STATUS REPORT:
K-3 ACADEMIC ASSISTANCE PROGEPAMS
IN ARIZONA SCHOOLS
(ARS 16-715)
submitted by
Arizona Department of Education
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-K-3 ACADEMIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
-IN ARIZONA SCHOOLS
For the past two years, Arizona districts have been
receiving additional monies based on the number of students
reported in grades K to 3. - In addition, they were maridated by
ARS 15-715 to implement special academic assistance programs for
students in these grades. No formal accountability was maridated
by law for the expenditure of these monies, so results reflect
what districts report having accomplished.
The majority of the monies were spent on additional
personnel. Hiring new kindergarten teachers or more
instructional aides enabled many districts to add "transitional"
classes between K and First Grade, providing individualized
attention in smaller classes to students identified as needing
added help. Monies were spent on developing ways to identify
students needing special assistance. Parents were involved in
placement decisions concerning their children, and were engaged
in the educational process through many programs that structured
parent-child interaction at home.
Yuma sehools sent all K-3 children home with their own book
bag, filled with reading material and instructional activities
that their parents helped them complete. Whiteriver and
Washington districts held intensive summer school programs to
involve parents and to help youngsters retain what they had
learned over the summer months.
Districts employed various methods to evaluate the progress
of their students and the effectiveness of their programs,
ranging from analysis of test data to surveys of teachers and
principals concerning their views of the program.
The K-3 morlies and the special assistance programs have been
long-term investments in Arizona's future. Short term impacts
can be seen in new programs developed by districts, added
parental involvement in their children's education, relief to
teachers through reduced class size, arid some preliminary
evidence of improved academic performance. The Legislature sent
a clear message to two key groups -- parents and teachers --
about the importance of early childhood education to the future
of our state.
Studies should be done to follow the children impacted by
the additional monies and the programs over the course of their
academic careers. Additional monies should be targeted to
children who are clearly at risk of academic failure, and
districts should be required to submit a plan for how they will
serve these studerlts, and formal evaluation of program results
should be an integral part of the next cycle of funding.
STATUS REPORT:
K-3 ACADEMIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
IN ARIZONA SCHOOLS
Introduction
Responding to widespread concerns from parents and educators about the academic
dangers faced by students who were "at risk" of failing in their earliest years in school,
the Legislature passed S.B. 1077 in 1985. (See Appendix A) This legislation has had a
significant impact on Arizona's kindergarten through third grade classrooms, and has
served to both catalyze educational improvement in the Arizona system as well as to
deliver much-needed academic help to the state's youngest students. This report will
describe the effects this legislation has had over the past two years.
Special Academic Assistance Programs-Rationale
Concern over the number of students dropping out of the Arizona school system has
grown in recent years. In addition, policymakers and parents focus on the marginal
performance levels of some students who do remain in the K-12 system. While various
programs have been implemented by Arizona districts to address the dropout issue, until
the passage of S.B. 1077 in 1985 l i t t l e attention had been given to how to break this cycle
of failure by intervening at the earliest stage in a student's academic career.
The rationale for this innovative piece of legislation was simple and straightforward:
prevent dropouts and academic failure by ensuring success at the beginning of the
learning process. In the words of the law: "The purpose of the special academic
assistance is to assist pupils in developing the minimum skills necessary for fourth grade
work by the end of the third grade." If youngsters begin their schooling by having
experiences of success rather than failure, and by gaining a solid base on which to build
their subsequent education, both system and individual should achieve greater
performance. As one business leader who lobbied for the K-3 academic assistance
program put it, a strong K-3 education is like the "rebar" that is placed in a building a t
the outset of construction. Though it will rapidly become invisible as the building grows,
it is absolutely essential if the building is to grow to full stature and to remain standing.
Additional funding for K-3 programs
Beginning with the 1985-86 school year, districts received additional monies based on the
number of students reported in grades K to 3. (The K-3 "add-on" to Group B generated
$11.8 million in statewide budget capacity in FY '86, and $13.3 million in FY '87.) The
monies were intended to enable districts to implement the requirements of S.B. 1077,
which stated that each district in the state should have a program in place to provide
special academic assistance by the 1986-1987 school year. However, some controversy
arose in the first year of this new funding over whether districts were actually spending
their allocations on K-3 improvement programs. As Dr. Judy Richardson, Legislative
Research Analyst in the Senate, clarified in a memo (2/6/86 - to the Chairman of the
Senate Education Committee:
The additional funding was part of the block grant system of funding used
in this state, in which the amount of money which a district may receive is
determined by a weighted formula, and the districts may spend that money
as they see fit. There was no stipulation in the law as to what the
additional money was to be spent on, and there was specifically no tie
between the additional money and the special academic assistance
program.
However, this debate prompted the first systematic survey of district spending of these
new monies. (See Appendix B) The survey showed that, during this transitional year,
only 1% of the program funds for K-3 were being spent on purposes other than K-3. The
survey also gave valuable information on what areas districts were focusing on as they
geared up for full implementation of the Special academic Assistance Programs the
following year.
Because the new monies were distributed by increasing the weight given to K-3 pupils in
the school finance formula, the distribution directly reflected the relative size of
districts. Since Arizona has 85 districts with fewer than 300 pupils each, some districts
received a few hundred dollars in new funding. This would not enable a district to do
much more than purchase new curriculum materials. By contrast, larger districts
received hundreds of thousands of new dollars which enabled them to put new programs
in place, hire new personnel, and leverage other district monies to focus policy
intervention on the K-3 pupils.
State Board action
The law required that the State Board of education develop "minimum competency
requirements for the promotion of pupils from the third grade," and develop "model plans'
to give districts some examples as they began their own program development. I t
likewise mandated that the Department of Education provide technical assistance to
districts in developing their own programs.
The development and dissemination of model plans was undertaken by the "K-3 Advisory
Committee." (See Appendix C for list of current members of K-3 Advisory
Committee.) The Advisory Committee was appointed by the Board to provide leadership
and technical guidance in meeting the mandates of the new law. Four models were
developed and distributed to districts in the -summer of 1985 to guide their district
development process. These models focused on staff training, developmental assessment
and placement, basic skills improvement, and an incentive-based plan for enhancing
student achievement.
The requirement for minimum competencies was addressed by the State Board in 1985.
They requested the K-3 Advisory Committee to develop a list of "exit skills" in required
subjects; pupils would have to show competency in these skills prior to promotion to the
fourth grade. These minimum competencies were approved by the State Board in April
1986, and were disseminated statewide. (See Appendix D for sample list of exit skills for
mathematics.)
The Department of Education provided ongoing technical assistance to districts, both in
the developmental stage during the 1985-86 year as well as during the implementation
phase in 1986-87. Until the hiring of a full-time K-3 Program Specialist in November
1986, assistance was provided through the School Improvement Unit in the Department.
This assistance ranged from helping teachers to use screening instruments to identify
youngsters who needed special assistance to critiquing district K-3 assistance plans. The
K-3 Program Specialist focuses ongoing efforts on building regional networks among K-3
educators and planners, brokering information and assistance on innovative programs and
practices, and networking with Day Care providers to help youngsters move from Day
Care to formal schooling.
The Special Academic Assistance Plans
The plans developed by the districts reflect a wealth of ideas and innovations. The law
requires that districts have a plan in operation by the 1986-87 year, but does not mandate
accountability for the results of that plan. Thus, any attempt to calculate "impact" of
these assistance programs must reflect the effects described by the districts
themselves. The law requires them to submit a description of their plan along with their
annual financial report, and these descriptions have been used in making this summary.
Likewise, a survey prepared and distributed by the K-3 Advisory committee in the spring
of 1987 gleaned other descriptive information from the districts. Finally, the Advisory
Committee has been instrumental in gathering materials on programs and practices
undertaken in response to the new legislation, which have also been helpful in providing
this summary. We will focus on the main points of the law: what procedures did districts
use to identify pupils in need of help, what special services were provided, how parents
were involved in the plan, and how the progress of students was evaluated.
Methods of identifying pupils
Determining which students are in need of special academic assistance in kindergarten or
first grade is made more complex by the differing stages of development in which
youngsters find themselves. Many districts used special screening instruments for
students entering kindergarten, such as the Gesell Developmental Readiness Test and the
Early Prevention of School failure battery of tests. Parental involvement in this
screening process is crucial. Districts which developed different programs for five year
olds based on different stages of maturation shown through testing typically used
evaluation teams to reach placement decisions, and the team worked in close
consultation with the childrens' parents.
Furthermore, the testing used to screen students for special assistance provides
additional data on each student for ongoing evaluation and longitudirial studies.
Combined with standardized and criterion-referenced tests administered to assess
student performance, through the law and the K-3 funds Arizona has underwritten the
development of comprehensive data on Arizona students as they begin their educational
histories. This will provide valuable corroborative data for educational accountability
later in students' careers, while also serving to target help to those in need a t the
beginning of their schooling.
Some districts, such as Sunnyside, centralized the screening process. Sunnyside used the
K-3 monies to fund a student assessment center to provide diagnostic information to
teachers as new students are enrolled. Other districts decentralized the screening more
by having the instruments administered by classroom teachers. Appendix E shows the
array of identification methods employed by the Paradise Valley Unified School District
in determining where to place students.
One general effect of the new legislation and the funding which accompanied it is that
many districts have had to refine how they screen and place youngsters when they first
enter the district system. This has introduced added discipline into this stage of the
educational process, a discipline which has paid off in ;more targeted and appropriate
educational experiences for Arizona students during their first four grades of school.
Special programs and materials
The majority of the K-3 monies and K-3 program development occurred in new or
expanded programs, or in the purchase of new instructional materials. Over 70% of the
districts used their additional monies to acquire more instructional personnel, either in
the form of more teachers or more instructional aides.
Two thirds of t h e districts used these new personnel to reduce the studentlteacher ratio
in their K-3 grades. Thus, districts clearly saw a connection between their ability to
introduce new personnel into the early grades and their ability to direct special academic
assistance to students in those grades. Smaller classes facilitate the individualized
attention that is the common theme of all districts' special academic assistance
programs.
However, districts did not simply hire more full-time personnel. In the Whiteriver
Unified School District, for example, K-3 funds were used to reduce class size in
kindergarten classes at Whiteriver Elementary School by hiring one half-time
kindergarten teacher. Meanwhile, the district also used K-3 funds to provide an intensive
summer school experience for 100 Apache children identified as "high risk" in grades K
through 3. They paid for 10 teachers and 10 Apache-speaking assistants to work for four
weeks with these children in individualized and small group instruction on language arts
and math.
In an urban setting, the Washington school district likewise used their K-3 funds to offer
summer school programs to students identified for special assistance. Twenty-three of
the Washington schools offered 64 summer school classes serving 1,200 students. Weekly
newsletters were sent home in order to involve parents in their childrens' summer
experience, and a progress report was sent home at the end of summer school
summarizing each child's accomplishments.
The Gilbert School District used some of their K-3 funds to employ retired teachers to
help with K-3 programs in their elementary schools. Appendix F contains a hand-out that
was sent home with children announcing the "Project Helping Hand' undertaken hy the
Cartwright School District in Phoenix. The program involved personalized instruction by
special tutors in an after-school setting.
The Show Low Unified School District took the opportunity of new K-3 funding and
program mandates to link up federal, state and local monies they were allocated to
remediate learning difficulties into what they called their "4 SUCCESS Program." At
Show Low Elementary School, for example, there is a SUCCESS classroom a t each grade
level; in each SUCCESS classroom there is a full-time regular education teacher and a
full-time special education teacher. They function as a team and complement each
other's educational expertise to provide comprehensive education to all students without
resorting to the method of remediating skills whereby students are "pulled out1' of
classrooms for given periods. According to the principal of Show Low Elementary
School:
The 4 SUCCESS Program works because it provides an environment where
students can be successful instead of frustrated, because its teacher are
committed to sharing their knowledge, expertise and caring for one another
as well as for their students, because parents are valued as indispensable to
student progress, and because the school effort to remediate learning
difficulties is directed and unified.
At Ganado on the Navajo Reservation, the funding was used to build upon a nationally-recognized
program called GLAD (Ganado Language Arts Development program). In a
setting where 90% of the students come from low-income households and 87% of the
students score below the national average on standardized tests, Ganado Primary School
'published" 24 books of student writing las year, all 20 pages or longer. Students are
expected to write in kindergarten, in order to make writing and communication second-nature
rather than laborious. In recent years grammar test scores at Ganado Primary
have risen across the board.
In larger districts, the K-3 funds facilitated the adding of new programs and the hiring of
new personnel. The Scottsdale Unified School District, for example, embarked on a
Developmental Placement Program. Beginning with three (3) pilot schools during the
transitional year of 1985-86, the district expanded in 1986-87 into eight (8) schools with a
total of ten (10) developmental classrooms. Youngsters who were not ready for first
grade after a year of kindergarten could be placed in a developmental first grade,
contingent on parental consent. As described in the narrative submitted with their
annual financial report this year, the district reports:
The program was well received by students, parents and educators. The
children were happy in their school environment because they were in a
situation in which they could experience success. They were challenged by
an academic program that was appropriate for their developmental age.
Parents were able to see a difference in the attitudes of their children
toward school. Parents reported that their children were anxious to go to
school, enjoyed being in school, and felt good about themselves. Gone were
the tears, the stomach aches, and other signs of overplacement that
developmentally young children experience in regular classroom
placement. Educators were very pleased with the program because a
specific curriculum and materials were available for the child who had
always been in the classroom, but who was too developmentally young to be
successful.
The "K-3 Procedural Manual" from the murphy Elementary School District in Maricopa
County lists the range of special programs offered by way of special assistance to K-3
students. (See Appendix G.) In addition to the "transitional" classrooms that offer
different instructional approaches and reduced class size for youngsters who are not yet
ready for the pace or challenge of a regular classroom, the "Excel Lab" offers computer-assisted
instruction for students needing help in reading and math.
Many districts used the K-3 monies to purchase hardware and software for computer-aided
instruction. Thus, schools were able to build their technological "infrastructure1'
while also delivering needed academic assistance to targeted students. In addition to
books and materials designed to help remediate language or math difficulties, districts
also purchased supplementary materials to increase the overall level of reading that K-3
students were doing. Over 75% of districts purchased supplementary materials as part of
their K-3 plans, and half purchased remedial materials. Furthermore, over three-fourths
of the districts indicated that they concentrated in their K-3 assistance programs on the
basics of reading, math and writing skills. Many of the programs had the synergistic
effect of promoting greater literacy among parents, especially those that stressed home
reading as part of their academic assistance.
The Mesa Unified School District built upon their articulated scope and sequence for
classroom instruction by designing a "Foundational Skills Program." As seen in Appendix
H, the Program combines a mixture of regular and developmental classrooms with
summer school options and other forms of "intervention" to aid pupils at risk. The
schematic also shows the range of interactive strategies and the collaboration that is
brought to bear in making this Program a reality.
Parental Involvement
Generally speaking, parents did not seem to be as heavily involved in the planning of the
K-3 assistance programs as they were in the implementation and evaluation of the
programs. Their central role in implementation of intervention programs reflects their
importance in the development of children who are just beginning their formal
educational career. As cited above, parents were intimately involved in screening and
placement of students in special programs. Washington School District, for example,
launched a program called "Parents are VIPs-Very Important Partners" to educate
parents about their child's development as well as to provide support for parents of at
risk students.
An innovative summer program was begun in the Kyrene School District, working through
four schools and serving 275 students and their parents. Entitled SMILE (Summer Mail is
Learning Excitement), the program centered around the weekly mailing of packets of
review material to students for ten weeks during the summer. The materials were
prepared by teachers based on the final level of reading and math that the student had
completed by the end of the school year. Parents worked with the children in completing
the materials, and participated in an evaluation survey at the conclusion of the
program. Thus, dual goals of parental involvement in each child's education and skill
practice over the summer months were achieved. Many districts developed similar
programs to structure active involvement of parents in the special academic assistance
being offered to their children.
Another "take home" project was undertaken by the Yuma Elementary School District to
increase time for reading by students and to encourage meaningful parental
involvement. The District bought canvas book bags for each K-3 student, each imprinted
with the district log and the words "My Learning Kit" (Mi Mochila Escolar). The district
also purchased many easy-to-read books, along with activities related to each book.
Book and activity were sent home in the bag. After reading the book, child and parent
together performed the activity. Some teachers have now expanded the program to
include math and science activities in the book bags, and books on tape and tape
recorders are sent home with children learning to speak English so that they can listen to
stories in two languages.
Evaluation
How districts put in place "evaluation procedures for use in assessing the progress of the
pupils in the program" (ARS 15-715) varied from district to district. Those districts that
could afford differing placement options at each grade level could likewise provide
ongoing evaluation of student progress through the screening required a t each stage of
the placement cycle. Districts with less financial flexibility had to rely on teacher and
parental assessment of student progress, together with performance on annual
standardized tests.
The ongoing evaluation of student progress naturally requires the evaluation of those
programs that have been put in place to promote "student progress." In the Littleton
Elementary District, for example, evaluation is underway of the screening procedures
used by the district and the impact of these procedures on children. Appendix I shows
the survey instrument used in the Paradise Valley Unified District to assess how their
teachers evaluate the K-3 program used during the 1986-87 school year.
The most comprehensive evaluation of both student progress and implemented programs
took place in Tucson Unified District. They submitted a 25 page narrative report which
summarized the evaluation data contained in 42 tables. The district assigned a full-time
program evaluator in addition to the K-3 Program Coordinator. And, since district
schools implemented a range of optional programs depending on their own "site specific"
proposal, the evaluation also had to be site specific. The evaluator then performed
various statistical analyses on the data submitted by each school. The evaluation designs
included target and control group pre-testing and post-testing, target group pre-testing
and post-testing, and target group post-testing. The evaluators used multiple and varied
designs in order to be "sensitive to TUSDVs diverse student population as well as to the
seemingly endless combinations of program components that were implemented at the 68
elementary school sites."
Collected in Appendix J are several tables from the Tucson Unified "Evaluation of 1986-
1987 K-3 Programs." Table 23 lays out the array of program components adopted by
each school. The use of instructional aides (81% of the programs) and the provision of
staff training (44% of the programs) were the most common features across the entire
district.
Table 21 summarizes the results of a survey of principals regarding their evaluation of
the program as implemented in their school in 1986-87. Principals rated as "excellent"
the component that utilized computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and computer aides.
The use of instructional aides and the provision of staff training were viewed as the most
positive results of the K-3 programs. The most problematic component for principals
was inadequate parental involvement.
The assessment of teachers in the district is summarized in Table 22. Over three-fourths
of the teachers (77%) cited the use of instructional aides to give individualized attention
to students at risk as the most positive impact of the K-3 programs. Note, however, that
32% of the teachers also said they experienced problems with the instructional aide
program, such as scheduling difficulties or having inadequate time to plan with the aides.
Table 24 analyzes the effects of CAI on student testing, and shows that pre-test scores
for 456 students in the district went form a mean of 52 to a mean of 75 on post-tests.
This gain is calculated as being "statistically significant," meaning that the gain did not
occur by chance. The table a t the bottom of the page draws a positive (albeit "weak" a t
.14) correlation between the amount of CAI that students at Erickson Elementary School
received in their K-3 programs and the level of computer literacy a t the school. Table
29 illustrates a similar pre-test/post-test comparison of how the K-3 program impacted
on students taking the Scott-Foresman Reading Test.
All the statistical results were not this clear-cut, however. When Iowa Test of Basic
Skills (ITBS) data were compared in pre-test/post-test fashion across the district, some
schools showed statistically significant gains in test scores as a result of the K-3 program
while many others did not. Some even showed negative correlations between the amount
of-assistance given and achievement scores. The evaluators offer a helpful caveat:
An unexpected finding resulted from some of the analyses that examined
the relationship (correlation) between the amount of additional academic
assistance received by some students and the amount of gain that they
made in achievement. In some cases, there was a negative correlation,
which means that students who received the most help were likely to make
the least gain. While this result could be interpreted to mean that this
additional assistance was not helpful, a more plausible explanation is that
the most help was given to the most needy students who would be least
likely to demonstrate dramatic improvement in achievement. I t is possible
that although these students did not progress as fast as other students, they
still learned more than they would have without the extra help.
The district was appropriately cautious in its analysis of the impact of K-3 programs on
one year's student achievement. Their analysis showed: "moderate to strong" evidence
that staff development was well received and that CAI and materials acquisition
positively impacted on student achievement, and "moderate" evidence that the use of
instructional aides and resource consultants positively impacted student achievement.
Beyond those conclusions, the district evaluators became much more tentative about the
analytic import of the evidence. Table 42 provides a useful summary of the relative
"strength" of their statistical findings across the various program areas.
Summary and Policy Recommendations
The anecdotal evidence is strong that the K-3 special assistance program has had a
salutory effect on early elementary education in Arizona. It has both catalyzed districts
to take an integrated approach to how they educate their K-3 students and had important
effects on teacher and student morale, student performance, and parental attitude and
involvement. The statistical evidence where available, tends to corroborate this
conclusion.
Longitudinal studies of academic achievement for those who participated in the K-3
special assistance program during 1986-87 should be done by the Department of
Education in order to substantiate these tentative conclusions with data that show more
lasting impact. The true test of the success of the K-3 program and the monies
appropriated during the past two years to implement it will not be found in a "snapshot"
taken of the gain in a given year's test scores. Success will be seen instead in the long-term
impact which this program has had on student achievement, and the degree to
which it has broken the "cycle of failure" that has led so many young Arizonans to drop
out of school.
I t is further recommended that future funding for special assistance to K-3 be directed
specifically to students identified as being at risk, that districts be required to apply for
these funds by submitting a plan with fixed goals and regular evaluation and reporting
requirements, and that further funding be contingent on a district's demonstrated
accomplishment of their goals. (In effect, this is the proposal submitted by the State
Board to the Legislature for their consideration during the 1988 session.)
APPENDIX A
LAW FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE K-3 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
ARS 15-715. SPECIAL ACADEMIC ASSISTANCE TO PUPILS IN KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS
AND GRADES ONE THROUGH THREE
A. All common and unified school districts shall develop a plan to supplement the regular education
program by providing special academic assistance to pupils in kindergarten prograrns and grades one
through three. The purpose of the special academic assistance is to assist pupils in developing the
minimum skills necessary for fourth grade work by the end of the third grade. The plan shall
include:
1. Procedures for use in identifying pupils in need of special academic assistance.
2. Special services for provision of special academic assistance through the regular program of
instruction.
3. Procedures for involving parents in the program.
4. Evaluation procedures for use in assessing the progress of the pupils in the program.
B. All common and unified school districts shall implement their program of special academic
assistance to pupils in kindergarten programs and grades one through three by the 9986-1987 school
year.
C. The teacher of a pupil enrolled in a special academic assistance program shall review the pupil's
academic achievement each regular reporting period. Parents shall be notified of the progress of
their child in the special academic assistance program by the established reporting method of the
school district.
D. The annual financial report of a school district as prescribed in ARS 15-904 shall include a
description of the special academic assistance programs, the amount of monies expended on the
programs and the number of pupils enrolled in the programs by program and grade level.
E. The State Board of Education shall develop and provide the following to all common and unified
school districts:
1. Minimum competency requirements for the promotion of pupils from the third grade.
2. Model plans for special academic assistance programs which include all of the items specified in
subsection A of this section.
F. The Department of Education shall provide technical assistance to school districts in developing and
implementing their plan. The assistance shall include assistance with all of the items specified in
subsection A of this section.
LEGISLATIVE STUDY OF K-3 I1DDIIIUN!% FME
RDE School Finance Sectton
2/ZA186 1 FMDS 1
HOT I
PRGn IN PRO( % % % * % % %
K-3 FUHOS STRNS M T SEW llPUlT FOR IN-SERVICE INSTRIKl CONSILT FOR CRPIT(Y.
~TIRDII PVRCMXS ERSIWL YWICES IYITERIFS . WRRV
Z TOTk N U HIRE BDDTL YRCS m. OF GRRDE
FOR KRCEHTRGE PRSNL TW STNF CAP OTtER WILD LEW
OTER ffffi llCTlTY CUiLRY Y((RT.
OISIRICT WE I
------------ - -=::
3*-15 TUBA CllY Uilf
3 83-95 MVELDN WTTE :
3-03-10 WllK rOKS EL :
4-02-81 UDbE UNlFlED ;
\-@-la PAYSW WIED ;
9-B2-48 MIMI U4IFIED :
4-82-41 HIY MlFlED ;
5-03-85 Y O N ELEM ;
4-03-12 PItE ELOlENTARY :
kd3-28 RICE ELENENTRRY ;
4-83-33 TWO ENSIN EL :
5-W-01 SAFFORD UilF lED :
5-02-84 TttATWi€R UilF ;
5-83-66 PlnRWlFfED :
5-Q-dl FI TwluiCS LN :
5-83-85 SDLMO1i'JILLE EL :
5-83-16 ~ I I R ELEn :
6-&?-aWN CAII MIFIED ;
6-0243 CllFlW LNIFIED :
6-82-18 M M K I UiIFIED :
6-83-22 KLE ELEMTRRY :
6-03-45 ENXE ELW ;
1-81-00 WIUIM f f 8 RC :
1-91-99 t(ORSE l(t% IYT: :
7-02++ 6% U&lEO :
7-82-09 UID(EN6CIffi W :
1-&?-I1 KORIR CHIFIED :
7-82-24 GlLR BND W :
1-82-41 GLLBERI UIIFIED :
7-P-UI GCOTTSDME LN :
7-0269 PAWISE KY W r
1-&?-88 DWIM.ER W :
1-85-89 OYSART U4IFIED :
1-W-93 CAM CREEH Ui :
1-8?-95 WEN CHELK Ui ;
I W-97 NEA KY OilF ;
YES YES YES 0. mi YES
0.00%
8.1%
187.00% YES
1m.88i YES
108.001 YES
11.68% HO
50.08% YES
100.1% YES
188.M1 YES
131.UI YES
120.801 YES
93.Wl YES
0.00%
100.00g YES
0. BB%
0. mi
100.001 YES
8. W%
8.001 M
0.0a%
0.001 m
8. W%
8. 001
0.88%
0.88%
188.881 YES
183.001 YES
0. 88%
I0I.AB1 YES
IBQ. W1 YES
8.00%
2.00% m
98.p0l YES
IN. Bal YES
0.801
YES YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
Nu
NO
YES
YES
YES YES
Nl YES
YES YES
YES YES
MI YES
YES YES
NO YES
m YES
NO YES -
YES YES
YES YES
YES NO
NO YES
NO YES
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
M NO
NO
I@
YES
MI
KO
SO
NO
NO
NO
Nl
NO YES
NO YES
YES
M
YES YES
NO YES
YES YES
YES YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES YES
YES YES
NO YES
YES NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES WO
NO YES
m YES
NO YES
MI YES
t4l MI
% % # . # # #
FOR 1N-SERVICE INSTMET CONSUT FOR W l T k
IWIl!RMI PURCHYZS P E R M L SCRVlCES IY(TER1ALS , OUTUlY
s : ~ = ~ E i = i ~ i i --- -=a=--------------&- -5i=i-iSi
% TnTK KY HIRE RDDTL PREHS M. IF G W
FOR PERC£NTAGE PRSNC IEW, STRFF CCP OTHER MILD LEML
OTtKR PERS EllTY WTLRY PFIRT.
.iir-_-- ----_-_~----------- ------------------~-_.-_--_-.-_ ______--_------- ------------______
DISTRICI W I
I
z=------7-=s-===z:z
I
01-83-66 I+IM+Y ELUl :
37-8361 RWlU aEn :
37-03-71 SENTlML ELEM :
17%3-75 MORRISIMIN EL :
87-03-81 W R G EL :
87-43-86 WBILE ELEM :
b1%3-98 RUTH FlYER EL :
b7-03-94. PRLW ELM I
67-03-98 FDLR(1RIK KS EL I
674441 PIMNIXELEM :
b7-04-02 RIVERSIIX: ELW :
17-0463 TUBE ELEM :
)7-M%5 IW ELfA :
17+-96 YRWlffilW EL :
17-Ma7 UILSW ELW :
17-84-08 OSBORN ELEU :
I-M-14 CEIU1TW EL :
7-04-17 TOUEYH EL :
7-84-21 MIWff ELW :
7-84-%1 LIBERTY ELEM :
1-44-28 KYREN ELM :
'44-31 R S I ELEH :
'-84-33 EYE :
44-38 WIW ELEM :
-04-40 KENDOLE ELM :
4 4 4 4 IWO1ItW ELU I
-M-45 FOHER ELW :
-@I-47 RKIffiILW ELEM :
4 - 4 9 WO VERDE EL :
44-59 LAKCN ELM :
M-62 WlDN ELEM :
-84-65 LIIILEIOH EL :
64-66 AOOSCMLT I
04-68 KHMbRA ELEM :
04-79 LIlCtflBDEL :
84-83 CRRTUAIWiI EL :
NOT !
K-3
- - - - - - - - -
8.88%
188.w m
8. BB%
386.88% M
@.ma .
8.00% NO
166. @a% YES
17.88% NO
5 . w m
99.00% YES
54.W% NO
101.88% YES
100.88% YES
180. ~ 8 Y%ES
38.66% YES
IflB.001 YES
100. mI! YES
I00.88;r YES
18P.klI YES
188.W YES
189. W% YES
37.88% YE6
0. ll
180.W YES
8. @a% YES
0.08%
108.1% YES
6.001 ND
154.1% YES
180.W1 KO
100.W1 NO
IBd.001 YES
led. BJ% YES
89.031 YIS
IN. B.31 YES
%.Mi NO
I YES YES m
m
NO
NO
m
YES
No
NO
YES
M
YES
M
NO
M
NO
M
M
M
ND
NO
M
M
NO
M
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
M
M
NO
. NO
m
YES
No
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YE5
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
W
NO
NO
YES
YES
MI
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
M
HO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
ND
YES
YES
Nu
IW
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
No
NO
110
NO
tin
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
N MI
I No
I YES
1 YES
I YES
N YES
I ffl
I M
F MI
1 M
1 YES
F r y )
1 YES
F M
I M
I YES
I YES
m
M
M
YES
YES
HI
NO
NO
YES
M
YES
M
YES
M
m
YES
M
M
YES
YES
YE5
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
1188
I08
YES 1220
M 663
2680
29 5
1874
78
133
W
32 7
217
60
YES
YES
F MI
N HO
F M
F YES
F m
F YES
F NO
F YES
I YES
I M
YES
NO
M
YES
M
YES
M
YES
NO
M
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
75
NO
t8
188
YES 23
16
I85
150
549
1753
I$ 1 g g ng 9 95 zggg s g g g g g g g g g gs
g 1i ;i dsX dXsaXoiX~=XdoXd.IsgXasXs+XmXqmX~ X?XoX ? q j f .$. X$X *gX ~ ~~?I ~X qU gX X? X? X?X~X~X? ? ~ ? ? -z .I pf 3 ,, ~ - z g m n g g ~ - ~ g e a q ~ ~ g g g m m f f " X U X X X U X X X * if d si *"i 5 $$ 3s:sqsz "njzdadadaaizd3dad8dsda adt
I
P f 24%
d d dai 4 ss d d d d e j d 2 6 d ' d d d d dfi
4
I
U) I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' Z Z E Z Z S Z Z 7~ 5 4~ Z S R ~ 31 1, $a-E-da $3 asm%z * "s,5 r%$ aE;ozi <;z& z z 3 "j-jtg~;z s$"5zg2~g;-1 ~z$~;$"dY~*--==5zmm~J-~z~s 55zz~zE d .Lee 0 - . L - * * o J z - z s 2 z -
ii - *
I Priw IN
DISTRICT I@€ r K-3 FLWS STATUS WPnl SERV
, - =- -= := = --- =-- - ----------
I
I@-U-B CI)(TI~ENTAL a u,e14.se
18-83-44 ~ n ~ f f i ram : $me4 T
18-a-51 rnm E. DIU EL : $ a , m ~ . s
11~01-t?d MIRY C. O'BRIEN : S2,PB.21 1 YES YES
11-U-41 FLOAEHCE UNlF : S18,381.36
11-@B1 RAY LNlFlED : $23,034.66 1 M YES
I\-@-&! WWITHISFYI WN : t48,494.88
11-82-15 SX'ERIOW WIF : $19,489.84 1 NO tU
11-8;'-28 WRICCPII UIIF I $16,558.66 1 M H)
lie--21 CMlDn UilF : , 5 5 7 2 1 M NO
11-82-43 W EJU lETlaJ : $65,623.19 1 YES M
1143-02 W EELE N : S16,588.57
11-83-44 1. 0. C(r(BS EL : $6,234. I2 1 MI M
ll-&I-@+ CASR GROIIDE EL : ~119,156.81 1 YES YES
ii-i+-aS RED IWK EL : i1,536.21 ,
. I at-11 ELDY ELEN : ~48,648.94 I YES w
. ~ - a + - ~Ye~C RICHE LEM : $17,363.87
I ec-n rurEc ELa : $7,972.32 i NO NO
1-9)-24 STACCIELD EIU : S11,8%.48
1-04-33 PICJUQ ELEW : 16,816.65 1 NO NO
2-@-%I HMjnES UHlFIED : S189,379.67 1 YES YES
2*-35 WJTR CMJZ VLY : 02,326.91 1 YES YES
2-03-28 SIVITR CRUZ EL : (4,896.19 1 W1 YES
2-04-86 HTRUWIR EL : $5,622.41 I W NO
244-25 SOMllll ELU : $1,775.22 F HO Nl
3-02-81 PRESMTT LNlF : (84,402.86 I YES YES
3-@-28 BnIiOM UIIFIED : $I8,0'3.48 I NO HO
3-02-22 HVllBaDT WIF : (40,168.39 1 NO W
3-82-20 CILW VERM UN : (28,412.6 1 NO M
3 8?-31 Wi FDM JT IN : $3,781.25
3-R! 48 SELIW WIF : $2,626.48 1 NO NO
1 '&-43 KQYER LNIFIED : $6,548.98 1 N(1 YES
I~U-51 U I l M KY LNlF I (19,784.44 1 YES M
1-83-8;' UILLlMYXI KY : $1,318.29 I
1 81-01 MMJT GRWE EL : (i48.31 1
1 03-14 W I E ELEW : $125.17 1
PR6N Z % f
IWJtT FOR IMSEWICE INSTRUCT
WIAMI PUACHRsEs PERSONZL
-=-=-- r-l-r----iEEE~5555-~
f %
MlJSLlLT FOR
YRVlCES WTERIAS
LC--L.-iii=EEi.
HIE RDDTL
JEW STAFF
Kffi (ICTITY
:,.---- - ---=:
PfUK H1. ff 6RIIM FINDS
W D M R W1U) LEVEL NOT
DUTLllY HUT. K-1 .
YzIIP I--------------- ------- .-EIEi:=-=
8. @a%
8.00%
8. 00%
I@. 88% YES
0.88%
184.00% M
'a. l%
50.80% YES
188.@a% YES
IM.00i YES
lee. Bas YES
8.001
I@. P01 YES
lB0.881 YES
8.09%
135.881 M
0.88%
100.BBi YES
0. 88%
10e.00~ YES
181.e'dl M
ll8.8Bl YES
a5.w M
100. 00% YES
fW.U% NO
lBB.001 YES
100.001 YES
I0Q.M YES
2-35. 88% YES
8.881
Le0.00i NO
94.88% YES
31.W YES
YES 8.m -3.m s.ew NO YES YES 25 8-6 $8. BB
YES 8.W 8.88% 31.681 m YES YES 54 2-3 (R.BQ,
YES 8.88% 8.W 44.W
YES 8.881 0.M 189.861
YE9 0.06% 8.08% 100.88%
YES 64.W @.$a$ 8.W
NO YES
NO NO
m M
M NO
YES 294 8-3
M NO 78 3
NO NO 450 8-1
YES 009 K-3
YES 8.88%
YE9 29. MI
8. 88%
la. MI
M NO
M YES
NO 31 K-3
H O .
YES 0.061 YES 583 K-3
YES . 8.00%
YES 0. 1%
YES 0. BBZ
YES 0.1%
YES 8. @a%
YES , 8. '24%
YES 0.08%
YES 8. 8B%
YES 8.08%
YES 8.04%
YES 8. 00%
8.00%
1 . l l
18.84%
6. Wi
la. MI
0. 88%
I@.@%
8.08%
8.W1
0. 88%
NO NO
NO YES
YES YES
M YES
MI YES
M YES
NO YES
NO YES
NO YE9
W YES
NO 34 K
YES 1596 K-3
HO 221 K-3
YES 68 H-3
M) 52 1-2
NO 24 K-3
ND 386 K-1
NO 40 I-?
HO 35 1
NO 11 H-3
MI 8.881
YES 8.881
YES 3.881
'a. w
93.80%
21. Bai
NO YES
ND bX]
NO NO
YES YES 12 1-3
ND 122 K-3
YES 1% K-1
> I! ALL- I, g g a [ s ? ? z p P g G g n $ g P
- zsc4wzz jil ~ P n g p n n e s n n n g
0 1
"?4 !j s Ln 3 I t
gg2gg'?ggSg g
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I X X X -q 3 iIIi/ Pd ad-C dssidasaidds g~g g~%sg zrqzg~w dqd~$ ~ + ~ z s s
B s X X X X X X X X X X ? ? Z Z Z S ~ Z % ? g
a I1 ai ~ m - d d d d i ~ ms
*B2 i 0 II
I1
X X X X X X X X X X ? F q s z a s x s F z am-2dmmd5- d
+ iii l ,: dd:ii22z:~ # 3 ~ = Zd>r~ YdZ ~ Z = =
Ir! II 3% . J , f W W J C - J W E ii ~ 4 ud~$~3g-;:sg~s=~gw d8d* - 1 Z 8 n- .L.2; E3 $abeid! za-5 s ur sa~z4e, ~5Z3~ ~ Z
Mrs. Betty I m Lee
t a t e Board of Education
@50 West McLellan, Villa No. 6 sa. AZ 85201
969-9348
b Dr. Judith Allen, Ed.D.
Prescott Unified School D i s t r i c t
146 South Granite Street
Prescott, AZ 86301
445-5400
Mr. Eddie Basha
State Board of Education
P. 0. Box 448
Chandler. AZ 85224
895-9350
Mr. Signond A. Boloz, Principal
h a d o Unlfled D i s t r l c t
Ganado, AZ 86505
755-3436
Mrs. Mary Brmk, K-3 Coordinator
Y m Elerrentary D i s t r l c t
450 Sixth Street
Nancy Carder, Principal I La Senlta S c h l
3175 Gordon Drive
Kingnnn. AZ 86401
757-4318
Rachel Encinas, K-3 Coordinator
Wales Unified D i s t r l c t
Ms. Betty Jo Even
1192 East Avila
Casa Grande, AZ 85222
836-9319
Mrs. Pat Hays
Pnphitheater Schwl District
7870 North Sendem Dos
Tucson, AZ 85704
297-5056
K-3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE
C. Diane B l s b p
Superintendent of Public Instruction
1535 West Jefferson
Phoenuc, AZ 85007
Dr. Myrtle Gutienrez
L l t t l e r q n S c m l D l s t r i c t
P. 0. Box 280
Cashion, AZ 85329
936-3333
Carfm Hackett /%na
Covernor's Offrce f o r Chlldren
1645 West Jeff2rson. Suite 420
Phoenuc.. AZ 85307
255-3191
Dr. Patty Horn, b a n
Grand Canyon College
3300 West Cmlback Toad
P.O. Box 11097
Phoenuc, AZ 85061
249-3300
Paul m n s , superrntendent
Miami Unified D i s t r l c t
Drawer H
Mia-ni, AZ 85539
425-3271
Barbara Lutz, K-3 Cwrdlnator
.Sunnyslae Unlfled D l s t r l c t
2238 East Glnter
Tucson, AZ 85706
294-1411
Ms. Ceanna McHaney
Stanf l e l d Ele7entar-f Schwl
Box 578
S t a n f i e l d , AZ 85272
424-3472
M r s . Rebecca Montano, K-3 C w r d h a t o r
1010 East 10th
Tucson, AZ 85719
882-1501
Dr. Don P h t z
Northern Arlzona University
4331 East Hollygreen
F l a g s t a f f , AZ 86001
523-9011 ext. 2641
Ys. Bonnle Rabe
K'yrene Elerenrary School District
8700 South Kl-rene Road
T-, kZ 85284
496-4600
Analee Emry
Arlzona Departrrent of Education
1535 West Jefferson
P h e r . 3 , AZ 85007
255-5031
Michael Reed, Superhteficent
Peach Sprlngs Elerrentary Dlstrict
P.O. Box 138
Peach Sprmgs, AZ 86434
769-2202
Ms. Nina Robinson
CHS/Child Day F a c i l i t y
411 North 24th Street
Birch H a l l
Phoenix, AZ 85008
220-6448
Ms. Marilyn Ross
Mesa Unlfled School d i s t r i c t
Curriculum & Instruction Cept.
549 North Stapley Drive
Mesa, AZ 85203
890-7031
Mr. Tom Santesteban
Adrmnistrator of Personnel & Services
6625 West Cholla
Glendale, AZ 85304
878-1000
Ms. Nedda Shafir
Washington Elementary D i s t r i c t
8610 North 19th Avenue
Phoenix. AZ 85021
864-2831
Dr. Elaine Surbeck
CNI/Early Childhood
402 F a r Building
Arlzona S t a t e University
Terrpe, AZ 85287
965-6034
tiLs. Carol Young
K-3 S p e c i a l i s t
15032 M r t h 32nd S t r c e t
mix, A2 85032
867-5215
Dr. Jce Martin, Superintendent
Xayenta Unlfied D i s t r i c t
P.O. Eox 337
Kayenta, AZ 86033
697-3251
2296' Paseo Cielo
Tucson. AZ 85741
623-1121
ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
THIRD GRADE ESSENTIAL/EXIT SKILLS
MATHEMATICS
A. Numbers
8 1. Uses andlor manipulates whole numbers to count by l's, 2's, 5's, and 10's to 100.
2. Reads and writes numerals through 999. t - 3. Writes the numeral represented by objects grouped by hundreds, tens and ones.
8 4. Compares numbers through 999.
5. Demonstrates mastery of addition and subtraction facts. 8 6 Adds and subtracts up to three digitnumbers with and without regrouping.
7. Demonstrates understanding of the meaning of additim and subtraction by solving story
problems.
8 8. Uses concrete materials to recognize, represent and compare halves, thirds and fourths.
9. Applies math skills to real life situations and concepts.
1 10. Uses estimates to predict and check recommendation of results.
B. Measurement
1. Selects and uses the appropriate unit of measure and measuring instrument for a given
situation.
2. Tells time by use of both digital and conventional clocks.
1 3. Uses manipulatives to demonstrate knowledge of money.
8 G1.e OmUesterYs visual attributes and relationships to identify, classify and describe common geometric
figures.
1 D. Graphs
1. Constructs and interprets graphs and tables.
Arizona has enacted legislation that allows
for extended-day school programs for Kinder-garten
through Third Grade, designated to
fit the needs of children functioning below
grade level but not currently being served
by special education programs.
CARMIGHT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 83
3401 NORTH GiTH AVENUE
PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85033-4599
PROJECT HELPING- HAND
Cartwright School District's PROJECT
HELPING-HAND is a voluntary, after-school
program to supplement the instruction re-ceived
by a student during regular school
hours. Selected teachers will tutor students
in reading and/or math skills. Instruction
will be direct and personalized. Motivational
success-oriented materials will be utilized.
There will be a maximum of ten (10) students
per session. The program begins September
16, 1985, and ends April 11, 1986. Tutoring
sessions will be held after school hours, for
one (1) hour per day, 2 to 4 days per week.
Parent involvement will be an essential part of
the program.
STUDENT ELIGIBILITY:
Students scoring below grade level in math
and/or reading on the state-mandated ITBS -
Iowa Test of Basic Skills, will be eligible.
YOUR CHILD is eligible for this special
program. Please complete the attached per-mission
slip and return it to your child's
teacher. For additional information about times
and dates, please contact your school's office.
0 w
I Y - a .'l
.5 g
.2Z- ;aL .
;. : ;.
:=:
Q.5 LY
0- rn ,I U .f m L
-11 0 s 44
U 3
-0
hS al E 2 . S
!- :-
20" b
s c c
.0- 3 m
In- w
.; 5
b r i L
.;
.:-: ;;;
-m zu_ r"a
a rn
;-I s
a!W m
>I2
APPENDIX G
K-3 IMPROVEMENT
ALL-DAY KINDERGARTEN
The All-Day Kindergarten Program is designed for those students who have been
identified as being "high risk", as compared to other students hislher age. The child
will benefit by having increased instructional time, a small class size, and the use of a
variety of instructional approaches and materials.
TRANSITION-FIRST GRADE
The Transition-First Grade Program is for students who, upon completion of their
kindergarten year, are still not at the appropriate developmental level necessary for
success in the regular first-grade curriculum. The child will benefit from the smaller
class size and a variety of instructional approaches and materials. At the end of the
year, the child will either progress to a regular first grade classroom or be promoted to
second grade.
BASIGSKILLS SECOND GRADE
The Basic-Skills Second Grade is for students_;~ho upon completion of their
first-grade year, are not at the appropriate academic level necessary to experience
success in a regular second-grade curriculum. These students are in need of intense
instruction in math and language arts. The child will benefit from the smaller class size
and a variety of instructional approaches and materials. At the end of the year, the child
may progress to a regular second-grade classroom or be promoted to third grade.
BASIC-SKILLS THIRD GRADE
The Basic-Skills Third Grade is for those students who upon completion of their
second-grade year are not at an appropriate academic level to experience success in a
regular third-grade classroom. These students are in need of intense instruction in math
and language arts. The child will benefit from the smaller class size and a variety of
methods and materials. At the end of the year, the child may progress to a regular
third-grade classroom or be promoted to fourth grade.
EXCEL LAB
The EXCEL Lab is for students in grades 1-3 and students identified as Migrant who are
in need of assistance in reading and/or math. They will receive daily services in a
multi-media setting with computer-assisted instruction.
INSTRUCTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE CLASSROOM TEACHER
SCHOOL YEAR BEGINS
TEACHER ASSESSMENT
OF SKILLS
COMPETENCY FROM
COMPUTEP MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
GOALS DETERMINED
INSTRUCTION BEGINS
INTERVENTION
SEQUENTIAL
I ASSIS-TANCE TEAM ,q UIERARCHY
TEACHER ADJUSTS
OF LEARNING
INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS , OBJECTIVES ,
IDENTIFICATION
GROUPING WITHIN I SCHOOL
IMPLEMENTATION OF
INSTRUCTIONAL
OIIOWNG WlTMN
CUSSROOMS
OR GRADES
ALTERNATIVES
Chapter I PIP0
vo(unteers dstr~ct
a-6 peel tutors
AUDIO VISUAL
EQUIPMNT
Orti1 aM Dractlce wl'r
I
COWuletS System 8C 1
Macfms5 Lawage
PLANS
TEACHER INTERVENTION Ez-I
ASSISTANCE - -. . - .-
TEAM
InDdt han teachers and STAR DEVELOPMENT
swclai educatcm stan
SUYNER SCHOOL
PAREKT WUCAMN
AND
INVOLVEMENT ObPChve based
remedtai Drsgram
PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL
EVALUATION
FURTHER
ASSESSMENT
,i"----PP-- . .
I APPENDIX I
-'F.2--?-- T----F F-7- -- ...--.- -,.?- ,--a#-- L - - ; 9,. ----.- ;:EL : .?----& - . - - -- , * ;--& ..-.------- . - . ..-. .---- .-,__ > :... .-.-... '.-.'. ..
Y b.1
; 8 7
! g,3 #z,:g SCAN 357H ~ S ; C ~ S
x-3 P m~ R //T AGG REGATE. //
\A173 ZNE PASS
Y N zg~E~@@@ (N=222)
As you reil- cr, t!e K-3 P r v m as deslqnel and +le-gt-g!
'f s h 1986-37 at yccr sckc~l, pleaso grve an overall as;2s;~~t
@ @ w kfo r ec.i as:== list& telcv.
INsmUCT1CN:
~ l e s s eus e a +2/2.5 p ~ c i tlo d ~ - k eL~ie approprLate ciscle
to Lie leic. PD~:c as follcws: -- - - Eff=:ve t-2s ye= A
Nees mgc':s.rent B
Shculd !ie ~i,i& C
h s not aF;:y D
" ?J
; ~ ~ , ~ . ~ , C , e L As?-os C? K-3 P-FiGiVM, 1986-37 A / B J c ~ D I
a Y N 1. Test Tern (D. Bur-on , June Laxon) aQ@@a@ 34 ~ 34f / l a
2 . S tude~t idmr=5ic.=cion prccess
Y N 3. I n v o l v e ~c~f tt ~ caikdes /d 4 I5
a @ @ @ @ @ 1 -
331 B 127
4. D i s t z i c t ins~rvice
Y N
79,1s Id' 112
I 5. Building inszvk= 130@@@@
6. P z r e ~ t a lin voivemt
Y N
ll@@@@@
7. Cormmication amng principl. tP9chers, aides, par1,x.s
Y N
8. GzNv. i~ psitive fezlings of st~e.!ms
I Z @ @ @ ~ @
9. Incease in s&e!~c 1-9
10. Involvee?t cf principal
11. Materials and =raking conciicions
12. Involvemt cf techc
13. Involve-~t cf S ~ tmE
(pq~diloo g-r, . reding s p i a l i s i . etc . )
Y N Ccrrment on s - ~ e i cas s- of tie K-3 P r q m a s i . q l e l r e
6 @ @ @@@.;:. in p u r b~lding. Please use rev%=. side.
,
11 Y N hhe! completd. retun to Liaison Techc Represmtative. '7@@@@@ Pleasedo not foid.
Y N
3@@@@@
Y N
Y N
I, SURVEY
; FJti:~IBE.'t I
APPENDIX J
Table 23
Sumry of 1986-87 K-3 Program Components by School
Fort Lowell
Fruchthendler
Ga 1 e
Henry
Hol laday
Hol l inqer
Howel 1
Hud 1 ow
Huqhes
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
Table 23
Sumnary of 1986-87 K-3 Program Components by Schoo 1 ( con t d . )
Jefferson Park
Keen
Kel lond
Lawrence
Lineweaver
Lynn
Lyons
Manzo
Marshal 1
Menlo Park
Miles ELC
Mi 1 ler
Mission View
Myers-Ganou nq
Ochoa
Pueblo Gardens
Reynolds
Richey
Roberts
Robison
Roqers
Rose
Roskruqe
Saff ord
Schumaker
Sewel 1
Srni th
Steele
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
k
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
-
Table 23
Sumnary of 1986-87 K-3 Program Corrponents by School (contd.)
Number of Schools
Percent of Schools
22
32%
6
9%
55
81%
27
40%
3
4%
22
32%
15
22%
30
44%
5
7%
21
31%
Table 21
Principal's Assessment of 1986-87 K-3 Program
Proqram Component N Ratinq
Computer Assisted Instruction/Computer Aide 17 2.77
Instructional Aides 4 2 2 -38
Inservice Training 2 2 2.23
Tutors 6 2.17
Materials and Equipment 15 2.07
Arts Instruction 7 2.00
Parent Involvement 9 2.00 .................................................................................
OVERALL PROGRAM 14 2.07
Key: 1 = improvement needed, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = excellent
How K-3 Proqram Implementation Differed from Proposed Proqram 'N Percent
Implemented as proposed
Purchased less materials/equipment
Changed parent component
Changed inservice component
Changed amount of instructional aide time
Changed resource consultant component
Other
Most Positive Impact of K-3 Proqram N Percent
Use of instructional aides
Staff inservice training--inhanced teacher morale and
communication
Assisting students with academic problems who don't qualify
for other services
Increase in teaching time and individualized instruction for
target students
Counselor to assist with student crises and staff and parent
training
Acquisition of materials and equipment
Computer assisted instruction and computer literacy program
Enrichment of curriculum
Other
Table 21
Principal ' s Assessment of 1986-87 K-3 Program (contd. )
Major Problems Encountered with K-3 Proqrams N Percent
General administrative problems, such as scheduling and 2 1 39
monitoring
Personnel problems, particularly in hiring and scheduling 16 3 0
competent aides
Assessment problems, such as using appropriate assessment 10 19
measures
No major problems 9 17
Inadequate spacial and fiscal resources 4 7
Inadequate parent involvement 4 7
Other 6 11
Suggestions for Improving K-3 Proqrams N Percent
Improve selection and training of aides and increase amount 15 2 8
of aide time
Improve program planning process 15 2 8
Better coordinate K-3 inservices with district inservices / 3 2 4
and provide additional K-3 inservices
Modify curriculum and content areas that are addressed by 12 2 2
K-3 programs
Modify assessment procedures 4 7
Provide more student counseling 3 6
Standardize materials and equipment used in K-3 classrooms 3 6
Other 9 17
Table 22
Teacher ' s Assessment of 1986-87 K-3 Programs
Assessment of School's Overall K-3 Proqrams N Percent
Improvement needed 4 4 13
Satisfactory 152 47
.E.x.c.e.l. .l.e.n.t. .....................................................................1.3.0. . 40
TOTAL 326 100
Most Positive Impact of K-3 Proqrams N Percent
Instructional aides were valuable--at risk students received
more individual help, all students received more
instruct ion
Inservice training was very helpful
Additional materials and equipment
Target students benef i tted--increased academic progress,
improved self-concepts, increased enthusiasm for learning
Using computers as a teaching tool
Having access to consultants/specialists--counselor, resource
teacher
Enrichment of curriculum
Enhancement of staff working relationships
Other
Major Problems Encountered With K-3 Proqrams N Percent
Use of instructional aides--inadequate planning time with 9 9 3 2
aides, scheduling problems, inadequate aide time,
inadequate aide training
No major problems 8 4 2 7
Use of materials--materials not received, insufficient amounts 6 2 20
of materials, materials arrived late
Administrative problems--implementing programs in a timely 5 5 18
manner and as planned, scheduling problems
Use of funds--lack of agreement as to how funds should be used 3 5 11
Personnel related problems--hiring, retaining and scheduling 2 0 7
qualified personnel
Assessment--finding appropriate measures, timing of testing 7 9 6
Other 3 7 12
Table 22
Teacher's Assessment of 1986-87 K-3 Programs (contd.)
Suqqestions for Improvinq K-3 Proqrams N Percent
Instructional aide program--provide more aide time, provide
more planning time with aides, retain current aides, have
aides ready to start at beginning of year, provide more
training
Administrative--improve communication regarding expectations
and timelines, begin planning earlier, implement programs
ear 1 i er
Inservices--have more hands on workshops, have more summer
inservices
Material/equipment--have more materials available, simplify
ordering process, order materials earl ier
Personnel--have more resource specialists, provide more
counseling
Funds--provide more funds, involve teachers more in how funds
are spent
Assessment--use uniform measures, use Gesell more
Program changes--use collaborative reading, expand computer
program
Time--a1 low more time for program planning and completing paper
work
Enhance parent involvement
Other
Table 24
Analysis of 1986-87 Conputer Assisted Instruct ion (CAI )
Test Data Broken Down by School and ~radel
Percent of Test
Items Correct
Number Pretest Posttest Significant
School Students Mean Mean Difference?
Er ickson 243 43 7 1 Yes
Lyons 89 5 7 7 0 Yes
Wheeler 124 66 8 6 Yes
Grade
Kindergarten 84 3 7 5 6 Yes
First 8 0 5 6 7 9 Yes
Second 153 58 84 Yes
Third 138 5 2 7 5 Yes
..............................................................
TOTAL 456 5 2 7 5 Yes
Relationship Between Amount of CAI Time and
Computer Literacy at Erickson Elementary School
Statistically
Grade N Correlation Siqnificant?
First 3 8 . 00
Second 6 7 -.07
Third 10 .10
...................................................
TOTAL 159 .14 Yes
]used to evaluate Computer Assisted Instruction program component.
Table 29
Analysis of 1986-87 Scott-Foresman Reading Test
Data Broken Down by School and Grade
Comparison of Pretest-Posttest Percent Correct Mean Scores
Percent Correct
Number of Pretest Posttest Significant
Schoo 1 Students Mean Mean Difference?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Grade
First 181 70.53 91.29 Yes
Second 9 6 37.73 72.96 Yes
Third 9 2 61.14 80.43 Yes
Self -Contained 16 56.25 81.86 Yes
Special Education
........................................................................
TOTAL 385 59.55 83.73 Yes
l~sed to evaluate Instructional Aide program component.
2~sed to evaluate Teacher Tutoring program component.
Table 42
Sumry of Strength of Findings for 1986-87 K-3 Program Evaluation Results
Strength of Findings
Insufficient N o Some Moderate Strong
Program Data Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence
Districtwide
Young Fives X X
Staff Development X
Pro.iect 3T
Site Specific
Computer Assisted Instruction
Computer Literacy X X
Academic Achievement X
Home Instruction X
Instructional Aides
Academic Achievement X
Self-concept X
Materials and Equipment X X
Motor Skills Development X
Parent Training X
Resource Consultants
Teacher Tutorinq X
Other Programs X X
The chart below lists the identi f ication instruments, cri terion level
and/or grade equivalent riecessary to qualify for K-3 funds.
Required: Those scores definitely considered.
Optional: Addi-tional data.
Support Team: Includes all professionals who work with student.
KINDERGARTEN FIRST GRADE SECOND/TIIRID GRADE
I
FAIL,:
No formal testing.
(Kdg. aide provides general
assistance - one on one when
necessary)
Optional :
Brigance K-1 Screen 74/100
Teacher observation
Teacher-made tests
Student work
Supprt Team data
SPRING :
Required :
District-wide testinq
(75% or 4th. Stanitie)
Optio~~al:
I3riqance Screen
(use First form)
Teacher Judgement
Teacher-made tests
St r 1rlc1t1 work
S ~ I ~ ' / Y ) U'Ir eam data
FATL :
Reqllj red:
Spring Kdg. scores
Lippi.ncott (new students) 75%
Otlier norm-referenced tests
(new students )
Optional :
Rriqance K-1 Screen 74/ 100
Program Tests
Teacher Judge,mnt
Teacher-made tests
Student work
Suplmr t Team data
SPRING:
Required :
ITBS 1.4
CUES 7.0%
Optional :
Pryram Tests
Teacher Judgement
Teacher-made tests
Student work
Support Team data
FAIL :
Required :
ITBS scores (1.4 or 2.4 re-spectively
in Reading, Math 5
or Language)
Other norm-referenced tests 8
(new students) 5;!
Optional :
CUES M
Program Tests
Teacher Judgement
Teacher-made tests
Student work
Support Team data
I SPRING :
Required :
ITBS 2.4 or 3.4
CUES 7.0%
Optional :
Program Tests
Teacher Judgement
Teacher-made tests
Student work
Support Team data
Arizona State Government Publications
