DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 080 582
TM 003 098
TITLE
State Educational Assessment Programs.,1973
Revision..
INSTITUTION
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J.;
Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colo..
PUB DATE
73
NOTE
104p.
EDRS PRICE
MP-S0.65 HC-$6.58
DESCRIPTORS
*Data Analysis; Educational Quality; Educational
Research; Elementary Grades; *Evaluation Methods;
Interviews; Kindergarten; Program Descriptions;
Secondary Grades; *State Programs; *State surveys;
*Student Evaluation; Technical Reports
IDENTIFIERS
District of Columbia; Puerto Rico; United States;
Virgin Islands
ABSTRACT
This publication has two major parts..The firrt is a
paper by Joan Beers, Pennsylvania lepartteht of Education, and Paul
Educational Testing SerVidt, which deScribes, analyted and
-interprets the Most significant pOrtiOnt of data collected in a
4-edond survey of the Status- of state ,educational assessment programs..
The second part is a report of the assessment' activities of each_ -Of
the 50 states, the DiStrict of COluibia, PUerto Rico, and the Virgin
Iilanda.,Each report proVides a standard desbription of the state's
activities, the name, address and telephone number of each individUal
interviewed, and, where appropriate, a list of publications
Oettaining to the staters program..A copy ofthe interview guide is
-provided in the appendix..(Authorn*)
FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY
Pr
c00'6
r, 4NOUNA,.
Pt EN Gla....ED
.PCVIZAinu
r
P4. AND (0N5AN
AS tlFEN;NNG
<I,Cqf
." r. 76.
aTE
0
r,,i3N0
DUC..:06
.(
41,'STLY NE
4t.
,,LP-fiqron
U S.OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
EDUCATION & WELFARE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATION
1 tIS DOCUMENT HAS PEEN ;REPRO
MUD EXACTLY A5 RECEIVED FROM
THE PERSON OR OPGANUATION ORIGIN
ATINO It POINTS Or VIE. Ou OPINIONS
STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY /4EPRE
_ SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE or
-,_EDUEATION:POS,TIONOP:POLICY
State Educational Assessment Programs
1973 Revision
Center for Statewide Educational Atemetoesasent
and the
ERIC' ClassarIssarlsonme on Tetett4, Menmearentent anti Evaluation
tat
Educational 'remting Service,
In ollalaorettican With
Education Conansission of the Staters
STATE EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
1973 REVISION
Center for Statewide Educational Assessment
and the
ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement and Evaluation
at
Educational Testing Service
in collaboration with
Education Commission of the States
Educational Testing Service
Princeton. New Jersey
Berkeley. California
Evanston. Illinois
CONTENTS
v
Foreword
47
Missouri
vii
Introduction
49
Montana
1
Statewide Educational Assessment
50
Nebraska
State Descriptions
51
Nevada
9
Alabama
52
New Hampsaire
10
Alaska
53
New Jersey
12
Arizona
56
New Mexico
13
Arkansas
57
New York
14
California
64
North Carolina
16
Colorado
65
North Dakota
18
Connecticut
66
Ohio
20
Delaware
67
Oklahoma
21
District of Columbia
69
Oregon
23
Florida
70
Pennsylvania
24
Georgia
71
Puerto Rico
27
Hawaii
73
Rhode Island
29
Idaho
75
South Carolina
30
Illinois
77
South Dakota
31
Indiana
78
Tennessee
32
Iowa
79
Texas
33
Kansas
81
Utah
35
Kentucky
83
Vermont
36
Louisiana
84
Virgin Islands
38
Maine
85
Virginia
39
Maryland
86
Washington
40
Massachusetts
87
West Virginia
42
Michigan
89
Wisconsin
44
Minnesota
90
Wyoming
46
Mississippi
95
Interview Guide
FOREWORD
This second survey of the status of state educational assessment programs brings up-to-
date the information collected in early 1971 for the first publication. In the two-year
period between surveys there have been changes of varying degrees, making many of the
original descriptions obsolete.
Extensive interest in the earlier publication was a primary factor in our decision to
undertake a revised report. We have been very pleased to learn from a variety of sources
that the initial document stimulated a .. Amber of states to reexamine their own assess-
ment efforts and that their reexaminationwas facilitated by having easy access to descrip-
tions of the assessment efforts of other states.
We hope that this revised report will contribute further to the improvement of state
assessment programs by serving as a useful source of information for state education
leaders.
Princeton, New Jersey
William W. Turnbull, President
June 1973
Educational Testing Service
INTRODUCTION
This publication has two major parts. The first is a paper by Joan Beers, Pennsylvania
Department of Education, and Paul Campbell, Educational Testing Service, which
describes, analyzes and interpre:s the most significant portions of the data collected in
the survey. The second part is a report of the assessment activities of each of the 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Each report provides
a standard description of the state's activities, the name, address and telephone number of
each individual interviewed and, where appropriate, a list of publications pertaining to the
state's program. A copy of the interview guide may be found in the appendix.
In conducting the interviews, no attempt was made to restrict the definition of a state
educational assessment program or to go beyond what the state personnel were willing to
describe as their assessment program. Finally, in the interest of accuracy, the information
appearing in this report was sent to the appropriate person or persons in each state for
their review, modification and approval.
A project as large and complex as this one requires the cooperation of many people.
We were most fortunate in obtaining generous assistance from all whom we called upon
for help. We are particularly grateful to:
The individuals whose names appear at the end of each state report, who provided the
basic data for the survey.
Charles Hoover, Director of ERIC at the National Institute of Education, for
approving the development of the summary paper,utilizing the resources of the ERIC
Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement and Evaluation.
Staff members of the Center for Statewide Educational Assessment, the ERIC Clear-
inghouse on Tests, Measurement and Evaluation, the Office of Field Surveys, the
Publications Division and the Regional Offices of Educational Testing Service for
carrying out the project.
James Hazlett, Education Commission of the States, for his assistance in disseminating
the results of this project to members of theCommission.
Richard 0. Fortna
Project Director
vii
STATEWIDE EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT
by Joan S. Beers, Pennsylvania Department of Education
and Paul B. Campbell, Educational Testing Service
Considerable expansion of statewide
assessment has
occurred in the two years since the results of the previous
survey were published. In the report of that survey. Dyer
and Rosenthal (1971) present a concise statement of the
history and development of assessment programs. They also
identified some apparent trends which were beginning to
emerge. Against this background, the present survey was
designed to allow specific analysis of the nature of state-
wide assessment programs, as planned or as placed in
operation.
P
To provide the information for this analysis, the survey
utilizes a uniform set of questions and a common format.
The District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands and Puerto
Rico were included with the 50 states and for the purposes
of this survey are reported among the states.
The most obvious development is that there are now
many more operational assessment programs than existed at
the time of the earlier survey. Each of the 53 states has
reported assessment activities either as operational, in a
developmental process or in a planning stage.
Three Groups of Statewide Assessment Programs
After a first reading of statewide assessment program
descriptions, it is easy to be deceived into thinking that
statewide assessment programs are more alike than not., The
similarities are many. State agency personnel are in charge.
They select tests or guide and direct their construction,
specify target populations, arrange for test administrations,
make provisions for scoring, analyze the results or have
them analyzed and assemble and disseminate
reports.
Assessment purposes are similar alsoto assess develop-
ment, to measure influences on learning, to assess needs, to
measure growth. It takes a second and more careful reading,
even a third and a fourth reading, to begin to detect that
real differences do exist among programs. These differ.
ences, we discovered, center abodt one question: Who gets
to use the results? When the 30 operational programs are
divided into those for which data is collected for decision
making by state agency personnel and those for which data
is collected for decision making by teachers and administra-
tors, many other differences fall into place.
The distinction between these two types of programs is
sometimes subtle. Many programs are designed to serve
both levels of decision making. Nevertheless, we took the
risk of categorizing the 30 operational programs into two
groups based upon program emphases. We screened the pro-
gram summaries, separating those whose major focus is col-
lecting information for state-level use from those whose
major focus is collecting information for local use. A third
group of 24 programs we labeled "emerging" because they
are not yet operational. A first cycle of testing, analyzing
and reporting has not been completed.
New York state has three assessment programs. The Pupil
Evaluation Program is in Group 1 and The System for Pupil
and Program Evaluation and Development is in Group 2.
Therefore, New York is included twice. The Regents Exam.
ination, the third New York slate program, is not cate-
gorized.
The 17 programs for which the emphasis is on collecting
information for state-level decision making are in the fol-
lowing.
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
The 13 programs for which the emphasis is ori collecting
information for local-level decision making a e in these
states:
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Kentucky
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New York
The 24 emerging programs are in these states:
Alaska
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Montana
North Dakota
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
Minnesota
Utah
Missouri
Virgin Islands
Nebraska
Vermont
Ohio
Virginia
Oklahoma
Washington
Oregon
West Virginia
Puerto Rico
Wisconsin
South Dakota
Wyoming
In the following matrix, essential features of each of the
three groups of programs are described. Reading across the
matrix, differences are highlighted.
I
THREE GROUPS OF STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
Group !
Program emphasis: Collecting informa-
tion for decision-making at the state
level. N=I7
.,
Group 2
Program emphasis: Collecting informa-
tion for decision-making at the local
level. N=13
Group 3
Emerging Programs N=24
1. Assessment is mandated by the
state legislature in 9 states (52%).
I. Assessment is mandated by the
state legislature in 1 state.
1. Assessment is mandated by the
state legislature in 6 states (25%).
2. Assessment results are reported to
the state legislature in 13 states
(76%).
2. Assessment results are reported to
the state legislature in 3 states
(23%).
2. Reports are not yet compiled but
the focus for 20(89%) of the pro-
grams is the collection of data for
state-level decision-making.
3. The collection of data for PPBS
and/or a statewide MIS is specified
for 7 programs (41%).
3. The collection of data for PPBS
and/or a statewide MIS is specified
for 4 programs (30%).
3. The collection of data for PPBS
and/or a statewide MIS is planned
for 9 programs (37%).
4. Assessment data is used to allocate
state and federal funds in 8 states
(47%).
4.. Assessment data is not used to
allocate state and federal funds in
any state.
4. Assessment data will be used to
allocate state and federal funds in
10 states (42%).
--.
5. Participation
is
required
in
10
states (59%).
5.. Participation is voluntary in 12
states (92%).
5. All but 3 states report that parti-
cipation will be voluntary.
6. Samples of students rather than all
students in the target populations
are tested in 12 states (70%).
6. All students in the target popula-
tions are tested in 12 states (92%).
6. Seventeen states (71%) plan to
draw samples of students for test-
ing.
7. Cognitive skills only are assessed
in 11 states (65%).
7. Both affective and cognitive skills
are assessed in 9 states (69%).
7. Thirteen states (59%) plan to
assess both cognitive and affective
skills.
8. Criterion-referenced tests
are
administered in 9 states (52%).
8. Norm-referenced tests only are
administered in 9 states (69%).
8. Of the 17 states which specified
whether norm-referenced or crite-
rion-referenced tests will be used,
11 states plan to administer crite-
rion-referenced tests.
9. Assessment is financed by state
funds only in
6 states (35%),
federal funds only in 4 states
(24%), a combination of state and
federal funds in 5 states (29%),
and a combination of local, state,
and/or federal funds in 2 states
(11%).
9. Assessment is financed by state
funds only
in 2 states (15%),
federal funds only in 3 states
(23%), a combination of state and
federal funds in 4 states (31%),
and a combination of local, state,
and/or federal funds in 4 states
(31%).
9. Assessment is financed by state
funds only
in 5 states (21%),
federal funds only in 14 states
(58%), a combination of state and
federal funds in 3 states (12%),
and a combination of local, state,
and/or federal funds in 2 states
(8%).
2
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
10. All but one of the interviewees
10. Five of the interviewees reported
10. I t
is too early to determine
reported that program objectives
that program objectives are being
whether or not program objectives
are being met successfully.
met successfully; one reported
are being met successfully
for
that objectives are being met to a
limited extent; three reported that
objectives are not being met suc-
cessfully; and four did not answer
the question...
most of the emerging programs.
II. Interviewees reported
the
fol-
11. Interviewees
reported
the
fol-
11. Interviewees reported
the
fol-
lowing as major problem areas:
lowing as major problem areas:
lowing as major problem areas:
a.
Not enough money.
a.
Not enough money.
a.
Not enough money.
b.
Not enough staff.
b.
Not enough staff.
b. Not enough staff.
c. Difficulty with program
c.
Inability to make adequate
c.
Lack of coordination at the
coordination at the state level.
use of project results.
state level.
d.
Resistance from teachers to
d.
Difficulty in getting the pro-
d.
Lack of agreement on future
outside testing.
gram data into
decision-
directions.
e.
Lag in the development of
making hands.
systematic use of the data.
e.
Negative
at titudes
toward
f.
Mandatory rather than volun-
testing.
tary participation.
f.
Lack of understanding about
g.
Voluntary rather than manda-
the usefulness of tests by
tory participation.
teachers and students.
h.
Lack of acceptance by
g.
Difficulty in making meaning-
teachers who see the program
ful interpretations of results.
as a threat without providing
h. Difficulty
in
developing
any direct benefits.
awareness at the local level.
i.
Magnitude of the program.
i.
Difficulty in inspiring use of
j.
Inability to use the data in
data at the local level.
significant ways.
j.
Inadequate dissemination.
k.
Inability to help school
k.
Improper use of results.
systems use the data.
1.
Improper
interpretation
of
1.
Inadequate dissemination.
m. Difficulty
in acclimating
school personnel
to the
rationale and purposes of cri-
terion-referenced testing.
n.
Opposition from
teachers'
organizations.
o.
Inability to use the program
data to make decisions.
p.
Lack of understanding at all
levels of the program and its
purposes.
,
results.
3
Comparisons and Contrasts Among the Three Groups of Programs
1. Legislative MandatesLegislative mandates are
the
impetus for statewide assessment programs in 16 states. In
all other states, assessment was introduced by state educa-
tion agency personnel. Many programs began in response to
ESEA Title I and Title III requirements. Of the 17 opera-
tional programs which have as their emphasis the collection
of information for state-level decisions, more than half of
them began with legislative mandates. In contrast, of the 13
operational programs which have as their emphasis the
collection of data for local-level decisions, only the Pennsyl-
vania program has a legislative mandate. Although the focus
for most of the emerging programs is the collection of data
for state-level use, few states have legislative mandates.
2. Reporting of Assessment ResultsA consequence of
legislative mandates is the required reporting of assessment
results to legislators. Legislative reports are more likely to
accompany programs designed
for
state-level
decision
making and less likely to accompany programs designed for
local-level decision making.
3. Use of Data for PPBS and/or MISThe use of assess-
ment results highlights a third contrast between the two
groups of operational programs. State agency personnel
who direct programs intended primarily for state use are
more likely to apply assessment results to Planning, Pro-
gramming and Budgeting Systems (PPBS) and/or Manage-
ment Information Systems (MIS) than are state agency
personnel who direct programs intended primarily for
school district use. Effective use of assessment data is a
problem mentioned frequently by many of the inter-
viewees. The ways in which assessment data are used for
PPBS or MIS and the effectiveness of such data for these
purposes might be some areas for further study.
4.
Use of Assessment Data for Allocating Funds-1n eight
states where achievement data is collected primarily for
state purposes, the results are used to allocate state and
federal funds to school districts. In 10 other states, the
intentions are to use assessment information to distribute
funds. When the results of achievement tests are linked to
the distribution of money, do teachers and administrators
treat tir assessment program differently? The question
might be worth while exploring.
5.
Voluntary Versus Required ParticipationThere is a
definite trend toward voluntary participation and away
from required participation on the part of school districts,
although most
interviewees report
that
practically
all
invited schools do, in fact, participate. In 5 of the 10 states
in which participation is required, interviewees reported
that teacher resistance to statewide testing is a major
problem. Whether or not teachers are more likely to resist
statewide testing programs when they are required rather
than voluntary is another possible area for further study. In
4
the group of programs where the emphasis is on collecting
information for school district purposes, only in Hawaii is
participation required.
6. Sampling Versus Testing of All Students in Target
PopulationsThe contrast
is striking between the two
groups of operational programs on the issue surrounding
testing all students versus testing samples of students.
Samples of students from target populations are tested in
the majority of states where assessment data is used for
state-level decisions. All students from target populations
are tested, except in Iowa, in the states where assessment
data is intended for local-level decisions. In most of the
states where programs are not yet operational, samples of
.udents from target populations rather than all students
from target populations will be tested. Target populations
are defined, usually, by age and grade levels. Target popula-
tions include, usually, specified students in elementary
schools, middle schools and high schools. Rarely is every
student at every age or grade level tested.
7. Measurement of Cognitive and Affective Achieve-
mentWhat is measured provides another area of contrast
between the two groups of operational programs. The
measurement of verbal and mathematical achievement only
is the focus for the majority of programs in the group
where the emphasis is on information for state-level use. In
contrast, in the group where the emphasis is on local-level
use, attitudes as well as verbal and mathematical skills are
assessed in the majority of states. In the group of states
with emerging programs, there is a definite trend toward
the measurement of attitudes, also. The large number of
states which do or plan to assess attitudes and personal
development represents a significant change since the 1971
study was conducted. At that time, Dyer and Rosenthal
wrote that states were concerned mainly with how well
their educational systems were succeeding in imparting
basic skills. Few assessment programs measured beyond the
three R's. The inherent complexities in measuring attitudes
and personal-social development were once thought to be
overwhelming in those states which were pioneers in this
area. Interestingly, these difficulties are hardly mentioned
by the interviewees in this study. Can it be that we are
beginning to reach a stage in measurement where affective
skills are no more difficult to assess than cognitive skills?
The affective domains mentioned number at least 12, but
there are 4 which are most prevalent: attitudes toward
school,
self-concept or self-acceptance, citizenship and
career development or orientation.
8. Norm-Referenced Versus Giterion-Referenced Test-
ingOn the issue of norm-referenced versus criterion-
-referenced measurement, contrasts and comparisons among
the three groups of programs again are evident. There is a
definite trend toward the use of criterion-referenced testing
W.
in those states where the results are used for state-level
decision making. This trend continues in those states where
assessment is not yet operational. In the majority of states
where
results are used for local-level decision making,
norm-referenced tests only are administered. The under-
lying reasons for these findings do not seem obvious. The
findings may have occurred by accident rather than by
design. If the findings did occur by design, the implication
is that state-level decision makers consider the results from
criterion-referenced testing more suitable for their purposes
than the results from norm-referenced testing. As a corol-
lary, the implication is that local-level decision makers
consider the results from norm-referenced testing more suit-
able for their purposes than the results from criterion-
referenced testing. Since the current push for the develop-
ment of criterion-referenced testing comes from its use in
individually
prescribed
instruction,
a
highly
localized
decision - making situation, this finding is a most curious
anomaly. The issue should not be left here, but should be
explored further.
9. Financing Statewide AssessmentFunding
is
varied
among all groups of programs. State funds only is the most
frequently mentioned source of money for programs in
which the emphasis is on collecting information for state
use. A combination of state and federal funds and the use
of local funds in combination with state and/or federal
funds are the most frequently mentioned sources of money
for programs in which the emphasis
is on collecting
information for local use. In this group of programs, local
funds ate more likely to be appropriated than in any other
soup of programs. Federal funds only is the most fre-
quently mentioned source of money for emerging pro-
grams. One question
that might be asked is whether
programs which are financed in full or in part by the state
are more likely to be accompanied by a greater commit-
ment on the part of the state agency than are programs
which are supported solely by federal funds. A second ques-
tion that can be asked is: In those states where school
districts contribute money for statewide assessment, do
school district personnel also play a policy-malting role?
10. Meeting Program ObjectivesAre program objectives
being achieved satisfactorily? In those states where program
emphasis is on state-level decision making, the interviewees
were almost
in unanimous agreement that they were
meeting objectives. In those states where program emphasis
is on local-level decision making, few interviewees stated
that program objectives were being met satisfactorily.
11. Major ProblemsWhat are the major problems related
to assessment programs? This open-ended question brought
forth answers that may say as much or more about state-
wide assessment as all of the other questions combined.
Two eternal problems, not enough money and not enough
staff, appear in
practically all reports. What constitutes
enough money is hard to define, but a closer look at staff
numbers leads one to wonder how assessment can be
accomplished at all. Twelve states have but I full-time staff
member responsible for the program and not more than 10
states have 5 or more full-time staff members. If the objec-
tives of the programs are being met satisfactorily, as many
interviewees claim they are, other agencies must be assisting
statewide educational assessment personnel. In 20 states,
the state university cooperates with the state department to
implement the programs. In 9 states, school district staff
assist with assessment programs. In 36 states some aspect is
contracted to outside personnel.
Interviewees in states with emerging programs report few
problems. They can look forward to a great number,
judging from the many problems reported by interviewees
in states with operational programs. In states where the
program emphasis is on collecting information for state use
only, practically no problems were mentioned. It is in states
where assessment results are used for both state-level and
local-level
decisions
that problems are most numerous.
Moreover, the difficulties reported from these states are
more similar than different from the difficulties encoun-
tered by states where assessment results are used primarily
for local-level decisions. The dissemination, interpretation,
acceptance, understanding, awareness and utilization of
assessment
results
by
teachers and administrators are
problems for state department personnel. Lack of money
and staff may be contributing factors, but negativism and
resistance on the part of teachers and administrators are
factors which cannot be treated lightly.
Goals
The 1971 survey of state assessment programs suggested
that there was an increasing concern with the involvement
of citizens in goal setting. This involvement, although not
universal, has continued as a major trend in the 1972.73
survey. Several such projects have been completed.
The usual approach is represented by procedures such as
those used in Wyoming, where with the assistance of the
University of Wyoming, a series of discussions were held
with the participation of a State Sounding Committee, the
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board
of Education,
the
State
Education Agency, students,
teachers, administrators, the teacher's association, staff
from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and
other educational experts. Goals were prepared during these
discussions which were presented to the State Board for
anticipated endorsement.
A very scholarly and thoughtful approach is represented
by the Georgia Assessment Project. A series of papers on
Georgia's future were commissioned from knowledgeable
people in many professions. These papers in turn were
critiqued by additional experts. From these activities a
series of educational goals were derived, which in turn were
assigned priority by a representation of Georgia citizens,
including students, through use of the Delphi Technique
(Weaver, 1971). The goals were then used to derive objec-
tives which provided the basis for instrumentation in the
Georgia Assessment Program.
5
The result of this goal setting activity has produced a list
of goals ranging from 1 to 78. They can be classified in
three general categories: learner outcome goals, process
goals and institutional goals. The learner goals may be
further classified among the following subsets:
1. Basic Skills
2. Cultural Appreciation
3. Self-realization
4 Citizenship and Political Understanding
5. Human Relations
6. Economic Understanding
7. Physical Environment
8. Mental and Physical Health
9. Creative, Constructive and Critical Thinking
10. Career Education and Occupational Competence
11. Lifelong Learning
12. Values and Ethics
13. Home and Family Relations
The general recognition of the societal expectation that
school is more than a reading, writing and arithmetic class is
evident from these goals. They constitute the bulk of the
goal-setting activity, with the other categories appearing as
facilitating learner outcomes.
The process category includes such ideas as the involve-
ment of students and citizens in the planning of curriculum
(Kansas) and the designing and implementation of instruc-
tional programs (Idaho).
An example of institutional goals can be found in
Virginia, where the goals include standards for personnel,
instructional materials and programs, planning and manage.
ment. Another example, from South Carolina, is a goal to
promote programs to provide adequate and qualified pro-
fessional and paraprofessional personnel to staff the state's
educational systems.
Although thoughtful and productive approaches have
been demonstrated by the goal setting activities of the
states, a major problem appears at the point where goals are
translated into program objectives and into data collection
procedures. As a typical example, 27 of the 53 states have
stated a goal concerned with human relations. However,
only three states report that they have been able to conduct
an assessment of progress toward such a goal. Several are in
the process of developing the necessary instrumentation,
but have not yet achieved results which are a satisfactory
solution to the measurement problems, although tentative
use of these instruments in a few states appears to offer
positive benefits in that schools are encouraged to make
instructional provision for the achievement of goals in
human relations. While there appears to be some stability in
group trends, measurement in an affective area such as this
is in need of much additional development.
The unfortunate side effect of the limited application of
assessment to
noncognitive achievement
is that many
educators, failing to see assessment programs applied in.
affective areas, doubt the genuineness of the state commit-
ment to these areas.
Finally, consideration of the worthy and carefully devel-
6
oped goals reported by most of the nation leads one to the
question: Do assessment programs increase our chances of
attaining the stated goals? Are program changes occurring
because of assessment results? It is too early to specify a
positive or negative answer to these questions, because most
programs have not been in operation long enough. There is,
however, spotty evidence from several states indicating that
at least some assessment programs are stimulating change at
the district level. For example, several Michigan districts
have asked for their assessment results in punched, card
form so that they can conduct their own intensive analysis.
At least one district has designed a pre-post analysis of an
intervention program which attempts to improve school
attitude. Many Pennsylvania districts have also undertaken
program changes as a result of assessment activities. A
somewhat different example is Colorado's accreditation
plan, which depends on objectives selected through assess-
ment activities for program design. In general, however,
state assessment programs have not had enough operational
time to demonstrate the nature and extent of their influ-
ence on the goal orientation of programs.
Related Data
One expressed purpose for many statewide assessment pro-
grams is to measure influences on learning. How program
designers define "influences on learning" can be illustrated
best by the kinds of related data assessment specialists col-
lect. Related data can be grouped under four categories:
pupil charaCteristics, school characteristics, community
characteristics and process variables. The specifics under
each of these categories are:
Pupil Characteristics
1.
age
2.
sex
3.
socioeconomic status
4.
racial/ethnic background
5.
bilingual or not
School Chanrteristics
1.
dropout rate
2.
attendance rate
3.
percent minority
4.
pupil/teacher ratio
5.
per-pupil expenditure for education
6.
cost of instructional programs
7.
teacher datasalaries, education, course loads
8.
use ofparaprofessionals
9.
:ransportation costs
Community Characteristics
I.
size
2.
geography
Process Variables
1.
classroom practices
No one state collects all of this information. Some states
collect a great deal, others collect age and sex only and still
others collect none. The question that must be raised is:
What, if anything, do states do with this information?
The kinds of facts gathered under Pupil Characteristics
and Community Characteristics can provide information
about relationships between these varables and pupils'
achievement, but the characteristics are impossible to
change. The kinds of facts gathered under School Charac-
teristics can be manipulated, to a greater or lesser degree,
and may provide some clues as to what schools can do to
improve the learning process. The best possibilities for
measuring influences on learning probably can be found
under Process Variables. However, only one state, Pennsyl-
vania, reports that information about classroom practices is
collected.
It is probably safe to say that statewide assessment will
not produce any startling revelations about what can be
done by teachers with pupils to help children learn more
effectively. This 4.,:inclusion is not meant to be as much an
indictment of statewide assessment as it is a statement of its
limitations. Reve!..tions in teaching practices and methods
can come only from intensive analysis within each school
building and within each classroom. If statewide assessment
data can whet the appetites of teachers and administrators
for doing the kinds cf evaluation only they can do for
themselves, statewide assessment will serve its purposes
well.
Accountability Revisited
The word "accountability" is not mentioned very often in
the 53 statewide assessment summaries. But the concept
can be detected easily in most of the program writeups.
Accountability is the heart and soul of most assessment
programs. More importantly, state education agencies in
every state in the union are taking the leadership in helping
or coercing school administrators to answer to the public's
cries for better information about what children know and
how well schools are doing their job.
Do statewide assessment programs and the manner in
which they are conducted adequately define the dimensions
of accountability? At least one authority doesnot think so.
Stake (1973) defines an accountable school as one that
discloses its activities, makes good on staff promises, assigns
staff responsibility for each area of public concern and
monitors its teaching and learning.
Most state accountability proposals call for more uniform
standards across the state, greater prespecitication of objec-
tives, more careful analysis of learning sequences and better
testing of student performance. These plans are doomed.
What they bring is more bureaucracy, more subterfuge, and
more constraints on studert opportunities to learn. The
newly enacted school act :.intability laws will not succeed in
improving the quality of education for any group of
learners... If state accountability laws are to be in the best
interests of the people, they should protect local contrql of
the schools, individuality of teachers, and diversity of learn-
ing opportunities. They should not escalate the bureaucracy
at the state or local level. They should not allow school
ineffectiveness to be more easily ignored by drawing atten-
tion to student performance. They should not permit test
scores to be overly influential in schoolwide or personal
decisionsthe irreducible errors of test scores should be
recognized. The laws should make it easier for a school to be
accoun* t. '1 the community in providing a variety of high
g opportunities for every learner.
I ....gee with Stake's vision of what accountability could
or should be is uncomfortable. Not only are the ingredients
of most statewide assessment plans in antithesis to wh,t
Stake is promoting, but the idea that these plans may in
fact be harmful or damaging to the educational system is a
serious charge.
The supposed dangers resulting from mass testing have
been voiced before. Dyer (1966) reminds us how loudly the
critics shouted in response to the plan for a National Assess-
ment of Educational Progress. Some of the arguments
raised against National Assessment were: (1) the tests
would put undue pressure upon students; (2) the findings
would lead to unfair comparisons; (3) teachers would teach
for the tests to the neglect of important educational objec-
tives; (4) the program would ultimately force conformity
and impose federal control on the schools.
Dyer reacts by stating that "...one would suppose thct
to assess the educational enterprise by measuring the
quality of its product is an egregious form of academic
subversion" (1966, p. 69). Dyer sees the need for statewide
testing programs for two reasons: continuity in the educa-
tional process and stability in educational systems. State-
wide testing can help to bring greater continuity into the
educational process if it can bring to teachers a continuous
flow of information about the developmental needs of
students regardless of where they are or where they have
been and if tests are seen not so much as devices for selec-
tion or classification or evaluation, but as instruments for
providing continuous feedback indispensable
to
the
teaching-learning process.
Statewide testing can help to bring greater stability into
the educational process by steering a well-planned educa-
tional program toward well-considered educational goals.
The issue should not be one of state-imposed account-
ability versus locally initiated accountability. State educa-
tion agencies and state legislatures have their own reasons
and suffer their own pressures for collecting information
about students' educational achievements. School districts'
accountability to the state should not be confused with
school districts' accountability to their own communities or
with teachers' accountability to their own school systems.
The issue should be whether state-imposed accountability
systems encourage or discourage school administrators and
teachers from developing their own accountability plans.
It can be said that accountability laws are the signs of the
public's lack of faith in the effectiveness of schooling. It
can be said, also, that accountability laws are the signs that
school officials did not, or could not, respond on their own
to accountability demands.
Whether or not statewide assessment programs emphasize
local use of results, helping teachers and administrators
interpret and use the results is a job most state assessment
'..
..:"
.her try to do or feel they should do. It is also
ill,
4ret..
mere they report the greatest difficulties and
frustrations.
Baker (1973) says it well: "...the fallacy of account-
ability is that it can be legislated in a monolith. Perhaps like
most worthwhile things, it should be allowed to have an
infancy and mature." Perhaps state education agencies are
doing the best they can do and as much as they should do.
Perhaps school board members, administrators and teachers
now should do more.
REFERENCES
Baker, E.L. Opening accountability: A story in two parts.
The Journal of Educational Evaluation. February 1973,
4(1), 7-8.
Dyer, H.S. The functions of testingold and new. In Test-
ing Responsibilities and Opportunities of State Educa-
tion Agencies. Albany, New York: New York State
Education Department, 1966. pp. 63-79.
Dyer, H.S. & Rosenthal, E. An overview of the survey
8
findings. In State Educational Assessment Programs.
Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1971. Pp.
ix-xix. (ED 056 102).
Stake, R.E. School accountability laws. The Journal of
Educational Evaluation February 1973, 4(1), 1 -3.
Weaver, W.T. The delphi forecasting method. Phi Delta
Kappan, 1971, 52 267-271.
STATE DESCRIPTIONS
ALABAMA
Alabama Statewide Needs Assessment Program
Goals
A formal
set of statewide educational goals has been
prepared by the State Department of Education in coopera-
tion with the University of Alabama and the Alabama
Education Study Commission. These goals have been
formally adopted by the State Department of Education
and reflect a combination of input, process, and output.
The goals are available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The official title of this program is the Alabama Statewide
Needs Assessment Program. Its major purposes are to assess
educational needs and to develop innovative measures to
meet these needs.
Initiation
The program was initiated as a fulfillment of ESEA Title 111
requirements in 1969.
Policy
The State Department of Education. the Office of Planning
and Evaluation, the University of Alabama, and state law all
play a part in the determination of program policy.
Funding
State Department of Education funds are the sole source of
funding for the program. It is unknown how much was
spent on the program last year.
Administration
The Office of Planning and Evaluation and the University
of Alabama coordinate the program statewide. Sixteen full-
time professionals within the State Department of Educa-
tion and seven full-time professionals within the University
work on the program. The University of Alabama is
involved in all phases of program development; the Cali-
fornia Test Bureau (CTB), McGraw-Hill Inc. is involved in
instrumentation and scoring.
Population
All public school students in grades K-12 are involved in the
study. School dropouts are also included. Parochial and
private schools may participate at their own discretion.
School participation is voluntary (but encouraged), except
for those schools trying to qualify for ESEA Title I and
Title III funds. All eligible schools were included last year.
Community characteristics are not used as a basis for selec-
tion.
Areas Assessed
The cognitive areas of aptitude, English, mathematics, and
reading and vocational abilities are being assessed as well as
the noncognitive areas of attitudes, citizenship, personal
values, and self-concept.
Instrumentation
The California Test of Mental Maturity and
the
Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills are used, as well as
some state-designed
questionnaires. The questionnaires
were tailor-made for the program by the University of
Alabama. Item sampling was not used to construct the
questionnaires, and they
are used as a group-reliable
measure only.
Related Data
Additional information collected to help interpret program
data includes age, county, dropout rates, school name,
school size, sex, and socioeconomic data.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers administer the tests. The outside con-
tractor (CTB), the State Department, and the University of
Alabama process program information.
Interpretation
The State Department of Education, the CTB, and the
University of Alabama organize, analyze, and interpret all
program data.
Use of Data
Program data is used for program planning and evaluation
and to help individual school districts define their own
needs.
Dissemination
Reports of program results are prepared by the State
Department of Education and include state glimmaries and
local board of education summaries. The State Department
and local boards of education receive copies of program
reports.
Overview
In general, the program is viewed favorably by the public,
schools, administrators, and
legislature, and program
objectives are being achieved. The major problem has been
informing the public.
Prospects for the Future
The program will continue with modifications and annual
revision. The areas most likely to change are funding,
instrumentation, data collection, and use of data.
9
ALABAMA
A Study of the Products of Vocational Education
in Alabama
Goals
.
A formal set of statewide educational goals has been pre-
pared in quantifiable terms. The primary criterion is the
ratio of the number of students placed in jobs to the
number of students trained. The Division of Vocational
Education prepared these goals.
Program Title and Purposes
The official title of this program is A Study of the Products
of Vocational Education in Alabama. Its major purpose is
the evaluation of the process in vocational education.
Initiation
The program was initiated by the Division of Vocational
Education in 1969.
Policy
Program policy is determined by the Division of Vocational
Education.
Funding
The program is funded through both state funds (50 per-
cent) and federal funds (50 percent). Actual amounts
expended on the program have not yet been determined.
Administration
The Division of Vocational Education, with the equivalent
of two and one-half full-time professionals working at the
state level, coordinates the program statewide. Assistance is
received from Auburn University for data interpretation.
Population
All vocational students in the state, from age 14 to adult-
hood are included in the target population. A random
sample of this population is used to select students for the
study. Dropouts are included but parochial and private
school
students
are
excluded. All schools chosen by
sampling are required to participate. Community character-
istics are not considered.
Areas Assessed
All areas of vocational instruction, including attitudes and
salable skills, will be assessed.
Instrumentation
The General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) of the United
States Employment Bureau and Interest Inventories will be
used. Tests are chosen by the Division of Vocational
Education.
Related Gata
What related data, if any, will be used has not yet been
determined.
10
Data Collection and Processing
It has not yet been decided who will be responsible for data
collection and processing.
Interpretation
Auburn University and research staff members of the State
Department of Education will be responsible for the organi-
zation, analysis, and interpretation of program data.
Use of Data
Program results will be used for program development,
modification, and redirection.
Dissemination
Dissemination of program data has not yet been deter-
mined.
Overview
Reactions to the program can not be judged at this time.
Prospects for the Future
The study is likely to continue with some modification.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Ledford Boone,
Coordinator of the Office of Planning and Evaluation, State
Department of Education, State Office Building, Mont-
gomery, Alabama 36104 (telephone: 205 269-7271 or
269-7968).
REFERENCES
State Educational Assessment Programs. Princeton, New Jersey:
Educational Testing Service. 1971.
Alabama State Department of Education. Educational Goals for
Alabama Schools. September 1972. Montgomery, Alabama.
ALASKA
Alaska Educational Assessment and Model of
Reasonable Expectation
Introduction
Alaska has elected to design their first statewide assessment
of student skills with tests that are culturally free in rela-
tion to content and linguistically equivalent in relation to
question wording. There are 30 school districts in the state,
one of which is u der state control. This district consists of
126 rural villages in which seven different Eskimo dialects
are spoken in addition to three major Indian dialects and
standard American English. The issue
is further com-
pounded in that students range from those who are gen-
uinely bilingual to those who are nonlingual (that is, they
do not have an adequate command of either the ancestral
language or the English language).
Goals
Design specifications for the testing model were formulated
in 1972. The specifications were established by the State
Education Agency working in conjunction with the State
Commissioner of Education, and the State Board. These
specifications have been formally adopted by the State
Board and a commitment was made to proceed with the
work effort. The most important of these specifications
were that test instruments must be: I) diagnostic and
prescriptive, 2) and they must allow for the establishment
of reasonable objectives for individual students, groups of
students, and the state as a whole. Because a technique has
been developed for the latter specification, the analytic
process has been labeled the "Model of Reasonable
Expectation."
Program Titles and Purposes
The assessment program in Alaska is known as the Alaska
Education Assessment and Model of Reasonable Expecta-
tion. Its main objectives are to: assess cognitive develop
ment, assess educational needs (herein narrowly defined),
measure educational growth, provide data for management
information systems, set statewide, local and individual
objectives and provide information for th, state's plan-
ning-programming-budgeting system.
Initiation
The program was initiated by the Office of Research and
Planning at the request of the State Commissioner of
Education. Pilot work has been in progress since August
1972. Alaska expects to begin first statewide testing in
three years if the necessary funding is received.
Policy
The State Board of Education, working in conjunction with
the Commissioner, the State Education Agency and repre-
sentatives of the school districts across the state, formulates
program policy and changes. In Alaska, the Commissioner
of Education is employed by the State Board.
Funding
Program funding comes from the state general education
fund. Thus far $10,000 has been spent, and $100,000 has
been requested for the initial work on pilot instruments.
Administration
If funding is received, a Test and Evaluation Section under
the Office of Research, Planning and Information will be
established. There will be, initially, one full-time profes-
sional working on the development of the state assessment
system and educational evaluation in general. The Center
for Northern Educational Research, University of Alaska,
will have an important responsibility in that they will be
responsible for the question of quality control in relation to
the work of any contractor selected for actual test devel-
opment.
ALASKA
Population
While it is not certain yet as to the actual pc:ulation to be
tested under the pilot, major emphasis will be given to
those students primary through junior high. Initial efforts
will be extended to the area of reading and computational
skills only. Pilot schools tested will be on a voluntary basis
only and, for the most part, at the expense of the state.
Parochial and private schools may or may not participate.
Because the testing does not involve district comparisons in
terms of ranking, community input characteristics will not
be considered.
Areas Assessed
Cognitive areas which will be assessed, include mathematics,
reading and language skills. The language skills instruments
will be developed to cover both English and non-English
speaking students. While no noncognitive areas are being
considered in the pilot, it is fully intended that success in
the pilot will evolve into consideration of performance in
the affective domain. Vocational areas are planned for later
testing, but will not be covered in the pilot program.
Instrumentation
All instruments are being tailor-made for Alaskan studen
Item sampling will be used in test construction, and all
bistruments will be pretested before statewide administra-
tion. All tests will be criterion-referenced measures and,
because item sampling techniques will be used, tests will be
interpretable initially only in terms of group reliability.
Related Data
Additional information to be collected to help analyze
initial program data will be: age, dropout rates, information
on educational aides, boroughs (Alaska has no counties),
percent minority, racial/ethnic data, school name and size,
socioeconomic data, sex and teacher data.
Data Collection and Processing
The tests will be administered by classroom teachers, under
the supervision of SEA or contractor-trained administra-
tors. The SEA will be responsible for processing all program
data, through its educational data processing section.
Interpretation
The outside contractors working in conjunction with the
SEA will be responsible for analysis, organization and inter-
pretation of all program data.
Use of Data
Data collected will be used for Instruction, program evalua-
tion, program planning and identification of exemplary
programs. Its use will not be restricted by program au-
thority.
Overview
The program proposal is viewed favorably by the state
educators who have been contacted, but until actual testing
takes place, professional and public opinion cannot be
II
ALASKA
assessed. Program objectives are slowly but surely being
achieved. The major problem is funding.
Prospects for the Future
Alaska State Assessment will continue, if the program
receives needed funding from the governor and state legis-
lature. The only other problem the SEA is concerned with
now is development of instruments which will accurately
measure language skills in each of the non - English dialects
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Ernest E. Polley,
Coordinator, Office of Research and Planning, Alaska State
Department of Education, Pouch FAlaska State Office
Building, Juneau, Alaska 99801
(telephone:
907
586-5380).
ARIZONA
ENAPA - Educational Needs Assessment Program
for Arizona
Goals
A formal set of 10 goals has been prepared and is available
in the Phase I Needs Assessment Program Report. The
goals, prepared by State Education Agency (SEA) person-
nel, have been approved but not formally adopted by the
State Board of Education. Basically idealistic in nature,
modifications may be made as the program progresses. The
goals are a combination of input, process, and output, being
more product-oriented than input or process in nature.
Program Title and Purposes
The official name of the Arizona program is the Educa-
tional Needs Assessment Program for Arizona (ENAPA).
The main purposes of the program are to: assess educa
tional needs, assess cognitive and affective development,
measure major influences on learning (very difficult because
of the number of variables involved), provide data for a
management information system, set statewide educational
goals, and provide information for a planningprogram-
ming-budgeting system at the state level.
Initiation
ENAPA was initiated by the State Education Agency as a
result of the federz
:equirements under ESEA Title IN.
The program has been in effect since the latter part of
1971, with the first test administration during the 1971-72
school year.
Policy
The Planning and Evaluation Division of the State Depart.
ment of Education is responsible for all program policy and
changes.
12
Funding
ENAPA is funded completely by federal monies. The bulk
of funding is through ESEA Title III, with some funding
from ESEA Title I and the Vocational Education Acts.
Roughly $40,000 was spent on ENAPA during the last
fiscal year.
Administration
The Planning and Evaluation Division, with one full-time
state professional, is responsible for coordinating the pro-
gram statewide. Evaluative Programs for Innovative Cur-
riculum (EPIC)Diversified Systems Corporation of
Tucson, Arizona, was involved in initial program develop-
ment but is no longer working for ENAPA.
Population
In the 1971-72 school year, the target group was all stu-
dents in grade 8. Dropouts are not included in the test
population, but teachers are asked to identify students of
the right chronological age who have dropped behind or
skipped ahead in grade level. This year nine-year-olds are of
primary concern. Delinquents and schools for the delin-
quent are purposely omitted from the program, as are
parochial and private schools. All public schools and public
school children of the target age are included in the target
population. Samples are drawn from a statewide roster of
student populations in each target age gror.p. All students
and schools drawn from the sample are required to parti-
cipate. Community characteristics are not considered.
Areas Assessed
The last test administration assessed only the cognitive
' areas of reading, writing, and mathematics. At the time this
information was collected, the areas to be assessed in the
spring of 1973 had not yet been de e
xd. Citizenship
may be tested this year, but no ..
,
.- i.,Acopitive areas.
ENAPA would like to test "self-concept," but hasn't yet
found a valid instrument to use.
Instrumentation
11.
iotva Tests of Basic Skills and Iowa Cognitive Abilities
Test we e used last year for reading, writhig, and mathe
matics in grade 8. No nonstandardized tests are being used
at this time.
Related Data
Additional information collected to help analyze program
data includes the following: age, cost of instructional pro-
grams, percentage
minority,
racial/ethnic background,
school name, school size, family income, sex, whether or
not student had kindergarten, whether or not student was a
participant in an ESEA Title I or Title III program, size of
community, and whether or not student
is
bilingual
(language other than English spoken at home.)
Data Collection and Processing
Paid consultants (usually professional educators) are trained
by the Planning and Evaluation staff to administer the tests.
Houghton Mifflin Co. scores the tests and returns score
printouts for each student to the state.
Interpretation
The Planning and Evaluation staff works with computer
programmers to produce program analyses from the
computer printouts.
Use of Data
The program results are used primarily to influence the
allocation of state and federal funds, and, hopefully, to
identify exemplary programs. This in turn influences pro-
gram planning. Use of program data is not restricted by
state or local authority.
Dissemination
Reports of program progress (primarily state summaries)
are prepared by the Planning and Evaluation Division. The
following receive ENAPA reports: the SEA, the state
governor, the state legislature, newspapers, other states
(upon request), the State Board of Education, local school
districts, and ERIC. ENAPA does not plan at this time to
mail reports to parents, teachers, or students.
Overview
ENAPA is, of course, viewed favorably by state education
people, but it is too early to assess public opinion toward
the project. ENAPA personnel feel that their program
standards are successfully being met although they also feel
that there is room for improvement. The two main stum-
bling blocks are funding and the lack of available trained
personnel.
Prospects for the Future
ENAPA is likely to continue with modification. Two major
modifications under consideration are: (I) to shift from a
norm-referenced test to 1 criterion-referenced test, and (2)
to develop a needs assessment program which would be
based on the use of local needs assessment models. An
Accountability Law has just been passed by the state legis-
lature, which may influence the types of tests used by
ENAPA.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was William Raymond,
Director of Planning and Evaluation in the Arizona State
Department of Education, 1535 West Jefferson, Phoenix,
Arizona 85007 (telephone: 602 271-5696).
ARKANSAS
Arkansas Needs Assessment Project
Goals
No formal goals have been prepared, but goal discussion has
begun between the Title III Office and the Planning, Eva lu-
ARKANSAS
ation and Instructional Services Office. The goals are
expected to express a combination of process and output,
i.e., student outcomes: what would be the desired output
of student education.
Program Title and Purposes
The official name of the Arkansas program is the Arkansas
Needs Assessment Project. The major purposes of the
project are to assess cognitive development, assess educa-
tional needs, and measure educational growth.
Initiation
The project began in the latter part of 1970 as an out-
growth of Title III. The Planning, Evaluation and Instruc-
tional Services office was responsible for project initiation.
Policy
Project policy is formulated by the State Education Agency
(SEA).
Funding
The Arkansas Needs Assessment Project is funded through
ESEA Title III. Funds from ESEA Title IV A have also
been used. Roughly $15,000 was spent on the project in
1972.
Admiaistration
The ESEA Title III Office is responsible for coordinating
the project statewide. The equivalent of one full-time pro-
fessional works on assessment at the state level. Science
Research Associates (SRA) is the outside consultant for
scoring services.
Population
In the 1971-72 school year, grades 3, 8, and 11 were tested;
during the 1972.73 school year, grades 4, 9, and 12 will be
tested. Dropouts are not included, nor are delinquent stu-
dents and handicapped students (EMRs and physically
handicapped in special classes). Schools for the delinquent
and the handicapped are excluded, as are the vocational-
technical schools. Schools were chosen for participation on
the basis of geographic location, ethi.ic makeup, and school
size. Parochial and private schools were invited to parti-
cipate. Participation of any district was voluntary. Approxi-
mately 6 percent of the eligible schools participated in the
project during the 1971-72 school year.
Areas Assessed
Mathematics, reading, language arts, natural science, and
social science are being assessed in the cognitive areas. In
the noncognitive areas, physical fitness and three areas in
the affective domain (attitudes toward school, toward
teachers, and general acceptance) are being assessed.
Instrumentation
The following instruments
are used: Grade 4SRA
Achievement Series and the Modern Math for Under-
13
standing Test; Grade 9SRA Multi-Level Achievement
Test, the President's Council on Physical Fitness Test, and
the
state-designed Attitude Inventory; Grade 12The
President's Council on Physical Fitness Test and the state-
designed Attitude Inventory (no achievement tests). The
Attitude Inventory is a state-designed adaptation from the
Instructional Objectives Exchange; all other instruments
used are standardized tests. The tests were chosen by State
Committee. None of the instruments is considered crite-
rion-referenced, and none is viewed only as group-reliable.
The instruments all may be used for individual interpreta-
tion.
Related Data
Additional information collected to help analyze project
data includes: age of student, racial/ethnic background,
school name and size, and status (if involved) in ESEA Title
I Program.
Data Collection and Processing
Guidance counselors and some school administrative staff
administer the tests in the schools. The SEA is responsible
for processing project data, with scoring of the achievement
tests done by Science Research Associates.
Interpretation
The SEA is responsible for organization. analysis, and
interpretation of all project data.
Use of Data
Project results are used for comparative analysis across
schools, guidance, project planning, and project evaluation.
Project authority does not restrict the use of data.
Dissemination
Project reports are prepared and include the following
types: state summaries, regional summaries, some school
summaries, school system summaries, summaries by grade.
The State Education Agency prepares these reports and
sends copies to other states, the State Board of Education,
school districts, and ERIC.
Overview
The Assessment Project is viewed most favorably through-
out the state. Project objectives are being achieved very
satisfactorily. The major problems lie in the areas of effort
coordination and getting adequate use of project results
into decision-making hands (governmental and legislative
levels).
Prospects for the Future
The Arkansas project is likely to continue, with some
changes occurring in the target population (expansion), the
areas
assessed (expansion), the measuring instruments
(development of more tailor-made instruments), and in the
use of data (moving toward more efficient use). Very
probably Arkansas will move into a project planning phase
in late 1973 in order to evaluate program progress.
14
Individuals Interviewed
The primary sources of information were Sherman Peter-
son, Associate Director of Planning and Evaluation (tele-
phone: 501 371-1561), and Charles Watson, Supervisor of
ESEA Title III (telephone: 501 371-1245), State Depart-
ment of Education, Education Building, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72201.
i
CALIFORNIA
California Statewide Testing Program
Introduction
Beginning in May 1973, radical changes will occur in Cali-
fornia's statewide programs. The California Statewide
Testing Program and the Miller-Unruh Basic Reading Act
Testing Program have been modified through the passage of
Assembly Bill 665 in the summer of 1972. The old pro-
grams will be modified and put under one umbrellathe
California Statewide Testing Program. The scope of areas is
being broadened, the format of testing is being changed,
and all tests will be provided by the state. The State Board
of Education will, under Assembly Bill 665, no longer be
authorized or
required
to
adopt minimum academic
standards for graduation from high school, including the
previous requirement for
high school seniors to demon-
strate an 8.0 achievement level in reading and mathematics
before graduation from high school..
Goals
California does not have a formal set of statewide educa-
tional goals. Since 1969, however, the California Legisla-
ture's Joint Committee on Educational Goals and Evalua-
tion has been guiding a developmental process of setting
goals and objectives for the state's public school system.
Recently this committee, together with the Department of
Education, has initiated a process involving professional
educators and other citizens in every county to determine
school goals, objectives, and priorities. A three-volume
guide, Education for the People, widely distributed
throughout the state through county departments of educa-
tion, provides assistance to local groups for participation in
this goal-setting process. It is hoped that all local district
school boards will have adopted district philosophies, goals,
objectives, and priorities by November 1973, and that these
local statements
will
become synthesized
into
state -
approved goals by February 1974.
Program Title and Purposes
.
The official title of the program is the California Statewide
Testing Program. The major purposes of state testing are
now (and will ne) to assess cognitive development as a first
step in the (possible) development of a statewide educa-
tional management information system.
Initiation
The State Legislature has been the initiator of mandated
state testing programs in California since the inception of
state legislation for testing in 1961. The first mandated
testing began in 1962. The California State Testing Act of
1972 (Leroy Greene's Assembly Bill 665) will supersede the
previously used Miller-Unruh and General Statewide Testing
Programs in 1973.
Policy
While the State Department of Education actually deter-
mines program policy and does initiate change, an advisory
group of representatives from major school systems in the
state works closely with the Department.
Funding
At this point it is necessary to differentiate between the
current programs and those planned for 1973-74 and there-
after. The Office of the Legislative Analyst has estimated
that state testing programs actually cost 5800,000 last year
(1971-72) and that 75 percent of this expense was borne by
local districts, with the state bearing 25 percent of the
expense. Of the state's portion, 50 percent came from the
state's general fund and 50 percent from ESEA Title V. It is
anticipated that the cost of the new program will be shared
equally by the state and local school districts.
Administration
The Office of Program Evaluation and Research of the
State Department of Education
is responsible for the
administration of the program. In each county and each
school district one person acts as a local coordinator and as
liaison with the State Department. Until recently, the
Office of Program Evaluation has had only two full-time
professional staff members. Currently, five full-time profes-
sionals are working both on the old program and develop-
ment of the new. Outside agencies and consultants are not
being used at this time
Population
The target population is all regularly enrolled students in
the public schools of the state in grades I, 2, 3, 6, and 12.
Dropout, educable mentally
retarded, emotionally
disturbed,
non-English
speaking, and physically handi-
capped students are generally excluded. However, the
emotionally disturbed and the non-English speaking are
excluded only if enrolled in special day classes for more
than 50 percent of the school day, and the physically
handicapped are excluded only upon recommendation of
their teachers. All other pupils in the target grades will be
tested, but each pupil will be tested with only a sample of
items. Participation in the testing program is required of all
schools with the exception of public schools for the handi-
capped and parochial schools. One hundred percent of
eligible schools were included in last year's testing program.
Community characteristics do not prOvide basis for selec-
tion.
C
CALIFORNIA
Areas Assessed
Aptitude, reading, mathematics, and
effectiveness of
writing are the cognitive areas being assessed.No attempt is
being made to measure any noncognitive areas at the
present time.
Instrumentation
The folic wing instruments will be used in the program
through May of 1973: reading (grades I, 2. and 3)the
Cooperative Prim zry Reading Test (Forms 12A, 23A, 23B),
published 1 y Ede :ational Testing Service; scholastic apti-
tude (grade: 6 ar-d 12the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence
Test, Verba' Battery Multi-Level edition (Form 1, Levels D
and G), published by Houghton-Mifflin Company; reading,
language, and mathematicsComprehensive Test of Basic
Skills, Level 2, Form Q, reading, language, and arithmetic
sections, published by CTB/McGraw-Hill
Company;
achievement (Grade 12) Iowa Tests of Educational Devel-
opment, Form X-4 (Class Period Version) Tests 3, 4, and 5,
published by Science Research Associates. These are all
recognized as standardized, commercially-available, norma-
tive instruments. They are all individually reliable and not
considered criterion-referenced. These instruments were
chosen by the State Department of Education with the
assistance of an advisory committee of testing specialists
and school administrators.
Currently work is being undertaken by Department of
Education staff to develop the instruments to be used in
the program after May 1973. These instruments will use
items from various sources (generally existing normative
tests), with the items to be placed into a pool and pro
portioned among the subtests. All instruments will thus be
tailor-made for the program, and the instrument actually
administered to any one pupil will contain only a sample of
all the items from the total test. These instruments will not
be criterion-referenced. The new program will use matrix
sampling only in grades 2, 3, 6, and 12. The grade I test
will be a specially constructed, short. easy readiness test to
be used as a baseline. All will be group reliable only
Related Data
A variety of related data is collected, including demo-
graphic characteristics of the community, financial char-
acteristics of the school district and community, pupil and
parent characteristics, instructional and staffcharacteristics
(elementary schools only at this time), and information on
availability of special instructional programs.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers are responsible for administering the
tests, and local school districts do their own scoring and
processing (although they may contract with an outside
scoring agency for this service).
Interpretation
The Department of Education is responsible for statewide
analysis, organization, and interpretation of program data.
15
CALIFORNIA
The Department hopes, however, that school districts and
local schools make individual interpretations for their own
use.
Use of Data
The data at all grades is designed to provide the legislature
and general public in California with basic information con-
cerning the achievements of children in the public schools
of the state. Out of this general use of information certain
specific uses may be identified, such as identification of
exemplary programs, program evaluation, comparative
analysis across school districts, and the planning of instruc-
tion. Results of the Miller-Unruh program at grades 1, 2,
and 3 are used in the allocation of funds for special reading
instruction in these grades. The law does not restrict the use
of the data as long as individual pupils are not identified.
Dissemination
Elaborate analyses of the results are prepared annually by
the Department of Education and summarized by state,
region, district, and test area. These annual reports are
distributed to the State Education Agency, the governor
and legislature, newspapers, other states upon request, the
State Board of Education, local school districts and schools,
students and parents, teacher organizations, and ERIC.
Program results are disseminated throughout the state, both
through newspaper releases and through the broadcasting
media.
Overview
Opinion toward the program is generally favorable. The
major problems related to the current program are the lack
of acceptance of the program by professional educators,
particularly teachers, who see the program as a threat to
them without providing any direct instructional benefits;
the mandated nature of the program (related to the
immediately preceding problem); the magnitude of the pro-
gram in a state as large as California; and the lack of re-
sources within the Department of Education to utilize the
data in significant ways and to help school systems utilize
the data.
Prospects for the Future
It is hoped that the new program will continue indefinitely.
It is supposed to interface with a set of educational objec-
tives congruent with the wishes of educators, legislators,
and other citizenz. Since school personnel are active in
assisting the Department of Education staff in defining the
characteristics of the items that will form the new tests, it is
hoped that the tests themselves will become more accept.
able to and interpretable by teachers.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Dale Carlson,
Consultant in the Office of Program Evaluation, California
Department of Education, State of California, 721 Capitol
Mall, Sacramento, California 95814 (telephone: 916
322-2200).
16
REFERENCES
Department of Education, Office of Program Evaluation. Elemen
tary School Questionnaire. State of California.
California Legislature, Joint Committee on Educational Goals and
Evaluation. Report. The way to relevance and accountability in
education. Published by the Senate and Assembly of the State of
California, April 1970.
California State Legislature, Joint Committee on Educational Goals
and Evaluation. Education for the people, vol. I, Guidelines for
total community participation in forming and strengthening the
future of public elementary and secondary educatior in California;
vol. 2, A resource book for school-community decision making, to
be used in conjunction with volume I; (vol. 3, Descriptive booklet)
Sacramento, 1972.
Assembly Bill 665, California State Legislature.
Statewide Testing Programs: 1972.73 and Beyond. Memo dated
September 5, 1972, from Alexander I. Law, Chief of the Office of
Program Evaluation to
district and county Superintendents of
Schools.
COLORADO
Colorado Statewide Learner Needs Assessment
Program
Goals
The latest set of statewide educational goals was formally
adopted in March 1972 by the State Education Agency and
the State Board of Edcuation. These goals deal mainly with
outcomes of education. An earlier set of goals and objec-
tives was adopted by the State Board in 1962. The state
goals have been derived from citizen statements gathered
during statewide meetings, from teachers and administra-
tors in local education agencies. and from resear-'
mi how
and why students learn. TN: current set of goals is available
upon request.
Program Titk and Purposes
The official title of the program is the Colorado Statewide
Learner Needs Assessment Program. Its major purposes
include
assessing educational needs and cognitive/non-
cognitive development, measuring growth, providing data
for local level management information systems, curriculum
improvement, and, though in a formative stage, providing
information for a planning-programming-budgeting system
at the state level.
Initiation
Colorado assessment was initiated primarily by the State
Education Agency, supported by an advisory committee
with some involvement by the State Board of Education.
Initiation of the idea came in April 1968, with the first test
administration in May 1970.
r
Policy
The Chief State School Officer and the State Education
Agency have primary responsibility for conducting the pro-
gram, although representatives of major school systems
throughout the state suggest program modifications.
Funding
Program expenses are financed through both federal and
local funds. ESEA Title 111 and 402-V funds cover approxi-
mately 75 percent of program expense, while operational
funds of the State Education Agency support the re-
mainder. As yet there are no regular funds provided by the
legislature although the State Accountability Act provides
$40,000 which may be used, in part, for the program. Most
of the state's funds are used to support the work of paid
consultants. Program costs last year were approximately
$45,000.
Administration
State Education Agency personnel coordinate the program
statewide. The state ESEA Title III staff, with 1.5 full-time
individuals, administer the program at the state level. They
are assisted by the staff of the Laboratory of Educational
Research at the University of Colorado. Consultants from
LER are primarily responsible for instrument development
sampling, and data analysis.
Population
Al] public school students enrolled in grades 5 and 11 are
eligible to participate in the program with the exception of
those educationally mentally retarded and emotionally
disturbed students in school who do not take their school's
regularly administered achievement tests. Dropouts are not
included. A sample of school districts, stratified by school
size, is selected and asked to allow its schools to participate.
School participation is not required and an alternate school
is substituted if a given school declines. Random samples of
students are selected within each target grade at each school
resulting in approximately 3-5 percent of the total popula-
tion being tested. Last year about 15-20 percent of all
eligible schools in the state participated. Since new legisla-
tion may require comparisons across schools within
districts, it is anticipated that the percentage of schools
participating will increase.
Areas Assessed
English, health, mathematics,
natural science, reading,
social science, and citizenship are assessed in the cognitive
area, while attitudes toward school, citizenship attitudes,
personal values in social sciences (current school learning),
and self-concept are assessed in the noncognitive area.
Language skills will also be included for the spring 1973
assessment.
Instrumentation
All tests and inventories used in the program were tailor-
made by the State Education Agency in conjunction with
consultants from the Laboratory of Educational Research
COLORADO
at the University of Colorado. Teacher committees through-
out the state assisted in this process as item writers and
reviewers. All cognitive area tests are criterion-referenced
measures. All cognitive and noncognitive tests and inven-
tories have been designed for individual measurement,
rather than primarily as group-reliable measures.
Related Data
Related data collected during the course of the assessment
program includes: age, grade, school and district code,
national origin, language spoken other than English, racial/
ethnic background, sex, socioeconomic data, and identifica-
tion of students in bilingual or migrant programs.
Data Collection and Processing
A combination of district test coordinators, school admin-
istrative staffs, guidance counselors, and some classroom
teachers give the tests in the schools. While the State Educa-
tion Agency has the ultimate responsibility for program
data, the Laboratory of Educational Research at the Uni-
versity of Colorado carries out the data processing. Some
state services have been used.
Interpretation
The State Education Agency with advice from the Labora-
tory of Educational Research, has the primary responsi-
bility for analyzing, organizing, and interpreting the data,
including the distribution of printouts of summary data and
explanatory material. Local school districts, using the mate-
rial sent to them by the SEA, are responsible for local
interpretation and follow-up.
Use of Data
Primary use of the data is for allocation of federal funds to
school districts, on the basis of identified needs, although
some program evaluation, instructional improvements, and
public relations uses have been cited. While there is no law
restricting or limiting the use of the data from the program,
the SEA emphasizes that the results may only be used in a
constructive way.
Dissemination
Working papers and summary data reports are prepared by
the Laboratory of Educational Research for the SEA. From
these reports, the State Education Agency prepares state
and school system summaries (item by item, average per-
centage correct by target area), school system summaries
(expected percentage correct based on regression of SES
and test data), summaries by target areas, and public
information pieces for state newsletters and newspapers.
Reports of the program are distributed to all State Educa-
tion Agency departments, the governor, the legislature,
other states, the State Board of Education, all 181 school
districts in the state, participating schools, the Department
of Institutions in the state, the USOE, college and univer-
sity schools of education, and ERIC. Parents can also
receive reports, but only upon request. Special news
17
il.
COLORADO
releases are prepared by the SEA for the state newsletter
and for newspapers throughout the state.
Overview
The program is viewed favorably by most state officials,
including the governor, the state legislature, and the State
Board of Education. Program objectives are being achieved,
although there are two major obstacles: school resistance to
outside testing (i.e., testing conducted by groups other than
the local school personnel) and the lag in development of
systematic data use.
Prospects for the Future
The program is likely to continue at least through the end
of the 1972-73 school year, although it may be subject to
changes in State Board of Education policy, existing
accountability, and PPBES laws, or through new legislation.
The area most likely to change is policy controlthe pro-
gram may not remain under the ESEA Title III office. The
SEA also sees a need to establish a systematic system to
educate people to make the best use of program results in
local districts and schools. SEA personnel are also planning
to use grade 12 students in the program within the next
two years.
Individuals Interviewed
The primary source of information was John Helper,
Consultant, Colorado Department of Education, Colfax and
Sherman, Denver Colorado 80203 (telephone:
303
89 2-223 8)
and Arthur Olson. Director, Cooperative
Accountability Project, 1362 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colo-
r Jo 80203 (telephone: 303 892-2133).
REFERENCES
Colorado Department of Education. Educational goals for Colorado
Citizens. Published March 1972.
Colorado Department of Education. An Assessment of Learner
Needs in Colorado, Academic Year 1970-71. Published by the
Assessment and Evaluation Unit, Colorado Department of Educa-
tion. ERIC Report: TM 001 852.
The Accountability Act of 1971.
CONNECTICUT
Connecticut Needs Assessment Program (CNAP)
Introduction
The statement in the 1971 publication State Educational
Assessment Programs was in error. ::onnecticut was then,
and still is, actively involved in establishing educational
goals for the state and assessing the educational needs of its
students. In addition to the Needs Study described below,
the State Educational Agency has developed a plan entitled
Evaluation and Assessment Procedures for Public School
18
Programs. The plan is designed to meet the concern of the
State Board and the legislature for more extensive evalua-
tion of pupil progress with emphasis on the use of evalua-
tive data for strengthening education. The plan, which
includes proposals for assessment at both the state and local
levels, was submitted to the general assembly in February
1972 in response to P.A. 665 of the 1971 session of the
general assembly. It is expected that it will be funded in
part by a state appropriation for 1973-74. An application
has been made to NIE for additional funding.
When implemented, the program will incorporate the
Needs Assessment (CNAP) as one of its major components
and the total program will be entitled the Connecticut
Educational Program Evaluation Project (CEPEP).
Goals
Connecticut is currently in the process of establishing state-
wide educational goals. Beginning in early 1971 a Goals
Response Study was carried
out simultaneously with
reading assessment throughout the state. The major purpose
of the goal setting effort is to establish the basis for a
program designed to meet the needs of public school stu-
dents in Connecticut. A consultant committee, the State
Board of Education and the State Education Agency have
been involved in this project along with thousands of
Connecticut citizens. The project has been monitored by an
executive group of the State Department of Education as
part of Connecticut's first state sponsored educational
needs study. Though the goals have not been formally
adopted by the state, a report summarizing the results of
the study has been published by the Connecticut State
Board of Education., Connecticut Citizens Response to
Educational Goals 1971-1972. It is hoped that the findings
of the goal survey will receive wide public attention and
that school districts will continue to develop goals and
eventually a management-by-objectives program themselves.
The goals discussed in this project deal primarily with the
outcomes of education; however, it is anticipated that a
comprehensive plan for evaluation will include a combina-
tion of input, process and output.
Program Title and Purposes
The official title of the program is the Connecticut Needs
Assessment Program. Its major purposes are: assessment of
cognitive development, assessment of educational needs,
measurement of growth, providing data for a statewide
management information system, setting statewide educa
tional goals and providing information for a planning-
programming-budgeting system.
Initiation
The State Education Agency staff initiated a proposal for
the study of needs assessment. The proposal, given impetus
by the initiation of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress and ESEA Title III requirements, was submitted to
the State Board of Education in 1970. In February 1972
the Board adopted a more comprehensive Plan for Evalua-
tion and Assessment in response to Section 10.4 of the
General Statutes as revised by P.A. 665 of the 1971 session
of the general assembly. Initial assessments took place in
the fall of 1971.
Policy
An executive group in the State Education Agency assigns
specific tasks and responsibilities related to the Needs
Study through the Bureau of Educational Management and
Finance. Many departmental staff are involved in the
studies with all major divisions represented on the executive
group.
Funding
The program has been financed 100 percent by federal
funds (ESEA III and 402). Program expenses during the
1971-72 school year were approximately $150,000.
Administration
Program administration is coordinated by the executive
group in the State Education Agency; however, all program
details have been handled by the Institute for the Study of
Inquiring Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which has
operated under contract with the State Board of Education.
Population
Target population is defined by age. Random samples of
students aged 9, 13 and 17 are identified using a four-stage
sample process involving: community size, school district
having probability
proportional to enrollment, school
within district (one for each age group) and, finally, stu-
dents randomly selected within each school. All students of
a given age are included even if they have dropped behind
grade level. Dropouts, the educationally mentally retarded,
the emotionally disturbed and non-English speaking stu-
dents are excluded. School participation is voluntary, and
non-public schools were excluded. No community char-
acteristics (other than size) are considered during sampling.
During 1971-72, 100 percent of the schools invited parti-
cipated in the program, resulting in the assessment of 7,000
students in 156 schools representing 54 of the state's 169
school districts.
Areas Assessed
The cognitive area of reading was assessed during 1971-72.
No noncognitive areas were assessed. Following the cycle of
assessment carried out by the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, it has been proposed that science be
assessed during the 1973-74 school year.
Instrumentation
The instruments used for the reading assessment were
adapted from the reading exercises of the National Assess-
ment of Educational Progress. The instruments
were
selected by the Institute for the Study of Inquiring Systems
in cooperation with the State Education Agency. The
instruments are described as criterion-referenced measures.
Individual students were not tested for measures of their
CONNECTICUT
achievement, but groups of students were assessed in their
performance of particular reading skills.
Related Data
Age and sex of respondent are the only additional pieces of
information collected during assessment to help analyze,
interpret and organize the program data.
Data Collection and Processing
The Institute for the Study of Inquiring Systems was
responsible for administering instrun ants for the reading
assessment and for tvaring and prose sing assessment, data.
The ISIS Hued and trained :(1 fieli, administrators, pri-
marily Connecticut people with exrerience in schools, as
exercise administrators. The State Education Agency
observed administrations in a sample of 18 schools and con-
cluded that the test administrators were doing an excellent
job.
Interpretation
The Institute for the Study of Inquiring Systems had the
responsibility for analyzing, organizing and reporting assess-
ment data.
Use of Data
Although it is somewhat early to indicate specific uses of
the program data, it is 'anticipated that the results will be
used to establish priorities so that state and federal funds
can be directed to meet identified needs. The results will be
used also for budgeting, instructional purposes and program
planning. Reading assessment data already is being used for
these purposes. The authority for the program does not
restrict or limit the use of the program data.
Dissemination
Program reports were prepared by the outside contractor in
collaboration with the State Education Agency. The reports
made comparisons in several categories: with established
nationwide assessment of students in the same age group-
ings, with students in the northeast, by sex and by size of
community in which the student attends school. Program
reports are disseminated to the State Education Agency,
state board of education, governor, legislature, school
districts,
schools, parents, teacher organizations, other
states, newspapers and ERIC. These reports are available to
students in school libraries.
Overview
No comments concerning attitudes to the program are avail-
able at this time.
Prospects for the Future
Although funding is currently a major obstacle, it
is
expected that there will continue to be an emphasis by the
SEA on securing data on pupil performance as well as
educational program input and process. Hopefully assess-
ment and evaluation will not be limited to the cognitive
domain; provisions for assessing the affective domain are
included in presently formulated plans.
19
CONNECTICUT
In addition to meeting the Title III needs assessment
requirements, there is a sincere respect for the concept of
accountability and a meaningful commitment to needs
assessment and evaluation as an essential element in sound
instructional programs.
Individuals Interviewed
The primary
sources of information were Robert W.
Stoughton, Associate Commissioner, Division of Insti
.:.-
tional and Pupil Services, Alfred Villa, Chief of the Bureau
of Education Management and Finance (telephone: 203
566 i )83); and Jost. ti Cashman, Federal/State Evaluation,
Division of Administrative Services (telephone: 203
566-4897). Their address is the Connecticut State Depart.
ment of Education, Box 2219, Hartford, Connecticut
06115.
REFERENCES
Connecticut State Board of Education. Connecticut Citizens
Response to Educational Goals 1971-1972.
Connecticut State Board of Education. Connecticut Reading Assess.
ment 1971-1972.
DELAWARE
Delaware Educational Accountability System
Goals
In the fall of 1970, a study was conducted using the Delphi
technique to determine what educational goals of Delaware
would be generally accepted. Data derived from this study
was used as the basis for eliciting citizen response through a
series of statewide public forums. As a result of comments
and suggestions, a list of learner goals and subgoals was
prepared and these were formally adopted by the State
Board of Education in June 1972. The nine major goal
*areas covered include communication and basic skills,
facilitating skills and attitudes, career and economic
competence, citizenship, physical and mental health,
human relations, self-realization, home and family relation-
ships and aesthetic and cultural appreciation. Copies of
these goal statements are available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The program is called the Delaware Educational Account-
ability System (DEAS), of which the Delaware Educational
Assessment Project (DEAP) is a part. This systematic,
comprehensive, long-range planning model was developed
to improve education in Delaware's public schools. The sub-
systems of this plan are designed to answer four main ques-
tions: What do we want from our educational system?
(goals and objectives) What have we attained? (assessment
of current status) What are our strengths and weaknesses?
20
(needs assessment and priorities) And what can be done?
(examination of current programs, formulation and imple-
mentation of new programs).
Initiation
The Delaware Educational Accountability System (DEAS)
was developed in 1970 by the Planning, Research and
Evaluation Division (PRE) of the Department of Public
Instruction under a federal grant, Title IV, Section 402 of
PL 90.247. The Delaware Educational Assessment Program
(DEAP) was initiated in the spring of 1972. The 1971-72
assessment battery was developed according to criteria
determined by
the Department of Public Instruction,
several DPI advise y committees and local agency personnel
in consultation with the assessment contractor, Educational
Testing Service (ETS).
Policy
The Delaware Educational Accountability Advisory Council
was formed to provide advice and counsel in the design and
implementation of the DEAS model. This council consists
of the following members: President and Past President,
Delaware School Boards Association; President and Past
President, Delaware Chief School Officers Association;
President, Delaware PTA; Executive Secretary, Delaware
State Education Association; Dean, College of Education,
University of Delaware; President, United Forces for Educa-
tion; a Delaware teacher; and the Director of the Planning,
Research and Evaluation Division, Delaware Department of
Public Instruction. The Administrative Council of the
Department, the State Board of Education, DEAS Coordi-
nators, Chief School Officers in local school districts and
Department staff are involved in determining program
policy. Efforts have been coordinated by the Planning,
Research and Evaluation Division.
Funding
Funding of the DEAS is 50 percent state and 50 percent
federal. State funding is a direct line item of the budget.
Federal aid comes from ESEA Titles I, 111, V and Title IV,
Section 402. During fiscal year 1973, roughly 5200,000
will be spent on the 'SEAS program, of which some
$60,000 will be for the assessment program.
Administration
Although the Planning, Research and Evaluation Division is
responsible for coordinating the implementation of the
various subsystems of this planning cycle, the operation of
the fully implemented DEAS will be a total Department
enterprise.
Population
Regular students in grades 1, 4 and 8 of all public schools
and students in one grade per year in parochial schools are
eligible for testing. All eligible schools participated in the
DEAP program in fiscal 1972, and it is anticipated that the
participation in the 1973 DEAP will be comparable.
1
Areas Assessed
Aptitude, language
arts, reading, science, mathematics,
knowledge of careers and attitudes toward school were
assessed in 1972. In 1973 knowledge of careers and atti
tudes toward school will be omitted and replaced by assess-
ment of physical and mental health.
Instrumentation
In grade 1, the Cooperative Primary Tests in reading,
listening and mathematics have been modified and adapted
for Delaware's assessment program. In grades 4 and 8, the
School and College Ability Tests (SCAT) are used for
measures of verbal and quantitative aptitude, and the
Sequential Tests of Educational Progress (STEP), modified
and adapted to Delaware's criteria, are used in the basic
skill areas.
Related Data
Information on student, school and community variables
such as socioeconomic status, pupil/teacher ratios, percent
minority and school size are collected. These variables will
be related to student performance when analyzing test
results.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers, guidance counselors and school admin-
istrative staff administer the tests in the classroom. Educa-
tional Testing Service scores
all tests, and analysis is
performed by the Planning, Research and Evaluation Divi-
sion staff.
Interpretation
The Department of Public Instruction provides test inter-
pretation sessions to local districts upon request. In-depth
analysis and interpretation of test results are a shared
responsibility of local school districts and DPI, Planning,
Research and Evaluation Division and Instructional Division
staff. Manuals to aid schools and local districts in test inter-
pretation have been deveoped al.,: disseminated to every
school in every district.
Use of Data
Data from the testing program is used to identify strengths
and weaknesses in school, district or state programs. Plan-
ning, Research and Evaluation and Instructional Division
staff of the Department of Public Instruction and Univer-
sity of Delaware personnel will work with selected schools
or districts to improve curriculum or programs in areas
demonstrated by the DEAP to be in need of assistance.
Dissemination
Reports prepared by the Planning, Research and Evaluation
Division include: a needs assessment report, state sum-
maries, district summaries, school summaries and individual
student results. In addition, public information releases and
summaries of Title I students are prepared. State summaries
and the needs assessment report are released to the gov-
ernor, the legislature, State Board of Education, Depart-
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ment of Public Instruction, school districts and local
schools, as well
as to ERIC, newspapers, other State
agencies and interested educational personnel. Release of
district and school reports is at the discretion of the local
school district.
Overview
Statewide, opinion has been favorable to the Delaware
Educational Accountability System (DEAS), with greater
acceptance being gained as educators find use for the
products developed. Subsystems of DEAS are being imple-
mented and adapted as time and resources permit. The
major constraints in the DEAS program are lack of suf-
ficient funds and staff.
Prospects for the Future
The Delaware
Educational Accountability System
is
expected to continue for the foreseeable future with modi-
fications to the system being made as experience is gained.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Wilmer E. Wise,
Director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Division,
Delaware Department of Public Instruction, Dover, Dela-
ware 19901 (telephone: 302 678.4583).
REFERENCE
Planning, Research and Evaluation Division. Goal Statements for
Delaware Public School Students for the 70's and 80's. September
1972.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Pupil AssessmentThe Academic Achievement
Project
Introduction
The educational organization of the District of Columbia is
typical in that all public schools are under the administra-
tive control of the District of Columbia School Board.
Therefore, the Academic Achievement Project more closely
resembles a large district testing program than a state
program.
Goals
A formal set of educational goals has been adopted by the
Divisi:m of Education, which is somewhat analogous to a
State Superintendent's Office and the District Board of
Education. A combination of input, process and output
goals are reflected in the goals statement, prepared with the
assistance of citizens' advisory groups, the Board of Educa-
tion and the Board of Higher Education. The goals are avail-
able upon request.
21
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Program Title and Purposes
Pupil AssessmentThe Academic Achievement Project
(Clark Plan) is the official title of the program. Its major
purposes include the assessment of educational needs, the
measurement of growth and influences on learning and the
provision
of information
for
a planning-programming-
budgeting system.
Initiation
The program was initiated during the 1970-71 school year
by the District of Columbia School Board under recom-
mendation from a consultant, Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, hired
by the School Board. The project is now in the third year
of operation.
Policy
The Board of Education and the Department of Pupil
Personnel Services, Pupil Appraisal Section, are responsible
for determining how the program will be conducted and
what changes will be made.
Funding
The program is funded by regular local budget appropria-
tions; no federal
funds are
utilized.
Approximately
$475,000 was spent on the program in 1972.
Administration
The Department of Pupil Personnel Services, Pupil
Appraisal
Section, coordinates the program, which
is
staffed by six full. ime professionals. Personnel from the
major test publishing companies are used as consultants and
as staff for inservice workshops and training programs.
Population
All students enrolled in the regular curriculum in grades 1
through 9 participate in the program. Dropouts do not
participate. Since vocational schools begin at the tenth
grade, no vocational students are included in the program.
Parochial and private schools are excluded from the pro-
gram; all other schools are required to participate.
Areas Assessed
The testing program is limited to cognitive skills in reading
and mathematics.
Instrumentation
Standardized achievement tests in reading and mathematics
are administered in grades 1 through 3. The tests used in
grades 4 through 9 are tailor-made editions of criterion-
referenced tests, the Prescriptive Reading and the Prescrip-
tive Mathematics tests developed by CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Other standardized tests in reading and mathematics are
administered in grades 4 through 9. These tests are used
only as group reliable measures. The District Board of
Education approves the tests used in the program.
22
Related Data
Presently no additional information is collected as an aid in
analyzing and interpreting the citywide test data. However,
plans are being developed for collecting additional informa-
tion on a citywide basis in the future. The Department of
Research does collect additional data on 16 schools in the
Evaluation Systems Project.
Data Collection and Processing
Tests are administered by classroom teachers and guidance
counselors with the assistance of university students and
paraprofessionals who serve
as proctors. The Pupil
Appraisal Section in the Department of Pupil Personnel
Services is responsible for collating the information ob-
tained. The tests are scored by the test publisher.
Interpretation
The Pupil Appraisal Section assists individual schools in
interpreting test results. Results are sent directly to the
schools by the scoring service. A series of workshops is
conducted by the Pupil Appraisal Section to instruct school
counselors and testing chairmen in Interpreting and pre-
senting test results to students, teachers and parents.
Use of Data
The data collected is used for the identification of exem-
plary programs, program evaluation and planning, guidance
and instruction. The publication of results for individual
pupils is prohibited.
Dissemination
The Pupil Appraisal Section prepares data summaries for
the school system. Program reports are submitted to the
Board of Education, the Department of Pupil Personnel
Services, other states, teacher organizations and the press.
The interpretation of test results to students and their
parents is the responsibility of school counselors and testing
chairmen.
Overview
The criterion-referenced testing component of the program
is viewed favorably by local school administrators and stu-
dents and viewed very favorably by teachers, the Board of
Education and the Pupil Appraisal Section. However, the
standardized testing component is not viewed as favorably.
The general consensus is that the program objectives are
being achieved very well, although there are some problems
with acclimating school personnel to the rationale and
purposes of a criterion-referenced testing program.
Prospects for the Future
This program is likely to continue with some modifications
being made at the discretion of the Board of Education.
The Pupil Appraisal Section is planning to enlarge its data
storage capabilities and to follow the progress of specific
groups of students longitudinally. It is likely that the pro-
gram's goals and objectives will change after the completion
of the three year Academic Achievement Project.
Individuals Interviewed
The primary sources of information were Robert B. Farr,
Director of Pupil Appraisal, Department of Pupil Personnel
Services, District of Columbia Public Schools, 9th Floor,
Presidential Building, 415 12th Street N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20004 (telephone:
202 737-1189) and William
Rumsey, Chief, Education Division, Department of Human
Resources, 1329 E Street N.W., Suite 1032, Washington,
D.C. 20004 (telephone: 202 638-2406).
FLORIDA
Florida State Educational Assessment Program
Goals
A formal set of 10 goals, covering goals for student develop.
ment and organizational goals, has been prepared. The first
seven cover goals for student development, and the last
three cover organizational goals. The last goal area, "Evalua-
tion of Strategies," provides the basis for Florida Assess-
ment: "The performance of the state system of public
education shall be evaluated in terms of the achievement of
its students and the efficiency of its process." These goals
were prepared in a coordinated effort by the State Com-
missioner of Education, the State Board of Education and
an advisory group consisting of citizens, educators and
students. The goals have been formally adopted by the
State Board of Education and reflect a combination of
input, process and output. They are available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The official name of the Florida student testing program is
the Florida State Educational Assessment Program. Its
major purposes are to: assess cognitive development, assess
educational
needs, assess noncognitive development (a
future purpose), measure influences on learning, provide
data for a management information system (a
future
purpose) and provide information for a planning-pro-
gramming-budgeting system (a future purpose).
Initiation
In June 1971, the Florida State Educational Assessment
Program was enacted into law and funded through the
cooperative efforts of the state legislature and the State
Department of Education.
Po::cy
As assigned by the state legislature, the State Commissioner
of Education and the State Department of Education deter-
mine program policy.
FLORIDA
Funding
Florida assessment
is completely funded through state
general revenue monies. Approximately $96,000 was spent
on assessment in 1971 and $300,000 in 1972.
Administration
The Division of Elementary and Secondary Education
coordinates the program statewide. The equivalent of three
and one-half full-time professionals work on the program at
the state level. In-state consultants work on test develop-
ment, item writing and development of program objectives.
The consultants include local school districts, private firms
and all the state universities. The primary outside con-
tractor involved in 1972 was Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
Inc. (New York), which printed and scored all test mate-
rials. The Center for the Study of Evaluation at UCLA was
the primary outside contractor in 1971 and also helped to
develop the tests.
Population
During the school year 1971-72, ages seven and nine were
tested; in the 1972-73 school year ages eight, eleven, and
thirteen will be tested. Students are drawn by a multiple-
matrix sampling of all public school students in the target
age groups. Students who have dropped behind in grade
level are now included, although educators are questioning
the worth of this, and the practice may be discontinued in
future assessments. The following are excluded from the
study:
trainable mentally
retarded
school dropouts,
parochial and private schools, and schools for the trainable
mentally retarded. All public schools receiving state monies
are required to participate, and, in the 1971-72 school year,
99 percent of the eligible schools did participate. Com-
munity characteristics are not used as a basis for school
eligibility.
Areas Assessed
In the 1971-72 school year, only the cognitive area of
reading was assessed. For the 1972-73 school year, the
cognitive areas of reading, writing and mathematics are
being assessed. At this time no noncognitive areas are
assessed, but an attitudes inventory on human relation skills
is being planned. Also, occupational skills will be included
in future years.
Instrumentation
All testi
struments currently in use were tailor-made for
the progrM Item sampling was used to construct all tests.
The 1971 tests were developed by the Center for the Study
of Evaluation at UCLA, using state-written items. The 1972
tests were developed by in-state staff of the school districts,
state universities and the State Department of Education;
they were printed by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. The
Tests were considered to be criterion-referenced measures
and at the present time are used only for statewide and
school districtwide assessment. Schoolwide and individual
student assessment will be incorporated in future years. In
addition, annual tests are given to all students in grades 9
23
FLORIDA
and 12 using nationally normed tests developed by Educa-
tional Testing Service. It is planned to redesign and adopt
these instruments for use
in the statewide assessment
program.
Related Data
Additional information collected to help analyze program
data includes: age of student, county, percent minority,
racial /ethnic background, school name, sex of student and,
if handicapped, the type of handicap.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers and school administrative staff admin-
ister the tests. The State Education Agency (SEA) and the
outside contractor process the program data. Program data
is scored by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Interpretation
The SEA and the local school districts coordinate organiza-
tion, analysis and interpretation of the program data.
Use of Data
The primary use of program data is for instructional
purposes; secondary uses include program planning and
evaluation and public relations. Program authority does not
restrict the use of program data.
Dissemination
Program reports are prepared by the SEA and include state
summaries,
district summaries and public
information
pieces. Copies of these reports are sent to the legislature,
the newspapers, other states upon request, the State Board
of Education, local school districts and schools, teacher
organizations and ERIC.
Overview
The state level education hierarchy is very supportive of
Florida assessment, as is the local education administrative
staff. Teachers are less favorable in their views, perhaps
because they are waiting to see its value to the instructional
program. It is believed that as the program is more fully
developed it will be a valuable tool for classroom teachers.
Program objectives are being met with 90 percent effective-
ness, with the main problem being insufficient lead time for
instrument development.
Prospects for the Future
The program is likely to change, with modification in these
areas: goal development, subjects assessed, development of
measuring instruments, data collection and processing, data
interpretation, data use and dissemination of program
results.
Individual Interviewed
The main source of information was William Cecil Golden,
Associate Commissioner for Planning and Coordination,
Florida Department of Education, Tallahassee, Florida
32304 (telephone 904 488.6539).
24
REFERENCES
Florida State Department of Education. Goals for Education in
Florida.
The State Commissioner of Education, Floyd T. Christian. Memo-
randum on Goals for Education in Florida, published August 17,
1971, by the Office of the State Commissioner.
GEORGIA
Introduction
The 1971 issue of State Educational Assessment Programs
presented the Georgia Assessment Project (GAP). Outcomes
of Phase
I were discussed and research activities to be
implemented in Phase II were described. GAP Phase II
received no state funding and is continued in the Atlanta
Assessment Project. In addition, the state has funded a
Statewide Testing Program. Both are described below.
Atlanta Assessment Project (AAP)
Goals
A formal set of program goals has been prepared by a
citizens' advisory group and adopted by the State Board of
Education. These goals are concerned with a combination
of input, educational process and student output and are
available upon request. The point of departure in the
establishment of Goals for Education in Atlanta, 1985, was
the product set of Goals for Education in Georgia devel-
oped in the first phase of the Georgia Assessment Project.
The AAP conducted studies to determine the extent to
which the Goals for Education in Georgia are applicable to
the Atlanta area. The studies to establish goals involved use
of the Delphi technique, a method of forecasting developed
by Rand Corporation. This technique was intended for use
in answering questions about the future when a great deal
of uncertainty and complexity surround the questions.
Two types of forecasting are involved in establishing
educational goals for the future. One type forecasts what
future conditions probably will be at a given point in the
future; the other forecasts what educational goals should be
in the light of these probable future conditions. The Delphi
technique has been used in making both types of forecasts.
The AAP used the technique in forecasting what educa
tional goals should be in order to prepare young people in
the Atlanta area to live successfully in the future.
There were three Delphi studies, each involving a dif-
ferent group of participants with different
areas of
expertise with respect to education. The three groups were
(I) professional, technical, managerial and community
leaders in the Atlanta area (N=275); (2) student leaders in
the 25 high schools in the Atlanta Public Schools (N=369);
and (3)
teachers, counselors, curriculum coordinators,
principals and other administrators in the Atlanta Public
Schools (N=429). Teachers represented every
subject
matter area offered in the high school curriculum. Both
teachers and students were selected to be representative of
the total teacher and student population in each high
school with respect to race and sex. The professional and
technical participants were selected to represent all the
major occupational categories at this level in the Dictionary
of Occupational Titles across races.
In the Delphi studies, each of the Goals for Education in
Georgia-86 separate goal statementswas rated as to its
relative importance in preparing young people
in the
Atlanta area to live successfully in 1985 and thereafter.
Further, each participant was given an opportunity to sug-
gest additional goals that he felt were important and should
be added to the list.
In the AAP, the Delphi studies involved three rounds of
making judgments regarding the relative importance of
goals, with each subsequent judgment about a goal by a
participant made in the light of a summary of the judg-
ments of all participants about that goal in the previous
round. The primary result of the studies was a ranking of
goals on the basis of the mean rating of importancefor
each of the three groups of participants separately and
across groups. Participants su:4:ested 35 additional goals
which were added to the original list of 86.
Program Title and Purposes
The activities of the AAP fall into five consecutive phases:
(1) planning, (2) establishing Goals for Education in
Atlanta, 1985, (3) developing behavioral objectives to oper-
ationally define each goal at the twelfth grade level, (4)
developing criterion-referenced measures to determine
achievement in respect to each objective and (5) admin-
istering the tests to produce the first round of results to be
used in administrative and instructional decision making.
There
are three separate activities underway in the
development of behavioral objectives: (1) developing taxo-
nomic specifications for each goal, (2) reviewing and classi-
fying existing behavioral objectives collected from a variety
of sources in terms of the Goals for Education in Atlanta,
1985, and in terms of taxonomic categories in the cogni-
tive, affective and psychomotor domains and (3) the
writing of additional behavioral objectives as necessary to
represent each goal. The first two activities are being per-
formed by teachers and curriculum specialists within the
Atlanta Public Schools who have had experience with
behavioral objectives and with the cognitive, affective and
psychomotor domains. The review and classification of
existing objectives will greatly decrease the magnitude of
the task in writing new objectives for the project. The third
activity is being performed by a larger number of teachers
and curriculum specialists who have received training
through the project in the writing of behavioral objectives
and the use of the taxonomies of objectives to meet the
specifications of the AAP. Community resource personnel
in the professional and technical areas and students are
acting in an advisory capacity to the writers.
GEORGIA
Initiation
The Atlanta Assessment Project (AAP), jointly initiated by
the state and city Department of Education, is a 2-1/2 year
endeavor to develop techniques and tools for measuring the
progress of Atlanta's graduating high school seniorsand
those who are old enough to graduate, but have not
toward the achievement of educational goals relevant to
living in 1985 and thereafter. The model for assessment
being developed in the AAP is expected to be adapted for
use in the Georgia Assessment Project (GAP).
The first two phases, the planning and the establishment
of Goals for Education in Atlanta, 1985, have been
complaed. The third phase, the development of behavioral
objectives thaothr,'11 operationally define each goal, is cur-
rently underway.
Policy
Program policy is set by the Superintendent through the
Division of Program and Staff Development.
Funding
The AAP is funded under Title III of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, Public Law 89-10, as admin-
istered in the Georgia Department of Education by the
Division of Program and Staff Development (Dr. James E.
Bottoms, Director; Dr. Will G. Atwood, Associate Director;
Lester M. Solomon, Coordinator of Title III and project
officer for the AAP). Between March and August 1972,
$43,000 was spent on assessment. From September 1972 to
June 1973, it is estimated that $250,000 will be spent.
Administration
The AAP is administered and operated within the Atlanta
Public Schools, Atlanta, Georgia (Dr. John W. Letson,
Superintendent), through the
Division of Instructional
Services (Dr. E. Curtis Henson, Assistant Superintendent
for Instructional Services). The project staff includes five
professional members and two secretariesthe director, a
research associate, a systems manager, two
research
assistants, a stenographer and a typist with
skills
in
operating a computer terminal (Dr. Ray L. Sweigert Jr.,
Director).
Population
The tests will be administered to students about to graduate
from high school and to other young people in the area
who are old enough to graduate though they may have
dropped back a year or so or have left school altogether. A
matrix sampling method will be used, so that each student
will receive a subset of the total battery of measures.
Areas Assessed
Though not yet finalized, program plans include assessment
of the following cognitive areas: aptitude, English, health,
mathematics, natural
science, fine
arts, reading,
social
science, vocational and writing. Plans also include assess-
ment of attitudes, citizenship, creativity, interests, personal
values and self-concept in the noncognitive area.
25
GEORGIA
Instrumentation
The behavioral objectives developed in the project will be
used to design criterion-referenced tests to measure
the
achievement of the objectives. Test development will be
contracted to an outside agency, with task forces of objec-
tive writers in the project reviewing test items to determine
the extent to which the items adequately reflect the intent
of those who wrote the objectives. Items will be tried out
on samples of students in the target population to deter-
mine the statistical characteristics of the measures.
Related Data
To help analyze and interpret the test data, AAP will col-
lect the following information: age, sex, dropout rates,
teacher data, school size and socioeconomic and racial/
ethnic data.
Data Collection and Processing
It has not yet been determined who will be responsible for
administering the tests or processing the resulting informa-
tion.
Interpretation
The State Education Agency in conjunction with the
Atlanta Public Schools will be responsible for analyzing,
organizing and interpreting the data.
Use of Data
The primary outcome will be criterion-referenced data as to
the extent to which young people in the Atlanta area are
mastering the Goals for Education in Atlanta, 1985. The
data will be available for making decisions as to what
instructional changes need to be made in order to provide
even better education for the young people of Atlanta.
Decision-making resulting from the use of this information
would ideally involve all levels of the system, with each
level making those decisions appropriate to the resources
available for discretionary use at that level.
Another important outcome is involvementthe involve-
ment of teachers and other school personnel in the setting
of goals and the writing of objectives, the involvement of
students and the involvement of community leaders.
Last, but not least of the outcomes is a model for period-
ically reviewing and revising goals and objectives. In a world
changing as fast as oursand threatening to change even
fasterit is increasingly necessary to review and update
what it is that students are expected to do and to assess
where they are with respect to meeting these expectations.
The AAP will produce a model for doing that.
Dissemination
Reports of program results are prepared by the project staff
in the form of school system summaries and sent to the
State Education Agency, the State Board of Education,
other states, school districts, schools, teacher organizations,
ERIC and newspapers.
26
Overview
The program is viewed favorably by the governor and legis-
lature and very favorably by the State Education Agency,
the Boards of Education, local school administrators,
teachers, students and the general public. Program objec-
tves are being achieved very well, and they have en-
countered no major problems to date.
Prospects for the Future
The program is likely to continue with modification
through the 1973-74 school year and, except for minor
variations in the program, this description should remain
accurate through that period. Using the National Assess-
ment model (paced tapes, testing out-of-school 17-year-olds
and so on) next year, the element most likely to change will
be data collection and processing.
REFERENCES
For further information regarding the Atlanta Assessment Project,
please contact the project office at 1001 Virginia Avenue, Suite
313, Hapeville, Georgia 30354 (telephone: 404 768-1047).
Statewide Testing Program (SWTP)
Goals
The State Education Agency prepared statewide educa-
tional goals and the State Board of Education has adopted
the goals. The fundamental goal of the SWTP is the
improvement of achievement levels and is therefore output
oriented.
Program Title and Purposes
The Statewide Testing Program (SWTP) endeavors to col-
lect achievement data on students, comparative information
to be used in evaluating the student, teacher, curriculum
and learning tools. Identification and correction of weak-
nesses can thereby be affected.
Initiation
The governor and the state legislature initiated the program.
Testing took place in its first year, fiscal 1972.
Policy
The Georgia State Department of Education is responsible
for policy decisions.
Funding
Costs for the SWTP for fiscal year 1972 were approxi-
mately $350,000. This sum represents the cost of testing
materials, teachers' manuals and correction and data
compilation services. Funds were provided 100 percent by
the state.
Administration
The SWTP is administered in the Georgia Department of
Education by the Division of Program and Staff Develop.
ment. There are two full-time employees involved with
SWTP (Dr. James E. Bottoms, Director and Dr. Jerry W.
Waites, Coordinator of SWTP).
Population
During fiscal year 1972 testswere administered to 250,000
students in grades 4, 8 and 12 throughout Georgia's 188
school systems. Dropouts and the educationally mentally
retarded were excluded. Delinquent, handicapped, paro-
chial and private schools were not included. All students in
the target population were tested and participation was
required (because schools receive state monies). Com-
munity characteristics were not a factor in target selection.
Areas Assessed
Basic
skills in reading, vocabulary, work-study habits,
mathematics and comprehension were measured in fourth
and eighth graders. Achievement in reading, English usage
and mathematics was measured in twelfth graders. All stu-
dents were also given verbal and nonverbal ability tests.
Testing plans for fiscal year 1973 involve grade 11 rather
than grade 12.
Instrumentation
A committee selected standardized tests developed by the
University of Iowa as instruments for the program. None
are criterion-referenced or group reliable.
Related Data
The following additional data is collected to help analyze
and interpret the test data: student's age, cost of instruc-
tional programs, county, dropout rates, school name,
school size, student's sex and socioeconomic and teacher
data.
Data Collection and Processing
Teachers are responsible for administering tests for the
program. In 1972, workshops were offered before and after
testing to orient teachers unfamiliar with standardized
testing. These sessions were not given in 1973 because they
were not felt to be necessary. National Computer Systems
is responsible for scoring the tests and the State Education
Agency
is
responsible
for processing the information
obtained for the program.
Interpretation
Local schools and the teachers receive data on the overall
achievement level of the students. Teachers may examine
individual students' answers to test questions, also.
Use of Data
Results of the program can be used for comparative analysis
across schools, guidance, program evaluation and planning,
teaching aids and improvement of students' achievement
levels.
HAWAII
Dissemination
Program reports are jointly prepared by the State Educa-
tion Agency and outside contractors in the form of state,
regional, school system, schoo! and student summaries
Reports for public information pieces are also prepared.
Copies of appropriate reports go to the State Board of
Education, the governor, other states, school districts and
newspapers.
Overview
The program is viewed favorably by students, teachers,
local school administrators and the general public and even
more favorably by the Boards of Education, the State
Education Agency,
the legislature and the governor.
Generally speaking, program objectives are being well
achieved. The major problem related to the SWTP is insuf-
ficient professional staff.
Prospects for the Future
The program is likely to continue. Some changes may be
made with regard to measuring instruments: Future plans
involve administering additional tests prior and subsequent
to the main battery of exams.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was James E. Bottoms,
Division of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Georgia
State Department of Education, 231 State Office Building,
Atlanta, Georgia 30312 (telephone: 404 656-2556).
HAWAII
Statewide Testing Program
Introduction
In discussing Hawaii's educational programs, it must be
kept in mind that Hawaii is not like other states in its
'..cational organization. The public schools of the state
are under a single state administration, so the assessment
program is comparable to a large district testing program
rather than to a typical state assessment program. AU public
schools are under the district administrative control of the
State Department of Education.
Goals
There is a master plan for education which includes a
formal set of goals, available upon request. The State
Department of Education was responsible for developing
the master plan and goals, although no formal state
adoption has been made. The agency is, of course, charged
with the responsibility of operating the schools; thus, any
further adoption of the plan is not technically necessary.
The goals are both process and output in nature.
27
HAWAII
Program Title and Purposes
The Hawaii assessment program is officially known as the
Statewide Testing Program. Its major purposes are to assess
cognitive development and to measure growth. A manage.
ment information system is in the development stage, and
some of the results from the testing program will be used
for this system, although the testing program was not
developed primarily for this purpose. Its original and
present conception is to provide instructional aid to the
teacher.
Initiation
The program was initiated by the State Education Agency
in 1957.
Policy
An Advisory Committee makes recommendations con-
cerning the program to the Assistant Superintendent for
Instructional Services who, in turn, makes recommenda
tions to the Superintendent for final action.
Funding
The program is financed by state money from the General
Education Fund. The cost for the program is not accounted
for as a separate entity. There is an annual budget of about
$30,000 for purchase of materials and for new students
gained from increased enrollment. Most other costs are
absorbed within various State Education Divisions. Scoring
and other data processing is handled through the State
Electronic Data Processing Division Facility. Planning,
coordination and general administration are handled by the
Evaluation Section within the State Department of Edu-
cation.
Administration
As indicated above, the State Department of Education is
responsible for administering the program. One person
within the department has primary full-time responsibility
for the Statewide Testing Program. While the Advisory
Committee is composed primarily of personnel from the
State Department offices and the schools, it includes one
member from the University of Hawaii, Department of
Educational Psychology, and one member from the Com-
munity Colleges System Administrative Staff, Student
Affairs.
Population
Because all public schools in the state are operated through
the State Department of Education, the target population is
the total student population attending public schools. The
following grades indicate the levels at which various tests
are given: grades 4, 5 and 6 and grades 7 through 12. Grade
level, not age, is the basis for testing, and school aropouts
are not included; educable retardates and physically handi-
capped are also excluded. All public schools except those
for the blind and the deaf are included, but no parochial or
private schools are tested. School participation is required,
and all eligible schools were included last year. Because all
28
public schools are included, no community characteristics
are used as a basis for selection.
Areas Assessed
The cognitive areas tested include differential aptitudes,
English,
mathematics, natural
science,
reading,
social
science, and writing. No noncognitive
areas are being
assessed at this time.
Instrumentation
Appropriate test levels for each grade will be used in the
following
tests:
the
Sequential Tests
of Educational
Progress (STEP) in reading, mathematics, writing, science,
and social studies; the School and College Ability Tests
(SCAT), forms 5A, 4A, 3A, 2A, 2B; the Differential Apti-
tude Test (DAT) form L, revised (for grade 9 only). None
of these tests has been tailor-made for this program,
although there is ongoing work in the area of instrument
development. As outlined above, the Advisory Committee
makes its recommendations of standardized tests to be used
to the Assistant Superintendent, and the final decision on
which tests will be used is made by the Superintendent.
None of the testing instruments currently in use was
developed as a criterion-referenced measure, and all are
used as individually reliable measures rather than as group-
reliable measures.
Related Data
At present no additional data is collected for use in analysis
and interpretation of test results. A separate effort is under-
way in the Planning Division to utilize a variety of socio-
economic and related data as part of the analyses.
Data Collectiop and Processing
Classroom teachers administer the tests. The tests are
scored and processed by the State Education Agency, with
the assistance of the State Department of Budget and
Finance, Electronic Data Processing Division.
Interpretation
The State Education Agency is responsible for the organiza-
tion, analysis, and interpretation of all program data.
Use of Data
The Evaluation Section uses the program results in the
instructional protss, guidance, program evaluation, pro-
gram planning and public relations. There is no legal
restriction on the use of program data except for preserving
the confidentiality of individual student test scores.
Dissemination
Reports of program results are prepared by the State
Education Agency, and they include both state and district
summaries. Information
is also provided to individual
schools. Program results are generally available to the
governor, the legislature, the press and the public at large.
Overview
Among the problems presently related to the program are
the developing negative attitudes towards all testing. the
lack of understanding as to the usefulness of tests by
teacher and student and the difficulty in making meaning.
ful interpretations of results at both the legislative and
public levels.
Prospects for the Future
The program is likely to continue, indefinitely, with some
modification. Changes will be gradual. There are no specific
plans for change at the present time, although the goals or
objectives are likely to become more explicit and sharply
defined and communicated more fully to people in the
state, the areas assessed may be L, oadened and changes in
measuring instruments may occur. Future program reports
will attempt to make more meaningful interpretations for
both public and school usage..
Individuals Interviewed
The primary scurces of information were Ronald Johnson,
Administrator of Evaluation, Department of Education,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 (telephone: 808 548-5891); Carl
Fischer, Testing Specialist, Department
of Education,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 (telephone: 808 548-5941);
Kellett Min, Planning Division, Department of Education,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 (telephone: 808 548-6485).
REFERENCES
Hawaii Department of Education. Hawaii Statewide Testing Pro-
gram. January 1972.
Hawaii Department of Education. Summary Report of Minimum
Testing Program 1970-71. Evaluation Report No. 80. December
1971. No. TAC 72-4558. Office of Instructional Services, Evalua-
tion SectionTesting Unit.
Hawaii Department of Education. Minimum Testing Program:
Policy and Regulations. Code nos. 2520 and 2520.1.
IDAHO
State Testing Program (STP)
Goals
A set of statewide educational goals has been jointly pre-
pared by a citizens' advisory group, the Chief State School
Officer, the State Board of Education and the State Educa-
tion Agency and has been formally adopted by the State
Education Agency and the State Board of Education. The
goals concern process and are available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The official name of this effort is the State Testing Pro-
gram. The major purposes are to assess cognitive develop-
ment, to provide data for a management information
system and to provide a counseling tool for local schools.
IDAHO
Initiation
The program was initiated six years ago by the State Educa-
tion Agency.
Policy
The STP policy is determined by the Chief State School
Officer, the State Board of Education, the State Education
Agency and representatives of major school systems.
Funding
Program funding is 100 percent federal through ESEA Title
HI. Last year roughly 524.000 was spent.
Administration
Pupil Personnel Services of the State Departnwnt of Educa-
tion coordinates the program statewide. The professional
staff consists of one state and .01 local full-time equiv-
alents.
Population
The target groups are defined by grades 9 and 11. The state
excludes only dropouts from the target population and
tests
the remainder. All other eliminations were
self-
initiated as participation is voluntary. Last year 95-97
percent of all school districts with grades 9 and 11 parti-
cipated.
Areas Assessed
The STP tested only the cognitive areas of aptitude,
English, mathematics, natural science, reading and social
science.
Instrumentation
The Differential Aptitude Test (DAT) was administered to
ninth graders and the Iowa Test of Educational Develop-
ment (ITED) was administered to eleventh graders. The
DAT and ITED were chosen by an advisory committee.
Neither test
is considered criterion-referenced. Both are
used as group-reliable measures by the State Education
Agency.
Related Data
To help in the analysis and interpretation of data, the fol-
lowing information was utilized: age, dropout rates, school
name, school size and sex.
Data Collection and Processing
Guidance counselors are responsible for giving the tests to
the students. The University of Idaho State Testing Service
is responsible for scoring and data processing.
Interpretation
The State Education Agency and the University of Idaho
are responsible for analyzing, organizing and, to an extent,
interpreting test data. The major responsibility for interpre-
tation lies with the local school districts.
29
t
IDAHO
Use of Data
The results of the program are used for comparative
analysis across schools, guidance, program evaluation, pro.
gram planning and public relations. The authority of the
STP does not restrict use of the data.
Dissemination
Reports are jointly prepared by the University of Idaho and
the State Education Agency and sent to the State Board of
Education, school districts, schools, students and parents.
Reports are prepared in the form of a state summary,
school system summaries, school summaries and individual
student reports.
Overview
Program objectives are not being achieved as well as had
been hoped.
Prospects for the Future
The program will continue, however, with modification.
Goals and objectives, interpretation of data and use of data
are among the aspects most likely to change. The current
description should remain accurate for approximately one
year.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Ronald J. Dent,
Consultant
to
Pupil
Personnel
Services, State Office
Building, 650 State Street, Boise, Idaho 83707 (telephone:
208 384-2115).
ILLINOIS
Illinois Inventory of Educational Progress (IIEP)
Goals
Illinois has a formal working set of goals in nine broad
subject areas. These goals were prepared by the Office of
the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and are
based on ideas and suggestions collected at six public
hearings held throughout
the state between June and
August of 1971. The existing goals are presently being
viewed through another series of statewide public hearings.
and they have been adopted by the Assessment and Evalua-
tion Planning Section of the Office of the Superintendent
of Public Instruction as the focus for the assessment pro-
gram. The goals have been mailed to all school systems and
are available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The official title of the assessment program is the Illinois
Inventory of Educational Progress. The major purposes of
30
the program are to assess cognitive and noncognitive devel-
opment, to measure growth and to provide information for
state-level decision-making bodies. The two major goals of
the assessment program are (1) to make available the first
census-like data on the educational attainments of Illinois
students and (2) to measure any growth or decline which
takes place over time.
Initiation
The Office of the Superintendent ofPublic Instruction, to
meet ESEA Title III requirements, initiated the first phase
of the program in 1971. After approximately four years of
field testing, the first data will be collected on a statewide
sample basis in September 1975.
Policy
The following groups advise the OSPI on how the program
should be conducted and what changes should be made: a
citizens' advisory group, representatives of school systems
and the state legislature.
Funding
This program has been financed by federal ESEA Title III
and ESEA Title V in the past. In the future, Illinois plans to
utilize state funds.
Administration
County and local educators and the state Assessment and
Evaluation Planning personnel coordinate
the program
statewide. Four full-time professionals at the state level
work on assessment. Individuals from the state universities
now serve as consultants. Plans are being made for the Data
Services Section of the Office of the Supentitendent of
Public Instruction to conduct the data analysis.
Population
The target population, areas assessed and instrumentation
will all refer to plans for September 1975. Illinois plans to
test both by age (9-, 13- and 17-year-olds) and by grade
(grades 4, 8 and 11). Hopefully dropouts and students of a
given age falling behind the corresponding grade level will
be included. Local participation will be voluntary. A sample
will be drawn by the school districts and will be stratified
using size and type of school district, size and type of com-
munity, sex, race, per pupil expenditure and other com-
munity and socioeconomic variables.
Areas Assessed
In the cognitive domain, English, mathematics, natural
science,
reading,
social
science, vocational
education,
writing and the arts are being considered. In the non-
cognitive domain, citizenship, creativity, personal values,
self-concept, interests in relation to work and the future
and psychomotor performance are being considered.
Instrumentation
Formal testing on a statewide basis will not be done until
September 1975. Between now and 1975. pretesting and
existing data from data banks will be used to construct
guidelines for choosing or designing instruments. The
instruments will be in the form of exercises, some borrotved
from National Assessment. Standardized tests, if any, will
be chosen by a committee. The instruments will be used as
group-reliable measures; as presently conceived, at least 75
percent of the instruments will be criterion-referenced
measures.
Related Data
Cost of instructional programs, dropout rates, paraprofes-
sionals or education aides, percentage minority, racial-
ethnic, socioeconomic, sex, school size and teacher data
information will be collected and used in the analysis and
interpretation of the data.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom
teachers, guidance
counselors, curriculum
coordinators and paid proctors will be used to collect data.
The State Education Agency will have the responsibility for
analyzing, interpreting and disseminating the findings of the
assessment program.
Interpretation
The OSPI is also responsible for analyzing, organizing and
interpreting the data.
Use of Data
It is anticipated that the results will be used in the fol-
lowing areas: guidance, program evaluation and planning,
comparative analysis of school districts by general char-
acteristics, allocation of state and/or federal funds and
public relations. Schools will not be compared with other
schools. Other restrictions do not exist at this time; how-
ever, the state is proceeding with caution, and additional
restrictions may be imposed in the future.
Dissemination
Reports will be prepared at the appropriate time by the
Superintendent of Public Instruction. State, regional, target
area and school system characteristics summaries will be
prepared as will public information pamphlets. Reports will
be sent to the governor, the legislature, other states, school
districts and ERIC. The reports will also be available to
newspapers, students and parents upon request.
Overview
The bill put before the legislature requesting authority for
and outlining the proposed program has been viewed very
favorably. The basis of this bill is the development of a
systematic information-gathering program to provide state-
level
decision makers and the general citizenry with
information about the direct outcomes of education as
exhibited by students. The ultimate purpose is to provide
information that can be used to improve the educational
process, to improve education at all levels by using informa-
tion about what students know, what skills they have
developed and what their attitudes are.
INDIANA
Prospects for the Future
The program will be developed as a continuous and compre-
hensive assessment of student knowledge, understanding,
skills and attitudes. A four- or five-year cycling process will
reveal changes over a continuum. Pilot programs will be
conducted prior to the fall of 1975.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Thomas Springer,
Director of Assessment and Evaluation Planning Section,
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Spring-
field, Illinois 62706 (telephone: 217 525-4980).
REFERENCE
Action Goals for the Seventies: An Agenda for Illinois Education,
May 1972. Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction,
Illinois.
INDIANA
Indiana State Needs Assessment Program
Goals
A set of nine goals for education in Indiana has been pre-
pared. The present set of goals does not deal directly with
assessment, but with educational institutions and manage-
ment. The goals were prepared by a committee consisting
of the following four Department of Public Instruction
employees: the Director for State Planning (the only educa-
tor), the Assistant Superintendent for Finance, the Chief
Accountant in the Department and the Assistant Superin-
tendent for Administration Services. The goals have not
been formally adopted by the state, and it is quite likely
that they will be changed drastically in the near future.
They are available on request.
Program Title and Purposes
The official name of the program is the Indiana State Needs
Assessment Program. Its main purposes are to assess cogni-
tive development and to assess educational needs, with
limited attention to the affective domain.
Initiation
The program was initiated by the State Title ill Office in
August 1971. The first test administration was planned for
February 1973.
Policy
Program policy is determined by the State Title III Office
with the aid of some consultants.
Funding
Funding is through the federal ESEA Title Ill. Roughly
$30,000 was spent on the program last year.
31
0.
INDIANA
Administration
The State ESEA Title III office coordinates the program
statewide, with one full-time professional working on
assessment at the state level. Local education agencies
(districts) did much of the pretesting work for the pilots,
and Dr. Terry Schurr of Ball State University did much of
the item analysis and instrumentation.
Population
The target population will consist of public school students
in grades 4, 8 and 12. A sample will be drawn from this
population and those students drawn will be asked to
participate. Public school participation is voluntary. Com-
munity characteristics (whether rural, urban, suburban and
size) are used as one basis of selection. Parochial and private
schools and school dropouts are excluded tiom the study.
Areas Assessed
The cognitive areas of English, mathematics, natural
science, reading, social science and vocational education
will be assessed. The noncognitive areas of citizenship, self-
concept and attitude toward school will also be assessed.
Instrumentation
There is only one testing instrument, the Needs Assessment
Instrument, consisting of 200 items (80 reading items and
120 items divided equally among all other areas). This is a
tailor-made instrument, with some items borrowed from
National Assessment. The vocational items in the test will
be given only to grade 12 students. Field testing is being
done by the ESEA Title III Division to determine instru-
ment validity. The instrument development was a coordi-
nated effort by the State Title III Office and consultants.
The Needs Assessment Instrument will be used as a group-
reliable measure. It is not considered a criterion-referenced
measure.
Related Data
The age and grade level of each participating student will be
collected to help analyze program data.
Data Collection and Processing
It has not been determined who will administer the test,
but it will probably be classroom teachers and guidance
counselors. Ball State University will process program data.
Interpretation
Data analysis, organization and interpretation will probably
be done by Dr. Terry Schurr at Ball State University.
Use of Data
Program data will be used to identify target Title III pro-
grams for the future. it will also be used to identify the
most important exemplary programs throughout the state.
Program authority does not restrict the use of program
data.
32
Dissemination
Program reports are being prepared by the State Title III
Office and will be disseminated statewide in the form of
state summaries. These reports are directed toward school
people (schools and school districts), but others, such as the
governor, the legislature and state newspapers, do have
access to the reports.
Overview
It is too early to determine opinions statewide, but the
state education hierarchy does seem to view Indiana assess-
ment favorably. About 60-70 percent of the state objectives
are being achieved, despite the problems of program c ordi-
nation and occasional duplication of effort (i.e., the Right
to Read Project).
Prospects for the Future
The Indiana program is likely to continue, with possible
changes occurring near the end of 1973., The State Depart-
ment of Education offices are elective, and new officials
bringing new ideas may change the whole structure of the
assessment program.
Individual Interviewed
The main source of information was Ivan Wagner, Director
for State Planning and Evaluation, State Department of
Public Instruction, Room 225, Capitol Building, 309 West
Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (telephone:
317 633-4963).
IOWA
Iowa Needs Assessment Program (INAP)
Goals
Iowa does not have a formal set of educational goals at this
time, but is presently working on a process for ranking
goals. Field tests shouid be completed in the spring of
1973.
Program Title and Purposes
The program's working title is the Iowa Needs Assessment
Program (INAP). Whether or not this will become the
official
title has not yet been deCided. The primary
purposes of this program are to assist local districts to do
their own assessment, measure growth, assess cognitive and
noncognitive development and assess educ:,tional needs.
Secondary purposes are to provide data for a management
information system and to set statewide educational goals.
Indirectly the program will also provide information for a
planning-programming-budgeting system.
Initiation
The (NAP was initiated in 1969 by the Planning, Research
and Evaluation office. Although they carried out a testing
last year, this year they are working on processes for
ranking goals.
Policy
Program policy is jointly determined by the Chief State
School Officer, the State Board of Education, the State
Education Agency, and to a degree by representatives of
major school systems.
Funding
The program is completely federally funded. The major
source of funds is ESEA Title III, with some funds from
Title IV and Title V. Last year the program cost approxi-
mately 585,000.
Administration
The Planning, Research and Evaluation office of which
ESEA Title Ill is a part, is responsible for coordinating the
program statewide. Two professional staff members work
full time on state assessment with the help of two outside
contractors. Iowa State University assisted with sampling
procedures and
selection
and Measurement Research
Corporation (MRC) assisted with data collection and
analysis.
Population
This year the 1NAP is doing no testing as it is concentrating
on other aspects of the program: however, last year it did
test at grades 4, 7, and 12. Excluded from the target
population
were
dropouts,
the educationally mentally
retarded and the emotionally disturbed, physically handi-
capped students and parochial and vocational-technical
schools. A 20 percent sample of school districts was
randomly selected last year and 83 of the state's 450
districts participated. Participation was voluntary and was
not confined to communities with specific characteristics.
Areas Assessed
The cognitive areas of reading, literature and science have
been assessed as well as the noncognitive areas of attitude
toward school and self-concept.
Instrumentation
National Assessment exercises were used last year for the
cognitive areas of reading, science and literature. Affective
instruments in Attitudes Toward School and Self-Concept
developed at Instructional Objectives Exchange were used
in the 1970-71 school year. None of the test material was
tailor-made. The instruments were chosen for the program
by the State Education Agency and were group-reliable.
The National Assessment exercises for reading, science and
literature were cnterion-referenced.
Related Data
Age, sex, urban vs. suburban regions, grades, school name,
racial/ethnic information and school size were utilized in
analyzing and interpreting the data.
Data Collection and Processing
The 1NAP hired proctors to administer the tests. MRC was
then responsible for processing and analyzing the answer
sheets and test results.
KANSAS
Interpretation
The Planning, Research and Evaluation office of the State
Education Agency organized and interpreted the data for
its own use.
Use of Data
The data is useful to assist local districts in making compari-
sons of their results with state results. The use of the data is
not restricted by state authority.
Dissemination
A report has been prepared by the Planning, Research and
Evaluation staff in the form of a state summary by region.
Reports were made available to the State Education
Agency, the State Board of Education and other states.
Reports also went to school districts and schools who has
participated and other interested parties on request.
Overview
The State Education Agency, State Board of Education and
local school districts and administrators are responding to
the program with mixed feelings. The intent of the program
is to aid local school districts in conducting their own
assessment. However, to date, local participation has been
limited. The state feels that program objectives are not
being fully accomplished at this time. The main problem
seems to be developing awareness at the local levels and
inspiring use.
Prospects for the Future
The program will likely continue with the following areas
subject to change: areas assessed, instruments used and
interpretation, use and dissemination of data. The present
description of the 1NAP should remain accurate at least
through 1973.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Max Morrison,
Department of Public Instruction, Grimes State Office
Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319 (telephone:
515
281-5274).
KANSAS
Kansas Needs Assessment Model
Introduction
The Kansas Needs Assessment Model still is in the relatively
early stages of its development. For this reason, much of
the information concerning data collection, interpretation,
use and dissemination is tentative or general in nature,
while information on reactions to the program and evalua-
tion of its success or achievement is lacking. Most complete
at this time is information concerning the background of
the program, its goals and objectives, the target population
to be assessed and the proposed areas of assessment.
33
KANSAS
Goals
On July 6, 1972, the Kansas State Board of Education
formally adopted a set of statewide goals and objectives for
education. The 4 major and 35 subgoals are the result of
work and participation by approximately 8,000 teachers,
the Kansas State Department of Education staff, repre-
sentatives of the U.S. Office of Education, students, admin-
istrators and citizens. The goals stress the need to involve
lay citizens and students in the planning of the school's
curriculum and to provide specific programs for dropouts,
exceptional children and persons in penal institutions. The
goals also reflect the need for better communication among
students, teachers, parents and administrators. The current
set of goals is available upon request.
Program Titk and Purposes
Although an unofficial title, the program is known cur-
rently as the Kansas Needs Assessment Model. Its major
purposes include identifying statewide goals, subgoals, and
objectives, reaffirming existing goals and revising them as
necessary,
assessing
cognitive/noncognitive development
and educational needs and providing data for a management
information system. The piogram is aimed at uncovering
discrepancies between goals and objectives and actual stu-
dent behavior and attitudes. The Model is not concerned
with the performance or growth of individuals, but rather
with district and statewide assessment of educational needs.
Initiation
Project SEEK (State Educational Evaluation of Kansas)
initiated the setting of goals for education in 1969 when it
assessed the educational needs of Kansas students (grades
K-12); another contributory effort was made by the Mid-
continent Regional Educational Laboratory (Mc Rel), which
attempted to rank by priority the educational needs as
perceived by the State Department of Education staff.
Three years after the inception of the present phase of
statewide goals for education, the program was undertaken.
Policy
The State Board of Education has been involved in deter-
mining how the program will be conducted and has
approved plans for the Kansas Needs Assessment Model.
Other groups involved include a citizens' advisory group,
the Chief State School Officer, representatives of major
school systems, the State Education Agency and ESEA
Title III; some of these groups, although not currently very
active in the program, will be involved to a greater extent as
the program develops.
Funding
So far 100 percent of the program expenses have been
financed by ESEA Title III federal funds. Future plans call
for state fund involvement, but the funds to be utilized
have not, as yet, been identified. There is no data available
as to last year's program costs, as this is the program's first
year of operation.
34
Administration
The ESEA Title III and Kansas State Department of Educa-
tion Planning,
Evaluation and Research Council staff
coordinate the program statewide. The professional staff
size at the state level is one fu'l-time equivalent; other staff
members are involved as needed. The needs assessment
activities are performed by the Bureau of Educational
Research of the University of Kansas under contract with
the Kansas State Department of Education. There are 1.5
professional full-time equivalents on the state level devoting
their time to needs assessment.
Population
Representative samples will be tested from the target
population of public school students, enrolled in grades 6
and 12, who attend regular classes. No certain type of
school districts or individual schools are required to partici-
pate in the program; all schools will be encouraged to
administer the tests on a voluntary basis though only those
selected will be included in the sample. Private, parochial,
delinquent or handicapped schools are not included in the
target population, nor are any students who are institu-
tionalized or in special classes.
Areas Assessed
Cognitive areas assessed include English, health, humanities,
consumer and environmental education,
mathematics,
natural and social sciences, reading, writing, and vocational
areas. Noncognitive areas M be assessed are citizenship,
interests, self-concept and personal values. During the
spring of 1973 Kansas will be pilot testing science and
mathematics instruments.
Instrumentation
The measures to be administered for the program have not
been selected or developed at this time although it
is
planned to develop and/or select measures from existing
instruments. Although these instruments will probably be
criterion-referenced measures, it has not yet been decided
whether item sampling will be used in their construction.
It's the intent of the program to develop group-reliable
measures; no individual feedback is planned.
Related Data
No decision on the collection of related data has been made
at this time.
Data Collection and Processing
No decision has yet been made as to who will be respon-
sible for administering the tests, inventories and so forth for
the program. The State Education Agency will be respon-
sible for processing the information obtained from the
program.
Interpretation
The State Education Agency has the primary responsibility
for analyzing, organizing and interpreting the data. How-
ever, this does not preclude local districts from making
additional analyses on their own.
9.
Use of Den
Anticipated uses for the program results are: allocation of
state and federal funds, budgeting, instruction, program
planning and public relations. It is State Department policy
that individual data will not be identified.
Dissemination
Plaits indicate that ann al public information pieces and
State, regional, school system, school and target area sum-
maries will be prepared by the State Education Agency.
Specific recipients of these program reports have not yet
been identified. but, generally, all Kansas school districts
and other interested parties will receive copies.
Overview
It is too early to say how the program is generally viewed,
or whether it is believed that the program is achieving its
objectives. The major problems facing the program at this
stage are financial.
Prospects for the Future
This program is likely to contint_ although, as evidenced
by the previous information given, areas to be assessed,
measuring instruments to be used and data collection pro-
cedures to be employed are likely to change in the near
future. Funding is another element 1.
'y to change as the
program is developed. As society changes, it is expected
that goals and needs of education will change. The Kansas
Needs Assessment Model will be a continuous process
which will allow updating of goals 'nd identification of
critical needs.
Individuals Interviewed
The primary sources of information were Phttip S. Thomas,
Director of Title Ill Section, Kansa: State Department of
Education, 120 East 10th Street, Topeka, Kansas 66612
(telephone: 913 296-3128); and Dick Tracy, State Con-
sultant,
University of Kansas School of Education,
Lawrence, Kansas 66044 (telephone 913 864-3758 or 913
296-0111).
REFERENCE
Statewide Goals for Education in Kansas, published July 6, 1972,
by the Kansas State Board of Education, Topeka.
KENTUCKY
Kentucky Assessment Program
Introduction
Phase I of the Kentucky Needs Assessment Study delin-
eated learner needs. Phase II has been and is continuing to
establish needed objectives and set criteria by which to
establish these objectives. Phase II work is described here.,
KENTUCKY
Goals
Several sets of statewide educational goals have been
:spared by different lay and professional educator groups
as a part of the Kentucky Needs Assessment Study. There
are both similarities and differences in these sets of state-
ments since they were prepared somewhat independently
by the different groups. Personnel from various offices and
divisions of the Kentucky Department of Education are
now attempting to reconcile the differences and synthesize
these different sets into a single set acceptable to all who
participated in the goal-setting process. It is anticipated that
any dissimilarities will become reconciled and that the State
Education Agency will adopt the final set. These goals will
be c.o.werned with both process and output.
Program Title and Purposes
It is anticipated that the official name of the program will
be the Kentucky Educational Assessment Program and that
its major purposes will probably include assessment of
educational needs, measurement of pupil growth and
utilization for the development of a planning-program-
ming-budgeting system.
Initiation
The program was initiated by the State Education Agency.
Phase I was completed in September of 1970. Phase II is
now in its third year.
Policy
All policy-making functions are vested in the State Educa-
tion Agency.
Funding
Funding of the program in 1971.72 came from federal and
state general funds. About 70 percent of total expenses
were provided by ESEA Title V. The program cost approxi-
mately $50,000 in 1971.72.
Administration
Responsibility
for statewide program coordination lies
within the recently established Office of Planning and
Research. Its four divisions are Research, Planning, Ev llu:
tion and Dissemination. Two full-time professionals wolk
on the program at the state level. EPIC Diversified Systc:os
Corporation (Tucson, Arizona) provided consultant service
to earlier phases of the program and will continue to pro -'
vide assistance in planning computer service and data
analysis through 1972-73.
Population
Tapet population is defined by grades 4, 8 and 11. Samples
of students are drawn from each grade. Dropouts are
excluded because of unavailability. Parochial, private and
vocational/technical schools have not been included in this
study. No student is excluded by reason of any special
designation
or
diagnosis. A representative
sample of
districts is sele-ted within each of the state's 17 educational
development districts and they are invited to participate. In
35
9.
KENTUCKY
1971-72, 80 districts of a state total of 189 were invited to
participate. During
1972-73,
120 school
districts
are
expected to participate. Community characteristics were
not conside.
' as a basis for selection.
Areas Assessed
The cognitive areas of reading and mathematics and non-
cognitive areas of citizenship, psychomotor (physical
fitness) skills and attitudes toward school, peers and self are
being assessed in Phase II.
Instrumentation
Measuring instruments
in
the
cognitive areas include:
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, Form Q, Level II
(fourth grade); Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, Form Q,
Level III (eighth grade); Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills,
Form Q, Level IV (eleventh grade). The Physical Fitness
Test of the American Association for Health, Physical
Education and Recreation was used to assess psychomotor
skills. These tests were selected by teacher committees
throughout the state in an effort to obtain measuring
instruments which appeared to be most nearly congruent
with selected state goals of education. Attitude measures
were developed by teacher committees with consultation
from EPIC. The test battery is considered to be a combina-
tion of criterion- and norm-referenced measures. Though
some tests are individually reliable, the state is using results
for group interpretation only.
Related Data
Several variables were selected by the State Department of
Education to be used in the analysis of data. These included
geographic representation,
sex,
adjusted gross family
income, per-pupil expenditure for education and total stu-
dent population by grade level.
Qata Collection and Processing
III each school selected for the sample, one person from the
school administrative staff is selected to be responsible for
administering the tests and inventories used in the program.
The State Department of Education is responsible for
processing all information.
Interpretation
EPIC has provided services for preparing analyses and inter-
pretations of program data. However, tilt. Department of
Education staff directs EPIC in the kinds of reports and
analyses which are to be prepared.
Use of Data
Results of the assessment aLe used in program planning,
program evaluation and instruction. Since the standardized
tests selected for this program are those which are assumed
to have highest correlation with the instructional program,
considerable emphasis is placed upon an examination of
those test items missed by 50 percent of the students and
the percentage of students missing those items deemed
most related to relevant instructional outcomes.
36
Dissemination
No restrictions are placed upon the use or dissemination of
the assessment program data. Reports are prepared by EPIC
under Department of Education guidance and distributed
to all school districts in the state and the Department of
Education. Reporting is on a statewide, regional and local
district basis.
Prospects for the Future
This program will undoubtedly continue with expansion of
areas assessed and modification of data collected on associ-
ated variables, interpretation, use and dissemination of
information. A significant
first
effort
in this planned
expansion is the establishment of the Office of Planning
and Research within the Department of Education and the
move by the department to ootain clear agreement on and
commitment to the goals of education for Kentucky by
personnel within the department.
Individuals Interviewed
The primary sources of information were David Shannon,
Head of the Office of Planning and Research, 17th Floor,
Capital Plaza, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (telephone: 502
564-4394), and D.E. Elswick, Director of the Division of
Education Research, 17th Floor, Capital Plaza, Frankfort,
Kentucky 40601 (telephone: 502 5644398).
REFERENCES
Kentucky State Department of Education. Kentucky Interstate
Project:
MidAtlantic Region Interstate Project. Final Report,
December 1972.
Kentucky State Department of Education. Kentucky Educational
Needs Assessment Study. Phase 11, Learner Needs. September 1971.
Kentucky State Department of Education.
Learner Outcomes.
Kentucky Educational Needs Assessment Study. October 1972.
LOUISIANA
Louisiana Learner Needs Assessment Program
Goals
There are 14 major priorities for Louisiana education, as
formulated by State Superintendent of Schools Louis 1.
Michot. A combination of input, process and output, they
have not yet been formally adopted by the state. Copies of
Priorities for Progress in Public Education
are available
upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The official title of the Louisiana program is the Louisiana
Learner Needs Assessment Program. Its major purposes are
to: assess cognitive development, assess learner needs, assess
noncognitive development (a future objective), provide data
for a management information system, measure growth and
set statewide educational goals.
Initiation
The Assessment Program is an outgrowth of the ESEA Title
III office. Program development began in the latter part of
1969 with a statewide assessment of facilitating needs. The
first test administration in reference to learner needs is set
for the early spring of 1973.
Policy
The State Superintendent of Education and the State
Education Agency are responsible for setting program
policy.
Funding
The program is now funded by federal monies under ESEA
Title III. Projections indicate, however, that for the fiscal
year 1973-74 50 percent of the funds will come from the
state, and some of the federal funds used will be from
ESEA Title I. Roughly $140,000 has been spent on the
developmental stages of the program.
Administration
The state Bureau of Experimental Programs is responsible
for coordinating the Assessment Program statewide. Four
full-time professionals work on the program at the state
level. No regular outside consultants are used, although
advice was sought from the staff of the National Assess-
ment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
Population
Ages 9, 13 and 17 will be assessed in the first test admin-
istration. School dropouts and students who have dropped
behind in grade level will be included. Students will be
chosen by a random sampling of all students in the target
age group. All schools receiving state assistance will be
required to participate. Parochial and private schools and
schools for the handicapped (blind and deaf) will be
excluded from the study. Community characteristics(i.e..
community size and whether rural, urban or suburban) are
being considered.
Areas Assessed
For the 1973 test administration, only the cognitive area of
reading will be assessed. Future plans call for testing in the
cognitive areas of mathematics, natural science,
social
science and vocational education and the noncognitive areas
of attitudes, citizenship and personal interests. There is also
discussion regarding the development of Instruments to be
used in penal institutions and instruments to be used for
special education and career education.
Instrumentation
The reading instrument to be used was tailor-made by the
Bureau of Experimental Programs, with assistance from
NAEP personnel and reading experts throughout the state.
Item sampling was used in test construction, and the test is,
as a result, only group-reliable. No individual student inter-
pretations will be made. The test is a criterion-referenced
measure.
LOUISIANA
Related Data
The only additional data to be collected to help program
analysis is the age and sex of the students tested.
Data Collection and Processing
Paid consultants, trained by the SEA, will be responsible
for administering the tests and probably will be substitute
teachers and/or retired teachers and school administrators.
The Bureau of Experimental Programs will be responsible
for processing all program data.
Interpretation
Program data will be analyzed, organized and reported by
the Bureau of Experimental Programs. Interpretation of the
data will involve all facets of the state's community.
Use of Data
Louisiana plans to use initial program data for program
planning; future use may be made in the area of fund
allocation. Data will also probably be used by local schools,
parishes (districts), state and private universities and local
citizens' groups for individual interpretations. Use of the
data will not be restricted by program authority.
Dissemination
Program reports will be prepared by the Bureau of Experi-
mental Programs and will include: state and regional sum-
maries; summaries by target area; summaries of compari-
sonsstate to national, state to regional, state to state; and
summaries of cross-matrix comparisons. Wherever possible
comparisons will be made between the results obtained in
Louisiana and those reported by NAEP. The following will
probably receive copies of program reports: the governor,
the legislature, newspapers, other states, the State Board of
Education, local school districts, local schools, parents,
teacher organizations and ERIC.
Overview
The program is viewed favorably by members of the State
Department of Education, but it is too early to determine
opinion statewide. Program objectives are being adequately
achieved, with the major problem being unavailability of
qualified professionals.
Prospects for the Future
The Louisiana Assessment Program is likely to continue
with some modification. The present work will probably
remain constant through the end of 1973. Changes will
occur in the areas of policy control, state and federal
funding, the types of measuring instruments used and the
number of areas assessed.
Individual Interviewed
The main source of information was Dan K. Lewis, Director
of the Bureau of Experimental Programs, State Department
of Education, P.O. Box 44064, Capital Station, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana 70804 (telephone: 504 389 - 6211).
37
MAINE
Maine Assessment of Educational Progress
Goals
A formal set of statewide educational goals has been pre-
pared
as part of the "Proposed Philosophy for Maine
Schools," which contains not only goals for education, but
also a philosophy of education, educational concerns and
state guidelines for education. It was prepared by the State
Curriculum Committee, composed of teachers, the State
Superintendent of Schools, principals and members of the
State Department of Education. The goals
have been
formally adopted by the State Board of Education and
reflect a combination of input, process and output. The
"Proposed Philosophy for Maine Schools" is available upon
request.
Program Title and Purposes
The official title of the Maine program is the Maine Assess-
ment of Educational Progress. Its major purposes are to:
assess cognitive development, assess educational needs,
assess noncognitive development, measure influences on
learning, measure growth, provide data for a management
information system and provide information for a plan-
ning-programming-budgeting system.
Initiation
Early in 1972 the idea for the assessment program was
proposed by the State Board of Education and the State
Edwation Agency. A five-phase cycle is in effect, with
nine II covering January 1 through December 31,.1973.
Phase I was completed December 31, 1972 (pilot testing);
Phase V will be completed by December 31, 1976.
Policy
Program policy
is determined by the State Education
Agency, the State Board of Education and
citizens'
advisory groups.
Funding
Roughly 75 percent of program funds come from federal
monies, under ESEA Title 1, Title III, Title V and Title IV,
Section 402. The other 25 percent comes from the allo-
cated funds for State Planning and Evaluation. Approxi-
mately $96,000 was spent on the program in 1972.
Administration
The Office of Planning and Evaluation coordinates the pro-
gram statewide, Five full-time professionals work on the
program bt the state level. The Department of Education
and Cultthal Services (Maine Department of Education)
acts as consultant for test development, analysis and
scoring.
Population
The target population is all students aged 9, 13 and 17 in
the schools of Maine. Studen'ts are chosen by a random
38
sampling of the target population. Participation is volun-
tary. Students who have dropped behind in grade level are
included, but educationally mentally retarded, emotionally
disturbed and physically handicapped
students are ex-
cluded. In 1972, 10 percent of the eligible student popula-
tion was tested. The ages of 9, 13 and 17 will be tested in
all five phases of the first program cycle. Community char-
acteristics are not used as a basis for student selection.
Areas Assessed
The noncognitive area of citizenship was tested in Phase 1
of the first cycle. Assessment will cover the following cog-
nitive areas: in Phase 1, writing; in Phase 11, science and
reading; in Phase III, literature and career and occupational
development; in Phase IV, music and mathematics; and in
Phase V, art and social studies.
a'
Instrumentation
The National Assessment of Educational Progress tests are
used for all areas and ages. These tests were adapted for use
in Maine schools by the Department of Educational and
Cultural
Services. They are
all
considered
criterion-
referenced measures and
are
used
as
group-reliable
measures. No Individual student use is anticipated.
Related Data
Additional information collected to help analyze program
data includes: age, cost of instructional programs, county,
grades, paraprofessional educational data, percent minority,
previous course work, racial/ethnic background, school
name and size, sex, socioeconomic data and teacher data.
Data Collection and Processing
Consultants chosen by the Department of Educational and
Cultural Services (DECS) administer the tests in the class-
room. The DECS scores the tests, and the information is
then processed by the State Education Agency (SEA).
Interpretation
The data collected is analyzed, organized and interpreted
by DECS in conjunction with the SEA.
Use of Data
Program results are used for allocation of state and federal
funds, for instruction and for program planning. Program
authority does not restrict or limit the use of program data.
Dissemination
Program reports are prepared by the SEA and include state
summaries, regional summaries and public
information
pieces. The following receive copies of program reports: the
governor and legislature, newspapers, other states upon
request, the State Board of Education, school districts and
ERIC.
Overview
The program is viewed most favorably by laymen and all
levels of the state and local education hierarchy. Program
objectives are being achieved very well, with the main
problem one of dissemination of information.
Prospects for the Future
The Maine Assessment of Educational Progress is likely to
continue at least through 1976, with changes occurring in
the areas of program funding and dissemination of program
information.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Horace P. Maxcy
Jr., Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of Educa-
tion, Education Building, State House Complex, Augusta,
Maine 04330 (telephone: 207 289-2321).
REFERENCES
Educational Needs Assessment Plan for Maine, January 1972
through December 1976. Prepared by the Office of Planning, Evalu-
ation and Research: revised January 17, 1972.
Educational Needs Assessment Plan for Maine: A Progress Report.
June 1, 1972, Department of Education.
Proposed Philosophy for Maine Schools. Prepared by the State Cur-
riculum Committee, 1971.
MARYLAND
Maryland Educational Accountability Program
Goals
Maryland's first set of statewide educational goals validated
by a Goal Validation and Needs Assessment Project was
published
in a report dated November 30, 1972. Ten
general goals and 37 specific goals, all describing the output
of public education, have been identified and validated by
various publics. Local school system educators, interested
public
groups,
students,
the State Superintendent
of
Schools, various other public officials and legislators, the
State Board of Education and the State Department of
Education took part in the validation of goals identified by
the staff of the Department. The State Board has officially
adopted five of the general goals.
Program Title and Purposes
The official name of this program is the Maryland Educa-
tional Accountability Program. It received impetus from an
accountability law which took effect on July 1, 1972.
Major initial purposes of the program are to assess cognitive
development and educational needs, to measure influences
on learning, to provide data for a management information
system and to set and evaluate attainment of statewide
educational goals.
MARYLAND
Initiation
With the assistance of a USOE grant under Sec. 402, Title
IV, the State Department of Education began in 1970 to
develop a statewide evaluation strategy, a planning capa-
bility and a management information plan. In 1971 an
educational Goal Validation and Needs Assessment Project
was launched. In June
1972 the accountability law
extended these earlier efforts by formalizing the need for
goal setting and achievement assessment in the area of
reading, writing and mathematics. No new testing programs
were mandated, and none has yet been recommended by
task forces or advisory committees.
Policy
A broad-based Advisory Council on Accountability (both
citizen and educator) and the local boards of education
make recommendations to the State Department of Educa-
tion relative to the development and implementation of the
program. Policy decisions are made by the State Super-
intendent of Schools and the Maryland State Board of
Education.
Funding
This program has received no regular funding. Activities to
this point have made use of existing resources and staff
time. The recently completed Goal Validation and Needs
Assessment Project, funded by ESEA Title III and Title V
monies, furnished much data relevant to the Accountability
Program. The Needs Assessment Project report will provide
a jumping off point for the Advisory Council on Account-
ability. Last year the program cost approximately $54,000.
Administration
A State Coordinator on Accountability has been appointed
to serve in the Superintendent's Office and to coordinate
the work of the Accountability Council and the goal setting
and assessment team efforts of the State Department of
Education staff and local educator advisors. A number of
State Department staffers have been assigred to this effort
on a half-time basis. No new positions have been made
available to the department.
Population
All public schools K-12 are included in the program. Grade
levels for reporting purposes have not been selected. No
doubt the educationally mentally
retarded
and
the
emotionally disturbed will be excluded when data are
assembled. The law does not require the inclusion of
children and youth who attend private or parochial schools
or special schools for the delinquent or handicapped.
Areas Assessed
At the present time as the Accountability Program is being
planned, in the cognitive area, vocabulary, reading, language
(spelling, capitalization, punctuation, usage), work study
(map reading, reading graphs and tables, use of reference
materials) and mathematics are assessed. No noncognitive
areas are being assessed at the present time on a statewide
basis.
39
MARYLAND
Instrumentation
Presently a variety of existing measures in 24 school
systems are used; none has been tailor-made for the pro-
gram. Each school system chooses its own instruments, all
of which are individually reliable. In cases where schools
use the same instrument, grade level and administration
dates vary. Current efforts are being made to develop
writing measures based on National Assessment, and a
criterion-referenced reading test is in the developmental
phases.
Related Data
As the Accountability Program takes shape, additional
information will be collected to help analyze and interpret
test data. At present, socioeconomic and aptitude data
definitely are considered; other types of data to be gathered
are yet to be determined.
Data Collection and Processing
Currently
tests
are given by classroom teachers. Data
obtained is processed by local school systems.
Interpretation
Data supplied by local school systems will be analyzed by
those systems and by the State Education Agency. Deci-
sions on analyses of data for publication of state and local
standings have not been made.
Use of Data
Data obtained from the program points up educational
needs and establishes priorities. In highlighting the faults
and fortes of the various systems, the results may be used
for program evaluation, guidance, school management
guidelines and identifying exemplary programs. Also, the
data furnishes a basis for reports to the public. There is no
restriction in the law whatsoever on the use of the program
results.
Dissemination
Three kinds of reports are to be prepared by the State
Education Agency: state summaries, school system sum-
maries and school summaries. Students and parents may
receive these publications if they request copies; automatic
distribution includes the State Education Agency, the
governor, the legislature, newspapers, other states, the State
Board of Education, school districts, the schools, teacher
organizations and ERIC.
Overview
Because the program is so young, views of the various
groups involved cannot be obtained. An evaluation ofhow
well the program objectives are being achieved would be
premature. One can say, however, that at this point in time
there are two definite limiting factors: lack of funds and
lack of full agreement on how to proceed.
Prospects for the Future
The program will continue indefinitely, Major planning
change: may take place before the program is crystallized.
40
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Richard K. McKay,
Assistant State Superintendent in Research, Evaluation and
Information Systems, P.0, Box 8717, Baltimore, Maryland
21240 (telephone: 301 796-8300, ext. 320).
MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts Design for Assessment
Coals
During 1971-72 the Department of Education, through an
extensive participatory process, directed considerable atten-
tion to the identification of needs and the evolution of goal
statements. Many groups participated in the preparation of
the statewide educational goals:
the citizens' advisory
group, students, the Chief State School Officer, the State
Board of Education and the legislature. Formally adopted
by the State Board of Education, the goals provide a frame-
work for the integration of testing and evaluation activities
and deal primarily with output. Paraphrased, the goal state-
ments are as follows: physical and emotional well being,
basic communication skills, effective use of knowledge,
capacity and desire for lifelong learning, citizenship in a
democratic society, respect for the community of man.
occupational competence, understanding of the environ-
ment, individual values and attitudes and creative interests
and talents. These 10 educational goals are intertwined; no
one goal stands in isolation from the rest. They will help to
defir
performance objectives for learners, identify tasks to
be performed by local and state educational agencies in
giving life to those objectives and help to determine means
for evaluating learners' progress toward the goals.
Program Title and Purposes
The major purpose of the Massachusetts Design for Assess-
ment program is to assess public education in theCommon-
wealth in light of statewide educational goals. Facets of the
plan for the evaluation of educational programs are as fol-
lows:
I) identification of needs of children, youth and
society in general, 2) establishment of goals for education
consistent with these identified needs, 3) development of
programs designed to meet or satisfy the needs, 4) develop-
ment of assessment and evaluation activities to measure
learner achievement and program success in light of the
goals and 5) repeating the above four-step cycle through the
redefinition of goals and the revision of programs.
Initiation
The Massachusetts Design for Assessment was initiated
primarily by the State Education Agency during 1970-72
with educational goals jointly prepared by the citizens'
advisory group, students, the Chief State School Officer,
the State Board of Education and the legislature in 1971.
Policy
While major responsibility for conducting the program and
instituting changes rests with the State Education Agency
and the State Board of Education, it is recognized that
many groups (teachers, parents, school committees, tax-
payers, administrators) have a stake in the assessment and
evaluation process.
Funding
Program expenses are completely financed by ESEA Title
III federal funds. Program costs for 1970-71 were approxi-
mately S140,000, and approximately $60,000 for 1971-72.
Administration
The Massachusetts Division of Research, Planning and
Evaluation has assigned two full-time individuals
to
coordinate the program statewide. Outside agencies and
consultants (CTB/McGraw Hill, Westinghouse Learning)
have assisted in the administration of this program.
Population
State assessment in Massachusetts included in 1971 the
testing of all fourth-grade pupils in the area of basic skills,
with all data reports and analyses made on the comparison
of achievement in relation to ability. Evaluation activities in
1972 included repetition of the fourth-grade testing philos-
ophy on a 10 percent sample of eighth-grade pupils and
demonstration of mastery testing in the areas of science and
citizenship on two 10 percent samples of seventh graders.
Participation by all schools is required, and all types of
schools are included in the program. Participation is not
confined to communities with special characteristics. In
addition to the above testing activities, two studies were
conducted in the area of kindergarten pupil assessment and
measurement of affective behavior. Nov underway,
1972-73 activities deal with the submission of reading and
mathematics objectives to be used as a basis for future
mastery testing.
Areas Assessed
The following cognitive areas are being assessed: aptitude,
English, mathematics, natural science, reading, study skills,
citizenship and areas in which previous evaluation experi-
ence may render some contribution.
Instrumentation
Instruments used for the testing of all fourth-grade students
and the 10 percent sample of eighth-grade pupils in the area
of basic skills were the Test of Academic Aptitude and the
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills by CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Mastery testing in the areas of science and citizenship in-
cluded submission of National Assessment objectives in
Science and Citizenship for ranking by the participating
school system (specifically, those Massachusetts school
teachers involved in each of the samples) in terms of their
curricular priorities and the development of achievement
instruments by Westinghouse Learning from National
Assessment items consistent with the objective ranking.
MASSACHUSETTS
Data from these criterion-referenced materials was reported
only in terms of item performance and then summarized in
relation to the selected objectives. All of these tests, chosen
by the State Education Agency, are used only as group
reliable measures (although the California Test of Academic
Aptitudes and the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills can
be used as individually reliable measures).
Related Data
Additional information collected to help analyze and
interpret the data include the cost of instructional programs
and the percentage of minority students.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers are responsible for giving the tests,
while outside contractors or the Department's computer
facility staff are responsible for processing the information
obtained from the program.
Interpretation
The State Education Agency, with the aid of local schools
and local school districts, has the primary responsibility for
analyzing, organizing and interpreting the data.
Use of Data
The results of this program, interpreted in relation to state-
wide educational goals, will be used in the area of instruc-
tion. There is no law for
the program which restricts or
limits the use of data.
Dissemination
The State Education Agency has prepared state summaries
of the results of the program which are distributed to the
State Board of Education and the school districts. State-
wide reporting of testing activities did not identify indi-
vidual schools or individual districts. Opportunities were
provided in the process to permit each teacher, school and
district to consider its results on a highly individualized
basis.
Overview
The program is viewed favorably by the State Education
Agency, with varied reactions on the part of boards of
education, local school administrators and teachers. High
interest was shown by participants, particularly in the
National Assessment criterion-referenced materials, which
measure item mastery. The program objectives are being
achieved, although a major problem is funding.
Prospects for the Future
It is hoped that :lie present program will expand. The
elements in the program most likely to change in the near
future are: the areas assessed, the measuring instruments
used, the interpretation of data and the use of data.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was James F. Baker,
Associate Commissioner for Research, Planning and Evalua-
41
al.
MASSACHUSETTS
tion, Massachusetts Department of Education,
182
Tremont Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02111 (telephone:
617 727-8477).
REFERENCES
Massachusetts Department of Education Assessment Task Force,
Massachusetts Design for Assessment; A Position Paper.
Massachusetts Department of Education Assessment Task Force,
Testing White Paper.
Massachusetts Application of National Assessment Items in Citizen-
ship and Science.
Massachusetts Fourth Grade Testing Program 1971, "R & D Test
Bulletin No. I."
Report of the Task Forces assisted by the Advisory Committee on
Educational Goals to the Board of Education, Educational Goals for
Massachusetts, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Board of
Education, September 1971.
MICHIGAN
Michigan Educational Assessment Program
(Fourth and Fifth Assessments)
Introduction
Michigan Assessment, an ongoing program since 1969, is
now in a transitional phase. During the January 1973 test
administration (the Fourth Assessment), previously used
tests were given again. In the meantime, however, there was
concurrent development of criterion-referenced tests for
the Fifth Assessment to be administered in October 1973.
The report which follows gives information, where possible,
on both the present program and on future program devel-
opment.
Goals
Michigan has established 22 goals in three major areas, plus
an Appendix on Educational Improvement. The 22 goals
primarily reflect student output; the Appendix provides
standards of input and process. The goals (and Appendix)
were developed during 1970-71 by the following groups
working in conjunction with the State Education Agency: a
citizen task force, the Superintendent of Public Instruction,
and the State Board of Education. Formally adopted in
September 1971 by the State Board of Education, these
goals will remain the same for both the Fourth and Fifth
Assessments. They are available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The official title of this program is the Michigan Educa-
tional Assessment Program. Its major purposes are to: assess
cognitive development, assess educational needs, assess non-
cognitive development (with the Fifth Assessment to be the
first phase), measure influences on learning, measure educa-
42
tional growth (Fourth Assessment data will provide initial
analysis), provide data for a management information
system (a very important purpose) and provide information
for a planning-programming-budgeting system (with the
Fifth Assessment providing initial data).
Initiation
Program initiation was a cooperative effort by the gov-
ernor's office, the State Board of Education, the State
Education Agency (SEA), the state legislature, and the
Superintendent of Public Instruction. Program development
began in 1969, with the first statewide testing conducted
during the 1970-71 school year.
Policy
The following groups determine how the program is con-
ducted and what changes will be made in the nature of the
program: a citizen task force, the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, the SEA, the State Board of Education, and
the state legislature (for funding only).
Funding
Michigan Assessment is completely funded by state money
under general appropriations given to the State Department
of Education. Approximately $375,000 was spent on the
program in 1972.
Administration
Intermediate school districts,* coordinators in local school
districts and professionals within the State Department of
Education work together on statewide program coordina-
tion. There are five full-time state level professionals, 59
intermediate school district coordinators and 530 local
school district coordinators assisting in the administration
of the project. Outside consultants include: Educational
Testing Service (ETS) of Princeton, New Jersey, which has
been responsible for past instrument development, scoring
and analysis, and the California Test Bureau/McGraw-Hill,
Inc. (CTB) of Monterey, California, which is cooperating
with four local school districts and the Department in the
development of the criterion-referenced tests to be used in
the October 1973 administration (the Fifth Assessment).
Population
For both the January 1973 and October 1973 administra-
tions, all public school students in grades 4 and 7 are being
assessed. Dropouts are not included in the regular assess-
ment program, but dropout rates are reported within indi-
vidual school systems. Delinquent students and schools,
educable mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed
students, schools for the handicapped and private schools
are all excluded from the study. Parochial schools are not
included in the regular assessment study, but have a
separate state-provided assessment study, funded through
ESEA Title V under the old National Defense Education
Act (NDEA). Last year 75 percent of all parochial schools
*Reorganized county districts, considered a regional service agency
for operating local school districts.
in the state participated in this study. All public schools are
required to participate in the regular Michigan Assessment
Program, and 100 percent of the eligible schools partici-
pated in the Third Assessment Study. Future plans call for
a random sampling of the target population. Community
characteristics are not used as a basis for school selection.
Areas Assessed
The cognitive areas of mathematics, reading and the
mechanics of written English were assessed in January
1973, with word relationships being assessed under apti-
tudes. For the October 1973 administration, the cognitive
areas of reading and mathematics will be assessed. Aptitude
may be assessed, but the insturment to be used has not yet
been determined. During the first two years of Michigan
Assessment, an Attitudes Instrument was used to assess
self-concept and attitudes toward school and school
achievement. The instrument was found to be technically
deficient and was removed from the program. Work is now
being completed on a new Attitudes Instrument which rpay
be administered statewide as part of the Fifth Assessment.
Instrumentation
The Standardized Michigan Educational Assessment Test
Battery in mathematics, reading and the mechanics of
written English (grade levels 4 and 7) was used for the
January 1973 test administration. This test battery was
developed by Educational Testing Service to the specifica-
tions of the Michigan State Department of Education.
These
tests
are
individually
reliable, norm-referenced
measures. The new instruments, to be used for the October
1973 test administration in mathematics and reading (grade
levels 4 and 7), have been developed to state specifications
by the California Test Bureau and four Michigan school
districts under contract to the Department of Education.
These tests have been developed as criterion-referenced
measures. Item sampling techniques were used to construct
these measures, and they will be used both as group-reliable
measures and for individual student profiles.
Related Data
Additional information collected to help analyze program
data includes: cost of instructional program, dropout rates
in
district, student grade assignments, paraprofessional
educator data, percentage of racial/ethnic minority, school
name and size, socioeconomic data and education and
salaries of teachers involved in the study.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom leachers are primarily responsible for admin-
istering the tests. The State Education Agency (SEA) in
conjunction with Educational Testing Service has been
responsible for processing program data in the past. The
outside consultant to be used for data processing of the
criterion-referenced tests has not yet been chosen.
Interpretation
The SEA, in conjunction with an outside contractor (as yet
,
MICHIGAN
undetermined), will be responsible for organizing, analyzing
and interpreting program data.
Use of Data
Program results are used for the following: allocation of
funds under the State Compensatory Education Program,
some comparative analysis across schools, program planning
and public relations. Program authority does not restrict
the use of program data, although the SEA restricts the use
of individual student scores.
Dissemination
Program reports are prepared and include: state summaries,
regional summaries, school system summaries, school sum-
maries, student summaries (containing student scores),
summaries of target areas and public information pieces.
The following receive copies of program reports: the SEA,
the state governor, the state legislature, newspapers, other
states upon request, the State Board of Education, school
districts, individual
schools,
students, parents, teacher
organizations and ERIC. Program reports are prepared
jointly by the SEA and the outside contractors.
Overview
The Michigan Program is gaining acceptance from all levels
of the state educational hierarchy and the general public.
Program objectives are being met very satisfactorily. The
main problems lie in the area of dissemination, gaining an
understanding of the program and an awareness of what it
is trying to accomplish and being able to properly use the
program data in decision making.
Prospects for the Future
The program is likely to continue. The areas most likely to
change in
1973-74 are: the areas assessed (broadening
subject matter), improvement of measuring instruments,
improvement of instruction in the statewide objectives,
data collection and processing procedures and dissemina-
tion techniques. As mentioned before, Michigan is planning
to use random sampling of target populations in future
assessments. The state is also developing a special test, to be
used at the entry into first grade, to assess the student's
readiness for school.
Individual Interviewed
The main source of information was David L. Donovan,
Director of Research, Evaluation and Assessment Services,
Michigan Department of Education. P.O. Box 420, Lansing,
Michigan 48902 (telephone: 517 373-1830).
REFERENCES
Michigan Department of Education. The Common Goals of Mich.
igan Education. 1971.
Michigan Department of Education. Objectives and Procedures. The
first report of the 1972-73 Michigan Educational Assessment Pro-
gram. October 1972.
Michigan Department of Education. Individual Pupil Report:
Explanatory Materials. The second report of the 1971-72 Michigan
Educational Assessment Program. April 1972.
43
11.
oig
MINNESOTA
Minnesota Statewide Educational Assessment
Program
Goals
A working set of statewide educational goals and objectives
has been developed in the areas of reading and mathe-
matics. Additional content areas are being developed using
the following criteria:
I) The objectives are considered important by subject -
matter specialists.
2) School personnel recognize the objectives as tasks which
the schools are attempting to accomplish.
3) Thoughtful lay citizens of the state consider the objec-
tives worthy of attainment.
The development of the goals and objectives is coordi-
nated through
the Assessment Advisory Council. The
objectives, very much output oriented, are available upon
request.
Program Title and Purposes
The purposes or goals of the Minnesota Statewide Educa-
tional Assessment Program (MSEAP) are
I) To provide the educational decision-makers in Minne-
sota with a program to diagnose relevant strengths and
weaknesses in Minnesota schools, and subsequently
2) To provide resources at the various levels of indicated
need for purposes of ameliorating weaknesses and
capitalizing upon the strengths within the educational
systems of the state.
The specific objectives assigned to the program are as
follows:
1) To determine the level of performance of students in
this state in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor
domains.
2) To identify the variables which account for the varia-
tions in student performance.
3) To report the results of this investigation to educational
decision-makers in the executive and legislative branches
of state government, the State Board of Education, the
Department of Education, local school administrators,
local school boards and interested citizens of the state,
providing a guide for the allocation of school resources.
4) To longitudinally report the extent to which progress is
being made in Minnesota schools toward improving
student performance within the State of Minnesota.
These purposes and objectives were presented to, and
approved by, the State Board of Education on October 4,
1971. No legislation has been mandated by the legislature
or requested by the Department. However, the Department
is requesting financial support for the program from the
legislature through its program budget,
Initiation
The idea for the program was initiated in 1971 by the Chief
State School Officer. The first pilot testing took place in
44
the spring of 1972, and the implementation of Phase I
occurred during the spring of 1973.
Policy
The Assessment Advisory Council is a 25-member body
with representation from professional educational organiza-
tions, other state agencies, higher education, non-public
education, the governor's office, the state legislature, citi-
zen groups concerned with education and representatives
from the Department of Education. With the participation
of these groups, the various audiences with which the
Department must communicate are represented to express
opinions and
identify concerns that surface
in
these
audiences.
Additionally a five-member Technical Advisory
Com-
mittee has been formed to provide technical expertise in
areas related to educational assessment, measurement and
evaluation. The membership includes public school per-
sonnel with research and evaluation responsibilities and
professors from higher education institutions with partic-
ular expertise in research and measurement.
The responsibilities of both advisory groups are limited to
general policy establishment; specific responsibilities rela-
tive to implementation remain with the Commissioner of
Education and his designees.within the Department of Edu-
cation. Each advisory group meets about once every six
weeks.
Funding
Though the state does contribute staff time, the Pilot Phase
of the program was supported by federal ESEA Title III
monies. Approximately S100,000 was spent on this phase
of the program. Implementation of Phase 1 of the program
(spring 1973) was made possible by a grant from the Hill
Family Foundation which the Department of Education is
matching with state and federal resources. Future phases of
the program are to be financed through the appropriations
requested by the department from the current legislative
session.
Administration
ESEA Title Ill personnel within the state coordinate the
program with a professional staff size of one full-time
equivalent. Reading and mathematics consultants from the
University of Minnesota and Minneapolis Public Schools
have worked with the Department on the development of
objectives and exercises. Research Triangle Institute (Rho
has conducted a comprehensive planning study on the
assessment program for the Department and also has been
contracted to implement Phase I of the program this spring.
Phase I involves the assessment of 17-year-olds and eleventh
graders in the area of reading.
Population
The target groups are defined by both age and grade level.
Students of a given age dropping behind grade level are
included, whereas dropouts are not included at this time.
Educationally mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed,
non-English speaking and physically handicapped students
and handicapped schools are excluded from the program.
Samples are then drawn from the target population. Partici-
pation is voluntary, with 100 percent cooperation to date.
Last year the pilot reading and mathematics instruments
and an attitudes survey were administered to a five percent
sample of third- and sixth-grade classrooms across the state.
Participation was not confined to communities with special
characteristics. Phase I of the assessment program includes
approximately 232 secondary schools and 5,100 students.
Areas Assessed
In the Pilot Phase the cognitive areas of reading and
mathematics and the general noncognitive area of attitudes
were assessed. The attitudinal assessment included the fol-
lowing areas:
1) Attitude Toward Mathematics
2) Attitude Toward Reading
3) Attitude Toward School
4) Attitude Toward School Achievement
5) Attitude Toward Self and Others
6) School Atmosphere Index
7) Environmental-Ecological Attitudes
8) Citizenship
9) Careers and the World of Work
In the future, Minnesota will assess the cognitive areas
measured by the National Assessment Program and, addi-
tionally, the areas of health and physical education. In the
noncognitive domain, Minnesota will test attitudes (toward
subject areas, school, careers, etc.), citizenship and hope-
fully interests, personal values and self-concept.
Phase I of the program is confined to the areas of reading,
to be followed by mathematics and social studies.
Instrumentation
The reading and mathematics exercises used in the Pilot
Phase were tailor-made by consultants from the University
of Minnesota and Minneapolis Public Schools. Phase I of
the assessment program involves released exercises from the
National Assessment Program and Minnesota-developed
exercises. National Assessment Program exercises account
for one-fourth 'f the total exercises, and Minnesota-
developed exercises account for three-fourths of the total.
Minnesota exercises were written by Dr. Mark Aulls, Dr. P.
David Pearson and Mr. Alan Farstrup of the University of
Minnesota. Their efforts have been coordinated with a
Statewide Reading Assessment Review Committee. Similar
procedures will be utilized in additional phases of the
assessment
program. Students are sampled to provide
reportage on the performance of 9-year-olds and fourth
graders; 13-year-olds and eighth graders; and 17-year-olds
and eleventh graders. The age levels will be used for
comparison of Minnesota results to the National Assess-
ment Program's national and regional results. Grade levels
will be used for within-state reportage. The exercises are
referenced to specific Minnesota educational objectives and
are used as group reliable measures.
MINNESOTA
Related Data
Minnesota
is collecting additional information
to help
analyze and interpret the test data. Background variables
include
sex, age, grade level, socioeconomic conditions
(home and family background), size and type of com-
munity and school financial, personnel and programmatic
characteristics.
Data Collection and Processing
Paid exercise administrators, such as the National Assess-
ment Program uses, are responsible for giving the :nv=.11-
tories and exercises. An outside contractor, Research
Triangle Institute, is responsible for processing the program
data.
Interpretation
Research Triangle Institute and the Department of Educa-
tion will be responsible for analyzing and organizing the
data. State and/or private universities, the State Education
Agency
and
outside contractors will
cooperatively be
involved with interpretation although the majority of the
responsibility will rest with the state.
Use of Data
Program results will be used for program planning, public
communication and relations, allocation of state and/or
federal funds, instructions and a comparative analysis across
regions. At this time program authority does not limit the
use of program data.
Dissemination
Reports will be prepared by the State Education Agency in
conjunction with the outside contractors and sent to the
governor, the legislature, newspapers, other states, the State
Board of Education, school
districts, schools,
teacher
organizations, ERIC and indirectly to students and parents.
State, regional and target area reports and public informa-
tion releases will be prepared.
Overview
Reactions to the program have been very positive on both
the state and local level, and it is felt that program objec-
tives are definitely being achieved. The major problem is
the uncertainty of funding.
Prospects for the Future
The program will continue and it is hoped that funding will
improve. The present
description will remain accurate
through the summer of 1973, at which time more informa-
tion
will
be available on the advanced stages of the
program.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was John W. Adams,
Director, State Educational Assessment, Department of
Education, 728 Capitol Square Building, St. Paul, Minne-
sota 55101 (telephone: 612 296. 3885).
45
MISSISSIPPI
Continuing Plan for Education in Mississippi
Goals
The Mississippi State Department of Education is in the
process of identifying statewide educational needs. A
general educational need was defined as "A lack of some-
thing requisite, desirable or useful"' in relation to public
school education. No attempt was made in this study to
identify specific learner needs.
This study was conducted on the basis that school pro-
grams should be developed in direct relation to the identi-
fied needs. In other words determining needs should be the
first step in comprehensive planning, which was definel as
follows: Comprehensive planning is the logical process of
(1) establishing goals and priorities which are based on
given evidences of needs, (2) writing specifically stated
objectives for achieving each goal after developing and com-
municating strategies and techniques, (3) implementing the
plan in consideration of diversified resources such as cate-
gorical aid programs and varying levels of manpower quan-
tities and skills, (4) evaluating the results of the plan on the
basis of the stated objectives and (5) recycling the pro-
cedure as deemed necessary as a result of the evaluation.2
Program Title and Purposes
The program title is "Continuing Plan for Education in
Mississippi." The purpose of this study was to identify
general educational needs in the public schools of Missis-
sippi. Four major sources were used to collect data for
determining those educational needs. One source was
through an Inventory of Educational Needs developed for
the purpose of seeking the opinions of selected persons to
certain items characteristic of educational programs; a
second source was through an analysis of the results of the
state testing program conducted during the 1970-71 school
year; a third source involvea an analysis of the data
compiled by the Selective Service System for Mississippi;
and a fourth source was through an analysis of the statis-
tical data collected by personnel within the State Depart-
ment of Education. Requisite for the administration of
monies from many federal programs is that a compre-
hensive needs assessment be conducted among the intended
recipients of said funds. An attempt was made through this
study to coordinate all needs assessment activities required
of state agencies within the Department of Education in
Mississippi into one major assessment activity.
Initiation
In an effort to improve public school education in Missis-
sippi, the state superintendent of education appointed a
12-member Council for Planning and Evaluation to study
educational needs and to recommend programs designed to
meet the identified needs. The initial meeting of the
Council was held on February 2, 1971, with the member-
ship of the Council representing all divisions and major pro-
46
grams within the Department of Education. The resulting
study represented a coordinated effort for systematically
and comprehensively identifying general educational needs
in Mississippi and therefore became the first phase of the
Mississippi Plan for Education.
Policy
The State Department of Education is responsible for
coordinating program policy and change.
Funding
The program is funded 100 percent by federal ESEA Title
IV, Section 402 funds with the exception of state-con-
tributed staff time.
Administration
The State Superintendent of Education and the Office of
Planning and Evaluation of the State Department of Educa-
tion are responsible for coordinating the program statewide.
Population
In the spring of the 1970-71 school year 122 school
districts participated in a state testing program. All students
in public schools in grades 5 and 8 were tested. Eighty-
seven percent of the school districts submitted the test
results from their respective districts in mean raw score
form for use on a statewide basis to the Department of
Education.
Areas Assessed
The areas of reading, mathematics, language and spelling
were assessed in spring 1971.
Instrumentation
Two instruments were involved in Mississippi's needs identi-
fication. The California Achievement Tests were admin-
istered to students in grades 5 and 8. The Inventory of
Educational Needs was sent to various educational person-
nel and laymen throughout the state.
Al though the California Achievement Tests (CAT),
CTB/McGraw-Hill yield individual results which the local
schools used, the state only received and was only con-
cerned with group results (in mean raw score form by
district). State and district norms were then compared with
national norms; however, the sample population from
which the test was normed is unlike the test population in
Mississippi. This had to be considered when drawing con-
clusions.
Selected people within Mississippi were given
the
opportunity to express their opinions about the state's
general educational needs by responding to an instrument
entitled "Inventory of Educational Needs." This instru-
ment, which contained 276 separate items, was developed
through the cooperative efforts of the members of the
Council for Planning and Evaluation. Local school super-
intendents, selected school board members, principals,
teachers, teacher aids, students and parents were given the
opportunity to provide data for the development of the
instrument. An investigation of related literature was con-
ducted. Also, each of the state departments of education
and the U.S. Office of Education were requested to send
information relating to needs assessment studies that might
have been undertaken. Additionally, deliberations were
made from each of four evaluation studies concerning
education in Mississippi. Those four studies were as follows:
"State-Wide Education Study,"3 "Improving Organization,
Accounting and Data Processing Operations," "Report of
a Management Review, "5 and "Report to the Governor."6
Through the review of literature, ideas were gained but no
procedure was found that was considered applicable to
Mississippi for determining educational needs. The instru-
ment was then pretested for the purpose of refining the
final draft and determining a reliability coefficient. The
Inventory of Educational Needs was designed to be mailed
to all superintendents, school board members and principals
in Mississippi. Selected teachers, students, parents and com-
munity leaders (presidents of all local chambers of com-
merce) in the state were also asked to respond to the
survey.
Related Data
The Selective Service records as compiled from the reports
of the local draft boards representing each county in Missis-
sippi were used as a source of data for identifying general
educational needs in Mississippi. The statistical reports
compiled within the State Department of Education and
other state agencies were used as another source of data for
identifying general educational needs. School enrollment
figures were compared with the potential enrollment figures
as indicated by the appropriate live birth figures. Dropout
rates and the holding power of the public schools were also
researched. Comparisons by type of school districts were
made for per-pupil expenditures, for average salaries of
instructional personnel and for the percent of school
revenue received from local, state and federal sources.
Data Collectiot, and Processing
The California Achievement Tests were administered to the
students on a local basis and graded by CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Because results of the California Achievement Tests were
made available by the testing company only to the partici-
pating districts, a form was necessary for collecting the
results for use on a statewide basis. A letter was prepared
with the accompanying form and mailed to the superin-
tendents of the 122 participating school districts requesting
the test results from their respective districts in mean raw
score form. After the due date of return, an appeal through
telephone contact was made directly with the superin-
tendents who had not responded. A final usable return of
achievement test results represented 106 school districts.
Interpretation
The Department of Education was responsible for ana-
lyzing, organizing and interpreting both the test data
received from the superintendents and the other program
data.
MISSOURI
Use of Data
Program data was used first to systematically identify needs
and then to establish statewide educational goals which
represents Phase II for the "Continuing Plan for Education
in Mississippi."
Dissemination
The State Department of Education has prepared a compre-
hensive program report, General Educational Needs Assess-
ment in Mississippi, which is available upon request.
Overview
Generally the program has been very favorably received;
however, it is too early to make any specific observations or
comments.
Prospects for the Future
The general educational needs assessment is only the first
step of a "Continuing Plan for Education in Mississippi."
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Jerry R. Hutchin-
son, Coordinator, Office of Planning and Evaluation, State
Department of Education, Post Office Box 771, Jackson,
Mississippi 39205 (telephone: 601 354-7328).
REFERENCE
General Educational Needs Assessment in Mississippi, 1972. State
Department of Education.
IWebster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfie ld, Massa-
chusetts: G. and C. Merriam Company, 1970), P. 565.
2Thomas Burns, BESE Regional Conference (conference held in
Washington, D.C., October 27, 1971).
3"State-Wide Education Study" (study prepared by Booz-Allen &
Hamilton Incorporated, Chicago, Illinois, 1967).
4"Improving Organization, Accounting and Data Processing Opera-
tions" (study prepared by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company,
Jackson, Mississippi, February 9, 1968).
5"Report of a Management Review" (study prepared cooperatively
by the U.S. Office of Education and the Mississippi State Depart-
ment of Education, December 1970).
6"Report to the Governor" (study prepared by the Mississippi Com-
mission on Efficiency and Economy in State Government, Decem-
ber 1969).
MISSOURI
Missouri Statewide Assessment Project
Goals
A set of statewide educational goals was adopted by the
Missouri State Board of Education. Prepared by the State
47
MISSOURI
Education Agency, the goals deal with the outcomes of
education. A copy of the goals is available on request.
Program Title and Purposes
The purposes of the program, called the Missouri Statewide
Assessment Project, are to measure the status and progress
of the students of the state toward educational goals and
objectives and to identify educational needs.
Initiation
Missouri's Assessment Project was initiated by the State
Board of Education. The present phase of development was
begun during the fall of the 1972-3 school year.
Policy
The State Board of Education, with the assistance of
advisory groups, determines the course of the program.
Funding
ESEA, Title III, and Section 402 funds have been used for
administrative costs. Other state and local funds have been
in the form of staff time. No specific state funds have been
allocated. Specific program costs have not been identified;
because of the early stage of development, the time spent
on the assessment program has not been directly charged to
the project.
Administration
A State Education Agency Steering Committee coordinates
the program under the chairmanship of the Director of
Planning and Evaluation. There has been
considerable
involvement by the professional staff of the State Depart-
ment of Education; however, the amount of staff time
spent depends on the phase of the planning or implementa-
tion that is being conducted. Outside consultants will be
involved in the development of the measurement instru-
ments, scheduled to commence in July 1973.
Population
Public schools will comprise the target population. State-
wide data only will be collected through a representative
sample of students.
Areas Assessed
The educational goals are categorized as follows:
Goal Area I. Intellectual Development
A. Communication
B. Quantitative Thinking
C. Social Processes
D. Scientific Understanding
E. Decision Making
F. Aesthetic Appreciation
Goal Area II. Physical Development
A. Growth and Maturation
B. Health
C. Recreation
Goal Area III. Social Development
A. Social and Physical Environment
48
B. Cultural Awareness
C. Government InstitutionsCitizenship
D. Avocational Pursuits
E. Concept of Self, Morality, Values
Goal Area IV. CareerDevelopment
A. Social Significance of Work
B. Occupational Exploration
C. Occupational Preparation
D. Occupational Education (Adult)
Assessment will be developed in all areas as resources and
expertise allow.
Instrumentation
The tests to be used for the Missouri Assessment Project are
not known at this time; however, previously developed
standardized tests,
criterion-referenced exercises, or
specially developed instruments that meet validity and
reliability standards will be considered. A request for
proposals for test development will be issued in the summer
of 1973.
Related Data
Statewide data on such variables as cost of instructional
programs, dropout rates, socioeconomic and teacher data
(e.g., teacher salaries, teacher education, course load, etc.)
are available through other departmental programs.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers and/or trained administrators may be
used in th, instrumentation phase. It is not known how the
data will be processed at this time, since requirements for
processing will depend on the type of measurement under-
taken.
Interpretation
Data will be reported on a statewide basis in relationship to
goal areas.
Use of Data
It is anticipated that the data may be used to determine
allocation of resources in terms of consultant assistance and
categorical aid.
Dissemination
It is anticipated that separate reports will be generated for
each unique audience (e.g., the general public and local
ck, tool personnel).
Overview
The second phase of the Assessment Project involved the
development of statewide objectives. Over 250 school
districts voluntarily participated in their development and
review.
Prospects for the Future
This program, still in its beginning stages, is dependent on
future federal and state funding.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was John F. Allan,
Urector of Planning and Evaluation, State Department of
Education, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (telephone: 314
751. 3501).
REFERENCE
Missouri State Department of Education. Educational Goals for the
State of Missouri. November 1972.
MONTANA
Coals
Montana currently is formulating a set of statewide educa-
tional goals. The formulation is a phase of the statewide
needs assessment program under sponsorship of ESEA Title
III. The goals will mainly be output in nature. A citizens'
advisory group, the Chief State School Officer, the State
Education Agency, other educational professionals and
students are now participating in the preparation of these
goals.
Program Title
The statewide needs assessment program has no separate
official title at this time. Its major purpose is to asses.
educational needs statewide in order to focus responsive
effort into areas where the needs are critical.
Initiation
The program was initiated in 1968 by the Chief State
School Officer and the ESEA Title III staff ofher office.
Policy
The Chief State School Officer and her staff interpret
requirements of federal ESEA Title Ill, set program policy
and determine how the program is conducted and what
changes are made.
Funding
The program is completely funded federally through ESEA
Title Ill. During the past year roughly $30,000 was spent.
Administration
Although the ESEA Title III staff has a role in administra-
tion, the primary responsibility for coordination of the
needs assessment rests with the State Agency's Research,
Planning, Development and Evaluation component and the
Chief State School Officer. The professional staff effort is
one and one-half full-time equivalents at the state level. At
present no outside agencies or consultants are involved.
Population
Target groups will be defined by grade, including all types
of public schools in the state. From these target grades,,
MONTANA
representative samples will be drawn from schools whose
officials agree to participtc.
Areas Assessed
Through conjecture at this point in time, the State is
planning to assess in all the behavioral domains as described
by the statewide goals. Though not yet validated by the
state population, these goals probably include some of the
following: communication skills, career education, cog-
nitive ability and the noncognitive areas of citizenship,
attitudes (for example, to school and subject matter),
interests, personal values and self-concept.
Instrumentation
The instruments have not been definedas yet.
Related Data
Age, sex and geographic area by zip code will probably be
identified in the goal-validations survey comparisons of the
eastern and western parts of the state (thought to differ in
philosophic outlook) as well as rural and urban areas.
Data Collection and Processing
At this time it is undecided who will be directly responsible
for admi-'0, ring any tests and inventories or for processing
the resultn,L data and information.
Interpretation
The Research, Planning, Development and Evaluation
omponent will be responsible for the analysis, organization
and interpretation of the data. It is undecided whether out-
side help will be solicited.
Use of Data
The primary purpose of the program is to identify and rank
educational needs. The assessed criticality of these needs
will then be a basis for program planning. Montana also will
use the results to help determine the allocation of state or
federal funds. The program data will be universally avail-
able.
Dissemination
A report will be prepared
presenting
the
planning,
processing and results of the program. It will be in the form
of a statewide summary but will include comparisons of
east vs. west and 1 .., vs. urban. Copies of the reports will
go to the State Education Agency, the State Board of
Education, school district officials and the newspapers.
Overview
Groups
representative
f* ,choolmen, teachers,
school
boards, students ' ,: ow general public have expressed
favorable opinic
.. about tare program. So far, program
objectives are be:ng avitiv,-d.
Prosper' . .41
,,. : uture
The ps,v-- . will continue as long as funds are available.
49
MONTANA
Most likely to change in the future are: policy control,
fund ng, administration and data collection. The present
description should remain accurate until the end of the
1972-73 academic year.
Individuals Interviewed
The primary sources of information were Ray Bitney,
Instrument and Analysis Specialist
for
the
Research,
Planning, Development and Evaluation component, Office
of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Capitol,
Helena, Montana 59601 (telephone: 406 449-3693) and J.
Michael Pichette, Reporting Services Coordinator, Re-
search, Planning, Development Evaluation, Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Capitol, Helena,
Montana 59601 (telephone: 406 449-3693).
NEBRASKA
Nebraska State Assessment Program
Goals
A formal set of goals for Nebraskan education has been
prepared, covering student achievement and educator,
citizen and institutional responsibility. These goals were
prepared by citizens, including students, educators and
laymen from the entire state, and have been formally
adopted by the State Board of Education. They represent a
combination of input, process and output. The goals are
available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The official name of this program is the Nebraska State
Assessment Program. Its major purposes are to assess cog-
nitive development, assess educational needs, assess non-
cognitive development and measure influences on learning
(a future development).
Initiation
The program began as a result of a legislative mandate
passed in the latter part of 1969. Program development has
'wen ongoing for the past two years, and the first statewide
test administration was scheduled for March and April of
1973.
Policy
Program policy
and Evaluation
program policy
gram.
is determined by the Research, Planning
Division. The state legislature influences
within the limitations of funding the pro-
Funding
State funds are appropriated and designated State Assess-
ment Program Funds by ,:.e state legislature. Roughly
$5,000 was spent on State Assessment in 1972.
50
Administration
The Research, Planning and Evaluation Division coordinates
the program statewide, with two full-time professionals at
the
state level. Houghton M alin Company has been
involved with the state as a consultant in program develop-
ment.
Population
The student group being assessed in 1973 consists of a
random sample drawn from the target population of public
school students in grades 4, 5 and 6. Educable mentally
retarded, emotionally disturbed, school dropouts and non-
English speaking students are excluded from the study;
parochial and private schools are also excluded from the
pilot study. Vocational-technical schools and students will
not be included in the first assessment, but will be included
in future assessments. School participation is voluntary, and
community size is used as a basis for selection.
Areas Assessed
Mathematics and reading are being assessed in the cognitive
areas, and self-concept as a learner and attitudes toward
school are being assessed in the noncognitive areas. Voca-
tional awareness tests are planned for future assessments.
Instrumentation
MI test instruments being used in the Assessment Program
were tailor-made for the program by the outside con-
sultants. The instruments are "mini tests," each with an
objective, instructions and five-to-ten exercises. After the
system is working, schools will be able to tailor some parts
of their testing programs with these instruments. Appro-
priate measures have been designed for each target area and
grade with the aid of concept sampling. These measures are
described as criterion-referenced measures, and they will be
used for individual reliability.
Related Data
Sex and age of the students tested will be collected to help
analyze program data.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers will administer the tests. The outside
contractor will process all program data.
Interpretation
The outside contractor in conjunction with the Research,
Plaaning and Evaluation Division will organize, analyze and
interpret program data.
Use of Data
Program results will be used for curriculum development
and to determine the best areas of allocation of state
resources. Program authority does not restrict the use of
program data.
Dissemination
Program revrts will be prepared as a coordinated effort by
the Research, Planning and Evaluation Division and the out-
side contractor. The types of reports which will be prepared
have not yet been determined, although copies of these
reports will probably be sent to the legislature, the general
public, state educators and teachers colleges. The basis of
these reports will be the attainment of objectives.
Overview
The program is viewed favorably statewide. Program objec-
es are being achieved despite the limitation of appro-
In Cations.
Prospects for the Future
The Nebraska State Assessment Program probably will
continue through 1976. Discontinuance of the program
would only occur as a result of political changes or non-
appropi iation of funds.
Individual Interviewed
The main source of information was Joseph Mara, State
Consultant to the Research Planning and Evaluation Divi-
sion of the Nebraska State Department of Education, 233
South 10th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 (telephone:
402 471-2531).
REFERENCE
Educational Goals Statements for Nebraskans, Nebraska
State
Department of Education.
NEVADA
Nevada Needs Assessment Program (NNAP)
Goals
Nevada has prepared a formal set of statewide educational
goals which are available on request. The 10 main goal areas
are fostering creativity, vocational productivity, continuing
education, intergroup acceptance, motivation to learn,
citizenship and social competence, self-understanding and
acceptance, mastery of basic skills, physical and emotional
health and intellectual development. The goals were
originally developed by the Far West Regional Educational
Laboratory, then located in Berkeley, California. The State
Department of Education took
the goals and slightly
modified them to suit its purposes. The goals have been
formally adopted by the State Department of Education
and are basically output in nait 'e.
Program Title and Purposes
The official title of the program is the Nevada Needs Assess-
ment Program. NNAP's major purposes are to assess cog-
nitive and noncognitive development, measure growth,
provide data for a management information system and
assess learner needs (cognitive, affective and psychomotor).
NEVADA
Initiation
The program was initiated by the State Department of
Education in the spring of 1971. Six months later the first
pretest was administered.
Policy
Program changes and policy are jointly determined by
representatives of school systems and the State Department
of Education.
Funding
The program is entirely federally funded. The main source
is ESEA Title III although ESEA Title I and ESEA Title IV
Section 402 funds are also used. Last year the program cost
approximately $25,000.
Administration
The Division of Planning and Evaluation in the State
Department of Educaticri ;-. responsible for coordinating
the program statewide. The state has four full-time profes-
sional employees involved
in state assessment. Some
counties also have employees in jobs related to assessment..
Nevada has contracted outside agencies for help in scoring
and summarizing data. During the 1971-72 academic year
they used Evaluative Programs for Innovative Curriculum
(EPIC) in Tucson, Arizona; in 1972-73 they are using
Central Data Processing, a state agency.
Population
During the 1971-72 year the target group consisted of grade
3 students; however, :luring the 1972-73 school year grade
4 is included as well. Educationally mentally retarded and
emotionally disturbed students are excluded as are schools
for the delinquent and handicapped. Parochial and private
schools are also excluded. From the target population, a
sample of 4,500 students was drawn. Although participa-
tion was not required, 92 percent of the students parti-
cipated. Some community characteristics were considered
in selection.
Areas Assessed
Reading and mathematics are being assessed in the cognitive
areas. Self-appraisal and school sentiment are being assessed
II the noncognitive area.
Instrumentation
The Comprehensive Test of oasic Skills (CTBS) is used to
test the cognitive areas of reading and mathematics. In the
affective areas, Nevada adapted the School Sentiment
Index-Primary Level and the Self-Appraisal Inventory-
Pismary Level from the Instructional Objectives -;xchange
(I0X) in Los Angeles. Item sampling was not used in
adapting the inventories. The affective instruments are
criterion-referenced in the sense that an objective is formu-
lated, then measures are devised to assess the objective's
attainment. The emphasis, however, has been more on
obtaining baseline affective data and obtaining group-
reliable data. The CTBS was chosen by a group of teachers
at workshops for that purpose in the spring of 1971.
51
NEVADA
Related Data
School name, school size, sex, racial/ethnic information and
geographical designations are taken into consideration to
help analyze and interpret the data.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers are responsible for giving the CTBS. The
affective tests are given by nonschool personnel, usually
either parents or teacher aids from another school. (IOX
felt that administration by school personnel could con-
taminate the results since some questions refer to the
teacher, principal, et al.) Outside contractors, last year
EPIC and this year Central Data Processing, are responsible
for scoring and summarizing the data.
Interpretation
The State Department of Education is responsible for
analyzing, organizing and interpreting the data.
Use of Data
The results of the program are primarily used for instruc-
tional guidance and to some extent for determining learner
needs for program development. The program authority
prohibits release of interdistrict or individual affective data.
Dissemination
Reports prepared by the State Department of Education
are summarized by state, region, school, classroom, student
(cognitive only) and ethnic group. The statewide reports are
then disseminated by the State Department of Education to
other states, the State Board of Education, school districts,
schools, teachers and newspapers. The state does not release
individual, class, school or district data except to the indi-
vidual, class, school or district concerned.
Overview
In general, local school administrators, teachers and the
general public view the program favorably whereas the
State Department of Education and the State Board of
Education view the program very favorably. Cognitive pro-
gram objectives are being achieved very well. A major
problem has been teacher apprehension over how the pro-
gram results are to be used.
Prospects for the Future
The program will continue with the current description
remaining accurate until the fall of 1973. Changes can be
expected in objectives, target population (in 1973-74 the
target population will be grades 3, 5 and 7), areas assessed,
measuring instruments, data collection and use of data.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was R.H. Mathers,
Consultant, Assessment and Evaluation, Heroes Memorial
Building, State Department of Education, Carson City,
Nevada 89701 (telephone: 702 882-7111).
52
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Goals
New Hampshire does not yet have a formal set of statewide
educational goals. In its 1970 Biennial Report, the State
Department of Education issued a list of 12 present and
future goals; another report is presently being prepared
and will contain a composite list of goals from the various
divisions. Since management by objectives is employed
within the department, clearer goals will soon be stated. In
the 1970 Biennial Report, goals involve a combination of
the input, process and output of education. All elementary
schools are now required to develop goals. A current educa-
tional needs assessment study ultimate will develop a set of
statewide goals.
Program Title and Purposes
The present assessment program has no title. Its major
purpose is to assess educational needs, with assessment of
cognitive development and establishment of statewide and
local goals as additional purposes. The State Department of
Education Report of New Hampshire Educational Needs
Assessment for January-June 1972 presents sets of needs
for the learner, the staff and the system, followed by a rank
listing of 16 critical educational needs.
Initiation
New Hampshire assessment was initiated mainly by the
State Education Agency using federal funds. The State
Board of Education and the Commissioner of Education
also contributed to its development. Testing began in 1953.
Lack of funds precluded state support for testing for
1972-73 and may prevent future State Department support..
Policy
The following groups have been involved in policy-making:
the 2ommissioner of Education, the State Board of Educa-
tion and the State Education Agency.
Funding
Both federal and local funds have been utilized in covering
program expenses. Local funds provided 60 percent of the
expenses; the remaining 40 percent came from federal
monies from ESEA Title I, ESEA Title III, NDEA V-A,
Vocational Education Acts and Aid to the Handicapped.
No state funds have been used directly. Last year, local
education agencies tested 40,000 students and were reim-
bursed $ 25,000.
Total program costs were roughly
$65,000.
Administration
Statewide coordination of the program has been in the
hands of till Director of Testing and Research of the Divi-
sion of Instruction, assisted by personnel from the Planning
and Evaluation Unit.
Population
Target groups were defined by grades 4, 6, 8 and 10 and do
not include dropouts. Each school decided when to partici-
pate and whether or not to exclude students because of
unusual mental, emotional, physical or social situations. No
particular type of school was excluded from the program,
although most private schools did not participate. In some
areas private schools serve as local public schools, and in
these cases they were included. Participation was voluntary.
Last year, about 85 percent of the eligible schools were
included. Communities with special characteristics were not
given special attention.
Areas Assessed
In
the
cognitive domain, mathematics, reading, social
studies and science have been assessed. Except for a career
knowledge questionnaire, no measures have been used to
assess the noncognitive areas.
Instrumentation
None of the tests previously used was tailor-made for the
program; none was criterion-referenced or used as a group-
reliable measure. The State Education Agency and an
Advisory Committee, of which Walter Durost was a
member, selected the Stanford Achievement Test Battery,
the Otis-Lennon Tests of Mental Ability and the School and
College Ability Test. In 1970-71, all students in grades 4, 6,
8 and
10, including parochial schools, were given the
achievement battery and an ability test. In 1971.72, each
school was allowed to choose date, grade level and test to
be administered for grades 8 and below. Testing procedures
for grade 10 remained the same. In 1972-73, no reimburse-
ment was provided by the state.
Related Data
Additional information
analyze the data.
on age was collected to help
Data Collection and Processing
Various unidentified groups had the responsibility of
administering the tests in the schools. Local school districts
and
the
State Education Agency then processed the
information obtained. Some scoring was done through
services available at the University of New Hampshire.
Interpretation
Local school districts and the State Education Agency were
responsible for analyzing, organizing and inte:reting the
data.
Use of Data
Program results have been used primarily at the local level
by the local education agencies. No legal restrictions were
placed on use of the data.
Dissemination
The State Education Agency prepared various reports of
the results of the assessment program. State summaries,
NEW JERSEY
school summaries, and student reports were compiled and
made available to schools, students, parents, school districts
and the State Agency.
Overview
Official group reactions to the program are not available.
On the basis of individual reactions, however, one can say
that the program has been viewed most favorably by the
State Education Agency and by the various local boards of
education. The governor and local school administrators are
not quite as enthusiastic; the legislature, the teachers and
students and the general public are somewhat less favorable
in their opinions. Objectives have not been achieved too
well due to problems with funding, data processing, and
uses on the state and local levels.
Prospects for the Future
The program is not likely to continue, primarily because of
lack of funds. If changes are made, they are likely to occur
with respect to funding, areas assessed and measuring
instruments used.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was H. Stuart Pickard,
Director of Planning and Evaluation, Commissioner's
Office, State Department of Education, State House
Annex, Concord, New Hampshire 03301 (telephone: 603
271-2340).
NEW JERSEY
New Jersey Educational Assessment Program
Introduction
New Jersey has two programs relating to state educational
assessment, the New Jersey Educational Assessment Pro-
gram and the "Our Schools" Project. The programs parallel
each other and are constantly coordinated.
Goals
A formal set of statewide educational goals has been
adopted by the State Board of Education. These goals
concern both educational output arid process. A citizens'
advisory group, the Chief State School Officer, the gov-
ernor, outside contractors, the State Board of Education,
the State Education Agency, students, school
board
members, teachers, parents and business and community
leaders were all involved in the determination of the goals.
The current set of goals is available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
Officially named the New Jersey Educational Assessment
Program, its major purpose is to provide information useful
to the development of programs and thrusts designed to
53
NEW JERSEY
move education closer to attainment of the state goals. The
goals
include assessing student
achievement, assessing
educational needs, measuring growth and influences on
learning and providing data for educational management.
initiation
The New Jersey Educational Assessment Program was
initiated by the State Board of Education and supported by
the governor's office, the state legislature and the Chief
State School Officer. Approximately three years have
elapsed between initiation of the program and its present
stage of development.
Policy
The State Department of Education primarily determines
how the program will be ,:rond.:cted, with citizens' advisory
groups, the Chief State School Officer, the governor's
office, the State Board of Education, teachers and admin-
istrators and local boards of education throughout the state
suggesting possible program modifications.
Funding
The program is totally supported by state funds; program
costs last year were approximately 5300,000.
Administration
The state's Office of Educational Assessment, with a cur-
rent staff size of four full-time individuals, coordinates the
program statewide. Educational Testing Service. Princeton,
New Jersey, was involved in constructing, administering and
scoring the tests.
Population
All schools are required to participate in the program
except for delinquent, handicapped, parochial and private
schools. All public school students in grades 4 and 12 (with
the exception of educationally mentally retarded. emo-
tionally disturbed, non-Englr.h speaking, dropouts and
physically handicapped students) were assessed.
Areas Assessed
Mathematics and reading were assessed in the cognitive
area.
Instrumentation
Tailor-made achievement tests were developed by Educa-
tional Testing Service, the State Department of Education
and various state teacher committees.
Related Data
Information on age, cost of instructional programs, dropout
rates, paraprofessionals or teacher aides, percent minority,
previous course work, racial/ethnic data, school name and
size, sex, socioeconomic and teacher data is collected to
help analyze the test data.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers, guidance counselors and school admin-
istrative staff (under the direction of a district coordinator)
54
are responsible for giving the tests. The State Department
of Education and Educational Testing Service process the
information obtained from the assessment instruments.
Interpretation
Local schools and school districts, with the aid of the State
Department of Education, organize, analyze and interpret
the data.
Use of Data
The results of the program will be used to assist the State
Board of Education in the allocation of existing resources,
to provide information to local districts which can be used
to suggest and/or modify courses of instruction, to identify
exemplary programs, for guidance and for program evalua-
tion and planning. State Board of Education policy requires
that all data, except for information related to individual
students or teachers, be released to the public. Program
data will not be released without proper interpretive mate-
rials which must be developed by each educational level to
which information will be provided.
Dissemination
The State Department of Education prepares interpreted
state, regional, district type and county reports. Local
educators prepare interpreted school system and individual
school reports for public dissemination. These reports are
available to the State Department of Education, the gov-
ernor, the legislature, newspapers, other states, the State
Board of Education, school districts, schools, students.
parents, teacher organizations and the general public.
Overview
The program is viewed favorably by most state officials,
local school board members, local school administrators,
teachers, students and the general public. Some opposition
from the New Jersey Education Association is seen as the
one major problem related to the program.
Prospects for the Future
The program will continue, with probable modifications in
target population, areas assessed, measuring instruments,
data collection and processing, Interpretation and use of
data and dissemination procedures.
NEW JERSEY
The "Our Schools" Project
Goals
A formal set of statewide goals based on information
derived from the participation of 6,000 people, including
students, local school board members, teachers. parents and
business and community leaders through two years of
various activities was formally adopted by the State Board
of Education. The goals deal with educational output and
process factors.
Program Title and Purposes
The purposes of the program, officially titled The "Our
Schools"/Needs Assessment Project, are to set and con-
tinually reassess statewide educational goals, assess state-
wide status in relation to the goals, identify educational
needs, determine influences
on
learning and growth,
provide data for current educational management on the
state level, including the instigation of the development of
programs to address identified needs.
Initiation
The State Board of Education with support from the gov-
ernor's office, State Department of Education and the
Chief State School Officer initiated the idea for this pro-
gram. Approximately three years have elapsed between
initiation and the present stage of development.
Policy
A citizens' advisory group, the State Board of Education,
the Chief State School Officer and the State Department of
Education determine how the program will be conducted
and what changes will be made in the nature of the
program.
Funding
The program expenses are totally supported by federal
funds from ESEA Title III. The salaries of one and one-
third full-time staff members are funded by departmental
appropriations of state funds. The program cost was
approximately S25,000 in 1972.
Administration
The Office of Planning coordinates the program statewide
with a full-time professional complement of three. Educa-
tional Testing Service aided in the development of instru-
ments, while Opinion Research Corporation conducted
a
statewide public opinion survey for the program.
Population
All students in all levels of public education in the state
(with the exception of higher education) are included in the
"Our Schools" program, including dropouts and adult and
continuing education students. Participation in the program
is voluntary, and nearly all school systems have participated
in some manner.
Areas Assessed
All cognitive and noncognitive areas of the educational
goals established by the state will be assessed in some
manner. Examples of some of these areas are: mathematics,
reading, social science, personal values, self-concept and
natural sciences.
NEW JERSEY
Instrumentation
Achievement tests coverning basic skills in reading and
mathematics were used for the initial target area. Other
methods of assessment, including special sampling tech-
niques, observations and oral and written surveys, are being
considered to provide statewide summary information rele-
vant to other goals.
Data Collection and Processing
Data will be collected by an assortment of methods,
dependent upon the nature of the goal statement under
consideration. The State Department of Education and out-
side contractors are responsible for processing the informa-
tion obtained from the program.
Interpretation
The State Department of Education is responsible for
analyzing, organizing and interpreting the data on the state
level. Local school districts are encouraged to utilize project
models and information.
Use of Data
Results of the program will be used in allocation of existing
educational resources by the State Board of Education and
the Department of Education in such areas as budgeting
analysis of needs and priorities, identification of exemplary
programs, program evaluation and program planning and
public information.
Dissemination
Summaries and public information pieces have been pre-
pared for the program by the State Department of Educa-
tion. Copies of these reports are sent to the governor, the
legislature, newspapers, other states, the State Board of
Education, school districts, schools, students, parents and
teacher organizations and are available to the public at
large.
Overview
The program is viewed very favorably by the governor. the
legislature, the State Department of Education and Board
of Education. Other groups generally view the program
with favor, including local school districts, administrators
and teachers, students and the general public. On the whole
the "Our Schools" program is achieving its objectives. The
major problem seen facing this program is the necessity of
bringing together representatives from across the state at
regular intervals.
Prospects for the Future
The program is likely to continue with modifications and
new directions in the areas of target population, areas
assessed, measurement instruments, data collection and
processing procedures and use of data.
Individuals Interviewed
The primary sources of information were Gordon Ascher,
Director of the Educational Assessment Program (tele-
55
NEW JERSEY
phone: 609 292-7983) and Glenn H. Tecker, Assistant
Educational Planner (telephone: 609 292-7600). Their
address
is
Research, Planning and Evaluation Bureau,
Department of Education, 225 West State Street, Trenton,
New Jersey 08625.
NEW MEXICO
New Mexico Evaluation Program
Goals
A formal set of 11 statewide educational goals has been
prepared by the State of New Mexico. The goals, a combi-
nation of input, process and output, were derived through
the participation of citizens' advisory groups, the Chief
State School Officer, the legislature, the State Education
Agency and students. Though not formally adopted by the
state they are available on request.
Program Title and Purposes
The official title of the program is the New Mexico Evalua-
tion Program. The major purposes are assessing cognitive
and noncognitive development, assessing educational needs,
measuring growth and influences on learning and, though in
its formative stage, providing data for a management
information system and a planning-programming-budgeting
system leading to formalized statewide educational goals.
Initiation
The program was initiated by the State Education Agency
in early 1971. The first standardized tests administered on a
statewide basis were given in 1970. The first series of field
tests for the objective-based testing occurred in 1972.
Policy
The Chief State School Officer, the State Board of Educa-
tion and a citizens' advisory group, under the direction of
the Director of Evaluation of the State Education Agency,
determine how the program is conducted and what changes
will be made.
Funding
Federal ESEA Title III and ESEA Title I monies finance
about 33 percent of the program expenses, and local school
districts finance the remainder. (Local costs include scoring
services and test materials.) Total cost of the program last
year was approximately $160,000.
Administration
The State Department of Education, in conjunction with
the district superintendents, local boards and committees,
coordinates the program statewide. The local :ommittees
are composed of students, teachers, administrators and
community representatives. Five state professbnals imple-
56
ment the evaluation design for the state. A state committee
of counselors, psychologists, school administrators and
others acts in an advisory capacity to the State Department
Evaluation group. The State Department of Education is
assisted by the staff of Educational Evaluation Associates in
Los Angeles, California, in validating instrumentation,
checking out procedures and auditing. This agency also
serves as a liaison between the State Department and the
legislature.
Population
All students in grades 1, 5 and 8 from public, parochial,
private and vocational/technical schools are
assessed
utilizing standardized tests. Students in Title I programs
(preschool) and dropouts are included; however, students
from schools for the delinquent and the handicapped are
excluded. No delinquent, educationally mentally retarded
and emotionally disturbed students are assessed. All eligible
schools were included in the assessment last year. Objec-
tive-based tests are administered to all students at grades 6,
9 and 12 in public schools statewide.
Areas Assessed
In
the cognitive area, aptitude, English, mathematics,
natural science, reading, social science and career education
are assessed. In the noncognitive area, attitudes toward
teachers, other children and the community are assessed.
Instrumentation
Standardized tests selected by the State Education Agency
and committees were the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test
and the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. Though the
tests yield individually reliable results, they are used only as
group-reliable measures by the state. Locally constructed
instruments were developed by the State Education
Agency, state professionals and the staff of Educational
Evaluation Associates. As of 1973.40 short objective-based
tests had been constructed and field tested. Eventually,
measures will be developed for each objective in the state's
cognitive skills objective bank.
Related Data
Additional information collected to help analyze or inter-
pret the data included cost of instructional programs, trans-
portation costs, area density, dropout rates, attendance
figure
rates, percent of minority groups, racial/ethnic
balances, school size, sex, socioeconomic data and teacher
data (salaries, education, course loads, and so on).
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers are responsible for administering the
tests. The State Education Agency in conjunction with
Educational Evaluation Associates processes the program
data.
Interpretation of Data
The State Education Agency and outside
contractors
analyze, organize and interpret the program data.
Use of Data
The results of the program are primarily used for instruc-
tion, comparative analyses across schools, identification of
exemplary programs, guidance, program evaluation,, pro-
gram planning and community relations. A five-year limit
on the use of the data has been established by the State
Board of Education; however, this restriction has not yet
been put into effect. Test results distributed to school
districts and personalized reports to students hopefully will
assist the local level administrators in improving the quality
of their curriculum.
Dissemination
Reports of the program results are prepared by the State
Education Agency. These include: state summaries, school
system summaries, school summaries, student reports and
public information pieces. The reports are issued directly to
the State Education Agency, governor, legislature, State
Board of Education, schools, school districts, teacher organ-
izations and ERIC. State coordinators in each district
receive a copy of all monographs. Students receive a copy
of their scores through their schools. Standard reports to
parents
relative
to the students' performance on the
standardized testing may be furnished although this is an
option left to the local educational agency.
Overview
The governor, legislature and State Education Agency have
reacted very favorably to the program. Boards of education,
local school administrators, teachers, students and the
general public show a generally favorable attitude. Program
objectives are being achieved, but synthesizing and dis-
tributing information to the state's 300,000 students and
18,000 teachers in a lucid manner is the chief communica-
tion problem.
Prospects for the Future
The program is projected to continue. Areas assessed will be
changed and measuring instruments are being reviewed in
order to facilitate data collection, the use of data and
dissemination of materials. These areas are expected to
improve as the program progresses into its third, fourth and
fifth years. Information derived in the statewide evaluation
effort will be utilized in conjunction with other informa-
tion to formulate the basis for school accreditation.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Alan Morgan, State
Director, Evaluation and Assessment, State Department of
Education, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 (telephone: 505
827-2928).
NEW YORK
Introduction
The New York State Assessment and Evaluation System is
made up of the following components:
I. PEP (Pupil Evaluation Program) and
2: the Regents Examinations, criterion measures of quality
and essentially norm-referenced tests;
3. SPPED (System for Pupil and Program Evaluation and
Development), a resource for instructional program
development, which includes a new developing system
known as CAM (Comprehensive Achievement Moni-
toring);
4. PIE (Performance Indicators in Education), in a sense a
delivery system of information, which provides measures
of school effectiveness, and uses output from-BEDS;
5. BEDS (Basic Educational Data System), the statewide
information system, which will be extended this year to
include a student file (information is currently based on
teachers and their programs, finances and buildings);
6. NYSEIS (New York State Education Information
System), a statewide plan for 12-13 regional data pro-
cessing centers. (These centers will facilitate the trans-
mission of information by the schools, districts and
regions to the State Education Department for statewide
analysis.)
In the future, the State Education Department plans to
assist
local
school
administrators
in
interpreting the
information relayed back to them. The Education Depart-
ment also plans the construction of a simulation model, by
which local administrators could test policies, that is,
personnel, use of technology, educational aid and so on.
Detailed individual program descriptions follow.
Goals
The Education Department is in the process of preparing a
formal statement of educational goals, encompassing all
testing programs and information banks in the state assess-
ment system. Plans called for the completion of the first
draft by January 1973 and the presentation of the goals to
the Board of Regents for approval. This draft is not the
final version, however; the goals will be submitted for state-
wide discussion before an amendment is adopted.
New York has also been involved in a two-year statewide
commission on the cost, quality and financing of education,
which has been chaired by Manley Fleischman. The recom-
mendations of the Commission, known as the "Fleischman
Report," may affect future assessment plans in New York.
This report emphasizes the need for establishing a statewide
accountability system, involving all programs (see above)
and the Office of Long-Range Planning, which would be
incorporated into the statewide operating package.
First, the report recommends that accountability be
centered on achievement at the building level, with annual
reports to be sent to the districts, the Education Depart-
57
NEW YORK
ment and to be made available to parents. The annual
reports should be based on pupil achievement by grade,
including the measures or any standardized tests in dif-
ferent fields that are involved.
Second, the report recommends that a Statewide Testing
Program be initiated at specified grade levels through
secondary schools, emphasizing the CORE skills, that is,
English composition, reading and mathematics. This testing
program would eliminate Regents Exams in the high
schools and substitute nationally normed achievement tests
such as the National Assessment or College Board Examina-
tions. Throughout the report, "regionalization" is empha-
sized: regional achievement, report preparation, regional
data processing and so on. Suggested also is the transferral
of PIE and the delivery system to the regional level so that
operations would be conducted in a regional-local sense
rather than an Education Department-centered sense.
The report further recommends that school achievement
accountability be coepled with fiscal accountability in
standardized budgeting and auditing procedures; this
system would be established by the Education Department.
The achievement and fiscal accountability would have as a
basic link the statewide comprehensive information systems
to provide facts for long-range planning evaluation and
enforcement of state mandates.
Pupil Evaluation Program (PEP)
Title and Purpose
The official program title is the New York State Pupil
Evaluation Program. Its major purpose is to provide a
single, uniform set of statewide test data that will identify
educationally disadvantaged students and give an objective
picture of the reading and mathematics achievement of
these students.
Initiation
PEP was established by the State Education Department in
the fall of 1965 after enactment of ESEA Title I.
Program Policy
The State Education Department determines how the
program is conducted, with advice and assistance from local
school districts.
Funding
PEP is financed almost entirely by federal funds, ESEA
Title I; state funds are utilized for overhead costs (office
space and so on). Last year the program cost approximately
S250,000.
Administration
The Division of Educational Testing of the State Education
Department coordinates the program statewide. Three pro-
fessional staff members devote full time to PEP and related
test advisory services.
58
Population
The target group consists of all students in grades 3,6 and
9. PEP is an every-pupil testing program; however, severly
mentally, physically or emotionally handicapped children
are not required to participate. (Non-English. speaking stu-
dents may be excused, but their scores must be entered as
zero.) All schools, public and nonpublic, are required to
participate.
Target Areas
Reading and mathematics achievement in grades 3,6 and 9
are the target areas.
Instrumentation
The PEP tests are standardized survey tests in mathematics
and reading developed by the State Education Department
with the aid of teacher committees. All instruments were
carefully
pretested, and
all are used as group-reliable
measures.
Related Data
Additional information collected to help analyze and
interpret the data includes size and type of school and type
of community (large or small cities, rural areas and village-
suburban areas). Most of this information is used to create
multiple reference groups for the program.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers are responsible for administering the
tests. The local school or district personnel score the tests,
prepare distributions of part and total scores by school
building and then send this distribution to the State Educa-
tion Department on machine-readable forms.
Interpretation
The State Education Department analyzes and summarizes
the distributions of raw scores provided by the schools into
individual school building reports. These reports provide
percentile ranks of median scores and cumulative percents
of pupils in nine levels of achievement (stanines). The
reports
also
contain
similar
information
for
relevant
reference groups of pupils, including all pupils in the school
district. School building and school district administrators
receive copies of the reports for the pupils in their schools,
and copies are kept on file in the Department.
Use of Data
The results of PEP are used for allocating state and federal
funds, budgeting,
instructional
planning,
comparative
analyses across schools, research (identification of exem-
plary programs), program evaluation, program planning and
other accountability purposes.
Dissemination
State summaries are prepared by the State Education
Department. These reports are available to the governor,
the legislature, newspapers, teacher organizations and the
public.
Overview
The program appears to be achieving the objectives for
which it was established. A major problem has been the
tendency among some groups, lacking technical back-
ground, to use the test results in isolation as a measure of
the quality of the educational program.
Prospects for the Future
PEP will probably continue for the near future, and the
above description will remain accurate for two or three
years.
Regents Examination Program
Title and Purpose
The official program title is Regents Examination Program.
Its major purposes are (1) to evaluate achievement and
progress, (2) to establish and maintain standards, (3) to
provide supervisory tools for improving instruction and (4)
to serve a guidance function.
Initiation
The first examinations were administered in 1865. The
State Education Department oversees the program and has
made many changes in it since that time to keep it abreast
of changes in education. All public high schools are re-
quired to make "general use" of the examinations in order
to be eligible for state aid.
Program Policy
Program policy is determined by the State Education
Department and the Board of Regents with the advice and
help of representatives of local school systems.
Funding
In fiscal year 1972, the program was supported by 60 per-
cent state monies. and 40 percent federal funds, ESEA Title
III. The total cost was about $500,000.
Administration
The Division of Educational Testing of the State Education
Department coordinates and administers the program state-
wide. The validity of the tests and appropriate interpreta-
tion and use of the results, however, is a joint responsibility
shared with the subject specialists in the Division of General
Education. Approximately
25 Department professional
staff members provide about 12 full-time equivalent man-
years of work on the program each year.
Population
The target groups are defined by the courses of study. All
students in grades 9-12 who take Regents courses of study,
which are designed for pupils of average and above average
ability, are expected to take Regents examinations in those
courses. Other students may also take Regents examina
tions with the approval of the high school principal.
NEW YORK
Areas Assessed
Examinations are provided in 21 subject areas within the
cognitive areas of English, foreign languages, mathematics,
natural science, social science and business.
Instrumentation
The examinations vary from end-of-year tests, as in mathe-
matics and natural sciences, to comprehensive examinations
encompassing learning objectives of several years of instruc-
tion, as in English and social sciences. Both essay and
objective-type questions are used. The examinations are
prepared by the State Education Department with the
assistance of hundreds of teachers each year who serve as
item writing and examination review consultants and as
members of committees preparing the final examinations.
All questions are carefully checked against course objec-
tives, and all objective questions are pretested. Entirely new
examinations are prepared for each of three administration
periods each year (January, June and August), and the dif-
ficulty level of each new examination is carefully controlled
to match that of previous examinations.
Related Data
The Department collects information concerning Regents
course enrollments and percent passing each examination.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers administer and score the examinations
under the supervision of the high school principal in
accordance with
directions
provided
in
adminisration
manuals and rating guides provided by the Department. The
Department reviews a random sample of papers in each
subject to verify maintenance of rating standards.
Interpretation
The passing score on each examination is 65 percent.
Normative data is also prepared for all pupils writing each
examination.
Use of Data
The results of Regents examinations are used for instruc-
tional planning, guidance, program evaluation and public
information. Regents examination scores are placed on
students' school records aad transcripts. The extent to
which the marks are used to determine local grades is
optional with schools. The scores are also used by students
to earn a state high school diploma or a state endorsement
on the local school diploma.
Dissemination
Statistical summaries are prepared and disseminated to
school districts, individual schools and teachers. The reports
are also available to the public. Pupils, of course, are pro-
vided with their test scores.
Overview
The program is considered to be achieving its objectives.
There is some criticism of overemphasis on Regents marks.
59
NEW YORK
Another criticism is that not all students are involved. The
program is likely to continue, with the above description
remaining accurate for at least 4 to 5 years.
System for Pupil and Program Evaluation
and Development (SPPED)
Introduction
There are three major parts of the SPPED project: ( I ) a
bank of behavioral objectives, test items and instructional
resources known as BOIR; (2) a computer-based evaluation
system employing Comprehensive Achievement Monitoring
(CAM); and (3) sets of planning and training materials that
support system implementation. The BOIR is a state
developed and maintained computerized storage and
retrieval system which, when complete. will provide school
personnel with objectives, test items, learning resources and
past
;hievement data. The information will assist with cur-
riculum development, test construction and instructional
program development.
The BOIR is objective-based in that both the test items
presently in it and the items which will be added to it will
be cross-coded to particular objectives. Plans call for the
addition of an instructional resources component which
will be coded to particular objectives. This means that once
an objective is selected for use, test items and lists of
instructional resources related to that objective can be pro-
vided. The objectives within the bank are all behavioral and
of various types ranging from terminal behavioral, suitable
for defining the end-parts of an instructional program, to
objectives designed to meet day-to-day instructional needs.
Test Items in the bank also vary from fill-in to multiple-
choice measures. As the bank is expanded, observation
measures requiring more extensive written responses will be
included along with the test items. The instructional re-
sources part of the bank is designed to hold entries of all
kinds of resources that could be used to provide instruction
on a particular objective along with data about that
resource. This data will Include such things as the mode of
instruction which the objective is appropriate for, reading
level, the past performance of students who have used the
objective, the price, the producer and so on.
The second SPPED component consists of a computer-
based evaluation system that can generate data related to
student performance on objectives. The Comprehensive
Achievement Monitoring (CAM) evaluation technique is
based on an evaluation design which incorporates item-
examinee sampling and a sliding evaluation design which
allows manipulation of the amount of pre-testpost-test
and retention data that is collected on student performance
in a testing operation. The reports generated using CAM can
be used to make decisions related to individual student
progress and to evaluate the instructional program forma-
tively and summatively. CAM computer processing is done
by a single program with two smaller programs helping to
produce data that is required to initiate the main program.
60
The first of these programs, a Test Construction Program,
generates the item-examinee sampling design given input on
the number of subjects, the number of items per test form,
and the number of objectives to be tested across the form.
In this process, test forms are generated at random, with
each objective having equal opportunity of appearing on a
test form. The other program is the Test Scheduling Pro-
p-am, used to randomly assign Individuals to test forms
based on student aptitude or past performance; conse-
quently, the CAM-generated sample estimates of class
performance by objective are unbiased.
This system of evaluation is also designed to be supported
by a complete test construction operation set up in the
local school districts allowing these districts to construct
more reliable and valid tests than those developed pre-
viously. The items for the tests are drawn from the bank.
The construction operation is focused around the develop-
ment of a
form which will provide reliable data for
decision-making and yet meet certain criteria related to
composition and duplication of the required number of test
forms.
The third and final component of the SPPED Project
consists of sets of materials for planning and implementing
the project and for training the people who will use it. The
training materials come in both the simulation format and
as self-instructional modules. They are designed to enable
staff to handle skills ranging from selection of objectives to
interpretation of data for decision-making.
Program Title and Purposes
The official title of this program is the System for Pupil and
Program Evaluation and Development (SPPED). Its major
purposes are to assess educational needs, measure influences
on learning, measure growth. provide data for a manage-
ment Information system, set statewide educational goals
and provide
information
for
a
planningprogramming-
budgeting system.
Initiation
The State Education Department Initiated the idea for
SPPED with support from foundations, ongoing work in
universities and continuing development in the Department
itself. Four years have elapsed since work with CAM began,
and three years have elapsed between the initiation of the
more comprehensive SPPED project and its present stage of
development.,
Program Policy
Program policy
is determined by the State Education
Department in conjunction with university groups who
contribute to the system.
Administration
The Division of Research coordinates the program state-
wide. The professional staff within the Division consists of
seven professionals. Additional State Education Depart-
ment personnel are drawn on a part-time basis from the
Mathematics and Reading Bureaus. Other assistance is pro-
vidcd by personnel
from various regional
educational
centers throughout New York State, the University of
Massachusetts,
the
University
of Rochester, Stanford
University, Random House. Sequoia Union High School in
'California, and the Title III Project in Hopkins, Minnesota.
Population
The target group is composed of all students K-12. Drop-
outs and students below grade level are included; educa-
tionally
mentally
retarded
students
and
handicapped
students are not. Participation is not confined to com-
munities with special characteristics, and school participa-
tion is voluntary. Six percent of the schools in New York
participated last year.
Areas Assessed
SPPED concentrates mainly on mathematics and reading:
however, there is some involvement in all other content
areas found in public schools. Noncognitive areas such as
creativity and self-concept are not included in the assess-
ment program, although these areas are involved in some
research projects. Aptitude is measured, but only to classify
participants into low, medium or high ability for assign-
ment to testing forms.
Instrumentation
All the tests used in SPPED are from the item and objective
banks provided by the state (see Introduction). All the
instruments are custom-made for SPPED and are criterion-
referenced measures. Either past achievement, criterion-
referenced measures or standardized achievement tests are
used to measure the aptitude of the participants. The
specific standardized achievement tests include the Metro-
por!an, Iowa and Stanford Achievement Tests.
Related Pata
Additional data collected for analysis and interpretation
includes age, cost of instructional programs. aptitude, grade
level, numher of objectives, groups of objectives, courses.
programs and teacher information.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers are responsible for administering the
instruments. If the local schools have a computer. they are
responsible for processing the information obtained from
the program. Otherwise, the data is processed in one of the
state's regional computing centers
or by commercial
agencies.
Interpretation
Local schools are responsible for analyzing and interpreting
the information.
Use of Data
The results of the program are used to manage individual
student performance, to formatively evaluate a single part
of an instructional program or a complete program, to
compare programs and to validate the curriculum which is
NEW YORK
based on the objectives themselves. Use of the data is not
restricted by law.
Dissemination
Technical
reports and the content of the
behavioral-
objectives bank are sent to ERIC: In some cases, the State
Education Department publishes reports, in most cases, the
local school districts prepare their own summaries. These
summaries are disseminated to every audience, from the
student to the superintendent.
Overview
In general. SPPED is viewed favorably by various audiences
within the New York State educational community, who
feel the program fills various needs. On the Department
level, it is viewed positively since it provides for dear pro.
gram specification and data production related to the
adequacy of that program. School administrators share this
same interest; they also feel that SPPED serves as a source
for building and improving these programs. Response by
teachers, students and parents is also generally positive,
based on the SPPED delivery of specific
information
directly related to the class and individual student. Other
audiences such
as
the governor and
legislature
have
probably only recently become aware of the system
through the Fleishman Report (see Introduction) and have
not registered any opinion. Interest in the system by school
districts across New York State is growing and the Division
of Research expects that 10 percent of the state's districts
will in some way be using the system by the 1973-74 school
year.
The major problems are (I) lack of familiarity with the
system's approach on the part of school personnel, (2) need
to restructure the schools in order to enable teachers to
meet and work together regularly. (3) lack of familiarity
with the computer, (4) lack of funds at the local level and
(5) lack of sufficient funding at the state level. This lack of
funds has caused uneven development of the project. that
is, the SPPED Reading Bank needs test items and the
instructional resources bank is undeveloped.
Prospects for the Future
The program, based on a 10-year plan, is very likely to
continue. The only changes likely to occur are that (1) the
funding basis may improve and shift to other types of
support and (2) the areas assessed will expand to include
personal values, morals and moral judgment.
Performance Indicators in Education (PIE)
Program Title and Purposes
Performance Indicators in Education is the official title of
the program. The purposes of the program are to measure
school effectiveness and to provide information to help
:ate and local school officials improve educational .pro-
gams through better allocation of resources.
61
NEW YORK
Initiation
The forerunner of PIE, the Quality Measurement Project,
was initiated by the State Education Department in 1956.
The Office of Planning and Innovation proposed methods
of developing indicators of educational performance in
1966, and the Bureau of School Program Evaluation
subsequently began the actual development of performance
indicator models. Four years elapsed from the initiation of
the idea to actual implementation.
Program Policy
The Associate Commissioner for Research and Evaluation,
Director of the Division of Evaluation and the Chief and
staff of .he Bureau of School Programs Evaluation make
program decisions consistent with the policy of the Com-
missioner and the Board of Regents. Advice is also obtained
from local school officials and BOCES superintendents.
Funding
PIE is funded by ESEA Title V, and State Education
Department funds; however, the State Education Depart-
ment's primary contribution is staff. The total budget for
fiscal year 1972 was approximately 560,000.
Administration
The Bureau of School Program Evaluation coordinates the
project. The Chief of the Bureau of School Program Evalua-
tion is responsible for planning, liaison with other units,
budget preparation, supervision and the editing of reports.
The Chief's staff consists of two research associates, one
research
assistant and one typist. Educational Testing
Service was involved in a preliminary feasibility study. RRC
International assisted in developing computer programs for
generating performance estimates of educational programs.
Population
To date, the project has concentrated on grades 3 and 6.
Profiles showing the standing of a district were prepared for
628 districts in 1972; that figure represents about 80 per-
cent of the districts in the state. The six largest districts in
New York were excluded from the program in 1972; how-
ever, these districts will be included in the 1973 analysis.
Over 100 districts were not included because complete data
for them was not available at the time statistical analyses
were made. Non-public schools were not included.
Target Area
PIE concentrated mainly on reading and mathematics in
1972.
Instrumentation
No single instrument is required; scores on any achievement
test could be used as criterion measures. Presently, the
project uses output data through the Pupil Evaluation Pro-
gram (see description), specifically reading and mathematics
tests for grades 3 and 6 and a variety of information con-
tained in the Basic Educational Data System (see descrip-
tion). Plans call for uship other data, available through
62
other State Education Department units and local standard-
ized testing using the ETS-OE Anchor Test method.
Related Data
Data is collected on surrounding conditions, that is, those
influences in the environment (home, school, community)
likely to affect educational outcomes.
Data Collection and Processing
The State Education Department is currently responsible
for collecting and processing the data.
Interpretation
The State Education Department is responsible for inter-
preting the data.
Use of Data
Results are being used by district staffs to identify areas for
further study and analysis in order to improve reading and
mathematics programs.
Dissemination
School system summaries have been prepared and dis-
seminated to 628 school districts. The reports indicate
school district performance in reading and mathematics.
grades 3 and 6. Local school officials receive individual
reports for their districts; the reports are also available to
staff members of the State Education Department. A
description of the program is available through ERIC and
has been disseminated to other state education depart-
ments.
Overview
The project is viewed favorably by State Education Depart-
ment leaders and legislative staff members. Local adminis-
trators' reactions have been mixed but generally favorable.
The program objectives are being achieved fairly well,
although PIE staff would like to collect other kinds of data
(in addition to the data already collected by the Depart-
ment), for example, socioeconomic data.
Prospects for the Future
PIE is very likely to continue, with this description re-
maining accurate for one year. Elements most likely to
change in the near future are the levels and areas assessed,
the data collected and analytical procedures.
Basic Educational Data System (BEDS)
Introduction
Because BEDS is an information system and not specifically
an assessment program, the topics "Goals," "Instrumenta-
tion" and "Related Data" have been eliminated.
Program Title and Purpose
The program is entitled the Basic Educational Data System
........T,
(BEDS). Its purpose is to improve the quality of informa-
tion
available to interested parties by centralizing and
standardizing the data collection.
Initiation
The State Education Department initiated the program in
the fall of 1967, approximately five and one-half years ago.
Planning and consolidation of form .:- systems began in
1959.
Policy
The Director of the Information Center on Education, the
Chief of the Bureau of Educational Data Systems and the
Chief of the Bureau of Statistical Services, all State Educa-
tion Department based, determine how the program is
conducted and also effect any changes, with advice from
Department and school district representatives.
Funding
The program is financed by 82 percent state funds and 18
percent federal funds.
Administration
The Chief, Bureau of Educational Data Systems, and the
Chief, Bureau of Statistical Services coordinate the program
statewide. The Information Center on Education and the
Division of Electronic Data Processing jointly developed the
program's mark sense forms.
Population
All teachers in New York state public schools are included.
The program is mandatory; all public schools are required
to participate.
Target Areas
BEDS calls for the annual collection, analysis, storage alid
retrieval of basic information on public schools' profes-
sional staff, students, curricula and facilities.
Data Collection and Processing
As mentioned under "Administration," two mark sense
forms are used:, one by classroom teachers and one by non-
classroom professional staff. In addition, a school summary
form is prepared by each school principal, and a school
district summary form is prepared by the district central
office. Individual school districts are responsible for col-
lecting data on "Information Day" each fall. A digiter
(mark-sense reader) in the State Education Department
processes the mark-sense forms.
Interpretation
All data is summarized by computer.
Use of Data
The data is primarily used to provide a starting point at
state and local levels for the educator in decision-making
and planning curriculum development, experimental pro-
grams, staffing and instructional facilities. Summary data
NEW YORK
can provide individual school districts with meaningful
comparisons to help measure their own needs. Salary levels
of educators can be readily compared with those of other
professionals and with current cost-of-living figures. Use of
the data is not restricted by law; however, a strict Depart-
ment policy on confidentiality does restrict the use of data
associated with individuals.
Dissemination
Standard reports are prepared and distributed to divisions
within the State Education Department and to individual
school districts. Special reports based on state or regional
schools may be prepared upon request, usually for the legis-
lature, the State Education Department, the commissioner,
school districts, professional associations, researchers and
others. Interested parties may request information for any
data level. Certain personal data is not available on an indi-
vidual basis.
Overview
BEDS is generally viewed favorably.
Prospects for the Future
The BEDS staff is now developing a consolidated data base
which will include the full BEDS file, all PEP data, exten-
sive financial information and the 1970 census data. The
Program will also break out sub-systems, for example,
disadvantaged, handicapped or vocational education The
purposes of this computer-assessed data base are to enable
quicker access to the information and to enable easier and
quicker manipulation of the data.
New York State Education Information
System (N YSEIS)
(Because of the nature of this program, the standard format
is not appropriate.)
The New York State Education Information System is a
structure of 13 regional data processing centers. These
centers provide administrative data and processing services
to school districts; the information includes attendance,
grade reporting, financial accounting, personnel data and
payroll application. Future plans are to include education:
program management information in the bank.
The State Education Department will then receive 13
tapes of information from these regional data processing
centers as a spin-off from their regular activities. This
process will facilitate their assessment and evaluative pro-
cedures by making current district information easily avail-
able at state, regional, local district, school and class levels.
Individuals Interviewed
The primary sources of information were Lorne H.
Woollatt, Associate Commissioner for Research, Evaluation
and Communication; Robert O'Reilly, Chief, Bureau of
63
NEW YORK
School and Cultural Research; Victor Taber, Director, Divi-
sion of Educational Testing; John Stigelmeier, Director,
Information Center on Education; Alan Robertson,
Director of Division of Educational Evaluation and David
Irvine, Chief, Bureau School Programs Evablation. All are in
the New York State Education Department, Albany, New
York 12224 (telephone: 518 474-3878).
REFERENCES
Robert P.
O'Reilly, The SPPED Reading Objectives:
A State
Ban trio! Project, 1972.
NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina State Assessment Program
Gcals
A formal set of statewide educational goals was adopted by
the Executive Staff of the State Department of Public
Instruction in the spring of 1971. The establishment of
goals and specific objectives for the agency marked the
beginning of a major movement dedicated to improving the
management of the public schools in North Carolinaboth
at the state and local levels. The formulation of goals for
the state agency came only after consiucrable input was
received from a Governor's Study Commission on Educa-
tion and from persons interested in the educational enter-
prise in North Carolina, such as superintendents, teachers,
members of the State Department of Public Instruction,
school board members and others. Concurrent activities
were begun in planning and needs assessment so that educa-
tion in North Carolina could move toward meeting its goals.
The assessment program is described below.
Program Title and Purpose
The assessment program is entitled The Statewide Assess-
ment of Educational Progress at the Sixth Grade. The pro-
gram will provide performance information to citizens,
legislators, local school boards and those responsible for
educational leadership on the state level, for the purpose of
improving the quality of education in North Carolina. The
information will assist in identifying statewide educational
needs and will facilitate setting priorities in North Carolina.
Local school districts will be aided in planning and priority
setting; they will also have access to meaningful state,
regional and type of community norms for comparison
purposes. The general public will hopefully achieve a
greater understanding of the needs, problems and accom-
plishments of their school systems. The assessment program
will also provide the state legislature with educational
information
needed
for the enactmer'
of legislation
appropriate to educational needs.
Initiation
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction, aware of a
64
need for more performance information, initiated the state
assessment as part of a total effort in better management
practices. The planning grant for assessment was approved
by the State Board of Education in 1970; intensive briefing
and preparation followed on all levels in 1971, and the first
instruments were administered in April of 1972.
Policy
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction is respon-
sible for providing the overall leadership for the assessment
program. The planning and implementation for the assess-
ment is conducted by the Assistant Superintendent for
Research and Development in collaboration with other
Assistant Superintendents.
Funding
State research funds and ESEA Titles I, III and V were
utilized for the direct costs of the program. State funds also
purchased
materials,
travel
and
certain
administrative
expenses. In 1971-1972, the program's direct cost was
approximately $115,000. Seventy percent of this amount
came from federal monies. An additional S65,000 of local
support for training and administration was combined with
S40,000 of state in-kind contribution in salaries of persons
involved in implementing the many stages of the program.
This amounted to a grand total of 5220,000.
Administration
The Research Triangle Institute (Rn), a North Carolina
non-profit research firm, was responsible for sample selec-
tion and data analysis. Except for the sampling process, all
other phases of state assessment were conducted by the
State Department of Public Instruction in collaboration
with the Research Triangle Institute.
Population
The target population was defined by grade (grade 6). The
only exclusions from the program were trainably mentally
retarded students and students not in the public school
system. The participating students were randomly selected
in such a way that information on the state as a whole was
obtained (that is, the state's z ^graphic regions, the type.
of communities, the racial population and so on). School
participation was voluntary. All of the randomly selected
schools participated in the program.
Areas Assessed
The cognitive areas assessed were reading, language arts,
mathematics, career awareness and academic ability. The
noncognitive areas assessed were student's attitude toward
school, teacher in the learning environment. parent-home
environmental influence, self-concept, self-motivation and
need to achieve and peer influence.
Instrumentation
The Department of Public Instruction selected the cognitive
instruments; these instruments v.re reviewed by a group of
school psychologists and local school superintendents. With
their concurrence, the final selection of the Iowa Tests of
Basic Skills was made. The assessment program also in-
cluded the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test. The non-
cognitive test was developed by the Division of Research,
Department of Public Instruction.
Related Data
The State Education Agency, the school principals and the
students' homeroom teachers supply school information
concerning size, enrollment, percent minority students,
adequacy of several school components and information
about teachers. Student information was secured which
included sex, age, socioeconomic status, race and previous
participation in ESEA Title I.
Data Collection and Processing
Local school superintendents appointed their own testing
specialists for test administration. These specialists were
used in order to insure greater standardization and control
of the testing situation. Measurement Research Center
(MRC) scored the tests after they had been reviewed and
edited by the test administrators, the Assessment Coordi-
nator and Research Triangle Institute.
Interpretation of Data
Research Triangle Institute was responsible for the initial
d^ta analysis phase. Interpretation of results and further
analyses were completed by the Division of Research, State
Department of Public Instruction.
Use of Data
The data will be used for program planning and priority
setting on both the state and local levels. The data will also
identify educational needs, and provide baseline data
against which appropriate comparisons can be made in
subsequent years. The information obtained from the stu-
dent's background questionnaire and the Principal Ques-
tionnaire will be used to determine the status of many
learning and environmental factors thought to influence
learning. The data obtained from the Skills Test will be
used to compare the performance of North Carolina stu-
dents with southeastern and national norms.
Dissemination
State summaries and regional summaries were prepared and
disseminated to the State Education Agency, the governor,
the legislature, newspapers, the State Board of Education,
the local school districts and the schools. A slide/sound
presentation was prepared for these audiences as well as
magazine articles in professional journals.
Overview
The program has generally been well received.
Prospect; for the Future
The assessment program is very likely to continue as a
result of state appropriations for assessment by the 1973
NORTH DAKOTA
legislature. The scope and character of the assessment
instrumentation package will be modified and additional
grade levels will be added as assessment points.
Providing the local school districts with technical assist-
ance in developing information systems for decision making
will also be an added dimension to next year's assessment
model.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was William L Brown,
Director of Research, State Department of Public Instruc-
tion,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (telephone: 919
829-3809).
NORTH DAKOTA
State of North Dakota Assessment of
Educational Needs
Goals
At this time North Dakota does not have a formal set of
statewide educational goals; however, it is in the process of
developing a set of goals.
Program Title and Purposes
The official title of the program is the State of North
Dakota Assessment of Educational bk :ds. Its major pur-
poses are to set statewide educational goals, to assess cog-
nitive development, to assess educational needs and to
measure growth.
Initiation
The idea for the program was initiated in January 1969 by
the State Education Agency, but only a testing program
was initiated at that time. Other phases have been added
since then.
Policy
The State Education Agency is responsible for determining
program policy and change with the aid of a citizens'
advisory group.
Funding
The program is financed by approximately 70 percent
federal funds, 20 percent state funds and 10 percent local
funds. Federal funds are provided by ESEA Title III (for
guidance purposes) and ESEA Title IV Section 402. The
state provides funds from itsGuidance Division. Estimated
Cost for 1972-73 is $23,300.
Administration
ESEA Title III and Title IV, Planning and Development and
Pupil Personnel Services personnel coordinate the program
65
NORTH DAKOTA
statewide. At this time no outside agencies or consultants
are involved, except in data processing. Two full-time equiv-
alents have been assigned to the program.
Population
North Dakota defines its target group by grade, testing
grades 3, 5, 7. 9 and 11. Needs in reading and attitudes
were assessed in grade 4. Dropouts are not included. The
only individuals excluded are migrants. Except for reading,
which will be done on a sample basis, all individuals in the
target group are tested. All schools are included, but partici-
pation is voluntary. Last year 93 percent of the elementary
schools and 87 percent of the secondary schools partici-
pated, bringing total participation to 90 percent.
Target Areas
The cognitive
areas
of English, mathematics,
natural
science,
reading,
social
science and writing are being
assessed. Attitudes toward peers, family, school and self are
being assessed in grade 4.
Instrumentation
North Dakota used the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, the Iowa
Tests of Educational Development and an Attitude Scale
developed by Instructional Objectives Exchange (10X). AU
tests were chosen by the State Educational Agency and will
be used as group-reliable meausres though some yield indi-
vidually reliable results.
Related Data
To help analyze and interpret the test results, North Dakota
will consider minority percentages, racial/ethnic informa-
tion, school name, school size, sex, teacher data, dropout
rates and cost of instructional programs.
Data Collection and Processing
Guidance counselors are responsible for giving the tests and
inventories. Outside contractors then score and process the
tests. Outside contractors are Measurement Research
Corporation and Science Research Associates.
Interpretation
The outside contractors aid the State Education Agency
and local schools to analyze, organize and interpret the test
results.
Use of Data
The program results will be used for instruction, identifica-
tion of exemplary programs, guidance, program evaluation
and program planning. Use of the data is not restricted
beyond the understanding that confidentiality be respected.
Dissemination
The only reports prepared are score reports sent to partici-
pating schools. Schools receive local names and percentile
rankings for each student. Each school is sent only results
that pertain to that schovi.
66
Overview
The program is viewed favorably by the governor, legisla-
ture, State Board of Education, students and general public
and even more favorably by the State Education Agency,
local school administrators and teachers. Program objectives
are being achieved to a limited extent. A major problem lies
in the proper utilization and interpretation of test and pro-
gram data.
Prospects for the Future
The program will continue with the present description
remaining accurate for one year. At that time, measurement
instruments and data collection and processing pro,:edures
will probably change. Use and interpretation of data will
increase.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information
was Lowell L. Jensen,
Director of the Division of Planning and Development,
State Department of Public Instruction, Bismarck, North
Dakota 58501 (telephone: 701 224-2269).
OHIO
The Statewide Search fox Consensus
Goals
A formal set of statewide educational goals, output in
nature, was prepared and tentatively adopted by the State
Board of Education in April 1972. Since that time a review
and refinement of the goals has involved approximately
120,000 people. Citizens' advisory groups, the State Super-
intendent of Schools, the State Board of Education, the
Division of Planning and Evaluation and statewide groups
of students have been included in this process. The goals are
available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
Officially entitled The Statewide Search for Consensus, the
program has as its major purposes assessing cognitive
development (not yet
in effect), providing data for a
management information system, providing information for
a planning-programming-budgeting system, and meeting a
legislative mandate.
Initiation
The program was initiated in February 1972 by a legislative
mandate Uwe points in law), with the State Superintendent
of Schools involved in program initiation. The first pilot
testing should be completed by June 30, 1973.
Policy
Personnel from the following jointly determine program
policy: citizens' advisory committees, the State Superin-
tendent of Schools, the governor's office, representatives of
major school systems, the State Board of Education, the
State Education Agency and the state legislature.
Funding
The pilot program is funded through budget appropriations
for the Department of Education. Roughly $110,000 was
spent in 1972 for the program.
Administration
The Planning Division of the State Department of Educa-
tion will coordinate program efforts statewide. Eight full-
time professionals work on the program at the state level.
The Evaluation Center at Ohio State University is devel-
oping program strategies and assessment procedures.
Population
Individuals will be selected for the program by sampling
from the target population. The pilot target population will
be all students in grades K -12 in the state. Students who
have dropped behind in grade level will be included, as will
school dropouts. Only delinquent students will be excluded
from the
target
population. Community characteristics
(type and size) are considered in sampling.
Areas Assessed
The cognitive areas of aptitude, English, mathematics,
natural science, reading, social science, vocational education
and writing will be assessed, as will the noncognitive areas
of citizenship, creativity, interests, personal values, self-
concept and attitudes toward society and school.
Instrumentation
The test instruments have not yet been developed. It is
hoped that they will be developed as criterion-referenced
measures.
Related Data
It is planned to collect the following information to help
interpret program data: age, cost of instructional programs,
county, dropout
rates, paraprofessional educator data,
percent minority, racial/ethnic background, school name,
school size, sex and teacher data.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers will be responsible for administering the
tests. The . xal schools will be responsible for processing
program data.
Interpretation
The local schools and the SEA will organize, interpret and
analyze program data.
Use of Data
Program results will probably be used for the following
purposes: budgeting, program evaluation, program planning
and public relations. Program authority will not restrict the
use of program data.
OKLAHOMA
Dissemination
State
summaries and public
information
pieces
will
probably be prepared either by the SEA or an outside con-
tractor. The following will probably receive copies of
program reports: the SEA, the governor, the legislature,
newspapers, the State Board of Education, school districts,
schools, students, parents, teacher organizations and ERIC.
Overview
Public opinion seems to be favorable toward the project, as
does state educator opinion, but opinion will be easier to
assess after
pilot testing has been completed. Program
objectives are being achieved, with the main problem being
the lack of time for proper program development. Because
of the legislative mandate, pilot testing must be completed
by June 30, 1973.
Prospects for the Future
The program is likely to continue, with probable modifica-
tion in the areas of data collection, processing, interpre-
tation and use.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Roger J. Lulow,
Director of the Division of Planning and Evaluation, State
Department of Education, Room 615, Ohio Departments
Building, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215
(telephone: 614 469-4838).
OKLAHOMA
An Assessment of Educational Needs for
Students in Oklahoma
Goals
A set of statewide educational goals, both product and
process oriented, has been prepared and published in the
1971-1972 Annual Report of the Oklahoma State Depart.
ment of Education, entitled Measuring Up. ..Moving On.
This report is availabie upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The official name of the assessment program is An Assess-
ment of Educational Needs for Students in Oklahoma. The
program is aimed at assessing educational needs, setting
statewide educational goals, and providing information fur
a management system.
Initiation
Although most of the initiative for developing the program
has come from within the State-Federal Programs Division
of the State Department of Education, other groups
throughout the state have participated. Progress has been
67
OKLAHOMA
made from the first contemporary statewide assessment
made in 1969, which considered educational program
needs, through the 1970 phase, which considered academic
and socioeconomic characteristics of students, to the cur-
rent phase of establishing educational goals for the total
state public education effort.
Policy
Oklahoma's State Board of Education has taken responsi-
bility for doing the needs assessment and has specifically
delegated that portion dealing with the public elementary
and secondary schools to its Planning, Research and Evalua-
tion Section. Contributions to policy decisions have also
been made by the state legislature, the Oklahoma Educa-
tion Association, the Oklahoma School Boards Association
and representatives of major school systems. Operational
policy includes making sure that the data gathered is from a
representative population, using data which has already
been collected (census, annual reports, evaluation) or is
being
collected, gathering information aimed at what
people should know or be able to do as a result of their
education, using but not supplanting or duplicating local
needs assessment results, and investigating areas of student
need not currently measurable by means of standardized
tests.
Funding
Roughly S10,000 to S15,000 of federal funds are used
yearly in the administrative implementation of the pro-
gram; approximately S20,000 of state and local funds are
used in the data collection and processing phase. ESEA
Title PT has provided a majority of the federal monies while
ben., supplemented by ESEA Titles 1 and V and NDEA
V-A expenditures. Most of the state funds have been admin-
istrative, acid the local funds have come from instruction
categories.
Administration
Administrative responsibility lies with the State Board of
Education and
its Planning, Research and Evf ation
Section. The Oklahoma State University Department of
Education was consulted during the development of the
goals
survey
questionnaire. Professional staff
in
the
Planning, Research and Evaluation Section administer the
program as a part of their overall function. At the state
level one position has full
!sponsibility for the program
with additional person. el ..vailable as needed. As yet no
county or local leve f.,sitions have been established as a
part of the state program.
Population
Target populations for the goal survey included a stratified
random sample
of regions, communities, schools and
publics. Publics included official community organization
representatives; business or industry owners, managers and
employees; governmental representatives; parents; high
school and college students and educators; and State
Department of Education representatives. Schools were
68
chosen from three different population levels within each
region: average daily attendance of 1,000 or more, of 250
to 299 and of 249 or below. Likewise, different sizes of
communities were represented, as well as 15 different
higher education institutions, both private and public.
Areas Assessed
Topical and item organization was concerned with the fol-
lowing:
principals of democracy; political competence;
cultural values; morality; general intelligence; communica-
tion skills; reading-writing; social studies; humanities;-fine
arts; sciences; economic and vocational competence; atti-
tudes; mental, physical and environmental health; and
selected school and community factors. Respondents were
asked to indicate the importance they attached to state-
ments of need in the above categories in terms of their own
viewpoint and their own community.
Instrumentation
Instrumentation consisted of three different survey book-
lets with a total of 107 questions. These booklets were
specifically prepared for the program. Item sampling was
used by Oklahoma State University in the process of
identifying appropriate items for the goal survey question-
naire. The resultant items were then included in the three
survey booklets published by the Oklahoma State Depart-
ment of Education.
Related Data
Other information was available and utilized in the interpre-
tation of the data obtained. Data directly related to the
survey included county, school district and school size.
Data collected in other surveys (including previous years'
data which considered factors such as dropout rates, grades,
teachers, minorities, race, socioeconomic status and so on)
could be related to the goals survey data because of these
identifying data.
Data Collection and Processing
The surveys were administered by the Planning, Research
and Evaluation Section with the assistance of local college
students from each of the 15 regions in the state. Informa-
tion derived was processed by the State Department of
Education Data Center.
Interpretation
The Planning, Research and Evaluation Section was
responsible for analyzing and interpreting the data.
Use of Data
Results will be used principally for wall setting, program
planning, and, eventually, evaluations will be related to the
objectives derived therefrom. State laws have imposed no
restrictions on the use of the data, but legislative intent and
privileged information statutes and rulings indicate that
school systems should not be compared with each other nor
should individual students.
Dissemination
Reports to be prepared by the State Department of Educa-
tion will include state, regional and public summaries. State
educators, legislators and governmental executives will
automatically receive copies of reports. Other groups may
receive them on request or on selected mailing.
Overview
Most state agency personnel have a favorable attitude
toward the program. Local administrators favor the concept
but have a qualified hesitancy to accept all definitions of
assessment as being of equivalent value. This is justified by
such facts as the tendency for a few teachers to "teach for
the test"; lack of measurements for attitude, motivation,
and future performance; conflicts between different levels
of goals and means used to measure them; paucity of
personnel who know how to interpret test results; and
respect for the privacy of the student to enhance his feeling
of dignity and self-worth. One major problem developed
and continues: the difficulty encountered in convincing the
uninformed (including test makers and testing company
personnel) that 'needs assessment is not merely getting
results on standardized tests or criterion-referenced test
items in the academic or nonacademic areas, but includes
the whole range of human needs which may or may not
relate to the way our schools are currently operating.
Prospects for the Future
The program is likely to continue with expected modifica-
tion in the topical areas assessed. Instruments used to
quantify the measurement of objective accomplishment will
be selected or developed as the next step.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was James L. Casey,
Coordinator of Planning. Research and Evaluation, State
Department of Education, State Capitol, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 73105 (telephone: 405 478-0351).
OREGON
Statewide Assessment of the Oregon
Board of Education Learning Goals
The major effort in the state to date has involved a contract
with Science Research Associates to conduct testing pro-
grams in grades 4, 9 and II for the following areas: reading,
language arts, mathematics, social studies, science and use
of sources. the program also included the development and
administration of two instruments to assess 1) career aware-
ness and 2) general awareness (self-concept, citizenship,
human relations). A general dissatisfaction
with
the
approach resulted
in the conceptual design of a new
program.
OREGON
Goals
The Oregon Board of Education is in the process of identi-
fying and publicly validating statewide goals. The goals
relate to student outcomes and management processes.
Program Title and Purposes
The official title is Statewide Assessment of the Oregon
Board of Education Learning Goals. The major purposes of
the program are to assess educational performance, identify
educational needs, establish biennial priorities and inform
the various publics on the educational condition of their
schools.
Initiation
The program was initiated in August 1972 by the State
Department of Education.
Policy
The State Board of Education and the State Department of
Education octermine program policy and make decisions
relative to changes that are to be made.,
Funding
It has been proposed to the state legislature that a budget
of $600,000 be appropriated for the 1973-75 biennium to
finance the program.
Administration
The State Department of Education through the Assistant
Superintendent, Division of Planning, Development and
Evaluation will administer the program. The conceptual
design of the program was developed through a contract
with the University of Oregon. The test development,
administration and data analysis will be contracted to some
agency.
Population
Grades 1, 3, 6, 11 and 12 are the target populations identi-
fied in the model.
Areas Assessed
The program calls for the following schedule of assessment.
1974:grade 1, self-help, self-concept, group interaction
I974:grade 3, reading, arithmetic
1974:grade 6, self-knowledge, social studies, science
1975:grades 1, 3, 6, as above for the 1974 testing
1975:grade I2, self-knowledge, social studies, science
1976:grades 1, 3, 6. 12, as above for the 1975 testing
1976:grade II, career orientation, consumer problems
Instrumentation
The explicit behavioral objectives from which statewide
assessment tests are developed will make evident which
particular skills are being assessed. The test items will refer
directly to the behavioral objectives which are established
for each skill.
The criterion-referenced tests developed for assessment of
69
OREGON
reading performance at the end of the third grade will most
probably include oral performance items so that tests will
be individually administered to each student. The arith-
metic test will, in all probability, be a group-administered
paper-and-pencil test.
Basic knowledge tests will probably consist primarily of
paper-and-pencil type tests but may include checklists to be
completed by the teacher, parent, counselor or other
secondary observer.
The materials used to assess applied performance will
probably consist of two types:
1) An empirically developed checklist which describes
specific behaviors and actions.
2) The second form of assessment will probably include
"test-teach-test" items. Games, simulated environments,
role-playing and so on may all be used in this format.
Related Data
Relevant demographic data will be collected and will
include school size and geographic location.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers will be responsible for test administra-
tion. Scoring will be done by teacher and district personnel.
Interpretation
Local school district personnel will be responsible for
interpreting test data in terms of the educational goals,
programs and resources of their district. These interpreta-
tions may also receive input from a selected "jury"
(parents, teachers, laymen) from that
district. School
district interpretation will take into account the individual
test interpretations provided by the teachers.
The testing contractor will be responsible for investigating
the validity of test interpretations provided by individual
teachers and local school districts.
The Oregon Board of Education will receive individual,
local school district and statewide analysis of test results
from the testing contractor. It will interpret this data
according to state level educational priorities.
Use of Data
The data will be used in reporting and making recommenda-
tions to !oval boards of education, the State Board of
Education and the legislature.
Dissemination
District and state level summaries will be prepared for
public information.
Overview
It is believed that this approach to assessment will result in
more meaningful information than
past
efforts have
produced.
Prospects for the Future
The implementation schedule will depend upon the alloca-
tion of resources by the state legislature.
70
Individuals interviewed
The primary sources of information are Mary Hall,
Assistant Superintendent, Planning,
Development and
Evaluation; R.B. Cleaner, Coordinator, Planning and
Evaluation, Oregon State Department of Education, 942
Lancaster Drive, NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 (telephone: 503
378-3074); and Robert Mattson, Associate Dean, School of
Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403
(telephone: 503 686-3406).
PENNSYLVANIA
The Educational Quality Assessment Program
Goals
A formal set of statewide educational goals has been pre-
pared for Pennsylvania. The following were involved in goal
preparation: citizens' advisory groups, the Secretary of
Education, the governor, outside contractors and the State
Board of Education. The goals have been formally adopted
by the State Board of Education, have been published and
are available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The official name of the program is The Educational
Quality Assessment Program. It is also called "The Pennsyl-
vania Plan for the Assessment of Educational Quality" and
"The Pennsylvania Plan." The major purposes of the pro-
gram are to: assess cognitive development, assess educa-
tional needs, assess noncognitive
development, measure
influences on learning and measure growth.
Initiation
The EQA Pro-..n was initiated August 8, 1963. by the
state legislaturt., ..sicler Section 290.1 of Act 299. The first
statewide testing was conducted in the fall of 1970.
Policy
Program policy is determined by citizens' advisory groups,
the Chief State School Officer, the State Board of Educa-
tion and the State Education Agency.
Funding
Two-thirds of the EQA Program monies come from the
State General Education Budget. The other third comes
from federal ESEA Title Ill funds. Roughly $250,000 was
spent on the program in 1972.
Administration
The Division of Educational Quality Assessment coordi-
nates the program statewide. Eight full-time professionals
work on the progi :m at the state level. Educational Testing
Service was a consultant for general program development,
National Computer Systems handles scanning and scoring
and the computer facilities at Pennsylvania State University
are used for program analyses.
Population
In 1973-74, the target testing population will be all public
school students in grades 5, 8 and 11 except educationally
mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed and migrant stu-
dents. Parochial and
private schools, delinquents and
delinquent schools are also excluded from the study.
School participation is voluntary. Twenty percent of the
eligible students participated in the program last year and
one-third are expected to participate annually in the period
1973-1976. Community characteristics are not used as a
basis for school/student selection.
Areas Assessed
The cognitive areas of mathematics and reading are being
assessed, as well as the noncognitive areas of citizenship,
creativity, self-esteem, understanding others, interest in
school, health behavior, vocational development, appre-
ciating human accomplishments and preparation for a
changing world.
Instrumentation
Tests and inventories are used in each area, with appro-
priate levels for each grade. Except for the cognitive areas
of mathematics and reading, these instruments were con-
structed within the State Education Agency. The tests are
norm-referenced and are used as group-reliable measures.
Related Data
Additional information collected to help analyze program
data
includes: cost of instructional progran s, percent
minority, school size, sex, attendance, class size classroom
practices, accessibility of resources and socioeconomic and
teacher data.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers and guidance personnel are responsible
for test administration. The outside contractors and the
EQA Division process the program data.
Interpretation
Program data is organized, analyzed and interpreted by the
EQA staff. Interpretation visits are made to each partici-
pating school district by division staff members.
Use of Data
Program
results are used for instruction, comparative
analysis across schools, program planning and in attempts
to identify exemplary programs. individual students are not
identified; scores are- aggegated by school. Program
authority does not restrict the use of program data, but the
confidentiality of individual school scores is respected.
Dissemination
State and school summaries of program results are prepared
by the EQA Division. Copies of program reports are sent to
PUERTO RICO
school districts, local schools and to ERIC. Individual
school reports are released only through the superin-
tendents of participating districts.
Overview
The EQA Program is viewed favorably by educators, lay-
men and various state education departments. Program
objectives are being well achieved, despite the problems of
inadequate budgeting and staff.
Prospects for the Future
The Pennsylvania Plan is likely to continue, with some
modification occurring within the next two years. The
measuring instruments used, data collection and processing
procedures and data interpretation are the areas most
subject to change.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Thomas E. Kendig,
Chief of the Division of Educational Quality Assessment,
Pennsylvania Department of Education. P.O. Box 911,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126 (telephone:
717
787-4234).
PUERTO RICO
Puerto Rico Needs Assessment Program
Gosh
The administrative staff of the Area for Educational Plan-
ning and Development, appointed by the Secretary of
Education, has prepared a set of island-wide educational
and social goals. These goals are supplemented by sub-goals
and operational objectives. They have been formally
adopted by the island, and they deal with a combination of
input, process and outcome of education.
Program Title and Purposes
The program title is the Puerto Rico Needs Assessment
Study. Its purpose is to discover the discrepancy between
desired learner outcomes and the learners' current status.
(A student need is considered the discrepancy between the
desired student behavior and the current level of behavior.)
Initiation
The Secretary of Education initiated the idea for the Needs
Assessment Program. The program strategy consists of five
phases; these phases are planned to extend over three
yearsI971-1974.
Policy
Program policy is determined by the Secretary of Educa-
tion, with the aid of a working committee of administrative
personnel from the Department of Education.
71
PUERTO RICO
Funding
The Puerto Rico State Assessment Program is funded by 60
percent federal ESEA Title III funds and 40 percent state
funds.
Administration
The working committee of administrative personnel from
the Department of Education. Division of Educational
Evaluation and Development, coordinates the program
island-wide. The committee includes the secretaries of
regular programs and Educational Planning and Develop-
ment, along with the directors of Educational Evaluation
and Development, Spanish and mathematics programs. The
professional staff consists of planners, evaluators, research
technicians and a systems analyst. Personnel from the
Electronics Center for Educational Data and consultants
from the University of Puerto Rico also are involved in
planning and conducting the program.
The Council of Higher Education formulated a question-
naire; Educational Testing Service (ETS), Princeton. New
Jersey constructed the sampling design. ETS is also in the
process of preparing achievement tests and is under con-
tract to design answer sheets.
Population
The study will be carried out by using a stratified sample
representative of public school students enrolled in grades
3, 6 and 9. Participation is not confined to communities
with special characteristics: however. in stratifying the
population, the following variables will be taken into con-
sideration: metropolitan, urban and rural areas; and rural or
urban zones, in order to study socioeconomic status. Public
school participation is required.
Aress Assessed
Spanish and mathematics are being assessed. Noncognitive
areas are not involved.
Instrumentation
Achievement tests in Spanish and mathematics are being
administered, as well as a questionnaire to determine socio-
economic level. The test was constructed by ETS, and the
questionnaire by the Council of Higher Education specif-
ically for use in the Puerto Rico State Assessment Program.
Related Data
In order to help analyze and interpret the data, information
regarding socioeconomic status, sex and general ability is
collected.
Data Collection and Processing
Evaluators and planners from the Division of Educational
Evaluation and Development selected and trained classroom
teachers and evaluation coordinators from the school
districts for the administration of instruments. Evaluation
coordinators, local and regional educational planners and
72
ETS are
responsible
for
processing the information
obtained from the program.
Interpretation
Central educational planners are involved in comparative
analysis of test results. Personnel from the Spanish and
mathematics programs then determine the needs in achieve-
ment in those two areas according to the administered tests.
Use of Data
The data will be used to provide the information needed to
carry out deeper investigation in smaller geographical areas
which will result in the preparation of innovative projects
leading to the solution of identified critical educational
needs.
Dissemination
By the end of the first stage of the study of needs (May
1973), all findings will be disseminated toihe system with
pertinent recommendations. Involved in the dissemination
of information are the Central Educational Planners, the
Central and Information Offices and the Division of Evalua-
tion and Educational Development.
Overview
No comments concerning attitudes toward the assessment
are available at this time.
Prospects for the Future
Long-range plans have been developed for 1973-74 through
1976-77. The main activities will involve development of
appropriate instruments in the affective and psychomotor
domains and the administration of them to ascertain the
needs in those areas. Concurrently, all school districts will
participate in the administration of math, Spanish and
general ability tests, as well as a socioeconomic question-
naire to a sample of students in grades 3,6, and 9 with the
purpose of actualizing the information.
As a final activity, the school districts whose performance
has been identified as below the minimum competence level
of achievement will participate in a comprehensive testing
program geared to produce a detailed identification of
pupils' needs and related factors influencing their per-
formance. This comprehensive administration will provide a
framework for the design and implementation of compen-
satory and innovative programs.
In summary, the whole loop of operational activities in
the area of educational development should be visualized as
a dual component action of needs assessment and program
development. The first is a research-based activity geared to
the development of operational concepts that will help in
sharpening the focus of instructional activities on a more
relevant and rational curriculum basis.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Miguel Plaud.
Director. Division of Evaluation and Educational Develop-
ment, Department of Education, Urb. Tres Monjitas, Hato
Rey, Puerto Rico 00918 (telephone: 809 764-3445).
RHODE ISLAND
Introduction
The Rhode Island Statewide Testing Program is presently in
a crucial state of transition. A more or less routine program
of standardized testing at logical points in the curriculum is
being transformed into a more flexible program that will be
more congruent with the Statewide Needs Assessment Pro-
gram. The present program will be continued for the fol-
lowing year (1973); however, a standardized program of
reading assessment at both the primary and intermediate
levels will be added. In addition, career counseling informa-
tion will be provided for students at the senior high level
through the use of a variety of standardized instruments.
Finally, when the results of the first Statewide Needs
Assessment are examined this spring (1973), standardized
and objective-referenced instruments will be used to
provide more detailed information about characteristics of
students in Rhode Island. (Mr. Henry W. Stevenson Jr.,
Assistant Commissioner for Research. Planning and Evalua-
tion).
Statewide Needs Assessment
Goals
An open systems planning process was employed to deter-
mine a formal set of statewide educational goals. The State
Board of Regents have approved this set of goals, which was
selected by the Board of Education of the State Board of
Regents, state legislators, the Chief State School Officer, a
citizens' advisory committee, students and others. The
current set of goals, which is primarily learner-oriented, is
available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The program, officially titled the Statewide Needs Assess-
ment Project, will assess cognitive development and educa-
tional needs. and will provide data for a management
information system and
for a planning-programming-
budgeting system.
Initiation
The Statewide Needs Assessment was initiated by the State
Board of Regents, the superintendents and Teacher Associa-
tions. In May 1972, the first stage of the project was
completed. In May 1973, the first questionnaires will be
analyzed.
Policy
The Chief State School Officer, members of the state legis-
lature, the State Board of Regents, a State Education Corn-
RHODE ISLAND
mission, the State Education Agency, outside committees
and a coordinating council determine how the program is
conducted and what changes will be made in its nature.
Funding
Federal funds from ESEA Title III and ESEA Title V
finance this Needs Assessment Project. The project utilized
funds only for staff time last year, and about $30,000 were
used in 1972. Funds in the amount of $30,000 have been
budgeted for 1973.
Administration
Planning, Evaluation and Research personnel coordinate the
program statewide. There are two full-time equivalents at
the state level.
Population
The target population includes all elementary and second-
ary schools with the exception of delinquent schools,
schools for the handicapped, parochial and private schools.
Non-English speaking, educationally mentally retarded, and
emotionally disturbed students are not included in the
program. Dropouts will be assessed as well as students who
have dropped behind grade level. All schools receiving state
monies are required to participate in the program. The pro-
gram is in its first year.
Areas Assessed
All areas related to the Rhode Island Goals for Education
are assessed.
Instrumentation
A "tailor-made" public opinion poll was developej by the
State Education Agency. The opinion poll asks questions
concerning what does exist and what should exist in educa-
tion in Rhode Island. The questions were developed by the
staff and relate directly to headings under the Rhode Island
Goals for Education. The opinion poll is administered to
samples of grades 4, 8 and 12 students, their parents,
teachers, administrators, State Education Agency person-
nel, legislators and other citizen groups.
Related Data
Additional information collected to help analyze or
interpret data includes age, sex, grade, school name and
size, socioeconomic data and teacher data (for example.
teacher salaries, teacher education, course load and so on).
Data Collection and Processing
The classroom teachers with the aid of public educational
television are responsible for giving the tests for the pro-
gram. The State Education Agency is primarily responsible
for processing the information obtained from the program;
the computer center at Rhode Island College is the con-
tractor for analysis and interpretation of data as requested
by the State Education Agency.
73
9.
RHODE ISLAND
Interpretation
The State Education Agency has primary responsibility for
analyzing, organizing and interpreting the data.
Use of Data
The results of the program will be used for program plan-
ning. No restrictions or limits have been placed on the use
of the data, which is open to all.
Dissemination
Because the program is in an early stage of development, no
reports have yet been prepared. I t is planned that the State
Education Department will prepare school system sum-
maries, state
summaries, student reports and public
information pieces to be distributed to the State Education
Agency, the governor, legislature, newspapers, other states
(as requested), the State Board of Regents, students, school
districts, teacher organizations and ERIC.
Overview
At this stage of development, it is difficult to say how the
program is viewed; however, the State Education Depart-
ment and the State Board of Regents are favorable. The
program is generally seen as achieving its goals. Anticipating
future difficulties and making changes before problems
make change impossible is seen as a major difficulty.
Prospects for the Future
The program was only planned to run one year. It is not
expected that it will be operated in this way again for
another five years. if the program is repeated.
Statewide Standardized Testing
Goals
The formal set of statewide educational goals approved by
the Rhode Island State Board of Regents was the result of
an open systems planning process which involved great
numbers of people. These goals, determined by the State
Board of Regents, Board of Education, students, a citizens'
advisory committee, the state legislators, Chief State School
Officer and others mainly concern learner-oriented (output)
goals. The current set of goals is available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The main goals of this program, which is officially called
the Statewide Standardized Testing Program, include
assessing cognitive development and educational needs,
providing data for a management information system and
providing information
for
a planning-programming-
budgeting system.
Initiation
The State Department initiated this program and submuted
relevant legislation to the Board of Education. There have
74
been about five years of testing since the inception of the
program.
Policy
The Chief State School Officer, the State Board of Regents,
the State Education Agency and a State Education Com-
mission determine how the program is conducted and what
changes will be made in the nature of the program. Also
involved are outside committees and a coordinating council.
Funding
The Statewide Standardized Testing Program is wholly
supported by state funds, which are provided by general
appropriations for statewide testing. Program costs last year
were approximately $140,000. For 1973, S400,000 has
been appropriated.
Administration
The program is coordinated by the Research, Planning and
Evaluation Agency, with the equivalent of one full-time
professional staff member administering it at the state level.
University and college professors and local system admin-
istrators travel across the state to interpret test results for
local people. About 20 people are employed annually for
this purpose.
Population
The target group participating in the program was selected
by grades (for grades K, 4, 8 and 9) and age (corresponding
to grades 2, 5 and 6). Dropouts, educationally mentally
retarded, emotionally disturbed and non-English speaking
students are not included in the Statewide Standardized
Testing Program. All students in the target population parti-
cipate in the program. Delinquent schools and schools for
the handicapped are excluded from the program; schools
receiving state monies are required to participate. Ninety-
nine percent of the eligible schools participated in the pro-
gram last year. No special characteristics are considered in
selecting schools.
Areas Assessed
Aptitude, mathematics, reading and vocational areas are
assessed in the cognitive domain.
Instrumentation
The Metropolitan Readiness Test was used in Kindergarten,
the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills in grades 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8, the
Lorge-Thorndike in grades 4 and 8. the Cognitive Abilities
Test in grades S and 6, and the Differential Aptitude Test in
Grade 9. None of the tests have been lailor-made" for the
Rhode Island program and none are considered criterion-
referenced. These tests were chosen for the program by the
State Education Agency and a testing committee, and all
are described as individually reliable.
Related Data
Additional related information collected to help analyze
and
interpret
the
data
from the assessment program
V.
include: age, grade, school name, sex and minimum socio-
economic data.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers and the school administration staff are
responsible
for giving the tests. The State Education
Agency is responsible for processing the information from
the program and has issued a contract to Rhode Island
College for the analysis and interpretation of data.
Interpretation
The State Education Agency (in conjunction with Rhode
Island College) is responsible for analyzing, organizing and
interpreting the data; local schools and local school districts
are responsible for the interpretation of data at the local
level.
Use of Data
The results of the program will be used for instructional
purposes and for making a comparative analysis across
schools. No law restricts or limits the use of the data.
Dissemination
Reports on program results have been prepared by the State
Education Agency and Rhode Island College; they are
distributed to the State Education Agency, school districts,
schools and teacher organizations. Further dissemination is
determined locally. The Board of Regents has created a
study commission to determine the manner and form in
which test scores shall be reported to the public. The
concept of disclosure has been approved, but the precise
method of disclosure is under study and will be recom-
mended to the Board of Regents when decided.
Overview
The program is viewed favorably by the legislature; how-
ever, there are many different viewpoints depending on
which area
is being discussed. The testing program is
presently under study, and general feelings about the
success of the program cannot really be judged at this time.
The program's objectives are seen as being generally
achieved; however, procedures for revising the program are
inadequate and must be made more effective. Also, addi-
tional staff to interpret and analyze test data is needed.
Prospects for the Future
This program is likely to continue, although it will be
modified to a certain extent. The program will be expanded
and will emphasize areas other than standardized tests. Also
likely to change are the target population, areas assessed,
the measuring instruments utilized and use and dissemina-
tion of data. (See also Mr. Stevenson's Introduction.)
Individuals Interviewed
The primary sources-of information were Henry W. Steven-
son Jr., Assistant Commissioner for Research, Planning and
Evaluation, State Agency for Elementary and Secondary
Education, Roger Williams Building, Hayes Street, Provi-
SOUTH CAROLINA
dence, Rhode Island 02908 (telephone: 401 277-2640);
Carol Kominski, State TastingConsultant, room 216, Roger
Williams Building, Hayes Street, Providence, Rhode Island
02908 (telephone: 401
277-2050); and Cynthia Ward,
Research Coordinator, room 212, Roger Williams Building,
Hayes Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02908 (telephone:
401 277-3126).
SOUTH CAROLINA
Annual Assessment System
Introduction
South Carolina draws upon data from its Statewide Testing
Program for assessment purposes. Private and parochial
schools and numerous measurement devices are included in
the Statewide Testing Program.
Goals
The findings of a 1968 needs assessment study and addi-
tional facts about the state's educational system were
utilized by key staff members in the Department to develop
a proposed set of long-range educational objectives for
South Carolina. These objectives were presented to the
State Board of Education for consideration and on May 8,
1970, the Board adopted "South Carolina's Educational
Objectives for 1975." Its eleven major objectives were con
sistent with the Board's "Statement of Educational Philos-
ophy" which stated that there should be a five-year plan to
improve the state's system of public education.
The goals are: (1) reduce dropouts by 50 percent, (2)
reduce the number of students repeating first grade from 15
percent to 5 percent, (3) establish a statewide program of
public kindergarten
for
five-year-olds, (4) measurably
improve the basic verbal and quantitative skills of in-school
students, (5) provide an adequate occupational training pro-
gram for 100 percent of the secondary school students who
choose it, (6) increase the number of high school graduates
entering post high school training to at least 50 percent, (7)
develop an adequate educational program for youth with
physically, mentally or emotionally handicapped condi-
tions, (8) increase the total adult educational enrollment in
basic and high school programs by 100 percent, (9)
promote programs to provide adequate and professional
and paraprofessional personnel to staff the state's educa-
tional system, (10) develop and maintain a system of con-
tinuous evaluation and upgrading of education (which
includes nine continuing objectives, output in nature) and
(1 I) insure the implementation of at least a defined
minimum educational program in each local school district.
The tenth goal inspired and is the main objective of the
Annual Assessment System. The five-year plans to meet
these goals, which are input, process and output oriented,
are available upon request.
75
SOUTH CAROLINA
Program Title and Purposes
The main purposes of the Annual Assessment System are to
assess observable pupil performance primarily in cognitive
development as a first step toward identifying educational
needs and to provide data for the system of management
which is utilized in meeting those needs.
Initiation
The State Board of Education, the State Education Agency
(SEA), the Chief State School Officer and the state legis-
lature were all involved with the initiation of the present
program. An outgrowth of State Educational GoalNo. 10,
the initial assessment system was initiated in 1968 while the
state educational goals were still informal.
Policy
Program policy and changes are cooperatively determined
by the Chief State School Officer, the State Board of
Education, the S4te Education Agency, the state legis-
lature and local school boards.
Funding
During fiscal year 1973, the program was funded by 90
percent federal monies (ESEA Titles I, III and V) and 10
percent state monies. During fiscal year 1974, the assess-
ment program will be financed to a greater extent with
state funds. In 1973 the program cost roughly $200,000.
Administration
Research and Evaluation personnel coordinate the program
on the state level using a professional staff size of 10 full-
time equivalents. The SEA's Executive Planning Committee
is extensively involved in management process at the state
level. On the local level, school administrators assume much
of the responsibility for the assessment effort.
Population
The Annual Assessment draws data from the Statewide
Testing Program (STP) which tests by grade but is being
modified to assess by age. All grade 4 and 7 students are
included in the STP. An approximate 10 percent sample of
the grade 9 and 12 students is also included in the system.
Participation is voluntary and is not confined to com-
munities with special characteristics. Last year participation
was almost 100 percent in grades 4 and 7.
Areas Assessed
The cognitive areas of aptitude, English grammar, basic
mathematics skills,
natural science. social science and
reading were assessed last year. Future test administrations
will include inventories in the noncognitive domains of
citizenship, self-concept and interests as well as in other
cognitive subject areas.
Instrumentation
The Statewide Testing Program uses four major tests for
76
assessment purposes. They are (1) the California Tests of
Basic Skills (CTBS)for grades 4 and 7, (2) the California
Test of Mental Maturity (CTMM)an abbreviated form is
administered to grade 4, (3) the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills
(ITBS) a sample of grades 9 and 12 and (4) a Student
Response Test, under developmeo. These tests were
selected by Research and Evaluation and State Education
Agency personnel in cooperation with the school districts.
None of the tests are criterion-referenced and all are used
by the state as group-reliable measures.
Related Data
South Carolina is in the process of preparing district pro-
files which will be used to help analyze and interpret assess-
ment data. The profiles contain age, dropout rates, parapro-
fessionals or education aides, percent minority, racial/
ethnic,
sex, socioeconomic, teacher (salary, education,
course load, etc.) and general demographic (census data,
occupation of the head of the household, rural/urban/
suburban) data.
Data Collection and Processing
Although the option
is left to the district, classroom
teachers generally are responsible for giving the tests. The
publishing companies score their tests for the state.
Interpretation of Data
Research and Evaluation personnel are responsible for
analyzing, organizing, interpreting and reporting assessment
data.
Use of Data
Assessment data is used to prepare state and district reports
which serve planning purposes, to prepare budget requests
for state and federal funds and to improve instruction and
departmental services to school districts. Program authority
does not restrict the use of program assessment data at this
time.
Dissemination
Assessment reports, prepared by Research and Evaluation
personnel, are in the form of state, district, school and Title
1 and Ill summaries. The reports are available to the State
Education Agency, the State Board of Education, school
districts, teacher
organizations, students, parents,
the
governor, the legislature, newspapers and the general public.
Overview
Reactions to the program have been favorable, especially
within the State Education Agency and State Board of
Education. Program objectives are being achieved. Major
problems are insufficient personnel, funding and enough
resources to honor commitments to timelines.
Prospects for the Future
The assessment program will continue on an annual basis, at
least through 1975. Preliminary assessment reports are cur-
rentiy available and a more definitive report schedule is
now unt:er development. The changes most likely to occur
include an expansion of the areas assessed, the selection of
more effective instruments and better interpretation and
use of data.
Individuals Interviewed
The primary sources of information were W. Edward Ellis,
Director, Office of Research, Department of Education,
Rutledge Building, Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (tele-
phone: 803 758-2169) and Diana J. Ashworth, Director,
Office of Planning, 1206 Rutledge Building, Columbia,
South Carolina 29201 (telephone: 803 758-2115).
REFERENCE
1975 Objectives for South Carolina Public Schools: A Five Year
Plan. Department of Education, South Carolina.
SOUTH DAKOTA
South Dakota Statewide Needs Assessment
Introduction
At present, two major programs are being conducted in
South Dakota: Statewide Needs Assessment, a pilot study,
and a Feasibility Study for Multi District Vocational Educa
tun Concept. In 1971 the South Dakota St
Board of
Vocational Education approved federal funding for an
Exemplary Secondary Multi District Vocational Education
Center Project. The project began operation of the center in
the fall of 1971. Much interer: vas developed in the opera-
tion of the center and in the possibility that this method of
providing secondary vocational education could be utilized
throughout South Dakota. In the spring of 1972 ti e South
Dakota State Board of Vocational Education approved
federal funds for a Feasibility Study for Multi District
Vocational Education Concept for secondary vhool
students in South Dakota. The study was design
w
incorporate the activities of the Exemplary
ject wit:,
data and information compiled by the study staff to nr
vide recommendations for utilization of the Multi DLtrict
Concept in South Dakota. Recommendations have been
provided to the South Dakota State Board of Vocational
Education, and the State Board has requested public
interest and information meetings to be held throughout
the state. Multi District Vocational r.ducation operations
will provide increased vocational education opportunities, to
secondary school students in South Dakota through which
students may have available from three to four tin 13 tile
present program offerings. If the people of the state desire
such centers, legislative action will be necessary to allow for
their successful opeation.
The South Dakota Statewide Needs Assessment Progran.
will be discussed in the following paragrapf
SOUTH DAKOTA
Goals
A formal set of 10 statewide objectives dealing with input,
process and output were published in Bulletin 99 three
years ago and are available upon request. These objectives
were prepared by a citizens' advisory group, the Chief State
School Officer and college-level professional educators and
were formally adopted by the State Board of Education.
Program Title and Purposes
The official name of the program is the South Dakota
Statewide Needs Assessment. Its major purpose is to assess
educational needs on a statewide basis and to provide the
capability for local districts to assess their needs in reLtion
to those of the state and its regions.
Initiation
The program was initiated by the State Education Agency
in conformance with ESEA Title I and Title III specifica-
tions. The state
legislature
recommended community
involvement in educational affairs. Initiation of the idea
came in Marc .1 of 1972, with the launching of the pilot
study occurring nine months later in December 1972.
Policy
The State Education Agency in conjunction vith the local
educational agencies has primary responsibility for con-
ducting and making changes in the program.
Funding
Program expenses are financed by federal and state funds.
Two-thirds of the financing is through ESEA Title I and
Title III federal funds with the remaining one-third pro-
vided by state appropriations. Program costs last year were
approximately $25,000 to $30,000.
Administration
The State Education Agency with a staff of Si) full-time
personnel coordinates the program statewide. They have
been
assisted by Commonwealth Learning, Arlington,
Virginia, which drcfted the instruments for the pilot study.
Population
The target group incl
:es high school students, professional
educators, adininistrators, laymen, board members, legis-
lators and other government officials. Elementary school
students are not included. For the pilot study, individuals
were selected for the program by a stratified random
sampling technique. A sample of 100 individuals in each of
six planning regions (those regions were determined by
population) was selected. For the final study, individuals
will be selected at random for every school district. No
school is required to participate in the program. For the
pilot study, roughly 10 percent of all eligible schools parti-
cipated last year.
Areas Assessed
English, foreign language, health,
'athematics, natural
science, reading, social science, vocations, writing and fine
77
SOUTH DAKOTA
arts (optional) are the cognitive areas assessed for this pro-
gram. Assessment of noncognitive areas includes: attitudes
toward school, minorities and society, citizenship attitudes,
persons' values, self-concept and, to a limited extent, assess-
ment of creativity and interests.
Instrumentation
Questionnaires are used for this program. The question-
naire, South Dakota Department of Public Instruction
Questionnaire to Determine Educational Needs As You See
Them, includes 74 basic questions and 15 optional fine arts
questions. For teachers there are an additional 12 questions
and for administrators, 22 additional questions. Item
sampling was used to construct this tailor-made ques'!on-
naire. It was developed by planning consultants and ESEA
Titles I and III personnel.
Related Data
Related data collected during the course of the assessment
program includes: age, sex, school district and length of
residence.
Data Collection and Processing
Staff members of the State Education Agency are respon-
sible for distributing the questionnaires. The information
obtained from the pilot study was processed by a staff from
Commonwealth Learning, Arlington, Virginia.
Interpretation
The State Education Agency has responsibility for ana-
lyzing, organizing and interpreting the data.
Use of Data
The results will be used for program planning and evalua-
tion. There are no present restrictions or limitations on the
use of the data.
Dissemination
Preliminary reports of the results of the program have been
prepared by the State Education Agency. These reports are
state summaries of the program's stage-by-stage progress.
Copies of the program reports are available upon request.
Overview
The program is viewed favorably by the governor, the state
legislature, boards of education, local school administrators
and teachers; and it is viewed quite favorably by students,
the general public and the State Education Agency. Pro-
gram objectives are being achieved. The major problem
related to the program is staff availability.
Prospects for the Future
The program is likely to continue for two more years,
although subject to modifications. The elements in the pro-
gram most likely to change in the near future are: target
population, me.suring instruments, data collecting and
processing procedures, interpretation of data, use of data
and more effective methods for the dissemination of data.
78
Individuals Interviewed
The primary sources of information were Henry G. Kosters,
Associate Superintendent, Department of Public Instruc-
tion, Capitol Building, Pierre, South Dakota 57501 (tele-
phone: 605 224-4290) and Emmett B. 01,:son, State
Director, Division of Vocational and Technical Education,
SDREA Building, 222 West Pleasant Drive, Pierre, South
Dakota 57501 (telephone: 605 224-3423).
TENNESSEE
Tennessee State Assessment Program
Goals
It is anticipated that statewide goals will be prepared by a
citizens' advisory group, the State Commissioner of Educa-
tion, the State Board of Education, the State Department
of Education and selected students working together state-
wide. These goals are expected to reflect a combination of
inpn,, process and output.
Program Title and Purposes
The official name of the program is the Tennessee State
Assessment Program. Its major purposes are to: assess
educational needs, provide data for a management informa-
tion system, set statewide educational goals and provide
information for a programming-planning-budgeting system.
Initiation
The State Assessment Program was initiated in 1968 fol-
lowing ESEA Title 111 State Administration Guidelines. The
State Department of Education was involved in program
initiation, with initial planning done in conjunction with
the Bureau of Educational Research and Services at
Memphis State University. The "Design for Tennessee
Assessment and Evaluation," published in March 1969, out-
lined the first three-year cycle for assessment activities.
Policy
Program policy has not yet been determined.
Funding
The program is completely financed through federal funds,
using ESEA Title III and ESEA Title IV, Section 402.
Roughly $26,000 was spent in 1972 on state assessment.
Administration
An interdepartmental planning and evaluation committee
serves in an advisory capacity for planning assessment
activities. Activities are implemented through the Office of
Planning and Evaluation in cooperation with ESEA Title 111
staff and the Testing and Evaluation Center. The equivalent
of three full-time professionals work on state assessment at
the state level.
Population
The target population is defined by grade, with grades 5
and 8 being currently assessed. Dropouts will not be
included. Individuals will be selected for the program from
a random sample drawn on all public school students in the
target grades. Special schools for the handicapped, voca-
donal, parochial and private schools will be excluded from
the study. Program participation will be strictly voluntary.
Some community characteris.ics will be considered (size
and whether urban or rural).
Areas Assessed
Cognitive areas to be assesed include mathematics, natural
science, reading and social science. Attitudes toward
learning will be assessed in the noncognitive area. The
testing phase of
a program has begun.
Instrumentation
The Stanford Achievement Tests (Harcourt Brace Jovan-
ovich, Inc.) will be used for both grades 5 and 8. The Atti-
tudes Toward Learning Instrument will be administered
only in grade 8. The Stanford Achievement Tests were
chosen by the State Department of Education. The Atti-
tudes Instrument was tailor-made for the program, with
item sampling and analysis done by the State Testing
Center. This instrument was developed by the State Depart-
ment of Education working in conjunction with Memphis
State University. Tennessee does not consider any of its
testing instruments to be criterit-a-leferenced. All instru-
ments are individually reliable.
Related Data
Additional information to be collected to facilitate program
analyses includes the .ast of the instructional program, the
student.' grades, school name, school size, socioeconomic
data and teacher data.
Data Collection and Processing
Classroom teachers will be responsible for the administra-
tion of all test instruments. The State Department of
Education will be responsible for processing the program
data.
interpretation
The organization, analysis and interpretation of all program
data will be done by the State Department of Education.
Use of Data
Program results will be used for instructional improvement,
for guidance purposes, for program planning and program
evaluation. At present, the authority for the program does
not restrict or limit use of assessment dud.
Dissemination
Program reports are prepared and include: state summaries,
school system summaries, school summaries and student
summaries by subject and grade. These reports are available
_
to decision makers in the State Department of Education.
TEXAS
Overview
It is difficult to determine statewide opinion of the Ten-
nessee State Assessment Program, although it is viewed
favorably by the State Depailment of Education. Program
objectives are being adequately achieved despite problems
of insufficient funds, unavailability of trained personnel
and the difficulties of developing program coordination at
the state level.
Prospects for the Future
It is likely that the Tennessee State Assessment Program
will
continue, with probable major changes occurring
during the latter part of 1973. It is difficult to determine at
this time all the areas in which these changes may occur.
Individuals Interviewed
The primary sources of information were Howell W. Todd,
Coordinator of the Office of Planning and Evaluation, Ten-
nessee State Department of Education, 263 Cordell Hull
Building, Nashville, Tennessee 37219 (telephone: 615
741-3206) and Patsy Burress, Director of ESEA Title III,
Tennesszt; State Department of Education, 135 Cordell
Hull Building, Nashville, Tennessee 37219 (telephone: 615
741-1776). John Arms, Chairman of the State Assessment
Advisory Committee, Tennessee State Department of
Education, 135 Cordell Hull Building, Nashville, Tennessee
37219 (telephone: 615 741-1776), was also contacted.
TEXAS
Educational Needs Assessment: A Statewide
Design for Texas
Goals
The State Board of Education formally adopted a set of
goals for public school education in Texas on October 3,
1Q70. They include a combination of factors based upon
'desired conditions" projected into the "Long-Range Plan
for Needs Assessment." Goals cover student development;
organizational efficiency in the public school system of
Texas; and accountability, which includes the continuing
evaluation of the public school system in terms of the
competence of its products and the efficiency of its struc-
ture and processes. The goals, prepared under the direction
of a citizens' advisory group, the Chief State School
Officer, the governor and outside contractors are available
upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
Educational Needs Assessment: A Statewide Design for
Texas is the official title of the program. Major purposes
include
the
assessment
of cognitive and noncognitive
development, the assessment of educational needs and pro-
79
TEXAS
viding data for a management system. The revision of
educational goals is also a major purpose of the program.
Initiation
The State Education Agency was primarily responsible for
initiating the Texas Public School Assessment Program in
1967. Approximately four years has elapsed since its initia-
tion to its present stage of development.
Policy
The Texas Education Agency (Commissioner, State Board
of Education and State Department of Education), working
with representatives of regional education service centers
and school districts, determines how the program is con-
ducted and what changes will be made in the nature of the
program.
Funding
Federal funds finance about 80 percent of the program
expenses. The source of the federal funds varies by the area
of concern being assessed. The state supports about 15
percent, and the remaining expenses are derived from local
levels. The estimated cost
for
last year's program is
5100,000.
Administration
Resources required for coordinating the program statewide
are obtained from a wide range of personnel at the state,
regional and school district levels. The Office of Planning in
the Texas Education Agency has primary responsibility for
the program, and this staff of four full-time professionals is
assisted by personnel from the following other TEA offices:
ESEA Title III and V, elementary and secondary education,
pupil personnel services, research and vocational education.
Representatives of regional
education service centers,
school districts and contracting companies provide addi-
tional assistance in the administration of the needs assess-
ment program.
Population
The program provides for assessment of a wide range of
target populations defined by ethnicity, SES, location and
so on. A major concern of the program is to insure that
varims age groups (11-year-olds, 14-year-olds, 17-year-olds,
adults and out-of-school youth) will be assessed, although
grades are also used to identify target populations. School
participation is requested but not mandatory. All schools
are eligible for testing, but sampling varies according to the
test administered. The 1971 Texas Achievement Appraisal
Study (TAAS) was administered to a sample of approx-
imately one-half of the high school seniors in Texas.
Criterion- referenced mathematics and reading tests in the
fall of 1971 were administered on a sixth grade level.
Schools were selected
size and type of community, Title
I or non-Title I participation and the ethnic distribution of
respondents. Approximately 10 percent of eligible schools
were included in the testing, and approximately 10 percent
of the pupils being taught
at
the sixth grade level
80
responded. Desired learner outcomes for career education
are being developed for 17-year-old students this year.
Areas Assessed
The areas currently being studied in the Long-Range Plan
for Needs Assessment (1967-1975) are mathematics,
reading and career education. Other areas of concern in the
Long-Range Plan include: the noncognitive areas of student
attitudes and aspirations, personal and social relations and
affective behavior.
Instrumentation
In 1967 and again in 1971, the American College Test
(ACT), the Texas Achievement Appraisal Study (TAAS)
and a pupil questionnaire were administered to samples of
high school seniors. In the fall of 1971 the Prescriptive
Reading Test (PRT)Texas Edition, Prescriptive Mathe-
matics Inventory (PMI) Level B and a Pupil Identification
Form (PIF) were administered to samples of sixth grade
students. The ACT measured
developed abilities and
yielded normative data. Both PRT and PMI are criterion-
referenced tests designed to provide teachers with informa-
tion on individual students which could facilitate instruc-
tional planning. Assessment instruments are selected from
those available from pure or applied research projects
conducted by universities, educational laboratories or from
commercial test companies by the State Education Agency.
Although some tests are chosen or designed so that local
schools can receive individual feedback, the data is used
strictly as group-reliable measures on a statewide basis. Item
sampling has not been used to construct any of these tests.
The Career Maturity Inventory and the Assessment of
Career Development were administered to 15,000 students
in the spring of 1973. Both ninth and eleventh grade stu-
dents were tested to determine (1) the usefulness of the
data yielded by the selected instruments for program
planning at the local, regional and state levels and (2) the
extent to which information is provided on the status of
the desired learner outcomes for career education. The
evaluation of the 1973 pilot testing will determine the
instrumentation for the statewide assessment to be con-
ducted in the area of career education.
Related Data
Additional items involved in the analysis and interpretation
of data include: age, county, percent minority, previous
course work, racial/ethnic, school name and size, sex and
socioeconomic factors.
Data Collection and Processing
Administrative staff and school personnel administered the
tests and inventories. The State Education Agency and out-
side
contractors were responsible for processing
the
information. Experts from various sectors of the educa-
tional enterprise reviewed preliminary test data. Companies
publishing the instruments were contracted to produce test
Worts.
Interpretation of Data
Outside contractors were responsible for analyzing, organ-
izing and interpreting the gross statewide results. Further
processing and analysis of information was done by the
Texas Education Agency.
Use of Data
Results of the programs are used for instruction, guidance
and program planning on a long-range basis. Needs assess-
ment leads to the choice of priority pupil needs toward
which the resources of the Texas Education Agency can be
focused. Pupil assessment, evaluation and planning are
viewed as vital elements
in establishing and renewing
Agency programs for sharper focusing of local efforts upoll
public needs. No restrictions have been placed on the use of
the data. Reports sent to various Agency divisions, informa-
tion stored in the Management Information Center and data
collected and recorded by staff members of other Agency
Divisions are examined for information that will serve to
identify the existence of educational needs within the
schools.
Information available in the ERIC documents, stztq
government libraries and other specialized resource centers
has been examined for materials relevant to the identifica-
tion of priority areas of educational concern. Special con-
sideration is being given to a search for existing information
.,about pupil organizations, opinions and activities not
readily available in the current materials that deal with the
educational problems and concerns of the schools.
The assessment results from each study ofa priority area
of concern are to be used as a basis for establishing state-
wide learner objectives. These objectives become long-range
targets for accomplishment in the elementary and second-
ary school system in Texas.
DisseMination
Reports of program results are prepared by the Texas
Education Agency. Summaries are prepared by state, target
area, region and local systems. Student reports are often
issued on an individualized basis. Public information news
releases are prepared. The State Board of Education is
informed of identified needs and is provided with recom-
mendations for alleviating these needs. Slide-tape presenta-
tions about the results are prepared for use with audiences
of educators and lay citizens.
Overview
State officials and educational agencies in Texas view the
program very favorably. Objectives are being achieved
although certain obstacles exist such as limited resources,
time lap and communication gaps.
Prospects for the Future
Because the Texas program is a long-range plan for needs
assessment, target populations, areas assessed and data col-
lection vary from one year to another. Each year's results
are recorded and serve as a basis for updating and renewal
of the Statewide Design.
UTAH
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information is Keith L. Cruse, Pro-
gram Director, Needs Assessment, Texas Education Agency,
Austin, Texas 78701 (telephone: 512 475-2066).
REFERENCES
Texas Education Agency. Educational Needs Assessment: A State.
wide Design for Texas. September 1972.
Texas Education Agency. 1971 Texas Achievement Appraisal
Study. May 1972.
Texas Education Agency. Sixth Grade Mathematics. 1972.
Texas Education Agency. Sixth Grade Reading. 1972.
Texas Education Agency. Assessment of Selected Educational
Needs: A Local Perspective. April 1971,
UTAH
Utah Education Evaluation Improvement Effort
Introduction
In the past eight years there have been two major assess-
ment projects which were conducted within a larger pro-
gram. The Education Evaluation Improvement Effort is a
working title only since the present program is still pri-
marily in the design stage. The program is
primarily
concerned with improving
the quality of educational
decision making through evaluation measurement, research
and assessment techniques. A program report on the
present work can be expected in 1974.
'Goals
A formal set of eight statewide educational goals has been
prepared, covering the areas of intellectual, social, emo-
tional, physical, productive, aesthetic, environmental and
ethical-moral-spiritual maturities. There is a range of 8 to
25 sub-objectives within these major goals areas. Citizens'
Advisory Groups, the Chief State School Officer, the State
Board of Education, the State Education Agency and stu-
dents all participated in goal preparation. The goals have
been formally adopted by the State Board of Education,
the State Textbook Commission and the State Course and
Study Committee. The goals are primarily long-range stu-
dent output in nature. They are available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The unofficial title of the program is the Utah Education
Evaluation Improvement Effort. Its major purpose is to
improve the quality of educational decision making through
research evaluation measurement and assessment in such
areas as cognitive development, educational needs, non-
cognitive development and influences on learning.
I.
81
UTAH
Initiation
The program was initiated in 1965 by the State Education
Agency,_ with
the
first
legislative report on activities
prepared in 1969.
Policy
The responsibility for conducting the program and its.
changes belongs to the State Board of Education, the Office
of the Utah State Board of Education and representatives
of major school systems.
Funding
In the past the program has been entirely federally funded
using ESEA Title IV, Section 402 and Title V funds. Last
year roughly 530,000 was spent. In 1973 the program is
asking for state funds, but it is not certain yet what state
law the appropriations will come under.
Administration
The Planning Unit coordinates the program statewide. The
professional staff consists of two full-time individuals on a
state level.
Population
As a part of the overall program, Utah conducted an assess-
ment project in 1970 in which the target group was defined
by grade, with grades 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 being assessed.
Individuals not systematically sampled included dropouts,
delinquents, migrants and non-English speaking students:
Parochial, private and vocational-technical schools were
excluded from the study. Samples were drawn from the
target groups and participation was voluntary. Special com-
munity characteristics were not taken into consideration in
drawing the sample.
Areas Assessed
The cognitive areas of reading, speaking abilities, arith-
metic, science, social studies and general comprehension
and learning skills as well as the noncognitive areas of
psychomotor skills, social adjustment, maturity, personal
adjustment, flexibility, self-confidence, healthy aspirations,
leadership, optimism and other attitudes (toward self, self
as learner, others, learning, school and community) were
assessed.
Instrumentation
Utah did not use a uniform testing program for assessment,
but used already existing local testing programs. The local
districts chose tests for their own purposes and the state
drew on the resulting data.
The State Education Agency developed a Student
Information System (SIS) as a means of obtaining and
storing effective and limited cognitive data to complement
the local testing programs.
The following three SIS inventories have been used to
gather data from students:
The Student Questionnaire Le% 11 (SQI) for elementary
students
82
The Student Questionnaire Level II (SQII) for students
in junior and senior high :-.hool
The Student Questionnaire Level III (SQIII) for young
people who have left the school program
One S1S instrument, the Student Check List (SCL), has
been used to gather student data from teacher ratings (sub-
sections measure students' various achievement factors,
learning related problems and diversified behavioral char-
acteristics). The various scales from S1S provide for both
teacher-perceived and self-perceived output.
Related Data
The following additional information was used to help
analyze data: age, grades, percent minority, school size, sex,
socioeconomic and r:
i/ethnid status.
Data Collection and Processing
For the last assessment project (1969), classroom teachers
were responsble for giving the tests and collecting the data.
Local school districts and the Office of the Utah State
Board of Education were responsible for processing the
information obtained.
Interpretation
The Office of the. Utah State Board of Education was also
responsible for analyzing, organizing and interpreting the
data.
Use of Data
The primary use of the resulting data was production of a
legislative report. To some extent the data was also used for
program evaluation, program planning and public relations.
Dissemination
The State Education Agency prepared a state summary
report, including reports by target areas. Copies of the
program report went to the State Board of Education, the
state legislature, ERIC and, by means of newspaper releases,
to school dist: icts, schools, students, parents and teacher
organizations.
Overview
The program has been viewed passively in the past; how-
ever, it is doing well in meeting program objectives. The
major problem is felt to be placing proper emphasis upon
the possible uses of assessment information. Since the cur-
rent program is undergoing change, it is not timely to
evaluate or judge its performance.
Prospects for the Future
The program is expected to continue, with modification
planned. The current description of the program is only
expected to be accurate for a brief period. A more accurate
and current description should be available in the near
future. Two areas most likely to change are dissemination
and use of data.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Stephen L. Murray,
Specialist in Evaluation, The Office of the Utah State Board
of Education, 136 E. South Temple, 1400 University Club
Building, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (telephone: 801
328-5888).
VLAMONT
Public School Approval Process in Vermont
Goals (t913)
The Vermont Department of Education Agency Policy
Statement contains the Oak. for the Vermont Department
of Education. Also, goals concerned with process and stu-
dent output known as the ,Vermont Design for Education
are available upon request.
Progam Title and Purposes
The official title of the program is the Public School
Approval Process in Vermont. Its major purposes are
described by Vermont Statute:
3165. Approval of public schools
Approval of a public school shall be a finding by the
state board that' the school conforms to all require-
ments of law and to such other standards relating to
instruction, faculty, curriculum, library, educational
materials, physical facility which the state board shall
establish by regulation as necessary to provide an
acceptable educational opportunity for pupils in the
school. Approval of a school shall be for a term deemed
appropriate by the state board.Added 1969, No. 298
(Adj. Sess.),
316, eff. July 1, 1970.
A Blue Ribbon Study Group is working with the State
Department of Education in developing regulations for the
above statute and has arrived at a consensus on eight steps.
In the process for educational designs (nursery through
12+), by which schools in a supervisory union or super-
visory district may be approved, the eight steps it the local
level are:
Establish Philosophy of Education
Establish clearly defined Goals and Objectives
Determine present status with respect to the Goals and
Objectives
Define Ne,,ds
Develop Plans
Hold a public hearing
Present final plan to State Department of Education for
action by Commissioner. Decision may be appealed
to State Board of Education.*
According to a designated multiyeat cycle.
VERMONT
initiation
This program was initiated by the State Department of
Education acting upon a charge from the State Board of
Education on November 15, 1971.
Policy
The State Board of Education sets policy. The State Educa-
tion
Agency through the Blue Ribbon Study Group
involves a broad representation of citizens in working out
the procedure.
Funding
State and local funds are used. A program cost figure is not
available at this time.
4
Administration
The Division of Instruction (Elementary and Secondary
Education) personnel coordinate the program statewide.
The professional staff includes a Chief of Educational
Assessment. There are no outside agencies or consultants
involved in the administration of the assessment program at
present.
Population
Guidelines for the student population sampled have not
been established as yet. It is proposed that use be made of
data from testing programs already administered at the
local level. The "Anchor System" is under study.
Areas Assessed
At this point, it is proposed that data from the cognitive
areas of mathematics and reading be used in the "trial run"
period.
Instrumentation
Vermont is updating its information on he status of testing
in the local school districts.
Data Collection and Processing
The State Education Agency will have the responsiblity for
processing the information obtained.
Interpretation
The State Education Agency will also be responsible for
analyzing, organizing and interpreting the processed data.
Use of Data
Confidentiality will be respected. Assessment results are
intended to be used for program planning. School approval
will be by state acceptance of a plan to meet priority needs.
Dissemination
The Commissioner of Education will receive a copy of the
plan and take appropriate action as described in the
approval process.
Overview
Problems are foreseen due to lack of sufficient staff and
funds.
83
Prospects for the Future
The set of elementary and secondary schools in each school
Supervisory Union or district will be acted upon period.
ically according to a designated multi-year cycle.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Karleen V. Russell,
Director of Instruction, State Department of Education,
Montpelier, Vermont 05602 (telephone: 802 828-3111).
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Assessment of Educational Needs
Introduction
The U.S. Virgin Islands Assessment of Educational Needs
has been divided into three phases. Nan I is a community-
wide survey to dete.mine which educational goal (that is,
learning skills, citizenship, enjoyment of learning, self-
concept and so on) is considered most important, and
which is most in need of f-nprovement. In Phase II, the
Virgin Islands will take the goals selected in Phase I and
identify what
they wan each learner to accomplish.
(Initially, these objectives will not be prepared for all grade
levels but only for several selected grades. There will be
special workshops held for teachers, principals and super-
visors to train them in preparing the objectives. At this
point testing instruments will be selected and/or prepared
and administered. In Phase III, educational programs will be
developed to eliminate
the learner needs that were
established.
Goals
A formal set of educational goals for the entire territory has
been prepared and adopted by the Board of Education and
is available upon request. The focal point of the needs
assessment is the learner and the end results of his educa-
tional process.
Program Title and Purposes
At the end of the 1972-73 school year, the Virgin Islands
Assessment of Educational Needs will provide the following
types of data: diagnostic data in reading and math to
second and fifth grade teachers, base line data on what
second and fifth grade students know about other peoples
in the Caribbean, data on which variables seem to influence
learner achievement and a list of learner needs in which the
students have not achieved the desired proficiency level.
Initiation
The Department of Education initiated a needs assessment
in the 1970 fiscal year which was interrupted until March
1972, when the current activities were resumed.
84
Policy
A citizens' advisory group, the Chief State School Officer,
representatives of two school districts and the State Educa-
tion Agency cooperatively determine program policy and
changes.
Funding
The program is funded 100 percent by federal ESEA Title
Ill monies.
Administration
ESEA Title III personnel coordinate the program through-
out the territory, in close coordination with the State
Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation. The ter-
ritory has a professional staff of 1.5 full-time equivalents
working on educational assessment. EPIC Diversified
Systems Corporation in Tucson, Arizona, will be respon-
sible for overall study design, data analysis and test con-
sulting.
Population
The target groups in this first year of the needs assessment
will be grades 2 and 5. All students in these grades in the 27
public schools in the Virgin Islands will be tested in May of
this year.
Areas Assessed
The community-wide survey (Phase 1) of students, parents,
educators, business people, college students and senior citi-
zens determined that the basic skills were r ^nsidered the
most important goal of the education system and that
greater emphasis should be placed on teaching the students
to understand the way of life of other peoples in the
Caribbean. Therefore, math, reading, and student under-
standing of Caribbean culture will be assessed this year.
Instrumentation
A standardized reading achievement test will be admin-
istered; however, only selected test items which have been
related to specific objectives will be utilized in the analysis
of the test results. In mathematics and Caribbean culture,
locally prepared inventories will be administered. These
inventories were prepared by teachers in the State Educa-
tion Agency. The mathematics and reading inventories are
criterion-referenced. The test of Caribbean culture is being
given in preparation for curriculum development in the fall
of 1973. Although for assessment purposes the results will
only be used as group-reliable data, the individual results
will go to the students' teachers.
Related Data
Although a final determination has not been made, items
under consideration include demographic data, (age, sex,
language spoken in home, number of years in the Virgin
Islands and place of birth), student educational back-
grounds (for
example,
special remedial help given in
reading, whether retained in grade, missed years of school),
teacher data (years of experience, educational background,
years teaching in Virgin Islands) and school data (name,
size, graded, ungraded).
Data Collection and Processing
The Department of Education is responsible for data col-
lection and its consultant is responsible for data processing.
Interpretation
EPIC will be responsible for analyzing program data and the
Department of Education will be responsible for inter-
preting the data.
Use of Data
The objectives of the needs assessment state the types of
data that will be provided. The diagnostic data will be used
by teachers for instructional purposes,_and the data on the
childrens' knowledge of the Caribbean will be used in cur-
riculum development. Data on which educational variables
influence learner achievement will be used to determine the
use of financial resources and establish educational policies,
while data on learner needs will be used to establish need
priorities and to develop educational programs to eliminate
these needs.
Dissemination
The results of the community-wide survey (Phase 1) will be
sent to educators, PTA presidents: legislators and all heads
of community organizations. A public forum is planned to
discuss the survey results. Needs assessment results will be
disseminated in various ways depending on the type of data
and its proposed use.
Overview
ESEA Title III personnel and the Department of Education
are very pleased with the prospects of the program.
r
Prospects for the Future
The present description will remain accurate through the
end of the 1972-73 academic year. The program will
continue but with modification. Phases II and III will be
carried out, and expansion can be expected in the areas of
objectives within goal areas and grade levels to be tested.
After the completion of Phase III, the new educational
programs must be tested to see if the students are meeting
the objectives that have been set.
Individuals Interviewed
The primary source of information was Kurt Komives,
Research and Evaluation Specialist, Director, ESEA Title
III, Department of Education, P.O. Box 630, St. Thomas,
Virgin Islands 00801 (telephone: 809 774-5886).
VIRGINIA
Virginia Educational Needs Assessment Study
Goals
A formal set of statewide educational goals has been jointly
prepared by the Chief State School Officer, the legislature,
the State Board of Education, the State Education Agency,
citizens' advisory groups and other consultants and experts.
The goals have been formally adopted by the legislature and
deal with a combination of input, educational process and
student output. They are available upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The program is entitled the Virginia Educational Needs
Assessment Study. Following the completion and imple-
mentation of Phase I (the cognitive and affective domains),
Phase II, the assessment of educational needs in the psycho-
motor domain, was initiated and conducted during the
1971-72 school year. The purposes of the program are: (1)
to delineate the needs for psychomotor programming
within elementary schools, (2) to draw inferences for
educational planning in terms of teacher education instruc-
tional practices, classroom management, selection of cur-
riculum materials and individualization of instruction in the
psychomotor domain; and (3) to correlate findings of
psychomotor study (Phase II) with the findings of Phase I,
and also with the standards of quality approved by the
Board of Education and enacted by the General Assembly.
Initiation
The Virginia Needs Assessment Study was initiated by the
State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Planning was
accomplished througi, a task force composed of representa-
tives of all interested divisions within the State Educational
Agency and the N.C. Kephart Glen Haven Achievement
Center.
Policy
The State Department of Education Task Force retains the
authority for modification and change in the planning and
future implementation action on the final findings of the
study.
Funding
.-
The stud., .vas initiated in response to the requirements of
ESEA Title ill, and the major costs of the study are being
borne by Title III.
Administration
The Federal Programs Office coordinated the program
statewide. The N.C. Kephart Glen Haven Achievement
Center conducted the study and was responsible for selec-
tion, combination and development of the tests and the
statistical verification by analysis of data collected from the
sample population.
85
VIRGINIA
Population
The Division of Educational Research and Statistics,
Virginia Department of Education, selected a stratified
sample of 4,500 children, grades K-4 from public schools,
for an initial screening in the form of a teacher checklist.
An additional sample of 1.500 children was utilized to
procure additional data in response to pupil test programs
administered under the direction of the N.C. Kephart Glen
Haven Achievement Center.
Areas Assessed
Psychomotor function was assessed in Phase II.
Instrumentation
Three instruments were primarily used in the testing pro.
gram:
1. The Purdue Perceptual-Motor Survey (PPMS)
2. The Virginia Psycho-Motor Screening Instrument (to
provide the classroom teacher with an instrument with
which she can evaluate her students in the areas of
psychomotor development).
3. The Test of Non-Verbal Auditory Discrimination
TENVAD (to assess auditory discrimination in young
children and patterned after the model of the Seashore
Test of Musical Talent (1960).
Related Data
To help analyze and interpret the test data, the following
additional information is also collected: age, sex, academic
grades and rural/urban data.
Data Collection and Processing
Selected graduate students from Virginia schools of higher
education assisted with the testing process. The N.C.
Kephart Glen Haven Achievement Center trained these stu-
dents and then utilized them in the testing under the super-
vision of personnel of its association. As ,.: result of this
experience the students will be available to educational
agencies in the future as additional personnel with special.
ized training in the psychomotor domain.
Use of Data
The program is designed to improve guidance, instruction.
program planning and program evaluation. To avoid ide%ti-
fication of individual schools or school districts, results will
be reported only in terms of the six geographic regions of
the state.
Dissemination
Analysis results and recommendations for implementing
psychomotor training were available early in 1973. The
state summary will be distributed to the governor, the legis-
lature, the State Educational Agency and newspapers.
Overview
Response to the program is generally favorable; actual
implementation has not occurred. It is too early to judge
how well the program objectives are being achieved.
86
Prospects for the Future
At this time, subsequent action to up-date the study is
planned. Implications for curriculum change and teacher
training are anticipated.
Individuals Interviewed
The primary sources of information were Robert V. Turner,
Special Assistant, Federal Programs and Relations, Virginia
Department of Education, P.O. Box 6-Q, Richmond,
Virginia 23216 (telephone: 703 770-3170) and Clarence L.
Kent, Supervisor, Guidance and Testing Service, State
Board of Education, Richmond, Virginia 23216 (telephone:
703 770-2617).
REFERENCES
Woodrow W. Wilkerson. Standards of Quality and Objectives for
Public Schools in Virginia 1972-74.
State Department of Education. Manual for Implementing Stand-
ards of Quality and Objectives for Public Schools in
Virginia
1972-1974.
WASHINGTON
State Assessment of Educational Outcomes
Introduction
Washington's assessment program is still in the develop.
mental stage and most of this description will deal with that
development and tie proposed operational program. The
program
will
become operational during the
1974-75
academic year.
Goals
A formal set of 18 statewide educational goals was coopera-
tively prepared by the Superintendent of Public Instruction
and the State Board of Education and adopted by the latter
in January 1972. The Delphi method was used in identi-
fying these goals, thereby also involving students, teachers,
school administrators, parents, professional groups and
representatives of labor and industry. A series of statewide
public hearings was conducted as a means of gaining ideas
and reviewing the goals. Of the 18 goal statements, 10 deal
with stuient outcome. The goals are available upon request,
Program Title and Objectives
Major purposes of Washington's program, State Assessment
of Educational Outcome.% are to assess educational needs.
cognitive and noncognitive development, provide data for a
management information system and provide information
for a planning-programming-budgeting system.
Initiation
The program was jointly initiated by the State Board of
Education, the Superintendent of Public Instruction and
the state legislature approximately two years ago.. The first
model was pilot tested a year late' in May 1972.
Policy
At the present the pilot program is under the auspices of
the State Education Agency, which is working in coopera-
tion
with
the
participating
districts. As the program
develops, an advisory committee and technical task force
will play a larger role in program policy.
Funding
At the present, state funds are the primary source of
monies. ESEA Title III and Title V funds have been used.
Administration
SEA Program Evaluation personnel presently coordinate
the program with a staff of two full-time equivalents
working on this project. Washington has consulted with
Educational Testing Service, other testing companies and
the National Assessment Program office.
Population
For pilot study Washington chose grades 4 and 6 for its
target population, eventually it hopes to test all of K-8.
Samples were drawn from a voluntary target population.
Areas Assessed
fhe area of mathematics is being assessed at this time
(springs of 1972 and 1973). Plans are being developed to
assess reading-communication skills and mathematics during
the 1973.74 school year on one grade level.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation consisted of Washington-made crite-
rion-referenced tests. They were developed by the State
Education Agency with the guidance of teachers. It was
very important that the teachers identify the objectives.
Related Data
For the pilot studies Washington has considered school
district size, demographic variables and student variables in
analyzing results.
Data Collection and Processing
This year teachers, trained by SEA, are responsible for
administering the tests, and the SEA is processingthe data.
Interpretation
The State Education Agency is responsible for analyzing
and interpreting the data with the aid of teachers and
administrators from cooperating districts.
Use of Data
The program results will be used to improve local instruc-
tion and state program planning.
Dissemination
Reports of pilot studies are prepared by the SEA and sent
to the school districts, schools and teachers involved. The
WEST VIRGINIA
reports are in the form of state, school, class and student
summaries.
Overview
The program is viewed favorably by the SEA, the local
school administrators and teachers. Program objectives are
being achieved; however, funding and a shortage of trained
personnel are major problems.
Prospects for the Future
The program will continue with the present description
remaining accurate through June of this year. During the
1973-74 school year, the focus will be on assessing a small
statewide sample of children on one grade level in the areas
of reading-communication skills and mathematics.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Robert C. Munson,
Supervisor, Program Evaluatit,
, Old Capitol Building,
Olympia, Washington 98504 .*:telephone: 206 753-3449).
WEST VIRGINIA
West Virginia Educational Assessment Program
The Bureau of Planning, Research and Evaluation
is
presently designing a plan for soliciting the opinions of the
citizens of the state concerning goals for student learning.
The final set of goals should be established and approved by
the State Board of Education in late 1973.
Program Title and Purposes
The official title of the program is the West Virginia Educa-
tional Assessment Program. The major purpose of the
program is to assess educational need in those goal areas
ranked highest by the
state's citizens. An additional
purpose is to develop a computer-based system for meas-
uring school effectiveness. The sygera will consider the
surrounding conditions of home, school and community.
Finally, a basic part of the program will deal with upgrading
the Department of Education'sinformation system.
initiation
The present program for the assessment ofstudent learning
was initiated in 1972 with the work conducted by the
Bureau of Planning, Research and Evaluation in conjunc-
tion with participation in the Mid-Atlantic Region Inter-
state Project. During calendar year 1972, the Bureau of
Planning, Research and Evaluation adapted an assessment
model, revised data collection procedures, implemented
computer programs for the statistical analysis of variables
associated with the evaluation model and completed a pilot
87
WEST VIRGINIA
study using the evaluation model. With the advent of stu-
dent learner assessment efforts. the institutional assessment
of the past was phased out in 1972.
Policy
The following groups determine program policy and what
changes will be made: an assessment advisory council, the
Chief State School Officer and the State Board of Educa-
tion.
Funding
Titles 111 and V of ESEA are primary sources of funding for
the program. State funds support the statewide testing
program which provides much of the raw data for the
assessment effort.
Administration
The program is administered by the Bureau of Planning,
Research and Evaluation within the West Virginia Depart-
ment of Education. The program requires the equivalent of
two full-time professional staff members. One and one-half
of this equivalency is within the Bureau, with the remainder
in the Division of Guidance, Counseling and Testing. The
necessary administration of instruments at the school level
requires the equivalent oftwo additional staff members. At
this time, no outside agencies or consultants are involved in
are program's administration.
Population
The student target population was defined on the basis of
grade, with dropouts and educably mentally retarded
excluded. Grade 6 will be assessed and all individuals within
the target grade will be included. All public and non-public
schools were included. Participation in the program is in the
form of an informal requirement, with 100 percent of the
eligible schools included. Because of the nature of participa-
tion (all schools), community characteristics were not a
selection factor.
Areas Assessed
In 1972, the cognitive areas of aptitude, English, mathe-
matics, natural science, reading and social science will be
assessed. An additional area of assessment will be the
students' attitude toward school subjects. In the present
year, prior to completion of the selection of goals for
student learning and the ranking by the State's citizens, the
Bureau of Planning, Research and Evaluation has assumed
that both skills and attitudeswill be given high priority.
Instrumentation
The data on the students' skills and attitudes will be derived
from the administration of the Scholastic Testing Service's
Educational Development Series. This battery is admin-
istered at grades 3, 6, 9 and 11. The instrument was recom-
mended by a state test selection committee and approved
by the State Education Agency. No part of the battery is
criterion-referenced. The test results are reliable for use
with individual students.
88
Related Data
School condition variables, community condition variables
and input variables will be used in the computer analysis of
the data.
Data Collection and Processing
Trained classroom teachers, guidance counselors and super-
visors and school administrative staff members are respon-
sible for giving the tests and inventories. WestVirginia's
State Education Agency is responsible for processing the
resulting information.
Interpretation
The State Education Agency will be responsible for organ-
izing, analyzing and interpreting statewide data. School
personnel with State Education Agency and local district
assistance will be responsible for individual school interpre-
tations.
Use of Data
The assessment program results will be used for purposes of
instruction, guidance, program evaluation, decision-making
and program planning. By a policy agreement will' the local
education agencies, individual school data is restricted. A
basic analysis
interpretation by individual school is
forwarded to each respective school. The school receiving
the report decides upon the release of the data and analysis.
Dissemination
Reports of the results will be prepared by the State Educa-
tion Agency. The reports will include state summaries and
school summaries. Individual schools will receive only the
state summary and their own summary.
Overview
From 1967 to 1972, statewide assessments of education
ere institutional in nature. Beginning in 1972, the Bureau
of Planning, Research and Evaluation initiated steps which
will lead to an assessment of student learning. To fully
implement a student learner assessment entails the collec-
tion of different data, a revision of the present information
system and the pilot testing of numerous computer pro-
grams. The implementation of a total assessment system
will provide information to those in decision-making posi-
tions. This should lead to a decrease in the number of
decisions based on intuition and an increase in the number
of decisions based on information gained from the sound
treatment of data.
Prospects for the Future
Because the assessment program for student framing is
relatively new, there will be much modification within the
basic design in the next few years.
Individuals Inters, wed
The primary sources of information were Philip F. Thorn-
ton, Consultant, Assessment and Evaluation, State Depart-
ment of Education, Capitol Building No. 6, Room B-163,
Charleston, West Virginia 25305 (telephone: 304
348-7814) and John McClure, Consultant, Assessment and
Evaluation, State Department of Education, Room 337B,
Capitol Complex, Charleston, West Virginia 25305 (tele-
phone: 304 348-2698).
WISCONSIN
Statewide Assessment Program
Goals
A set of statewide educational goal areas dealing mainly
with educational outcomes has been developed by an
advisory task force composed of educators, non-educators,
members of the legislature, students and other citizens
interested in education. These goal areas have been recom-
mended to the State Superintendent for Public Instruction
but have not yet been formally adopted by him. The report
of the task force to the State Superintendent is available
upon request.
Program Title and Purposes
The program, officially called the Wisconsin Statewide
Assessment Program, seeks to assess educational needs,
measure influences on learning, measure growth, provide
data for a management information system ..ad set state-
wide educational goals.
Initiation
The Chief State School Officer and the governor initiated
the idea for the program in the 1971-73 biennial state
budget. The legislative mandate was passed in October
1971, officially launching the pietera'm-, which is currently
in its first operational year, First testing was in May 1973,
Policy
A citizen's advisory group, the Chief State School Officer,
representatives of school svetns, the State Education
Agency and the state '
all have some input in
determining how the
:, conducted and what
changes will be made.
Funding
Approximately 80 percent of the program is financed by
federal ESEA funds. The remaining 20 percent is financed
by a special category of state funds. The program costs
were approximately $90,000 through June 1973.
Administration
Planning and Evaluation personnel are responsible for
coordinating the program statewide. One full-time equiv-
alent position is supported by Title III funds, another-full-
time position by state funds and a half-time. professional
staff person is jointly supported by a combination of
WISCONSIN
federal and state funds. The Research Triangle Institute
developed the sampling design for the assessment program.
Population
The program is confined to grade 3 and grade 7 students in
public elementary schools and excludes handicapped and
nonpublic schools. A random sample ofschools within the
target population is chosen to participate in the program.
Students who have ,dropped behind grade level are included
in the program; however, educationally mentally retarded,
emotionally disturbed and non-English speaking students
are not. Not all eligible students participate in the program;
a sample of students is drawn from the target population.
Areas Assessed
Mathematics and reading are being assessed in the cognitive
areas and in the noncognitive area-student attitudes towards
the educational cuvironment are being assessed.
Instrumentation
In mathematics, criterion-referenced tests developed by
math teachers and specialists across the state are used. The
math test was "tailor-made" and was constructed using
item sampling. In reading, a criterion-referenced
test,
adopted and revised for state purposes, is used. Both tests
are used as "group reliable" measures.
Related Data
Although nonachievement data to be collected has not been
fully determined, it is planned to collect information on per
pupil instructional costs, socioeconomic status, school size,
teacher data, student age and sex.
Data Collection and Processing
Local school staff will be responsible for giving the tests.
The State Education Agency,, with the assistance of the
Wisconsin State Testing Service, will process the informa-
tion obtained from the program.
Interpretation
The State Education Agency and curriculum ..,ecialists will
be responsible for analyzing, organizing and in:erpreting the
data.
Use of Data
The results of this year's assessment will be used to build a
statewide profile for third and seventh graders concerning
the mathematics and reading skills they possess. These state
profiles will then be released to the public ..nd other
interested parties for their perusal. In addition, the achieve-
ment and nonachievement data will be analyzed to deter-
mine what conditions/relationships are in need of further
research.
Dissemination
It is planned that the State Educaticn Agency and a Tech-
nical Advisory Committee will prepare state summaries,
target area summaries and public information pieces. These
89
WISCONSIN
reports will be distributed by the State Education Agency
to the governor, legislature, school districts, schools, stu-
dents, parents, teacher organizations, ERIC and other
interested parties.
Overview
As the program has been outlined thus far, reaction has
been favorable. However, the program has not yet become
operational. The program
is proceeding according
to
schedule, and the program objectives are being achieved as
planned. The major problem is the lack of funds to design
and implement a comprehensive program which would
assess a larger sample of the population and adequately
collect and analyze nonachievement data which would
provide for expanded decision-making.
Prospects for the Future
The program is likely to continue, with modifications in
funding, areas assessed and the development of additional
measurement instruments.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was Robert Gon,c11,
Section Chief, Research Assessment and Evaluation, 126
Langdon Stieet, Madison, Wisconsin 53702 (telephone: 608
266-1782).
WYOMING
Coals
The first phase of the statewide educational needs assess-
ment program was the identification of the It
oeroriented
goals and objectives for Wyoming public elementary and
secondary education. The goals became available May I,
1973, in the Phase I Assessment Report. Work copies of the
identified goals and objectives for the various subject areas
and the instructional support areas of Student and Media
Services were widely distributed in the state during the
developmental period and later through routine dissernina
tion of sub-reports. The procedures for the identification of
the goals and objectives involved nine basic steps:
I. Review of literature and pertinent documents such as
State Curriculum Guides, school district documents,
national goals and objectives, State Eoard of Education
publications and policies, school law and educational
research documents by a consultant team at the Univer-
sity of Wyoming.
2. Preparation of rationale and tentative2goals statements
by assessment area consultant teams.
3. The refinement of tentative goals statements by the
state's leading educators serving on committees for each
instructional and instructional support area treated in
the assessment.
90
4. Survey of the professional and lay public for reaction to
appropriateness, meaningfulness and
clarity of the
rationale and the goals statements.
5. Revision of goals statements by the consultant team
based on the results of the surveys.
6. Identification of sub-goals, general and specific objec-
tives, following the previously described procedures.
7. Review of identified goals and objec :ves by recognized
regional and national authorities.
8. Final revision of goals and objectives.
9. Publication and dissemination.
Goals and objectives were identified for the following areas:
Affective Education
Art Education
Communication Arts:
Secondary English
Language Arts
Reading
Exceptional Children
Foreign Language
Health Education
Mathematics
Music
Occupational Education:
Business Education
Distributive Education
Home Economics
Industrial Education:
Industrial Arts
Trade & Industry
Physical Education
Psychomotor Education
Science
Social Studies
Pupil Personnel Services
Media Services
The goals deal with the output of education, except for
Student
and Media Services which involve input and
process. Involved in the process of goal identification 11..:e
been the personnel from school districts, faculty and staff
members of the University of Wyoming, College of Educa-
tion, specialists from the State Department of Education,
the administrative offices of the College of Education and
the State Department of Education, the Title III, ESEA
St ate
Advisory Committee,
the Wyoming Education
Association and 28 professional education associations and
organizations in the state. Legislators and representative of
the lay and professional leadership in the state were repre-
sented
in
the State Sounding Committee. The State
Sounding Committee reviewed progress in ail areas treated
in Phase I, providing reaction and input. Over 2,000 mJi-
viduals in the state were surveyed in the initial goals identi-
fication.
Resources and materials from other states, major cur-
riculum projects and the resources and materials of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress have been
used extensively in Phase I activities.
Endorsement of the goals by the State Board of Educa-
tion is anticipated. A number of school districts in the State
have used the WYENAP goals and objectives as springboard
materials for the development of local g 7als and objectives.
' Program Ttle and Purposes
Officially titled the Wyoming
ment Project (WYENAP), the p
which focus on the learner in
measurement and eva:inition
Educational Needs Assess-
rogram claims JO objectives
the classroom: establishing
standards, developing and
I
pilot testing a measurement program, ascertaining learner
outcome levels, identifying learner needs and learner-related
needs, determining critical levels of those needs, recom-
mending measures to alleviate critical needs, informing the
public of the needs assessment project's activities and
making recommendations relevant
to establishing an
ongoing state assessment program. These objectives
are
incorporated into a 5-phase schedule running through 1973.
The overall purpose of the needs assessment is to facilitate
statewide planning for the improvement of elementary and
secondary education and at the same time meet the special
requirements of ESEA Title III for statewide educational
needs assessment.
Initiation
WYENAP was initiated by the State Department of Educa-
tion under a contract with the University of Wyoming
College of Education, Center for Research, Service and
Publication in 1971. Projected activities are presently out-
lined through 1978 with a measurement development and
measurement schedule which includes some recycling of
assessment in special subject areas.
Policy
WYENAP serves directly under the Center for Research,
Service and Publication, College of Education, University of
Wyoming. While the contractual relationship between the
University and the State Department of Education specifies
the roles, duties and responsibilities for the conduct of the
project, the practical and philosophical thrust of the rela-
tionship is that of cooperation and joint effort in the
service of the schools of the state. The University of
Wyoming is the only institution of higher learning in the
state beyond the community college level. The University
of Wyoming College of Education and the State Depart-
ment of Education have traditionally provided the bulk of
educational services to the schools of the state. The needs
assessment project, in a formal arrangement, continues to
further these services.
The Project Steering Committee coordinates and directs
the WYENAP activity. Voting members of the committee
include four State Department of Education members and
three faculty members of the University of Wyoming Col-
lege of Education. Ex-officio members of the steering
committee are the Dean of the College of Education and
the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The State
ESEA Title III Director serves as chairman of the com-
mittee and the project director serves as committee ed;ecu-
tive secretary.
While policy rests primarily with the contracting agency
and is set forth in the WYENAP contract and proposal,
recommendations for policy changes and recommendations
for project modification and revision are acted upon by the
project steering committee, Appropriate recommendations
are forwarded by the committee chairman to the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction for final approval.
Funding
Federal funds from ESEA Titles I and III finance all
WYOMING
expenditures. The contract also provides overhead for the
University which covers office space, furniture and equip-
ment and make3 available to the project many additional
University-based services such as computer services, duplica-
tion and printing, use of motor pool and the like. While the
primary funding is by contract, school districts have pro-
vided released time for teachers and administrators serving
on the various committees to attend meetings. This has
included
district
paymen
' substitute teachers. One
hundred twenty-five educate
:om the schools of the state
have served on such committees. The committees met two
to four times during the Phase I operation. While it is rather
difficult to estimate the school district contribution in
terms of monies, it has been considerable and certainly vital
to the project's success. Last year's expenses were roughly
$80,000. The current contract for Phase II operation is
$84,050.
Administration
The WYENAP staff includes the director, an assistant to the
director, a full-time secretary and part-time data processing,
research and clerical help. Graduate assistants also served as
research aides in the Phase I operation. WYENAP staff are
university employees, the project operates under University
policy, rules and regulations. Consultants from the Univer-
sity of Wyoming faculty and from the State Department of
Education, for the most part, headed up the committees for
the identification of goals and objectives for the special
subject and instructional support areas, as well as psycho-
motor and affective education. Some educators from the
field with appropriate expertise and experience also served
on the consultant teams. Additional consultant teams
served the project to provide the demographic and histor-
ical research for the Phase 1 publication.
Last year approximately 50 consultants and 125 teachers
were directly involved in the conduct of the study.. Con-
sultants for measurement and development served this past
year to organize and supervise the development of crite-
rion-referenced measurement programs in
literature,
reading, science and writing.
Population
Seventeen-year-olds in school will undergo assessment in
November 1973 in the cognitive and affective domains.
Assessment instruments will be administered to a propor-
tionally stratified random sample of approximately 2,500
students. This is about one-third of the in-school seven-
teen-year-old student population. Parochial and private
non-profit schools are invited to participate. Students in
state institutions, such as the reformatories for boys and
girls, will not be included at this time; however, the use of
measurement tools will be made available to these institu-
tions upon request. The educational programs of these state
institutions are not under the jurisdiction of the State
Board of Education. Also, in November, students in grades
K-6 will undergo psychomotor assessment. A similarly sized
proportionally stratified random sample will be drawn for
the psychomotor assessment.
Reporting categories are
91
...,--,..- _._-
WYOMING
anticipated to be: age, grade, school district size by popula-
tion, attendance center size by population, cost per pupil
by school district and comparison with NAEP "p-values"
for appropriate exercises.
Areas Assessed
Tryouts of the affective and cognitive domain (science,
reading, writing and literature) instruments were conducted
in April 1973 in three school districts. Pilot testing in one
school district was conducted in April 1973 for the psycho-
motor assessment screening instrument following validation
of the screening instrument in another Wyoming school
district in February and March 1973.
The long-range assessment for WYENAP includes the fol-
lowing schedule of initial measurement administration:
1973.74
Writing
Science
Reading
Literature
Affective
Psychomotor
1974 -75
Citizenship
Music
Social Studies
Physical Education*
Affective
Psychomotor
1976.77
Career & Occupa-
tional Development
Affective
Psychomotor
New development
1975.76
Mathematics
Foreign Language*
Health & Safety*
Affective
Psychomotor
1977-78
Art
Affective
Psychomotor
Recycling of assessment will begin in 1975-76 with the
tentative designation of reading and science scheduled for
reassessment at that time. Assessment related to input and
process for the areas of Media Services and Student Services
will continue through the 5-year assessment period.
Instrumentation
In
the development of criterion-referenced testing pro-
grams, released exercises and data from the National Assess-
ment of Educational Progress (NAEP) were utilized as a
first priority for adaptation and keying to WYENAP goals
and objectives. Other sources of exercises utilized on a
second priority basis were released exercises from other
state assessments, The Instructional Objectives Exchange
(I0X), BSCS and SAPA. Third priority was originally
developed exercises. The affective assessment instrument
items were drawn from a combination of sources orig-
inating in and out of the state; however, the bulk of items
in
the
instrument were developed originally by the
WYENAP consultants.
Workshops began in January 1973 to orient consultants
to
the
criterion-referenced measurement development
process and to train those who developed the measurement
programs for writing, reading, science and literature.
92
The specifications and procedures for exercise develop-
ment were developed for WYENAP, based heavily on NAEP
resources and materials for exercise development. A I5-step
procedure was devised for the development and keying of
exercises. This included monitoring and supervision of
development and a series of reviews.
The psychomotor assessment screening instrument has
been developed
specifically
for WYENAP assessment
purposes and specifications.
For both pilot testing and later assessment, exercises will
be administered in five packages, each package containing
items from the five areas. Administration of each plckage
will not take more than one hour of testing time. The
sampling plan is presently based on 150 responses per
exercise or item in the cognitive and affective domains.
Related Data
The WYENAP Phaie I report of the identified goals and
objectives places these value statements into context and
perspective
through accompanying demographic and
historical reports. The development of the demographic
study and the treatment of the history of Wyoming public
school finance and the growth of elementary and secondary
education in the state have been an integral part of the
Phzse I operation of WYENAP. The assessment's activities
in respect to Media Services, Student Services and excep-
tional children have been designed to produce an informa-
tion base to apply in Phases III and IV operation for the
identification of learner-related needs and establishment of
levels of criticality. At the present time the State Depart-
ment of Education has included in the Management
Information System the annual collection and analysis of
program information for Wyoming secondary schools. This
information base will be utilized in the analysis of results in
a manner similar to that stated above in Phases III and IV
operations.
Data Collection and Processing
WYENAP staff will administer tests for the program. Actual
processing of data will be done under subcontracts with
other agencies for scoring and analysis.
Interpretation
WYENAP will be responsible for the analysis, organization
and interpretation of the data. The setting of levels of
criticality will involve the State Department of Education,
the organized profession, school district representatives, lay
public and others. A similar process of involvement and
input to that of identifying the goals and objectives will be
utilized.
Use of Data
Program results will be used in statewide educational plan-
ning, in covering ESEA Titles I and Ill requirements and in
covering comprehensive planning requirements for indi-
vidual school districts. All data will become confidential
state property, to be published only with written permis-
sion from the State.
Dissemination
WYENAP staff have prepared and distributed progress
reports to all people involved to this point. The Phase I
Report was published in the spring of 1973.
Overview
Overall opinion of the program is favorable. The State
Education Agency is most positive. Objectives for the
project are being achie-ved very well. Time and money are
the only major problems with respect to the long-term
program outlined for measurement development, assess-
ment and utilization of data.
Prospects for the Future
WYENAP is expected to continue, with possible modifica-
tions in funding. This description will remain accurate
throughout 1973.
Individual Interviewed
The primary source of information was James L. Head lee,
Director, WYENAP, College of Education, University of
Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82070 (telephone:
307
766-6490).
REFERENCE
WYENAP: Wyoming Educational Needs Assessment Project, Univer-
sity of Wyoming, State Department of Education, Education Profes-
sion, School Districts, Wyoming Citizens.
93
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR THE SURVEY OF STATE EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS
©
FALL 1972
State
Interviewer
Interviewee
Date
Return to:
Educational Testing Service
Room B-005
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Telephone: 609 921.9000
Statewide Educational Goals
1. Has a formal set of statewide educational goals been prepared?
a.
Yes
b.
No
c.
In process
2. If statewide educational goals have been prepared, are they
available on request?
a.
Yes
b.
No
3. Which of the following groups participated in the preparation of
the statewide educational goals?
a.
Citizens' advisory group
b.
Chief State School Officer
c.
Governor
il.
Legislature
e.
Outside contractors
f.
State Board of Education
g.
State Education Agency
h.
Students
i.
Other
4. Have the statewide educational goals been formally adopted by
the state?
a.
Yes
b. No
c.
In process
5. What legally constituted state authority adopted these goals?
a.
Governor
b.
Legislature
c.
State Board of Education
d.
State Education Agency
e.
Other
6. Are the goals about:
a.
Input
b.
Process
c.
Output
d.
Combination
State Educed Ind Assessment Program
Program Tide and Objectives
7. What is the official name of this program?
8. The major purpose(s) of this program is/are to:
a.
Assess cognitive development
b.
Assess educational needs
c.
Assess noncognitive development
d.
Measure influences on learning
e.
Measure growth
f.
Provide data for a management information system
g.
Set statewide educational goals
h.
Provide information for a planning-progmming-budgeting
system
i.
Other
Definition of the Target Population
Individuals
9. The target group(s) is/are defined by:
a.
Age
b.
Grade
c.
Other
10. Are dropouts included?
a.
Yes
b. , No
11. if all students of a given age are included, do you include those
who have dropped behind grade level?
a.
Yes
b.
No
12. Which of the following students are excluded from the pro-
gram?
a.
None
b.
Academic
c.
Delinquent
d.
Educationally mentally retarded
e.
Emotionally disturbed
f.
Gifted
g.
Migrant
h.
Non-English speaking
i.
Physically handicapped
j.
Vocational
k.
Other
13. How are individuals selected for the program?
a.
All in target population are included
b.
Samples are drawn from the target population
c.
Other
95
Schools
Funding
14. What types of schools are excluded from the program?
a.
None
b.
Delinquent
c.
Handicapped
d.
Parochial
e.
Private
f.
Vocational-technical
g.
Other
15. Are certain types of schools required to participate in the pro-
gram?
a.
None
b.
Schools receiving federal monies
c.
Schools receiving state monies
d.
Other
16. Is school participation required?
a.
Yes
b.
No
17. What percent of eligible schools were included last year?
Community
18. Is participation confined to communities with special char-
acteristics?
a.
Yes
b.
No
19. If yes, what community characteristics are considered?
a.
Rural
b.
Urban
c.
Suburban
d.
Size
e.
Socioeconomic status
f.
Other
Initiation of the Program
20. Which of the following groups initiated the idea for this pro-
gram?
a,
Governor's office
b.
Independent organization
c.
State Board of Education
d.
State Education Agency
e.
State Legislature
f.
Chief State School Officer
g.
Teachers' association
h.
Other
21. How long from initiation of the idea to either administration of
instruments in the schools or to your present stage of devel-
opment?
Program Policy
22. Which of the following groups determine how the program is
conducted and what changes will be made in the nature of the
Program.
a.
Citizens' advisory group
b.
Chief State School Officer
c".
Governor's office
d.
Representatives of major school systems
e.
State Board of Education
f.
State Education Agency
g.
State legislature
h.
Other
96
23. Roughly what proportion of the program expenses is financed
a.
Federal funds
b.
Local funds
c.
Other
24. What categories of state funds are utilized?
25. Which of the following federal funds are utilized?
a
ESEA Title I
b.
ESEA Title Ill
c.
ESEA Title V
d.
ESEA Title VI
e.
ESEA Title VII
f.
ESEA Title VIII
g.
NDEA V-A
h.
Vocational Education Acts
L
Other
26..Roughly how much did the program cost last year?
Administration of the Program
27. What state, county or local education agency personnel coordi-
nate the program statewide?
a.
ESEA (specify which title)
b.
Elementary and secondary education bureau
c.
Planning and evaluation
d.
Pupil personnel services
e.
Research
f.
Vocational education
a County
h.
School district
L
Local
j.
Other
28. What is the professional staff size in terms of full-time equiv-
alents?
a.
County
b.
Local
c.
State
29. Are outside agencies or consultants involved?
a Yes
b.
No
If yes, please identify the organization or consultadts and
describe their responsibilities.
Target Areas
30. Which of the following cognitive areas are being assessed?
a Aptitude
b.
English
c.
Foreign language
d.
Health
e.
Mathematics
f.
Natural science
g.
Reeding
h.
Social science
L
Vocational
j.
Writing
k.
Other
31. Which of the following noncognitive areas are being assessed?
a.
Attitudes (specify)
b.
Citizenship
c.
Creativity
d.
Interests
e.
Personal values
f.
Self-concept
g.
Other
Instrumentation
Interpretation of Data
32. What tests, inventories or other measures are being used for
42. Who is responsible for analyzing, organizing and interpreting the
each target area at each age or grade level?
data?
a.
Local schools
33. Of those tests, inventories or other measures listed in 32, which
b.
Local school districts
have been "tailor-made" for the program?
c.
Outside contractors
34. Was item sampling used to construct any of the "tailor-made"
d.
State Education Agency
instruments?
e.
State or private universities
a.
Yes (specify)
f.
Other
b.
No
35. Who developed these "tailor-made" tests?
a.
Consultants
b.
Outside contractors
c.
State Education Agency
d.
Teacher committees in the state
e.
Other
36. How were the standardized tests listed in 32 chosen?
a.
Committee
b.
Consultants
c.
State Education Agency
d.
Other
37. Which of the instruments in 32 would you describe as criterion-
referenced measures?
38. Which of the instruments in 32 are used only as group-reliable
measures?
Related Data
Use of Data
43. How are the results of the program used?
a.
Allocation of state or federal funds
b.
Budgeting
c.
Instruction
d.
Comparative analysis across schools
e.
Identification of exemplary programs
f.
Guidance
g.
Program evaluation
h.
Program planning
1.
Public relations
j.
Other
44. Does the law or authority for the program restrict or limit use
of the data?
a.
Yes
b.
No
Dissemination
39. What other additional information is collected to help analyze
45. Are reports of the results of the program prepared?
or interpret the data?
a.
Yes
N
b. No
a.
one
b.
Age
46. What kinds of reports are prepared?
c.
Cost of instructional programs
a.
State summaries
d.
County
b.
Regional summaries
e.
Dropout rates
c.
School system summaries
f.
Academic grades
d.
School summaries
g.
Use of paraprofessionals or educational aides
e.
Student reports
It.
Percent minority
f.
Summaries by target areas
L
Previous course work
g.
Public information pieces
j.
Racial/ethnic background
h.
Other
k.
School name
I.
School size
47. Who receives a copy of the program reports?
m. Sex
a.
State Education Agency
n.
Socioeconomic status
b.
Governor
o.
Teacher data
c.
Legislature
p.
Other
d.
Newspapers
e.
Other states
Data Collection and Processing
f.
State Board of Education
g.
School districts
40. Who is responsible for giving the tests, inventories, etc. for the
h.
Schools
Program?
i.
Students
a.
Classroom teachers
j.
Parents
b.
Guidance counselors
k.
Teacher organizations
c.
Paid consultants
I.
ERIC
d.
School administrative staff
m. Other
e.
Other
41. Who is lesponsible for processing the information obtained
from the program?
a.
Local schools
b.
Local school districts
c.
Outside contractors
d. State Education Agency
e.
State or private universities
f.
Other
*e.g.,teacher salaries, teacher education, course load, etc.
48. Who prepares the reports?
a.
College or university
b.
Outside contractors
c.
State Education Agency
d.
Other
97
1
Overview
49. In general, how is the program viewed by:
Very
Very
Unfavorably
Favorably
Prospects for the Future
52. Is the program likely to continue?
a.
Yes
b. No
c.
With modification
a.
Governor
I 1111111
53. If yes, how long do you expect this description to remain
b.
Legislature
IIIIIIIi
accurate?
54. If no, will it discontinue because of:,
a.
Lack of funds
c.
State Education
IIIIIII1
b.' Lack of interest
Agency
c.
Unable to meet objectives (specify)
d
Boards of
d. Only planned to run "x" years
.
education
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
e.
Widespread opposition
f.
Other
e.
Local school
55. Which of the following elements in your program are most
administrators
111111 I J
likely to change in the near future?
a.
Goals or objectives
f.
Teachers
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
in
Target population
c.
Policy control
g.
Students
I
I
L
1
1
1
I
d.
Funding
h.
General public
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
e.
Administration
f.
Areas assessed
g.
Measuring instruments
50. In general, how well would you say the program objectives are
h.
Data collection and processing procedures
being achieved?
i.
Interpretation of data
Very
Very
j.
Use of data
Poorly
Well
k.
Dissemination
1.1111111
I.
Other
56. Is a report ofState Educational Assessment Programs covering
all states likely to be us:ful in revising your program in the
51. What are the major problems related to the program?
future?
a.
Yes
b. No
98