DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME. A Title III E.S.E.A. Project, Education. Research...

ED 067 439

TITLE

INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTE

DOCUMENT RESUME

A Title III E.S.E.A. Project,Education. Research Bulletin,1970-71.Paterson Board of Education,[71]77p.

UD 012 951

Paterson Board ofVolume 1, Number 4,

N.J.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS Cognitive Development; Curriculum Development;

Diagnostic Teaching; *Disadvantaged Youth; *EarlyChildhood Education; Economically Disadvantaged;Educational Diagnosis; Federal Programs;Kindergarten; *Nongraded Primary System; PrimaryGrades; *Program Evaluation

IDENTIFIERS *Elementary Secondary Education Act Title III; ESEATitle III; New Jersey

ABSTRACTThis research bulletin reports an evaluation study of

the program of the Dale Avenue Early Childhood Education Center,funded under Title III of the 1965 Elementary Secondary EducationAct. A pre- and post-test experimental and control design usingstandardized and locally developed instruments was used to evaluatethe academic performance of the students in the study. Eight groupsof subjects were compared: Dale Avenue experimental--kindergarten andfirst level; experimental performance objective recordgroups7-kindergarten and first level; disadvantaged controlgroups--kindergarten and first grade; and, advantaged controlgroups--kindergarten and first grade. The standardized instrumentsused include the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, the SkillAssessment Tests I and II, and the Anne E. Boehm Test of ConceptFormation. Locally developed instruments include the Identity andBody Parts Tests I and II, and the Performance Objectives Record. Thelatter is a unique device which lists specific skills to be mastered.It acts as the teacher's diagnostic pre-test and also as a post-test.The record goes along with each child to his next class. This helpsthe new teacher to ascertain what the child is able to do and to helphim to continue at his own rate; thus, it enables her to use her owncreative talents and to find the teaching method that best suits eachchild. (Author/JM)

DALE AVENUE SCHOOL

PATERSON, NEW JERSEY

A TITLE III E.S.E.A. PROJECTPATERSON BOARD OF EDUCATInN

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO.DUCE° EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

RESEARCH BULLETIN . VOLUME I NO. 4

1970 - 1971

THE PATERSON BOARD OF EDUCATION

Leonard R. Jacoby President

Rev. Louis M. Richardson Vice President

Gilbert Collazo

Ronald J. Frederick

Donald Greenspan

Mrs. Ruth Hirshberg

Rev. Robert Kirchgessner

Mrs. Marian M. Rauschenbach

Leon Wilson

Dr. Michael Gioia Superintendent

Joseph W. Goldberg AssistantSuperintendent

Dr. Norman S. Weir AssistantSuperintendent

Charles J. Riley Secretary/BusinessAdministrator

Robert P. Swartz Assistant SecretaryCounsel

Mrs. Vera P. Thompson Director of FundedPrograms

ii

TITLE III STAFF

Mrs. Helen B. Hanson Director-Title III

Mrs. Rita Gavzy 0004,1 OOO Research Director

Mr. Charles Pachella Psychometrician

Mrs. Rhoda Schenberg Tester/Supplementa)Instructor

Miss Marion Lippa Tester/Supplementa)Instructor

Mrs. Gilda Walsh Audiologist

Mrs. Anna Taliaferro Parent Coordinator

Miss Charlene Vigorito Secretary

CONSULTANT STAFF

Mr. Peter J. Wild ... Principal, DaleAvenue School

Mr. Joseph Heitzman Assistant Directorof Funded Programs

Miss Harriet Gibbs. ... Director of Pre-Kindergarten, DaleAvenue School

3

iii

TITLE III COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Dr. Michael Gioia Superintendent ofSchools

Mr. Leonard Jacoby President, Board of.Education

Rev. Louis Richardson Vice President,Board of Education

Dr. Norman S. Weir Assistant Superin-tendent of. Schools

Mr. Joseph Goldberq....Assistant Superin-tendent of Schools

Mr. Charles J. Riley...Secretary-BusinessAdministrator, Boardof Education

Rev. John Carroll Assistant Superin-tendent, PatersonDiocesan Schools

Mr. John Bell Director, ModelCities

Mrs. Hilda Conn Assistant Director,Model Cities

Mr. Willie Sweet Advisory Committee,Model Cities

Mr. James Adams Consultant, ModelCities

Mr. Fred Wilkes Executive Director,Paterson Task Force

Mr. Aaron P. Braverman.President, PatersonTask Force

iv

Mrs. Cecile Dickey.....Acting Director,Head Start

Mr. Gilbert Benson Executive Director,Planned Parenthood

Mr. Harold Simon President, PatersonAdministrator'sAssociation

Mr. James Comerford....President, PatersonPrincipal's Associatio:

Mrs. Ruth Friedman. Paterson EducationAssociation

Mrs. Roberta Cohen . President, KindergarteAssociation

Mrs. Mary Oliver President, NationalCouncil of Negro Women

Mrs. Josephine Chamber.President, PatersonCouncil of P.T.A.'s

Mr. Anthoriy Carbone....Trustee, PatersonCouncil of P.T.A.'s

Mrs. Sarah Jackson. President, FollowThrough AdvisoryCommittee

Dean Harry T. Gumaer...Dean of ProfessionalPrograms, WilliamPaterson College

Dr. Edward Ward. ..... ..Chairman, Departmentof Education, WilliamPaterson College

Professor Alice Meeker.William Paterson Colle

5

Mr. Peter J. Wild Principal, DAECEC*

Miss Harriet Gibbs Director, Pre-Kindergarten,DAECEC*

Mrs. Helen Hanson Project Director,Title III, DAECEC*

Mrs. Rita Gavzy Research Director,Title III, DAECEC*

Mrs. Marie O'Mara Psychologist,DAECEC*

Mrs. Vera P. Thompson Director of FundedPrograms

Mr. Joseph Heitzman....Assistant Directorof Funded Programs

Mr. Reginald Brown Social Worker- Co-ordinator DAECEC*

* Dale Avenue Early Childhood EducationCenter

vi

DALE AVENUE TITLE III

PARENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mrs. Anna Taliaferro

Mrs. Eliza Bickley

Mr. Frank Campbell

Mr. John Cabarcas

Mrs. Barbara Chase

Mr. Charles Council

Mrs. Lucia Courtney

Mrs. Mary Dawson

Mr. Harold Foster

Mr. Ian D. Hals

Mrs. Ann Holmes

Mrs. Carnilla Jeter

Mrs. Sandra Kirkland

Mr. Robinson Mendoza

Mrs. Henrietta Young

Mrs. Awilda Torres

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii.

page

I. Description of Population Studied 1-7

A. Pre- Kindergarten Children(Pre-K) 2-3

B. Kindergarten Children 4

C. Pupil Selection 4-5D. Control Groups 5-7

II. Definitions of Terms Used 8-9

III. Rationale of the Testing Program 10-16

A. Peabody Picture VocabularyTest (P.P.V.T.) 10-12

B. Skill Assessment Test 12C. Identity and Body Parts Test 13

D. Anne E. Boehm Test of BasicConcepts 14

E. Performance Objective Record(P.O.R.) 15-16

IV. Analysis and Results of Data 17-56

A. Glossary of Terms Used 17-18B. Pre -Y (P.P.v.T.) 19-23C. Kindergarten (P.P.V.T.) 24-27D. Pre-K Mental Age 28-31E. Pre-K Mental Age Gains 32

F. Kindergarten Mental Age 33-37G. Kindergarten Mental Age Gains 37-38H. Pre-K Skill Assessment Test 39-43I. Kindergarten Skill Assessment

Test 43-48J. Pre-K Identity and Body Parts

Test 48-52K. Kindergarten- Identity and

Body Parts Test

V. Discussion

53-56

57-61

VI. Bibliography 62

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE page

I. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumber of Pre-K , Experimentaland Control Groups (Peabody-A) 19

II. Analysis of Variance of Pre-K,Experimental and Control Groups(Peabody A)

III. F-Ratio For Paired Contrasts be-tween Pre-K, Experimental andControl Groups (Peabody A)

IV. Analysis of Variance of Pre-K,Experimental and Control Groups,(Peabody B)

19

20

20

V. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumber of Pre-K, Experimentaland Control Groups (Peabody B) 21

VI. F-Ratio For Paired Contrasts be-tween Pre-K, Experimental andControl Groups (Peabody B)

VII. Analysis of Variance of Kinder-garten, Experimental and ControlGroups (Peabody A)

21

24

VIII. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumber of Kindergarten, Experi-mental and Control Groups (PeabodyA) 24

IX. F-Ratio For Paired Contrasts be-tween Kindergarten, Experimentaland Control Groups, (Peabody A) 25

ix

X. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumher of Kindergarten, Experi-mental and Control Groups (PeabodyB) 26

XI. Analysis of Variance of Kindergar-ten, Experimental and ControlGroups, Peabody R) 26

XII. F-Ratin For Paired Contrasts be-tween Kindergarten, Experimentaland Control Groups (Peabody B) 27

XIII. Analysis of Variance - Mental Ageof Pre-X, Experimental and ControlGroups (Pre-test) 28

XIV. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumber of Pre-K, Exnerimental andControl Grouns, Mental Age (Pre-test) 28

XV. F -Ratio For Paired Contrasts,Mental Age- Pre-K (Pre-test) 29

XVI. Analysis of Variance of Pre-K,Experimental and Control GroupsMental Age (Peabody Post-Test) 29

XVII. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumber of Kindergarten, Experi-mental and Control Groups, MentalAge (Peabody Post-Test)

<VIII. F-Ratio For Paired Contrasts be-tween Kindergarten, Experimentaland Control Groups, Mental Age(Post-test)

XIX. Analysis of Variance of Kinder-garten, Experimental and controlGroups, Mental Age (Pre-test)

30

30

33

XX. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumber of Kindergarten, Experimental and Control Groups, MentalAge (Pre-test)

XXI. F-Ratio For Paired Contrasts,Mental Age- Kindergarten (Pre-Test)

33

34

XXII. Analysis of Variance of Kinder-garten, Experimental and ControlGroups, Mental Age (Post-Test) 35

XXIII. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumber of. Kindergarten, Experi-mental and Control Groups, MentalAge (Post-Test) 35

XXIV. F-Ratio For Paired Contrasts be-tween Kindergarten, Experimentaland Control Groups,Mental Age(Post-Test)

XXV. Analysis of Variance of Pre-K ,

Experimental and Control GroupsAssessment (Pre-test)

XXVI. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumber of Pre-K, Experimentaland Control Groups, Skill Assess-ment (Pre-Test)

XXVII. F-Ratio For Padred Contrasts be-tween Pre-K, Experimental andControl Groups, Skill Assessment(Pre-Test)

36

39

39

40

XXVIII. Analysis of Variance of. Pre-K,Rxperimental and Control GroupsSkill Assessment, (Post-Test) 40

11

xi

XXIX. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumber of Pre-K, Experimentaland Control Groups, Skill Assess-ment (Post-Test)

XXX. F-Ratio For Paired Contrasts be-tween Pre-K, Experimental andControl Groups, Skill Assessment(Post-Test)

XXXI. Analysis of Variance of Kinder-garten, Experimental and ControlGroups, Skill Assessment (Pre-Test)

XXXII. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumber of Kindergarten, Experi-mental and Control Groups, SkillAssessment (Pre-Test)

KXXIII. F-Ratio For Paired Contrasts be-tween Kindergarten, Experimentaland Control Groups, Skill Assess-ment, (Post-Test)

XXXIV. Analysis of Variance of Kinder-garten, Experimental and ControlGroups, Skill Assessment, (Post-Test)

XXXV. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumber of Kindergarten, Experi-mental and Control Groups, SkillAssessment, (Post-Test)

XXXVI. F -Ratio For Paired Contrasts be-tween Kindergarten, Experimentaland Control Groups, Skill Assess-ment (Post-test)

41

41

43

44

44

45

46

46

CXXVII. Analysis of Variance of Pre-K,Experimental and Control Groups,Identity and Body Parts, (Pre-Test)

4812

xii

XXXVIII. Mean, Standara Deviation andNumber of Pre-K, Experimentaland Control Groups, Identity andBody Parts (Pre-Test) 48

XXXIX. F-Ratio For PA/red Contrasts be-tween Pre-K, Experimental andControl Groups, Identity and BodyParts (Pre-Test) 49

XL. Analysis of Variance of Pre-K,Experimental and Control Groups,Identity and Body Parts,(Post-test)

50

XLI. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumber of Pre-K, Experimental andControl Groups, Identity and BodyParts (Post-Test) 50

XLII. F-Ratio For Paired Contrasts be-tween Pre-K, Experimental andControl Groups, Identity and BodyParts (Post-Test) 51

XLIII. Analysis of Variance of Kinder-garten, Experimental and ControlGroups, Identity and Body Parts(Pre-Test) 53

XLIV. Mean, Standard Deviation andNumber of Kindergarten, Experi-mental and Control Groups, Identityand Body Parts (Pre-Test) 53

XLV. F-Ratio For Paired Contrasts be-tween Kindergarten, Experimentaland Control Groups, Identity andBody Parts (Post-Test)

XLVI. Analysis of Variance of Kinder-garten, Experimental and ControlGroups, Identity and Body Parts(Post-Test)

13

54

55

XLVII. Mean, STandard Deviation andNumber of Kindergarten, Experi-mental and Control Groups, Identityand Body Parts (Post-Test) 55

:LVIII. F-Ratio For Paired Contrasts be-tween Kindergarten, Experimentaland Control Groups, Identity andBody Parts, (Post -Test)

14

56

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE page

I. Peabody Performance of Pre-Kindergarten Experimental andControl Groups Plotted Over Time 22

II. Mental Age Gains of Pre-Kinder-garten Experimental and ControlGroups Plotted Over Time

III. Mental Age Gains of KindergartenExperimental and Control GroupsPlotted Over Time

31

36

IV. Pre-Kindergarten Mean Skill Assess-ment Scores Plotted Over Time 42

V. Kindergarten Mean Skill AssessmentScores Plotted Over Time 48

VI Pre-Kindergarten Identity andBody Parts Scores Plotted OverTime 52

VII. Kindergarten Identity and BodyParts Scores Plotted Over Time 56

15

DESCRIPTION OF THE POPULATION STUDIED

The Title III research design asformulated in the original proposal con-sisted of three experimental groups andfive control groups.

These were:

Pre-Kindergarten Experimental GroupDale Avenue School- 132 children

Pre-Kindergarten Control GroupAdvantaged- 15 childrenDisadvantaged- 15 children

Kindergarten Experimental GroupDale Avenue School- 117 children

Kindergarten Control GroupAdvantaged- 15 childrenDisadvantaged- 15 children

Kindergarten Experimental Group#24 with Performance Objectives

38 children

Kindergarten Control Group#24 without Performance Objectives

34 children

16

2.

DESCRIPTION OF THE

PRE-KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN

One hundred and twenty Pre-kinder-garten children at Dale Avenue School(whose chronological ages at pre-testtime averaged four years and three months)form one part of the experimental groupin the Title III study. The childrenare in eight classes which are labeledPre-kindergarten I,II,III, and IV A.M.and Pre-kindergarten I,II,III, and IVP.M. Each class has one teacher andtwo teacher aides. There are fifteenchildren per class and the same teachersand aides teach both the A.M. and P.M.classes.

Sixty-one percent of the childrencome from Title I school areas and arebussed to Dale Avenue School five days aweek. They attend either the A.M. orP.M. session. The children, who come inthe morning, eat lunch at school and arethen bussed home. The children, who comein the afternoon, have lunch soon aftertheir arrival and are bussed home ataround three o'clock.

Thirty-one percent of the one hun-dred and twenty Pre-kindergarten childrencome from families where the parents areseparated. Five percent come from fami-lies where the parents are divorced andfour percent where the mothers are un-married. The average family income isaround $5,000 per year. Twenty-eightpercent of the families receive somewelfare.

17

3.

The fathers occupations are varied.They include machine operators, salesmen,assemblers, key punch operators, electron-ic workers, patrolmen, platform operators,factory workers, mechanics, laborers,private detectives, truck drivers, boxstrippers, warehouse workers, firemen,green keepers, pressers, clerks, elec-tricians, hospital orderlies, garmentcutters, musicians, mailmen, dye casters,printers, teachers, sheet metal workers,carpenters, special service coordinators,bus drivers, machinists, dental techni-cians, maintenance men, shoe makers,welders and repair: men.

The mothers occupations include hairstylists, diet aides, waitresses, nurses,students, packers, meter maids, factoryworkers and housewives.

Forty-four percent of the one hun-dred and twenty Pre-kindergarten childrenare Black, twenty percent are White,twenty-one percent are Puerto Rican andfifteen percent are Columbian, Chilean,Costa Rican and Chinese. Fifty-threepercent are boys and forty-seven percentare girls.

Thirteen percent of the one hundredand twenty children in the study are re-peating pre-kindergarten. They were re-tained because it had been decided bytheir teachers, the psychologist and thedirector and assistant director of Pre-kindergarten that this would be beneficialto them.

Is

4.

The Kindergarten population is com-prised of a similar group of childrenwhose family income was slightly higherbut whose test scores were similar tothis year's Pre-kindergarten childrenwhen they entered Dale Avenue School lastyear.

DESCRIPTION OF PUPIL SELECTION

The Pre-kindergarten and Kindergartenchildren at Dale Avenue Early ChildhoodEducation Center, who comprise our exper-imental group, are predominantly : :romareas where the schools receive Title Ifunds. Applications are taken on a firstcome, first served basis from people whohave either read about the school in thenewspaper or heard of it from the follow-ing sources:

Guidance CounselorsSocial WorkersSchool NursesPrincipalsPTA CouncilPaterson Task ForceMental Health Clinic of Passaic CountyPassaic County WelfareBureau of Children's ServicesJewish Children and Family ServicesJuvenile Relations CourtProbation DepartmentParents of Dale Avenue PupilsStaff of Dale Avenue SchoolDay Care-One HundredFour C's Program (a group of thirty or

forty community organi-zations)

19

5.

The only new children admitted tothe program each year are the Pre-kinder-garten children. These children movethrough Kindergarten, First, Second andThird grade and then return to their areaschool in Fourth grade.

THE CONTROL GROUPS

The Pre-kindergarten disadvantagedcontrol group was randomly selected fromchildren who came to enroll at DaleAvenue School but who were not admittedbecause of lack of room. The Pre-kinder-garten advantaged control group was se-lected from the Paterson Community andfrom Lincoln Park.

The Pre-kindergarten and KindergartenExperimental Group at Dale Avenue Schoolis housed in a converted factory building.Bright colors constitute the decor. Pastelwalls are complemented with lovely autumncolored carpeting. All furniture andpermanent fixtures are geared to the heightof the children.

Materials and equipment are gearedto fostering gross motor skills and tobuild conceptual and perceptual skills.

The Dale Avenue Pre-kindergarten andKindergarten staff is a hand picked groupof master teachers who are assisted intheir classroom duties by an AssociateTeacher or Teacher Assistant and by aTeacher's Aide. Three people staff eachPre-kindergarten classroom and two peoplestaff the Kindergarten classrooms.

20

6.

Operating under his own PerformanceObjective Record each child moves throughthe Pre-kindergarten and Kindergarten athis own rate as he masters skills.

As each child was individually testedon the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test(Form A), Skill Assessment Test I andIdentity and Body Parts Check List I, theteachers were given complete feedback onthe performance of each child.

Workshops were held to enhance theteaching staff's understanding of programcontent and to enable them to better util-ize the materials and equipment availableto them in the classrooms. Because ofPaterson's close proximity to New York,it was possible to have such noted peopleas Dr. Phoebe Lazarus, Dr. Marion Blank,and Mr. Murray Tesser present teachertraining sessions.

The Pre-kindergarten children re-ceived complete medical examinations andaudiometric screening.

Specialists in Physical Education,Art, Music, and Science serviced the Pre-kindergarten and Kindergarten childrenin these areas.

Classrooms were monitored by theTitle III team and by Miss Harriet Gibbs,Pre - kindergarten Director, and Mr. Wild,Principal, Dale Avenue School to assurethat the program was being properlycarried out.

The Pre-kindergarten Advantaged andDisadvantaged Control Groups were com-prised of children who had had no previouspre-school experience and who received

21

7.

no formal training between pre and posttesting.

All the Kindergarten Control Groupswere housed in regular Paterson schoolbuildings and all but Control Group #24(with Performance Objectives) were in-volved in a standard Kindergarten experi-ence. Control Group #24 (with Perform-ance Objectives) was tested and giventesting feedback and was presented withPerformance Objectives after February 1,1971. The teacher's from both ControlGroups #24 (with and without PerformanceObjectives) had aides in their classrooms.The teacher from Control Group #24 (withPerformance Objectives) also attended allteacher training workshops.

All children in the ExperimentalGroup and the Control Group were not onlypre and post-tested with the PeabodyPicture Vocabulary Test, and Identity andBody Parts Check List, but they were alsogiven the Anne E. Boehm Test of BasicConcepts.

It is important to note that theTitle III team was not hired until October15, 1970 and that while pre-testing be-gan immediately in the Pre-kindergartenat Dale Avenue School, it did not beginin the Kindergarten until December orJanuary. Consequently, the pre-scores ofthe Dale Avenue children in Kindergartenreflect four months in the classroom.

8.

DEFINITION OF TERMS USED

Culturally Disadvantaged. The moststriking feature of the inner city cul-turally disadvantaged is that they arepoor. Their yearly incomes are generallyaround $5,000. Many come from brokenhomes and live in densely populated areasin substandard housing. Culturally dis-advantaged children live in a world thatis dominantly physically rather thanideationally and verbally controlled.They lack early experiences of an edu-cationally stimulating nature. (1)

Children from culturally disadvantagedhomes often do poorly in school for thefollowing reasons. (11)

1. The lack of an educational tradi-tion in the home.

2. The lack of books, toys andgames in the home.

3. Insufficient standard Englishlanguage.

4. Inadequate motivation to pursuea long-range educational career.

5. Inadequate self image.

6. Poor health, improper diet, fre-quent moving and noise.

9.

Culturally Advantaged. Most of theculturally advantaged children come fromso called middle-class homes where theaverage yearly incomes are generally over$8,000. They live in less populated areasthan the disadvantaged and there are lesspeople per apartment or house. In thesemiddle-class homes communication is care-fully nurtured. Children are encouragedto speak in words, phrases and completesentences. They have a repertoire ofnursery rhymes, poems, stories and songswhich have been taught by rote. Thereare many books, toys and games in theirhomes. Their curiosity is cultivated andquestions are answered by parents. Theylearn to talk freely with parents, sib-lings, other children, relatives, neigh-bors, shopkeepers and friends of parents.

24

10.

RATIONALE OF THE TESTING PROGRAM

The Materials Used

The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Testis an individually administered test ofverbal intelligence that was developedby Lloyd M. Dunn, Ph.D, Director of theInstitute on Mental Retardation and In-tellectual Development of George PeabodyCollege of the University of Illinois.The test, which requires no verbal re-sponse from the testee and no specialtraining requirement for the examiner,is a very good rapport establisher. Itis a time saver (takes only fifteen min-utes to administer) yet a valid and re-liable individual intelligence test.

re-liable

test must be administered in aprescribed manner (described in the man-ual that comes with the test) and the ex-aminer must give no additional clue wordsor gestures. It is a graduated seriesof one hundred and fifty plateI., eachcontaining four pictures. To administerit the examiner, having taken the childinto a quiet room, provides a stimulusword orally as in "Point to man." Thetestee then indicates (usually bypointing) which picture on the platebest illustrates the meaning of thestimulus word. Since the plates arearranged in ascending order of difficulty,it is necessary only to test the subjectfrom a basal of eight consecutive correctresponses to a ceiling of six errors ineight consecutive plates.

1. Test and Educational Materials Cata-log, American Guidance Service, Inc.,(Minnesota, 1969), p.4.

25

11.

Thus the scale is only given in thecritical range. There are differentstarting points for different age groups.For example, children three years andthree months old start with plate numberfifteen while children four years andthree months to five years and fivemonths start with plate number twenty-five. Two forms of the test (A and 13)are provided with different stimuluswords for each. A raw score (number ofcorrect responses) can then be quicklyconverted to three types of derivedscores; mental age, standard score, in-telligence quotient and percentiles.The difference of one month in age be-tween subjects can place a subject in adifferent age bracket (when determiningscores) and cause a considerable changein standard score.

,The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Testwas used not only to determine standardEnglish vocabulary skills (receptivelanguage) and I.Q. but to provide a diag-nostic tool to identify children, (1)

whose quality, quantity and intelligi-bility of speech was poor; (althoughtest requires pointing only, the testerengages the pupil in a short preliminaryconversation. Many pupils volunteercomments on the pictures;) (2) wholacked ability to look at several pic-tures and select the one that bestapplied to stimulus words; (3) whoshowed excessive behavioral responses(perfunctory effort, excessive shyness,much need for praise, short attentionspan); (4) who were possibly disabled inareas of hearing, vision and motor ac-tivity; (5)whose understanding of stan-dard English vocabulary was so limitedthat they were not able to score.

26

.1*

12.

The testors were hired on a per diembasis for the testing and had no reasonto wish that any group of children woulddo better on the tests than any othergroup. They were not involved in the pro-gram in any other capacity.

Skill Assessment Tests I and II

The Pre-kindergarten Skill AssessmentTest I inventories some of the skillswhich are included on the Performance Ob-jectives and on the StanfordBinet Intel-ligence Scale. Ability to name circle,square, and triangle, to name colors, torote count, to identify numerals presentedin random order, ability to count objects,and to see likes and differences arequickly assessed by this test. Here, thechild must verbalize in order to answerin contrast to the Peabody Picture Vocab-ulary Test where he is only required topoint to a pictorial representation of aword.

Kindergarten Skill Assessment TestII is an extension of Test I. It containsfar more items than the Pre-kindergartentest. Some of the items are above ex-pected developmental performance forKindergarten children because it was feltthat our children could master theseskills. We have set as our norm that aproblem is solved by children of a certainage when 3/4's of the children of thisage respond correctly. Our children haveexceeded these norms.

13.

The Identity and Body Parts Test I and II

The staff-made Identity and Body PartsTest (Part I for Pre-kindergarten and PartII for Kindergarten) was developed becausethe Title III staff considered knowledgeof self essential before a child cansharpen his intelligence. Early childhoodliterature tells us that middle classchildren receive early training in know-ledge of identity and body parts. (Parentslabel eyes, nose, etc., in many games,stories and songs) but many disadvantagedchildren do not receive this beneficialhelp. The staff felt that learning allabout who they are (their name, sex, wherethey live, etc.) and the labels for theparts of their bodies would help DaleAvenue children to have an understandingof their own uniqueness and worth as wellas to give them more standard Englishlanguage which would help them to seelikenesses and differences and to labeland think. Piaget tells us that thoughtand language do appear to interact withone another. 2. The logical place tostart would certainly seem to be with thechildren themselves.

2. Early Childhood Curriculum, CeliaStendler Lavatelli, "Piaget's TheoryApplied to A Center for Media Devel-opment," Inc. Book, American Scienceand Engineering, Inc., Boston, 1970,p.54.

28

14.

Anne E. Boehm Test

The Anne E. Boehm Test (Form I) isa group test of basic concepts that in-dicates not only that a child knows cer-tain concepts but ti.at he can indicatethis by marking the proper concept withan X.

The instrument consists of threesample questions followed by twenty-five pictorial items arranged in ap-proximate order of increasing difficulty.Each item consists of a set of pictures,about which statements are read aloud tothe children by the examiner.

The test requires approximatelyfifteen to twenty minutes to administerto Pre-kindergarten and Kindergartenchildren.

The concepts tested are top, through,away from, next to, inside, some but notmany, middle, few, farthest, around,over, widest, most, between, whole,nearest, second, corner, several, behind,row, different, almost, after, half.

15.

Performance Objectives Record

Educational Testing Service ofPrinceton, New Jersey was contacted inApril 1969 to seek assistance in creatingand formulating an evaluation programwhich would assess the development andactivities of the individual Pre-kinder-garten and Kindergarten child. Mr. J.Robert Cleary, Director of Field Services,Educational Test Services, suggested thatwe communicate to our staff the need tocompile a list of goals and objectivesleading to a sequence of behavioral ob-jectives.

Out of this grew the PerformanceObjective Record. This is a unique de-vice which lists specific skills to bemastered. They are compatible with thedevelopmental sequence of the four andfive year olds as was illustrated by em-pirical testing in the pilot program in-itiated at Dale Avenue School in 1970.

The performance objective record notonly provides an evaluation instrument,but also structures the material presentedin the Pre-kindergarten and Kindergartenclassroom. The teacher, however, has thefreedom to teach the skills and conceptsin any way she wishes. This enables herto use her own creative talents and tofind the teaching method that best suitseach child. Children move at their ownrate from skill to skill.

30

16.

For Pre-kindergarten and Kinder-garten the Language Arts area was brokendown into Listening, Naming, Encoding,and Speaking. Science was broken downinto Observing and Classification. Mathwas included as well as Writing andMotor Skills and Perceptual Motor Skills.

The Performance Objective Recordacts as the teacher's diagnostic pre-test and, as a post-test. The recordgoes along with each child to his nextclass. This helps the new teacher toascertain what the child is able to doand to help him to continue at his ownrate.

17.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF DATA

In the pages that follow the analy-sis and results of the data from thePeabody Picture Vocabulary Test, FormsA and B, the pre and Post Identity andBody Parts Test, and pre and post SkillAssessment Test can be found. It willinclude graphs, tables and some dis-cussion.

able

1.

2.

3.

Below is a glossary of terms avail-for Your referral.

glossary of Terms Used in this Section

P.P.V.T.

p.n.R.

N

Peabody Picture Vocab-ulary Test

Performance objectiveRecord

Number of pupilstested.

4. Mean Average

5. S.D. Standard Deviationthe average deviationaround the mean usedas an error estimate.

6. AoV Analysis of Varianceshows whether or notthere are any dif-ferences among thegroup.

7. Partitioningthe Variance Same as analysis of

variance.

32

8. Posteriorianalysis

9. t= value

10. f

11. df

12.

18.

Follow-un of analysisof variance to showexactly where thedifferences lie.

Comparison of preand oost data totest if there areany significantdifferences.

Ratio of groupvariances (of greatermean squares to lessermean squares)

Degrees of freedom

Alpha level- levelof probability.

33

19.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF DATA

Peabody - Pre-Kindergarten

The means, standard deviations andnumber in each group are presented inTable 1.

TABLE 1

Group N Mean S.D.

Dale Avenue 98 80.0 20.50Disadvantaged 12 79.81 15.49Advantaged 15 115.26 6.12

Partitioning the variance of the Pre-test (form A) a highly significant F valueof 23.12 is obtained. This is significantwell beyond the critical value of 4.78 atthe .01 level. (see table 2)

TABLE 2

AoV PeabodyPre-Kindergarten Pre-Test (Form A)

Source Sum ofSquares

df MeanSquares

F

BetweenGroups 16611.91 2 8305.95 23.12*WithinGroups 44169.95 123 359.10

Total60781.87 ,125 ,

/

*F= 4.78D .01

34

20.

Constrasting pairs of means the datashows the advantaged group performing ata significantly higher level than the DaleAvenue or Disadvantaged Control Groups.There is no statistically significantdifference between the Dale Avenue andDisadvantaged Groups. (see table 3)

TABLE 3

Group Mean t -value

Advantaged 115.26Dale Avenue 80.0Disadvantaged 79.81i

6.71*

\ 1.0

*F= 2.260-, .01 (15,99)

The post-test (form B) shows againthat there are significant differencesbetween groups. The obtained value of12.11 being significant well beyond the.01 level of probability. (see table 4)The mean and standard deviations for thedifferent groups are presented in Table 5.

TABLE 4

AoV PeabodyPre-Kindergarten Post-Test (Form B)

Source Sum ofSquares

df MeanSquares

F

BetweenGroups 9557.17 2 4778.58 12.11WithinGroups 48112.02 122 394.36

Total 57669.20 124

F= 4.780<.01 35

21.

TABLE 5

Group N. Mean S.D.

Dale Avenue 98 89.40 19.80

Advanta.ed 15 114.06 12.44

Disadvantaged 11 81.09 24.45

Contrasting means of the groupsindicates that the Advantaged Group isstill performing at a level superior tothe other groups. Although not statis-tically significant it should be notedthat the difference between the DaleAvenue and Advantaged Groups has dimin-ished while the Dale Avenue childrenhave begun to pull away from the Dis-advantaged Control Group. (See table 6)

TABLE 6

Grou Mean

Advantaged 114.06 4.48*

Dale Wienue 89.40

Disadvantaged 81.09

*F 2.26°.( .01 (15.98)

-Score

1.31

36

22.

The progress of these childrenover the year is graphically representedin Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Peabody performance of Pre-Kinder-garten plotted over time.

120

110Advantaged

ai

100

P 90 Dale Avenue

80/0..

Disadvantaged0 704

Pre-test Posttest

37

23.

Discussion

Of the one hundred and thirty-twochildren who had the Peabody A adminis-tered to them, two Black children andtwenty Spanish speaking children werenot score able on this test. The testwas translated into Spanish and givento the Spanish speaking children. Theywere still unable to score on this ver-sion. By post-test time, only twoSpanish speaking children were not ableto score. Post-test results also showthat the Dale Avenue children had madean I.Q. gain of almost ten points bringingthe average I.Q. to within the range ofthe national norms.

24.

Peabody - Kindergarten

Analysis of Variance of the Peabody,pre-tests (form A) shows that there is asignificant difference between the meanscores for all groups. (see table 7)

TABLE 7

AoV Peabody (Form A)Source Sum of

Squaresdf Mean

SquaresF

Betweengroups 12952 4 3238 5,352*Withingroups 69015 114 605Total 81967 118

* F- 3.51°(.01

The mean, standard deviation andnumber of subjects in each group arepresented in table 8.

TABLE 8

Group N Mean S.D.

Dale Ave. 30 97.26 19.11

Advantaged 15 105.50 14.40Disadvantaged 12 78.40 27.30Weiler-Kdgn#24with P.O.R. 33 81.10 25.90O'Rourke-Kdgn#24 withoutP.O.R. 29 77.48 35.71

25.

The F ratio of 5.352 is significantbeyond the .01 level of probability.Contrasting the means for the groups, wefind that the Kindergarten Dale Avenueand Advantaged groups score significantlyhigher than do the other groups, with nosignificant difference between the DaleAvenue and Advantaged children. (seetable 9)

TABLE 9

Groups Mean F-Value

Advantaged 105.50 -1 F=1.058

Dale Avenue 92.28- F=3.02*

-Kdgn#24 81.10With P.O.R. IF=1.0Disadvantaged-Kdgn 78.40#24

!-Kdgn#24 77.48Without P.O.R.

*F= 2.300<.01 (30.33)

The Dale Avenue children also showa significant gain when post-tested withthe Peabody (Form B). The differencebetween pre and post testing being sig-nificant well beyond the .01 level witha t value of 5.869. (t= 2.75 °<.01)

The means and standard deviationfor the groups on the post-test are pre-sented in table 10.

40

26.

TABLE 10

Group N Mean S.D.

Dale Avenue 30 105.46 16.84

Advantaged 15 108.70 19.91


-Kdgn#24with P.O.R.

'=Ragn33 88.00 23.71

#24 withoutP.O.R. 29 83.62 30.2

Analysing the differences betweengroups on Form B of the Peabody we againfind that there are significant differencesin the performance of the different groups.(see table 11)

TABLE 11

AoV Peabody (Form B)Source Sum of

Squaresdf Mean

SquaresF

Betweengroups 13477.177 4 3369.294

*6.119

Withingroups 62762.570 114 550.548Total 76239.747 118

*F= 3.51°(.01

Follow-up analysis contrasting pairsof means reveals that, as in the pre-test,the Kindergarten Dale Avenue and Kinder-garten Advantaged groups score significantlyhigher than do the other groups. Thedifference is slightly greater than onthe pre-test. (F=3.36) Also, the

41

27.

difference between the Kindergarten DaleAvenue and Kindergarten Advantaged groupshas become somewhat smaller. (see table

012)

TABLE 12

Group Mean F- Value

Advantaged

Dale Avenue

Kdgn #24with P.O.R.

1 -Kdgn#24without P.O.R.

Disadvantaged

F=0.431105.46

1-- F=3.360*88.00

83.60

82.30

*F= 2.30...< .01 (30.33)

28.

Mental Age - Pre-Kindergarten

(derived from Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test)

Applying Analysis of Varinace to thepre-test data shows that there is a sig-nificant difference between groups. Theobtained F value of 15.06 is significantbeyond the .01 level of probability.(see table 13.) The mean and standarddeviation for each group is presented intable 14.

TABLE 13

AoV Pre-Test Mental Age (in months)Source Sum of I

Squaresdf Mean

SquaresF

Betweengroups 4566.23 2 2283.11 15.01Withingroups 18939.25 1 125 151.51

Total 23505.49 1 127

*F= 3.47-4 .01

TABLE 14

Mental Age in months Pre-testGroup N Mean S.D.

Dale Avenue 103 42.94 12.73

Advantaged 15 59.40 11.43


43

29.

A posteriori analysis of the meansof the groups reveals that there aresignificant differences between all groups.(see table 15.)

TABLE 15

Grou Mean

Advantaged 59.40

Dale Avenue 42.94

Disadvantaged 34.00

*F= 2.042r''' .05

Analysis of the post-test mental agescores indicates that there are signifi-cant differences among the means of thedifferent groups. (see table 16) Themeans, standard deviation and number ofsubjects are presented in table 17.

TABLE 16

AoV Mental Age Post-test (in months)Source Sum of

Squaresdf Mean

SquaresF

Betweengroups 2783.28 2 1391.64 6.96*Withingroups 24963.07 125 199.70

Total 27746.36 127

*F=3.47.(.01

44

30.

TABLE 17

Mental A e in months (Post-test) Pre-

Group N Mean S.D.

Dale Avenue 103 53.78 14.89



The obtained F value of 6.96 exceedsthe critical value beyond the .01 levelof probability.

Analysis of the group means revealsthat the differences lie between allgroups. (see table 18)

TABLE 18

Group Mean F-Values

Advantaged 62.86

Dale Avenue 53.78- *1-3.73*---2.67

Disadvantaged 40.66

*F= 2.26 *IT= 2.59 ***F= 2.59.01 -.01 "(.05

(15,103) (9,103) (9.15)

The t- test for correlated samplesshows that there was a highly significantgain in mental age between the pre andpost tests for the Dale Avenue Kinder-garten. (t= 11.36) The obtained valueis significant beyond the .001 level.

3).

The mental age gains made by thethree groups are presented gaphically inFigure-2.

FIGURE 2

Mental Age Gains of Pre-Kinder-garten groups over time. (in months)

65

0, 604 55rl04.1 500w 45

w 40

O 35

> 304

Advantaged

Dale Avenue

Disadvantaged

Pre-test Post-test

32.

Pre-Kindergarten Mental Age Gains

At pre-test, the Dale Avenue child-ren were 10.89 months behind in mentalage as compared to chronological age. Atpost-test time, the Dale Avenue group wasonly 6.06 months behind their chronologicalage. These children had increased theirmental age by 10.84 months in 6.01 monthsof chronological time.

The Disadvantaged Control Group was12 months behin:2 in mental age at pre-test time, and were 10.74 months behindat post-testing. This group had gainedan average of 6.66 months in mental ageover a period of 5.4 months.

The Advantaged Group was 14.47 monthsahead of their chronological age in termsof mental age at pre-test time. At post-test time, they were still 14.13 monthsahead. They gained an average of 3.46months of mental age in 3.80 months ofchronological age.

47

33.

Mental Age - Kindergarten

(derived from Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test)

Analysis of Variance reveals thatthere are significant differences be-tween the groups on their Mental Age onthe Pre-tests. Table 19 shows F ratioof 6.86 which is significant beyond the.01 level. The means, standard devia-tion and number of subjects are pre-sented in table 20.

TABLE 19

AoV Mental Age Pre-test (in months)Source Sum of

Squaresdf Mean

SquaresF


Total 57802.37 128

*F= 3.471.<.01

TABLE 20

KindergartenMental Age in, months (Pre - Test)

Group N Mean S.D.


Dale Avenue 30 67.66 17.81

Kdgn#24 withP.O.R. 35 52.82 20.49

Kdgn#24 withoutP.O.R. 34 51.14 25.78


-48

34.

A posteriori analysis reveals thatthe means for the Kindergarten DaleAvenue and Kindergarten Advantaged Con-trol Group are significantly higher thanfor the other three groups. (see table21)

TABLE 21

Group Mean F-Score

Advantaged 77.0F= 1.39

Dale Avenue 67.6 ..F= 2.81*

Kdgn#24 withP.O.R. 52.8

F= 1.0Kdgn#24 withoutP.O.R. 51.4

Disadvantaged 47.8

*F= 2.300(.01 (30.35)

As shown in Table 21 the obtainedF value is significant beyond the .05level.

Analysis of the Post-test resultsindicate that as in the Pre-test theDale Avenue and Advantaged groups scoresignificantly higher than the othergroups. The results of the Analysis ofVariance are presented in Table 22. Themeans, standard deviation and number ofsubjects are presented in table 23.

35.

TABLE 22

AoV Mental Age Post-tests (in months)Source Sum of

Squaresdf :Nan

SquaresF

Betweengroups 14332.3 4 '3583.07 9.04*Withingroups 49927.24j 126 396.24

Total 64259.55 130

*F= 3.47.01

TABLE 23

Kindergarten)Mental Age in months Post-test

Grou Mean S.D.


Dale Avenue 30 78.50 16.22

Kdgn#24 with P.O. 35 58.97 19.90'

Kdgn424 withoutP.O. 34 58.67 23.53


Follow up analysis of the group meansshows that the difference between theKindergarten Dale Avenue and the Advan-taged Group are even more significantwhen compared to the other groups. (seetable 24.)

50

36.

TABLE 24

Group Mean F-Score

Advantaged 81.93F= .054

Dale Avenue 78.50 1

--- F=3.97*Kdgn #24 with P.O. 58.97

......

F=1.0Kdgn #24 withoutP.O. 58.67

Disadvantaged 53.8

* 2.30.01 (30.35)

The data for the Mental Age gains ofthe different groups is graphically re-presented in Figure-3.

FIGURE 3

Mental Age Gains (in months) ofKindergarten groups over time.

U

4t;"

4.)

P

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

10.011.a. .11.

emlso..040

4

AdvantagedDale Avenue

School#24-P.O.RSchool#24-withoP.O.R.Disadvantaged

Pre-test Post-test4

37.

It should be noted that the obtainedt value of 3.97 is greater than thatfound on the pre-test. It should befurther noted that the statistical dif-ference between the Kindergarten DaleAvenue Group, and the Advantaged ControlGroup is even less than it was at pre-test time.

Kindergarten - M.A. Gains

The Dale Avenue children were 1.06months ahead in their mental age as com-pared to their chronological age at pre-test time. At post-test time, they were7.04 months ahead. They had gained 10.84months of mental age in an average of3.86 months of chronological time.

The Advantaged Control Group was5.54 months ahead of their chronologicalage in terms-31iental age at pre-testing.At post-test time they were 8.87 monthsahead in terms of mental age. They hadgained 4.93 months of mental age in 1.6months of chronological time.

The Disadvantaged Control Group was19.20 months behind their chronologicalage at pre-testl At post-testing theywere 16.4 months behind. They had gained5.94 months in menta age over a periodof 3.14 months.

The Control Group- School # 24 with-out performance objectives was 17.74months behind in mental age at pre-testtivae. They still 13.97 months be-hind at post-test time. They had gained7.03 months of mental age over a periodof 3.76 months.

52

38.

The Control Group- School #24 withperformance objectives was 14.09 monthsbehind at pre-test time. They were 10.moths behind at post-test time.They gained an average of 7.46 months ofmental age over a period of 3.74 months.

53

39.

Skill Assessment- Pre-Kindergarten

Applying Analysis of Variance tothe Skill Assessment pre-tests revealsthat theke are significant differencesamong the means of the groups. The ob-tained F value of 9.32 exceeds the cri-tical value at the .01 level. (see table25) The means, standard deviation andnumber of subjects are presented intable 26.

TABLE 25

Pre-KindergartenAoV Skill Assessment PretestSource : Sum of

Squaresdf Mean

SauaresF

Betweengroups 7788.75 2 3894.37 9.AWithingroups 53465.94 128 417.70

Total .61254.70 130

*F= 4.78'4f.01

TABLE 26

Group Mean S.D.


Dale Avenue 101 52.20 20.31


54

40.

A Posteriori analysis shows thatthere are significant differences amongthe means of all groups. (see table 27)

TABLE 27

Group Mean F=Score

Advantaged 53.96

Dale Avenue 52.20

Disadvantaged 31.71

F=2.08*

F=3.52**

*F= 1.79 **F= 2.26"(.01

(15,101) (14,101)

The advantaged group performs bestfollowed by the Dale Avenue and Disad-vantaged Groups in that order.

Analysis of the Skill AssessmentPost-test shows that there are signifi-cant differences between the means of thegroups. The obtained F value of 36.94is highly significant. (see table 28).The means, standard deviation and numberof subjects are presented in table 29.

TABLE 28

PreKindergartenAoV Skill Assessment Post-testSource Sum of

Squares' df Mean

SquaresF

Betweengroups 17906.42 2 8953.21 36.94Withingroups 31020.18 128 242.34Total 48926.61 130

F= 4.78 58.01

41.

TABLE 29

Group N Mean S.D.

,Advantaged 15 77.73 17.98

'Dale Avenue 101 81.70 13.90

tDisadvantaged 14 43.64 23.06

The analysis of means following thepartitioning of sums of squares providessome very interesting results. The DaleAvenue Pre-kindergarten children actuallyoutperform the Advantaged Controls al-though the difference is not statisticallysignificant. (see table 30.)

TABLE 30

Group Mean F-Score

Dale AvenueF= 0.92

Advantaged 77.73-- F= 5.89*

Disadvantaged 43.64_

*F=2.042'C. 05

56

, 42.

The previous data is graphicallypresented in Figure-4.

FIGURE 4

Mean Skill Assessment Scores Pre-Kindergarten Plotted Over Time.

90cu

o 80ocrl 704-1

60ccu

50 /u)

40cu

u)

4 30 t- `-u)

Dale AvenueAdvantaged

Disadvantaged

Pre-test Post-test.--1

.--1

...-1

xm

57

43.

On this particular test, the DaleAvenue children make tremendous gainsbetween pre and post testing (t= 15.00,p <.001). Although the disadvantagedgroup makes some gain, they are actuallyfalling further behind in terms of theirperformance relative to the other groups.

Skill Assessment - Kindergarten

An Analysis of Variance was appliedto the pre-test data. The resulting F

value of 11.43 was highly significant,well beyond the .01 level of probability.(see table 31). The means, standarddeviation and number of subjects are pre-sented in table 32.

TABLE 31

KindergartenAoV Skill Assessment Pre-testSource Sum of

Squaresdr Mean

SquaresF


Total 33293.73 123 .

*F= 3.510C-.01

58

(1?

44.

TABLE 32

Group N Mean S.D.


Dale Avenue 30 73.40 12.11

Kdgn#24 with P.O.R. 34 58.50 15.96

Kdgn#24 withoutP.O.R. 30 58.84 14.66


A Posteriori analysis, contrastingpairs of means shows that the Kindergar-ten Dale Avenue and Advantaged Controlsscored significantly better on this testthan did the other groups. There was nosignificant difference between the Ad-vantaged and Dale Avenue children.

TABLE 33

Group Mean F-Score(on score of 100)

Kdgn. Advantaged 79.16--F =1.28

Kdgn. Dale Avenue 73.40 ----F=4.00*

Kdgn.#24 withoutP.O.R. 58.84--

--F=1.0Kdgn.#24 withP.O.R. 58.50_

Kdgn. Disadvantaged 54.45

*F= 2.300(.01 (30,34)

59

45,

As can be seen from table 33 the Fvalue for the contrasted difference be-tween the Dale and Advantaged Kindergar-ten groups and all other Kindergartengroups far exceeds the critical valuefor F at the .01 level.

A t test for correlated sampleswas applied to the pre and post differ-ences on the Skill Assessment Test andyielded a t value of 7.80 which issignificant beyond the .01 level of pro-bability.

The results of the post-test onSkill Assessment reveals much the samething as the pre-test. Analysis ofVariance reveals significant differencesamong means for all groups. (see table34). The means, standard deviation andnumber.of subjects are presented in table35.

TABLE 34

KindergartenAoV Skill Assessment Post-testSource Sum of

Squaresdf Mean

SquaresF


Total 27997.55 123

*F= 3.510"(.01

46

TABLE 35

Grou Mean S.D.


Dale Avenue 30 84.71 9.61

Kdgn#24 withP.O.R. 34 72.11 15.37

Kdgn#24 withoutP.O.R. 30 68.98 13.11


The F value of 11.18 far exceedsthat expected at .01 level o1 probability.Post analysis of the data shows that theKindergarten Advantaged and Dale Avenuechildren score significantly higher thanthe other groups, with no difference be-tween the former. (see table 36)

TABLE 36

Group Mean F-Score

Kdgn. Dale Avenue

Kdgn. Advantaged

Kdgn.#24

84.71

84. 50F=1.0

F=3.05*with

P.O.R. 72.11F=1.0

Kdgn.#24 withoutP.O.R. 68.98

Kdgn. Disadvantaged 62.98*r= 2.66

o< .01 (15.34)

61

47.

** It is interesting to note thatalthough there was no significant cifference between the Kindergarten DaleAvenue and Kindergarten Advantaged groups,the Kindergarten Dale Avenue group actu-ally scored higher on the average on thistest than did the Advantaged Controls.

The above data is presented graph-ically in Figure- 5.

FIGURE-5

Mean Skill Assessment ScoresKindergarten- Plotted over time.

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

Pre-test

Dale AvenueAdvantaged

School#24 without P.O.RSchool#24 with P.O.R.

Disadvantaged

Post-test

48.

Identity and Body Parts-Pre-Kindergarten

Analysis of the pre-test shows thatthere is significant difference be-among groups. The F value of 9.28being significant beyond the .01 level.(see table 37). The means, standarddeviation and number of subjects are pre-sented in table 38.

TABLE 37

Pre-KindergartenAoV Identity and Body Parts Pre-TestSource Sum of

Squaresdf Mean

SquaresF


Total 42429.05 127

*F= 4.780.01

TABLE 38

Crou Mean S.D.


Dale Avenue 100 71.70 17.50


63

49.

A Posteriori analysis of means re-veals that the Dale Avenue and Advantagedgroups score significantly higher onthis test than do the Disadvantaged group.(see table 39)

TABLE 39

Group Mean F-Score

Dale Avenue 71.7F =0.92

Advantaged 67.3 -1

F=2.72*Disadvantaged 49.2

*F= 2.48x.05 (12.15)

Even though the pre-test scoreswere inflated the children still showeda significant increase between pre andpost testing. The t value for corre-lated samples was 9.0 exceeding thecritical (t °C. 01) of 3.40.

50.

Identity and Body Parts-Pre-Kindergarten

Analysis of the post-test data in-dicates, that there are still differenceslamong groups. The F value of 45.62being very significant well beyond the.01 level. (see table 40). The means,standard deviation and number of subjectsare presented in table 41.

TABLE 40

Pre-KindergartenAoV Identity and Body Parts_.-lost-testSource Sum of df Mean

Squares SquaresBetweengroups 10794.15 2 5397.07 45.62*Withingroups 14667.14 124 118.28

Total _I 25461 . 29 126

* F= 4.78IK .01

TABLE 41

Group N Mean S.D.


Dale Avenue 100 88.60 9.50


65

51.

A Posteriori analysis of the meansof the groups on the post-test revealsthat the Dale Avenue children scoresignificantly better than the Advan-taged Control Group. (see table 42).This contrasts to the pre-test scoreswhere the Dale Avenue subjects scoredhigher than the Advantaged Controls butnot significantly so.

TABLE 42

Grou Mean F-Score

Dale Avenue 88.6--F= 3.47*

Advantaged 78.13-F= 4.87*

Disadvantaged 57.62_

* F=2.26<. 01(15.100)

**F= 3.80'21(.01

(12.15)

The Identity and Body Parts resultsare graphically represented in Figure-6.

52.

FIGURE 6

Pre-Kindergarten - Identity andBody Parts Scores- Plotted Over Time.

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

Dale Avenue

Advantaged

Disadvantaged

1

Pre-test Post-test

67

53.

Identity and Body Parts- Kindergarten

Analysis of the pre-test data showsthat there is a significant differenceamong i groups. (see table 43). Themeans, standard deviation and number ofsubjects are presented in table 44.

TABLE 43

KindergartenAoV Identity and Body Parts Pre-testSource Sum of

Squaresdf Mean

SquaresF


Total 46360.15 125

*F= 3.47016(.01

TABLE 44

Grou Mean S.D.



Kdgn#24 withP.O.R. 35 69.00 17.70

Kdgn#24 withoutP.O.R. 30 63.00 18.80


68

54.

A Posteriori analysis indicatesthat the Dale Avenue and AdvantagedControls score significantly higher thanthe other groups, with no statisticaldifference between Dale Avenue and theAdvantaged Controls. (see table 45)

TABLE 45

Grou

Advantaged

Dale Avenue

Kdgn#24 withP.O.R.

Kdgn#24 withoutP.O.R.

Disadvantaged

Mean F -Score

86.01.F =1.18

79.6F=2.48*

69.0

63.0

56.4

*F=2.300<.01

(30.35)

F=<1.0

Analysis of the post-test data re-veals that there are significant differ-ences among groups. The F value of12.30 exceeas that expected beyond the.01 level of probability. (see table 46).The mean, standard deviation and numberof subjects are presented in table 47.

69

55

TABLE 46

KindergartenAoV Identity and Body Parts Post-testSource Sum of

Squaresdf Mean

SquaresF

Betweengroups 9880,86 4 2470.21 12.30*Withingroups 24288.60 121 200.73

Total 34169.46 125

*F= 3.47-0(.01

TABLE 47

Grou Mean S.D.



Kdgn#24 withP.O.R. 35 82.90 14.40

Kdgn#24 withoutP.O.R. 30 68.20 20.90


Post analysis of the contrasts be-tween means shows that the Dale AvenueAdvantaged and now the Kdgn #24 with thePerformance Objectives score significant-ly better than the Kdgn#24 without thePerformance Objectives and DisadvantagedGroup. (see table 48.)

56.

TABLE 48

Group Mean F-Score

Dale Avenue

Advantaged

Kdgn#24 withP.O.R.

Kdgn#24 withoutP.O.R.

Disadvantaged

88.6

87.5

82.9--

68.2

64.3

F=c1.0

F= 1.05

F= 3.48*

* F= 2.30Is< .01

(30.35)

The post-test data on the Identityand Body Parts Kindergarten is presentedgraphically in Figure-7.

Kindergarten - Identity and BodyParts Scores- Plotted over time.

FIGURE 7

4.) 90.00 Dale Avenue

,_------de---- AdvantagedItl 85ca4

..-..0 School#24 with P.O.R.

> 80 e ..... ..no .o

/

-75

'.

T1 70 ..'School#24 without P.O.;0

rtl 65 r ------........ Disadvantaged

4.)>I 60

----..--

74) 55 rPre-test

-Post-test0

rid

H 71

57.

DISCUSSION

The test data indicates that theDale Avenue Pre-Kindergarten and Kinder-garten children have shown significantgains on the Identity and Body PartsChecklist, Peabody Picture VocabularyTest and Skill Assessment Test far ex-ceeding that of the Disadvantaged ControlGroups.

Comparing the pre and post test per-formance can the Peabody Picture VocabularyTest and Skill Assessment Test it can beseen that although the Dale Avenue childrendo not reach a level comparable to the ad-vantaged groups, the gap is not as greatat post-test time as at pre-test time.The disadvantaged groups, however, arestill very far behind.

Since the Title III team was nothired until October 15, 1970, pre-testingdid not begin until some eight or tenweeks into the school year. During thisperiod the children were taught many ofthe items found on the tests. The post-test results, although outstanding,would have been even more so if pre-testinghad occured at the very beginning of theschool year prior to teaching.

It is interesting to note that onthe Identity and Body Parts Checklist theDale youngsters score better than theadvantaged group. (Special emphasis isplaced on knowledge of self). The Kinder-garten #24 with Performance ObjectivesGroup made substantial gains in perform-ance on this test, raising their averagescore almost 14 points. A possible ex-planation for this might be the stressplaced on these items when feedback waspresented to the teachex,9Since School

frw

58.

#24 group was not given feedback untilabout five months into the school year,this gain is a great credit to the teacherand children.

We on the Title III team feel thatthe Pre-kindergarten and Kindergartenprogram in Dale Avenue School has dis-played outstanding results for a varietyof reasons. This, of course, is oursubjective analysis.

In the Pre-kindergarten the five toone ratio allows for much individual andsmall group attention. The needs of thechildren can be met much more easily thanin a large classroom situation where theratio is perhaps twenty-six to one. Al-though in the Kindergarten the ratio isapproximately ten to one, small groupand individual attention can still begiven.

The feedback that is quickly givento the teachers on the test results, allowsthem to ascertain what skills particularchildren need to learn, in which groupto include them, and what strengths andweaknesses they possess. If the teacheris not sure how to tackle the specialproblems of the individual children, ex-pert guidance from the appropriate source(speech therapist, audiologist, psycho-logist, project director) is available.Activities for remediation or developmentand resource materials are suggested andavailable. The Title III open officepolicy allows for constant discussion withteachers on individual needs of children.After classrooms are monitored additionalsuggestions are given to the teachers.

'73

59.

Parents think highly of the Pre-kindergarten and Kindergarten Program asindicated on the questionaires that theyfilled out and returned to the school inJune, 1971. Their positive attitude mayrub off on their children and vice versa.Parents in Pre-kindergarten and Kindergar-ten are required to attend three con-ferences a year at which time they reviewtheir children's progress on the Individ-ual Performance Objective Record Booklets.They are given suggestions on how theycan help their children at home. SeveralKindergarten mothers have also volunteeredas teacher-moms and have worked on a oneto one basis with other Kindergartenchildren. Before they work with thesechildren who display learning difficulties,the teacher-moms attend training sessionsunder the guidance of the Project Director.

Dale Avenue School has developed afine reputatica and members of the generalpopulation of Paterson want their childrento attend the school. Since it is impos-sible to accept all those who apply, it istherefore, an easy task to make parentinvolvement mandatory. P.T.A. meetingsare crowded. Parents want to participate.They willingly act as tour guides, spendhours making tour guide vests, attendreading and language workshops, attendand participate at conferences where DaleAvenue is highlighted, cook, bake andserve at Dale Avenue functions, work in thelibrary, model in our fashion show andserve on the Parent Committee.

It is also possible that the physicalappearance of the school plays a role inthe Pre-kindergarten and Kindergarten re-sults. Children may very well take specialpride in and enjoy working in the peace-

60.

ful, cheerful atmosphere of this school.The carpeted floors, art decorated hall-ways, air conditioned surroundings, bath-rooms adjacent to the classrooms, manymanipulative materials provided by TitleI funds for the Pre-kindergarten and someadditional materials provided by thesefunds for the Kindergarten, help to makelearning a joyful experience.

The warm, pleasant attitudes of thehand picked Pre-kindergarten and Kinder-garten teachers and aides who work inthis program can also have a positiveaffect on the children. Although thePre-kindergarten and Kindergarten programsare structured rather than Traditional(as regards the skills that are to betaught) the teachers can use their owncreativity to teach these skills in anyway they wish. The Performance ObjectiveRecord provides for teacher accountabilitysince it indicates whether and hOw muchchildren progress in each area (listening,naming, etc.). The relaxed attitude ofthe teachers helps to make the openvisiting policy of the school so success-ful. The children seem to take the steadystream of visitors in their stride just asthe teachers do. The children also takethe testing program as an expected partof their school lives. Rapport is easilygained between children and testers andfright and strain are not part of thetesting situation. In fact the childrenseem to thrive on the individual attention.

The many workshops that the teachers,paraprofessionals, parents, local and outof town visitors attend provide in-servicetraining. These sessions are held duringschool hours whenever possible. The useof the classroom perceptual training

75

61

materials, suggestions for developingreceptive and expressive language, forworking with children with learning andbehavior problems and a rationale and de-scription of our testing program are someof the areas covered in the workshops.

The art, music, physical education,science and speech specialists provideinvaluable help to the Pre-kindergartenand Kindergarten teachers in many areasincluded in the Performance ObjectiveRecord. In many instances they providestimulating first experiences in teachingskills and give suggestions to the teacherson how they can follow through.

The children, teachers, administratorsand parents have all been pleased withwhat happened in Pre-kindergarten andKindergarten during the 1970-71 year.We want our children to continue intoKindergarten and First Grade with thesame joy and sense of achievement andworth. To help them to maintain theirgains (or possibly show additional gains),to keep them stimulated, joyful and movingat their own rate from skill to skill isour goal for the 1971-72 school year.

62.

BITLIn RAPHY

Lavatlli, Celia Stendlcr, Early Child-hood Curriculum, "Piaget's TheoryApplied to A-76-nter for ledia Develop-ment," Inc. Book, American Scienceand Engineering, Inc., Boston, 1970,p. 54.

Test and Educational Materials Catalog,American Guidance Service, Inc.,(Minnesota, 1969), p.4.

77

DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME. A Title III E.S.E.A. Project, Education. Research...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME. A Title III E.S.E.A. Project, Education. Research...