ESEA Title I Regular Program, 1980-81. Volume I, Final Technical Report. Publication No. 80.71.

Institution	Austin Independent School District, TX. Office of Research and Evaluation.
Titel	ESEA Title I Regular Program, 1980-81. Volume I, Final Technical Report. Publication No. 80.71.
Quelle	(1981), (469 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Quantitative Daten; Academic Achievement; Achievement Tests; Educational Assessment; Elementary Education; Evaluation Criteria; Evaluation Methods; Hispanic Americans; Measurement Techniques; Migrant Education; Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation; Reading Readiness Tests; Records (Forms); Scores; Spanish Speaking; Test Interpretation; Texas (Austin) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Schulleistung; Achievement test; Achievement; Testing; Test; Tests; Leistungsbeurteilung; Leistungsüberprüfung; Leistung; Testdurchführung; Testen; Education; assessment; Bewertungssystem; Elementarunterricht; Hispanic; Hispanoamerikaner; Messtechnik; Programme evaluation; Programmevaluation; Formularsammlung; Test analysis; Testauswertung
Abstract	Major conclusions highlighted in the summary of the 1980-81 ESEA Title I evaluation of the Austin (Texas) Independent School District are: using Title I and local funds to lower pupil/teacher ratios to 15:1 produced an effective compensatory education program; across grades, low-achieving students benefited more from lower pupil/teacher ratios than higher-achieving students; lowering the pupil/teacher ratio had a greater effect on quality of instructional time than on quantity of instructional time; schoolwide project teachers believed that project effectiveness would cease if pupil/teacher ratios exceeded 18:1; there was no evidence of a consistent, positive impact of the regular Title I Program on student achievement; by first grade, former Title I prekindergarten students were no longer scoring higher than their classmates; parents appreciated having specific, planned instructional activities to do with children at home; and Summer At-Home Program participants did not achieve more than their matched controls. The purpose, procedures, results, and appropriate communications, instructions and data for 5 of the 13 instruments (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Boehm Test of Basic Concepts, Metropolitan Readiness Test, Iowa Test of Basic Skills and Prekindergarten Observations) used to provide the evaluation data are detailed in separate appendixes. (NEC)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC