DOCUMENT BESUME EC 013 101 Christner, Catherine A. And ...Chapter III states all the decision questions and relates tbem to the evaluation questions and'objectives and to their data

DOCUMENT BESUME

ED 211 295 EC 013 101

AUTHOR Christner, Catherine A. And OthersTITLE Evaluation Design: ESEA Title I Migrant Progiam.

Publication No. 81.49.INSTITUTION Austin Independent School District, Tex. Office of

Fesearch and Evaluation.SPONS AGENCY Department.Of Education, Washington, D.C.

- PUP DATI B1NOTE 52p.; For a related document, see EL 1SE E04. Paper

copy not available due to small print size.

EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC 'Not Available' frog EDFS.DT!SCRIPTORS Ancillary School Servides; *Data Collection;

Educational Assessment; Elementary SecondaryEducation; *Evaluation Methods; *Evaluation Needs;Federal Aid; *Informatfbn Dissemination; InformationSources;,*MigrantioXducation: Higrant Health Services;Needs Assessment ;- .parent Participation; PreschoolEducation: Program.Lesign; Program Effectiveness;*Program Evaluation; Public Schools

IDENTIFIERS Austin Independent School District TX; *ESEA Title IMigrant-Programs; Migrant Student Record TransferSystem

ABSTRACT.Evaluation of the 1981-82 Title I Migrant Program in

the Austin, Texas Independent School District involved production ofa Final Report and a Technical Report which p'resent informationrelevant to the decision questions; production of an AnimalEvaluation Report for the Texas Education Association which documentsthe extent to which program objectimes have been achieved:- anddisremination of evaluation information to district personnelthroughout the_par by means of brochures, memos, and meetings. Theevaluation desigt, contained in this document, is a 1-year plan ofevaluation work for the project. Chapter I presents tames 04 personswho have been provided portions of the design for review and comment.Chapter II defcribes the project and related evaluation activities.Chapter III states all the decision questions and relates tbem to theevaluation questions and'objectives and to their data sources.Chapter IV specifies information needs not included in the prorioussection. Chapter V specifies the medium for informationdissemination, date of distribution, and pergons receiving theinformation. Chapter VI lists each information source, population'from which cbtained, diNe of collection, and Analysis techniques.Chapter VII is a timeline for data collection. Chapter VIIIsummarizes all evaluation work estimates by position for each aspect.(CM) t.,

***********************************************************************Peproduction$ supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************t***********************************

Research

and

Evaluation

EVALUATION DESIGN

ESEA Title I Migrant Program

Fall, 1981

Austin Independent

School District

Texas

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER IERICI

The document has been reproduced asreceived nm the person or organ cation

jetginating tMinor changes have been made to improve

reprodughon quality

Points of view or optmons stated in this docu

ment do not necessarily represent °throe' N/E

POSItion w poky

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Freda i4o11 ey

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

tVALUATION DESIGN

eSEA Tit& 1 Migtant Pnognam

Fat, 1981

OFFICE OF RESEARCHAND EVALUATIONAUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

Evatuecton:

Catherine A. hristner, Ph.D.

Seniot Evatuatoi.:

Glynn Ligon, Ph.D.ft

Data Anaty4t:Anna Beeson

Sectetaty:Leonila Gonzlez

6.--Xi i.///r

Freda M. Holley, D.

Director, Research and Evalu tion

Appnoved:

Publication No. 81.09

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DISCLAIMER

project ptuent on tepotted hetein WdA petliotmed parauant to a grant

om the Department Education. However, the dpinions expte44ed hetein donot nece44anity tetitect the pozition on poticy o6 the Depantment and no cA6iciat

endonzement by the Department 4houtd be nSenned..

3

81.09

Evaluation Design ABSTRACT

Title: EVALUATION DESIGN: ESEA Title I Migrant Program Fall, 1981

Contact Persons: Catherine Christner, Glynn Ligon

No. Pa 27

Content:

The evaluation design is a one-year plan of evaluation,work for the project.The table of contents for this document includes:

13

I. Evaluation DesignReview Form

II. Narrative SummaryA. Prdgram SummaryB. Evaluation.Summary

III. Decision QuestionsA. Questions AddressedB. Overview

IV. Information DeedsA. NeedsB. Overview

V. Dissemination

VI. Information Sources

This chapter presents the names and/orsignatures of persons (responsible forsome aspect of the project's imple-mentation) who have been providedrelevant portions of the design forreview and comment.

This chapter briefly describes tgrprojectand the evaluation activities tied to the,project.

Here the evaluator states all the decisionquestions and relates them to the evalua-tion questions and objectives as well astheir data sources.

Here the evaluator specifies other informa-tion needs that are riot included in thedecision question section. This mayinclude information required for annualTEA reports, applications, interim reports,etc.

Here the eraluator specifies the meditru bywhich ini..cmation will be disseminated,the date of distribution, and the persons

1Nreceiving the information.

The evaluator lists each information sourceand Specifies the population from whichinformation will be obtained. The datethe information will be collected and theanalysis teRhniques are listed as well.

41

4

81.09

VII. Data to be Collected inthe Schools

VIII. Evaluation Time ResourcesAllocation Summary

Evaluation Design Summary:

This is a timeline 'for the collection

of data in the schools.

This chapter summarizes all the evalua-tion work estimates (in person-days)by position, for each aspect of theevaluation.

Evaluation, or the 1981- 82 Title I Migrant Program involves three majoractivities:

a) The production of a Final Report and a Technical Report whichpresent information relevant to the decision questions.

b) The production of an Annual Evaluation Report or TEA whichdocuments the extent to which program objectives have beenachieved.

c) The dissemination of evaluation information to districtpersonnel throughout the yed'r by means of brochures, memos,meetings, etc.

Scope of Design:

5 Decision Questions32 Evaluation Questions19 Information Need Questions

1

81.09

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract

Table of Contents iii

Program Staff iv

I. Evaluation Design Review Form. 1

II. Narrative SummaryA. Program Summary 2B. Evaluation Summary 5

III. Decision QuestionsA. Questions Addressed 6W. Overview 7

IV. Information NeedsA. Needs 15B. Overview 17

V. Dissemination 21

VI. Information Sources Summary 22

VII. Data to beNCollected in the Schools 25

VIII. Evaluation Time-Resources Allocation 2

iii

81.09

PROGRAM STAFF

The following Austin Independent School District staff members are re-sponsiblt for the lementation of the Title I Migrant Program.

rPLee Laws

Director, Federal and State Applications and Compliance

Oscar Cantlf

_Administrator, Title I/Title I Migrant

JosMataCoordinator, Secondary Migrant Education

Kathleen Bryan, R.N.Family Nurse Practitioner

Eva Barron

Community/Parental Involvement Specialist

Anita UphausEarly Childhood Coordinator

Timy Baranoff, Ph.D.DireCtor, Elementary Curriculum

Ruth MacAllisterAssistant. Superintendent,

Elementary Education

W. David Hill, Ph.D.

Acting Assistant Superintendent,Secondary Education

J. M. RichardDirector, Secondary School Management

Maud SimsDirector, Secondary School Curriculum

Hermelinda Rodriguez. Director, Elementary School Management

i7

81.09

EVALUATION DESIGN REVIEW FORM

The following persons have been provided an opportunity to review and tomake comments on pertinent sections of this design:

John Ellis, Ph.D.Superintendent

James Jeffery, Ph.D.Associate Superintendent,Operations

Lawrence BufordActing Aisociate Superintendent,Instruction

W. David Hill, Ph.D.'cting Assistant' Superintendent,Secondary Education

Ruth MacAllisterAssistant Superintendent,Elementary Education

Maud SimsDirector, Secondary SchoolCurriculum

Timy Baranoff, Ph.D.Director, Elementary SchoolCurriculum

J. M. RichardDirector, Secondary SchoolManagement

Hermelinda RodriguezDirector, Elementary School.Management

Hobart Gaines, Ph.D.Special Assistant for School andCommunity Relations

Mauro ReynaDirector, Pupil Services

1

Lee LawsDirector, Federal and StateApplications and Compliance

OP

Oscar CaatuTitle I/Title I MigrantAdministrator

a

Jose MataSecondary Migrant Education

Eva BarronCommunity/Parental Involvement,Specialist

Anita UphausCoordinator, Early ChildhoodEducation

Kathleen Bryan, R.N.Migrant Program Family NursePractitioner

Ann CunninghamESAA Administrator

Ann NeeleyTitle I Instructional Coordinator

Alicia MartinezTitle I Instructional Coordinatot

Kathryn StoneTitle I Instructional Coordinator

:Mike Lehr

Executive Director of Personnel

Jett TodaroSpecial Assistant, AdministrativeServices

a

81.09 I I A

PROGRAM SUMMARY

The Title I Migrant Program is a federally-funded project in the AustinIndependent School District. It is designed to meet the unique needs ofthe District's Migrant Program students. Funds to aid in the education ofMigrant Program students are made available to the states based on tae num-ber of students who are identified within each state. The Texas EducationAgent), then allocates the Texas funds to local districts based on districtneed and program quality. Both currently migratory and formerly migratorychildren may be served by the Migrant Program. A currently migratory childis one (a) whose parent or guardian is a migratory agricultural worker ormigratory fisher, and (b) who has moved within the past 12 months from oneschool district to another to enable the child, the child's guardian; or amember of the child's immediate family to obtain temporary or seasonal em-ployment in an agricultural or fishing activity., The perm "agriculturalactivity" means "any activity related to crop production (including thepreparation of soil and the storing, curing, canning, or freezing of crops);any activity related to the production and processing'of milk, poultry, and

40.ivestock (foe human consumption); and any operation involved in forestnurseries and fish farms." Students retain their currently migratory statusfor one year following their arrival in the school district. Students whoremain in tne district following their year of current eligibility are con= ,

sidered formerly migratory students (with the concurrence of the parents),for a period of five years. Currently and formerly migratory students areeligible for the same program services. -

The level of funding for the Migrant Program in 1980-81 was $1,011,594. For

the 1981-82 school year, the funding level is $898,040. This decrease is dueto budget cuts.

The activities of the Migrant Program are centered around:

. recruitment of students and parental involvement

. an instructional program for prekindergarten throughhigh school students

. health support services

Recruitment and Parental Involvement

In order to be eligib4 for the services provided by the Migrant Program, theparents (guirdians) of the student have to complete a Certificate of Eligibility/Identification. In signing this form, the parents certify that their childrenmeet the definition of Migrant Program students. Students who are alreadycertified with an Eligibility/Identification Form on file are eligible forservices as formerly migratory students without filing another form. Using

the previous year's list of Migrant Program students and other community andschool contacts, the community representatives begin making home visits toregister currently migratory students prior to the beginning of the school

year. These home visits continue throughout the year as new Migrant Programstudents are located and identified. When the Eligibility/IdentificationForms are completed, they are sent by the MSRTS clerk to the Region XIIIEducation Service Center for entry into the MSRTS data bank in Little Rock,Arkansas.

2

9

The ligrant Program is alsolso required by federal guidelines to establishParent Advisory Councils (PAC4). In AISD, there is a local campus PACestablished at each,elementary Title I/Migrant or Migrant campus andan Elementary Districtwide PAC established for the District as a whole.There is a Secondary Districtwide Migrant PAC established for ale jIlatentsof Migrant Program students attending secondairsdhools. The PACsrovidethe parents of Migrant Program students and oillar community members withenopportunitycto learn more about the Migrant Program. PACA also allow'parentsto advise the District in itsoperation of the Migrant Program and in planningfor future Migrant Program activities: The establishing of'the Districtwideand local campus PACs is the responsibility of the Austin Independent school-District and its staff members.

P rekindergar ten: The Migrant Program has nine prekindergarten classes.1 Theprekindergarten program is for students who are four years Old as of Septem-ber 1, 1981. :For 1981-82 two of the classes are funded 50% by Title rMigrant'and 50% by Title I. These two split-funded classes are at Allan and. Ridgetop.The other classes are 1ated at Allison; Brooke, Dawson, Metz, OrtegaelSanchez, and St. Elko" Each of the nine classes has one teacher and no aides.Pre-K classes at Metz, Brooke, and Dawson are housed, in portable bqdingsbuilt with ESEA Title I Migrant funds.

Grades K-6: The Migrant Program flints teachers at 10 elementary campuses.Several of the elementary teachers are funded 50% by the Migtant Program and50% by either Title I or State Compensatory Education. This funding wasinstituted to better provide servides to more Migrant Program students. The

teachers serve the following campuses: Allan - Grades 1-3; Becker - GradesK-6; Brooke (teacher funded 50% Migrant/50% Title I) - Grades K, 4-6; Cook(half-time teacher is funded 100% Migrant) - Grades 4-6; Dawson.-k_GradesK-6; Govalle - Grades K-3; Highland,Park - Grades 1 -3; Metz (teacher funded50% Migrant/50% Title I) - Grades K-3; Webb (teacher funded 50% Migrant/50%State Compensatory EducatiOn) - Grades 4-6; and Zavala (teacher fended 50%Migrant/50% Title I) - Grades K, 4-6. The instructional emphasis will be asupplementary Oral/Written Communication pSkills program in coordination withthe regular instructional program.

In addition, at Allan, Brcoke, Govalle, Metz, and Zavala, a Ma h Rainbow Kitwill be pilot tested on Migrant and Title I students. The Rainbow Kit is aprogram where materials are sent home for parents to engage in instructionalactivities with their children.

Nolo

Grades 7-12: There are seven teachers funded at the secondary level. One

teacher serves both Crockett High School (60% of the time) and Porter JuniorHigh School (40% of the time). In addition,there, is a Migrant Program teacher

at each of the following campuses: Fulmore Junior High School (teacher funded60% Migrant/40% District funda); Martin Junior High School; O. Henry JuniorHigh School (teacher funded 80% Migrant/20% District funds); Anderson HighSchool; Johnston High School, and Travis sigh School. The instructional

emphasis at Grades 7-12 will be Communication Skills.

Migrant Program students whO attend campuses without a Migrant Program teachermay be served by other compensatory programs.

3(,)

81.09

4

Health Services:

The Migrant Program provides health benefits to Migrant Program studentswho are in need of them. To zeceive these benefits, the Migrant Programstudents-must meet the +ow-income criteriorit(be eligible for the free orreduced lunch prograw). The Familer Nurse Practitioner employed by theMigrant Program screena and examines Migrant Program students and makesrefergals to physicians and dentists as needed. Fundi-irom the Migrant.Prligram are used to purchase glasses of to pay medical, dental, or labfeis when other resources are not available.

4

1/

81.01 I I B

EVALUATION SUMMARY

The evaluation of the Migrant Program for 1981-82 focuses on the produc-tion of'the following:

. Final Report Summary and its related Final?TerInIcal Reportwhich present information relevant to the-decision questions _

outlined in this document; and

. As Annual Evaluation Report for the Texas Education Agency(TEA) which documents the extent to which program objectiveshave been achieved.

N.) . Needs assessment information which provides the Migrant Program staffwith information for planning and implementing the program aswell provides the basis for the 1982-83 Title I Migrant Appli-cation for Funding.

These activities require the collection of needs assessment, process,'andoutcome data.

Needs assessment data will be gathered in order to determine the number ofstudents eligible for Migrant Program services, their locations, and theirachievement levels.

Process data will be used to analyze the extent and efficiency with whichprogram components have been implemented. Data in this category includeinterviews with the Migrant Prdgram staff, Migrant Program Teacher ques-tionnaire,'PAC records, health services records, etc.

,Ohtcdzie data will'indicate the extent to which the Migrant Program has hadan impact on the achievement of students. The measures used will

be the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills,and the quential Tests of Educational Progress.

5

12

b81.09

III ADECISION QUESTIONS ADDRESSED

01. Should the Pre-K Instructional Component be continued as it is,modified, or deleted?

D2. Should the K-12 Instructional Component (Communication Skills)be continued as it is, modified, or deleted?

D3. Should the Health Services Component be cLatinued as it is,modified, or deleted?

D4. Should the Parental Involvement Component bn continued as it is,mcdified, or deleted?

D5. Should the MSRTS Component be continued as it is, modified, ordeleted?

.

6 13

111 B

DECISION QUESTIONS OVERVIEWDECISION QUESTION

--......... IMMO

DECISIONDATE"III1

DATENEEDED

RELEVANT EVALUATIONQUESTIONS & -OBJECTIVES

INFORMATION SOURCES

01. ':mould .ne Prehlidergarten Instruc-Lionel Component -be continued as itis, modified, ur deleted?lk

July, August1982

luly, 1982 DI-I.

D1-2.

DI-3.

Di-4.

D1-5.

IMOIIGNMI/M=Y//04Were the achievement objec-fives met?

How do the pre/posttest gainsmade by the migrant pre-Kstudents on Ole Peabody Pic-ture Vocabulary lest comparewith the Title I and TitleVII pre,K students?

How do the pre/posttcst gainsmade by migrant and Title 1pre-K students this year com-pare with gains made in 1980-81? With gains made by TitleI pre-K students in 079-80

What have been the long-Zermeffects of participation iiithe Migrant Pre-K Componenton migrant students' achieve-ment?

How many pre-K students didMigrant teachers serve?

a) What number and percentof eligible pre-K stu-dents received servicesfrom a Migrant teacher?

b) What way the average num-ber of pre-K studentsseen daily by a Migrantteacher during each six-week period?

a)

a)

a)

a

a)

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

Peabody Picture Vucabulary lest

Peabody Picture Vocabulary fest

1

Pre-K Longitudinal File

Migrant StUdent Attendance Form

Migrant Student Attendance Form

,

sm.....

i'14

III BDECISION QUESTIONS OVERVIEW

DECISION QUESTION DECISIONDATE

DATENEEDED

RELEVANT EVALUATIONQUESTIONS & OBJECTIVES

INFORMATION SOURCES

Di. (continued)

,

i

bI-5.

001-6.

01-7.

(continued)

c) What was the average num-ber of pre-K studentsserved by a Migrant

Leacher during each six-weeks period?

d) What was the average num-ber of days of instruc-tion received by pre-Kstudents during each six-weeks period?

Dow successful was the imple-mentation of the Pre-KComponent?

a) What concerns/strengthswere identified byMigrant teachers?

b) What concerns/strengthswere identified by MigrantProgram staff?

c) ;low has the reorganizationof the AISD Central Admin-istrative staff affectedthe implementation of thePre-K Component?

Facing possible continuing ,

.reduction of funds, what pro-

gram options exist at the, r

a)

a)

a)

a)

a)

b)

a)



Migrant Teacher questionnaire

Migrant Staff Interview

Migrant Teacher questionnaire


.

Information Assessment(Mnitiplesources t e.g. regulations, optionsused and considered 'n the past,staff tdeas,)

CEST COPY AVAILABLE.

171"

11113

DECISION QUESTIONS OVERVIEWDECISION QUESTION DECISION

DATEDATE

NEEDEDRELEVANT EVALUATION

QUESTIONS & OBJECTIVESINFORMATION SOURCES

e01-7. (continued)

prekindergartel level?

D2. Should the K-12 Instructional Compo-

nent (Communication Skills) be conti-hued as it is, modified, or deleted?

July, August 198? July, 1982 1:2-i. Were the achievement objec-Lives met?

a) Kindergarten

b) Grades 1-8

c) Grades 9-12

a)

b)

c)

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills


Sequential Testa of EducationalProgress

D2-2. flow do the gains made thisyear by migrant students in

grades 1-12 compare with thegains made in 1980-81?

a)

b)


Sequential Tests of EducationalProgress

D2-3. What have been the long-tereffects of participation inthe Migrant K-12 Instruc-tional Component on migrantstudentb' achievement?

A) K-12 Longitudinal File

02-9. how matey K-12-students didMigrant teachers serve?

a) What number and percentof eligible K-12 stu-

dents received servicesfrom a Migrant teacher?

b) What was the average num-

a)

a)


Migrant Student Attendance Form' ber of K-12 students

Dre,;0;17 I:b;..j 4;W' i inig.1-2(sLt.

19

1-4O

111 13

DECISION QUESTIONS OVERVIEWDECISION QUESTION DECISION

DATEDATE


QUESTIONS & OBJECTIVESINFOrMATION SOURCES

D2. (continued) D2-4. (continued)

seen daily by a Migrantteacher during each six-week period?

c) What was the avetage number of K-12 studentsserved by a Migrantteacher during each six-week PcriAi

d) What was the average number of days of instruc-tion received by K-12

students during each sixweek period?

a)

a)

a)


Migrant Student Attendnace Form


D2 -S. How successful was theimplementation of the K-12Component?

a) What concerns/strengthswere identified by

a) Migrant Teacher Questionnaire

Migrant teachers?

h) What concerns/strengthswere identified by

a) Migrant Staff Interview

.

Migrant Program staff?

c) flow has reorganization

of the AISD Central Ad-ministrative staffaffected the implementa-tion of the K-I2 Compo-nent

a)

b)

Migrant Teacher Questionnaire


2,

3 *11

Co

O


00

O


DATENEEDED

RELEVANT EVALUATIONQUESTIONS & OBJECTIVES

INFORMATION SOURCES

02. (continued)

%,

'

Dl. Should the Health Services Componentbe continued as it Ls, modified, ordeleted?

)

July, August1982

July, 1982

D2-6. What number and percent ofstudents eligible for Migrantservices received supplemen-tary instruction from anothersource?

02-7. Did the math achievement gains

of the Math Rainbow Kit par-ticipants exceed those'of nowparticipants in the controlgroup?

1)2-8. What strengths/concerns didthe Migrant teachers note re:the implementation of theMath Rainbow Kit?

u2 -9. .11hat strengths/concerns did

the Rainbow Kit parents noteabout the implementation ofthe Math Rainbow Kit?

02-10. ikw was the 9th-12th grade

Migrant Instructional Programimplemented?

02-11. Facing possible continuing

reduction of funds, what pro-gram opions exist for the

h-12 Instructional Component?

03-1. Were the Component's objec-Lives met?

D3-2. What services did migrantstudents receive?

a) Student Master File

b) Migrant Student Master File

a) Iowa Teats of Basic Skills

a) Rainbow Kit Teacher Questionnaire

a) Rainbow Kit Parent QuL tionnaire

a) Secondary Teacher Activity Record

a) Information Assessment

(Multiple sources, e.g. regulations,options used and considered in thepast, staff ideas, etc.)

a) Migrant Health Services Formb) Migrant Medical Expenses Form

a) Migrant Health Services Formb) Migrant Medical Expenses Form

BEST COPY MARE 23

111 13

DECISION QUES ;IONS OVERVIEWDECISION QUESTION DECISION

-DATEDATE


QUESTIONS di OBJECTIVESINFORMATION SOURCES

, D3-3. How many migrant students(by grade and ethnicity) w e

served by the Migrant Nurse?

a)

b)

Migrant Health Services FormMigrant Medical Expenses Form

D3-4. How auccessful was the im-plementation of the HealthSerAces Component?

a) What concerns /strengths

were identified by Mi-grant teachers?

b) What concerns /strengthswere identified by MI-

a)

a)



-grant Program staff.

D3-5. Facing possible continuingreduction of funds, whatprogram options exist for theHealth Services Component?

a) Information Assessment(Multiple sotaces, e.g. regulations,options used and considered in thepast, staff ideas, etc.)

. Should the Parental Involvement Com- July, August July, 1982 04-1. Were the Component's objec- a) bistrictwide PAC and Local PACponent

ified,be continued as it is, mod-or deleted?

198c tives met?

b)

Record.


1)4-2. how many Districtwide andlocal PAC meetings and train-ing sessions were held be-tween August 1, 1981 and

a) Districtwide PAC and Local PACRecords

April JO. 1982?

04-3. Did more migrant parentsattend local and Districtwide

0 Distrietwide PAC and Local PACRecords

PAC meetings and trainingsessions during 1981-82 than

vlea,tj I ft

2 --t

a


co

0

DECISION .QUESTION DECISIONDATE

DATE ,


QUESTIONS & OBJECTIVESINFORMATION SOURCES

D4. (continued)

%.

,D4-3. (continued)

they did duiing 1980-81? 'IP

D4-4. Mow successful was the im-plementation of the ParentalInvolvement Component?

a) What p-oblews/strengthscan be noted as a resultof separating the Die-trictwide PAC into two

a)

b)


Districtwide PAC Records

PACs - Elementary andSecondary

b) Dow has the reorganize- a) Migrant Staff Interview... Lion of the AISD Central

I

Administrative staffaffected the Implementa-tion of the Parental In-volvement Component?

c) What concerns/strengthswere identified by Mt-grant teachers?

d) What concerns/strengthswere identified by Mi-grant Program staff?

a)

a)


,

Migrant Staff Intetview

D4-5. How do Migrant Program par-eats want to be involved inthe Hlgrant Program?

a) Migrant Program Parent Survey

2G2"

1111^3

DECISION QUESTIONS OVERVIEWcorO


DATENEEDED

RELEVANT EVALUATIONQUESTIONS & OBJECTIVES-

INFORMATION SOURCES

D4-6. Facing possible continuingreduction of funds, whatprogram options exist for the

a) Information Assessment(Multiple sources, e.g. regula-Clone, options used and consid-

Parental Involvement Compo-nnnt?

Bred in the past, staff ideas,etc.)

16. Should the MSRTS Component be contin-ued as it Is, modified, or deleted?

July, August1981

July, 1981 )5-1. Were the Component's objec-tIves met?

1) MSRTS Records

4 Migrant Staff Interview

)5-2. How successful was the im-plementation of the MSRTSComponent (including SIS)?

a) What concerns/strengthswere identified by Mi-grant Program teachers?

b) What concerns/strengthswere identified by Mi-grant Program staff?

a

h)

Migrant Teacher guestionnnaire


)5-3. Pacing possible continuingreduction of funds, whatprogram options exist for theMSRTS Component?

i) Information Assessment(Multiple sources, e.g. regula-ttona, options used and consideredin the past, staff ideas, etc.)

......,.....wwwme....

29

1

81.09

IV A

INFORMATION NEEDSr

A. Needs Assessment

How many Migrant Program students will be enrolled in each school(by grade) in the 1981-82 academic year?

12. What is the achievement level of the Migrant Program students byschool and by grade? How, many students at each grade level are atthe A achievement level (achieVement test score is at or above the50th percentile), B achievement, level (achievement test score isfrom the 49th percentile to the 31st percentile)' and C achievementlevel (achievement test score is the 30th perentile or below)?

13. What compensatory programs serve Migrant Program students at eachgrade for each school; how many migrant students are served by each?,

14. What health needs have been identified for the Migrant Programstudents?

B. Program Application

15. How will the objectives in each of the components be evaluated?

16. What are the proposed objectives for the 1982-83 EvaluationComponent?

17. What is the proposed budget for the 1982-83 Evaluation Component?

C. Texas Education A ency Annual Evaluation Re ort, 1981-82 and Summer.of 1982

Regular Term

18. How many Migrant Program students (by grade and by ethnicity) re-ceived either instructional or health services through the MigrantProgram?

19. How many Migrant Program students (by grade) received instructionalservices through the Migrant Program?

I10. How many Migrant Program students (by grade), served by the MigrantProgram Instructional Component, have pre- and posttest achievementscores (grades 2-12 only)?

Ill. What was the pretest normal curve equivalent mean score average (bygrade - for grades 2-12) for the Migrant Program students pre- andposttested?

112. What was the posttest normal curve equivalent mean score average (bygrade - for grades 2-12) for the Migrant Program students pre- andposttested?

3015

81.09

113. What was the average normal curve equivalent gain (by grade - forgrades 2-12) for the Migrant Program students pre- and posttested?

114. How many Migrant Program students received health services?

115. How many Migrant Program students received medical care paid forwith Migrant Program funds?

116. How many Migrant Program students received dental care paid for withMigrant Program funds?

-117. How many Migrant'Progr4m parents were involved?

Summer Term

118. How many Migrant Program students (by ethnicity), received instructionalservices?

119. How many Migrant Program students received health services?

3116

IV B

INFORMATION NEEDS OVERVIEW..........

INFORMATION NEED DATENEEDED

INFORMATION SOURCES

A. Needs Assessment

11. How many Migrant Program students willbe enrolled is each school (by grade)in the 1981-82 academic year?

April, 1982 a) Migrant Student Master File

12. What is'the achievement level of theMigrant Program students by schooland by grade? How many students ateach grade level are at the A achieve -,ment level (achievement test score isat or above the 50th percentile), Bachievement level (achievement testscore is from the 49th percentile tothe 31st percentile) and C achieve-ment level (achievement test score isthe 30th percentile or below)?

April, 1982 a)

b)

c)

d)

Migrant Student Master File

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test


Sequential Tests of Educational Progress

13. What compensatory programs serve Mi-grant Program students at each gradefor -each school; how many Migrant Pro-

April, 1982 a) Overlap Study

Program students are served by each?

14. What health needs have been identifiedfor the Migrant Program students?

April, 1982 a)

b)

Migrant Health Services Form

Migrant Medical Expenses Form

B. Program Application

15. How will the objectives in each ofthe components be evaluated?

March, 1982 a) 1982-83 Title I Migrant Application Draft

16. What are the proposed objectives forthe 1982-83 Evaluation Component?

March, 1982 a) 1982-83 Title I Migrant Application Draft

, .

32

IV B

INFORMATION NEEDS OVERVIEW


INFORMATION SOURCES

C.

17. What is the proposed budget for the1982-83 Evaluation Component?

Texas Education Agency Annual Evaluation

March,

August,1982

August,1982

August,

1982

August,

1982

August,

1982

1982 a)

a)

b)

c)

d)

a)

b)

a)

b)

c)

d)

a)

b)

a)

1982-83 Title I Migrant Application Draft


Migrant Student Attendance Record

Migrant Health Services Form











Report for 1981-82 and Summer of 1082

Regular Term

18. 'How many Migrant Program students (bygrade and by ethnicity) receivedeither instructional or health ser-vices through the Migrant Program?

19. How many Migrant Program students (bygrade) received in instructional ser-vices through the Migrant Program?

I10. How many Migrant Program students (bygrade) served by the Migrant ProgramInstructional Component, have pre-and posttest achievement scores (grades2-12 only)?

Ill. What was the pretest normal curveequivalent mean score average (bygrade - for grades 2-12) for the Mi-grant Program students pre- andposttested?

112. What was the posttest normal curveequivalent mean score average (by

IV B



INFORMATION SOURCES

/

grade - for grades 2-12) for the Mi-grant Program students pre- and post-tested?

Sequential Tests of 'Educational Progress

113. What was the average normal curveequivalent gain (by grade - for

August,

1982. ) Iowa Tests of Basic Skills

grades 2-12) for the Migrant Programstudents pre- and posttested?

b) Sequential Tests of Educational Progress

114. How many Migrant Program students re-ceived health services?

August,1982

a) Migrant Student Master File

b) Migrant Health Services Form

115. How many Migrant Program studentsreceived medical calre paid for with

August,1982

a) Migrant Student Master File

Migrant Frtgram funds? b) Migrant Health Services Form

116. How many Migrant Program students re-ceived dental care paid for with Mi-grant Program funds?

August,

1982a) Migrant Medical Expenses Form

117. How many Migrant Program parents wereinvolved?

August,

1982a) Migrant Student Master File

b) PAC Records

c) Migrant Student Attendance RecordSummer Term

118. How many Migrant Program students (byethnicity) received instructional

August,

1982

a) Migrant Student Mister File

servicesi b) Summer School Records

/

3637

IV B


INFORMATION NEED DATE'NEEDED

INFORMATION SOURCES.

119. How many Migrant Program students re-ceived health services?

ei

August,1982

a)

b)

Migrant Heplth Services Form


ti

33 39

81.09

INFORMATION

V

DISSEMINATION

DATE PERSONSRECEIVING

Evaluation Findings for 1980-81 a) Texas Edu-cation Agen-cy Final Re-port

Handouts

Presenta-tions

Evaluation Design, 1961 -82

Interim Findings

Outline ofevaluationiquestions

and data tobe collected

Needs As-sessment/ProgramAppl.,ation

b) Informativememos, pre-sentations,reports (asappropriate)

Overlap of Compensatory Programs OverlapStudy

a) Final Report

echnical;-..

August,

1981

August,

September1981

August -September

September,October1981

April,

1982

Texas EducationAgency-MigrantProgram andEvaluation staff

AISD Migrant Pro-gram staff (in-cludes teachersand their princi-pals), CommunityRepresentatives,and DistrictwidePAC parents

Title I and Mi-grant teacher:AISD ParentalInvolvement staff,District personneland DistrictwidePAC parents

AISD Cabinet andother AISD staffincluding Dept. ofApplications andCompliance staff

Dept. of Applica-tions and Compli-ance staff andother interestedAISD staff

throughout various AISD staffthe 1981-84 - especially Mi-school yea d grant Program

staff (includesteachers and theirprincipals)

Spring,

1982

June ,1982

June,1982

AISD staff

AISD staff

AISD staff

21

40qit

VIINFORMATION SOURCES

INFORMATIONSOURCE

POPULATION EVAL. QUES.REFERENCED

DATECOLLECTED

ANALYSISTECHNIQUES

REMARKS

. ,

1. Peabody Picture Mocabu- All Migrant Program Prekin- D1-1, D1-2, D1-3. Oct., 1981 Descriptive statistics Test is individually admin-

lary Test dergarten students. 12. April, 1982 Analysis of covariance istered to each student.

Frequency counts

2. Iowa Tests of Basic All Migrant Program students D2-1, D2-2, D2-7. Sept., 1981 (K Frequency counts Data collected by System-

Spills in grades K-8. 12, 110, Ill, 112 only) Descriptive statistics wide Testing

113. Feb., 1982 (7,8) hCE calculations

April, i982 (K-6

3. Sequential Tests of Edu- All Migrant Program stu- D2-1, P2-2. April, 1982 F7equency counts Data collected by System-

cational Progress dents in grades 9-12. 12, 110, Ill, 112 Descriptive statistics wide Testing

and 113. NCE calculations

4. Prekindergarten Longitu-dinal File

Achievement data on formerMigrant* Program pre-K stu-

dents...

D1-4. April, 1982 Descriptive statisticsRegression analysesOther analyses to be

determined

5. K -l2 Longitudinal'File Achievement data on Migrant 02-3. April, 1982 Descriptive statistics

Program at ents served over

the last fu years.

Regression analysesOther analyses to be

determined

6. Migrant Student Master All Migrant gram stu- D2-6. Continuous Frequency counts

File dents. 11-14, 18, 19, Descriptive statistics

114, 118, 119.

7. Migrant Student Atten- All Migrant P gram stn- D1-5 and D2-4, August, 1981 Frequency distributions by 411

dance Record dents served by a Migrant 13, 18, 19, 117, through six-weeks periods

Program teacher. 118. May, 1982 Comparisons by grade and by

type of instruction

8. Secondary Teacher All Migrant Program High D2-10. Oct., 1981 - Frequency counts

Activity Record School Teachers. Dec., 1981 Descriptive statistics

4241


INFORMATIONSOURCE


DATECOLLECTED

ANALYSISTECHNIQUES

REMARKS

1

9. Migrant Teacher Questionnacre

All Migrant Program Teachers 1I1-6, D2-5, 03-4,

D4-4, and D5-2

March, 1982 Frequency counts

' ntent coding.

10. Rainbow Kit Teacher All Migrant Program/Title I D2-8. March, 1982 Frequency counts

Questionnaire teachers In the Math Rain-

bow Kit Project.

ntent coding

11. Rainbow Kit Parent Parents of Migrant Program D2-9. Ian., 1981 Frequency counts

Questionnaire and Title I children re-ceiving Math Rainbow Kits.

March, 1982 Content coding

12. Migrant Program Parent Sample of Migrant Program D4-5. November, 1981 Frequency counts

Survey Parents. Content coding

13. Migrant Staff interview Migrant Program Nurse, MI- D1-6, D2-5, D3-4 Ian. 1982 Content coding

grant Program Administrator D4-1, D4-4, D5-1 Feb., 1982

Migrant Program Coordinator D5-2.

Early Childhoou CoordinatorParental Involvewtnt Spe-cialist, and Migrant Commu-nity Representatives.

14. Migrant Health Servicestom

All Migrant Program studentsserved by the Migrant Pro-gram Nurse.

D3-1, D3-2, D3-3,14, 18, 114, 119.

August, 1981 - Hy-month frequency summarylime, 1982 totals frequency counts

15. Migrant Medical Expense., ALL Migrant Program students D3-1, D3-2, 03-3, August, 1981 41y -month frequency summary

Form !'or whom medical/dental

expenses were paid by Mi-grant Program funds.

115, 116. lune, 1982 totals frequency counts

-

16. PAC Records Nut applicable. D4-1, D4-2, D4-3 ugust, 1981 - Inspection

D4-4. lune, 1982 Frequency counts

117.

111111011TIP

LT COPY AVAIABLE

43

44


03

0.43

INFORMATIONSOURCE


DATECOLLECTED

ANALYSISTECHNIQUES

REMARKS

17. HSRTS Records Not applicable. D5-1. on-going Inspection

Frequency counts

18. Information Assessment Not applicable. D1-7, D2-11, D3-5, on-going Not applicableH-6, D5-3

:1( rL. Irak,1

4546

81,09

VII

DATA TO BE COLLECTED IN THE SCHOOLS

A. Students

October, 1981April, 1982

B. Teachers

March, 1982

March, 1982

August, 1981 -May, 1982

October, 1981 -December, 1981

C. Parents

November, 1981

January, 1982 r"March, 1982

1. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test:Administered to all Migrant Program pre-Kstudents.

1. Migrant Program Teacher Questionnaire:The questionnaires will be sent to all MigrantProgram teachers. It will take 10 to 20 minutesto complete.

2. Rainbow Kit Teacher Questionnaire:The questionnaire will be given to the MigrantProgram/Title I teachers responsible for dis-tributing the Math Rainbow Kit. It will take5 to 10 minutes to complete.

3. Migrant Student Attendance Forma:To be complete daily by the Migrant Programteachers and returned to the Migrant ProgramEvaluator at the end of each six-weeks period.

4. Secondary Teacher Activity RecordObservations will be conducted of the highschool Migrant Program teachers.

1. Migrant Program Parent SurveyThis survey will be sent to a sample of MigrantProgram parents (at the same time a similar Title Iparent survey is being conducted).

2. Rainbow Kit Parent Questionnaire:These questionnaires will be distributed twice

to parents. The distribution and collectionwill be done by pirticipant's teachers.

25

47

VIII

EVALUATION TIME RESOURCES ALLOCATION

ACTIVITY DIRECTOR SENIOR EVALUATOR PROGRAMMER EVALUATION SECRETARYEVALUATOR ASSISTANT

A. Design .1 .5 5 - - 4

B. Information Sources

1. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - 1 15 15 - 15

2. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills - 1 10 19 - 2

3. Sequential Tests of EducationalProgress - 1 5 4 - 2

4. Prekindergarten Longitudinal File - 1 5 10 - 1

5, K-12 Longitudinal File , 1 5 10 - 1

6. Migrant Student Master File - 1 22 75 - 25

7. Migrant Student Attendance Record - 1 11 34 - 10

8, Secondary Teacher Activity Record , 2 10 22 - 9

9. Migrant Teacher Questionnaire , .5 1.5 - - 1

10. Rainbow Kit Teacher Questionnaire - .25 1 - - 1

11. Rainbc,w 'Kit Parent Questionnaire , ,25 2 13 - 1

12. Migrant Program Parent Survey - .25 1 - - 1

13. Migrant Staff Interview - .25 3 - - 2

14. Migrant Health Services Form - .25 3 10 - 4

15. Migrant Medical Expenses

attlit- .25 1,5 3 - 2

d (1

VIII

EVALUATION TIME RESOURCES ALLOCATION

ACTIVITY DIRECTOR SENIOR

EVALUATOREVALUATOR PROGRAMMER EVALUATION

ASSISTANTSECRETARY

16. PAC Records - - 2 -I

2

17. MSRTS Records - - 2 - 2

18. Information Assessment - 2 5 - - 5

Subtotal of Information Sources - 13 - 215 - -

C. Dissemination

1. TEA Report (1981-82) (includessummer school) .1 .5 5 - - 1

2. Handouts .1 1 .5 1 -

3. Needs Assessment, Program Applica-tion (inc. Amendments) .1 .5 10 - - 2

4. Final Report .1 .5 2 - 2

5. Other Dissemination (mtgs., etc.) .1 .5 2 - - 1

Subtotal of Dissemination .5 2.5 20 - - 8

0. Technical Report 1 5 60 - - 60

E. Administrative and Other IndirectTime Costs .5 10 40 15 - 60

Total

n' tof

2 31 230 230 - 230

P.' I ,

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Will D. Davis, President

Nan Clayton, Vice President

Manuel Navarro,, Secretary

Steve M. Ferguson

Ed Small

Peter W. Werner, M. D.

Jerry Nugent

SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

Dr. John Ellis

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Dr. Freda M. Holley

Documents

DOCUMENT BESUME EC 013 101 Christner, Catherine A. And ...Chapter III states all the decision questions and relates tbem to the evaluation questions and'objectives and to their data