Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564954",
    "label": "[Education] - Early Childhood Education - First Annual Evaluation Report 1973-1974",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564954"
}

{
    "id": "118564954",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564954",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "[Education] - Early Childhood Education - First Annual Evaluation Report 1973-1974",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564954",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Reports"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P34-014-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P34-014-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P34-014-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564954",
    "naId": 118564954,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408629/40-840-7408629-P34-014-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "6b4051201cea9144",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: [Education] - Early Childhood Education -\nFirst Annual Evaluation Report 1973-1974\nBox: P34\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nPRESS\nEarly\nX\nChildhood\nEducation\nFirst Annual\nEvaluation Report\n1973-74\nCALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - Willson Riles . Superimentant of Public Instruction . Sacramento, 1974\nEarly\nChildhood\nEducation\nFirst Annual Evaluation Report\n1973-74\nThis document was published by the California\nState Department of Education, 721 Capitol Mall,\nSacramento, CA 95814, and distributed under the\nprovisions of the Library Distribution Act.\n1974\nForeword\nThe early childhood education program is providing a major new direc-\ntion to the education of California's schoolchildren. The program was launched\nwhen the state's Legislature and the Governor approved Senate Bill 1302 (Chapter\n1147, Statutes of 1972).\nDeveloped by the State Department of Education and sponsored by the\nState Board of Education, the new program involved 172,073 children in 1973-74,\nits first year of operation. A total of 1,010 schools in 800 school districts--\n80 percent of all school districts in the state--participated in the program.\nPrior to the establishment of the early childhood education (ECE) pro-\ngram, most educational change followed a fragmented approach along \"categorical\"\nlines. This approach resulted in the development of numerous special supple-\nmentary programs to solve specific problems in narrow areas of concern. By 1972\nmore than 30 different state and federal programs had been established to help\nsolve problems for special portions of the general pupil population or to remedy\nspecial deficiencies in the school curriculum. The weaknesses in such fragmented\napproaches were obvious:\nSome programs emphasized remediation, trying to make up for past\nfailures instead of seeking to prevent problems.\nNone encouraged a comprehensive educational strategy for all\nchildren at the school sites.\nMany were based on a search for a panacea which, if discovered,\nwould immediately cure all of education's ills.\nMany did not recognize the need for the commitment of all concerned--\nincluding parents, school boards, teachers, and administrators--to\nachieve success of a school's total program.\nThe designers of ECE recognized these weaknesses and sought to correct\nthem and at the same time to build on the positive aspects of the state and\nfederal programs that were already in operation.\nEarly childhood education was built on the premise that too often the\npublic schools failed to capitalize on the unique learning opportunities in the\nearly years of a child's life. Avoidable educational deficiencies developed in\nthe education of our children as a result of the failure to provide adequate\nsupport in these early years. Costly remedial programs have consequently been\nrequired to overcome these deficiencies.\nRecognizing the need for additional support for school programs in the\nprimary grades, the early childhood education program provided $130 per pupil\nenrolled. It is important to note that the ECE legislation required that at\nleast 50 percent of the participating schools be those with the greatest educa-\niii\ntional need. For educationally disadvantaged children attending these schools,\nadditional funds were allocated either through the ECE program or appropriate\nstate and federal categorical aid programs.\nThe concentration of additional funding on each pupil enrolled in ECE\nwas combined with a plan of action. All districts seeking ECE funds were required\nto prepare an individual school-by-school plan developed by parents, teachers, and\nadministrators at the school site, which included provision for the following:\nAssessing the educational needs of the local community\nRestructuring the educational program in kindergarten through\nthird grade, including individualized instruction\nDefining measurable program objectives\nCoordinating the use of all educational resources--federal;\nstate, and local--to meet the needs of the children\nInvolving parents directly in the education of their children\nProviding staff development and inservice training\nEvaluating the results of the program\nRequiring approximately a 1-to-10 adult-pupil ratio\nThis evaluation report shows that after the first year of operation,\nthe ECE program resulted in significant improvement in pupil achievement.\nIn reading/language development, pupils participating in ECE made 11\nmonths of educational gain for each 10 months of instruction. The typical\nlearning rate for all children is 10 months of growth for 10 months of schooling.\nThe typical gain for disadvantaged children not served by a special program is\n7 months growth for 10 months of schooling. And the typical gain for disadvan-\ntaged children enrolled in a successful compensatory education program of Title I\nof the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is month for month. When ESEA,\nTitle I, was made part of the comprehensive local planning process required by\nECE, however, the typical gain for disadvantaged children was increased to 13\nmonths for 10 months of instruction.\nThe ECE test scores probably underrate the actual achievement growth\nof the total enrollment, since some schools with the lowest percentage of dis-\nadvantaged pupils were not required to use standardized achievement tests. As\na result, their gains are not included in the typical ECE pupil gain.\nIn mathematics, pupils participating in the ECE program gained at the\nrate of 12 months for 10 months of schooling. As in the case of reading, the\ntypical gain for all pupils in mathematics is 10 months gain for 10 months of\nschooling. The typical gain for disadvantaged children not involved in special\nprograms is 7 months for 10 months of schooling, while the typical gain for dis-\nadvantaged children enrolled in special compensatory education programs is 9\nmonths for 10 months of schooling.\niv\nSince many schools with the least number of disadvantaged children\nwere not required to participate in the ECE achievement tests for mathematics,\nthe actual ECE gain is probably higher than the official figure indicates.\nIn addition to the reported achievement gains, the 1973-74 evaluation\nindicates that participating schools had initiated a wide variety of programs\nto improve parental involvement in the education of their children. These pro-\ngrams ranged from providing general information to parents about the content of\nschool programs to helping parents in specific education activities with their\nchildren. The program also generated substantial parent and community involve-\nment in school programs. Approximately 23,000 volunteers and 8,000 paid aides\nwere reported as having worked in ECE's 1,010 schools in 1973-74. In addition,\nthe evaluation found that ECE programs focused on improvements in techniques\nof individualized instruction and the use of diagnostic/prescriptive techniques.\nPrograms providing diagnostic health services were found to be particularly\nhelpful for participating children.\nAccording to the 1973-74 evaluation of the early childhood education\nprogram, nearly 50 percent of the ECE schools included locally determined com-\nponents such as bilingual-bicultural education, English as a second language,\nmusic, and art. The selection of these components resulted from assessments of\nlocal needs, as required of all participating ECE schools.\nIn the ECE effort the State Department of Education has a threefold\nresponsibility:\n1. To assure that appropriate planning, implementation, and evalua-\ntion have taken place\n2. To administer the expansion of the program\n3. To evaluate and report the statewide results of ECE\nIn accord with these responsibilities, the Department monitored ECE\nin a variety of ways. All schools, for example, were required to submit de-\ntailed plans, which were rated by ECE consultants. In addition, as part of a\nprogram audit, participating schools' plans were reviewed by staff at the school\nsites. Parents, teachers, and administrators participated in this review.\nApparently, this close attention to the implementation of each ECE school's\nplan is one of the most important reasons why the program has achieved most of\nits goals.\nECE policies also required fiscal controls which resulted in 59 per-\ncent of the schools reporting expenditures within 5 percent of their estimated\nbudgets.\nAs with any major program in its first year of operation, certain\nadministrative refinements and program improvements are required to keep ECE\nmoving successfully forward. This evaluation report has pinpointed the follow-\ning areas where action is required, and every effort will be made by the State\nDepartment of Education to respond to these needs:\nGuidance is required for districts regarding the distinction\nbetween parent involvement and the education of parents.\nV\nFurther requirements are necessary for the reporting of staff\ndevelopment activities.\nDistricts should be encouraged to expand health and auxiliary\nservices.\nStandardized testing for all ECE participants is necessary.\nDistricts need to budget for local evaluation at both the district\nand school levels.\nActivities must be initiated to improve coordination with other\nstate and local agencies to improve the delivery of local health\nservices.\nIn summary I believe that this report shows that the early childhood\neducation program has resulted in significant gains in pupil achievement. The\nlevel of performance achieved by ECE is unprecedented for a program of such\nmagnitude. I further believe that these findings justify substantial expansion\nof ECE in the 1975-76 school year.\nI congratulate the thousands of persons--teachers, school administra-\ntors, board members, community leaders, teacher aides, students, parents, and\nDepartment of Education employees who worked so hard to make the first year of\nthis program a success for the children.\nI commend the following evaluation report on their behalf to all\nCalifornians.\nWilsoukles\nSuperintendent of Public Instruction\nvi\nContents\nForeword\niii\nAbstract of the Evaluation Report for Early Childhood Education\n1\nFindings of the Evaluation\n1\nConclusions of the Evaluation\n2\nAreas Needing Attention\n3\nChapter I Introduction\n5\nParticipants in the Early Childhood Education Program\n7\nPersonnel in the Programs\n8\nChapter II Program Implementation\n11\nChapter III Product Evaluation\n15\nReading/Language Development Component\n16\nMathematics Component\n25\nHealth/Auxiliary Services Component\n32\nParent Education Component\n35\nParent Participation and Community Involvement Component\n36\nStaff Development and Inservice Education Component\n38\nOptional Components\n41\nChapter IV Fiscal Management\n44\nvii\nAbstract of the Evaluation Report for\nEarly Childhood Education\nFINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION\nProduct Evaluation\nReading/language development. The early childhood education (ECE)\nschools reported that they made serious efforts in 1973-74 to restructure\nlanguage and reading programs by using diagnostic and prescriptive materials.\nThe extent to which the efforts in restructuring programs were successful is\nindicated by the high level of achievement gains reported. The typical student\nin the ECE program attained 1.1 months gain for each month of instruction, with\nsome school gains as high as 1.4 months per month of instruction. Because some\nECE schools were not required to use standardized achievement tests, the test\nscores reported may, in fact, be an underestimate of the actual pupil growth.\nMathematics. For mathematics programs the schools reported a variety\nof activities designed to improve pupil performance. The success of these pro-\ngrams can be judged by a reported typical gain of 1.2 months for every month of\ninstruction. Again, since all schools did not use standardized tests, the re-\nported gain may, as in the case of the reading/language development component,\nbe an underestimate of the actual gain.\nHealth/auxiliary services. Schools with successful ECE programs rated\ndiagnostic services in particular as the most helpful and most important. There\nwere several discrepancies between the schools' judgments of which health/auxiliary\nservices were most important, on the one hand, and which were the most effective,\non the other. The schools judged attendance, dental, and medical services to be\nthe most important but did not find them to be effective in accomplishing school\ngoals.\nParent education. Most schools, with the goal of reinforcing their\neducation programs, simply attempted to provide general information to the par-\nents about the content of their programs. A few schools, recognizing that the\nparents' needs differed from the original assessment of needs that had been made,\nchanged their parent education programs sometime during the year. A few other\nschools which experienced the same problem but which had not changed their\napproach to parent education reported that they planned to make program changes\nin the future.\nOptional component. The optional component covered a wide range of\nprogram choices. Schools could choose to implement any activity that met their\nunique needs and interests. Nearly one-half of the ECE schools included an\noptional component such as music, art, bilingual-bicultural education, and English\nas a second language. At least 90 percent of the optional programs were also\nreported as having been fully or partially realized.\n1\n2\nParent participation and community involvement. Significant numbers\nof volunteers were involved in the ECE schools in 1973-74. Approximately 23,000\nvolunteers worked in the ECE programs of the 1,010 participating schools, and\nanother 8,000 paid aides were also involved in the ECE program.\nParent involvement activities were most often reported in terms of\npupil performance and increased parent attendance at school conferences and\nmeetings. At least 34 percent of the schools still felt that they needed to\ninvolve more parents.\nStaff development. The staff development activities in the early child-\nhood education schools generally focused on improvement in techniques of individ-\nualized instruction and on the use of diagnostic/prescriptive materials. College\nclasses were ranked high in importance but low in effectiveness, and demonstrations\nwere ranked low in importance but high in effectiveness.\nProcess Evaluation\nThe ECE program implementation design was carefully developed. Schools\nsubmitted detailed plans, which were rated by ECE consultants; schools were visited\nby ECE consultants for the purpose of making program audits; and schools were re-\nquired to report on their time management system by completing three periodic\nreports. The close attention paid to the schools' implementation of their plans\nresulted in an improvement of the match between plans and outcomes as compared to\nprior efforts with other special funding programs. The schools' own process re-\nports were evaluated in terms of expected levels of achievement so that direct\nservices could be given to schools.\nFiscal Evaluation\nFifty-nine percent of the schools reporting showed expenditures within\n5 percent of their estimated budgets.\nSalaries of aides and certificated staff and related fringe benefits\naccounted for 68 percent of school level expenditures. Instructional supplies and\nbooks accounted for an additional 17.8 percent of the budget.\nCONCLUSIONS OF THE EVALUATION\nThis report represents a statewide summary and analysis for the first\nyear of programs funded under early childhood education regulations. In 1973-74\nall state and federally funded programs were approved on the basis of a consoli-\ndated application form that was designed to combine the funding sources available\nto a school or school district. This report on the early childhood education (ECE)\nprogram is the first of a series of evaluation reports prepared from the consoli-\ndated application and evaluation process.\n3\nThe conclusions of this evaluation report on the early childhood edu-\ncation program for 1973-74 follow:\nThe performance levels which were reported indicate that ECE programs\ngenerally achieved substantial gains in the reading/language develop-\nment component and in the mathematics component. These gains exceed-\ned expected performance levels in all cases.\nMost participating schools were able to meet the objectives that they\nset in their individual school level plans.\nSignificant numbers of support and volunteer personnel were directly\ninvolved in the implementation of the ECE program.\nThe results indicate a close relationship between program planning and\nimplementation; however, further refinement is necessary.\nThe distinction between the parent education and parent involvement\ncomponents was not so well defined in practice as it was in the pro-\ngram policies and guidelines. In too many cases, \"education\" meant\nparticipation in school activities, and \"involvement\" meant better\nunderstanding of child growth and development.\nStaff development objectives reported most often related to the im-\nprovement of teaching techniques in reading, mathematics, language,\nand the general curriculum. Staff development was rarely evaluated\nin terms of the implementation of the inservice training in the\nclassroom.\nVery little money appears in school budgets for health/auxiliary\nservices. Schools were encouraged to obtain services from community\nresources, but the reports from many schools indicated that the most\nimportant services, dental and medical, were the least effective in\nterms of actual implementation of the school plan.\nThe research report on the inclusion of four-year-olds in the program\nwas not part of this year's evaluation report. This study will be\ndelayed until more data have been collected on success of the ECE\nprogram in meeting the goals set for the present kindergarten through\ngrade three population.\nAREAS NEEDING ATTENTION\nAs a result of the evaluation of the early childhood education (ECE)\nprogram, the following matters have been identified as needing attention:\nSchools conducting ECE programs need to plan to collect achievement\ndata on normative standardized tests, at least annually, to provide\na comparable data base for all ECE schools in the state of California.\nSchools in which reading achievement levels exceeded the state's ex-\npected level of achievement but that failed to meet their own objec-\n4\ntives need to have their programs thoroughly reviewed; schools that\nmet their objectives need to have their programs reviewed to deter-\nmine what factors made their programs successful.\nIn order to determine if programs met with success or failure, the\nState Department of Education needs to retain the present application\nand evaluation processes (with minor modifications) for a three-year\nperiod of time.\nThe \"program-implementation\" reporting process needs to be revised by\nthe State Department of Education to clarify the concept of time-\nmanagement evaluation. \"Time-management\" refers to the process of\nimplementing the activities planned within each component according\nto the time schedule in the school plan. State inservice training\nprograms need to be directed toward time-management concepts and the\nprocedures by which school plans should be amended.\nAt the district level, provisions need to be made that schools not\nonly plan but also budget for program evaluation. School district\npersonnel (administrators or teachers) need to be assigned the re-\nsponsibility for program evaluation within a school district and at\na specified school site.\nData collected by the Department of Education from norm-referenced\nstandardized achievement tests need to be in the form of raw scores,\npermitting analysis and conversion of those scores and aggregation\nof them for several schools.\nThe State Department of Education, in cooperation with the State\nDepartment of Health and county health departments, needs to explore\nways in which health services can be provided more effectively to\nECE schools.\nCooperatives are formed when small school district programs are admin-\nistered through a common local educational agency, usually an office of a county\nsuperintendent of schools. Four-hundred three small school districts were funded\nthrough cooperatives. The following matters related to the cooperative projects\nhave been identified as needing attention:\nThe role and responsibility of cooperative projects need to be more\nclearly specified in guidelines and regulations. For administrative\npurposes, cooperative projects are treated as local agencies, but the\nextent of cooperative projects' authority to implement their functions\nis not spelled out.\nA separate application and reporting process, appropriate to the spe-\ncial needs of small districts, needs to be developed.\nChapter I\nIntroduction\nThe intent of the early childhood education program and subsequent\nlegislation was to provide a comprehensive program for children in kindergarten\nand grades one, two, and three. This program was to be developed by each school\ndistrict. Under the provisions of Senate Bill 1302 (Chapter 1167, Statutes of\n1972), a comprehensive school-by-school master plan for the primary grades was\nto be developed at each school with the participation of parents, teachers, and\nadministrators that would assure:\n(a) A comprehensive restructuring of primary education in\nCalifornia, kindergarten through third grade, to more fully\nmeet the unique needs, talents, interests, and abilities of\neach child.\n(b) That early educational programs that are or may be made\navailable to children who are 3 years and 9 months of age be\ncoordinated with the restructuring of primary education in\nCalifornia in order to take advantage of the capacity for\nlearning of children at this age level.\n(c) The cooperation and participation of parents in the edu-\ncational program to the end that the total community is involved\nin the development of the program.\n(d) The pupils participating will develop an increased compe-\ntency in the skills necessary to the successful achievement in\nlater school subjects such as reading, language, and mathematics.\nEfficient allocation of all funds available to each school in the\nimplementation of coordinated early childhood education programs.\nIndividualized instruction to facilitate meeting the objective that\nevery child's needs, talents, interests, and abilities will be\naccommodated.\nThat by utilizing aides, volunteers, and parents to assist in the\nclassroom under the direction of the teacher, the school shall\nachieve a staffing pattern in which the adult-pupil ratio is\napproximately one adult to each ten children. 3/\nCalifornia Education Code, Division 6, Chapter 6.1, Section 6445.\n21\nEarly Childhood Education Recommendations for Program Implementation.\nSacramento: California State Department of Education, 1974.\n3/\nPolicies for Early Childhood Education. Prepared under the direction of\nH. Glenn Davis. Sacramento: California State Department of Education,\n1973, pp. 4 and 5.\n5\n6\nThe early childhood education (ECE) program has been designed to be\nphased into all elementary schools over a period of years. In this first year,\n12 percent of the kindergarten and grades one, two, and three population was to\nparticipate in the program. At least one-half of the student participants were\nto come from schools identified by the local district as being of the greatest\neducational need. The following evaluation report is based upon the data collected\nfrom the participating schools.\nIn the 1973-74 school year, approximately $24 million was allocated to\n1,010 ECE schools. A total of $130 was allocated for each participant, with addi-\ntional funds made available for disadvantaged pupils. There were 183 schools that\nreceived the $130 per participant ECE funds; 827 other schools received the basic\ngrant of $130 for all children, plus extra funds for students identified as edu-\ncationally disadvantaged youth. A State Board of Education policy provided a min-\nimum of $350 to a maximum of $550 per child for the specific needs of educationally\ndisadvantaged youth. Of the $350 to $550 allowable expenditure for the education-\nally disadvantaged youth, $65 was funded for children in kindergarten and grades\none, two, and three by ECE funds; the balance was funded by a combination of ESEA,\nTitle I, and Senate Bill 90 EDY funds.\nApproximately 800 school districts were included in the ECE program for\n1973-74. These districts maintained schools in all sections of the state.\nThe number of children served by the ECE program in 1973-74 was\n172,073 for kindergarten and grades one, two, and three. This was 14 percent\nof the actual statewide enrollment. Since districts with only one school were\nfunded at 50 percent (usually all of their kindergarten and grade one students),\nthe actual percent funded was larger than the 12 percent planned for the first\nyear.\nSome of the early childhood education schools were funded only by ECE\nmonies, and others were multifunded with other state and federal funds. This\nmoney was specifically allocated to supplement district effort, not supplant it.\nThe report will separate data for the various funding sources when such separa-\ntion is required for clarity of information. If separation is not required, the\ndata will reflect the total early childhood education program for 1973-74.\nThe ECE program has been operational in California public elementary\nschools for one full program year. This \"year\" actually includes several months\nof preprogram planning time and additional months for revision, evaluation, and\nresubmission of school plans.\nBy law, the program evaluation of ECE was concerned with both the\nprocess of program implementation and the product of the program. The follow-\ning areas were covered in the evaluation process:\nThe extent to which major program functions were accomplished, as\nwell as quantitative estimates of pupil progress which were reported\nfor each participating school. (See Education Code Section 6445.10.)\nThe changes or benefits resulting from the accomplishment of major\nfunctions. The Statutes require an annual review of the success\nof each local district in meeting the objectives of its approved\n7\nplan. As a result of the annual evaluation, those programs that\nare considered to be successful in meeting their objectives will\nbe continued and their program expanded. (See Education Code\nSection 6445.8.)\nThe success of the local district in meeting its objectives was\ndetermined primarily from the data in the required annual report. It was,\ntherefore, the responsibility of the local program staff to provide an adequate\nlocal evaluation to document the success of the program in meeting the district's\nobjectives. The annual district report form requested information related to:\n(1) fiscal expenditures; (2) degree and success of program implementation; and\n(3) quantitative estimate of pupil progress.\nThe district collected and reported the required data, school by\nschool. From these data, the State Department of Education derived a composite\nscore for each school. This composite score was derived and weighted as follows:\nDuring the\nFor the\nFor the third\nfirst year second year year and thereafter\nFiscal expenditures:\n20%\n10%\n0%\nProgram implementation:\n70%\n50%\n50%\nPupil progress:\n10%\n40%\n50%\nThe State Department of Education computed an index of student attain-\nment for each participating school, using factors which have been shown to be\npredictive of school success.\nPARTICIPANTS IN THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM\nIn the ECE program, all children within a funded class were defined as\nprogram participants. The only children at a funded grade level within a school\nwho were not participants were those assigned to various special education day\nclasses such as classes for the educationally handicapped. Children who were\nassigned to special programs for a limited part of the day, but who were counted\non the regular class attendance rolls for purposes of computing average daily\nattendance, were considered ECE program participants. Table 1 shows the total\nnumber of student participants by grade level.\nProgram participants in the early childhood education program included\nparents, school personnel, and other community members. In each program compo-\nnent there were different combinations of participants. Table 2 depicts the\nnumber of participants who were involved in at least 75 percent of the activities\nin each component. Participants who were involved in more than one component\nwere counted for each component in which they participated (duplicated count).\nTwo of the components, intergroup relations and English as a second language,\nwere not mandatory for all early childhood education schools. Intergroup rela-\ntions was required only for ECE schools cofunded with ESEA, Title I; and English\nas a second language or bilingual education was required in schools where there\nwas an identified need for such programs. The optional component was included,\nby choice, in many early childhood education school plans and included activities\nthat were not described or contained in other components.\n8\nPERSONNEL IN THE PROGRAMS\nThe number of persons (full-time equivalent) employed in early child-\nhood education programs is shown in Table 3. When schools reported using multi-\nfunds for their programs, the exact number of positions funded by ECE monies was\nnot identifiable. Instructional aides and teacher assistants constituted the\nlargest category of persons hired. A total of more than 23,000 volunteers con-\ntributed a significant portion of time to the program.\nFrom the information presented in the tables included in this evalua-\ntion report, as well as the information reported by the consultants from the\nEarly Childhood Education Management Team who visited each school, it appears\nthat parents and other community persons volunteered their services to the\nschools. More than 23,000 volunteers were reported, excluding the cross-age\ntutors and older elementary children who were observed to be helping in class-\nrooms. The consultants found that a real effort was being made to lower the\nadult-pupil ratio, and the reports from schools confirm that this was an area\nof major concern.\nThe required components of the ECE program are:\nReading/language development\nMathematics\nHealth/auxiliary services\nParent participation and community involvement\nParent education\nStaff development and inservice education\nTABLE 1\nNUMBER OF STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD\nCOMPARED TO TOTAL ENROLLMENT, BY GRADE LEVEL\n1973-74\nState enrollment,\nECE students\nGrade\nEarly childhood\nkindergarten through\nas percent\nlevel\neducation students\ngrade three*\nof enrollment\nKindergarten\n52,798\n307,223\n17\nOne\n52,279\n313,541\n17\nTwo\n35,165\n308,131\n11\nThree\n31,831\n321,468\n10\nTotal\n172,073\n1,250,363\n14\n*Total state enrollment as of December, 1974\n9\nEach school (parents, teachers, administrators) was to develop a plan,\nincluding all of the components listed above. This plan constituted the terms\nof a contract between the school district and the state. The ECE plan included\nmeasurable objectives in all components. School staff generally evaluated the\nplan by \"hard\" data, such as achievement tests in academic areas, and \"soft\"\ndata, such as questionnaires or observations in the support areas. All of these\ncomponents and their evaluations are reported in this evaluation document, along\nwith the process evaluation information and the fiscal report, as required by\nthe enabling legislation.\nTABLE 2\nTOTAL PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS IN ALL EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION\nSCHOOLS, BY COMPONENT, 1973-74\n(DUPLICATED COUNT)\nNumber of program participants*\nSchool\nProgram component\nPupils\nParents\npersonnel\nOther**\nReading/language development\n281,873\n2,146\nMathematics\n273,002\n1,646\nAuxiliary services\n256,261\n2,183\nIntergroup relations\n210,054\n1,905\nParent participation and\ncommunity involvement\n117,856\n1,898\nParent education\n65,461\n690\nStaff development\n27,105\nEnglish as a second language\n13,111\n248\nor bilingual education\nOptional component (specify)\n53,326\n4,037\n2,061\n824\n*In schools having multifunds, grades four through eight are included.\n**\"Others\" may be persons from the community, nontarget children in upper\ngrades, or such combinations as parents in staff development activities.\n10\nTABLE 3\nFULL-TIME EQUIVALENT OF PERSONNEL PARTICIPATING\nIN THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION\nPROGRAM, 1973-74*\nECE funding\nMulti-\nPosition\nonly\nfunded\nTotal\nClassroom teachers\n284\n1,136\n1,420\nReading specialists\n32\n874\n906\nMathematics specialists\n4\n281\n286\nEnglish as a second language personnel\n(Title I)\n1\n153\n154\nBilingual specialists (AB 2284)\n12\n84\n96\nInstructional teacher aides and assistants\n957\n6,956\n7,913\nCommunity aides\n99\n454\n553\nDirectors, supervisors, coordinators and\nresource personnel\n42\n444\n486\nCounselors\n4\n115\n119\nLibrary media specialists\n5\n62\n67\nLibrary media aides\n15\n160\n175\nTeacher librarians\n1\n21\n22\nPsychologists and psychometrists\n4\n55\n59\nSocial workers and attendance counselors\n0\n18\n18\nNurses\n2\n124\n126\nClerks and custodians\n84\n277\n361\nEvaluators\n1\n43\n44\nOther paid employees\n33\n304\n337\nTotal paid personnel\n1,580\n11,562\n13,142\nTotal unpaid volunteers\n5,501\n17,791\n23,292\n*In some cases data include personnel hired for grades four through eight.\nChapter II\nProgram Implementation\nThe data collected show that a program with well-defined plans and program\naudits can be evaluated with greater confidence in the accuracy of the\nevaluation product than a program with plans that are not well defined.\nThe legislative mandate for the early childhood education program\nrequires an emphasis in the evaluation each year on the degree to which the\nprogram is implemented. During the first year, program implementation con-\nstituted 70 percent of the overall evaluation rating for each school; during\nthe second and succeeding years, 50 percent of the overall evaluation rating\nwill be based upon program implementation. The remaining 30 percent in the\nfirst year and 50 percent in the second year are related to student progress\nand fiscal management, as prescribed in the statutes.\nThe program implementation data for 1973-74 were obtained from three\nsources. First, each participating school submitted a school-level plan, Form\nA-127-S. Using a form developed by the Early Childhood Education Management\nTeam, each plan was reviewed and independently rated by at least two team mem-\nbers. The average of the two ratings was converted to a standard score. When\nthe results of the two independent ratings differed more than a set amount, a\nthird independent rating was conducted, and the three ratings were averaged and\nconverted to a standard score for that school.\nFrom December, 1973, through the first week of March, 1974, a total\nof 870 of the 1,010 early childhood education schools were visited by the Depart-\nment of Education's early childhood education program audit teams, and the re-\nports of these teams comprised the second source of program implementation data.\nDue to limited time, 140 very small schools were not visited. Each of the very\nsmall schools was funded for less than $4,000 per school. The on-site program\naudit consisted of a visit to the school by one or more consultants from the\nECE Management Team. The forms and program audit review directions were sent\nto each school at least two weeks in advance of the scheduled visit so that\nself-evaluation by the parents, teachers, and principal could be done. The\npurpose of the program audit was to review the program in the first year of\noperation to:\n1. Determine whether or not all statutory requirements were\nbeing met, with special emphasis on parental involvement\nin planning, implementing, and evaluating the program at\nthe school-site level.\n2. Assess the quality of the program as it was being imple-\nmented in comparison with (a) the individual school\nprogram design developed by each school; and (b) the\nintent of the program as set forth in the Early Childhood\nEducation Task Force Report and the State Department of\nEducation's early childhood education recommendations, as\nauthorized by statute.\n11\n12\nWhile in the school, consultants observed classroom activities; inter-\nviewed parents, teachers, and staff; and, using a ten point scale, rated the\nschool on an observed implementation of the school's own early childhood educa-\ntion plan. These ratings were converted to a standard score.\nA third evaluation procedure was developed by the Office of Program\nEvaluation and Research as part of the consolidated evaluation format. This\nprocedure was incorporated in the E-127-I form, which was a report due from each\nschool in December, 1973; April, 1974; and with the final evaluation report due\nin July, 1974. The first report (December, 1973) was also converted to a stan-\ndard score. The quality rating of the school plan, as designed by each school;\nthe quality of program implementation, as determined by the program audit; and\nthe results of the December, 1973, E-127-I evaluation report were used to rank\nschools for eligibility for expansion candidacy.\nDetermination of eligibility for expansion funds for 1974-75 was\nbased on the ranking of schools, using each of the three sources of information\nweighted as follows: 50 percent for the program audit; 25 percent for the\nschool-level plan; and 25 percent for the December program implementation report.\nTable 4 shows the data used for expansion eligibility.\nThose school districts which had low quality programs as a result of\nthese three measures were denied eligibility for expansion candidacy. They re-\nceived direct service from the ECE staff to help them improve their programs.\nThese schools' programs will be reevaluated in 1974-75 to determine their eligi-\nbility to expand programs in the 1975-76 school year.\nTABLE 4\nSTATEWIDE DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES FOR DETERMINATION\nOF EXPANSION ELIGIBILITY, SPRING, 1974\nMean\nType of\nstandard\nStandard\nQ₁\n2\nQ3\nWeighting factor\nfunding\nscore\ndeviation\nPlan\nPartial\n48.3\n8.9\n41.1\n47.8\n54.6\nrating\n(25%)\nFull\n54.2\n9.1\n47.1\n54.8\n61.2\nProgram\nPartial\n50.8\n9.7\n46.8\n52.5\n57.5\nimplementation\n(December)\n(25%)\nFull\n49.9\n7.5\n45.3\n50.8\n55.2\nProgram\nPartial\n47.2\n9.7\n41.7\n47.1\n53.8\naudit\n(50%)\nFull\n52.5\n8.1\n47.1\n52.3\n58.1\nTotal\nPartial\n193.6\n26.7\n177.5\n193.1\n210.8\nscore\nFull\n209.0\n21.9\n197.9\n208.3\n222.7\n13\nThe final determination of the degree and success of program imple-\nmentation was made by reweighting the previous elements, as follows: 40 per-\ncent for program audit, 20 percent for the school-level plan, and 20 percent\nfor the December and April implementation reports. This factor constituted 70\npercent of the overall evaluation of the school.\nIn the program implementation report submitted to the Department of\nEducation, reasons for not implementing plans as scheduled were identified in\nsix categories: personnel, materials, parent and community participation,\nfiscal, time management, and planning.\nThe analysis of the first program implementation report showed that\ncertain reasons occurred more frequently than others. The category, \"insuf-\nficient time allocated in original planning for completion of activity,\" was\nthe most frequently mentioned reason for nonimplementation of activities. The\ncomponent that appeared to be the most difficult to implement on schedule in\nearly childhood education multifunded schools was intergroup relations in which\n10.7 percent of the activities were not implemented on schedule. Ten percent\nof the activities scheduled for parent education were not implemented on schedule.\nTable 5 shows the distribution of activities by component for the\nfirst program implementation report. \"Activities\" were defined as events that,\ntaken collectively, were considered necessary and sufficient for achieving the\nobjectives within each of the components of the program.\nTABLE 5\nDISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVITIES, REPORTED BY COMPONENT, DECEMBER, 1973\nNumber of\nPercent of\nNumber of\nNumber of\nactivities\nactivities\nactivities\nactivities\nnot\nnot\nComponents\nproposed\nimplemented\nimplemented\nimplemented\nLanguage development\n10,569\n8,292\n761\n7.2\nMathematics\n7,362\n5,800\n611\n8.3\nHealth/auxiliary\nservices\n6,839\n5,440\n625\n9.1\nIntergroup relations\n2,688\n1,906\n287\n10.7\nParent participation\n6,250\n4,860\n523\n8.4\nParent education\n4,082\n3,037\n408\n10.0\nStaff development\n6,219\n5,009\n435\n6.1\nOptional\n4,542\n3,784\n276\n11.8\n14\nThe ratings of the on-site program audits and the school-level plans\nwere compared. Generally, the average effectiveness rating corresponded to the\nquartile distribution of the on-site program audit and the school-level plans.\nTable 6 shows the average effectiveness rating for early childhood education\nschools by quartile distribution. Effectiveness ratings interpreted by the\nOffice of Program Evaluation and Research from the school evaluation reports as\na part of the consolidated evaluation were based on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1\nrepresenting \"exemplary\" and 5, \"failure.\"\nThe data in Table 6 indicate that the schools which rated higher on\nthe on-site program audits and on their school-level plans tended to be more\nsuccessful in implementing their plans. It appears that the prescribed program\nplanning process by the state, coupled with a detailed program audit conducted\nby State Department of Education personnel, produced information about program\nresults which can be evaluated with greater confidence than has been true his-\ntorically when information was obtained by end-of-the-year district reports only.\nAs a result of this improved program assessment process, the Depart-\nment of Education now has baseline data on each school which produces program\nevaluation capabilities such as longitudinal analysis and program component\nanalysis, based on both weaknesses and strengths, which was not possible in the\npast.\nIndividual schools of overall high quality or with high quality com-\npondents such as reading, parent participation, or bilingual education can be\nidentified.\nTABLE 6\nAVERAGE EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS COMPARED TO RESULTS OF ON-SITE\nECE PROGRAM AUDITS AND SCHOOL-LEVEL PLAN RATINGS\nComponents\nLanguage\nHealth\nParent\nParent\nStaff\nRatings\ndevelop.\nMath.\nauxil.\npart.\neduc.\ndevelop.\nOn-site program audit\nBelow Q1\n2.6\n2.8\n3.0\n2.8\n2.3\n2.9\nQ1 - Q2\n2.5\n2.6\n3.0\n2.4\n2.3\n2.8\nQ2 - Q3\n2.4\n2.7\n3.0\n2.5\n2.2\n2.7\nAbove Q3\n2.4\n2.6\n2.9\n2.4\n2.1\n2.6\nSchool-level plans\nBelow Q₁\n2.7\n2.9\n3.1\n2.5\n2.3\n2.9\nQ1 - Q2\n2.5\n2.8\n3.1\n2.6\n2.3\n2.8\nQ2 - Q3\n2.4\n2.6\n3.0\n2.5\n2.3\n2.7\nAbove Q3\n2.3\n2.6\n2.9\n2.5\n2.0\n2.7\nChapter III\nProduct Evaluation\nPursuant to the statutorily required annual evaluation, data were\ncollected to determine the degree of effectiveness of each of the six mandatory\ncomponents in the early childhood education program. The six components are:\n1. Reading/Language Development. This component includes\nreading readiness, decoding, comprehension, and use of\nwritten language. The component covers writing skills,\nincluding grammar, punctuation, and spelling, in addition\nto the reading skills that can be evaluated through reading\nachievement tests.\nLanguage development also includes development of facility\nin oral language for all students who use standard English,\nlimited English, and dialects. Language development may\nalso include English as a second language (ESL) and/or\nbilingual programs.\n2. Mathematics. The mathematics component includes numbers\nreadiness, computation skills, and concept development and\napplication.\n3. Health/Auxiliary Services. Counseling and guidance, atten-\ndance, nutrition, library, and health services are included\nin the health/auxiliary services component. Health services\ninclude screening and diagnosis, referral, and follow-up\nefforts in the areas of visual, auditory, dental, physical,\nand emotional health. For ECE (Senate Bill 1302) funding,\nhealth is the only service in this component which is required.\n4. Parent Education. This component includes activities designed\nto enable parents to become an integral part of the education\nof their children.\n5. Parent Participation and Community Involvement. This compo-\nnent includes participation in program planning, implementa-\ntion, modification, and evaluation. Also included is direct\ninvolvement of parents in the formal classroom education of\ntheir children.\n6. Staff Development and Inservice Education. The employment,\nrecruitment, and assignment of teachers and paid and unpaid\naides are included in the sixth mandatory component. Included\nare preservice and inservice training activities for teachers,\nother professional staff, aides, and volunteers.\n15\n16\nREADING/LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT\nIn the reading/language development component, the achievement test scores\nshowed an average gain of 1.1 months of growth per month of instruction in\ngrades one through three. In some program combinations, these gains were\nas high as 1.4 months.\nThe reading/language development component was directed toward\nimprovement of reading skills and of written and oral language skills.\nParticipating schools were encouraged to restructure their reading and\nlanguage programs by using a variety of different methods and new instruc-\ntional materials.\nA total of 134,470 students in kindergarten and grades one, two,\nand three were tested in reading/language development activities in the ECE\nprogram. Table 7 shows the number and percent of students tested by grade\nlevel. Students in ECE language development programs also were reported by\nthe several funding sources; the number and percent of students by funding\nsource are presented in Table 8. Schools used a variety of tests to assess\nthis component. When norm-referenced test results were reported, the data\nwere aggregated.\nMore than 79 percent of all ECE school evaluations contained state-\nments of measurable objectives. Objectives were most frequently stated in\nterms of months of growth per month of instruction, as measured by norm-\nreferenced standardized tests or by the upward shift of student scores in\nthree different quartile ranges. The quartile ranges are presented in terms\nof national norms.\nTABLE 7\nNUMBER AND PERCENT OF STUDENTS TESTED IN EARLY CHILDHOOD\nEDUCATION READING/LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES\nBY GRADE LEVEL, 1973-74\nGrade\nNumber of\nPercent of\nlevel\nstudents tested\nstudents tested\nKindergarten\n28,944\n21.5\nOne\n39,145\n29.1\nTwo\n34,302\n25.5\nThree\n32,079\n23.9\nTotal\n134,470\n100.0\n17\nComparisons were made between the measurable quality of the objec-\ntives (as determined by Department of Education evaluation consultants) and\nthe results reported by the schools. Typically, the more measurable the objec-\ntive, the greater the incidence of attainment. School personnel that lacked\nthe skills to prepare measurable objectives generally also had great difficulty\nin reporting the results of their programs. Since ECE's legislatively spe-\ncific evaluation process focused on the effectiveness of individual programs\nin meeting their own plan objective, poorly stated objectives by themselves\nmay have caused low evaluation ratings for some programs. Programs with less\nmeasurable objectives frequently yielded findings that were not directly re-\nlated to their stated objectives. (See Table 9.) Objectives were either\nexceeded or at least partially attained by nearly 600 participating schools,\naccording to their own reports.\nAnalyses were also made to determine the types of activities most\nfrequently reported by the early childhood education programs that either\nexceeded, attained, or partially attained their stated objectives. The\nactivities most frequently reported by these successful language development\nprograms are presented in Table 10 and show that diagnostic and prescriptive\nmaterials were used most frequently. The kinds of activities reported by\nschools for enhancing student performance suggest that ECE schools actively\nsought to restructure their language and reading programs.\nTABLE 8\nNUMBER AND PERCENT OF STUDENTS TESTED IN EARLY CHILDHOOD\nEDUCATION READING/LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES\nBY FUNDING SOURCE, 1973-74\nFunding source\nNumber of\nPercent of\nstudents tested\nstudents tested\nECE/Title I/\nSB 90/Other*\n35,714\n26.6\nECE/Title I/\nSB 90\n30,779\n22.9\nECE/Title I\n22,484\n16.7\nECE\n21,132\n15.7\nECE/Title I/\nOther *\n15,171\n11.3\nECE/Other *\n5,955\n4.4\nECE/SB 90\n2,288\n1.7\nECE/SB 90/\nOther *\n947\n.7\nTOTAL\n134,470\n100.0\n*Other includes Miller-Unruh, bilingual education, and\nIndian early childhood education.\n18\nA variety of methods to evaluate the effectiveness of language\ndevelopment programs was reported by ECE schools. The most frequently re-\nported evaluation activities that were successful in attaining reading objec-\ntives are reported in Table 11. The use of two or more standardized tests\neither used alone or with locally developed criterion-referenced tests was\nreported by more than 50 percent of the schools.\nTABLE 9\nPERCENT OF OBJECTIVES IN READING/LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT\nFOR EACH OF SIX TYPES OF RESULTS REPORTED IN\nEARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SCHOOLS, 1973-74\nType of\nPercent of objectives\nNumber of\nTotal\nresults\nschools\nVague, but\nNon-\npercent\nreported\nMeasurable*\nmeasurable\nmeasurable\nExceeded\nobjective\n240\n88.8\n11.2\n0.0\n100\nAttained\nobjective\n235\n64.3\n32.8\n2.9\n100\nPartially\nattained\nobjective\n116\n75.0\n19.8\n5.2\n100\nDid not\nattain\nobjective\n30\n76.6\n6.7\n16.7\n100\nResults\nnot stated\n146\n42.4\n19.2\n38.4\n100\nResults\nnot related\nto objective\n199\n25.1\n12.1\n62.8\n100\nTotal or\n966\n60.7\n18.7\n20.6\n100\naverage\n79.4\n*As defined by Department evaluation consultants.\n19\nAlthough the use of norm-referenced tests for schools funded with\nonly ECE monies was optional, ECE schools that were funded with either ESEA,\nTitle I, or educationally disadvantaged youth (SB 90) monies were required to\nadminister standardized norm-referenced achievement tests on pretest and post-\ntest comparisons of achievement results. Schools not receiving any funds for\ndisadvantaged children were permitted to use criterion referenced measures for\nachievement.\nTABLE 10\nRANK ORDER OF ACTIVITIES MOST FREQUENTLY REPORTED BY\nSUCCESSFUL READING/LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS\nIN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SCHOOLS, 1973-74\nPercent of\nRank\nActivities\nreporting schools\n1\nDiagnostic/prescriptive materials\n62.1\n2\nIndividualized instruction within regular\nclassroom\n40.8\n3\nUse of instructional aides\n32.7\n4\nCommercially developed instructional materials\n16.9\n5\nReading lab centers\n16.9\nTABLE 11\nRANK ORDER OF EVALUATION ACTIVITIES MOST FREQUENTLY REPORTED\nBY SUCCESSFUL READING/LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS IN\nEARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SCHOOLS, 1973-74\nPercent of\nRank\nActivities\nreporting schools\n1\nTwo or more norm-referenced standardized tests\n39.3\n2\nTwo or more norm-referenced standardized tests\nwith locally developed criterion-referenced\ntests\n12.7\n3\nTwo or more norm-referenced tests with com-\nmercially developed criterion referenced\ntests\n10.7\n4\nOne norm-referenced standardized test\n9.6\n20\nIn those ECE schools using normative standardized achievement mea-\nsures, months of gain in reading skill per month of instruction were computed\nfor students in grades one, two, and three. In computing gain scores, only\nthose students were included for whom both pretest and post-test data were\navailable.\nTest results revealed that, with an average of seven months between\nthe pretest and the post-test, students in schools receiving ECE funds at\ngrades one, two, and three typically attained 1.1 months growth in reading\nachievement for each month of instruction. (See Table 12.) Previous evalua-\ntions of specially funded programs have indicated that .7 month of growth per\nmonth of instruction was typical for disadvantaged children. The average\nchild, with no special program, should gain 1.0 month per month of instruction.\nAnalyses by grade level and funding sources were made, and results indicated\nthat certain combinations of funding sources were more successful than others\nin producing growth. Programs were ranked by funding source and by student\ngains between pretest and post-test. These data are presented in tables 13,\n14, and 15 and show that when an ECE program was combined with either ESEA,\nTitle I, funded programs or \"Other\" (usually Miller-Unruh Reading Specialists),\nthe greatest gains were realized for ECE participants in combined programs.\nWhen ECE programs were combined with selected educationally disadvantaged\nparticipants in programs with minimal state monitoring and no requirement to\nsubmit plans or process evaluations, such as educationally disadvantaged\nyouth (SB 90), lesser gains were realized, but only in grade three do they\nfall below the 1.1 month level of growth.\nPrograms such as ECE that have the most descriptive and well-\ndefined guidelines, program audits, and specific objectives have a better\nchance of producing positive results than programs that do not contain\nthese requirements.\nTABLE 12\nAVERAGE READING/LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT BY EARLY CHILDHOOD\nEDUCATION STUDENTS TESTED BY GRADE LEVEL, 1973-74\nNumber of\nAverage grade\nAverage months of\nGrade\nstudents\nequivalent score\ngain per month\nlevel\ntested\nPretest\nPost-test\nof instruction*\nOne\n14,716\n1.1\n1.9\n1.1\nTwo\n30,982\n1.7\n2.5\n1.1\nThree\n28,803\n2.4\n3.3\n1.1\n*An average of seven months elapsed between pretest and\npost-test.\n21\nData obtained from the state assessment program on the performance\nof third grade students in the spring, 1974, were analyzed for schools con-\nducting ECE programs. When the state assessment data, as shown in Table 16,\nwere statistically adjusted to account for predicted levels of achievement\n(including socioeconomic status, bilingualism, and mobility) and variations in\nbeginning scores, the analysis showed that the rankings of programs by funding\nsources were substantially the same as those indicated by the data submitted\nby the several ECE schools.\nAnalyses were also made for students in kindergarten and grades one,\ntwo, and three to determine the shift in percent of students scoring in each\nquarter of the distribution in terms of national norms. In computing the per-\ncent of quartile movement, test data for all students were used with the as-\nsumption that although student populations would shift between the pretest and\nthe post-test, student characteristics (such as socioeconomic status, bilin-\ngualism, and so forth) would remain substantially the same. Consequently, the\nTABLE 13\nAVERAGE READING/LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT ACHIEVEMENT OF EARLY\nCHILDHOOD EDUCATION STUDENTS AND THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS\nTESTED, BY FUNDING SOURCE, 1973-74, GRADE ONE\nNumber of\nAverage grade\nAverage months of\nFunding\nstudents\nequivalent score\ngain per month\nsource\ntested\nPretest\nPost-test\nof instruction*\nECE/Title I/\nOther**\n1,818\n1.1\n2.0\n1.3\nECE/Title I/\nSB 90/Other\n2,930\n0.9\n1.8\n1.3\nECE\n2,402\n1.2\n2.0\n1.1\nECE/Title I\n3,251\n1.1\n1.9\n1.1\nECE/SB 90\n269\n1.0\n1.8\n1.1\nECE/Other*\n330\n1.2\n2.0\n1.1\nECE/Title I/\nSB 90\n3,716\n1.0\n1.7\n1.0\nTOTAL\n14,716\n1.1\n1.9\n1.1\n*An average of seven months elapsed between pretest and\npost-test.\n**Other includes Miller-Unruh, bilingual education, and Indian\neducation. However, Miller-Unruh programs are in the majority.\n22\nnumber of students included in the computation of gain scores (tables 12, 13,\n14, and 15) differs from the number of students included in determining per-\ncentage shifts in each quarter of the distribution. (See Table 17.) Analyses\nof gains for students in kindergarten and grades one, two, and three showed\nthere was a decrease of 13 percentage points for the students scoring in the\nlowest quarter of the distribution. There was an increase of 9 percentage\npoints in the upper quarter of the distribution, while the second and third\nquarters remained about the same.\nTest information reported by districts which was either incomplete or\ncontained procedural irregularities was not aggregated with statewide results.\nIncomplete data or irregular procedures included instances in which: (1) either\npretest or post-test information was omitted; (2) test results were not given\nin grade equivalents; (3) test results were combined for several grade levels;\n(4) the standardized measure used in the pretest differed from the one used in\nthe post-test; (5) nonstandardized tests were used; or (6) no test results\nwere reported.\nTABLE 14\nAVERAGE READING/LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT ACHIEVEMENT OF EARLY\nCHILDHOOD EDUCATION STUDENTS AND THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS\nTESTED, BY FUNDING SOURCE, 1973-74, GRADE TWO\nNumber of\nAverage grade\nAverage months of\nFunding\nstudents\nequivalent score\ngain per month\nsource\ntested\nPretest\nPost-test\nof instruction*\nECE/Other**\n1,325\n2.0\n3.0\n1.4\nECE\n4,606\n2.1\n3.0\n1.3\nECE/Title I\n4,367\n1.8\n2.7\n1.3\nECE/SB 90\n520\n1.5\n2.3\n1.1\nECE/Title I/\nSB 90\n7,248\n1.6\n2.4\n1.1\nECE/Title I/\nOther **\n3,334\n1.7\n2.5\n1.1\nECE/Title I/\nSB 90/Other\n9,582\n1.6\n2.3\n1.0\nTotal\n30,982\n1.7\n2.5\n1.1\n*An average of seven months elapsed between pretest and\npost-test.\n**Other includes Miller-Unruh, bilingual education, and Indian\neducation. However, Miller-Unruh programs are in the majority.\n23\nTABLE 15\nAVERAGE READING/LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT ACHIEVEMENT OF EARLY\nCHILDHOOD EDUCATION STUDENTS AND THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS\nTESTED, BY FUNDING SOURCE, 1973-74, GRADE THREE\nNumber of\nAverage grade\nAverage months of\nFunding\nstudents\nequivalent score\ngain per month\nsource\ntested\nPretest\nPost-test\nof instruction*\nECE/Other*\n1,153\n3.1\n4.0\n1.3\nECE/Title I/\nOther**\n3,282\n2.3\n3.2\n1.3\nECE\n4,215\n3.1\n3.9\n1.1\nECE/Title I\n3,559\n2.5\n3.3\n1.1\nECE/Title I/\nSB 90\n6,711\n2.3\n3.1\n1.1\nECE/Title I/\nSB 90/Other\n9,308\n2.2\n3.0\n1.1\nECE/SB 90\n575\n2.4\n3.1\n1.0\nTotal\n28,803\n2.4\n3.3\n1.1\n*An average of seven months elapsed between pretest and\npost-test.\n**Other includes Miller-Unruh, bilingual education, and Indian\neducation. However, Miller-Unruh programs are in the majority.\n24\nTABLE 16\nRANK ORDER OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM TEST RESULTS\nAS COMPARED TO 1974 STATE ASSESSMENT RESULTS\nEvaluation\nState\nRank Order\nReport\nAssessment\nECE/Miller-Unruh*\n1\n1\nECE\n2\n2\nECE/ESEA, Title I/\nMiller-Unruh\n4\n3\nECE/ESEA, Title I\n6\n4\nECE/ESEA, Title I/\nSB 90/Miller-Unruh\n5\n5\nECE/ESEA, Title I/\nSB 90\n3\n6\n*This was called \"other\" in district evaluation reports.\nTABLE 17\nNUMBER AND PERCENT, BY GRADE LEVEL, OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION\nSTUDENTS TESTED WHO SCORED IN EACH QUARTER OF THE DISTRIBUTION\nOF READING/LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT ACHIEVEMENT SCORES BY GRADE\nLEVEL AT PRETESTING AND POST-TESTING, 1973-74\nNumber of\nPercent of students by quarter\nGrade\nstudents\nFirst\nSecond\nThird\nFourth\nlevel\ntested\nTest\nquarter\nquarter\nquarter\nquarter\n16,583\nPre\n33.3\n26.8\n22.2\n17.7\nKindergarten\n28,583\nPost\n14.2\n19.7\n24.9\n41.2\n21,495\nPre\n46.8\n20.4\n17.0\n15.8\nOne\n40,643\nPost\n26.4\n25.9\n22.6\n25.1\n23,998\nPre\n38.4\n32.0\n18.5\n11.1\nTwo\n33,883\nPost\n31.5\n30.4\n20.9\n17.2\n22,136\nPre\n46.9\n27.7\n15.1\n10.3\nThree\n31,918\nPost\n38.4\n26.4\n20.6\n14.7\n25\nMATHEMATICS COMPONENT\nIn the mathematics component, the achievement test scores showed an\naverage gain of 1.2 months of growth per month of instruction in\ngrades one through three. The expected growth is one month of growth\nper month of instruction for the average student and .7 month for dis-\nadvantaged students.\nThe mathematics component was directed towards enhancing the\nmathematics instruction among all student participants by encouraging the\nrestructuring of mathematics programs through the use of materials and re-\nsources provided in the early childhood education program.\nParticipation in Mathematics Instruction\nA total of 122, students in kindergarten and grades one, two,\nand three were tested in mathematics instruction activities in schools with\nECE programs. (See Table 18.) Most ECE participants were served in schools\nhaving other state and federally funded programs. The number and percent of\nstudents tested by funding source are presented in Table 19.\nObjectives, Activities, and Findings\nMore than 75 percent of the evaluation reports from ECE schools\ncontained measurable objectives relating to the development of student skills\nin mathematics. Objectives were most frequently stated in terms of the in-\ncreased academic attainment of students or in terms of months of growth per\nmonth of instruction, as determined by norm-referenced standardized achieve-\nment tests.\nAnalyses were conducted between the measurable quality of program\nobjectives (as determined by Department evaluation consultants) and the re-\nsults reported by the schools. Findings indicated that the more measurable\nthe objective the greater the incidence of determinable program success.\nSchools having projects with nonmeasurable objectives reported more results\nthat were not directly related to stated program goals. (See Table 20.)\nThe types of activities in mathematics instruction most frequently\nreported in use by the 454 ECE schools which either exceeded, attained, or\npartially attained their stated objectives were analyzed. The report on these\nactivities is presented in Table 21.\nThe variety of activities reported by schools for improving student\nperformance in mathematics suggests that ECE schools have both borrowed and\ngained from their experiences with other local, state, and federally funded\nprograms.\nECE schools used a variety of procedures for evaluating their mathe-\nmatics programs. The most frequently reported activities that were successful\nin helping schools attain mathematics objectives are reported in Table 22.\nThe findings for mathematics are similar to those in language development:\nNorm-referenced standardized tests and locally developed criterion referenced\ntests were used in more than two-thirds of the ECE schools.\n26\nTABLE 18\nNUMBER AND PERCENT OF STUDENTS IN TESTING PROGRAMS\nIN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION MATHEMATICS\nPROGRAMS, BY GRADE LEVEL, 1973-74\nGrade level\nNumber of students\nPercent of students\nKindergarten\n25,060\n20.5\nOne\n36,069\n29.4\nTwo\n30,676\n25.0\nThree\n30,806\n25.1\nTotal\n122,611\n100.0\nTABLE 19\nNUMBER AND PERCENT OF STUDENTS TESTED IN EARLY\nCHILDHOOD EDUCATION MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS\nBY FUNDING SOURCE, 1973-74\nFunding source\nNumber of students enrolled\nPercent of students\nECE/Title I\nSB 90/Other*\n31,918\n26.0\nECE/Title I\n27,899\n22.8\nSB 90\nECE/Title I\n21,144\n17.2\nECE\n20,211\n16.5\nECE/Title I\nOther*\n13,920\n11.4\nECE/Other*\n4,308\n3.5\nECE/SB 90\n2,248\n1.8\nECE/SB 90\nOther*\n963\n.8\nTOTAL\n122,611\n100.0\n*Other includes Miller-Unruh, bilingual education, and Indian\nearly childhood education.\n27\nIn the 901 ECE schools using standardized tests, average months of\ngain in mathematics per month of instruction were computed for students in\ngrades one, two, and three. In determining months of gain, only those students\nwere included for whom both pretest and post-test scores were available.\nResults indicated that, with an average seven months elapsed time\nbetween pretest and post-test, students in grades one, two, and three typically\ngained 1.2 months or more in measured mathematics skills for each month of\ninstruction. (See Table 23.) Analyses by grade level for each of the several\nfunding sources revealed that programs served by certain combinations of funds\nattained greater results than did others. (See tables 24, 25, and 26.)\nTABLE 20\nPERCENT OF OBJECTIVES IN MATHEMATICS FOR EACH OF SIX TYPES OF RESULTS REPORTED,\nEARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SCHOOLS, 1973-74\nType of\nPercent of objectives\nresults\nNumber of\nVague but\nTotal\nreported\nschools\nMeasurable*\nmeasurable*\nNon-measurable*\npercent\nExceeded\nobjective\n89\n38.2\n61.8\n0.0\n100\nAttained\nobjective\n234\n46.2\n53.4\n0.4\n100\nPartially\nattained\nobjective\n131\n45.8\n53.4\n0.8\n100\nDid not\nattain\nobjective\n42\n50.0\n42.9\n7.1\n100\nResults\nnot attained\n79\n39.2\n48.1\n12.7\n100\nResults\nnot related\nto objective\n326\n16.0\n20.5\n63.5\n100\nTotal or\nAverage\n901\n34.0\n41.4\n24.6\n100\n75.4\n*As determined by State Department of Education staff.\n28\nAnalyses were also conducted for students in kindergarten and grades\none, two, and three regarding the percent of movement out of the lower quarters\nand into the higher quarters of the distribution of mathematics achievement\nscores. Findings summarized in Table 27 indicate that there was a 16 percent\nreduction of students in the lowest quarter of the distribution and an increase\nof more than 12 percent in the highest quarter. Changes in the second and third\nquarters of the distribution were fairly small.\nTABLE 21\nRANK ORDER OF ACTIVITIES MOST FREQUENTLY REPORTED\nBY SUCCESSFUL MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS IN EARLY\nCHILDHOOD EDUCATION SCHOOLS, 1973-74\nPercent of\nRank\nActivities\nreporting schools\n1\nInstructional aides reinforcing teacher\ninstruction\n48.2\n2\nWhole class instruction\n32.6\n3\nIndividualized instruction within the regular\nclassroom\n30.0\n4\nUse of parent volunteers\n26.4\n5\nRelated staff inservice\n22.9\nTABLE 22\nRANK ORDER OF EVALUATION ACTIVITIES MOST FREQUENTLY\nREPORTED BY SUCCESSFUL MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS IN\nEARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SCHOOLS, 1973-74\nPercent of\nRank\nActivities\nreporting schools\n1\nTwo or more norm-referenced standardized tests\n46.7\n2\nOne norm-referenced standardized test\n13.0\n3\nTwo or more norm-referenced standardized tests\nwith locally developed criterion-referenced\ntests\n11.0\n29\nTABLE 23\nAVERAGE MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT BY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION\nSTUDENTS TESTED, BY FUNDING SOURCE, 1973-74, GRADE ONE\nNumber of\nAverage grade\nAverage months of\nAverage months of\nGrade\nstudents\nequivalent score\ngain between\ngain per month\nlevel\ntested\nPretest\nPost-test\npretest and post-test\nof instruction*\nOne\n14,727\n1.1\n1.9\n8\n1.2\nTwo\n27,150\n1.8\n2.7\n9\n1.3\nThree\n24,647\n2.5\n3.4\n9\n1.4\n*An average of seven months elapsed between pretest and\npost-test.\nTABLE 24\nNUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT BY EARLY\nCHILDHOOD EDUCATION STUDENTS TESTED, BY FUNDING\nSOURCE, 1973-74, GRADE ONE\nNumber of\nAverage grade\nFunding\nstudents\nequivalent score\nAverage months of gain\nsource\ntested\nPretest\nPost-test\nper month of instruction*\nECE/SB 90\n268\n.9\n1.9\n1.4\nECE\n2,444\n1.2\n2.1\n1.3\nECE/Title I\n3,168\n1.1\n2.0\n1.3\nECE/Other**\n390\n1.2\n2.1\n1.3\nECE/Title I\nSB 90\n3,716\n1.0\n1.7\n1.1\nECE/Title I/\nOther**\n1,673\n1.1\n1.9\n1.1\nECE/Title I/\nSB 90/Other\n2,983\n1.0\n1.7\n1.0\nTotal\n14,660\n1.1\n1.9\n1.2\n*An average of seven months elapsed between the pretest and the\npost-test.\n30\nIn computing the percent of movement for schools choosing to re-\nport in quartile shifts, test data for all students were used with the assump-\ntion that student population characteristics such as socioeconomic status,\nbilingualism, and so forth would remain similar regardless of pupil mobility.\nAs a result, the number of students included in the analysis of gain scores\ndiffers from the number of students included in computing percentage shifts.\nTest information reported by districts which was either incomplete\nor contained procedural irregularities was not aggregated with statewide re-\nsults. Incomplete data or irregular procedures included instances in which\n(1) either pretest or post-test information was omitted; (2) test results were\nnot given in grade equivalents; (3) test results were combined for several\ngrade levels; (4) the standardized measure used in the pretest differed from\nthe measure used in the post-test; (5) nonstandardized tests were used; or\n(6) no test results were reported.\nTABLE 25\nNUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT BY EARLY\nCHILDHOOD EDUCATION STUDENTS TESTED, BY FUNDING SOURCE\n1973-74, GRADE TWO\nNumber of\nAverage grade\nFunding\nstudents\nequivalent score\nAverage months of gain\nsource\ntested\nPretest\nPost-test\nper month of instruction*\nECE/Title I\n4,301\n1.8\n2.8\n1.4\nECE/Other**\n924\n2.0\n3.0\n1.4\nECE/Title I/\nOther**\n2,976\n1.7\n2.7\n1.4\nECE\n4,363\n2.1\n3.0\n1.4\nECE/Title I/\nSB 90\n6,183\n1.6\n2.5\n1.3\nECE/Title I/\nSB 90/Other\n7,678\n1.6\n2.5\n1.3\nECE/SB 90\n479\n1.5\n2.3\n1.1\nTotal\n26,904\n1.7\n2.7\n1.3\n*An average of seven months elapsed between the pretest and\nthe post-test.\n**Other includes Miller-Unruh, bilingual education, and Indian\nearly childhood education.\n31\nTABLE 26\nNUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED AND AVERAGE MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT BY EARLY\nCHILDHOOD EDUCATION STUDENTS TESTED, BY FUNDING\nSOURCE, 1973-74, GRADE THREE\nNumber of\nAverage grade\nFunding\nstudents\nequivalent score\nAverage months of gain\nsource\ntested\nPretest\nPost-Test\nper month of instruction*\nECE/Other*\n816\n2.9\n4.0\n1.6\nECE\n3,832\n2.9\n3.9\n1.4\nECE/Title I\n3,251\n2.5\n3.5\n1.4\nECE/Title I/\nSB 90\n5,601\n2.3\n3.3\n1.4\nECE/Title I/\nOther\n2,857\n2.4\n3.4\n1.4\nECE/Title I/\nSB 90/Other\n7,485\n2.4\n3.3\n1.3\nECE/SB 90\n555\n2.5\n3.1\n.9\nTotal\n24,397\n2.5\n3.5\n1.4\n*An average of seven months elapsed between the pretest and the post-test.\n**Other includes Miller-Unruh, bilingual education, and Indian early\nchildhood education.\nPERCENT OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION STUDENTS TESTED SCORING IN EACH\nQUARTER OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT SCORES\nBY GRADE LEVEL, AT PRETESTING AND POST-TESTING, 1973-74\nNumber of\nPercent of students by quarter\nGrade\nstudents\nFirst\nSecond\nThird\nFourth\nlevel\ntested\nTest\nquarter\nquarter\nquarter\nquarter\n15,336\nPre\n34.6\n27.2\n20.4\n17.8\nKindergarten\n25,936\nPost\n17.1\n26.2\n24.3\n32.4\n21,211\nPre\n42.7\n27.9\n16.3\n13.1\nOne\n36,021\nPost\n24.0\n23.6\n24.1\n28.3\n20,033\nPre\n39.9\n27.8\n21.2\n11.1\nTwo\n29,752\nPost\n26.2\n28.8\n20.9\n24.1\n18,163\nPre\n49.4\n25.2\n15.3\n10.1\nThree\n30,020\nPost\n35.4\n28.5\n19.9\n16.3\n32\nHEALTH/AUXILIARY SERVICES COMPONENT\nHealth/auxiliary services were reported as effective in providing health\nexaminations. All health/auxiliary services that were reported were rated\nabove 75 percent effective.\nHealth services are those required as a result of the comprehensive\nhealth needs assessment within the early childhood education school. This\ncomponent must also include auxiliary services, such as pupil personnel services,\nand library and media services in multifunded schools.\nObjectives and Activities\nThe major auxiliary services objectives reported were related to\nproviding health services, pupil personnel services, and referral services in\nECE schools. The specific objectives reported most frequently included pro-\nviding health examinations, improving school attendance, providing health in-\nformation, and improving the personal health of the participants. Other major\nobjectives focused on improving pupil attitude, providing library and media\nservices, and improving academic achievement.\nSpecific activities were emphasized in each of the auxiliary services\nprovided, such as psychological services, health examinations, and general\nservices within the library and media services.\nEvaluation of Health/Auxiliary Services\nA direct relationship exists between the frequency of activities\nlisted in objectives and their importance, as rated by school personnel.\nSchools were asked to do two separate ratings, one of effective activities and\none of important activities. These rankings were compared by evaluation con-\nsultants to determine the degree of the relationships between the rankings.\nAuxiliary services usually are evaluated by identifying the criteria for a\nsuccessful program and assessing the level of the effectiveness of specific\nservices in meeting those criteria. Seventy percent of the evaluation reports\nstated the criteria in terms of the amount or number of services provided.\nOnly 30 percent reported criteria related to expected changes in pupil or\nstaff behavior or performance. The most frequent criterion for effectiveness\nwas the number of health examinations given.\nThe level of effectiveness was determined primarily by three evalu-\nation methods: subjective judgment by staff, counting of participants or\nactivities, and objective measurements. The analysis of the school reports\nshowed that 47 percent of the services were evaluated subjectively and 42\npercent by enumeration data. The remaining 11 percent of the health/auxiliary\nservices were evaluated by objective measurements such as rating scales.\nThe results reported in the auxiliary services component generally\nrelated to the stated objectives. Of the schools reporting measurable objec-\ntives, 41 percent had attained their objectives, 30 percent achieved part of\ntheir objectives, 3 percent did not attain their objectives, and 26 percent\nreported results unrelated to their objectives. The reports rated the level\n33\nof effectiveness of specific services in terms of meeting their school objec-\ntives. Pupil personnel services were 77 percent effective or very effective.\nHealth services were rated 79 percent effective or very effective, and library\nservices ratings were 85 percent effective or very effective.\nA comparison was made between the importance and effectiveness of\nthe major services provided. The results are shown graphically in figures 1,\n2, and 3. The greatest difference between importance and effectiveness was\nseen in two specific services. Library and media materials ranked high in\neffectiveness but low in importance, and medical services ranked low in effec-\ntiveness but high in importance.\nPositive results submitted in relation to the stated objectives are\nsummarized in Table 28 based on data submitted by schools and measurable per-\nformance objectives. It is evident that auxiliary services were effective in\nECE programs. This effectiveness was determined from the resulting improve-\nment noted in pupil health, pupil attitudes, and improved school attendance.\nThe major recommendations made in the reports for health/auxiliary\nservices in general were to continue the present program, improve communica-\ntions, provide additional services, increase parent involvement, improve\nprogram objectives, and provide inservice workshops.\nTABLE 28\nRESULTS OF ACTIVITIES IN HEALTH/AUXILIARY SERVICES MOST\nFREQUENTLY REPORTED IN RELATION TO STATED OBJECTIVES\nPercent of\nRank\nprojects reporting\norder\nSpecific results reported\nthese results\n1\nProvision of health services\n38\n2\nProvision of health examinations\n33\n3\nProvision of pupil personnel services\n22\n4\nProvision of referral services\n17\n5\nImprovement in participant's health\n11\n6\nProvision of nutrition or lunches\n10\n7\nProvision of auxiliary services personnel\n10\n34\n5 Most Important\n5 Least Important\nPsychological testing\nTeacher consultation\nFive\nSpeech therapy\nMost\nIndividual counseling\nEffective\nParent counseling\nWelfare and attendance\nPsychometric assistance\nFive\nGuidance inservice\nLeast\nHome counseling\nEffective\nGroup counseling\nFIGURE 1. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF TEN MAJOR PUPIL PERSONNEL\nSERVICES, AS REPORTED BY SCHOOLS, 1973-74\n3 Most Important\n2 Least Important\nThree\nMedia centers\nMaterials\nMost\nGeneral services\nEffective\nTwo\nPersonnel\nMobile centers\nLeast\nEffective\nFIGURE 2. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF FIVE MAJOR LIBRARY AND\nMEDIA SERVICES, AS REPORTED BY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SCHOOLS, 1973-74\n4 Most Important\n3 Least Important\nFour\nNursing\nNutrition\nMost\nDiagnostic\nHealth education\nEffective\nThree\nDental\nLeast\nMedical\nFamily services\nEffective\nFIGURE 3. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SEVEN MAJOR HEALTH\nSERVICES, AS REPORTED BY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SCHOOLS, 1973-74\n35\nPARENT EDUCATION COMPONENT\nParent education objectives usually related to expected changes in\nbehavior and performance of parents, with an increase in skills and\nknowledge most often reported.\nThe parent education component required specific objectives and\nactivities that would increase parent effectiveness by encouraging parents to\nbecome an integral part of the formal education process.\nEighty-seven percent of the major objectives reported for the parent\neducation component were well defined, and 13 percent of the objectives were\nvague. Of the well-defined objectives, 61 percent were related to expected\nchanges in behavior and performance of the parents, and 39 percent of the ob-\njectives concerned services provided by district or school staff.\nOf the objectives related to expected changes in behavior and per-\nformance, reports by most schools concentrated on increased skills and knowl-\nedge by parents, increased program participation by parents, and more parental\nunderstanding and support of the school program. Objectives frequently\nmentioned were increasing knowledge of child growth and development, partici-\npating in the program, becoming more knowledgeable about the program, and\nincreasing parental understanding of the child's education program.\nOf the objectives related to services provided, the most frequently\nreported objectives were provisions for orientation sessions, parent classes\nand workshops, training parents for effective participation in school and\nclass activities, and increased parent participation at the school site.\nThe most important activities reported were in the same general\nareas as the stated objectives: increased participation, instructional pro-\ngrams for parents, school activities, parental knowledge, and support of the\neducation process through participation.\nIn a few school reports there were indications that the content of\nthe proposed parent education component had been changed. The reason was\nusually that the objectives had been predetermined by project personnel.\nAfter parent surveys had been conducted, a discrepancy was discovered, and\nthe programs were redesigned to meet the parents' stated needs.\nParent education activities were evaluated by identifying the\ncriteria for a successful program and assessing the level of effectiveness\nof specific activities in meeting those criteria. In the schools that re-\nported evaluation, 63 percent stated criteria related to expected changes in\nparent behavior, and 37 percent of the criteria related to services provided\nby the project staff. The most frequent criterion mentioned was parent\nopinion. Objective measurements, such as student and parent tests and\nquestionnaires, accounted for 12 percent of the school evaluations.\nSchools reporting well-defined objectives reported achieving 89 per-\ncent of the objectives related to expected changes in parent behavior. For\nobjectives related to provision of services, the achievement was 67 percent.\n36\nTwo percent of all measurable objectives were unachieved, and 21 percent of\nall reported results were unrelated to the stated objectives.\nIn addition to listing the most important activities related to\nachieving stated objectives, schools also rated the level of effectiveness of\nthe activities provided. The most important activities listed by the schools\nwere rated by program personnel as the most effective. These were instruc-\ntional classes for parents, participation in school activities, and parent-\nteacher conferences. The activities considered least important were rated as\nleast effective. Figure 4 shows the relationship between importance and\neffectiveness of activities as reported.\nThe recommendations made in the parent education component indicated\nthe need to improve communication between the homes and the school. Other\nrecommendations were for additional classes for parents and for activities\nbased on the felt needs of parents. A significant recommendation was for the\nexpansion of the parent education component, including offering parents more\nopportunities for participation and offering a greater variety in the types\nof participation available.\nPARENT PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COMPONENT\nParent involvement activities that were most effective were parent-\nteacher conferences, advisory committee meetings, school parent meetings,\nuse of parent volunteers, and home communication.\nThe parent participation and community involvement component required\nspecific plans for the improvement of communication between the schools and the\ncommunity as well as parent participation in the planning, implementation, modi-\nfication, and evaluation of the program and in the classroom education of the\nchildren.\nIn the early childhood education program, use of parents in the\nclassroom was reported as one of the measurable major objectives. Other ob-\njectives were: to increase parent visits to the classroom, to recruit parent\nassistants, to develop community resource personnel, to improve attendance at\nschool activities, and to increase parent involvement in planning, implemen-\ntation, and evaluation.\nOf the objectives related to services provided, the major ones re-\nported most frequently by projects were dissemination of program information,\nprogram orientation, and home-school communication.\nThree of the major objective areas reported by a large number of\nschools were reflected in the most important activities listed. These were\nprogram orientation, parent visits to schools and classroom, and attendance\nat school activities.\nParent involvement activities were evaluated by identifying the\ncriteria for a successful program and assessing the level of effectiveness of\nthe specific services provided. Sixty-six percent of the evaluations related\n37\n3 Most Important\n2 Least Important\nInstructional classes\nfor parents\nThree\nMost\nParticipation in school\nEffective\nactivities\nParent-teacher\nconferences\nScheduled meetings\nTwo\nfor parents\nLeast\nEffective\nProgram orientation\nFIGURE 4. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF FIVE MAJOR PARENT EDUCATION\nACTIVITIES\nTABLE 29\nRESULTS OF PARENT EDUCATION MOST FREQUENTLY REPORTED\nBY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SCHOOLS, 1973-74\nPercent of\nRank\nprojects reporting\norder\nSpecific results reported\nthese results\n1\nParents increased their understanding\n29\nand support.\n2\nParents attended scheduled classes\n17\nand workshops.\n3\nParents participated in parent\n15\neducation activities.\n4\nParents improved their knowledge and\n12\nincreased their skills.\n5\nParents visited schools and participated\n10\nin school activities.\n38\nto expected changes in parent behavior. Thirty-four percent of the criteria\nrelated to services provided by the project staff. The most frequent criterion\nused to measure effectiveness was the number of parents participating.\nOf the evaluation methods used, 47 percent was enumeration of par-\nticipants and activities, and 39 percent was subjective judgment. The remain-\ning 14 percent was objective measurements, usually in the form of parent\nquestionnaires, rating scales, or attitude scales.\nIn the parent involvement component, 52 percent of the schools\nachieved their objectives. Nineteen percent achieved part of their objectives,\n17 percent reported negative results, and 12 percent reported results not\nrelated to their objectives.\nThe school reports rated the level of the effectiveness of major\nactivities provided in terms of meeting school objectives. Parent involve-\nment activities were rated mostly as effective or very effective. The most\neffective activities were parent-teacher conferences, advisory committee\nmeetings, school parent meetings, use of parent volunteers, and home communi-\ncation. The least effective, according to school ratings, were cultural pro-\ngrams, baby sitting services, home calls and visits, and planning sessions.\nA comparison was made between the relative importance and the\neffectiveness of the major parent involvement activities. The results are\nsummarized in Figure 5.\nThe results of parent involvement most frequently reported are sum-\nmarized in Table 30. This table includes only the specific outcomes indicated\nby the schools which reported results related to their stated objectives. The\nparent involvement activities most frequently resulted in increased attendance\nat parent conferences and school meetings, more positive attitudes on the part\nof parents, an increase in parent time spent as volunteers or aides, and\nparent involvement in program planning, implementation, and evaluation.\nOf the recommendations made by the schools, 34 percent cited the\nrecruitment and training of parent volunteers and aides to work at the school\nsite; and 22 percent stressed the need for more effective communication be-\ntween the school and the home. Frequent mention was made of the need for a\nliaison person to assist in this area. Other recommendations suggested in-\ncreases in the number and variety of activities afforded to parents as a way\nto increase school participation and to increase the parents' involvement in\nthe design and implementation of the school plan. The use of bilingual staff\nin the community was also recommended.\nSTAFF DEVELOPMENT AND INSERVICE EDUCATION COMPONENT\nThe staff development component results reported most frequently indi-\ncated a greater use of individualized instruction, better organization\nof inservice training, and improvement in writing and instructional\nobjectives.\n39\n5 Most Important\nParent-teacher conference\nFive\nAdvisory committee meetings\nmost\nSchool parent meetings\neffective\nUse of parent volunteers\nCommunications with home\nCultural programs\nFour\nBaby sitting services\nleast\nPlanning sessions\neffective\nHome calls and visits\nFIGURE 5. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF NINE PARENT INVOLVEMENT\nACTIVITIES PROVIDED BY ECE SCHOOLS\nTABLE 30\nRESULTS OF PARENT INVOLVEMENT REPORTED IN RELATION\nTO STATED OBJECTIVES IN EARLY CHILDHOOD\nEDUCATION SCHOOLS, 1973-74\nPercent of\nRank\nprojects reporting\norder\nSpecific results reported\nthese results\n1\nParent volunteers and aides helped at the\nschool.\n18\n2\nParents participated in school activities and\nmeetings.\n16\n3\nParents were involved in program planning,\nimplementation, and evaluation.\n9\n4\nParents responded to communications from the\nschool.\n9\n5\nParents attended parent-teacher conferences.\n8\n6\nParents and students expressed positive\nattitudes and feelings.\n8\n40\nStaff development and inservice education were required for all\nschools conducting an early childhood education program. Objectives and\nactivities that would lead to improved performance by professional and non-\nprofessional personnel working in the program were included in each school\nplan. These activities served 27,105 persons in the early childhood education\nschools.\nObjectives and Activities\nThe major staff development objectives conducted in early childhood\neducation schools were related to the improvement of teaching techniques.\nMeasurable performance objectives were recorded by 72 percent of the schools,\nwhile relatively vague objectives were reported by 28 percent of the schools.\nThe objectives that were well defined included a description of expected changes\nin performance level of participants or in the services to be provided by dis-\ntrict or school staff to participants. Specific objectives included: improve-\nment in individualized instruction and use of diagnostic/prescriptive techniques,\nimprovement in writing instructional objectives, and improvement in planning\nother objectives related to the number or type of personnel to receive training.\nThe types of activities provided to attain objectives included school-\nlevel workshops on instructional methods and content, staff meetings, school or\nclassroom visitations, district and county workshops, college courses, confer-\nences, and demonstrations. Content areas covered during inservice training\nactivities included reading, mathematics, language, and general curriculum.\nRelatively few schools reported inservice activities that were related to the\nneeds assessment, school-level planning, volunteers or tutors, parent involve-\nment, or parent education.\nEvaluation and Results\nEvaluation criteria used to measure the effectiveness of staff devel-\nopment and inservice activities were related to those activities two out of\nevery three times. About one-third of the schools mentioned classroom imple-\nmentation by teachers as an evaluation criterion. Subjective judgments made up\n67 percent of the methods by which the activities were evaluated, while 20 per-\ncent were based on objective measurements. Thirteen percent related program\neffectiveness to counting or enumerative criteria.\nIn 87 percent of the ECE schools, respondents indicated that their\nmajor objectives were attained. Six percent of the schools recorded that\nobjectives were partially attained, while 5 percent of the schools recorded\nresults not related to stated objectives. Two percent of the schools indicated\nthat their objectives were not attained, or they did not include any data on\nthis component.\nComparisons were made between the importance and the effectiveness of\nstaff development and inservice activities. These results are presented in Fig-\nure 6. The greatest discrepancies were found in college classes (ranked high in\nimportance and low in effectiveness) and demonstrations (ranked low in importance\nand high in effectiveness).\n41\nA summary of the positive results of staff development and inservice\nactivities most frequently recorded appears in Table 31. These results indi-\ncated a greater use of individualized instruction in reading and mathematics,\nbetter organization of inservice training, and improvement in writing instruc-\ntional objectives. Few schools reported improvement in teaching psychomotor\nskills, training in the use of personnel, or improvement in pupil attitudes as\nan outcome of staff development and inservice education activities.\nRecommendations for Improving Staff Development\nSchools participating in ECE programs reported frequent recommenda-\ntions related to improved staff development programs and inservice education.\nThe recommendations most often related to improvement of the organization of\ninservice training, increased visitation to other schools and programs, im-\nproved workshops, and better use of consultants. Additional teacher involve-\nment in needs assessment and in the development of inservice activities also\nwere recommended. Additional training in teaching techniques, particularly\nindividualized instruction as related to diagnostic and prescriptive techniques,\nand methods related to improving pupil behaviors and attitudes, were mentioned\nfrequently.\nOPTIONAL COMPONENTS\nOptional components were included by nearly half of the ECE schools.\nThese included music, art, health, affective areas, English as a\nsecond language, and bilingual education.\nThe optional component permitted local school program directors to\nprovide information on activities that were not specifically identified as\ncomponents in the evaluation report form. These activities included music,\nart, health and science, physical education, social studies, English as a\nsecond language, bilingual education, and psychomotor development. Additional\nactivities such as school management, program organization, facilities and\nmaterials, and a series of similar topics were reported in this manner.\nFor programs described as optional, nearly 90 percent of all schools\nreported that their stated objectives had been either fully attained or par-\ntially attained. Effectiveness was most frequently measured by subjective\nmethods.\nNearly one-half of the schools providing early childhood education\nprograms reported activities in the optional component. More than 100 schools\nreported that a program for English as a second language was provided, some of\nthem in the bilingual-bicultural program (Chapter 1258 of the 1972 statutes).\nIt was found that the evaluation of this program relied heavily on objective\nmethods, with several recommendations focusing on continuing or expanding the\nprogram as program needs increased. In general, programs achieved their stated\nobjectives, and program effectiveness was evaluated by subjective techniques\nmore often than by objective techniques. Specific recommendations related to\nthe improvement of classroom management, better use of personnel, continued\nexpansion of such programs, and improved program management.\n42\n5 Most Important\n5 Least Important\nFive\nTechniques of reading instruction\nDemonstrations\nMost\nDiagnostic/prescriptive teaching\nEffective\nTechniques of math instruction\nInformal workshops\nFive\nCollege classes\nFormal lectures\nLeast\nIntergroup relations inservice\nEffective\nParent involvement inservice\nParent education\nFIGURE 6. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF TEN STAFF DEVELOP-\nMENT ACTIVITIES PROVIDED BY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SCHOOLS\nTABLE 31\nPOSITIVE RESULTS OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES MOST FREQUENTLY\nREPORTED IN RELATION TO STATED OBJECTES BY SUCCESSFUL\nEARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROJECTS\nPercent of\nRank\nprojects reporting\norder\nSpecific results reported\nthese results\n1\nImproved individualized instruction\n26\nin reading.\n2\nImproved individualized instruction\n16\nin mathematics\n3\nBetter organization of inservice\n11\ntraining\n4\nImprovement in writing instructional\n8\nobjectives\n43\nThe activities reported for the bilingual or ESL programs included\nthe use of diagnostic and prescriptive teaching techniques and the use of\ninstructional aides. The districts reported that the instructional aides were\nan effective part of the program.\nPrograms funded under the Bilingual Education Act were also required\nto develop objectives in mathematics and the support components. The report\nprepared by the Office of Program Evaluation and Research, entitled Bilingual\nEducation Act of 1972, contains a complete description of the bilingual program\nas it was implemented in California schools.\nChapter IV\nFiscal Management\nProgram expenditures as reported by the schools for 1973-74 showed that\nadditional early childhood education funds were most often used to employ\ninstructional aides in the schools.\nThe fiscal expenditures for each participating early childhood educa-\ntion school represented 20 percent of the program evaluation in the 1973-74\nprogram year. Fiscal expenditures will represent 10 percent of the evaluation\nin the 1974-75 program year but will not be included thereafter.\nThe legislation requires that expenditures for the ECE program be\nsupplemental to the districts' basic support per child. Each district signed\nan assurance in its original application certifying that its effort would be\nmaintained. At the time of this report, specific audit procedures required\nunder Education Code sections 6445.16, 6445.17, and 6445.18 had not been\naccomplished.\nFinal evaluation of fiscal management covered only the actual encum-\nbrances for 1973-74 and the amounts that were either carried forward into the\nnext fiscal year or overspent; there was no attempt to evaluate the appropriate-\nness by which schools chose to allocate individual objects of expenditure within\nthe school budget.\nThe development of each school plan included the development of a\nbudget for that school. Funds were budgeted in such a way that the objectives\nof the plan would be met most effectively.\nIn this first year, 59.4 percent of the schools completed the fiscal\nyear with no more than a 5 percent difference between the amount allocated and\nthe amount spent. Another 14.5 percent of the schools had ending balances with\n6 to 10 percent differences. The remaining 26.1 percent had ending balances\nwith either carry-over or deficit funds in excess of 10 percent of the original\nbudget. The evaluation of fiscal management gave full credit to schools at 10\npercent or under, and a penalty of 5 percent of the total evaluation for amounts\nover 10 percent but less than 25 percent. Any budget with either a 25 percent\nor greater deficit or carry-over was penalized 10 percent or half the possible\nfiscal management evaluation score. Schools that did not return budget informa-\ntion or whose figures were included in a district aggregate report received a\nzero score for the 10 percent evaluation of their fiscal management.\nTable 32 presents the early childhood education expenditures by account\nclassification. Over 44 percent of the expenditures were for instructional aides,\nand nearly 85 percent of the expenditures were in the general area of instruction,\nincluding salaries and instructional supplies.\nWhile health needs assessment was a part of the required plan for each\nschool, either district or community resources were utilized to fund this activity.\nLess than 1 percent of the expenditures were directed toward health services.\n44\n45\nThe Early Childhood Education Management Team found that in a few\ndistricts, schools did not receive the full allocation authorized by the State\nBoard of Education, as a percentage of funds for district administration was\nremoved prior to distribution to the schools.\nRecommendation\nState fiscal reporting and audit procedures are essential to the\nearly childhood education program in order to clarify the fiscal responsibilities\nat the school, district, and state levels.\nTABLE 32\nTOTAL EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION EXPENDITURES\nBY ACCOUNT CLASSIFICATION, 1973-74\nApproved\nExpenditures\nExpenditure\nand encum-\nAccount\nECE\nand\nNot\nbrance per-\nclassification\nbudget\nencumbrances\nencumbered\ncent of total\n100 Administration\n$ 10,840\n$ 12,084\n$(-1244)\n.05\n110-120 Salaries\n129,955\n123,701\n6254\n.68\n190 Other expenses of\nAdministration\n59,113\n50,853\n8260\n.28\n200 Instruction\n212 Supervisors' salaries\n428,373\n420,898\n7475\n2.33\n213 Teachers' salaries\n3,122,445\n3,046,831\n75614\n16.83\n214 Other certificated\nsalaries of\ninstruction\n718,746\n672,109\n46637\n3.71\n220 Classified salaries\nof instruction\n79,366\n77,809\n1557\n.43\n221 Instructional aides\n8,475,001\n7,986,784\n488,217\n44.12\n222 Other classified\nsalaries of\ninstruction\n808,121\n571,309\n236,812\n3.16\n230 Textbooks\n37,492\n35,227\n2,265\n.19\n240 Other books\n128,133\n101,786\n26,347\n.56\n290 Other expenses of\ninstruction\n37,761\n30,897\n6,864\n.17\n291 Instructional\nsupplies\n1,962,856\n1,744,443\n218,413\n9.64\n292 Miscellaneous\nexpenses of\ninstruction\n1,064,324\n773,395\n290,929\n4.27\n400 Health services\n410-420 Salaries\n158,230\n136,344\n21,886\n.75\n490 Other expenses of\nhealth services\n57,302\n34,713\n22,589\n.19\n500 Pupil transportation\n750\n750\n0\n.00\n520 Salaries\n17,464\n9,494\n8,470\n.05\n590 Other expenses of\npupil transportation\n77,209\n46,334\n39,345\n.26\n46\nTABLE 32. TOTAL EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION EXPENDITURES, BY ACCOUNT CLASSIFICATION\n1973-74 (Continued)\nApproved\nExpenditures\nExpenditure\nAccount\nECE\nand\nNot\nand encum-\nclassification\nbudget\nencumbrances\nencumbered\nbrance per-\ncent of total\n600 Operation of plant\n620 Salaries\n$ 3,802\n$ 3,742\n$\n60\n.02\n690 Other expenses for\noperation of plant\n15,058\n12,011\n3,047\n.07\n700 Maintenance of plant\n720 Salaries\n18,522\n3,060\n15,462\n.02\n790 Other expenses for\nmaintenance of plant\n9,820\n4,914\n4,906\n.03\n800 Fixed charges\n395,481\n356,225\n39,256\n1.98\n892 Lease/rental\nexpense and fringe/\nbenefits\n1,132,478\n1,050,455\n82,023\n5.80\n900 Food services\n910-920 Salaries\n400\n396\n4\n.00\n990 Other expenses\n41,767\n31,407\n10,360\n.17\n1100 Community services\n500\n6\n494\n.00\n1110-1120 Salaries\n38,745\n29,774\n8,971\n.16\n1190 Other expenses of\ncommunity services\n26,206\n17,994\n8,212\n.10\n1200 Capital outlay\n13,470\n12,462\n1,008\n.06\n1240 Improvement of sites\n43,203\n36,146\n7,057\n.20\n1250 Buildings\n70,856\n71,267\n(-411)\n.39\n1260 Equipment\n29,464\n23,815\n5,649\n.13\n1261 Books\n41,553\n33,036\n14,166\n.18\n1269 Other equipment\n568,938\n538,623\n30,315\n2.98\nIndirect costs (rate percent)\n55,814\n44,258\n11,556\nTotal (Without Indirect Costs)\n19,823,520\n18,100,970\n1,722,550\n100%\nTotal (With Indirect Costs)\n19,879,334\n18,145,228\n1,734,116\nReports filed late\n2,936.407\nNot filed or not separable\n1,351,217\n24,166,958\n74-86 DE 7022 11-74 400"
}