn. Pre-Test

Grade

1Posttest

Ncme of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Num'oer

of

Students 1/

Mean

Mental

Age

Mental

Age

14:1T);e

PaE-TEST RESULTS


Number Facility

April 1972

Level

K-1

344

6.4

3.10 - 9.0

POST-TEST RESULTS


Number Facility

April 1973

Level

K-1

34b

6.10

3.10

9.0

1/


pre- zind port-teat and uho participated in

the re3u1.:r term progrm

Note:

at


fied by teacher judgment. October 1972.

b/

Data includes only those pupils with matched test

scores.

INSTRUCTIONS

a)

Report data on the echievement tests used most

widely in this progren.

b)

Uce a aeparate .si...!t tar each grade level and

subtest beinz renortec:.

c)

Mtn scarce should be reported in grade equiv-

alent form,

d)

Report data for nonpublic ctudenta senaretely.

TABLE IV - STANDARDIZED ACHIEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA,TITLE I 1972-73

STUDENTS WUO TOOK BOTH TH2 FRE- AND POST-TESTS AND 14:10 PAATICIPATED

IN THE REGULAR SCHOOL TERM PROGRAM CNLY

Grade Kgn. Pre-Test

Grath

IPo,..ttost

Nc=e of T2S: and

Each Subsection

Yonth and Year

Administered

Fora

Number

of

Students 1

Mean

Mental

Age

Mental

Age

Ran

ge

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Spatial Relations

April 1972

Level

K-1

345

6.0

3.2 - 8.0

.... e

a,

POST-TEST RESULTS


Spatial Relations

April 1973

Level

K-I

345

.

6.4

3.4 - 8.6

I/

Note:

a/

Ticlude ctlly those students who took both the

pre- tnd po:t-test and yho participated in

tha rezular ter= prcsrm only.

Uata includes only those pupils who were identi-

fied by teacher judgment, October 1972.

b/

Data includes only those pupi:s with matched

test scores.

INSTRUCTIONS

a)


widely is this program.

b)

Uce a separate sheet for each grade level and


c) Mn ez

ccorc5 shculd be reported in grade equiv-

alent form.

d)

Report data for nc-.public students secarstely.

ii ..z: IV - STANDARDIZED ACIUEVEXENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE I I572-73

STUDENTS U110 TOO*4 BOTH TUE rn- AND 7.74T-TESTS AND wno 7AnTICIW.TZD.

IN THE REGULAR SCHOOL TE7g. raOCRiai

Grade 1 Pre-Test

Grade 2 Posttest

Ntc2 of T:-..Qt and

Each Subscation

Eonth and ?car

Administered

Form

nImba:

of

Students 1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

C7.:'!";

Equiv51cat

RX.1;%1

F:2-TEST RESJLTS


Verbal Meaning

April 1972

K-1

2/

4,298

Mental Age Mean

6.4

Mental Age Range

3.4 - 8,10

WST-TEST RESULTS

-

Primary Reading Profile

Reading Comprehension

April 1973

T.

Level

I

2/

4,173

1.7.

0.0 - 4.5

Note:

a/

Data includes onlythose pupils who were

identified by April 1972 test scores.

1/

include c:Ily

stusicutc

took both the

pre- Fn t poaz,-:aaz and uho rczticipst,'d it

tho rcEulaz tc:m pros.= only.

.

2/

niffcrences in the number 71upils occurred

because there were those Mho did not receive

the reading comprehension sub-test.

INSTRUCTIC:N5

a)

cpert ,::atc on the cehlevement testa uacd coat

widely in Cll.: progrrn.

b)

Uce n col:crate cLof:t for cacti Erada level and

subtc:

C)

hccn

be reported in Evade

d)

Rc..2nrt d:ti

nonnuYlIc cm:lents eaLiEltaa.

TABLE IV - STANDARDIZED ACHIEVDIENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE I 1972-73

STUDENTS WHO TO= BOTH THZ FRE- AND POST-TESTS AND WHO PARTICIPATED

IN THZ REaLAR SCHODL TERM PROGRAM cru

Grade

1Pr(..-Tc:

Grade 2 Post-Test

4.=

1=1,

amm

m r

aim

I

Ntme. of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Porn

Number

of

Students 1/

Mean

Mental

Age

Mental

Age

Range

April :972

PME-TEST

h1

RESULTS

434 2/

---------------.-----..-------------


Verbal Meaning

(...8

4.0 - 8.10

POST-TEST RESULTS

Primary ReadingA"rofiles

I


April 1973

Level

12/

528

Mean

Grade Equivalent

1.9

Grade Equivalent Rally,

0.0 - 4.5

;ote:

a/

Data includes only those pupils who were

identified by teacher judgment, October 1972,

1/

I!..clusie enly thoae students who t00% both the

ire- enll p3ct-test and vho participated is

reular ter= proare=ma.

2/

Differences in the number of students'occurred.

because there were students who did notreceive

the verbal meaning sub-test or there were more

grade two students in FY '73 than kindergarten

students FY '72.

INSTRUCTIONS

a)

Report data ca the achievement tests used most

videly in thlg prozrem.

b)

Uce a eeperate cheet for each grade level and

cubteat being reported.

c)

Mean scores ahould be reported in grade equiv-

alent form.

d)

Report data for 2221alAic students separately.

1ZED AUIEVEXLNT TEST RESULTS, ESZA, TITLE I 1S72-73

STUDENTS WUO TOOK LOTH THZ PaE- AND EOST-TZSTS AND 0%10 2..1tITC11-.CED

TRE RECUU2 SCHOOL

PROCPAY. CrT.Y

Grade 2 Pre-Test

Grade 3 Posttest

r-----------

.-

Name of T2S.T. and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Fora

Yumber

of

Students I

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Gr.-1.?.-.

Equivalent

Range

, t

FRE-TEST RESULTS

-.4

[Primary

Reading Profile


.

April 1972

Level

1

2/

2992

1.5

.

0.4 - 3.2

.

.

POST-TEST RESULTS

.

.

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills


April 1973

Form 3

Level A

2/

2907

2.4

.

1.1 - 5.6

.

Note:

a/ Data Includes only those pupils who were

identified by April 1972 test scores.

1/

Tr.cluda

those students %Jho took both the

n.1%-

7)a..:-i-xat and vho participsted in

tha regular term p.ogram only.

2/

Differences in the number of pupils occurred

because there were those who did not receive

the reading comprehension .sub-test.:.

.

INSTRUCTIONS

Report data on the achievement testa used coat

widely in this progrcm.

b)

Dee a eel:erste cheat for each grade level and

subtest bein,,..; reported.

0 Henn scorca should be reported in grade equiv-

alent form.

d)

Report do to for nocnt:blic students separately.

TABLE IV - STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE 1 1972 -73

STUDENTS WHO TOOK BOTH THE PRE- AND POST-TESTS AND WHO PARTICIPATED

IN TEE REGULAR SCHOOL TERM PROGRAM ONLY

Grade 2

Pre-Test

Grade 3 Post-Test

Name of Test and

each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students I/.

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Ran3e

PRE-TEST RESULTS

Primary Reading Profiles


April1972

Level

1518

2/

2.2

0.3 - 4.5

--.---,.------

.

.

POST-TEST RESULTS



April 1973

Form 3

Level A

2/

724

.

2.7

1.1 - 6.5

i4ote:

a/

Data includes only those pUpils who were

..

identified by teacher judgment; October 1972.

1/

Itclude only those students who took both the

pre- and post-teat and who participated in

_

the regular term program only.

Differences in the number of students occurred.

because there were students who did not.receive

the reading comprehension sub -test of the Primary

Reading Profiles or there were more grade three

students in FY '73 than. grade two students FY '72.

INSTRUCTIONS

Report data an the achievement tests used most




Mean scores should be reported in grade equiv-

alent form.


cr6

TABLE IV - STANDARDIZED ACHIEVE

NT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE I 1972-73.

STUDENTS W110 TOOK BOTH THE PRE- AID POST -TESTS AND WHO

PARTICIPATED


Grade 3 FY 1972 Pre-test

Grade 4 FY 1973 Post-test

----1--------

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month

Administered

and Year

Form

Number

of

Students 1/-

.

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

.

Grade

Equivalent

Range

FRE-TEST RESULTS

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills i

Form 3

2/

Mean

2.2

-- Reading Comp.

April

1972

Level A

3,920

Median

2.2

1.0

.

- 5.3

S/D

.6

.

POST-TEST RESULTS

----------


Form 3

Mean

3.0

.

.

-- Reading Comp.

April

1973

Level B

3,800

Median

3.0

1.3

- 7.0

S/D

.8

r

1/

include only those students who took both the

pre- and post-;:est and who perticip3ted in

the rovul&r term prov.ram one.

2/

These data include these students eligible for

Title 1 services based on teacher judgment.

Note:

.a/

Differences in the numberof students occurred

because there were students who did not receive-the

reading comprehension sub-test.

INSTRUCTIONS

-a)



b)



c)


.alert form.

d)

Report data for nonpublic students separately.-

TABLE IV - STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE I 1972-73





Nnme of Test and

Each :Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/.

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS

Iowa. Tests of Basic

Skills--Language Total

April

1972

I

Form 3

Level A

3,875

Mean

2.6

Median 2.5

S/D

.7

N/A

.

.

..

.

POST-TEST RESULTS

.

'.

Iowa Tests of Basic

Skills--Language Total

-------

April 1973

Form 3

Level B

3,781

2/

Mean

3.3

Median 3.1

S/D

.8

N/A

1/


ore- End post-test end who participated in

the regular term program 9,T12

2/

Differences in the number of students

occurred. be- .

cause there were students who did not receive

the

appropriate sub-tests which comprise the

language

.total score.

Note:

a/

These data include those students

eligible for Title

I services based on teacher judgment.

b/

N/A =Datawerenot available.

INSTRUCTIONS

-a)



b)



:c)


.alert form.

d)


TABLE IV - STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE Y 1972-73.

STU

DE

NT

S W

HO

TO

OK

BO

TH

TIE

PR

E-

AN

D P

OST

-TE

STS

AN

D W

HO

PA

RT

ICIP

AT

ED

Itz

TH

E R

EG

UL

AR

SC

HO

OL

TE

RM

PR

OG

RA

M O

NL

Y



1

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

For

Number

of

Students I

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS

IowaTests of Basic

Form 3

Mean

2.7

Skills--Arithmetic Total

Apri11972

Level A

3,884

Median

2.6

N/A

S/D

..6

POST-TEST RESULTS

2j

Iowa Tests of Basic

Form 3

Mean

3.S

Skills--Arithmetic Total.

April 1973

Level B

3,814

Median

3.4

N/A

S/D

.7

1/


pre- and post -test and who participated in

the reluic: term progrmonly.

''2/

Differences in the number 11TFtudentsoccurred

because there were students who did not receive the

appropriate sub-tests which comprise the arithmetic

total score.

Note:

a/

These data include those students eligible for Title

services based on teacher judgment.

b/

N/A=Data were not available.

INSTRUCTIONS

.a)



b)

lice a separate het for each grade level and


c)


alent form.

d)


0CHIEVaENT TEST RESULTS', ESEA, TITLE 1 1972 -73

STUDENTS MO

EOTIT T11.2 FRE- AND POST-TESTS AN :MO PARTICIPATED.

IN THE =OULU: SCHOOL TM PRWRAM CALY

Grade 3 Pre-Test

Grade 4 Posttest

.

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

:dumber

of

Students 1/

1Grcdc

,Equivalent

'(ferin

Grade

`Equivalent

iter.:,;e

IFRE-TEST RESULTS


Vocabulary

April 972

Form 3

Level A

476

1

2.8

1.1

-5.3

.

POST-TEST RESULTS

.

.


Vocabulary

April 1973

Form 3

Level B

476

3.4

1.3

- 7.4

1/

17.clude o7i1y tr.ose studects w1...0 took both the

p:c- t71,1 1,3:t-teze cnd who 2srtici72ted L

tha reZui..r term progrczza.


fied by ':eacher judgment, October 1972.

y Data incudes only those pupils with matched

test scores.

Note:

a/

INSTRUDTIONS

c)Iteport dnta on tho achievant tests used =oat

idely in this prozrcm.

b)Use e gc2ctctc sheet for each grade level and

subtest 'Lein rerort;:d,

c)

EGCCC3 should in reported

zletlt fc=1.

rolnort (1atl i,r uonnublic ntudrnts ar.rarnt2iv.

d)

in grade cquiv-

0) Cb

. a

- a

-a.

,i a ENT MT amus, ESEA, TITLE 1 1972 -73

STUDENTS WO TOO:r.

Lon

:V3 ME- AND rosy :`Ea ?: tom.

:::10 l'Af.IICI2ATZD

IN TKE RECULAR SCHOOL TC:1141 PRWRAK C1':.Y

Crade 3 Pre-Test

,c,rade 4 rObStteSt

Sc.7-c ,,of 7.st an.1

Each Subsection

I,

Eonth c.nd Year

Administered

Fora

Eu=ber

of

Students

fi

Grce.a

Equivalent

!lean -----_-..----.

Cra'2

Equivalent

:Icnrsa-

.

F:-..E-TEST RE. ULr2S

i 1

.

11


Fora 3

p

April

1972

476

3.0

1.2

- 5.3

Readir! Conprehension

Level A

POST-TEST RESULTS

:

1


April

1973

Form 3

, .

.


Level B

476

3.d

1.4

- 5.6

4

1/

itclude o.:17 those students who took both the

pi's*

po:t-tect end w'ao perticipited is

the rc;ular teza provsm only.

NotC: a/

Bata incudes only those pupil:, who were identi-

fied by teacherjudgment, October 1972.

b/

Data includes only those.pupils with matched

test scores.

INs:aucrIoms

c)

.c7o :t 41tn on the cenievctent tests uced CO.3

La

prozre=.

b)

Uc

d te;7arzte rfa,.!ct for ccch grade

and

= L'.-.!$t

c)

.-.;cor7.s

be re2or!'.cd in zradc ecuiv-

zlen-

4)

ronc:rt

for canaublIc students scn.lrAtriv.

IMMIIMITTI-DA.111DI.Jr-1/17:

TEST RESULTS, ESZA, TITM 1 1572 -73

MX:NTS S.uo T00::. £Q111 r

F:LZ- AND Fora-Its:5 /17D W113 PAR:ICIP4TZD

IN TPE REGULAR ccit33L 17.V. mr,;RAK

Grade 3 Pre-Test

Grade 4 Posttest

Ncc.c cf 723: 4nd

E..ea S'...bseccion

lo...onth and Tear

Admini4tered

Form

PaE-TEST

rum'aer

of

ItuL.:-.tn

1/

RESULTS

',r.:Ce

EquIvzIcnt

:i0::.7,

Cr.-.-!::

Er-,;.ilvlleat

a:.:,:.

Iowa Tcsts of Basic Skills

Lcmgilage Composite

April 1972

Form 3

Level

501

2.8

1.3 - 5.6

i

POST-ILST IL.ZULTS


Lan7une Comlosite

April 1973

Form 3

Level B

501

3.3

.

1.7 - 6.5

1/

Itclude mly tl-loLie students ullo Look Sot % .he

pre- rnd Host -teat end Om perticip2ted in

the rez,.:Icr ter= prop= only.

Note:

a/



b/

Dlta includes only those pupils with matched test

scores.

INSTaUCTIONS

s)

Retort dsta en the cchieverzent tests tiled to::

widely in thtc progrz=.

b)

Uce c c.,.2crace elict for each srede level and

subtcct

c)

Mczn

be reported in zradc ccuiv-

nlcAt

d)

Ro:ort

f,).7 ncrt,;Alic stliderti setmtlpite:y.

as

1A15:-. IV ' STANUA4D1ZED ACHIEVENENT TEST

RESULTS, ES7A, TITLE I :972-75

ST1=1;TS WO TOOK LOTH

T11

2AND rOST-TZSTS An) ;710 2ARTICIk.CED

INTHE REOULAR SCHOOL Tzam PRSGRAM

Grade 3 Pre-Test

Grade 4 Posttest

410.

10

N.:me of T:bt and

Each :;L:bscation

Ncnth and Ycar

AdminIzte:ed

or

rum:ler

of

Students 1

Grzde

Equivalent

1:can

Gr.:'.-

Equiclnt

itar.se

::.E -TEST RESULTS


Arithmetic Composite

Ar)ril

1972

Form 3

Level A

513

T.8

1.1

- 5.1

'

.

FOST-TEST RESULTS

.


Arithnctic Composite

April

1973

1Form 3

Level B

513

3.S.

1.3 - 6.1

1/

iz.clude c-aly thoae students wIlo tack both the

2:e« and post -teat and vho pertici7Ated in

the regul::: term pregrzm

Note:

a/



b/

Data includes only those pupils with matched test

scores.

INSTUICT:ONS

0 Report data on the cchievment teats used coat

widely in thls progrem.

b)

Ucc a sepsratz ch:et for each &nada level and

aubtect

rc;lort:.sc;.

C)

Xcan CCUirzS ahauld be reported in grade equiv..

olent form.

d)

ni!nort data foz noccubltc acurlenta suarntelv.

Pogo 12

TABLE V - OF CHILERKN AND ,'MOUNT OFCAIN ACHIEVED 117..777.EN P7E- AND POST-TESTING ON

STANDARDIZLD .4CUILYEMLNT MZASIIRES*

Number of MonthsCain Between

Pre- and Post-testing

Number of Children'.thieving Inlicated

. Annum; of Cain

1 or less 1,006

2 155

3 156

4 152

5 179

6 161

7 140

8 160

9 146

10 168

11 121

12 142

13 111

14143

1592

16114

17

.....-,

86

1890

19 and above403

*Indicate the following:Total 3,725

-- achievement area tested Reading Comprehension

-- grade level of participants 4

whether participrI. public school ,L7 ornonpublic school. students

Note: 1/ Differences in number of students for whom gain scores are reported, May 1972grade 3 - May 1973 grade 4 and grade equivalent scores for May 1972 and May1973 occurred because there were those students who did not receive the

appropriate sub-test. Those pupils who were eligible for Title I servicesbased on teacher judgment were eliminated if they were not tested in May 1973in a title I school.

IV. Program Operation

A. List the problems, if any, encountered in implementing your focal fiscalyear 1973 Title I projects. (If any of these problems have been resolved,please explain the solution(s) to each one.)

1. By local supervisory/administrative staff

a. The Title I coordinator:

Adapting certain parts of the project to meet individualneeds was the main problem I encountered. Through local schoolvisits by staff members, phone calls, and the distribution of theinter-school memo, Learning Made the E.S.E.A. Way, I was ableto suggest modifications in curriculum or staff utilization inorder to facilitate the implementation of the project. Anotherproblem was the coordination of the various components in theprogram so that we could cut down on duplication of efforts andutilize the staff to the greatest degree. The initiation of theTitle I Curriculum Committee has fostered a better communicationbetween the staff members and resulted in a smoother operation ofthe programs in the schools.

b. Finance personnel:

The major problems experienced by Finance personnel arelargely internal within the Department of Education or due toincapabilitics and conflicts in the Finance and Accounting systemsbetween the Department of Education and the City as a result ofthe Department being fiscally dependent.

Actually, the Accounting Office of the Department of Educationwishes to commend the Finance people at the State Department ofEducation for the good interrelationships and cooperation ex-perienced over the years.

c. Instructional personnel:

The Diagnostic and Prescriptive team was not able to implementits plan for the local schools as early as it had anticipated. How-ever, because of the current pre-planning and the evaluation of theprogram by administrators, teachers, and staff members, we don'tforesee the same kinds of obstacles confronting the team's operationin the ensuing year.

The in-service activities for teachers, parents, and aideswere abbreviated because of the mass city-wide reading trainingprogram, conducted for the entire Baltimore City Public Schoolsystem. However, we hope to be able to pursue our plans with modifi-cations according to the needs of the local school staffs.

13a

d. Research personnel:

We were not able to acquire qualified research personnelallocated in the budget until March 1973. This limited the kindof intensified evaluation we anticipated doing.

2. By Principals:

Concerns of the principals were centered around the excessiveclerical responsibilities, not being able to decide how moneyallotment should be spent, the exclusion of Sth and 6th grade classesand the equipment they were unable to get repaired.

3. By Teachers:

The major concerns expressed were the class size being toolarge, aides being inadequatelY trained and the turn over of aides.

.4. By Aides:

Many aides felt insecure because they had not been trained ade-quately to work with the various new reading programs in the mannerthat has been outlined in the project. however, our plans for FY-74call for extensive training and retraining of aides in order tofamiliarize them with their roles and to acquaint them with techniquesfur utilizing varied materials effectively with pupils.

S. By Parents:

Parents feel that the budgeted amounts for the P.A.C. activitieshave not been ample etzugh to encourage monitoring of the Title Iprograms not only in their own schools (sometimes bus fares, baby-sit-ting costs are involved, precluding parental visiting of schools),but in other BOPS schools as well. Workshops, luncheon meetings, week-end retreats which the parents feel are important to building a strongP,A.C. have been held to a minimum due to tight funding.

6. By the Community:

In the community, the same budget limitations and parental concernsare similar to those cited directly above. Parents and community alikeare concerned that there are eligible Title I schools which cannot par-ticipate in the needed Title I programs due to curtailed funding.

IV. B. Briefly summarize the nature and outcomes of any modifications madein project activities or operations which altered or departed fromthose described in the original project application.


NONE


a. Number of Cultural Enrichment trips were reduced

b. In-service training for teachers and aides abbreviated

c. Health services limited in certain schools.

C. What prompted these modifications? Evaluation of student performance?Observations or opinions of school personnel? Observations or opinionsof parents? Budget needs?

None of the above in item IV-B-2 had any noticeable effect onstudents in academic achievement. Trips were cut as a result of theincrease in operational costs. Training for teachers, aides, and otherstaff personnel was abbreviated due to the City-wide effort in the Right-to-Read retraining of which the Title I Instructional Staff participated.Health services were on a very limited basis in several schools due tothe lack of available trained personnel.

Page IS

IV. D. Cooperation with Other Arencies: Check any of the services or activ-ities listed below wilIch were provided Title I participants by othercommunity groups and agencies.

1. Health Department

a. (X) Examinations for diagnosis of physical deficiencies

b. (X) Immunization shots

c. (X) Dental services

d. (X) Medical and/or dental personnel for the Title I program

e. ( ) Liaison services between home and school concerning healthproblems

2. Department of Social Services

a. ( ) Lists of children eligible for and receiving medical se7-vices to help establish eligibility of Title I children

b, ( ) Lists of Title I families receiving social services

c. ( ) Confirmation of family welfare status for coordination ofTitle I services

d, (X) Medical and welfare assistance to Title I families

3. Civic Groups

a. ( ) Community resource persons to discuss current problems ofTitle I families

b. (X) Selected services such as provision of glasses to Title Iparticipants by charity clubs and organizations

c. (X) Food, and/or clothing, supplied by charity organizations

d. (X) Dissemination services concerning goals and operations ofTitle I program

e. (X) Meeting places for Title I parents for socials or discussionsessions

4. Religious Organizations

a. ( ) Meeting places for socials, or planning sessions

b. (X) Food and/or clothing for Title I children

( ) Monetary contributions for food or other emergency services

d. ( ) Baby sitting services to Title I families

S. Others (not included above):

IV. E. Preservicennrcrvice Troinin^: Use Tables VI and VII to provide infor-mation concerning preservice and inservice training programs in whichTitle I staff participated. Use separate shgets for Summer and RegularSchool Tern preservice/inservice sessions. If any inservice sessionswere conducted during hours when children were in attendance, indicatewho assumed responsibility for instructional activities while teachersand aides were receiving inservice. If either the preservice or in-service training programs were characterized by unique features whichwere not covered in Tables VI and VII, describe these briefly on a sepa-rate sheet.

/ / Stmmer Term 1972

TA= VI - =CURT

174.

7 7.

7:1'

"'M

r/T

C. M

IN=

PR

OC

RA

k3I=

A M

P= I

a/ Enzular School Term 1772 -73

IN 0

.1 IN

IM11

IMM

IIMM

. =M

N M

1=

1= 1

=. I

N m

liMm

lm=

01 IR

111.

1.11

.1 w

rIN

NIIM

PM

I,1

1==

ry:c

civ.

:q n

izzA

s=_t

.27,

3that apply)

P.7..150I:ML

I T.O7.72.71

Cloak

that apply

rans

c::=

, Pla

znir

:_7x

:ra

LL

T r

ixaz

oN(S7.:ecify sr--.-.1-tre for a/

each rrot,p

itvos that applr)

( Review of the objectivea of the

Title I pre5rcm

07:1.1ntatica and schedules for the

pregram

ignoloa of teacher and teacher aide

in the teacher/aide teem

Zy Joint teather - teacher aide plan-

nin7 for instruoticnal activities

Zy Joint teacher - tracHr.r aide

a;;.

aches to inotruction

(.7 Tr= (tea:her/aido/resouroe or

helpin3 teacher) approach to

in:itructien

zir Kezne of identifying and diag-

nosing inavidual student learn-

ing needs

y.ve10

t: Of. 14117g..,Zearfd.:Pad.

rzaf.,inzos &Allis for pro-school

and ea.,17 aloment.children

i.:-",;%3S3 c:".indildunlfziz:=4.-

.1:;L: instruction

6./ Development of student self-con-

Copt

=W

WI

6.1 Rol() of parents in reinforcing

instructional aotivities

64 Construction of materials and

utilization of epecial instruc-

tional equipment

ERocord keeping and analysis of

teat data

P.cading of classrooms for open-

ins cf school

alOtherS

a/ See Attached chart

pp. 17a,b,c,d

Oi/ Local suporvicory staff

Local School Personnel:

ErPrincipals

ly Teachers

1.-1 Aides

Univorsity Oonsultanta

(Idcrtit)

flOonsultanta from other

school ustams (idontify)

People from community agencies

(identify)

NM

Am

oolim

INIO

mo

Lri REA staff (identity)

110

ME

M II

aParents

L-,-/ Other (identify)

SRA Consultant

c,f,g,h,i,j,k.

Central Office Staff:

(X ) Superrisery/Ldnini-

etrative

(X ) Subect Specialists

() Ancillary/Supportive

School Personnslt

(i ) Principals

(X ) Ttathars

) A

ltos

(XG

)Librarians

( ".) Library Aides

() Other

Specialized and Cc:am:unity

-Personnels

iResource personnel

Parents

) Corzamity Volunteers

'

) Other(a)

Lerctb:

/ /

1/2

daY

/ /da

y

/ /2 daYs

Ly 3-5 days

L/ 6-10 days

/ / =ore than

10 days

Location:

Li In central

location

In

schools

aIn class-

rooms

L./ Other:

E.S.E.A. Title I Elementary Basic Skills Pre-Service and In-Service Training FY 1973

Date and Time

of

Each Session

LOCATION

PERSON IN CHARGE

PURPOSE

POSITION

AIDES

CLASSROOM

READING

TEACHERS TEACHERS

SENIOR

TEACHERS

ADMINISTRATORS

PARENTS TOTAL

SPEC.

SUP.

PRO.

ASST.

PRINCIPALS

AREA DIRECTORS

1.

8/28-30/72

9:00 - 3:30

Sheraton Motor Inn,

Refresher Course S.R.A. Consultant

Washington Beltway

for Super. Per.

Linda Meyers and

who monitor

Beatrice Avery

Distar I & II

94

12

25

IN-SERVICE ACTIVITIES

2.

9/11/72

School #250

Distar Workshop

S.R.A. Consultant

8:30 - 11:15

for New Level I

Valarie Anderson &

68

11

11

81

Aides

Beatrice Avery

3.

9/11/72

School #250

Distar Workshop

S.R.A. Consultant

12:30 - 3:00

for New Level

Valarie Anderson &

55

81

64

II Aides

Beatrice Avery

4.

9/12/72

School # 10

Read Workshop

Read Salesman,

12:30 - 3:U0

for Rdg. Tchrs.

Charles Micklos &

314

44

14

177

Using Program

Beatrice Avery

5.

9/14/72

School #2s0

Distar Workshop

S.R.A. Consultant

12:30 - 3:00

for Tchrs. of

Valarie Anderson &

123

13

139

Pupil Who Complet-Beatrice Avery

ed Level II

6.

9/15/72

School #250

Distar Workshop

S.R.A. Consultant

8:30 - 11:15

for New Level I

Valarie Anderson &

69

12

384

Teachers

Beatrice Avery

7.

9/15/72

School #250

Distar Workshop

S.R.A. Consultant

58

13

21

74

12:30 - 3:00

foi New Level

Valerie Andcr::on &

II Teachers

Beatrice Avery

E.S.E.A. title I Elementary Basic Skills Pre-Service and In-Service Training FY 1973

Date and Time

of

Each Session

LOCATION

PURPOSE

PERSON IN CHARGE

POSITION

AIDES

CLASSROOM

TEACHERS

READING

SENIOR

TEACHERS TEACHERS

ADMINISTRATORS

PARENTS

TOTAL

SPEC.

SUP.

PRO.

ASST.

PRINCIPALS

AREA DIRECTORS

8.

9/19/72

School #250

Stern Workshop

Stern Consultant

12:30 - 3:00

for Aides &

Mahe Murray and

23

49

33

510

120

Teachers

Beatrice Avery

9.

9/21/72

School # 10

Ginn 360 Work-

Consultant Judy

8:30 - 11:15

shop for Aides

Parker and

755

42

7114

& Teachers

Beatrice Avery

10. 9/22/72

School # 10

Ginn 360 Work-

Consultant Judy

657

39

79

118

8:30 - 11:15

shop for Aides

Parker and

4 Teachers

Beatrice Avery

11. 9/26/72

School # 10

Bank Street

Consultant Alma

8:30 - 11:15

Workshop for

Kelly and Beatrice

12

28

27

11

69

Aides and

Avery

Teachers

12. 9/27/72

School # 10

Bank Street

Consultant Alma

8:30 - 11:15

Workshop for

Kelly and Beatrice

11

29

22

12

65

Aides and

Avery

Teachers

13. 10/2/72

School # 10

Lippincott

Consultant Joan

8:30 - 11:15

Work. lop for

Perry and Beatrice

15

60

43

86

132

Aides and

Avery

Teachers

14. 10/3/72

School # 10

Lippincott

Consultant Joan

8:30 - 11:15

Workshop for

Perry and Beatrice

16

66

43

93

137

Aides and

Avery

Teachers

15. 10/10/72

School #

8Bookmark

Consultant Annie;

8:30 - 11:15

Workshop for

Richardson and

236

40

32

83

Aides and

Beatrice Avery

Teachers

E.S.E.A. Title I Elementary Basic Skills Pre-Service and In-Service Training FY 197

3

Date and Time

of

PERSON IN CHARGE

Each Session

LOCATION

PURPOSE

POSITION

AIDES

CLASSROOM READING

SENIOR

TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHERS

ADMINISTRATORS

PARENTS TOTAL

SPEC.

SUP.

PRO.

ASST.

PRINCIPALS

AREA DIRECTORS

16. 10/11/72

School #

8Bookmark

Consultant Annie

7'!

8:30 - 11:15

Workshop for

Richardson and

37

35

33

78

Aides and

Beatrice Avery

Teachers

17. 10/17/72

School #250

S.R.A. Basic

Consultant Sister

8:30 - 3:00

Reading Wksp

and

for Aides and

Beatrice Avery

517

20

11

44

Teachers

18. 11/9/72

School #150

Phonetic Key

Salesman Arnold

12:3U - 3:U0

Workshop for

Cleveland, Consul-

417

41

26

Aides 4 Teachers tant, 6 B. Avery

19. 11/2S/72

School # 10

Controlled Read-Salesman Walter

8:30 - 11:15

er Utilization

Whaler and Beatrice

810

91

331

Wksp for Aides

Avery

6 Teachers

20. 11/28/72

School # 10

Controlled Read- Salesman Walter

12:30 - 3:00

er Utilization

Whaler and Beatrice

915

16

444

Wksp for Aides

Avery

6 Teachers

IN- SERVICE ACTIVITIES PLANNED PRIMARILY FOR READING RESOURCE TEACHERS

21. 10/25/72

School #

8Sharing of

Ida Quarles, Program

1:00 - 3:00

Techniques for

Asst. for Corr. Rem.

teaching Distar

Rdg and Hilda Carter

S1

43

13

IRdg Tchr Sch. #8

22. 10/26/72

School I 97

Sharing of

Ida Quarles P, Leona

1:U0 - 3:15

Techniques for

Roberts, Rdg Tchr.

teaching Distar

School #97

12

13

12

19

23. 10/27/72

School +37

Sharing of

Ida Quarles 6 Iolas

1:00 - 3:00

Techniques for

Drake

ado Tchr

36

313

Date and Time

of

Each Session

LOCATION

E.S.E.A. Title I Elementary Basic Skills

PURPOSE

PERSON IN CHARGE

POSITION

Pre-Service and In-Service Training FY 1973 ADMINISTRATORS

SPEC.

SVP.

PRO.

CLASSROOM READING

SENIOR

ASST.

PRINCIPALS

AIDES

TEACHERS

TEACHERS TEACHERS

AREA DIRECTORS

PARENTS TOTAL

24. 10/30/72

School 4 19

9:30 - 12:00

2S. 10/31/72

School s 19

9:3 - 11:15

26. 10%31/72

School 0250

1:00 - 3:0U

27.

11/1/72

School 0

8

1:U0 - 3:00

28.

11/2/72

School 197

1:0U - 5:U0

29.

11/3/72

School 0 37

1:00 - 3:00

30. 11/8/72

School

8

1:00 - 3:00

31.

11/9/72

School 0 97

1:00 - 3:00

32.

11/10/72

School

IP37

9:00 - 11:30

33.

11/29/72

School 1250

12:30 - 3:00

34.

10/10/72

School 0250

12:30 - 3:00

Read Workshop

6 Demonstration

Read Workshop

1 Demonstration

Ida Quarles and

Consultant Marjorie

Richards

Ida Quarles

1

Read Workshop

Consultant Marjorie

Tech. for Adapt-

Richards and

Beatrice

-

ing the Pro. to

Avery

fit Local Needs

Distar

Workshop

Distar

Workshop

Distar

Workshop

Distar

Workshop

Distar

Workshop

Distar

Workshop

S.R.A. Lab

Workshop

Distar

Workshop

Ida Quarles

4 Hilda Carter

Ida Quarles

4 Leona Roberts

Ida Quarles

lolas Drake

Ida Quarles

Hilda Carter

Ida Quarles

B Leona Roberts

Ida Quarles

6 Iolas Drake

Salesman Jack

Kilchenstein 4

Beatrice Avery

Consultant Linda

Meyers 6 Beatrice

Avery

1 2

11

7

68

32 6

214

18 8

1

11

19

18

4

2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 4

43

2

22

17 10

21 11

13

14

13

21

47

Date and Time

of

Each Session

LOCATION

E.S.E.A. Title I Elementary Basic Skills Pre-Service and In-Service

Training FY 1971 ADMINISTRATORS

SPIC.

SUP.

PRO.

CLASSROOM

READING

SENIOR

ASST.

PRINCIPALS

AIDES

TEACHERS

TEACHERS TEACHERS

AREA DIRECTOR;

PARENTS TOTAL

PURPOSE

PERSON IN CHARGE

POSITION

35.

10/9/72

8:30 - 11:30

Local School Visits

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Distar

Consultant Linda

Meyers 6 Beatrice

Avery

36.

10/9/72

Local School Visits

Consultant Linda

12:3u - 3:D0

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Meyers 6 Beatrice

Distar

Avery

37.

10/10/72

Local School Visits

Consultant Linda

8:30 - 11:30

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Meyers 6 Beatrice

Distar

Avery

38.

10/11/72

Local School Visits

Consultant Linda

8:30 - 11:30

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Meyers 6 Beatrice

Distar

Avery

39.

10/11/72

Local School Visits

Consultant Linda

12:3u - 3:00

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Meyers 6 Beatrice

Distar

Avery

40.

10/12/72

Local School Visits

Consultant Linda

8:3U - 11:30

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Meyers 6 Beatrice

Distar

Avery

41.

10/13/72

Local School Visits

Consultant Linda

12:30 - 3:00

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Meyers 6 Beatrice

Distar

Avery

42.

10/4/72

School #200

Local School Visits

Ccnsultant Joan

8:30 - 11'30

to Dem. 4 Monitor

Lippincott Program

Perry 6 E. Powell,

Reading Teacher

43.

10/4/72

School # 30

Local School Visits

Joan Perry 6 Cath-

12:30 - 3:00

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Lippincott Program

erine Carrington,

Reading Tench;

44.

10/5/72

School #119

Wcal School Visits

Joan Perry 6 GvraI-

LI

IVI.

Date and Time

of

Each Session

LOCATION

E.S.E.A. Title I Elementary

PURPOSE

Basic Skills Pre-Service and In-Service Training FY 1973 ADMINISTRATORS

SPEC.

NOP.

PRO.

PERSON IN CHARGE

CLASSROOM

READING

SENIOR

ASST.

PRINCIPALS

POSITION

AIDES

TEACHERS

TEACHERS TEACHERS

AREA DIRECTORS

45.

46.

10/16/71

8:30 - 11:15

10/18/72

8:30 to 11:15

School #161

School #122

Local School Visits

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Lippincott Program

Local School Visits

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Lippincott Program

Joan Perry and

Beulah Caldwell,

Reading Teacher

Joan Perry

and

Senior Teacher #122

4T,

10/18/72

School #

4Local School Visits

Consultant Joan

12:30 - 3:00

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Perry 6 Teacher #4

Lippincott Program

48.

10/19/72

School #121

Local School Visits

Joan Perry and

8:30 - 11:30

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Beatrice Avery

Lippincott Program

49.

10/20/72

School #118

Local School Visits

Joan Perry 6 Rosetta

8:30 - 3:U0

to Dem. b Monitor

Stitch, Reading

Lippincott Program

Teacher #118

50.

10/30/72

School #159

Local School Visits

Consultant Marjorie

12:3O - 3:00

to Dem. b Monito7

Richards and

Reading Program

Beatrice Avery

51.

10/31/72

School # 23

Local School Visits

Marjorie Richards

8:30 - 11:30

to Dem. 6 Monitor

and Beatrice

Reading Program

Avery

52.

11/3/72

School # 92

Local School Visits

Marjorie Richards

8:30 - 11:30

to Dem. 6 Monitor

and Beatrice

Reading Program

Avery

53.

11/1/72

School # 61

Local School Visits

Joan Perry and

8:30 to 11:30

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Priscilla Mason 6

Lippincott Program

Aline Lyde

54.

11/3/72

School #159

Local School Visits

Joan Perry and

8:30 - 11:30

to Dem. 6 Monitor

Beatrice Avery

Lippincott Program

PARENTS TOTAL

E.S.E.A. Title I Elementary Basic Skills Pre-Service and 1n-545z-7/ice Training

FY 197 3

Date and Time

of

Each Session

LOCATION

PURPOSE

PERSON IN CHARGE

POSITION

AIDES

CLASSROOM

TEACHERS

READING

SENIOR

TEACHERS TEACHERS

ADMINISTRATORS

PARENTS TOTAL

Plc.

SUP.

PRO.

A.Yq.

PRINCIPALS

AEA DIRECTORS

55.

11/6/72

8:30 - 11:30

School 194

Local School Visits

to Monitor Bookmark

Program

Anne Richardson and

Audrey Davis

56.

11/6/72

School 0113

Local School Visits

Anne Richardson and

12:30 - 3:00

Monitor BookvarA

Audrey Davis

Program

57.

11/8/72

School 0107

Local School Visits

Anne Richardson and

8:30 - 3:00

to Monitor Bookmark

Barbara Hill

Program

58.

11/9/72

School 0

8Local School Visits

Anne Richardson and

8:30 - 3:00

to Monitor Bookmark

Idz Quarles

Program

59.

11/13/72

School 0 16

Demonstrate

Audrey Davis, Ele.

8:0% - 11:15

Bank Street

Sup., Alma Kelly

Program

Consultant

a1

14

15

60.

1i/14/72

School #113

Demonstrate

1:15 - 3:15

Bank Street

Audrey Davis and

Program

Alma Kelly

91

212

61.

11/15/72

School #

8Monitor Book

Anne Richardson

68:45 - 11:00

mark Dem. for

Rose Salner, Rdg.

Class Teacher

Teacher 08

113

71

426

62.

11/16/72

School #107

Monitor Book

Barbara Hill, Spec.

8:30 - 10:45

mark Dem. for

and Thelma Craig,

Class. Teacher

senior Teacher 0107

S4

315

63.

12/6/72

School # 74

Set up Dem.

8:30 - 11:30

of Ginn 360

Judy Parker and

Materials

Beatrice Avery

64.

12/14/72

School 0 74

Dem. Ginn

Ida Quarles A

8:30 - 11:30

360 Material

Audrey Davis and

with Pupils

Judy Parker

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

E.S.E.A. title I Elementary Basic Skills Pre-Service and In-Service Training FY 1973

Date and Time

of

Each Session

LOCATION

PURPOSE

PERSON IN CHARGE

POSITION

CLASSROOM

AIDES TEACHERS

READING

TEACHERS

SENIOR

tEACHERS

ADMINISTRATORS

PARENTS

TOTAL

Spec, Sup, Pro.

ASST.

PRINCIPALS

AREA DIRECTORS

65.

12/1S/72

School # 74

Dem. Ginn 360

8:30 - 11:3U

Material with

Audrey Davis and

Pupils

Judy Parker

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

AC

TIV

ITIE

S PL

AN

NE

D F

OR

RE

AD

ING

RE

SOU

RC

E T

EA

CH

ER

S

66.

12/11/72

8:30 - 11:30

School #

8To monitor Rd.

Distar Consultant -

Resource Tchrs

Linda Meyers

44

67.

12/11/72

Ability to

12:30 - 3:00

School #126

Teach the Distar

Linda Meyers

41

5Program

68.

12/12/72

School # 16

22

8:30 - 11:30

69.

12/12/72

School I 37

44

70.

12:30 - 3:00

tI

12/13/72

School #149

119

98:30 - 11:30

71.

12/13/72

School #225

22

12:30 - 3:00

72.

II

12/14/72

School #107

10to

78

8:30 - 11:30

73.

12/14/72

School #122

IVVI

99

12:30 - 3:00

74.

12/15/72

Schap,.

M19

If2

28:30 - 11:30

75.

12/15/72

School #138

66

12:30 - 3:00

Date and Time

of

Each Session

E.S.E.'. title I Elementary Basic Skills Pre-Service and In-Service Training FY 1973

ADMINISTRATORS

spec, Sup, Pro.

PERSON IN CHARGE

CLASSROOM

READING

SENIOR

ASST. PRINCIPALS

LOCATION

PURPOSE

POSITION

AIDES

TEACHERS

IEACHERS

TEACHERS

AREA DIRECTORS

PARENTS

TOTAL

76.

LOCAL SCHOOL VISITS BY CONSULTANTS

11/27/72

2:00

3:30

School # 22

Conference

with staff

Consultant Joan Perry

and Alma McAvoy, Prin.

77.

11/28/72

School #61

Monitor 6 Dem.

Cons:

_ant Joan Perry

8:30 - 11:30

Lippincott

Priscilla Mason Rd.

Teacher, #61

78.

11/29/72

School #159

Monitor 6

Joan Perry and

8:30 - 11:30

Demonstrate

Lippincott

Judy Coleman,

Rd. Tchr. 0159

and Laura

79.

11/30/72

School #159

Monitor

Randolph, Senior

8:30 - 3:00

Demonstrate

Teacher #1S9

Lippincott

80.

12/1/72

School #159

Monitor and

SAME AS ABOVE

8:30 - 11:30

Demonstrate

Lippincott

81.

12/12/72

School #101

Monitor and

Joan Perry and

8:30 - 11:30

Demonstrate

Lippincott

Annie Thompson,

Assist. Prin. #101

82.

12/12/72

School #148

Monitor and

Joan Perry 6 Austin

12:30 - 3:00

Demonstrate

Williams, Assist.

Lippincott

Principal #148

83.

12/13/72

School #142

Monitor and

Joan Perry and

8:30 - 11:30

Demonstrate

Lippincott

Edgar Lansey,

Principal #142

84.

12/14/72

School # 32

Monitor and

Joan Perry and

8:30 - 11:30

Demonstrate

Lippincott

Mary Lewis,

Principal #32

Date and Time

of

Each Session

LOCATION

E.S.E.A. Title I Elementary Basic Skills Pre-Service and In-Service Training FY 19:'3

ADMINISTRATORS

Spec, Sup. Pro.

PERSON IN CHARGE

POSITION

CLASSROOM

READING

SENIOR

ASST. PRINCIPALS

AIDES

TEACHERS

TEACHERS

TEACHERS

AREA DIRECTORS

PARENTS

TOTAL

PURPOSE

85.

11/15/72

School 0104

Monitor and

aoan Perry and

8:30 - 11:30

Demonstrate

Lippincott

Arnita Woodlon,

Principal 0104

Consultant

86.

12/13/72

School 0137

Monitor and

Marjorie Richards 6

8:30 - 11:30

Demonstrate

Lippincott

Amy Weaver,

Principal 0137

87.

12/14/72

School 0250

Classroom

Marjorie Richards

12:30 - 3:00

Visits &

and Beatrice Wright

Faculty Mtg.

Assist. Prin. #250

88.

12/15/72

8:30 - 11:30

School 0238

Dem. materials

and Conf. with

Marjorie Richards

Catherine Smith, Rd.

Staff

Teacher 0238

89.

12/15/72

Classroom

Marjorie Richards 6

12:30 - 3:00

School 0

2Visits 3 Conf.

with Staff

Irvin Epstein,

Principal 02

4

90.

1/16/73

School 0161

Classroom

Marjorie Richards

8:30 - 11:30

Visits 4 Conf.

with Staff

Beaulah Caldwell,

Senior Teacher 0161

91.

1/17/73

School 0112

Classroom

Marjorie Richards

8:30 - 11:30

Visits 5 Conf.

with Staff

Mildeed Harriday,

Reading Tchr. 0112

92.

1/17/73

School 4 16

Classroom

Marjorie Richards 6

12:30 - 3:00

Visits P, Conf.

with Staff

Ann Moore, Reading

Teacher 016

93.

1/18/73

School 0 35

Classroom

Marjorie Richards

8:30 - 2:30

Visits 3 Conf.

with Staff

Myra Harris, Assist.

Principal #35

E.S.E.A. Title I Elementary Basic Skills Pre-Serviceand In-Service Training FY 1973 ADMINISTRATORS

Date and Time

Spec, Sup. PTO.

of

PERSON IN CHARGE

CLASSROOM

READING

SENIOR

ASST. PRINCIPALS

Each Session

LOCATION

PURPOSE

POSITION

AIDES

LEACHERS

TEACHERS

iEACtiEAS

AREA DIRECTORS

PARENTS

TOTAL

94.

1/19/73

8:3U - 11:30

School 1 95

Classro,m

Marjorie Richards 4

Visits & Conf.

Louise Murphy,

with Staff

Principal 4 95

N/A

NOt available

Note:

1/

Activity number one was pre-service training.

2/

Activities numbering from thirty-five, through

fifty-eight were consultant visits made

to indi-

vidual classes to observe and/or demonstrate

techniques.

3/

Activity number sixtv-three was consultants

visit with school administrators

to make

plans for a demonstration.

4/ Activities numbering from seventy -six

through

ninety-four were consultants visits the nature

of which varied with the need as seen by the

school administrators.

Source;

Beatrice N. Avery, Specialist in Staff

Development, E.S.E.A. Title I Elementary

Basic Skills.

%MITZI - fITTIART

0:710:12ri 27.=CL.,1

vArz

t,,r3

zr.

:AIL

137-77.1 =LT I

Sunmcr Term 1772

itr.nr. that; appl7)

ZS774N1ev r: the objectives of the

T-Itle I rTI:ntm

al CT-Stmt.:Urn end concdulos for the

rze:r.21

La2 Eolzs of totchor end teacher tide

in to toachcr/aido toom

EZroltt to:c:zor - teochcr aids pitnasi

for f.n.;truotiomol totivities

- tc:C.3r side

to InJtructicn

(ta:Z-cr/c1C.:/rezmarcto or

approach to

5n;truotIon

/(/

or la...ntifrIn3 and Cl.,:masirs

inlivId4a1stunt lc:m.1n; nerds

-i r

of ir-dIviduallrInz rzadInG

ir::truot1on

of ltm.74:3e and r=atr

r_-_-..:.1e cl:tila for prc-oeool end

chilt:rcn

r:.volor=snt of set:dent colf-oonempt

Lf Role of ;artnts in roinforoir4

ialtr:lottemol aotivitio:

Z1( C;motructiccl of rztorisls and

lItinms::1,3n of rpoolal inatruotima

<4:111=%:.1t

011:.:c:d kalping and analycla of Mat

data

\WI

a/ See Attached Charts

pp.18a,b, c,

.1,1

1....

..f7.1124:7-ZZ,c,==zr,

7z.e

:rrn

m::1

E.:

14.-

.7r1

1:1

1t s

pplT

s r7.03./Pr Scelool Term 19:2 - 7

1111

.1L

.1 ,...,

r:1-

zo...

zar.

rzt

l-ro

myr

;:r.

rz.-

..;:n

. r.-

.:-.1

:717

:7(Cp.":1/77 r--1-r3

fcr

a/r;

L-=

'..,::

::: C

7t-

.e.'7

1 rr

...-:

- r

.:-r:

telr

.::!.

..r-'4

.,

..,3:

J

& Loom' scporvisory staff

Leal School Par:annals

EPrincipe's

ETecahere

Ltdea

arnAvarzltr consultants

(tdentifr)

arOcnviltante from ottzr

acaool srst=s (Iten:ity)

U People frost

45enclos (Idantitr)

.*:3A staff (Iclantirr)

rarents

Cthor (Idcalaty)

Consultants from

_publishing

hous

ese,

Central Offia Ctafft

..n11

2.11

1.17

:

( ,X) St.7.orvisor7/1.1n.:-

/ 7-.-io3 a 71,,tr

strati's

/

(X) Cu%oet 4toialists 17e/ Li- :wkly

() Anaillary/Surportiv /J7Cth!r

do Specific

3:21°01 rerco:nsmlt

Regularity

( fl:c) PrInalpals

(7-...:tchzre

(lid:3

(; Librarians

() Libmry I1CAs

()

Qar

Speotalia,d and Co=n-

atty. rai-a.;nnal,

( 0() L..soure^ permmol

() rarents

()

Ck=

mity

irol

lart

ta3.

-(

) C

e"3(

a)

e

Lemirat

,Vda.7

/!/ 1:11:-Car

a( :..7e hours

or loss

Location,

ErLI ocntral

location

iW.Liv14-

....11A1 school.,

:n

re2T2

C".

..!-!

rs

1=2

0:/ D

.1.7

t.77:

1 11

14.7

.:77_

:3

41.1

=1.

-....

...M

MI.

t, M. ezrim:

sot'eol hours

Edu

rtrz

hours

E2tvfocalo:31

relea:s tine

1,2

P. M

. aft

erstool hour'

Cc

Saga

Ot"...1rt

) Tbtal nie2er of incervioo simians

) Total number of 1:morels' sessions Involving Joint

training of tcaraars and aides

P

Date and

Ime

of

Each Session

01 SERVICE TRAINING E.S.E.A. TITLE I ELEMENTARY BASIC

PERSON IN CHARGE

CLASSROOM

READING

LOCATION

PURPOSE

POSITION

AIDES

TEACHERS

TEACHERS

SKILLS SPECIAL CURRICULUM FY 1973

ADMINISTRATORS

TOTAL

SENIOR

Spec.

Sup.

Pro.

Ass.

TEACHERS

Princ.

Area lit rectors

PARENTS

November 1972

11-28 12:30-3:00

4161 Lippincott

Jane Birckhead

07

83

1 Spec.

19

Workshop

Leoner Pye

11-29 12:30-3:00

4161

.,

,,

18

72

018

December 1972

12-1 12:30-3:00

4140 Staff

Jane Birckhead

00

32

SWorkshop

Leoner Pye

12-4

8:30-11:30

#145 Catherine

Jane Birckhead

021

3S

1 Sp.c.

30

Stern Wksh. Leoner Pye

12-5

8:30-11:30

#145

II11

18

23

35

1 Spec.

SO

12-6

8:30-11:SO

47 Distar

Jane Birckhead

02

43

9Workshop

Lecner Pye

12-7

8:30-11:30

I7Distar

,,

Workshop

24

52

13

12-8 12:30-3:00

#140 Staff

Jane Birckhead

05

2/

Workshop

Leaner Pye

12-11 8:30-11:30

w 53 BookMark

Jane Birckhead

09

54

1 Spec.

19

Workshop

Leaner Pye

12-12 8:30-11:30

I35 Chandler

Jane Birckhead

06

53

14

Workshop

Leater Pye

12-12 12:30-3:00

4 35 Chandler

Jane Birckhead

57

64

22

Workshop

Leaner Pye

12-13

8:30-11:30

4 53 BookMark

Jane Birckhead

88

65

1 Spec.

28

Workshop

Leaner Pye

12-14

8:30-11:30

4 19

Read

Jane Birckhead

18

66

21

Workshop

Leaner Pye

...

ow

Date and Time

of

Each Session

IN SERVICE TRAINING E.S.E.A. TITLE I ELEMENTARY BASIC SKILLS SPECIAL CURRICULUM FY 1973

ADMINISTRATORS

PERSON IN CHARGE

CLASSROOM

READING

SENIOR

Spec.

Sup.

Pro.

Ass.

LOCATION

PURPOSE

POSITION

AIDES

TEACHERS

TEACHERS

TEACHERS

PRINC.

Area Directors

12-14 12:30-3:00

I 26

12-15 12:30-3:00

Ginn 360

Jane Birckhead

15

6

Workshop

Leoner Pye

#140

Staff

Jane Birckhead

00

5

Workshop

Leoner Pye

12-21

8:30-11:30

#140

12:30-3:00

January 1973

1-2

8:30-3:00

1/12 12:30-3:00

1/19 12:30-3:00

1/26 12:30-3:00

1/29

8:30-3:00

February 1973

2/2 12:30-3:00

2/8

8:30-11:30

2/9 12:30-3:00

2/21 8:30-11:30

2/23 8:30-11:30

Jane Birckhead

0

Leoner Pye

#161

Staff

Jane Birckhead

0

Workshop

Leoner Pye

N140

Staff

Jane Birckhead

0

Workshop

Leoner Pye

#140

Staff

Jane Birckhead

Workshop

Leoner Pye

$140

Staff

Jane Birckhead

0

Workshop

Leoner Pye

#140

Staff

Jane Birckhead

0

Workshop

Leoner Pye

Sharing Act.

N140

Staff

Jane Birckhead

0

Workshop

Leoner Pye

List.Act.

#126

SRA-Read- Jane Birckhead

ing W'sh. Leoner Pye

4140

Staff wk. Jane Bircknead

0

Overview Leoner Pye

of Act.

# 19

Reading

Jane Birckhead

Workshop

Leoner Pye

# 26

Ginn 360

Jane Birckhead

1

Workshop

Leoner Pye

0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 8 0 9

5 7 S S 7 7 7 7 7

87

61 Spec.

2 21 Spec.

21

20

21

21

21

21

50

20

31

41

PARENTS

TOTAL

19 7 8

O10

O7

O8

08

010

O10

O25

09

O25

021

Date ana Time

of

Each Session

IN SERVICE TRAINING E.S.E.A. TITLE I ELEMENTARY BASIC SKILLS SPECIAL

PERSON IN CHARGE

CLASSROOM

REACING

SENIOR

LOCATION

PURPOSE

POSITION

AIDES

TEACHERS

TEACHERS

TEACHERS

CURRICULUM FY 1973

ADMINISTRATORS

PARENTS

TOTAL

Spec.

Sup.

Pro.

Ass.

Princ.

Area Directors

2/23 12:30-3:00

#140

Staff

Jane Birckhead

0U

72

00

9Workshop Leoner Pye

2/27

8:30-11:30

# 10

Allyn-Bacon

J.Birckhead

02

73

10

13

Workshop

Leoner Pye

2/28

8:30-11:30

# 10

02

77

20

18

March 1973

3/1

12:30-3:00

#140

Staff

Jane Birckhead

00

72

20

11

Workshop Leoner Pye

3/8

12:30-3:00

#140

00

72

10

10

3/16 12:30-3:00

#161

Staff

Jane Birckhead

00

72

00

9Workshop Leoner Pye

Stern-DRA

3/21

8:30-11:30

#126

Distar Dem. J. Birckhead

17

21

012

J. Wright

Leoner Pye

3/23 12:30-3:00

#140

Staff

Jane Birckhead

00

72

00

9Workshop

Leoner Pye

3/27 12:30-4:00

# 26

Aides

Jane Birckhead

33

07

20

45

Workshop

Leoner Pye

3/29 12:30-4:00

#150

32

07

07

046

April 1973

4/6

#140

Staff

Jane Birckhead

00

72

00

9Workshop

Leoner Pye

4/24

8:30-i1:30

#140

Jane Birckhead

00

42

00

6

4/25

1:30-4:00

# 19

Reading

Jane Birckhead

40

40

74

50

94

Workshop

5/11

9:00-12:00

Village of Rumple-

Jane Birckhead

21

21

72

00

al

Cr. Keys

stiltskin

L. Pye

IN SERVICE 'RAINING E.S.E.A. TITLE I ELEMENTARY BASIC SKILLS SPECIAL CURRICULUM FY 197 3

Date and Time

of

Each Session

LOCATION

PURPOSE

PERSON IN CHARGE

POSITION

5/17

8:30-11:30

12:30-3:00

# 19

5/18 9:00-12:00

Village of Rumple-

Cr. Keys

stiltskin

# 19

Reading

Geo.Cureton

5/23 8:30-11:30

#140

Lac- Demon.

Dr. E. Ward

5/24 8:30-11:39

# 1S

Lec-Demcn.

Dr. E. Ward

5/25 9:00-12:00

Village of Rumple-

Cr. Keys

stiltskin

June 1973

6/1

8:30-3:09

#140

Staff

g2Ellest

6/4

8:30-3:00

#140

Staff

WhiTst

6/5

8:30-11:30

N 97

Balto

12:30-3:00

Ballet

6/7

8:3U-11:30

#250

Sp.Cur.C1.

B.A.Theatre

12:30-3:00

6/8

8:30-3:00

#140

Staff

Workshop

0/14

8:30-3:00

#140

Staff

Workshop

0/15

8:30-3:00

#140

Staff

8,161

Worksnop

J. Birckhead

Leoner Pye

J. Birckhead

Leaner Pye

J. Birckhead

Leaner Pye

J. Birckhead

Leoner Pye

J. Birckhead

Leaner Pye

J. Birckhead

Leaner Pie

J. Birckhead

Leoner Pye

'ADMINISTRATORS

CLASSROOM

READING

SENIOR

Spec.

Sup.

Pro.

Ass.

AIDES

TEACHERS

TEACHERS

TEACHERS

Princ.

Area Directors

21

31

82

9

030

02

1

23

23

72

0

129

12

3

132

62

3

23

23

72

0

00

72

1

O0

72

0

J. Birckhead

16

16

72

1

Leoner Pye

14

14

72

0

J. Birckhead

13

13

72

3Leoner Pye

20

20

72

2

J. Birckhead

00

72

0Leoner Pye

J. Birckhead

00

72

0Leoner Pye

J. Birckhead

Leoner Pye

O0

72

0

PARENTS

TOTAL

050

033

10

65

036

044

O55

010

O9

O42

037

38

051 9 9 9

Date and Time

of

Each Session

6/18

8:30-3:00

6/19

8:30-3:00

IN SERVICE TRAINING E.S.E.A.

PERSON IN CHARGE

LOCATION

PURPOSE

POSITION

AIDES

#140

Staff

J. Birckhead

0Workshop

Leoner Pye

#140

Staff

J. Birckhead

0Workshop

Leoner Pye

TITLE I ELEMENTARY BASIC SKILLS SPECIAL CURRICULUM FY 1973

ADMINISTRATORS

CLASSROOM

READING

SENIOR

Spec.

Sup.

Pro.

Ass.

TEACHERS

TEACHERS

TEACHERS

Princ.

Area Directors

0 0

7 7

20

20

PARENTS

0 0

Source:

Mrs. Jane Birckhead and Mrs. Leoner Pye, Senior Teachers E.S.E.A. Title I Elementary Basic Skills Special Curriculum.

Right To Read Workshop for School-Home Liaison Workers E.S.E.A. Title IElementary Basic Skills Parent Involvement Program

FY 197 3

Purpose: The workshop was designed to train School-Home Liaison Workers inleadership skills. Focus was put on the process of training liaisons how tohelp parents reinforce their children's reading skills at home.

Date & Time Focus Person-In-Charge

18f

5/1/73 Overview of Workshop Mrs. L. G. Hasty8:30-4:00 General Background in Skill Develop- Mrs. I. Quarles

ment

5/2/73 Reading Programs Mrs. B. Avery8:30-4:00

5/3/73 Observing and Constructing Activities Mrs. L. Pye8:30-4:00 Designed to Reinforce Word Recognition

and Comprehension Skills

Source: Mrs. Lea G. Hasty, Specialist E.S.E.A. Title I Elementary Basic SkillsParent Involvement Program.

See Attached Parent Involvement Narrative 4 Tables

IV. F. Involvement of Title I Pat-ants: Check those activities included as apart of the program that were designed to involve the parents ofTitle I children in the program.

1. 1:7 Program planning conferences

2. L7 Individual school advisory committees

3. i:7 Employment as aides in classroom

4. 0 Classroom visits by parents

5. a Regularly scheduled school meetings

6. I:7 Use as volunteer aides

7. 0 Home visits ty school personnel

8. 1:7 Social activities

9. 2:7. Other: (List)

19a

INTRODUCTION

Parent involvement in the Baltimore City Public Schools began as an

established program September 1971. Training began in October and by November

School-Home Liaison Workers had been assigned to 23 schools. The goal of parent

involvement is to enhance the educational opportunities of children in the

Title I program. The program goal will be met through accomplishing the following

general and specific objectives:

General Objectives

1. Involve the parents and school personnel in a cooperative

system of activities which will increase the educational

opportunities of the children both in school and at home.

2. Improve school-home relationships by enabling parents and

school personnel to work together to define their roles

as they pertain to the children in the project and to

identify family needs and resources, including those of

the community and school.

3. Provide teachers and administratori with opinions and view-

points that will lead to better analysis of the needs of the

target population and more relevant program planning.

4. Sustain parental interest through a program of training.

5. Develop the skills needed by school personnel to function

effectively in a working relationship with parents and other

community members.

19b

Specific Objectives

1. To have parents provide the time, space, and supervision

for the child to read at least one library book per week.

The supervision will take the form of encouragement,

removing distractioni, and assisting the child in

comprehension (when the child needs help).

2. To have parents participate in workshops designed to educate

them in human growth and development as related to test per-

formance, potential, and achievement.

3. Ti.. have parents enrich classroom learning by bringing in new

thoughts, attitudes, and ideas through participation as parent

volunteers in classroom activities.

19c

Discussion

At mid-year of FY 1972-73 the total Parent Involvement Program activities

were viewed for a four-fold purpose: (1) to determine the broad activity areas

which were not meeting the needs of the parents as determined by ratings; (2) to

dt;,ermine the kinds of activities which vivre operating; (3) to solicit suggested

improvements in the program; and (4) to rate the School-Home Liaison Worker. This

porti.a of the findings is not being presented as we believe that this information

is for the use of the project manager and beyond the scope of this report.

There were 15 broad activity groups covered, each of which were to be rated

on a scale of one (poor) to six (superior). There were 71 ESEA Title I elementary

schools from which responses to the questionnaire were received. Sixty-three was

the maximum number of schools from which responses were received for these broad

activity groups. The groups for which the 63 responses were received were namely:

singing groups, bowling teams, volleyball teams, parent volunteers as coaches,

and similar functions in regular school program, volunteer services from community

residents to serve as certified life guards, to serve as workers during Title I

week for winter program and for summer program. The data show that of the 63

schools, a rat2.ng of both superior and excellent was received from 12-19%. It is

noted that in each of these grpups more than 50% were not rated.

In the broad activity group, arent education discussion rot s with s eakers,

there were 11 categories from which speakers could be drawn. The data show the

schools were more heavily represented with speakers from among community leaders,

(86.8%), social workers and educators (69.8%) and from the police department

(64.2%). Fifty-three schools responded to this question. See tables 1 and 2,

paget 19h and i, for detailed percentage distributions.

19d

In the broad activity group rap sessions on parent concerns, there were

three areas of concern. There were 57 schools from which responses were

received. The data show that each of the three areas of concern enjoyed almost

equal popularity. See Table 3, page 19j, for detailed information.

The broad activity group, demonstrations for homemaking, was related

to five specific activities. Demonstrations by art teachers were the most

frequent with 61.1%; seamstresses the next with 52.8% and decorators with

41.7%. Data for this question was received from 36 of the 63 reporting

schools. Table 4, page 19k, provides detailed information.

Responses to the broad activity group, classes for educational enrich-

ment, were received for 52 of the 63 responding schools. In this group there

were seven types of classes, of which art and handicraft were reported more

frequently with 63.5%. Community resources and reading was next most frequently

reported with 48,1%. Consumer education was reported by 34.6% of the schools.

Table 5, page 19L, provides detailed information.

Fifty-seven of the 63 reporting schools responded to the broad activity

group, classroom volunteers. /In this group there were 12 specific types of

services, of which accompanying classes on trips as chaperones was reported

by 93% of the schools. The next most frequently reported service was assisting

with snack time, (73.7%), while listening to a child read privately was reported

by 68.4% of the schools. Assisting teachers or aides with bulletin boards and

exhibits, making costumes and assisting in making scenery for plays were services

that were of equal frequency with 49.1%. Forty-five percent of the schools re-

ported volunteers helping in various capacities in culminating activities,

Table 6, page 19m, provides detailed information.

19e

Forty-nine of the 63 schools reporting responded to the broad activity

group called office volunteers. This group was comprised of seven specific

services, four of which were reported by most of the schools. Working with

the liaison in recruitment of community and parent volunteers was reported by

79.6% of the schools while assisting the School-Home Liaison in gathering,

cleaning and labeling cloths for the emergency clothing bank and distributing

notices and materials to classrooms was reported by 77.6% and 71.4% respectively.

A little over 63% of the schools reported services in the area of assisting the

administrators in accompanying children who need to be escorted home. See

Table 7, page 19n, for detailed information.

In the broad activity group, recreation activities for parents only, re-

sponses were received from 47 of the 63 reporting schools. This group was com-

prised of eleven recreation activities, four of which were reported with more

frequency. Tours of Baltimore were reported by 51.1%; pot luck luncheon meet-

ings yielded 42.6% participation; luncheons and demonstrations were reported by

40.4% and tours of other communities by 38.3%. Table 8, page 19o, provides

a further breakdown of the data.

In the broad activity group labeled family fun, responses were received

from 50 of the 63 reporting schools. The group was comprised of thirteen specific

activities, two of which were reported by more schools than any other -- Christmas

activities and making decorations for seasons or holidays (68% and 60% respectively.)

There were four activities--picnics on the school site, nearby park or beach

(financed by dutch treat family) during summer session, fashion shows, slimnastics

classes and activities related to Thanksgiving were reported by slightly more than

30% of the responding schools. Table 9, page 19p, for detailed data.

19f

In order to view the total program in respect to broad program areas, a

composite rating was calculated and is the average of the broad program activity

groups or categories. Ratings were claculatd for 62 of the 63 responding

schools. The data revealed that broad program activity groups were rated Very

good to good by the greater percent of schools, (30.6). Twenty-one percent

rated the group fair, 9.7% poor and 3.2% superior.

Data was collected as to the month and year the Parent Involvement Program

began in the schools; the data show that 66.7% of the 63 reporting schools had

parent involvement activities in operation and a School-Home Liaison represnta-

tive in the school between October and December 1971. The remaining 33.3% had

on -going programs and a School-Home Liaison worker in the school between February

and December 1972. Table 10, page 19q, provides detailed information.

Summary

The summary based on 50 or more schools rating the broad activity groups

revealed that most favored groups were rap sessions on parent concerns, class-

room volunteers, parent education discussion groups with speakers and classes for

educational enrichment. Community leaders as speakers were more frequently repre-

sented than speakers from any other area or profession. Rap sessions on famil4(

problems seemed to be of great concern. Demonstrations by art teachers appeared

more frequently than any other type od demonstration. In classes for educational

enrichment, again art and handicraft took first place. Accompanying classes on

trips as chaperones occurred im more schools than any other 'service performed by

classroom volunteers. Office volunteers played a large part in recruiting other

community and parent volunteers. Touring the city and pot luck luncheon meetings

were favored activities for parents only. Christmas activities and making decora-

tions for holiday seasons were the two most frequently reported for family fun.

19g

Based on the composite ratings the total program ranged from very good to good

as reported by over 60 percent of the 62 schools for which total ratings were

calculated. By December 1971 over half of the schools had on-going or were be-

ginning a structured program in the school.

At the end of the school year, data r.:- rating to the specific functions

of the Home-School Liaison worker showed that conferences held at school with

parents totaled over 5,000. Conferences with staff was the next highest category

with a total of over 3,000, while those held witt: representatives of outside

agencies was slightly over 2,000. The least number of conferences were held

with pupils and totaled over 700. Home visits were quite high and totaled

over 4,000. The number of parents attending group activities ranged from 3

to 973 with 799 and 973 attending in School #53 and #225 r2srectively. There

were fourteen schools that had 40 or more volunteer servic,!s performed by parents,

while there were 52 schools that had ten or more group activities. Table 11,

page 19r provides detailed information.

Conclusion

In view of the statistics presented in Tables 1 through 11, it can be

seen clearly that the total program is effective and speciic activities are

present in a sizeable number of schools. In general, the Parent Involvement

14ogram can have far reaching implications as related to the influence upon

family life and to disadvantaged children whom the program ultimately is seeking

to serve. ft may be that the overall objectives of the program seem to have been

met through the focus of a wide variety of activities operating to bring parents

in a closer relationship with the schools and the education of their children.

19h

Table 1

PARENT INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM MIDYEARRATINGS OF BROAD ACTIVITY GROUPS

ESEA TITLE I, ELEMENTARYFY 1973

Nota/Rated Poor Fair Good

VeryGood Excellent Superior

Total No.of Schools

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Reporting

Parent EducationDiscussion Groups 1 4 10 12 17 5 4 53With Speakers

Rap Sessions OnParent Concerns 1 1 9 19 14 7 6 57

Demonstrations ForHomemaking 4 6 11 11 4 3 0 35

Classes for Educa-tional Enrichment 4 3 13 12 12 7 3 54

Singing Groups 45 7 2 2 3 3 1 63

0

Bowling Teams 45 3 a 2 3 3 2 63

Volleyball Teams 5 7 1 1 1 1 1 63

Parent Volunteers asCoaches etc. In Reg-ular School Program

53 7 0 1 2 0 0 63

Volunteer ServicesFrom Community Resi-dents Who are Certi-fied Life Guards To

55 6 2 0 0 0 0 63

Assist in Pool Area(Summer)

Classroom Volunteers 4 7 7 11 13 12 4 58

Office Volunteers 5 4 7 9 16 3 6 50

Recreation ActivitiesFor Parents Only 3 9 9 7 a 4 2 42

Family Fun 16 4 7 10 11 3 4 55

Title I Week ForWinter Program 38 3 7 3 7 1 4 63

Title I Week ForSummer Program 34 2 4 6 9 4 4 63

Continued

19h

Table 1 (CONTINUED)

Note: 1/ All ratings are based on midyear evaluation of the program.

2/ Data are based on 63 of the 71 ESEA Title I elementary schools.

a/ The number of reporting schools that did not rate the broad activity group(s)because it was not applicapable or other reasons. This number includes someschools that checked a specific activity as operating but did not rate the

broad program group(s).

Source: Baltimore City Public Schools ESEA Title I Elementary Parent InvolvementProgram Evaluation Parent Involvement Activities, Questionnaire January

1973.

19i

Table 2

NUMBER OF ESEA TITLE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS REPORTING BY ACTIVITYPARENT INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMBALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

FY 197 3

Parent Education Discussion Groups With SpeakersSpeakers Number of Schoch Percent of Schools

Community Leaders 46 86.8%

Lesislators 12 22.6

Doctors 19 35.8

Lawyers 1 1.9

Social Workers 37 69.8

Home Demonstration Agent 17 32.1

Cosmetologists 12 22.6

Educators 37 69.8

Police Department Representative 34 64.2

Clergymen 15 28.3

Consumer Education 24 45.3

N/Lal_ 10 15.90/

Note: 1) Sixty-three schools responded to the questionnaire, however these data arebased on the 53 schools that responded to this question.

ok.

at N/I = schools that did not indicate that speakers in the above categoriesspoke at any of the Parent Involvement meetings.

b" Percent is based on the 63 responding schools.

Source: Baltimore City Public Schools ESEA Title I Elementary Parent InvolvementProgram Evaluation of Parent Involvement Activities, Questionnaire January1973.

19j

Table 3

NUMBER OF ESEA TITLE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOLSREPORTIVG BY ACTIVITY

PARENT INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMBALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

FY 1973

Rap Sessions On Parent Concerns

Type of Session

Number ofSchools

Percent ofSchools

School Problems 46 80.7%

*Neighborhood Problems 46 80.7

Family Problems 49 86.0

N/Ia/ 6 9.5% bi

Note: Sixty-three schools responded to the questionnaire, however these data arebased on the 57 schools that responded to this question.

6/ N/I = schools that did not indicate that rap sessions on the above topicswere held.

b/ Percent is based on the 63 responding schools.

Source: Baltimore City Public Schools ESEA Title I Elementary Parent InvolvementProgram Evaluation of Parent Involvement Activities, Questionnaire.January 1973.

19k

Table 4

NUMBER OF ESEA TITLE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOLSREPORTING BY ACTIVITY


FY 1973

Demonstrations For Homemaking

Type of DemonstratorNumber ofSchools

Percent ofSchools

Butcher 1 2.8%

Chefs 5 13.9

Decorators 15 41.7

Art Teachers 22 61.1

Seamstresses 19 52.8

J.4/ 27 42.9 %1i/


a/ N/I = schools that did not indicate the demonstrations in the abovecategories were held.


Source: Baltimore City Public Schools ESEA Title I Elementary Parent Ilivolvement

Program Evaluation of Parent Involvement Activities, Questionnaire.January 1973

19 1

Table S



FY 1973

Classes For Educational Enrichment

Types of ClassesNumber ofSchools

Percent ofSchools

Art and Handicraft 33 63.5%

Community Resources 25 48.1

Reading 25 48.1

Music 6 11.5

Mathematics 12 23.1

Consumer Education 18 34.6

You and The Law 2 3.8(Family Law)

N/I a/ 11 17.5% b/


a/ N/I = schools that did not indicate that classes in the above categorieswere held.



19m

Table 6



FY 197 3

Classroom Volunteers

Type of ServiceNumber ofSchools

Percent ofSchools

Listening to a Child Read Privately 39 68.4%

Assisting a Child in Constructing Projects 21 36.8

Accompanying Classes on Trips as Chaperones 53 93.0

Checking Papers With Teacher Made Key 15 .26.3

Assisting Teacher Or Aide With Bulletin Boardand Exhibits 28 49.1

Assisting With Snack Time 42 73.7

Making Costumes and Assisting in Making Sceneryfor Plays 28 49.1

Crlminating Activities 26 45.6

Helping to Arrange Auditorium Stage With The Useof Floor Plan Designed by Teachers 12 21.1

Selecting Books, Slides and Film From Library WithThe Use of a List Made by a Teacher 10 17.5

Returning Library Materials 12 21.1

Filing 12 21.1

N/I a/ 6 9.5% b/


at N/1 = schools that did not indicate that services in "...he above areas were

provided by parents.


Source: Baltimore City Public Schools ESEA Title I Elementary Parent Involvement

Program Evaluation of Parent Involvement Activities, Questionnaire. Jan. 1973.

Table 7

NUMBER OF ESEA TITLE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS REPORTING BY ACTIVITYPARENT INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLSFY 1971

Type of Service

19n

'411111311=11,11111:111=1

Office VolunteersNumbers of Percent of

Schools Schools

Serving as Messengers

Working With The Liaison in Recruitment ofCommunity and Parent Volunteers

Assisting The Office Aide in Stuffing Mailboxes

Assisting The Administrators in Taking ChildrenWho Need Escort Services Home

13 26.5%

39

12

31

79.6

24.5

63.3

Assisting The School-Home Liaison in TheGathering, Cleaning and Labeling of Clothing 38 77.6For The Emergency Clothing Bank

Answering The Telephone

Distributing Notices and Materials to Classrooms

N/Ia/

12

35

14

24.5

71.4

22.2%b/

Note: 1/ Sixty-three schools responded to the questionnaire, however these data arebased on the 49 schools that responded to this question.

a/ N/I = schools that did not indicate that the above activities were carriedon.

b/ Percent is b(.sed on the 63 responding schools.


Table 8



FY 1973

190

Recreation Activities For Parents Only

Recreation ActivityNumber ofSchools

Percent ofSchools

Three P Nights (Parent, Pokeno and Pinochle) 8 17.0%

Fun and Games Night 11 23.4

Tours of Baltimore 24 51.1

Tours of Neighborhood 17 36.2

Tour of Other Communities 18 38.3

Tours of Colleges 5 10.6

Out -of -Town Trips Financed by Individuals 14 29.8

Luncheons and Demonstrations 19 40.4

Sing-Alongs: Neighborhood Singin Groups 5 10.6

Pot Luck Luncheon Meetings 20 42.6

Recipe Exchange Meetings 14 29.8

N/I a/ 16 25.4% b/


a/ N/I = schools that did not indicate that the above activities were carriedon as a part of the Parent Involvement Program.



19p

Table 9

NUMBER OF ESEA TITLE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOLSREPORTING by ACTIVITY


FY 197 3

Family Fun

Fun A( itiosNumber ofSchools

Percent ofSchools

Picnics on The School Nearby Park or Beach(Financed by Dutch Treat Family) During SummerSession 19 38.0%

Talent Shows 13 26.0

Plays (Presented and Directed by Parents) 6 12.0

Fashion Shows (Parents Who Have Learned to SewKnit or Crochet at School Share Their Productsby Modeling or Mounting Them 16 32.0

Crazy Hat Pot Luck Teas 4 8.0

Clean Neighborhood Project 11 22.0

Slimnastics Classes 17 34.0

Making Decorations For Seasons or Holidays 30 60.0

Fall, Winter, Spring and Summer 10 20.0

Christmas 34 68.0

Thanksgiving 15 30.0

Easter 9 18.0

Hanukkah 1 2.0

N/I a/ 13 20.6% b/

Note: Sixty-Three schools responded to the questionnaire, however these data arebased on the 50 schools that responded to this question.

a/ N/I = Schools that did not indicate that the above activities were carriedon as a part of the Parent Involvement Program.


Source: Baltimore City Public Schools ESEA Title I Elementary Parent InvolvementProgram Evaluation of Parent Involvement activities, Questionnaire.January 1973.

1 9 q

Table 10

ESEA TITLE I PARENT INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMMIDYEAR COMPOSITE PROGRAM RATINGS ANDNUMBER OF SCHOOLS BY BEGINNING YEAR

OF PROGRAMBALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

FY 1973

Composite Program Ratina/ Number of Schools byBeginning Year of Program

RatingNumber and Percent of SchoolsNumber Percent Beginning Number and Percent of

Schools6 Superior 2 3.2% Year of Program Number Percent

S Excellent 6 9.7 October 1971 23 36.5%

4 Very Good 19 30.6 December 1971 19 30.2

3 Good 19 30.6 February 1972 6 9.5

2 Fair 13 21.0 September 1972 7 11.1

1 Poor 3 4.9 November 1972 6 9.5

Sub. Total 62 (100.0%) December 1972 2 3.2

98.4% Total 63 100.0%

Not Rated- bi 1 1.6%

Total 63 100.0%

a/ Composite ratings are the average of the ratings for the broad program activitycategories.

b/ One school indicated the activities that operate as a part of the Parent Involvem:mtProgram but did not rate the broad program activity group.


Table 11

Record dr Parent Involvement ActivitiesESEA Title I Elementary Basic Skills

Parent Involvement ProgramFY 1973

19r

School-Home Liaison Worker

S401v

ibmeVisits

Conferenceswith

ParentsatSchool

ConferenceswithStaff

Conferenceswith Repro-sentativesof OutsideAgencies

Conferencewith

Pupils

VolunteerServicesPerformed

byParents

Numberof

ParentsAttendingGroupActivities

Numberof GroupActivities Total

Meld School

149 82 40 24 23 7 30 N/A 34 240

150 29 24 33 46 2 30 N/A 27 191

156 37 42 15 16 N/A 7 N/A 28 145

)59 1 20 21 N/A N/A 11 N/A 10 63

161 213 211 73 54 50 56 N/A 36 693

162 131 51 18 11 29 1 N/A 3 244

163 5 155 99 70 4 22 N/A 36 391

164 137 193 128 86 65 44 3 60 716

200 11 49 42 23 1 31 221 47 425

225 20 39 66 36 4 31 973 106 1275

238 121 80 87 43 16 19 368 61 795

240 123 122 236 94 10 112 N/A 90 787

25W N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

301 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total 4296 5225 3920 2089 760 1530 5583 2536 25939Project

Note: 1/ Data for school #96 and #98 are combined because there was one School-Home Liaison worker who conducted combined activities for the elementaryand secondary school.

2/ N/A=Data were not available.

3/ There were twenty-eight schools for which partial data were reportedbecause of the gradual assigning of School-Home Liaisons to schoolsand/or because of the turnover of School-Home Liaisons.

a/ A School-Home Liaison worker was not assigned to school #135 and #250.

Source: Parent Involvement Program Record of Parent Involvement Activities FY 1972-73.

Appendix A

Diagnostic and Prescriptive

Teaching Project

FY 1973

Portions Submitted by D & P Team

ESEA Title I Diagnostic and Prescriptive Pilot Project lElementary)

1972-75

It is estimated that perhaps 25% of pupils enrolled in the primary grades

are not presently being reached by current instructional programs. This pilot

project sought to test the hypothesis that for many educationally disadvantaged

pupils in kindergarten through Grade 2, learning abilities - particularly in

Reading and Language - might be increased through early identification, in-

depth diagnosis, and systematic individually prescribed intervention.

The D. F, P. Project Team consisted of 5 psychologists and an adviser.

Each psychologist was assignedp 2 schools where she coordinated an Inter-

disciplinary Team including, where'-available, the Principal, Assistant Principal,

Senior Teacher and/or Reading Resource Teacher, the Grade 1 Teachers (with their

aides), and, as needed, the Speech Therapist, Physical Education Teacher, Nurse,

Social Worker, parents and Liaison Worker.

The D. F, P. Project Team planned, initiated, and carried the project for-

ward. This involved extensive reading, collecting materials, visiting and observ-

ing other projects, attending pertinent meetings and inviting various authorities as

speakers. The results of these activities were shared with the personnel of our

respective schools.

Grade 1 teachers were provided with screening devices which obliged them to

assess all of their children before identifying those with special learning diffi-

culties.

In frequent conferences of School Team members and other scho, 1 personnel,

about particular pupils, various causes of learning difficulties were explored

more deeply (physical, emotional, social, educational); also various causes of

behavior problems. We tried to convey new ways of looking at all children -

new insights and approaches - and also ways of meeting these problems.

2

After test diagnosis and observations by both psychologists and teachers,

individual children's strengths and weaknesses were analyzed.

Together with their School Team, the psychologists discussed the signifi-

cance of learning modalities in understanding a child's learning needs; also the

importance of learning sequences. We shared with them our knowledge of the use

and interpretation of tests. We brought to our schools new resources and materials,

and discussed with our teams alternative methods available for meeting the needs

of individual children.

When appropriate, we worked with the school nurse to initiate action, and we

followed through on health and emotional needs of individual children.

Parents were informed of the project and made every effort to share with them

by letter, phone, interview in school, or home visit, the findings concerning their

children. The cooperation and participation of parents was enlisted. This has

often resulted in benefits to other children of the family.

School personnel was urged to adapt materials and procedures of the D. & P.

Project for use with children beyond the project. We believe there has been a sig-

nificant "spill-over"; more meaningful ways of looking at children; the providing

and sharing of innovative teaching materials and approaches; strong interdisciplinary

collaboration which often results in applications elsewhere in the school by resource

persons on our teams. This constitutes, we feel, a very significant contribution

towards in-service education of ourselves, and other school personnel at many different

levels.

Among the many diagnostic and prescriptive teaching programs we have read or

heard about, this one seems to be unique in the degree to which it is psychologist-

centered. The psychologist introduces the project into a school and coordinates an

3

interdisciplinary school team to implement it. Throughout the year, she

works closely with the school team not only as coordinator, but also as a

resource person, especially in the Psychologicrl interpretation of diagnosis,

remediation, and behavior. She of course takes the lead in diagnosis; but

she also contributes psychological input to the selection, design, and imple-

mentation of teaching prescriptions. Her,on-going evaluation of pupil progress

in terms of diagnosed needs provides further guidance.

Her focus is on the particular children of the project, their needs and

progress. She can call attention to the necessity for specific referrals and

can follow these up with principal, nurse, social worker, speech therapist,

liaison worker, etc., to try to assure each child the services he requires.

Besides her focus on a limited number of individual children, she can play

an important role in the continuing in-service education of herself, her team

members, and a widening circle of school staff of various disciplines. She

shares psychological insights. She searches out new materials and techniques

suited to particular psychological needs. She can participate in seminars and

workshops dealing with learning problems. She considers it a very important

part of her work with individual children to meet their parents, in order to

understand the children better and perhaps to help the parents understand them

better, too.

It is our immodest conviction that the central role of the psychologist

can bring new and important dimensions to a diagnostic and prescriptive teaching

program, and a vital integrating force.

Findings:

A. The nature of a D. F P. Program

A diagnostic and prescriptive prograd suggests literally diagnosis of an

4

individual's needs and the use of teaching prescriptions designed to

meet these needs. This literal application may be essential for dis-

abled students with specific learning disabilities. For such pupils,

prescription banks, learning sequences, hierarchies of skills are in-

appropriate except as resources to consult for guidance and suggestions

in planning programs for individual children.

For other pupils who are not succeeding academically, a broader appli-

cation of diagnostic and prescriptive teaching will allow for use of

group instruction in a choice of programs differentiated as to modali-

ties, language development, rate of learning, etc. For this type of

application it is essential to have a choice of different materials

available and great flexibility in their use. It is also essential

to help teachers understan.: how this can be accomplished. In this

broader application of D. & P. teaching, the aforementioned prescrip-

tion banks, etc., may be helpful if adopted with discretion.

B. Prescriptions:

1. In a D. & P. program, prescriptions are used as therapy. They are

aimed not solely at academic needs, but, equally important, at

emotional, health, and other needs. These may include needs for

improved self-concept and improved home management.

2. Although many "prescriptions" might be quite suitable for large

groups, the type of disabled child towards whom this program is

aimed may not be able to function except on a one-to-one basis

or in a pair or at most in a group of three.

5

3. A "prescription" is not unique for one disability. Learnings

are interrelated; e.g., a prescriptive task designed to teach

auditory memory may involve attentive listening, auditory dis-

crimination, following directions, language, reasoning, etc.

4. Prescriptions must be carried .on every day.

5. Prescriptions must be repeated or modified as often as needed

for each child.

6. Frequent evaluation is necessary to determine the effectiveness

of the prescribed instruction. This is important in determining

what doesn't work as well as what does. It also may lead to

altering the original diagnosis and consequently to planning new

procedures.

C. Observation:

1. An essential component of diagnosis is on-going observation of

each child, both in the classroom and elsewhere.

2. Observation is likewise essential during the prescriptive phase

of the program.

Team Recommendations:

1. Adequate working space should be provided which would allow for

privacy in working with the children and parents. A secure

storage space should also be provided.

6

2. School personnel functioning as a part of the team should have

sufficient time to be involved in the team operations as the

project requires.

3. School personnel involved in the project should be thoroughly

informed of its operation, demands and implications insofar as

the total school program.

7

Discussion

The general needs of 911 first grade pupils were reviewed utilizing the

Pupil Adjustment Rating Scale adopted from The Johns Hopkins Helvie Scale.

Judgements were made as to the degree of need for referral to the program as

being absolutely certain, reasonably certain or with little certainty. As a

result a little more than 43 percent were judged with absolute certainty that

referral was not needed. At the same time in the areas of reasonably certain

and little certainty, 39.6 and 20.5 percents respectively were judged as not

needing services. Therefore, 14.2 percent of the absolutely certain and 4.4

and 5.1 percents with reasonable certain and little certainty respectively

needed referral. Table 1, page 13 , for complete findings.

At the end of the mass screening process fifteen pupils were selected

from each of the ten designated schools, of which five were selected for con-

centrated services. The behavior of these pupils, (five finally and ten near

finally selected pupils) were assigned in eight categories.

In the general behavior area, the largest percent of pupils in both

groups 60.4 and 48.0 percents respectively had problems with self-control.

Table 2, page 14 , provides complete findings.

In the area of work habits, the group selected to receive diagnostic

services, 81.2 percent had difficulty in following directions, 77.1 percent

had problems in both paying attention, and being distractable, while 75.0 per-

cent constantly needed help with their work. The ten pupils in five schools

who did not receive concentrated services 56.1 percent had difficulty in paying

attention while 55.1 and 57.1 percent had difficulty in following directions

and being distractable. It may be noted that a lesser percent of the pupils

in both groups gave up easily. Sec Table 3, page 15 , for details.

In each group, relative to the type of attitudes, the highest percent

of pupils lacked confidence. In the group receiving conceutrated services

50.0 percent had this problem while 32.7 percent of the groups of ten pupils

had difficulty in this area. The data shows that fewer pupils in the groups

of five were less fearful than those in the groups of ten as shown by 6.2 and

11.2 percents respectively. See Table 4 page 16 , for details.

Di..ta for the language problems area showed that the greater percent of

pupils in both groups have problems in expressing themselves as shown by 50.0

percent in the groups of five pupils and 35.7 percent in the groups of ten

pupils. The next area of concern is, limited ideas to express. For the groups

.of five pupils 37.5 percent had difficulty while 32.7 percent of the groups of

ten pupils had problems in this area. Table 5, page 17, provides detailed

data.

Data in the area of motor behavior showed that a high percentage of

pupils in both groups demonstrated a need for help in using pencils, crayons

and scissors. For the groups of five pupils selected to receive in-depth

services, for 29.2 percent this was a problem area. For the groups of ten

pupils, this was a problem area for 31.6 percent. The next greatest problem

area was clumsiness (balance), 22.9 percent from the groups of five pupils

needed help while 14.3 percent from the groups of ten pupils also needed help.

Table 6, page 18 , provides detailed data.

Few pupils in either group had problems in the area :if spatial organization.

In the group of pupils selected to receive concentrated services, 43.7 percent

did not have recognizable spatial organizational problems; however while 20.8

percent were suspected of having other types of spatial organizational problems

which was not covered by the questionnaire.

9

In the groups of ten pupils who were not selected for concentrated services,

48.0 percent did not have recognizable spatial organizational problems; while

25.5 percent were believed to have other types of spatial organizational

problems not covered by the questionnaire. Table 7, page 19 , provides

complete data.

In the area of visual perception problems, 39.6 percent of the pupils in

the groups of five had problems in discriminating both "likenesses" and

"differences" and visual memory. The majority of the pupils, or 56.2 percent

did not have a detectable visual perception problem.

In the groups of ten pupils who were not selected for diagnostic services,

20.4 and 27.6 percents had problems in discriminating both "likenesses" and

"differences" and visual memory respectively. In this group, 29.6 percent did 4

not have a detectable visual perception problem. See Table 8, page 20 , for

detailed information.

Problems with auditory perception were experienced by a greater percent

of the groups of five pupils than from the groups of ten pupils. In the group

selected to receive concentrated services, 41.7 percent had trouble in auditory

memory. Also in this group, 16.7 percent of the pupils had detectable auditory

problems which were not covered by the questionnaire, while 22.9 percent did not

have detectable auditory problems.

In the groups of ten pupils who were not selected for concentrated services,

20.4 and 25.5 percents had trouble discriminating both "likenesses" and "differ-

ences" and auditory memory respectively. Only 1.0 percent had other detectable

auditory perception problems, while 14.3 percent did not have detectable auditory

perception problems. Table 9, page 21 , provides supportive information.

Data relating to IQ, as established by the Stanford-Binet, was tabulated for

both groups.

10

The data revealed that the greatest number, twenty-two or 44.0 percent of the

pupils selected for diagnostic servis were in the average range 90-109. The

remaining pupils were in the high, low, or borderline average range. For the

groups of ten pupils who were not selected for diagnostic sewices, the greatest

number, thirty-four or 35.8 percent of the pupils were in the low average range.

The remaining pupils were in the superior, high average, average, borderline

average or mentally defective range. It may be noted that the median chrono-

lneical age between October and November 1972 was 6.3 for the group selected for

diagnostic services and 6.7 for the other group; See Table 10, page 22 , for

supportive data.

Ability levels were compared for the two groups for FY'72 and FY'73 based

on the four sub-tests of the Primary Mental Abilities Test (PMA). FY'72 verbal

meaning test data showed that for the group selected for diagnostic services in

FY'73, 43.8 percent had average ability and 35.4 percent were slightly below

average. When these same pupils were tested in FY'73 after receiving concentrated

services, 44.9 percent showed average ability and 28.6 percent were slightly below

average, a decrease of 6.8 percent in the latter group.

Test data for the groups of ten pupils who were not selected for concentrated

services in FY'73, their PMA verbal meaning test data for FY'72 showed that 36.7

percent had average ability, while in FY'73, 35.8 percent showed average ability

in verbal meaning. In FY'72, 29.1 percent showed slightly below average ability,

while in FY'73, 25.9 percent were in this category, a decrease of 6.8 percent.

See Table 11, page 23 , for details.

Ability level for the sub-test perceptual speed for the group selected for

vincentrated services in FY'73, data showed that 47.9 percent had average ability.

By FY'73, 50.6 percent were at this level. In FY'72, 24.7 percent of these pupils

were slightly below average and by FY'73, an increase of 6.2 percent was experienced.

See Table 12, page 24 , for complete data.

11

For the sub-test number facility, data for FY'72 showed that 29.2 percent

of the pupils subsequently selected for concentrated services in FY'73, showed

average ability. By FY'73, the group increased to 34.7 percent, a change of 5.5

percent. In FY'72, 39.6 percent of these pupils were in the slightly below

average group. When these pupils were tested in FY'73, after receiving services,

36.7 percent were at this level.

For the groups of ten pupils who did not receive concentrated services, 25.3

percent of the pupils showed average ability when tested in F1'72. When these

same pupils were tested in FY'73, 32.5 percent were at the same level. In FY'72,

25.3 percent of these pupils were slightly below average when tested in FY'73,

27.5 percent of the pupils were at this level. Table 13, page 25 , provides

detailed data.

Ability level for the sub-test spatial relations for the group selected for

concentrated services in FY'73, FY'72 data showed that 27.1 percent were average

and slightly below average. By FY'73, 26.5 and 32.7 percents of these pupils

were average and slightly below average respectively. The FY'73 test data showed

that 38.3 percent were average while 34.6 percent were slightly below average.

Detailed data is provided in Table 14, page 26 .

The Boehm Test of Basic Concepts (BTBC)1/ was used to pre-and-post for the

groups of five. The test is designed to measure children's mastery of concepts

considered necessary for achievement in the first years of school. The test is

appropriate for pupils in the kindergarten, grade one, and two.

The mean (group average) was used to establish the pass-fail status of the

group for the total test and the concepts covered. Results showed 65.1 percent

of this group passed on the total test for the pre-test administered October or

November 1972.

1/ Anne E. Boehm, Boehm Test of Basic Concepts.

New York, N.Y.: The Psychologic#1 Corporation, 1971.

12

The total test data for the groups post-test, May or June 1973 showed that

75.6 percent of the pupils passed; this was an increase of 10.5 percent.

For the three specific concepts tested, there was an increase in the percent

passing between pre-and-post testing. None of the percents passing were less

than 50.0 percent of the group. The difference between means was not signifi-

cant between pre-and-post testing. See Table 15, page 27 , for complete data.

The Predictive Screenin Test of Articulation (PSTA)2/ was administered

between September and October 1972 to both groups. The basic purpose of this

test is to differentiate between pupils who will master their misarticulations

without speech therapy from those who, without therapy, may persist in their

errors. This test is used to identify pupils of primary school age who have

functional misarticulations at the first grade level. A cut-off score of thirty-

four was used as it is felt that error will be minimized -- those pupils predicted

as being able to overcome their problem without therapy but who actually do not

(false negative errors), and those due to pupils predicted will still have problems

upon entering.third grade but will not (false positive errors). Pupils scoring

thirty-four or more should be excluded.

The data on this test showed that for the group selected for diagnostic

services, 23.1 percent were in need of therapy, while 76.9 percent were not.

These percents are based on thirty-nine of the fifty pupils or 78.0 percent for

whom test score') were available.

For the groups of ten pupils who were-not selected for concentrated services,

17.6 percent were in need of therapy while 82.4 percent were not. These percents

are based on seventy-four of the 100 pupils or 74.0 percent for whom test scores

were available. See Table 16, page 28.

2/ Charles Van Piper and Robert L. Erukson, Predictive Screening Test ofArticulation.

Kalamazoo, Michigan: Continuing Education Office,Western Michigan University, July 1970.

Table I

Number, Percent and Category of Pupils Screened With The Pupil Adjustment Rating Scale

ESEA Title I Elementary Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project

FY 197 3

Absolutely

Number of

Per-

Rating

Pupils

Cent

1Child has no problem, extremely

well adjusted, absolutely no

need for referral

2agld has problems of minor

importance, referral not

necessary

3Child has problems of inter-

mediate importance, referral

may or may not be necessary

4Child has problems of

considerable importance,

referral advisable, but

not urgent

Child has very serious

problems, extremely mal-

adjusted, urgent need for

referral

TOTAL

Reasonably

Certain

Number of

Per-

Pupils

Cent

Little

Certainty

Number of

Per-

Pupils

Cent

150

43.5%

209

39.6%

820.5%

56

16.2

152

28.8

615.4

30

8.7

100

19.0

17

43.6

60

17.4

43

8.2

615.4

49

14.2

23

4.4

25.1

..

345

100.0%

527

100.0%

39

100.0%

Source:

Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project Pupil Adjustment Rating Scale,adapted from

the

Johns Hopkins Helvic Scale, ratings made between October and November 1972

14

Table 2

Number and Percent of Pupils By Type of General BehaviorESEA Title I Elementary Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project

FY 1973

General Behavior of theGroups of Five PupilsSelected For DiagnosticServices in Ten Schools

ype of General Behavior

ver-Active

emands Too Much Attention

tacks Self-Control

s Withdrawn

pset By Change in Routine

oo Hasty

oo Slow

gloppy In Appearance

ries Easily

deems Generally Unhappy

peculiar Behavior

'umber and Percent of Pupils For'horn Types of Behavior areovailable

umber and Percent cf Pupils ForAhom Types of Behavior are Notvailable

otal Number of Pupils Indiagnostic and Non - Diagnostic

ervice Groups

General Behavior of theGroups of Ten PupilsScreened in Ten SchoolsBut Were Not SelectedFor Diagnostic Services

Number Percent Number Percent

18 37.5% 27 27.6%

20 41.7 22 22.4

29 60.4 47 48.0

10 20.8 15 15.3

12 25.0 9 9.2

15 31.2 18 18.4

16 33.3 30 30.6

11 22.9 16 16.3

6 12.5 10 10.2

5 10.4 10 10.2

5 10.4 9 9.2

48 96.0% 98 98.0%

2 4.0% 2 2.0%

50 100.0% 100 100.0%

ote: 1/ Percents by type of general behavior are based on the number of pupils for whomdata are available. Pupils may be included in more than one group.

2/ The percents for the pupils for whom data are and are not available are based onthe total number of pupils who were in the diagnostic and non-diagnostic servicegroups.

ource: Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project Behavior Questionnaire, judgment of

behaviors made between October and November 1972.

IS

Table 3

Number And Percent of Pupils By Type of Work HabitsESEA Title I Elementary Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project

FY 197 3

Work Habits of TheGroups of Five PupilsSelected For DiagnosticServices In Ten Schools

Work Habits of The

Groups of Ten PupilsScreened In Ten SchoolsBut Were Not SelectedFor Diagnostic Services

Type of Work Habit Number Percent Number Percent

Difficulty In Paying Attention 37 77.1% 55 56.1%

Difficulty In Following Direction 39 81.2 54 55.1

Distractible 37 77.1 56 57.1

Gives Up Easily 20 41.7 28 28.6

(onstantly Needs Help With Work 36 75.0 46 46.9

Careless 25 52.1 43 43.9

Number and Percent ofPupils For Whom Types of 48 96.0% 98 98.0%Work Habits are available

Number and Percent of PupilsFor Whom Types of Work Habits 2 4.0% 2 2.0%Are Not Available

Total Number of Pupils InDiagnostic and Non-Diagnostic 50 100.0% 100 100.0%Service Groups

Note: 1/ Percents by type of work habit are based on the number of pupils fo7 whomdata are available. Pupils may be included in more than one group.

2/ The percents for the pupils for whom data are nad are not available arebased on the total number of pupils who were in the diagnostic and non-diagnostic service groups

Source: Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project Behavior Questionnaire,judgi4ment of work habits made between October and November 1972.

16Table 4

Number and Percent of Pupils By Type of AttitudeESEA Title I Elementary Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project

FY 1973

ype of Attitude

acks Confidence

oesn't Care

ncooperative

earful

umber and Percentf Pupils For Whomypes of Attitudesre Available

umber and Percentf Pupils For Whomypes of Attitudesre Not Available

otal Number Ofupils In Diagnosticnd Non-Diagnosticervice Groups

Attitude Of TheGroups Of Five PupilsSelected for DiagnosticServices In Ten Schools

Attitude Of The GroupsOf Ten Pupils ScreenedIn Ten Schools ButWere Not Selected ForDiagnostic Services


24 . 50.0% 32 32.7%

16 33.3 18 18.4

15 31.2 13 13.3 .

3 6.2 11 11.2

48 96.0% 98 98.0%

2 4.0% 2 2.0%

50 100.0% 100 100.0%

ote: 1/ Percents by type of attitudes are based on the number of pupils for whom data areavailable. Pupils may be included in more than one group.

ource:

2/ The percents for the pupils for whom data are and are not available are basedon the total number of pupils who were in the diagnostic and non-diagnosticservice groups.

Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project Behavior Questionnaire ,judgmentof attitudes made between October and November 1972.

17

Table 5

Number and Percent of Pupils By Type of LanguageESEA Title I Elementary Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project

FY 1973

Language ProblemsOf The Groups OfFive Pupils SelectedFor DiagnosticServices In Ten

Schools

Language ProblemsOf The Groups Of TenPupils Screened InTen Schools But WereNot Selected ForDiagnostic Services

Type or Language Problems Number Percent Number Percent

Non-Verbal 4 8'.3% .13 13.3%

Uses Only Gestures 4 8.3 2 2.0

Trouble InExpressing Self 24 s(Ln 35 35.7

Very Limited Vocabulary 16 33.3 31 31.6

Very LimitedIdeas To Express 18 37.5 32 32.7

Does Not Seem ToUnderstand Spoken Language 4 8.3 6 6.1

Number and Percentof Pupils For WhomTypes of Language 48 96.0% 98 98.0%Problems Are Available

Number and Percentof Pupils For WhomTypes of Language 2 4.0% 2 2.0%Problems Are Not Available

Total Number ofPupils In Diagnosticand Non-Diagnostic 50 100.0% 100 100.0%Service Groups

Note: 1/ Percents by type of language problems are based on the number of pupils forwhom data are available. Pupils may be included in more than one group.


Source: Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project Behavior Questionnaire, judgmentof language problems made between October and November 1972.

Table 6

Number and Percent of Pupils By Type of Motor BehaviorESEA Title I Elementary Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project

FY 1973

Type of Motor Behavior

Motor Behavior Of TheGroups Of Five PupilsSelected For DiagnosticServices In Ten Schools

Motor Behavior Of TheGroups Of Ten PupilsScreened In Ten SchoolsBut Were Not SelectedFor Diagnostic Services


Clumsy 11 22.9% 14 14.3%

Poor Posture 7 14.6 7 7.1

Difficulty Dressingand Undressing 5 10.4 2 2.0

Difficulty WalkingStairs 3 6.2 4 4.0

Difficulty In Skippingand Climbing 2 4.2 5 5.1

Difficulty In Us;ngPencil, Crayon, Scissors, etc. 14 29.2 31 31.6

Number and Percentof Pupils For Whom Typesof Motor Behavior Are 48 96.0% 98 98.0%Available

Number and Percentof Pupils For WhomTypes of Motor Behavior 2 4.0% 2 2.0%Are Not Available

Total Number of PupilsIn Diagnostic andNon-Diagnostic 50 100.0% 100 100.0%Service Groups

Note: 1/ Percents by type of motor behavior are based on the number of pupils for whomdata are available. Pupils may be included in more than one group.


Source: Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project Behavior Questionnaire, judgmentof motor behaviors between Oc.tober and November 1972.

18

19Table 7

Number and Percent of Pupils By Type of Spatial OrganizationESEA Title I Elementary Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project

FY 1973

Type of Spatial Organization

bonfusion AboutBody Parts

onfused Laterality

Confused Directionality

Other Types Of Spatialarganizati^nal Problems

No Discernible SpatialOrganizational Problems

Spatial OrganizationOf The Groups Of FivePupils Selected ForDiagnostic Services InTen Schools

Number and Percent offupils For Whom Typesf Spatial Organizationsre Available

umber and Percent!Of Pupils For Whomroes of SpatialOrganizations AreNot Available

Total Number ofPupils In Diagnosticand Non-DiagnosticService Groups

Spatial OrganizationOf The Groups Of TenPupils Screened In TenSchools But Were Not SelectedFor Diagnostic Services


4 8.3% 8 8.2%

7 14.6 10 10.2

9 18.7 15 15.3

10 20.8 25 25.5

21 43.7 47 48.0

48 96.0% 98 98.0%

2 4.0% 2 2.0%

50 100.0% 100 100.0%

Note: 1/ Percents by type of spatial organization are based on the number of pupils forwhom data are available. Pupils may be included in more than one group.


Source: Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project Behavior Questionnaire,judgmentof spatial organizations made between October and November 1972.

20Table 8

Number and Percent of Pupils By Type of Visual Perceptional ProblemsESEA Title I Elementary Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project

FY 1973

ype Of Visualerception Problems

*rouble In DiscriminatingLikenesses" and "Differences"

i'.fficulty With Eye-Handcoordination

"rouble With Visual Memory

)trier Types of Visualerception Problems

4) Discernible visualPerception Problem

Number and Percent)f Pupils For Whom*roes of Visual Perceptionsire Available

dumber and Percent)f Pupils For WhomTypes of Visual Perceptionkre Not Available

rotal Number of Pupils[ri Diagnostic And:on-Dicgostio>ervice Grouns

Visual Perception OfVisual Fercepticn u:The Groups Of Ten

The Groups Of FivePupils Selected ForDiagnostic ServicesFor Ten Schools

Pupils Screened In TenSchools But Were NotSelected For DiagnosticServices


19 39.6% 20 20.4%

15 31.2 iy . 19.4

19 39.6 27 27.6

2 4.2 14 14.3

27 56.2 29 29.6

48 96.0% 98 98.0%- -

2 4.0% 2 2.0%

50 100.0% 100 100.0%

dote: 1/ Percents by type of visual perceptional problems are based on the number of pupilsfor whom data are available. Pupils may he included in more than one group.

Source:

2/ The percents for the pupils for whom data are and are not available are based onthe total number of pupils who were in the diagnostic aid non -- diagnostic servicegroups.

Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project Behavior Questionnair,judgmentof visual perception made between October and November 1972.

21

Table 9

Number and Percent of Pupils By Type Of Auditory Perception ProfilersESEA Title I Llementary Piagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project

FY 197

Auditory Perception OfThe Groups Of FivePupils Selected ForDiagnostic Ser\izesIn Ten Schools

'yprf Of Auditoryerception Problc7

rouft.le In DiscrimiratinK100enesscs- and -01ffcrences-

rouble In Auditory Memory

ther Types of Auditoryerccptioii Froblems

po Discernible Auditoryerception Problem

lumber and Percentof Pupils For Khom)rpes of Auditory ,-L.rceptionsire Available

lumber and Percent 04'upils for W)om I\ esof Auditory Perceptionsre Not Available

#otal Number of Pupilsn Diaoostic andIon - Diagnostic Serviceroups

sr:tT,1(-1

The Groups Of TcnPupils Screened InTen Schools FutWere Not Selected ForDiagnostic Service


20 41.7% 20 20.4%

25 52.1 25 25.5

8 16.7 1 1.0

11 2:.9 14 14.3

48 96.0% 98 98.0%

2 4.0% 2 2.0%

50 100.0% 100 100.0%

ote: 1/ Percents by type of auditory perceptionsproblem are based on the number of pupilsfor whorl data are available. Pupils may be included in more than one group.

2/ The percents for the pupils for whom da'.a are and are not available are based,onthe total nur,ber of pupils wAo were in the diSgnostic and non-diagnostic servicegroups.

ource: Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project Behavior Questionnaire, judgmentof auditory perceptiort,:made between Octo!)er and November 1972.

22

Table 10

Nuner and Percent of Pupils By I.Q. Range, !ledian I.Q. Range and Chronological AgeLS!A Title I fler7entary Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project

FY l97:'

I.Q. Range cf theGroups of Five PupilsSelected For DiagnosticServices in Ten Schools

1.Q. Rarge of theGroups of Ten PupilsScreened in Ten SchoolsBut Were Not Selert.-AFor l'iagnostic Services

Q. Range Number Percent Number Percent

4 -169 Very TICT

20-139 Superior 0 1 1.1%

10-119 High Average 4 8.0% 2.1

0-109 Average 22 44.0 25 26.3

60-69 Low Average 20 40.0 34 35.8

70-79 Borderline Average 4 8.0 20 21.0

30 -69 Mentally Defective 0 13 13.7(100.0% ) (100.0)

tal Nunber and Percent of Pupilsor Whom Data Are AvailaFle

otal Number and Percent of I':711,or Whom Data Are N,J

otal Number of Pupils In Piazncticnd Ncn-Diagnostic Service CTUUS

SO

0

100.0% 95

5

95.0%

5.0%

SO 100.0% 100 100.0%

dian I.Q. Range

edian Chronological Age

umber of Pupils For Whomata Are Available

90-109 80-89

6.3

50

6.7

93

ource: 1/ Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project, Stanford-Binet Form LM administeredbetween October and November 1972.

2/ Pupil's cumulative folder for Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project.

23

Table 11

Number and Percent of Pupils By Ability Level For the Verbal Meaning Sub-Test ofThe Prirary Mental Abilities Test

ES:A Title 1 Elementary Diagnotic and Prescriptive Teaching Projectiy 117",

Verbal eaning Ability l_evelof the Groups of live PupilsSelected in Diagnostic Servicesin Tcn Schools

Verbal Meaning Ability Level ofThe Groups of Ten PupilsScreened in Ten Schools But WereNet :cly.i.vJ for DiagnosticServices

ilityyet Number

1971-72Number

1972-73Number

1971-72 1972 -73Percent Percent Percent Numhrr ier(rnt

DefinitelyAbove Average 1 2.1% 0 2 2.5% 5 6.2%

SlightlyAbove Average 0 0 1 1.3 1 1.2

Average 21 43.8 22 44.9% 29 36.7 29..,

J.14,0

SlightlyBelow Average 17 35.4 14 28.6 23 29.1 21 25.9

DefinitelyBelow Average 9 18.7 13 26.5 24 30.4 25 30.9

(100.0) (70777 (100.0%) 0777ber and Percent of

pils For Whom Datae Available

tuber and Percent ofpils For Whom Datae Not Available

tal Number of Pupils

48

2

96.0%

4.0 %

49

1

98.0%

2,0%

7T9

21

79.0%

21.0%

81

19

81.0%

19.0%

50 100.0% 50 100.0% 100 101.0% 100 100.0%Diagnostic and Non-

agnostic Service Groups

te: 1/ FY 1971-72 is the year prior to the Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project.

urce: Results from city -wide testing FY '72 and FY '73.

24

Table 12

Number and Percent of Pupils Fy ahility LevelFor The Perceptual Speed Sub-Test of The Primary Abilities Test

ESLA Title I Elementary Diagnostic an:! Prescriptive Teaching ProjectFY

Perceptual Speed AbilityLevel of The Groups ofFive Pupils SelectedFor Diagnostic ServicesIn Tcn Schools

Perceptual Speed Ability Levelof The Groups of Ten PupilsScreened In Ten SchoolsBut Were Not Selected ForDiagnostic Services

AbilityLevel

1971-72Number Percent



19'2-73Number Percent

DefinitelyS Above Average 0 0 0 2 2.5%

Slightly4 Above Average 1 2.1% 1 2.1% 1 1.2% 0

3 Average 23 47.9 20 41.7 42 51.9 41 50.6

Slightly2 Below Average 19 39.6 15 31.2 20 24.7 25 30.9

Definitely1 Below Average 5 10.4 12 25.0 18 22.2 13 16.0

(166.01) (W15757c) (110116774-) (175617N)

Number andPercent of Pupils 48 96.0% 45 9b.04 bl 81.0% 81 81.0%For Whom DataAre Available

Number andPercent of Pupils 2 4.0% et4 V 19 19.0% 19 19.0%For Whom DataAre Not Available

Total Number ofPupils In Din-nostic and Non-

50 100.0% 50 100.0% 100 100.0% 100 100.0%

Diagnostic ServiceGroups

"Note: 1/ FY 1971-72 is the year prior to the Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project.

Source: Results from City-Wide Testing FY '72 and FY '73.

25

Table 13

Number and Percent of Pupils By Ability LevelFor The Number Facility The Pri7ary ,Ientl Abilities TestESFA Title I Elementary Diagnostic and Prescriptive leaching Project

FY 197.;

11bi1ity

eve:

Number Facility Ability Levelof The Groups of Five PupilsSelected For Diagnostic ServicesIn Ten Schools

Number Facility Ability Levelof The Groups of Ten PupilsScreened In Ten SchoolsBut Were Not SelectedFor Diagnostic Services





Definitely

...--

Above Average 0 0 1 1.2% 2 2.5%

SlightlyAbove Average 0 0 2 2.4 2 2.5

Average 14 29.2% 17 .4.7% 21 25.3 26 32.5

Slightly2 Below Average 19 39.6 18 36.7 25.3 22 27.5

Definitely1 Below Average 15 31.2 14 28.6 38 45.8 28 35.0

(1777;) (100.0 %) (100.0%) (7)T.71)

Number andPercent of Pupils 48 96.0% 49 98.0% 83 83.0% 80 80.0%For Whom DataAre Available

Number and Percentof Pupils For Whom 2 .. 4.0% 1 2.0% 17 17.0% 20 20.0%Data Are NotAvailable

Total Number ofPupils In Diagnostic SO 100.0% 50 100.0% 100 100.0% 100 100.0%and Non-DiagnosticService Groups

Note: 1/ FY 1971-72 is the year prior to the Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project.

Source: Results from (7ity-Wide Testing FY '72 and FY '73.

26

Table 14

Number and Percent of Pupils By Ability LevelFor The Spatial Relations Sub-Test of The Primary Mental Abilities Test

ESLA Title I Fle7cntary Piagnestic and Prescriptive Teaching ProjectFY 1973

Spatial Relations Ability Spatial Relations AbilityLevel of The Groups of Level of The Group ofFive Pupils Selected Ten Pupils Screened InFor Diagnostic Services Ten Schools But Were Not

In Ten Schools Selected For Diagnostic ServicesAbilityLevel

971-72 1972-73 1971-72Number --Percent

1972-73Numbtr Percent Number Percent Number Percent

DefinitelyAbove Average 2 4.1% 1 2.0% 0 0

SlightlyAbove Average 0 1 2.0 0 4 4.9%

Average 13 27.1 13 26.5 27 32.5% 31 38.3

SlightlyBelow Average 13 27.1 16 32.7 30 36.2 28 34.6

DefintelyBelow Average 20 41.7 18 36.8 26 31.3 18 22.?

(T56764) aiTY7g) (T65761) (707g)

Number and Percentof Pupils For Whom 48 96.0% 49 98.0% 83 83.0% 81 81.0%Data Are Available

umber and Percentof Pupils For Whom 2 4.0% 1 2.0% 17 17.0% 19 19.0%Data Are Notvailable

otal Number ofPupils for Di gnus- SO 100.0% SO 100.0% 100 100.0% 100 100.0%tic and Non-Diag-ostic Service Groups

ote: 1/ FY 1971-72 is the year prior to the Diagnostic and Prescriptive TeachingProject.

urce: Results from City-Wide Testing FY '72 and FY '73.

a. e

Mean, Percent Passing and Difference Between Means

or The Boehm Test of Basic Concepts

ESEA Title I Elementary Diagnostic and Prescriptive

Teaching Project

FY 1973

Total Test

Specific Concepts Tested

Spare Relations

Quantity

Time

Pre-Test

10 or 11/72

Post-Test

5 or 6/73

Pre-Test

Post-Test

10 or 11/72

5 or 6/73

Pre-Test

10 or 11/72

Post-Test

5 or 6/73

Pre-Test

Post-Test

10or11/72 5 or 6/73

Group Mean

53

37

16

18

10

12

2 .

3

Group Mean

Percent

66.0%

74.0%

69.6%

78.3%

55.5%

66.7%

50.0%

75.0%

Percent

Passing

65.1%

75.6%

71.2%

77.7%

57.1%

67.7%

63.0%

70.4%

Number

of Concepts

50

23

18

4

N50

49

50

49

50

49

50

49

Difference

Between

Means

.084

.061

.118

.075

Note:

1/

The mean was used as the point of reference in determining

pass-fail.

The percent passing refers to those pupils who had the mean number (or percent) or more of the concepts tested.

2/

Four miscellaneous (mixed) concepts omitted.

3/

N=Total number of pupils tested.

4/

The difference between pre and post-test means does not exceed 1.98 at the .05 level with 98 degrees of

freedom and is therefore not significant.

Source:

Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project, Boehm Test of Basic Concepts FY 1972-73.

28

Table 16

Distribution of Pupils' Scores By Number andPercent On The Predictive Screening Test of Articulation

LSEA ',title I Elementary Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching ProjectFY 1973

TotalScore

Numuer and Percentof The Groups of FivePupils Selected ForDiagnostic ServicesIn Ten SchoolsNumber Percent

Number and Percent ofThe Groups of Ten PupilsScreened In Ten SchoolsBut Were Not SelectedFor Diagnostic ServicesNumber Percent

1-332/ 9 23.1% 13 17.6%

34 0 2 2.7

35 1 2.6 2 2.7

36 1 2.6 4 5.4

37 0 0

38 1 2.6 4 5.4

39 4 10.2 7 9.5

40 6 15.4 8 10.8

41 3 7.7 13 17.6

42 3 7.7 3 4.0

43 2 5.1 7 9.5

44 5 12.8 6 8.1

45 2 5.1 3 4.0

46 2 5.1 2 2.7

47 0 0

(100.0%) (100.0%)

ub Total 39 78.0% 74 74.0%

b//A- 11 22.0% 26 26.0

total 50 100.0% 100 100.0%

Pupils scoring thirty-three or less are diagnosed as having articulation problems.

/ N/A = Those pupils who either did not have test scores or transferred out of the school.

ource: Diagnostic and Prescriptive Teaching Project, Predictive Screening Test ofArticulation administered September or October 1972.

School. No.

Pupil

ESEA TITLE I PILOT PROGRAM

Diancstic and Prescri tive Toaehilm

48K41-$5:-X-X-*

BEEILvToR QUT.STIGi:Ni IRE

Grade

..110 "e".

Room No. lb? Teacher

Birthdate 9 ,2-41e e' Today's Date ..2.42.5/2.1----.-weas..... **Vv. aem .11.11/0

CHECK PERTIMIT ITaIS

I. General behav-i.or III. /.-oparent attitudes

Over-active Lacks confidence..e.Demands too much attention ,/ Doesn't careLacks self - control Uncooperative

Is withdrawn Fearfnl

Upset by changes in routine Other?1.1%. Too hastyIV. EEETIMa.

17 Too slow Non-verbal

Sloppy in appearance Uses only gestures

Trouble in expressing selfCries easily.easily

Seems generally unhappy

%/- Peculiar behavior

Other?

II. ;-Torlr habits

V Difficulty in paying attention

Difficulty in folloving directions

Distractible

..11 Gives up easily

Constantly needs help with work

Careless

Other?

MareeaNWIN/ Very limited vocabulary

/Very limited ideas to express

Does not seem to understandspoken language

Other?111111

Doter behavior

Clumsy

Poor posture

{Continued \on Page 2) .

Difficulty in dressing andundressing

Difficulty in walking stairs

Difficulty in skipping andclimbing

Difficulty in using pencil,crayon, scissors, etc.Other?

ESEA TITLE I PILOT PROGRAMDiaanosti.c and Prescri,tive Teach]

#********

DEDAVT.OR QUTLSTIONNAIRE

School No. _12) Grade 1 Room No. JO Teacher

Pupil Dirthdate 9 P44(' Today's Date

CHECK PERTINENT ITEMS

I. Genr_ral III. Apparent attitudes

Over-active Lacks confidence, "Demands too much attention Doesn't care

V/ Lacks self-control Uncooperative

Is withdrawn Fearful0.Upset by changes in routine Other?

Too hasty IV. Tianquage.

V Too slow Non-verbal10Sloppy in appearance Uees only gestures

Cries easily Trouble in expressing self

Seems generally unhappy . Very limited vocabulary

Peculiar behavior /Very limited ideas to express

Other? Does not seem to understandspoken language

TI. Work habits Other?

V Difficulty in paying attention V. Notor behavior

1/ Difficulty in follateing directions

L/7 Distractible

Gives up easily

( Constantly needs help with work

Careless

Other?

(Continued on Page 2

Clumsy

Poor posture

Difficulty in dressing andundressing

Difficulty in walking stairs

Difficulty in skipping andclimbing

Difficulty in using pencil,crayon, scissors, etc.

Other?

VI. Smtial ornni7ation

Page - 2 -

BEHAVIOR QUESTIONNAIRE

Confusion about body parts

Confused laterality

Confused directionality

Other?many

VII. VisualEREastisa

Trouble in discriminating"likenesses" and "differences"V Difficulty with eye-hand co-

ordinationTrouble with visual memory

Other? v sion -pNret-))6 0')

VIII. Audit omusaption

Trouble in discriminating"likenesses" and "differences"

Trouble in Auditory memory

Other?

4--IX. Absences, so far this year .1

X. Teacherts imnressions:

W.=d...<111-1(-7,

A:lt-) 9a K

.

PU

PIL

AD

JUS

TM

EN

T R

AT

ING

SC

ALE

Dir

ectio

ns:

Plac

e a

chec

k (t

,")

in th

e ap

prop

riat

e co

lum

n fo

r. e

ach

pupi

l in

your

cla

ss.

Pupi

l Nam

es

1

Chi

ld h

as n

o pr

oble

ms,

extr

emel

y w

ell a

djus

ted,

AB

SOL

UT

EL

Y N

O N

EE

DFO

R R

EFE

RR

AL

2C

hild

has

pro

blem

s of

min

or im

port

ance

,R

EFE

RR

AL

NO

TN

EC

ESS

AR

Y

3C

hild

has

pro

blem

s of

inte

rmed

iate

impo

rtan

ce,

RE

FER

RA

L M

AY

OR

MA

YN

OT

BE

NE

CE

SSA

RY

4C

hild

has

pro

blem

s of

cons

ider

able

impo

rtan

ce,

'

RE

FER

RA

L A

DV

ISA

BL

E B

UT

NO

T U

RG

EN

T

5C

hild

has

ser

y se

riou

spr

oble

ms,

ext

rem

ely

mal

adju

sted

UR

GE

NT

NE

ED

FO

RR

EFE

RR

AL

A1

RI

LA

RI

LA

f

Ri

LA

Ri

LI

A1

RI

L

.1

II

Yip

e 11

tQ

1

i

___I

I I

I

1- )

1

_,..)

)onc

---

t\--n

c-0-

),.I ,/

I

I

y3.

eilr

-C

" t-

-.A

(V

I ht

-=rA

V

1

_

5.[-

--(1

(1,r

)C (

-)A

-(

I 1)

-4-

4il

rl.

',-

-".-

I

1VI

I

6.I(

'/

\I

VI

7.V

111

y y-

----

-.1cl

1"

Ye

-

I k/

I

I1 I

8.1-

-i(.

1-1

[ e

c--

( .-

-,(_

1E(k

r.,

1

9.r-

)6

0 -K

SC n

le(i

ctre

_y/

-1--

.

II

II I

----

--(.

110

,-)C

1. r

tr3k

.(,)

A1.

1tC

n V

\--e

1-

Vdv

1,I

.

I

II

I. N

C [

-eoc

n-IC

-),

12:1

-\C

'_4'

1C

rary

.

I

13.

I C

: h-)or

-1--

cry

-yL

I1

1..

k 11

-1: C

)

Wnd

-6-

-I

15.

-E;

I«l

'11

/ (Fr

nr,

k)

16.

e t..

1s

- 1-

-__

_.I

,V

.

_I

,IS

. \N

CI)

/ `kf

fni

iI t---

I.

/I

(..-

=

-

1

20.

i

i11

lI

II

I__

_L

KE

Y:

A :-

- A

bsol

utel

yA

dapt

ed f

rom

The

Joh

ns H

opki

ns H

elvi

e Sc

ale

Off

ice

of P

upil

and

Prog

ram

.R

= R

easo

nabl

y C

erta

inM

onito

ry a

nd A

ppra

isal

L =

Litt

le C

erta

inty

-'

IS'E

10/7

'2

PU

PIL

AD

JUS

TM

EN

T R

AT

ING

SC

ALE

Dir

ectio

ns:

Plac

e a

chec

k (1

7) in

the

appr

opri

ate

colu

mn

for

each

pupi

l in

your

cla

ss.

Pupi

l Nam

es

1

Chi

ld h

as n

o pr

oble

ms,

extr

emel

y w

ell d

just

ed,

AB

SO

LUT

ELY

NO

NE

ED

FORREFERRAL

2I

Chi

ld h

as p

robl

ems

ofm

inor

impo

rtan

ce,

RE

FE

RR

AL

NO

TNECESSARY

3C

hild

has

pro

blem

s of

inte

rmed

iate

impo

rtan

ce,

REFERRAL MAY OR

MA

YN

OT

BE

NE

CE

SSA

RY

4C

hild

has

pro

blem

s of

cons

ider

able

impo

rtan

ce,

REFERRAL

AD

VIS

AB

LE

BU

TN

OT

UR

GE

NT

5C

hild

has

ver

y se

rious

prob

lem

s, e

xtre

mel

y m

alad

just

edU

RG

EN

T N

EE

D F

OR

RE

FER

RA

L'

I

I

AR

Lr

I

AR

I7-

-

I

Aa

LA

;R

LA

RL

1- A

L V

YI C

,i-C

i) W

CW

VIC

I1.

7F-

-_-_

___

.

I 1 1 h.__

__I

1 I 1 1 1

I I.

I 1 1 I

2. 1

-3Y

( 1

X I

Eq

),

ic-

11 0

11do

1.,

r---

3. 1

7)2}

-Lic

il)

/1-(

112

;1.

---

4.h.

,l(

1

icy:

ict

.

Ir--

1-

5. (

-C

i-

D'

c6.

e_tt,

:l.V

.4__

____

___

1___

__I

71

t/'I

I

I I

.1

)-T

-cli)

livnc

i-

11

7.Q

Cs

II

c' r

,S i

}1

HI

tO I

-1c

7

8. W

O r

) C

i a I

I,

L-

1 z_

- c4

,.

9. 1

\)r_

IDt-

I C

S, (

"het

- I

1.--

/

,--t

.

.

I I

10.V

11)1

' c ie

l 1i

1L

tlit

.=s4

--4

---

V1

i_._

17' 1

...

I 1

.N

IC1

i 1-1

/ 'e

t<".

.)4

b ?c

, be

i1-

-I

i /.

I___

___

II

II

_.1

1J

113

..

I-I

14i

1

......

___1

15.

I I

I Li

II

16.

1I

I

t___

__17

.__

____

.

I 1

1I

1 1.

18.

.

11

1I

1

I1

10.

II 1

11

L__

.___

____

I_

KE

Y:

A =

Abs

olut

ely

R a

Rea

sona

bly

Cer

tain

L =

Litt

le C

erta

inty

Ada

pted

from

The

Joh

ns H

opki

ns H

elvi

e S

cale

Off

ice

ofP

upil

and

Prog

ram

Mon

ilory

and

App

rais

alS

WF

:10

/72

Appendix B

Calendar of

Cultural Activities

FY 1973

CALENDAR OF CULTURAL ACTIVITIES - ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS

(School numbers underlined are secondary performances.)

(Explanations of abbreviations

scd are listed on 'aces 3 and 4.)

MCNDAY

5

ATR.HER.

- 140-10:00

AFR.HER.

- 461-

1:00

T::EATRE

- #150

-9:30

THEATRE

- #139

-1:00

TUESDAY

WEDNEF:DAY.

6

AFR.NER.-111-:10:00

7FR.HER.-119- 1:00

THEATRE-$95-9:30

THEATRE-1107-1:00

CTA - 110 - 10:00

CTA-161-10:00

CTA - 173 -

1:00

CTA-113-1:00

PUPPETS-129-9:45(M

12

APR.V111.-#16-1:00

MIME-195-9:30

MIME-1150-9:30

MT:t-1139-1:00

CTA-Sharp St. Ch.-*

10:00

MIME-/107-1:00

MD.BALLET-1101-

10:00

SMITH-429-1:00

C77.-t.95 -1:00

WELLS-4130-9 :15

Pt.:; PETS-;225-9:45(B)

Lot

IC

-U76

-9:15

tadLS-: C - 9 15

13

7

AFR.HER.-127-1:00

THEATRE-t26-9:30

TEEATRE-n49-1:00

MIME-435-9:30

MIME-1107-1:00

LEVIS-1162-10:00

7HUPSDAY

FRIDAY

1

CROFTON-1107 - 9:15

VYSH. - 4250 - 9:30

wKSH. - #32

- 1:00

SMITH - 1141 -10:00

SMITH - 448

- 1:00

nEWSON- 132 - 10:00

NEVSON- 1200 - 1:00

2

- #4 - 9:30

- #29 -. 1:00

CMITH - St. Peter

Claver Church-10:00

SMITH - 496A*- 1:00

14

MIME-1301-1:00

MD.BALLET-#10-10:00

MD.BALLET-195-1:00

::;:rvirct D. Armstrong

Ccerdir.ator, Cultural Activities

8

THEATRE-0250-9:30

TCEATPE-t32-1:00

MI:1E-06-9:30

P:1;1E-4155-1:00

CTA-135-10:00

CTA-197-1:00

CROFTON-t6-9:15

SPAN.MUS.LNS.-#23-

10:00

THEATRE-14-9:30

THEATRE-129-1:00

9

15

MIME-1250-9:30

MIME-4149-1:00

CTA-St.PcterClaver

Church-10:00

CTA-0102-1:00

1'1D.BALLET-i22-10:00

MD.EALLET-1159-1:00

SMITH-497-10:00

!:ELLS-12-1:00

DS0-;122-9:15 (MS)

ts0-130-9:15 (IJ)

MR40-174-9:30

WARD-#7-1:00

ArR.HER.-143-9:15

MIM

E -

42G

-M0

MIME-132-1:00

CTA-49-10:00

CTA-08-1:00

SMITH-1145-10:00

SMITH-1148-1:00

1.11

111.

16

CALENDAR OF CULTURAL ACTIVITIES - ELEMENTARYAND SECONDARY SCHOOLS

(School numbers underlined are secondary

performances.)

MONDAY

TUESDAY

19

20

MDM-14-9:30

AFR.CULT.WKSH.-

MI:E-129-1:00

4139-9:15

PI

PETS- 4240 - 9:45(8) AFR.HER.-0107-10:30

GAINES-I149-10:00

PUPPETS-1238-10:00

(S)

SMITH-0164-1:00

26

FIELDS-17-10:00

PUPPETE-135-10:00(S)

CAINES-1107-10:00

ID.DNLLET-153-10:00

1D.SALLET-17-1:00

WAn-4101-1:00

wE

DN

ESD

AY

AFR.HFR.-113-1:00

MIME-140-9:30

PUPPETS-432-10:00

(S)

GAINES-4156-10:00

I:ELLS-1122-10:00

NEI:SON-4150-10:00

NEWSON-4141-1!00

THURSDAY

FRItAY

21

WARD-499-9:30

22

AFR.PER.-;161-10:00

PFR.HER.-44-1:00

21IME-470-9:30

MIME-448-1:00

CP3FT0::-t23-9:15

FIELDS-7.163-10:00

PUPPLTS-I:200-9:45(11

SMITH-0250-10:00

and 1:00

WARD-01C7-1:00

m.d

.om

m...

7

23AFR.HER.-176-10:00

PCPPETS-$30-9:45(B)

SMIT11 -061-10:00

SMITH-I24-1:00

77

28

PUPPETS-137-10:00

PUPPETS1162-10:00

(3)

(S)

MD.BALLET-195 10:00 GAINES-1298-10:00

MD.BALLET-126-1:00

WELLS-127-10:00'

WELLS-119-10:00

WELLS-111-1:00

N=ON-Turncr Aud.-

10:00

WARD-42-9:30

29

PUPPETS-196A-10:00

(S)

SMITH-135-10:00 and

1:00

SPAN.MUS.ENS.-06-

10:00

WARD-1149-9:30

WARD-4145-1:00

10

AFR.CULT.',INSR.-1143-

9:15

PUPPETS-416-9:45(0

WELLS-429-10:00 and

1:00

OS0-19-9:15 (MS)

DSO-110-9.15 (:J)

NOTE:

IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND ANY OF THE ABOVE

PROGRAMS, PLEASE CALL MRS. MONTGOMERY, EXT. 2656,

TO MAKE SURE THE SCHEDULE HAS NOT BEEN

CKANGED.

THANK YOU.

3/8/73

SCIK,C:.:, Lir= On THE ATT:.C;TCD CAL! NnA7 or CULTURAL 7,CTIVITTES FOR MARCHu; OR=S: TIM7r: LIr,TED rrrrorANcE

STATIN: LISTED BELOW ARE TEC EXFLANATIONS OF THE ABBREVIATIONSUSLD.

AFR.CULT.::SH. 31.E PIT,ICAN CULTURAL C:RI:SHOPAhmad Onyango, Shcrec Sir:7.s (Grade levels: 2 thru 4)

Time Schedule: 9:15- 9:45 a.m. - Classroom Period9:55-10:25 a.m. - Classroom Period10:40-11:05 a.m. - Program in the Round

AFR.IIER. - A7RICAN 1ir,n:T.7,(;r, DANCERS AND DRUMMERSMelvin Ceal, Director(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

BALT.BALLET - PALTIMORE BALL= THEATRE, INC.Wally Saurdcrs, Nilo Toledo(50 minute program for kindergarten thru grado 2)

BEO - BALTIMO.T SYMPHONY SPLIT ORCIIESTRA(MS) - Murry Sidlin, Conductor; (IJ) - Isaiah Jackson, Conductor(Gracie levels: 2 thru 6, 7 and 8)

Back-to-back concerts: 9:15-10:05 a.m.10:25-11:15 a.m.

CTA CiiILDarN's THEATRE ASSOCIATION, INC.(50 minute program for grades thru 4)

CROFTON - CROFTON TRIOGeorge Orner, Director(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4)

FIELDS - BOB FIELDS JAZZ ENS=BLE(50 minute program for grades 3 and 4)

GAINES - LONNETTA M. GAINES AND COMPANY(50 minute Modern Dance program for grades 2 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

LEWIS - JOHN L. LIUIS SONG RECITAL(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

MD.BALLET - 1;.111YLAND BALLET CCMPANY, INC.(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4)

MIME - CENTER STAGE xinE ACTORSBert Houle and Sopl.ie Wibaux(50 minute program for grades 3 and 4)

PUPPETS - EURLA FREDERICK PUPPETS

Back-to-back programa: 9:45-10:25 a.m. - Kindergarten-Gr. 3(b) a.m. - Graces 4 thru 6

Single programs (S): 50 minutes (Grades 1 thzu 6)

-3-

SMITH - rAny CARTER SMITH, FOLKLORIST(50 minute proerilm for grades 1 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

SPAN.rUS.ENS. - SPANISH =sic ENS7M3LEMrs. Faye Pyrd, Director(50 rinute progr= for grades 2 thru 4)

THEATRE - CENTER STAGE STORY THEAT= rnoDucTioN(50 minute program for grades 3 and 4)

WARD - DR. C. EDCUAnD VAR:), LECTURE-DEMONSTRATION IN LISTENING

Two (2) 20 minute periods in each school for grades 2 and 3.9:30-10:00 a.m. 1:00-1:30 p.m.10:05-10:35 a.m. ::-1.11 1:35-2:05 p.m.

WELLS - JIrMY WELLS JAZZ QUINTET(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

WKSH. - CENTER STAGE WORKSHOP(50 minute program to be done in a large classroom or inthe round for grade 4.)

YOUNG AUDIENCES, INC.

(50 minute programs for grades 2 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

NEWSON ROOSEVELT NEWSON, PIANISTOPERA - WANDERING OPERA PLAYERS

NOTE: Programs given at ST. PETER CLAVER CHURCH (Piesstman and CareyStreets) are for School 4104.

Programs given at SHARP S. cnuncil (Dolphin and Etting Streets)are for Schcols ;103 and 4110.

Programs given at GRACE CHURCH (1414 S. Charles Street) are forSchool 492.

Programs given at TURNER AUDITORIUM (720 Rutland Avenue) are forSchool 4103.

-4-

CALENDAR CF CULTURAL ACTIVITIES - ELEI:ENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS

(School numbers underlined are secondary perfor.-ances.)

(Explanations of abbreviations used are listed on pages 3 and 4.)

:'0 N DAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

FRIDAY

2

GAINES-18-10:00

WARD-449-9:30

WARD-#145-1:00

Lt7:IS-4115-9:15

SnITH-frff-1:00

7R.HORN-1121-1:30

VIOLIN-P4-9:30

VIOLIN--=20-12:40

GAINES-4101-1:00

FI:LOS-4159-10:00

;ELLS-'225-10:00

5

OPERA-E10-10:00

nD.ZALL7T-'-.9-19:00

::D.BALY-7.T-=122-1:00

:ELLS -V97 -10:00

WA:T-4149-1:00

9

FIXTE(L)-:8-1:00

149-9:15

EALT.D=:-;51-

10:00

10:00 and 1:00

ZSO-±=155 -9:15(MS)

E30-=19-3:15(IJ)

10

FLUTE(L)-4126-1:00

AFR.CULT.WNSH.-432-

9:15

2ALT.EALLET-'30-

10:00

FTELD:.;-495-10:09

Fr:LCS-:17-1:00

:"UPPF7S-'153-9:45(11)

10:00 and 1:00

f'!IT:1-432-1:00

Wr.LLS-4139-10:00

3S0-,11-9:15(::S)

3S0-@24-9:C3 (IJ)

11

FLUTE(L)-1E-1:00

HA2P-4250-9:00

AFR.CULT.USH.-'164

9:15

3ALT.RALLET-197-

10:00

1-7IF,LCS-413-10:00

PUPPT:TS-V13-9:00(B)

=:0::-!233-10:00

GAIS-419-10:00

LFWIS-49SA-10:00

.0.D

LL

ET

-U

50-

10:00 and 1:00

WELLS-'16-10:00

12

WARD-435-9:30

AFR.CULT.WKSH.-'27-

9:15

Fr:LDS-153-10:00

PUL.'FETS-j11-9:45(13)

S:11TH-293-10:00

SnITHJ101-1:00

SPAN.MUS.F.NS.-t'95-

10:00

WELLS-126-10:00

6

BALT.BAL=-2-10:00

FIFLOS-5t.2etr.r Clavar

nC.BALL2T-;101-1:00

ELLS-111G2-10:00

13

AFR.CULT.WKSH.-4132-

9:15

BLT.D=T-'250-10:C0

PU:ILTO-Sh,Irp St.

Church - 9:45(3)

NL:';ON-!;145-10:00

NEWSON-t-142-1:00

S!IIT:1-#101-10:00

SMTH-493-1:00

WELLS-470-1:00

S:=C;

VACATION

S;i4r:G

VACATION

17

SPRING

VACATION

18

19

WCATION

SPflING

VACATION

20

APPIL - 1973


(School nu -bars underlined are secondary parfor:73nces.)

(Explanations of abbreviations used arc listed on pagas 3 and 4.)

,MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

TEU2SDAY

FRIDAY

23

SPRING

VACATION

24

FLUTE(L)-4138-9:30

FLUT7(S)-433-9:30

FLU::(S)-119-12:40

n; Er -;= 238 -9 :30

VI07,1N- 1c0-9:30

'!:0LIN-,10)-12:40

4wAP:-164-1:00

AFP.CULT.1:::SH.-#101

9:15

FI:LDS-)-102-10:00

LI:JIS-225-10:0C)

25

AFR.CULT.UKSH.-4163-

9:15

FIM,DS-,240-10:00

NE::SON-17-10:00

and 1:00

CAINES-29-10:00

LEUIS-2()-10:00

;.ELLS-tE35-10:00

::ELLS-;:107-1:00

SMITH-I90-9:15

26

FR.HORN-i!37-9:30

FR.;:0Y.N-164-12:40

;*A:ZD-P53-):00

CEO:TON-.4-5:15

OPEPA-97-1:00

SPAN.::US.ENS.-`32-

10:00

WELLS-;,.0-10:00

WELLS-:24-1:00

27

AFR.CULT.1:1:SH.-i95-

9:15

BALT.r7LL:T- 162-

10:00 n-..! 1:00

LEWIS-;29-10:00

LE;115-143-1:00

T:ELLS-t250-10:00 and

1:00

30

A77,17i,

(oont'd.-)

9:15

t1711.EER.-;-25'8-10:00 S::17H-;122-10:00

d'.1,7.3ALLET--:200-

W;TLLS-;61-10:00

'0:00

UZLY,S-10-1:00

G;.7:7:S-13-9:15

n.-5:45(B)LE:;IC-Gr.--;c73 Churzh-1

10:00

NOTE:

IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND ANY OF TIE ABOVE PPOGIWS,

PLEASE CALL MRS. MONTGOMERY, EXT. 2656, TO MAKE

SURE THE SCHEDULE HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED.

THANK YOU.

Margaret D. Armstrong

Coordinator, Cultural Activities

April 3, 1973

L=r) ON CALU.NDAI: 07 CULTWZAL ACTIVITJT:S FOR AV"ir,G! :);:=:::-; GROUPS; T1:!7S LIF,TED pnnInnArc::

7;I:L0W TaE EN:LANATIONS OP TaE AnDREVIATIONS

PC2R.CULTX::Sa. - Ta r:ULTURAL WOM:SHOPAhmad Onyango, Scree Sir ,ms (Grade levels: 2 thru 4)

Time Schedule: 9:15- 9:45 a.m. - Classroom Period9:55-10:25 a.m. - Classroom Period10:40-11:05 a.m. - Program in the Round

- AF11ICAN DAN RS AND DRUEXERSDo;:1, Director

(50 minute progrcm for grades 2 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

7.I.T.BALLET - BALTIn07ZE BALLET TnEATR7:, INC.Wally SaunCers, Nilo Toledo(50 minute program for kindergarten thru grade 2)

B,!;0 - 137,LTI::onz S=TONY SPLIT 0",CHESTRA(:,15) - ;furry Sic:1in, Conductor; (IJ) - Isaiah Jackson, Conductor(Grade levels: 2 thru 6, 7 and 3)

Back -to-back concerts: 9:15-10:05 a.m.10:25-11:15 a.m.

CrA - S THEA' L .1.'; 7.SSOCIA1,'ION INC.(50 minute program for grades I thru 4)

CLO;:TON - CROFTON TRIOGeorge Orncr, Director(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4)

FIELDS - rizLDS JAZZ 2NS:n3Ln(50 minute program for grades 3 and 4)

- LONNETTA n. GAir::5 AND COPA=(50 minute Modern Dance prog::am for grades 2 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

1,1:1:1S - JonN L. LEWIS SONG RECITAL(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

:.0.1,ALLET - NARYLAND BALLET COPANY, INC.(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4)

- CENTER STAGE ACTORSBert ;:oule and Sophie Wibaux(50 minute ..)rogram for grades 3 and 4)

PL'2,'ETS - ELW_LA PUP?NTS

Is:Ick-to-back programs: 9:45-10:25 a.m. - Kindergarten-Gr. 3(D) 10:40-11:20 a.m. - Grades 4 .thru

Single programs (S) : 50 minutes (Grades 1 thru G)

-3-

- NARY CARTMt SMITH, FOLKLORIST(50 minlIte program for grades 1 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

SPAN.MUS.EMS. - SPANISH MUSIC ENSEMDZEMrs. Faye Byrd, Director(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4)

THEATRE - CENTER STAGE STORY THEATRE PRODUCTION(50 minute program for grades 3 and 4)

II WARD - DR. C. EDOUARD WARD, LECTURE-DEMONSTRTION IN LISTENING

Two (2) 30 minute periods in each school for grades 2 and 3.9:30-10:00 a.m. 1:00-1:30 p.m.

10:05-10:35 a.m. OR1:35-2:05 p.m.

WELLS - JINXY WELLS JAZZ QUINTET(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

WKSH. CZNTER STAGE WORKSHOP(50 minute program to be done in a large classroom or inthe round for grade 4.)



NEWSON - ROOSEVELT NEWSON, PIANISTOPERA - WANDERING OPERA PLAYERS

LISTEN TO SERIES

FLUTE(L)FLUTE(s)HARPVIOLINFA. HORN

- Bonnie Lake (for grades 2 and 3)- Laurie Sokoloff (for grades kindergarten and 1)- Rosemarie Dottalico (for grades 2 and 3)- George Orner (for grades kindergarten and 1)FRENCH HORN - William Kendall (for grades kdgn. and 1)

TIME SCHEDULES FOR FLUTE (L) AND HARP:

9:30-10:00 a.m. 1:00-1:30 p.m.10:10-10:40 a.m. OR

1:40-2:10 p.m.

TIRE SCHEDULES FOR FLUTE(S), FRENCH HORN AND VIOLIN:9:30- 9:50 a.m. 12:40-1:00 p.m. FRENCH HORN ONLY10:00-10:20 a.m. OR 1:10-1:30 p.m. OR 1:30-1:50 p.m.10:30-10:50 a.m. 1:40-2:00 p.m. 2:00-2:20 p.m.

2:30-2:50 p.m.NOTE: Programs given at ST. PETER CLAVER CHURCH (Presstman and CareyStreets) are for Scllool i;104.

Programs civcn at suAn2 ST. CHURCH (Dolphin and Etting Streets)arc for Scilools 103 and cr11S.Frogrmm given at GRACE CHURCH (1414 S. Charles Street) are forSchool w92.

4--


(School numbers underlined are secondary performances.)

(Explanations of abbreviations used are listed on pages 3 and 4.)

MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

FRIDAY

12

34

AFR.CULT.WKSH.-

FLUTE(L)-02-9:30

FR.HORN-097-9:30

BALT-BALLET-495-

0107-9:15

FLUTE(S)-44-9:30

HARP-076-9:30

10:00

BALT.BALLET-032-

FLUTE(S) -#148 -12:40

HARP-499-1:00

FIELDS-#23-10:)0

10:00

FR-HORN-495-1:30

CROFTON - #27 -9:15

PUPPETS-0107-9:45(B)

FIELDS-035-10:00

HARP-4301-9:30

PUPPETS-026-9:45(B)

LEWIS-SharpSt.Church

PUPPETS-4159-9:45 (B)VIOLIN-061-9:30

SMITH-4115-9:15

10:00 & 1:00

LEWIS-0G-10:00

VIOLIN-474-12:40

SPAN.MUS.ENS.-0101-

SMITH-0130-9:15

SMITH-497-1:00

BALT.BALLET-429-10:00

10:00

OPERA-011-10:00

WELLS-0149-10:00

FIELDS-043-10:00

OPERA-#141-10:00

BSO-#95-9:15 (MS)

PUPPETS-019-9:45(B)

.

BS07478-9:15-(13)

G2\INES-0150-10:00

LEWIS-0IC-10:00

LEWIS-013- 1:00

WELLS-430-10:00

OPERA-0139-10:00

78

910

11

BALT.BALLET-5238-

PUPPETS-4145-9 :45(B)AFR.CULT.WKSH.-029-

FLUTE(S)-0162-9:30

VIOLIN-4107-9:30

10:00

LEWIS-495-10:00

9:15

FLUTE(S)-4140-12:40

VIOLIN-0159-12:40

PUPPETS-#94-9:45(1)

MD-BALLET-07-10:00

PUPPETS-084-10:00(S)

FR.HORN-013-9:30

PUPPETS-4148-9:45(B)

LEWIS-22-10:00

OPERA-0101-10:00

GAINES-035-10:00

HARP-0149-9:30

LEWIS-010-10:00

LEWIS-GraceChurch-

ARD-4225-9:30

MD.BALLET-0164-10:00

.t.FR.HER.-478-9:15

MD.BALLET-096A-10:00

1:00

MD-BALLET-4163-1:00

CROFTON-0107-9:15

MD-BALLET-432-1:00


NEWSON-#7-10:00

.PUPPETS-076-9:45(B)

OPERA-495-10:00

OPEP7-453-10:00

MD-BALLET-04-10:00

WA

RD

- 41

64 -

9:30

SPAN.HUS.ENS.-497-

WARD-t150-1:00

10:00

r.iARD-430-9:30

---

-......

MAY -

CALENDAR OF CULTURAL ACTIVITIES -

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS

.......-,

MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

FRIDAY.

14

FLUTE(L)-#145-1:00

PUPPETS-#161-9:45(B)

GAINES-424-10:00

LEWIS-#8-10:00

LEWIS -#2- 1:00

MD.EALLET-#301-10:00

MD.BALLET-#250-1:00

WELLS-#9-10:00

NEWSM-#90-9:1.

15

16

PUPPETS-GraceChurch- FIELDS-#162-10:00

10:00(S)

FIELDS-#22-1:u0

DANCE-#32-10:00

PUPPETS-#122-9:45(B)DANCE-#23-10:00

DANCE-#200-1:00

GAINES-#162-10:00

LEWIS-4102-10:00

MD.BALLET-#240-

MD.BALLET-#156-10:00

10:00

MD.BALLET-St.Peter

OPERA-#7-10:00

ClaverChurch-1:00

WARD- #142 --9 :30

-

17

CROFTON-4107-9:15

PUPPETS #20 -9:45 (B)

MD.BALLET-#40-10:00

SPAN.MUS.ENS.-#225-

10:00

ARD-#26-1:00

WELLS-#150-10:00 &

1:00

18

HARP-#238-9:30

HARP-423-1:00

PUPPETS-#6-9:45(B)


BSO-#32-9:15 (MS,

BSO-461-9:15 (IJ)

21

BALT.EALLET-#11-

10:C0

PUPPETS-44-9:45(B)

GAINES-#30-10:00

DAUCC-11238-10:00

DANCE-#53-1:00

MD.BALLET-n6-10:00

V.D.BALLET-#35-1:00

WARD-#29-1:00

WELLS-11101-10:00

223

PUPPETS-#101-10:00(S)BALT.BALLET-#13-

DANCE-#163-10:00

10:00

LEWIS-#159-10:00

PUPPETS-#27-9:45(B)

MD.EALLET-1149-10:00 GAINES-#7-10:00

WARD-1197-9:30

DANCE-#76-10:00

WELLS-#107-10:00

MD.BALLET-#19-10:00

24

CROFTON-#7-9:15

PUPPETS-#61-9:45(B)

PUPPETS-#24-1:00(5)

DANCE-#97-10:00 &

1:00

MD.BALLET-#48-10:00

SPAA.MUS.ENS.-#9-

10:00

WELLS-#32-10:00

25

PUPPETS-#250-9:45(B)


WELLS-#164-10:00

WELLS-#156-1:00

28

,

2PUPPETS-422-9:45(B)

LEWIS-153-10:00

MD.BALLET-470-10:00

MD.BALLET-#107-1:00

WELLS-t9,5-10.:0a

30

3ALT.BALLET-#225-

I10:00

,PUPPETS-435-9:45(B)

;and 12:45(S>

PAINES-#95-101:00.

PANCE-#301-ID:OD

.,-ET171S-#78-9:1

31

CROFTON-429-9:15

PUPPETS-410-9:45(B)


MD.BALLET-#102-1:00

r

PAN.MUS.ENS.-#56A-

10:00.

tgELLS-fa-10,:00

I !

.

,

MD.BALLET-#16.11-103:0

WELLS-#298-10/:00/

i.

scnoms LISTED ON THE ATTACHED CALENDAR OF CULTURAL ACTIVITIES FOR APRIL.

1973 ;,1:2 LOCATIONS OF PERFORY.ING GROUPS; TIMES LISTED ARE PERFORMANCE'SMARTING TinEs. LISTED BELOW ARE TEE EXPLANATIONS OF.THE ABBREVIATIONSUSED.

AFR.CULT.WKSH. - THE AFRICAN CULTURAL WORKSHOPAhmad Onyango, Sheree Simms (Grade levels: 2 thru 4)

Time Schedule: 9:15- 9:45 a.m. - Classroom Period9:55-10:25 a.m. - Classroom Period

10:40-11:05 a.m. - Program in the Round

AFR.HER. - AFRICAN HERITAGE DANCERS AND DRUMMERSMelvin Deal, Director(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

BALT.BALLET - BALTIMORE BALLET THEATRE, INC.Wally Saunders, Nilo Toledo(50 minute program for kindergarten thru grade 2)'

BSO - BALTIMORE SYMPHONY SPLIT ORCHESTRA(MS) - Murry Sidlin, Conductor; (IJ) - Isaiah Jackson, Conductor(Grade levels: 2 thru 6, 7 and 8)

Back-to-back concerts: 9:15-10:05 a.m.10:25-11:15 a.m.

CTA - CHILDREN'S THEATRE ASSOCIATION, INC.(50 minute program for grades 1 thru 4)

CROFTON - CROFTON TRIOGeorge Orner, Director(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4)

DANCE - DANCE PROGRA14 BY ORVILLE aOHNSON - 50 minute program, Gr. 1-5FIELDS - BOB FIELDS JAZZ ENSEMBLE -

(50 minute program for grades 3 and 4)

GAINES - LONNETTA M. GAINES AND COMPANY(50 minute Modern Dance program for grades 2 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

LEWIS - JOHN L. LEWIS SONG RECITAL(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 7 thru 9)

MD .BALLET - MARYLAND BALLET COMPANY, INC.(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4)

MIME - CENTER STAGE MIME ACTORSBert Houle and Sophie Wibaux(50 minute program for grades 3 and 4)

PUPPETS - EURLA FREDERICK PUPPETS

Back-to-back programs: 9:4c-10:25 a.m. - Kindergarten-Gr. 310:40-11:20 a.m. - Grades 4 thru 6

Single programs (S): 50 minutes (Grades 1 thru 6)

-3-

SMITH MARY CARTER SMITH, FOLKLORIST(50 minute program for grades 1 thrd 4, 7 thru 9)

SPAN.MUS.ENS.. - SPANISH MUSIC ENSEMBLEMrs. Faye Byrd, Director(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4)

THEATRE - CENTER STAGE STORY THEATRE PRODUCTION(50 minute progr...m for grades 3 and 4)

WARD - DR. C. EDOUARD WARD, LECTURE-DEMONSTRATION IN LISTENING

Two (2) 30 minute periods in each school for grades 2 and 3.9:30-10:00 a.m. 1:00-1:30 p.m.

10:05-10:35 a.m. OR 1:35-2:05 p.m.

WELLS -.JIMMY WELLS JAZZ QUINTET(50 minute program for grades 2 thru 4, 7 thru 9)

WKSH. - CENTER STAGE WORXSHOP(50 minute program to be done in a large classroom or inthe round for grade 4.)



NEWSON - ROOSEVELT NEWSON, PIANIFTOPERA - WANDERING OPERA PLAYERS .

LISTEN TO SERIES

FLUTE (L)FLUTE (S)HARPVIOLINFR.IIORN

- Bonnie Lake (for grades 2 and 3)- Laurie Sokoloff (for grades kindergarten and 1)

- Rosemarie Bottalico (for grades 2 and 3)- George Orner (for grades kindergarten and 1)

FRENCH HORN - William Kendall (for grades kdgn. and 1)

TIME SCHEDULES FOR FLUTE(L) AND HARP:

9:30-10:00 a.m. 1:00-1:30 p.m.10:10-10:40 a.m. OR-- 1:40-2:10 p.m.

TIME SCHEDULES FOR FLUTE(S), FRENCH HORN AND VIOLIN:

9:30- 9:50 a.m. 12:40-1:00 p.m.10:00-10:20 a.m. OR 1:10-1:30 p.m. OR10:30-10:50 a.m. 1:40-2:00 p.m.

ti

FRENCH HORN ONLY1:30-1:50 p.m.2:00-2:20 p.m.2:30-2:50 p.m.

NOTE: Programs given at ST. PETER CLAVER CHURCH (Presstman and CareyStreets) are for School 4104.Programs given at SHARP ST. CHURCH (Dolphin and Etting Streets)are for Schools 4103 and #113.Programs given at GRACE CHURCH (1414 S. Charles Street) are forSchool #92.

Appendix C

Pupils Referred for Health Services

FY 1973

A Number and Percent of ESEA Title I Identified ElementaryPupils Who Were Referred For Medical Examination By Grade

and Health StatusBaltimore City Public Schools

FY 1973

(including data collection form)

B Number and Percent of ESEA Title I Identified ElementaryPupils Who Were Referred For Medical Examination and/or

Device By Grade and Health StatusBaltimore City Public Schools

FY 1973


C Number and Percent of ESEA Title I Identified ElementaryPupils Who Were Referred For Eyeglasses By Grade and Health

StatusBaltimore City Public Schools

FY 1973


D Number and Percent of ESEA Title I Identified ElementaryPupils Who Were Referred For Dental Care By Grade and

Health StatusBaltimore City Public Schools

FY 1973


Table

A

Nlimher and Percent of ESEA Title I

Identified Elementary

Pupils Who Were Referred For Medical Examination

By Grade and

Health Status

Baltimore City Public Schools

FY 1973

Judgement of

Health Status

Kgn.

Gr.

1Gr.

2Gr.

3Gr.

...,.........

4Total

Num-

Per-

her

cent

Num-

ber

Per-

cent

Num-

ber

Per-

cent

Nun-

ber

Per-

cent

Num-

ber

Per-

cent

Num-

Per-

ber

cent

Severe

15

9.4%

45

17.2%

43

21.7%

34

20.7%

24

20.5%

161

17.9%

Moderate

61

38.4

126

48.3

102

51.5

80

48.8

71

60.7

440

49.0

Slight

83

52.2

90

34.5

53

26.8

50

30.5

22

18.8

.98

33.1

(100.0%)

(100.010

(1771)

(100.0%)

(100.0%)

(17757)

Sub-Total

159

71.6%

- _ -

261

87.6%

198

85.3%

164

75.6"

117 - -7

1.5%

-899

80.3:

(Health Status

(Not Reported

63

28.4%

37

12.4%

34

14.7%

53

24.4%

34

22.5%

221

19.7%

eilm

ai0

(100.61'.)

Mw

I.Total

222

100.0%

298

100.0%

232

100.0%

217

100.0%

151

100.0%

1120

69.8%

Other a/

485

30.2%

Grand Total

1605

100.0%

Note

1/

PAti .ire bar.ed on fifty of the sixty-two schools,

the remaining twenty-two did not report this information.

pil, 4010 here r,Tferred for medical examinationbut were not reported by grade or health status.

r'

10

I'dent' -led Pupils Referred For Medical

Examination Data Form, Baltimore City Public Schools FY 1972-71

LS! 1 Title 1 lantificd PupilsReferred for Medical Examination

Baltirore City Poblic SchoolsFY 1972-73

PrincipalJudfrent of

School I nealth Statuc

Nam:ESLA Title I

Identit1c2.

I

Identi-fied

3o

Cl) a. tn1972- by n 0 ...

-!.. .., 1.--

73 Teacher n tu eo-1 e 7"

Grade Seeticn Ju.17,:ntTnt .7, n. ..

2

.1.

.1111

OM11,

1111.1MMI,

AMININN.

,111

re.maima

11111111.1*

.1%

4

ONMIMM

111

MOI

=14.

.11

3

4

S

6

7

8

9

10

....-71++.

11

12

13

...}.(

14

IS

16

17

It

amlismilwirl

19

20

Referred forJodr:nsnt cflionith St it us

Idcnt i -

lied 6U. r..

NJrc. 1972- by r. Co

. 1ISflt lit lc 1 73

by', PP-f r,

1dc i flt-J I- '11 . Grade Ft-ct i cr, .1:il:- cnt r. n

21

.11111.

...

0111

111

.EMMEW

..=1.

e0

Om

1

=1.

22

23

24

25

26

27

26

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

.45

Referred for cal I.x;i!-,innti

Nnrc

LSE TitleIdentifid

47

46

49

So

JuJrnont oflionIth !..:ntus

Identi- ____________

lied o

1972- by ocm

. 0c-

...

Le,

. .1 ....

75 Teacher 0 co ez.4 v..

Grade Seetiol JuJgrcnt 0 o e,

3.

Signature of person completing the form:

Position of person cozpleting th..! form:

Center for ?Innnin2:, research and EvaluationOffice of rGpil and Pro;ran !:onitorini: and AppraisalBaltirore City Public SchoolsJMS:fm 2/73

Table

B

Number and Percent of ESEA Title I


Pupils Who Were Referred For Medical Examination and/or

Device By Grade and Health Status


FY 197 3

Judgement of

Health Status

Kgr.

Gr.

12

Gr.

3Cr.

4Total

Num-

ber

Pcr-

cent

Num-

Per-

her

cent

Num-

her

Pcr-

cent

Num-

Per-

her

cent

Nun-

her

Per-

cent

Num-

her

Per-

cent

Severe

614.3%

622.20

320.0',

531.3%

628.6%

26

21.5%

Moderate

17

40.5

12

44.4

746.7

850.0

733.3

51

42.1

Slight

19

45.2

933.3

533.3

318.S

838.1

44

36.4

(100.0%)

(177%)

(100.0%)

(100.0%)

(TUTOX)

(100.01)

Sub-Total

42

77.8%

27

84.4%

IS

88.2%

16

72.7%

21

47.7%

12:

71.6%

(Health Status

(Not Reported

12

22.2%

515.06

211.8%

627.3%

23

52.3%

48

28.4%

(100.0 ".)

Total

54

100.0%

32

100.0%

17

100.0%

22

100.0%

44

100.0%

169

53.8;

Othera/

145

46.2'.

Grand Total

314

100.0%

Note:

1/

Data are based on forty-eight schools, the remaining twenty-four did not report this information.

at

Pupils who were referred for medical examination and/or device but were not reported by grade or

health status.

Source:

ESEA Title

1Identified Pupils Referred For Medical Examination Data Form, Baltimore City Public Schools

FY 1972-73.

ti

Referred

PSLA Title 1 Idtntificd Pupilsfor ?!cdical ;:ri,l/or A Device

Baltirore City Public Schools/Y 1972-73

Principal

School

Judiment ofHealth Status

Identi-fied

8Itia:,e 1972- by

vi .

n4C Si

LSIA Title I 73 Teacher o w r3-1 rs

r.Identified Pu oril Grade Section Judgment m ........ ---

1

2-

VIP

3

4

6

9

10

11

12

13

14

is

gm

16

17

18

19 120

Referred for "ledicJI Lxaninntion arWor A Device Identi-fied

Judr=ent of 2.

Health Status

c.. ril

`arc 197tr.

2- by e...a ...

-T. .., 1-..-

ESLA litle I 73 Teacher a s..

... re 7"IdcntifiLA r;-il GrAc, Secticn ..lu.177ent e a rt

21

1110=a

01.

.1M1110

1.1

111.

0

1

411Imm

1111

ONmillw

22

23

24

25

26

27

26

29

30

31 INOMONI

32

33

34

35

36

a*...

37

38

39

101.1

1111I

40

41

42

43

44

.45

geferred for Medical Examination and/or A Device Judgmont ofHealth Status

Identi - _____:-:

fiedv)

ota. vi

Nane 1972- by 0*0i*1 ....

ESLA Title I 73 Teacher * P 44 c+ m-

Identifi7.1 1.,1,i1 Grade Section Judgment 0 em rt

........

46

47

48

49

SO

0.11

3.

Note: Please add additional sheets Signature of person completing the form:

if needed.

Position of person completing the form:

Center for Planning, Pesearoh and EvaluationOffice of L;;;...il end Pros !!onituring :and Appraisal

Baltimore City Putlic SchoolsJMS:fm 2/73

'fable C

Number and Percent of ESEA Title I


Pupils Who Were Referred For

Eyeglasses By Grade and Health

Status


FY 1973

Judgement of

Health Status

Kgn.

Gr.

1Gr.

2Gr.

3Gr.

4Total

Num-

Per-

ber

cent

Num-

ber

Per-

cent

Num-

ber

Per-

cent

Num-

ber

Fer-

cent

Num-

ber

Per-

cent

Num-

Per-

cent -

Severe

611.5%

12

11.5%

11

15.5%

26

18.8%

14

23.3%

69

16.2%

Moderate

30

57.7

71

68.3

38

53.5

88

63.8

39

65.0

266

62.6

Slight

16

30.8

21

20.2

22

31.0

24

17.4

711.7

90

21.2

(100.0%)

(100.0%)

(157575i)

(100.0%)

(1-077517)

(1TIT.TT)

Sub-Total

52

76.5%

104

87.4%

71

100.0%

138

97.2%

60

96.8%

- _-

425

- ..-

92.0%

(Health Status

(Not Reported

16

23.5%

15

12.6%

0---

42.8%

23.2%

37

8.0%

(15070r)

-.

Total

68

100.0%

119

100.0%

71

100.0%

142

100.0%

62

100.0%

462

74.8%

Othera/

156

25.2%

Grand Total

618

100.0%

110.

Note:

1/

Data are based on forty-eight schools,

the remaining twenty-four did

not report this information.

a/

Pupils who were referred for

eyeglasses but were not reported by grade

or health status.

Source:

ESEA Title I Identified Pupils Referred

For Eyeglasses Data Form, Baltimore City

Public Schools FY 1972-73.

ESEA Title I Identified PupilsReferred For Eyeglasses


Principal Judgment ofHealth Status

School 1ldenti- .7.

fled 0u,a. cn

Name 1972- by 0 0iiESEA Title 1 73 Teacher 0 w OQ

01 rf VIdentified Pupil Grade Section Judgment .0 0 rt

...... ....

1

2

3

4

5.

6

-1..1

7

8

INImm

MOM..

==11

9

10

11

12

0111m.1.3

14

,..0

.

...

15

16,

17

18

19

20

Referred for Eyeglasses

NameESEA Title I

identified Puril

21

22

23

24

Judgment of 2.

Health StatusIdenti-fiedfied i

cl. Crt1972- by c

m0ti

1.1 i...

73 -Teacher mrt.W Ctg

H'GradeSection Judgment o m. rt.

........

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

=1. INO

.11111=

ONIm ammo=

111.1.

1

.1.11

Referred fot Eyeglasses 3.Judgment ofHealth Status

Identi-'.-4

fied oen .a. U

Name 1972- by 0e bi ...

ESEA Title 1 73 Teacher _,(1)1

rp o-.P 0

Identified Pupil Grade Section Judgment aN m 0_46

47

48

49

SO

1110

emi



Center for Planning, Research and EvaluationOffice of Pupil and Program Monitoring and AppraisalBaltimore City Public SchoolsJMS:fm 2/73

Table

D

Number and Percent of ESEA Title I Identified Elementary

Pupils Who Were Referred For Dental Care By Grade and

Health Status


FY 1973

Judgement of

Health Status

Kgn.

Gr.

1Gr. 2

Gr. 3

Gr.

4Total

Num-

ber

Per-

cent

Num-

Per-

ber

cent

Num-

Per-

ber

cent

Num-

Per-

ber

cent

Num-

ber

Per-

cent

Num-

Per-

ber

cent

Severe

12

7.8%

30

11.9%

20

8.8%

17

8.3%

13

7.4%

92

9.1%

Moderate

71

46.4

130

51.4

122

53.7

115

55.8

114

64.8

552

54.4

Slight

70

45.8

93

36.8

85

37.4

74

35.9

49

27.8

371

36.5

(16-677)

(1N5M)

(1TT.-Dir)

(0157-g)

(100.0%)

(17TUT)

Sub-Total

153

73.6%

253

86.1%

_ ....

227 _

82.8%

206

79.2%

176

83.4%

1015

81.4%

(Health Status

(Not Reported

55

26.4%

41

13.9%

47

17.2%

54

20.8%

35

16.6%

232

18.6%

_

(100.0%)

Total

208

100.0%

294

100.0%

274

100.0%

260

100.0%

211

100.0%

1247

60.0%

Other!/

831

40.0%

Grand Total

2078

100.0%

Note:

1/

Data are based on forty-eight schools, the remaining twenty-four did not report this information.

a/

Pupils who were referred for dental care but were not reported by grade or health status.

Source:

ESEA Title I Identified Pupils Referred For Dental Care Form, Baltimore City Public Schools FY 1972-73.

4=,

ESEA Title I Identified PupisReferred, For Dental CareBaltimore City Public Schools

FY 1972-13

Prircipal

School It

Identi-fiedfied o

V) Cl. C/1Name 1972- by 0 0 ....

H"ESEA Title I 73 Teacher 0

< 4w mrt ='

Identified Punil Grade Section Judgment 04

m

Judgment ofHealth Status

2

3

4

S

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1S

16

17

18

19

. 20

.11MIMI11.

11.

.111.

0=1.

IN= Oil .1Mm Mmie

Referred for Vcntal Care

NamersLA Title I

Identifird

Jud;:ncilt of

Health StAu.Identi-fied 6 0

1972- by n(t.

aC..

.....

-1: .1 -73 Teacher q P In.. .4

Gradc Section Juir:rent 6. o ,...

-- --L. --

21

/MEM.

MOMME.

IMM/11.

.11MINOMM-

1111

rim

momm.

1111.

mmMIN.

11./..M

111.EMM

1111.Mmi

M.M1.

111mMmE.

411

11111.

RDm

OMER=

111

11

OMM.M1.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32 MIMM111.

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

.45

Referred for Oc-i: 11 Care

Identi

fic.1

N:.ne )972- by

LSTA litic I 73 TeacherIdcutiiic0 Oraee Scction Judi7-cnt

46

47

4S

49

SO

Judrront. of

Health Flatus

o .--ra 1k) co

11

I I mMME

NM

MO I.



Center for Planning, Research and Evall:ationOffice of Pupil ..n2 Pro;r37. !!onitorinz and AppraisalBaltimore City Public Schools.3MS:fm 2/73

Appendix D

ESEA Title I ElementaryParent Involvement Program

Evaluation Form

FY 1973

BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLSESEA TITLE I PARENT iNVO1N:MENT PROGRAM

2519 NORTH CHARLES STREETBALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21218

EVALUATIONPARENT INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES

SCHOOL I DATEPath's

1 2 3 4 5Poor Fair Good Very Good E=ellent

1. Parent education discussion groups withspeakers, i. e.,

a. r7 community leaders

b. /7 -- legislators

c. doctors

d. -- lawyers

e. 17 social workers

f. /77 -- home demonstration agents

g. / / -- cosmetologists

h. /--7 -- educators

i. /--7 -- police department representatives

j. / / clergymen

k. /7 -- consumer educators

2. Rap sessions on parent concerns

a. (-7-- school problems

b. /-7 -- neighborhood problems

c. -- family problems

3. Demonstrations for homemaking

a. /--7 -- butchers

b. I-7 -- chefs

c. -- decorators

d. -- art teachers

116

Superior

2.

Ratirss

Poor Fa ir Good !Very Gocd

e. /--7 -- seamstresses

4. Classes for educational enrichment

a. f7 -- art and handicraft

b. (-7 -- community resources

c. -- reading

d. /77 -- music

e. -- mathematics

f. /7. -- consumer education

g. -- you and the law (family law)

S. Singing groups (i.e., gospel chorus, quartets)parent or community volunteer accompanists.

6. Bowling teams

7. Volleyball teams

8. Parent volunteers as coaches, umpires, and scorekeepersat athletic events in the regular school program

9. Volunteer service from community residents who are certifiedlife guards for assistance in the pool area (summer session)

10. Classroom volunteers

a. /-77 -- listening to a child read privately

b. I-77 -- assisting a child in constructing projectsfor art or social studies

c. -- accompanying classes on trips as chaperones aswell as cultural and educational enrichment

d. /7 -- checking papers with a teacher-made key

e. /7 -- assisting teacher or aide with bulletiaboards and exhibits

f. /7 -- assisting with the snack time

g. 47-7 -- making costumes and assisting' in making .,..

scenery for school plays . .*II

h. /7 culmirmting activities

1. / / helping to arrange auditorium stage withi::the use of floor plan designed by teachers

LE=eilent St.-perior

LL7

j. 17 --

k. 1-77 --

1. I-77 --

3.Ratings

Poor

selecting books and slide filmsfrom library with the use of a ,

list made by teacher

returning the library materials

filing

GoodiVery Good Excellent

11. Office volunteers

a. I-77-- serving as messengers to alleviate too frequentand oftimes distracting use of intercom system

b. / / -- working with the liaison in recruitmentof community and parent volunteers

c. /-7 -- assisting the office aide -n stuffing mailboxes

d. /-7-- assisting the administrators in takingchildren who need escort service home

e. /-7-- assisting the School-Home Liaison in the gathering,gleaning and labeling of clothing for the emergencyclothing bank

f. r7-- answering the telephone

g. /-7" -- distributing notices and materials to classrooms

12. Recreation activities for parents only

a. r7-- three P nights (Parents, Pokeno and Pinochle)

b. /-7 -- fun and games night: scrabble, cards, bingo, prizes

c. 1-77-- tours of Baltimore

d. r7 -- neighborhood

e. r7 -- other communities

f. /-7-- colleges

g. 1-77-- out-of-town trips financed by individuals (i.e.), tosee show at Carter Baron Amphitheatre in D. C. orLatin Casino, Cherry Hill, New Jersey; educationaltours of Annapolis, Washington, D. C., Philadelphiaor New York

h. 1-7 -- luncheons and demonstrations (Gas & ElectriC Company)

i. sing-alongs: neighborhood singing groups (churchand community-wide)

: t

0Superior

4.

Ratinrs

Poor Tairko4pry4Good

j. /-7 -- pot luck luncheon meetings

k. /7 -- recipe exchange meetings

13. Family Fun

a. -- picnics on the school site, nearby park or beacharea (financed by dutch treat family) during thesummer session

b. f7 -- talent shows

c. -- plays (presented by and directed by parents)

d. fashion shows (parents who have learned to sew,knit or crochet at school share their productsby modeling or mounting them on kiosks.)

e. r7 -- crazy hat pot luck teas (parents make crazy hatsout of anything to model for recognition and/orprizes)

f. r7 -- clean neighborhood project (an ongoing project)

g. /--7 slimnastics classes

h. 1-7 -- making decorations for seasons or holidays

i. 17 -- Fall, Winter, Spring and Summer

j. /-7-- Christmas

k. /7 -- Thanksgiving

1. /-7-- Easter

m. /--7-- Hanukkah

14. Title I Week for winter program

15. Title I Day for summer program

p 6Excellent 'superior

Please rate the functions and responsibilities as carried out by theHome-School Liaison Worker using the above scale. Please select thenumerical rating which best represents your judgment and write thenumber in the box provided. Rate only those activities or functionswhich have been carried out any time since the program begon.in thisschool or is currently in operation. ..;

1. 17 -- Assists families in an understanding of school andcommunity facilities and resources to promoteacceptance and positive use

S.

PatirviI .4" 1 .3 T.ry od Excellett iSuperiorPoor 1 Fair' Good t

2. I-7 School -Home Liaison participation in communityactivities designed to develop a whOlesome,constructive and cohesive neighborhood

3. /-7 -- conferences for parents developed to discusshome, community and school problems.

4. 17-- community orientation to develop an understanding

of the school's program

S. /-7 -- develops a functioning ESEA School Advisory

Committee

6. /-7 -- dissemination of information on ESEA Title Iprogram to parents and the broader community(for example, through the development of aschool ESEA newsletter and other communications, etc.)

7. /-7-- ESEA Title I provisions interpreted to staff, parentsand community

8. (-7 School -Home Liaison Worker participates incommunity activities and represents the school

upon the principal's request at community meetings

9. visits to specific homes of pupils as a directreferral from a member of the school staff (other

than Special Services staff) as a communication

linkage only

Please check one:

Title I Parent Involvement Program began in school:

October 1971

December 1971

1110

February 1972

September 1972

November 1972

December 1972

NOTE: THE MONTH AND YEAR INDICATE THE ENTRY OF A SCHOOL-HOME LIAISON WORKER

ON YOUR PAYROLL.

Pleasegive a narrative report on the following:

1. What factors do you consider as being the strengths of the ParentInvolvement Program in your school?

2. What factors do'you consider as contributing to weaknesses in theParent Involvement Program in your school?

3. List all activities for parents at your school that are not foundon the rating form,.

4. Additional comments:

Date

6.

Principal's Signature

DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE

FOR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY

Composite rating

Geographic Location

Program Affected by:

Personnel

Date of School Entry

Other Parent InvolvementPrograms in school!

Appendix E

ESEA Title I ElementaryWilliam S. Baer School, Number 301

FY 197 3

William S. Baer School, Number 301

The William S. Baer School is a most interesting and unique school.

It was established in 1933 to meet the needs of the physically handi-

capped children of Baltimore. It has continued to provide an educational

program proven to be cntstanding during the FY 1973.

The school program provided services for 291 boys and girls with

varying degrees of physical handicaps. Two hundred forty-three of the

children were on the elementary school level while 48 were at the second-

ary level.

More than one hundred fifty of these pupils were hearing handicapped

therefore in dire need of communicative techniques. These children had

hearing losses so great they could not function in a regular classroom

with hearing children. Their lack of full hearing and their accompanying

lack of language development, which inhibits their learning, made them

unable to engage in the daily grind of regular classroom activities.

Some of these children were born deaf and had family histories of

deafness. Some of these children were deaf because of brain damage and

other physical causes that might have damaged the nerves of the ear or

auditory passage. Others were "rubella children", who were victims of

the rubella epidemic of 1964-65. The disease caused deafness, physical

deformities, brain damage and mental retardation. Many of the children

at Baer School were multiple handicapped as a result of rubella. The

combination of deafness and mental retardation was fairly common among

these children.

The hearing impaired pupils were grouped according to degrees of

hearing loss. These classifications were the ones arrived at by

audiologists and not set by the Baer School staff. They were also the

ones used as references by the State of Maryland in determining class size.

2

1. Children with severe to profound hearing loss are considered

deaf and are grouped together.

2. Children with moderate to severe hearing loss are considered

hard of hearing and are so grouped.

3. Children with mild to moderate hearing loss are considered

less hard of hearing and are placed in classrooms with !earing

children.

At Baer at that time were:

1. 71 deaf children

2. 65 hard Of hearing children

3. 12 children in hearing classes

4. Mixed nursery of the ten youngest children; these pupils'

first goal was basic language development

These children formed seventeen classes at the school.

Formerly, the students who attended the Baer School were economically

and socially privileged. Though the school's population continued to come

from all over the city and from all socio-economic levels, today's pupils

have been more deprived socially and economically. The deprivation was

one of the factors that determined the Baer School program.

It has been the goal of the Baer School staff to aid the children who

could neither hear normal speech, with or without amplification, nor respond

to it in a manner to be understood. For these children, the goals were

twofold:

1. To experiment with techniques which provided each deaf child with

a way in which to communicate with others.

2. To investigate ways in which to channel the communication skills

into appropriate avenues of learning.

3

The Baer School, in its beginning, had a program of oral-aural

instruction built upon techniques of lipreading and auditory training:

children were taught to read lips and imitate speech. The use of gestures

and signs was discouraged. Because some children lacked the visual and

mental acuity necessary in following the lips of another in order to un-

lock speech patterns modifications had to be made in the program. "Ru-

bella children," retarded to the extent that lipreading carried no meaning

for them, had to be considered also. Culturally and socially deprived

children emphasized the linguistic difficulties more so. Besides, parents

presented even more problems as models of lipreading or speech for their

children; something had to be done.

Many of these children were not learning academically because of the

deafness. They were not learning to read nor to become proficient: in any

other language arts aspect. They were not understanding mathematical con-

cepts nor social concepts. Any progress made in the past in oral approach

was swiftly diminishing. For instance: "At the end of the elementary

school experience at Baer, hearing impaired students were customarily sent

to grade seven in one of four junior high schools. By 1969, records showed

that of the four students who left #301 because of age (13.8) and years of

schooling and not because of academic achievement, two read at 1.2 level,

one read at 2.0 level and the fourth had no level designation. In 1970,

of the eight students sent to junior high school, two read at 1.1 level,

three at 1.2 level and the eighth had no level designation. Since the 1969

and 1970 levels were instructional levels based on teachers' judgements

rather than standardizri tests results, no levels were assigned students

leaving in 1971. Testing for 1972 was begun early on an individual basis

so that each child going to junior high school would have a standard test

score. The test used was the Stanford Achievement, Form X. This testing

4

was not part of the citywide testing program It was done by the teachers

and was not used as a determinant in arriving at large city norms. "1

The staff and parents at the Baer School have done much to improve

and provide a maximum academic program for the pupils. Visits have been

made to institutions foT the deaf both in this country and abroad. Con-

sultations have been had with the academically successful as well as the

common man in the street who has some degree of deafness. Parents have

been made an integral part of the training of these children.

An experience this writer had at the Baer School in June of 1973

was one never to be forgotten. It concerned a graduation exercise held

for parents of deaf children. The parents had completed a course in sign

language and received certificates. The joy shown on the faces and the

enthusiasm shown in the body language of both parents and children was

truly gratifying.

Results of the testing was not available for this report but shall

be included in the 1973-74 report.

Information presented in this report was obtained through observations

visitations and the cited reference.

1. Maria D. Hammond, pport to the Board of School Commissioners

Baltimore City Public Schools, (1972), p. 3.

EMR:kc

School #301

Mrs. Maria Hammond

1972-73 ESEA Title I GeneralInformation Guide

I. Does the school have any of the following resource personnel?

4/11/73

a. Social Worker Full time Q3 Part time! YesO No Ti

b. Psychologist Full time Part timed Yes° Nogjc. School-Home Liaison Worker Full time Part timeD Yes° Nod. Nurse Full time Part time° YesO NoSe. Doctor Full time C Part timeD YesO NoOf. Dentist Full time C Part timed Yes° No 0g. Speech Therapist Full timeJ Parf time 0.3 Yes D NoOh.i.

Librarian 2 das.Other (Specify)

Full time Part timeD YesO No0

II.library aide - full time

Is there a Children's Aide in every grade K-3rd?Federally funded aides - 5 Full time El Part time Yes No 0

Comment: one of these aides is an equipment technician

III. NoIs there a part time children's Aide in the 4th grade? Yes

IV. Length of school day:

V. Is there a language block in the school? Yes 0 No 0

VI. Was the School-Home Liaison Worker log seen? Yes EJ No 0

VII. Is there evidence of active parent involvement? Yes ID No 0

VIII. Is there an active Local School Advisory Committeein the school? Yes M No 0

E2 a. Does the Local Advisory Committee develop suggestions tomeet their school needs and make them known to City-wideESEA Title I Advisory Council.

b. Discusses and provides reactions to City-wide Council'sformulated long range goals and annual objectives forTitle I programs.

Ejc. Does L.A.C. evaluate and provide input to the Division ofResearch?

Dd. Does L.A.C. facilitate the implementation of the Title "Iprogram in the local school according to the overall TitleI program?

Information Guide (Continued)

z. Does L.A.C. disseminate information concerning Title I tomembers of the local school staff, parents, and students?

f. Are there members of L.A.C. available for answering andraising questions concerning Title I.

g. Do the members assist the Coordinator of Title I,

h. Are the required reports filled out with assistance fromthe Center for Planning Research & Evaluation.

Di. What other duties are assigned for the improvement of theTitle I program in the local school?

1.

2.

3.

j. Is there a reading resource teacher assigned to the school? Yes° NoC3

Because of the nature of the school program a speech therapistis employed rather than a reading resource teacher.

There is a definite need for:

audiologistpsychologist

NH:hcERJSSTAS

3/23/73

=ER FOR FLAWING, FESEARCH AND EVALUATIONOFFICE OF PUPIL AIM PROGRAM MONITORING AIMAPPRAISALBALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SOHO=

Appendix F

ESEA Title 1 ElementaryCylburn Reading Program

FY 197 3

Cylburn Reading Program 1972-73

The Winter Tutorial Reading Program at the Cylburn Home for EmotionallyDisturbed Pupils for the fiscal year 1973 involved ten (10) pupils. Threeof the pupils have been in the program since 1971.. Six of the pupils werealso participants in the 1972 Summer program.

The Stanford Achievement Test was used for pre- and post-testing. Eachpupil was tested also informally, to locate strengths and weaknesses. Suitableprograms were prescribed accordingly. Pupils were instructed individually,twice weekly, for 30 or 45 minutes periods.

A variety of visual, auditory and programmed materials were used. Decodingskills were found to be the greatest problem areas, therefore, they were empha-sized. Comprehension and thinking skills were also included.

2-8.The students in the program ranged in ages 8 thru 14 and were in grades

Instruments used: Primary Reading ProfilesIowa Tests of Basic Skills

The tables following, demonstrate gains made by pupils who participatedin the program 4 years; 3 years, and those in the program 2 years.

CylburnTotal Years Gained

1970 - 73 Reading Comprehension

1970Score

1971Score

1972Score

1973Score

Average Change

2.6 3.4 5.4 5.7 1.0

2.5 2.3 3.3 3.4 .3

4.6 5.2 5.4 6.4 .6

4.2 4.6 5.8 5.7 .5

5.6 6.5 8.2 7.1 .5

4.9 4.0 5.7 6.7 .6

3.7 3.2 1.5 3.5 -.1

4.7 3.4 5.2 4.9 .1

Mean 4.1 4.1 5.1 5.4 .5

1971 - '3 Reading Comprehension

1971

Score1972

Score1973

ScoreAverage Change

3.2 5.0 5.7 1.3

5.7 6.4 7.2 .8

1.0 0.8 3.4 1.2

4.8 4.6 5.0 .1

6.0 7.2 7.6 .8

Mean 4.1 , 4.8 5.8 .8

2

1972 - 73 Reading Comprehension

1972

Score1973

ScoreGains in Years

4.8 5.3 .5

4.4 5.1 .9

lean 4.6 5.2 .7

Numberof

Participants1972

Mean Score1973

Mean ScoreTotal

Gains in Years

8 5.1 5.4 .3

6 4.8 5.8 1.0

2 4.6 5.2 .6

Appendix G

ESEA Title I ElementaryTutorial Program

FY 197 3

Tutorial Program For ElementaryTitle I Identified Pupils

1972-73

In ESEA Title I schools, a tutoring program was instituted for identified

Title I pupils for the purpose of helping them improve in reading skills. Tutors

were selected from the neighboring participating Title I secondary schools and

the upper grades of the participating elementary schools.

During the school year 1972-73, elementary schools #13, #35, #100, #903,

#119, and #142 participated in the Tutorial Program with a population of 144

tutees distributed from kindergarten through the fifth grade and including pupils

in the special curriculum.

Attendance data for FY'72 was recorded for the FY'73 tutees, however, grade

designation for twelve tutees were not established. Attendance data was grouped

by the number of days on roll, the days present, and the days absent. In the

school year 1971-72 there were 183 school days. The group mean and median number

of days on roll was 181 and 183 days respectively,for the 137 tutees for whom

data were available. For the number of daysjresent, attendance data were avail-

able for 137 tutees, the group mean was 162 days while the group median was 169

days. In this group,the mean and median number of days absent was eighteen and

fourteen days respectively.

Attendance data were distributed by grade for the same categories based

on the mean for the 137 tutees for whom data were available. For the number of days

on roll, the mean range over the grades was from 177-183 days. For the number of

days present, the range was from 152-175. In the category, number of days absent,

the range was from 9-31.

FY'73 attendance data was recorded for the tutees. The data showed that the

mean and median number of days on roll was for the full school year, 181 days.

2

The mean and median number of days present was 166 and 169 respectively. In

this groupjthe mean number of days absent was fourteen, while the median was twelve.

Distributions based on the mean for attendance data by grade for the same

categories for 137 tutees established that there was little difference '../1 the

attendance pattern between FY'72 andINX'73. For the number of days on roll,

the mean range over the grades was 180-181 days. For the number of days present,

the range was 152-170, while the range for the number of days absent was from

10-1S. Table 1, page 4 , provides means and median attendance data by

category for FY'72 and FY'73.

Test data were tabulated in FY'72 for the FY'73 tutees. Data by sub-

test for FY'72 were available for twenty-three grade one pupils. Their group mean

and median mental age for verbal meaning was 6.2 and 6.6,as measured by the

Primary Mental Abilities test K-1 level. In FY'73 reading comprehension test

scores were available for twenty-one tutees, their mean grade equivalent was

2.l,while their median grade equivalent was 1.6. See Table 2, page 5 , for

complete test data.

There were thirty-four tutees for whom FY'72 test data were available. As

measured by the Primary Reading Profiles Level 1, the group mean and median grade

equivalent fur the sub-test reading comprehension was 1.7 and 1.6 respectively.

The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) Form 3 Level A was administered to the

group in April of FY'73. Test data were available for thirty-three tutees, the

group mean and median grade equivalent in reading comprehension was 2.2 and 2.1

respectively. Table 43, page 6 , provides complete data.

Test data were available for FY'73 tutees who were in grade three FY'72

and grade four FY'73. As measured by the (ITBS) Form 3 Level A and B, these

pupils gained eight and nine months in reading comprehension based on the median

and median grade equivalent respectively. Table 4, page 7, provides complete data.

3

Table 5, page 8 , provides status data for FY'73 tutees that failed

and were in grade two FY'72 and FY'73.

Table 6, page 9 , provides status data for FY'73 tutees that were in

the special curriculum FY'72 and FY'73.

Data were not shown for twenty-eight tutees as test scores were not

available.

4

Table 1

Mean and Median Number of Days On Roll, Present and Absent ByTotal School Year 1971-72 and 1972-73 Tutees

ESEA Title 1 Elementary Tutoring ProgramBaltimore City Public Schools

FY 1973

School Year 1971-72

Number ofDays On Roll

Number ofDays Present

Number ofDays Absent

Mean 181 162 18

Median 183 169 14

N 137 137 137

School Year 1972-73

Number of Number of Number ofDays On Roll Days Present Days Absent

Mean 181 166 14

Median 181 169 12

N 137 137 137

Note: 1/ There were 144 tutees who participated in the 1972-73 ESEATitle 1 Elementary Tutoring Program, seven of whom attendancedata were not available.

a/ There were 137 participants for whom attendance data were available.

Source: 1/ Class Register By School and Grade FY'72 and FY'73.

2/ Numerical Listing of Pupils By Automated Pupil Numbers FY'72 and FY'73.

5

Table 2

ESEA Title I Elementary Tutorial ProgramMean and Median Grade Equivalent Status By Sub-Test

Grade One FY'72 and Grade Two FY'73

Primary Mental Abilities K-1 Level Grade'FY'72Verbal 2/ Perceptual Number SpatialMeaning Speed Faculity Relations

N bi 23 23 23 23



N 'W



Level 1 National Norm

Level 2 National Norm El

Primary Reading Profiles Level 1 Grade 2 FY'73Auditory Word Word Reading

I/

Association Recognition Attack Comprehension Composite

23 22 21 21 21

1.3 1.3 1.4 2.1 1.6

1.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.4

1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.9

Note:

Source:

1/ Pupils selected to participate in the FY°73 Testing Program.

a/ ESEA Title I area of, concentration.

b/ Number of matched pupils for whom test scores were available.

c/ Level two norms are used for grade two pupils tested with (PRP) level one.

Center for Planning, Research and Evaluation, Office of Pupil and ProgramMonitoring and Appraisal Alphabetical Print-Out of Test Results FY'72 andFY'73.

0

6

Table 3

ESEA Title I Elementary Tutorial ProgramMean and Median Grade Equivalent Status By Sub-Test

Grade Two FY '72 - Grade Three FY '73

NI)/

Mean;rade Equivalent

Median;rade Equivalent

ievel I

lationallorm

/c,evel 2 -lational

lorm

Primary Reading Profiles Level 1 Grade 2 FY '72

AuditoryAssociation

VJ :rd

RecunitionWord

AttackReading ElComprehension Composite

34 34 34 34 34

1.3 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.8

1.2 1.7 1.5 1.6 1 . 6

1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.9

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Form 3 Level A Grade 3 FY '73

Nb/

VocabularyReading

a/

ComprehensionLanguageComposite

ArithmeticComposite

33 33 33 33

Meanrade Equivalent 2.4 2.2 2.7 2.7

MediLArade Equivalent

arge Cities

2.2 2.1 2.5 2.6

Norm

ational

3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

Norm 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7

ote: 1/ Pupils selected to participate in the FY '73 Tutoring Program.a/ ESEA Title I area of concentration.E7 Number of matched pupils for whom test scores were available.Z/ Level two norms are used for glade two pupils tested with (PRP) level one.

ource: Center for Planning, Research and Evaluation, Office of Pupil and Program

Monitoring and Appraisal Alphabetical Print-Out of Test Results FY '72 andFY '73.

7

Table 4

ESEA Title I Elementary Tutorial ProgramMean and Median Grade Equivalent and Months of Gain

FY '72 to FY '73

Reading Language ArithmeticVocabulary Comprehension Total TotalGr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr.3 Gr.4 Gr.3 Gr.4 Gr.3 Gr.4

Months Months Months MonthsFY'72 FY'73 of Gain FY'72 FY'73 of Gain FY'72 FY'73 of Gain FY'72 FY'73 of Gain

N 25 24 25 24 24 23 23 24

Mean 2.8 3.3 5 2.5 3.4 9 3.1 3.7 6 2.8 3.4 6

Median 2.6 2.9 3 2.4 '3.2 8 2.7 3.2 5 2.7 3.2 5

LargeCities 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5Norm

Note: 1/ N = Number of pupils for whom test scores were available.

2/ Reading Comprehension was area of concentration.

Source: Print-Out)City-Wide Testing end of School Year FY'72 and FY'73for Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Form 3 Level A and B.

8

Table 5

ESEA Title I Elementary Tutorial ProgramGrade Equivalent Range and Status By Sub-Test

For Grade Two and Three FailuresFY '72 and FY '73

Primary Reading Profiles Level 1 Grade 2 FY '72 and FY '73

Auditory

FY '72Level 1 a/NationalNorm

LevelNationalNorm

FY '73

Grade EquivalentRange

Number ofPupils

2 Grade Equiv-alentRange

Number ofPupils

Association 7 - 1.0 4 1.8 2.9 5 - 1.7 4

WordRecognition 6 - 1.5 5 1.8 2.8 9 - 1.7 5

WordAttack 9 - 1.5 4 1t8 2.9 9 - 1.8 3

Reading b/Comprehension 1 - 1.9 4 1.8 2.8 1.S - 1.7 3

Composite 9 - 1.2 4 1.8 2.9 1.1 - 1.9 3

Iowa Tests of Basic SE'lls Form 3 Level A Grade 3 FY '72 and FY '73

FY '72 LargeNationalNorm

FY '73Grade

EquivalentNumber of CitiesPupils Norm

GradeEquivalent

Number ofPupils

Vocabulary 2.0 1 3.5 3.7 2.8 1

Reading b/Comprehension 2.4 1 3.5 3.7 2.1 1

LanguageComposite 2.6 1 3.5 3.7 2.1 1

ArithmeticComposite 2.2 1 3.5 3.7 2.0 1

Note: 1/ Pupils selected to participate in the FY '73 Tutoring Program.a/ Level two norms are used for grade two pupils tested with (PRP) level one.b/ ESEA Title I area of concentration.

Source: Canter for Planning, Research and Evaluation, Office of Pupil and Program'bnitoring and Appraisal Alphabetical Print-Out of Test Results FY '72 andFY '73.

9

Table 6

ESE! Title I Elementary Tutorial ProgramGrade Equivalent Range and Status By Sub-Test

For Special Curriculum PupilsFY'72 and FY'73

Primary Reading Profiles Level 2 Special Curriculum FY'72 and FY'73FY'72 Level 2 FY'73

Grade Equivalent Number of National. Grade Equivalent Number ofRange Pupils Norm Range Pupils

Auditory Association 1.2-2.2 4 2.9 1.4-3.9 4

'Word Recognition 1.3-1.7 4 2.8 1.2-2.6 4

'Word Attack 1.4-2.3 4 2.9 1.6-2.6 4

Reading Comprehension a/ 2.3-4.0 4 2.8 1.9-4.0 4

Composite 1.7-2.1 4 2.9 1.6-2.7 4

Note: a/ ESEA Title I area of concentration.

'Source: Center for Planning, Research and Evaluation, Office of Pupil and ProgramMonitoring and Appraisal, Alphabetical Print-Out Sheets of Test Results FY'72and FY'73 for 1972-73 tutees.

Part II

ESEA Title I Elementary

Summer 1972

Ernestine M. Reid, Ph.D.

MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONDivision of Compensatory, Urban and Supplementary Programs

ESEA, TITLE I PROJECT EVALUATION REPORTFOR SUMMER TERM 1972 ANDREGULAR SCHOOL TERM 1972-73

PROGRAMS

I. LOCALE OF PROGRAM

A. Local Educational Agency: Baltimore City Public Schools

B. Authorized

1.

Representative for LEA:

Name and Title: Roland N. Patterso'n

Superintendent of Public Instruction(Title)

2. Mailing Address: Three East Twenty-fifth Street

Baltimore, Maryland 21218

3. Telephone Number: HO 7 - 4000

4. Signature: Date

C. State Project Number: Summer 1972(Summer Term 1972)


D. Title of Project Summer - Winter ESEA Program

(Summer Term 1972)


E. Length of Project

Beginning and Ending Dates: June-Au ustSummer Term 1972

Regular School Term 1972-73)

Abstract

ESEA Title I Summer Winter ParticipationFY 1973

The philosophy of the summer school program 1972 proposal was that the

summer school experience be an extension of the regular school year (FY 1972)

project. The summer project featured additional services and activities.

as well as variations made possible by the easier and greater flexibility of

the six week program.

The objectives for the program were set up to improve the reading com-

prehension level a minimum of 13 months in a school year period (including

a. six-weeks summer program) of at least 80% of the participants.

The revelation of high percentages of pupils testing below grade level

was demonstrated through the evaluation of Iowa Tests of Basic Skills results.

Of the 5,000 to 6,000 pupils tested at each of the grade levels from 3 to 6,

the list below showed great deficiencies:

Grade 3 - 67% below grade level




The degree of deprivation was noted by a more detailed analysis of those

percentages:

Grade 3 - 67% below grade level:

below grade 1 8%grade 1 24%grade 2 68%


below grade 1 7%below grade 2 44%

grade 3 49%


below grade 2 14%below grade 3 43%

grade 4 43%

lA


at grade 2 2%at grade 3 20%at grade 4 37%at grade 5 41%

Reading Subtests of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills for grades 3,4,5

and 6 were used as objective criteria.

Subjective criteria was based on observations by teachers, aides,

parents, principals and supervisors. It, also, included visits and con-

ferences with the Maryland State Department of Education staff, federal

auditors, U.S. Office of Education personnel, and county educational people.

Informal conferences were also held between staff and parents.

Reading resource teachers were available to participating schools to

work with those children who were atypical in reading disabilities or had

extreme problems with communication skills. The reading resource teacher

also helped the local school staff with useful techniques and served in

appropriate ways, the general focus on improvement of reading skills of

pupils.

Children's aides were assigned to each kindergarten and first grade

teacher, full time. For the remaining classes and teachers, one children's

aide assisted every two teachers in the local school. Aides made possible

small group instruction as well as individual help under appropriate teacher

guidance, particularly in the key thrust to improve communication skills.

The school day spanned 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.. At least 90 minutes of

the daily program focused upon the improvement of communication skills.

Reading was the dominant factor.

Many informal learning situations were provided, also. Interest and

hobby groups, clubs and the arts along with physical education were used.

Local school pupils, parents and staff reciprocally selected other program

ingredients. Schools that selected the physical education resource teacher

1B

carried on developmental exercises, and big muscle activities. Other

schools selected art and music experiences. These selections helped

create an ample educational environment for pupils. The variety of

activities offered many opportunities to help students "value" themselves

and their ability to learn. Students were encouraged to speak, listen,

read and write about shared experiences.

Field trips were offered to visit cultural sites, museums,industries,

historical areas, theaters, concert halls and agency offices. The trips

were planned to further the attainment of the objectives. Students were

provided opportunities to listen to and observe artists, speakers and per-

formers. They were presented with opportunities that enabled them to even

touch some of these people. They actually became personally involved and

the experience for them was apparently maximal.

Small class size, as far as possible, was another approach used to-

ward effectively individualizing the program. With the use of aides and

parents, the adult - pupil ratio was a favorable 1 :6. School-Home

Efforts were made to recruit and select particular children in the

regular ESEA, Title I project whose reading levels and other pertinent

records showed greatest need for the summer program. Test results, recom-

mendations of classroom teachers, school health personnel, school social

worker, school counselor and from the paraprofessional staff served as

helpful indicators of pupil needs.

The summer project was operated for pupils from June 1972 through

August 11, 1972. Faculty meetings and conferences were held. Time was

allotted for the preparation of the next day's activities. Teachers and

aides had inschool pyeservice preparation to learn of new approaches and

to become acquainted with the summer school philosophy.

liaison workers discussed with the professional and paraprofessional staff

ways to increase parental participation in the summer project and learning

1C

experiences of their children.

A comparison was made of test score results from the April 1972 and

April 1973 Iowa Tests of Basic Skills for third through Lixth grade pupils

who participated in the 1972 summer school program and those in third

through sixth who registered for the 1972 summer program but did not attend.

This was done to show any significant difference in the reading achievement

that might have occurred between pupils who had a summer school intervention

and those who did not. It was anticipated that 80% of those pupils attending

would have gained 1.5 years in their reading sub test scores above the read-

ing achievement levels of non-attenders.

Attenders (Pupils showing gains of1.5 mos. or more)

Grade Number Percentage

3rd 73 15%4th 50 26%5th 30 20%6th 32 22%

Non Attenders (Showing gains of1.5 Yrs. or more)


3rd ,40 18%4th 30 20%5th 23 32%6th 27 24%

Attenders (Gain 10 months)


3rd 179 38%4th 90 39%5th 72 49%6th 65 45%

Non Attenders (Gain 10 months)

3rd 72 33%4th 54 36%5th 37 51%

6th 40 36%

10

It was also predicted that grade one participants would exhibit a

level of mastery in verbal comprehension indicating growth of at least

1.0 months in reading comprehension mental age in one year and better

than the level attained by those pupils who did not have the summer 1972

program intervention.

The instrument used was the Primary Mental Abilities Test. The raw

scores of the verbal comprehension subtest were converted to mental age,

manually.

There was no appreciable difference between the grade one attenders

and non attenders. In both groups forty-nine percent (49%) showed gains

of 1.0 years and more.

. Second graders who attended the summer school program showed 2% less

in gains. Forty-five percent of attenders demonstrated gains of 1.0 year

and more,while forty-seven percent of non attenders gained one year and more.

It would appear that the summer school experience was not as impres-

sionable as one would be led to believe.

2


A. The tables below should be used to summarize the needs of children whoactually participated in the ESEA, Title I project(s) under considera-tion. Indicate the number of participants who demonstrated needs inthe areas listed according to the degree of need. A separate tableshould be used for each grade level of participants. In instanceswhere children are grouped in a nongraded pattern, circle the gradelevel that would correspond to the children's chronological age.

El Summer Term 1972 Regular School Term 1972-73

Circle One: Pre-K K 1 '2 45) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

AREA OFDEPRIVATION

DEPRIVATION BELOW NORMS*MEASURES USEDTO IDENTIFY

NEED

Over 2.0years below

1.1 through2.0 yearsbelow

0.0 through1.0 yearsbelow


N/A N/A N/A


319 1100 721 ITBS

Vocabulary567 880 693 ITBS

3. MATHEMATICS N/A N/A N/A

*Check Norms Used: 111 National County ElLarge City Other (specify)

*The items to be completed on this page were not applicable to thedesignated number of children.

2A


A. The tables below should be used to summarize the needs of children whoactually participated in the ESEA, Title I project(s) under considera-tion. Indicate the number of participants who demonstrated needs inthe areas listed according to the degree of need. A separate tableshould be used for each grade level of participants. In instances4here chilc,..en are grouped in a nongraded pattern, circle the gradelevel that would correspond to the children'3 chronological age.

Summer Term 1972 E.] Regular School Term 1972-73

Circle One: Pre-K K 1 2 3 (i) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

AREA OFDEPRIVATION

DEPRIVATION BELOW NORMS*MEASURES USEDTO IDENTIFY

NEED

Iver .

years below. t roug

2.0 yearsbelow

i.1 t roug1.0 yearsbelow


N/A N/A N/A

2. LANGUAGE ARTSReading Comp. 140 805 299 ITBS

Vocabulary 385 859 385 ITBS


*Check Norms Used: 111 National County E]Large City Other (specify)

*The items to be completed on this page were not applicable to thedesignated number of children.

2B

II. NEEDS OF CHILDREN WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE ESEA, TITLE I PROJECT FORFISCAL YEAR 1973

A. The tables below should be used to summarize the needs of childrenwho actually participated in the ESEA, Title I project (s) underconsideration. Indicate the number of participants who demonstratedneeds in the areas listed according to the degree of need. A sepa-rate table should be used for each grade level of participants. Ininstances where children are grouped in a nongraded pattern, circlethe grade level that would correspond to the children's chronologicalage.

Summer Term 1972 47 Regular School Term 1972-73

Cirdle One: Pre-K K 1 2 3 4 (17) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

AREA OFDEPRPP\TION

DEPRIVATION BELOW NORMS* MEASURES 1

USED TOIDENTIFY NEEDS

Over 2.0years t*silr

1.1 through9 O. years below

0.0 through1.0years hzlnw


N/A N/A N/A

2. LANGUAGE ARTS.READING COMP.

44 250 755 ITBS



*Check Norms Used: National County Large City IDOther (specify)

* The items to be completed on this page were not applicable to thedesignated number of children.

2C,

II. NEEDS OF CHILDREN WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE ESEA, TITLE I PROJECT FOR

FISCAL YEAR 1973

A. The tables below should be used to summarize the needs of children

who actually participated in the ESEA, Title I project (s) under

consideration. Indicate the number of participants who demonstrated

needs in the areas listed according to the degree of need. A sepa-

rate table should be used for each grade level of participants. In

instances where children are grouped in a nongraded pattern, circle

the grade level that would correspond to the children's chronological

age.

ErSummer Term 1972 4 Regular School Term 1972-73

Circle One: Pre-K K 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12

AREA OFDEPRIVATION

DEPRIVATION BELOW NORMS* MEASURESUSED TO

t IDENTIFY NEEDSOver 2.0years below

N/A

1.1 through9 0 "ears below

'N/A

0.0 through1.0years bel^,

N/A1. DEVELOPMENTALREADINESS

2. LANGUAGE ARTS

.RfADING COMP.14 41 136 ITBS


3. MATHEMATICS N/A N/A N/A .

*Check Norms Used: Cpational 0County OLarge City r] Other (specify)

* The items to be completed on this page were not applicable to the

designated number of children.

3

II. B. Using Table I, indicate for each applicable method the individuals involvedin determining students' needs.

TABLE I - TYPES OF MEASURES AND PERSONS INVOLVED IN THEDETERMINATION OF NEEDS

MEASURESUSED

PERSONS INVOLVED

Local School Staff(Teachers, Aides,

Principals)Parents

CentralOfficalStaff

NonpublicSchool

Personnel

Other(Specify)

StandardizedAchievementTests

X X

StandardizedIntelligenceTests

X X

InterestInventories X X X

AttitudeInventories X X

Locally Re-vised SkillsTests

X

Teacher-madeSkills Tests X

TeacherRatings

AnecdotalRecords

ObserverReports X X

HealthRecords X X X

'TWOPersonnelReports

X

AttendanceRecords X X X

Other(Specify)

4

C. Using Table II, indicate the total number of pupils by grade level whoactually participated in the program.


GRADE LEVEL NUMBER OF TITLE I PARTICIPANTS

OFPARTICIPANTS

Summer Term 1972 Regular School Term 1972-73Public Nonpublic Public Nonpublic

Pre-K 679 0

K 1895 21

1 2472 27

2 2409 27

3 2140 33

4 1244 27

5 1049 10

6 189 4

Ungraded 277

8

9

ln

11

12


Total12,3E4 149


1. For the Summer Term 1972: 10,808


5

. D. Using the table* below, indicate by grade level the number of partici-pants in the fiscal year 1973 Title I project who also participatedfor one or more consecutive years in earlier regular school termTitle I projects.

GRADE LEVELOF

PARTICIPANTS

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS IN PAST REGULAR TERMTITLE I PROJECTS

Fiscal Year1972

Fiscal Years1971 and

1972

Fiscal Years1970, 1971,and 1972

Fiscal Years1969, 1970,1971, & 1972

K 1895 N/A N/A N/A

1 2472 N/A N/A N/A

2 2409 N/A N/A N/A

3 2140 NJA N/A N/A

4 1244 N/A N/A N/A

*This table is included for the purpose of establishing some baselinesfor longitudinal studies of the impact of Title I. Such informationis being increasingly requested by federal and state agencies assessingthe effectiveness of Title I.

III. EVALUATION 6

A. Project Objectives and Actual Outcomes: List the measurableobjectives established for the fiscal year 1973 Title I Project(s)and the extent to which each objective was actually achieved.Listed objectives should include the skill or area to be improved,the amount of improvement expected, and the time period in whichimprovement is to occur.

Eyample

Objectives: To develop the reading skills of the Title I participantsso that they will be able to achieve 10 months growth in reading fora year (10 months) of instruction.

Degree Achieved: Second-grade pupils achieved eight months of growthin reading for a year of instruction as indicated by the differencebetween the pre- and post-test score means (see Table III, page 10).


a. Objective: To improve the reading comprehension level a minimum

of 13 school months in a school year period (including a six-

week summer program) of at least 80% of the participants.

Degree Achieved: 40% of the participants showed gains of 10

school months or more while 27% showed gains of 13 school months.

See Table - for percentage gain at grade level.

b. Objective: To have at least 80% of all Title I children in grades

3 through 6 read for fun reading a minimum of six library books

while they participate in the summer program. To provide 'library

experiences, visits, and materials for use by pupils in lower

elementary grades, K-2.

Degree Achieved: 81% of the children in grades 3-4 read six or

more books during the summer months. 19% read less than six books.

97% of K-2 pupils were provided library experiences.

6A

c. Objective: To have all children except those in kindergarten

or other pre- sciool levels maintaining and improving their

writing abilities as follows:

The first level, one complete sentence of at least 10 words.

The second level, three complete related sentences of at

least 10 words.

The third level, four complete related sentences of at least

16 words.

The fourth, fifth, and sixth level, one, two, or three related

paragraphs.

Degree Achieved: There was 97% achievement in writing abilities

which involved all levels measured.(1-6)

d, Objectives:

Degree Achieved:

7

III. B. Conclusions Based on Evaluation Data:

1. Are any modifications being considered for future programs asa result of the evaluation data gathered for this project?Describe briefly.

Tentative summer school plans, 1973, were to haveincluded pr.-schoolers through fourth grade only.There was included, however, a provision, shouldenrollment be low, some fifth and sixth gradersmight attend.

2. Frequent requests are received for examples of successfulTitle I activities or projects, the success of which can besupported by standardized achievement test scores. Pleasesupply the name(s) of several schools, classes, or projectcomponents which have demonstrated unusual success inimproving the achievement of educationally disadvantagedchildren.

Grade

TABLE III - STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS,

ESEA, TITLE I 1972-73

STUDENTS WHO TOOK BOTH THE PRE- AND POST-TESTSAND WHO PARTICIPATED

IN THE REGULAR AND SUMMER SCHOOL TERM PROGRAM ONLY

Three(Repeater)

Name of Test and

Each Subse%:tion

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students V

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

.

PRE-TEST RESULTS



April 1972

360

N/A,

N/A

POST-TEST RESULTS



April 1973

360

2.5

High - 4.7

Low

- 1.2

2./ Include only those students who took

both the

pre- and post-test and

who participated in

the regular and summer term programonly.

INSTRUCTIONS

.a)

Report data on the achievement tests

used

most widely in this program.

b)

Use a separate sheet for each grade

level

and subtest being reported.

c)

Mean scores should be reported in

grade

equivalent form.

d)

Report data for nmplAwc students

separately.

co

0

TABLE III- STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE I 1972-73



Grade

Three

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students _lj

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS

Primary Reading Profiles


April 1972

3474

2.1

High - 4.5

Low

- 0.0

POST-TEST RESULTS

Iowa Tests of Basic SKills


April 1973

3474

2.8

High - 5.6

Low

- 1.0

1 Include only

those students who took both the

pre- and post-test and who participated.in

the regular and summer term program only.

INSTRUCTIONS

:a)

Report data on the achievement tests used


b)

Use a separate sheet for each grade level


c)

Mean scores should be reported in grade

equivalent form.

d)


Grade

Four

TABli III-

STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE I 1972-73


IN THE REGULAR AND SUMMER SCHOOL. TERM PROGRAM ONLY

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Vocabulary

April 1972

3250

'.5

High - 5.3

Low

- 1.1

POST-TEST RESULTS

Iowa Test of Basic Skills

Vocabulary

,April 1973

3235

3.1

High - 7.7

Low

- 1.6

If Include only those students who took both the



INSTRUCTIONS

:a)



b)



c)


equivalent form.

d)





Grade

Four

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS



April 1972

3

.

250

2.2

High - 5.3

Low

- 1.1

POST-TEST RESULTS



April 1973

3235

3.0

High - 6.5

Low

- 1.5

I/ Include only those students who took both the

pre- and post-test and who participated,in

the ribliar and summer term program only.

INSTRUCTIONS

:a)



b)


-


c)

Mean scores should be reported I n grade

equivalent form.

d)


Grade

Four




Name of Test and.

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Spelling

April 1972

3248

2.6

High - 5.6

Low

- 1.1

POST-TEST RESULTS


Spelling

April 1973

3233

.

3.3

High - 7.3

Low

- 1.5

I/ Include only those students who took both the


the rig-Oar and summer term program only.

INSTRUCTIONS

fa)



b)



c)


equivalent form.

d)


Grade

Four

TABlg III

STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS,

ESEA,'TITLE I 1972-73

STUDENTS WHO TOOK BOTH THE PRE-

AND POST-TESTS AND WHOPARTICIPATES

IN THE REGULAR AND SUMMER SCHOOL.TERM PROGRAM ONLY

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRETEST RESULTS


Capitalization

April 1972

3248

2.5

High - 6.1

Low -

1.1

POST-TEST RESULTS


Capitalization

April 1973

3233

3.2

High - 6.8

Low

- 1.8

1/ Include only those

students who took both the

pre- aid post-test

and who participated_ in

the regular and summer term program

only.

INSTRUCTIONS

:a)

Report data on the achievement

tests used


b)

Use a separate sheet for each

grade level


c)

Mean scores should be reported

in grade

equivalent form.

d)

Report data for nonpublic students

separately..

TABLE III- STANnARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA,

TITLE I 1972-73



Grade

Four

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 11/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Punctuation

April 1972

3248

2.8

High - 6.7

Low

- 1.1

POST-TEST RESULTS


Punctuation

April 1973

3233

3.3

High - 7.4

Low

- 1.4

1/ Include only those students who took both the

pre- and post-test and who

participated ,in


INSTRUCTIONS

:a)



b)



c)


equivalent form.

d)


Grade

Four

TABLE III- STANDARDIZEDACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE I 1972-73

STUDENTS WHO TOOK BOTH THE PRE- AND POST-TESTS AND WHOPARTICIPATED

IN THE REGULAR AND SUMMER SCHOOL TERM PROGRAM

ONLY

Name of Test and.

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students _1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Language

Usage

April 1972

3248

2.4

High - 5.8

IoW -111

POST-TEST RESULTS


Language Usage

April 1973

3233

.

2,9

High - 6.6

Low

- 1.4

11,/ Include only those students who took both the


participated in

the rijalar and summer term program only.

INSTRUCTIONS

:a)



b)



c)


equivalent form.

d)

Report, data for nonpublic students separates.

Grade

Four

TABLE III- STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE 1 1972 -73

STUDENTS WHO TOOK BOTH THE PRE- AND POST-TESTS

AND WHO PARTICIPATE')


Name of Test anti

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Language Total

April 1972

3248

2.6

High - 5.5

Low

- 1.5

POST-TEST RESULTS


Language Total

April 1973

3233

1

3.2

High - 6.4

Low

- 1.9

1/ Include only those students who

took both the

pre- and post-test

and who participated in

the reWar and summer term program only.

INSTRUCTIONS

.a)


used


b)

Use a separate sheet for each gr&de level


0 Mean scores should be reported in grade

equivalent form.

d)

Report data for nonpublic student: separately.

Grade

TABLE III - STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS,(SEA, TITLE I 1972-73

STUDENTS WHO TOOK BOTH THE PRE- AND

POST-TESTS AND WHO PARTICIPATED

IN THE REGULAR AND SUMMER SCHOOL

TERM PROGRAM ONLY

Five ,s1=

.1m

...1

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students I/

Grade

Equivalent

Mewl

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Vocabulary

April 1972

3167

2.7

'!igh - 6.6

Low

- 1.4

POST-TEST RESULTS


Vocabulary

.

April 1973

_

3147

3.6

High - 7.6

L- 2.1

1 Include

only those students who took both the

pre- and post-test



only.

INSTRUCTIONS

a)



b)


level


c)


equivalent form.

d)


separately.

0

Grade

TABLE III- STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, (SEA, TITLE I

1972-73

STUDENTS WHO TOOK BOTH THE PRE- AND POST-TESTS AND WHO

PARTICIPATED

IN THE REGULAR AND SUMMER !CHOU TERM PROGRAM

ONLY

Five

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

IStudents 1/

Grade

Grade

Equivalent

Equivalent

Mean

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS



April 1972

3167

2.7

POST-TEST RESULTS

High - 3.6

!Low

- 1.4



April 1973

3147

3.6

High - 6.2

low

- 2.1


pre- and post-test and who participated

in


INSTRUCTIONS

a)



b)


and subtext being reported.

c)


equivalent form.

d)


Grade

TABLI III- STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA4 TITLE I 1972-73



Five

Name of Test and

Mont, and Year

Number

Grade

Grade

Each Subsection

Administered

Form

of

EquiN.4Ient

Equivalent

Students 1/

Mean

Rzrge

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Spelling

April 1972

3164

3.2

POST-TEST RESULTS

High - 7.1

low

- 1.4


Spelling

April 1973

3148

3.9

High - 8.2

Low

- 1.8

INSTRUCTIONS

j/ Include only those students who

took both the

pre- and post-test


,a)




b)



c)


equivalent form.

d)

Report data for nonpublic students Infinitely.

TABLg III- STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA,

TITLE 1 1972 -73

STUDENTS WHO TOOK BOTH THE

PRE- AND POST-TESTS AND WHOPARTICIPATED

IN THE REGULAR AND SUMMER

SCHOOL TERM PROGRAM ONLY

Grade

Five

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRETEST RESULTS


Capitlzation

April 1972

3164

3.1

High - 6.6

Low

- 1.8

POST-TEST RESULTS


Capitalization

April 1973

3148

3.9

High - 9.1

Low

- 2.0

I/ Include only those

students who took both the

pre- and post-test



only..

INSTRUCTIONS

a)


used


b)


grade level


c)


in grade

equivalent form.

d)


separately.

Gra

deFive


STUDENTS WHO TOOK BOTH THE PRE- AND POST -TESTS AND WHO PARTICIPATED

IN TrE REGULAR AND SUMMER SCHOOL TERM PROGRAM ONLY

Name of Test and

Each Subsecticn

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Punctuation

April 1972

3164

3.3

High - 6.6

Low

- 1.7

POST-TEST RESULTS

High - 8.0

Lot

- 1.6


Punctuation

April 1972

3148

-1

4.1



the reTilar and summer term program only.

INSTRUCT:GAS

.a)



b)

Use a separate sheet for ev:h grade level


c)

Mean scores shculd be reported in grade

equivalent form.

d)

Report, data for nonpublic students separately.

TABLE III - STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA. TITLE I 1972-73

STUDENTS WHC TOOK BOTH THE PRE- AND POST-TESTS AND WHO PARTICIPATED

IN THE REGULAR AND SUMMER SCHOOL 1LRM

PROGRAM ONLY

Grade

Five

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS

Iowa Tests of Bast: Skills

Language Usage

April 1972

3164

1

2.9

High - 5.2

Low

- 1.5

POST-TEST RESULTS


Language Usage

April 1973

3148

3.5

High - 8.2

Low

- 2.3

I/ Include only those students who

took bcth the

pre- and post-testand who participatec in

the riqalar and summer term program salt.

INSTRUCTIONS

.a)

Reoort data on the achievement tests used

mo;t widely in this program.

b)

Usl a separate sheet for each grade level


c)


equivalent form.

d)

Report data for nonoublic students se ara

4




ONLY

Grade

Five

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Language Total

April 1972

3164

3.1

High - 6.6

Low

- 2.2

POST-TEST RESULTS


Language Total

April 1973

3148

3.8

High - 7.5

Low

- 2.5



the riPar and summer term program only.

INSTRUCTIONS

:a)



b)



c)


equivalent form.

d)


Grade

Sixth

TABLE III- STANDARDIZED

ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE I 1972 -73

STUDENTS WHO TOOK BOTH THE PRE- AND POST-TESTS AND WHO

PARTICIPATED


TERM PROGRAM ONLY

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students I/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Vocabulary

April 1972

3160

4.0

High - 8.2

Low

- 2.0

POST-TEST RESULTS


Vocabulary

April 1973

3155

5.0

High - 9.0

Low

- 2.3

1 Include

only those students who took both the


participated in

the rirlar and summer term program only.

INSTRUCTIONS

:a)



b)



c)


equivalent form.

d)


TABU III- STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE I 1972-73



IN THE REGULAR AND SUMMER SCHOOL TERM

PROGRAM ONLY

Grade

Sixth

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS



April 1972

3160

2.9

High - 8.2

Low

- 2.3

POST-TEST RESULTS



April 1973

3155

4.8

High - 8.7

Low

- 3.0

I/ Include only those students who

took both the


who participated .in

the rigUlar and summer term program

only.

INSTRUCTIONS

:a)


used


b)


level


c)

Mean scores should be reported in

grade

equivalent form.

d)


Grade

Sixth

TABLE III - STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST

RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE I 1972-73




ONLY

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Spelling

April 1972

3161

4.4

High - 8.2

-

Low

- 2.0

POST-TEST RESULTS


Spelling

April 1973

3159

5.2

High - 9.7

Low

- 2.2

1/ Include only those students who took

both the


who participated. in

the redlar and summer term program

only.

INSTRUCTIONS

A) Report data on the achievement tests used


b)


level

and subtext being reported.

c)


equivalent form.

d)


separately.

Grade

Sixth

TABLE III- STANDARDIZEDACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE I 1972-73

STUDENTS WHO TOOK BOTH THE PRE- AND POST-TESTS ANDWHO PARTICIPATED


Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 1/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Capitalization

April 1972

3161

4.3

High - 7.8

Low

- 1.8

POST-TEST RESULTS


Capitalization

April 1973

.3

159

5.3

High - 9.6

Low

- 2.3

1/ Include only those students who took both

the


who participated in

the re- War and summer term program

only.

INSTRUCTIONS

:a)


used


b)


level


c)


equivalent form.

d)


separately.


STUDENTS WHO TOOK BOTH THE PRE- AND POST-TESTS AND WHOPARTICIPATE6


Grade

Sixth

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students 111

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Punctuation

April 1972

3161

4.7

High - 8.5

Low

- 1.9

POST-TEST RESULTS


Punctuation

April 1973

3158

5.1

High - 9.3

Low

- 2.1

It Include only those students who took both the

pre- and post-test and who participated. in

the rejiar and summer term program only.

INSTRUCTIONS

:',a)



b)

Use a separate sheet for each grade level ,


c)

Mean scores should be reported iii grade

equivalent form.

d)


Grade

Sixth




Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students y

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

.

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Language Usage

April 1972

3161

3.8

High - 7.1

Low

- 2.1

POST-TEST RESULTS

Iowa Tests of Basin Skills

Language Usage

April 1973

3157

4.5

High - 8.4

Low

- 2.1

1, Include only those students who took both the


the reWlar and summer term program only.

INSTRUCTIONS

:a)



b)



c)


equivalent form.

d)

Report data for nonpublic students sepaately.

Grade

Sixth

TABLt III- STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS, ESEA, TITLE

1 1972 -73




TERM PROGRAM ONLY

Name of Test and

Each Subsection

Month and Year

Administered

Form

Number

of

Students I/

Grade

Equivalent

Mean

Grade

Equivalent

Range

PRE-TEST RESULTS


Language Total

April 1972

3161

4.3

High - 7.7

Low

- 2.3

POST-TEST RESULTS


Language Total

April 1973

3157

5.3

High 8.8

Low

- 2.4

I/ Include only those students

who took both the

pre- and post-test


the r6Tlar and summer term program

°nil..

INSTRUCTIONS

a)


used


b)


grade level


c)


in grade

equivalent form.

d)


separately.

TABLE V - NUMFIR OF CHILDREN AND micrivr OFGAIN AcilliviD EETI.ErN rrL- A\D PCSTTESTING ON

STAND1RII2ED ACHIIATfN: !01-AVRIS

Number of MonthsGain Eetween

Pre- and rosttesting

Number of ChildrenAchieving indicatedAmount of Gain

1 or less 18

2 3

37

4

5 2

6 4

7 0

83

9 2

10 2

11 3

12 0

13 1

141

is0

16

5

17 0

18 2

19 and above j4

'indicate the following:

--achievement area tested

--grade level of participants

Total=58


12

Median Gain= 4 Nos.

Third (Repeaters)

--whether participants are public school ornonpublic school students

TABLE V - OF CHILDREN AND MAWS? OFGAIN ACHIEVED ErThTIN PRL- AD PCSTTFSTING ON

STANPARNaP ACHIEVraNT !IASURES*

Number of MonthsGain Bettieen

Pre- and rosttcsting

Number of ChildrenAchieving IndicatedAmount of Gain

1 or less 44

2 47

334

4 -ISS 36

6 21

7 31

Ii25

9 19

lfi 19

11 28

12 21

13

.

24

1414

10IS

16 7

17 11-

18 141

19 and above 31

Indicate the following:

--achievem.mt area tested

Total=474 Median Gain= 7 mos.


--grade level of participantsThird


1 2A

TABLE V - NlYmPrr: or cp:LnREN AND AMOUNT OFGAIN ACHIEVED F:-J;LIN PRE- AM) POSTTUSTING ON

STANPARDI:FD ACHILVPINT TASURES

Number of MonthsGain Between

Pre- and Posttestinc


1 or less64

2 7

3 11

4 3

15

5

7

. .7

, .

5

105

11

12 6

13 6

14 6

154

16

17 3

18 2

19 and above 20


--achieverent area tested

--grade ltirei of participants

Total=190 Median Gain= 5 mos

Vocabulary

Fourth


13

TABLE V - NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND AMOINT OFGAIN ACHIEVED BLThEEN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON

STANPARDIZFD ACt!irvr,,Tvr vrAcimrs.


rre- and 'osttesting


1 or less 62

2 13

313

49

S9

6 13

7 9

8 .

8

,

9

10 8

11 5

12 6

137

1414

IS 5

16 4

17

18 8

19 and above 26A

*Indicate the following:


- -grade level of participants

Total-232 Median Gain= 7 mos.


Fourth

- -whether participants are public school ornonpublic school students

13A

TABLE V - NUHIHR OF CHILDREN AND ArlNT OFGAIN AcniLvro r1741 -IN AND POSMSTING

STANDARDIZFD AcnilvplAT rrsrkrs.,

Number of onthsGain Between

Pre- and Posttesting


1 or less 64

26

12

415

S9

7 13

8 .

11

19

10 7

11 4

12 7

138

1412

15

16 3

17 3

184

19 and above22

'Indicate the following:



Total=234 Median Gain= 7 mos.

Spelling

Fourth


138

TAELE v - Ni VBFR Or CHILD:'.rN AND AMOUNT OFGAIN ACH1LVED 6LM1LN PRL- POSTTLS1 1NG ON

STANDARDI:1D 1,ii.ASuk1S*

NurAbr of MonthsGain Between

Pre- an0 Posttesting


1 or less 71

2 5

314

49

S

6 6

7 8

8 8

9 9

108

11-4 3

12 5

13 8

144

15 3

16 5

17 0

18 4

19 and above1

21

'Indicate the following:

--achievement arca tested


Total=199 Median Gains=4 nos.

Capitalization

Fourth


13C

TABLE V - NUMBER or CHILDREN AND ;MUNI orGAIN ACHIEVED BETWEEN NT- AND POSTTESTING ON

STANVADIZED ACHILVI.MiNT MEASPRES*


Pre- and Pos.ttcsting


1 or less 81

2 10

3 8

47

a________

86

7

8

9 3

105

-

11

12 6

13 8

14 1

157 .

16

17 3

18 .3

19 and above 22


- -achievement area tested


- -whether participants are public schoolnonpublic school students

Total=203

P2nctuation

Median Gain= 5mos.

Fourth

or

13D

TABLE V - NUMBER OF CHILNPN AND AMOUNT OFGAIN ACHIEVED BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON

STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT MEASURES*



Number of ChildrenAchieving Indicated ,Amount of Gain

1 or less 74

2 12

3 7

11

5 6

6 6

7 9

85

9.

12

104

11 6

12 6

13 , 10

142

15

16 3

17 4

18 2

19 and above 13



Total=203 Median Gain= 4 mosLanguage Usage

--grade level of participants Fourth


13E

TABLE V - NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND AMOUNT OF.GAIN ACHIEVED BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON




Number of ChildrenAchieving Indicated-Amount of Gain

1 or less 47

2 10

. 6

46

5 8

6 17

7 7

812

98

1010

116

12 9

13 3

143

152 .

16 .3

17 2

18

. .

2

19 and above 29




Total= 199 Median Gain= 7 mos.

Language Total

Fourth


13F

TABLE V - NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND AMOUNT OFGAIN ACfiIEVED BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON





1 or less 49

2 5

37

4 1

5 7

6 7

7 5

. 1

91

:

-

12

10 3

11 6

12 2

138

147

157 .

16

5

17 4

18

. .

.2 .

19 and above 34




Total= 172

Vocabulary

14

Median Gain=9.8 mos.

Fifth


TABLE V - NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND AMOUNT OFGAIN ACRIEVED BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON





1 or less 23

6

3 5

45

56

6 10

4

7

9l 9

105

11 10

12 9

13 101

148

156

16

17 0

18 .4.

19 and above 16




14A

Total= 147 Median Gain= 9.3' mos.


Fifth


TABLE V - NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND AMOUNT OF.GAIN ACHIEVED BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON




Number of ChildrenAchieving Indicated'Amount of Gain

1 or less 55

2 7

3 5

4

6

56.

6

8

7 10

86

.9

7

107

-

115

..,

12 2

13 101

145

150

16 .

2

17 3

18 .4

19 and above 24



Total= 172

Spelling

Median Gain= 6 mos.

--grade level of participants Fifth


14B

TABLE V - NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND AMOUNT OFGAIN ACHIEVED IILT4EEN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON

STANDARDIZED ACHIrVEMENT MEASURES*




1 or less 48

9

39

4 8

5 11

6 8

6

8 .

9

9

10 4 -

II 6

12 -7

135

14

IS 5

16..

L

175

183

19 and above23

*Indicate the following:Total 18

--achievement area testedCapitalization.

- -grade level of participantsFifth

14C

e Ian Gain= i r+ws.

- -whether participants are public school ornonpublic school stuaerts

TABLE V - NumarR OF CHILPREN ANT) AMOUNT OFGAIN ACIIILVLD FLTUITN PRL- AND POSTTFSTING ON

STANPARD1:FP AcHirT,1 vrisuRrs




1 or less 55

2 11

33

45

6 4

5

3

9N . 2

10 6

11 6

12 9

137

1410

153

16

17 4

18 6

19 and above26




Total= 173

Punctuation

Median Gain= 8 mos.

Fifth


14D

TABLE V - NUMBFR OF CIIILDREN AND AklOtINT OF

GAIN ACIIIINED ELTV.EI.N rRE- AND PCSTTFSTING ON

STANDkRDI:FD ACM-MINT ` TASIIRrS*




1 or less 53

2,

3

6

S 17

66

710

8 2

9\

8

10 8

11 8

121

136

14 2

IS 10

165

171

18 5

19 and above 12



--trade level of participants

Total=178

langagg1.1save

Fifth

Median Gain= 6 mos.


14E

TABLE V - NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND AMOUNT OFGAIN ACHIEVLD BIM:AN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON

STANPNRD1:FD .%.(U1[1.1"!EN7 !-TASURES

Number of McnthsGain Between

Pre- and Posttestinc

Number of ChildrenAchieving IndicateCAmount of Gain

1 or less 43

2 5

313

14

15

6 11

7 4

10

912

109

11 10

12 6

13 9

14

IS

16

17 3

18 2

19 and above 7



--grade level of piticipmnts

Total= 187

Language Total

Median Gain= 6 mos,

Fifth


14F

TABLE V - NUMBFR OF CHILDREN AND MINT OFGAIN ACIIIEVED ELMEEN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON

STANDARDIDD ACHIEVEkINT MEASITYS


Pre- and PosttestinR

NUmber of ChildrenAchieving IndicatedAmount of Gain

1 or less 39

2

3

4 1

4

3

4

8 - .4

.

9 13

10 3.

11 1

129

134

14 5

IS 2

164

173

186

19 and above 37...


achievement area tested


Total= 152

Vocabulary

Median Gain= 11 mos.

Sixth

--whether participants are public school ornonpublic school .tudents

15

TABLE V - NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND AMOUNT OFCAIN ACIIIEVED BLTINTEN PRL- AND POSTTESTING ON

STANDARDETD ACIIIIVEMENT ,,TASURLS

Number of HonthsGain Between



1 or less 34

24

310

5 6

6 5

7 9

5

,

98

1010

11 8

12 7

134

144

is3

16

17 2

184

19 and above22


- -achievement area testedReading Comprehension

Total=146 Median Gain= 8mos.



15A

TABLE V - NUMBER OF CDILDREN AND AMOUNT OFGAIN ACIIILvED ULTWEEN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON

STANDARDIZED ACIIIEVE,TNT rrksuRrsi,




1 or less 33

24

8

4 3

S 14

6 1

7 9

4

9.

10 12-

11 6

12 3

13

144

IS

16 0

17 5

18

19 and above34




Total= 157

Spelling

15B

Median Gains= 8 mos.

bixth


TABLE V - NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND AMOUNT OFGAIN ACHIEVED BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON

STANDARDIZED MEASURES*




1 or less 36

2 4

33

4

S 4

6 4

7 6:-.

7

94

10 6

11 7

12 2

13 3

14

IS .

16

17 5

18 4

19 and above 43

Indicate the following!

--achievement area tested Capitalization



Total= 157 Median Gain=

Sixth

15C

MOS.

TABLE V - NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND AMOUNT OFGAIN ACnIEVED BETEEN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON




Number of ChildrenAchieving Indicated'Amount of Gain

or less 51

25

3c

4

5 5

6 5

7 5

84

9

10 5

11 4

12 3

13 5

145

IS

16 6

17 2

18 1

19 and above 32




Total= 158

Punctuation

150

Median Gain= 7 mos.

Sixth


TABLE V - NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND AMOUNT OFGAIN ACHIEVED BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON





1 or less 49

2 3

39,

43

6

6 13

7 4

85

9% .

10 7

11 3

12 2

13 101

141

15

16 6

17 4

18 4

19 and above 21


__achievement 2r" *Acted


Total= 158 Median Gain=

Language Usage

Sixth


mos.

15E

TABLE V - NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND AMOUNT OFGAIN ACHIEVED BETWEEN PRE- AND POSTTESTING ON ,





1 or less 33

2 9

36

,--.-,1

8

6 8

7 7

.7

. 5

107

11 2

12 10

13 7

147

15 3

16 3

17 5

18

. .

. 4

19 and above 19



Total= 158 Median Gain= 7 mos.

Language Total

--grade level of participants Sixth


15F

16

IV. Program Operation

A. List the problems, if any, encountered in implementing your localfiscal year 1973 Title I projects. (If any of these problems havebeen resolved, please explain the solution(s) to each one.)

1. By local supervisory/administrative staff

a. The Title I coordinator

b. Finance personnel

c. Instructional personnel

d. Research personnel

2. By principals

3. By teachersTeachers would like to have more resource personneland a greater amount of available reading materials.

4. By aides

5. By parentsParents wanted more stress on academic subjects.Also, they would like better selections in thelunch programs.

6. By the community

-IV. B. Briefly summarize the nature and outcomes of any modifications madein project activities or operations which altered or departed fromthose described in the original project application.


2. for the Regular School Term 1972-73:

C. What prompted these modifications? Evaluation of student performance?Observations or opinions of school personnel? Observations or opinionsof parents? Budget needs?

18

IV. D. Cooperation with Other Agencies: Check any of the services or activ-ities listed below which were provided Title I participants by othercommunity groups and agencies.

1. Health Department

a. (X) Examinations for diagnosis of physical deficiencies

b. (X) Immunization shots

c. (X) Dental services

d. (X) Medical and/or dental personnel for the Title I program

e. (X) Liaison services between home and school concerning healthproblems

2. Department of Social Services

a. (X) Lists of children eligible for and receiving medical ser-vices to help establish eligibility of Title I children

b. (X) Lists of Title I families receiving social services

c. (X) Confirmation of family welfare status for coordination ofTitle I services

d. (X) Medical and welfare assistance to Title I families

3. Civic Groupsgitt

a. (X) Community resource persons to discuss current problems ofTitle I families

b. (X) Selected services such as provision of glasses to Title Iparticipants by charity clubs and organizations

c. (X) Food, and/or clothing, supplied by charity organizatiOns

d. (X) Dissemination services concerning goals and operations ofTitle I program

e. (X) Meeting places for Title I parents for social or discus-sion sessions

4. Religious Organizations

a. (X) Meeting places for socials, or planning sessions

b. (X) Food and/or clothing for Title I children

c. (X) Monetary contributions for food or other emergency services

d. (X) Baby sitting services to Title I families

5. Others (not included above):

11111111ImEmmim........1111MEININ1

Term 2.972

P2-2W--kr School Torn 3472 - 73

111C71t4MCIASIS

(Chock itons that apply)

Pr. '.4:0:7.7L CC:=4.111-G

7.7=7.1 rils=m

f4:- c1: itcas taat apply

musc:Inzr, PART::.:27LTIN5

(Specify rr.':71:cx 17. for

each group partlrfratim)

Encvicw of the objcctivos of the

Titlo I proaram

ECrientation and sChedules for the

prezrzL.,

12 Roles of tcachor and

toaohor'aide

in the tcacher/aido

tcz

.Tont toachor

teacher aido plan-

nir- for inotruotional activities

;otht toachor

toachor aids

LPDroaoIlon to inctruotion

Tcr..m (t4..lchor/aide/rosouroe or

holpirz t.1.77thor) approach to

Inatruotton

al Moan:. of idantifyinz and diag-

nocin3 individual student loarn-

.

inz »cods

finz,vc1c7.-::nt:of.i.tozuzzo!cm-1,rn.d.'41;-.

rcadir.aza :31,1113 for pr:- school

ale:Ant-V:5r cauldron

02. i

nk..

imm

ur c

irss

imatruction

/2Dzvelop.T.cnt of student celf-Oon-

copt

VO

N.

a? nolo of paronts in roinforcing

instruotional activities

Ocnatruction of matcrials and

utilization of spacial instruo-

ticnal czui7zvvit

/J(

accord kteping and analysis of

test data

2.7.R.3adytng of classrooms for open-

ing of school

2f7 Other:

L.:M

07

tr:310:Z

(C17-c%

that zpply)

A/ Local cupervisory staff

Local School Personnel:

.

/Principals

Teachers

&I Alden

LI rhi7oraity SOnsUltante

(Identify)

70onsultants from other

school rystmis (idontity)

Lf roople from community cg

notes

(idantify)

f17.'A :staff (identity)

aParents

ov---r (identity)

Central office Staff:

) Supor7icory/A&Uni-

strative

(50) Subject Specialists

(.) Ancillary/Supportive

School rorsonnele

(63 ) Principals

(521) TvIcllors

t121) Aidoo

('50) Idbreriano

(50) Library Aides

( 38) Othcr

Sposialisod and Ocznanity

rorsonnals

29;Resource

pers

onne

l) Parents

) Cotniity

Vol

unte

ers

) other(o)

41curriculum

coordinator

Lonsth:

1/2 day

/ / 1 day

E 2 days

a 3-5 days

LI 6-10 Gaya

LI more tban

10 days

Location:

Li b central

looation

Eln individ-

ual schools

aIn class-

rooms

ti Other:

La ro

Summer Torn 1472

.

Li regular School tern1772 - 73

ITC-In Ea:11Z=

(C1-,-c% items that app17)

~I*

Cc:77. 7.M33:3

rxt=c1:"=.;

L7.7773, 1-7.77:77.;.72

:au=

$(..pac!S7

for

C7

LT7=77,3

its=1.1 Vnt rn7,17)

r1%

r77:::1

z77.1.7.7.

P a. A

saC" DAT

62.11eview of Lb° obSectives of the

Title I peccrtm

L27Ctiohtation tad schedules for the

precr.ln

27.1101e3 of teacher end teacheraide

in the tcacher/aido team

Efeint teacher - tcather

aids planlid

1.;....: foe% initrtetionaltativitios

EJoint t::'_chcr - te.la:taraide

alTreath:a to inztruotion

E.t7.v (tnchc,r/aide/rnourto or

t::1; :r_1 teacher) approach

to

....inttruetica

/X/ 1:1.7:;.! of id=tifyin5 anddizztoZlng

inayliz71 student Ictrnitg

nzede

gr.1

:.:...

)a.z

.of individuslizIn3 me.d1mS

itrAzuctlon

/17.Z:rnlel-..ent of Itrze=ae ttd readin,1

r-:'..ktns t'li/s for pre-:c:ool and

!..-1:2.7 cle::ntarychildron

§Syclerment of student colt-ooncopt

Role of parents in reinforoing

itztrueticnal activities

/27Conitruction Of mltaritle Mad

u:Il=ttion of *ecial tastruOti

-

1:7-cnt

S2.accrd keeping and analysisor test

data

Z./ Other*

011.

Li Local supervicory staff

Local School Per:canals

a-7

Principals

ETeashers

el Aides

Chlvccsity consultants

(1-tmtify)

Con=altants from other

coLool tvatemn 04.t.mtlfA

.1M

=1.

WE

RW

OO

MM

IOD

People from comtrnity

tamales (ItIont'Sy)

Model Cities

c.ff

(X402tUsi)

Mal

l111

01=

11=

1110

1.1.

..MII

M41

==

.

EParents

ethe

r (X

dent

ltr)

0:4tra1 c:r103 rtzt:r1

Cez7ervizery/Idr-thi-

stretivo

BO ) Subject Speoialictl

() Ancill=7/Su.pportiv f //

:::`,.:ftnettaxe a year

School Porton:soli

(63 1 rrint.uzis

(62l

(121) ad:,

( 50) Litirtriarm

50) Lite-try ',Idea

( 38) 0..h.11-

Craoltilred and Commu-

nity Pcrtotmols

ts.m

.:nt

%I

n= d

ay7 /

77 '21:P

hom

escr 14:3

Leoaticine

L( tn central

029) receurco persona:1

Zeta:Ion

() Parents

ill :1 inGivid-

I) CmIt:tItl-- Taluntoor

ucIl schools

2a clue-

() Onlerts)

Li

41 curriculum

rcems

Coordinator

/ / c.:;:lr,

4_(

Au:Inc

camel lynx's

LI P. Y. during

acto31 tolLrio

Profostienal

roleis tits

ey P. M. after

ec%001 he uri

Saturday,

L./ Othors

(6) total number of 1nm:erste° sessions

() TOtni number ofinseirilcs sessions inrolvInt Joint

,arainiza of tcae,ere and aides

20

IV. F. Involvement of Title I Parents: Check those activities included as apart of the prc,:1ram that were designed to involve the parents ofTitle I children in the program.

1. Program planning conferences

2. Individual school advisory committees

3. 13 Employment ds aides in classroom

4. 13 Classroom visits by parents

5. 13 Regularly scheduled school meetings

6. if Use as volunteer aides

7. 13 Home visits by school personnel

8. Social activities

9. 0 Other: (List)

Appendix

21

The following forms demonstrate opinions and attitudes of students,

parents, teachers, and principals participating in the ESEA Title I Summer

School Program for the year 1972. The data was collected from all participants

as stated previously.

22

STUDENT REACTION SHEET

Summer '72

I. What did you like most about the summer schools?

Reading program 442

Cultural activities 252Snack program 121

Physical education 235

Other 80No Answer 1

II. How did you feel about attending summer school?

Enjoyed it very much 746

Was okay 191

Liked it very little 48

Liked it not at all 22

No Answer 1

III. Who encouraged or recommended that you attend summer school?

Principal 111

Teacher 285Parent 520Yourself 379Other 14

No Answer 2

IV. Which of these helped you to learn best in summer school?

Reading program 333Children's aide 68Teacher 591

Other 8No Answer . 8

V. What reading program did you use?

Stern 322Distar 64

SRA 106Other 522No Answer 4

VI. How many trips did you take with your summer school class?

One 12

2-4 591

More than 5 397

None 6

No Answer 2

22A

STUTANT REACTION SHEET (cont'd)

VII. How do you travel to summer school each day?

MTA 22

Family car 50School bus 40Walk 891

Other 3

No Answer 2

VIII. If you had one wish, how would you use it in summer school?

I wish: Total

1459952

1.

2.

3.

For more subjects (math, art, etc.)More tripsLonger summer school period (weeks & hours)

4. For more physical education 475. To do my work well 356. Undecidea 327. No wish 268. Think and read more clearly 259. Better snacks and lunches 24

10. Be a good or better person or student 2411. Be a teacher 2212. To come next year 1713. Money for summer school (repairs, assistance, etc.) 1514. More outdoor play 1315. To do many different things 1316. Longer trips to far places 11

17. Better playground equipment 11

18. Learn more 11

19. More cultural programs 11

20. More library books as prizes 11

21. Be smartest in class 1022. Attend everyday 9

23. Have more and better teaching equipment 9

24. Have a different teacher 825. To have more fun 826. To have a ride to school 827. Parties 828. Write stories 829. To be a teacher's aide 7

30. Shorter summer school period (weeks)31. No summer school 6

32. Help teachers 633. Bigger classes 5

34. Share summer school experiences 435. Air-conditioning 436. Be in skill training 3

37. Help each other 338. To pass my grade 3

39. To have visitors 3

228

STUDENT REACTION SHEET (cont'd)

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

Keep it to myselfHave more friends hereMake sumer school more interestingNo winter schoolTo be a baseball playerHave more teacni2rsNo writingGood education and a job

Total

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

248. Summer school would not end 249. All girl summer school 250. Later starting time 1

51. Go home and play 1

52. Have a lot of clothes 1

53. Be a cowboy 1

54. Be a truck driver 1

55. Be a farmer 1

56. Be a pretty girl 1

57. Have a present for the school 1

58. Lunchroom 1

59. To be the boss 1

60. Newspaper in every class 1

61. Good house 1

62. Make books more interesting 1

63. Older 1

64. Use same methods 1

65. Winter session to be like summer school 1

No Answer

ti

)58

Total 1008

23

PARENT REACTION SHEET

Summer ' 72

I. Who decided that your child should attend summer school?

You 463Principal 17

Teacher 94

Your child 162

Other 23

No Answer 1

II. How many times have you visited your child's summer school class this year?

One visit 110

2-5 visits 2646-10 visits 111

More than 10 visits 144Not at all 58

No Answer 1

III. How many times have you gone on field trips with your child's summer school class?

1 trip 1432-5 trips 236More than 5 trips 76Not at all 226No Answer 7

IV. How do you feel summer school has helped your child?

A great deal 550Somewhat 104

A little bit 23

one at all 5

No Answer 6

V. How adequate do you feel the "snack program" is in your child's school?

More than adequate 19S

Adequate 440Less than adequate 32Not at all adequate 11

No Answer 6

VI. Number these programs in the order you feel they best serve your child.no. 1 as best)

(Using

1 2 3 4 5 6 No AnswerPhysical Education 65 94 136 112 74 83 124Cultural Activities 88 234 126 56 49 25 110Reading Program 465 88 37 12 7 10 69Music 13 42 120 155 115 81 162Snack Program 7 21 51 90 142 208 169Children's Aides 41 113 82 88 116 86 162

23A

REACTION SHEET (cont'd)

VII. What would you change about summer school? Total

Nothing 355Hours 32More trips and cultural activities 15

Snack program 12

More subjects (art, math, etc) 8Length of summer school 6

r-conditioning 5

:4.ore programs 5

Smaller classes 5

More community & parent involvement 5

More work, less play 3

Physical education 3

Counselors 2

Improvements in all areas 2

More children's aides 2

More resource teachers 2

More discipline 1

Less discipline 1

Structured classes 1

Marks transferred onto winter reports 1

Allow younger children to attend 1

Recruit program to more parents 1

Give parents schedule 1

Way materials are sent home 1

Children should not pay for trips 1

More Money 1

No Answer 218

Total 688

24

PARENT'S REACTION (Yellow Sheets)

Summer '72

I. Since your child attended summer school, what activities Total

seemed to help him in his learning?

Reading program 7

Principal's attitude towards children 1

Language skills 2

Self-Expression in class 3

Work together 1

Work alone 1

Cultural Activities 3

Child did not attend 1

No Answer 0

Total 20

II. From a parent's point of view, what would you change aboutsummer school?

Nothing 3

Pay Parent liaison full days pay 1

More reading material 1

More parent involvement 2

Teachers to work harder with slow children 1

Find out what the children want 1

After finding the number who won't comefill in with those who really wan to come 1

No Answer 2

Total 12

TEACHER REACTION SHEET

Summer '72

I. What reading program did you use?

Stern 88SRA 12

Distar 108

Other 159No Answer 8

II. How do you find the availability of instructional materials?

More than ample 110

Ample 210

Less than ample 20

Very poor 5

No Answer 9

III. What resources are available to you in the summer school?

Reading resource teacher 207

Art resource teacher 182Physical education teacher 216

Librarians 267

Music resource teacher 244

All of these 24

No Answer 2

IV. How do you find the use of children's aides to reinforce skills?

Invaluable 99Valuable 235Less than valuable 6

Can do without them 4

Not at all useful 1

No Answer 9

V. How important do you find the library services is to the summer program?

Most important 205

Important 128

Less than important 7

Not at all important 2

No Answer 12

VI. Do you feel that the summer program helps children?

A lotSomewhatVery littleNot at allNo Answer

30250

2

25

25A

REACTION SHEET (cont'd)

VII. How do you feel about the cultural activities as they apply to the summerprogram?

Most valuable 228Valuable 121

Less than valuable 4

No value at allNo Answer 1

VIII. How do you feel about the "snack program"?

It is more than adequate 40

Adequate 288Less than adequate 22

Of no value 3

No Answer 1

IX. What changes would you like to make in the summer school program? Total

1. None 882. More trips & cultural activities 283. More resource personnel 174. "Snack program" 175. More reading materials 106. Smaller classes 87. Better transportation 7

'8. Begin at earlier date 69. Trips handled differently 610. More parent involvement 5

11. More aides 5

12. Change starting time 413. Home visitors to help with lateness & attendance 4

14. Air-conditioning 3

15. Eliminate problem children 3

16. Too many activities 3

17. Minimize clerical work 2

18. Reduce sessions (weeks) 2

19. Change closing time 1

20. Programs by teacher & resource personnel 1

21. Second teacher instead of aide 1

22. Science program 1

23. Math program 1

24. Drama program 1

25. Reading before all else 1

26. More "Black Artists" 1

27. More time needed 1

28. Self-evaluation sheets to lower grades 1

29. Hearing tests 1

30. Better distribution of enrichment activities 1

31. Special teacher in Learning Center. 1

No Answer 123

Total 354

26

Summer School 1972

Schools

ATTENDANCETotalDid Didn't Ten Days or Less

7 37. 33 55 125

8 83 30 110 223

10 45 12 19 76

11 102 0 57 159

13 0 106 100 206

16 128 35 70 233

19 96 39 33 168

20 0 47 25 72

22 38 1 49 88

26 131 0 56 187

27 98 1 55 154

30 56 0 76 132

32 7 91 53 151

34 33 0 0 33

35 128 11 21 160

37 26 18 23 67

38 98 2 17 117

59 99 0 41 140

61 124 0 60 184

66 26 6 25 57

74 0 0 39 39

86 24 24 32 80

88 69 60 24 153

94 8 50 36 94

95 13 43 25 81

97 90 6 52 148

99 0 0 58 58

100 66 14 67 147

101 106 36 39 181

103 0 43 49 92

104 70 0 51 121

107 0 127 32 159

109-109A 0 55 29 84

111. 29 0 37 66

112 67 0 72 139

118 43 0 26 69

121 14 11 5 30

122 71 6 45 122

126 20 4 13 37

132 43 18 33 94

137 90 15 75 180

138 0 52 38 90

139 122 10 1 133

140 0 0 17 17

141 114 35 21 170

142 57 2 0 59

145 73 4 12 89

148 62 17 69 148

149 37 101 51 , 190

156 40 69 21 132

159 32 54 7i, 156

The table above represents the attendance of all Title I eligible pupils whoapplied for summer school.

26A

Schools (cont'd)

Schools

ATTENDANCETotalDid Didn't Ten Days or Less

160 1J 0 5 24

161 87 3 75 165

162 30 0 38 68

163 101 0 81 182

164 137 5 0 142

225 54 1 38 93

238 42 27 61 130

240 0 41 103 144

250 0 48 27 75

301 18 19 7 44

Total 3204 1432 2521 7157

LEAPS & BOUNDS

Summer '72

27

Students WhoAttended Less

Than 10 Days

SchoolRead Less

thansix books

Readsix

books

Read Morethan

six books

TotalStudents

Studentsthat

Withdrew

Students withPoor

Attendance

30 29 10 8 4732 54 20 22 109 0 034 61 39 43 147 0 035 31 6 12 60 0 037 13 14 23 5059 68 7 7 82 0 061 48 50 25 125 0 066 52 25 5 82 0 074 112 67 46 228 2 1

88 22 25 55 0 094 57 20 31 10995 101 40 22 166 0 097 4 26 36 80 0 099 48 6 35 89 0 0100 126 63 91 273 1

101 106 45 39 194 0 0102 Beginners - Not Applicable 0 0104 25 42 16 73 0 0107 44 38 17 102 0 0109 23 6 23 52 0 0111 48 1 1 50 0 0112 35 16 24 75 0 0118 42 23 4 69 0 0119 44 8 14 66 0 0132 79 27 28 134 0 0137 51 20 15 86 0 0138 17 1 22 40 0 0139 26 14 31 72 0 0140 58 16 10 119 0 0141 64 39 57 173 0 0142 56 28 58 146 0 0145 15 56 20 93 0 0

148 147 30 22 216 6 0

149 45 31 32 119 0 0156 73 29 26 133 0 0159 113 21 26 173 0 0161 58 23 37 117 0 0163 40 26 42 110 0 0164 68 19 5 105 0 0225 62 35 33 120 0 0238 27 12 12 51 0 0250 52 25 34 112 0 0

Total 2230 1046 1079 4502 8 2

Twenty three per cent of students read at least 6 books during the six weekssummer program. Twenty-four per cent of the students read more than 6 books while50% read less than six books. These data are based on returns from 41 schools outof 63.

PRINCIPAL'S TALLY OF SERVICES PROVIDED TO STUDENTSIN THE ELEMENTARY BASIC SKILLS POGRAM

ESEA TITLE I, SUMMER '72

I. SERVICES

A. Direct Educative Services

1. Basic Skills (remedial)a. English language arts

(except reading)

b. Reading

2. Basic Skills (non-remedialregular and enrichment)a. English language arts

(except reading)

b. Reading

3. Differentialized curriculum forthe handicapped

4. Other Direct Educative Services

a. Arts/Arts and Crafts

b. Music

c. Physical Education

d. Cultural EnrichmentField tripsmade: 902

e. Interest groups

f. Clubs

g. Hobbies

h. Number of visiting speakers

i. Number of visiting artists

5. Textbooks

28

Number of Participants in Federally Aided ProgramGrades as of June 23, 1972

Pre-Kdg'nPub-lic

NonPublic

Kdg'nPub-lic

NonPublic

Grades& Sp. EducationPublic

1 - 6

Nonpublic

529 0 1070 7 5126 I 71

492 0 1150 6 5560 I 87

602 2 826 15 3979 I 34

368 2 773 15 3989 I 34

0 0 0 0 01 0

661 2 1183 20 6097 94

1017 2 1618 18 7787 89

924 2 1233 18 5488 65

1142 2 1691 22 8953 112

733 0 1438 12 7026 I 105

72 0 410 3271 I 39

38 0 189 1 908 24

203 0 529 13 2061 30

254 3 484 25 1854 45

139 0 950 16 7030 112

ERVICES (cont'd)

. Supporting Services

28A

Number of Participants in Federally Aided ProgramGrades as of June 23, 1972

_ELTzt119'n Kcig'n Grades 1 - 6Pub- Non Pub- Non & Sp. Education

1. Audio-Visual materials, books lic Public lic Public Public Nonpublic

1. Audio-Visual materials, books,periodicals and other printed ma-terials (excluding textbooks) 955 2 1661 20 8055 95

2. Pupil services

a. Guidance and counseling 91 0 74 0 285 14

b. Testing 353 0 67 5 686 29

c. School psychological services

d. Aides, social work, parent-liaison worker

t. Health services (dental work,eyeglasses, etc.

f. Welfare services (emergency,shoes, clothing, etc.)

106

965

942

39

0

2

0

0

42

1442

1093

29

0

20

9

0

110

6754

3220

168

0

93

62

0

g. Pupil Transportation 321 0 488 5 2591 59

h. Food Service

i. Special services for handi-capped children

j. Other pupil services

1148

0

2 2265

0

22

0

8265

1

113

0

Please specify the service: 606 Project/City HospitalsCultural dance groupGirl Scout Volunteer ReadersDental Screening and Brush-in by Greater Baltimore

Medical Center

II. POPULATION STATISTICS

A. Unduplicated Count of Pupils by GradeLevelGrade Leve as o une 23, 972

Kindergarten

1

2

B.

C.

29

ummer c oo 'upi s n up icated CountFrom Public Schools

1895

From Non-public Schools

2472

2409

3 2140

4 1244

5 1049

6 189

Ungraded elementary (Special EducationOnly)

277

Duplicated Population Statistics by GroupPupil Population Group From Public Schools

1. Children from low income areas 10047

2. Handicapped children .16

3. Non-standard English speaking children 148

4. Migrant children 0

5. Neglected and delinquent children 136

6. General elementary population childrennot included in #1 through #5

815

Unduplicated Population Statistics byGroupPupil Population Group From Public. Schools

I. Children from low income areas 8503

2. Handicapped children 7



5, neglected and delinquent children 141

6. General elementary population childrennot included in #1 through #5

756

21

27

27

33

27

10

4

0


115

0

0

0

1

2


101

0

0

0

1

1

30

PPINCIPAL'S TALLY OF SERVICES PROVIDED TO STUDENTSIN THE ELEMENTARY BASIC SKILLS PROGRAM


Direct Educative Services

Grades ServedPre-Kdg'n Kdg'n Grades 1 - 6Pub- Non Pub- Non & Sp. Educationlic public lic Public Public Nonpublic

1. Basic Skills (remedial)

a. English language arts (exceptreading) 529 0 1070 7 5126 71

b. Reading 429 0 1150 6 5560 87

2. Basic Skills (non-remedial regularand enrichment)

a. English language arts (except. reading) 602 2 826 15 3979 34

b. Reading 368 2 773 15 3989 34

3. Differentialized curriculum for thehandicapped 0 0 0 0

4. Other Direct Educative Services

a. Arts/Arts and Crafts 661 2 1183 20 6097 94

b. Music 1017 2 1618 18 7787 89

c. Physical Education 924 2 1233 18 5488 65

d. Cultural Enrichment 1142 2 1691 22 8953 112Field Trips

902

e. Interest Groups 773 0 1438 12 7026 105

f. Clubs 72 0 410 3 3271 39

g. Hobbies 38 0 189 1 908 24

h. Number of visiting speakers 203 0 529 13 2061 30

i. Number of visiting artists 254 0 484 25 1854 45

5. Textbooks 139 0 950 16 7030 112

PRINCIPAL'S TALLY OF SERVICES PROVIDED TO STUDENTSIN THE ELEMENTARY BASIC SKILLS PROGRAM


Supporting Services

1. Audio-Visual materials, books,periodicals and other printedmaterials (excluding textbooks)

. Pupil Services

a. Guidance and counseling

b. Testing

c. School psychological services

d. Aides, social work, parent-liaison worker

e. Health services (dental work,eyeglasses, physical examina-tions, etc.)

f. Welfare services (emergency,shoes, clothing, etc.)

g. Pupil Transportation

h. Food service

i. Special services for handi-capped children

30A

Grades ServedPre-Kdg'n Kdg'n Grades 1 - 6Pub- Non Pub- Non & Sp. Educationlic Public lic Public Public Nonpublic

955 2 1661 20 8055 95

91 0 74 285 14

353 0 67 5 686 29

106 0 42 110 0

965 2 1442 20 67 54 93

942 0 1093 3220 62

39 0 29 0 168 0

321 0 488 5 2591 59

1148 2 2265 22 8265 113

0 0 0 1 0

31

I. ENROLLMENT AND ATTENDANCE INFORMATION

A. Number of students who initially turned in registration cards 15553

B. Number who appeared and enrolled (as of Wednesday, July 5, 1972) 8926

C. Number who did not appear3876

D. Net roll as of August 11, 197211704

32SUGGESTIONS FOR ESEA, TITLE I SUMMER 1973 PROPOSALS

At the Holiday Inn meeting of the Citywide P.A.C., Nov. 13, 1972, the tiva sub-

groups considered the summer 1972 proposal ingredients, and reported the followingsuggestions. (A representative from each of the five subcommittees will meet withBCPS staff on Sunday, Dec. 3, at 3 PM, to consider further the voluminous sug-gestions and work toward refining them and preparing a report for the P.A.C. meetingon Jan. 20, 1973.)

GROUP A ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

1. Objectivesa. Readingb. Mathematicsc. Library (both those within school and those libraries close by)d. Writing

2. Evaluationa. Schools to report progress of pupils to parentsb. Parent conferences with teachers and staff to be facilitated

3. Instructional Programa. Time (schedule to include items listed in objectives)b. Teachers (try to use each school's regular teachers and aides as far as possible)c. Open the summer school program earlier (close upon heels of regular year program

before children become involved in other concerns)

4. Supplementary Servicesa. Increase parent volunteer activities and participationb. Increase involvement of non-public school pupils and parents

5. Equipmenta. Reading center to be provided in each school in the programb. Air conditioning or fans to help learning climate in summer

(#238 unbearably hot, for example

GROUP C

1. Objectivesa. Continue winter objective: children to gain 10 mo. learning within school yearb. Enforce instructional learning before taking bus tripsc. Program to include reading, social studies, and science (not just reading in

isolation from other subjects)d. Due to low enrollment and attendance of Title I pupils in summer, allow all

interested children to attend summer school

2. Evaluationa. Form a committee to make proposed changes in the Iowa Testing (find other

more suitable tests)b. Form a combined P.A.C. delegation to find out why we aren't getting our proposal

plans enforced and implemented; call a meeting with Dr. Patterson on this matter.

3. Instructional Servicesa. Coordinator should be provided in each school to do-or ascertain-a more effective

jobb. Teachers should work more closely with the slow-learning students and the aidesc. Promote the "lab school" technique in other schools if acceptable and possible

32A :

SUGGESTIONS FOR ESEA, TITLE I SUMMER 1973 PROPOSALS (cont'd)

4. Supplementary Servicesa. Continuation of tutorial services by studentsb. Extended library servicesc. Wider use of N.Y.C. workersd. More cultural enrichment

5. Equipmenta. Film loop projectorb. Language masterc. Typewriters (primary)d. Tape recorders

GROUP D

1. Objectivesa. Extension of winter program: reading, library, writingb. Reassemble the special education classes for special help wherever possible,

with an appropriate program for them (the Dept. of Ed. has fed many special ed.children back to regular classes due to curtailed budget, and the children arefalling further behind)

2. Evaluationa. Find more suitable standardized tests for BCPS (to replace IOWA tests) as soon

as possibleb. Continue the 'valuation as for the regular year program (using last summer's guide)

3. Instrm,ionai Ser- icesa. -,ontinue use of aides

Provide better trained teachers in the DISTAR program (some were not properlyprepared)

c. Provide smaller groups with the DISTAR program (last summer some groups were toolarge for the teacher to handle effectively)

d. Give diagnostic tests to the pupils before the summer program begins to learnpupil needs

e. Provide practice in skills needed for the Iowa :vestsf. Assign a bus to each participating schoolg. Notify the selected summer school faculty well enough in advance so that an

effective summer program can be planned in each schoolh. Extend the summer school day on a voluntary basis so that interested pupils can

remain longeri. Pre-advertise the program more to gain more participants (as Champ Program

does, for example)j. Extend the "lab school': of Model Cities wherever requested

4. Supplementary Services

33

PRINCIPAL'S TALLY OF SERVICES PROVIDED TO STUDENTSIN THE ELEMENTARY BASIC SKILLS PROGRAM


NON-PUBLIC JUNE '72

SERVICESPre-Kdg'n Kdg'n Grades 1 - 6

1. Basic Skills (remedial) 0 13 158

2. Basic Skills (non-remedial) 4 30 68

3. Differentialited curriculum for thehandicapped 0 0 0

4. Other Direct Educative Services 11 132 603

5. Textbooks 0 16 112

Number of Participants in FederallyAided Program

1. Audio-Visual materials, books,periodicals and other printedmaterials (excluding textbooks) 2 20 95

2. Pupil Services 4 61 370

POPULATION STATISTICS

Unduplicated Count of Pupil by Grade Level: (Non-Public)

Kdg'n 21 4th 271st 27 5th 102nd 27 6th 43rd 33

Duplicated Population Statistics by Group(Non-Public)


2. Handicapped children 0




6. General elementary population children not includedin #1 through #5 2

33A

RVICES (cont'd)NON-PUBLIC

Unduplicated Population Statistics by Group(Non-Public)


2. Handicapped Children 0




6. General elementary population children not includedin #1 through #5. 1

ems price · mental age of 6.8 in verbal meaning (pma). in grade2 in 19735 these same pupils were...

Documents