Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED231875: Louisiana Compensatory/Remedial Education Student Profile: Development and Use of an Individualized Basic Skills Reporting System."

See other formats


DOCUMENT RESUME 

TM 830 478 

Hunter, Charles M. ^ 

Louisiana Compensatory/Remedial Education Student 
Profile: Development and Use of an Individualized 
Basic Skills Reporting System* 

Louisiana State Dept, of Education, Baton Rouge. 
Apr 83 

17p* ; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the • 
American Educational Research Association (67th, 
Montreal, Quebec, April 11^15, 1983). 
Speeches/Conference Papers (150) — Reports -v 
Research/Technic^il (143) — Tests/Evaluation^ 
Instrument^ ( 160 ) 

MFOl/PCOl Plus Postage. 

Basic Skills; Compensatory Education; Computer 
Oriented Programs; Eligibility; *Evaluation 
Utilization; Grade 2; Primary Education; *Profiles; 
♦Program Evaluation; *Remedial Programs; *State 
Departments of Education; Student Characteristics; 
Student Evaluation; Test Format 

Louisiana; *Louisiana Compensatory Remedial Student 
Profile ^ 

ABSTRACT 

This paper examines^ the characteristics of the 
Louis^na Compensatory/Remedial Education Student Profile form and 
the nature of the compensatory education program evaluation served by 
the Student Profile^ The Student Profile is a one page, triplicate . 
form prepared by tKe Louisiana State Department of Education for each 
grade 2 student who failed to attain the minimum score 'on the Staters 
Grade 2 Basic Skills Tests (BST). Those skills in which the student 
failed to demonstrate mastery on the BST are marked on the Profile, 
generating a statement of the student's deficiencies in basic skills. 
School systems use the Profile to (1) identify learning .objectives, 
(2) document delivery of compensatory/remedial services, and (3) 
monitor student mastery of basic skills deficiencies. The success of 
the Prof lie appears to be due in part to the form's usefulness in 
communicating the students' basic skills performance information to 
the school systems at the outset of their programs. A master copy of 
the State Funded Compensatory Remedial Education Student Profile is 
included. (PN) 

1 



ED 231 875 

AUTHOR 
TITLE 



INSTITUTION 
PUB DATE 
NOTE 



PUB TYPE 



EDRS PRICE 
DESCRIPTORS 



IDENTIFIERS 



******************************************** 

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * 

* from the original document. * 
***************************************** **************^*************>^ 



ERLC 



7.- 



CO 



\JS. DEPARTMENT OF EOUCAT 

NATlONAt INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION 
EDUCATIONAL HESOU^ES INFORMATION 
CENTEfl ( 
Th<. ^JocumeM Mm 
received from ihe person oT^ 

IT M«xx ch»oge» h*vc be«n m»d« lo improve 
repfoduction QuMoy 

• Poms of vi«v^ Of opncm »»t©d tt» boou 
mem do not necesurty f epresurt otfical NIE 
povtjon Of pofccy ' ** 



1^ 

Q 
LU 



LOUISIANA^COMPENSATORW^ EDUCATION STlinPKiT rrOp.le: 

bAbIc SKI LLS kbPORTINc <;v<;tpm' 



Presented at the • 
American Educational Research 
Association Conference 



"PEPIMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS 
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY 

si. g 



April 1983 



TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES 
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." 



> 

0 
n 



ERIC 



by 

■~ Charles M. Hunter 

Bureau of Evaluation 
Office of Research and Development 
Louisiana Department of Education 
Post Office Box 44064 
Bat^nJ?ouge, Louisiana " If'Z'^ 



2 



{ 




I his public document was puDHshed at a cost of $0.. 90 per copy by 
the State Department of Education to provide leadership for the 
continuous development, coordination, and improvement of education 
5n a statewide basl^ under authority of Louisiana R.S. 17:21. This 
material was printed In accordance with the s^ndards for printing by 
state agencies established pursuant to R.S.43j31. 




ERIC 



I 



The Louisiana Compensatory/ Remedial Educaftion Student Profile: 
Developgfient and Use x>f an Individualized Basic Skills Reporting System ^ ^ 

This paper examines the characteristics of a form named the Louisiana 
Compensatory/ Remedial Education Student Profile (referred to as the 
Student Profile) and the natur/ of the compensatory education program 
evaluation served by the Student Profile, ' 

Under the Compensatory Education Act of 1980 (R-S. 17:39^-400) 
Louisiana's public school systems must provide compensatorj^Tremedial 
services to each student who fails to demonstrate minimum competency in 
language arts and/or mathematics as measured on the State's Basic Skills 
Tests. The Student Profile is a one page, three-copy NCR form printed 
on NCR (National Cash Register) paper, that was prepared by the 
Louisiana State Department of Education, for each grade 2 student in 
Louisiana who failed to attain the minimum score set by the State Board of 
Elementary and Secondary Education on the State's Grade 2 Basic Skills 
Test administered statewide for the first time in March, 1982. The 
Student Profile lists all the minimum skills in language arts and 
mathematics established by the State for grade 2. fhe skills in which the 
student failed to demonstrate mastery on the Graded Basic Skills Test are 
marked with asterisks on the Student Profile, generating a statement of 
the student's deficiencies in basic skills. 

School systems use the Student Profile to Identify the learn 
objectives for compensatory/ remedial instruction that . must be provided 
durl^g^^b^T^^ 1982-83 for each of these grade 2 students who failed 
to demorisTrate mastery in language arts or mathematics. In addition tKe 



student Profile Is completed by the school systems to document the 
delWery of compensatory/ remedial services and to monitor 



student mastery of basic skills deficiencies. Completed Profiles are 
submitted to the Da^ggjiment of ^Education and fused to evaluate the 
State-Funded Compensatory/ Rlbmedial Program. 

This paper first discusses the characteristics of the Student Profile 
and the purposes intended to be served- by the form. The paper then 

examines the actual use of the Student Profile and the purposes that have 

J 

been realized with the form to date. 



Student Profile Characteristics 

The 8 1/2 by 11 inch Student Profile is pictured in Figure 1 -prepared 
for a hypothetical second grade student named John Doe and ready for 
distribution to-JiDbn Doe's school system. Beau Parish." The Student 
Profile is a tpree-copy NCR form bound together along the left side by a 
per;forated computer track. The right side computer track was removed 
following comp/jter printing. The "master copy" (white, front page) is the 
original an/d is retained in the student's file at the building level. The 
r school C/R" copy (yellow, back page) was detached and submitted 
to the Department of Education ' for each summer school 
compensatory/ remedial stu^ient at the close of summer school. The 
"regular i^ear"^C/R copy (pink, middle page) is to be, detached and 
submitted to the Department of Education at the close of the 1982-83 school 

year for^all second graders eligible for compensatory/remedial instruction. 

( 

The Student Prbfite'has three basic parts ,^each of which is described 



In the following narrative. 



Figure 1: LOUISIANA COMPENSATORY/^J^EDIAL PROGRAM STUDENT PJ^OFILE 



i! 



PAKSH 



i9ll2 '^A^E FUNOCD on KAMJI tCHOOl VtfOMUUTION 



STATH FUNO€Oa)MP€NSATOfrj| REMEDIAL EDUCATION STUOgJf PRORLE 

Vo SfiiOO0 BST SCORES^ LANG ARTS ^ ^ MATH 80 ^( 



[abs 



ABSENCES 



uwo u *« AMTt anus 



1 App»y M >i fw i g ol Voc^bgMify Cootwl . 

2 OmifyWordi 



3 Idmbfy Rrvi Contcniol SqnJ.. 

4 IdKibfy Long Vowtl Sou>d 



6 InHrprtt M«»nvig of Worth ... 

6 Mtrprtt Mmo^ of PtirtMs 

7 ini#rprtt M Mfw i g of 5«nttoc«5 . 

t R»c*l Slotv 0*t««l 

f R»c«i Stoty Stqutnc* 

10 Wwttrfv Mmi «•# 



1 1 AJphtbttat to Firft t«tttr . 
:: oiwr WntttoDiftcnom.. 
13^ loc«<»y^noul Topics ... 
14 Um PJCtirt OictionwY 



16 C«p4«iM Prop«r Nouns . 
COMMENTS 




G<*09 



TMCtt** 



c/r 



YmCS n Tirtt I 
Ymts n Sp«ct«l Educ 



ASSENfES 



2 Ofd«r S«ls ot Pcuxts «s Dtsignsttd 



3 Count 10 too by Onn. mtd Tcof 

4 Rtcognm PIk« Vtlu* Oom and T«ns 

5 Um Ordnal Numbtrs through TtrMhs ..V 

Whol».Numbr O^rMM 

6 Us* Basic Facts AMion and Subtraction 

7 Add Thraa On^-Oiort Numbars 

8 A*M Two TwoOtQ>t N«lrn^«^ (No RfQ'0<ip)ng) 

9 Subtract 1 wo 4 wo 0^1 Nurnbars (No Ragtuupng) 



10 Wantrfy tha Practions 1/2. 1/3. and 1/4 



,11 Idaniify Position (Ovar-Undar. ate). 
12 tdantifythaSymbote4.-.and- . 



Maaaufwriant and Cstimaiion 

13 Associata c Symbol with Cotfia op to Ouanar . 

14 Tal Tima oniha Hour 



15 Choosa NuTDbar SantarKa for Pictur ad Action ^, 




s 



MASTER COPY |RotamioRalai-»2 StH.* NkRKVVULfc HIWH 



^ SUMMER SCHOOL C/R (SMbmit Aily. |2U2 stH*t MtRKtVUtt hlUH 




Part 1: 

Student Identifying 
Information 

Part 2: ' 

Compensatory / Remedial 
Program Information 



Part 3: 
Basic Skill 
Performance 
Information 



Part 1; Student Ideatifying Information 

This information, identifying the student as eligible fon^ the 
Compensatory/ Remedial Program^ is printed at the top of the form. Basic 
Skills Test (BST) scores determine thQ student's, eligibility for 
compensatory/ remedial instruction • School Systems must provide 70 hours 
of instruction in each area (language^^arts and/or mathematics) in wJbi^h 
the student's score is less than 75 percent correct. John Doe is eligible 
for 70 hours of compensatory/ remedial instruction in 1anguage>arts. Part 1 
is printed by the Department of Education fo/ each eligible student .prior 
to distribution to the school system. The forms are pre-slugged with this 
individual data by the Bureau^^of ManagemenJ Information Systems in the ^ 
Office of Research-ahd Develpprrrentv using the BST data tape. 

Part 2; Compensatory/ Remedial Program Information 

Program information, located 'rmmediately under part 1, identifies the 
location of and participants in the- '"student's compensatory/ remedit^ ^ ^ 
instruction, and the extent *of the student's participation. Each eligible 
student receives summer school and/or regular year compensatory/ remedial 
instruction. Summer school information is entered on the left half, and 
regular year information on the right half, of part 2. The 
compensatory/ remedial teacher provides this information. 

c 

Part 3; Basic Skill Performance Information 

The bottom part of the Student Profile lists the 15 language^ arts 
skills and the 15 mathematics skills tested on the Grade 2 BST. The 
Student*" Profile presents a . three column field to the left of each/ skill. 



Down the first column, marked '^Deficient Skills,", the Department of 

* * * 1 

Education identifies^ with astenisks each skill for which the student 
correctly answers fewer than three out of thfe four items measuring the 
skill on the BST. For John Doe, six of the 15 language arts skills are so 
marked. These skills, and their prerequisites, are to be taught in .the 
Student's compensatory/ remedial program. In column two,, the 
compensatory /reme^bial teacher checks the deficient skills addressed with 
compensatory remedial instruction, and, in column three, the teacher dates 
these skills as they^are masteretl by the student. 

Intended Purposes 

The Student Profile was developed to serve several purposes, some 
related ,to program operation and some related to the evaluation of the 
program. The Bureau of 'Evaluation designed the instrument to serve 



program qs well ^ as evaluation ends ttf increase the accuracy of the 
Information reported. Further, local paperwork requirements are reduced 
by combining program and evaluation functions where possible. 

The program purposes served by the Student Profile are listed^and 
discussed first, followed by a discussion of the program evaluation 
purposes served. ' . i 

Intended Program Purposes 

Purpose 1. Assist local cpmpensato^y/ remedial program staff to identify 
eligible students* basic skill deficiencies to be addressed 
with instruction. 

» This purpose was met. All public school grade 2 styc^ents addressing 
the State minimum standards (approximately 56,000) were tested in March, 



/ ■ / 



1982.. Test scores were returned to Louisian^T^y the scoring contractor on 

computer tape in April, 1982. By May 15^ 1982, every second grade 

ff < 
teacher had received an individualized skill 'performance report for each 

student tested in that teacher's classroom, and every public school system 

had receive^ skill and total test mean scores for its students. These 

scores were reported by dlassroom,.^ building, and school system. The 

Student Profile was pt^epared only for jthe students identified as eligible 

for compensatory /remedial instruction (6,256 or 11%), and it was aimed 



specifically at the compervsatory/ remedial teacher to aid in the%) reparation 
and monitoring of compensatory/ remedial instruction. N 

In January, 1983, four public school systems were visited^ by the 
author as part of a team monitoring compliance with the State-Funded 

Compensatory/ Remedial Program rftgulatlons. Twenty-five 

^ • • • 

compensatory/ remedial teachers were interviewed about their use of, and 
response to, the Student Profile. All but one of t>ie teachers possessed 
the original Student Profile or a working copy of it for each eligible 
student they taught. That one teacher left the original Profile with the 
regular teacher and, instead, used the individual student basic skills 
reports printed by thp BST scoring Contractor to identify her students* 
deficient skills. ' . - 

Profile 2. Assist local compensatory/ remedial program staff to plan and 
monitor therr ongoing compensatory/ remedial instruction. 

The majority of the compensatory/ remedial teachers interviewed are 

not u?ing the Profile to plan and mbnitor their compensatory/ remedial 

Instruction on a daily basis. Two of the school systems that were 

monitored possess local cur?icular materials and instructional systems that 

overlap closely with the grade 2 minimum standards. These schoohsystems 



Jo 

- 6 - 



have keyed their Instructional materials to the grade 2 basic skills and use 
the record keeping devices embedde^d^ in their curricular models to aid in 
planning and monitoring compensatory/remedial 'instruction/ They will 
transfer information from these records to the Student Profiles at the end 
of the school year and then submit the Profiles to the Department of 
Education. Haftf of the teachers interviewed in the remaining two school 
systems haye transferred information from the Student Profile to the 
Classroom Profile form, a legal-sized worksheet provided by the 
Department of Education that displays all of the skills deficferr^s for up 
to 12 students orr one'sheet of paper. These Classroom Profiles were u^ed 
by these teachers as the primary organizer for their compensatory/remedial 
instructional planning and monitoring. 

The Student Profile may have been used differently by the summer 
schpol teachers frorh the way it is being used by the reguj^r year 

4 

teachers. The summer school program was brief (seven weeks), and there^ 
was no regular classroom program with which to coordinate 
com)i>ensatory/ remedial services. Examination of the skill mastery dates 
entered on the summer school Student Profiles suggests that during the 
summer school, teachers assessed and recorded student skill mastery from 



as often as once a week to as infrequently as once during the-^tire 
summer session. There is no way of identifying whether this information 
was recorded regularly on the Profile or transferred to the Profile at the 
end of the summer session., * ^ 

) ; 



Intended Evaluation Purposes * 

. •» • , 

Purpose 1 . Provide data to the Department of Education to 

measure accurately student mastery of deficient skills. 

Approximately 2,500 eMgible students received compensatory/ remedial 
summer school Instruction between June and August, 1982. A completed. 
Student/ Profile (Summer School Copy) was submitted for each to the 
DepartrrWit of Education for use in the evaluation of this summer school 
program. These Student Profiles contained teachers* judgments, of-^the 
students' mastery of their deficient language arts ^nd mathematics skills 
that had been addressed with instr^iction du'ring the summer school. 

School systems were allowed to develop local criteria for what 
constituted mastery of a deficient skill, ^ome system^ allowed teachers to 
make informal judgments of skill mastery on an ongoing basis. Others 
required teachers to base mastery decisions on students* scores throug[y 
continual diagnostic test procedures. Still others administered , -a siflgle 
criterion-referenced test to all students at the end of the session. 

To obtain an independent measure ^ of these students^ mastery of 
deficient skills mastery, the Department of Education administered a test 
developed for program evaluation purposes to a random sample of these 
Students at the close of the summer school.^ This test assessed ^student 
performance on the same skills as those included in the Grade 2 BST. 



Teacher Judgment of Skill Mastery vs. Tested Skill Mastery- 

♦ 

The match between teacher judgments of jnastery from the Student 
^ Profiles was compared with student performance dn the evaluation test. 
Ta^le 1 presents the language arts skill deficiency Information .for .the 235 
students who took the janguagje arts test. 



-Sr. 



12 



TABLE T: Teacher Judgment of Skifl Mastery Compared with Demonstrated 
Skill Mastery on the Language Art-s Test for All Language Arts 
Deficient Skills Addressed with liistruction, 

'Language Arts Students* (N^235) ^ 








— : : J 




Alt Language Arts 

Addressed with 
Summer School 
Instruction 


Not Mastered on 
Language Arts 
Test 


" Mastered on the 
Language Arts 
Test 


Total 




Cell 1 


Cell 2 




Reported as 
Not Mastered 
on the Profile 




306 


751 




Cell 3 


Cell 4 




Reported as 

Mastered 

on the Profile 


^ 289 


783 


1 ,072 


TOTAL 


73i| 


1 ,098 


1 ,823 



The student profiles submitted for each of these students indicated that a 
total of U823 skills deficiencies in language arts were addressed with 
remedial instruction during the summer. The teachers provided judgments 
of mastery of deficient skills on these students' Profiles which ^ when 
summed for all 235 students, produced the following totals: 1,072 deficient 
skills mastered, 751 deficient skills not mastered. 

The language arts test yielded independent measures of each 
student's deficient skill performance^ which ^ when summed^ yielded the 
^following totals: 1,089 deficient skills mastered on the test and 73«* 
deficient skills not mastered on the tes^. \ 



The agreements between teacher judgments and test performance fall 
In cells 1 and ^. The larger the totals in these cells are, the greater the 
agreement between judged mastery (Student Profiles) and demonstrated 
mastery (test). Disagreements fell fn cells 2 and 3. Cell 2 ent)^ies 
represent teacher judgments that are more stringent than the test 
standards; the teacher reported that the student had not mastered a skill, 
but the student was able to perform the skill well enough to pass it on the 
test. Cell 3 entries represent the opposite: cases in which the teacher 
judged that the student had mastered a ^kill, but the student was not^able 

s 

to perform the skill well enough to show mastery on the test. 

The cell entries in Table 1 indicate modep^te agreement (67%) between 
judged mastery and demonstrated mastery (50% agreement would be 
expected by chance). There were a total of 1^28 agreements and 595 
disagre^ents. In ^^6^of the 595 disagreements (51%)^ the student passed 
a skill on the test that the teacher had judged riot mastered. This 

suggests that neither measure (judgment or test performance) was 

« 

consistently more stringent. 

Table 2 presents the information on skill deficiencies in mathematics 
for the 155 students who took the mathematics test* Cell entries indicate 
moderately good agreement between judged mastery and. demonstrated 
mastery. There were a total of 806 agreements (7g%) and 225 
disagreements (22%). About half of the disagreements (113 of 225) were 
Instances fn which the teachers' judgments were more stringent than the 
test standards. r 



TABLE 2: Teacher Judgment of Skill Mastery Compared with Demonstrated 
Skill Mastery on the Mathematics Test for All Mathematics • 
Deficient Skills Addressed with Instruction 
Mathematics Students (N=155) 



All Mathematics 
Deficient Skills 
Addressed witli 
Summer Scliool 
instruction: 


Not Mastered on 
the Mathematics 
Test 


Jyjgstered on the 
Mathematics 
Test • 


Total 


Reported as 
Not Mastered 
on the Profile 


Cell 1 

89 


Cell 2 

113 


202. 


Reported as 

Mastered 

on the Profile 


Cell 3 

112 


Cell H 

717, 


829 


TOTAL 


201 


830 ^ 





In summary, the comparison . of test performance^ with teachers' 



judgments of skills mastery indicates a positive relationship between 
teachers* judgments based on a variety of skill mastery criteria and skljl 
mastery measured with the language arts and mathematics evaluation tests. 



Purpose 2. Provide data to the Department of Education to measure 

accurately the nature of compensatory remedial instruction 
delivered. 

The Student Profile Is designed to determine which deficient skills are 
addressed with lnstructiorY*(checked in column two) and which deficient 
skills are not addressed with Instruction (unchecked In column two)* To 
the extent that the Profile determines this Information accurately. It serves 



this purpose. For example^ with the 2^500 summer school st 




analyzed Student Profile data revealed that 96 percent of^all deficient skills 
In both language arts and mathematics were addressed with instruction 



r 



during the summer school. The accuracy of these reported figures cannot 
be substantiated, although there is no reason to doubt their accuracy. 

3. Provide data to the Department of Education to accurately measure 
student participation in the compensatory/ remedial program. ^ 

This purpose was met with the compensatory/ remedial summer school 

program but will probably not be met with the regular year 

compensatory/ remedial program*. The reason for this lies in the design of 

the Student Profile. The amount of summer school attendance could be 

accurately estimated because State regulations specified the number and 

/ 

length of daily summer school sessions (35 two-hour sessions) to be 
provided, and each absence was two hours. The regular year Student 
Profile also requested that absences be reported for each grading period. 
The directions were Nnot specific about whether absences were to 
reported as hours or days mis^M; therefore, there is no way of knowing 
how much compens^torV^T^medial instruction was received. Thus, this 
regular year absence loata have^een difficult to compile. ^ 

Summary 

The Student Profile is providing useful information to the Department 
of Education abpul eligible students* performance on their deficient skills 
following comp^w^atory/ remedial instruction. The success of the Student 
Profile apppars.^ be due In part to its usefulness in communicating the 
students* fciasic skills performance information to the school systems at the 
outset of thefr programs, thus helping these systems to meet the 
Compensatory/ Remedial Program regulations. 



ERIC 




A revised Grade 2 Student Profile and a new Grade 3 Student Profile. 



are being prepared for use during the 1983-8^1 school year (grade 3 has 
been added to the State Basic Skills Test), The major changes planned 
for the Student Profile are simplification of format and reporting 
procedures and clarification of information * requested from 
•compensatory/ remedial teachers. 

In one year of operation the Student Profile has become a recognized 
and accepted part of the State- Funded CQmp^nsatory/ Remedial Program and' 
its evaluation. 



V 




t 



ft 




47 



- 13 -