USVI Public Records

Document text

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