3:18 1Lv \. 5381. . :13“: 5‘ 151QJQ5JIT s: n. 5% n3 flwmmfl at. . . J . ‘ . i . 1 . . 1 :«Ln ‘5 .ifisfififing xiii. .\.-. x x. w .I hhthgw‘qML-fibrxbys Mangfiwfi .bmfixfimwmhmfimu J12. ‘ . w J..." a . V . :3 «an? .s. 2.2. u . 3. ¢ s : , .% ifmfim xi, . a .3, ~ 4 a a? .. x21 {a z. . .a._ I. a) 5.0mm}; \f .9989in . . . V 1.12.13) 3" I 155113§1§§u§ \ ‘ , . . s‘flnfigmwpiflfinckaaz. ,\ s ‘ K s : {xi‘nskv‘ ., .5...‘ ifiikfivy 35 §.a;umu m..i:.;,.¥...¥ V . ‘\..h.r 3 figmmunnuun . . v a 1 I . . A a nu. '3 17);. k L v n 3 “Pg”... run-1.5211 2.5.535)? 3: >13 Amish“. 1‘ x .. iv ‘ . ‘ ‘ H. )1 . ‘ ) nggi' v . 3.1..qu 3.x... m J llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll'lll 31293006765022 LIDKARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF A HOME LEARNING PROGRAM ON READING ACHIEVEMENT AS ANALYZED IN LONGITUDINAL DATA presentedby Gladys Peeples Burks has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. 15 Ho: Ca cofim mums mummy mmocHL. >20 Mogzoumom 5 cot/Hm woos mummy omofii HMO Ram: HMO ¥m4mz *M4m2 AQVNMMOH. Nwlomm— +55840 +55840 +55840 +55840 +55840 +55840 +55840 E55840 +55840 +55840 +55840 55840A00vmm08 8M0 omlm5mH *M4m2 «.M4mz HMO *M4m2 4.55840 +55840 +55840 +55840 +55840 +55840 HMO ... 55840 + 55840 ._. 55840 E. 55840 5 5840 5 5840 HMO HMO 8M0 HMO MO HMO ammOH. HMO m 5 1w 5 m H *4Mm. HMO «.M4mz +55840 *M4m2 +55840 HMO *M4mz L. 5 5840 840 840 HMO HMO HMO 8M0 HMO HMO «. mmOH. HMO m 5l5 5 m H HMO *H4HE «.M4m2 HMO +4mm 840 840 840 840 840 840 HMO HMO HMO *mmOH. HMO 5 5Im 5m H HMO . «.M4m2 *M4mz HMO 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 HMO HMO HMO .1 mmOH. 8M0 m 5Im 5 m H HMO HMO *M4m2 HMO +840 840 840 840 840 840 HMO HMO 8M0 ammOH. 8M0 m5l¢5®H o 84. 80 o84 . .000 ¥M4m=z *M4m2 MO 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 MO HMO HMO *mmOH. HMO v5IM5mH o M4m=z *44Hym m *44me «.44HMm .«44Hsmm o M4mz *44Hymw HMO 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 HMO a mm08 HMO m 5 IN 5 m _. o M4m2 *44Hpmm «.44Hhm *44Hpmm *44Hamm o Mg *44Hhm 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 840 meH. mmO8 mMHA N5I Km— Nwmr I H5mp OZHMDO mo4M0 Mm $8m0m 4mM4 MOmM/NE 2082mm 2H DMMH8mHZHSQ4 m8mm8 m0 ZOH8DmHM8mHD m . m M1548 100 The Michigan Educational Assessment Program tests (MEAP) are administered to evaluate academic achievement in the basic skills, reading and math, throughout the state of Michigan. Standardized tests are administered only in the fourth, seventh, and tenth grades. The tests are revised on a yearly basis--each year a new group of fourth-, seventh— and tenth—grade students are administered the tests. Comparisons of academic achievement for these groups occur then when each group reaches the subsequent grade level. In this study, a comparison of the growth of those students who took the MEAP in 1980 as fourth graders and again in 1983 as seventh graders was made. The design of the study and the procedures described were the basis for the hypotheses which follows: STATEMENT OF THE HYPOTHESES NULL HYPOTHESIS (1): There is no difference in reading achievement of first—grade students who participated in a home—learning program and the reading achievement of first- grade students who did not participate in a home—learning program as measured on a locally developed Objective Refer- enced Test approved by the Michigan Department of Educa— tion. 101 NULL HYPOTHESIS (2): There is no difference in reading achievement of second—grade students who participated as first—grade students in a home—learning program and the reading achievement of second-grade students who did not participated as first—grade students in a home—learning program as measured on a locally developed Objective Refer- enced Test approved by the Michigan Department of Educa— tion. NULL HYPOTHESIS (3): There is no difference in reading achievement at the third—grade level of students who parti- cipated as first-grade students in a home—learning program and the reading achievement at the third-grade level of students who did not participate as first—grade students in a home—learning program as measured on the California Achievement Test. NULL HYPOTHESIS (4): There ks no difference ht reading achievement in the fourth—grade level of students who participated as first graders in a home—learning program and the reading achievement of fourth—grade students who did not participate in a home-learning program as measured on the California Achievement Test (C.A.T.) 102 NULL HYPOTHESIS (5): There is no difference in reading achievement in the fourth grade of students who partici- pated as first graders in a home-learning program and the reading achievement of fourth—grade students who did not participate as first—grade students in a home-learning pro- gram as measured on the Michigan Education Assessment Pro- gram (MEAP) test. NULL HYPOTHESIS (6): There is no difference in reading achievement in the seventh grade of students who partici- pated as first graders in a home—learning program and the reading achievement of the seventh-grade students who did not participate as first—grade students in a home-learning program as measured on the Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP) test. Throughout the six years of the study, the sample remained equivalent in size, racial makeup, SES and Title I status. Pretest and posttest data were gathered and reported for the same sample. 103 TREATMENT OF DATA One—way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to anal— yze the six hypotheses under consideration. The variables identified in the hypotheses were: pre— test reading scores for first grade, second grade, third grade, and fourth grade; posttest reading scores for first grade, second grade, third grade, and fourth grade; Michi— gan Education Assessment Programs reading scores for fourth grade and seventh grade. The number of Project HELP activities completed by students in Project HELP classrooms was recorded. An analysis of the number of Project HELP students and the achievement scores of the students who participated in the program was made. The students who were identified as the treatment group (T) were those who participated in Project HELP. The students who were identified as the control group (C) were those who did not participate in Project HELP. Pretest scores for all students were operationally treated for computer assignment. The above variables, as input for ANOVA include pretest scores, posttest scores, (first-, second—, third—, fourth—grade, fourth—grade read- ing and seventh—grade reading), activity grouping; partici— pant, nonparticipant and minimum and maximum activity limits. 104 SUMMARY The purpose of using pretest and posttest reading scores of first-grade students was to report results on validated testing instruments. In addition to that data, the following variables, socio—economic status of subjects; race, sex and academic performance were determined in participating and nonparticipating groups. The sample represented 5.8% of the total first—grade population. Six of the school district's elementary build- ings were included in the study. The instruments used for testing academic performance in reading were approved by the Michigan Department of Edu— cation. Privacy was ensured by assigning identification num— bers to subjects in the sample. Once this was done, names were no longer used. The data were analyzed by one—way analysis of vari- ance. In this chapter the research design, procedures and methodology of the study, description of population, char— acteristics of subjects, data collection procedures and treatment of the data were presented. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA INTRODUCTION In this chapter the data extracted from the Objected Referenced Test (O.R.T.) and the California Achievement Test (C.A.T.) reading scores from the fourth and seventh grade Michigan Education Assessment Program (M.E.A.P) tests and Project HELP program records (for the T group) were used to analyze the six hypotheses presented in Chapter III. In this chapter a report of the data used to test the hypotheses is presented. Included are presentations of: (1) the average group means of the T group and C group from 1977—78 through 1979—80 for pretest and posttest perfor— mance, (2) presentation of f-value, probability and signi— ficance level, (3) average group means, pretest and post— test on the fourth—and seventh—grade MEAP and a summary of these findings. 105 106 ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESES The analysis was determined by use of BMDP--One—Way Analysis of Variance. NULL HYPOTHESIS (1): There is no difference in reading achievement of first—grade students who participated in a home—learning program and the reading achievement of first- grade students who did not participate in a home-learning program as measured on a locally developed Objective Refer- enced Test approved by the Michigan Department of Educa— tion. The results of the analysis of variance are shown in Table 4.1. TABLE 4.1 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE IN 1977-78 First Grade, N=52 F F These results indicate that there is no significant difference in the average group mean reading scores of first—grade students who participated in the home—learning program, Project HELP, and the average group mean reading scores of first-grade students who did not participate in 107 the home—learning program, Project HELP. An F-probability of .68 with 1 degree of freedom was not found to be signi— ficant at the .05 level of confidence on the first—grade posttest. The null hypothesis was not rejected. NULL HYPOTHESIS (2): There is no difference in reading achievement of second-grade students who participated as first-grade students in a home—learning program and the reading achievement of second-grade students who did not participate in a home—learning program as measured on a locally developed Objective Referenced Test approved by the Michigan Department of Education. The results of the analysis of variance are shown in Table 4.2. TABLE 4.2 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE IN 1978-79 Second Grade, N=52 Pretest Posttest F F II-ll II.- II- ' E ' 'l‘. 9.1 -.- +9: 9 an --'.r'r. - 7 ' :l "'"‘i '.'.-E "ruins! : _ - . '.' .I. - '_;,"-_!'-.-_5r, l I ‘ I I I 108 These results indicate that there is no significant difference in the average group mean reading scores of second—grade students who participated as first graders in the home-learning program, Project HELP, and the average group mean reading scores of second—grade students who did not participate in Project HELP. An F-probability of .88 with 1 degree of freedom was not found to be significant at the .05 level of confidence on the second-grade posttest. The null hypothesis was not rejected. NULL HYPOTHESIS (3): There is no difference in reading achievement of third-grade students who participated as first—grade students in a home—learning program and the reading achievement of third—grade students who did not participate in a home-learning program as measured on a locally developed Objective Referenced Test approved by the Michigan Department of Education. 109 TABLE 4.3 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE IN 1979-80 Third Grade, N=52 CALIFORNIA ACHIEVEMENT TEST reported in Grade Equivalent Units (G.E.U.) F F N Mean Value Probability N Mean Value Probability III- II- These results indicate that there is no significant difference in the average group mean reading scores of third-grade students who participated as first graders in the home—learning program, Project HELP, and the average group mean reading scores of third-grade students who did not participate in Project HELP. An F—probability of .98 with 1 degree of freedom was not found to be significant at the .05 level of confidence on the third—grade posttest. The null hypothesis was not rejected. NULL HYPOTHESIS (4): There is no difference in reading achievement of fourth—grade students who participated as first—grade students in a home—learning program and the reading achievement of fourth—grade students who did not participate in a home—learning program as measured on the California Achievement Test. 110 The results of the analysis of variance are shown in Table 4.4. TABLE 4.4 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE IN 1980-81 Fourth Grade, N=52 CALIFORNIA ACHIEVEMENT TEST reported in Grade Equivalent Units (G E. U. I“: III- II- These results indicate that there is 1“) significant difference in the average group mean reading scores of fourth—grade students who participated as first graders in the home-learning program, Project HELP, and the average group mean reading scores of fourth—grade students who did not participate in Project HELP. An F—probability of .40 with 1 degree of freedom was not found to be significant at the .05 level of confidence on the fourth—grade posttest. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. 111 NULL HYPOTHESIS (5): There is no difference in reading achievement of fourth—grade students who participated as first—grade students in a home—learning program and the reading achievement of fourth-grade students who did not participate as first graders in a home-learning program as measured on the Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP) test. The results of the analysis of variance are shown in Table 4.5. TABLE 4.5 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE IN 1980 Fourth Grade, N=52 MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM TEST F N Value Probability II- These results indicate that there is no significant difference in the average group mean reading scores of fourth—grade students who participated in Project HELP as first graders and the average group mean reading scores of fourth—grade students who did not participate in Project HELP as first graders. An F—probability of 3.4 with 1 degree of freedom was not found to be significant at the .05 level of confidence. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. 112 NULL HYPOTHESIS (6): There is no difference in reading achievement of seventh-grade students who participated as first—grade students in a home—learning program and the reading achievement of seventh—grade students who did not participate as first graders in a home—learning program as measured on the Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP) test. TABLE 4.6 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE IN 1983 Seventh Grade, N=52 MICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM TEST F II These results indicate that there is in) significant difference in the average group mean reading scores of seventh-grade students who participated in Project HELP as first graders and the average group mean reading scores of seventh—grade students who did not participate in Project HELP as first graders. An F—probability of .06 with 1 degree of freedom was not found to be significant at the .05 level of confidence on the seventh-grade MEAP. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. 113 SUMMARY In Chapter IV an analysis of data from test scores and Project HELP participation was presented. The conclusions drawn from the analysis are that: There is no significant difference in the average group mean reading scores at any of the grade levels recorded by students who participated in a home-learning program as first graders and the average group mean reading scores of students who did not participate in a home-learning program as first graders. The average group mean reading scores of students who participated in the home—learning program and the average group mean reading scores of students who did not participate in the home—learning pro- gram were identical (3.1, T group and C group) on the third—grade posttest and on the fourth—grade pretest (3.1, T group and C group) as measured on the norm referenced California Achievement Test. A composite chart of the average group means, pretest and posttest is presented in Table 4.7. 114 TABLE 4.7 COMPOSITE CHART OF PRETTEST AND POSTTEST AVERAGE GROUP MEANS FOR CONTROL GROUP AND TREATMENT GROUP O.R.T. RESULTS 1977—1978 1978-1979 uh. 115 From analysis of results of the data the answers to questions 1 and 2 presented in Chapter 3 were determined. Question 1: Will students identified as low SES and as Title I, score as high or higher at second and third grade as a result of participation in Project HELP as low SES, non-Title I students who did not participate in Project HELP? Answer to question (1): Students identified in this study as low SES, Title I participants in Project HELP did not score as high or higher as low SES, Title I nonparticipants in second grade reading achievement. This answer was based on comparison of the average group means of both groups on the Benton Harbor Area Schools Objective Referenced posttest. Students identified in this study as low SES, Title I participants in Project HELP had an average goup mean equal to the average group mean of low SES, Title I nonpartici— pants in third grade reading achievement. This answer was based on comparison of the average group means of both groups on the California Achievement Test posttest. Question 2: Will the Michigan Education Assessment Program scores at fourth and seventh grade of low SES, Title I students who participated in Project HELP as first graders rank as high or higher than low SES non-Title I students who did not participate in Project HELP as first graders? 116 Answer to question (2): The average group mean score com— puted on the fourth grade 1980—81 MEAP for students who participated in 1977-78 as first graders in Project HELP was not as high or higer than the average group mean score of students who did not participated in 1977—78 as first graders in Project HELP. The average group mean score computed on the seventh grade 1983-84 MEAP for students who participated in 1977-78 as first graders in Project HELP was higher than the aver- age group mean score of students who did not participate as first graders in 1977—78 in Project HELP. These findings indicate that there is no significant difference in average group mean reading scores of students who participated as first graders in a home—learning pro- gram and the average group mean reading scores of students who did not participate as first graders in a home-learning program. The data revealed an academic increase, with the exception of second grade, on the part of students who par- ticipated as first graders in the home—learning program. In the pretest scores a higher level of academic achieve- ment for these students was recorded. In appendices C and D the Average Group Means of the Control and Treatment Group on the pretests and on the posttests are displayed. These findings did not reveal a statistically signifi— cant difference in academic achievement at the .05 level of confidence for the two groups, control and treatment, in this study. CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION In this chapter, a summary of the purposes of this study will be reviewed. Conclusions will be presented. Recommendations for future research will be offered. SUMMARY The statistical analysis of the data used in this study did not reveal a difference, at the .05 level of confidence, in academic achievement (in reading) of students who parti— cipated in Project HELP and that of students who did not participate in Project HELP. Analysis of the scores attained on the objective referenced tests reflected an increase in gain by Project HELP students in the second grade. The amount of gain achieved by Project HELP students was smaller than that achieved by non—Project HELP students. In the third grade, the amount of gain was identical for both groups. In the fourth grade, the Project HELP group surpassed the non-Project HELP group in amount of gain achieved. The results of this study contibute to existing knowledge of early childhood education. The intent of the study was to explore the impact, on student achievement, of parental involvement. 117 118 SUMMARY OF STUDY RESULTS The results analyzed in this study show that: 1. When achievement was compared on locally developed, Michigan Department of Education approved, objective referenced tests (first and second grade), students who participated in Project HELP failed to score as high or higher than nonparticipating students on the O.R.T. posttest. 2. When achievement was compared on the nationally normed third grade California Achievement Test, students who participated in Project HELP achieved, on the posttest, the same average group mean as students who did not participate in Project HELP. 3. When achievement was compared on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program test, in the fourth grade, students who participated in Project HELP failed to achieve, on the posttest, an equal or higher average group mean as compared to nonparticipants. 4. When achievement was compared on the nationally normed fourth grade California Achievement Test, students who participated in Project HELP achieved, on the posttest, a higher average group mean than nonparticipants. 119 5. When achievement was compared on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program test, in the seventh grade, students who participated in Project HELP achieved, on the post— test, a higher average group mean than nonparticipants. The objective referenced sets of items contained in the MEAP measure items comprising each objective which are affec— tive in nature. The MEAP Handbook cautions researchers to consider use of MEAP results as an opportunity to generate parental interest in their children's educational progress. This is one use for the MEAP. Appendix E reflects an over- view and assessed skill areas of the MEAP. CONCLUSION In this study, an objective analysis of the effect of parental involvement did not reflect a significant difference in academic achievement on the part of participating stu— dents. The nmthods used in the parent involvement model under study did reflect positive effects in program evalua- tion. The results were used to give feedback to parents of the children, to determine program effectiveness, to make program decisions and to justify continued use of the program. Evidence of rapport between teachers and parents was noted. Little effort was required from teachers to implement the program. Parental comments were generally supportive of the program. Negative comments were few. In addition, an increase in the number of parents who participated in the program took place. 120 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations, based on interpretation of the data are offered: That replication by other districts include a lengthened period of intervention. A greater amount of time could be considered for parent instruction at home. Perhaps as much as forty-five minutes to an hour rather than the fifteen to twenty minutes described in the study might be used. That methods to encourage more parents to participate be developed. That the parent intervention method continue, on a sys- tematic basis, in grades following the treatment period. That parents be surveyed to determine if they believe their efforts to help their children at home were effec— tive. That the students who participated in the home—learning program be surveyed to determine if they have positive feelings about the program. béusdsauai o abuIani smhnih asrljo yd mausol- ' [-quio ‘..-:14: JL- Jr-rlor-r wanna-sir: -’ .fl(-iJri'9V'TCIJfii 30 :.'r;:- rinse] "i ".=- .. '.:‘c-I= . - ' t." '- I '.1'1'5 :'.i.'.-=ri05 9d 5 " '-’. ' '.-.'- ' " .1". ' '-. -':" .' ' ' . .I '-" ' ' "'.l!'.' as 121 6. That the incidence of preschool participation as part of further longitudinal assessement be included in further studies. 7. That a study of the number of former Project HELP students who become involved in the courts, as opposed to those who do not, be made. Certainly continued analysis and examination of the cost of compensatory instruction and the resulting inability of local school districts to provide much needed compensa— tory instruction to all students who demonstrate low acade— mic achievement levels should take place. Local public school districts are urged to become more proactive and self—determining in their efforts to shape the educational experiences offered to students. In this study, a yearly increase in the average group mean scores of the treatment, Project HELP, group occurred at the third— and fourth—grade level. These findings were shared with par— ents, teachers and administrators. This process evaluation, coupled with the findings in this study, was of assistance to the Benton Harbor Area Schools in the design of remedial instruction for under achieving students. Three districts replicated Project HELP. Those sites, East Lansing, Michigan; Grand Rapids, Michigan and South Bend, Indiana provided the results of the program to the Benton Harbor Area Schools. A variety of results were ad: 30 Mandamus one amour "_‘IILCEHI DIIiilflif'D 9"} brln .I'J 122 recorded. Differences in design contributed to inconclusive findings. Throughout the summaries from the sites, the pos- itive response of parents to this type of parent involvement was evident. As additional data are collected, the educational com— munity, teachers, administrators, students and parents, will be able to use that research to design and implement compre— hensive, effective instructional programs that address the need to eliminate the "at risk" of school failure for millions of children in public school systems in our nation. 1:3 “alibi [0mm ‘16 “(an as" an: suntan! " ' -- '-'.'I_l'im APPENDICES I APPENDIX A FAMILY INCOME CRITERIA 123 Michigan Department of Education School Management Service Food & Nutrition Program P.O. Box 30008 Lansing, Michigan 48909 FAMILY INCOME CRITERIA 1977—78 Pursuant to Section 9 of the National School Lunch Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1758) and Section 4(e) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended 42 U.S.C. 1773(e), the income poverty guidelines for determining eligiblity for free and reduced price meals in the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, and Commodity only schools during Fiscal Year 1978 are described below. Section 3 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 as amended (43 U.S.C. 1772), requires that children who qualify for free lunches under these guidelines shall also be eligible for an additional 1/2 pint of free milk in those schools parti— cipating in the Spec1al Milk Program. INCOME POVERTY GUIDELINES, FISCAL YEAR 1977-78 "A" "B" Family Free Meals Reduced Size and Milk Price Meals One..... $ 3,930 $ 3,931 — 6,120 Two..... 5,160 5,161 - 8,050 Three... 6,390 6,391 - 9,970 Four.... 7,610 7,611 — 11,880 Five.... 8,740 8,741 — 13,630 Six..... 9,860 9,861 — 15,380 Seven... 10,890 10,891 - 16,980 Eight... 11,910 11,911 - 18,580 Nine.... 12,840 12,841 - 20,030 Ten ..... 13,760 13,761 - 21,470 Eleven.. 14,680 14,681 - 22,890 Twelve.. 15,590 15,591 — 24,310 Each additional family member $910 $1,420 .. not?!» i mu m to e 715'} «($30 (ling: Miami» mu mart “'13 ”918??? “3.2.1? S} h‘ -r€-.‘.~. as we": wharf!» §n17!."399'_‘r um. APPENDIX B AN ANALYSIS OF THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF L TITLE I PULL-OUT INSTRUCTION IN THE ‘ BENTON HARBOR AREA SCHOOLS 124 AN ANALYSIS OF THE COST—EFFECTIVENESS OF TITLE I PULL—OUT INSTRUCTION IN THE BENTON HARBOR AREA SCHOOLS PREPARED BY: GLADYS E.BURKS DIRECTOR, STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS BENTON HARBOR AREA SCHOOLS PROJECT HELP WAS DEVELOPED IN CONJUCTION WITH THE HOME AND SCHOOL INSTITUTE, TRINITY COLLEGE, WASHINGTON, D. C. 125 In the 1974—75 school year, 422 children were identified as Title I students in grades one through six. Of this num— ber, 25 were first graders. Remedial instruction on a pull—out basis cost approximately $328 per student which includes materials, supplemental text and workbooks, and equipment. Nine remedial reading teachers provided instruction for seven and one—half months of the school year. Teaching salaries for the group totaled $124,616 for the 1974-75 school year. Title I students at the first grade level achieved a gain of 48%(average pretest — 25% of objectives attained; aver- age posttest — 73% of objectives attained.) In the 1975—76 school year, 389 students were identified as Title I participants. Of this number, nine were first graders. Remedial reading teachers' salaries totaled $130,500. The cost per pupil for instruction was approxi- mately $400 including materials and equipment. Title I students at the first grade level achieved a 42% academic gain in reading. In the 1976—77 school year, 429 children were identified as Title I students. There were 87 identified Title I first graders who participated (unless in control groups) in Project HELP. The cost of pull—out instruction for the 342 Title I students, grades two through six, averaged approxi— mately $565 per student, including supplemental materials. Eleven remedial reading teachers whose salaries amounted to $188,519 for the first year provided instruction to these 342 Title I students. It may be noted that in 1976—77 two things occurred: Two additional Title I teachers (remedial reading) were added, yet the number of students served was less than the year before due to the design of the remedial reading program. Class size was limited to no more than six students, thereby lessening the number of eligible students (those who have the lowest test scores) who actually received remedial instruction. Project HELP activities were sent home with all eligible students. The cost for Project HELP program implementation follows: “filial-MM m asnsbufie use .3501: £60“! . in” ome- enn amour aid) to .umt- iwl‘ovoa' oeirrzlwa 'ezmionez‘ rul’me't lot.“ otxoiqflfi ."i -i ni.,i'."ju.‘.";r.. ‘3" ' II 11.". 19’: TYPO 9G7 126 Paper for printing recipes for 12 weeks.............$ 55.36 Staff cost to deliver recipes....................... 90.00 Staff time to duplicate recipes and collate sheets.. 32.64 Follow—up to home (staff mileage): Inservice information ................. .....$ 10.00 Transportation to inservice sessions....... 15.00 Delivery of activites and home assistance.. 25.00 50.00 Folders................ ...... . ...................... 18.48 Zip—lock bags ..... ..... ................ ............. 17.00 Yarn....................... ......................... N/C Certificates........................................ 6.00 Frames for certificates............................. 91.20 TrophieSOO‘..-O...'....OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOODOIOOOOCO 60.00 Total $420.68 This amount results in a cost of $4.83 per student (Project HELP) as opposed to the cost of $563 (Title I) for pull-out remedial instruction. It should be noted that the time spent by the regular classroom teacher in implementing HELP is min— imal. Time is spent in handing out the "recipes" to students as they leave school, checking the feedback sheet as the recipes are returned, summarizing feedback information on a tally sheet, occasionally calling a Home Service Worker to determine why recipes are not returned and explaining activi— ties to those parents who seek information. It is estimated that no more than one hour per week for twelve weeks was spent by the ten Project HELP teachers, which resulted in 120 hours or 20 six-hour days. First grade teachers' salaries for that number of days averaged $714 daily, resulting in an expenditure of $1,416 spent on Project HELP activities. The total for Project HELP in 1976-77 was approximately $21.13 per student. Title I students at the first grade level demonstrated a 53% gain without pull—out instruction. Project HELP Inservices To and During Program Implementation: Consultant services (Home—School Institute)......$ 3,375.00 Substitutes for classroom teachers............... 510.00 Inservice for parents: Transportation........... 15.00 Five Luncheon Meetings... 280.00 127 As indicated in the Report on Academic Achievement in the HELP Program and its control groups in 1976-77, there were no statistically significant differences at the .05 or.01 level. The cost, however, is far less than typical reme— dial reading under pull-out instruction; and the academic gain, while not significantly higher, was not less than other years (1974—75 or 1975-76). In the 1976-77 school year, 442 first graders, including 87 identified Title I first graders, participated in Project HELP. Costs for this group averaged $4.31 per child. SUMMARY 1. In previous years, it was not possible to provide Title I remedial reading instruction for all educationally deprived students. The design of the Title I program, one teacher to no more than eight students (in 1972-73 aides were provided) is a far more expensive program than Project HELP. Project HELP ensures that all eligible students receive supplemental reading instruc— tion, not just 5-6 to 7—8 students per class. 2. Project HELP also eliminates the need for students to miss other classes or work because they are removed to work with the remedial reading teacher. 3. The cost of remedial reading teacher salaries continues to rise while the class size remains constant, thus the cost per student continues to escalate. 4. A recent study completed by the 1National Institute of Education shows that Title I students in the first grade made better progress in reading and math when they stayed in their classrooms than when they were pulled out for special instruction. Project HELP com— bines teaching in class with reinforcement at home in a systematic manner. Parents and children have come to look forward to the recipes and enjoy doing the activi— ties. What cannot be measured is the rapport that builds between the child and the parent. It is also not possible to asses the spin—off that results in later years because this type of parent-child-school- home interaction was initiated during the child's early school years. 5. First grade students in the Benton Harbor Area Schools are given an opportunity to participate without being segregated for remediation. There is some indication that many first graders are immature rather than in need of remediation. 1The Effects of Services on Student Development National Institute of Education, Washington D.C. 20208 9131-8. dawn a) ptogaeoq .300 In! 11 an“ urcmiuam [is 3131 5633.261er pram»: n 8. 128 Project HELP incorporates parental assistance in teach— ing children. The eighth annual (1976) Gallup poll indicated that 75% of the public favored the idea that the public schools should offer courses to parents on how to help their children in school, and 51% said they would be willing to pay additional taxes to support such a program. Project HELP provides that parent training. Project HELP provides a method of involving parents, when required by federal law, in the planning of sup— plemental programs. Project HELP combines teacher expertise and parental experience in an instructional activity which includes reading objectives, support from the home to those reading objectives and low cost program implementation. Project HELP can provide continuity in instruction. Where the same grades across the district are partici— pating, the family and the child have consistent acti— vities with which to work. Districts with high pupil mobility may benefit from utilizing this type of activity. May, 1978 "Fe-~48 . saw! 0: ~ : .aaumnoutqfl APPENDIX C AVERAGE GROUP MEANS OF CONTROL AND TREATMENT GROUPS ON THE PRETEST 129 AVERAGE GROUP MEANS ON THE PRETEST FOR PROJECT HELP, T AND CONTROL, C GROUPS O.R.T. PRETEST RESULTS 1977 1978 N=23 N=29 N=23 N=29 Both groups C and T achieved less than 33 %, the percentage generally accepted as an appropriate level for students on the locally developed Objective Referenced Test. Student characteristics, low SES and limited opportunity to acquire readiness skills (for first grade) and basic skills (for second grade) may have caused the low scores reflected above. C.A.T. PRETEST RESULTS N=23 N=29 N=23 N=29 Both groups C and T demonstrated average group means within .1, on the pretest, on each other in the third grade. In the fourth grade, the average group mean for C and T were identical on the pretest. APPENDIX D l AVERAGE GMUP MEANS OF CONTROL AND TREATMENT GROUPS ON THE POSTTEST 130 AVERAGE GROUP MEANS ON THE POSTTEST FOR PROJECT HELP, T AND CONTROL, C GROUPS O.R.T. POSTTEST RESULTS 0 [.3 N=23 N=29 N=23 N=29 Both groups achieved, at a lower rate on the posttest in the second grade, when compared to the first grade posttest as measured on the Objective Referenced Test. C.A.T. POSTTEST RESULTS 52 N=23 N=29 N=23 N=29 In the third grade (1980) the treatment group achieved an average group mean on the California Achievement Test identical to that of the control group. In the fourth grade (1981) the treatment group achieved an average group mean on the California Achievement Test exceeding that of the control group. APPENDIX E OVERVIEW OF THE MEAP AND ASSESSED SKILLS AREA 131 AN OVERVIEW The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) is a statewide testing program in reading and mathematics (with other subject areas tested on a sampling basis). MEAP was initiated by the State Board of Education, supported by the Governor and funded by the Legislature. The MEAP tests are administered every fall to all fourth, seventh, and tenth graders. They provide informa— tion on what our students are learning and doing compared with what we want them to know and do. BACKGROUND The first four years of the assessment program (1969- 1973) used standardized norm—referenced tests designed to rank students from highest to lowest in each of four sub- ject areas (vocabulary, reading comprehension, English usage, and arithmetic). The information provided by these tests did not adequately serve the purpose of MEAP to provide information on the status and progress of Michigan basic skills education. An alternative method of assessing student achievement was needed. In the fall of 1971, referent groups were formed to develop specific performance objectives in the basic skills areas. The groups were composed of local, state, and higher education curriculum specialists and teachers from throughout Michigan. Groups submitted draft objectives for statewide review by grade level commissions and the Elemen— tary and Secondary Education Council. The final objectives were approved and adopted by the State Board of Education. 132 Objective referenced tests were developed by Michigan edu- cators to measure specified basic skills attainment. When the minimal performance objectives were developed in 1973, no empirical evidence on the objectives was avail- able and Department staff agreed that a periodic review and revision would be needed. Revision of the objectives was undertaken in 1976 with the assistance of the Michigan Council of Teachers of Mathematics (MCTM) and the Michigan Reading Association (MRA). As the sets of skills were reviewed, it became apparent that certain new areas of emphasis (for example, metric measurement) needed to be added and other areas (for example, the difference between inferential and literal comprehension) needed to be clari— fied. The revised objectives were adopted by the State Board of Education in 1980. The revised sets of objectives represent an extension of the original set based on the experience of using them in the Michigan Educational Assessment Program. The need for revised tests was the direct result of the adoption of the revised objectives. TEST DESCRIPTION The current assessment tests are objective—referenced sets of items measuring selected minimum performance objective1 in the subject areas of reading and mathematics. 1 Because of testing time limitations, not all of the mini— mal performance objectives for reading or mathematics are included in the annual eductional assessment. All of the minimal performance objectives for grades one through nine may be found in the Minimal Performance Objectives for Communication Skills and Minimal Performance Objectives for Mathematics. 133 Each objective is measured by a set of three items. Objec— tive attainment is answering correctly at least two of the three items measuring each objective. The untimed tests allow students to work at their own pace. The tests were written by Michigan educators and field tested twice on a statewide sample of students. Following each tryout, the tests were reviewed and refined. The revised tests were approved by the State Board of Eduction and administered on a statewide basis in 1980—81. Both MCTM and MRA helped supervise the test develop- ment process and participated in the test review and revi- sion processes, including a review of the 1980—81 statewide tests and results. The 1980-81 test results provided a new baseline to which the 1981—82 and future results can be compared. Results, as in the past, are reported both in terms of percentage of students attaining each objective and in terms of percent of students failing in each category of achievement. Shown below are the number of objectives and test items used in the reading tests: POSITIVE RESPONSES COGNITIVE SKILLS TO READING (Skill Areas I—V) (Skill Area VI) Number of Number of Number of Number of Grade nObjectives Test Items Objectives Test Items -=—: 134 RELATED ACTIVITIES Test Items The positive response test items are used to deter— mine the extent to which students read on their own, talk about what they read, or request additional reading materi- als. The related activities do not measure any specific objectives but are used to determine the amount of time students spend doing homework, watching television, and reading just for fun. MEAP: THE SKILL AREAS ASSESSED GRADE FOUR GRADE SEVEN # of # of Skill Area Obj. Skill Area Obj. Vocabulary Meaning "Vocabulary Meaning Literal Comprehension Literal Comprehension Inferential Inferential Comprehension Comprehension 7 Critical Reading Critical Reading 2 Skills Skills Related Study Skills "Related Study Skills - Sub-Total Sub-Total Positive Response/ Positive Response/ Reading* Reading* * Attainments on the Reading Positive Response objectives and the Mathematics correlated objectives are not included in the Proportion Report. BIBLIOGRAPHY 135 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, Mortimer, J. The Paideia Proposal. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1982. Brookover, Wilbur, Laurence Beamer, Helen Efthim, Douglas Hathaway, Laurence Lezotte, Stephen Miller Joseph Passalacqua and Louis Tornatsky. Creating Effective Schools Holmes Beach, Florida: Learning Publication, 1982. Comer, James P. School Power. New York: The Free Press, MacMillian Publishing Co., 1980. Della—Dorra, Delmo. "Community People as Leaders in Curriculum Development." Prepared for the ASCD Institute on Parent Participation. Chicago, 1979. Gordon, Ira J. and W. F. Breivogel. Building Effective Home/School Relationships. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976. The Holmes Group, Inc. Tomorrow's Teachers: A Report of the Holmes Group. 501 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI, 1986. Rich, Dorothy, and Cynthia Jones. "A Family Affair: Education." Washington, D.C.: The Home and School Institute, 1977. 'rfio‘!‘ Wm- and! MA! GENERAL REFERENCES 136 GENERAL REFERENCES Barriers to Excellence: Our Children at Risk. National Coalition of Advocates for Students, #350. Boston, 1985. Better Education for Michigan Citizens: A Blueprint for Action. The Michigan State Board of Education Plan, 1984. Becoming a Nation of Readers, The Report of the Commission on Reading. The National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C., 1985. Biddle, Bruce J., and Edwin J. Thomas. "Role Theory, Concepts and Research." 1966, 273-310. Bronfenbrenner, U. The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. Bronfenbrenner, U., and A. Cronter. In S. B. Kamerman and C. D. Hayes, eds., Families That Work: Children in a Changing World . National Research Council, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1982. Brookover, W. B., and L. Leyotte. Changes in School Characteristics Coincident with Changes in Student Achievement. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1977. Brookover, W. B., et al. School Social Systems and Student Achievement . New York: Praeger, 1979. Burks, Gladys Peeples. "Parents as Teachers: A Resource." Delta Kappa Gamma, Spring, 1977. —--. "An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of Title I Pull-Out Instruction in the Benton Harbor Area Schools." 1978. Clark, Reginald M. Why Poor Black Children Succeed or Fail. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago, 1983. Coleman, James S. "Equality of Educational Opportunity." Report prepared for the United States Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, 1966. Combs, Arthur W., and Donald Snygy. Individual Behavior. Revised ed. New Yoru: Harper and Row, 1959. 137 Edmonds, Ronald. "A Discussion of the Literature and Issues Related to Effective Schooling." What Do We Know About Teaching and Learning in Urban Schools? St. Louis: CEMREL, 1979. ———. "Some Schools Work and More Can." Using What We Know About Teaching Social Policy. ASCD, 1984. Education Week. Editorial Projects in Education, Inc. Washington, D.C., Feb. 1, 1984. Epstein, Joyce. "Report on Education of the Disadvantaged." John Hopkins University, 1984. Goodson, Barbara, and Robert Hess. "Parents as Teachers of Young Children: An Evaluation Review of Some Contemporary Concepts and Programs." Stanford, CA: Stanford University, School of Education, 1975. Gordon, Ira J. "What Do We Know About Parents and Teachers," Theory Into Practice, 1976. -——. "The Florida Parent Education Early Intervention Projects: A Longitudinal Look." Urbana, IL, ERIC Clearing House on Early Childhood Education. Gainsville, Florida: Florida University, College of Education, 1975. ———. "Rebuilding Home—School Relations in Planning and Implementing Parent and Community Involvement Into the Instructional Delivery System." A TWO-Way Street: Home-School Cooperation in Curriculum Decision-Making. Institute for Responsive Education, 1981. Hayes, Cheryl D., and Sheila B. Ramerman. "Children of Working Parents: Experiences and Outcomes." Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983. Hayes, Cheryl D., et al. "Single Parent Families." United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Development Services, D.H.H.S. Publication No. (OHDS) 79—30247, March, 1981. Heatherington, E. M., and R. Cox, "Play and Social Inter- action in Children Following a Divorce." Journal of Social Issues, Fall, 1979. Henderson, Ann. "Parent Participation-~Student Achievement, The Evidence Grows." NCCE, 1981. Hess, R. D. "Effectiveness of Home-Based Early Education Programs." Presented at Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 1976. 138 Hymes, James L. "Effective Home-School Relations." New York: Prentice-Hall, 1953. Don Davis, ed. Schools Where Parents Make a Difference. Boston, MA: Institute for Responsive Education, 1976. Involvement of Parents and Other Citizens in the Educational System." A position statement and resource guide. Michigan State Board of Education, 1982. Jencks, C. S. "The Coleman Report and Conventional Wisdom." On Equality of Educational Opportunity. Edited by F. Mosteller and D. P. Moynihan. New York: Vintage Books, 1972. Lagar, J., and J. Chapman. "A Review of the Present Status and Future Research Needs of Programs to Develop Parenting Skills." Theory into Practice. The Home and School Institute, 1977. Leichty, F. A. "Patterns of Citizen Participation in Education." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Francisco, 1979. Leichter, H. J. The Family as Educator. New York: Teachers College Press, 1974. Leichter, H. J., et al. "The Role of the Family in Promoting Children's Acquisition of Literacy for Learning." Research in Progress, 1982. Lightfoot, Sarah L., and J. Z. Carew. Perspectives on Classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. Lortie, Dan. "School Teacher: A Sociology Study." Using What We Know About Teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975. A.S.D., 1984. Mayeske, George W. "A Study of the Achievement of Our Nation's Students," Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1973. Morrison, G. 8., "Parent Involvement in the Home, School and Community." Columbus, Ohio, 1978. McPherson, G. A Two—Way Street, Home—School Cooperation in Curriculum Decision—Making. Institute for Responsive Education, 1981. ---. Small Town Teacher. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. amine. in!!!” !‘EL 9 “M _ _iA,».AI7 7 J .l. L I. if ' 'J l: ‘I_" ‘.- F-.-, 1;:- ' ’ " 2' " . I j 3 o ‘ ' ' ' ‘ I ‘ u r )- I 139 Naisbitt, John. Megatrends. New York: Warner Books, Inc., 1982. "Planning and Implementing Parent/Community Involvement Into the Instructional Delivery System." East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Midwest Teacher Corp, 1977. Rich, Dorothy. The Relationship of the Home Learning Lab Technique to First-Grade Student Achievement. Dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1976. -—-. "A Letter to Principals: The Family as Educator." National Elementary Principals, 1976. Roper, Dwight. "Parents as the Natural Enemy of the School System." Phi Delta Kappa, p. 239-242. Salisbury, R. H. "Citizen Participation in the Public Schools." Lexington MA: D. C. Heath, 1980 A Two-Way Street, Home—School Cooperation in Curricu- lum Decision—Making. Institute for Responsive Education, 1981. Sayegh, Wahbah A. "A History of the Testing Program in the Benton Harbor Area Schools," 1982. Smith, Mildred Beatty. Home and School—Focus on Reading. Scott, Foresman and Co., 1971. Sterns, Miriam. "Parents as Learners and as Tutors of Their Own Children. Parent Participation—Student Achievement: The Evidence Grows, an annotated bibliography by Anne Henderson, National Committee for Citizens in Education, 1981. Stickney, Benjamin D., and Virginia Pluncket. "Has Title I Done It's Job?" Educational Leadership, 1982. Tyler, Ralph A. "Appraising the Effects of Program of Instruction 1940." What Students are to Learn Using What We Know About Teaching. Association for Supervision of Curriculum Development, 1984. Van Donselaar, Ronald Jay. A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of the Benton Harbor Area Schools' Preschool Program. Dissertation, University of Denver, 1979. Ware, W. B., and M. Garber. "The Home Environment as Predictor of School Achievement." Theory into Practice, 1972. 140 Ware, W. B., Olmsted, P. R., et a1. "Assistance to Local Follow Through Programs." Annual report, Office of Education. Washington, D.C., ERIC, 1974. Weikert, David P. "Parent Involvement: Process and Results of the High/Scope Foundation Projects." Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. Denver, CO: 1975. Zill, N., and J. L. Peterson. "Learning to do Things Without Help." L. Loosa and I.E. Sigel (eds.). Families as Learning Environments for Children. New York: PIenum Press, 1982. F" MICHIGAN STQTE UNIV. LIBRARIES 3129308 M65