INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1.T h e sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find .a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first raw and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.

University Microfilm s International
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA
St. John's Road, Tyler's Green
High Wycombe, Bucks, England HPtO 8HR

)
I

77-5915
WILLARD, Shirley Marie, 1941A FORMATIVE EVALUATION OF THE MICHIGAN
EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM KINDERGARTEN
SPECIAL STUDY FOR 1975-76.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1976
Education, tests and measurements

Xerox University Microfilms,

Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106

A FORMATIVE EVALUATION OF THE MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL
ASSESSMENT PROGRAM KINDERGARTEN SPECIAL STUDY
FOR 1975-76
By
S h irle y M. W illa rd

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity
in p a r tia l f u lf illm e n t o f the requirements
fo r the degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f Secondary Education and Curriculum
1976

ABSTRACT
A FORMATIVE EVALUATION OF THE MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL
ASSESSMENT PROGRAM KINDERGARTEN SPECIAL STUDY
FOR 1975-76
By
S h irle y M. W illa rd

The purpose o f th is form ative evaluation study was to pro­
vide e v a lu a tiv e inform ation to the Michigan Department o f Education,
Research, Assessment, and Evaluation Service (REAS) area on the
Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) Kindergarten Special
Study fo r 1975-76.

The MEAP Kindergarten Special Study fo r 1975-76

was a f ir s t - y e a r implementation p ilo t study designed by the MEAP.
The purpose o f the Kindergarten Special Study fo r 1975-76
was to p ilo t c e rta in procedures and m a teria ls in 75 volunteer
kindergarten classrooms in order fo r teachers to c o lle c t and record
form ative assessment inform ation on each In d ivid u al c h ild from
September, 1975, through A p r il, 1976.

The behavioral basis fo r

assessment was the Michigan Department o f Education p u b lic a tio n ,
"Tentative Objectives fo r Preprimary Programs in Michigan."
Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts were provided preservice t r a in ­
ing by MEAP s t a f f in September, 1975.

During th is preservice ses­

sion, teachers were provided the Kindergarten Special Study pro­
cedural manual and the MEAP " F ir s t Grade" e n try -le v e l te s ts .

The

procedural manual included d ire c tio n s fo r choosing and adm inistering

S h irle y M. W illard
four a lte rn a tiv e assessment procedures and fo u r reco rd ing -repo rting
forms.

The fo ur a lte rn a tiv e assessment procedures designed by MEAP

s t a f f included use o f (a ) MEAP te s ts which had been i n i t i a l l y
developed fo r and p ilo te d a t the f i r s t grade le v e l in 1974-75,
(b) other te s ts , (c) observation, and (d) o ther.

Recording-reporting

forms included a "Class Roster Sheet" d e lin e a tin g o b je c tiv e ,
assessment mode, and date o f mastery fo r each c h ild ; "In d ivid u al
Performance Record Sheets"; "Comments About O bjectives, Tests, and
Items Sheets"; and "A dm inistrative Mode Comment Sheets."

Upon com­

p le tio n o f the Kindergarten Special Study, p a rtic ip a n ts were
required to return the "Class Roster Sheets" by May 1, and requested
to return the other sheets to MEAP s t a f f fo r inform ational purposes.
The purpose o f the evaluation study was to provide a breadth
o f inform ation to the REAS area o f the Michigan Department o f Edu­
ca tio n , focusing on th ree areas o f inform ational concern:

design

and implementation o f the Special Study i t s e l f , impact o f the
Special Study on teacher in s tru c tio n a l behavior, impact o f the
Special Study on communication w ith in the school and between the
school and the c h ild 's home.
Evaluation procedures included the analysis o f inform ation
collected by MEAP s t a f f and the w r ite r .

MEAP d a ta -c o lle c tio n pro­

cedures included a feedback questionnaire d is trib u te d to p a r t i c i ­
pants o f a MEAP November, 1975, follow -up regional meeting and an
informal questionnaire sent in January, 1976, to p a rtic ip a tin g
teachers inq uirin g as to the need fo r fu rth e r regional or local
meetings w ith MEAP s t a f f .

W rite r d a ta -c o lle c tio n procedures included

S h irle y M. W illa rd
the adm inistration o f three surveys and interview s with a subset o f
p a rtic ip a tin g teachers and p rin c ip a ls .

Two surveys were sent to a l l

p a rtic ip a tin g kindergarten teachers, one in February, 1976, and one
in May, 1976.

One survey was sent to a ll p a rtic ip a tin g elementary

p rin c ip a ls or supervisors in May, 1976.

The subset o f teachers

and p rin c ip a ls were interviewed a t th e ir local building s ite o f
implementation o f the Special Study.
The major findings o f the form ative evaluation study in d i­
cated th a t not a l l p a rtic ip a n ts were volunteer as intended by the
MEAP; the dominant assessment modes used were MEAP tests and obser­
vation; the MEAP te s ts and the "Tentative Preprimary Objectives"
need to be revised ; the MEAP te s ts and reco rd ing -repo rting forms
were g en erally perceived as providing valuable inform ation, but also
as being "too time consuming" and as serio usly d etra ctin g from the
regular kindergarten in s tru c tio n a l program.
P r io r it y conclusions are th a t the Special Study procedures
were perceived as too "time consuming" by the m a jo rity o f p a r t i c i ­
pants due to the format o f the MEAP te s ts and the amount o f recording
requested; many p a rtic ip a n ts viewed a number o f the Preprimary Objec­
tives as more appropriate fo r pre-kindergarten ch ild ren than fo r
kindergarten ch ild re n ; teachers did not r e f le c t a dominant or con­
s is te n t ra tio n a le fo r t h e ir choice o f o bjectives o r assessment mode,
fo r the number o f objectives to teach during the y e a r, or fo r when a
p a rtic u la r o b je c tiv e should be taught; teachers g en erally did not
d iffe r e n tia te between assessment and evalu atio n ; p rin c ip a ls did not

S h irle y M. W illa rd
perceive th a t they had a c le a r ro le or rep o rt consistent in te n tio n s
fo r use o f the Special Study data.
P r io r it y recotimendations include to m aintain the four
assessment mode options, but to c l a r i f y and consolidate the mate­
r ia ls and procedures; to revise the Preprimary O bjectives; to provide
in -s e rv ic e to p a rtic ip a n ts which c la r if ie s ro le expectations, educa­
tio n a l assumptions and measurement concepts which are ce n tral to the
Special Study.
The fin a l chapter also presents conclusions and recommenda­
tions re la tin g to how the Special Study evaluation findings r e in ­
force w r ite r perception o f educational needs in the broader context
o f e a rly childhood education in Michigan public schools.

The MEAP

Kindergarten Special Study is viewed as a p o te n tia l fa c to r fo r change
in providing leadership to Michigan public schools in e a rly c h ild ­
hood education.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As co n trib u tin g to the inception and/or completion o f th is
d is s e rta tio n , I wish to acknowledge:
David L. Donovan, fo r his i n i t i a l and continuous support in
th is p ro je c t.

As D ire c to r o f the Research, Evaluation and Assessment

Service Area o f the Michigan Department o f Education, David models the
educational leadership necessary to bring about q u a lity experiences
fo r ch ild ren by lis te n in g , th in k in g , and ris k in g to bring about edu­
cation al change.
J. Bruce Burke, fo r his support and assistance as my teacherchairman-colleague.

Bruce models the educational leadership neces­

sary to encourage graduate students to grow, be themselves, be O .K .,
and s t i l l complete a q u a lity task.
Those other members o f my committee who understand th a t
c r e a t iv it y , humaneness, and scholarship can be compatible q u a litie s :
Howard S. Teitelbaum , George Myers, Keith Anderson, and Joe L.
Byers.
The MEAP Program s t a f f members, Edward D. Roeber and
Paula T. B rictso n, fo r t h e ir cooperation in a j o i n t endeavor to
support the importance o f and give v i s i b i l i t y to the education o f
young c h ild re n .
Joann L. Bloom (Michigan Department o f Education technical
a s s is ta n t) and Irene M. Stockbridge (Michigan Department o f

Education se creta ry ) who were hard working, p a tie n t, to le r a n t,
lo y a l, and brave, f a r beyond the c a ll o f duty.
And me— fo r f i n a l l y completing i t .

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES...................................................................................

vi i

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION

.............................................................................

1

General Context, Background, and Purpose o f the
Evaluation S t u d y .........................................................
Underlying Educational Assumptions ................................
R ationale fo r the Design o f the Evaluation Study .
Probable S ig n ifican ce o f the Evaluation Study . . .
General Organization o f the Evaluation Study . . .

1
6
7
14
15

BACKGROUND OF THE EVALUATION S T U D Y ..................................

16

P art One: L im itatio n s o f the Evaluation Study . . . .
S p e c ific L im itatio n s
.......................................................
Discussion o f the L im it a t io n s ......................................
P art Two: H isto ry o f Events and Circumstances
Producing the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study
fo r 1975-76 ............................................................................
Implementation o f the Six-Step Process Model . .
Implementation o f the Michigan Educational
Assessment Program .......................................................
Design and Procedures o f the Kindergarten
Special Study fo r 1975-76 ...........................................
Summary o f Key C h a ra c te ris tic s o f the MEAP
Kindergarten Special Study fo r 1975-76 . . . .

16
16
16

26

DESIGN AND EVALUATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EVALUATION STUDY PROCEDURES . .

31

P art One: Design o f the Evaluation S t u d y .................
Meaning and Value o f Evaluation Design .................
S p ec ific Inform ational Concerns-Objectives fo r
the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study .....................
Development o f the Design o f the Evaluation
P r o c e d u r e s ........................................................................

iv

19
19
21
24

31
31
34
37

Chapter

Page
Congruence o f the Evaluation Design and
Inform ational Concerns ...............................................
Planned D ata-C o llectio n Schedule . . . . . . . .
Part Two: E valuative D escription o f the
Implementation o f the Evaluation Study
P r o c e d u r e s .................................. .........................................
Questionnaires and S ta f f Reports o f the MEAP . .
Survey and In te rv ie w Procedures o f the W rite r . .

IV .

FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PROCEDURES ..............................
In trod uctio n ............................................................................
Findings o f the MEAP Procedures ......................................
MEAP S t a f f Report o f December 3, 1975: Summary
o f November/December Follow-Up Meetings . . . .
S ta f f Report o f December 10, 1975, Summarizing
Results o f November, 1975, Teacher
Questionnaire ....................................................................
Teacher Questionnaire o f January 12, 1976, as
to Need fo r February Follow-Up Meetings . . . .
Kindergarten Special Study Reporting Forms . . .
Findings o f the Survey and In te rv ie w Procedures . .
Summary o f In te rv ie w Responses ................................
Summary o f Survey Responses ..........................................
Summary Responses to MEAP Questions o f
Inform ational Concern .
.............................................
Questions R elating
to In s tru c tio n ............................
Questions R elating
to Communication ........................
Questions R elating
to Implementation o f the
Special Study ....................................................................

V.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................
Intro d u ctio n ............................................................................
Conclusions According to Key C h a ra c te ris tic s o f
the Special S tu d y ...............................................................
Recommendations According to Key C h arac teris tic s
o f the Special S t u d y ..........................................
108
Conclusions R elating to O verall Design and
Implementation o f the Special Study ..........................
Recommendations R elating to O verall Design and
Implementation o f the Special Study ..........................
General Conclusions Relevant to the MEAP
Kindergarten Special Study Findings ..........................
General Recommendations Relevant to the MEAP
Kindergarten Special Study Findings ..........................
Final O verall Conclusion and Recommendation . . . .

38
40
40
40
42
49
49
50
50
51
54
55
62
62
74
93
93
94
95
98
98
100

Ill
114
115
121
124

APPENDICES.....................................................................................................

125

BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................... .. .........................

305

v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

Page

1.

Evaluating Educational Systems..... .................................................

9

2.

Evaluating In s tru c tio n a l Programs

...........................................

9

3.

Planned Schedule fo r Evaluation Study DataC o lle c tio n Procedures ...............................................................

41

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A.

Page
GRADE 1 AND KINDERGARTEN SPECIAL STUDIES
PROJECT P L A N ................................................................................

126

B.

MEAP INFORMATIONAL HANDOUTS ......................................................

128

C.

LETTERS FROM DIRECTOR OF REAS TO SPECIAL STUDY
VOLUNTEERS....................................................................................

132

PROCEDURAL MANUAL, KINDERGARTEN SPECIAL STUDY. . . . .

136

D.
E.

MEMORANDUM TO SPECIAL STUDY PARTICIPANTS ON
NOVEMBER FOLLOW-UP MEETINGS ...................................................

175

MEMORANDUM TO SPECIAL STUDY PARTICIPANTS ON
FEBRUARY FOLLOW-UP MEETING ...................................................

177

G.

KINDERGARTEN QUESTIONNAIRE

.......................................................

179

H.

SPECIAL STUDY INSTRUMENTS ...........................................................

181

I.

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS AND
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS (OR SUPERVISORS) ..........................

196

J.

LETTERS FROM DEPARTMENT STAFF ACCOMPANYING SURVEY. . .

205

K.

INTERVIEW CONFIRMATION LETTER ...................................................

208

L.

LETTER TO INTERVIEWEES

210

M.

LETTER OF APPRECIATION TO INTERVIEWEES

.............................

212

N,

MEAP STAFF REPORT OF DECEMBER 10, 1976: SUMMARY
OF NOVEMBER-DECEMBER TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE .................

214

MEMORANDUM FROM MEAP STAFF TO AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR
RESEARCH REQUESTING "CLASS ROSTER SHEET" DATA
A N A L Y S IS .........................................................................................

218

DETAILED SUMMARY OF TEACHER NARRATIVE COMMENTS FROM
MEAP "COMMENTS ABOUT OBJECTIVES, TESTS AND ITEMS"
S H E E T S .............................................................................................

220

F.

0.

P.

. . . . . .

v ii

......................................

Appendix
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.

Page
DETAILED SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW RESPONSES FOR
KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS ................................................................

225

DETAILED SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW RESPONSES FOR
PRINCIPALS (OR SUPERVISORS) ...................................................

256

DETAILED SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO KINDERGARTEN
TEACHER SURVEY: FEBRUARY, 1976

266

DETAILED SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO KINDERGARTEN
TEACHER SURVEY: MAY, 1976 .......................................................

277

DETAILED SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO PRINCIPAL
(OR SUPERVISOR) SURVEY: MAY, 1976 ......................................

288

EXCERPT FROM MEAP STAFF REPORT ON TEST ANALYSIS FOR
GRADE ONE ASSESSMENT.....................................

303

v iii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
General Context, Background, and Purpose
o f the Evaluation Study
This study is an evaluation o f the Michigan Department o f
Education, Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP), Kinder­
garten Special Study fo r 1975-76.

The Michigan Department o f Edu­

cation s t a f f id e n tifie d a need fo r inform ation regarding the
effectiveness o f th is Kindergarten Special Study.

The goal o f th is

d is s e rta tio n was to meet th is need by providing c e rta in inform ation
on the effectiveness o f the Kindergarten Special Study.

Therefore,

i t is appropriate f i r s t o f a l l , to address the general context o f
needs fo r both the Kindergarten Special Study, as w ell as th is
evaluation o f i t s e ffe c tiv e n e s s .
Education o f very young ch ild re n is not a new to p ic to the
in te rn a tio n a l, n a tio n a l, or s ta te educational scene.

In 1891, the

Michigan le g is la tu re passed a law providing fo r kindergarten as a
component o f public school education.
Michigan School Code.)

In 1933, the Michigan le g is la tu re provided

state aid fo r kindergarten programs.
Michigan School Code.)

(See section 340.584 o f the

(See section 388.1105 o f the

In 1944, the Michigan le g is la tu re enacted

a law perm itting local and interm ediate school d is t r ic t s to operate
nursery schools and day-care centers.
Michigan School Code.)

(See section 340.587 o f the

2
However, an eventual concern in th is country was the placing
o f emphasis on education o f the very young c h ild , ra th e r than simply
care o f the young c h ild .

Previous to 1973, in Michigan, two separate

licenses were issued to c h ild -c a re centers by the Department o f
Social S ervices.

A "Nursery School" licen se assured the presence o f

a c e r tific a te d teach er, whereas a "Day Care" licen se did not.

Such

issues as c h ild advocacy and equal opportunity contributed to the
enactment o f a more recent lic e n s in g law in Michigan, Act 116, P.A.
1973.

The proposed reg u latio n s fo r Act 116 re q u ire th a t an edu­

cation al component be provided in a l l c h ild -c a re centers in Michigan.
Concern fo r the care and education o f young ch ild re n is
equally apparent a t the nation al le v e l.

The National Center fo r

Education S ta tis tic s issued a re p o rt, "Preprimary Enrollm ent,
October, 1974," presenting n ational s t a t is t ic s on the enrollm ent
of th re e , fo u r, and fiv e year olds in nursery school and kindergar­
ten programs.

A summary o f th is re p o rt sta tes :

R e fle ctin g a siza b le reduction in the b ir th ra te in recent
ye ars, the number o f ch ild ren three through fiv e in the United
States declined from 12.5 m illio n in 1964 to 11.4 m illio n in
1969 and to 10.4 m illio n in 1974. . . . On the other hand, the
number o f these ch ild re n en ro lle d in preprimary programs
increased from 3 .2 m illio n in 1964 to 3 .9 in 1969 and to 4.7
m illio n in 1974. Thus th ere was a 47 percent r is e in e n r o ll­
ment during the same period th a t the number o f ch ild re n in the
appropriate age group was decreasing by 17 percent . . . the
steepest growth ra te was in the enrollm ent o f th re e -y e a r-o ld s ,
where the percent en ro lle d was more than fo ur and o n e -h a lf
times as g reat in 1974 as in 1964. The percent o f fo u r-y e a rolds in school increased two and o n e -h a lf times during the
decade. The enrollm ent o f fiv e -y e a r-o ld s s ta rte d from a much
higher base (58 percent in 1964) but also increased very sub­
s t a n t ia lly to 79 percent in 1974. O v e ra ll, the proportion o f
three to fiv e -y e a r-o ld ch ild ren enrolled in preprimary pro­
grams rose from one-fourth in 1964 to 45 percent in 1974.

3
C le a rly , preprimary education is one o f the most dynamic and
ra p id ly developing segments o f the American educational
system. ■
Since 1971, the Michigan Department o f Education has been
paying renewed and p a rtic u la r a tte n tio n to the education o f the
young c h ild .

The S tate Board o f Education and the Michigan le g is ­

la tu re have already taken actions a ffe c tin g public sector preprimary
education.

In December, 1971, the S tate Board o f Education approved

the “T e n ta tiv e O bjectives fo r Preprimary Education in Michigan."
Also in 1971, the Michigan le g is la tu r e enacted Act 198, P. A. 1971,
to provide public school education fo r handicapped persons ages 0 -2 5 .
In 1972, Section 340.587 o f the Michigan School Code was fu rth e r
amended, continuing establishm ent o f "nursery schools" and "day­
care centers" by lo c a l and interm ed iate school d is t r ic t s .
In March, 1974, the Michigan Department o f Education created
the p o sitio n o f Preprimary In s tru c tio n a l S p e c ia lis t in General Edup
cation Services.
P rio r to th is tim e, there had been no p o sitio n
in the Department o f Education s p e c ific a lly designated fo r education
o f the very young c h ild .
In F a l l, 1974, the MEAP began p ilo tin g a F ir s t Grade Assess­
ment Program.

In F a l l, 1975, F ir s t Grade and Kindergarten Special

Studies began.
In February, 1976, the S ta te Board o f Education adopted
"D irections in E a rly Childhood Education, P art I . "

This paper

^“S t a t is t ic o f the Month: Enrollment in Preprimary Programs,"
American Education 11 (December 1975): back cover.
2
The w r ite r has held the p o s itio n since i t s c re a tio n .

4
provides age lim it s , program components, and terminology on which
to base discussions o f education o f the young c h ild .

The age

lim its and purpose fo r education o f the young c h ild are stated as:
E arly childhood education is here defined as the pro­
viding o f purposeful experiences, public or p riv a te , aimed
a t guiding the physical, em otional, in te lle c tu a l and social
development o f the young c h ild , 0-9 years o f age or through
the th ird g rade.3
Further terminology adopted by the S tate Board o f Education
in th is paper re fe rs to s p e c ific public school program components.
The terminology adopted by the Board as used in th is d is s e rta tio n
refers to the period o f e a rly childhood as being composed o f pre­
primary programs ( f o r ages 0-5 y e a rs ), and primary programs (fo r
ages 6-9 y e a rs ).

Preprimary may be divided in to In fa n t-T o d d le r

programs ( f o r ages 0-2 y e a rs ), pre-kindergarten programs ( f o r ages
3-4 y e a rs ), and kindergarten programs (fo r age 5 y e a rs ).
In conjunction w ith on-going comnunication w ith su b stantial
numbers o f e a rly childhood educators outside o f the Department, a
Preprimary Task Force was created w ith in the Department.

The

Departmental Preprimary Task Force is composed o f an Associate
Superintendent, f iv e Service Area D ire c to rs , two Program Super­
visors, and the Preprimary S p e c ia lis t.

This Task Force has provided

coordination and communication o f developmental e ffo r ts across
service areas, and has studied in-depth and proposed recommendations
fo r a c tio n .

^"D irections in E arly Childhood Education, P art I" ( s t a f f
paper w ritte n by S h irle y M. W illa rd , adopted by the S tate Board o f
Education on February 3, 1976), p. 1.

5
Thus, the a c t iv it ie s o f the Michigan Department o f Educa­
tio n r e f le c t national as w ell as s ta te -le v e l concerns regarding the
education o f young ch ild re n .
W ithin the Michigan Department o f Education, the Michigan
Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) is a u n it o f the Research,
Assessment, and Evaluation Service (REAS) area.

REAS is respon­

s ib le fo r the design and implementation o f a s ta te assessment pro­
gram in Michigan public schools.

P re se n tly , there are fo urth and

seventh grade assessment programs in every elementary and ju n io r
high or middle school b u ild in g .

In f a l l , 1974, a p ilo t program was

in it ia t e d a t the f i r s t grade le v e l.
was continued in f a l l , 1975,

This f i r s t grade p ilo t program

However, based on the feedback

obtained from the f a l l , 1974, f i r s t grade program,^ the MEAP
decided to design and implement a Kindergarten Special Study during
the 1975-76 school y e a r.

MEAP s t a f f were in need o f evaluation

inform ation concerning the effectiveness o f the implementation o f
th is Kindergarten Special Study.

As Preprimary In s tru c tio n a l

S p e c ia lis t fo r the S tate Department o f Education, th is w r ite r had
p a rtic u la r in te re s t in designing and implementing an evaluation o f
the Kindergarten Special Study.
The o v e ra ll purpose o f the evaluation was to gather in f o r ­
mation needed a t the s ta te level by MEAP s t a f f in order to make
decisions regarding the worth and effectiveness o f the Kindergarten
Special Study.

Based on id e n tifie d underlying educational assump­

tions stated below, MEAP s t a f f and the w r ite r id e n tifie d
^The nature o f th is feedback is discussed in Chapter I I .

6
inform ational concerns.

These inform ational concerns centered

around three general areas:

(1 ) What were the perceptions o f

p a rtic ip a tin g teachers and p rin c ip a ls regarding the ease and e ffe c ­
tiveness o f implementing the m aterials and procedures o f the Kinder­
garten Special Study?

(2 ) What was the e ffe c t o f the Kindergarten

Special Study assessment procedures on teacher in s tru c tio n a l beha­
vior?

(3 ) What was the e ffe c t o f the Kindergarten Special Study

assessment procedures on communication between teachers, p rin c ip a l,
and parents?

The purpose o f the evaluation study design, the

re s u lts o f which are reported in th is d is s e rta tio n , was to gather
inform ation in response to these basic, general questions.
Underlying Educational Assumptions
Both the MEAP s t a f f who designed the Kindergarten Special
Study and the Preprimary In s tru c tio n a l S p e c ia lis t who designed and
c
implemented the evaluation study share c e rta in educational biases and
assumptions re lev an t to the study.
1.

They can be stated as fo llo w s:

Local school personnel should carry out in s tru c tio n a l

planning procedures which include the id e n tific a tio n o f goals,
o b je c tiv e s , assessment procedures, d e liv e ry system (teaching s tr a te ­
g ie s ), evaluation procedures, and means by which to form ulate recom­
mendations fo r improvement.
2.

Id e n tifie d objectives should address c o g n itiv e , a ffe c ­

t iv e , and psycho-motor development, and be appropriate to the age/
developmental level o f the ch ild re n being served.
This w r ite r is the Preprimary In s tru c tio n a l S p e c ia lis t fo r
the Michigan Department o f Education.

7

3.

Assessment procedures should be appropriate to the

o b je c tiv e (s ) being assessed and f a c i l i t a t e the on-going educational
process.
4.

Inform ation obtained from the assessment procedures

should be recorded and used fo r In s tru c tio n a l planning f not fo r
purposes o f p red ictio n o f achievement, categ o rical la b e lin g o f c h i l ­
dren, or fo r creatin g s o le ly normative standards).
5.

The use o f assessment data fo r in s tru c tio n a l planning

should re s u lt in in s tru c tio n a l s tra te g ie s which address in d ivid u al
needs and strengths o f c h ild re n .
6.

Assessment inform ation should form and be u t iliz e d as a

basis fo r on-going communication between te a c h e rs -p rin c ip a l-p a re n ts .
7.

Assessment inform ation should form and be u t iliz e d as a

basis fo r program or curriculum planning a t the school b uilding and
school d i s t r i c t le v e l, and fo r p o lic y planning a t the d i s t r i c t and
s ta te le v e ls .
From these underlying assumptions, the MEAP Kindergarten
Special Study was designed, inform ational concerns were id e n tifie d ,
and the evaluation study was designed.
Rationale fo r the Design o f the
Evaluation Study
I t is necessary to d e lin e a te an understanding fo r and
purpose o f "evaluation" as used fo r th is study.

The d e fin itio n o f

and purpose fo r an evaluation are ce n tral to determining the design,
implementation, and repo rtin g o f an evaluation study.

The many

diverse purposes and processes o f educational evalu ation have been,

8
and a re , the subject o f many research and th e o re tic a l documents.

For

purposes o f th is study, the w r ite r has id e n tifie d c e rta in evalu ation
constructs from the many which have been developed.
A concise summary o f c e rta in contemporary evalu ation models
is presented by Worthen and Sanders in t h e ir book, Educational
Evaluation: Theory and P ra c tic e .

They summarize models according to

Stake, S criven, Provus, Hammond, Stufflebeam , A lk in , and T y le r , also
in d ic a tin g a model based on "Personal Judgment (e .g . a c c re d ita tio n )
Models are summarized by such es se n tia l c h a ra c te ris tic s as d e f in i­
tio n , purpose, key emphasis, ro le o f e v a lu a to r, re la tio n s h ip to
o b je c tiv e s , re la tio n s h ip to decision making, types o f ev a lu a tio n ,
constructs proposed, c r i t e r i a fo r judging e v a lu a tio n , im p lication s
fo r design, c o n trib u tio n s , and lim ita tio n s .®

Although the various

models described by Worthen and Sanders are o fte n highly re la te d on
c e rta in c h a ra c te r is tic s , each model is d is tin c tiv e enough to present
a d is c re te ly separate viewpoint and set o f procedures.
For the purposes o f th is study, several models are p a rtic u ­
la r ly a p p lic a b le .

The evaluation model o f Marvin A lk in , as defined

in his work, "Evaluation Theory Development," is e s p e c ia lly a p p lic a b le .
The o v e ra ll d e fin itio n o f evalu ation as formulated by A lk in is :
Evaluation is the process o f asce rta in in g the decision areas
o f concern, s e le c tin g appropriate inform ation and c o lle c tin g and
analyzing inform ation in order to re p o rt summary data useful to
decision-makers in s e le c tin g among a lt e r n a t iv e s .7
£

Summarized from Blaine R. Worthen and James R. Sanders, Educa­
tio n a l Evaluation: Theory and P ra ctic e (W orthington, Ohio: Charles A.
Jones Publishing Co., 1973), pp. 2 1 0 -1 5 ..
^Marvin C. A lk in , "Evaluation Theory Development," Evaluation
Comment, p. 2.

9
In fu rth e r d efin in g a framework w ith in which to o p e ra tio n a l­
iz e such a d e f in it io n , A lkin presents a process model o f fiv e sequen­
t i a l l y linked types o f ev alu atio n .

These fiv e basic types o f evalua­

tio n are d iffe r e n tia te d by t h e ir d is c re te functions to be performed
a t various points in a s e q u e n tia lly lin ked process.

The f i r s t two

areas, systems assessment and program planning, are more re la te d to
the evaluation o f educational systems, w h ile the la s t th re e — program
implementation, program improvement, and program c e r t if ic a t io n — are
p rim a rily re la te d to the evaluation o f in s tru c tio n a l programs.

Systems
Assessment

Program
Decision1

Planning

Decision

Figure 1 . — Evaluating educational systems.

Program
C e r tific a tio n

Program
Implementation
Decisions

Decision'

Decision

Program
Improvement

Figure 2 . — Evaluating in s tru c tio n a l programs.
Source:

Marvin C. A lk in , “Evaluation Theory Development," Evaluation
Comment, pp. 5 -6 .

10
The evaluation study presented here is o f A 1kin's program
implementation type.
A fte r the decision maker has selected the program to be
implemented, an evaluation o f program implementation determines
the extent to which the implemented program meets the descrip­
tio n formulated in the program planning d e c is io n .8
A lkin also discusses th is concept as "in s tru c tio n a l opera­
tio n . 11
Evaluation o f in s tru c tio n a l operation is an examination o f
the implementation o f the in s tru c tio n a l plans. Here the evalu­
a to r must consider whether or not s tra te g ie s were c a rrie d out
as designed o r, i f there were deviations from planned s tr a te ­
g ie s , he may want to examine the reasons fo r such deviations q
and then examine the outcomes and consequences o f the program.
More s p e c ific a lly , A lkin describes the various le v e ls o f
curriculum , in s tru c tio n a l planning, and in s tru c tio n a l operation.
distinguishes between the "macro" and the "micro" le v e ls .

He

The sub­

je c t o f th is d is s e rta tio n is most c e rta in ly a "macro" le v e l evalua­
tio n study.
An evalu ato r in te re s te d in in s tru c tio n a l planning a t a
broader, or macro le v e l, would be in te re sted in examining the
general in s tru c tio n a l s tra te g ie s designed by s ta te or provin­
c ia l p la n n ers.10
While th is evalu ation study addresses the implementation o f
a state-designed program o f assessment procedures (ra th e r than
in s tru c tio n a l procedures), the purpose and design are p a r a lle l.
A second decision-management approach to evaluation which
is hig hly ap p licab le to th is evalu ation study is th a t o f Daniel L.
8 I b i d . , p. 4.
a
Marvin C. A lk in , "Evaluating 'Curriculum ' and 'In s t r u c t io n ,'"
Curriculum Theory Network 4,1 (1 9 7 3 /7 4 ): 44-45.
10I b i d . , p. 45.

n
Stufflebeam .

In a proposed new d e fin itio n fo r e v a lu a tio n , he

states:
Evaluation is the process o f d e lin e a tin g , o b ta in in g , and
providing useful inform ation fo r judging decision a lte rn a ­
tiv e s . . . . Several key points should be kept in mind regard­
ing the new d e fin itio n .
1. Evaluation is performed in the service o f d ecision­
making, hence, i t should provide inform ation which is useful to
decision-makers.
2. Evaluation is a c y c lic , continuing process and th e re ­
fo re , must be implemented through a systematic program.
3. The evaluation process includes the th ree main steps o f
d e lin e a tin g , obtaining and providing. These steps provide the
basis fo r a methodology o f ev alu atio n .
4.
The d e lin e a tin g and providing steps in the evaluation
process are in te rfa c e a c t iv it ie s re q u irin g c o lla b o ra tio n between
evaluator and decision-m aker, w hile the obtaining step is
la rg e ly a technical a c t iv it y which is executed mainly by the
eva 1u a to r. <■
Stufflebeam re fe rs to four basic types o f decision-making
se ttin g s:

(1) metamorphism, (2) homeostasis, (3 ) incremental ism,
12
and (4 ) neomobilism.
Of these types o f decision-making s e ttin g s ,
the two which seem o f p a rtic u la r a p p lic a tio n to th is evalu ation study
are type #3 (incrementalism ) and type #4 (neomobilism).

The MEAP

F ir s t Grade Assessment p ilo t program began more on the basis o f a
neom obilistic type o f decision s e ttin g .

Stufflebeam describes th is

type o f decision s e ttin g as:
Neom obilistic decision-making denotes innovative a c t iv it y
fo r in v en tin g , te s tin g and d iffu s in g new solutions to s i g n i f i ­
cant problems. Such change is supported by l i t t l e theory or
extan t knowledge; y e t, the change is la rg e , o fte n because o f
g reat opportun ities such as those being produced by the knowl­
edge explosion, or because o f c r i t i c a l conditions such as rio ts
in inner c it ie s . Evaluation s tra te g ie s to support neom obilistic

^Worthen and Sanders, Educational E valuatio n , pp. 129-30.
12I b i d . , p. 130.

12

decision-making u su ally are ad hoc types o f in v e s tig a tio n s .
O ften, these studies are exploratory and h e u ris tic a t the begin­
ning o f a change e f f o r t and then in creasin gly rigorous as the
change progresses.13
The th ir d type o f decision-making s e ttin g , incremental ism,
is o f more d ire c t a p p lic a tio n to the evaluation o f the Kindergarten
Special Study, which evolved from the p ilo t F ir s t Grade Assessment
Program.

Stufflebeam describes incremental decision-making evalua­

tio n as:
Incremental decision-making denotes developmental a c t iv it y
having as it s purpose continuous improvement in a program.
Such a c t iv it y u su ally is supported by expert judgement and
structured in q u iry in to the e ffic a c y o f the present program
and the reconmended changes. Decision-making in th is quadrant
d if f e r s from homeostatic decision-making in two respects.
F ir s t , incremental decisions are intended to s h if t the pro­
gram to a new normal balance based upon sm all, s e ria l improve­
ments, w hile homeostatic decisions are intended to co rrec t the
program and change i t back to i t s normal balance. Second,
w hile homeostatic decisions are supported by technical stan­
dards and a continuing supply o f ro u tin e ly co lle cte d informa­
tio n , evaluations fo r incremental change are u su ally ad hoc
and supported by l i t t l e extan t knowledge. Special s tu d ie s , the
employment o f expert consultants, and the formation o f special
conmittees ch aracterize most e ffo r ts to introduce incremental
change.14
In ad d itio n to types o f evaluation s e ttin g s , Stufflebeam
has also id e n tifie d fo ur types o f evaluation decisions, which he
describes as:
. . . (1 ) planning decisions to determine o b je c tiv e s , (2 ) s tru c­
tu rin g decisions to design procedures, (3 ) implementing decisions
to u t i l i z e , control and re fin e procedures, and (4) recycling'
decisions to judge and re ac t to a tta in m e n ts .15
This evaluation study is aimed a t providing inform ation to
decision makers to make implementing decisions regarding the MEAP
Kindergarten Special Study fo r 1975-76.
l3 I b i d . , p. 133.

14I b i d . , p. 132.

15I b i d . , p. 135.

13
From Stufflebeam 's basic concepts o f decision-making s e t­
tings and types o f decisions flow his perceived fo ur basic types
o f evalu ation :

context, in p u t, process, and product.

He summar­

izes "process" evaluation as:
1. O bjective: To id e n tify or p re d ic t, in process, defects
1n the procedural design o r i t s implementation, to provide
inform ation fo r the preprogrammed decisions, and to m aintain a
record o f procedural events and a c t i v i t i e s .
2. Method: By m onitoring the a c t iv it y 's p o te n tia l proce­
dural b a rrie rs and remaining a l e r t to unanticipated ones, by
obtaining sp e cifie d inform ation fo r programmed decisio n s, and
describing the actual process.
3. R elation to Decision-Making in the Change Process: For
implementing and re fin in g the program design and procedure,
i . e . fo r e ffe c tin g process c o n tro l.
Stufflebeam 's "process" evalu ation type decision is comparable to a
th ird evaluation concept, ap p licab le to th is evaluation study o f the
Kindergarten Special Study.

This th ir d th e o re tic a l o rie n ta tio n is

th a t presented by Sanders and Cunningham, "form ative11 evalu atio n :
The term evaluation w ill be used herein to r e fe r to the
process o f determining the value or worth o f a process o r
product. Formative evalu ation w ill r e f e r to the process o f
judging a f lu id process or product th a t can be revised in form.
The re s u lts o f form ative evaluation studies are given to per­
sons d ir e c tly involved in the process o r in developing the
p ro d u ct.17
They present th is form ative evalu ation framework as being
two dimensional:
mation.

form ative evaluation a c t i v i t y and sources o f in fo r ­

The fo u r categories o f form ative evalu ation a c t iv it ie s are

pre-developmental a c t i v i t ie s , evalu ation o f o b je c tiv e s , form ative
in terim e v a lu a tio n , and form ative product ev alu atio n .

T h e ir three

16I b i d . , p. 139.
^7James R. Sanders and Donald J. Cunningham, "A S tru ctu re
fo r Formative Evaluation in Product Development," Review o f Educa
tio n a l Research 43,2 (1973): 217.

14
major sources o f inform ation are id e n tifie d as in te rn a l info rm ation ,
external inform ation, and contextual in fo rm ation .

The general focus

o f th is evalu ation study f i t s the "form ative product evaluation"
category described as:
By form ative product e v a lu a tio n , we d o n 't mean a summativ e or consumer re p o rt-ty p e o f a p p ra is a l. We also d o n 't
mean the evaluation o f pieces o f the fin a l product.
Instead,
we are suggesting th a t an important form ative evaluation
a c t iv it y is the evaluation o f the product as i t has been put
together s t r i c t l y fo r feedback to the developer. Anderson (1969)
provided an e x c e lle n t example o f what he ca lle d a " f ie ld t e s t,"
We would label such a study as a form ative product evaluation
study. . . . V a lid a tio n o f a product w ith a sample o f subjects
from the ta rg e t population or a f e a s i b il i t y study o f a plan fo r
educational change are the most fre q u e n tly found form ative prod­
uct evaluation studies in the 1i t e r a t u r e . 18
Thus, the ra tio n a le o f the design o f th is evalu ation study
draws from these three major th e o re tic a l o rie n ta tio n s .

As w ill be

discussed in depth in Chapter I I I , the breadth o f the e v alu ative
focus may pose c e rta in lim ita tio n s , but does provide a su b stantial
amount o f inform ation on the inform ational concerns id e n tifie d by
Michigan Department o f Education s t a f f .
Probable S ig n ifican ce o f the Evaluation Study
The inform ation gathered, conclusions, and reconmendations o f
the evaluation study w ill be presented to the D ire c to r o f Research,
Evaluation, and Assessment Services (REAS) o f the Michigan Depart­
ment of Education.

The in fo rm atio n , conclusions, and recommendations

w ill form a basis fo r Michigan Department o f Education s t a f f members
to make decisions regarding fu tu re implementations o f the Kindergarten
Special Study design.

Decision areas would include (1) any changes

18I b i d . , p. 230.

15
in the design and m a teria ls o f the Kindergarten Special Study;
(2) lim it a t io n , maintenance, or expansion o f the implementation o f
the Kindergarten Special Study; and (3) in tro d u ctio n o f fu rth e r or
fewer controls on i t s fu tu re implementation.
Conclusions and recommendations w ill also be presented to
other Department o f Education s t a f f members and re lev an t re fe re n t
groups and advisory councils whose in te re s t and re s p o n s ib ility a ffe c t
the education o f young c h ild re n .
Any sig n ific a n c e beyond decision making o f s ta te department
s t a f f and recommendations o f re fe re n t group members and advisory
councils is unknown.

P a rtic ip a n ts in the Kindergarten Special Study

have requested to receive re s u lts o f the evalu ation study.

Other

e a rly childhood education personnel who are in te re s te d in implement­
ing c rite rio n -re fe re n c e d assessment (w ith p a rtic u la r c h a ra c te ris tic s
o f the Kindergarten Special Study design) may be able to u t i l i z e the
re s u lts o f the evaluation f o r planning purposes.
General O rganization o f the
Evaluation Study'
The remaining chapters o f th is evaluation study are organ­
ized to present background inform ation, including the lim ita tio n s o f
the evaluation study and the h is to ry o f events and circumstances
producing the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study fo r 1975-76 (Chapter I I ) ;
to describe the design and implementation o f the evalu ation o f the
MEAP Kindergarten Special Study fo r 1975-76 (Chapter I I I ) ;

to present

the findings o f the evaluation procedures (Chapter IV ); and to o ffe r
ce rta in conclusions and recommendations fo r actio n (Chapter V ).

CHAPTER I I
BACKGROUND OF THE EVALUATION STUDY
PartOne: L im itatio n s o f the Evaluation Study
S p ecific L im itatio n s
The lim ita tio n s o f the evalu ation study emanate p rim a rily
from four fa c to rs :

(1 ) The evaluation design is one which r e fle c ts

a gathering o f breadth o f inform ation ra th e r than a depth o f in f o r ­
mation.

(2) The degree to which the evaluation inform ation is

gen eralizab le is lim ite d .

(3) The inform ation gathered in the evalu­

atio n procedures was t o t a l ly on the basis o f s e lf-re p o rtin g by a
requested volunteer population (th is assumed lim ita tio n o f a t o t a l ly
volunteer population proved not to be the case, as is presented in
Chapter IV and discussed in Chapter V ).

(4) C ertain weaknesses o f

the Kindergarten Special Study design i t s e l f placed lim ita tio n s on
the ev alu atio n .
Discussion o f the L im itatio n s
The lim ita tio n o f seeking a breadth o f info rm ation , ra th e r
than a depth o f in fo rm ation , was determined by the type o f informa­
tio n judged most needed by s ta te department s t a f f a t the end o f the
f i r s t or i n i t i a l year o f implementation.

S tate department s t a f f

concurred th a t broad, comprehensive inform ation re la te d to the
intended e ffe c ts o f the design should be gathered during the i n i t i a l
implementation phase.

This means th a t the f i r s t y e a r's
16

17

implementation inform ational o b jectives were focused on the o v e ra ll
effectiveness o f the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study design and it s
implementation, ra th e r than focused on s p e c ific components.
broad areas o f concern as id e n tifie d in Chapter I are:

The

(1 ) ease

and effectiveness o f implementation o f the procedures and mate­
r i a ls ,

(2 ) e ffe c t o f the assessment procedures on school and school-

home communication, and (3 ) the e ffe c t o f the assessment procedures
on teacher in s tru c tio n a l behaviors.

Each area is fu rth e r sp ecified

in to component concerns presented in the MEAP Kindergarten Special
Study design description in Chapter I I I .

Upon analysis o f these

i n i t i a l d ata, s p e c ific components can be id e n tifie d fo r fu tu re in depth examinations in implementation o f the Special Study.
The fin d in g s , conclusions, and recommendations o f th is
evaluation study are lim ite d to those studies and projects which
share the unique design c h a ra c te ris tic s o f the MEAP Kindergarten
Special Study or departments or projects which wish to design and
implement s im ila r stu d ies.

The key c h a ra c te ris tic s o f the MEAP

Kindergarten Special Study design (and, th e re fo re , parameters fo r
g e n e r a liz a b ility ) are described in d e ta il in Part Two.

Seven

key c h a ra c te ris tic s have been id e n tifie d to describe the MEAP
Kindergarten Special Study fo r 1975-76,

Designs which share c e rta in

or a ll o f these c h a ra c te ris tic s would fin d the evaluation in fo r ­
mation ap p lic ab le .
Certain weaknesses o r fac to rs not c o n tro lled fo r in the Kin­
dergarten Special Study design and implementation i t s e l f placed
lim ita tio n s on the evaluation study.

For example, i t was not

18
possible to control fo r c e rta in fac to rs re la tin g to c e rta in o f the
key c h a ra c te ris tic s o f the Special Study's design and implementa­
tio n .

In ad d itio n to key c h a ra c te ris tic s o f the Special Study design,

the evaluation was lim ite d by other facto rs o f the Kindergarten
Special Study such as size o f p a rtic ip a tin g population.

While the

w r ite r surveyed 100 percent o f the p a rtic ip a n ts , the re p res en tative­
ness o f t h e ir responses v is -S -v is to ta l kindergarten teacher and
elementary p rin c ip a l population is questionable.

This is because o f

the s iz e and demographic d is trib u tio n o f the chosen p a rtic ip a tin g
population.

These weaknesses and c h a ra c te ris tic s o f the Kindergarten

Special Study imposed lim ita tio n s on the evaluation study.

These

c h a ra c te ris tic s and appropriate recommendations are discussed in
Chapters IV and V on "Findings" and "Conclusions and Recommendations."
A fo urth lim ita tio n o f the evaluation study comes from " s e lf reporting" as the sole formal mode o f gathering d ata.

During the

in te rv ie w procedures, "inform al" observations were made and conclu­
sions drawn by the w r it e r .

However, no fo rm alized , structured obser­

vation al data-gathering procedure was u t iliz e d .

Given the i n i t i a l

inform ational objectives o f S tate Department o f Education s t a f f , the
s e lf-re p o rtin g mode was judged to be adequate.

This most l ik e l y w ill

change w ith inform ational needs in fu tu re implementations.

S p ec ific

recommendations are made regarding th is aspect o f lim ita tio n .

19

Part Two: H isto ry o f Events and Circumstances
Producing the HEAP Kindergarten Special'
Study fo r 1975-76
Implementation o f the
Six-Step Process Model
In la te 1969 and e a rly 1970, the Michigan S tate Board o f
Education, under the new leadership o f Dr. John W. P o rte r, then a c t­
ing Superintendent o f Public In s tru c tio n , began a new th ru s t fo r
Michigan public education in the form o f a s ix -s te p process model fo r
educational a c c o u n ta b ility .

A Michigan Department o f Education pub­

lic a t io n , A Position Statement o f Educational A c c o u n ta b ility , des­
cribes the advocated process model as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Id e n t if ic a tio n , discussion and dissemination o f common
goals fo r Michigan Education.
Approaches to educational challenges based on performance
objectives consistent w ith the goals.
Assessment o f educational needs not being met, and which
must be met to achieve performance o b jectives and goals.
Analysis o f the e x is tin g {or planned) educational d e liv e ry
systems in lig h t o f what assessment t e l l s us.
Evaluation and tes tin g w ith in the new or e x is tin g d e liv e ry
system to make sure i t serves the assessed needs.
.
Recommendations fo r improvement based upon the above.
Michigan Department o f Education s t a f f was subsequently

charged w ith development and implementation o f each procedural step
o f the process model.

The f i r s t charge to s t a f f , in conjunction with

a commission o f Michigan educators, was the id e n tific a tio n o f s ta te level "goals."

A S tate Department o f Education p u b lic a tio n , The

Common Goals o f Michigan Education, describes the background o f th is
document as:

^A Position Statement on Educational A c co u n tab ility (Lansing:
Michigan Department o f Education, 1972), p. 2.

20

In e a rly 1970, the continuing concern fo r the q u a lity o f
public education in the S tate o f Michigan prompted the S tate
Board o f Education to appoint an advisory task force composed
o f Michigan educators, students, and la y c itiz e n s . This task
force was given the charge o f id e n tify in g and d e lin e a tin g what
are believed to be the common goals o f an educational system
capable o f meeting the growing and changing needs o f contem­
porary so ciety.
In June, 1970 the Task Force on Goals presented i t s recom­
mendations to the S tate Board o f Education. The S tate Board
received these recommendations and made revisions and ad d itio n s .
A document e n title d The Common Goals o f Michigan Education:
T en tative which included the goals as revised by the S tate Board
was d is trib u te d to educators and in te re sted c itiz e n s throughout
the S ta te . T w enty-five public meetings were then held in order
to e l i c i t the opinions and concerns o f local educators and lay
c itiz e n s regarding the te n ta tiv e common goals. . . . The State
Board reviewed these opinions and concerns, revised the te n ta ­
tiv e common goals accordingly, and has now adopted the revised
goals as State Board p o lic y . . . .2
Upon adoption o f The Common Goals o f Michigan Education,
Department o f Education s t a f f was charged w ith the development o f
student performance o b je c tiv e s .

These objectives were developed by

teachers and s p e c ia lis ts in 10 subject areas and reviewed and revised
by grade-level commissions representing teachers, curriculum sp e c ia l­
is ts , school ad m in istrato rs, and in te re sted c itiz e n s in the 10
in s tru c tio n a l areas.

One o f these areas was preprimary education.

In th is area , two commissions were created to id e n tify appropriate
behavioral expectations fo r preprimary c h ild re n :

a pre-kindergarten

commission (fo r ages 3 and 4) and a kindergarten commission ( f o r age 5 ).
Their combined work resu lted in the Michigan Department o f Education
p u b lic a tio n , T en tative O bjectives fo r Preprimary Programs in Michigan.
This document was approved by the S tate Board o f Education in December,
1971.
p
The Common Goals o f Michigan Education (Lansing:
Department o f Education, 1 ^ 1 ) , p. i .

Michigan

21

Implementation o f the Michigan
Educational Assessment Program
Development o f the th ir d step in the Michigan Department o f
Education process model is described in the p u b lic a tio n , Educational
Assessment: The Michigan P lan:
In 1969, the S tate Board o f Education in it ia t e d the M ichi­
gan Educational Assessment Program in an e f f o r t to provide
much needed data about student achievement in the s ta te 's
schools. . . . State-w ide te s tin g o f fo u rth and seventh graders
was begun and was d irec ted p rim a rily toward reading and mathe­
matics. . . .
. . . Standardized, norm-referenced te s ts were subsequently
developed and became a p a rt o f the educational assessment e f f o r t .
however, in 1970, a number o f local school d i s t r i c t o f f i ­
c ia ls challenged the use o f standardized, norm-referenced tes ts
as good in d icato rs o f what was being taught. They also ques­
tioned the in s tru c tio n a l u t i l i t y o f the s in g le summary scores
being reported by the assessment program.
. . . Current versions o f the tests are designed to match
goals and objectives which were developed as c le a r statements
o f in te n t fo r the schools o f the s t a t e .3
Thus, the MEAP changed to c rite rio n -re fe re n c e d te s tin g fo r
a ll grade le v e ls .

By f a l l o f 1974, c rite rio n -re fe re n c e d te s ts were

being administered in the fo urth and seventh grades.
The Michigan Educational Assessment Program, since it s
beginning in 1969, has tested fo u rth and seventh grade students
in a l l o f the s ta te 's 531 K-12 public school d is t r ic t s . The
fo u rth grade le v e l was selected because i t is the end o f the
very important primary years and the seventh grade because i t
is the end o f the elementary s e q u e n c e . 4
In the f a l l o f 1974, the assessment program was expanded to
include f i r s t grade students on a p i l o t , statew ide sampling basis.
F ir s t grade i s , by Michigan law , the mandatory beginning o f formal
education experiences fo r ch ild ren s ix years o f age by December 1
3

"Educational Assessment, The Michigan Plan" (Lansing:
Michigan Department o f Education, 1975), p. 3.
^ I b i d . , p. 7.

22

o f th a t school year.

The p ilo t F ir s t Grade program, both in f a l l o f

1974 and in 1975, was d iffe r e n t from th a t o f the statew ide fo u rth and
seventh grade programs.

I t was a " p ilo t" program and consisted o f a

m atrix sampling o f students and a m atrix sampling o f o b jectives upon
which students were assessed.

The 1974 program co n stitu ted the f i r s t

attempt to gather assessment data on the Preprimary O bjectives using
an experimental set o f MEAP-developed te s ts .

Approximately 70,000

f i r s t grade students p a rtic ip a te d in the f a l l , 1974, p ro je c t.
This program is described in Charting Educational Progress:
Michigan Educational Assessment Program:
The 1974-75 school year saw another dramatic change in
Michigan's Educational Assessment Program . . . a p ilo t p ro je ct
in o b je c tiv e referenced te s tin g fo r new fir s t-g r a d e r s . These
experimental te s ts covered areas o f student le a rn in g , a t t i ­
tudes and motor s k i l l s . These tes ts were given to a state-w id e
sample o f over 70,000 new fir s t-g r a d e r s in about one thousand
schools.
These new te s ts were developed during the 1973-74 school
year by educators in fo ur Michigan school d is t r i c t s , w ith the
technical support o f the Department o f Education.
The special problems o f te s tin g such young ch ild re n make
special procedures necessary: the te s t must be given to in d i­
vidual students or to very small groups o f students. Not too
many questions fo r each o b je c tiv e can be asked; nor can very
many objectives be tes ted . For some f i r s t grade o b je c tiv e s ,
special te s tin g m a teria ls were needed by the te a c h e rs .5
Based on the feedback given the MEAP from the f a l l , 1974,
F ir s t Grade p ilo t program implementation, c e rta in conclusions on the
weaknesses o f the program were reached.

Based on te s t re s u lts and

teach er-ad m in istrato r commentary on the 1974-75 F ir s t Grade S tate
Assessment Program, the fo llo w in g c h a ra c te ris tic s were id e n tifie d
5

Charting Educational Progress: Michigan Educational Assess­
ment Program (Lansing: Michigan Department o f Education, 1974),
p. 7.

23
by MEAP s t a f f and p ilo t p a rtic ip a n ts as c o n s titu tin g major weak­
nesses in the program:
C h a ra c te ris tic

Nature o f Weakness

1. F o rty -fo u r te s ts o f 48 objec
tiv e s co n stituted the to ta l
MEAP Assessment b a tte ry .

1. There are 132 Preprimary Objec­
tiv e s w ith varying le v e ls o f
performance s p e c ific a tio n s .6
Teachers saw only the te s t to
be adm inistered, not knowing
it s o b je c tiv e or th a t objec­
t iv e 's re la tio n s h ip to the
other o b je c tiv e s .

2. The assessment b a tte ry pro­
vided one te s t per o b je c tiv e .
The same te s t form was given
to each class o f f i r s t grad­
ers w ith in a selected school.
T h erefo re, each student in the
school was measured on the
same o b je c tiv e .

2. Each teacher received student
inform ation on only one objec­
t iv e . This is not s u ffic ie n t
assessment inform ation to d e te r­
mine in d ivid u al strengths and
needs fo r in s tru c tio n a l program
planning. The student informa­
tio n received was a carbon to
the answer sheet. There was no
computer p rin to u t on class,
school, d i s t r i c t , or s ta te
re s u lts .

3. The assessment b a tte ry was ad­
m inistered to a sample o f e le ­
mentary b u ild in g s , co n s titu tin g
approximately o n e -h a lf o f the
to ta l f i r s t grade population.

3. This sampling (coupled with
sampling described in #2 above)
does not provide comprehensive
in d iv id u a l d ata, nor data on a l l
students as do the fo u rth and
seventh grade s ta te assessment
te s ts .

4. The adm inistration o f each
te s t averaged 2-3 hours o f
classroom tim e.

4. Whether in d iv id u a l or sm allgroup adm inistered, the to ta l
time required to adm inister a
te s t p ro h ib ite d ad m in istratio n
o f more than one te s t per f i r s t
grade.

5. A ll MEAP te s t items were based
on the S tate Department o f
Education Preprimary O bjectives.

4. Many o f the preprimary objectives
were judjed by teachers to be much
too easy fo r en tering f i r s t graders.

Although ad d itio n a l items are p resen tly being f i e l d tes ted ,
expansion o f the F ir s t Grade Assessment program has been delayed by
reso lution o f the S tate Board o f Education.

24
Design and Procedures o f the
Kinderqarten Special Study
fo r 1975-76
Based on the 1974 F ir s t Grade P ilo t Porgram te s t re s u lts and
teach er-ad m in istrato r commentary, the D ire c to r o f the REAS u n it
decided th a t two special studies should be designed and implemented
fo r the 1975-76 school y e a r.

This evaluation study w ill speak only

to the Kindergarten Special Study.

MEAP s t a f f was assigned the task

o f designing a kindergarten study which would attem pt to co rrec t the
id e n tifie d weaknesses o f the F ir s t Grade p ilo t program.

During

March and A p ril o f 1975, the MEAP s t a f f designed the Kindergarten
Special Study fo r 1975-76.

A tim eta b le p ro je c t plan was developed

by MEAP s t a f f (see Appendix A ).
The MEAP s t a f f has described the outcomes o f the 1974 F ir s t
Grade p ilo t p ro je c t as these outcomes r e la te to the decision to
create the Kindergarten Special Study fo r 1975-76:
In the 1974-75 Michigan Educational Assessment Program la s t
f a l l , fo r ty -fo u r tes ts o f fo rty -e ig h t pre-prim ary performance
o b jectives were tr ie d out on samples o f f i r s t grade students.
The te s t items fo r these tests were w ritte n by educators in
four Michigan school d is t r ic t s and were based on the preprimary
objectives adopted by the S ta te Board o f Education in 1974.
For each o f the te s ts , a sample o f buildings containing
f i r s t graders was selected and a l l f i r s t graders in those
buildings were tested w ith the same te s t form. Only about h a lf
o f the f i r s t grade students were tested and any p a rtic ip a tin g
student only took one te s t.
This sampling plan had two obvious drawbacks. F ir s t , teach­
ers who p a rtic ip a te d received inform ation on only one o b je c tiv e ,
which was c e rta in ly not enough inform ation to judge the needs o f
entering f i r s t graders. Second, the assessment tests were not
set up fo r teachers to adm inister more than one te s t to stu­
dents in a reasonable time period. Teachers who wanted to te s t
more than one o b je c tiv e could not do so w ithout investing s ig ­
n ific a n t amounts o f classroom tim e.
While the Michigan Education Assessment Program w ill t r y
out te s t items fo r th irty -tw o ad d itio n a l objectives th is next

25
f a l l using the sampling methods described above, the assess­
ment s t a f f has also devised two special stu d ies. The major
purpose o f these studies is to increase the usefulness o f an
e n try -le v e l assessment program to local educators by attem pt­
ing to co rrec t the drawbacks mentioned above.7
In A p r il, 1975, school d i s t r i c t superintendents were n o ti­
fie d o f MEAP plans to conduct two special studies ( a t the kinder­
garten and f i r s t grade le v e ls ) and were in v ite d to id e n tify volun­
teers to p a rtic ip a te in each study.

They were in v ite d to send rep re­

sentatives to a May, 1975, inform ational meeting where MEAP s t a f f
would explain the general purpose and procedures fo r each study.
(See Appendix B fo r MEAP inform ational handouts.)

In June, 1975,

the MEAP received names o f id e n tifie d volunteers fo r the stu d ies.
P a rticip a n ts fo r the kindergarten study were chosen randomly by
MEAP s t a f f .
In June, 1975, the D ire c to r o f REAS sent le tt e r s to both the
volunteers who had been selected and those who had not been selected,
to inform them o f t h e ir sta tu s .
D irecto r o f REAS.)

(See Appendix C fo r le tte r s from

The population selected to p a rtic ip a te repre­

sented 37 school d is t r ic t s , 70 b u ild in g s , and 75 classrooms (a
g
to ta l o f 124 classrooms had vo lun teered).
September 2 through September 26, the MEAP s t a f f held meet­
ings throughout the s ta te fo r teachers and p rin c ip a ls who were the
^Michigan Educational Assessment Program inform ational handout
describing Kindergarten and F ir s t Grade Special Studies, d is trib u te d
at May 23, 1975 meeting, Lansing, Michigan.
Q

S eventy-five p a rtic ip a tin g classrooms o r teachers represents
approximately 2 percent o f the to ta l reported kindergarten teacher
population fo r the school year 1975-76, which was 3,369 (fig u re taken
from unaudited Fourth Friday school d i s t r i c t reports to Michigan
Department o f Education).

26
volunteer p a rtic ip a n ts in the study.

The purpose o f these meetings

was to provide a general b rie fin g or o rie n ta tio n fo r Special Study
p a rtic ip a n ts , which included d is trib u tin g to them the "blue notebook"
procedural manual fo r the Kindergarten Special Study.
of procedural manual, see Appendix D.

(For contents

For rep o rtin g forms, one

sample is in clu d ed .)
The Special Study i t s e l f was designated to be implemented
from September 29, 1975, through May 1, 1976.

Follow-up meetings

fo r the Kindergarten Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts were held November 17
through November 28, 1975 (see Appendix E ).

In January, 1976, a

questionnaire on the need fo r February follow -up meetings was sent
to Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts by MEAP s t a f f .
to be held upon request (see Appendix F ).

Local meetings were

Final student record and

comment sheets were due to MEAP s t a f f by May 1, 1976.
Summary o f Key C h a ra c te ris tic s
of the MEAP Kindergarten Special
Study fo r 1975-76
The design o f the Kindergarten Special Study, intended to be
implemented during the 1975-76 school y e a r, had c e rta in key char­
a c te ris tic s which can be summarized as follow s:
1.

Through communication w ith local school d i s t r i c t super­

intendents, a volunteer p a rtic ip a n t population o f p rin c ip a ls and
teachers would be id e n tifie d .

From th is lo c a lly id e n tifie d volun­

te e r population, actual p a rtic ip a n ts would be selected by MEAP s t a f f
attempting demographic representation and d is trib u tio n .
Contacting the local d is t r i c t superintendent is standard
procedure fo r o f f i c ia l S tate Department communication w ith those

27
buildings (p rin c ip a ls and teachers) fo r whom the local superinten­
dent is responsible.

Thus, i n i t i a l communication requesting Special

Study volunteers was sent to local superintendents.
2.

The 132 Michigan Department o f Education "T en tative

Objectives fo r Preprimary Program in Michigan" would serve as the
basic behaviors to be assessed.

The use o f these o bjectives

d ir e c tly re fle c ts the aforementioned educational assumption o f
preference to base assessment on c le a r ly stated c o g n itiv e , a ffe c ­
t iv e , and psychomotor o b je c tiv e s .

Children would thus be assessed

on objectives (behaviors or expectations) which address the whole
c h ild .
This c h a ra c te ris tic also o ffe rs the s p e c ific b e n e fit to the
Michigan Department o f Education to c o lle c t fu rth e r inform ation on
the "Tentative Objectives" document.

Such feedback focuses spe­

c i f i c a l l y on the teachers' judgment o f the developmental approp­
riateness o f each o b je c tiv e fo r fiv e -y e a r-o ld child ren ( v a lid it y )
and on the teachers' perceptions o f the importance o f c e rta in objec­
tive s or areas o f objectives (c o g n itiv e , a f fe c tiv e , psychomotor) in
local kindergarten programs.
3.

Teachers could choose from four d iffe r e n t assessment

modes or methods o f assessing student behaviors:

(a) MEAP-developed

tests,® (b) other te s ts , (c) observation, and (d ) o th e r.

The ra tio n ­

ale fo r providing teachers w ith fo ur d if fe r e n t modes or methods fo r
assessing the preprimary behaviors was to introduce f l e x i b i l i t y in to
the assessment procedures.
Q

For example, a teacher may judge th a t a

A to ta l o f 75 MEAP tes ts was a v a ila b le to each teach er.

28

p a rtic u la r o b je c tiv e would be most a p p ro p ria te ly ( v a lid ly and
r e lia b ly ) assessed by one o f the fo ur modes or methods ra th e r than
another.

C o lle c tin g inform ation on teachers' choice or preference

fo r assessment mode(s) and t h e ir ra tio n a le fo r th is choice would
provide fu rth e r feedback to the Michigan Department o f Education on
the MEAP-developed te s ts , as w ell as the preference and ra tio n a le fo r
the use o f assessment modes.
4.

Assessment inform ation on each in d ivid u al c h ild should

be recorded on designated "Class Roster" sheets and returned to the
Michigan Department o f Education upon completion o f the Special
Study.

Inform ation on these sheets would include the o b je c tiv e

assessed, the assessment mode used, and the date th a t student mastery
was determined.
The purpose o f the class ro s te r sheets, as designed, was to
provide immediately useful inform ation to lo c al teachers and admin­
is t r a t o r s , and inform ation o f use to the Michigan Department o f
Education s t a f f .

From the local s t a f f view p o in t, each in d iv id u a l

ch ild was having a p r o f ile created , based on the attainm ent o f spe­
c i f i c behaviors.

Documentation fo r attainm ent o f behaviors included

the method used to assess, as w ell as the date on which achievement
was determined.

From the s ta te le v e l, these rep o rtin g sheets could

be analyzed from diverse aspects, and provide a d e s crip tio n o f a
sample o f present kindergarten p ractices as defined by the Special
Study.
5.

Assessment and recording procedures would be imple­

mented and data recorded on a form ative b asis, over the e n tire

29

period o f the Special Study (September, 1975, through A p r il, 1976),
or approximately the period o f the re g u lar school y e a r.

This char­

a c t e r is t ic o f the study, in p a r tic u la r , contrasts w ith the present
Fourth and Seventh Grade Assessment Programs, which adm inister a
paper-and-pencil te s t over a sp e c ifie d short period o f tim esoon
a f t e r school begins in the f a l l .

Formative assessment procedures

allow fo r student behavior inform ation to be obtained, in s tru c tio n
to be planned accordingly,

and fu rth e r assessment or evalu ation made

u n til achievement o f the behavior is f i n a l l y recorded.

This char­

a c t e r is t ic d e f in it e ly places the o v e ra ll p r o f ile created on the
c h ild over a y e a r's period o f tim e, to be one which is "p o sitive " or
achievement o rie n te d .

Those o b jectives not recorded as having been

atta in e d would provide guidelines on fu rth e r in s tru c tio n a l needs to
the f i r s t grade teacher.
6.

Other recording sheets would be a v a ila b le to p a rtic ip a n ts

and requested to be completed fo r teacher use and fo r feedback to
the MEAP s t a f f .

These a d d itio n a l sheets would provide opportuni­

tie s fo r p a rtic ip a n ts to o ffe r feedback to the Michigan Department
of Education on many aspects o f the Special Study.
7.

The MEAP would provide s p e c ific a lly scheduled preservice

and on-going support services to p a rtic ip a n ts .

The MEAP would

assess and meet p a rtic ip a n t needs through (a ) in te ra c tio n w ith par­
tic ip a n ts a t two scheduled regional meetings, and a th ir d regional
or lo c al b u ild in g meeting, i f so requested; (b) a teacher s e l f assessment questionnaire completed by the p a rtic ip a n ts o f the
November regional meetings; and (c) a teacher self-assessment

30
question n aire, sent to a l l p a rtic ip a tin g teachers, in q u irin g about
the need fo r a February regional or local b u ild in g meeting w ith
MEAP s t a f f .
The described in servlce and on-going support a c t i v i t ie s ,
and inform al questionnaires provided by MEAP s t a f f to p a rtic ip a n ts ,
would assure the necessary tra in in g and support to understand and
successfully implement the Special Study.

"Successful11 implemen­

ta tio n would, o f course, be dependent on and defined by those in te n ­
tions or o b jectives o f the MEAP s t a f f fo r the Special Study.

In

describing the development o f the evaluation design in Section V,
the w r ite r elaborates on MEAP s t a f f in te n tio n s or o b je c tiv e s .
However, the p ro je c t did have an o v e ra ll purpose to be o f
assistance to both Michigan Department o f Education s t a f f and the
s t a f f o f local p a rtic ip a tin g school d is t r ic t s .

Through the ex p eri­

ence o f designing, implementing, and p a rtic ip a tin g in the Kinder­
garten Special Study, fu rth e r knowledge and ex p ertis e could be gained
by s ta te and lo c al s ta ffs .

CHAPTER I I I
DESIGN AND EVALUATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EVALUATION
STUDY PROCEDURES
P art One: Design o f the Evaluation Study
Meaning and Value o f
Evaluation Design
Before specifying the p a rtic u la r evaluation design fo r the
MEAP Kindergarten Special Study* i t is appropriate to address both
the concept and importance o f "design," as such, in the e n tir e task
o f evalu ation .
The f i r s t and foremost problem o f an evaluator in a descrip­
tiv e survey study i s , as Hyman notes, " . . .

the e ffe c tiv e concepi
tu a liz a tio n o f the phenomenon to be stu d ied ."
The basic con­
ce p tu a liza tio n o f the Special Study i t s e l f , the w rite r found to be
lo g ic a lly lin ked to the basic assumptions.

Therefo re, much "con­

ce p tu a lizatio n " regarding the evaluation goals and procedures would
also lo g ic a lly be lin ked to the basic assumptions, key ch aracter­
is tic s o f the Special Study, and inform ational concerns o f Depart­
ment o f Education s t a f f .
Fu rth er, Stufflebeam describes "d e lin ea tin g " a c t iv it ie s in
steps three and fo u r o f his fo u r-s te p process d e fin itio n o f
^Herbert Hyman, Survey Design and Analysis (New York:
Free Press, 1955), p. 92.

The

32
evalu ation .

He believes th a t d elin e atin g a c t iv it ie s are in t e r ­

faced between the evaluator and decision maker.

S p e c ific a lly , he

states:
In g en eral, design is the preparation o f a se t o f decision
situ a tio n s fo r implementation toward the achievement o f speci­
fie d o b je c tiv e s ., This d e fin itio n says three th in g s. . . .
F ir s t , one must id e n tify the objectives to be achieved through
implementation o f the design. . . . Second, th is d e fin itio n
says th a t one should id e n tify and d efin e the decision s itu a ­
tio n s in the procedure fo r achieving the evaluation objec­
t iv e . . . . T h ird , fo r each id e n tifie d decision s itu a tio n the
evalu ato r needs to make a choice among the a v a ila b le a l t e r ­
n ative s. Thus, the completed evaluation design would contain
a set o f decisions as to how the evaluation is to be conducted
and what instruments w il l be used.2
Also, as previously in d ic a te d , the p ositio n o f the w r ite r
is th a t several models or conceptual bases provided stru c tu re and
d ire c tio n to the underlying philosophy, evaluation model, and
implementation.

T h erefo re, the w r ite r did not s t r i c t l y adhere to a

step-by-step design procedure as delineated above by Stufflebeam ,
but considered and incorporated o ther biases as w e ll.
Further emphasis as to the need fo r planning design and
stru c tu re o f evaluation studies is presented by Worthen and Sanders
under the to p ic o f "Guidelines fo r W ritin g Evaluation Proposals
and Reports":
When an evaluator is f i r s t c a lle d in to evaluate a pro­
gram, th ere are several things he must ascertain or decide a t
the o u tset. F ir s t , he needs to fin d out why the evaluation
is taking place. Second, he needs to id e n tify the various
audiences fo r which he must provide evaluation inform ation
and determine t h e ir needs and backgrounds so th a t he can rep o rt
his findings in the format most appropriate fo r the type o f
audience being addressed. . . . T h ird , he w ill need to decide
on an o v e ra ll evaluation plan including the basic design,
2
Worthen and Sanders, Educational E valu atio n , pp. 143-44.

33
s p e c ific a tio n o f what inform ation w ill be c o lle c te d , pro­
posed c o lle c tio n and analysis techniques, and a d escrip tio n
o f how the inform ation w ill be used.3
As Preprimary In s tru c tio n a l S p e c ia lis t fo r the Michigan
Department o f Education, the w rite r-e v a lu a to r had im p lic it overview
concerns and o bjectives as to the o v e ra ll effectiveness o f the
Kindergarten Special Study.

Such concerns would e s p e c ia lly center

on Michigan Department o f Education s t a f f design and implementation
procedures which produced the Kindergarten Special Study.

This is

a separate concept fo r an evaluation study and was in no way f o r ­
m ally designed and instrumented w ith s p e c ific objectives fo r th is
evaluation study.

This study is the type o f form ative evalu ation

described by Sanders and Cunningham:
. . . We are suggesting th a t an important form ative e v a l­
uation a c t iv it y is the evaluation o f the product as i t has
been put together s t r i c t l y fo r feedback to the developer. . . .
V a lid a tio n o f a product w ith a sample o f subjects from the
ta rg e t population or a f e a s i b il i t y study o f a plan fo r educa­
tio n a l change are the most fre q u e n tly found form ative product
evaluation studies in the lit e r a t u r e .^
However, " fa ll-o u t" inform ation gleaned from the implementa­
tio n o f the evaluation procedures does address the p ro je c t formula­
tion aspect o f the study, and th e re fo re w ill be re fle c te d in the
fin a l section on conclusions and recommendations.

3I b i d . , p. 300.
^Sanders and Cunningham, "A S tru ctu re fo r Formative Evalua­
tion in Product Development," p. 230.

34
S p ecific Inform ational ConcemsObjectives fo r the MEAP Kinder­
garten Special Study
The primary purpose o f the evaluation study was to design
and implement procedures to gather inform ation to respond to the
inform ational concerns o f Michigan Department o f Education s t a f f .
This s t a f f would include the D ire c to r o f REAS and the MEAP s t a f f .
Their questions o f concern f a l l in to three main areas:

(1 ) e ffe c ­

tiveness o f design and ease o f implementation o f the Kindergarten
Study i t s e l f , (2) impact o f the Kindergarten Study on in s tru c tio n a l
behavior o f the teacher, and (3) impact o f the study on communica­
tio n between tea ch ers-p rin cip a l (o r su p erviso r)-p aren ts.
The evaluation o f the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study fo r
1975-76 was p rim a rily designed to gather inform ation to respond to
these inform ational concerns o f Michigan Department o f Education
s ta ff.

The s p e c ific inform ational questions o f concern to the

Department o f Education s t a f f lo g ic a lly flow from the underlying
educational assumptions stated in Chapter I .

T h erefo re, s p e c ific

inform ational concerns can be stated in c o ro lla ry and p a ra lle l
forms o f questions fo r and im plied o b jectives o f the Kindergarten
Special Study:
Inform ational Question
A.

Im p lic it O bjective

R elating to In s tru c tio n

1. Do the Kindergarten Special
Study assessment procedures
encourage the teacher to
focus on in d ivid u al strengths
and needs o f children?

1. The Kindergarten Special Study
assessment procedures w ill
encourage the teacher to focus
in s tru c tio n on in d ivid u al
strengths and needs o f ch ild re n .

35
Inform ational Question

Im p lic it O bjective

2. Do the Kindergarten Special
Study assessment procedures
change the teacher's
in s tru c tio n a l behavior toward
in d iv id u a liz in g in s tru c tio n
o f children?

2. The Kindergarten Special Study
assessment procedures wvl 1 change
the teach er's in s tru c tio n a l
behavior toward in d iv id u a liz in g
in s tru c tio n o f c h ild re n .

3. Does the s p e c ific , recorded,
in d iv id u a lize d assessment
inform ation gathered through
the Kindergarten Special Study
procedures provide more useful
and complete inform ation fo r
local decision making than
previous local assessment
procedures?

3. The s p e c ific , recorded, in d i­
v id u a lize d Kindergarten Special
Study assessment inform ation
w ill provide more useful and
complete inform ation fo r local
decision making than previous
lo c al assessment procedures.

4. Are the Preprimary O bjectives
judged g en erally appropriate
fo r kindergarten ch ild ren by
the p a rtic ip a tin g teachers?

4. The Preprimary Objectives w ill
be judged as general ly approp­
r ia t e fo r kindergarten ch ild ren
by p a rtic ip a tin g teachers.

B.

R elating to Communication

5. Did the p a rtic ip a n ts receive
needed/requested support
from the local adm inistration?

5. The teachers w ill receive
needed/requested support from
the local ad m in istratio n and
from the MEAP.

6. Do the p a rtic ip a tin g teachers
and p rin c ip a ls (or supervisors)
perceive th a t the Kindergarten
Special Study assessment
procedures make a p o s itiv e
d iffe re n c e on communication
between teachers, parents,
and p rin c ip a ls (or supervisors)?

6. The p a rtic ip a tin g teachers and
p rin c ip a ls (o r supervisors)
w ill perceive th a t the Kindergar­
ten Special Study assessment
procedures make a p o s itiv e
d iffe re n c e on communication
between teachers, parents, and
p rin c ip a ls (o r superviso rs).

7. Is s u ffic ie n t v a lid and r e l i ­
able c h ild achievement data
provided to the Michigan
Department o f Education s t a f f
fo r s ta te -le v e l decision
making?

7. S u ffic ie n t v a lid and r e lia b le
c h ild achievement data are
provided to Michigan Department
o f Education s t a f f fo r s ta te le v e l decision making.

36
Inform ational Question
C.

Im p lic it O bjective

R elating to Implementation o f the Special Study

8. Do the procedures and m aterials
o f the Kindergarten Special
Study gather the intended
inform ation fo r local - and s ta te le v e l decision making?

8 . The procedures and m a teria ls o f
the Kindergarten Special Study
w ill gather the intended in ­
formation fo r lo c a l- and s ta te le v e l decision making.

9. Are the mechanics o f recording
manageable and e f f ic ie n t from
the teach ers’ point o f view?

9. The mechanics o f data recording
w ill be perceived as manageable
and e f f i c i e n t from the teachers'
point o f view.

10. Are the mechanics o f adminis­
te rin g the MEAP group and
in d iv id u a l tes ts manageable
and e f f i c i e n t from the
teachers' p oint o f view?

10. The mechanics o f adm inistering
the MEAP group and in d ivid u al
tes ts w il l be perceived as man­
ageable and e f f ic ie n t from the
teachers' point o f view.

11. Are the items o f the MEAP tes ts
regarded as appropriate by the
kindergarten teachers?

11. The items o f the MEAP te s ts w ill
be regarded as appropriate by
the kindergarten teachers.

12. Did the p a rtic ip a n ts receive
needed/requested tra in in g and
support from the MEAP s ta ff?

12. The p a rtic ip a n ts w il l receive
needed/requested tra in in g and
support from the MEAP s t a f f .

These questions-objectives were id e n tifie d by the w r it e r ,
MEAP s t a f f , and the D ire c to r o f REAS.

On the basis o f the answers

given to the id e n tifie d questions, i f the id e n tifie d o bjectives o f
the assessment procedures were achieved or not, then appropriate
decisions can be made a t the s ta te le v e l regarding the fu tu re format
and implementation o f the Kindergarten Special Study.

I f evaluation

inform ation in d icated th a t c e rta in objectives were not achieved,
and "obstacles" or "problem areas" id e n tifie d , then ap propriate
s ta te -le v e l decisions can be made regarding fu tu re implementation
o f the Special Study.

In other words, the o v e ra ll purpose o f the

37
Evaluation Study was to determine i f the MEAP Kindergarten Special
Study fo r 1975-76 met i t s o b je c tiv e s , and i f n o t, to id e n tify those
not met and the reasons why.
Development o f the Design
o f the Evaluation Procedures
The general planning o f the evaluation design centered
around the id e n tific a tio n o f appropriate inform ation sources, the
id e n tific a tio n o f roles fo r a l l c o lle c to rs o f inform ation, and
the id e n tific a tio n and design o f procedures fo r c o lle c tio n o f in f o r ­
mation.
Inform ation sources. — Four inform ation sources were
id e n tifie d from which to gather data re lev an t to the evaluation
questions o f concern:

(a ) p a rtic ip a tin g kindergarten teachers,

(b) the p rin c ip a ls or supervisors o f the p a rtic ip a tin g kindergar­
ten teachers, (c) MEAP s t a f f , and (d) the D ire cto r o f the Research,
Evaluation, and Assessment Service area (REAS) o f the Michigan
Department o f Education.
C ollecto rs o f info rm ation . — Both the w r ite r o f th is evalua­
tio n and the MEAP s t a f f co lle cte d c e rta in inform ation on the Kin­
dergarten Special Study.

The MEAP s t a f f had designed lim ite d

in fo rm a tio n -c o lle c tio n procedures in to the study i t s e l f .

These

procedures consisted o f informal questionnaires sent to p a r t i c i ­
pating teachers in December and March, and the formal reporting
forms to be returned to the Department in May a f t e r completion o f
the Special Study.

MEAP s t a f f agreed to share th is inform ation

with the w r ite r in order th a t i t be incorporated in to a broader

38
inform ational perspective.

Thus, the re s u lts o f HEAP questionnaires

and two reporting forms are included in the inform ation fin d in g s ,
as w ell as the inform ation co lle cte d by the w r it e r .
Procedures fo r c o lle c tio n o f in fo rm atio n . — Including the
method employed by the MEAP s t a f f , fo ur data-gathering methods were
id e n tifie d in t o t a l.

They were (a ) inform al questionnaires designed

by HEAP s t a f f and d is trib u te d or sent to p a rtic ip a tin g teachers (see
Appendices F and G ), (b) th ree formal surveys designed by the w r ite r
and sent to a ll p a rtic ip a tin g teachers and p rin c ip a ls (or super­
visors) (see Appendix H ), (c) formal interview s by the w r ite r o f a
subset o f p a rtic ip a tin g teachers and p rin c ip a ls (o r supervisors)
(see Appendix I ) , and (d) two d ata-rep o rtin g forms designed by REAS
as a component o f the to ta l study and returned to the Department
of Education by p a rtic ip a tin g teachers a t the end o f the study
(see Appendix D ).
Congruence o f the Evaluation
Design and Inform ational Concerns
The surveys and in te rv ie w questions designed by the w r ite r
were composed o f items d ir e c tly re la tin g to the three basic areas
o f concern.

For the f i r s t survey, administered to p a rtic ip a tin g

kindergarten teachers in February and March, 1976, items 1-12 re la te
to teacher in s tru c tio n a l behaviors; Items 13-20 r e la te to the nature
of communication between teachers, p rin c ip a l (o r s u p erviso r), and
parents; and items 21-34 r e la te to p a rtic ip a n t experiences and
perceptions o f the design and m aterials o f the study (see Appen­
dix H).

For the second set o f surveys administered in May, one

39
to the kindergarten teachers and one to p rin c ip a ls (or supervisors)
(Appendix H ), s im ila r congruence was also designed in to the forms.
However, fo r the May teacher survey, many items re la tin g to in s tru c ­
tio n al behavior were elim inated because o f time constraints on
pre-post p a rtic ip a tio n inform ation.

This weakness, and a c o ro lla ry

compensation, are discussed in the fo llow ing section on the des­
c rip tio n o f implementation o f the design.

For the p rin c ip a ls survey

(administered in May, 1976), items 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 15, and 16
re la te to the actual implementation o f the MEAP design; items 5, 7,
12, 13, and 18 r e la te to concerns o f communication; and items
6, 8 , 9, 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20 r e la te to a d m in is tra tiv e behaviors
(see Appendix H).
I t was the w r ite r 's decision to adm inister only one survey
to p a rtic ip a tin g p rin c ip a ls because o f the minimal nature o f th e ir
involvement during the i n i t i a l meetings.

I t was the w r ite r 's

judgment th a t given a period o f time during which the Special Study
was in operation, more re lev an t inform ation could be obtained from
the p rin c ip a ls regarding th e ir ro le in and perceptions o f the
study.
In terview questions id e n tifie d by the w r ite r were also
designed to d ir e c tly re la te to the three inform ational areas o f
concern.

Many o f the in te rv ie w questions are the same, or hig hly

s im ila r to those o f the formal surveys.

However, the in te n t was

to question p a rtic ip a n ts fu rth e r on the response given.

A ll

interviews were to be done a t the building s ite and tape recorded
with the permission o f the interview ee.

40
In te rv ie w p a rtic ip a n ts were chosen on the basis o f two
facto rs:

(1) an attempted representation o f urban, suburban, and

ru ral p a rtic ip a tio n ; and (2) those persons judged by MEAP s t a f f as
being most w illin g to o ffe r feedback to the Department.

Based on

these two fa c to rs , p o te n tia l in te rv ie w p a rtic ip a n ts were id e n ti­
fie d by MEAP s t a f f and the w r ite r .
Planned D ata-C o llectio n Schedule
A schedule fo r the c o lle c tio n o f data by a l l c o lle c to rs
from a l l sources was id e n tifie d , as shown in Figure 3.
Part Two: E valuative D escription o f the
"Implementation o f the Evaluation Study
Procedures
Questionnaires and S ta ff
Reports o f the MEfiP
In November, 1975, MEAP s t a f f d is trib u te d an informal ques­
tio n n a ire to those present a t the regional follow -up meetings (see
Appendix G).

The findings o f th is questionnaire and MEAP s t a f f

conclusions were summarized in a repo rt to the D ire c to r o f REAS and
copied to th is w r it e r .

These find in g s are summarized and presented

in Chapter IV.
In January, 1976, the MEAP s t a f f mailed a questionnaire to
a ll teacher p a rtic ip a n ts , in q u irin g about the need fo r a second
follow-up meeting (see Appendix E ).

The findings o f th is ques­

tio n n aire and MEAP s t a f f conclusions were also shared w ith th is
w rite r .

These findings are also summarized and presented in

Chapter IV .

41

D ata O b ta in e d
Through MEAP
R e p o rtin g Forms

S urveys
(By W r i t e r )

MEAP S t a f f
M eetin g s and
R e p o rts

In te r v ie w s
(By W r it e r )

Septem ber,
1975

Id e n tific a t io n o f
In fo r m a tio n a l
concerns

O c to b er,
1975

D e s ig n in g o f
s u rveys # 1 , # 2 ,
and #3

D e s ig n in g o f
te a c h e r and
p r in c i p a l I n t e r ­
v ie w pro cedu res

F in a l I n i t i a l
re g io n a l m eet­
in g s

F in a liz a tio n o f
s u rv e y # 1 ; con­
t in u e d e s ig n o f
su rveys #2 and #3

C o n tin u e d e s ig n o f
te a c h e r and p r i n ­
c ip a l In t e r v ie w
p ro cedu res

MEAP s t a f f f o ll o w up re g io n a l m eet­
ings

December,
1975

A d m in is tr a tio n o f
s u rv e y # 1 ;
c o n tin u e d e s ig n
o f #2 and #3

F in a liz a tio n o f
te a c h e r and p r i n ­
c ip a l In t e r v ie w
p ro c e d u re s

MEAP s t a f f f o l l o w up r e g io n a l m eet­
in g s , and r e p o r t
on November and
December f o ll o w up m eetin gs

J a n u a ry ,
1976

C o n tin u e d e s ig n
o f su rveys #2
and #3

Begin In te r v ie w in g
su b s e t o f te a c h e rs
and p r in c i p a l s (o r
s u p e r v is o rs )

C o n tin u e d esig n
o f su rveys #2
and #3

C o n tin u e I n t e r ­
v ie w in g s u b set

C o n tin u e d esig n
o f su rveys #2
and #3

C o n tin u e i n t e r ­
v ie w in g su bset

F in a liz a tio n o f
su rveys #2 and
# 3 ; b e g in d a ta
a n a ly s is

C om plete i n t e r ­
v ie w in g s u b s e t;
b e g in d a ta
a n a ly s is

A d m in is tr a tio n o f
su rveys #2 and # 3 ;
c o n tin u e d a ta
a n a ly s is

A n a ly s is o f
d a ta

Com plete a n a ly s is
o f d a ta

Com plete a n a ly s is
o f d a ta

November,
1975

F eb ru ary,
1976

In fo rm a l te a c h e r
q u e s tio n n a ir e s e n t
by and re tu r n e d to
MEAP

In fo rm a l te a c h e r
q u e s tio n n a ir e
s e n t by and
re tu rn e d to MEAP

March,
1976

A p r il
1976

May,
1976

June,
1976

F in a l te a c h e r d a ta
r e p o r tin g forms
and corm ent s h eets
due to MEAP

I n i t i a l r e g io n a l
m e e tin g s

MEAP s t a f f
r e p o r t on
F e b ru a ry
q u e s tio n n a ire s

MEAP sends "C lass
R o s te r 5 h e e t"
r e p o r t in g forms
to A IR f o r s p e c i­
f i e d a n a ly s is 3

a See Appendix 0 f o r th e "C la s s R o s te r S heet" d a ta a n a ly s is re q u e s te d by MEAP s t a f f .

Figure 3 . — Planned schedule fo r evaluation study data
c o lle c tio n procedures.

42
Survey and In te rv ie w
Procedures o f the W riter
A ll d a ta -c o lle c tio n procedures conducted by the w r ite r were
done through the o f f i c i a l channels and resources o f the Michigan
Department o f Education.

This meant th a t a l l evalu ation procedures

were approved through supervisory personnel channels and standard
Department approval procedures.

A ll surveys administered under the

auspices o f the Department had to be formatted

and approved by the

Department's forms control u n it , a section o f REAS.

Also, because

o f re c e n tly implemented Department re g u la tio n s , permission o f the
Deputy Superintendent o f Public In s tru c tio n had to be obtained to
adm inister other than the o f f i c i a l , standard forms.
A dm inistration o f February Kindergarten Teacher Survey (# 1 ),
May Kindergarten Teacher Survey (# 2 ), and P rin c ip a l (o r Supervisor)
Survey ( # 3 ) . - - A l l three surveys were designed by the w r it e r with
input from the MEAP s t a f f and the D ire c to r o f REAS.
were formatted by the forms control u n it o f REAS.

A ll surveys
This forms control

unit is responsible fo r approving and form atting a l l Department forms
by conducting a rigorous scru tin y o f a ll d ra fts fo r c l a r i t y and
conciseness o f content, as w ell as form at.

Each d r a ft was discussed

with the w r ite r by forms control u n it personnel, MEAP s t a f f , and the
D irecto r o f REAS.

This procedure most d e f in it e ly added a fu rth e r

q u a lity -c o n tro l fa c to r to the surveys themselves.
According to the planned d a ta -c o lle c tio n schedule, the f i r s t
survey was to be administered in December to a l l p a rtic ip a tin g k in ­
dergarten teachers.

However, because o f the aforementioned re c e n tly

implemented Department re g u latio n re q u irin g the approval o f the

43
Deputy Superintendent fo r the ad m in istratio n o f nonstandard Depart­
ment o f Education surveys, th is f i r s t survey was administered approxi­
mately two and a h a lf months la t e r than stated in the o rig in a l
schedule.

Thus, the intended "December" survey (#1) became a la te

February survey w ith a requested A p ril due date (because o f school
d is t r ic t spring va ca tio n s).

With th is i n i t i a l m a ilin g , a l e t t e r

under the Deputy Superintendent's sig nature, describing a ll d atac o lle c tio n procedures, was also mailed to local superintendents.

A

le t t e r from HEAP s t a f f accompanied each teacher survey (see
Appendix J ) .
By the requested A p ril due date, only 19 o f the 75 surveys
mailed had been returned to the Department.

Therefo re, a follow -up

le t t e r was w ritte n by the evaluator and sent by HEAP s t a f f requesting
prompt response to the survey.

In t o t a l , 66 February surveys w ith an

A pril due date were returned.
The tardiness o f implementation o f the intended January
survey (#1) necessitated a change in the i n i t i a l l y planned design
for the second kindergarten teacher survey (# 2 ).

Those items in

the f i r s t teacher survey which were going to be repeated fo r pre­
post comparison were removed from the second survey.

The period o f

time between the ad m in istratio n o f the two surveys was too short to
render pre-post inform ation.

The f in a l surveys, one to kindergarten

teachers (#2) and one to p rin c ip a ls (or supervisors) (# 3 ), were
mailed in e a rly May requesting a Hay 17 return d ate.

A fte r May 17,

a follow -up l e t t e r by the present w r ite r was sent by MEAP s t a f f
requesting prompt retu rn o f the surveys.

The number o f p a rtic ip a tin g

44
teachers had decreased by f iv e , so th a t 70 surveys were the to ta l
teacher surveys m ailed.
returned was 52,

The to ta l number o f teacher surveys

A to ta l o f 70 p rin c ip a l (o r supervisor) surveys

was mailed and a to ta l o f 40 returned.
Although much thought was given to the content and c la r it y
of the surveys, there were s t i l l items to which p a rtic ip a n ts did not
respond; some items received responses th a t were not re lev an t to the
question and others were l e f t blank.

Whereas surveys more re a d ily

reach the to ta l number o f p a rtic ip a n ts in a study than do o n -s ite
interview s, th ere was less control over obtaining a response, or a
relevan t response.

However, there proved to be less than to ta l con­

tro l in e ith e r procedure.
Interview s o f teachers and p rin c ip a ls (o r su p erviso rs ). —
The implementation o f the in te rv ie w procedure was conducted by a
step-by-step process.

From the l i s t o f probable volunteer in t e r ­

viewees, a MEAP s t a f f member made telephone contact to determine
w illingness to be interview ed.

Upon confirm ation o f w illin g ness to

be interview ed, a l e t t e r o f confirm ation o f d ate, tim e, and place
was sent to the local building by MEAP s t a f f (see Appendix K ).

The

w rite r drove to the local elementary b uilding to in te rv ie w on s it e .
The interview ee was given a l e t t e r d e lin e a tin g in te n t and proce­
dure (see Appendix L)

and. a copy o f the in te rv ie w questions (see

Appendix I ) to read before beginning the in te rv ie w .

The w r ite r

obtained o ral permission o f the interview ee to audio-tape the i n t e r ­
view.

The in te rv ie w was then conducted by the w r ite r reading the

question and the interview ee responding.

Almost a ll responses were

45
fu rth e r questioned fo r c la r if ic a t io n or e la b o ra tio n .

Upon term ina­

tio n o f the e n tire in te rv ie w procedure, the w r ite r sent a l e t t e r o f
appreciation to each interview ee (see Appendix M) and a package o f
m aterials describing current developmental e ffo r ts o f the Depart­
ment o f Education fo r d ire c tio n s in e a rly childhood education.
A n tic ip a tin g the unknown and the u n c o n tro lla b le, the w rite r
scheduled more interview s than a c tu a lly deemed necessary to receive
an adequate amount o f in te rv ie w info rm ation .

In t o t a l , three i n t e r ­

views were cancelled, two due to teacher illn e s s and one due to
the researcher's illn e s s .

For reasons unknown, two p rin c ip a l in t e r ­

view tapes and two teacher in te rv ie w tapes produced nothing but
s ta tic , and could th e re fo re not be included and analyzed in the data
c o lle c tio n .

Although th is did reduce the intended number o f in t e r ­

views, findings indicated themes and consistencies by the end o f the
f i r s t six in terview s.
By the end o f the f i r s t th ree in te rv ie w s , the w r ite r decided
to change the wording o f two o f the in te rv ie w questions.

This d ec i­

sion was made because a l l interviewees did not understand the mean­
ing o f two questions as they were phrased.

The two changes were in

both p rin c ip a l and teacher questions th a t used the word "design.”
For example, p rin c ip a l in te rv ie w question #9 had o r ig in a lly read,
"What do you perceive to be the advantages o f the Kindergarten Special
Study design?"

The use o f the word "design” in th is context c le a r ly

was not understood by p rin c ip a ls .
from teachers.

A s im ila r reaction was received

Therefore, the word was replaced by "procedures"

throughout the in te rv ie w questions.

This impression was reinfo rced

46
a fte r the formal in te rv ie w procedures in carrying on conversations
with p a rtic ip a n ts .

They did not use nor g en erally understand the

use o f the term "design" in th is context.

A second question th a t

was changed was teacher in te rv ie w question #22:

"How do you choose

the adm in istratio n mode by which to assess any given objective?"
The interviewees co n siste n tly did not understand what "adm inistra­
tion mode" meant or re fe rre d to , and so the question was expanded
to include a lis t in g o f the fo ur assessment modes from which par­
tic ip a n ts were supposed to be choosing ( i . e . , MEAP t e s t , other te s t,
observation, or o th e r).
Most interview s were conducted in the privacy o f a q u ie t,
closed room.

However, th is was not possible in a l l cases because

of various circumstances o f time o r unexpected events in local b u ild ­
ings.

One teacher in terview was conducted in the kindergarten class­

room w ith an aide attem pting, ra th e r unsuccessfully, to keep the
children a t the other end o f the room.

Another teacher in terview

was conducted in a restauran t during lunch.

Several p rin c ip a l

interviews suffered from constant in te rru p tio n s because o f emergency
situ ation s th a t required the p rin c ip a l's a tte n tio n .
The w r ite r had believed the in te rv ie w procedure would be
unique in obtaining in -d ep th , more "honest" (les s in h ib ite d ) in fo r ­
mation on the implementation o f the Special Study than might the
survey forms.

I t had been the w r ite r 's assumption th a t people who

h esitate to commit to w r itin g , even anonymously, th e ir thoughts and
feelin gs might be w illin g to do so o r a lly .
have g en erally been the case.

This does not appear to

Many in -d e p th , straig htfo rw ard

47
comnents were received in w r itin g .

Although the in te rv ie w procedure

did not prove to be a unique method fo r gathering in -d e p th , more
honest inform ation, i t did o ffe r the w r ite r an impression o f the more
to ta l context in which the Special Study was being implemented,
i . e . , the kindergarten classroom and the to ta l elementary b u ild in g .
Since the w r ite r is also the Michigan Department o f Education Pre­
primary In s tru c tio n a l S p e c ia lis t, the in te rv ie w procedure was a highly
educational professional experience.
However, the value o f the type and amount o f inform ation
gathered through the in te rv ie w procedure as being more in-depth or
unguarded from the survey procedure i s , in the w r it e r 's judgment,
open to question.

Other advantages o f the in te rv ie w procedure

should be considered before deciding on i t s worth as a d atagathering procedure in a s im ila r study.

For example, having a

Michigan Department o f Education person come to one's b uilding is
c e rta in ly more "personal" than receiving a form to complete, and may
have an e ffe c t on the a ttitu d e o f p a rtic ip a n ts .

Also, several in t e r ­

viewees did s ta te th a t they would not commit to w ritin g what they
were t e llin g the w r ite r o r a lly .

They also sought reassurances about

th e ir inform ation remaining anonymous.
Again, as w ith the survey forms, there were incidents o f
being unable to receive a c le a r or re lev an t response to an in te rv ie w
question.

No m atter how many times the question was asked or

rephrased, a re le v a n t response was not given in c e rta in cases.

It

appears to be the case th a t i f a person is confused or evasive in
w ritin g , there is no absolute assurance th a t the person would be

48
any less confused or evasive on the same to p ic in an in te rv ie w .
Personal conversation is not a guarantee o f g re a te r in s ig h t or
relevant response than the o ther response m odality used.

In only

two or th ree interview s did th is appear not to be the case.

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION PROCEDURES
In trod uctio n
The source o f the findings o f th is evaluation is the d atagathering procedures o f both the MEAP s t a f f and those o f the w r ite r .
The w r ite r has analyzed and summarized the findings from a l l d atagathering procedures.

However, i t is necessary and appropriate to

a le r t the reader to the complexity o f analyzing and summarizing the
findings o f the in d iv id u a l procedures and the d i f f i c u l t y in general­
izin g the fin d in g s o f a l l procedures.

This section f i r s t presents a

general summary o f findings in a n a rra tiv e form at, matched to each
id e n tifie d procedure o f the MEAP s t a f f and o f the w r ite r .

When

appropriate, th is summary re fe rs to an appendix, in which may be
found a d e ta ile d summary o f the findings o f th a t p a r tic u la r proce­
dure.

D etailed appendices summarizing the w r ite r in te rv ie w and

survey findings are included.
Presenting the findings in th is way means a possible dilemma.
Seven appendices are a d e ta ile d summary o f h ig h ly complex and in d i­
vidualized feedback, and the body o f th is section presents a general
summary o f th a t d e ta ile d summary.

Presenting a general summary of

these d e ta ile d summaries does not perm it the presentation o f dominant
or theme responses fo r each question o f each procedure.

49

The responses

50
collected by both MEAP s t a f f and w r ite r procedures g en erally r e f le c t
a great degree o f response variance fo r each question.

This is tru e

o f the w r ite r surveys where respondents were asked to check one o f
two or three f o il s in response to a question.

A high degree o f v a r i­

ance w ith in responses to a given question is e s p e c ia lly tru e o f those
survey questions which were open-ended, and o f the in te rv ie w ques­
tio n s.

The body o f th is chapter, th e re fo re , summarizes h ig h ly varied

and d e ta ile d responses to the questions o f a l l d a ta -c o lle c tio n proce­
dures.

Where s u ffic ie n t commonality o f responses is present, general­

ization s are made.

The reader is urged to read the appendices, and

in p a rtic u la r the respondent comments, to appreciate the degree o f
variance o f response to in d iv id u a l questions.

S p e c ific examples o f

th is variance are presented w ith c e rta in o f the fin d in g s .

The fin d ­

ings are summarized according to MEAP procedures and according to
w rite r procedures.
Findings o f the MEAP Procedures
MEAP S ta ff Report o f December 3,
1975: Summary o f November/December
Follow-Up Meetings
Based on a series o f follow -u p meetings w ith Kindergarten
Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts , conducted November 11 through December 2,
1975, a MEAP s t a f f re p o rt was w ritte n to the d ire c to r o f REAS.

This

report contained a summary section o f MEAP s t a f f perceptions o f the
concerns and comments stated during the series o f follow -up meetings.
The s t a f f summary o f inform ation and conclusions r e la tin g to these
meetings was:

51
Kindergarten Study
1.

Host o f the problems expressed are ones o f procedure such as:
a. Teachers were unsure whether every student had to be
tested w ith every MEAP t e s t.
b. Teachers were unsure as to how e x p lic it ly to fo llo w
A dm inistration Manuals.
An explanation o f the study and I t s purposes seemed to answer
most questions.
2. Almost a l l o f the preprimary objectives are important in a
kindergarten program.
3. Tests are enjoyable fo r students and in fo rm ative fo r teachers.
Teachers and other represen tatives from the d is t r ic t s were enthu­
s ia s tic about th is model o f a kindergarten assessment.!
The December, 1975, s t a f f summary already began to h ig h lig h t
what la t e r data ind icated to be sources o f major concern:

use and

adm inistration o f MEAP te s ts , appropriateness o f preprimary objec­
tiv e s , teacher and p rin c ip a l (o r supervisor) reactio n to th is model
of kindergarten assessment.

L ater data do not agree in to ta l w ith

the above-stated s t a f f conclusions.
S ta ff Report o f December 10, 1975,
Summarizing Results o f November,
1975, Teacher Questionnaire
This s t a f f re p o rt, in p a r tic u la r , id e n tifie s areas which
la te r survey and in te rv ie w inform ation prove to be o f major concern,
as w ell as areas o f perceived strength o f the Special Study (see
Appendix N ).

MEAP s t a f f summarized teacher responses to a feedback

questionnaire d is trib u te d by MEAP s t a f f to p a rtic ip a n ts o f the
November follow -up meetings.

MEAP s t a f f reported th a t 41 o f the 75

p a rtic ip a tin g teachers were present a t these meetings.

Thus, the

^Quotation from the MEAP s t a f f memorandum o f December 3, 1975,
to the D ire c to r o f REAS, Michigan Department o f Education.

52
data reported by HEAP s t a f f represent feedback from approximately
55 percent o f the p a rtic ip a tin g teachers.
Although the HEAP s t a f f re p o rt on the questionnaire data is
d ir e c tly quoted in the appendix, the w r it e r wishes to h ig h lig h t
ce rta in themes and c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t la t e r proved to ty p ify gen­
eral inform ational fin d in g s .
tio n n a ire asks:

For example, question #3 on th is ques­

"Has the kindergarten study been helpful to your

classroom program?"

The spectrum o f degree o f "helpfulness" ranges

from "not e s p e c ia lly up to now" to "somewhat" to "yes, i t has made
me more aware o f in d ivid u al progress."

I t is possible to question

the degree to which MEAP s t a f f summary o f responses to th is question
as "yes: 18" and "no: 2" accu rately r e fle c ts the nature o f p a r t i c i ­
pant comments.

The comments in d ic a te not only a d iv e r s ity o f opinion

and reaction to the helpfulness o f the study, but also a d iv e r s ity
concerning how, or in what ways, i t was perceived as h elpfu l to th a t
point in tim e.
Those p a rtic ip a n ts who gave a d e f in it e or q u a lifie d a f f i r ­
mative response to th is question found i t helpful fo r very diverse
reasons.

For example:

"Been useful as a curriculum guide."
" I t has helped fin d out what child ren do not fin d easy to le a rn ."
. . I t has provided me w ith a te s t booklet th a t is already
prepared."
"Other years I have had to prepare my own tes ts and evaluation
forms on d it t o ."
"Through record keeping I can see in black and white where each
c h ild is ."
"Helped a t conference tim e."
" I plan to use i t as a teaching to o l."
"Some o f the tes ts have given me new ways o f presenting an
o b je c tiv e , but fo r the most p a rt, the study has not been h e lp fu l."
"Yes, i t has made me more aware o f in d iv id u a l progress."

53
Although any o f these reasons fo r helpfulness can be viewed
as v a lid from the teachers' p o in t o f view, such d iv e r s ity o f response
also signals d iv e r s ity o f teachers' values in what co n stitutes
"h elp fu ln ess,11 and c e rta in ly signals highly s p e c ific ra th e r than
overall or general "h elpfu ln ess."

This point o f values or educa­

tio n al assumptions is discussed in depth in Chapter V, "Con­
clusions and Recommendations," as a key fa c to r in the o v e ra ll fin d ­
ings, and th ere fo re in form ulating c e rta in conclusions and recom­
mendations.
Other important areas h ighlighted in th is s t a f f re p o rt are
re fle c te d in one teach er's lengthy response to the question:

" If

you could s e le c t a subset o f the preprimary objectives th a t are
appropriate fo r your kindergarten program, and were provided the
MEAP assessment forms would you re p lic a te the kindergarten study
another year?"

A response o f p a rtic u la r relevance to general fin d ­

ings and conclusions is :
No! This study does not seem to have any relevance. I f
we are not to turn in the in d ivid u al student ro s te r, how can
you know what objectives and what te s t items need to be improved
(and in what areas ch ild re n lack)? I do not approve giving an
unvalidated te s t to my c h ild re n . Seems lik e you need to work on
in d ivid u al school d is t r i c t s , instead o f across the s ta te . Many
items do not p e rta in to our ch ild ren and I'm sure others d o n 't
to other d is t r ic t s in the s ta te .
I t ' s too bad we c a n 't have the
money which was spent on th is te s t and use i t fo r m aterials and
personnel fo r our schools— th a t seems more v a lid than these
te s ts .
This comment is o la te s various areas which became general
themes reinfo rced in the survey and in te rv ie w fin d in g s :

(1) teacher

a ttitu d e toward general educational assumptions underlying the
study, (2) the appropriateness o f the preprimary o b je c tiv e s ,

54
(3) v a lid it y o f the HEAP te s ts * (4 ) consistency o f MEAP s t a f f
in stru ction s regarding use and u t i l i t y o f the rep o rtin g forms,
(5) cost effectiveness o f s ta te studies and assessment programs
(th is l a t t e r issue re fle c tin g another a r e a ), and (6 ) local per­
sonnel perception and understanding o f the ro le o f the Michigan
Department o f Education and the MEAP in p a r tic u la r .
Teacher Questionnaire o f January 12,
1976, as to Heed fo r February
Follow-Up Meetings
A January 12, 1976, memorandum was sent to Kindergarten
Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts by MEAP s t a f f , in q u irin g about the need
fo r MEAP s t a f f to hold regional follow -u p meetings in February,
1976 (see Appendix F ).

Respondents were asked to in d ic a te need by

checking any o f the fo llo w in g :

"

no questions,

telephone,

personal meeting."
Of the to ta l 75 questionnaires mailed to teacher p a r t i c i ­
pants, 35 were returned to MEAP s t a f f (46%) and given to the w r ite r
fo r examination.

Of the 35 responses, 33 teachers in d icated "no

questions," 1 teacher had a s p e c ific question which she wrote on the
form, and 1 teacher wrote th a t she was no longer p a rtic ip a tin g in
the Special Study.

There were no requests fo r personal meetings or

fo r immediate telephone co n su ltatio n s.

Several teachers indicated

that i f questions should a ris e they would telephone MEAP s t a f f .

The

s t a f f memorandum, summarizing the re s u lts o f th is q uestion n aire,
reports th a t teacher p a rtic ip a n ts g en erally did not perceive a need
to meet w ith MEAP s t a f f .

Although th is accu rately r e fle c ts the

response o f 46 percent o f the p a rtic ip a tin g teachers, la t e r survey

55

and in te rv ie w data in d ic a te th a t the response may not have accu­
ra te ly described p a rtic ip a n t need as would be perceived by Michigan
Department o f Education s t a f f .

This is to say th a t had MEAP s t a f f

received fu rth e r or ad d itio n a l data, they may have questioned the
degree to which the Study was meeting i t s o b je c tiv e s .

The response

of the 46 percent o f p a rtic ip a n ts could lo g ic a lly be in te rp re te d to
mean th a t the p ro je c t was “running smoothly" and th a t no immediate
or ad d itio n a l in -s e rv ic e or assistance was needed.

The MEAP s t a f f

questionnaire was based on voluntary teacher self-assessment o f need,
and in th is case appears to be incon sisten t w ith inform ation la t e r
gathered by survey and in te rv ie w procedures.
Kindergarten Special Study
Reporting Forms
C ertain rep o rtin g forms were b u ilt in to the design o f the
Kindergarten Special Study, as described in Chapter I I I .

Upon

term ination o f the Special Study, these repo rtin g forms were to be
returned to the MEAP.

Two sets o f the rep o rtin g forms were given

to the w r ite r fo r a n a ly s is .

These two forms were the "Comments

About O bjectives, Tests and Items" sheets and the "Adm inistration
Mode Comment Sheets."

The use and return o f these two forms were

considered a "voluntary" aspect o f p a rtic ip a tio n in the Study.
The th ir d reporting form, "Student Roster Sheet," was required to be
returned to the MEAP in e a rly May and was immediately sent to the
2
American In s t itu te fo r Research fo r s p e c ific data a n a ly sis.
2

See Appendix 0 fo r l e t t e r d e lin e a tin g data analysis requested
by MEAP s t a f f .

56
Thus, the w rite r did not have access to the "Class Roster Sheets."
As sta te d , the other two repo rtin g forms were not required to be
returned, but were asked to be returned in order to provide feed­
back on the Special Study to HEAP s t a f f .

The w r it e r 's an alysis o f

the inform ation contained in these two forms is as fo llow s:
"Comments About O b jectives, Tests and Items" sheets (see
Appendix P ) . — Based on the Kindergarten Special Study manual given
to the w r ite r by MEAP s t a f f (th e same manual d is trib u te d to the
p a rtic ip a tin g kindergarten te a c h e rs ), the fo llow ing ca lc u la tio n s
were made:3
Total Possible Return to MEAP
Sheets:
Comments:

825
2,475

Actual Return to MEAP
Sheets:

215 (26%)

Comnents:

408 (16%)

The w r ite r did not analyze the very s p e c ific feedback on
p a rtic u la r te s ts or o b je c tiv e s .

The w r ite r believes th a t such a

task should be done by MEAP s t a f f in conjunction w ith the Preprimary
S p e c ia lis t and the e x is tin g MEAP Preprimary Task Force.
Of the actual number (215) o f "Comments About O b jectives,
Tests and Items" sheets returned, a to ta l possible number o f com­
ments would have been 645.

A ll 215 sheets were analyzed by the

w rite r fo r the number o f comments re la tin g to each o f the th ree
domains o f behavioral o b jec tiv es :
motor.

c o g n itiv e , a f f e c t iv e , and psycho­

However, the sheets and items were not a ll used as form atted

3
S even ty-five p a rtic ip a tin g teachers x 11 sheets per manual x
3 comments per sheet = 2,475 comments.

57
by MEAP s t a f f .

While a great number o f the comments returned to

MEAP s t a f f were in the intended format o f the sheets, a number o f
them were not.

Some teachers chose to use these sheets fo r general

feedback, or l e f t comment items blank.

Thus, the breakdown o f

comnents received is as fo llo w s:
Comments r e la tin g to tests and o b jectives in the
c o g n itive domain:

235 (57%)

Comments r e la tin g to te s ts and o b jectives in the
a ffe c tiv e domain’:

72 (18%)

Comments re la tin g to te s ts and objectives in the
psychomotor domain:

101 (25%)

The remaining 237 comment items were e ith e r blank or general
feedback, not re la te d to the format o f the sheet as intended to be
used.

However, these n a rra tiv e comments do provide very essential

inform ation regarding p a rtic ip a n t a t t it u d e , knowledge, and percep­
tions o f the Special Study.

T h erefo re, these n a rra tiv e comments have

been summarized as data (see Appendix P ).
These n a rra tiv e comments, in p a r tic u la r , r e ite r a te the
p a rtic ip a n ts ' perceived strengths and weaknesses o f the Special
Study as also found in w r ite r surveys and in te rv ie w s .

Again, the

predicament o f g e n e ra lizin g a summary o f a summary is apparent.
Whereas c e rta in themes can be id e n tifie d , one in d ivid u al p a r t i c i ­
pant's response, much less the to ta l c o lle c tio n o f p a rtic ip a n ts '
responses, may give perceptions which are both p o s itiv e and negative,
and which appear am bivalent, i f not in c o n s is te n t.

For example:

Example #1:
I have enjoyed giving these te s ts , but I also have grown
t ir e d o f the p ro je c t.
I have spent hours and hours recording
the re s u lts . The ch ild re n enjoyed the in d ivid u al te s tin g .
And I know I have learned much more about each c h ild . But a t

58
the same tim e, I
t h e ir fre e tim e.
another y e a r, i f
and group them.
could be handled

had to give up playing w ith the ch ild ren a t
. . . I w il l be glad to take p art in the study
we can receive the m aterials in time to study
I b elieve about h a lf as many tests per teacher
more com fortably.

Example #2:
These tes ts have been a re al challenge to me. Some o f
them I fe e l were valuable and others not. I fe e l they should
be compiled in to several te s ts but not 74! The ch ild ren became
very bored w ith the booklets. We usually cover most o f the
o bjectives but in other ways. I would be w illin g to give the
tes ts again.
Example #3:
We have covered more m aterial than I have recorded but time
did not perm it any more te s tin g or recording. With 31 child ren
in one group and no help i t was ju s t too much extra work. . . .
I f e l t I was neglecting our re g u lar work to do the te s ts .
However, I do fe e l the te s ts and objectives were valuable and
sometimes more important than things I had to do. What we did
was in te re s tin g , and I could have enjoyed i t more and benefited
more by i t i f I had a sm aller group and some help.
Example #4:
I have enjoyed p a rtic ip a tin g in the program but found the
"paper work" p ro h ib itiv e fo r the te s ts ' value. To adm inister
in d ivid u al tests to each o f approximately 25 students w ithout
in te rru p tin g our current program was impossible. . . .
Given th a t such examples are ty p ic a l o f p a rtic ip a n t responses,
the w r ite r is faced, in summarizing the fin d in g s , w ith the task o f
presenting equivocal inform ation.

These many and diverse comments

can be summarized by themes p erta in in g to the o v e ra ll inform ational
concerns o f the Special Study as indicated below:
Implementation o f design:

The design does appear to have

focused teacher a tte n tio n on in d ivid u al strengths and weaknesses
of c h ild re n .

However, the s p e c ific components o f the Study attem pt­

ing to achieve th is focus were serio u sly questioned.

Several

teachers questioned the experience and/or q u a lific a tio n s o f the
designers regarding t h e ir understanding o f kindergarten teaching.

59
Another cru c ial p oint which appears in these comments, as w ell as
in other d ata, is th a t the o v e ra ll purpose o f the design, "assess­
ment," was not always how the te s tin g procedures were used.

In

many cases, teachers indicated th a t they tested a f t e r teaching or
knowing th a t the c h ild had acquired the p a rtic u la r s k i l l .

Did

these teachers use the procedures as intended ( i . e . , fo r assessment
purposes), or did they use them fo r evaluation purposes?

Comments

would in d ica te th a t they e ith e r did not understand the d iffe re n c e ,
or th a t they understood th a t e ith e r purpose was appropriate in
implementing th is Special Study.
Test manuals:

General reactio n was p o s itiv e to the HEAP

tes t manuals, although s p e c ific recommendations fo r improvement
included condensing manuals in to fewer in number, and improving the
p ic to ria l illu s tr a t io n s both fo r c l a r i t y and c u ltu ra l b ia s.

The

v a lid ity o f these tes ts was also questioned.
Reporting forms:

Teacher reactio n to the to ta l o f the

reporting forms was c le a r ly negative.

They f e l t there were too many

reporting forms and th a t the m a jo rity o f t h e ir time had to be spent
in adm inistering tests and recording the inform ation.

At question

also seemed to be the basic concept o f the need to record informa­
tio n , and most c e rta in ly what amount o f inform ation is necessary and
e f f ic ie n t to ask teachers to record.

S p ec ific recommendations were

made to improve the format o f the class ro s te r sheets.

Teachers

c le a rly perceived a need fo r ad d itio n a l a d u lt assistance re la tin g to
recording inform ation, adm inistering te s ts , and/or in s tru c tio n , but

60
f e l t th a t one a d u lt, i . e . , the te a c h e r, could not do a l l tasks fo r
a ll c h ild re n .
MEAP tra in in g and support:

P a rtic ip a n ts g e n e ra lly had a

very p o s itiv e a t titu d e toward MEAP personnel, and e s p e c ia lly toward
special services asked fo r and received .

Comments r e la tin g to

improvement o f s ta te -le v e l implementation centered on the need to
d is trib u te m a te ria ls e a r l i e r in the ye ar and th a t in s tru c tio n s from
s ta te personnel to lo c a l s t a f f were perceived as in c o n s is te n t or
unclear.

This was e s p e c ia lly a concern regarding the use o f the

"class ro s te r sheets" and "student performance record" sheets.
Teacher comments also re fle c te d a p a rtic ip a n t need to have s ta te
personnel c le a r ly s ta te the general purpose o f the e n tir e Special
Study, as w ell as the purpose and ra tio n a le f o r the various and
s p e c ific components.
In g e n e ra l, teachers reported th a t t h e ir p a rtic ip a tio n
was a lea rn in g experience and th a t most received seme b e n e fit from
it.

However, they also perceived the Study to be "too tim e con­

suming," d is ru p tiv e o f classroom procedures, and th a t e ith e r the
amount o f inform ation to be tested and recorded should be reduced
or assurance o f assistance be supplied w ith th e Study.
"A dm inistration Mode Comment S heets". — Based on the sample
Kindergarten Special Study manual given to the w r it e r by MEAP s t a f f
(the same manual d is trib u te d to the p a rtic ip a tin g kindergarten
tea ch ers), the fo llo w in g c a lc u la tio n s were made:

61
Total Possible Return to MEAP^
Sheets:
Comments:

750
3,000

Actual Return to MEAP
Sheets:

93 (12%)

Comments:

305 (10%)

Number o f items id e n tify in g Mode A (MEAP te s ts )
fo r comment:

80 (26%)

Number o f items id e n tify in g Mode B (o th er
te s ts ) fo r comment:

37 (12%)

Number o f items id e n tify in g Mode C (observatio n ) fo r comment:

86 (28%)

Number o f items id e n tify in g Mode D (o th er)
fo r comment:

26 (

Number o f items id e n tify in g subject m atter
or m aterials instead o f assessment mode:

76 (25%)

m

As th is summary in d ic a te s , o f the possible to ta l administra tio n mode sheets, approximately 12 percent were returned.

Of

those returned, the two modes most commented on were Mode A, the
MEAP te s ts , and Mode C, teacher observation.

Of the 305 comment

items completed on these sheets, approximately 25 percent o f them
did not have comments p ertain in g to mode o f assessment as defined
by the Kindergarten Special Study.

R ather, these comment items

referred to curriculum m a teria ls and/or subject m atter.
Those items which id e n tifie d subject m atter or m aterials
fo r the requested "adm inistration mode" repeated the follow ing
su b stitution s:
S afety, math books, d it t o s , u n it, show and t e l l , alphabet t e s t,
discussions, chalkboard work, p ic tu re s , cards, speech th e ra p is t,
teach er-led a c t i v i t ie s , v is itin g tim e, weekly read er, exercise
a c t i v i t ie s , many modes, math, fla n n e l board, oral d ire c tio n s ,
d irected singing, d a ily a c t i v i t ie s , lo g , piano, huggables, c o l­
le c tio n o f o b je c tiv e s , f ilm , b a lls , building block, group.
^S eventy-five p a rtic ip a tin g teachers x 10 sheets per manual x
4 comments per sheet = 3,000 comments.

62
Findings o f the Survey and In te rv ie w Procedures
The two procedures u t iliz e d only by the w r ite r to gather
evaluative inform ation on the Kindergarten Special Study were surveys
and interview s o f both p a rtic ip a tin g teachers and p rin c ip a ls (or
supervisors).

While 100 percent o f the p a rtic ip a tin g population

was requested to respond to the survey forms, a subset o f teachers
and p rin c ip a ls (or supervisors) was chosen to be interview ed.

Again,

the w rite r wishes to stress the highly complex nature o f the in f o r ­
mation and the d i f f i c u l t y in form ulating a c le a r , unequivocal summary
of the inform ation and in te rp re tin g the m a te ria l.
Summary o f In te rv ie w Responses
The in te rv ie w questions o f both teachers and p rin c ip a ls were,
in great p a rt, the same as or s im ila r to those o f the surveys.
This is because the questions o f both methods were designed to seek
information on the basic inform ational questions o f concern id e n t i­
fied by Department o f Education s t a f f .

The in te rv ie w questions were

completely open ended in n atu re, whereas most o f the survey questions
were not.

Although such "open-endedness" leaves great la titu d e

fo r interview ee response in giving honest and f u l l info rm ation , i t
does create a dilemma fo r the evalu ato r in analyzing and summarizing
responses.

For example, the in te rv ie w questions had no " rig h t

answer," nor a l im it on the number o f comments th a t a p a rtic ip a n t
might make to any given question.

This created highly in d iv id u a l­

ized responses which may or may not have been c le a r or even r e le ­
vant to the question posed.

Thus, in some cases, the meaning o f

the response was open to in te rp re ta tio n , despite w r ite r e ffo r ts fo r

63
the interview ee to c l a r i f y and sp e c ify .

In t o t a l , 17 interview s

were scheduled, but fo r reasons delineated in Chapter I I I , 12 in t e r ­
views o f p rin c ip a ls and 12 interview s o f teachers form the basis
of the fo llo w in g fin d in g s .

The summary o f response to ta ls in the

reported findings does not always add up to the exact number o f
respondents.

Some respondents gave more than one d is c re te answer,

so th a t each separate concept was analyzed and reported.

In many

cases, the same respondent voiced p o s itiv e and negative or ambiva­
le n t responses to one or more questions.
C

Summary o f teacher in te rv ie w responses . —
R elating to in s tru c tio n :

The teacher in te rv ie w data in d i­

cate th a t these teachers had not a l l previously u t iliz e d performance
o b jec tiv es , but a m a jo rity reported to have previously assessed
children and did b elieve th a t the use o f o b jectives and assessment
procedures was sound in s tru c tio n a l p ra c tic e fo r kindergarten.
However, a m a jo rity o f these teachers did question the ap p ro p riate­
ness o f the Department o f Education Preprimary O bjectives.

The

assessment modes most u t iliz e d previous to the Kindergarten Special
Study were teacher observation and commercial te s ts , w ith a p re fe r­
ence fo r assessing "standard academic s k ills " and psychomotor develop­
ment.

The primary purpose o f these assessment p ractices was reported

to be id e n tific a tio n o f in d ivid u al student weaknesses or needs.
Most o f these teachers reported s p e c ific in s tru c tio n a l bene­
f i t s to t h e ir p a rtic ip a tio n , as centering on having s p e c ific ,
concrete, complete inform ation.

Other noted b en efits included

5
See Appendix Q fo r a d e ta ile d summary o f responses.

64
focusing a tte n tio n on in d ivid u al ch ild re n and a means to check on
effectiveness o f teaching.

However, 4 o f the 12 teachers could

id e n tify no p a rtic u la r b e n e fits .

Disadvantages to p a rtic ip a tio n

centered on the time-consuming nature o f te s tin g and recording
information which detracted from the normal teaching procedures.
This was mentioned also by those teachers who did not re p o rt any
major disadvantages.
The m a jo rity o f these teachers did fin d th a t the Special
Study procedures were providing them w ith more complete inform ation.
However, they were almost evenly divided about whether or not the
inform ation was more u s e fu l.
R elating to communication:

Most o f the teachers reported

the coordination between the kindergarten program and the f i r s t grade
consisted o f e ith e r teachers planning to gether, or inform ation being
passed on to the f i r s t grade teacher.

In one instance, the m aterials

used by kindergarten and f i r s t grade were se q u e n tia l, and two teach­
ers reported th a t very l i t t l e

coordination e x iste d .

The m a jo rity

of these teachers saw no change in coordination due to the Kinder­
garten Special Study.

In many cases, th is was due to the fa c t th a t

they f e l t the coordination was already good.

Four teachers perceived

change or the p o s s ib ility o f change toward b e tte r coordination.

The

m ajority o f teachers indicated th a t there was no coordination or
communication between pre-kindergarten programs in the school or
community.

However, a m a jo rity did foresee changes in or the pos­

s i b i l i t y o f improving th is communication due to the Kindergarten
Special Study.

The m a jo rity o f teachers reported no change in the

65
nature o f communication w ith parents due to the Kindergarten Special
Study.

The m a jo rity o f these teachers had had minimal or no com­

munication w ith the f i r s t grade teachers regarding the Kindergarten
Special Study which they were implementing.

The teachers were approxi­

mately evenly divided on having provided any Kindergarten Special
Study inform ation to th e ir p rin c ip a ls .
The m a jo rity o f teachers id e n tifie d the ro le o f t h e ir p rin ­
cipal as one o f "su pp o rt.”
p rincip al as "none."

Three teachers described the ro le o f the

Again, the m a jo rity o f teachers f e l t they were

receiving the local ad m in is tra tiv e-s u p erviso ry support needed.
Three did not.
A m a jo rity o f teachers voiced concern over anything, or
anything meaningful, happening w ith the Kindergarten Special Study
inform ation w ith in t h e ir b u ild in g s .

Three teachers said they thought

or hoped th a t i t would be passed on to f i r s t grade teachers.
Relating to implementation o f the Special Study:

The spe­

c if ic HEAP s t a f f services provided teachers received very diverse
reactio n .

The i n i t i a l September meetings received almost evenly

divided response between being "good, h e lp fu l," e tc . and being
"confusing, bew ild erin g," e tc .

The November follow -u p meetings were

perceived by the m a jo rity (e ig h t) as " h e lp fu l, good,” e tc . and by a
m inority (th re e ) as "very d isheartening, bad," e tc .

The m a jo rity

found ongoing support services to be "good,” w ith a m in o rity simply
responding th a t they had no need o f any ongoing services.

66
Teachers were almost evenly d ivid ed on the number who had the
assistance o f an in s tru c tio n a l aid e or student teacher in t h e ir cla s s ­
rooms.

Host teachers f e l t th is was o f prim ary importance.
As noted in Appendix Q, the responses to Question 21— "How

do you choose which o b je c tiv e to as s e s s ? "--c o n s is te n tly in d icated
th a t most teachers equated the "choice o f o b je c tiv e " w ith the HEAP
te s t.

They responded as though the question were "How do you choose

which HEAP te s t to adm inister?"

This has obvious im p lic a tio n s

regarding t h e ir understanding o f the d iffe re n c e between an o b je c tiv e
and a HEAP test-assessm ent procedure, as w ell as t h e ir understanding
and/or use o f the o ther th ree assessment modes.

The many diverse

responses to th is question concentrated on two main bases o f choice
o f o b je c tiv e or HEAP te s t:

as a fo llo w -u p to what had been tau g h t,

and according to the lo c a l kindergarten curriculum or goals.
other responses included:

The

"By the numerical order o f the te s t" and

"Random picking o f te s ts out o f box."
Responses to th is question were h ig h ly d iv e rs e .

However,

they do in d ic a te th a t a number o f teachers used the HEAP te s ts fo r
evaluation ra th e r than assessment purposes, and th a t no g e n e ra lly
recognizable system or ra tio n a le fo r choice o f o b je c tiv e o r HEAP
te s t was u t il i z e d .

A s im ila r s itu a tio n is in d ica te d by teacher

response to question 22, "How do you choose the a d m in is tra tio n mode
by which to assess any given o b je c tiv e ( i . e . , HEAP t e s t , o ther t e s t ,
observation, or o th er)? "

As p rev io u sly s ta te d , the teachers did not

understand to what "a d m in is tra tio n mode" r e fe r r e d .

A fte r th ree

in te rv ie w s , the w r it e r revised the question to include the naming o f

67
the four adm inistration modes designed in to the Study by MEAP, so
th a t teachers would understand the meaning o f the question.

Answers

tended to center on a preference fo r observation and, second, use
o f MEAP te s ts .

Four teachers responded th a t i t depended on the

o b jective.
The number o f o b jectives assessed ranged from 29 to “a l l
o f them."

There was no consistent or general p attern fo r how often

teachers recorded inform ation on the "Class Roster" sheets.

Again,

teachers were divided as to the general amount o f time they spent
recording inform ation.
the time amounts:

There was almost an even d is trib u tio n across

a g rea t d e a l, a moderate amount, very l i t t l e .

The m a jo rity o f teachers did fe e l th a t the amount o f time spent
assessing and recording was worth the inform ation obtained.

Four

teachers voiced "no" o r "co nd itio n al" statements.
The m a jo rity o f these teachers were not using the in d ivid u al
"Student Performance Record" sheets.

Comments indicated th a t teach­

ers i n i t i a l l y understood from MEAP s t a f f th a t th is was a requirement,
but learned a t the November regional meeting th a t i t was not neces­
sary.

This perceived change in in s tru ctio n s from MEAP s t a f f was com­

mented on with h o s t ilit y by th ree o f the teachers interview ed.
They stated th a t a f t e r the November meeting, they f e l t th a t recording
of inform ation was not worth t h e ir time since i t would probably not
be used.
No teacher gave a "yes" response to using the "Adm inistration
Mode" comment sheets.

Ten teachers said "no," they were not using

them, and one responded "a couple o f them."

But even th is l a t t e r

68
teacher asked the w r ite r to show her the sheet to which the question
was re fe rrin g .

None o f the teachers immediately understood to what

sheets the question was r e fe r r in g .
The two assessment modes p referred by these teachers were
teacher observation and MEAP te s ts .

Again, comments ind icated a

lack o f systematic basis fo r choice o f mode, and lack o f systematic
or g en eralizable ra tio n a le fo r preference o f choice.
A m a jo rity o f the teachers found "most" o f the MEAP tes ts
appropriate, although these teachers did make s p e c ific comments and
recommendations fo r improvement.

Teacher concerns about the MEAP

tests centered on poor illu s tr a tio n s in the te s t booklets, and they
perceived c e rta in o f the illu s t r a t io n s as c u ltu r a lly biased.

The

m ajority o f teachers reported a p o s itiv e reaction to the tes ts by
the c h ild re n .

One teacher reported i n i t i a l c h ild enthusiasm, which

eventually evolved in to boredom or resistance to the te s ts .

Another

teacher reported i n i t i a l crying by c h ild re n , which e v e n tu a lly evolved
into enjoyment o f the te s ts .

No teacher stated th a t the c h ild re n 's

reaction was negative.
A m a jo rity o f these teachers reported concern regarding
use o f the inform ation by the Michigan Department o f Education.

Eight

responses indicated th a t they did not know what the Department might
do w ith the inform ation, or believed th a t the Department would do very
little .

Four responses gave perceived purposes fo r which the sta te

might use the inform ation.

69
Teacher interviewees were divided in t h e ir w illin g n e ss to
p a rtic ip a te in a s im ila r study next y e a r.

Six responded "yes," two

responded "no," and th ree responded "under c e rta in co n d itio n s."
Summary o f p rin c ip a l (o r supervisor) in te rv ie w responses**. —
R elating to communication:

Eight o f the 12 p rin c ip a ls (o r

supervisors) did have input regarding p a rtic ip a tio n in the Kinder­
garten Special Study.
pate.

Of these e ig h t, one requested not to p a r t i c i ­

Four o f the 12 p rin c ip a ls (o r supervisors) had no input in to

the decision o f t h e ir b u ild in g 's p a rtic ip a tio n .

Of these fo u r, one

would have requested not to p a r tic ip a te , one was undecided, and two
would have agreed to p a r tic ip a te .

This means th a t o f the 12 p r in c i­

pals interview ed, seven were actual "volunteers" in the Study.
H a lf o f these p rin c ip a ls (o r supervisors) attended the
i n i t i a l September meeting held by MEAP s t a f f , and had mixed reactions
about i t s helpfulness.

The other h a lf o f the p rin c ip a ls (o r super­

visors) e ith e r did not attend (fo u r) or could not remember (tw o).
Of those who did not a tte n d , a v a rie ty o f reasons were given.
A m a jo rity (seven) o f these interview ees did not attend the
November follow -up meeting held by MEAP s t a f f .

Theme reasons were

because o f having sent a re p res en tative and having confidence in
the kindergarten teacher.

Of the fiv e who did attend the meeting,

th e ir comments on the meeting re fle c te d various degrees o f s a tis fa c tio n .
A m a jo rity o f these interviewees did not i n i t i a t e any other
communication w ith MEAP s t a f f .

Of those who d id , concerns centered

on the MEAP te s ts .
See Appendix R fo r a d e ta ile d summary o f responses.

70
A m a jo rity o f interviewees f e l t th a t the Study had not
impacted on the conmunication between them and t h e ir kindergarten
teachers.

The theme reasons fo r th is were th a t good communication

and/or s im ila r procedures had already e x is te d .

Three persons in d i­

cated th a t communication had changed "to a degree," in th a t te s t
inform ation was being discussed.

One stated a d e fin ite change,

in th a t the teacher was now more h o s tile .

One interview ee did not

know because o f the teacher being new.
When asked to describe the nature o f f i r s t grade teacher
involvement in the Kindergarten Special Study, the m a jo rity o f
interviewees (seven) responded "none th a t I know o f ."
" I d o n 't know."

One repo rted,

Only one interview ee had fo rm a lly c a lle d a meeting

of kindergarten and f i r s t grade teachers fo r the purpose o f

c o j t u iu -

nieating Special Study procedures.
In response to what would happen w ith the in d iv id u a l achieve­
ment in fo rm ation , 5 o f the 12 interview ees stated th a t i t "probably
w ill be sent to the f i r s t grade teach er."

Three responded " I d o n 't

know," and three responded th a t "the inform ation w il l or might be
placed in the c h ild 's permanent f i l e . "

One interview ee did not know

th a t the format was d if fe r e n t from the MEAP Fourth Grade Assessment
Program computer p rin t-o u t rep o rtin g system.
R elating to in s tru c tio n :

Five o f the interview ees responded

a d e fin ite "yes" as to the Kindergarten Special Study having impacted
on the kindergarten program.

However, th ree o f these commented th a t

the impact was one o f te s tin g time d e tra c tin g from re g u la r in s tru c ­
tio n .

The other two perceived th a t the Special Study was providing

71
d ire c tio n , o rg a n iza tio n , and a system fo r the kindergarten program.
Five interviewees responded "somewhat or probably."

T h e ir comments

re fle c te d perceived impact in th a t teachers were evaluating th e ir
kindergarten program, using more formal organ izatio n and systematic
approach, using assessment procedures and recording in fo rm atio n ,
and expanding the content o f the kindergarten program.

One in t e r ­

viewee responded "no" and one responded " I d o n 't know."
H a lf o f the interviewees perceived th a t the Kindergarten
Special Study would have an impact on the e a rly elementary program
( K - l) .
impact

Of these interview ees, h a lf o f them perceived the primary
o f the Study to be a s e ttin g in place o f the f i r s t piece o f a

sequential e a rly elementary curriculum .
impact, but fo r very d iverse reasons.

Three interview ees saw no
These reasons included the

perception th a t the procedures were already being used, th a t the
f i r s t grade teachers w on't use the info rm ation , and a h ig h ly ambigous comment, th a t i t "won't impact on students, although teachers
may act on feedback."

Three respondents simply s ta te d , " I d on 't

know."
R elating to implementation o f th e Special Study:

Perceived

advantages o f the Special Study procedures centered on two points:
in d ividu al in fo rm ation , and th a t the Special Study provided c le a r ,
organized, stru c tu red , and o rd e rly d ire c tio n and procedures.

The

objectives were singled out as a component c o n trib u tin g to these two
advantages and were named as an advantage in themselves.
Reported disadvantages centered on 12 commentsre la tin g to
concerns about the te s tin g procedures.

These included the perception

72
th a t the time necessary to adm inister MEAP te s ts took away from
in s tru ctio n and th a t observation, as a te s tin g mode, lacks v a lid it y
and r e l i a b i l i t y .

Four interview ees commented on the Study as being

"a waste o f time i f no follow -up by f i r s t grade teachers" occurs.
One interview ee reported no major disadvantages and two reported
"I don*t know."

The responses to these questions asking fo r per­

ceived advantages and disadvantages c e rta in ly in d ic a te th a t in t e r ­
viewees perceived both advantages and disadvantages.
Ten interview ees reported th a t an aide was p a rtic ip a tin g in
the Kindergarten Special Study classroom.

However, in no case was

i t reported th a t the aide was assigned s p e c ific a lly because o f the
Special Study.
provided.

Two interviewees responded th a t no assistance was

In one case, th is was in co n trad ictio n to th is same

p rin c ip a l's teacher, who reported having the assistance o f an aide.
Interviewees unanimously agreed th a t the assistance o f an aide would
make a d iffe re n c e in the implementation o f the Special Study.

How­

ever, they id e n tifie d very d iff e r e n t functions fo r the aide to per­
form.

Described aid e functions included paper work, in d ivid u al

tes tin g , a l l assessment procedures, and in s tru c tio n .
In response to question #5— "What do you see as your ro le
in the Kindergarten Special Study?"—most interviewees supplied more
than one d e s c rip tio n .

Roles described centered p rim a rily on being

lia is o n - f a c ilit a t o r between kindergarten teachers and the Department
of Education, supporting the kindergarten teacher and giving feed­
back to the department, and applying the relevance o f the Special
Study to the local program.

One person responded "none" u n til the

73
completion o f the Study.

There was obviously no c le a r , conrnon

functio n(s) perceived by the m a jo rity o f p rin c ip a ls (o r superviso rs).
When asked to compare the Kindergarten Special Study proce­
dures to those o f the Fourth Grade MEAP assessment program, as to
one being a more useful educational procedure fo r t h e ir b u ild in g ,
the m a jo rity (e ig h t) voiced preference fo r the Kindergarten Special
Study procedures.
perceptions.

Reasons fo r th is preference centered on two theme

F ir s t , interviewees perceived th a t the Fourth Grade

Program re s u lts do not appear to be used by the teachers and th e re ­
fore are not cost e ffe c tiv e .

Second, interviewees perceived th at

the Kindergarten Special Study provides a longer period o f tim e fo r
judging i f a c h ild has acquired a behavior or s k i l l .

One in t e r ­

viewee p referred the Fourth Grade s ta te assessment program because
the inform ation was less in d iv id u a liz e d , and th e re fo re ea sie r to use
fo r grouping c h ild re n .

Three interviewees voiced no preference.

The m a jo rity o f interview ees (e ig h t) stated th a t they would
be w illin g to have the Study implemented in th e ir building again.
Three responded th a t they would be w illin g under c e rta in conditions.
These conditions included changes in the MEAP te s ts , i f the kinder­
garten teacher agreed, and i f the Department o f Education gave
greater assistance.

One interview ee responded "no" because o f the

amount o f time detracted from the reg u lar in s tru c tio n a l program.
This person also stated th a t he/she was against in d iv id u a liz a tio n o f
in s tru c tio n .

74
Summary o f Survey Responses
Each indicated survey appendix tabulates responses to each
question by in d ivid u al f o i l s .

Responses to open-ended questions

have been summarized in the appendix in to core statements or d ir e c t
quotations.

D ire c t quotations are indicated by quotation marks.

For those concepts th a t were repeated by more than one respondent,
the number o f respondents who stated the concept is id e n t ifie d .
Summary o f responses to Kindergarten Teacher Survey #1,
February, 1976 (see Appendix S ). —The to ta l number o f surveys
sent was 75.

The to ta l number returned was 66, or 75 percent o f the

to ta l sent.
R elating to in s tru c tio n :

Of the 66 respondents, 54 percent

reported th a t they had previously used performance o b je c tiv e s ; 35
percent reported th a t they had not.

For 9 percent o f these teach­

ers, th is was th e ir f i r s t year a t the kindergarten le v e l.
However, 29 percent reported th a t o b jectives had not been
o f f i c i a l l y adopted e ith e r by th e ir d i s t r i c t , by th e ir b u ild in g , or
by themselves perso nally.

Many teachers reported th a t objectives

had been adopted a t one, seve ra l, o r a ll o f these le v e ls .

Teachers

perceived the two main purposes fo r using performance objectives
as being (1) to provide a basis fo r assessing students' strengths
and weaknesses and (2) to f a c i l i t a t e in d iv id u a lize d and group
in s tru c tio n .
Of these teachers 83 percent did fe e l th a t basing assessment
and in s tru c tio n on objectives is a v ia b le educational procedure fo r

75
kindergarten.

A m in o rity , 9 percent, did not b elieve i t to be so,

and 8 percent thought so only under c e rta in conditions ( i . e . , small
classes, fewer o b je c tiv e s ).
Of these respondents, 77 percent found the Preprimary Objec­
tives g en erally ap p ro p riate, 18 percent did n ot, and 3 percent
indicated "most, yes and no."

Many comments across a l l categories

of responses ind icated th a t some or many o f the o b jectives were
"too easy" fo r kindergarten.
Previous to the 1975-76 school y e a r, 90 percent o f the
teachers reported having assessed and recorded in d iv id u a l student
performance, and 9 percent reported th a t they had not.

Of the 90

percent who reported having previously assessed and recorded student
performance, the primary methods reported to have been used were
teacher observation (97%), teacher-constructed te s ts (93%), commer­
c ia l tes ts (66%), and inform ation from parents (42%).

W ithin th is

same 90 percent, the behavioral areas reported to have been assessed
were co g n itive (82%), psychomotor (77%), and a ffe c tiv e (71%).

Of

th is same 90 percent, assessment was reported to have been conducted
in d iv id u a lly by 88 percent, o f the e n tir e group by 74 p ercen t, and of
small groups by 66 percent.
As to the purposes fo r teacher assessment o f students, the
highest percentages reported were (1 ) to id e n tify in d iv id u a l student
weaknesses/needs (98%), (2) to id e n tify in d iv id u a l student strengths
(97%), and (3 ) to id e n tify a basis fo r in d iv id u a l program planning
(90%).

76
As to how often c e rta in grouping modes were used in in s tru c ­
tio n , teachers reported e n tir e group in s tru c tio n as most often
u tiliz e d (64%); second, small group in s tru c tio n (64%); and le a s t
often u t iliz e d was in d iv id u a l student in s tru c tio n (50%).
Teachers' responses r e la tin g to id e n tify in g the primary
impact on t h e ir teaching o f the use o f performance o b jec tiv es and
recording o f inform ation were very d iv e rs e .

The impact id e n tifie d

by 23 percent o f the teachers was "providing data on in d iv id u a l
weaknesses and stren g th s."

However, the number o f persons not respond­

ing to the question almost equalled th is (21%).

The next most f r e ­

quently id e n tifie d impact was "leaving less time to teach to the
objectives" (16%).
R elating to communication:

Previous to the 1975-76 school

year, the nature o f coordination between kindergarten programs and
f i r s t grade was described by 73 percent o f the teachers as "w ritte n
inform ation on kindergarten students given to f i r s t grade tea ch er."
The next most frequent response was "development o f a sequential K-l
curriculum" by kindergarten and f i r s t grade teachers.

Of these

teachers 38 percent reported e n d -o f-th e -y e a r conferences between
kindergarten and f i r s t grade teachers, 7 percent reported th a t th ere
is no coo rd in atio n, and 6 percent responded th a t they did not know
what the nature o f coordination was.
The theme responses describing coordination between the
kindergarten programs and any p re-kind ergarten programs in the
school or community was 50 percent o f th e teachers reported th a t

77
"there is no co o rd in atio n ," and 35 percent reported th a t w ritte n
information on pre-kindergarten students is given to the kin der­
garten teachers.
Reporting inform ation to parents previous to the 1975-76
school year was id e n tifie d by c e rta in theme p ra c tic e s :

personal

conferences (97%), n a rra tiv e comments (71%), o b jectives or behaviors
attained by each student (59%), and by a scale from e x c e lle n t to
unsatisfactory (42%).
To the date o f responding to th is survey, 58 percent o f the
teachers had not reported to parents any o f the student performance
inform ation obtained through the Kindergarten Special Study proce­
dures.

Forty-tw o percent responded th a t they had reported informa­

tion to parents.
S ix ty -s ix percent o f the respondents had had no communica­
tion w ith the f i r s t grade tea ch er(s) regarding the Special Study,
whereas 25 percent reported th a t they had had some communication.
Of these teachers, 28 percent reported th a t they had provided
inform ation obtained through Special Study procedures to t h e ir b u ild ­
ing p rin c ip a l; 68 percent reported th a t they had not.
R elating to implementation o f the Kindergarten Special Study:
Teacher perceptions o f the purpose(s) o f a state-conducted preprimary
assessment program centered on the fo llo w in g theme responses:
"To id e n tify in d iv id u a l student strengths and needs" (85%)
"To communicate student performance to the next grade le v e l
teacher" (66%)
"To communicate student performance to parents" (57%)
Other purposes were id e n tifie d by less than h a lf o f the respondents.

78
Teachers were asked to rank order s ix types o f te s t informa­
tio n by the order o f b e n e fit to them in planning in s tru c tio n .
Number 1 ranking was to describe the type considered most im portant.
Following is a summary o f how teachers ranked the type o f te s t
inform ation from 1 to 6, giving the highest percentage o f respondents
ranking th a t type o f inform ation by th a t rank number.

For example,

two types o f te s t inform ation were equally ranked as number 1 by the
teachers:

"In d iv id u al attainm ent o f o b jectives on a c r ite r io n -

referenced te s t," and "Observation and recording o f student per­
formance. 11
Type o f Test Inform ation

Ranked

by

%

INDIVIDUAL attainm ent o f objectives on
a c rite rio n -re fe re n c e d te s t

1

33%

Observation and recording o f student
performance

1

33%

INDIVIDUAL attainm ent o f objectives on a
c rite rio n -re fe re n c e d te s t

2

24%

CLASS attainm ent o f o b jectives on a
c rite rio n -re fe re n c e d te s t

3

16%

Observation and recording of
student's performance

3

16%

Inform ation from parents

4

26%

Ranking o f INDIVIDUALS on a normreferenced te s t

5

26%

Ranking o f your CLASS on a normreferenced te s t

6

38%

These responses in d ic a te th a t teachers do not g e n e ra lly
agree on the type o f te s t inform ation o f g reatest b e n e fit in planning
in s tru c tio n .

Also, the w rite r believes i t important to p o in t out

79
th a t, based on conversations as w ell as formal interview s w ith
kindergarten teachers, one may question the degree to which teachers
understood the terminology used in th is question.

In other words,

how many teachers r e a lly understood the d iffe re n c e between c r ite r io n referenced and norm-referenced te s tin g , or use o f te s t data?

Given

th is le v e l o f understanding, the meaning o f the above-summarized
responses is in doubt.
Of the teachers responding, 68 percent believed th a t the
Special Study procedures were providing them w ith more comp!ete
inform ation on in d ivid u al students and 26 percent did not.

However,

48 percent found the inform ation more u s e fu l, whereas 39 percent did
not; 2 percent responded “yes and no."
Teachers' use o f HEAP recording sheets was very diverse and
lacked dominant theme p ra c tic e s .

For the “Class Roster" sheets,

33 percent o f the teachers reported recording inform ation weekly,
21 percent b i-w ee kly, 20 percent monthly,

and other responses varied

from “ I have not recorded inform ation to th is date" (6%) to “ran­
domly" (4%).

Regarding the “Comments About O b jectives, Tests and

Items" sheets, 65 percent reported th a t they were using them and
33 percent reported th a t they were not.

The "Student Performance

Record" sheets were being used by 64 percent o f the teachers; 30
percent reported th a t they were not using them.

The "Adm inistration

Mode Comment Sheets" were reported as being used by 54 percent o f
the teachers and not being used by 38 percent.
In response to the question concerning whether or not teach­
ers had a p referred assessment ad m in istratio n mode, 73 percent

80
responded "yes," 18 percent responded "no," and 9 percent gave no
response.

Of those 73 percent who responded "yes," they did not f o l ­

low the survey d ire c tio n s to id e n tify one p referred assessment mode.
Twenty-four respondents checked more than one response.

Therefore,

the fo llow ing percentages are based on 24 respondents having checked
more than one preference:

44 percent p referred teacher observation,

27 percent p referred MEAP te s ts , 17 percent preferred other tes ts
(teacher-made tes ts were the dominant theme h e re ), and 7 percent
preferred "o th e r."

As to why the p a rtic u la r mode was p re fe rre d ,

24 percent o f the respondents gave no response.

Of those who did

respond, 15 percent preferred MEAP te s ts because they perceived them
as:
"More v a lid "
"R eliable"
"Easy to adm inister"
"The ch ild ren enjoyed them"
"They were re a d ily a v a ila b le "
Of the other respondents, 13 percent reported preference fo r observa­
tion because o f such diverse reasons as:
"F le x ib le "
"Not d is ru p tiv e o f in s tru c tio n "
"More accurate"
"More personal"
"Takes less time"
Teachers' use o f or plans fo r use o f Special Study informa­
tion centered on:
"To id e n tify in d ivid u al student weaknesses/needs" (83%)
"To id e n tify planning" (64%)
The other purposes were id e n tifie d by less than h a lf o f the respon­
dents .

81
To the date o f completing th is survey, the number o f pre­
primary objectives reported by each teacher to have been assessed
varied from two to "an."

The mean number o f o b jectives reported

assessed a t th is time was 54.

The median number o f o b jectives

reported to have been assessed was 50.
The MEAP September preservice session was perceived as pro­
viding needed inform ation by 73 percent o f the teachers.

Of the

other respondents, 18 percent responded "no" and 9 percent gave no
response.

The November Follow-Up meeting was attended by 58 percent

of the teachers, not attended by 36 percent, and 6 percent gave no
response.

(Evaluation comments on th is meeting and o f the Study are

included under the December, 1976, MEAP s t a f f re p o rts .)

Of these

respondents, 76 percent f e l t th a t they were receiving the needed
support services from the MEAP, 12 percent did n o t, and 12 percent
did not respond to th is question.
Summary o f responses to Kindergarten Teacher Survey #2,
May, 1976 (see Appendix T ) . —The to ta l number o f surveys sent was 70.
The to ta l number o f surveys returned was 52 (74%)-

The data from

th is survey, and t h e ir in te rp re ta tio n , were highly lim ite d by the
number o f teachers who did not respond to a number o f the questions.
This is noted in the summary.
R elating to communication:

Of the 52 respondents to th is

questionnaire, 27 (52%) reported th a t they had personally volun­
teered to p a rtic ip a te in the Special Study; 25 (48%) reported
th at they had not.

Because volunteer p a rtic ip a tio n was id e n tifie d 1n

the key c h a ra c te ris tic s o f the Special Study, the w r ite r analyzed

82
survey responses according to volunteer and non-volunteer p a rtic ip a n ts .
(See Appendix T fo r col umns V [ vo lun teer] and N-V [non-vol u n te e r]) .
There was minimal d iffe re n c e in the responses between volun­
teers and non-volunteers.

For example, in response to question #12,

"in t o t a l , how many Preprimary O bjectives did you assess?", the median
number fo r both volunteers and non-volunteers was 74.

The mean number

fo r volunteers was 84 (83 .58 ) and fo r non-volunteers 79 (7 9 .0 0 ).
A to ta l o f 14 questions received "no response" from some par­
tic ip a n ts .

Since question #7 had seven separate components, a to ta l

of 20 items fo r the 14 questions received no response from some par­
tic ip a n ts .

To these item s, "no response" was received a to ta l o f 57

times from the 27 volunteer teachers, and a to ta l o f 71 times from
the 25 non-volunteer teachers.

For the volunteer teachers th is gives

a "no response" mean number o f 2 ( 2 .1 1 ) ; fo r non-volunteers 3 (2 .8 0 ).
Only to questions #13, #17, and #21 is there enough variance
between volunteer and non-volunteer responses to s p e c ific f o il s to
note a d iffe re n c e by th is fa c to r.

In question #13, "Did you have

MORE inform ation on in d ivid u al children due to your p a rtic ip a tio n in
the Kindergarten Special Study than you have had in previous years?",
29 respondents (56%) reported "yes."
and 9 were non-volunteers.

Of these 29, 20 were volunteers

In question #17, "Do you intend to use

the Kindergarten Special Study procedures (v o lu n ta r ily ) fo r your k in ­
dergarten program next year?", a to ta l o f 9 reported "yes."
9, 7 were volunteers and 2 were non-volunteers.

Of these

In question #21, "Are

you w illin g to p a rtic ip a te in a s im ila r study again?", a to ta l o f 18
reported "yes."

Of these 18, 12 were volunteers and 6 were

83
non-vol unteers.

The responses to these f o ils ind icated the g re a te s t degree

o f variance between volunteer and non-volunteer responses in th is survey.
The two primary modes o f coordination between kindergarten
and f i r s t grade, a n tic ip a te d f o r 1976-77, were:
"W ritten inform ation on kindergarten students being given to
f i r s t grade teacher" (69%)
"End o f year conferences between kindergarten and f i r s t grade
teachers" (42%)
"There w il l be no coordination" (2%)
" I do not know" (10%)
A n ticip ated coordination fo r 1976-77 between kindergarten
and any pre-kindergarten program centered on:
"There w il l be no coordination" (30%)
"W ritten inform ation on prekindergarten students requested to
be given to kindergarten teacher" (25%)
" I do not know" (21%)
Of the to ta l respondents, 52 percent responded th a t they
had reported to parents student performance inform ation obtained
through the Special Study; 48 percent had not.
Of these respondents, 60 percent said they had had comnunication w ith the f i r s t grade teachers regarding the Special Study
procedures, whereas 38 percent had not.

Building p rin c ip a ls or

supervisors received Special Study student performance inform ation
from 40 percent o f these teachers; 60 percent reported th a t they
had given no inform ation to them.
R elating to implementation o f the Special Study:

The des­

cription s and in s tru c tio n s fo r procedures contained In the fro n t o f
the Special Study Procedure Manual (blue notebook) d is trib u te d by
MEAP s t a f f were described as " s a tis fa c to ry , complete, good, help­
fu l" by 71 percent o f th e respondents.

However, from th a t per­

centage, as w ell as from other respondents, numerous comments were

84

made suggesting Improvements.

Of a ll teachers, 15 percent did not

respond to the question.
The "Class Roster" sheets were reported as " h e lp fu l, good,
o .k ." by 56 percent o f the teachers.

Again, p a rtic ip a n t comments

offered suggested improvements or changes in these repo rtin g forms.
A to ta l o f 15 percent o f the teachers did not respond to th is
question.
The "Comments About O bjectives, Tests and Items" sheets were
perceived as "good, h e lp fu l," e tc . by 50 percent o f the teachers.
Many comments were provided suggesting changes or specifying
strengths.

Of to ta l respondents, 17 percent did not respond to th is

question.
The "Student Performance Record" sheets were reported as
"good, o . k . , c le a r to follow " by 30 percent, but 33 percent reported
them as not u sefu l.

Of the to ta l teachers, 17 percent did not

respond to the question.

Others reported s p e c ific weaknesses or

suggestions fo r improvement.
"Adm inistration Mode Comment Sheets" were reported as " fin e ,
o .k ., adequate" by 35 percent o f the teachers; as " d id n 't use as much,
or not used" by 29 percent.

No response was given to th is question

by 30 percent o f the teachers.
The A dm inistration Manual fo r the MEAP te s t was described
as "good, h e lp fu l, o .k ." by 54 percent; and as "too much r e p e titio n ,
combine manuals" by 13 percent.
no response.

Of to ta l teachers, 19 percent gave

A number o f conments addressed s p e c ific weaknesses or

suggestions fo r improvement.

85
Student booklets fo r the MEAP te s ts were reported as "good,
h e lp fu l, o .k ., c le a r" by 58 percent o f the respondents, and 17 per­
cent suggested "fewer or combining b ooklets."
19 percent did not respond to the question.

Of to ta l teachers,
Comments included

sp e cific suggestions fo r improvement.
Teachers reported c h ild re n 's main reactio n to the MEAP
tests as:
"They enjoyed most o f the tes ts" (65%)
"They seemed w illin g to to le r a te most o f the tests" (33%)
"They were q u ite negative to taking most o f the tes ts" (4%)
For question #9— "How did you determine WHICH o b je c tiv e to
assess?"--the responses were hig hly varied:
"According to my curriculum" (38%)
"Determined which ones were o f most importance" (17%)
"Assessed a l l or almost a l l objectives" (15%)
Other comment categories re fle c te d very diverse ra tio n a le .
In response to question #10— "How did you determine which
assessment MODE . . .

to use?"— such d iv e r s ity was again apparent:

"Used mostly MEAP and own te s t" (25%)
"No response" (13%)
"By observation o f students i f possible" (12%)
"By when i t appeared in the curriculum" (12%)
"Needs o f children" (12%)
Many other responses were given, but were low in the number o f
respondents repo rtin g each one.
Great d iv e r s ity o f ra tio n a le again appears in response to
question #11— "How did you determine WHEN to assess a p a rtic u la r
objective?":
"When child ren were exposed to a s k i l l , a f t e r ch ild ren had prac­
tic e d , mastered s k i l l , a f t e r teaching a p a rtic u la r s k i l l " (34%)
"When had time to give a te s t" (17%)
"No response" (12%)

86

The teacher responses on th is second survey as to the to ta l
number o f preprimary objectives assessed r e f le c t the same broad
number range as the f i r s t teacher survey.

However, because o f the

highly dubious meaning o f 29 percent o f these responses, mean and
median fig u re s were not computed.

The 29 percent re fe rre d to

includes 9 percent o f the respondents who reported "most a ll"
objectives assessed, 3 percent who reported "do not know," and 17
percent who gave no response.

For those who did give a number

response, the range was from 20 objectives to 132 o b je c tiv e s .
Of the responding teachers, 56 percent reported th a t they
had MORE inform ation on in d ivid u al ch ild ren because o f the Special
Study and 33 percent reported th a t they did not.

A to ta l o f 56

percent believed the Special Study inform ation to be BETTER ORGAN­
IZED than previous inform ation, whereas 31 percent did not.

To

this question, 11 percent gave no response.
The Special Study inform ation was reported as useful as
follows:
"To
"To
"To
"To
"To
"No

me, the c h ild 's teacher" (86%)
the f i r s t grade teacher" (60%)
the Department o f Education" (58%)
the c h ild 's parents" (54%)
no one" (8%)
response" (4%)
Teachers' responses as to t h e ir use o f the inform ation

centered on the fo llow ing :
"To
"To
"To
"To

id e n tify
id e n tify
id e n tify
id e n tify

in d ivid u al student strengths" (67%)
in d ivid u al student weaknesses/needs"(65%)
a basis fo r group planning" (44%)
a basis fo r in d ivid u al program planning" (40%)

87

Of the teachers re p o rtin g , 17 percent stated th a t they
v o lu n ta rily plan on using the Kindergarten Special Study proce­
dures fo r th e ir program next y e a r, 42 percent do n o t, and 37 percent
reported th a t they would w ith c e rta in changes.

Comments re la tin g to

changes centered on the combining o f or s u b s titu tin g fo r the MEAP
tes ts.
Teachers reported the g reatest advantage to th e ir p a rtic ip a ­
tion by very diverse responses.

The most recurring themes were:

"Quicker and e a r lie r id e n tific a tio n o f in d ivid u al strengths
and weaknesses" (19%)
"Expanded objectives o f kindergarten program" (11%)
"No response" (15%)
Teacher responses as to the g rea tes t disadvantage to t h e ir
p a rtic ip a tio n had more consistent themes.

The most recurring

responses were:
"Too time consuming" (57%)
"Too much bookkeeping, recording, paper work" (27%)
"Too much te s tin g , combine tests" (17%)
When asked what a d d itio n a l or d iffe r e n t support services
were needed from the S tate Department o f Education, very diverse
"services" were id e n tifie d .

Of the to ta l respondents, 27 percent

reported th a t the services provided were adequate and no others
needed.

The remaining respondents gave a v a rie ty o f responses rang­

ing from actual possible s ta te department services, to suggested
changes in the Special Study, to changes in local support.

A to ta l

of 34 percent o f the teachers did not respond to the question.
In response to the f in a l question— "Are you w illin g to
p a rtic ip a te in a s im ila r study again?"— 34 percent responded "yes,"

88

34 percent responded "no," and 27 percent responded "under c e rta in
conditions."

The c e rta in conditions sp ecified were highly d iv erse ,

but those which occurred more than once were " I f we could te s t only
objectives judged necessary," "Fewer te s t b ooklets," and " I f we
had m aterials w ell in advance."
Summary o f responses to P rin cip al (o r Supervisor) Survey,
May, 1966 (see Appendix U ). —The to ta l number o f surveys sent was
70.

The to ta l number returned was 40 (57%).

As was the case w ith

teacher surveys, d ire c tio n s often were not follow ed.

This added

to the complexity o f repo rtin g data.
R elating to communication:

P rin c ip a ls '

(o r supervisors')

responses as to the nature o f th e ir involvement in the decision to
p a rtic ip a te in the Kindergarten Special Study indicated th a t 29
(73%) o f the respondents did have input in to the decision to p a r t ic i­
pate.

One o f these respondents (2%) requested not to p a rtic ip a te .

Of the to ta l respondents, 10 (25%) did not have input in to the
decision to p a r tic ip a te .

Of th is 25 percent, 15 percent would have

requested to p a rtic ip a te and 10 percent would have requested not to
p a rtic ip a te .

This means th a t o f the 40 p rin c ip a ls who responded,

approximately 29 (73%) were actual volunteers and 11 (27%) were
non-volunteers.
Volunteer (V) and non-volunteer (N-V) responses are id e n tifie d
in two columns in Appendix U.
were non-volunteers.

However, only 11 o f the 40 respondents

Due to th is very small number o f non-volunteers,

the meaningful ness o f s t a t is t i c a ll y tre a tin g the variance between
volunteers and non-volunteers is d o u b tfu l.

Therefore, conclusions and

89

generalizatio n s are not made regarding the nature o f volunteer versus
non-volunteer responses to questions fo r p rin c ip a ls .
Respondents reported th a t t h e ir kindergarten teachers' in v o lv e ­
ment in the decision to p a rtic ip a te in the Special Study was as f o l ­
lows:

77 percent o f the teachers did have input and agreed to par­

tic ip a te .

None who had input requested not to p a r tic ip a te .

A to ta l

of 23 percent o f the teachers were reported as not having inp ut regardm

ing t h e ir p a rtic ip a tio n .

Of th is 23 percent, p rin c ip a l (o r supervisor)

respondents perceived th a t 13 percent o f the teachers would have agreed to
p a rtic ip a te and th a t 10 percent would not have agreed to do so.
Of the to ta l respondents, 70 percent did attend the i n i t i a l
September meeting held by MEAP s t a f f .

Comments in d icated general

s a tis fa c tio n w ith the meeting, although s a tis fa c tio n was not unani­
mous.

Of the 28 percent who did not a tte n d , only a few provided

coiments as to why not.

Correnents included:

of i t , " and "Sent a re p re s e n ta tiv e ."

"Tim e,” "Did not know

One person reported being

unable to remember i f he/she had attended the meeting.
The November fo llow -u p meeting was attended by 33 percent
of the respondents.
meeting.

H a lf o f these 33 percent commented on the

T h e ir comments in d icated general although not unanimous

s a tis fa c tio n .

Of the to ta l respondents, 62 percent did not

attend th is meeting.
not atten d .

The m a jo rity did not comment on why they did

Of those who did comment, reasons included "Other com­

mitment," "Notice sent a f t e r m eeting," and " D id n 't see i t as neces­
sary."

Twenty percent o f the respondents did i n i t i a t e o ther commu­

nication w ith MEAP s t a f f .

Those who did comment included methods

90
o f communication ( i . e . , telephone) as w ell as content ( i . e . , in
regard to te s t m a te ria ls ).

Of the to ta l respondents, 78 percent

did not i n i t i a t e other communication w ith MEAP s t a f f .

One person could not

remember i f he/she had in it ia t e d any o ther communication w ith MEAP s t a f f .
R elating to implementation o f the Special Study:

Descrip­

tions o f personal ro le in the Study had the fo llo w in g theme responses:
"To a s s is t and p a rtic ip a te in implementing the assessment
procedures" (42%)
" I had no c le a r ro le " (27%)
"To function as lia is o n between the kindergarten teacher and
the MEAP s ta ff" (20%)
Of the to ta l p rin c ip a ls (or supervisors) re p o rtin g , 70 percent
did perceive th a t the Study impacted on the kindergarten program.
However, 28 percent o f these respondents did not comment on the
nature o f th e impact.

Of those who d id , impact was g en erally des­

cribed in p o s itiv e terms.

Concerns centered on the amount o f time

fo r te s tin g and recording, which detracted from the normal in s tru c ­
tio n o f the kindergarten program.

Of the to ta l respondents, 28 per­

cent saw no impact on the kindergarten program.

T h e ir comments

indicated th a t the o b jec tiv es and procedures contained in the Study
had already been a p a rt o f t h e ir local program.
Of these respondents 65 percent perceived th a t the Special
Study did or w ill have an impact on t h e ir e a rly elementary program.
The descriptions o f impact were extremely diverse and in d ica te d no
central theme.

A to ta l o f 30 percent reported th a t they perceived

no impact on the e a rly elementary program.

The m a jo rity o f these

30 percent did not comment on t h e ir response.

91

The presence o f an in s tru c tio n a l aide or student teacher
was reported by 53 percent o f the respondents; 47 percent reported
that there was no aide or student teach er.

A few comments were made

by those respondents answering yes, and no comments were made by
those respondents answering no.

However, there was general

agreement, by 80 percent o f a l l respondents, th a t the assistance o f
an aide or student teacher would make a d iffe re n c e in the implemen­
ta tio n o f the Study.

A to ta l o f 15 percent responded "no," th a t

they did not b elieve

i t would make a d iffe re n c e .

Ato ta l o f

4 per­

cent e ith e r "did not know" or did not respond.
The involvement o f the f i r s t grade teachers in the Special
Study did not appear to be co n siste n t, nor to have a general p a tte rn .
The responses on involvement can be summarized as:
"The kindergarten and f i r s t grade teachers met on th e ir own
i n i t i a t i v e to discuss the Special Study m a teria ls and pro­
cedures" (35%)
"The f i r s t grade teacher was informed o f the p ro je c t by the
kindergarten teacher" (30%)
"The f i r s t grade teacher was informed o f the p ro je c t by the
p rin c ip a l or supervisor" (23%)
" I do not know" (18%)
When asked i f o ther kindergarten teachers in the b uilding or
d is t r i c t would lik e to p a rtic ip a te in a s im ila r study, 10 percent
responded "yes," 38 percent responded "no," and 45 percent reported
th a t they did not know.

A minimum number o f respondents provided

comments on th e ir response.
In te n ts o r plans fo r use o f the in d iv id u a l kindergarten stu ­
dent achievement inform ation were very d iv erse .

Of to ta l respon­

dents, 33 percent reported th a t the kindergarten teacher would make
th a t d ecisio n , and 27 percent reported th a t the inform ation would be

92
sent to the f i r s t grade teacher a t the request o f the p rin c ip a l (o r
supervisor).

Other comments varied from not having y e t decided,

to using i t fo r local decision making.
A to ta l o f 53 percent o f the respondents believed they had
more inform ation on entering f i r s t graders than in previous years.
More than h a lf o f these respondents did not comment.

Of those who

did, comments and perceptions did not in d ic a te a cen tral theme.

A

to ta l o f 40 percent did not b elie ve th a t they had more inform ation.
Again, less than h a lf o f th is 40 percent commented on th e ir response,
and o f those who d id , no cen tral theme was in d ica te d .
As to whether or not the Special Study inform ation was more
complete and useful fo r in s tru c tio n a l decisions, 50 percent responded
"yes."

Approximately h a lf o f th is 50 percent o ffe re d comments which

were again too diverse to present a ce n tral theme.

A to ta l o f

32 percent responded "no" as to the inform ation being more complete
and u s e fu l, and 10 responded "unknown a t th is time" or "h o p e fu lly ."
No response was given by a to ta l o f 8 percent.
When asked i f the inform ation was more complete and useful
fo r a d m in is tra tiv e decisions, 38 percent responded "yes," 47 percent
responded "no," 5 percent were u ncertain, and 10 percent did not
respond to the question.
Responses as to whether th is inform ation was more complete
and useful fo r repo rtin g to parents, 48 percent responded "yes,"
38 percent responded "no," 2 percent responded "yes and no," and
no response was given by 12 percent.

93
When asked to compare the kindergarten MEAP design to th a t
o f the fo u rth grade MEAP, as to which o f the two was a more useful
educational procedure fo r the b u ild in g , 18 percent p referred the
Kindergarten Special Study design, 33 percent p referred the fo u rth
grade design, and 25 percent believed them to be o f equal value.
Twenty-two percent o f the respondents did not answer the question.
(P rin c ip a l-s u p e rv is o r in te rv ie w data stron g ly indicated a lack o f
understanding o f the word "design," but also a lack o f knowledge o f
the Kindergarten Special Study procedures and m a te ria ls .

Therefore,

the meaningful ness o f these responses may be open to q u e stio n .)
When asked i f they would be w illin g to have th is or a s im ila r
study implemented in t h e ir b u ild in g again, 40 percent responded
“yes," 30 percent responded "no," and 30 percent responded "under
ce rta in co n dition s."

Those who responded "no" or "under c e rta in

conditions" commented, in p a r tic u la r , on the need fo r ad d itio n a l
classroom assistance and the amount o f time and work required to
implement the Study.
Summary Responses to MEAP Questions
o f Inform ational Concern
Questions R elating to In s tru c tio n
1.

Do the Kindergarten Special Study assessment procedures
encourage the teacher to focus on in d ivid u al strengths
and needs o f children?

Yes, a ll data procedures ind icated g rea ter awareness o f
individual strengths and weaknesses/needs o f c h ild re n .
2,

Do the Kindergarten Special Study assessment procedures
change the teach er's in s tru c tio n a l behavior toward in d i­
v id u a liz in g in s tru c tio n o f children?

94
The degree to which awareness o f in d iv id u a l strengths and
needs was a c tu a lly o p eratio n alized in in s tru c tio n a l behavior is
highly questionable.

This appeared to be due not so much to in te n t,

m otivation, or desire on the p art o f teachers as to in s e rv ic e needs
and technical assistance fa c to rs .
3.

Does the s p e c ific , recorded, in d iv id u a lize d assessment
inform ation gathered through the Kindergarten Special
Study procedures provide more useful and complete in fo r ­
mation fo r local decision making than previous local
assessment procedures?

G enerally, th is was not perceived to be the case by the
m ajo rity o f e ith e r teachers or p rin c ip a ls .

Inform ation was gen­

e r a lly perceived to be more complete, but not necessarily more
u sefu l.
4.

Are the Preprimary Objectives judged g en erally approp­
r ia t e fo r kindergarten ch ild ren by the p a rtic ip a tin g
teachers?

There were gen eral, consistent feedback comments th a t a
number o f the objectives are considered "too easy" fo r kindergarten
ch ild ren , and th a t teachers expected a number o f the behaviors to be
acquired before entrance in to kindergarten.
Questions Relatinq
to Commumcation
1.

Did the p a rtic ip a n ts receive needed/requested support
from the local adm inistration?

G enerally, teachers believed th a t they d id .

The one area

singled out was from those teachers who did not have an in s tru c ­
tio n al aide or student teacher, and did s ta te the need fo r one.
Those p rin c ip a ls who had not been involved in the i n i t i a l decision

95

to p a rtic ip a te ind icated th a t they wished t h e ir local adm inistra­
tio n had involved them in the d ecision.
2.

Do the p a rtic ip a tin g teachers and p rin c ip a ls (o r sup­
erv is o rs ) perceive th a t the Kindergarten Special Study
assessment procedures make a p o s itiv e d iffe re n c e on com­
munication between teachers, parents, and p rin c ip a ls
(or supervisors)?

The data did not provide a c le a r , unequivocal response to
th is o v e ra ll question.

The degree o f p o s itiv e d iffe re n c e in commu­

n ication varies according to the population involved, i . e . , kinder­
garten teacher to parents or kindergarten teacher to p r in c ip a l, or
kindergarten teacher to f i r s t grade teach er, e tc .

The one area which

did in d ic a te a possible, a lb e it minor, change toward g re a te r commu­
n icatio n was between lo cal pre-kindergarten programs and kinder­
garten programs.
3.

Is s u ffic ie n t v a lid and r e lia b le c h ild achievement data
provided to the Michigan Department o f Education s t a f f
fo r s ta te -le v e l decision making?

W rite r judgment would in d ic a te th a t th is is not the case i f
decisions re s t on v a l i d i t y - r e l i a b i l i t y fa c to rs .

The conclusions

and recommendations elaborate on th is judgment.
Questions R elating to Implementation
o f the Special Study
1.

Do the procedures and m aterials o f the Kindergarten
Special Study gather the intended inform ation f o r lo c a land s ta te -le v e l decision making?

The procedures themselves were g en erally commented upon as
via b le and appropriate fo r kindergarten.

However, the p a rtic u la r

m aterials used in th is Study, most e s p e c ia lly the number and format

96
o f the rep o rtin g forms, do not appear to gather e f f i c i e n t l y the
intended inform ation fo r e ith e r the lo c al or s ta te le v e l.
2.

Are the mechanics o f recording manageable and e f f ic ie n t
from the teachers' point o f view?

This d e f in it e ly does not appear to be the case fo r the
m ajo rity o f teachers.

While the amount o f time spent recording was

reported as v a rie d , the "time-consuming" nature o f recording was a
constant theme

in the comments o f both p rin c ip a ls and teachers.

This again re la te s to the number o f reco rd in g -rep o rtin g forms and
th e ir form at.
3.

Are the mechanics o f adm inistering the MEAP group and
in d iv id u a l tes ts manageable and e f f i c i e n t from the
teachers' point o f view?

Data on th is question were not co n siste n t, but general
recurring comments in d ic a te th a t teachers do not perceive the admin­
is tr a tio n o f MEAP te s ts as manageable and e f f i c i e n t .

This was more

c le a rly the case w ith the in d iv id u a l te s ts , although corments did
in d ic a te a general d is s a tis fa c tio n .
4.

Are the items o f the MEAP te s ts regarded as appropriate
by the kindergarten teachers?

G en erally, yes, although c e rta in items and concerns were
singled out as being in need o f improvement.
5.

Did the p a rtic ip a n ts receive needed/requested tra in in g
and support from the MEAP s ta ff?

P a rtic ip a n ts were in general agreement th a t s p e c ific a lly
requested services from the MEAP s t a f f were very w ell provided.
However, "needed" services did not have an eq u ally c le a r response.
From the point o f view o f p a rtic ip a n ts , t h e ir opinion g en erally

97
re fle c te d s a tis fa c tio n , although comments fo r improvements were
suggested.

From the p o in t o f view o f the w rite r-e v a lu a to r (h in d ­

s ig h t), needed tra in in g and support services were not provided.
Again, the w r ite r emphasizes th a t these find in g s are based
on summarizations o f the raw data received from question n aires,
in te rv ie w s , and surveys.

The raw data are:

(1 ) MEAP data gathered

from 55 percent o f p a rtic ip a n ts who were present a t the November
Follow-Up meetings; (2 ) 46 percent re tu rn on MEAP questionnaires
regarding the necessity fo r February Follow-Up meetings; (3 ) 26
percent o f to ta l possible re tu rn o f the "Comments About Objec­
tiv e s , Tests and Items" sheets; (4 ) 12 percent o f to ta l possible
return o f the "A dm inistration Mode Comment" sheets; (5 ) 12 in t e r ­
views o f teachers and 12 interview s o f p rin c ip a ls ; (6 ) 75 percent
of to ta l possible return on February, 1976, teacher surveys;
(7) 74 percent o f to ta l possible re tu rn o f May, 1976, teacher
surveys; and (8 ) 57 percent o f to ta l possible return o f May, 1976,
p rin cip al (o r supervisor) surveys.
In presenting these find in g s an e f f o r t was made g e n e ra lly to
defer in te rp re ta tio n s to the fo llo w in g chapter on "Conclusions and
Recommendations."

This was done in order th a t the reader might

f i r s t gain a sense o f the breadth and complexity o f the inform ation
co lle c te d .

The reader is again urged to study the appendices o f

the data summaries, to ap p reciate the le v e l o f d e ta il involved in
presenting the general fin d in g s o f the Kindergarten Special Study
evaluation.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In tro d u ctio n
This presentation o f conclusions and recommendations is
designed to respond to the "key c h a ra c te ris tic s " o f the Special
Study as d elin eated in Chapter I I .

L o g ic a lly , th ere is a s e q u e n tia l,

developmental lin k between the underlying educational assumptions,
the. key c h a ra c te ris tic s o f the Study, and the questions o f in fo r ­
mational concern or im plied o b je c tiv e s .

I t is the w r it e r 's percep­

tio n th a t the general operating assumption o f the Department p ro je c t
has been th a t, given a c e rta in assessment design and i t s successful
implementation by the Michigan Department o f Education, sp e cifie d
desired re s u lts o r outcomes w ill occur a t the lo c al school d is t r i c t
classroom le v e l.

I t i s , th e re fo re , more appropriate to center these

conclusions and recommendations on the s ta te -le v e l design and it s
implementation.

This 1s not to say th a t fa c to rs a t the lo c al le v e l,

or s ite s o f implementation, did not a ffe c t the outcomes o f the
Special Study.

However, the degree to which the Michigan Department

o f Education has, or can have, control over such fac to rs is q u ite
dubious.

A fu rth e r reason fo r d iffe r e n tia tin g between s ta te and

local le v e ls o f implementation is th a t th is evalu ation re p o rt, o f a
sta te department p ro je c t, is being submitted to the Research,
Evaluation and Assessment Service Area o f the Michigan Department

98

99

o f Education, which has supported it s design and implementation.
I t is th ere fo re appropriate th a t recommendations fo r action be
directed to the Michigan Department o f Education, ra th e r than to
local school d is tr ic ts or buildings which were functioning as s ite s
o f implementation fo r the s ta te program.
There are three g en eral, lo g ic a lly lin ked functions which
th is evaluation study performs.

The f i r s t function is to present

the design and implementation o f the MEAP Kindergarten Special
Study fo r 1975-76.

This p resen tatio n , and the Special Study

i t s e l f , is p re s c rip tiv e in nature and in te n t by advocating c e rta in
procedures, w ith accompanying m a te ria ls , to improve the q u a lity o f
kindergarten programs.

The second general function o f th is evalua­

tio n study is to present the re s u lts o f the evaluation procedures
o f the Kindergarten Special Study, which is a d e s c rip tiv e fu n c tio n ;
th a t i s , describing what re s u lts were obtained through various
in fo rm a tio n -c o lle c tio n procedures.

In th is f in a l section on "Con­

clusions and Recommentations," th is study takes on an e v a lu a tiv e
judgment fu n c tio n , based on comparing the p re s c rip tio n o f in te n t
to the d escrip tio n o f evaluation re s u lts .
The e v alu ative judgments made regarding the Kindergarten
Special Study fo r 1975-76 are then placed in a broader context o f
evalu ative judgments regarding the more to ta l s ta te p ic tu re o f
preprimary and e a rly childhood education, o f which the Kinder­
garten Special Study is an important aspect.

100
Conclusions According to Key C h a ra c te ris tic s
o f the Special Study
C h a ra c te ris tic #1: Through communication w ith local school
d is t r i c t superintendents, a volunteer p a rtic ip a n t population
o f p rin c ip a ls and teachers w ill be id e n tifie d . From th is
lo c a lly id e n tifie d volunteer population, actual p a rtic ip a n ts
w il l be selected by MEAP s t a f f based on general demographic
representation and d is tr ib u tio n .
I t is c le a r from the find in g s th a t the Kindergarten Special
Study fo r 1975-76 did n ot, in r e a l i t y , have a t o t a l ly volunteer
population o f p rin c ip a ls and teachers.

Only 54 percent o f 52

responding teachers reported to have personally volunteered fo r the
p ro je c t.

Of the 40 responding p rin c ip a ls , 73 percent reported having

input in to the decision and requested to p a rtic ip a te .

The fa c t th a t

approximately h a lf o f the teachers were not volunteers most prob­
ably had an e ffe c t on implementation and outcomes o f the Special
Study.

However, th is fa c t did generate data on an a d d itio n a l, i f

unintended, dimension o f the Special Study:

the impact on nonvolun­

teer teachers and p rin c ip a ls .
An examination o f the demographic inform ation shows th a t the
p a rtic ip a n t population did not adequately r e f le c t a t r u ly representa­
tiv e d is trib u tio n o f p a rtic ip a n ts .
trated on more " ru ra l" areas.
in s ig h t, however.

P a rtic ip a n t population concen­

This did present an ad d itio n a l

In the in te rv ie w procedures, the w r ite r perceived

th a t the p a rtic ip a n ts from more ru ra l areas were g en erally more
enthusiastic about and re cep tive to the e n tire p ro je c t than those
from other areas.

This appeared to be due to several fa c to rs .

The

f i r s t was th a t the w rite r found less "automatic" and general h o s t ilit y
toward the Michigan Department o f Education in the more ru ra l areas.

101
The second fa c to r was th a t the procedures o f the Kindergarten
Special Study had not been p rev io u sly Implemented 1n these d i s t r i c t s ,
and th e s ta ffs were h ig h ly re c e p tiv e to try in g ideas and re ce ivin g
assistance to improve th e q u a lity o f t h e ir k in d e rg a rte n -e a rly
elementary programs.
C h a ra c te ris tic # 2 : The 132 Michigan Department o f Education
"T e n ta tiv e O bjectives fo r Preprimary Program in Michigan" would
serve as th e basic behaviors to be assessed.
A good number o f the "T e n ta tiv e O bjectives" are ap p ro p riate
behavioral expectations fo r c h ild re n younger than f iv e years o ld .
The h is to r ic a l reason f o r th is s itu a tio n is th a t the separate prod­
ucts o f th e Michigan Department o f Education P re-kin d erg arten Com­
mission and the Kindergarten Commissions were combined in to one
document.

I t is not s u rp ris in g , th en , th a t kindergarten teachers

would disagree w ith the "T e n ta tiv e O bjectives fo r Preprimary Programs
in Michigan" document as expressing ap p ro p riate behavioral expec­
ta tio n s f o r fiv e -y e a r -o ld c h ild re n .

The teachers in th is study also

commented during the in te rv ie w procedure th a t some o f the o b je c tiv e s
were too hard, e s p e c ia lly the c o g n itiv e o b je c tiv e s , and th a t some
were too easy (see Appendix Q ).
Another primary d i f f i c u l t y which surfaced in th e evalu atio n
study is th a t many o f the p a rtic ip a tin g teachers did not u t i l i z e a
r a tio n a l, co n sisten t system f o r determ ining which o b je c tiv e to assess
a t what p o in t in time during th e school y e a r.

That is to say, the

teachers g e n e ra lly d id not re p o rt a system atic basis fo r judging
ap p ro priate behavioral expectations o f f iv e y e a r olds a t any given

102
point in tim e.

This problem d ir e c tly re la te s to the confusion caused

by the "T en tative Objectives" document i t s e l f .
However, i t is necessary to be aware th a t the o th e r, polar
end o f th is s itu a tio n is equally a dilemma.

Teachers should not fe e l

tie d in to a rig id expectational pattern fo r highly s p e c ific beha­
viors o f students.
in th is l ig h t .

Some teachers did perceive the present document

An "Objectives" or behavioral expectations document

should not in d ic a te expectations th a t a c h ild acquire behavior "x" by
or on September 29, behavior "y" by or on December 4 , and behavior
"z" by or on June 2.

General guidelines o f sequential behavioral

development in ch ild ren would seem more appropriate to achieving the
o verall educational goals set fo rth by the Michigan Department o f
Education.
The teachers p a rtic ip a tin g in th is study g en erally did not
report systematic u t iliz a t io n o f the "T en tative O b jectives," nor
did they form ulate a systematic basis fo r judging the number o f
objectives to be assessed or acquired by each, a l l , or any s p e c ific
number o f c h ild re n ,

fo r example, when asked how many o b jectives

they assessed, the teachers responded w ith the g reatest d iv e r s ity o f
a ll th e ir responses in the surveys.

The responses spread out from

20, across a spectrum to 132, including 17 percent o f the p a r t i c i ­
pants who made no response a t a l l to the question (see Appendix T ,
Kindergarten Teacher Survey # 2 ).

Apparently, n e ith e r teachers nor

p rin c ip a ls understood whether a l l o b jectives were to be assessed
and acquired, or only some o f them, and i f some, then which ones?

103
C h a ra c te ris tic #3: Teachers can choose from fo u r d iffe r e n t
assessment modes o r methods o f assessing student behaviors:
(a) MEAP-developed te s ts , (b) other te s ts , (c ) observation,
and (d) o th e r.
Designing in to a to ta l assessment program a number o f options
as to methods o f assessment was w ell received by p a rtic ip a n ts .

Not

only was th is a favorab le public re la tio n s posture, but may also
o ffe r a p o te n tia lly more v a lid and r e lia b le method fo r measuring
attainm ent o f o b jectives by c h ild re n .

However, th ere were problems

re la tin g to implementation o f th is aspect o f the design.

The t e s t ­

ing modes id e n tifie d by MEAP s t a f f were not always used fo r the
purposes o f assessment, but ra th e r fo r e v a lu a tio n .

As reported in

the " fin d in g s ," 34 percent o f teacher respondents reported
te s tin g a f t e r teaching or observing th a t a c h ild had acquired a
p a rtic u la r s k i l l .

This fa c t alone casts doubts upon the ap p ro priate

use o f the te s tin g procedures on the p art o f the p a rtic ip a n ts .
Another cen tral problem area here is the general question o f
v a lid it y and r e l i a b i l i t y w ith in and across measurement modes.

There

is minimal or no evidence th a t each o f the four assessment modes used
in the Special Study is v a lid and r e lia b le , each w ith in i t s e l f .

The

MEAP te s ts have not had a v a l i d i t y - r e l i a b i l i t y techn ical rep o rt
issued on them; the category o f "other tes ts" im plies th a t any
lo c a lly developed or commercially produced instrument is v a lid and
r e lia b le .

The category o f “observation" has no v a l i d i t y - r e l i a b i l i t y

c r i t e r i a , c o n tro ls , o r documentation.

The category o f "other" is so

amorphous as to lack even d e f in itio n , much less controls fo r v a l id i t y r e lia b ility .

104
The v a l i d i t y - r e l i a b i l i t y fa c to r across modes is h ig h ly open
to question.

That is to say, given the same o b je c tiv e th ere appears

to be minimal or no evidence th a t any or a l l o f the fo ur modes o f
the Special Study provide eq u ally v a lid and r e lia b le measurement o f
a p a rtic u la r behavior or s k i l l .

In the comments the teachers made

about "O bjectives, Tests and Item s," the dominant theme was the tim econsuming nature o f the task and the volume o f record keeping, ra th e r
than about the q u a lity o f the inform ation they received from the
process (see Appendix P ).

Any decisions about v a l i d i t y - r e l i a b i l i t y

w i l l , th e re fo re , probably have to be based on inform ation generated
a t the S ta te Department le v e l.
P a rtic u la rly concerning the MEAP te s ts , beyond the question
o f v a l i d i t y - r e l i a b i l i t y , there is the question o f t h e ir format or
o rg an izatio n .

These tes ts were perceived to be cumbersome, time

consuming, and re p e titio u s by many o f the teachers.

Quite a few

comments were made by the teachers about the illu s t r a t io n s in the
te s ts , describing them as o f poor q u a lity , and some as c u ltu r a lly
biased.

The fa c t th a t they are labeled as " F ir s t Grade" booklets,

and used in the Kindergarten Special Study, seemed to cause confu­
sion on the p a rt o f some o f the p a rtic ip a n ts .
C h a ra c te ris tic #4: Assessment inform ation on each in d iv id u a l
c h ild should be recorded on designated "Class Roster" sheets and
returned to the Michigan Department o f Education upon comple­
tio n o f the Special Study. Inform ation on these sheets would
include the o b je c tiv e assessed, the assessment mode used, and
the date th a t student mastery was determined.
The Class Roster Sheets contain much o f the essen tial in f o r ­
mation asked fo r in the other re p o rtin g forms.

The one most

105
objectionable aspect o f the inform ation reported on these sheets is
the date th a t mastery was determined.

I t appears to be the case th a t

the dates given on these sheets o fte n r e f le c t the date o f recording
the in fo rm ation , ra th e r than the date o f teacher determ ination th a t a
ch ild mastered a p a rtic u la r s k i l l o r o b je c tiv e .

This fa c t in d icates

a lack o f p a rtic ip a n t understanding o f th e ra tio n a le behind the
p a rtic u la r format o f these sheets, p a r tic u la r ly the ra tio n a le behind
requesting the date o f mastery.

E v id e n tly , Department s t a f f did not

successfully communicate to the p a rtic ip a n ts the ra tio n a le behind
or importance o f knowing the date o f mastery fo r any given o b je c tiv e .
C h a ra c te ris tic #5: Assessment and recording procedures would
be implemented and data recorded on a form ative basis, over the
e n tir e period o f the Special Study (September, 1975, through
A p r il, 1976), or approximately the period o f the re g u lar school
year.
The previous conclusion, regarding what the recorded date
a c tu a lly represents, has fu rth e r im plication s fo r th is f i f t h char­
a c te r is tic o f the Kindergarten Special Study design.

I t appears

th at a t le a s t some o f the data submitted to MEAP s t a f f on the student
ro ste r sheets may in r e a l i t y be more summative d a ta , recorded from
teachers' memories, ra th e r than t r u ly on-going form ative assessment
and recording.
The p rac tice o f form ative assessment was g e n e ra lly perceived
by p a rtic ip a n ts as p ro vid in g , in th eo ry, more v a lid and r e lia b le
inform ation on ch ild re n than a "one-shot" te s tin g procedure.

For­

mative assessment was also p referred over a pre-post design, as
teachers and p rin c ip a ls in d icated in the in te rv ie w data.

However,

106

in order to adequately implement a t r u ly form ative assessment and
recording procedure fo r each c h ild , i t seems necessary fo r teachers
to have some kind o f assistance in the classroom.

Repeatedly, in

the comments o ffered by p a rtic ip a n ts in th is Special Study, there
were complaints about the burden such procedures placed upon the
teacher.

The e n th u s ia s tic a lly p o s itiv e comnents made about the

Special Study procedures were made by teachers who had classroom
aides to a s s is t in the implementation.
Formative assessment, over the period o f an e n tire school
year, means th a t the young c h ild may very l ik e l y come in to contact
with other teachers or s p e c ia lis ts , such as a physical education
teacher or a speech th e ra p is t, who may have opportunity and exper­
tis e to judge attainm ent o f s p e c ific s k i l l s .

The concept o f

"assistance" can be broadened beyond the classroom aide o r student
teacher.

However, guidelines fo r the involvement o f others in such

assistance over a period o f time would be needed to control fo r
v a lid it y and r e l i a b i l i t y o f measurement.
O bjective #6: Other recording sheets would be a v a ila b le to
p a rtic ip a n ts and requested to be completed fo r teacher use
and fo r feedback to the HEAP s t a f f .
The three other recording sheets a v a ila b le to teachers—
the in d ivid u al "Student Performance Records," the "Comments About
O bjectives, Tests and Item s," and the "Adm inistration Mode Comment
Sheet"--were g en erally not w ell received by p a rtic ip a n ts and were
not w idely used (see Appendices Q and T ).

P a rtic ip a n ts co n siste n tly

commented th a t the recording o f inform ation was much too time

107

consuming.

The fa c t th a t so few o f these sheets were returned to

the Department reinfo rces p a rtic ip a n ts ' verbal and w ritte n feedback.
C h a ra c te ris tic #7: The MEAP would provide s p e c ific a lly scheduled
preservice and on-going support services to p a rtic ip a n ts . The
MEAP would assess and meet p a rtic ip a n t needs through (a ) in t e r ­
action w ith p a rtic ip a n ts a t two scheduled regional meetings, and
a th ir d regional or local b u ild in g meeting, i f so requested;
(b) a teacher self-assessment questionnaire completed by the
p a rtic ip a n ts o f the November regional meetings; and (c ) a teacher
self-assessment question n aire, sent to a l l p a rtic ip a tin g teach­
e rs, in q u irin g about the need fo r a February regional or local
building meeting w ith MEAP s t a f f .
The scheduled p re -s e rv ic e , in -s e rv ic e , and on-going support
services provided to the Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts were judged as
adequate by many p a rtic ip a n ts .

However, from the p o in t o f view o f

the attainm ent o f the implied Special Study o b je c tiv e s , d iffe r e n t
or ad d itio n a l support services are needed.

For example, the ro le

expectations fo r p rin c ip a ls , kindergarten teachers, a l l types o f
classroom aid es, and f i r s t grade teachers need to be c le a r ly formu­
lated and communicated to a l l p a rtic ip a n ts .
There is c le a r ly a need to address ro le expectations in such
areas as the te s tin g procedures; e . g ., is i t appropriate fo r aides
to te s t, or p rin c ip a ls , or only kindergarten teachers?

As w ith the

observation made above about form ative e v a lu a tio n , so here the MEAP
needs to be e x p lic it as to the diverse p a rtic ip a n ts ' re s p o n s ib ility
in the implementation o f the MEAP design.

Role c la r if ic a t io n should

also include c la r ify in g to p a rtic ip a n ts the ro le o f the MEAP as a
u n it o f the Michigan Department o f Education.

A more p o s itiv e a t t i ­

tude on the p art o f p a rtic ip a n ts may re s u lt from such c la r if ic a t io n s .

108
A f in a l conclusion in th is section is th a t Special Study
p a rtic ip a n ts , g e n e ra lly , did not understand the concepts in the s ix step process management model o f the Michigan Department o f Educa­
tio n .

This was e s p e c ia lly evident in the in te rv ie w procedures.

There was found to be considerable confusion among the p a rtic ip a n ts
as to the d e fin itio n fo r and d iffe r e n tia tio n o f the concepts.
E specially in re la tio n to an assessment p ro je c t, the function and
meaning o f s p e c ific measurement concepts such as norm ative-referenced
and c rite rio n -re fe re n c e d te s tin g and use o f data should be under­
stood.

G en erally, th is was not the case fo r the p a rtic ip a n ts in the

Special Study.

This fa c t is probably a s ig n ific a n t fa c to r in the

kinds o f inform ation, p a rtic ip a n t uses o f inform ation, and in th e ir
a ttitu d e s toward the inform ation generated by the Kindergarten
Special Study.
Recommendations According to Key C h arac teris tic s
o f the Special Study
The MEAP should:
1.

decide i f a t o t a lly volunteer population is s t i l l d e s ir­

able based on the lack o f variance between volunteer and nonvolunteer teacher responses.

I f , fo r other reasons, the volunteer

nature o f p a rtic ip a tio n is deemed d e s ira b le , procedures to assure a
t o t a lly volunteer population should be id e n tifie d .
2.

support and p a rtic ip a te in a re vis io n

o f the "Tentative

Objectives fo r Preprimary Programs in Michigan" document in to one
which re fle c ts age-appropriate developmental expectations fo r

109
preprimary-age c h ild re n .

The re vis io n process should take in to

account the concerns a rtic u la te d in the above-stated conclusions.
That i s , the revised document should r e f le c t a general sequential
developmental p attern in the growth o f young ch ild ren in measurable
behavioral terms.
3.

c le a r ly d e lin e a te expectations regarding the number o f

objectives to be assessed per class or per c h ild .

Or, i f th is is to

be a local determ ination, then guidelines should be provided by MEAP
to form the basis fo r determining how many o f what o b jectives to
assess.
4.

m aintain options as to the methods o r modes o f assess­

ment o f the behavior o f the kindergarten c h ild re n .
5.

determine the degree to which the te s tin g procedures are

meant to be used fo r assessment and a t what p o in t reassessment and
evaluation become inseparable a c t iv it ie s in the in s tru c tio n a l process.
6.

c le a r ly communicate to Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts the

concepts, purposes, and uses o f assessment te s ts and data as these
are advocated by MEAP.
7.
MEAP te s ts .

issue a technical re p o rt on v a l i d i t y - r e l i a b i l i t y o f the
This rep o rt should be shared w ith the Preprimary S p ecial­

is t and other e a rly childhood educators fo r re ac tio n and in p u t.

In

conjunction w ith the Preprimary S p e c ia lis t and other e a rly childhood
educators, the MEAP should develop s p e c ific guidelines fo r d e te r­
mining the v a l i d i t y - r e l i a b i l i t y o f "other te s ts " used to assess the
Preprimary O bjectives; should develop c r i t e r i a , c o n tro ls , and docu­
mentation procedures fo r the "observation"

mode o f assessment;

110
should define the category o f "other" and provide s p e c ific process
guidelines fo r documenting the category as d efin ed .
8.

provide guidelines fo r the use o f various a lte r n a tiv e

modes o f assessment, v is -S -v is p a r tic u la r expectations or o b je c tiv e s .
9.

re vis e and condense, wherever p o ssible, the MEAP te s t

booklets and ad m in istratio n manuals in order th a t they become fre e o f
c u ltu ra l b ia s , contain q u a lity stimulus illu s t r a t io n s , and r e f le c t
th e ir purpose a t the kindergarten le v e l.
10.

exp lain to the Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts the importance

of recording the actual date o f mastery o f o b jectives by t h e ir s tu ­
dents.

I f the Department determines th a t th is inform ation is not

im portant, then i t should be dropped from the repo rtin g forms,
11. .
inform ation

exercise caution in it s use and in te rp re ta tio n o f any
dependent upon the reported date o f attainm ent v a ria b le

in the form ative assessment procedures.
12.

re ta in the form ative assessment c h a ra c te ris tic s o f the

Special Study, but w ith g re a te r controls on the nature o f recording
and reporting form ative re s u lts .
13.
ers,

consider developing g uidelines on who may a s s is t teach­

and in what way (assessment and/or re co rd in g ).
14.

condense repo rtin g forms to avoid re p e titio n o f in fo r ­

mation and to emphasize th a t p a r tic u la r inform ation which 1s o f the
essence to be recorded.
15.

develop and implement general guidelines on ro le d i f f e r ­

e n tia tio n and MEAP ro le expectations fo r a ll possible p a rtic ip a n ts .

m
16.

d efin e fo r Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts the ro le o f the

MEAP in Michigan p u b lic school education.
17.

form ulate s p e c ific o b jectives fo r each phase o f develop

ment o f th e Kindergarten Special Study and communicate these objec­
tives to a l l p a rtic ip a n ts .
19.

provide in s e rv ic e tra in in g on each concept o f the s ix

steps o f th e Michigan Department o f Education process management
model.
19.

continue the use o f te a c h e r-p rin c ip a l self-assessm ent,

but also provide an ad d itio n a l assessment o f p a rtic ip a n t needs by
others, as a support service o f the Department.
Conclusions Relating to O verall Design and
Implementation o f the Special Study
An in te g ra l aspect o f the Kindergarten Special Study design
which could not be measured by th is evaluation study was the in te n t
th at the assessment inform ation on each in d iv id u a l c h ild be commu­
nicated to the f i r s t grade teach er.

This evaluation study addressed

the degree to which communication between the kindergarten teacher
and f i r s t teacher occurred during the school y e a r, but not what
inform ation was communicated to the f i r s t grade teacher and how i t
was used.

Such usage would not occur u n til f a l l , 1976.

A number o f Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts fo r 1975-76 would be
in te re sted in knowing the evaluation re s u lts and student attainm ent
re s u lts o f the 1975-76 Special Study.

A number o f interview ees,

es p ec ia lly p rin c ip a ls and supervisors, asked i f they could receive
a copy o f r e s u lts .

"Results" o f the student attainm ents records

112
(Class Roster Sheets) are o f a p a rtic u la r and d if fe r e n t nature from
the evaluation study re s u lts .

P rin c ip a ls (or supervisors) who d is ­

cussed t h e ir in te re s t in obtaining such re s u lts phrased i t in such a
way as to give the impression th a t d e s c rip tiv e inform ation equalled
p re s c rip tiv e admonitions.
A number o f Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts fo r 1975-76 voiced
concern, in both the in te rv ie w and survey procedures, over the cost
effectiveness o f special studies and o f the e n tire Michigan Educa­
tio n a l Assessment Program.

There appears to be an in te re s t and

concern among a m in o rity o f p a rtic ip a n ts as to the cost e f f e c tiv e ­
ness o f such studies and programs.
The Kindergarten Special Study design and it s implementation
were questioned by a number o f teachers and p rin c ip a ls on the basis
o f who had input in to it s development.

This was e s p e c ia lly apparent

in the findings o f "Comments About O b jectives, Tests and Items"
sheets (Appendix P ).

Describing and sharing inform ation about how a

product reached any given form seems necessary to a lla y and address
both inform ational and a ttitu d in a l concerns on the p a rt o f p a r t i c i ­
pants.
The m a jo rity o f p a rtic ip a n ts did not appear to share the
underlying assumptions o f the Michigan Department o f Education s t a f f
from which flowed the design and implementation o f the Special Study.
This appears to have been a major fa c to r a ffe c tin g the re s u lts
obtained.

A sharing o f the underlying assumptions by MEAP s t a f f is

e s p e c ia lly important i f the "volunteer" aspect o f the Special Study
is considered e s s e n tia l.

At some point in tim e, Department s t a f f

113
may deem i t appropriate and necessary to provide in service to local
s t a f f w ith the s p e c ific o b je c tiv e o f obtaining p a rtic ip a n ts ' under­
standing o f and agreement w ith the s t a f f - id e n t if ie d educational
assumptions.

However, the degree to which a Michigan Department o f

Education p ro je c t or program, whether volunteer or mandated, can
cause or f a c i l i t a t e change a t the b u ild in g or classroom le v e l remains
an unanswered question.
Upon re c e ip t o f th is evaluation study, the MEAP has a
breadth o f inform ation on the re s u lts o f the 1975-76 implementation
o f the Kindergarten Special Study.

S p e c ific c h a ra c te ris tic s and

components have been h ig hligh ted as being in need o f re v is io n or
fu rth e r in-depth study.
The 1975-76 Kindergarten Special Study has given evidence
o f the degree to which such a p ro je c t can function as a p o s itiv e
change agentry/educational leadership a c t iv it y in kindergarten edu­
cation in Michigan public schools.

Such leadership in the area o f

kindergarten education w ill also impact on lower and higher grade
le v e ls .

The w r ite r has learned th a t the number o f schools request­

ing to p a rtic ip a te in the 1976-77 Special Study has been so high as to
expand the number o f p a rtic ip a tin g schools to approximately 200.

This

is p a r tic u la r ly in te re s tin g in fo rm ation , given the highly equivocal
nature o f the 1975-76 fin d in g s .

1u
Recommendations R elating to O verall Design and
Implementation o f the Special Study
The MEAP should:
1.

conduct a follow -through inform ation-gathering procedure

to determine i f the f i r s t grade teachers o f Kindergarten Special
Study student p a rtic ip a n ts (a ) received the Special Study inform ation
on the p a rtic ip a tin g c h ild and (b) to what use the f i r s t grade
teacher puts the inform ation.
2.

rep o rt general evalu ation and student attainm ent re su lts

to in te re s te d 1975-76 p a rtic ip a n ts through e ith e r a w ritte n rep o rt
and/or a general meeting in the f a l l o f 1976.

However, the MEAP

should be most cautious in rep o rtin g d e s c rip tiv e inform ation and
p re s c rip tiv e inform ation.

For example, i f the m a jo rity o f f i r s t

grade teachers had no involvement in or communication w ith the
Special Study p ro je c t and procedures, th is may accurately describe
a s itu a tio n , but not be one which MEAP s t a f f or the w r ite r advocates.
Another example is th a t i t may be the case th a t many a ffe c tiv e objec­
tives are reported as not having been a tta in e d .

Such inform ation

could be in te rp re te d as meaning th a t the a ffe c tiv e o b jectives could
not be a tta in e d , or th a t they were not tau g h t, o r th a t they were not
measured.

Clear guidelines fo r in te rp re tin g and using d e s c rip tiv e

data should accompany any re p o rt or meeting o f the MEAP s t a f f .
3.

share co s t-e ffec tiv en es s inform ation on special studies

and the Michigan Educational Assessment Program i f such inform ation
is a v a ila b le .

I f such inform ation is not a v a ila b le , the MEAP may

wish to consider developing and d is trib u tin g a c o s t-e ffec tiv en es s
rep o rt.

115
4.

seek the input o f rep resen tative e a rly childhood edu­

cators such as p rin c ip a ls , teachers, and other s p e c ia lis ts fo r fu tu re
developmental design and implementation a c t iv it ie s o f the Kinder­
garten Special Study.
5.

reexamine the underlying educational assumptions o f the

Special Study and share the re s u lts o f th is reexamination w ith
p o te n tial Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts .

Preservice and In service

sessions should share these underlying assumptions w ith p a rtic ip a n ts
as the basis fo r the design and it s implementation.
6.

continue to implement the Kindergarten Special Study

while s ta tin g the s p e c ific o b jectives o f a p a rtic u la r year or phase
and by on-going evaluation studies which focus on s p e c ific com­
ponents or aspects o f the Special Study and attempt to control fo r
id e n tifie d v a ria b le s .

Future implementations o f the Special Study

should p a r tic u la r ly r e f le c t the recommendations o f th is evaluation
study and the p o te n tial and in te n t o f the Special Study to func­
tio n as an educational leadership a c t iv it y .
General Conclusions Relevant to the HEAP
Kindergarten Special Study Findings
The w rite r considers i t both appropriate and important to
place the above-stated s p e c ific conclusions and recommendations on the
HEAP Kindergarten Special Study fo r 1975-76 in to a broader context
of perceptions o f e a rly childhood education in the s ta te o f Michigan.
Indeed, the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study find in g s are symptoms
of a more general s itu a tio n .

Since March o f 1974, as Preprimary

In s tru c tio n a l S p e c ia lis t, the w r ite r has had numerous o pportunities

116
to discuss issues w ith and to c o lle c t inform ation from e a rly c h ild ­
hood educators throughout the s ta te , and to observe numerous e a rly
childhood programs in operatio n.

The w r ite r has also had a number

of opportun ities to gain perceptions o f issues and programs on a
national le v e l.

However, since these l a t t e r o p p ortun ities were

considerably more lim ite d than those w ith in the s ta te , I sh all
confine rry conclusions and recommendations on the present context
and status o f e a rly childhood education to w ith in the s ta te o f
Michigan.
The abundant, complex, and incon sisten t inform ation obtained
through the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study evaluation procedures
confirms and reinfo rces my perceptions and conclusions regarding
the general status o f education o f the young c h ild .

Many o f these

conclusions appear to have d ir e c t bearing on the findings and con­
clusions o f the Kindergarten Special Study fo r 1975-76.

That is to

say, i f the fo llow ing conclusions do r e f le c t or describe an educa­
tio n al r e a l i t y , and i f the accompanying recommendations were to be
implemented or acted on, a number o f the "problem areas" id e n tifie d
in the Kindergarten Special Study (e ith e r as cause o r e ffe c t ) may be
resolved from various sources and from a much broader perspective
than a p ro je c t o f the Michigan Department o f Education.

In f a c t , the

Michigan Department o f Education could take only lim ite d actio n on a
number o f these recommendations which are dependent on a number o f
educational resources fo r re s o lu tio n .
The Michigan Department o f Education is asserting and can
assert fu rth e r leadership in addressing these issues.

However,

117
State Department reso lu tio n s must have the support o f the general
educational community fo r implementation, fo llo w through, and tru e
e ffe ctive n e ss .
The fo llow ing conclusions are based on my experiences func­
tio n in g as the Michigan Department o f Education Preprimary In s tru c ­
tio n a l S p e c ia lis t.

While functioning in th a t c a p ac ity , I have had

numerous opportun ities to gain inform ation from and form ulate per­
ceptions o f the knowledge and a ttitu d e s o f local school d i s t r i c t
board members, lo c al school d i s t r i c t c e n tra l o ffic e ad m in is tra to rs ,
building p rin c ip a ls , classroom teachers, members o f professional
educational asso ciatio ns, various boards and org an izatio n s involved
w ith services to young c h ild re n , and o ther S tate Department s t a f f
members, in ad d itio n to simply the Department o f Education.

I am

o ffe rin g , th e re fo re , g e n e ra liza tio n s which by t h e ir nature do not
hold true in a l l cases.

Also, one professional educational associa­

tio n should c le a r ly be id e n tifie d as an exception to the fo llow ing
conclusions:

the Michigan Association o f Elementary School P rin c i­

pals (MAESP).

Since becoming the Michigan Department o f Education

lia is o n to th is Association in March, 1974, i t has been my e x p e ri­
ence th a t the fo llo w in g general conclusions do not apply to most
members o f the MAESP Board o f D ire c to rs , members o f the Curriculum
Commission, and represen tatives to the Michigan Department o f Educa­
tio n Preprimary re fe re n t groups.

This Association has o ffe re d and

continues to o ffe r e ffe c tiv e educational leadership 1n th e area c f
e arly childhood education, and has id e n tifie d th is issue as one o f
top p r io r it y fo r th e ir Association.

118
There is a pervasive a ttitu d e among many pub lic school edu­
cators th a t very young ch ild re n do not r e a lly " le a rn ."

This a t t i ­

tude o r b e lie f appears to emanate from a very lim ite d , s p e c ific
d e fin itio n or understanding o f what "education" or "learn in g " is .
Their d e fin itio n o f education or learn in g equates the tr a d itio n a l
cognitive "3 r 's " — r e a d in ', ' r i t i n ' , and 'r ith m e tic .

I f very young

children do not read, w r ite , or do a rith m e tic , they do not " le a rn ,"
and th e re fo re can not t r u ly be provided an educational program.
This a ttitu d e toward learn in g in young ch ild re n r e fle c ts a
lack o f understanding or knowledge o f the h ig h ly complex nature o f
the p h y s ic a l, em otional, in t e lle c t u a l, and so cial growth and develop­
ment o f the young c h ild .

This lack o f knowledge is p a r tic u la r ly

evident in the areas o f in te lle c tu a l development and the development
o f a p o s itiv e self-co n cep t in young ch ild ren (emotional development).
I have observed, in P iag etian terms, teachers imposing "formal
operations" expectations on " p re -o p e ra tio n a l" c h ild re n .

I have also

observed teachers givin g verbal and nonverbal messages to students
which discount o r minimize the students' worth and/or a b i l i t y .
Based on observing a larg e number o f e a rly childhood c la ss­
rooms and questioning teachers regarding the educational ra tio n a le
fo r the p a rtic u la r environment and experiences being provided c h i l ­
dren, I have concluded th a t th e re is a lack o f systematic educational
ra tio n a le as the foundation fo r many programs.

Responses as to why

teachers provide c e rta in tasks or m a teria ls often do not r e f le c t an
immediate educational purpose, nor a long-range educational plan.

119

This is one aspect o f a more generalized s itu a tio n , also
commented on by Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts .

There is l i t t l e educa­

tio n al consistency from one kindergarten classroom to another, even
w ith in the same b u ild in g , much less from b uilding to b u ild in g and
d is t r ic t to d i s t r i c t .

Nor is th ere g en erally educational program

c o n tin u ity from kindergarten to f i r s t grade to second grade.

The

ch ild behavioral expectations o f one grade le v e l teacher may or may
not be co n sisten t, com patible, or sequential w ith those o f the f o l ­
lowing or preceding grade le v e l.
This lack o f kindergarten program consistency is evidenced
in what appear to be two p o lar philosophical "camps" regarding the
purpose o f kindergarten programs.

One camp sees the kindergarten

program's purpose as le ttin g the c h ild " s o c ia lize " and become used
to the school, peers, and not being in the home environment.

The

other camp sees it s purpose as g ettin g a headstart on teaching the
3 r 's in order to avoid lit e r a c y and computational problems in
la te r grade school.

The repercussions o f the "two camps" and lack

of program consistency or c o n tin u ity are most profoundly f e l t by
the ch ild re n being served.
Present elementary c e r tific a te d teachers who are teaching
a t any o f the e a rly childhood grade le v e ls could p r o f it from on­
going professional development experiences re la tin g to the growth
and development, le a rn in g , and teaching o f ch ild re n ages 0 -9 .

The

w rite r has fre q u e n tly observed th a t when teachers lack the neces­
sary understanding o f c h ild growth and development and i t s im p lic a­
tions fo r c h ild learning and educator teaching, commercial m a teria ls

120

become the curriculum and d ic ta te the educational expectations,
experiences, measurement techniques, and mastery c r i t e r i a fo r the
child ren .
Preprimary programs, kindergarten being the most evident
example, s u ffe r from c e rta in facto rs composing t h e ir very d e fin itio n
and present operation.

Elementary p rin c ip a ls , prekindergarten

teachers, and kindergarten teachers have discussed w ith the w rite r
th e ir sense o f "separateness" from the to ta l elementary school pro­
gram.

This is a ttrib u te d to various fa c to rs .

The kindergarten

programs g en erally are h a lf a day, which in many instances means
th a t the kindergarten teacher has two completely separate classes to
prepare fo r and teach.

Such circumstances often mean th a t kinder­

garten teachers s a c r ific e lunch hours and breaks which teachers a t
other grade lev els may have.

Whereas the school d i s t r i c t may count

the h alf-d ay kindergarten c h ild who is fiv e years old by December 1
for a f u l l count o f s ta te aid membership, human and m aterial class­
room resources often do not r e f le c t th is .

The w r ite r has observed a

large number o f kindergarten programs which, although not le g a lly
required to , do not meet the proposed minimal c h ild care center
regulations fo r Act 116, P.A. 1973, administered by the Department
of Social Services.

P resen tly, public school prekindergarten pro­

grams are required to meet these minimal re g u la tio n s .
A p a r tic u la r ly c ru c ia l problem area in e a rly childhood
education, and most e s p e c ia lly in preprimary education, is v a lid
and r e lia b le a lte rn a tiv e measurement techniques.

Measurement o f

behaviors in the young c h ild is presently in a s ta te o f inconsistency

121
and o ften lacks s c ie n t if ic method.

The concept o f te s tin g or measure­

ment is g e n e ra lly equated w ith and lim ite d to a paper-and-pencil
procedure.

A lte r n a tiv e modes, such as "o b servatio n ," are o fte n not

considered a measurement procedure.

The paper-and-pencil mode is

often in a p p ro p riate fo r c e rta in preprim ary developmental le v e ls ,
and f o r measuring such behavioral realms as emotional and so cial
behaviors.
E a rly childhood education, and most e s p e c ia lly preprim ary,
is in need o f ac tio n and applied research p ro je c ts which w il l fu rth e r
the s ta te o f knowledge in a l l o f th e problem areas id e n tifie d
throughout the d is s e r ta tio n , id e n tify a lte r n a t iv e so lutio ns to
problem areas, and develop and id e n tify promising and successful
p ractices.
General Recommendations Relevant to the HEAP
Kindergarten Special Study Findings
The Michigan Department o f Education should:
1.

a c tiv e ly promulgate the State-Board-adopted d e fin itio n

of e a rly childhood education, and assure th a t a l l Departmentdeveloped documents and procedures r e f le c t th is d e f in it io n .
2.

continue to a s se rt leadership in providing general guide­

lin e s and whatever s p e c ific le g is la tio n and/or re g u latio n s are
deemed necessary and ap p ro p riate to assure th a t the Board-adopted
d e fin itio n

fo r

e a rly childhood education is o p e ra tio n a lize d in

Michigan classrooms.

S tate Board and Department actions should

co n siste n tly r e f le c t the need fo r Michigan schools to s y s te m a tic a lly
guide the p h y s ic a l, em otional, i n t e ll e c t u a l , and so cial development

122
of young ch ild re n .

In p a r tic u la r , such leadership should focus on

preprimary programs.
3.

encourage professional associations, local school

boards, d is t r i c t superintendents, and building p rin c ip a ls to conduct
a self-assessment on the degree to which e a rly childhood programs
r e fle c t the human, m a te ria l, and fin a n c ia l resources necessary
to q u a lity educational programing fo r young c h ild re n .
4.

assert leadership in reexamining the elementary teacher

c e r tific a tio n program o p p ortun ities and requirements.

While the

State Board o f Education is empowered to issue an "E arly Childhood
Endorsement" to the continuing (and to c e rta in p ro v is io n a l) c e r t i f i ­
cates, th is endorsement is not required fo r any le v e l o f public grade
school teaching.

Requiring th is endorsement, as has been recommended

by a number o f e a rly childhood educators, has d e f in ite im plications
for teacher tra in in g in s titu tio n s .

However, even w ithout re q u irin g

the endorsement, teacher tra in in g in s titu tio n s need to examine the
degree to which they are adequately tra in in g elementary c e r t i f i c a ­
tion candidates in the growth and development, le a rn in g , and teaching
of the young c h ild .
5.

recognize the need fo r and ac t to provide or encourage

others to provide professional development a c t iv it ie s fo r e a rly
childhood educators.

Such professional development a c t iv it ie s should

promote teacher competencies in id e n tific a tio n o f age-appropriate
expectations fo r young ch ild re n ; planning and d e liv e ry o f a lte r n a tiv e ,
in d ivid u alized assessment procedures; and the planning and d e liv e ry o f
a lte rn a tiv e , in d iv id u a lize d experiences and the s k ills necessary fo r

123
implementing appropriate a lte r n a tiv e measurement techniques.

Once

teachers a tta in such competencies, m a teria ls and equipment should
be :chosen c r i t i c a l l y on the basis o f an educational ra tio n a le to f i t
the id e n tifie d curriculum , ra th e r than m a teria ls equating or d ic ­
tatin g the curriculum .
6.

develop c r i t e r i a and procedures to determine the approp­

riateness and a c c e p ta b ility o f various measurement techniques fo r
early childhood education.

The measurement procedures and c r i t e r i a

developed should then become uniform ly applied to a l l e a rly childhood
prgorams administered by the Michigan Department o f Education.

This

more general reso lu tio n o f measurement in e a rly childhood education
would also address the assessment procedure concerns stated e a r lie r
in th is chapter.
7.

id e n tify and/or provide the funds and technical a s sis­

tance necessary to create e a rly childhood (e s p e c ia lly preprim ary)
action and applied research pro jects in the public schools.

Such

projects should receive the i n i t i a l approval, technical assistance,
and evaluation services o f the appropriate service areas and
co n s u lta n t-s p e c ia lis ts o f the Department.

This recommendation is

stated in the in te re s t o f needing to m aintain a d is tin c tio n between
evaluation and research a c t iv it ie s in the public schools.

A ll

early childhood programs in Michigan schools should have v a lid and
re lia b le evaluation or measurement a c t i v i t ie s .

I t is not g e n e ra lly

the ro le o f public schools to conduct educational research.

Such

action or applied research is much needed in e a rly childhood educ a ti on.

124
Final O verall Conclusion and Reconmendation
I t is much to the c r e d it o f the Michigan Department o f Edu­
catio n , and in p a r tic u la r the Research, Evaluation and Assessment
Service area , th a t they would support such a d is s e rta tio n as th is
one.

To i n i t i a t e special programs and to inform the public o f the

results o f such programs is an e f f o r t o f m e rit.

I recommend th a t

the Department continue supporting s im ila r d is s e rta tio n s and evalua'
tion a c t iv it ie s which w il l u ltim a te ly serve to improve Michigan
public school services fo r c h ild re n .

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
GRADE 1 AND KINDERGARTEN SPECIAL STUDIES
PROJECT PLAN

126

APPENDIX A
GRADE 1 AND KINDERGARTEN SPECIAL STUDIES
PROJECT PLAN

Hay 23

Meeting to explain K-l studies

May 27

Follow-up l e t t e r to school d is t r ic t s th a t did
not send rep resen tative to 5/23 meeting

June 6

Deadline fo r sign-up

June 9

S elect p a rtic ip a tin g schools

June 10

1. Send follow -up le tte r s to elementary school
p rin c ip a ls in selected d is tr ic ts
2. Send le tte r s o f re g re t to a l l other d is t r ic t s

Sept. 2-Sept. 26
K & 1st grade

Provide b rie fin g s to Special Study p a rtic ip a n ts

Sept. 29-Oct. 17

Grade 1 Special Study c a rrie d out

Sept. 29-May 1

Kindergarten Special Study c a rrie d out

November 17

Classroom reports o f re s u lts to grade 1
p a rtic ip a n ts

Nov. 17-Nov. 28

Follow-up meeting w ith grade 1 and K p a rtic ip a n ts

February 9-20

Possible follow -up meeting w ith K p a rtic ip a n ts

A pril 19-30

Final follow -up meeting w ith K p a rtic ip a n ts

May 1-May 14

MDE examines copies o f K Study Record Forms

May 17

Record Forms returned to d is t r ic ts

Selection Process
Each d is t r i c t should submit the names o f a minimum o f two teachers and
a maximum o f f iv e teachers. Each teacher w ill be categorized by geo­
graphical lo catio n o f h e r/h is school and size (number o f f i r s t
graders, o r kindergarten students, in h e r/h is school) in to one o f
16 s tra ta .
Four to fiv e teachers w ill be randomly selected from each
of the 16 s tr a ta . In some cases not a l l o f the teachers nominated
by a d is t r i c t w ill be selected .

127

APPENDIX B
MEAP INFORMATIONAL HANDOUTS

128

APPENDIX B
MEAP INFORMATIONAL HANDOUTS

K in d e rg a rte n /F irs t Grade Special Studies
In the 1974-75 Michigan Educational Assessment Program la s t
f a l l , 44 tes ts o f 48 preprimary performance objectives were tr ie d out
on samples o f f i r s t grade students. The te s t items fo r these tests
were w ritte n by educators in fo ur Michigan school d is t r ic t s and were
based on the preprimary o b jectives adopted by the S tate Board o f Edu­
cation in 1974.
For each o f the te s ts , a sample o f buildings containing f i r s t
graders was selected and a l l f i r s t graders in those buildings were
tested w ith the same te s t form. Only about h a lf o f the f i r s t grade
students were tested and any p a rtic ip a tin g student only took one
te s t.
This sampling plan had two obvious drawbacks. F ir s t , teach­
ers who p a rtic ip a te d received inform ation on only one o b je c tiv e ,
which was c e rta in ly not enough inform ation to judge the needs o f
entering f i r s t graders. Second, the assessment tes ts were not set
up fo r teachers to adm inister more than one te s t to students in a
reasonable time period. Teachers who wanted to te s t more than one
objective could not do so w ithout investing s ig n ific a n t amounts o f
classroom tim e.
While the Michigan Educational Assessment Program w ill t r y
out te s t items fo r 32 ad d itio n a l o b jectives th is next f a l l using the
sampling methods described above, the assessment s t a f f has also
devised two special studies. The major purpose o f these studies is
to increase the usefulness o f an e n try -le v e l assessment program to
local educators by attem pting to co rrec t the drawbacks mentioned above.
Grade One Study
This study, involving only volunteer f i r s t grade teachers, is
designed to examine the e ffe c ts o f adm inistering a small number o f
the assessment te s ts to e n tire classrooms a t once. O r ig in a lly , the
tests were designed to be given in sm aller groups, but feedback
from teachers adm inistering the te s ts has indicated th a t some o f the
tests could be administered to la rg e r groups o f students in one s i t ­
ting w ithout a ffe c tin g the re s u lts .
Special te s t manuals, student booklets and answer sheets th a t
combine several o f the tes ts w ill be assembled. P a rtic ip a tin g teachers
129

130
w ill be asked to adm inister these tests to t h e ir students in e n tire
groups. A ll te s tin g and recording o f answers on answer sheets
should not take longer than two hours o f a teach er's tim e. Results
w ill be examined to see i f a lte r in g the assessment procedures
a ffe cts the re s u lts . Teachers w il l be asked to give t h e ir reactions
to the o b je c tiv e s , the te s ts , and the assessment procedures.
Kindergarten Study
The second study is designed to allow p a rtic ip a tin g teachers
to use as many o f the assessment tests as desired during the e n tire
kindergarten year in order to produce a re p o rt by the end o f kinder­
garten on each c h ild 's status on each preprimary o b je c tiv e . Only
kindergarten teachers who volunteer w ill p a rtic ip a te in th is study.
As resources, each teacher w ill be given a complete l i s t o f the pre­
primary o b je c tiv e s , record-keeping forms to chart the progress o f
students in t h e ir classroom, and copies o f a l l o f the grade one
assessment te s ts .
Teachers w ill be asked to rep o rt the status o f each student
e ith e r through teacher observation, teacher-made t e s t , or an assess­
ment te s t. The assessment s t a f f w ill check w ith teachers p e rio d ic a lly
to answer questions and to a s s is t teachers in completing the classroom
record.
Summary
In la te Hay, the assessment s t a f f w ill review the d e ta ils o f
these two studies fo r persons who have expressed in te re s t in p a r t i c i ­
pating. At th is meeting, the assessment s t a f f w ill seek a formal
statement o f in te re s t in p a rtic ip a tin g in one o r both o f these
studies. P art o f the schedule o f a c t iv it ie s in conjunction w ith
this p ro je c t includes b rie fin g s o f p a rtic ip a tin g s t a f f members next
f a l l to explain the studies and the s p e c ific procedures to be f o l ­
lowed. Follow-up b rie fin g s w ill be held as needed. The assessment
s ta ff hopes th a t kindergarten and f i r s t grade teachers w ill volunteer
to p a rtic ip a te in these stu d ies. Such p a rtic ip a tio n should be o f
value to both the teachers and to the assessment program.

131
1975-76 Michigan Educational Assessment Program
Kindergarten Special Study
Volunteer Form

I would lik e to volunteer the fo llo w in g school(s) which contain
kindergarten students to p a rtic ip a te in the Kindergarten Special
Study. I t is not necessary fo r a l l kindergarten teachers in a
school to p a r tic ip a te .
In order to provide the la rg e s t number
o f d is t r ic t s an opportunity to p a r tic ip a te , and y e t allow
assessment s t a f f to meet w ith the p a rtic ip a n ts , we have set the
fo llow ing maximum and minimum number o f teachers per school
d is t r ic t :
Maximum Number o f Teachers/School D is t r ic t :
Minimum Number o f Teachers/School D is t r ic t :

School Name

P rin c ip a l Name
Classrooms 9

___

Number o f K Teachers
P a rtic ip a tin g
Next F all

Signed _________________
Superintendent
School D is t r ic t
Send th is form to:

D is t r ic t Number
Edward Roeber
Michigan Department o f Education
Research, Evaluation and
Assessment Services
P.O. Box 420
Lansing, MI 48902

No la t e r than June 6, 1975

5
2

APPENDIX C
LETTERS FROM DIRECTOR OF REAS
TO SPECIAL STUDY VOLUNTEERS

132

i

APPENDIX C
LETTERS FROM DIRECTOR OF REAS
TO SPECIAL STUDY VOLUNTEERS
STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
La/ufng, Michigan 40902
JOHN W. fORTER

•TAT* BOARD OF EDUCATION
M A R IL Y N J E A N K E L L Y

frtlidtAt

June 19) 1975

NmuadiM W

OR. G O R T O N R IE T H M IL L E R
Y ir r f r t i U t n l

NAM Im m n iH

E D M U N D F. V A N D E T T E
5rC*ttmry
A N N E T T A M IL L E R
T re a tu rtr
BARBARA A. D U M O U C H E LLE
B A R B A R A J. ROBERTS
N O R M A N O T T O S TO C K M E Y E R . SR.
ROOER T IL L E S
G O V . W IL L IA M a. M IL L IK E N
E i-O ffie io

We have received notification from your superintendent that there are
teachers in your school who wish to volunteer to participate in the special
first grade study as part of the Michigan Educational Assessment Program
this fall. We are sorry to notify you that those teachers have not been
selected for inclusion in the study. As you nay remember, when the assessment
program asked for volunteers to participate in the study, we noted that only
a small number of classrooms could be Included in the pilot. Each selected
classroom was chosen randomly. Unfortunately, the volunteer teachers from
your school were not selected.
The interest and desire to participate on the part of teachers,
and superintendents was most gratifying. It is anticipated that the
mation about educational assessment gathered from this study will be
value for school administrators and teachers and Department staff in
educational assessment planning.

principals
infor­
of great
future

Again, we appreciate your response to the study and regret that all
volunteer classrooms could not participate. If you have questions or desire
further information, please call Ed Roeber who will be the coordinator of
the project at <517) 373-8393.
Sincerely,

DavidfE. Donovan
Director
Re sea rch ,

E v a l u a t i o n and

Assessment Services
DU)/phi

133

134

June 19, 1975
Page 2

Again, we are highly appreciative of the desire of you and your teachers
to participate in this volunteer special study and look forward to this coop­
erative effort.
If you have questions or desire further information, please call Ed Roeber
who will be the coordinator of the project at (517) 373-8393.

David 1~- DoYiovan
Director
Research, Evaluation and
Assessment Services
DLD/pbl

135

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
L m in o . M ic h ig a n 4 4 0 0 2

»HNW.K)ITtl
VMMiMinmiis

June 19, 1975

STATE SOAHO Of EDUCATION

MARILYNJLANRFL1.V

D R , G O R T O N R IE T H M IL L E R
V iet F rtttJ tm t
EDMUND F

VANDFTTE

Secretary

A N N F T T A M IL L E R

rrfdisrfr

BAR BARA A. D U M O U C H ELLE
B A R B A R A J. R O BER TS
N O R M A N O T T O S T O C K M & Y E R . SR.
R O G E R T IL L E 5
G O V , W I L L IA M G . M IL L IJ C E N

E^OOkia

As you ace probably aware, we asked district superintendents to indicate
to us school buildings containing teachers who wish to volunteer to parti­
cipate In the special first grade study as part of the Michigan Educational
Assessment Program this fall. We have received notification from your super­
intendent that there are teachers In your school who have volunteered for
participation in this special study. We are pleased to notify you that two
teachers from your school have been selected to participate in the special
first grade study this fall.
This study provides an opportunity for the Department to assist teachers
at the classroom level in implementing an educational needs assessment to
aid in instructional planning, as well as for your teachers to provide indepth feedback to the Department on the feasibility and effectiveness of the
educational assessment Instruments.
To maintain communication between the Department and teachers, the ed­
ucational assessment program staff will hold site or regional meetings with
the participating teachers and appropriate school and district administrative
Btaff to anticipate and solve assessment administration problems. The briefings
of the participants will take place between September 2 and September 26 at
a mutually convenient time and place. We will be contacting you to set up a
time for this meeting. This meeting should not take more than an hour. The
purpose will be to present the test package, explain the administration manual,
student booklets, administration procedures, scoring methods and teacher
questionnaire and answer questions from the teachers. Testing should take
place between September 29 and October 17.
In November the classroom reports of results will be ready to distribute
to the participating teachers. At this time the assessment program staff
will hold meecings with the teachers Co explain and interpret the results,
and discuss possible utilization for classroom instructional planning. This
second set of meetings will also take about an hour of teacher's time. Also,
at this time, we will want to collect feedback on teacher reactions to the
instrument which will aid the Department staff in future educational assessment
planning.

APPENDIX D
PROCEDURAL MANUAL
KINDERGARTEN SPECIAL STUDY

136

APPENDIX D
PROCEDURAL MANUAL
KINDERGARTEN SPECIAL STUDY
Mic h ig a n Educational Assessment Program

PROCEDURAL

MANUA L

KINDERGARTEN SPECIAL STUDY

1975-76
Year 7

Michigan Department o f Education
Lansing, Michigan

137

138

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION
I.

EXPLANATORY M AT ER I A L
A.

II.
III.
IV.
V.

PAGE

Introduction ..........................

1
. . . . .

1

B. Explanation of Materials ........................
MEAP Test M a t e r i a l s ........................
Student Performance Record
for MEAP Test Froms . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Class Roster for Recording
Attainment of Objectives ....................
Teacher Comment Sheets ......................

3
3

5
7

C.

3

Testing Procedures ..............................

TAB
Green

A

CLASS ROSTER FOR RECORDING
ATTAINMENT OF OBJECTIVES ............................

Yellow

STUDENT PERFORMANCE RECORD
FOR MEAP TEST F O R M S ................................

Blue

TEACHER COMMENT SHEETS ..............................

Transparent

APPENDICES.........................................

Red

A.

Tentative Objectives for Preprimary
Education in Michigan

B.

Michigan Department of Education
Preprimary Objective Tests

C.

List of Test Materials

139

EXPLANATORY MATERIAL
Introduction

The major purpose of the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP)
is to provide information useful for educational decision-making to the State's
educators, including classroom teachers, and other citizens.

This is the

second year that the educational assessment program has assessed pupil attain­
ment of preprimary skills of first graderb, and the first year to pilot these
objectives in kindergarten classes.

The performance measures administered in

the program are designed to test some of the skills of first graders in the
affective, cognitive and psychomotor domains.

These skills are considered im­

portant for a child to attain before entering first grade.

The complete set

of The Tentative Objectives for Preprimary Education in Michigan on which the
MEAP tests are based is shown in APPENDIX A.
The first grade educational assessment program, like the programs for
fourth and seventh grades, is composed of objective-referenced tests.

This

type of test yields results that reveal specific skills each child has or has
not attained.

This is done by constructing brief tests, each of which reliably

measures a single learner performance objective.
In the first year of the first grade educational assessment program (197475), 44 individually- and group-administered tests were constructed to measure
48 of the 134 preprimary objectives.
of first graders.

Approximately 2,500 teachers and 77,000 students were in­

volved in the program.
1-44.

Each test was taken by a statewide sample

These 48 objectives are contained in the MEAP Forms

Two of the forms measure two performance objectives and one of the forms

measures three performance objectives.
tested with more than one test form.

No student selected for the sample was

140

The first grade program for 1975-76 contains additional small group- and
individually-administered objective-referenced tests measuring 32 preprimary
objectives.

These tests are MEAP Forms 45-76.

is the same as the 1974-75 first grade program.
is shown in APPENDIX B.

The sampling and test procedure
The complete list of test forms

APPENDIX A also provides the entire set of preprimary

objectives, subdivided into the affective, psychomotor and cognitive domains.
These domains are divided into sub-categories defined by specific behaviors.
Within each sub-category each behavior is numbered.
Teacher feedback elicited through a questionnaire enclosed in the 1974-75
test package indicated that the majority of the behaviors described In the pre­
primary objectives had already been acquired by entering first graders.

The

statewide results for the first grade educational assessment program confirmed
this teacher observation in the 75% or more of the students correctly answered
every test item for 29 of the 48 objectives.

In addition, teachers comments

about the usefulness of the information and needed improvements were requested.
Some comments were:

1) the information was useful and assessment of preprimary

objectives should continue; 2) some teachers suggested that since the majority
of entering first grade students had acquired the described behaviors, an ed­
ucational assessment of preprimary skills would be appropriate at the kinder­
garten level; 3) a further suggestion was to allow testing over a longer period
than the three weeks of the regular program.
This present study evolved from the suggestions of teachers involved in
the first year of the program.

It seemed appropriate to conduct this study in

kindergarten classrooms since many kindergarten teachers have built curricula
based upon objectives similar to the set of preprimary objectives and are al­
ready assessing student attainment of many of these skills.

Rather than limit

the assessment of preprimary objectives to only the objectives tested in the

141

Before administering any of the tests check to see that you have sufficient
quantities of the appropriate materials.

A list giving each test form and nec­

essary test materials is in APPENDIX C of this Procedural Manual.

Please note

that Form 10 will not be provided since this objective is more readily assessed
by teacher observation; the coins will not be provided for Form 26.
Part I of each MEAP Assessment Administration Manual contains general infor­
mation about the use of these tests in MEAP, some of which is not applicable to
this study.

Please ignore the comments regarding Teacher Questionnaire, testing

dates, and Return of Materials.

Part II of the MEAP Assessment Administration

Manual describes materials necessary for that specific MEAP form, number of
students to test, and specific test directions and test scripts which should be
followed exactly.

Part III of the Assessment Administration Manual explains

how to score and record student answers.

This section should be read carefully

before scoring the tests.
Student Performance Record for MEAP Test Forms
These sheets are specific to the MEAP forms.
administer one of the MEAP test forms.

They are to be used when you

In the section of this manual following

the blue index tab, there should be one Student Performance Record for each stu­
dent.

Fill out one record for each student in the participating kindergarten

section.

Space is provided to enter student responses to items for each of the

75 tests, either from student booklets or Individual tests.

The Answer Key is

printed on the back of each Student Performance Record for use in determining
whether or not a student has answered an item correctly.
The criterion for attainment of each objective is given near the bottom of
the column which indicates the number of the MEAP form.

For example, if on Form

1, a student answers eight out of the ten items correctly, the objective mea-

142

MEAP forms, the State Department of Education Is asking that teachers focus on
the entire set of preprimary objectives.
The Department Is suggesting guidelines for this process and has provided,
as one type of material, MEAP assessment instruments for teachers to use as they
feel are appropriate.

Teachers may also want to use:

other assessment Instru­

ments, teacher observation, performance and other means the teacher feels is
most suitable.

This study will extend until the end of April, allowing teachers

sufficient time to assess students on skill attainment at a rate which is com­
patible with each student's development.

A description of these modes and op­

tions available to teachers is discussed under the heading Class Roster for Re­
cording Attainment of Objectives.
The results of the kindergarten study should provide educators and Depart­
ment staff data which will be valuable in further refinement of the preprimary
pupil objectives and the educational assessment program.

The cooperative effort

by classroom teachers and the Department, through information sharing and assis­
tance, should thus improve educational programs for children.

Explanation of Materials
MEAP Test Materials
You will receive 75 of the 76 MEAP test forms, an Assessment Administration
Manual for each form, student booklets, and any additional required test materials
(beads, bean bags, cassettes, picture books, and so forth).

The principal of

your school will have these materials in sufficient quantity' to test one section
of kindergarten students (maximum 30) on all the 75 forms.

If you wish to use

the materials in another class section, you will need to duplicate the student
booklets.

Should you elect this option, the Department may be able to provide

additional student and class rosters upon request.

143

sured by Form 1 has been attained.

If a student answers four out of the five

items correctly on Form 4, the objective measured by Form 4 has been attained.
The boxes below each criterion level permit you to record the test data and a
retest date if necessary.
A recommended criterion for each MEAP form has been developed after taking
account of a) the performance of entering first graders, b) teacher comments,
c) the chances of reaching a criterion score by guessing, and d) the mastery
level that seemed desirable for entering first graders.
which do not indicate a criterion level:

There are three forms

1) Form 18 tests a child's knowledge

of the alphabet, and you may only want to record the letters the child does not
recognize; 2) Form 40 tests a child's use of color in creating a drawing, and
you may only want to count the number of colors used; and 3) Form 45 asks you
to observe a child's social behavior and notate the different kinds of social
interaction.
This Student Performance Record can serve several functions:

1) a diag­

nostic tool for future work with individuals, or groups of students, for facil­
itating instructional planning; 2) a record for conferences with parents and
educators for whom it is important to know about a particular child's progress;
and 3) a record for the principal and grade one teacher in planning further
instruction for the child.
Class Roster ~c.r recording Attainment of Objectives
These sheets are found in the section following the yellow index tab.

The

entire set of preprimary objectives appear by number as they do in APPENDIX A,
by domain, sub-category and behavior or objective number.

An X indicates that

the assessment staff has not devcjopec a test for that preprimary objective.

144

You are encouraged to assess as many of the preprimary objectives as pos­
sible, using a variety of assessment modes.

You are not expected to use only

the MEAP tests for a given objective.

We would like to know the variety of ways

a teacher appraises skill attainment.

For example, preprimary objective 2 under

Emotional Behavior in the Affective Domain can be assessed by MEAP Form 2.

You

could test some of the class with this MEAP Form and another portion of the class
by teacher observation (a different assessment mode).

There may be cases where

it is suitable to use only one assessment mode to measure attainment of an ob­
jective.

Please do not limit yourself to the MEAP forms.

When the student has attained an objective, indicate on the Class Roster
the date

(o n ly

the month) and the assessment mode.

The possible assessment modes

are to be coded as: A = MEAP test form; B = Other Tests; C = Teacher Observation;
and D = Other, as explained below.
Assessment Mode A .

If you elect to use a MEAP form and the objective mea­

sured by that form is attained (using the criterion level on the Student Perfor­
mance Record to determine attainment), record the letter A and the number indi­
cating the month.

Be sure the MEAP tests are administered as described in the

Assessment Administration Manual.
Assessment Mode B .

Some teachers have utilized other tests to assess

student progress in specific skills.

Examples of such tests are those used in

local or stare evaluation activities, commercial tests, district tests, or their
own paper-peneil tests.

This study gives you the option of utilizing these tests

at your discretion.

Thecriterion level for attainment of each objective is de­

termined by the test

used.

scuaent has attained

the objective, record the letter B and

determined the skill

wasannuities.

if youuse this assessment mode

and it indicates the
the and the month you

145

Assessment Mode C.

Many of the performances objectives are amenable to

assessment by teacher observation.

Kindergarten teachers have developed abilI
ities to observe student behaviors and assess skill attainment by observation.

If through observation, particularly over a period of time, you feel a student
has developed a specific skill and therefore has attained an objective, the
judgment of the individual teacher is an adequate criterion.

For this mode you

will record the letter C and the month you determined the skill was attained.
Assessment Mode D .

If you judge that a student has developed a specific

skill through another assessment mode, such as a student interview or by talking
with the student's parents or some technique other then MEAP tests, other tests,
or teacher observation, you should record the letter D and the month you made
this determination.

You are asked to record a description of how you make this

determination on the Administration Mode Comment Sheet which is found in the
section following the transparent index tab.
Teacher Comment Sheets
Because the kindergarten study has potential for the educational assessment
program staff to gather valuable information from teachers, we are asking that
teachers give as extensive a commentary as possible.
of the most valuable components of the study.

Teacher feedback is one

Also, this study provides a unique

opportunity for the teachers selected for this study throughout the state to pro­
vide valuable curriculum and assessment planning information to the Department,
Instead of waiting to complete the comment sheets at the end of the study
in April, you should try to comment on the MEAP forms, preprimary objectives and
special study procedures during the course of the study as ideas arise.
this, you will not forget specific comments as they occur.

By doing

Several pages headed,

Comments about Objectives, Tests and Items, are provicoa for this purpose.

They

146

will be found in the section following the transparent index tab.

You may wish

to comment directly on copies of the tests, record forms or other documents.
The Department especially invites teacher comments in five specific areas:
1) comments about this study as a helpful curriculum tool, 2) comments about this
study as a facilitative means for assessing student progress in skill attainment,
3) comments about the entire set of tests, 4) comments about specific test items,
and 5) comments about the recommended criterion levels.
If you choose other tests as an administration mode, please describe tests
you used for each objective.

If you observe a child's behavior and judge that a

student is exhibiting a particular skill, a short description of the situation
would be helpful to the MEAP staff and to curriculum and program planners.

Please

record the objective and briefly describe in greater detail the assessment pro­
cedures on the Administration Mode Comment Sheet in the section following the
transparent index tab.

Testing Procedures

Before starting an assessment of any of the objectives, you are advised to
look over the set of preprimary objectives contained in APPENDIX A for an over­
all picture of the scope of the objectives.

Please note those objectives which

are already a part of your kindergarten program and whether or not there is a
MEAP form for that objective.
Peruse the MEAP manuals noticing the different kinds of tests, to get ideas
of the manner in which various objectives can be assessed.

Check the test mater­

ials provided by your Principal with the list in APPENDIX C to make sure you have
the necessary materials.

You should not begin the study until you have read the

information in these materials.

Upon reading, if you have any questions, please

147

contact a MEAP staff member (Paula Brlctson) by writing the Department or tele­
phoning (517) 373-8393.
After reading the objectives and the MEAP manuals, write the names of the
students on the Class Roster and fill out a Student Performance Record for each
child.

The preprimary objectives which are tested more easily through observa­

tion can be assessed during a structured play situation where a teacher is able
to observe and note student behaviors.

Some skills, such as skipping and gal­

loping, might be assessed earlier in the year than, for example, the concept
"less" and "more."

Again, you should use your discretion to decide the appro­

priate time during the year for assessing.
To assist the participating teachers and answer questions, the MEAP staff
has planned two follow-up meetings with teachers, tentatively in November and
February.

These meetings will be regional and at a time convenient for teachers.

The sessions will provide an opportunity for you to share ideas with fellow
participants.

However, Department staff will be available any time throughout

the study for consultation.

The last meeting, in late April, will be a final

wrap-up session with Department staff and teachers to discuss reactions to the
study.
The teacher comment sheets should be returned to the Department with the
Class Rosters by May 1 in the envelope provided.

If school officials wish, the

rosters may be sent with the names of the students deleted.

The rosters will be

returned to you by the end of May for possible use as a diagnostic report to first
grade teachers.

The data from the rosters along with the comments from the

teachers will be compiled by MEAP staff in a report which should be available by
late September of 1976.
The Department recognizes and is highly appreciative of the work required
of participants in this project.

More importantly, the willingness of teachers

148

to be part of this study Is acknowledged as an expression of cooperation with the
Department.

Hopefully, the participants in this study will have benefited from

carefully examining and implementing an objective-based instructional and assess­
ment system.

149

EXPLANATION OF CLASS ROSTER
Below Is a representation of the Claes Roster and an explanation of codes used
for recording the assessment administration mode and date of attainment of objective.
Assessment Mode

Month

A ■ MEAP Test

9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4

B - Other Tests
C - Teacher Observation
D - Other

Student Name
1

MEAP Test Form

1

Pre-Primary Ob).

1

Susan Adams

^

4
2

Tom Johnson

S ’'

3

S

4

/

'S

'

m
m
m
-

September
October
November
December
January
February
March
■* April

Emotional Behavior
2
X
2/

3

4

X

X

X

5

6

7

10
/
10
/
/

> j

/
/
/

/
Above the diagonal, record the assessment mode as Indicated above, either A, B,
C or D
/
Below the diagonal, record the month the objective is attained; for November record
11, December 12, etc.
/
Opposite the student Tom, under MEAP l^est Form 1, and Pre-Primary Objective 1, the
indicates the Assessment Mode, (MEAP Test Form); and 10 indicates the month the ob­
jective was attained, October.
^
An X indicates there is no MEAP test form.

150
CUSS ROSTER

ASSESSMENT MODE
A “ MEAP Tests
B “ Other Teats
C “ Teacher Observatloa
D ■ Other

Teacher _
School
AFFECTIVE

Emotional Behavior
STUDENT

NAME

Praprimary Ob)

District

Self Concept

Social
Relationships

151

EXPLANATION OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE RECORD
Below is a representation of the Student Performance Record and an explanation
for recording student attainment of Items.
MEAP

FORM

1
2

3
A

u
<
0

1

5

35

8

9
10

Criterion
Date
Date
Check the student responses with the key on the back of the student roster. Make
an X In each box corresponding to the ltem(e) the student has answered correctly
and record the date of the test. In the sample above for MEAP Form 51, the stu­
dent answered items 1, 3, and A correctly, in November. However, the criterion
for attainment of Form 51 is 6 items correct. Therefore, the student did not at­
tain this objective and you would not record objective attainment on the Class
Roster. When you retest Form 51, perhaps in February, and the student answers
all 6 items correctly, fill in all item boxes m
and record the month In the
date box t 2 ? . At this point the results can be transferred to the Class Roster
as:
> "A" - HEAP Test form (the administration mode), and "2" meaning Feb­
ruary, the month the objective was attained.
For MEAP form 53, items 1, 2, A, 5, 6, 7, 6 and 9 were answered correctly by
the student in October. Since the criterion for attainment is 6 items correct,
the student has attained that objective in October. Record the results on the
Class Roster: Lff"7o| , "A" - MEAP Test form (the administration mode), and "10"
meaning October, the month the objective was attained.

152

Please note that KjWP Forifa 7 and g measure two preprimary objective* each,
and that Po?p 19 measures thf e.s*opja^hfyajil Hie student roster is designed so
that you can determine if a cjiiU ^e'mastered each obj^ct^ve:

Form

Item

7
7
S
8
19
19
19

1
2

1
2
1
2
3

Preprfmpry Objective No.
proas Kotor - J.
Gross Kofqr - 3
Gross Motor - 2
Gross Motor - 6
_ Language Development - 16
Number.Numeration - 5
Language Development - 17

When a student attains any of these skills, this should be recorded under the
appropriate column on the Class Roster. For instance, a student may be able to
recognize his name (Form 19, item 1) but not print his name (Form 19, item 3).
You would then record attainment on the Class Roster under the appropriate column
(MEAP Form 19, which measures the Preprimary Objective' - Language Development 18).

MEAP Forms

on

I I 21 31 41 SI 61 7

MEAP Forms
46 1 7

«

Criterion

X

6

S

6

4

X

3

3

Student Performance Record for M3AP Test Poms.

Criterion

MEAP Forms

p.

U

E

1

Criterion
Date
Date

2

6

1

1

8

4

1

4

8

3

4

5

4

4

8

IS -

5

If the student answers the Item correctly fill in the box
If the student falls to answer the Item correctly leave the box empty

4

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

2

4

_

Answer Key

Ten

T t lt

CeTKt bMr

Fa** #
It™

1

7

1

4

5

6

7

Fara I
8

9

T«at

C o rm tt k m t r

raml
Itaw

10

1 t

JSSSLiSSL
1 4 t I 7 ■ f to

B.
SJ.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.

11111

59.

60.
61.
67,
67.

.

66
7

P

P

P

65.
65.
67.

66.
70.

s«*o 0

-

69.

1 1

71.
71.
71.
76.
75.
75.

P
P

P

P

P

P

4

155

Kindergarten Special Study

'

■

1975-76

Comments About Objectives. Teata & Items

Objective:

Area:

Psychomotor

Affective

Sub-Area _____________________
Is this comment concerning?:

Objective:

Area:

Psychomotor

Cognitive
Objective Number

____________

Objective

_____________

MEAP Test or Test Items

____________

Other

Affective

Sub-Area

________

Test No.

Cognitive
Objective Number

Is this comment concerning?:

Objective
MEAP Test or Test Items

Test No,

Other

Objective:

Area:

Paychomotor

Affective

Sub-Area
Is this comment concerning?:

Cognitive
Objective Number

____________

Objective

___________

MEAP Test or Test Items
Other

Test No.

Objective:

Sub-area & Humber

Administration Mode

Sub-area 6 Humber

Administration Mode

Sub-area & Humber

Administration Mode

Comments

Objective:

Comments

156

Objective:

Comments

u

ES

H

Objective:

Comments

Sub-area & Humber

Administration Mode

157

Appendix A

Experimental
Ed it io n

TENTATIVE
PREPRI MARY

OBJECTIVES

EDUCATI ON

IN

Michigan Department of Education
1975

FOR
MI CHI GAN

158

AITEGTIVE OBJECTIVES FOR PREPRIMARY STUDENTS

A.

MEAP
Form

Test
Type*

Nucher

IIm otiom il Behavior
ent*
preprim ary exp e rien ce , students should bo
a b le to dem onstrate the fo llo w in g behaviors as m easured by
teacher observation a n d /o r o b je c tiv e referenced instrum ents;

1

G

1. Recognize a t-le a s t three o f fiv e b asic em otions (fe a r, a n g er,
sadness, jo y , love) in s e lf and others;

2

G

2 . Recognize some b a sic causes o f fa m ilia r em otional
responses ( e . g . , sad, happy, a n g ry, e t c .) ;
3.

Begin to show empathy fo r, and aw areness o f, the fe e lin g s ,
n eed s, and desires o f others;

4.

Aertivcly express fe e lin g s nonverbally;

5.

B.

D is p la y a greater a b ility to v e rb a liz e a ffe c tiv e e x p e ri­
ences ( e . g . , p o s itiv e and negative fe e lin g s , w an ts ,
v a lu e s , c o n flic ts , e t c .) ;

6.

D is p la y an increased repertoire o f b ehavioral responses
by w hich to solve a ffe c tiv e problems ( e .g . , crea te th e ir
own solu tio n s; seek help from p a ren ts, teach ers, and
others; g iv e help to other children; e t c .) ;

7.

G iven s itu atio n s in w hich g ra tific a tio n must be d e lay e d ,
dem onstrate increased a b ility to accept Imposed d e lay and
to regulate behavior a p p ro p ria te ly .

S elf-C o n c e pt
By the end of the preprim ary e x p e rie n c e , students should be a b le
to demonstrate the fo llo w in g behaviors as measured by teacher
o bservation a n d /o r o b je c tiv e referenced instrum ents:
1.

An increase in p o s itiv e s e lf-im a g e ;

2.

G iven ro le -p la y in g and r e a l- lif e s itu a tio n s , w i ll dem onstrate
an increased aw areness o: th e ir re la tio n s h ip to their fam ily
and to the w id e r community and environm ent.

3.

G iven ro le -p la y in g and r e a i- lif e s itu a tio n s , w ill demon­
strate an increased aw areness of ra c ia l and c u ltu ra l
s im ila ritie s and d iffe re n ce s ;

* Li is group administered; I is individually administered

159

MLAP
Form

T # lt
Typ«

Nunber
4,

An increased understanding of the concept of s e x u a lity

( i . e . , recognise th e ir sexual id e n tific a tio n , ere com fort­
a b le w ith own s e x u a lity and the s e x u a lity of others);

C.

5,

G iven ro le -p la y in g and r e a l- lif e s itu a tio n s , w i ll demon­
strate a h e a lth y , s e lf-re s p e c tin g a ttitu d e toward th e ir
bodies and its sim ple p h y sio lo g ic al functions;

6,

G iven various roles to p la y (such as o c cu p a tio n a l,
p a re n ta l, e m o tio n al, c u ltu ra l, or s itu a tio n a l) w i ll demon­
strate aw areness and s e n s itiv ity for these ro le s .

S ocial R e la tionships
By the end o f the preprim ary exp e rien ce , students should be a b le
to demonstrate the follow ing behaviors as measured by teacher
o b servatio n a n d /o r o b je c tiv e referenced instrum ents:

45

I

1.

2.

W iden peer and a d u lt re la tio n s h ip s by dem onstrating
increased a b ility to p la y w ith one or more c h ild re n and
to re la te to a larger group;
1 .1

An increased c a p a c ity to cope w ith strange a n d /o r
new surroundings and w ith fa m ilia r and u n fa m ilia r
people;

1 .2

An increased a b ility to seek help from others when
needed and when appropriate.

Begin developing s o c ia l interdependence by e x h ib itin g an
Increased aw areness o f the im portance of g iv e -a n d -ta k e in
s o c ia l and w ork re la tio n s h ip s;
2 .1

E xhibit evidence that they are accepting of d iffe re n ce s
in others;

2 .2

Dem onstrate th e ir a b ility to lis te n to others;

2 .3

Exhibit the q u a lity of sharing w ith others;

2 .4

Dem onstrate that they have learned to ask perm ission
to use objects belonging to another person;

2 .5

Dem onstrate that they can recognize cause and e ffe c t
in the behavior o f o th e rs , and the e ffe c ts of their
behavior on others;

2 .6

Exhibit g reater p a rtic ip a tio n in a c tiv itie s and in
com m unication w ith others.

160

MEAP
Form
Number

Test
Type

3

I

IJ,

3.

Id e n tify s e v e ra l w orkers from d iffe re n t o ccu p atio n al areas
in the comm unity and t e ll something about th e ir work;

4.

Name some o f the people children learn from and w h a t
they learn from them;

5.

P artic ip a te in d e c is io n -m a k in g s itu atio n s { e . g . , make
personal or group rules for classroom b e h av io r, e t c . ) .

Uoh.iWoraI. Hosponsn to C lassroom hnvironmtMil
l)y th e e n d o f I In; p rn p rJ m n ry e x p e r ie n c e , s t in li- n l:; rih o u h l in*
• ih li; to d e m o n s tra te Hit; lo llo w in g h u h a v fo rs .is m c -.is u rc il b y

teacher o bservation a n d /o r o b je c tiv e referenced Instrum ents;

4

4b

1

G

3

1.

W illin g n e s s to a ccep t reasonable lim its set upon b e h av io r,
p lay s p ac e , use of m a te ria ls , or the type of a c tiv itie s
in w hich engaged;

2.

Acceptance o f routines ( e . g . , d a ily s ch e d u le s, room
arrangem ents, a d u lts , e tc .) and changes in routines;

.

C ooperation and Independence (w ith o u t help or demon­
stration) In fo llo w in g verbal d irec tio n s for three or more
s eq u en tial instructions;

4.

In rrr-.im -d Ind e p e n d e n ce - in Ih o .ir e .is o l p e r s o n .il h y r ic iu - ,
'M l l r i q , .u id d ie s s ln q ;

5.

Increased a b ility to independently b e g in , work through,
and continue an a c tiv ity ;

6.

Increased a b ility to a c c e p t re s p o n s ib ility for the use and
care o f their portion of the classroom environm ent.

161

MEAP
Fora

Number

Test
TVP®

PSyCBOMOtOR OBJECTIVES POh PREPRIMARY STUDENTS
A. titU:;:; Molpr (J&hjiyjlpr
My Ihi; end of the preprim ary e xp e rien ce , students should be ab le
to demons ira te the follow ing behaviors as measured by teacher
o b servatio n and/or o b je c tiv e referenced Instrum ents:

7

I

1. Balance w h ile w alk in g ( e . g . , w ill be a b le to w a lk a t
le a s t ten fe e t on a s tra ig h t th re e -in c h taped lin e w ith o u t
stepping co m p letely o ff the tine w ith e ith e r foot);

8

1

2 . Balance w h ile running ( e . g . , w i l l be a b le to run to a
target p laced no more than tw enty fe e t aw ay w ith o u t
stopping or veering o ff a path approxim ately fiv e feet
w id e);

7

I

3 . M u s c le coordination ( e . g . , w i ll be a b le to lump w ith
:*oth foot risin g together o ver a th re e -In c h taped lin e);

47

G

4 . M u s c le coordination and balance ( e . g . , w ill
hop three co n se c u tiv e times using one foot);

48

®

5 . E y e -fo o t m uscle coordination and balance ( e . g . , w i l l be
a b le to k ic k a te n -in c h b a ll w ith o u t losing his balance
or fa llin g );

8

I

6

*

9

j

able to

. E ye-hand coordination ( e . g . , given a bushel b asket
tilte d toward him a t a 4 5-d eg re e angle and p laced four
fe e t in front o f him, the c h ild w ilt throw a bean bag
Into the basket);

7 , Touch or move parts o f the body ( e . g . , head, arm s, e lb o w s ,
hands, le g s , k n ee s , feet) c a lle d for by the teacher;
9.

49

bn

Free body movement by p h y s ic a lly responding to m u s ic ,
song, rhythm , a n d /o r rhymes;

9 . Leg coordination ( e . g . , w i ll be a b le to s k ip or g a llo p ,
leading w ith the preferred foot).

q

B.

F ine M o to r Behavior
By the end o f the preprim ary e x p e rie n c e , students should be a b le
to dem onstrate the follow ing behaviors as measured by teacher
observation a n d /o r o b je c tiv e referenced instrum ents:

162

MEAP
Form

Test
Type

Number
10

1.

D ig ita l coordination ( e . g . , p la c e a th re e -q u a rte r-In c h
button through a o n c -in c h button ho le);

50

2.

D ig ita l coordination ( e . g . , by being a b le to p la ce ten
s m all o n e -h a lf-in c h beads on a lacing string);

51

3.

Lye-hand coordination ( e . g . , g iven a te n -m in u te tim e
lim it, w i ll be able to put together a sim ple p u z z le of
fiv e to e ig h t p ie ce s );

52

4.

Thum b-finger coordination ( e . g . , given a p a ir o f c h ild ’ s
scissors and a strip of o n e -in c h by s ix -in c h construc­
tion p a p er, can make c le a n cuts three times in fiv e
attem pts w ith o u t folding or tearing the paper);

53

5.

E ye-hand coordination ( e . g . , given a large crayon and
a t le a s t a tw o -in c h model o f a c ir c le , w ill be a b le to
copy the model In such a manner th at the curved lin e
c lo se s );

.

E ye-hand coordination and la te ra l movement ( e . g . ,
given a large crayon and a t le a s t a tw o -in ch model of
two in te rse c tin g lin e s , w i ll be a b le to copy the lin es
so that ihoy in te rse c t in some manner);
*

11

6

54

7.

Improved e ye -h a n d coordination ( e . g . , given m a te ria ls
such as interlocking blocks or other a v a ila b le sm all
b lo c k s , w i ll be a b le to build a s ta b le e ig h t-p ie c e
v e rtic a l structure or d esig n ).

163

MiAP

Form
Ntxnber

T«t
Type

COGNITIVE OBJECTIVES FOR PREPRIMARY STUDENTS
A,

Langua ge D evelopm ent
By the end o f the preprim ary e x p e rie n c e , students should be
a b le to dem onstrate the fo llo w in g behaviors as measured by
teacher o b servatio n a n d /o r o b je c tiv e referenced Instrum ents:
1.

.

55

I

2

12

I

3.

56

G

13

Enjoyment in looking a t books and llstn n ln q to s to ries ;
Produce p ic tu res a n d /o r s crib b les o f own c re a tio n which
are used as a basis for com m unication;
Listen and re a c t to a nother's oral language;

4.

G iven an o ra l story w hich expresses a mood (e .g . , happy,
sad, a n g ry, a fra id ), w i l l id e n tify the c h a ra c te ris tic mood
of the story;

5.

G iven an oral stim ulus requiring a s p e c ific b o d ily response
( e . g . , the game "Simon S ay s "), w i l l provide the appro­
p ria te response;

ft
6

14

57

G

15

G

16

17

I

.

Talk about a p ictu re or a group o f tw o or three re la te d
p ictu res;

7.

T e ll about personal experiences;

0.

D is tin g u is h environm ental sounds they hear ( e . g . , tra ffic
sounds, dog barkin g , baby c ry in g , e t c .) ;

9 . G iven three s in g le s y lla b ic sounds, two o f w hich rhym e,
w i ll s e le c t the two w hich rhyme;
10.

Express an idea or ask a question o ra lly of another person
( e . g . , e x p la in in g how a toy w o rk s /a s k in g how a toy w orks);

11.

G iven a sm all group s itu a tio n , w i ll share own Ideas and
lis te n to the ideas o f others;

12.

Talk about the fe e lin g s a s s o c ia te d w ith even ts;

13.

N o n -v e rb a lly Im itate or r o le -p la y the sim ple a c tio n of
people or an im als;

14. Name like n e ss e s and d iffe re n c e s in p ic tu re s , o b je c ts ,
and shapes;

164

MEAP

Test

Form
Nisnber

typo

18

1

58

I

19

I

17.

Print fir s t name c o rrec tly ;

19

Z

1 8.

Recognize firs t nam e.

I 1*.
16.

B.

Recognize some lette rs of the a lp habet;
G iven a sequence o f pictu res portraying a s to ry , w i ll
te ll about the story by responding a p p ro p riately to each
picture;

C la s s ific a ti on and Ordering
By the end o f the preprim ary e x p e rien ce , students should be
a b le to dem onstrate the fo llo w in g behaviors as measured by
teacher observation a n d /o r o b je c tiv e referenced instrum ents:

59

1

1.

G ive n two kinds o f o b je c ts In a large s et ( e . g . , elbow
and s h e ll macaroni or b o ttle caps and c h e c k e rs ), w i ll
sort the objects into two sets according to th e ir separate
c h a ra c te ris tic s ;

20

G

2.

G iven an o b je c t o f a s p e c ific c o lo r, w ill p ic k an o b je c t
w h ich Is o f the same color;

21

G

3

.

Group Items on the basis o f common function ( e . g . ,
things to e a t w ith , things to w e a r, things to p la y w ith ,
e t c .) ;

22

G

4.

Group items on the basis o f a s s o c ia tio n ( e . g . , hammer
and n a il, shoe and fo o t, e tc .) ;

5.

Id e n tify and group Item s on the basis of general classes
or categories (such as fu rn itu re , a n im a ts , p la n ts , e tc .) ;

.

G iven Item s o f common q u a litie s ( e . g . , te x tu re , w e ig h t,
loudness, speed, tem perature, c o lo r), w i ll group and
match items on the b a sis o f these q u a litie s and be
exp ected to know and use a t le a s t two o f the com para­
tiv e terms ( e . g . , s o ft-h a rd , lo u d -q u ie t, fa s t-s lo w ,
sm ooth-rough, h o t-c o ld , d a r k -lig h t, h e a v y -lig h t) to
Id e n tify the groupings;

23
60

G

6

61

G

7,

24

G

8

.

G iven a pattern using objects of two or more c o lo rs , w ill
d u p lic a te the pattern s e le c tin g from a set o f s im ila r o b je cts;
G iven a set o f ten objects of assorted color and shape,
w i l l p ic k out objects having s p e c ific com binations of
the two a ttrib u te s ;

165

NEAP

Tost

Pozv
Number

Typo

25

I

9.

10.

C.

G iven one series o f three o b je cts arranged in a pattern
by color or shape and the firs t o b je c t o f the second s e rie s ,
w ilt com plete the second pattern series;
G iven a v a rie ty o f o b je c ts , w i ll group some of the objects
Into a c la s s ific a tio n system according to their own
p e rc e p tio n s ,

Number - num eration
By the end o f the preprim ary e x p e rie n c e , students should be
a b le to dem onstrate the follow ing behaviors as measured by
teacher observation a n d /o r o b je c tiv e referenced Instrum ents:

26

I

1.

G iven a s e t o f coins o f a penny, n ic k e l, dim e, w i ll p ick
and name each one;

27

G

2.

G iven a c o lle c tio n o f fiv e o b je cts o f varying len gths, w ill
pick up the longest or the shortest as requested;

62

q

3.

G iven a s e t of fiv e pictures o f o b jects o f various h eights,
w ill arrange the p ic tu res so that the objects are ordered
from shortest to ta lle s t;

26

I

19

I

5.

63

G

6

29

q

4.

G iven two objects o f d e c id e d ly d iffe re n t w e ig h ts , w ill
hand to the teacher the one that Is heavy or the one that
is lig h t as requested;
G iven the directio n s "count to ten" w i ll re c ite the number
names from one through ten in the usual order;

, G iven an oral d e sc rip tio n of a s e t and a c o lle c tio n of
o b je c ts , some of w hich belong to the set and some o f
w hich do n o t, w i ll p ick up the objects that are members
of the g iven set;

7 . G iven c u t pictures o f a n y two sets (from one to fiv e
m em bers), w i ll p la c e the pictures o f the sets in order,
from that s e t w ith less members to that set w ith more
members; then, w i ll order the s e t p ictures from more to
less;
8

.

G iven numeral cards 1 through 5 and fiv e sets o f objects
c o n sis tin g o f one, tw o, three, four and fiv e m em bers, w ill
place the sets in s e q u e n tia l order from the s et w ith fewest'
4 0 the s et w ith the most and then w i ll p la ce the numeral
cards in front o f the s e t having the number o f members
named by the numeral;

166

NEAP Test
Form Type
Nimber
64

I

3.

30

G

10.

31

I

11.

G iven dot pattern cards showing sets of 0 to 10 d o ts, w ill
count w h ile pointing to the appropriate dot card;

65

G

12.

G iven a set of 2 to 8 o b je c ts , the s tu d e n t, from his own
group of more than 8 o b jects w ill construct a s et having
more members than the o rig in a l set;

66

G

13.

G iven a set o f 2 to 8 o b je c ts , the stu d en t, from his own
group of objects w ill c onstruct a s e t h a v in g fewer
members than the o rig in al set;

32

I

14.

G iven an assortm ent of cutout shapes including squares,
tria n g le s , rectangles and c irc le s of various s ize s randomly
arranged, w ill s e le c t a given shape as requested.

D.

G iven a s et o f objects w ith 1 to 9 members, w i l l count
the members o f the s e t and s ta te the c a rd in a l number of
that set;
G ivnn pictures of sct9 w ith 0 to 9 objects and number
■ards from 0 to 9 (using fe lt n u m erals,sin d p ap er num erals),
w ill match the right num eral w ith the picture of the set
having the same number of members;

S p atial Relations
By the end o f ihe preprim ary exp e rien ce , students should be
a b le to demonstrate the follow ing behaviors as measured by
teacher observation a n d /o r o b je c tiv e referenced instrum ents:
1.

Id e n tify and name the follow ing parts of the body:
arm s, hands, torso, legs and feet;

head,

67

I

33

G

2.

Knowledge of concepts o; positio n (such as o n -o ff, o v e ru n d e r, on top o f, in -o u t, in to -o u t o f, top-b o tto m , in
front o f-in back o f, behind, b e s id e -n e x t to, by betw een);

34

G

3.

Knowledge of concepts of d irectio n (such as up-do w n,
a ro und-throu gh, fo rw a rc -o a c k w a rd , to -fro m , s id e w a y s ,
across);

35

G

4.

Knowledge o( concept:,
c lo se to -ta r ir o n ).

f**

d is tan ce (such as n e a r-fa r,

l£*rE9f'_!i lifdaUpns
By the e n d of the pruprmiuc/ exfujii^nce, students s h o u l d h e able
to d e m o n s t r a t e the tcllowns, .,ihaviors us m e a s u r e d b y teacher
o b s e r v a t i o n a n d / o r oujnctiv..
a-reiiced Instruments:

167

MEAP Test
Form Typo
Nuaber

F.

1.

A b i l i t y to f o llo w te m p o ra l c o m m a n d s (s u c h a s g o , s to p ,
- it th e s a m e tim e , n o w , s t a r t , f in is h ) ;

2,

U n d e r s ta n d in g o f tim e in t e r v a ls (s u c h a s b e g ln n ln g - e n d ,
fa s t- s lo w ) .

N a tu r a l S c ie n c e s
By th e e n d o f th e p r e p r im a r y e x p e r ie n c e , s tu d e n ts s h o u ld be
a b le to d e m o n s tra te th e f o llo w in g b e h a v io rs a s m e a s u re d b y
te a c h e r o b s e r v a tio n a n d / o r o b je c t iv e re fe r e n c e d in s tr u m e n ts :

36

G

68

I

37

I

38

G

69

39

G

1,

G iv e n o b je c t s o f v a r io u s p rim a ry c o lo r s (re d , b lu e a n d
y e llo w ) , w i l l be a b le to c o r r e c t ly I d e n t if y th e c o lo r s ;

2.

G iv e n a n o b je c t to e x a m in e u s in g t h e ir s e n s e s o f s ig h t ,
s o u n d , s m e ll, ta s t e , a n d to u c h , w i l l e x h ib it th e a b i l i t y
to d e s c r ib e c e r t a in c h a r a c t e r is t ic s (s u c h a s s i z e , c o lo r ,
w e ig h t , t e x tu r e , te m p e ra tu re , o d o r , e t c . ) ;

3.

G iv e n a n o b je c t (o r p ic tu r e o f a n o b je c t ) , w i l l d e s c r ib e
v e r b a lly b y n a m in g a t le a s t tw o c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f th e
o b je c t ( e . g . , g iv e n a ru b b e r b a i l , th e s t u d e n t w i l l g iv e
tw o o f th e p r o p e r tie s , s u c h a s c o lo r , s h a p e (ro u n d ),
d e n s it y ( lig h t ) , e l a s t i c i t y ( b o u n c y ) , s iz e ( s m a lle r th a n
m y h a n d ), te m p e ra tu re ( c o o l) , te x tu r e (s m o o th );

4.

G iv e n a s e t o f o b je c ts o r e v e n ts , w i l l a rra n g e them in
s e q u e n c e In a c c o rd a n c e w it h p r e s c r ib e d c r it e r ia ( e . g . ,
g iv e n s e p a ra te p ic tu r e s o f a d o g a n d a p u p p y o r a flo w e r
a n d som e s e e d s , th e s tu d e n t w i l l a rra n g e them in p ro p e r
o r d e r);

5.

G iv e n a n o b je c t o r p ic tu r e w h ic h c h a n g e s w it h s u c c e s s iv e
o b s e r v a t io n s , w i l l s ta te a t le a s t o n e o f th e p r o p e r tie s
vvhich is c h a n g in g ( e . g . , th e s tu d e n t ta s te s a s a m p le o f
u n b a k e d c o o k ie d o u g h a n d a s a m p le o f a c o o k ie m ade
fro m th e sa m e d o u g h a n d d e s c r ib e s w h a t c h a n g e d in th e
b a k in g (h a rd n e s s , t e x tu r e , c o lo r , t a s te , s m e ll) ;

6.

G iv e n a m a g n ify in g g la s s a n d a n o b je c t o r o rg a n is m w it h
s o m e c h a r a c t e r is t ic n o t v i s i b l e w it h o u t a le n s , c a n
o b s e rv e th e o b je c t o r s p e c im e n w it h th e te n s a n d i d e n t if y
a t le a s t o n e o f th e c h a r a c t e r is t ic s .

7.

G iv e n a p ic t u r e o r g ro u p o f p ic tu r e s s h o w in g ite m s w h ic h
c o m p r is e b o th l iv e a n a n o n - llv e t h in g s , c a n p o in t to
e x a m p le s o f l iv in g a n d n o n - liv in g th in g s .

168

>EAP
Form
Number

Test
Typo
G.

S afety
B y th e e n d o f th e p re p rim a ry e x p e r ie n c e , s tu d e n ts s h o u ld
be a b le to d e m o n s tra te th e f o llo w in g b e h a v io rs a s m e a s u re d
b y te a c h e r o b s e r v a tio n a n d / o r o b je c t iv e r e fe r e n c e d In s tr u m e n ts :

H.

1.

A w a re n e s s o f co m m on h a z a rd s e n c o u n te re d In d a l l y li v i n g
( e . g . , t o x ic h o u s e h o ld c h e m ic a ls o r s u b s ta n c e s , e l e c t r i ­
c i t y , t o x ic p la n t s , e x p lo s iv e a n d c o m b u s tib le s u b s ta n c e s ,
e tc .);

2.

A d h e re to s a f e t y ru le s in th e h o m e , to a n d fro m s c h o o l,
a n d In th e s c h o o l;

3.

P e rfo rm s a f e ly a s p e d e s tr ia n s , a s p a s s e n g e rs in m o to r
v e h ic le s , a n d a s t r i c y c l e o p e r a to r s .

F in e A rts
A r t:
T he J o y in c r e a t iv it y s h o u ld be e m p h a s iz e d th ro u g h o u t a l l fin e
a r t s in s t r u c t io n . T he p ro c e s s Is m o re Im p o rta n t th a n th e
p r o d u c t . By th e e n d o f th e p r e p r im a r y e x p e r ie n c e , s tu d e n ts
s h o u ld be a b le to d e m o n s tra te th e f o llo w in g b e h a v io rs a s
m e a s u re d b y te a c h e r o b s e r v a tio n a n d / o r o b je c t iv e re fe re n c e d
In s tr u m e n ts :
1.

P le a s u re a n d e n jo y m e n t in a v a r ie t y o f a r t e x p e r ie n c e s ;

2.

U s e a v a r ie t y o f m e d ia (s u c h a s p a in t , c r a y o n s , fin g e r
p a in t , f e l t m a r k e r s , e t c . ) ;

3.

C r e a te t w o - a n d t h r e e - d im e n s io n a l fo rm s u s in g a v a r ie t y
o f m a n ip u la tiv e m a te r ia ls (s u c h a s c l a y , p a p e r - m a c h e ,
b lo c k s , e t c . ) ;

4.

R e c o g n iz e c o lo r in th e n a tu r a l e n v iro n m e n t a n d in the
m a n -m a d e e n v iro n m e n t;

40

G

5.

U s e a v a r ie t y o f c o lo r in th e p r o d u c tio n o f a rt;

41

G

6.

R e c o g n iz e t h a t lin e s d e fin e s p a c e ( e . g . , u s e s lin e in
a v a r ie t y o f w a y s to e x p re s s le n g th , s iz e , o r s h a p e ):

42

G

7.

R e c o g n iz e th e d ir e c t io n o f lin e ( e . g . , d o w n , s la n t e d ,
o v e r, a c ro s s , e tc .) ;

169

MLAP
F ora

Test
Type

.M'mbcr
45

G

70

G

ii.

I d e n t if y th e c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f lin e ( e . g . , f a t , t h in ,
w in d in g , c lim b in g , e t c . ) ;

9.

U se

10.

D is t in g u is h b e tw e e n t w o - a n d th r e e - d im e n s io n a l fo rm s ;

<1

v a r ie t y o f lin e s in h is a r t a c t i v i t i e s ;

11.

D e v e lo p c o m p o s itio n s u s in g s iz e , S h a p e , d ir e c t io n ,
o v e r la p p in g s h a p e s a n d / o r r e p e t it io n ;

12.

U s e a c o m b in a tio n o f v a r io u s te x tu r e s in a r t fo rm s ;

13.

R e c o g n iz e d iffe r e n c e s in h is a r t w o r k ( e . g . , s iz e , s u r fa c e ,
p a r ts o f o b je c t s , s h a p e , te x t u r e , e t c . ) ;

14.

U s e f l a t , c u r v e d a n d ir r e g u la r s u r fa c e s in p r o d u c in g
t h r e e - d im e n s io n a l fo r m s .

M u s ic :
By th e e n d o f th e p r e p r im a r y e x p e r ie n c e , s tu d e n ts s h o u ld he
a b le to d e m o n s tra te th e f o llo w in g b e h a v io rs a s m e a s u re d by
te a c h e r o b s e r v a tio n a n d / o r o b je c t iv e re fe re n c e d in s tr u m e n ts ;

71

I

1 . C re a te m u s ic o n a v a r ie t y o f c la s s r o o m in s tr u m e n ts ;

2.

F r e e ly e x p r e s s th e m o o d o f m u s ic th ro u g h b o d y m o v o m e n t;

44

G

3 , T h ro u g h p h y s ic a l m o v e m e n ts ( e . g . , c la p , m a rc h , w a lk ,
r u n , p la y rh y th m In s tru m e n t) d e m o n s tra te h is a b i l i t y to
re s p o n d r h y t h m ic a lly to p u ls e o r b e a t in m u s ic ;

72

I

4 . R e p e a t a v e r y s im p le r h y th m , in d i v i d u a ll y o r in a g ro u p
( e . g . , s in g in g , c h a n t in g , s p e a k in g , c la p p in g , u s in g
rh y th m in s tr u m e n ts ) ;

73

G

5.

P a r t ic ip a t e w it h a g ro u p In s in g in g s im p le , f a m ilia r
m e lo d ie s ;

75

I

6.

U p o n h e a r in g m u s ic ,
m oves up o r dow n;

76

I

7.

U p o n h e a r in g m u s ic , w i l l r e c o g n iz e f a s t a n d s lo w te m p o s ;

74

G

8.

D is t in g u is h b e tw e e n lo n g a n d s h o r t to n e s .

w i l l r e c o g n iz e w h e th e r a m e lo d y

A e s t h e t i c A p p re c i a t io n
By th e end o f th e p r e p r im a r y e x p e r ie n c e , s tu d e n ts s h o u ld h*>
a b le to d e m o n s tra te th e f o llo w in g b e h a v io rs o s m e a s u re d b y
te a c h e r o b s e r v a tio n a n d / o r o b je c t iv e re fe re n c e d In s tr u m e n ts :
1.

B e g in to d e v e lo p a e s t h e t ic a p p r e c ia tio n b y re s p o n d in g
e m o t io n a lly , th ro u g h n o n - d ir e c t e d , s p o n ta n e o u s s e l f e x p r e s s io n ( d r a w in g , p a in t in g , m o v e m e n t, s e lf - r e p o r t ) ,
to m o o d s a n d f e e lin g s in a r t , m u s ic , m o v e m e n t, d ra m a ,
p o e t r y , p ro s e a n d n a tu re ;

2.

B e g in to re c o g n iz e the b e a u ty o r a e s t h e t ic q u a lit ie s o f
h is o w n w o r k as w e l l a s th e w o r k o f o th e r s ;

3.

V a lu e h is a r t e x p e r ie n c e ( e . g . , fe e ls c o m fo r ta b le w it h
a r t a c t i v i t i e s , w i l l i n g l y p a r t ic ip a t e s in a r t a c t i v i t i e s ,
e x p r e s s e s p e r s o n a l s a t is f a c t io n w it h a r t a c t i v i t i e s ,
v o lu n t a r ily e le c t s to re p e a t th e a r t e x p e r ie n c e , d e m o n ­
s t r a te s p r id e in a r t w o r k , e x p r e s s e s h im s e lf th ro u g h
c o lo r , e t c . ) ;

4.

D u r in g a n a r t a c t i v i t y , w i l l v o lu n t a r ily u s e a v a r ie t y o f
p a tte r n s a n d b o th t w o - a n d th r e e - d im e n s io n a l fo rm s ;

5.

I n d ic a t e a p re fe r e n c e f o r c e r t a in te x tu r e s in th e d a il y
a r t e x p e r ie n c e ;

6.

R e a c t to m u s ic a l e x p e r ie n c e b y v o lu n t a r ily r e s p o n d in g in
o u t - o f - s c h o o l s it u a t io n s ( e . g . , d is c u s s e s m u s ic c la s s
h a p p e n in g s , s in g s s o n g s le a rn e d a t s c h o o l, c h o o s e s to
lis t e n to m u s ic p ro g ra m s o n r a d io , t e le v is io n , e t c . ) ;

7.

R e a c t to m u s ic a l e x p e r ie n c e b y v o lu n t a r ily re s p o n d in g
d u rin g s c h o o l ( e . g . , e x p re s s e s a r e a c tio n w h e n i t is
tim e fo r m u s ic , jo in s in q u ic k ly , f r e e ly , o r s lo w ly w h e n
m u s ic a l a c t i v i t i e s b e g in , e x p r e s s e s r e a c tio n s to th e
m u s ic c la s s d u rin g c la s s t im e o r w h e n i t h a s e n d e d ,
ir in g s a fa v o r it e re c o rd to s c h o o l, s e e k s o p p o r tu n itie s
to p ia y c la s s r o o m in s tr u m e n ts , e t c .

171

Appendix B

Michigan Department of Education
Preprimary Objective Tests

7
7
8
8

9

11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
19
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

_________ Short Title___________________
Recognizing Emotions
Recognizing Causes of Emotions
Identifying Occupations
Following Sequential Instructions
Recognizing Safety Hazards
Recognizing Safe Procedures
Walking Balance
Jumping Coordination
Running Balance
Throwing Coordination
Moving Body Parts
Copying Intersecting Lines
Reacting to Oral Language
Following Instructions
Talking About Pictures
Selecting Rhyming Syllables
Imitating Simple Non-verbal Actions
Naming Likenesses and Differences
Recognize Some Letters of the Alphabet
Printing Your First Name
Recognizing Your First Name
Counting to Ten
Matching by Color
Grouping by Function
Grouping by Association
Grouping by General Class
Selecting Objects of Specified Color and Shape
Duplicating a Pattern Series
Naming Coins
Identifying Longest and Shortest
Selecting Light or Heavy Objects
Ordering Sets
Matching Sets to Numerals
Counting Dot Pattern Cards
Selecting Shapes
Recognizing Positions of Objects
Recognizing Direction of Motion
Recognizing Distance
Identifying Primary Colors
Describing Objects
Putting Events in Sequence
Identifying Living or Non-Living Objects
Using Color in Artwork
Recognizing that Lines Define Space
Recognizing Line Direction
Identifying Characteristics of Linos

Preprim ary O b je c tiv e T e sts

Fonp
N u n b e r ______________________ Short Title
44
Responding to Misic
45
Relating in Groups
46
Working Independently
47
Hopping Balance
48
Kicking Balance
49
Skipping and Galloping
50
Stringing Beads
51
Completing Puzzles
52
Cutting Paper
53
Drawing Circles
54
Working with Blocks
55
Using a Picture for Communication
56
Identify Story Mood
57
Distinguishing Environmental Sounds
58
Telling a Story from a Picture Series
59
Sorting Large Sets
60
Identifying Common Qualities
61
Explicating a Pattern
62
Ordering by Height
63
Sorting by Set Description
64
Counting 1-9 Objects
65
Selecting Sets with More Members
66
Selecting Sets with Fewer Members
67
Naming Body Parts
68 '
Describing Characteristics of Objects
69
Describing Changed Properties
70
Distinguishing Between Two- and Three-Dimensional
Objects
71
Using Classroom Instruments
72
Repeating Rhythm
73
Singing in a Group
74
Distinguishing Between Long and Short Tones
75
Recognizing Melody Changes
76
Recognizing Fast and Slow Tempos

173
Appendix C
List of Test Materials

Test Form
I
2
3
4
5
6
7

Test Manual
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
None
X
X
None

8

X

None

9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

None
X
None
None
None
X
None
X
None
None
X
X
X
X
X
None
None
X
None
X
X
None
None

33
34
35
36

37

X

Student Booklet

X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

40

X
X
X
X

None
X
X
None

41
42
43
44
45

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
N one
N one

38
39

Handouts
Description/Quantity
None
None
None
1 Large business envelope
None
None
1 Lion picture set, masking
tape
1 Bean bag, 1 sheet of paper
with circle drawn, masking
tape, 1 set of house and
ice cream truck pictures
None
None
None
None
1 Picture book
None
None
None
1 Alphabet card
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
5 Dot pattern cards
1 Set of square, triangle,
circle 6 rectangle, 1
envelope
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
1 Cassette tape
N one

174

List of Test Materials - Continued
Test Form
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76

Test Manual
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Student Booklet
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
X
None
None
X
X
None
None
X
X
X
X
None
X
X
None
None
None
X
None
None
None
X
None
None

Handouts
Description/Quantity
None
None
Masking tape
1 Cassette tape
1 Lacing string, beads
1 House puzzle
Construction paper
None
None
None
1 Cassette tape
1 Cassette tape
1 Picture book
None
None
None
None
None
1 Picture book
None
None
None
1 Plastic frog
1 Picture book
None
None
1 Cassette tape
1 Cassette tape
1 Cassette tape
1 Cassette tape
1 Cassette tape

APPENDIX E
MEMORANDUM TO SPECIAL STUDY PARTICIPANTS
ON NOVEMBER FOLLOW-UP MEETINGS

175

APPENDIX E
MEMORANDUM TO SPECIAL STUDY PARTICIPANTS
ON NOVEMBER FOLLOW-UP MEETINGS
October 23, 1975
TO:

Kindergarten and First Grade Special Study Participants

FROM:

Paula Brictson, Michigan Educational Assessment Program

SUBJECT:

November Follow-up Meetings

As mentioned in the September briefings we are planning
meetings with the kindergarten and grade one special study parti­
cipants to answer additional questions and offer possible interpre­
tations of first grade results. We view these meetings as an oppor­
tunity for you as special study participants to share information
and perceptions about the study with other districts and with the
assessment staff. Your attendance is optional.
The meeting time and place is:

Please fill out the information on the tear off form below,
and return the form to: Paula Brictson, Michigan Educational Assess­
ment Program, Box 420, Lansing, MI
48902.
Thank you for your
cooperation.

Will Attend

Will Not Attend

Name
School
District

___________________________________

Grade Level or Administrative Position ____
Number of additional people who will attend

176

APPENDIX F
MEMORANDUM TO SPECIAL STUDY PARTICIPANTS
ON FEBRUARY FOLLOW-UP MEETING

177

APPENDIX F
MEMORANDUM TO SPECIAL STUDY PARTICIPANTS
ON FEBRUARY FOLLOW-UP MEETING
January 12, 1976

TO:

' Kindergarten Special Study Participants

FROM:

Paula Brictson, Research Consultant
Michigan Educational Assessment Program

SUBJECT:

February Follow-up Meeting

As part of the Kindergarten Special Study optional follow-up
meetings to answer your questions are scheduled to be held in February.
It is my perception that most of the questions regarding testing pro­
cedures, use of materials and recording of data were answered at the
November follow-up meetings and by telephone. Rather than schedule
additional meetings, I am asking you to Indicate on the tear-off if you
feel it is necessary to meet with me personally or if your questions
can be answered over the telephone. If you wish call me collect at
517-373-8393.
In either case I will try to respond at a time convenient
to you.
Let me again express appreciation for your hard work in this
Kindergarten Special Study.

PB/del
cc:

Ed Roeber

No questions

_____ Telephone
Number

Place

Date & Time

Please mail to:

_____ Personal Meeting

Date & Time

Paula Brictson
Michigan Department of Education
Research, Evaluation and Assessment Services
P.O. Box 420
Lansing, MI
48902

178

APPENDIX G
KINDERGARTEN QUESTIONNAIRE

179

APPENDIX 6
KINDERGARTEN QUESTIONNAIRE

On how many objectives have you assessed one pupil or more?

How many different MEAP test forms have you used?

Has the kindergarten study been helpful to your classroom program?

On how many objectives do you project you can assess every student
in your class by the end of April?

If you could select a subset of the preprimary objectives that are
appropriate for your kindergarten program, and were provided the
MEAP assessment forms would you replicate the kindergarten study
another year?

APPENDIX H
SPECIAL STUDY INSTRUMENTS

181

M ic h ig a n D e p a rtm e n t o f E d u c a tio n

R A -3 I2 8 -A

M IC H IG A N E D U C A T IO N A L A S S E S S M E N T P R O G R A M

12/75

Box 4 2 0 , L a n s in g , M ic h ig a n 4 8 9 0 2

KINDERGARTEN TEACHER SURVEY: MEAP KINDERGARTEN SPECIAL STUDY
HAILING INSTRUCTIONS:

R e tu rn

ONE c ° p y by A P R IL 2, 197.6 in th e postage-paid e n v e lo p e ac c o m p a n y in g th is

s u rv e y .
DIRECTIONS:

I.

P r e v io u s

□

p le a s e m ark your, re sp o n s e to e a c h q u e s tio n as d ir e c te d .

D O N O T s ig n your nam e to th e s u rv e y .

to this 1975—76 sc h o o l y e a r, h ave you used p erfo rm an ce o b je c tiv e s in your k in d e rg a rte n program?

Yes

□ N o .
| | | have not p re v io u s ly ta u g h t k in d e rg a rte n .
I. Have performance o b je c tiv e s fo r k in d e rg a rte n stu d e n ts b een ad o pted and im p lem ented a t a n y o f th e fo llo w in g le v e ls ?
(Check A L L th a t ap p ly )
1

I Your school d is tr ic t

I

| Your school b u ild in g

I

I By you p e rs o n a lly

|

| Not adopted and im p lem ented a t a n y le v e l

Which o f the fo llo w in g do you p e rc e iv e to be th e p u rp o se (s) fo r id e n tify in g and u sing p erfo rm an ce o b je c tiv e s ?
(Check A L L th a t a p p ly )
I

I T o e s ta b lis h a s ta te c u rric u lu m .

[

| To have a l l c h ild re n le a rn th e sam e s k ills to th e sam e le v e l o f co m p ete n c e.

[

| To fa c ilita te In d iv id u a liz e d and group in s tru c tio n .

j

| To provide a b a s is fo r a s s e s s in g s tu d e n ts *

I

I Other (p lease s p e c i f y ) __________________________________ _______________________________________ __— ---------- ------------- --------------

s tre n g th s and w e a k n e s s e s .

4. Do you fee l th at b asin g a s s e s s m e n t and in s tru c tio n on o b je c tiv e s is a v ia b le e d u c a tio n a l p ro ced u re fo r kin d e rg arten ?

□ V”
□

No

‘

5. Do you find th e S ta te D e p a rtm e n t o f E d u c a tio n " T e n t a t i v e O b je c tiv e s fo r P re p rim a ry E d u c a tio n in M ic h ig a n ’ * a p p ro p ria te far
your kindergarten ch ild re n ?

□

Yes

Q

No ( If " N o , " p le a s e com m ent, in g e n e ra l, on w h y n o t.)

L Previous to this 1975—76 s c h o o l y e a r, d id you a s s e s s and record in d iv id u a l s tu d e n t p erfo rm an ce d u rin g y o u r k in d e rg a rte n .
program?
0

Yes ( I f " Y e s , " go to ite m 7.)

CD No

CD

( I f " N o , ” go to Ite m (0 .)

I have not p re v io u s ly ta u g h t k in d e rg a rte n .

(G o to Ite m 10.)

?■ if you checked " Y e s " to Item 6 , w h ich o f the fo llo w in g m ethods h a v e you used to a s s e s s s tu d e n t p erform ance?
(Check A L L th a t ap p ly )

CD

Michigan E d u c a tio n a l A s s e s s m e n t Program te s ts

CD Teacher o b s erv atio n
1 ) Commercial te s ts

CD

Teacher c o n stru cte d te s ts

□

Information from parents

□

Other (p le as e s p e c i f y ) ______________________________________________________—

'
__________ !------------------------------------------------------

R A -3 I2 8 -A
<Pa*o 2) ,

8 . I f you checked " Y e t " to Item A, have you a t t e s t e d and recorded individual kindergarten student performance In the following
areas previous to this 1975—76 school year?
(Check A L L th at apply)

9.

|

| C ognitive

I

I A ffe ctive

[

I Psychomotor

I f you checked " Y e s " t o Item 6 , how did you assess performance o f kindergarten children?
(Check A L L th a t apply)
|

| Ind ivid u ally

,

[ _ ] To sm all groups
( G To the entire group

[ | I did not administer tests to kindergarten children,
10.

Which of the follow ing do you b e lie v e should be the purpose(s) o f teacher assessm ent o f kindergarten student performance?
(Check A L L th at apply)
I

* T o id e n tity which students to accept and which not to accept In th e kindergarten program.

n

To id e n tify individual student strengths.

I

iTo identity ind ividu al student w ea kn ess es /n ee d s .

I

1To Id e n tify a basis for In d ivid u al program plann ing .

I

ITo identity a basis for group program planning.

|

|To compare student achievem ent or a b ility .

I

IT o com pile an achievem ent report fo r parents,

r~1 To group children according to achievem ent.

I I.

G

To determ ine promotion to grade o ne.

G

Other (p lease Id e n t ity ) ________________________________________ .______________________________________________________

P lea se R A N K the following grouping modes according to HOW O F T E N you u tiliz e each mode In your Instruction. RANK each
grouping mode (1 —2—3) using#! for MOST O F T E N utilized.
_______ E n tire group
------------ Small groups
-----------

12.

In d ivid u al students

Thus far Into Im plem entation o f th e kindergarten sp ecial study, what is the prim ary Im pact on your teach ing behavior In
having used performance o b je c tiv e s and recorded individual student achievem ent?

13,

P le a s e e x p la in the primary impact.

Previous to the 1975—76 school year, the coordination between the kindergarten program and the firs t grade program consisted
of:
(Check A L L th at apply)

\

] W ritten information on kindergarten students given to firs t grade teacher.

I

I End of year conferences betw een kindergarten and firs t grade teachers.

I

I Development o f sequential K -l curriculum by Kindergarten and fir s t grade teachers.

I

1 Other (please s p e c ify )--------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G
G
14,

There is no coordination,
I don't know.

Previous to the 1975—76 school ye ar, the coordination betw een the kindergarten program and any preklhdergarten pragrsm[t)
in your school or community consisted of;
(C heck A L L th at apply)
I
Q

I W ritten inform ation on prekindergarten students given to kindergarten teachers.
End o f year conferences between kindergarten teachers and prekindergarten teachers.

I

| Development o f sequential prekindergarten and kindergarten curriculum.

I

I Other (p lease s p e c ify )____________

I

I There Is no coordination,

I

I | d o n 't know.

,-------------------------------- ---------------------------V-

R A -3 II8 -A
X

(Page 3)
15. Previous to the 1 9 75—76 school y e a r, h a v e you re p o rte d k in d e rg a rte n s tu d e n t perfo rm an ce p ro gress to p a re n ts In a n y o f the
following manners?
(Chock A L L th a t a p p ly )

□
I

Grades

(A , B , C ,

O, E, F)

I Seale from e x c o llc n t to u n s a tis fa c to ry

I I N arrative comm ents
n

O bjectives or b e h a v io rs a tta in e d by ea ch s tu d en t

f~ l Normative te s t scores
[ | personal co n fere n c es
I

I

O th e r ( p le a s e s p e c i f y )

________„ ________ „________ „ ___ __ _______________________________________________________________________________

| | | have n eve r reported k in d e rg a rte n s tu d e n t p erfo rm an ce progress to p a re n ts .

16. To data In the (9 7 5 —76 scho o l y e a r, h a v e you re p o rte d to p a re n ts a n y o f th e s tu d e n t perfo rm an ce in fo rm atio n o b ta in e d through
the HEAP K in d e rg arte n S p e c ia l S tu dy p rocedures?
□

Yes

□ N»
17. Do you b e lie v e th a t th e M E A P K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study p ro ced u re s are p ro v id in g you w ith more c o m p le te (c o g n itiv e ,
affect Iva, psychom otor) in fo rm a tio n on in d iv id u a l stu d e n ts th an p re v io u s a s s e s s m e n t p ra c tic e s ?
[~~| Yes ( I f you ch ecked “ Y e s , " p le a s e com m ent on w h y .)
I~1 No ( I f you ch ec ke d " N o , " p le a s e com m ent on w h y n o t.)

IS. Do you b elie ve th a t th e M E A P K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study p ro ced u res are p ro v id in g you w ith more u s e fu l In fo rm a tio n on in d iv i­
dual children than p re v io u s p ra c tic e s ?
□

Yes ( I f you ch e c k e d “ Y e s , " p le a s e com m ent on w h y .)

□

No

( I f you c h e c k e d " N o , " p le a s e co m m en t on w hy n o t.)

I?. Hive you com m unicated w ith th e fir s t g ra d e te a c h e r(s ) re g a rd in g th e M E A P K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study procedures?

10.

□

Yes

□

No

( ir you ch ec ke d " Y e s , " p lo a s e com m ent on th e n a tu re o f th e In fo rm atio n p ro v id e d , and w hy It w as p ro v id e d .)

Have you provided your b u ild in g p rin c ip a l or program s u p e rv is o r w ith ,a n y o f th e s tu d e n t p erfo rm an ce in fo rm atio n o b ta in e d
the M EA P K in d e rg a rte n 5 p e c la l Study p rocedures?

through
□

Yes

□ ■Ho

( i f you ch ecked “ Y e s , " p le a s e com m ent on th e n atu re of th e in fo rm a tio n p ro v id e d , and w h y i t w as p ro v id e d .)

R A -3I2B -A
(Page 4)
21.

W hich o f the fa llo w in g purposes sh o u ld a s ta te -c o n d u c te d p rep rim a ry a s s e s s m e n t program have?
(C h e c k A L L th a t a p p ly )
I

I T o Id e n tify in d iv id u a l s tu d e n t stren g th s and n eed s .

I

I T o co m m un icate s tu d en t p erform ance to th e n e x t grade le v e l te a c h e r.

I

I T o id e n tify w h ich stu d e n ts to a c c e p t or n o t to a c c e p t in a g iv e n

□
I
'

22.

grade le v e l.

T o com m unicate s tu d e n t p erform ance to p a re n ts .
I T o id e n tify s tu d en t a c h ie v e m e n t or a b ilit y in re la tio n to s t a te o r d is t r ic t a v e ra g e s .

I

I T o id e n tify e ffe c tiv e and in e ffe c tiv e te a c h e rs .

[

1 T o id e n tify e ffe c tiv e and in e ffe c tiv e in s tru c tio n a l program s.

(

| T h e re should be no s ta te co n du cted prep rim ary a s s e s s m e n t program .

P le a s e R A N K th e ty p e s o f te s t info rm ation b y Its order o f b e n e fit to you for p la n n in g In s tru c tio n .
In fo rm a tio n ( I - 2 - 3 - 4 - S - 6 )

u s in g

R A N K ea ch typ e o f test

#1 fo r H O S T IM P O R T A N T .

_______

R a n k in g o f yo u r C L A S S on a norm re fe re n c e d te s t.

------------

R a n k in g s o f IN D IV ID U A L S on a norm re fe re n c e d t e s t .

_______

IN D IV ID U A L a tta in m e n t o f o b je c tiv e s an a c r ite rio n re fe re n c e d te s t.

------------

C L A S S a tta in m e n t o f o b je c tiv e s on a c r ite rio n re fe re n c e d te s t.

------------ O b s e rv a tio n and re co rd in g o f s tu d e n t p erfo rm an ce.
------------ In fo rm atio n from p a re n ts .
23.

H as a p a id or v o lu n te e r In s tru c tio n a l a ld e (s ) or s tu d e n t te a c h e r a s s is te d you in th e a s s e s s in g o f stu d en ts or recording of infor­
m a tio n fo r the H E A P K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study?

24.

D

Yes

□

No

I»

How o fte n a re you re c o rd in g s tu d e n t p erfo rm an ce in fo rm atio n on the M E A P K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu dy “ C la s s R o s te r" shestsF
(C h e c k O N E o n ly )
□

D a l(y

□

W ee k ly

I

25.

26.

■

I B i-W e e k ly

I

I M o n th ly

I

I I h a v e n o t re co rd ed in fo rm atio n to th is d a te .

A rc you u t il i z in g th e M E A P K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study "C o m m e n ts A b o u t O b je c tiv e s , T o s t ft Ite m s " sh eets?
I

I

Y es

I

1

No

( I f you ch ec ke d " N o . " p le a s e com m ent on w hy n o t.)

Arc you reco rd ing in d iv id u a l stu d en t p erfo rm an ce on th e M E A P K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study " S tu d e n t Perform ance R ecord" shssl*^

[ . 1 Ye*
[

27.

I No

I lf you th e c k e d " N o , " p le a s e comment on w hy n o t.)

A re you u t iliz in g th e M E A P K in d e rg arte n S p e c ia l Study " A d m in is tra tio n M ode Com m ent S h e e t? ’
□
Ye.
[ ] N o ( I f you ch ecked " N o . " p le a s e com m ent on w h y n o t.)

RA-3I28-A

)

(Pat* 5}
38

It there a p a rtic u la r a s s e t am ent a d m in is tra tio n mode w h ich you p re s e n tly p re fe r in im p lem en t i n * th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study?
|

| yes ( I f you ch ec ke d " Y e s , " go to Ite m 2 9 .)
Ho ( i f you ch ec ke d " N o , " p le a s e com m ent on w h y n o t.

A fte r com m enting, go to Ite m 3 1 .)

39. if you checked " Y e s " to Item 2 0 . w h ich one o f th e fo llo w in g as se ss m en t m odes do you prefer?
(Check ONE o nly)
□

HEA P te s ts

| | Other te s ts (P le a s e Id e n tify )___________________________________ _________________________
| [ Teacher o b s erv atio n
|
30.

| Other (P le a s e I d e n t i f y ) _______________________________________________________________________

Why do you p refer th e p a rtic u la r a s s e s s m e n t mode id e n tifie d in Item 29?

(P le a s e e x p la in )

31. For which o f the fo llo w in g purposes are you u s in g or p la n n in g on u s in g th e In fo rm a tio n p ro vid e d you through th e M E A P K in d e r­
garten Special Study a s s e ss m en t p ro cedures?
(Check A L L th a t a p p ly )
[3] To id e n tify in d iv id u a l s tu d e n t stren g th s.
I 1 To id e n tify in d iv id u a l s tu d en t w e a k n e s s e s /n e e d s .
I

| To provide one com ponent o f a co m p re h e n sive In d iv id u a l s tu d e n t p r o file .

I

I To Id e n tify a b a s is for In d iv id u a l program p la n n in g .

I

I To id e n tify a b a s is fo r group program p la n n in g .

I
I

1To com pile an a c h ie v e m e n t repo rt for p a re n ts .
| To group c h ild re n a c c o rd in g to a c h ie v e m e n t.

I

I To determ ine pro m o tio n to grade one.

I

1 Other (P le a s e s p e c i f y ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

n

I see no use fo r th is In fo rm a tio n ,

32. To date, how m any P ro p rim a ry O b je c tiv e s h a v e you a s s e s s e d ? -------------------33; Did the Michigan E d u c a tio n a l A s se ssm en t P ro g ram S ep tem ber. 1975 P R E S E R V IC E S E S S IO N p ro v id e you w ith a ll the info rm a­
tion needed to im plem ent t h is s p e c ia l study?
□

Yes

[ . ] No

it

t*iJ ■

( |f you c h e c k e d “ N o ,** p le a s e id e n tify a d d itio n a l info rm ation n eed ed.

ti<*

IV * .

t I ' W H I ' mwwiing i.'n d tH 'te d h> M ic h ig a n E d u c a tio n a l A s se ssm en t P ro g ram s ta ff fo r

'peclnl project p m tlr Ip n n t*?
P I Yes (If you ch ec ke d 'Y e s ,* ' p le a s e com m ent on its e ffe c tiv e n e s s .)
|~~1 No

( I f you ch ec ke d " N o , * ’ p le a s e e x p la in w h y n o t.)

B A -3 1 2 8 - A
(P a g e 6)

A re you p re s e n tly re c e iv in g th e support s e rv ic e s w h ich you need from th e M ic h ig a n E d u c a tio n a l A s s e s s m e n t Progran Staff;

Yes

□
I

[

No

( I f you ch ec ke d " N o , " p le a s e e x p la in .)

I
i

RA-3134

M ich ig an

3/76

Department o f E d u c atio n

M IC H IG A N E D U C A T IO N A L A SS ESS M E N T PR O G RA M
Box 42 0. L s n a ln g , M ic h ig a n 48 90 2

KINDERGARTEN TEACHER SURVEY: MEAP KINDERGARTEN SPECIAL STUDY, 1975-76
HAILING INSTRUCTIONS:
DIRECTIONS:

Return O N E c o p / by M A Y 17, 1976 In th e p o s ta g e -p a id e n v e lo p e ae c o m p a n /ln g th is a u rv e /.

P le a s e mark your response to each q uestion as d ire c te d .

D O N O T s ig n your nam e to th e su rv ey .

I. Did you P E R S O N A L L Y vo lu n tee r to p a rtic ip a te In th e M E A P K in derg arten S p ecial Study for 1975—76?

B
1.

yes

NO

To your knowledge, th e co o rd in atio n betw een th e kin d e rg arten program and th e fir s t grad e program for n e x t ye ar (1 9 7 6 —77)
will consist of;
(Check A L L that ap p ly )
Written Inform ation on kin d e rg arten stu d en ts being g iv en to fir s t grad e teach er.
End o f year conferences b etw een kin d e rg arten and fir s t grade te a c h e rs .
Development o f se q u e n tial K - l curriculum by K in d e rg arte n and fir s t grade te a ch ers.
Other (p le a s e s p e c ify )
There w ill be no co o rd in atio n ,
I don't know,

3. To your knowledge, th e co o rd in atio n betw een th e kin d erg arten program and any p rek in d erg a rten program (s) In your school
community for n ext year (1 9 7 6 —7 7 ) w ill c o n s is t of:
(Check A L L that ap p ly)
Written Inform ation on p rek in d erg a rten students req u ested to 'b e g iv e n to kin d erg arten te a c h e rs .
End o f year co n ferences req u ested b etw een kin d e rg arten te a c h e rs and p rek in d erg a rten te a c h e rs .
Development o f s e q u e n tia l p rekind ergarten and kin derg arten cu rricu lu m .
Other (p le as e s p e c ify )

_____

There w ill be no co o rd in atio n ,
I don't know.
4. Did you report to parents any o f the student perform ance Inform ation o b ta in e d through th e M E A P K in derg arten S p ec ia l Study
procedures?

0

YES
NO

5. Did you communicate w ith the firs t grade te a c h e r(s ) regarding th e M E A P K in d e rg arte n S p ec ia l Study pro ced u res during th e
1975^-76 school year?

B

YES ( I f you checked " Y e s , " p le a s e comment b elo w on th e nature o f th e info rm ation p ro vided, an d w hy i t w as p ro v id e d .)
NO

*■ Did you provide yo u r.b u ild in g p rin c ip a l o r program su p erviso r an y o f th e student p erfo rm an ce In fo rm atio n o b ta in e d through the
HEAP Kindergarten S p ecial Study procedures during th e 1975—76 school year?
U

LI

TES ( I f you checked " Y e s , " p le a s e comment on th e n atu re o f th e info rm ation p ro vid e d , and w hy It w as p ro vid e d )
NO

t

RA-3134
(Page 2)
P le a s e comment on th e h e lp fu ln e s s o r need Tor ch an g e in th e p a c k a g e o f m a te ria ls g iv e n you by th e M E A P s ta ff to assist
in im plem enting th e a s s e s s m e n t p ro ced u re s:
A.

D e s c rip tio n s and in s tru c tio n s fo r p ro ced u res and u sin g re c o rd in g form s c o n ta in e d In fro n t o f b lu e notebook.

B.

" C la s s R o s te r" s h e e ts .

C.

"C o m m e n ts ab o ut O b je c tiv e s , T e s ta and it e m s " s h e e ts .

D.

" S tu d e n t P erfo rm a n c e R e c o rd " s h e e ts .

E.

" A d m in is tra tio n Mode C o m m e n t" s h e e ts .

F.

A s s e s s m e n t A d m in is tra tio n M an u als fo r th e M E A P te s ts .

G.

" Student b o o k le ts fo r th e M E A P te s ts .

In g e n e ra l, w hat w as th e m a in re a c tio n o f th e c h ild re n to th e M E A P te s ts ?
(C h e c k th e O N E w h ic h b e s t d e s c rib e s th e d om in an t re a c tio n )
T h e y e n jo y e d m ost o f th e te s ts .
T h e y seem ed w illin g to to le ra te m ost o f the te s ts ,
T h e y w ere q u ite n e g a tiv e to ta k in g m ost o f th e te s ts .

RA-3134
(Page 3)
f, Row did you d eterm in e W H IC H o b je c tiv e to a s se ss ?

10.

How did you d e te rm in e w h ic h a s s e s s m e n t M O D E (M E A P te s te , o b s e rv a tio n , o th e r te s ts , or o th e r) to use?

II.

How did you d eterm ine W H E N to a s s e s s a p a rtic u la r o b je c tiv e ?

II, |n total, how many P re p rim a ry O b je c tiv e s d id you a s s e s s ?
13.

Did you have M O R E In fo rm a tio n on In d iv id u a l c h ild re n d u e to y o u r p a rtic ip a tio n In th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study, th an you
have had In p re v io u s years?

B
14.

(P le a s e com m ent b e lo w on w h y o r w hy n o t.)

yes

NO

Did you have B E T T E R O R G A N IZ E D in fo rm a tio n o n In d iv id u a l c h ild re n due to your p a r tic ip a tio n In th e K in d e rg a rte n S p ec ia l
Study than you h ave had In p re v io u s years?

B
IS.

L———

( P le a s e com m ent b elo w on w hy o r w h y n o t.)

yes

NO

To whom do you fe e l th e in fo rm a tio n o b ta in e d from th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu dy p ro ced u re s is u sefu l?
(Check A L U th a t a p p ly )
To me, th e c h ild ’s te a c h e r.
To the p rin c ip a l o r s u p e rv is o r.
To the c h ild 's p a re n ts .
To the M ich ig an D e p a rtm e n t o f E d u c a tio n .
To the firs t g ra d e te a c h e r.
To no one,

14.

For which o f th e fo llo w in g p u rp o se s d id you u s e th e In fo rm a tio n p ro v id e d you through th e M E A P K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study
assessment procedures?
(Check A L L th a t ap p ly )
To Id e n tify In d iv id u a l s tu d en t stre n g th s .
To id e n tify in d iv id u a l s tu d en t w e a k n e s s e s /n e e d s .
To pro vide o n e com ponent o f a c o m p re h e n sive in d iv id u a l s tu d e n t p r o file .
To Id e n tify a b a s is fo r In d iv id u a l program p la n n in g .
To Id e n tify a b a s is fo r group program p la n n in g .
To com pile an a c h ie v e m e n t re p o rt fo r p a re n ts .
To com pile an a c h ie v e m e n t re p o rt fo r th e fir s t grade, te a c h e r.
To group c h ild re n ac co rd in g to a c h ie v e m e n t.
To d eterm ine p ro m o tio n to grad e o ne.
Other (p le a s e s p e c ify ) _
I saw no use fo r th is In fo rm atio n .

RA-3134
(P age 4)
17,

Do you in te n d to use th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study p rocedures (v o lu n ta r ily ) fo r yo u r k in d e rg a rte n program next year?
□

YES

—

NO
W ith c e rta in c h a n g e *

16.

(p le a s e s p e c ify )

W hat a d d itio n a l or d iffe re n t su p po rt s e rv ic e s from th e M ic h ig a n D e p a rtm e n t o f E d u c a tio n s t a f f do yo u fe e l are necessary for
e ffe c t iv e im p le m e n ta tio n o f such a study?

19.

W hat w as th e g re a te s t A D V A N T A G E to you as a te a c h e r In h a v in g p a rtic ip a te d in th is S p e c ia l Study?

20.

W hat w a s th e g re a te s t D IS A D V A N T A G E to you as a te a c h e r In h a v in g p a rtic ip a te d In th is S p e c ia l Study?

21.

A re you w illin g to p a rtic ip a te In a s im ila r stu d y ag ain ?
YES
N°
U n d er c e rta in c o n d itio n s

(P le a s e com m ent on yo u r a n s w e r.)

M ic h ig a n D e p a rtm e n t o f E d u c a tio n

HA-3135
3 /7 4

MICHIGAN
EDUCA TIO NA L ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
v
B ox 4 2 0 . L a n a ln g , M ic h ig a n 4 8 9 0 2

PRINCIPAL (OR SUPERVISOR) SURVEY: MEAP KINDERGARTEN SPECIAL STUDY, 1975-76
HAILING IN S T R U C T IO N S ;

DIRECTIONS;

Raturn ONE copy by MAY 17, 1974 in the postage-paid envelope accompanying this survey.

P le a s e m ark your resp on se to each q u e s tio n as d ire c te d .

DO N O T s ig n your nam e to th e su rv ey .

I, What was your in v o lv e m e n t in th e d e c is io n th a t k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e rs In yo u r b u ild in g p a rtic ip a te in th e K in d e rg a rte n S p ec ia l
Study 7
(Check O NE o n ly )

A fte r c h e c k in g th e one th a t a p p lie s , p le a s e com m ent.

I did have In p u t in to th e d e c is io n and re q u es ted to p a rtic ip a te .
B

I did have In p u t In to th e d e c is io n a n d re q u es ted n o t to p a rtic ip a te .

m

I did not h a v e In p u t In to th e d e c is io n , b u t w ou ld h ave re q u es ted to p a rtic ip a te .

_|

I did not h ave in p u t In to the d e c is io n , but w ou ld h ave re q u es ted not to p a r tic ip a te .

2, What involvem ent d id th e k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r(s ) h a v e In th e d e c is io n to p a r tic ip a te In th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l StudyT
(Check O NE o n ly )

A fte r c h e c k in g th e one th a t a p p lie s , p le a s e com m ent.

T each er(s) d id h ave in p u t In to th e d e c is io n and ag reed to p a r tic ip a te .
T each er(s) d id h ave In p u t into th e d e c is io n , but re q u e s te d n o t to p a rtic ip a te .
T each er(s) d id not h a v e Input In to th e d e c is io n , but w o u ld h ave ag re e d to p a rtic ip a te .
_

3.

Teach er(s) d id not have Input in to th e d e c is io n , but w o u ld h a v e re q u es ted n o t to p a r tic ip a te .

Old you attend th e In itia l Septem ber m e etin g h e ld by M E A P s ta ff?

0

YES

( I f you ch ec ke d " Y e s , ” p le a s e comm ent on th e h e lp fu ln e s s o f th e m e e tin g .)

NO

( I f you c h e c k e d " N o , " p le a s e com m ent on w h y you d id N O T a tte n d .)

4. uio
Didyyou attend th e N o vem b er fo llo w -u p m e e tin g h e ld by M E A P s ta ff?

B

S.

YES

( I f you c h e c k e d “ Y e s , ” p le a s e ,c o m m e n t on th e h e lp fu ln e s s o f th e m e e tin g .)

NO

( I f you c h e c k e d " N o , ” p le a s e com m ent on w hy you d id n o t a t te n d .)

Did you In itia te co m m un icatio n w ith a M E A P s t a f f m em ber re g a rd in g th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study o th e r th an a t th e
September and N o vem b er m eetings?

B

Y ES

( I f you ch ec ke d “ Y e s , ” p le a s e com m ent on th e n atu re o f th e co m m u n ic a tio n .)

NO

What was your p erso n al ro le In the K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study?
(Check ONE only)
To a s s is t and p a rtic ip a te in im p le m e n tin g th e as se ss m en t p ro ced u re s.
To function a s lia is o n b etw ee n th e k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r and th e M E A P s ta ff.
To o ffe r Input to th e M E A P s ta ff on th e u s e fu ln e s s o f th e stu d y.
To re ce iv e lo c al re s u lts fo r lo c a l d e c is io n m a kin g .
To coordinate the K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study a s s e ss m en t p ro ced u re s w ith p re s e n t o r fu tu re f ir s t g rad e lo c a l a s s e s s m e n t

□

procedures.
I had no c le a r ro le .

R A -3 I3 S

(P*S« 2)
7.

D id th e n atu re o f co m m un icatio n b e tw e e n you and your k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r(s ) ch an g e a t a ll th is y e a r duo to the Kindergsrtei
S p e c ia l Study?

B

YES

( I f you ch ec ke d " Y e * , " p le a s e com m ent on th e n atu re o f the c h a n g e .)

NO

( I f you c h e c k e d " N o .* * p le a s e com m ent on w hy n o t.)

Oo you p e rc e iv e th a t th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study Im p ac te d In any w a y on th e K in d e rg a rte n program ?

B

YES

( I f you c h e c k e d " Y e s , " p le a s e comm ent on h ow .)

NO

( I f you ch ec ke d “ N o ,** p le a s e com m ent on w hy n o t.)

Do you p e rc e iv e th a t th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study has o r w ill im p act In a n y w a y o n th e e a rly e le m e n ta ry program in your
b u ild in g (p re k in d e rg a rte n , k in d e rg a rte n , g rad e I)?

0
10.

YES

( I f you ch ec ke d " Y e s , " p le a s e com m ent on how .)

NO

( I f you ch ec ke d " N o , " p le a s e com m ent on w hy n o t.)

Was th e re an in s tru c tio n a l a id e or s tu d e n t te a c h e r in th e k in d e rg a rte n s e c tio n (s ) p a rtic ip a tin g in th e S p ecial Study?
(P le a s e comm ent b elo w on w hy or w hy n o t.)
n

YES

“

NO
I d o n 't know .

II.

Do you b e lie v e th a t th e a s s is ta n c e o f an in s tru c tio n a l a id e or s tu d en t te a c h e r w ou ld m ake a d iffe re n c e In th e implementation
o f th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study?

B
12.

(P le a s e com m ent b e lo w on w hy or w hy n o t.)

yes
no

W hat has b een th e in v o lve m e n t o f th e fir s t grade te a c h e r In th e K in d e rg a rte n 5 p e c ia l Study?
(C h e c k O N E o n ly )
□

n

t

T h e fir s t grade te a c h e r has m e t w ith th e k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r to becom e f a m ilia r w ith th e m a te ria ls and procedures by
a d m in is tra tiv e /s u p e rv is o ry re q u es t,
T h e fir s t g rad e te a c h e r and k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r h ave m et on th e ir o w n In it ia t iv e to d is c u s s the S p ec ia l Study matsrlslt
and p ro ced u re s.
T h e f ir s t grade te a c h e r w as Inform ed o f th a p ro je c t by m e, th e p rin c ip a l o r th e c u rric u lu m s u p e rv is o r.
T h e fir s t grad e te a c h e r w as inform ed o f th e p ro je c t by th e k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r.
I d o n 't know.

13. Do you b e lie v e th a t o th e r k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e rs In your b u ild in g o r th e d is t r ic t w o u ld lik e to p a r tic ip a te In a s im ila r study?
( p le a s e com m ent b e lo w on w h y or w hy n o t.)
YES
NO
I d o n 't know .

RA-3135
(P»*« 3>
14. What w ill happen w ith th e In d iv id u a l a c h ie v e m e n t In fo rm a tio n on e a c h k in d e rg a rte n a tu d e n t w ith in yo u r b u ild in g ?
(Check A L L th a t a p p ly )
The k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r w il l d e c id e th la .
The In fo rm atio n w ill b e g iv e n to me and a e n t to th e f ir a t g ra d e te a c h e r.
The In fo rm a tio n w ill b e a e n t by th e k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r to th e f lr a t g ra d e te a c h e r a t my re q u e a t.
The flr a t g ra d e te a c h e r w il l b e re q u e a te d to u ae I t fo r in s tru c tio n a l p la n n in g .
I w ill uae th e in fo rm a tio n fo r lo c a l d e c is io n m a kin g re g a rd in g th e k in d e rg a rte n p ro gram .
I w ill u s e th e In fo rm a tio n fo r lo c a l d e c is io n m a kin g re g a rd in g th e e a rly e le m e n ta ry p ro g ram (p re k in d e r g a rte n , k in d e rg a rte n ,
firs t g ra d e .)

B

I have not y e t d e c id e d .
Other (P le a s e s p e c ify )

.

15. Do you have more In fo rm a tio n o n e n te rin g fir s t g ra d e s tu d e n ts d ue to th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu dy a s s e s s m e n t p ro c e d u re s
than you had In p re v io u s ye ars?

B

( P le a s e com m ent b e lo w o n w h y o r w h y n o t.)

yes

NO

14, Do you b e lie v e th a t th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu d y a s s e s s m e n t p ro c e d u re s p ro v id e m ore c o m p le te a n d u s e fu l In fo rm a tio n fo r
Instructional d e c is io n s th an yo u r p re v io u s p ro ced u re s?

B
17.

no

Do you b e lie v e th a t th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study a s s e s s m e n t p ro c e d u re s p ro v id e m ore c o m p le te an d u s e fu l in fo rm a tio n fo r
adm inistrative d e c is io n s th a n y o u r p re v io u s p ro ced u re s?

B
IS.

( P le a s e co m m en t b e lo w on w h y o r w h y n o t.)

yes

(P le a s e com m ent b e lo w o h w h y o r w h y n o t.)

yes
no

Do you b e lie v e th a t th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu dy a s s e s s m e n t p ro ced u re s p ro v id e more c o m p le te and u s e fu l In fo rm a tio n fo r
reporting atu d en t p ro g re s s to p a re n ts th a n your p re v io u s p ro c e d u re s ?

( P le a s e com m ent b e lo w o n w h y o r w h y n o t.)

B ”NO

!9> Comparing th e d e s ig n o f th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu d y to th a t o f th e fo u rth g ra d e e d u c a tio n a l a s s e s s m e n t p ro g ra m , w h ic h o f
tha two do you b e lie v e to b e a m ore u s e fu l e d u c a tio n a l p ro c e d u re fo r yo u r b u ild in g ?
(Cheek O N E o n ly )
The k in d e rg a rte n s p e c ia l s tu d y d e s ig n .
T he fourth g rad e a s s e s s m e n t d e s ig n .
They are o f e q u a l v a lu e ,

( P le a s e com m ent b e lo w o n w h y ,)

( P le a s e com m ent b e lo w on w h y .)

( p le a s e com m ent b e lo w o n w h y .)

i

R A '3 135
(P a g e 4)

20 .

W ould you v o lu n te e r to h a v e t h is o r a s im ila r s tu d y Im p le m e n te d In y o u r b u ild in g a g a in ?
Z ]

YES
NO
U n d e r c e r ta in c o n d itio n s .

i

\

( P le a s e s p e c ify )

'

( P le a s e com m ent on why or why not)

APPENDIX I
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS AND
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS (OR SUPERVISORS)

196

APPENDIX I
Interview Questions for Kindergarten Teachers
MEAP Kindergarten Special Study for 1975-76

Have you previously used performances objectives in your kindergarten
program?
Why or why not?

Do you believe that basing assessment and instruction on objectives
is a good procedure for kindergarten?
Why or why not?

Do you find the State Department of Education Preprimary Objectives
generally appropriate for your kindergarten children?
Why or why not?

Previous to this 1975-76 school year, did you assess and record
individual student performance during your kindergarten program?
Why or why not?

If you did assess and record student achievement previous to 1975-76,
what behaviors did you assess and record and how did you do so?

How do you use the information obtained through the Special Study
assessment procedures?

Of what benefit to your teaching has your participation in this
Special Study been?

Do you perceive any disadvantages to your teaching caused by your
participation in the Special Study?

198

9.

Previous to the 1975-76 school year, what had been the nature of
coordination between the kindergarten program and the firBt grade?

10.

Do you see or foresee any changes in the coordination due to the
Kindergarten Special Study?

11.

Previous to the 1975— 76 school year, what had been the nature of
coordination between the kindergarten program and any pre-kindergarten
program (nursery school or day care center) in your school or
community?

12.

Do you see or foresee any changes in this coordination due to the
Kindergarten Special Study?

13.

Has your communication with parents changed in any way due to your
participation in the Kindergarten Special Study?
If yes, how?
If no, why not?

14.

Do you find that the Kindergarten Special Study assessment procedures
are providing you with more complete (cognitive, affective, psychomotor)
information than previous procedures?
If yes, how is it more complete?
If no, why not?

15.

Do you find that the Kindergarten Special Study procedures are
providing you with more useful information than previous procedures?
If yes, how is it more useful?

If no, why not?

199
16*

Have you had any communication with the first grade teacher regarding
the Kindergarten Special Study procedures?
If yes, please describe.
If no, why not?

17.

Have you provided your building principal (or supervisor) with any
of the student performance information obtained through the Kindergarten
Special Study procedures?
If yes, pleaBe describe the circumstances for doing so.
If no, why not.

18.

What has been the role of your principal (or supervisor) in the
Kindergarten Special Study?

19.

Have you received the needed administrative/supervisory support
necessary to successful Implementation of the Kindergarten Special
Study?
If no, what support was needed, but not provided?
If yes, what support was needed and provided?

20.

Has an instructional aide or student teacher assisted you in the
assessing of students or recording of information for the Special
Study?
If no, do you believe that such assistance could be of primary
importance In successful Implementation of the Special Study?
If yes, do you believe this has been of primary importance in the
successful implementation of the Study?

21.

How do you choose which objective to assess?

200
22.

How do you choose the administration mode by which to assess any
given objective (i.e. MEAP test, other test, observation or other)?

23.

How often do you record information on the "Class Roster" sheets?
Why this period of time?

24.

To date,

approximately how many objectives have you assessed?

25.

How much

time do you spend recording Information (a great deal, a

moderate

amount, very little)?

26.

Do you feel that the amount of time spent assessing children and
recording information is worth the information obtained?
Why or why not?

27.

Are you utilizing the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study "Comments
About Objectives, Tests, and Items" sheets?
Why or why not?

28.

Are you recording individual student performance on the Kindergarten
Special Study "Student Performance Record" sheets?
Why or why not?

29.

Are you utilizing the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study "Administration
Mode Comment Sheet"?
Why or why not?

30.

Is there a particular assessment administration mode which you
presently prefer?
If yes, which one and why?

If no, why not7

201

31.

Generally, do you find the MEAP teat items appropriate?

32.

What generally, is the reaction of the children to the MEAP

33.

tests?

Within your building, what do you believe will happen to the information
which you have compiled on each child?

34.

At the State level, what do you believe will happen to the information
which you have compiled on each child?

35.

Please comment on the MEAP Staff services provided to assist you
in implementation of the Special Study:
a) the initial September meeting
b) the November follow-up meeting
c) on-going support services

36.

Would you like to continue participation in a similar study next
year?

If you have additional thoughts or comments relating to this
interview after I have left, please feel free to contact me at (517)
373-8220.
Shirley Willard

202

Interview Questions for Elementary Principals or Supervisors
MEAP Kindergarten Special Study for 1975-76

1.

What was your involvement in deciding the participation of your
Kindergarten teachers in the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study?
If you had input to decide to participate, why did you wish to
participate?
If you did not have input to decide to participate, what would
your input have been?

2.

Did you attend the initial September meeting held by MEAP staff?
If no, why not?
If yes, please comment on the meeting.

3.

Did you attend the November follow-up meeting held by MEAP staff?
If no, why not?
If y e B , please comment on the meeting.

4.

Did you initiate any other communication with a MEAP staff member?
If yes, please describe.

5.

What do you see as your personal role in the Kindergarten Special Study?

6.

Has the nature of communication between you and your kindergarten
teacher(s) changed at all this year due to the Kindergarten Special
Study?
If yes, how has it changed?

If no, why do you think it has not changed?

203

7.

Do you perceive that the Kindergarten Special Study has Impacted
in any way on the Kindergarten program?
If yes, how?
If no, why not?

8.

Do you perceive that the Kindergarten Special Study will impact in
any way on the early elementary program (K-l)?
If yes, how?
If no, why not?

9.

What do you perceive to be the advantages of the Kindergarten Special
Study procedures?

10.

What do you perceive to be the disadvantages of the Kindergarten
Special Study procedures?

11.

Is there an Instructional aid or student teacher In the kindergarten
section participating in the Special Study?
If yes, ,why did you assign an aid or student teacher to this section?
If no, why not?

12.

Do you believe that the assistance of an Instructional aid or student
teacher would make a difference in the implementation of the Kindergarten
Special Study design?

13.

What has been the involvement of the first grade teacher(s) in the
Kindergarten Special Study?

204

14.

What will happen with the individual achievement information on
each kindergarten student?

15.

Comparing the procedures of the Kindergarten Special Study to those of
fourth grade Michigan Educational Assessment Program, which of the two
do you believe to be a more useful educational procedure for your
building?

16.

Would you volunteer to have this study implemented in your building
again?
If yes, why?
If no, why not?
If conditional, under what conditions?

If you have additional thoughts or comments relating to this
interview after I have left, please feel free to contact me at (517)
373-8220.
Shirley Willard

APPENDIX J
LETTERS FROM DEPARTMENT STAFF ACCOMPANYING SURVEY

205

APPENDIX J
LETTERS FROM DEPARTMENT STAFF ACCOMPANYING SURVEY
STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Laming, Michigan 48902

IT A I t H M D O F (O U C A T IO M
M A R IL Y N JE A N K E L L Y

FmMni

DR. OORTON RIHTHMILLBR

JOHNw. w m

February 12, 1976

F lr r f r n U M

EDMUND P. VANDETTB

Stcrtlmj

ANMBTTA MILLER

Ir^Hwar

BARBARA A - DUMOUCKELLB
DR. PAUL B. HENRY
BARBARA 1. ROBERTS
NORMAN OTTO CTOCKUBYER, SR.
GOV. WILLIAM O. UILLIKEN
Ex-OHtOm

Dear Superintendent:
This is to inform you of the progress and on-going procedures
of the Michigan Educational Assessment Program Kindergarten Special
Study. Because you volunteered at least one kindergarten teacher,
this Special Study is presently being implemented in your district.
One component of this study is a thorough evaluation of its
design and implementation in order to formulate recommendations
for future action. The evaluation plan Includes the administration
of two surveys to all participants. The first survey is being
sent at this time to all participating Kindergarten teachers (please
see attachments). In May, at the termination of the study, a
second set of participant surveys will be distributed. This second
set will include a survey to the principal of the participating
teacher's building. Additional evaluation methods will Include
interviewing and observing 10 volunteers who wish to give in-depth
information to the Department concerning their experience with
the Kindergarten Special Study.
If you have any questions regarding these procedures, please
call Paula Brlctson at (517) 373-8393. Thank you for your coopera­
tion with this project and the gathering of information relevant
Ln the future direction for preprimary assessment.
Sincerely,

Malcolm Katz
Deputy Superintends
Michigan Department
of Education
MK:phe

j■HfI meI.GWN
,.
MIC
WIM
I
Ml
Mill

&

206

207

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1$ £ & t

Lansing, Michigan 48902

STATE AOAAD OF EDUCATION
M A R IL Y N FE A N KEJ L Y

frftldtflt

OR. G O RTO N R 1C T H M IL L E R
V lrr F r t ttJ t n i

Februarv 12, 1976
JOHN W . PORTER

E D M U N D F, V A N D E T T B
S ttr tio r ?

Superintendent o f
Public Jeutrue lion

A N N E T T A M IL L E R
D A R D A kA A . O U M O U C Iin L L E
U R . PAUL. D. H E N R Y
B A R B A R A I . K O D L R IS
N O R M A N O TTO S T O C K M b Y F R , SR.
GO V. W IL L IA M G . M IL L 1 K E N

Ei'OffidQ

As a participant in the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study, we are
requesting that you provide the MEAP with evaluation information
on this study. Your comments and opinions are crucial to determine
recommendations for future action on this Special Study design.
In order to gather such information, we are requesting that you
complete the attached survey and return it to me by April 2 , 1976.
We have attempted to design this survey so that it requires a
minimum of time and effort to complete. We intend to request your
completion of a similar type of survey again in May.
A copy of the attached materials and this letter have also been sent
to your Superintendent and your School Principal.
Through your cooperation, we can obtain the information necessary to
make decisions on any changes and/or future implementation of this
study design.
Thank you in advance for your assistance in our gathering of infor­
mation. If you have any questions concerning the survey, please
call me at (517) 373-8393.

S in c e r e !y ,

AT,..,. -

V

l'nula Brictsnn
Research Consultant
Michigan Educational
Assessment Program

I 'l l / d e l

Al (lUiniiriit
re :

H c tio ii |

|'|-| in

| jt.i 1

S u p e r 1I I I e ll d e li I

..III St

IAM

D

APPENDIX K
INTERVIEW CONFIRMATION LETTER

208

APPENDIX K
INTERVIEW CONFIRMATION LETTER
STATE OP MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(T A T I B O A R S O P M U C A T W M

Lansing, Michigan 48902

U A W L V H JEAN K E LLY

JruU nf

D R. OORTOH R IH TH M ILLB R

Nn FmUtmt

IO U S W . PORTER
SapeflateadsBi o f
Public 1

EDMUND P. VANUBTTB
lu n iD j
AHHBTTA ACUfiR

BARBARA A. DUMOUCHELLB
DR. PAUL EL HENRY
BARBARA J. ROBERTS
NORMAN OTTO KTOCKMEYER, SR.
OOV. WtLLtAU Q. UHLIKEN

EwOtllct*

This is to confirm the meeting with Shirley Willard, Preprimary
Specialist, General Education Services, who is evaluating the kindergarten Special Study.
Your cooperation and willingness to participate in the interviews
are appreciated and welcomed as an opportunity for you to provide indepth information to the Department.
Date:_____
Name:______________________________

Time:__________________________

Name:_______________________________

Time:_________________________

In addition Ms. Willard would like to observe the kindergarten class
for about thirty minutes.
If you have any questions or desire further information please
call Ms. Willard at (517) 373-8220, or me at (517) 373-8393.
Sincerely,

Paula Drictson
Research Consultant
Michigan Educational Assessment
Program
PB:ob
cc: Shirley Willard

a
■V ~

Mu I

C

H

I

G

A

N

The Groat Lake Stale

209

APPENDIX L
LETTER TO INTERVIEWEES

210

APPENDIX L
LETTER TO INTERVIEWEES
STATE OS MJCHKMN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
• u n M A X 09 M M n O N

Um lne* Michigan 49903

IU U U L T K J U H

B ln .l.Y

D J L O O W TO N U B T K IC tU n

im im

jowl w. ro rm

m n n o p.

tapmMmimt ai
Mils tMtVOlM

axh btta

Dear Interviewee,
The purpose of Interviewing a subset of the MEAP Kindergarten
Special Study participants, Is to obtain Indepth Information on
those questions of primary concern to the "success" of the study.
The attached questions are Intended to single out those areas of
primary concern. However, I f there are other areas, not covered 1n
these questions, please feel free to In itia te additional conments.
At no time w ill your name be associated with any o f the Informa­
tion which you are providing. You and your d is tric t w ill remain
completely anonymous In my reporting the Information and opinions
which you are providing. With this assurance, you are urged to give
your opinions about and experiences with this Special Study as openly
as possible.
You may f i r s t wish to read through a ll of the questions on the
attached sheets. This w ill give you the general parameters and focus
for the interview.
Thank you for your cooperation 1n participating 1n this interview
procedure.
Sincerely,

Shirley M. Willard
Preprlmery Instructional
Specialist

MICHIGAN T l» OiRM Lsk* Oat*

211

im m i

SAHARA A. DUMOUCHELLB
DR. PAUL B. HENRY
RARRARAI. ROBERTS
MORHAN OTTO RTOCXKEYSR. >1
OOV. WILLIAM O. MIIXIKEN

Winter/Spring 1976

m

va w w tt*

&

APPENDIX M
LETTER OF APPRECIATION TO INTERVIEWEES

212

APPENDIX M
LETTER OF APPRECIATION TO INTERVIEWEES
STATE OP MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Laiulng, Michigan 46902

(TATI H U D O f MUCAnON
MARILYN JBAN KELLY
fn iU n l
D L OOKTON UETiaULLEK

vicr rttM tm

JOHN W. FORTHB
Sopntsusdest ct
Public lm n c tk m

EDMUND F. VANDBTTB

Statmr

ANNHTTA MILLBR
BABBABA A. DUMOUCHELU
DR. PAUL B. HENRY
BARBARA 1. ROBERTS
NORMAN OTTO 3TOCKMHYER. SB.
OOV. WILLIAM O . UHLIKBN
Em -O/II cIo

D ear

First, I wish to thank you again for your participation in the
interview evaluation of the Michigan Education Assessment Program
Kindergarten Special Study for 1975-76. The information which you
provided 'was valuable in formulating an evaluation of the effectiveness
of this pilot study.
Secondly, 1 would like to share with you the enclosed materials
which represent our current developmental efforts in Early Childhood
Education. I would appreciate your reading these materials and offering
any comments, suggestions or questions which you may have.
Also, could you send me a copy of any curriculum guide and report
card(s) which you use in your Kindergarten program?
Thank you again for your cooperation and I am looking forward to
receiving information on your Kindergarten program.
Sincerely,

Shirley M. Willard
Preprimary instructional
Special 1st

KU: I h
line I DHtiro

m

MICHIGAN The G n u Lake Slate

213

APPENDIX N
MEAP STAFF REPORT OF DECEMBER 10, 1976: SUMMARY
OF NOVEMBER-DECEMBER TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

214

APPENDIX N
MEAP STAFF REPORT OF DECEMBER 10, 1976: SUMMARY
OF NOVEMBER-DECEMBER TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

The attached teacher feedback questionnaire was d is trib u te d
by MEAP s t a f f a t the November fo llo w -u p meetings to those p a r t ic i­
pants present. MEAP s t a f f reports th a t 41 o f the 75 p a rtic ip a tin g
teachers were present a t these meetings. The s t a f f repo rt summarizes
the questionnaire data as follow s:

Kindergarten Questionnaire
1.

On how many o b jectives have you assessed one pupil or more?
1-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

9

14

12

1

2

1

81-90

2.

3.

91-100
1

101-110
i

111-120
-

61-70

121-130

71-80

131-132

-

How many d iffe r e n t MEAP te s t forms have you used?
0-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71-75

30

7

1

1

-

-

-

2

Has the kindergarten study been h elpfu l to your classroom program?
Yes:

18

No:

2

Comments:
Been useful as a curriculum guide.
Not e s p e c ia lly up to now.
I t has helped fin d out what child ren do not fin d easy to le a rn .
Too soon to evaluate!
I t hasbeen helpful in th a t i t has provided me w ith ate s t book­
l e t th a t is already prepared. Other years I have had to pre­
pare my own te s ts and evaluation forms on d it t o .
Not harm ful!
Probably w ill a f t e r I cover more o b je c tiv e s . The fo u r MEAP
tes ts I 'v e given have been h e lp fu l.
A little .

215

216

Through record-keeping I can see in black and white where each
c h ild is .
To a degree— I have assessed e a r lie r than in previous years.
Have enjoyed the one-to-one s itu a tio n .
I t has given me a set o f d e fin ite objectives to a tta in and to be
aware o f objectives to be watching fo r .
Helped a t conference tim e. I used te s t forms as pretests so
there are areas where a l l ch ild ren passed— these te s t areas
I fe e l I do not have to cover during the y e ar.
Somewhat.
I plan to use i t as a teaching to o l.
Usually when Parent-Teacher Conferences are h eld, I fe e l i t 1s
too e a rly to make a s s e rtiv e judgments and g en eraliza tio n s
concerning students. However, a f t e r using many o f the te s ts ,
I would read a c e rta in amount o f strengths and weaknesses
evident.
( I have an enrollm ent o f 70 in two sessions.)
I'm not r e a lly sure a t th is p o in t.
More in te re s tin g than h e lp fu l.
Not p a r tic u la r ly —ju s t more observant o f teachings.
Some o f the te s ts have given me new ways o f presenting an
o b je c tiv e , but fo r the most p a rt, the study has not been
h e lp fu l.
Yes, i t has made me more aware o f in d iv id u a l progress.
4.

On how many objectives do you p ro je c t you can assess every student
in your class by the end o f A p ril?
Most

A ll

II
5.

11

100
3

90
1

80
-

70
1

60
1

50
5

40

?
2 5

I f you could s e le c t a subset o f the preprimary o bjectives th a t
are appropriate fo r
your kindergarten program, and were provided
the MEAP assessment
forms, would you re p lic a te the kindergarten
study another year?
Yes:

27

No:

4

?:

3

Comments:
W ill r e t ir e th is year.
I would not fin d i t necessary since these are things I assess
during the e n tire year anyway.
On a sm aller s c a le , yes.
No! This study does not seem to have any relevance. I f we are
not to turn in the in d ivid u al student ro s te r, how can you know
what objectives and what te s t items need to be improved (and
in what areas child ren lack)? I do not approve giving an
unvalidated te s t to my c h ild re n . Seems lik e you need to
work on in d ivid u al school d is t r ic t s , instead o f across the
s ta te . Many items do not p e rta in to our ch ild ren and I'm
sure others d o n 't to other d is t r ic ts in the s ta te . I t ' s

217

too bad we c a n 't have the money which was spent on th is te s t
and use i t fo r m aterials and personnel fo r our schools-th a t seems more v a lid than these te s ts .
Ask again in May.
Yes— i f the te s t resembled the 1st grade book which I glanced
through a t th is meeting.
I th in k so— possibly as a readiness te s t.
I am using these o bjectives to assess students as they develop
d iffe r e n t s k i ll s .
The 1st grade booklet was a t tr a c tiv e .
I t is too e a rly to make a decision.
These te s ts have been h elpfu l in looking fo r o b jectives in my
c h ild re n .
The MEAP s t a f f re p o rt also includes the follow ing comments:
Of p a rtic u la r in te re s t are the two teachers who by mid-November
had administered nearly a ll the MEAP te s t forms. While th is
procedure had not been suggested nor advised, these teachers
f e l t they had some good data fo r parent conferences and
in s tru c tio n a l planning.
The responses in d ic a te th a t p a rtic ip a tio n in the study has been
in te re s tin g and w orthw hile, and th a t there is a w illin g ness
to re p lic a te the assessment procedure another y e ar.

APPENDIX 0
MEMORANDUM FROM MEAP STAFF TO AMERICAN INSTITUTE
FOR RESEARCH REQUESTING "CLASS ROSTER SHEET"
DATA ANALYSIS

218

APPENDIX 0
MEMORANDUM FROM MEAP STAFF TO AMERICAN INSTITUTE
FOR RESEARCH REQUESTING "CLASS ROSTER SHEET"
DATA ANALYSIS

Following is a quotation from a September 17, 1975, memo­
randum to the American In s t itu te fo r Research from MEAP s t a f f speci­
fying the requested data analysis fo r Kindergarten Special Study
"Class Roster" sheets:

A.

Kindergarten Special Study

The kindergarten study w ill y ie ld 75 class ro sters con­
ta in in g data on 134 performance o b jectives fo r up to 30 students in
75 classrooms. We w il l receive these data about May, 1976, and
desire the fo llow ing types o f analyses:
1.

The to ta l percent o f students a tta in in g each objec­
tiv e fo r each o f eig h t months;

2.

The to ta l percent o f students a tta in in g each o b je c tiv e
by the end o f the eig h t months;

3.

For each o b je c tiv e and fo r each assessment mode (th e re
are fo u r ), the percent o f students judged as a tta in in g
o b jectives by each o f the fo ur assessment modes.

O bjective
Assessment Mode
1

2

3

4

NR

Total
100%

This data w ill be c o lle c te d on non-machine scorable forms.
We need the above analyses completed by July 1, 1976.

219

APPENDIX P
DETAILED SUMMARY OF TEACHER NARRATIVE COMMENTS FROM
MEAP "COMMENTS ABOUT OBJECTIVES, TESTS AND
ITEMS" SHEETS

220

4

APPENDIX P
DETAILED SUMMARY OF TEACHER NARRATIVE COMMENTS FROM
MEAP "COMMENTS ABOUT OBJECTIVES, TESTS AND
ITEMS" SHEETS

"Some o f my fe e lin g s and observations concerning th is assess­
ment: (1 ) most time consuming; (2) e a rly detection o f strengths and
weaknesses in students; (3 ) manuals were c le a r ly stated ; (4 ) too many
in d iv id u a lly tested o b je c tiv e s . Most necessary to have an aid e;
(5 ) m a teria ls were w ell provided; (6 ) personnel on s ta te le v e l were
most cooperative, understanding and h e lp fu l."
" I have enjoyed g ivin g the te s ts , but I also have grown t ir e d
o f the p ro je c t.
I have spent hours and hours recording the re s u lts .
The ch ild re n enjoyed the in d iv id u a l te s tin g . And I know I have
learned much more about each c h ild . But a t the same tim e, I had to
give up playing w ith the ch ild re n a t t h e ir fre e tim e. . . . I w ill
be glad to take p art in the study another y e a r, i f we can receive
the m a teria ls in time to study and group them. I b elie ve about h a lf
as many te s ts per teacher could be handled more com fortably."
. . I did n\y best to complete th is survey and answer your
questions.
However, i t c e r ta in ly is time consuming to adm inister the
te s t and then comment on each o b je c tiv e and to describe other tests
used and to describe s itu a tio n s where a student is e x h ib itin g a cer­
ta in s k i l l as you suggest on page 8 , paragraph 2, and 3 o f your pro­
cedural manual."
". . . I f they were a v a ila b le to me again I 'd use many as
pretests the f i r s t month o f school. As i t turned o u t, I d id n 't get
around to te s tin g each o b je c tiv e as e a rly as I ' d lik e to and th e re ­
fore answered the o b je c tiv e by my d a ily observation o f t h e ir class
work. . . . I t would have been ideal i f a l l o b jectives could have
been tested the f i r s t two months o f school. As i t turned out i t was
fru s tra tin g to me to mark an o b je c tiv e as having been a tta in e d in
February when I got around to te s tin g i t when I knew i t had been
atta in e d in October. . . . "
"These te s ts have been a re a l challenge to me. Some o f them
I fe e l were valuable and others not.
I fe e l they should be compiled
into several te s ts but not 74! The ch ild re n became very bored w ith
the booklets.
We
u su ally cover most o f the o bjectives but in other
ways. I would bew illin g to give the te s ts ag ain ."
" I am sorry th a t th ere is not time to keep tra c k o f 55 stu ­
dents and prepare a l l these forms. A check sheet w ith about 30 items
would be more r e a l i s t i c . . . . "
221

222
"We have covered more m aterial than I have recorded but time
did not perm it any more te s tin g or recording. With 31 ch ild ren in
one group and no help i t was ju s t too much ex tra work. . . . I f e l t
I was neglecting our re g u la r work to do the te s ts . However, I do
fe e l th e tes ts and o bjectives were valuable and sometimes more Impor­
ta n t than things I had to do. What we did was in te re s tin g , and I
could have enjoyed i t more and benefited more by i t i f I had a sm aller
group and some h elp ."
"In order to do ju s tic e to th is program, I fe e l the in d i­
vidual teachers need help w ith the record keeping end o f i t .
During
the y e a r, I f e l t t e r r i b l y pressured to te s t and record and found I
ju s t did not have time to properly comment on the tests o r objec­
tiv e s .
I thought the MEAP te s t forms were w ell done but th a t's ju s t
too much tes tin g fo r a kindergarten c h ild . My ch ild ren grew tir e d o f
the te s ts .
. . . On the whole most o f the objectives were things
th a t the m a jo rity o f the ch ild ren had in th e ir behavior. As a re s u lt
the te s ts were t e r r i b l y easy fo r them."
" . . . Several objectives I probably covered have made teacher
observation on e s p e c ia lly in the a ffe c tiv e area , but could have used
more s p e c ific c r ite r io n . . . . I fe e l th a t commenting fo r the sake o f
comnents was wasting tim e, so, in general commented only when I f e l t
necessary. I f you need fu rth e r input here, I would be glad to answer
s p e c ific questions.. . . . I have found th is study very h elpfu l in
se ttin g p r io r it ie s in my kindergarten program. I am anxious to see
the re s u lts o f the program and also would lik e to see a g et-to g e th e r
of teachers involved in the study to ta lk about our common strengths
and weaknesses, e tc . . . . "
" . . . Very good objectives . . . should continue w ith te s tin g
a ll ye ar. . . format o f record keeping please change . . . p o s s ib ility
of putting short t i t l e s a t the top . . . d o n 't th in k many teachers
would lik e to do a l l o f th is record keeping . . . d o n 't have time
. . . i f th is te s t w ill become p art o f te s tin g program maybe ju s t use
marks instead o f recording d ate. . . . "
"To explain my scoring system on the ro s te r sheet . . . Hope
the above c la r if ie s my bookkeeping system."
" I have enjoyed p a rtic ip a tin g in the program but found the
'paper work' p ro h ib itiv e fo r the te s t's valu e. To adm inister in d i­
vidual tes ts to each o f approximately 25 students w ithout in te r r u p t­
ing our cu rren t program was impossible. . . . "
" I fe e l th a t fo r the most p a rt, objectives and tes ts used to
measure these objectives were good. They cover a wide range o f le a rn ­
ing a c t iv it ie s and n early a l l o b jectives are a p a rt o f our present
program. I found the te s ts a very useful diagnostic tool both fo r
group and in d ivid u al stu d ies.
. . . Thank you fo r the opportunity o f
being involved in th is study. I have gained a g reat deal from i t . "

223
"There are f a r too many te s t items to compile a l l o f them
during the school y e a r. My aide did many o f the te s ts which helped
complete the items; however, these tes ts re s u lts were o f l i t t l e
value to me as I was not c e rta in o f the way i t was administered or
the way the c h ild responded. I did not mind giving the te s ts but
f e l t making comments took excess tim e. Many re s u lts o f the tests
were useless fo r they gave inform ation already known or th a t would
be o f l i t t l e use."
"This . . . has been very time consuming and could not have
been done properly w ithout the help
o f an aide in the room. This is
too much to ask o f a teacher. . . . We are wondering, have the
people th a t are working th is study e ith e r taught kindergarten or
f i r s t grade7 I t r e a lly doesn't m atter how much education a person
has i f they have not had actual experience in the classroom w ith
the d iffe r e n t types o f ch ild ren and in d iffe r e n t s itu a tio n s ."
" I t would have been impossible to do as much w ithout an a id e .
No way can a l l tes ts be done w ith an a id e . . . . "
" I t would be h elpfu l i f the o b jectives were labeled on the
class ro s te r ra th e r than lis te d by number and category o nly. . . .
The MEAP te s t form numbers should run in order on the class ro s te r.
I t wastes time and is confusing the
way i t is set up."
"Some o f the o b je c tiv e s , I f e l t , could have been achieved
e a r lie r , but I did not have time fo r te s tin g . I also fe e l th ere are
too many o b jectives fo r kin derg arten ."
"These tes ts and o b jectives are valuable a id s . I appre­
cia te the opportunity to p a rtic ip a te . As a whole, I b elieve the
research and study can improve the educational system i f used as
intended and needed."
"On teacher observation te s ts the month is time o f recording,
not necessarily time o f achievement; sometimes were recorded from
memory. . . . Although I acknowledge the b en efits o f th is e f f o r t , I
could not have done i t w ithout the help o f m other-aides, high school
aides, pre-student teach er, e tc . A paid aide should come w ith the
te s t forms I"
" I have enjoyed the te s ts , but I fe e l very strongly th a t the
record keeping has proven to be too time-consuming. I would have
preferred checking only i f the c h ild atta in e d the o b je c tiv e and not
the month."
"The tes ts were in general too time consuming. Often more
than one thing could have been on one page. The ch ild ren became
accomplished a t page-turning."

i

224
" I t j s very hard fo r the children to manipulate the booklets,
e s p e c ia lly in September. They d o n 't understand the concept 'tu rn
page over. Ml
" I t would be g rea t i f we had an aide or secretary to h elp."
"Student
designate th a t a
t e l l a t a glance
to in d ic a te th is

performance records: There should be some way to
c h ild has f a ile d a t e s t , so th a t the teacher can
who to re te s t. I put an F a t the bottom o f a column
. . . i n pencil so th a t i t could be erased."

APPENDIX Q
DETAILED SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW RESPONSES
FOR KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS

225

APPENDIX Q
DETAILED SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW RESPONSES
FOR KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS
T o ta l:
1.

12 fo r questions 1 -8 ; 11 fo r questions 9-36.

Have you previously used performance o b jec tiv es in your kinder­
garten program? Why or why not?
Comments
Yes:

7

C ertain basic things every kindergartener
should know.
E sp ecially in connection w ith rep o rtin g to
parents and screening procedures.
Were handed to me by p rin c ip a l.
Have used o b je c tiv e s , but never done
assessment.
Id e n tifie d them m yself.
School id e n tifie d goals we want to a tta in
fo r the y e ar.

No:

5

Was previously a music teacher and did not
use o b je c tiv e s .
We ju s t d o n 't have any.
Not in w ritte n form.
F ir s t year teacher.

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
" I th in k because in our school system, the idea o f what should
happen in our kindergarten program has not r e a lly be uniform . We
range from . . . an almost nursery school type o f approach to a
very academic. . . . I r e a lly fe e l th a t so much o f the time in
kindergarten we r e a lly do not u t i l i z e a l l the ta le n ts th a t f iv e
year old ch ild ren have. I th in k we short change them o fte n . . . . "
“This school d i s t r i c t has a set o f 20 o b jectives fo r reading
and 20 fo r math th a t they have to master by the end o f kin d erg arten ."
" I have used objectives to measure c h ild re n , so th a t I would
know what kind o f in s tru c tio n I was going to do. I id e n tifie d
them m yself, but I d o n 't th in k they were as thorough as yours."
226

227
2.

Do you b elieve th a t basing assessment and in s tru c tio n on objec­
tiv e s is a good procedure fo r kindergarten? Why or why not?
Comments
Yes:

9

But not everything should be based on spe­
c i f i c o b je c tiv e s .
This is the basis o f a kindergarten program.
Good procedure.
Because o f o b je c tiv e s , I 'v e covered more
th is y e a r.
A bsolutely.

No:

0

To some e x te n t, not
sure, yes and no: 3

Not everything in the program should be
based on achieving c e rta in o b je c tiv e s .
Not i f i t doesn't provide a good kinder­
garten program.
Unless you t a lk in terms o f minimum objec­
tiv e s fo r everyone.

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
" . . . Not everything should be based on s p e c ific o b je c tiv e s .
Everything has a purpose but not s p e c ific a lly te s te d .
'Academic
le a rn in g ' has o b jectives and is te s te d ."
" I th in k every teacher should have some form o f o b jec tiv es to
know what, am I going to do fo r each in d iv id u a l c h ild . You should
have some kind o f o b jectives to know what you hopeto reach and
have they reached them or n o t."
" I'm not sure you can make i t v a lid because each group is so
d if f e r e n t , . . . "
"You have to have some idea where y o u 're headed and the kids
have a basis where th e y 're a l l about the same."
"Work w ith them, but you must be w illin g to change them as you
go along."

228
3.

Do you fin d .th e S ta te Department o f Education Preprimary O bjectives
g en erally ap p ro priate fo r your kindergarten children? Why or why
not?
Comments
Yes:

4

Host.
For the m a jo rity .
Some could have been more d i f f i c u l t .

Some:

8

A lo t are too easy.
Some too easy, some too hard.

No:

0

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
" . . . Most o f the ch ild ren can achieve these o b jectives when
they begin kin d erg arten ."
" . . . I found out things th a t I hadn't found out before by
using them."
" . . . Some o f them are o bjectives th a t should have been
a tta in e d by ch ild re n before they come to kin derg arten ."
4.

Previous to th is 1975-76 school y e a r, did you assess and record
in d iv id u a l student performance during your kindergarten program?
Why or why not?
Comments
Yes:

10

Always checked c h ild re n 's work.
Used commercial m a te ria ls .
Have my own check sheet.

No:

0

Not a p p lic ab le :

2 ( f i r s t year a t kindergarten le v e l)

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
" " I f you d o n 't assess, how can you teach? The purpose o f
assessment is to develop a program and to decide how f a r the c h ild
is growing in a l l areas."

I f you did assess and record student achievement previous to
1975-76, what behaviors did you assess and record and how did
you do so?
Behaviors

How Assessed and Recorded

Standard academic s k ills :

6

Large and small muscle
coordination; psychomotor:

4

C ognitive, a ffe c tiv e
and psychomotor behaviors:

4

Observation:

6

Commercial te s ts :

4

Workbooks:

3

Check l i s t :

3

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
"At the beginning o f the year . . . I check fo r f i r s t name,
recognition o f shapes, c o lo rs , counting to te n . . .
"Now in question #4 y o u 're ta lk in g about student performance,
you are speaking th ere then not o f achievement so much . . .
because 'behaviors' to me would be more . . . not so academic. . .
We did both student academic performance and behaviors; work habits
behavior on playground, in te ra c tio n w ith o ther c h ild re n . Academic
performance would be learn in g ABC's, associate sounds to the point
o f some ch ild ren beginning reading and math. . . . "
"The f i r s t day o f school I would s i t and play a game w ith them.
And I p re tty much knew by the time the game was done who knew some
o f them and who knew nothing. I sat w ith my l i t t l e paper w ith a
plus fo r yes and a minus fo r no, so th a t a t the end o f the day I
knew a l i t t l e b it about who I had to work w ith . And then when I
f e l t th a t I r e a lly had rapport w ith them, I a c tu a lly sa t down w ith
a box o f crayons and said 'Show me these colors. Which ones do
you know?' during t h e ir fre e tim e. I d id n 't have n early as many
paper and pencil te s ts as th is is ."
How do you use the inform ation obtained through the Special Study
assessment procedures?
To address the weaknesses or needs o f ch ild re n :

10

To plan more in d iv id u a liz e d in s tru c tio n :

3

To rep o rt to parents:

2

A dditional re le v a n t comnents:
" I t helped me to see . . . they d id n 't r e a lly understand th a t
. . . I ' l l do some extra things to help develop th a t . . . to plan
some in s tru c tio n ."

230
" I guess I d id n 't use i t too much.
I used i t probably as a
te s tin g over something th a t we had already covered to make sure
th a t the ch ild ren had achieved th a t p a r tic u la r th in g ."
" I f I fe e l th a t i t ' s an important area th a t th e y 're r e a lly
lacking in , then I have my aide go over th a t w ith them, o r i f h a lf
the class is missing th a t then we cover i t again. . . ."
" I used i t mostly as a p re te s t. . . . I recorded i t , then I
went back to decide my program . . . a lo t o f the d a ily a c t iv it ie s
. . . I adjusted my program to whatever they needed. . . . "
" . . . I found the needs o f ch ild ren th a t had to be met, and
the others can go ahead."
7.

Of what b e n e fit to your teaching has your p a rtic ip a tio n in th is
Special Study been?
None:

1

Very l i t t l e :

2

Check on effectiveness o f teaching:

3

Perspective on own kindergarten program:

2

Provided concrete, s p e c ific organized d ire c tio n :

5

Provided more s p e c ific , or complete inform ation
on ch ild re n :

2

I d o n 't know:

1

Focused a tte n tio n on in d ivid u al ch ild re n :

2

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
"There were things th a t were taught way back a t the beginning
o f the year and I'm ju s t now te s tin g them on i t . . . and so
th e y 're r e a lly snapping In to i t re al w e ll. . . . "
" I th in k e a r lie r than before than any other year I tau g h t, I
knew exactly where the kids were . . . because everything was
spelled out . . . th a t was the strongest thing . . . the other
thing was th a t i t was a l o t o f fun. I enjoyed i t . . . being able
to teach and know e x a c tly what you were going to do. . . . "
" I r e a lly th in k we've learned q u ite a b i t from i t . . . . When
you saw things r ig h t down in p r in t , you said o .k . these are the
things we should be doing . . . very s p e c ific ."

231

8.

Do you perceive any disadvantages to your teaching caused by your
p a rtic ip a tio n in the Special Study?
Comments
Yes:

6

Testing and recording takes time away
from teaching:

5

Caused problems w ith nonparticip ating
kindergarten teacher colleagues:

1

I fe e l t e r r ib ly pressured.
No:

4

I d o n 't th in k i t ' s
at a l l .

hindered anything

I t took time to do the paperwork, but
I d o n 't th in k th a t was any disadvantage.
Other:

2

None to my teaching, but the book­
keeping is a disadvantage.
I d id n 't have the m aterials fo r the
afternoon group and I f e l t they got a
l i t t l e cheated by not having i t .

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
" I d id n 't have time fo r most o f the other things th a t I r e a lly
fe e l are necessary fo r kindergarten teaching. I f e l t i t usurped my
tim e. I t was so time consuming to the p oint where I'm now fe e lin g
lik e I'm behind in the things th a t I otherwise would do. . . . We
d id n 't get as fa r in our readiness book. . . . I t ' s a very compre­
hensive book and I usually have had more time to spend on social
s tu d ie s, geography and science and math . . . and other concepts
th a t I would consider basic kindergarten in s tru c tio n ."
" I do not lik e so many
paper-pencil th in g s . I t did take a
lo t o f extra tim e.
I lik e games. I f I w ouldn't have had an aide
I th in k i t would have been ju s t mind boggling to record a ll o f
it."
" . . . But i t is very time consuming . . . to do a l l th a t
te s tin g . . . . I can see i f you had an a id e , th a t the aide could
help t e s t , but when you have to do i t a l l y o u rs e lf i t would
take
maybe a h a lf an hour or more o f f your program each day. . . . You
elim inated some o f the fun things from the program . . . th a t you
would be doing, but you did th is in stead ."

232
9.

Previous to the 1975-76 school y e a r, what had been the nature o f
coordination between the kindergarten program and the f i r s t grade?
Comments
None:

2

Very l i t t l e ,
not very much: 2
Teachers plan together:

5

The f i r s t grade teachers gave us
some o b jectives to fo llo w .
I work very c lo s e ly w ith the f i r s t
grade teachers. We ta lk a t teachers
meetings and on the telephone.
The whole school has a coordinated
curriculum .
Very strong coord in atio n. When the
f i r s t grade teachers receive c h i l ­
dren, they s ta r t them r ig h t where
th e y 're from. We work to gether.

Inform ation is passed
on to f i r s t grade teachers: 1

Kindergarten books lead
in to f i r s t grade books:

We've been the same teachers fo r 15
ye ars, so we know each o th e r's
expectations.

1

A dditional re lev an t comments:
" I f they fin d places during the year where they wish we had
covered more the previous y e a r, they t e l l me about i t and I record
th is and remember i t fo r the next y e a r. I t ' s ju s t because we are
good frien d s and we know each o th e r. We do th is on our own."
" I was the f i r s t grade teacher and then prepared the new
f i r s t grade teacher what to do. But I t ' s [p r in c ip a l's name] th a t
sees th a t strong coordination happens."
10.

Do you see or foresee any changes In the coordination due to the
Kindergarten Special Study?
Yes:

2

The f i r s t grade w ill know what
we've covered.

233
Conments
I talked to the f i r s t grade teachers
about s e ttin g up some way th a t I
knew what they wanted. And we were
going to go over the o bjectives and
see what they thought was important
and what I thought was important to
pick out the ones th a t we thought we
needed here in th is system.
No:

7

Not fo r next year anyway.
The coordination is already very good.

C on ditio n al:

Some:

1

1

I f th is becomes p art o f a kinder­
garten curriculum statew ide.
The inform ation w ill probably go to
the f i r s t grade teachers, but
inform ation would go on anyway.

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
" . . . Like w ith the record sheets . . . nobody knows what
they mean but me. . . .A s they are now, th e y 're o f no value to
another teacher. They mean nothing. They d o n 't even mean any­
thing to me unless I go back and look up the o b jectives and see
what i t says."
"Right now th e re 's no kindergarten program th a t I can t e l l ,
where th e re 's any coordination w ith the kindergartens. Expecta­
tio n s from school to school are t o t a l l y d if f e r e n t ,
I th in k there
should be some kind o f coordination around the whole s ta te ."
11.

Previous to the 1975-76 school y e a r, what had been the nature o f
coordination between the kindergarten program and any pre­
kindergarten program (nursery school or day care ce n te r) in your
school or community?
None:

9

I would lik e to see some coordination
between the two because we are g et­
tin g some re al problems. . . .
We d o n 't have a pre-kindergarten
program.
I'm not aware o f what they are doing
a t a l l , and they d o n 't contact the
school about anything.

234
Comments
Teacher contacted pre­
kindergarten teacher
on own i n i t i a t i v e :
3

On my teacher observation day, I
chose to observe the nursery school.
I talk ed to the p re-kindergarten
teacher in th is b u ild in g .

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
" . . . There needs to be some guidelin es s e t. . . . Last year
we went and v is ite d them [ T i t l e I p re -k in d e rg a rte n ]. We've sug­
gested s it t in g down to g eth er many tim es, but no go y e t."
12.

Do you see or foresee any changes in th is coordination due to the
Kindergarten Special Study?
Yes:

2

We sent communication to parents
and to lo cal centers which id e n ti­
fie d "problem areas" in the
o b je c tiv e s .
P a rtly due to the study and p a rtly
due to the p e rs o n a lity o f the new
p re-kind ergarten teacher in th is
b u ild in g . He has a copy o f the
Preprimary O bjectives.

No:

Some:

2

I talked to a couple o f t h e ir teach­
ers and asked "What are your goals?"
They s a id , "What's a goal?"
1

Not ju s t because o f the study, but
i t w ill provide concrete points fo r
discussion.

I d o n 't know:

1

Have no pre­
kindergarten program:
I hope so:

2

I t would be h e lp fu l.

1
They might ju s t see the importance
o f having something to do in pre­
school, instead o f a l l s o c ia liz a ­
tio n . . . . They need something
lik e the preprimary o b je c tiv e s .
I w il l share a copy o f the o b jectives
w ith the nursery school teacher. I f
we asked, they could p a r tic ip a te .

235
A dditional re le v a n t comments:
“W ell, I'm hoping th a t i t ' l l [Kindergarten Special Study]
continue and be a curriculum fo r the kindergarten th a t we w ill
a l l fo llo w ."
13.

Has your communication w ith p a r e n t changed in any way due to your
p a rtic ip a tio n in the Kindergarten Special Study? I f yes, how?
I f no, why not?
Conments
Yes:

2

I 'v e given parents inform ation on the te s t
re s u lts and asked th a t they work w ith the
kids.
Because I had something s p e c ific to t e l l
them . . . by going through the objec­
tiv e s I could say th is is how i t is .
. . . I t gave me a g u id e lin e th ere too
which I was glad f o r .

No:

9

We've always had good communication:

9

I d o n 't even know i f they a l l know
th a t w e're doing i t .
I could have reported some inform ation
on the slow ones, but I haven't gotten
those parents in .
A dditional re le v a n t comments:
" I ca lle d in a parent . . . and showed the fa th e r the te s t
th a t he [son] had done . . . I showed him as an example o f some
o f the things th a t we do th a t he's ju s t not g e ttin g ."
"They knew th a t we were te s tin g . . . but we ju s t to ld them
th a t i t was a p a rt o f the whole kindergarten program th a t we were
try in g th is ."
(This teacher has reported no
Kindergarten Special
Study inform ation to p are n ts .)
14.

Do you fin d th a t the Kindergarten Special Study assessment proce­
dures are providing you w ith more complete (c o g n itiv e , a ff e c t iv e ,
psychomotor) inform ation than previous procedures? I f yes, how
is i t more complete? I f no, why not?
Yes:

8

Before I had to see separate te s ts fo r
the d iff e r e n t areas.

236

Comments
. . . and more complete on each in d ivid u al
c h ild .
There is more inform ation in a l l areas.
By seeing those I made my program a l i t t l e
more complete . . . and i f I f e l t th a t
there w asn't something in the objectives
th a t I wanted to teach . . . then I would
bring th a t in to i t . . . .
They d o n 't seem to leave anything o u t. I t ' s
more complete than what was previously used.
E sp ecially in a ffe c tiv e . . . much more
thorough.
Very w ell rounded.
No:

2

. . . because I'm doing a ll those areas
already.
. . . maybe not w ritte n down as much.

I'm not sure:

1

I r e a lly do th in k th a t when i t ' s r ig h t down
in fro n t o f you in p r in t , you say, w e ll, now
these are the things th a t we’ re going to
cover and you do th a t.

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
15.

None

Do you fin d th a t the Kindergarten Special Study procedures are
providing youw ith more useful inform ation
than previous procedures?
I f yes, how is i t more useful? I f no, why not?
Yes:

6

I t ' s more than ju s t the teach er's assumption.
I t ' s w ritte n down . . . s p e c ific . . . good
fo r communication to parents.
. . . Before we ju s t had the readiness te s t
and the end o f year t e s t. . . nothing in
motor or audio s k i ll s . This tests every­
th in g .
. . . I t gave me a basis . . . r e a lly a
foundation o f where to go and I f e l t lik e
th a t was the basis o f the program. And then
I could go out to the other m aterials and
use them to work around these o b je c tiv e s .

237
Comments
. . . but I d o n 't know how much. . . . I
f e l t some things were ju s t too p re -k in d e r­
garten fo r my group.
No:

4

. . . but then I haven't covered a l l o f the
MEAP te s ts . . . .
Because th is d i s t r i c t 's o b jectives and pro­
cedures are very s im ila r .
. . . about the same.
I had ju s t as much and s p e c ific b efo re, but
again, not recorded in a book th a t way, the
way i t is .

Undecided:

1

I th in k w hat's there you see and you do . .
s p e c ific . I th in k you do these things not
even re a liz in g y o u 're doing them, but when
i t ' s down in fro n t o f you in p r in t you say,
" w e ll, th is is something we have to cover."

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
16.

None

Have you had any communication w ith the f i r s t grade teacher
regarding the Kindergarten Special Study procedures? I f yes,
please describe. I f no, why not?
Yes:

4

I met w ith her to describe the study and
te s t re s u lts .
We met to discuss the o b je c tiv e s .
I showed her a l l the objectives . . . she
thought i t was kind o f e x c itin g , but th a t
i t looked lik e a lo t o f work.
I showed the teacher the m aterials we were
using and what we were te s tin g and th e y 're
aware o f what we have been doing a l l year
long (see ad d itio n a l re le v a n t comments).

No:

Some:

4

We've ju s t to ld them th a t we are doing i t
and they haven't said anything p o s itiv e
o r negative about i t .
3

With one teacher.

238
A dditional re lev an t comments:
"When we f i r s t
grade was going to
' f i r s t g rad e.' So
study because they
17.

got th a t m aterial we thought th a t the f i r s t
do the te s tin g . A ll th is m aterial we got said
the f i r s t grade teachers became aware o f the
thought they were going to do the te s tin g ."

Have you provided your b uilding p rin c ip a l (o r supervisor) w ith any
o f the student performance inform ation obtained through the Kin­
dergarten Special Study procedures? I f yes, please describe the
circumstances fo r doing so. I f no, why not?
Comments
Yes:

5

I showed some te s t re s u lts and te s tin g
procedures.
Shared some te s t re s u lts .
I'v e worked w ith her real c lo s e ly .

No:

6

She (p rin c ip a l) said th a t th is was some­
thing th a t I was to do, th a t she was too
busy w ith everything else and she d id n 't
want to know anything about i t . And we
haven't talked about i t a t a l l .
I d o n 't th in k th a t she's ever r e a lly looked
a t i t . . . to begin w ith , she came in and
went through the blue book . . . but the
re s u lts , I d o n 't th in k she's seen y e t.
I had only discussed w ith him the problems
th a t I had encountered in using i t .
No need to .

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
18.

None

What has been the ro le o f your p rin c ip a l (or supervisor) In the
Kindergarten Special Study?
Support:

6

The p rin c ip a l took my kindergarten class
so I could attend the MEAP meeting.
Has kept a very p o s itiv e a ttitu d e .
Went to o r accompanied us to the MEAP
meetings.
(This re fe rs to the su p erviso r.)
. . . Has administered some tes ts . . . is
co n tin u a lly checking to see how the c h il­
dren are doing.

239
Comments
. . . a v a ila b le to respond to questions or
as needed.
She knows what was going on and was in t e r ­
ested enough to see what we were doing.
O rig in a to r o f study
fo r b u ild in g :
1
Answering forms:

1

None:

3

. . .

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
19.

and I th in k th a t's p re tty much i t .

None

Have you received the needed lo c al ad m in is tra tiv e/su p erviso ry
support necessary to successful implementation o f the Kinder­
garten Special Study? I f no, what support was needed, but not
provided? I f yes, what support was needed and provided?
Yes:

8

Very much.
I 'v e received what help was needed and
requested.
. . . but our superintendent volunteered
us w ithout any o f us knowing. That was
sad. (See ad d itio n a l re lev an t comments.)

No:

3

I need sm aller classes or more assistance
in the room.
When (th e supervisor) approached me on i t
o r ig in a lly she said i f th ere was a l o t o f one
to one te s tin g to be done th a t we could h ire
a s u b s titu te to come in and take my class
w h ile I did the one to one. Then th a t never
m a te ria lize d and the p rin c ip a l e v id e n tly
w asn't able to bring i t in to being e ith e r .
. . . The aide s itu a tio n d id n 't work o u t.

A dditional re lev an t comments:
"But I r e a lly blew the panic button when I found out I had 71
child ren and I was in th is study and I s a id , 'L is te n , I ju s t
c a n 't do i t . ' And I got an aid e. T hat's one o f the few aides
in the whole system."

240
20.

Has an in s tru c tio n a l aide or student teacher assisted you in the
assessing o f students or recording o f inform ation fo r the Special
Study? I f no, do you b elie ve th a t such assistance could be o f
primary importance in successful implementation o f the Special
Study? I f yes, do you b e lie v e th is has been o f primary importance
in the successful implementation o f the Study?
Comments
Yes:

5

I tra in e d a mother to adm inister tes ts
. . . ab so lu tely important to implement
th is study.
. . .

o f primary Importance . . .

I'm not sure.
High school aides helped w ith the in d i­
vidual te s tin g , but they did no recording.
. . . Yes, o f primary importance. . . . I t
was necessary, otherw ise, I d o n 't th in k I
could have done the ind ividu al- p a rts .
No:

6

(One teacher had an aide but claims the
aide did nothing connected w ith the study.
This teacher also stated th a t she did not
fo llo w the te s tin g d ir e c tio n s .)
I th in k i t would be h e lp fu l.
I did i t a ll (te s tin g and re c o rd in g ). But
the aide freed me to do the te s tin g .
It
would have been much harder i f I hadn't
had her.
I t would have
e s p e c ia lly a t
I haven't had
scores th a t I
fo r th a t.

helped to have an a id e ,
the beginning o f the y e a r.
any d i f f i c u l t y recording
fe e l I would need someone

I 'v e done i t a l l . . . i t would be o f
tremendous value (to have an a id e ).
. . . That would be re a l good (to have an
a id e ) .
A dditional re lev an t comments:

None

241
21.

How do you choose which o b je c tiv e to assess?
W rite r's note: Throughout th is question, most teachers equated
the choice o f o b je c tiv e w ith what MEAP te s t they chose to admin­
i s t e r . They did not d if f e r e n t ia t e between o b je c tiv e and assess­
ment. Responses must be read accordingly.
Ones th a t looked e a s ie s t, I did f i r s t :

1

The ones I thought the ch ild re n might have problems w ith :

2

According to growth and development o f f iv e year olds; when
I thought ch ild re n were ready to perform th a t behavior:

2

According to the local kindergarten curriculum or goals:

4

As a fo llow -u p to what had been taught:

5

By the numerical order o f the te s t:

1

Random picking o f te s ts out o f box:

1

Whatever I f e l t was im portant:

2

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
"When I r e a lly got the whole box f u l l o f m aterial I was com­
p le te ly lo s t as to what came where and I ju s t did not have the
time to s i t down and take a l l o f th is and p u ll i t ap art and fig u re
out which would be best to use when. . . So I tr ie d to pick i t
out by what we had covered and then te s t i t as such so th a t I 'd
know th a t the ch ild re n r e a lly had achieved th a t p a rtic u la r objec­
t iv e . . . . I th in k i t w asn't too bad considering th a t I was
u n fa m ilia r w ith the whole box. . . i t was mind boggling when I
looked a t i t .
I thought, 'How am I going to accomplish a l l o f
th is ? '"
" I have a d e fin ite month by month plan o f o b jectives th a t
I lik e to t r y . . . but I a d ju s t i t depending on a c h ild 's needs.
So I chose the o b je c tiv e according to my goals. . . . Children
come in to kindergarten w ith c e rta in weaknesses and you plan goals
accordingly . . . my e n tir e program sequence."
"W ell, I did a l l o f them. I ju s t thought th a t we were supposed
to see how many we could do. And we made a game o f i t so i t was
nothing you know. I t was ju s t p a rt o f the work and they had a
good tim e. . . . The gym teacher helped w ith some o f the psycho­
motor th in g s. . . . I read through the whole th in g and I took the
things as I taught them and then i f I taught something, then I
assessed."

242
22.

How do you choose the ad m in istratio n mode by which to assess any
given o b je c tiv e ( i . e . , MEAP t e s t, other t e s t , observation, or
other)?
I f there were enough MEAP boo klets, I used those:

1

I f o b je c tiv e c o u ld n 't be assessed by observation, or
d id n 't have a te s t already in use, then chose a MEAP te s t:

4

A utom atically used MEAP te s ts :

3

Depends on o b je c tiv e ; whatever considered most app ro priate:

4

A b ilit y level o f students ( i f a b i l i t y is unknown,
teacher used MEAP te s ts ):

1

Depends on how much time I have:

1

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
" I th in k they [c h ild re n ] more or less decided i t .
I f they
did something I could observe, I ju s t did i t .
I f I hadn't
observed i t , then I would use the te s t ."
" I f I knew tny r e a lly good students could do i t , I would
choose teacher observance, and those th a t I r e a lly d id n 't know
about, I would choose th e MEAP te s ts ."
" F ir s t o f a l l , i t depends on the kid s.
I had to learn them a
l i t t l e f i r s t to see how they could do th in g s . I f e l t much o f i t
you could ju s t see th a t. Then I looked through your te s ts , read
those over and i f I f e l t they were good ones and I f e l t lik e the
kids could handle them, then I would give them those.
I f not, I
went to some other area and used th a t. They got tir e d o f using
ju s t one th in g ."
" I always read over the MEAP te s t f i r s t . . . and some o f them
I did according to what the study suggested. . . . I chose what
was most appropriate way to get a t the o b je c tiv e w ith each par­
t ic u la r c h ild ."
"W ell, some o f these things are covered by the work th a t we
do. . . lik e in our number books. . . . I f i t was something th a t
we had been doing a l l the tim e, we ju s t did i t the same way. I f
I thought the te s t was b e tte r we'd use the te s t ."

243
23.

How often do you record inform ation on the "Class Roster" sheets?
Why th is period o f time?
Comments
Whenever I te s t:

4 WRITER:

Would not give time frame.

Two-three times a week:

2 . . .

but depends on the week. . . .

Once a month:

2 . . .

good period o f time to check

T hree-fo u r times a week:

1 on ^1ve year olc^s*

Every two weeks:

1 . . . good period fo r judging growth
or change in f iv e year olds.

No consistent time period: 1

A dditional re le v a n t comments:

24.

" . . .

not often enough. . . . There's not enough tim e. . . ."

" . . .

Depends on i f I use a MEAP te s t or observation. . . . "

To d ate, approximately how many o b jectives have you assessed?
100
10
50
25
25
90
45
60
A ll o f them
Maybe threfe quarters
I d o n 't know. I haven't given any o f the in d ivid u al MEAP te s ts .
A d d ition al re lev an t comment:
Teacher who had assessed 100 o b jec tiv es :
date fo r the p ro je c t."

25.

" I misread the due

How much time do you spend recording inform ation (a great d e a l, a
moderate amount, very l i t t l e ) ?
A g reat deal:

4

At the beginning around fo u r hours a
week . . . a f te r the November meeting,
about one hour.
I t f e l t lik e a l o t .
I t was ju s t lik e
a burden a ll the tim e. . . .

244
Comments
A lo t.
I t r e a lly takes q u ite a b i t
o f time because you have to check a l l
the booklets too.
At f i r s t , much time because o f the
in d ivid u al sheets. . . .
Moderate amount:

3

Because the aide and I did i t
together. . . . I f alone, i t would be
a lo t o f tim e.

Very l i t t l e :

3

At f i r s t more . . . now not very much,

I have no idea:

1

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
" I always f e l t th a t i t was time th a t I was needing fo r the
ch ild ren instead o f a ll th is busy work kind o f th in g ."
26.

Do you fe e l th a t the amount o f time spent assessing ch ild re n and
recording inform ation is worth the inform ation obtained? Why or
why not?
Yes:

7

When i t ' s w ritte n down, someone else
can use i t .
Of help in rep o rtin g to parents.
On "class ro s te r," not on " in d iv id ­
ual record sheets."
B a s ic a lly , helped w ith conferences
and in planning in s tru c tio n . . . but
not in d ivid u al student forms.
D e fin ite ly .

No:

2

The extra recording (from previously
used procedures) is not worth the
inform ation.
D e fin ite ly not.

C onditional:

2

. . . i f i t had been w ritte n up so
th a t the f i r s t grade teachers could
have used i t . . . .

245
Comnents
Not r e a lly fo r the MEAP te s ts . I t
ju s t took too much time . . . and
some o f the tes ts repeated them­
selves. . . .
A dd ition al re le v a n t comments:
"There were things you co u ld n 't record . . . how can you
record a c h ild 's emotion? I f he d id n 't want to play w ith someone
and there were times when a c h ild doesn't fe e l good and they d o n 't
want to p a rtic ip a te . . . are those the things w e're supposed to
record or do you ju s t know that? To put th a t a l l in w ritin g is so
time consuming . . . when you know a c h ild you know th a t. . . . "
27.

Are you u t iliz in g the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study "Comments
About O bjectives, Tests, and Items" sheets? Why or why not?
Yes:

8

But I did not have time to f i l l
out as wanted.

them

Not always on in d ivid u al o b jectives
as the form wanted . . . sometimes I
comnented on whole groups o f object i ves.
I commented on the booklets as I
worked along.
Very valuable p a rt o f study.
No:

1

Not much:

At the beginning . . . I had c rie rs
even because o f not knowing how to
turn pages and things lik e th is . At
the meeting we were to ld ju s t to give
i t to your whole group . . . and now
they enjoy i t much b e tte r than before.
1

I d o n 't know
what they are:

And I d o n 't th in k I need to now. You
can t e l l them. You c a n 't w rite a l l
o f th a t . . . some things you ju s t
d o n 't w r ite .

1

A dditional re lev an t conments:

None

246
28.

Are you recording in d ivid u al student performance on the Kinder­
garten Special Study "Student Performance Record" sheets? Why
or why not?
Comments
Yes:

3

No:

To keep fo r my own in fo rm ation .
7

I d id , but I q u it a f t e r November. I
decided th a t the inform ation w ouldn't
be used lo c a lly or by the s ta te .
Not any more. I was. They to ld us
th a t they w e ren 't going to use th a t
inform ation and I thought th a t was
r e a lly the importance o f i t a l l . , .
and th a t is the p a rt th a t takes the
tim e.
. . . because [MEAP s t a f f person] said
we could ju s t record i t on the class
ro s te r sheets to save tim e. I s ta rte d
to . . . and found i t so time con­
suming. . . .
I s ta rte d , but I d id n 't have time to
do i t .
I t ju s t took too much tim e.

I'm not sure which
sheets are what:
1
A dd ition al re le v a n t comments:
29.

None

Are you u t iliz in g the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study "Adminis­
tr a tio n Mode Comment Sheet?" Why or why not?
Yes:
No:

0
10

Which are those?:
I'm not r e a lly sure what they are:
I d id , but I thought th a t th a t
was so rt o f vague.
I ju s t commented r ig h t on the
te s t booklet so I could see
what they were doing.

A couple o f them:

1

10
4

247
A dditional re le v a n t comments:
W rite r's note: Even the person who responded th a t she used "a
couple o f them" had to be shown what she was being re fe rre d to .
30.

Is th ere a p a rtic u la r assessment ad m in istratio n mode (MEAP te s ts ,
o ther te s ts , observation, or o th er) which you presently prefer?
I f yes, which one and why? I f no, why not?
Comments
MEAP te s ts :

5

I lik e the tests because th e y 're a l l
ready and you can ju s t give them and
you can do i t a l l a t once.
Because o f the fa c t th a t I have nothing
else to go by a t th is p a rtic u la r tim e.
[MEAP te s ts ] te s t me out to o, helps
me to see how w ell I am teaching. . . .

Other te s ts :

2

I p re fe r my own te s tin g procedures
. . . d itto sheets, game form at. . . ,
. . . p re fe r my own tes ts . . . two
workbooks I use are used fo r assess­
ment.

Observation:

6

But I know i t ' s not as v a lid because
prejudices come in . But I p re fe r
observation. . .
*

Other:

0

Depends on
O bjective:

3

Combination:

1

I d o n 't th in k you can honestly say
by one te s t what the c h ild is doing.

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
" I f I ran out o f something to do . . . l e t 's do a te s t.
Observations ju s t came in t h e ir own natural s e ttin g . I d id n 't
plan the observations.

248
31.

G en erally, do you fin d the MEAP te s t items appropriate?
Comments
Yes:

7

Most o f them:

7

Some are c u ltu r a lly biased . . .
the pictures are not fo r my
community. . . . :

3

Some are too easy . . . whether
w e're expecting too much or the
s ta te i s n 't expecting enough, I
d o n 't know.
Some o f the illu s t r a t io n s were
re al poor on them.
I commented on the comment sheets.
Too easy:

1

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
32.

None

What, g e n e ra lly , is the re ac tio n o f the ch ild re n to the MEAP tests?
P o s itiv e :

9

They love them.
They th in k i t ' s

They lik e to do them.
fun.

They enjoy doing i t .
The ch ild re n ask to take p a rt in
the te s t booklet.
They ju s t loved them . . . e s p e c ia lly
the ones w ith the tapes. They lik e d
those.
Happy as can be.
Mixed reactio n : 2

Now i t ' s f in e . . . . I honestly had a
few c rie rs (when t r ie d to adm inister
te s ts in d iv id u a lly or in small groups)
. . . but now they r e a lly enjoy i t .
They c a ll i t t h e ir game and they
r e a lly lik e i t .
When we f i r s t had them they s a id , "Oh
is th is a lo t o f fun. This is g re a t.
How many more o f these can we have."
And now the la s t months I was giving
the i t was, "Oh, do we have to do th is

249
Comments
again?" They were real t ir e d o f i t .
. . . I th in k because i t was so much
o f the same. I t f e l t lik e r e p e ti­
tio n , r e p e titio n , r e p e titio n .
Negative:

0

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
"But I talked to other kindergarten teachers . . . I th in k i t
was in how you handled i t .
I th in k th a t th a t question r ig h t there
re fe rs to the teacher. I f she loved i t , the kids w ill love i t . "
"Because I ju s t s a id , 'so we've got to do a l i t t l e book. Shall
we play a few games today?' Sure and th a t's a l l there was to i t .
They had a good tim e, they r e a lly d id ."
33.

W ithin your b u ild in g , what do you b elie ve w ill happen to the in f o r ­
mation which you have compiled on each child?
Nothing:

2

W ill go or hope w ill
go to the f i r s t
grade teacher:
3

The class ro s te r sheets w il l stay w ith
me and go to the Department. Only
re p o rt card inform ation w ill go to the
f i r s t grade teacher.
I t w ill be given to the f i r s t grade
teachers. . . but who knows i f they
w ill use i t .
I hope the f i r s t grade teachers
receive the inform ation . . . because
they w ill ju s t about know the things
the c h ild can do.

I d o n 't know:

4

The p rin c ip a l and I w il l look a t i t ,
but whether i t goes beyond th a t , I
d o n 't know.

Very l i t t l e :

2

I ' l l probably keep i t .
I d o n 't th in k
a lo t w il l happen w ith i t .
I think
th a t I w ill pass on to the f i r s t grade
teachers the inform ation th a t I have
about the c h ild re n . . . . What usually
happens is the next s t a f f person w ill
have her opinion and then come back to
the previous teacher.

A dditional re le v a n t comments:

None

250
34.

At the
mation

s ta te le v e l* what do you b elieve w ill happen to the In f o r ­
which youhavecompiled on each child?
Comments

Not too much,
very l i t t l e :

2

I d o n 't expect too much. I hope I'm
wrong. [A ttitu d e is due to percep­
tio n o f November regional m eeting.]
I'm a fra id I th in k i t ' s a l l going to
get lo s t in paperwork, the way th is
bureaucratic society is today. . . .
I th in k we get so boggled down in so
much paper work from the s ta te and I
ju s t wonder how much value there
r e a lly is in i t . . . .

I d o n 't know:

6

I hope the inform ation w ill be fed back
to the teachers in a helpful form.
I hope i t w ill be used to revise
s ta te tes ts and o b jec tiv es .
I hope th a t i t w ill help in v a lid a tin g
the tes ts fo r the f i r s t graders. I
hope th a t i t won't ju s t s i t . . .
because i t is time consuming and I
th in k something should come o f i t .
They said th a t they would look a t a l l
the scores and go on from th e re . They
did not give us any real d e fin ite ideas
o f what was going to happen w ith the
inform ation. I do not b elieve th a t i t
w ill be used against anybody. . . .

To create a s ta te wide p ic tu re:

2

I t w ill be fed to a computer to
create a s ta te p ic tu re .
. . . compile a state-w ide an a ly sis.

Study inform ation
to set up a s ta te wide system:

1

H opefully, y o u 're going to use 1t fo r
study. That was my impression . . .
to fin d out i f you could se t up a
c e rta in system across the s ta te , so
lik e th ey'd be much congruent. Kids
moving around so much w ith in the s ta te
. . . so th a t each kindergarten was
learning something along the same
lin e s .

251
Comments
To improve the
Preprimary O bjectives: 1

I d o n 't th in k th a t the inform ation on
each c h ild , th a t t h e r e 'l l be anything
done about th a t. But I do th in k th a t
we probably w il l get a re a l good set
o f objectives th a t we can fo llo w in
kindergarten.

A dditional re le v a n t comments:
" I'm as concerned and probably more so than many people about
the standards being lowered in schools. This is a re al concern o f
mine. . . . I'm so worried th a t we are washing everything down to
the lowest common denominator and r e a lly not coming up w ith any­
th in g . I s o rt o f th in k th is kindergarten design r e fle c ts th a t
. . . because fo r my b rig h t students i t was ju s t nothing. . . . Some
o f my students had already mastered many o f these o b jectives by
the time they a rriv e d . W ell, does th a t mean th a t I do nothing w ith
them from October u n til June?"
"This started out in f i r s t grade, now i t ' s in the kindergargarten and now y o u 'll probably take i t to the preschool and fin d
out where these tests are accu rate."
35.

Please comment on the MEAP s t a f f services provided to a s s is t you
in implementation o f the Special Study:
a. the i n i t i a l September meeting
b. the November follow -up meeting
c. on-going support services
W rite r's note: Most in d ivid u al respondents gave both p o s itiv e
and negative reactions to describing the same meeting.
a. the i n i t i a l September meeting
Good, h e lp fu l, well worth
my tim e, w ell done, very
th oroiigh:
6

. . . I was lo s t completely u n til i t
was explained.
. . . The s t a f f person was helpful
in explaining i t .

Confusing, bew ildering,
d ire c tio n s unclear:

That was very bewildering . . .
we d id n 't have any o f the
m a te r ia l. We r e a lly d id n 't know
what they were ta lk in g about:
4

7

I t was confusing as to how to
get s ta rte d . . . .

252
Comments
. . . but we had no previous in fo r ­
mation and the d ire c tio n s were
unclear.
. . . could have been more b e n e fic ia l
had not so many negative fee lin g s
been in the room . . . but i t was
confusing to be using m aterials w ith
the d ire c tio n s fo r the f i r s t grade.
This should have been c le a r ly ex­
plained a t the September meeting.
The booklet d ire c tio n s were d iffe r e n t
from what they said in the meeting
. . . unclear d ire c tio n s and purpose
or in te n t. . . .
I t was q u ite a shock to us because
we d id n 't know we were to take p a rt
in i t and we went to the meeting
not knowing. . . .
• Did not attend:
b.

1

The November follow -up meeting:
H e lp fu l, good, w ell
worth my tim e, worthw h ile , w ell done:

Very d isheartening,
bad, not t e r r ib ly
valuable:

8

3

I re a lize d I was not the only one
having problems. . . .
A lo t o f questions were answered
. . . helpful to discuss w ith other
teachers. . . .:
4
The questions raised were responded
to w ith , "W ell, i t doesn't make any
d iffe re n c e . . . . " I c a n 't see where
th e re 's going to be much value [in
working in the study] . . . a l l o f
the things th a t I had c a re fu lly done
d id n 't m atter.
[Message received from MEAP s t a f f
was] . . . do as much or as l i t t l e
as possible . , . a f t e r th a t meeting
two teachers q u it.
I t never got o f f the ground.

253
Comments
c.

On-going support services:
Good, very w illin g to
help, e x c e lle n t:

8

We received what we needed other
than more booklets. . . .
(Four people requested special
meetings w ith MEAP s t a f f person):
This was the most valuable p a rt o f
a l l meetings . . . we discussed
kindergarten, not so much te s t . . .
we were able to share concerns. . . .
. . . very happy w ith immediate
response to needs.
We had a ll the help we needed.

Haven't needed any:

3

A dditional re lev an t comments:
36.

None

Would you lik e to continue p a rtic ip a tio n in a s im ila r study
next year?
Yes:

6

. . . Helps give d ire c tio n to the
program.
. . . But I would lik e to teach
more than the study encompasses.
. . . e s p e c ia lly to implement the
recommendations fo r improvement.
I enjoyed i t . . . . I got s a tis fa c ­
tio n fo r m yself, th a t I fe e l I know
the ch ild ren b e tte r from i t , even
though i t doesn't do anything fo r
next y e a r. And I th in k i t helped me
in my teaching because I had had no
kindergarten experiences a t a l l in
c o lle g e . . . . I t gave me a b e tte r
idea o f what other people are expect­
ing out o f kindergarteners and i t
made me feel good th a t so many o f
mine did so w ell on i t .
I hope something w ill r e a lly come
out o f th is , and I hope some kind o f
a curriculum w il l come out o f i t .
And I 'd lik e to see more o f a stan­
dardized curriculum fo r kindergar­
ten.
I d o n 't mean set l ik e you have

254
Comments
to do th is Monday* Tuesday and Wednesday,
but . . . something lik e guidelines through­
out the s ta te . And then we'd have something
to combat p rin c ip a ls w ith or anybody else or
parents.
I r e a lly d o n 't know what the study was f o r ,
and I r e a lly d id n 't get a good answer a t the
November meeting. . . . What they r e a lly do
expect out o f th is program. . . . I d o n 't
th in k they know why th e y 're doing i t y e t.
. . . Even i f I d o n 't do i t again through
the S ta te , I ' l l use the m a teria ls again.
I t doesn't m atter to me. I enjoyed th is
program. The paperwork got a l i t t l e t i r i n g
sometimes, but I f e l t i t was very good and
very u s e fu l, so I w ouldn't mind doing i t
again. . . . I thought i t was very complete
and I was r e a lly pleased w ith i t .
I th in k
the thing th a t I was very pleased about was
when I c a lle d they were very h elp fu l and
very nice to me and I r e a lly appreciated
th a t.
I 'd love i t .
Because I lik e d iff e r e n t
th in g s . As a person I lik e to be chal­
lenged. And I thought i t was very b e n e fic ia l.
No:

2

. . . too time consuming. I d o n 't have an
aide or a vo lun teer to help me. . . . I hope
we w e ren 't doing a l l o f th is fo r nothing.
I'm concerned about i t not being va lid ate d
and . . . I d o n 't agree w ith th e te s t book­
le ts e s p e c ia lly fo r the f i r s t p a rt o f k in ­
dergarten. . . . The expense o f i t bothers
me. I d o n 't know how much i t co sts, but I
know how i t is around here. . . . I ju s t
fe e l lik e th e re 's so much more th a t the
s ta te could give us. . . . I wish th a t we
could have more to work w ith the ch ild ren
on . . . very short on supplies which are
r e a lly needed. We should have more things
to help teach in the area in which w e're
te s tin g . . . .
. . . too time consuming . . . so much o f i t
w asn't worth the tim e th a t I had to put in to
it.
I f I could pick and choose c e rta in
parts o f i t , I th in k I would lik e to do
i t . . . . I would use as much time te s tin g

255
Conments
as teaching. I r e a lly haven't used the
study as I should . . . I would lik e i t to
be much more d i f f i c u l t . The o bjectives are
too easy. I would hope th a t th is would not
be forced upon us. . . . 1 can see the point
o f the whole thing . . . and I d o n 't know
how the s ta te is going to be ab le to assess
th is w ithout something lik e th is and I th in k
i t ' s poor. . . . You're going to have to go
back again to an emphasis on basic s k ills
which we are lo sin g . . . . I th in k th a t we
have so much time taken out w ith gym and
music and a r t . . . .
C on ditio n al:

3

I f I had a sm aller group o f child ren and
some help.
I f the o b jectives and te s ts were adjusted
fo r lo c al program needs.
I r e a lly th in k i t ' s been h e lp fu l. I r e a lly
do . . . i f you could condense i t in to some­
thing a l i t t l e shorter . . . not have one
te s t booklet fo r one th in g , but maybe have
a book w ith three or fo ur pages. . . . MEAP
te s ts are too time consuming. . . . A lo t
o f i t would need to be recorded, but a lo t
o f i t could be done by observation. . . .
They need the o b je c tiv e s , but I th in k they
have to condense i t in to something sh o rter.
. . . I can see th e re 's so much in d iv id u a l
d iffe re n c e s in ch ild ren which I knew, but
some o f these things th a t you th in k , w e ll,
we know i t but they d o n 't and w ith th is i t ' s
r ig h t in fro n t o f you . . . and I th in k
th a t the Preprimary O bjectives are good to o ,
and I th in k th a t i f teachers would fo llo w i t ,
I th in k th a t our whole kindergarten system
would be. . . , You're teaching more a lik e
a l l over which would be a good th in g . . . .

A dditional re le v a n t conments:

None

APPENDIX R
DETAILED SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW RESPONSES FOR
PRINCIPALS (OR SUPERVISORS)

256

APPENDIX R
DETAILED SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW RESPONSES FOR
PRINCIPALS (OR SUPERVISORS)
HEAP K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tudy f o r 1 9 7 5 -7 6
(T o ta l

1.

In te r v ie w e e s :

12)

What was y o u r In v o lv e m e n t 1n d e c id in g th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f y o u r K in d e rg a rte n te a c h e rs
1n th e HEAP K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study?
I f you had In p u t to d e c id e to p a r t i c i p a t e , why d id you w is h to p a r t i c ip a t e ?
I f you d id n o t have In p u t to d e c id e to p a r t i c i p a t e , w hat would y o u r In p u t have been?
Coranents
D id have In p u t:

8

A

D id n o t have in p u t:

Requested to p a r t i c i p a t e :

Requested n o t to
p a r tic ip a te :

1

Would have re q u e s te d
to p a r t i c i p a t e :

2

Would have re q u e s te d
n o t to p a r t i c i p a t e :

1

U ndecided:

1

A d d it io n a l r e le v a n t comments:

2.

7

O p p o rtu n ity to g iv e In p u t
to th e S t a t e D epartm ent
o f E d u c a tio n :

5

E v a lu a tio n o f own
k in d e r g a r te n program ;

5

Wanted to add s t r u c t u r e
to k in d e rg a rte n program :

1

Looking f o r k in d e r ­
g a rte n c u rric u lu m :

1

Good In s e r v ic e f o r te a c h e rs :

1

None

D id you a tte n d th e I n i t i a l September m e e tin g h e ld by MEAP s t a f f ?
I f no, why not?
I f y e s , p le a s e comment on th e m e e tin g .
Conments
Yes:

6

H e lp fu l o r good m e e tin g :
In f o r m a t iv e , b u t d is ru p te d by h o s t il e
te a c h e rs :
D ir e c t io n s w ere v e ry g e n e r a l:
More h e lp fu l

No:

6

f o r te a c h e rs than p r in c i p a l s :

W o u ld n 't a f f e c t me:
W a s n 't n o t i f i e d :
C o n fid en ce in k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r:
September 1s bad tim e f o r a d m in is tr a to r s
to m eet:

I d o n 't remember:

2

257

2
2

255

A d d it io n a l r e l e v a n t conment:
"T h is m e e tin g t r i e d to p re s e n t a l o t o f m a t e r ia l in a s h o r t p e rio d o f tim e .
sh o u ld have in c lu d e d a d e m o n s tra tio n use o f HEAP t e s t s f o r t e a c h e r s ."
" I d o n 't th in k th e
b e in g in th e p r o je c t .
in g i s t h a t maybe some
p o in t a s (g e t t i n g t h e i r
1n to i t .

3.

A ls o

m e e tin g was one where anybody would g e t s u p e r e x c it e d ab o u t
And I th in k w h a t's r e a l l y im p o rta n t a t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r m eet­
o f th e d e t a i l s and ground r u le s a r e n 't as im p o rta n t a t t h a t
e n th u siasm b u i l t up so t h a t t h e y ' l l go back and r e a l l y g e t

D id you a tte n d th e November fo llo w -u p m e e tin g h e ld by HEAP s t a f f ?
I f no, why not?
I f y e s , p le a s e corrment on th e m e e tin g .
Comments
Yes: 5

Good d is c u s s io n :

2

D i d n ' t acco m p lish much:
Expected more in fo r m a tio n from th e S ta te
D epartm ent o f E d u c a tio n on how S tudy
p ro g re s s in g :
H e lp fu l in c l a r i f y i n g

use o f HEAP t e s t s :

H o s t ile m e e tin g :
No:

7

A d d it io n a l r e le v a n t comments:

4.

3

Sent r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ( s ) :
Too many m eetin gs to a tt e n d 1n g e n e r a l:

1

W o u ld n 't a f f e c t me:

2

C o n fid e n c e in k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r:

1

None

D id you i n i t i a t e any o th e r com m unication w it h a MEAP s t a f f member?
I f y e s , p le a s e d e s c r ib e .
Yes: 5

MEAP t e s t s :

4

To d is c u s s September m e e tin g :

1

To in fo rm o f change in te a c h e r:
No:

7

A d d it io n a l r e le v a n t comments:

5.

What do you see as y o u r r o le

None

in th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study?

L i a i s o n / f a c i l i t a t o r between S ta te D epartm ent o f E d u c a tio n and
k in d e r g a r te n te a c h e rs :
S u p p o rtin g k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r in p e rfo rm in g tasks and g iv in g
to th e S ta te D epartm ent o f E d u c a tio n :

4
feedback

See re le v a n c e f o r and a s s is ta n c e o f stu d y 1n lo c a l developm ent o f
k in d e r g a r t e n - e a r ly e le m e n ta ry c u rric u lu m :

4

259

S u p e rv is e k in d e r g a r te n te a c h e rs to be s u re th e y a r e d oing th e t^ s k s o f th e s tu d y :

3

None, u n t i l c o m p le tio n o f s tu d y ; th e n use in fo r m a tio n to make d e c is io n s f o r
f u t u r e o f k in d e r g a r te n program:

1

Unknown:

2

A d d it io n a l

r e le v a n t comments:

" I w ish a l l th r e e o f rny k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e rs c o u ld have been in v o lv e d .
I t has caused some h a rd f e e lin g s among s t a f f . "
" I w an t to u n d e rs ta n d t h i s s tu d y I n d e p th because 1 t c o u ld be th e f i r s t s te p
1n a t o t a l e le m e n ta ry c h a in ."

6.

Has th e n a tu re o f com m unication between you and y o u r k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r ( s )
changed a t a l l t h is y e a r due to th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu dy:
I f y e s , how has i t changed?
I f n o, why do n o t t h in k i t has n o t changed?
Comments
?es: 1

T e a c h e r 1s now h o s t il e :

1

To a d e g re e : 3

In fo r m a tio n o b ta in e d from t e s t s
b e in g d is c u s s e d :

2

We were a lr e a d y Im p le m e n tin g th e s e
p ro c e d u re s :

2

A lways had good, open com m unication
w ith k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r:

5

New te a c h e r:

1

No:

7

Unknown: 1
A d d itio n a l r e le v a n t comments:

7.

None

Do you p e r c e iv e t h a t th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu dy has im pacted in any way on
th e K in d e rg a rte n program?
I f y e s , how? I f n o, why not?
Yes: 5

Somewhat o r p ro b a b ly :

D o n 't know: 1

No: 1

5

T e s tin g tim e to o k away from r e g u la r
in s t r u c t io n :

3

P ro v id e d d i r e c t i o n , o r g a n iz a t io n , system
f o r a k in d e rg a rte n program :

2

Expanded c o n te n t o f program :

1

K in d e rg a rte n te a c h e rs a r e exam ining
and e v a lu a tin g t h e i r program:

2

More fo rm a l o r g a n iz a tio n and
s y s te m a tic approach:

2

Assessment o f c h ild r e n and re c o rd in g
o f In fo r m a tio n :

1

260

Additional relevant comments:
" T h is program p ro v id e s an e n t i r e system by w hich to te a c h , n o t j u s t a
s e t o f o b j e c t i v e s . 11

8.

Do you p e r c e iv e t h a t th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu d y w i l l Im p a c t In any way on
th e e a r l y e le m e n ta ry program (K -1 J ?
I f y e s , how? I f n o, why not?
Comnents
Yes: 6

Ho:

B e t t e r p re p a re c h ild r e n f o r f i r s t g ra d e :

3

1

K in d e rg a rte n o b je c t iv e s w i l l s e t in p la c e f i r s t
p ie c e o f a s e q u e n tia l e a r l y e le m e n ta ry c u rric u lu m :

3

B e t t e r com m unication between k in d e r g a r te n
te a c h e rs and f i r s t g ra d e te a c h e rs :

1

P re s e n t a t o t a l package f o r te a c h e rs t o d e a l w ith :

1

F i r s t grade te a c h e rs can b e t t e r m eet needs
o f c h ild r e n :

1

W o n 't Im p a c t on s tu d e n ts , a lth o u g h te a c h e rs
may a c t on fe e d b a c k :

1

D oing th e s e p ro cedu res a lr e a d y :

1

F i r s t g ra d e te a c h e rs w o n 't use In fo r m a tio n :

1

I d o n 't know: 3
A d d it io n a l r e le v a n t comments:
"T h e re w o n 't be any Im p a c t l o c a l l y , u n le s s i t

happens d i s t r i c t - w i d e . "

"We hope to use t h i s same s t r u c t u r e and p a t t e r n f o r f i r s t and w ork on up.
Would l i k e to have a c o n tin u u m ."
" K in d e rg a rte n g o a ls w i l l a f f e c t f i r s t g ra d e ones in t h a t th e f i r s t g ra d e ones
w i l l be re v is e d o r thrown o u t.
K in d e rg a rte n s e ts th e f i r s t p ie c e in p la c e f o r a
s e q u e n tia l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f c u r r ic u lu m ."

9.

What do you p e rc e iv e to be th e ad vantages o f th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu d y procedures?
In d iv id u a l

in fo rm a tio n on c h ild r e n :

In fo r m a tio n to g iv e f i r s t g ra d e te a c h e rs :

5
2

C le a r , o r g a n iz e d , s t r u c t u r e d , o r d e r ly d i r e c t i o n and p ro c e d u re s :

3

S p e c if ic In fo r m a tio n to r e p o r t to p a re n ts :

2

G ive in fo rm a tio n f o r g ro u p in g c h ild r e n :

1

The o b je c tiv e s :
a . a r e w r it t e n down;
b . a r e s p e c i f i c , c o n c re te :
c . a r e b e t t e r packaged:
d . p ro v id e u n ifo r m ity o f e x p e c ta tio n s a c ro s s k in d e r g a r te n :
e. address whole c h il d :

261

T e s ts ad dress a l l

a re a s o f c h i l d ' s d e v e lo p m e n t:

G iv e fe e d b a c k on e f f e c t iv e n e s s o f k in d e r g a r te n program :

1

A s s is ts te a c h e rs 1n d e v e lo p in g th e k in d e r g a r te n program :

1

G ives th e S t a t e D epartm en t o f E d u c a tio n g r e a t e r
a c q u a in ta n c e w it h many k in d e r g a r te n program s:

1

D i d n 't u n d e rs ta n d th e s tu d y w e ll enough t o resp o nd :

2

A d d it io n a l r e l e v a n t conm ents:

10.

1

None

What do you p e r c e iv e to be th e d is a d v a n ta g e s o f th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu d y d e s ig n :
R e la tin g to t e s t i n g :
a.
Time to a d m in is te r MEAP t e s t s ta k e s away fro m In s t r u c t io n :
b.
Don’ t l i k e p r e -p o s t t e s t in g :
c.
O b s e rv a tio n la c k s v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y :

8
1
3

Time sp en t d is p r o p o r tio n a te to In fo r m a tio n y i e l d :

3

Waste o f tim e i f no fo llo w -u p by f i r s t g ra d e te a c h e r:

4

O b je c tiv e s sh o u ld be more f l e x i b l e

to m eet In d iv id u a l

needs o f c h ild r e n :

2

Package 1s so overw helm ing t h a t 1 t c o n t r o ls t e a c h e r , n o t v ic e v e rs a :

1

A c c o u n t a b ilit y (r e c o r d in g o f a c h ie v e m e n t) s c a re s te a c h e rs :

1

Too much p a p e r work ( t e s t b o o k le ts and r e c o r d in g ) :

2

T each ers do n o t have th e s k i l l s

1

n e c e s s a ry to Im plem ent th e d e s ig n :

Too in d iv i d u a l iz e d :

1

D u p lic a te s what we a r e a lr e a d y d o in g :

1

No m ajo r d is a d v a n ta g e s :

1

I d o n ’ t know:

2

A d d it io n a l r e le v a n t comment:
" I t h in d e rs and i n t e r f e r e s w ith th e te a c h e r 's use o f tim e . . . b u t we w ant
to make i t as . . . smooth g o in g and as a l l in te g r a t e d In th e program t h a t s h e 's
g o t r a t h e r th an som ething t h a t becomes a s e p a ra te u n i t in I t s e l f and fo rc e many
u n r e a l i s t i c demands b o th 1n term s o f te a c h in g and tim e ."

it 's

11.

"Because w e 'v e f o r f e i t e d needed tim e f o r th e k in d e rg a rte n g ro u p .
n o t even g oin g to be used In th e f i r s t g ra d e ."

And now

Is th e r e an I n s t r u c t io n a l a id e o r s tu d e n t te a c h e r 1n th e k in d e rg a rte n s e c tio n
p a r t i c i p a t i n g In th e S p e c ia l Study?
I f y e s , why d id you a s s ig n an a id e o r
s tu d e n t te a c h e r to t h is s e c tio n ?
I f n o, why not?
Comments
Ves:

10

No:

2

A d d it io n a l

Because o f number o f s tu d e n ts e n r o lle d :

r e le v a n t conments:

W r i t e r comment:
In no case was an a id e re p o rte d to be as s ig n e d because
o f th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study b e in g im plem ented In t h a t s e c tio n .

10

262

12.

Do you b e lf e v e t h a t th e a s s is t a n c e o f a n In s t r u c t i o n a l a id e o r s tu d e n t
te a c h e r w ould make a d if f e r e n c e i n th e Im p le m e n ta tio n o f th e K in d e r g a r te n
S p e c ia l S tu d y d esig n ?
Comnents
Ves: 12

F o r re c o rd k e e p in g and p a p e r w o rk:

3

F o r In d iv i d u a l iz e d

te s t in g :

2

For a l l

p ro c e d u re s :

1

assessm ent

F o r In s t r u c t io n :
No:

2

Q

A d d it io n a l r e l e v a n t comments:
" A b s o lu te ly ."
" V e ry d e f i n i t e l y . "
"M ould be a d e f i n i t e a d v a n ta g e ."
"You can n o t assume t h a t one te a c h e r w ith 30 k in d e r g a r te n c h ild r e n has th e
tim e o r th e s k i l l t o I n d i v i d u a l l y assess and r e c o r d ."

13.

What has been th e in v o lv e m e n t o f th e f i r s t g ra d e t e a c h e r ( s )
K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l Study?

in th e

P ro b a b ly had c o n v e rs a tio n s w ith th e k in d e r g a r te n te a c h e r :

2

Some f i r s t g ra d e te a c h e rs may have become aw are o f th e s tu d y on t h e i r own:

1

None t h a t I know o f :

7

Formal m e e tin g c a ll e d to in fo rm them o f s tu d y :

1

I d o n 't know:

1

A d d it io n a l r e l e v a n t comment:
" I j u s t d o n 't t h in k t h e y , f i r s t g ra d e te a c h e r s , r e a l l y
tim e how th e y f i t 1n i t . "

know a t t h is

"The stu d y f i t s in to w h at we a r e t r y in g to do th ro u g h o u t th e grades and
b u i ld i n g , . . . but I have n o t fo r m a liz e d them d oing so becoming aware o f th e
s tu d y ."

14.

What w i l l happen w it h th e in d iv id u a l ac h ie v e m e n t in fo rm a tio n on each
k in d e r g a r te n s tu d e n t?
P ro b a b ly w i l l

be s e n t to f i r s t g ra d e te a c h e r:

5

W il l be used to group c h ild r e n n e x t f a l l :

2

W ill be p la c e d o r p o s s ib ly p la c e d in c h i l d ’ s perm anent f i l e :

3

I don’ t know:

3

Thought fo rm a t same as f o u r t h g ra d e s t a t e assessm ent ( r e s u l t s w ould be
r e tu r n e d in com puter p r i n t o u t ) :

1

263

A d d it io n a l r e le v a n t comment:
" I in te n d to ask th e k in d e rg a rte n te a c h e r to s tu d y th e r e s u lt s from
th e p o in t o f v ie w o f Im p ro v in g h e r te a c h in g .
She sh ou ld t a l k to th e f i r s t
g rad e te a c h e r a b o u t th e r e s u lt s and h e lp I n t e r p r e t them to a s s is t n e x t f a l l
in d iv id in g c h i l d r e n . “
"The In d iv id u a l S p e c ia l S tudy re c o rd s w i l l
g rad e te a c h e r 1 f she w ishes to see th e m ."

be a v a i l a b l e to th e f i r s t

" S in c e I have no com m unication w ith th e e le m e n ta ry p r in c i p a l who has
f i r s t g ra d e , I ' l l ask th e k in d e r g a r te n te a c h e r to send th e r e s u lt s d i r e c t l y
to th e f i r s t g rad e te a c h e r ."
"What w i l l

happen is unknown because o f lo c a l p o l i t i c a l

co nseq u en ces."

" I t w i l l go to th e f i r s t g ra d e te a c h e r as one o f many sources to make
d e c is io n s ."

15.

Comparing th e p ro cedu res o f th e K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu dy to th o s e o f
f o u r t h g rad e M ic h ig a n E d u c a tio n Assessment Program , do you b e lie v e one to
be a more u s e fu l e d u c a tio n a l p ro c e d u re f o r y o u r b u ild in g ?
Comments
K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu dy: 8

F o u rth G rade:

No p r e fe r e n c e :

1

3

Tim e: lo n g e r p e rio d o f tim e f o r ju d g in g I f
c h il d has a c q u ire d a b e h a v io r o r s k i l l :

7

E n t ir e s e t o f o b je c tiv e s o r e x p e c ta tio n s
accom panies th e assessm ent p ro c e d u re :

1

F o u rth grade r e s u lt s d o n 't a p p e a r to be used
by te a c h e r s , and a r e n o t c o s t e f f e c t i v e :

6

S erves a ls o as an im n e d ia te te a c h in g to o l
in g u id in g d a y -to -d a y te a c h in g o f te a c h e r:
(T e a c h e r Is n o t j u s t t e s t a d m in is t r a t o r )

5

More u s e fu l because 1s based on co n tin u o u s
p ro g re s s r e p o r tin g :

2

A voids f a i l u r e

syndrome:

1

P ro v id e s e n d - o f -y e a r d a ta which 1s more
h e lp f u l th an b e g in n in g o f y e a r d a ta :

1

P ro cedu res sh ou ld be made more v a l i d and
r e lia b le :

3

Much more com prehensive th a n fo u r th g ra d e :

3

In fo rm a tio n g iv e n back n o t as In d iv id u a liz e d
as K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu d y , so is e a s ie r
to group c h ild r e n :

1

Each p ro c e d u re 1s v a l i d

fo r th a t le v e l:

1

Both have ad vantages and d is a d v a n ta g e s :

2

Much le s s tim e consuming:

1

264

A d d it io n a l r e le v a n t corrments:
" I have a l l k in d s o f o b je c tio n s to t h a t f o u r t h g ra d e assessm en t, f o r
d i f f e r e n t k in d s o f re a s o n s .
The K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tu d y makes sense to
me.
I t Is th e o n ly way o f r e a l l y ta k in g a good lo o k a t th o s e o b je c t iv e s
and s e e in g which makes sense and w hich makes sense f o r u s . The f o u r th g rad e
one Is j u s t . . . " (N e g a tiv e f a c i a l and hand e x p r e s s io n s ).
"The f o u r t h g ra d e In fo r m a tio n 1s much e a s ie r to use as n o rm -re fe re n c e d
In fo r m a tio n ."
" I d e a l l y , th e k in d e r g a r te n d e s ig n 1s tremendous (m ore o b j e c t i v e s , more
c h o ic e o f t e s t in g p ro c e d u re s , e t c . ) ; how ever, human n a tu re w i l l te n d to ' l e t
th in g s r i d e ' o v e r a p e rio d o f t im e ."
“The f o u r th grade i s b a s ic a l ly j u s t a o n e -s h o t t e s t in g program .
how much te a c h e rs make use o f th e f o u r t h grade in fo r m a tio n ."

I q u e s tio n

" I'm n o t s u re i f th e f o u r t h g ra d e In fo r m a tio n Is used.
O n-going t e s t in g
sh ou ld be more a c c u ra te and more u s e f u l,
F o u rth g ra d e 1s a o n e -s h o t d e a l
g iv e n a t a tim e when te a c h e r and k id s d o n 't know each o t h e r .
C ontinuous
assessm ent 1s g o in g to fo r c e te a c h e r to c o n t in u a ll y , c o n s is t e n t ly lo o k a t
in d iv id u a l s tu d e n t and e v a lu a te him . . . .
I t b o th e rs me th e amount o f money we
spend on th e f o u r th g ra d e assessm ent. . . . I ' m n o t s u re I t ' s g e t t in g enough use
to w a r ra n t th e amount o f funds t h a t i t ta k e s . The In fo r m a tio n o u t o f th e
K in d e rg a rte n S p e c ia l S tudy ap pears to be more c o s t e f f e c t i v e . "

16.

Would y o u v o lu n te e r to have t h i s stu d y Im plem ented in y o u r b u ild in g ag ain ?
I f y e s , why?
I f no, why not?
I f c o n d i t io n a l, u nder w hat c o n d itio n s ?
Comments
Yes:

8

No: 1

C o n d itio n a l: 3

I f th e k in d e rg a rte n t e a c h e r ( s ) a g r e e ( s ) :

4

I f more te a c h e rs can p a r t i c i p a t e :

2

I t has Im proved th e k in d e r g a r te n program :

1

Because o f th e im p o rta n c e o f a c c o u n t a b ilit y :

1

Amount o f tim e from th e r e g u la r school program :

1

A g a in s t in d iv i d u a l iz a t i o n

1

o f In s t r u c t io n :

I f changes a r e made in some o f th e
o b je c t iv e s and MEAP t e s t s :

1

If

1

k in d e r g a r te n te a c h e r a g re e s :

I f we r e c e iv e g r e a t e r a s s is ta n c e from th e
M ic h ig a n D epartm ent o f E d u c a tio n :
A d d it io n a l

r e le v a n t comments:

*'I am v e ry p ro th e s 1 x -s te p a c c o u n t a b ilit y m odel.
I t 1s a systems approach
to e d u c a tio n , . . . Can p ro b a b ly h e lp us a c h ie v e o u r th r e e b a s ic g o a ls o f s c h o o l­
in g :
( 1 ) t h a t each c h il d l i k e y o u r te a c h e r , ( 2 ) l i k e y o u r w o rk , ( 3 ) l i k e y o u r s e lf .

It

" A c c o u n ta b ility
is Im p o rta n t and t h is
has been a good e x p e rie n c e .

is a means to g e t in t o

it.

.

. . O v e r a ll

1

265

" I d o n 't t h in k I w ould v o lu n te e r t o have th e stu d y Im plem ented In my
b u ild in g a g a in u n le s s I had somebody fro m th e S t a t e D ep artm en t t h a t was w i l l ­
in g to spend a c o n s id e ra b le amount o f tim e h e re and h e lp ad o p t th e S tu d y and
h e lp g e t i t s e t up and h e lp show th e te a c h e r how to use a l l th e m a t e r ia ls
and see t h a t we g o t o f f to a good s t a r t . . . , Each te a c h e r who’ s In v o lv e d
w ith th e s e s tu d ie s should have a t le a s t two o r t h r e e days minimum amount o f
tim e fro m th e p e o p le t h a t a r e ru n n in g 1 t to see t h a t th e y g e t 1 t s e t up and
t h a t I t ' s g oing 1n th e d ir e c t io n t h a t 1 t should be g o in g so t h a t th e r e s u lt s
a r e r e a l l y v a lu a b le and r e l i a b l e ,
I w a n t somebody t h a t ' s th e r e w ith th e te a c h e r
In th e classroo m f o r two o r th r e e days t h a t w i l l s i t down and p la n w ith h e r and
can h e lp h e r see . . . w ith th e c h ild r e n t h e r e .
O th e r te a c h e rs would be w i l l ­
in g to p a r t i c i p a t e u nd er such c o n d itio n s ."
"What happens now?
so-w hat?"

W il l th e r e be a m e e tin g n e x t f a l l

to e x p la in th e

"T each ers f i n d th e p r o je c t m a t e r ia l s , p ro c e d u re s o ve rw h e lm in g . T h is p r o je c t
needs a re m in d e r t h a t th e r e a r e o th e r f a c e t s to a c h il d th a n frag m en ts o f beha­
v io r a l o b je c t iv e s .
T h e re 1s more to k in d e rg a rte n th a n w h at is 1n th e o b je c t iv e s .
. . . C u rric u lu m 1s a v e h ic le to more g e n e ra l c o m p e te n c ie s .
W ith t h is p r o j e c t ,
you can lo s e s ig h t o f t h is 1n o rd e r to f i l l o u t c h a r t s ."

APPENDIX S
DETAILED SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO KINDERGARTEN
TEACHER SURVEY: FEBRUARY, 1976

266

APPENDIX S
DETAILED SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO KINDERGARTEN
TEACHER SURVEY: FEBRUARY, 1976
(Due date:
Total surveys sent:
Total surveys returned:

A p ril

2,

1976)

75
66 (75%)

Questions
1.

N

Previous to th is 1975-76 school y e a r, have you
used performance o b jectives in your kindergarten
program?
Yes
No
I have not previously taught kindergarten
No response

2.

54
35
9
2

25
20
34
19
4

38
30
51
29
6

10

15

8
57

12
86

65
1
1

98
2
2

55
6
3
1
1

83
9
4
2
2

Which o f the follow ing do you perceive to be
the purpose(s) fo r id e n tify in g and using
performance objectives? (Check ALL th a t apply)
To es ta b lis h a s ta te curriculum
To have a l l ch ild ren learn the same s k ills to
the same le v e l o f competence
To f a c i l i t a t e in d iv id u a lize d and group in s tru c tio n
To provide a basis fo r assessing students'
strengths and weaknesses
Other (please sp ecify)
No response

4.

36
23
6
1

Have performance o b jectives fo r kindergarten
students been adopted and implemented a t any
o f the follow ing levels? (Check ALL th a t apply)
Your school d i s t r i c t
Your school building
By you personally
Not adopted and implemented a t any level
No response

3.

%

Do you fe e l th a t basing assessment and in s tru c tio n on objec­
tiv e s is a v ia b le educational procedure fo r kindergarten?
Yes
No
No response
Only w ith small classes and an aide
Only i f f i t local needs
267

268
Questions
5.

N

%

51
12
1
2

77
18
2
3

59
6
6

90
9
9

2
57
39
55
25

3
97
66
93
42

7
11

12

54
47
51
10

82
71
77
15

Do you fin d the S tate Department o f Education
"T e n ta tiv e O bjectives fo r Preprimary Education
in Michigan" appropriate fo r your kindergarten
children?
Yes
No
No response
Most, yes and no:
W rite r's note: Almost a ll responses indicated
th a t many or some o bjectives were "too easy"
fo r kindergarten.

6.

Previous to th is 1975-76 school y e a r, did you
assess and record in d ivid u al student performance
during your kindergarten program?
Yes ( I f "yes," go to Item 7 .)
No ( I f "no," go to Item 1 0 .)
I have not previously taught kindergarten
(Go to Item 1 0 .)
W rite r's note: Q u a lifie rs were added to "yes"
responses such as "in some areas," "did not reco rd ."
I f you checked "yes" to Item 6 , which o f the
fo llo w in g methods have you used to assess student
performance? (Check ALL th a t apply)
Michigan Educational Assessment Program tests
Teacher observation
Commercial tests
Teacher-constructed tests
Inform ation from parents
Other (commercial m a teria ls named, d i s t r i c t te s ts ,
inform ation from other people)
No response

18

W rite r's note: Percent was calcu lated by 59 "yes"
responses to question #6.
8.

I f you checked "yes" to Item 6, have you assessed and
recorded in d ivid u al kindergarten student performance
in the fo llow ing areas previous to th is 1975-76
school year? (Check ALL th a t apply)
Cognitive
A ffe c tiv e
Psychomotor
No response

269
Questions
9.

88
66
74
3
18

12

18
97
98
90
90
24
57
33
57
3
0

64
65
60
60
16
38
22

38
2
0

Please RANK the follow ing grouping modes according to
HOW OFTEN you u t i l i z e each mode in your in s tru c tio n .
RANK each grouping mode (1 -2 -3 ) using #1 fo r MOST
OFTEN u t iliz e d .
E n tire group
Small groups
In d ivid u al students
No response: 1

12 .

58
44
49
2
12

Which o f the fo llo w in g do you b elieve should be the
purpose(s) o f teacher assessment o f kindergarten
student performance? (Check ALL th a t apply)
To id e n tify which students to accept and which
not to accept in the kindergarten program
To id e n tify in d iv id u a l student strengths
To id e n t if y in d ivid u al student weaknesses/needs
To id e n tify a basis fo r in d ivid u al program planning
To id e n tify a basis fo r group program planning
To compare student achievement or a b i l i t y
To compile an achievement rep o rt fo r parents
To group ch ild re n according to achievement
To determine promotion to grade one
Other (to use as p re te s t, fo r records on achievement)
No response

n

%

I f you checked "yes" to Item 6, how did you assess
performance o f kindergarten children? (Check A ll
th a t apply)
In d iv id u a lly
To small groups
To the e n tir e group
I did not adm inister te s ts to kindergarten ch ild ren
No response

10 .

N

J_ JL JL
42
16
7

64
8
24 34
10 23

_3_
15
17
33

%_

12

51
35

JL
23
26
50

Thus f a r in to implementation o f the Kindergarten
Special Study, what is the primary impact on your
teaching behavior in having used performance objec­
tiv e s and recorded in d ivid u al student achievement?
Please explain the primary impact.
Providing data on in d ivid u al weaknesses and strengths
Leaving less time to teach to the o b jectives
L i t t l e or no impact
Responses not re le v a n t or u n in te rp re tab le
Focusing in s tru c tio n on in d ivid u al weaknesses andstrengths
Causing g reater teacher awareness o f in s tru c tio n a l
a c t iv it ie s and kindergarten program
Broadening focus on program and teaching

15
11
8
7
7
6
6

23
16
12

11
11

9
9

270
Questions
Introducing the use o f o b jectives and assessment
procedures
Checking on effectiven ess o f teaching (p o s tte s t)
Changing reports to parents
No response
13.

3
1
1
14

3
2
2
21

48

73

25

38

32
15
5
4
3

48
23
7
6
5

Previous to the 1975-76 school y e a r, the coordination
between the kindergarten program and any p rekinder­
garten program(s) in your school o r community con­
sis ted o f:
(Check ALL th a t apply)
W ritten inform ation on prekindergarten students
given to kindergarten teachers
End-of-year conferences between kindergarten
teachers and prekindergarten teachers
Development o f sequential prekindergarten and
kindergarten curriculum
Other
There is no coordination
I d o n 't know
No response

15.

%

Previous to the 1975-76 school y e a r, the coordina­
tio n between the kindergarten program and the f i r s t
grade program consisted o f: (Check ALL th a t apply)
W ritten inform ation on kindergarten students
given to f i r s t grade teacher
End-of-year conferences between kindergarten
and f i r s t grade teachers
Development o f sequential K-l curriculum by
kindergarten and f i r s t grade teachers
Other
There is no coordination
I d o n 't know
No response

14.

N

23

35

8

12

8
12
33
4
1

12
18
50
6
2

2
28
47
39
4
64
9

3
42
71
59
6
97
13

2
3

3
4

Previous to the 1975-76 school y e a r, have you reported
kindergarten student performance progress to parents in
any o f the follow ing manners? (Check ALL th a t apply)
Grades (A ,B ,C ,D ,E ,F)
Scale from e x c e lle n t to u nsatisfacto ry
N a rra tiv e comments
Objectives or behaviors atta in e d by each student
Normative te s t scores
Personal conferences
Other
I have never reported kindergarten student
performance progress to parents
No response

271
Questions
16.

68
26
6

32
26
1
7

48
39
2
11

25
40
1

38
60
2

19
45
2

28
68
4

56

85

44

66

17

26

Have you provided your b u ild in g p rin c ip a l or program
supervisor w ith any o f the student performance
inform ation obtained through the MEAP Kindergarten
Special Study procedures?
Yes
No
No response

21.

45
17
4

Have you communicated w ith th e f i r s t grade te a c h e r(s )
regarding the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study procedures?
Yes
No
No response

20.

42
58

Do you b e lie v e th a t the MEAP Kindergarten Special
Study procedures are providing you w ith more useful
inform ation on in d iv id u a l ch ild re n than previous
practices?
Yes
No
Yes and no
No response

19.

28
38

Do you b e lie v e th a t the MEAP Kindergarten Special
Study procedures are providingyou w ith more complete
(c o g n itiv e , a f f e c t iv e , psychomotor) inform ation on
in d iv id u a l students than previous assessment p ractices?
Yes
No
No response

18.

%

To date in the 1975-76 school y e a r , have you
reported to parents any o f the student performance
inform ation obtained through the MEAP Kindergarten
Special Study procedures?
Yes
No

17.

N

Which o f the fo llo w in g purposes should a s ta te conducted preprimary assessment program have?
(Check ALL th a t apply)
To id e n t if y in d iv id u a l student strengths and needs
To communicate student performance to the next
grade le v e l teacher
To id e n t ify which students to accept or not to
accept in a given grade le v e l

272
Questions

_N_

To communicate student performance to parents
To id e n tify student achievement o r a b i li t y in
re la tio n to s ta te or d is t r ic t averages
To id e n tify e ffe c tiv e and in e ffe c tiv e teachers
To id e n tify e ffe c tiv e and in e ffe c tiv e in s tru c ­
tio n a l programs
There should be no state-conducted preprimary
assessment program
No response
22.

57

17
6

26
9

27

41

14
3

21
4

llililllilil
0

0

0

4

3

4

7 10

22
1

4

9

7 10 10 15 25 38

8 12 13 19 17 26

3

4

9 14

0

0

12 18 11 16 12 18 9 14 4

6

22 33 16 24
3

6

1

2

3

4

33 6 9 11 16 2 3 10 16 0 0
2 7 10 5 7 17 26 2 3 19 29

Has a paid or volunteer in s tru c tio n a l a id e (s ) or
student teacher assisted you in the assessing o f
students or recording o f inform ation fo r the MEAP
Kindergarten Special Study?
Yes
No
No response

24.

38

Please RANK the types o f te s t inform ation by i t s
order o f b e n e fit to you fo r planning in s tru c tio n ,
RANK each type o f te s t inform ation (1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 )
using #1 fo r MOST IMPORTANT.
Ranking o f your CLASS on a
norm-referenced te s t
Ranking o f INDIVIDUALS on a
norm-referenced te s t
INDIVIDUAL attainm ent o f
o bjectives on a c r ite r io n referenced te s t
CLASS attainm ent o f
objectives on a c r ite r io n referenced te s t
Observation and recording
o f student performance
Inform ation from parents
No response or incomplete
response: 15

23.

%_

36
27
3

55
41
4

6
22
14
13
4
3
3
1

9
33
21
20
6
4
4
2

How often are you recording student performance
inform ation on the MEAP Kindergarten Special
Study "Class Roster" sheets?
D a ily
Weekly
Biweekly
Monthly
I have not recorded inform ation to th is date
A fte r te s t
Randomly; varied; whenever I can
Bimonthly

273
Questions
25.

42
20
4

64
30
6

36
25
5

54
38
8

48

73

12
6

18
9

Is there a p a r tic u la r assessment ad m in istratio n
mode which you presently p re fe r in implementing
the Kindergarten Special Study?
Yes ( I f you checked "yes," go to Item 2 9 .)
No ( I f you checked "no," please comment on why
not. A fte r commenting, go to Item 3 1 .)
No response

29.

65
33
2

Are you u t il i z in g the MEAP Kindergarten Special
Study "Adm inistration Mode Comment Sheet"?
Yes
No
No response

28.

43
22
1

Are you recording in d ivid u al student performance
on the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study "Student
Performance Record" sheets?
Yes
No
No response

27.

%

Are you u t iliz in g the MEAP Kindergarten Special
Study "Consents About O bjectives, Test and
Items” sheets?
Yes
No
No response

26.

N

I f you checked "yes" to Item 28, which one o f
the fo llow ing assessment modes do you prefer?
(Check ONE only)
Checked more
N
%
than 1
MEAP tests
14 21
4
Other tes ts (teacher made)
3
4
8
Teacher observation
20 30
9
Other
2
3
3
No response
17 26
Checked more than one
10

%
6
12
14
4

N
18
11
29
5

%
27
17
44
7

274
Questions
30.

%

10

20

Why do you p re fe r the p a rtic u la r assessment mode
id e n tifie d in Item 29? (Please e x p la in )
P referred Mode

Reason

MEAP te s ts

V a lid , r e lia b le

MEAP tes ts

Easy to ad m in ister, ch ild ren
enjoy them, re a d ily a v a ila b le

5

10

More e f f i c i e n t , takes less tim e,
more re le v a n t to local kin der­
garten program

8

10

13

20

ALL but MEAP te s ts

Observation

F le x ib le , not d is ru p tiv e o f in ­
s tru c tio n , more accu rate, more
personal, takes less tim e, more
v a lid and r e lia b le , ch ild re n d is ­
l ik e MEAP te s ts , consistency fo r
ch ild ren and teacher, more r e le ­
vant to lo c al kindergarten program

Other tes ts
(teacher made)

More re le v a n t to local kinder­
garten classroom

5

10

A ll modes

Use of a l l modes gives more
complete p ic tu re o f c h ild

1

1

2
24

3
36

51
55

77
83

20
39
42
20
19
18
4
2
6

30
59
64
30
29
27
6
3
9

U n in terp retab le o r ir r e le v a n t answer
No response
31.

N

For which o f the fo llo w in g purposes are you using
or planning on using the inform ation provided you
through the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study
assessment procedures? (Check ALL th a t apply)
To id e n tify in d ivid u al student strengths
To id e n tify in d ivid u al student weaknesses/needs
To provide one component o f a comprehensive in d i­
vidual student p r o file
To id e n tify a basis fo r in d ivid u al program planning
To id e n tify a basis fo r group program planning
To compile an achievement re p o rt fo r parents
To group ch ild re n according to achievement
To determine promotion to grade one
Other
I see no use fo r th is inform ation
No response

275
Questions
32.

To d ate, how many Preprimary O bjectives have
you assessed?
Number o f
Objectives

Number o f
Responses

2
14
15
18
20
25
28
30
33
34
40
41
42
44
45
46
48
50
54

1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
1

MEAN NUMBER:
MEDIAN NUMBER:

33.

Number o f
Objectives
55
58
60
63
65
67
68
70
72
80
86
88
90
91
98
101
105
115
A ll
No response
Most a l l o f them

Number o f
Responses
1
1
5

1
1
5

12 12

1

1

54
50
N

%

48
12
6

73
18
9

Did the Michigan Educational Assessment Program
September, 1975, PRESERVICE SESSION provide you
w ith a ll the inform ation needed to implement
th is Special Study?
Yes
No
No response

276
Questions
34.

_%

38
24
4

58
36
6

50
8
8

76
12
12

Did you attend the November, 1975, FOLLOW-UP
meeting conducted by Michigan Educational
Assessment Program s t a f f fo r special p ro je ct
p articip an ts?
Yes
No
No response

35.

N

Are you p resen tly receivin g the support services
which you need from the Michigan Educational
Assessment Program s ta ff?
Yes
No
No response

APPENDIX T
DETAILED SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO KINDERGARTEN
TEACHER SURVEY: MAY, 1976

277

APPENDIX T

DETAILED SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO KINDERGARTEN
TEACHER SURVEY: MAY, 1976
Total surveys sent:
Total surveys returned:

70
52 (7435)

Questions
1.

N

27 52
25 48

To your knowledge, the coordination between
the kindergarten program and the f i r s t grade
program fo r next year (1976-77) w il l consist
o f: (Check ALL th a t apply)
W ritten inform ation on kindergarten students
being given to f i r s t grade teacher
End-of-year conferences between kindergarten
and f i r s t grade teachers
Development o f sequential K -l curriculum by
kindergarten and f i r s t grade teachers
Other
Relevant comments:
"We have been coordinating fo r past 2 years.
C o n tin u ally throughout each school y e a r."
"Conferences"
"Word o f mouth"
"Conferences next f a l l i f f i r s t grade wishes.
They u su ally do."
"Same as other years: sequential curriculum
has already been developed,"
There w il l be no coordination
I d o n 't know

3.

N-V

Did you PERSONALLY volunteer to p a rtic ip a te in the
MEAP Kindergarten Special Study fo r 1975-76?
Yes
No

2.

% V

36

69

20

12

22

42

12

10

17
6

33
12

12
1

5
5

1 2
5 10

1 0
2
3

13

25

5

8

6

12

3

3

To your knowledge, the coordination between the
kindergarten program and any prekindergarten
program(s) in your school conmunity fo r next year
(1976-77) w ill consist o f: (Check ALL th a t apply)
W ritten inform ation on prekindergarten students
requested to be given to kindergarten teachers
End-of-year conferences requested between kinder­
garten teachers and prekindergarten teachers

278

279
Questions

N

Development o f sequential prekindergarten and
kindergarten curriculum
8
Other
Relevant comments:
"We have no prekindergarten program"
"Kindergarten teacher is also preschool teacher"
"Discussion w ith nursery school teacher"
"Results o f v is io n , hearing and speech screening'
There w ill be no coordination
16
I d o n 't know
11
4.

15

2
1

30
21

10
5

6
6

27
25

52
48

14
13

13
12

31

60

18

13

6
11

2
6

4
5

6
1
2
1
1
20
1

3

3
1
2

Did you communicate with the f i r s t grade teach er(s)
regarding the MEAP Kindergarten Special Study
procedures during the 1975-76 school year?
Yes
Relevant comments:
General and informal discussion
Discussed tests
What being tested and strengths and
weaknesses found
Pros and cons o f paperwork involved
Discussed o bjectives
Reported academic progress
Described study a t formal meeting
No
No response

6.

V N-V

Did you rep o rt to parents any o f the student per­
formance inform ation obtained through the MEAP
Kindergarten Special Study procedures?
Yes
No

5.

S

38
2

1
1
9
0

11
1

40

14

7

1
1
4
3
13

2
0
3
2
1
18

1
1

0
1

Did you provide your b u ild in g p rin c ip a l or program
supervisor any o f the student performance informa­
tio n obtained through the MEAP Kindergarten Special
Study procedures during the 1975-76 school year?
Yes
21
Relevant comments:
Relevancy and evaluation o f preprimary o bjectives 3
Need fo r a r t and music teacher
1
General inform ation
7
Inform ation on nature o f tes ts or te s t re s u lts
5
Copy o f a ll records and evaluation conments
1
No
31
Relevant comments:
No inform ation requested
1
No in te re s t shown
2

60

280
Questions
7.

N

%

V

N-V

Please comment on the helpfulness or need fo r
change in the package o f m a teria ls given you by
the MEAP s t a f f to a s s is t you in implementing
the assessment procedures:
A. Descriptions and in s tru ctio n s fo r procedures
and using recording forms contained in fro n t
o f blue notebook.
S a tis fa c to ry * complete, good, h e lp fu l, ok,
e a s ily understood, no change needed
Should be set up in a more a t tr a c tiv e way
Confusing, need more consistency in format
and more c le a r ly stated in s tru ctio n s
Well defined and organized
Adequate
Important a t beginning
Too much time needed fo r records
No response

37
1

92
2

18
0

19
1

2
1
2
1
1
8

4
2
4
2
2
15

2
0
1
0
1
5

0
1
1
1
0
3

29
Good, h e lp fu l, ok, easy to f i l l o u t, complete
3
Time consuming
Wish they were lik e "Student Performance Objectives' 2
5
Should have names instead o f numbers
3
In s tru ctio n s vague and confusing to look a t
Need some way to in d ic a te they f a ile d to reach
1
c r ite r io n lev el
1
Put o b jectives and tes ts in numerical order
8
No response

56
6
4
10
6

13
2
1
4
2

16
1
1
1
1

2
2
15

1
0
4

0
1
4

26 50
9 17
8
A
2
1
7 13
3
6
2
1
9 17

12
2
1
1
2
3
0
3

14
7
3
0
5
0
1
6

16
1
17
4
4

30
2
33
8
8

10
0
9
1
2

6
1
8
3
2

1
9

2
17

0
3

1
6

B. "Class Roster" sheets.

C. "Comments About O bjectives, Tests and Item s."
Good, h e lp fu l, ok, e f f ic ie n t
Some too easy
Too many te s ts , combine objectives
Adequate
No need fo r i t
Gave a chance to express fe e lin g s and ideas
Wasn't sure what would be most helpful
No response
D. "Student Performance Record" sheets.
Good, g re a t, ok, c le a r to fo llo w
Combine w ith "Class Roster" sheets
Not useful
Easier to keep f i l e s on child ren
Time consuming
Some way o f grouping te s ts to see strengths
and weaknesses
No response

281
Questions

_N_ _% _V

N-V

18
1
15
1
1
16

35
2
29
2
2
30

7
1
11
1
0
6

11
0
3
0
1
10

28
1
1
7
2
2
3
3
10

54
2
2
13
4
4
6
6
19

13
0
1
5
1
0
1
1
4

15
1
0
2
1
2
2
2
6

30
9
1
1
2
3
2

58
17
2
2
4
5
4

12
5
1
1
1
2
1

18
4
0
0
1
1
I

4
7

8
13

1
4

3
3

34
17
2
1

65
33
4
2

20
7
0
1

14
10
2
0

8
5
20

15
9
38

5
3
9

3
2
11

E. "Adm inistration Mode Comment" sheets.
F in e, ok, adequate, opportunity to exp lain te s tin g
Too d e ta ile d
D id n 't use as much, not used
Time consuming
Wasn't sure what would be most h elpfu l
No response
F. Assessment A dm inistration Manual fo r the MEAP te s ts .
Good, h e lp fu l, ok, adequate, s a tis fa c to ry , easy
to use, b e a u tifu lly done, c le a r
A waste o f paper
Need short t i t l e s on cover
Combine manuals, too much re p e titio n
Time consuming
D id n 't use, used only la s t p art
Some not w ritte n f o r kindergarten
Needs answers w ith manual
No response
G. Student booklets fo r the MEAP te s ts .
Good, h e lp fu l, ok, ch ild re n had no d i f f i c u l t y ,
c le a r , concise, easy to fo llo w , adequate,
in te re s tin g
Fewer books, combine booklets
Time consuming
Some did not apply to area
Needs description and d ire c tio n s on each page
Paper wasted on "fancy" booklets
Sample item should re la te to te s t
Some pictures in app ro p riate fo r c h ild re n ,
some illu s t r a t io n s poor
No response
8.

In general, what was th e main reactio n o f the ch ild ren
to the MEAP tests? (Check the ONE which best described
the dominant re a c tio n )
They enjoyed most o f the te s ts
They seemed w illin g to to le ra te most o f the tests
They were q u ite negative to taking most o f the tes ts
Were not used ex ten sively
Number o f respondents who checked more than
one response = 2

9.

How did you determine WHICH o b je c tiv e to assess?
Assessed a ll or almost a ll o b jectives
A ll I had tim e fo r
According to my curriculum

282
Questions
Determined which ones were o f most importance
C h ild re n 's s k i l l s , performance and previous
d iffic u lty
O bjectives th a t had te s t forms
Ones th a t checked performance which w eren 't to
be checked in another way
T ried to assess a l l except a r t and music
T rie d to assess some in each area
No response
10.

N-V

9

17

2

7

3
2

5
4

2
1

1
1

1
1
1
2

2
2
2
4

1
1
1
1

0
0
0
1

1
4
1
1
6
6
6
13
1
1
3
1
1
2
7

2
8
2
2
12
12
12
25
2
2
5
2
2
4
13

1
3
1
1
2
2
2
7
0
0
1
1
0
2
3

0
1
0
0
4
4
3
6
1
1
2
0
1
0
4

6
1
5
9
3

11
2
9
17
5

2
1
3
3
1

4
0
2
6
2

18
2
1
2
4
1
1
1
6

34
4
2
4
8
2
2
2
12

10
1
1
1
3
0
0
1
2

8
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
4

How did you determine which assessment MODE (MEAP
te s ts , other te s ts , observation, or o th er) to use?
By what f i t t e d ray p e rs o n a lity and philosophy
Most convenient way
Mood o f ch ild ren
Amount o f time taken
By observation o f students i f possible
By when i t appeared in curriculum
Needs o f child ren
Used mostly MEAP and own tes ts
By assessing ch ild re n
As many as I could
By the o b jectives
Own te s t form i f had one
Gave as d ire c te d mostly
Irre le v a n t response
No response

11.

_N _% x

How did you determine WHEN to assess a p a rtic u la r
objective?
When in d ivid u al c h ild or class was ready
By d i f f i c u l t y o f te s t
When had time to give a te s t
By my curriculum
According to numerical order o f MEAP te s ts
When ch ild ren were exposed to s k i l l ; a ft e r
ch ild ren had p ra c tic e d , mastered s k i l l , a f t e r
teaching a p a r tic u la r s k i l l
Picked a t random, h i t and miss
When children ready fo r a paper-and-pencil te s t
By development o f ch ild re n or c h ild
Response irre le v a n t or u n in te rp re ta b le
By assessing the students
By c h ild re n 's fru s tr a tio n lev el
According to mood
No response

283
Questions
12.

2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
5
2
9 17

2
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
3
2
2
2

0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
3
0
7

Did you have MORE inform ation on in d ivid u al
ch ild ren due to your p a rtic ip a tio n in the
Kindergarten Special Study than you have had
in previous years?
Yes
No
Both
No response

14.

N-

In t o t a l , how many Preprimary O bjectives
did you assess?
20
21
35
45
50
55
60
62
65
66
68
70
72
74
75
76
100
105
112
115
119
124
130
132
Most a ll
Do not know
No response

13.

_N_ _% X

29
17
1
5

56
33
2
9

20
5
0
2

9
12
1
3

29
16
1
6

56
31
2
11

16
7
0
4

13
9
1
2

Did you have BETTER ORGANIZED inform ation
on in d ivid u al ch ild re n due to your p a r t i c i ­
pation in the Kindergarten Special Study than
you have had in previous years?
Yes
No
Both
No response

284
Questions
15.

me, the c h ild 's teacher
the p rin c ip a l o r supervisor
the c h ild 's parents
the Michigan Department o f Education
the f i r s t grade teacher
no one
response

V

N-V

45
16
28
30
31
4
2

86
31
54
58
60
8
4

23
11
13
15
17
2
1

22
5
15
15
14
2
1

35
34

67
65

21
20

14
14

15
21
23
14

29
40
44
27

10
14
12
8

6
7
11
6

10
12
7
2
6
1

19
23
13
4
11
2

8
7
6
1
4
1

2
5
1
1
2
O

9
22

17
32

7
11

2
11

1
19

37

1
7

0
12

6
1

2
0

4
1

1
1
2
1
3
1

0
1
1
0
1
0

1
0
1
1
2
1

For which o f the fo llow ing procedures did you
use the inform ation provided you through the
MEAP Kindergarten Special Study assessment
procedures? (Check ALL th a t apply)
To id e n tify in d iv id u a l student strengths
To id e n tify in d iv id u a l student weaknesses/needs
To provide one component o f a comprehensive
in d ivid u al student p r o file
To id e n tify a basis fo r in d ivid u al program planning
To id e n tify a basis fo r group program planning
To compile an achievement re p o rt fo r parents
To compile an achievement re p o rt fo r the f i r s t
grade teacher
To group child ren according to achievement
To determine promotion to grade one
Other
I saw no use fo r th is inform ation
No response

17.

%

To whom do you fe e l the inform ation obtained
from the Kindergarten Special Study proce­
dures is useful? (Check ALL th a t apply)
To
To
To
To
To
To
No

16.

N

Do you intend to use the Kindergarten Special Study
procedures (v o lu n ta r ily ) fo r your kindergarten
program next year?
Yes
No
Relevant comments:
W ill no longer teach kindergarten
With c e rta in changes
Relevant comments:
Combining some tests
Not a ll ap p licab le to my ch ild ren
Instead o f te s t booklets, use m anipulative
m a te ria ls , games, puzzles, e tc .
I f less time consuming
Modify procedures; pressure too g reat
To extent are o f value to curriculum
W ill not assess o b jectives which were too easy
A f u ll- t im e aide

285
Questions

N

2
2

1
1
1
0
1
1

0
0
0
1
0
0

14
2
2
2
5
3
2
1

27
4
4
4
9
6
4
2

8
0
1
0
3
1
0
0

6
1
1
2
2
1
2
1

3
2
1
1
3
1
18

5
4
2
2
6
2
34

3
1
0
0
1
0
9

0
1
1
1
2
1
9

2
1
1
2

4
2
2
4

0
1
1
1

2
0
0
1

5
2
4
1
3
2
5

9
4
8
2
5
4
9

2
0
3
1
1
2
3

3
2
1
0
2
0
2

10
1
6
3
2

19
2
11
5
4

3
0
2
1
1

7
1
4
2
1

Larger groups w ith more discussion
W ill use o b je c tiv e only
S e c re ta ria l help
Won't do a l l the paperwork
Maybe, only i f requested to do so
No response
18.

What ad d itio n a l or d iffe r e n t support services
from the Michigan Department o f Education s t a f f
do you fee l are necessary fo r more e ffe c tiv e
implementation o f such a study?
None, c a n 't th in k o f any, a d e q u a te ,s u ffic ie n t, ok
Support was great
Too many objectives
Change booklets
Provide s e c re ta ria l s t a f f and/or an aide to help
More c la r if ic a t io n a t beginning
Use money spent on th is fo r local schools
Being allowed to attend meetings
Small-group meetings w ith others involved, to know
other teachers in the study and to compare re s u lts
More and c le a re r in service on implementing program
C learer objectives
Change te s t booklets
Share re s u lts o f 1975-76 study
Smaller classes
No response

19.

N-V

%

What was the g rea tes t ADVANTAGE to you as a teacher
in having p a rtic ip a te d in th is Special Study?
Opportunity to share ideas w ith other schools
Opportunity to know objectives o f other schools
Honor to work w ith S tate Department o f Education
Fun to see responses o f children
Knowledge o f S ta te 's ro le ; S ta te 's o b jectives
and tests
More aware o f students' a b i li t i e s
None
How in ten sive a kindergarten program can be
Concrete inform ation fo r parent conferences
Had a good record o f each c h ild
Evaluation o f own kindergarten program
Quicker and e a r lie r id e n tific a tio n o f in d i­
vidual strengths and weaknesses
New ideas
Expanded objectives o f kindergarten program
Experience in moving forward and using o bjectives
S im ila r ity o f objectives o f s ta te and own program

286
Questions
Provided g u id elin e on general consensus o f
kindergarten objectives
Aided in d iv id u a liz a tio n o f program
Provided new m aterials
Expanded knowledge o f assessment
Provided w ell-planned kindergarten program
Knowledge th a t own kindergarten ch ild re n are
normal or average
Awareness o f importance o f prekindergarten and
kindergarten coordination
No response
20.

_V N-V

2
1
4
2
2

4
2
8
4
4

1
1
1
1
1

1
0
3
1
1

1

0

1

0

1
8

2
15

0
2

1
6

30
14
2
4
4
9

57
27
4
8
8
17

14
6
1
3
1
5

16
8
1
1
3
4

1
1
1
3
1
1

2
2
2
5
2
2

1
0
1
1
0
1

0
1
0
2
1
0

18
18
14

34
34
27

12
7
6

6
11
8

1
4
1
1
3
1
1

1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0

0
3
1
1
2
1
1
2

1
1

1
1

0
0

What was the g reatest DISADVANTAGE to you as a teacher
in having p a rtic ip a te d in th is Special Study?
Too time consuming
Too much bookkeeping, recording, paper work
Not doing i t w ith both sessions
Testing replaced teaching basic curriculum
Too much pressure to complete study
Too much te s tin g ; combine tests
Listening to everyone put down everything when
i t ' s to everyone's advantage
No control over the number o f students
Cumbersome p ro je c t
A l o t , too much work
Time spent wasn't worth inform ation obtained
No disadvantage

21.

_N

Are you w illin g to p a rtic ip a te in a s im ila r
study again?
Yes
No
Under c e rta in conditions
Relevant comments:
Not record month o f achievement
I f we could te s t only objectives judged necessary
I f we could use own mode o f assessment
Less time consuming
Fewer te s t booklets
I f o f value to my program
I f i t would agree w ith my philosophy o f education
I f had m aterials w ell in advance
With paraprofessional assistance in adminis­
te rin g tes ts
C le ric a l help in checking and recording re s u lts

287
Questions
With professional assistance fo r te s tin g
and record keeping
I f asked in advance and given a choice
I f my ad m in istratio n wishes me to
Providing I d o n 't have to do i t fo r more than
15 students
I f tes ts given only a t 3 d iffe r e n t time in te rv a ls
I ‘ m not sure
No response
Number o f respondents who checked more than one
response = 2

J/

N-V

1
1
1

0
0
1

1
1
0

1
1
1
3

1
1
1
1

0
0
0
2

_N

JL

2
5

APPENDIX U
DETAILED SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO PRINCIPAL
(OR SUPERVISOR) SURVEY: MAY, 1976

288

APPENDIX U
DETAILED SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO PRINCIPAL
(OR SUPERVISOR) SURVEY: MAY, 7976
Total surveys sent:
Total surveys returned:

70
40 (57%)

Questions
1.

N

29

73

1

2

29 11

6 15
4 10

What involvement did the kindergarten tea ch er(s)
have in the decision to p a rtic ip a te in the
Kindergarten Special Study? (Check ONE only)
Teacher(s) did have input in to the decision and
agreed to p a rtic ip a te
Teacher(s) did have in p u t in to the d ec is io n ,
but requested not to p a rtic ip a te
Teacher(s) did not have inp ut in to the d ecisio n ,
but would have agreed to p a rtic ip a te
Teacher(s) did not have inp ut in to the d ecisio n ,
but would have requested not to p a rtic ip a te

3.

V N-V

What was your involvement in the decision th a t
kindergarten teachers in your b u ild in g p a rtic ip a te
in the Kindergarten Special Study? (Check ONE only)
I did have input in to the decision and requested
to p a rtic ip a te
I did have input in to the decision and requested
not to p a rtic ip a te
I did not have inp ut in to the d ec is io n , but would
have requested to p a rtic ip a te
I did not have input in to the d ec is io n , but would
have requested not to p a rtic ip a te

2.

%

31

77

25

6

0

0

5

13

2

3

4

10

2

2

28
Yes
Relevant comments:
Not too h elpfu l
Consultants eased a n x ie tie s re : mountain o f
paperwork
Very, q u ite h elpfu l
In fo rm ative regarding what to expect
Unanticipated questions could not be handled
Gave us d ire c tio n and general inform ation
L i t t l e sympathy shown to busy kindergarten teachers

70

21

7

Did you attend the i n i t i a l September meeting
held by MEAP s ta ff?

289

Questions
A worthwhile meeting and motivated me to
involve my teacher
No comments
No
Relevant comments:
F ir s t day o f school s t a f f meetings
Sent a rep resen tative
C o n flic t o f dates
Did not know o f i t
Time
No comments
I d o n 't remember
Did you attend the November fo llow -u p meeting
held by MEAP s ta ff?
Yes
Relevant comments:
Most h elpfu l in c la r ify in g problems
Gave an overview o f program and observations
o f others
S t a f f awareness
Somewhat h elp fu l
Not needed fo r our s t a f f
No comments
No
Relevant comments:
P rio r to other commitment
Schedule o f events in b u ild in g program prevented i t
1/2-day teaching re s p o n s ib ility
Notice sent a f t e r meeting was held
Did not see i t as necessary
Sent a rep resen tative
No comments
No response
Did you i n i t i a t e communication w ith a MEAP
s t a f f member regarding the Kindergarten Special
Study other than a t the September and November
meetings?
Yes
Relevant comments:
Small questions and te s tin g conference answered
w illin g ly and well
In regard to te s t m a te r ia ls --in s u ffic ie n t and
labeled f i r s t grade
During s ta te assessment meeting la s t spring
Telephone c a ll

291
Questions
Discuss concerns o f program and have HEAP
s t a f f involved a t building lev el
By telephone and meeting a t our school
No comments
No
I d o n 't remember
6.

_% _V N-V

2
31
1

78
2

22

9

17

42

13

4

8

20

8

0

4
4

10
10

4
3

0
1

4
11

10
27

3
5

1
6

12

30

8

4

2
27

68

20

7

What was your personal ro le in the Kindergarten
Special Study? (Check ONE only)
To a s s is t and p a rtic ip a te in implementing the
assessment procedures
To function as lia is o n between the kindergarten
teacher and the MEAP s t a f f
To o f fe r input to the MEAP s t a f f on the usefulness
o f the study
To receive local re s u lts fo r local decision making
To coordinate the Kindergarten Special Study
assessment procedures w ith present or fu tu re
f i r s t grade lo c al assessment procedures
I had no c le a r ro le
Number o f respondents who checked more than one
response = 3

7.

JL

Did the nature o f communication between you and your
kindergarten teach er(s) change a t a ll th is year due
to the Kindergarten Special Study?
Yes
Relevant comments:
She became more conmunicative about the program,
got the fe e lin g she was unhappy about p a rtic ip a tin g
Kindergarten teacher became more negative in a ttitu d e
More input between us regarding kindergarten program
A dditional m atter to communicate about
O bjectives were discussed
We maintained more contact on the sp e cifie d in v o lv e­
ments to change the program fostered
Closer
Program terminated
Tendency to make communication ea sie r in area o f
assessment, te s tin g , s k i ll development
More contact because o f study
No comments
No
Relevant comments:
Had good communication p rio r to th is year
No comments
No response

12
14
1 2

1 0

292
Questions
8.

N

%

V H-V

Do you perceive th a t the Kindergarten Special
Study impacted in any way on the kindergarten
program?
Yes
Relevant comments:
More thorough evaluation o f c h ild .
Teacher commented th a t she f e l t she knew the c h i l ­
dren more thoroughly than any group she'd
ever had.
Has provided ideas and d ire c tio n s which w ill
bring about g reater change-pointed to in d i­
vidual needs.
Time involved w ith te s tin g .
We look forward to our own o b je c tiv e card and
te s ts fo r kindergarten w ith optional o b jec tiv es .
Too much time was lo s t by the Special Study.
W ill aid in moving toward a plan o f objectives
in teaching.
There were areas o f weakness th a t were revealed
and an attempt was made to beef them up.
Awareness.
Awareness o f objectives and te s tin g instruments
fo r teacher.
More cognizant o f o b jec tiv es .
More d e ta ils on what we did.
A dditional work fo r the teachers.
Reinforced th a t we were covering many o f the
o b jectives in our present program.
Teachers f e l t hurried e a rly in the program.
Communication c la r if ie d and elim inated the
fe e lin g .
Many o b jectives were useful in noting progress
in various students—could be used as a check
l i s t fo r s k i ll s in fu tu re .
The amount o f time fo r record keeping is
astronom ical.
1. Helped general kindergarten curriculum .
2. Good in s ig h t in to c h ild re n 's needs.
3. Help the teacher become a b e tte r teacher.
Added new ideas, helped implement our goals,
stressed checking assessment.
A great deal o f time was taken from regu lar
classroom a c t i v i t ie s .
She appeared unreceptive to the program and
i t in te rfe re d w ith her set pattern o f
in s tru c tio n .
Provided a basis fo r assessing and evaluating
our current program ( i . e . , evaluation pro­
cedures, content, e tc .)

28

70

18

10

Questions
More organized— d e fin ite d ire c tio n — improved
comnunication between kindergarten and
f i r s t grade teachers.
No comments
No
Relevant comments:
Did give us ideas fo r assessing and record
keeping, the p ro je c t design is used as
a model.
Other than take considerable time to adm inister.
These goals were already a p art o f program.
We had been doing most o f th is p reviously.
I t b a s ic a lly reinfo rced what we were doing.
Teaching is same.
No comments
No response
Do you perceive th a t the Kindergarten Special Study
has o r w ill impact in any way on the e a rly elemen­
ta ry program in your building (prekindergarten,
kindergarten, grade 1)?
Yes
Relevant comments:
F ir s t grade teachers have also p a rtic ip a te d .
They are much more aware o f the kindergarten
program content, e tc .
The Study would undoubtedly fo s te r change
which would be undesirable to the teacher.
Students have been exposed to common goals
and may have achieved the desired re s u lts .
Teachers are becoming more fe a rfu l o f s ta te level in te rfe re n c e .
F ir s t grade teachers are b e tte r aware o f
strengths and weaknesses o f in d iv id u a ls .
I t required more s e c re ta ria l tim e.
I t could in the fu tu re —depending upon
objectives used by kindergarten teachers.
Confirmation o f our program as i t is .
Help us get d e ta ils .
As i t grows and becomes more manageable,
i t w ill re in fo rc e our program even more.
A ssist in sequencing o b je c tiv e s .
I t w ill provide us w ith a basis fo r
fu rth e r curriculum review.
Awareness.
Some minor changes may be made.
Areas o f student d if f i c u l t i e s w ill continue
to be worked on in f i r s t grade.

294
Questions
W ill aid in moving toward a plan o f
o b jectives in teaching.
Gives c o n tin u ity to our already developed
1-5 program. Local nursery school has
been examining m aterials too.
Hopefully w ill provide d ire c tio n .
When we see the tabulated re s u lts w ill
c e rta in ly compare our kindergarten program
to them.
Kinds o f inform ation and recommendations.
No comments
No
Relevant comments:
Teaching is same.
Most o f the things were already being done
or unnecessary.
Too e a rly to t e l l as y e t.
No comments
Possible
No response
10.

V N-V

%

7
12

30

9

3

8
1
1

2
2

1

0

21

53

16

5

Was there an in s tru c tio n a l aide or student teacher
in the kindergarten se ctio n (s ) p a rtic ip a tin g in
the Special Study?
Yes
Relevant comments:
An aide to a s s is t in recording te s t re s u lts .
We have f u ll- t im e aides in our kindergarten
program.
Student teacher a s s is ta n t.
Student teacher, high school cadets, and parent
volunteers.
An aide works in the room.
Adult aide is always assigned to kindergarten
in our system.
To a s s is t in recording te s t re s u lts .
P art o f the tim e.
We use them a l l the time to a s s is t in our
teaching— in order fo r a teacher to handle
a l l the tasks we request I b elieve they
should be mandatory!
P a rt-tim e teacher aide and volunteer mothers.
S u b stitu te teachers were h ired .
High school aide only. Assisted with
mechanics o f program only.
No comnents
No
Relevant conrnents— no comnents
I d o n 't know

9
19
19
0

47
0

13

6

295
Questions
11.

%

V N-V

Do you b elieve th a t the assistance o f an in s tru c ­
tio n a l aide or student teacher would make a d i f ­
ference in the implementation o f the Kindergarten
Special Study?
Yes
Relevant comments:
An in s tru c tio n a l aide can be an asset to any
classroom i f teacher plans.
An aide would be able to record keep.
Large classes assistance are o f special help.
This would give a d d itio n a l time fo r teacher
to be more e ffe c tiv e .
Extra help would have allowed teacher to spend
more time on Study. Teachers are deeply
involved w ith in s tru c tio n a l a c tiv itie s .a n d
any time given to th is Study was f e l t to be
a d etra ctio n from re g u la r in s tru c tio n .
I f i t is going to contain as much m aterials as
th is y e a r.
Very necessary.
Study was very time consuming.
Help fo r an already busy teacher.
Much easier w ith an a id e .
Teacher can only do so many things a t one tim e.
Time elements.
You need time fo r one to one.
More help.
w ithout an aide th is involvement would be
im possible.
I t would allow the teacher more time fo r te s tin g .
Second person could g ive a tte n tio n to the
second group.
Too much work fo r the teacher alone.
Student teacher, aides and parent volunteers
helped in adm inistering tes ts and recording.
Allow fo r g re a te r time devoted to the program.
The Special Study is very time consuming and an
as s is ta n t would make the study e a s ie r to
complete and more w orthwhile.
Extra help is mandated by the g rea t amount o f
paperwork.
Gave teacher more time to work on study.
No corrments
No
Relevant comments:
R e sp o n s ib ility would s t i l l l i e w ith the teacher.
No comments
I d o n 't know
No response

80

10
6
5
1
1

15

2
2

23

5

9

1

296
Questions

12.

%

V N-V

4

10

2

2

14

35

12

2

9

23

7

2

12
7

30
18

7
5

5
2

4

10

3

1

What has been th e involvement o f the f i r s t grade
teacher in the Kindergarten Special Study?
(Check ONE only)
The f i r s t grade teacher has met w ith th e kindergarten
teacher to become fa m ilia r w ith the m a teria ls and
procedures by a d m in is tra tiv e/su p erviso ry request
The f i r s t grade teacher and kindergarten teacher
have met on t h e ir own i n i t i a t i v e to discuss the
Special Study m aterials and procedures
The f i r s t grade teacher was informed o f the p ro je c t
by me, the p rin c ip a l or the curriculum supervisor
The f i r s t grade teacher was informed o f the p ro je ct
by the kindergarten teacher
I don’ t know
Number o f respondents who checked more than one
response = 5

13.

N

Do you believe th a t o ther kindergarten teachers
in your b u ild in g or the d i s t r i c t would lik e to
p a rtic ip a te in a s im ila r study?
Yes
Relevant comments:
There was communication and a sharing o f the
study te s tin g m a teria l between the two
kindergarten teachers.
Give them more inform ation.
I f re s u lts o f Study prove valuable and a s h o rte r,
less time-consuming te s tin g program is the r e s u lt.
No coiments
No
Relevant comments:
M aterial was overwhelming in q u a n tity .
Time consuming.
A g reat deal o f extra work.
Not ap p lic ab le .
From what I b e lie v e concerning o thers.
Too much time and paperwork.
Very time consuming.
I t hinders the curriculum in th a t so much time
is required to t e s t , not enough time fo r
personal in te ra c tio n .
They fe e l th is was imposed upon them by the
ad m in is tra tio n .
Only one kindergarten teacher in system.
No comments
I d o n 't know
We have no other kindergarten teachers
A ll are p a rtic ip a tin g

1
15

38

5
18 45
1 2
2 5

11

4

12

6

297
Questions

14.

%

V N-V

What w ill happen w ith the in d iv id u a l achievement
inform ation on each kindergarten student w ith in
your building? (Check ALL th a t apply)
The kindergarten teacher w il l decide th is .
The inform ation w ill be given to me and sent to
the f i r s t grade teacher.
The inform ation w ill be sent by the kindergarten
teacher to the f i r s t grade teacher a t my request.
The f i r s t grade teacher w ill be requested to use
i t fo r in s tru c tio n a l planning.
I w ill use the inform ation fo r local decision making
regarding the kindergarten program.
I w ill use the inform ation fo r lo c al decision making
regarding the e a rly elementary program (p re ­
kinderg arten , kindergarten, f i r s t grade).
I have not y e t decided.
Other (Program was terminated before end o f year: 2)
No response

15.

N

13

33

10

3

5

13

2

3

11

27

9

2

8

20

4

4

4

10

4

0

8
6
2
2

20
15
5
5

4
3
2
2

4
3
0
0

21 53 16
Yes
Relevant comments:
More recorded on paper.
This is the la s t step in our o b je c tiv e program K-5.
Added inform ation on special needs.
However, I'm not sure o f the necessity o f some o f
the inform ation.
But not because o f the lim ite d amount o f te s tin g
we accomplished.
Sequence o f o b jectives in curriculum and teacher
and a d m in is tra tiv e awareness.
This can be used w ith the re s u lts o f the
M etropolitan Achievement te s ts .
We w ill incorporate ideas o f the Special Study
w ith our curriculum .
No comments
12
No
16 40 10
Relevant comments:
Not a t th is t i m e - - i t w ill probably show up when
we begin to place our kindergarten fo r the
f i r s t grades.
We have been involved in a lo c al te s tin g program
fo r some tim e. The present inform ation is
d if f e r e n t , not n ecessarily more.
Not r e a lly .
No re s u lts have come back.

5

Do you have more inform ation on en tering f i r s t
grade students due to the Kindergarten Special Study
Assessment procedures than you had in previous years?

298
Questions

We p resen tly use a check l i s t o f some o f the
assessment procedures; however, th is type
o f m aterial could be passed on to the f i r s t
grade teacher and become valuable.
Kindergarten teachers inform f i r s t grade
teachers v e rb a lly and in w ritte n form.
I have not y e t seen the re s u lts .
No comments
No response
16.

N

%

9
3

7

V N-V

Do you b elieve th a t the Kindergarten Special Study
assessment procedures provide more complete and
useful inform ation fo r in s tru c tio n a l decisions than
your previous procedures?
Yes
Relevant comments:
Implemented— gave ideas.
Feel th a t i t would, had program been completed.
But a sim pler method o f recording items and
repo rtin g re s u lts needs to be developed.
More s p e c ific measurement o f o b je c tiv e s .
We had very few o b jec tiv es . Also th is provided
the s t a f f w ith the opportunity to r e a lly te s t
MEAP w ith the present curriculum .
We s t i l l have the same procedures plus the
Special Study.
We recorded no inform ation previously so th is
has to give us more than in the past.
To a s lig h t degree.
I'm unsure a t th is tim e, but tend to fe e l i t
does because o f the d e ta ile d te s tin g .
No comments
No
Relevant comments:
Kindergarten teacher does not consider i t to be
o f value.
I t is an a lte rn a tiv e to our re g u la r procedures.
This school K - l, no follow -up procedure y e t.
S im ila r to what we d id .
Program term inated.
No comments
Unknown a t th is time
Hopefully
No response

20

50 14

6

11
13

32

8

5

8
3
1
3

8
2
8

3

0

299
Questions

17.

_£

X

!LV

15

38

10

5

11
19

47

13

6

15

4

Do you b elieve th a t the Kindergarten Special Study
assessment procedure provides more complete and
useful inform ation fo r ad m in is tra tiv e decisions
than your previous procedures?
Yes
Relevant comments:
More inform ation to make d is c ip lin a ry
decisions on.
Only in th a t i t adds to the p ic tu re we have
o f a c h ild and assists us in knowing where
to place him/her in f i r s t grade.
I b e lie v e so—ag ain , continued use w ill provide
b e tte r c r i t e r i a fo r a judgment.
Curriculum work.
No comments
No
Relevant comments:
Program term inated.
Our program did most o f the o b je c tiv e s .
I can not consider i t to be o f value.
In keeping w ith numbers 14 and 16, many
unknowns are in evidence.
No comments
Not c e rta in a t th is time.
No response

18.

JL

Do you b elie ve th a t the Kindergarten Special Study
assessment procedures provide more complete and
useful inform ation fo r repo rtin g student progress
to parents than your previous procedures?
Yes
Relevant comments:
E asier to exp lain what they have a c tu a lly done
(based on o b je c tiv e s ). . .more o b je c tiv e s ...
curriculum mode defined.
Would have had te s tin g been completed.
We used the inform ation during parent-teacher
conferences to help parents be more aware
o f in d ivid u al progress and needs.
Show parents progress o f t h e ir students.
Questionable on usefulness o f the MEAP program.
Where the question came up th is was useful
support inform ation.
I t gave ad d itio n a l inform ation in some instances.
Provides s p e c ific inform ation as situ atio n s
are checked through the y e a r.
Very h e lp fu l.
Because o f a more complete p ic tu re o f the c h ild .
No comments

15
2 5
4 10

19

48

300
Questions

No
Relevant comments:
I have not y e t seen the re s u lts .
Too d i f f i c u l t to e x p la in .
I t was not used w ith parents but s im ila r things
in d iffe r e n t form are reported.
Not r e a lly .
I t is d i f f i c u l t to in te r p r e t to parents.
Program term inated.
We were including these things on our previous
evalu atio n .
No comments
Yes and no
Relevant comments:
I t was u s e fu l, but so was what we were doing
previously.
No response
19.

N

15

38

%V

N-V

9

6

8
1 2

5

12

*7

18

6

1

2
13

33

8

5

Comparing the design o f the Kindergarten Special
Study to th a t o f the fo urth grade educational assess­
ment program, which o f the two do you b elie ve to be
a more useful educational procedure fo r your b u ild ­
ing? (Check ONE only)
The Kindergarten Special Study design
Relevant comments:
I d o n 't have fo u rth graders.
The answer is tw o -fo ld . The fo u rth grade is now;
however, i f the Kindergarten Study is stream­
lin e d then i t would be more b e n e fic ia l fo r
curriculum development.
Done a ll year a t c h ild 's le v e l so you are working
with him in d iv id u a lly a l l y e ar.
Kindergarten is f a r b e tte r— but the time involved
can not be compared.
Teachers have more input and a person to r e la te
to from S tate Department.
No comments
The fo urth grade assessment design
Relevant comments:
Kindergarten is too easy. More inform ation on
fo urth grade.
The re s u lts can be implemented in terms o f
program the same year is given.
Kindergarten Special Study— too time consuming—
l e f t too l i t t l e time to teach and do fun
learning u n its .
The fo urth grade re s u lts are more help in cur­
riculum and in d ivid u al students' needs.

301
Questions

Because o f rep o rtin g method and time admin­
is te re d fo u rth grade program.
More complex.
No comments
They are o f equal value
Relevant comments:
They each have th e ir functio n a t the par­
t ic u la r le v e l given.
Fourth grade assessment is good to evaluate the
education in grades K -l-2 .
Kindergarten is
good to see what s k i l l the c h ild has and then
la t e r compare as to where they are l a t e r .
I do not fe e l they can be compared. They are
two separate modes and each has i t s m e rits .
They are designed fo r d iffe r e n t age groups. How
can you compare c o lts to horses?
N eith er is o f a p ra c tic a l nature.
Each has i t s sp e cialized values.
No comments
Not sure
No response
20.

N

%

V N-V

7
10

25

3
1
9

2
22

7

2

16

40

14

2

9

3

7

3

Would you volunteer to have th is or a s im ila r study
implemented in your b u ild in g again?
Yes
Relevant comments:
We attended the meeting and decided to continue.
Be more s e le c tiv e o f teachers.
Help to keep s t a f f informed, develop ideas, e tc .
I f you have no in p u t, you have no say and no
complaints. I f you want progress, work a t i t .
Hopefully the o b jectives would not be so numerous
as the time frame is too g re a t.
Providing kindergarten teacher uses fewer o f the
te s t devices; she tr ie d to use everything and
the time element was too g re a t.
We fe e l i t is a step in th e r ig h t d ire c tio n .
The freedoms attached w ith the program made i t a
comfortable and p ro fita b le experience.
I did l i t t l e to a s s is t/s u p e rv is e the program.
No comments
No
Relevant comments:
I d o n 't b elieve i t has p ra c tic a l a p p lic a tio n s .
A great deal o f time and e f f o r t was needed to
complete the tasks and evalu ation s. I t
required much outside help to do a good jo b .

7
12 30

302
Questions
We are in a b u ild in g program in th is school fo r
next year; would be too d i f f i c u l t to handle
a t th is tim e.
A g reat deal o f ex tra work.
Not unless i t were changed— shortened.
I did l i t t l e to a s s is t/s u p e rv is e the program.
No comments
Under c e rta in conditions
Relevant comments:
I f we are informed in advance and know what
is expected.
Need a d d itio n a l assistance such as an aide to
have i t more meaningful in the implementation.
I b elie ve th a t e x tra teacher help is necessary-money is a fa c to r .
Provided we d id n 't have over 25 students per
section in kindergarten.
Permission or request o f kindergarten teacher.
I f we as s t a f f had more input as to actual
items used.
Sm aller class s iz e , a d d itio n a l help fo r the
teacher.
Depending on teacher.
I f the kindergarten teacher is given a d d itio n a l
help to carry on the study.
I f the teachers are w illin g .
Would depend on teacher a t th a t time and also
i f te s t could be revised in c e rta in ways.
Namely less bookkeeping.
No comments
No response
Number o f respondents who checked more than one
response - 1

N

6
12

1
1 2

%

30

V

N-V

6

6

0

1

APPENDIX V
EXCERPT FROM MEAP STAFF REPORT ON TEST ANALYSIS FOR
GRADE ONE ASSESSMENT

303

APPENDIX V
EXCERPT FROM MEAP STAFF REPORT ON TEST ANALYSIS
FOR GRADE ONE ASSESSMENT

Grade One Assessment
1.

Test Analysis fo r Each Test Form
a.

b.
Scope c.

2.

NCNT, Weighted NCNT
Number and percentage o f students answer each item c o rre c tly
KR-20 c o e ffic ie n t

d.

Mean

e.

Standard d eviatio n

f.

Phi c o e ffic ie n t in te rc o rre la tio n m atrix (w ith blank diagonal)

Item Analysis fo r Each Test Form
a.

NCNT, Weighted NCNT

b.

Weighted p-value

c.

Point b is e r ia l c o e ffic ie n t

d.

Corrected p o in t b is e r ia l c o e ffic ie n t

Scope e.

Percentages o f pupils c o rre c tly answering, in c o rre c tly
answering, o m ittin g , and giving m u ltip le responses to
each item:
High 27% on the form
Low 27% on the form
Total takin g the form

304

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A lk in , Marvin C. "Evaluating 'Curriculum ' and 'In s t r u c t io n .'"
Curriculum Theory Network 4,1 (19 73 /74): 43-51.
________ . "Evaluation Theory Development." Evaluation Comment,
UCLA Center fo r the Study o f Evaluation 2,1 (1969): 2-7 .
Almy, M i l l i e . The Early Childhood Educator a t Work.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975.

Mew York:

Borg, W alter R ., and G a ll, Meredith D. Educational Research: An
In tro d u c tio n . New York: David McKay Company, I n c ., 1971.
Chapman, Judith E. "Early Childhood Research and Development; Needs,
Gaps, and Imbalances: Overview." Paper prepared fo r In t e r ­
agency Panel on Early Childhood Research and Development,
February 1972.
D irections in Early Childhood Education, Part I . S ta ff paper adopted
by the State Board o f Education. Lansing: Michigan Depart­
ment o f Education, February 6 , 1976.
Good!ad, John I . , ed. Early Schooling in the United S ta te s .
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973.

New

Hopefner, Ralph; Stern, Carolyn; and Nummedal, Susan G ., eds. CSE-ECRC
Preschool/Kindergarten Test E valuations. Los Angeles: Center
fo r the Study o f E valuation, and the E a rly Childhood Research
C enter, 1971.
Hyman, H erbert. Survey Design and A n alysis.
Press, 1955.

New York:

The Free

Isaac, Stephen, and M ichael, W illia m . Handbook in Research and Eval­
u a tio n . San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, P u blish er, 1971.
McFadden, Dennis N ., ed. E arly Childhood Development Programs and
Services: Planning fo r Action. Washington, D .C .: National
Association fo r the Education o f Young C hildren, 1972.
Michigan Department o f Education. Charting Educational Progress:
Michigan Educational Assessment Program. Lansing: Michigan
Department o f Education, n.d.

306

307
________ ■ The Common Goals o f Michigan Education.
Department o f Education, 1971.

Lansing:

________ • Educational Assessment: The Michigan Plan.
Michigan Department o f Education, 1975.

Michigan

Lansing:

________ . Michigan's Educational Assessment Program: Grades to Be
Assessed. Lansing: Michigan Department o f Education, 1974.
________ . Heeds Assessment: A Step Toward Q u a lity Education.
Michigan Department o f Education, 1975.

Lansing:

________ . A Position Statement on Educational A c c o u n ta b ility .
Michigan Department o f Education, 1972.
________ . Student Performance Expectations.
Department o f Education, n .d .

Lansing:

Lansing:

Michigan

Sanders, James R ., and Cunningham, Donald J. "A S tru ctu re fo r Forma­
t iv e Evaluation in Product Development." Review o f Educational
Research 43,2 (1973): 217-36.
S tate o f Michigan. General School Laws. Lansing: L e g is la tiv e Service
Bureau fo r the S tate Board o f Education, 1973.
Teitelbaum , Howard S. Formal Systems and T h e ir R elationship to Educa­
tio n a l Research and P ra c tic e . O ffic e o f Medical Education,
Research and Development, 1974.
U.S. Department o f H ealth, Education and W elfare. " S ta tis t ic o f the
Month: Enrollment in Preprimary Programs." American Education
11,10 (1975): back cover.
Worthen, Blaine R ., and Sanders, James R. Educational Evaluation:
Theory and P ra c tic e . Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones
Publishing Company, 1973.

V