Development of a Readiness Test for Disadvantaged Pre-School Children in the United States"

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 037 253 24 PS 003 091 AUTHOR Walker, Wanda TITLE Development of a Readiness Testfor Disadvantaged Pre-School Children in the UnitedStates. Final Report. INSTITUTION Northwest Missouri State Coll.,Maryville: SPONS AGENCY Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C. Bureau of Research. BUREAU NO BR-9-F-017 PUB DATE 31 Oct-69 GRANT OEG -6 -9- 009017 -0059 (010) NOTE 147p.

EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF-$0.75 HC-$7.45 DESCRIPTORS *Culturally Disadvantaged,*Culture Free Tests, Item Analysis, *Preschool Children,*Readiness, Standardized Tests, *Test Construction,Test Reliability, Test Validity, VisualMeasures IDENTIFIERS Walker Readiness Test

ABSTRACT The object of this projectwas to develop a culture-fair, nonverbal individualreadiness test for disadvantaged preschool children. Two equivalentforms of the test were developed so that teachers could administer the firstform to identify needs early in a preschoolprogram, set up specific remedialprograms for individuals, anduse the second form of the test toassess the efficiency of theprogram and individual progress. A total of6662 children in 364 Head Start andDay Care Centerswere tested to refine and standardize Form A of theTest. Analysis and norxing ofForm B was carried on in 301 centers with 527 children participating::Item analyses of both forms of thetest were made. The data indicatethat both forms of the testare sufficiently valid and reliable foruse in an evaluation program for disadvantagedpreschool children. Two-thirds of this report givessupplementary and appendix materials which include statistical tables,data of participants in the research project and facsimiliesof Form A and Form B of thetest develcped. (MS) U.S. DErssusalarelPIRMIL41. EDUCATION A WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEM REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING It POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECES- SARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE 00 EDU- CATION POSITION OR POLICY.

.1).1..11 -'nn wom y -- c,_0t4(.17rtnc9 0±0)

RaELOPMNT CR A P17.:0111PSS TEST FOR DISAT)VAN- TAGED PRE-SCHOOL ChaLatt.Z.flIN TEE UNITED STATF3

Dr. Wanda Walker Professor of Psychology Division of Education and Psr:thoIogy Mibzdmi-StPteCollege ?-11s3Dul-i 64468

October 31, 1969

The -,e,;er,-r-ch h----re511. was 1..e-r.fr,rmed Pursuantto a eranT, the U. S. +11 1?-117c..'Ei-5 Welfare. ContrPct,..)rs uno.ertakinv pro7ects under Clcve.,:nres.:t sponsorbis::p are enecrirag.ed o ex:-)ress ,1 freely thr,ar 7-roPe=i-,nal , 0 r conaue; of tfle , A statc;L, %..to not f..1-ie-r-P!-r:1T.- o:ficia.1 Office of f=cstion :)siti.11 - 1

R . : 1^, pfillf-,="14..1 (.715 z

Oriice of Education Broreau of Rese=r-ch OE Bureau of Research No. 9-F-017 Grant No. OEG-6- 9-009017 -0059 (010)

Contents

List of Tables

Preface

Summary Vi Introduction' 1

Methods 6 ItemAnalysis 9 Determining Validity of Readiness Tests 11 Determining Reliability of Readiness Tests 15

Findings and Analysis 17 Validity of Readiness Tests 17 Reliability of Readiness Tests 22 Administration of Tests 25 Scoring of Tests 26 Interpretationand Application of Results 26 Representativeness of the Sample_ 27 -Statistical Analysis-of Returnsfor Form Aof Readiness _Test 28 Statistical Analysis of Returnsfor FormB of Readiness Test

Conclusions and Recommendations 53 Conclusions 53 Recommendations 54

Supplementaryand AppendixMaterials 56 Bibliography 56 Appendixes 57 A. Scattergrams and Product-Moment Coefficient of Correlation between Form A and Form B of Test for Various Groups 57 B. Rank Coefficient of Correlation between Teachersl-Ranks of Children and Children's Scores on Form A and Form B of Teat and between Form A and Form B Test Scores 63 C. Correlations between Form A and Form B of That and Various Standardised Tests 82 D. Statistical Tables for Children Enrolled in Selected Urban

and Rural Summer Programs for "In Depth" Evaluation , 84 E. Participants in Research Project 86 1. Comparison of Sample Children with 1968 Enrollment Data 86 2. States and 0E0 Regions Which Participated in Project 88 3. States and Numbers of Participants from Each for Form A 90 4. States and Numbers of Participants fromEachfor FormB 91 F. List of Community Action Programs Which Participated in the Research Project (Arranged Alphabetically by States) 93 G. Refined Form A of Test with Sample Answer Sheet, Scoring Stencil, Percentile Ranks and Statistical Measurements 113 N. Refined Form B of Test with Sample Answer Sheet, Scoring Stencil, Percentile Ranks and Statistical Measurements 127 LIST OF TABLES IN REPORT Table

I. Summary of Form A Test Scores Made byChildren in Full- Year Program, by Population, Race,and Sex II. Summary of Form A Test Scores Madeby Children in Summer Program, by Population,Race, and Sex 31 III. Summary of Form A Test Scores Fadeby Children in Full- Year and Summer Programs, by Population,Race, and Sex 32 IVC Summary of.Form A Test Scores for Childrenof 3ifferent Ages Enrolled in Full-Year and SummerPrograms 33 V. . Summary of Form A Test Scores for Childrenof Different Ages Enrolled in Urban and RuralPrograms '34 VI. Summary of Form A Test Scores for Boys andGirls of Dif- ferent Ages Enrolled in Full -'!ear andSummer. Programs 35 VII. Form A Scores and Percentile Ranks forChildren of Dif- ferent Ages Enrolled in Full4ear andSummer Programs 37 VIII. Mean, Median,Q3, Ql, Q, and Standard Deviation for Various Classifications of Children in NormingGroup for Form A of Readiness Test , 38 Readiness Test for Disadvantaged Pre-School Children in the United States (Form A) ItemAnalysis: Difficulty andDiscrimination 39- X. Summary of Form B Test Scores Made- by -Childrenla tu11- 10Wki Population,'Race, andOei 42. XI.-Suommator Form B Test Scores Made byChildren in Summer Program, by Population, Race, andSex 43 XII.Sumary of Form B Test Scores Made by Children-in Tear and &liner Programs, by Population,Race,and'Sex 44 XIII.Summary of Form B Test Scores for Children ofDifferent Ages Enrolled in Full-Tear andSummer Programs 45 XIV. Summary of Form B Test Scores for Children ofDifferent Ages Enrolled in Urban and Rural Programs XV. Summary of FormBTest Scores for Boys and Girls of Dif- ferent Ages Enrolled in Full-YearandSummer-Programs 48 XVI. FormB StoreS and Percentile Ranks for Childrenof Dif Went Ages Enrolled in lull --Yearr-andSummer Programs 49 XVII. Mean, Median,A3,011, Q, and Standard Deviation for VariousClassifications of Children in NOrmingGroup for FormBof Readiness Test 50 XVIII.Readiness Testfor DisadvantagedPre-School Children lathe United -States (Form B) ItemAnalysis: Difficulty and Discrimination-' 51 XIX. Product Moment Coefficient of Correlationand Scatter- for 1605Urban Children Enrolled in Full4eartead and Day Care Centers, Showing Relationshipbetween Scares 'on Form A and Form B of Test 57 Proddet Moment Coefficient of Correlationand Scatter gram for 1302 Rural Children Enrolledin Full.4ear Head Start and Day Care Centers, ShowingRelationship between Stores on Form A and FormBof Test 58 LIST OF TABLES IN REPORT(CONTINUED) V4°- XXI. Product Moment Coefficient ofCorrelation and Scatter- gram for $85 Urban-ChildrenEnrolled,in PrunerMead Start Centers, ShowingRelationship between Scores an Form A and Form Bof Test 59 XXII. Product Moment Coefficient ofCorrelation and Scatter- gram for 671 Rural CholdrenEnrolled in Summer Hied Start Centers, ShowingRelationship between Scores on. room A .endForm B 'of Test 60 XXIII. Product Moment Coefficient of.Correlation andSetiter- gram for 385Rural ChildrenEnrolled in Summer Head Start Programs in CentersSelected for "In Depth" ] Ihreluation of _Tests , xxrv. -ProdirctMoment Coefficient of Correlationand Scatter- gram for 537 UrbanChildrenEnrolled in.Surreter Head Start Pivgrains in Centers Selectedfor "In Depth" ithiluittion of Tests 62 Rank Coefficient of Correlationbetween Teacher's' Ranks of Childven and, Children'sScores onFootA ward Form J8 Of Test and between FormA. and Form B-Teet 84:Ores in -Full-Year Urban Prnra,us '103 XXVI. Rank _COeffidint of Correlation_hetween Teacher* ;$1hildren and Chilitteres'lcOres:4n. Of lest ,and beta en.tOrm.11.Send tom R hest 'Oar morel l'vitrms ' XXVII.Hardt 'COeffiCient of'Corielition 'between Tea Ranks of Children and Children'sScores on POI* A ?rsB Test -end betweenlorm A andcorm B Test -SaireS in Sumer Urban Programs _ 72 XXIII. Rank Coefficient .ofCorrelation between Tea*rs!' Rainks;of Children and -Children'sScores on.FOrm and.-Form B Of Testand.betwein Perm, A and .ForeB:Test Scores in SumerRural. Programs - 73 XXIX. Rank Coefficient of'Correlation between Teachers' Ranks of Children and --Children'sScores on Form A and Form B of Test and .betweenFOrer Aand Form .2Test Scores in SummerUrbanPrograms Selested-foreln Depth" cation of Instruments 75 :00C. Rank Coefficient ofCorrelation between Teachers' Ranks of Children andChildren's Scores on Form- A and Form B of Test andbetween Form A and Form B Test Scores in Simmer RuralPrograms Selected for "InDepth" Evaluation of Instruments 77 Rank Coefficient of Correlationbetween Teachers' Ranks of Children and Children'sScores on One Form of Test when Other Form hotAdministered in Full-Year and Summer: Urban Programs 79 xxni. Rank Coefficientof Correlation between Teachers' Ranks of Children and Children'Scores on One Form of.Test when Other Form NotAdministered in Full -Year and Summer Rural Programs LIST OF TABLES IN REPORT (CONTINUED) 'Table MM. Rank Coefficient of Correlation between Teachers' Ranks Of Children and Children's Scoreson Form A and Form B of Test and between Form A and FormB Test, Scores in Programs Whose Returns Were Too Late

for Inclusion in Other Tables . 81 XXXIV. Rank Coefficient of Correlation between Scoreson Various Standardized-Tests and Form A and Form B of WalkerReadi- ness Test and between Scores on Standardized Tests and Teachers' Rankings of Children in Their Order ofReadi- ness for Entrance into Public School Programs 82 ,XXXV. Summary of Form A and Form B Scores. Made by All Child- ren Enrolled in Selected Urban Summer Programs Used in *In Depth" Evaluation of Instruments 84 3COEVI4, Summary of Form-A and Form B. Scores Made by All Child- ren M&ilkirolled in Selected Rural Summer Programs Used in Evaluation of Instruments. 85 Project Mead Start:Children and Family .Information - -(Per Cents), 1968, Compared with 1969PrOject Data 86 UXVIII.Comparison Of 1968 Data Furnished .by the ^Research-and Evaluation Analyst for Project Head Start and DataCon- cern14- Representativeness of the Sampling Involvedin 'Project 7.,or Spring-and Sunnier, 1969 States by 0E0 Regions Which ProVided Sampling forTest- Programs*Standardization (Forms - A and B), Full-Year and Summer LOO L. 0E0 Regions -and Stites Which Provided.Simpling for Test-Standardization (Forms A and 8), Urban, Rural, and Total XXXXI. Parbi'dants'-in'itesearch Project.by States: Rara3. and Urban, Full-Year and Summer Programs (Form A) =MIL Participants..in.Research Project:by States: 'Thital'and Urban,. Full-rear and Summer Programs (Form B)

MAP PRESENTED IN''REPORT Map I: -Participota in Standardizatitt of 'Readiness Test:0 by States and Office of EconoMic Opportunity 'Regions 92 OE Bureau of Research No. 9-F-017Grant No. OEG-6-9-009017-0059 (010)

Period: January 1,1969, to October 31,1969; Date Submitted: October 31

Name of Institution: Division of Education and Psychology Northwest Missouri State College Maryville, Missouri 64468

Title of Project: "Development of a Readiness Test for Disadvantaged Pre-School Children in the United States"

Name of Project Director:Dr. Wanda Walker

Office of Education Division or Staff Office: Educational Research Region VI

PREFACE

The major field investigated in this research project was the development of culture-fair, non-verbal (pictures and symbols) individual readiness tests for culturally disadvantaged pre-school children in the nation. Two forms are included with this report; it is recommended that one form.be administered early in the school program for pre-school children and the other during the final weeks in order to evaluate their progress. Such readiness tests show promise of improving education particu- larly for children who have been culturally and economically deprived.

The report is organized in such a way that the two forms of the test may be removed from the Appendixes and disseminated to persons in the United States who are interested in the evaluation of, disadvantaged pre-school children. A summary of statistical tables and percentile norms are included on the last page of each of the two forms of the test.

Also included in the appendixes is a list of three hundred sixty-six NationalCommunity Action Programs which were involved in the standardization of the tests which were developed and refined during the time of the project. The author is humbly grateful for. the many hours of volunteer time given to the project by the hundreds of Head-Start and Day- Care Center Directors, teachers, curriculum coordinators, and others who administered the tests to their children after they had ranked the children in their order of readiness for entrance into public school programs. Without their cooperation, this project could not have been conducted. No research can be conducted without the enthusiastic help and support of many people. The author is grateful not only to the teachers and others in the field who participated in the project but also to the dozens of consultants at Northwest Missouri State College and in the district who encouraged and assisted her in many ways. She is especially grateful to Dr. Robert P. Foster, President, to the Deans, and to the Divi- 'sion and Department Chairmen for releasing her from teaching.one class in order to devote the extra time to the project; to Dr. Joseph Dreps, Professor Emeritus and Past-Chairman of the Department of Foreign Lan- guages, for translating the directions for the tests into both French and Spanish to increase the value and usability-of the instruments; and to Mr. Robert Sunkel, Chairman of the Art Department, for his help.v OE Bureau of Research No.9-F-017Grant No. 0EG-6-9-009017-0059(010) SUMMARY

The major objective of thisproject was to develop a culture-fair, non-verbal individual readiness testfor disadvantaged pre-school children in the UnitedStates. Anticipated outcomes included:(1) refined, easily administered tests withadequate directions to insureuniform results with a minimum of time investedby teachers; (2) norms in theform of percentile ranks for rural andurban, full-year and summer, boysand girls of different chronological ages;(3) equivalent. forms of the test so that teachersmay administer the first form toidentify weaknesses early during the program, set upspecific remedial programs -forindivi- dual children based on their needs,then use the second form ofthe test to assess the efficiency ofthe program and progress made byeach child; and (4) dissemination of resultsthrough ERIC.

Five hundred ninety-two invitationsto participate in the project were mailed toagencies. selected at random fromthe CAP PamphletC/CA -3, Directory-CAP Grantees, Office ofEconomic Opportunity. Three hundred sixty-four Head -Start and'Day CareCenters with. a total of6662 children cooperated inrefining and standardizing Form A ofthe test; 208 centers enrolling 3591 children wereurban,. 156 enrolling 3071Children were 'rural; 234 centersith an enrollment of 4256participated during full -year. programs, 130 centerswith 2406 children participatedduring summer programs. Three hundred one centers'wererepresented in the analysis and forming of Form B of thetest, 'with a total of 5271children participating;, 166 centers enrolling2727 children were urban, 135 enrolling 2544 children were rural;182 centers represented by 3132 children participated in theirfull-year program; 119 centersenrolling 2139 children participated during summer programs. EVery state had at least one sample class of childreninvolved in the project.

Both curricular and empirical orstatistical validity were assessed for the instruments.- Scores werecompared with children's scores on standardized tests and-with teachers'appraisal of children's readiness for entrance into public schools. Three methods were used to assess the reliability of the instruments. Percentile norms and various measures of centraltendency, variability, andcorrelation were computed at different stagesduring the project. Careful item analyses of both Form A and Form B resulted ininstruments with proper levelof diffi- items culty and positive discriminativevalue for the 50 multiple-choice included in each form of thetest.

Begun in the rural settingof Northwest Missouri,administration of the instruments in urbanand metropolitan centers tochildren whose resulted in proved ages ranged fromunder three years to nine years, merit for- applicability andpossible improved educationalpractices and instructional materials in the areaof' pre-school programs fordisad- vantaged children. The.objective of preparing and refiningculture- fair insCruments to be used inassessment of children's readinessfor entrance into public school programs wasaccomplished. vi INTRODUCTION

The problem of evaluatingchildren enrolled in HeadStart and has been complicated by Day Care Centersthroughout the United States tests for the absence of culture-fair,non-verbal individual readiness disadvantaged assessing their weaknesses ascompared with less culturally pre-school children in theUnited States. At least 25% of America's children are among the 30million Americans who fallbelow the poverty evaluation and edu- line..Many researchers areinterested in improving cation of children fromimpoverished and culturally andeducationally deprived backgrounds. The need for improvededucational attainment authorities in the of disadvantaged childrenhas been confirmed by compensatory education ofcultur- field. Recognition of this need for the Elementary and ally deprived childrenprovided partial basis for Secondary Education Act of1965. Through such federal programs, con- available to public siderable technologicalimprovements have been made evaluating and instructing theedu- schools. Improved approaches for and cationally deprived pre-schoolchildren are now being de-veloped existing in tried. Much of the emphasis hasbeen directed at problems 217,688 children were enrolled urban centers. During the fiscal, year, financed by $192,224,663 in year-round programsunder Project Head Start 466,101 children were en- in Federal funds; duringthe summer of 1968, Further evidence of rolled in such programs at acost of $91,056,098. the awareness of theFederal Government of theneeds of disadvantaged establishment of the pre-school children isfurnished in the recer., Depart- new Officeof Childhood Developmentunder the auspices of the ment of Health, Education,and Welfare.

The Research Conference onEducation and CulturalDeprivation) culturally deprived youth found that below-gradeachievement level for consistently fail at school has been well documented,that children who the educatiorial tasks frequently becomeapathetic or rebellious, that that schools cannot deficit of the deprivedchild is cumulative, and compensate for theinadequate backgroundsbrought to the classroom by which grew children from deprivedhomes. Among the recommendations to introduc- out of this conference wereprovisions of many approaches most appropriate tory learning with eachchild placed in the approach during their early, for him, smaller groupsfor teachers of children specialists to aid each formative years(preferably fewer than 20), For teacher, and improvedinstructional and curricularmaterials. advisable to provide a culturally disadvantagedchildren it would be the cumula- revised curriculum duringthe pre-schoolyears to halt and every resource tive deficit in learningachievement at later levels Naturally, this should be available to theteacher at these levels. measurement instru- should include improvedevaluation techniques and research stresses the needfor improved ments. Most of the educational Young educational attainment ofdisadvantaged youth andchildren. need of each healthy children are normally eagerto learn; this is a children is restricted inpart human being. Learning by disadvantaged their past experiences; by perception ofpossibilities deprived from bridging the gap between but their learning maybe facilitated by

Blbom, Benjamin S. ,Allison Davis, andRobert Hess, Compensatory Education for CulturalDeprivation, New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.11q65,73.p. 41-51. 1 familiar things and the new. This indicates a need for evaluation instruments which will recognize that readiness is in part dependent on prior experience and that differences will always be found among learners in readiness for learning in any given situation. It seems desirable to try to overcome as many such differences as possible 4; which stem from impoverished backgrounds.

Many different definitions may be found for disadvantaged children but the children involved in this project were considered as those being deprived of maximum opportunities for healthy growth and develop-. went which are available' to other children within the same society.1 If this deprivation of opportunities is attributed to the accident of a child's having been born to parents who live in poverty, certainly everything possible in this affluent society should be done to make those desirable experiences available to disadvantaged children so that they may also lead competent, satisfying lives in an increasingly urban, industrial, and democratic society.

The most conservative estimate'is that approximately 25% of the Atherican children fall below the poverty line. Many researchers have estimated that impoverished children constitute upwards to two - thirds of the pUpil enrollment in certain municipalities.A few have found 40% -70% marginal economic children in large city schools. Whatever set of statistics is used, disadvantaged children may be regarded as uni- versal; they are not peculiar to rural America nor to non-white races.2 They are found among all races and localities, from Harlem to Appalachia, from Indian reservations to the deep South, from ghettos to rural slums; they.are.the children of the jobless, the unemployable, the under-em- ploYed, the migrant workers, and others in this nation who are unable for economic reasons to* provide for their children the necessities for comfort, survival, self-respect, and self-esteem which would enable them to participate satisfactorily in this Society.. Children are considered disadvantaged indeed if they come from a family environment which militates' against their capacity and willingness to learn.,For 'purpos'es of appraisal of these children, it appears that evaluation instruments should be used which give a true indication of a child's capacity to learn in spite of factors which Militate against his suc- cess in the public school. This would be one way to'prevent the early appearance of the "drop-out syndrome" characterized by apathy or rebel- liousness. Many of the "marginal economic children" enrolled in large school systems which Deutsch estimated as composing up to 70% of the enrollment4 might appear ina more favorable light if evaluated. with culture-fair instruments.

-----17123'ns, Allen E., and Reginald Lourie, "Hypotheses Regarding. the Effects of Child-Rearing Patterns on the Disadvantaged Child," Disadvan- ta ed Child, Vol. 1, Seattle Seguin School, Inc., 1967, p. 21. Fantini', M.D., and Gerald Weinstein, The' Disadvantaged, New York: Harper and Row, 1968, p. 5. 3 Keach, Everett T., Robert Fulton, and W. E. Gardner, Education and Social Crisis, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967, p. 1, -4-57itsch, Martin, "Nursery Education: The Influence of Social Pro- gramming on Early Development," The Disadvantaged Child, 22.bit.*Ip.145. . 2 2 in an exhaustive review While no attempt hasbeen made to engage for pertinent related of relevant literature, asearch has been made While serving as avolunteer worker forthe Northwest Missouri studies. District Director ofPsycho- Community Action Programin the position as junior and seniorstudents logical Services, thewriter and seventeen and Evaluation ofPupil enrolled in courses inTests and MeasuremenLs made a comprehensive Growth and Developmentin the ElementarySchool, available from testpublishing com- study of pre-schooltests currently of Biros' "MentalMeasure- panies, a survey of themost recent editions volumes in the NorthwestMissouri ments Year Book," areview of over 100 in the area of PupilEvaluation State College Libraryand 50 new volumes in the field, of Testsand owned by collegeprofessors who have taught available through Project Measurements andStatistics, and 15 books "Disadvantaged Child,"methods of Upward Developmentdealing with the issues in teachinghim, teaching and stimulatinghim, innovations and with him. and teachingstrategies which be used certain items whichmight Some of the morepromising tests had child since they discriminate against thecconomically disadvantaged of-the background of ex- contain situations which werenever a part limited. periences of childrenwhose apperceptivebackground'is very tests with all of thechildren The writer used someof the standardized district and in thethree enrolled in the sevenfull-year classes' in her of them stressvocabulary to the ex- summerclasses and found that some discriminate against thedisad- clusion of other itemswhich might not examined ap- vantaged child to such agreat degree. All of the tests for Head peared inadequate in a programfor psychological services the individual performance testsmust Start Children. Since some of therefore usually used be administered bytrained personnel and are referred for psychological only for children withdeep problems who are enrolled in Head Startand Day study not afforded mostof the children non-verbal tests, withdirec- Care Centers, it seemedthat inexpensive teachers and directorswho are tions which could beeasily followed by should be relatively untrained intest-administration-interpretation, Some tests made available to suchworkers withdliadvantaged children. observation of children asthey do not involvevocabulary but rely on value, but many teachersof perform certain tasks; these have great time to devote tosuch disadvantaged children donot have sufficient to discriminate more_than others testing experiences. Some tests appear against children withimpoverished backgrounds. decided The writer and herjunior and seniorpsychology students nature for use withdisadvan- to develop severalitems of an objective class project and termreport. taged pre-schoolchildren as part of a to one class oftwenty The first test wasduplicated and administered it was.tried withthe en- children in Head Start. Composed of 55 items, considered a completefailure; it' tire class andthis experience was attempted with small groupsof three and fourchildren each was then to be marking their own copyof the test. This was discovered not mark the feasible since thechildren watched eachother and tended to Experience with four items same replies astheir peers, right or wrong. involving color plates inthe alternatives, whichfrom the beginning to the children oneat a 'time, confirmedwhat needed to be administered 3 the writer suspected:that any evaluation instrumentfor pre-school children would bemore satisfactory if administered toeach individual in isolation from the remainder of the group. This proved to be sucha valuable and rewardingexperience that four or thestudents volunteered to accompany the writer to visitthe other Head Start classesin this district and'try out the itemson a broader basis. Further testing of the 107 children enrolledin these classes led thegroup to an acute awareness of needed.improvement in compensatoryprograms for disadvantaged rural pre-school children.

Careful item analysis of the resultsof the four sub-tests:Simi- larities, Differences, NumericalAnalogies, and MissingParts, enabled the group to eliminate itemswhich were tooeasy, too difficult, ambi- guous, or negative in discrimination value. The color plateswere also discarded, not because itwas felt-that they were valueless, butbe- cadse of difficulties involved, inproducing enough copies bycutting and pasting particles ofconstruction paper of different colorsand sizes uniformly on the platesfor use by each of thepersons concerned. In further research in thisarea, it might be possible to reproduce the different colors insome way to insure uniformity, but thiswas impossible with a liquid duplicatorand a mimeograph.machine.

'It was felt by the early participantsin the project that the teachers were doinga good job working with these disadvantagedchila= ren but there were few instruments availableto help themassess improvements and progress. The semester ended with therecommendation being prepared for presentationto students in thesame course during the summer school that theycontinue with the project bypreparing an alternate or equivalent form ofthe test. A committee of threestu- dents volunteered to continueby developing parallel itemsto compose an alternate form of the test. Thus, one form could beadministered early in the yeai.to evaluatethe children and the other formcould be administered near the end ofthe program toassess improvement; Other Community Action Program Directorsand Head Start Directors inthe state heard of this local projectand volunteered to try out thetest items with their children. The duplicated copies of thetests were replaced by neater mimeographedones; the latter had definitely improved art work in the items. The mimeographed testswere prepared with the assistance ofa student not enrolled in the class but with some skill as an artist. Other students enrolled insummer school became interested in the project and volunteeredto have the tests, given in their home towns and thewriter contacted individuals sheknew iii' other states tosecure more participants. Those who cooperated in the early stage of developmentwere so enthusiastic that the project began to receive recognition and thewriter was encouraged to applyfor a small research grant to continuethe test development ina nation-wide yield trial. _ Empirical validitywas tentatively established bycom- putation of coefficients ofcorrelation betweenscores on the tests and teachers' ratings of children'sreadiness for entrance into publicschool 4 programs. The average correlation, usingthe Rank Coefficient of Correlation Nethod, betweenchildren's scores on the first form of the test and the teachers'rankings of the children was.567 for classes. this original 355 children enrolled in the 26 experimental The second form of the test,later called Form B, was administered to 605 children enrolled in36 experimental classes in three states; the average correlation between thechildren's scores and the teachers' ranking of their readiness for publicschool entrance was .655, the average weightedcorrelation being .690.

In addition to the benefits ofearly involvement of college students in this project for thestudents themselves, the teachers, ..Read Start Directors, Vista Volunteers, andothers who participated in the project, it was felt that a greatcontribution was made to the children who were tested as they wereprovided with individual attention on a one-to-one basis which many ofthem had never before exper- ienced. The attempts made to establish rapportwith the children did contribute to their development of aworthwhile, healthy self-concept on the part of thechildren with whom the college studentsspent some three hundred fifty-four volunteerhours. Research has further indicated the need for continued emphasis uponsimilar programs and attention to individual needs throughoutelementary school and high school in order to keep poverty-strickenchildren from dropping out of school and adding to the pool of stagnantwelfare recipients in a vicious circle which perpetuates itself. If the circle is to be broken,it must be done during the first few yearsof a child's life before patterns, habits, and attitudes are morefixed and permanent.

Application for a small research grant tocontinue with the project described was based on a firm convictioncorroborated by early findings that the younger children canbe placed in some kind of school program, the better;the longer they remain in adisadvantaged environment without outside help, the moredifficult it is to help them overcome the retardationsuffered therefrom.

The major objective of thisresearch project was to develop a culture -fair, non-verbal readinesstest for rural and urban disadvantaged pre-school children in theUnited States. Specific objectives includeds (1) to prepare easilyadministered tests with adequate directions and instructions to insureuniform results with a minimum oftime invested by teachers;(2) to prepare norms in the form of percentile 1114 franks for rural and urban, full-year and summer, boysand girls of different chronological ages;(3) to prepare equivalent forms of the weak- 404 test so that teachers mayadminister the first form to identify 4:::0nesses early duringthe program, set up specificremedial programs for individual children based ontheir needs, then use the second form (m)of the test to assess the efficiencyof the program and progress made by each child;(4) to disseminate results through the Departmentof O Health, Education, andWelfare, to persons and agenciesinterested in the evaluation of disadvantagedpre-school children (later this objective was changed to includedissemination from ERIC, Educational Re- sources InformationCenter); and (5) to make available refined instru- meats for evaluation which willimprove the entire rationale of meas- 44 urement and evaluation. 5 game METHODS

As was indicated in theIntroduction, this project was begun on a small scale by thewriter and a group of students with majors in psychology at Northwest Missouri StateCollege. Students who were interested in disadvantaged children and who needed tofulfill one course requirement, preparingand administering teacher-made test items of an objective nature, chose to workwith Head Start children enrolled in the seven classes in the counties ofNorthwest Missouri where the writer served as volunteerDistrict Director of Psycholo- gical Services and had been searchingfor proper evaluation instruments for these children which would not require theservices of especially trained personnel. Preliminary screening observations and brief con- tacts with the children resulted in therealization that some'kind of satisfactory .testing program needed to beinitiated in addition to the medical examinations and physical tests to assessphysiological development, handicaps, and deviations which mightbe corrected before disadvantaged children are. enrolled in public schools. The twenty children in the local. Head Start class located onthe campus of the College were readily available. In addition to the interested students enrolled in the courses in Tests and Measurementsand Evaluation of Pupil Growth and Development in the ElementarySchool, twenty juniors and seniors enrolled in Child Psychology werealso eager to help with the project as needed experience in thefield and as part of their term projectswhich culminated in the writing of case studiesof the children who were being tested by the studentsenrolled in the other two courses.

The first attempt to administer therough-draft experimental instrument resulted in complete confusion and utterchaos since the initial trial was a group experience. This unsuccessful attempt to develop an instrument for testing groups resultedin abandonment of the idea in favor of small groupsof three or four children. It was felt that in this way the test administratorcould observe behavior of the children, encourage the hesitant ones tocontinue, and insure that instructions were being followed. This experiment was also a failure because the children followed the leader;valid results could obviously be obtained only be administering theinstrument on an individual basis. During the next two months the test was administered to a total of 107 children in the district. In order to compare the behavior of disadvantaged pre-schoolchildren on this preliminary instrument with the behavior of normalmiddle-class pre-school children, two members of one course administered the test to publicschool kin- dergarten children. As was expected, since the children were abit older than the Head Start children generallyand had been exposed to better home environments, their scores wereconsistently higher than the scores of the Head Start Children. This was one more evidence of the need to bridge the gap between wheredisadvantaged children are and where public school teachers will expectthem to be when they are enrolled in school.

The spring semester closed at theCollege with a recommendation from the students involved in the projectto students who would enroll in similar classes for the summer termto continue the project by .. preparing equivalent items for an alternateform of the test, to the teacher to apply for a small research grant togive the instruments 6 to broaden the base of the a nationalfield-trial, and to the teacher "small" research by inviting someother districts to administerthe instruments and allow her toanalyze results in comparisonwith those of the children in NorthwestMissouri. All of these recommendations predominantly were successfullyfollowed. The project begun in the spread to other low economic rural settingof Northwest Missouri soon states and regions, to urbancenters and municipalities. The initial forms of the tests provedcompletely satisfactory,although results were notidentical in other areas. Several items were changed to culture-bias for avoid decoys oralternatives which appeared to have children who, had never seen afarm nor gone for a drivethrough the country. Comments made by children intest situations were carefully analyzed to ascertain whichitems could be consideredambiguous.

Form A was administeredin mimeographed form tochildren enrolled States; 26 of the in 28 Head Start and TitleI Centers in the United teachers had ranked thechildren in their order ofreadiness for entrance into publicschool programs. Coefficients of correlation and calculated at various measures ofdispersion and central tendency were different stages during thisearly period of development. Four hundred fifty-five children wereinvolved at this time; only355 could be used their ages or birth- in development ofstatistical tables, either because dates were not given, returnsarrived too late, or theteacher failed Centers used in to rank the childrenprior to test administration. preliminary testing representeddifferent size enrollments,types of situations, as well systems, socio-economiclevels, rural and urban careful as childrenof different races. Based on these results and a item analysis of allreturns, Form A was given tothe printers for preparation for mailing torandom-selected centers wheredisadvantaged pre-school children were beingtaught. The writer depended upon the cooperation and willingnessof teachers and programdirectors to ad- the re- minister the test to theirdisadvantaged children and return sults for analysis anddevelopment of norms. As soon as the printed test was ready, a copyof the instrument itselfand the answer sheets Review of Data-Gathering to be used was mailedfor Office of Education the information requested for Instruments. It was explained that for de- each child the top of the answersheet would be used only velopment of norms based on age,population, and if deemedexpedient, sex and race. The intention was tobase norms solely on children's between responses of ages unlessappreciable differences were found boys and girls and betweendifferent races or bet-leenchildren enrolled in urban and thoseenrolled in rural programs.While waiting for approval of thedata-gathering instruments, thewriter contacted in Community national and regional officersin Project Head Start and Action Programs for permissionto administer theinstruments in selected classes; then agencies wereselected at random from the Direc- tory of Community ActionProgram Grantees whowould be invited to co- culture- operate in the nation-wideresearch.project designed to develop fair readiness tests for disadvantagedpre-school children. Permission and assurance of hole-heartedcooperation came from most persons contacted; several regional officersfurnished more up-to-date listsof Head Start Centers which couldbe used to check accuracy ofthe ma- wrote letters terial in the Directory. Two Pegional Read Start Chiefs to all of the CAP Directorschosen for participation inthe project, 7 urging their prompt cooperation inadministering the.tests and return- ing the answer sheets to the researcher.

Six hundred agencies had been selectedand Form A wns mailed to about half of them requesting their helpand explaining that Form B would be mailed to them withina few weeks. Meanwhile, Form B of the test in mimeographed form had beenadministered to 618 children in 36 Head Start and Title I Centers, theanswer sheets subjected to the same careful item analysis, changes made, items eliminatedor improved, and remaining items rearranged in orderof increasing difficulty. As soon as it was printed, Form B was enclosed in thesame packet with Form A materials to be mailed to the remaininghalf of the agencies selected at random to ask for cooperation inthe project. Eight of the original 600 copies were returned unusedbecause the grantees chosen had no Head Start Program. Of the original 592 packets received by eli- gible grantees, three hundred sixty-four (364) fully executed Form Apac- kets were returned for analysis; only 301 fullyexecuted Form B packets were returned. Several participants reported receivingForm B too late in the schoolyear for administration to the children who had been given Form A. In some instances, theprogram directors agreed to cooperate again with both forms of thetest during their summerprogram, using a different class of children. Permission was granted. Some of the participants made copies of the testsand answer sheets in order to administer them to all of their children;in these cases, one class was chosen to be included in the sample for normingpurposes; the remainder of the answer sheetswere grouped with others from similar centers for an "in-depth" study tosee if further sampling might reveal :statistically different results. Dozens of participants requested the opportunity to participate in furtherresearch in connection with this project; hundreds of letters expressedthe need for such instruments and agreed to cooperate later if theywere unable to do so at the time they were invited; and most of themrequested copies of the refined tests and percentile norms touse with their children in the future.

It seemed that insufficient returns fromFull -Year programs needed to be supplemented by using returns fromSummer programs from centers which reported having no Full -Yearprograms or which received the request for assistance too.late to respondat the time. This meant that deadlines would-need to be changed for reports;time. extensions were requested and granted, thus enabling inclusionof summer programs.. A "cut-off" date was announced but returns continuedto be processed and analyzed for two additional weeks;a few centers returned their materials too late to be included in statistical tablesor percentile ranks. A few teachers failed to furnish complete informationrequested for children, such as nationality, age, or sex, which meant that thoseanswer sheets could not be used.

At three different times during theproject, test items were.subjected to a careful item analyiis. Items were analyzed qualitatively in terms of their content and form, andquantitatively, in terms of their statistical properties.The former involves U.: consideration of content validity and the evaluationof items in terms of effective item-construction procedures. The latter involves principally the measurement of item difficulty and item validity. Both the validity 8 and the reliability of thetests depend ultimately onthe characteris- tics of the items. High reliability andvalidity can be built into a test in advancethrough item analysis. Changes in reliability can be effected when ambignous items areeliminated and when new ones are added to the test which havepositive rather than negativediscrimi- nation value. Similar changes in validity canresult from the dele- tion of confusing or ambiguousitems.

Test specifications wereestablished on a basis of the objectives of pre-school educational programsand the subjects most often taught. Considered also were changes inbehavior which schools are designed to produce, such as attitudes,interests, interpersonal relations,and other emotional or motivationalcharacteristics, as well as the acqui- sition of knowledge and thedevelopment of intellectual skills. For these tests; major emphasis wasplaced on assessment of readinessfor participation in public schoolactivities normally offered. Other tests available in the fieldoften overstress verbal abilityand,lan- guage facility;disadvantaged children are unlikely todo well on such tests. The writer hoped to developreadiness tests composed of pictures, figures, and symbols notnecessarily associated with any particular kind of culture or environmentand which would require no verbal ability. The child could respond bypointing to the item he chose; in case of physicalhandicap of any kind which mightprevent the child from pointing, he could nod hishead or blink his eyes in responseto the test administrator's pointingto each alternative.

The most appropriate item formfor the tests seemed to bemultiple - choice based on pictures andsymbols which do not require readingabil- ity but would test a child'slistening ability, his visualacuity, his imagery, his ability to followinstructions, and his recognition of similarities, differences, numericalanalogies, and missing parts. Mul- tiple choice items are the most widelyapplicable for all types of content and learning to be tested;they are easy to score andreduce chances of correct guessing presentin "yes" and "no" responses. Item Analysis In constructing the readinesstests, the difficulty of anitem is based on the percentage of personswho answer it correctly.The easier the item, the larger will thispercentage be. The three different times each test was revised, thisprinciple was used and items werearranged in order of increasing difficultyto give the child confidence in con- tinuing in the'experience andpreventing him from wasting time onitems beyond his ability to the neglectof easier items which he mightknow. One reason for this procedure wasto eliminate items ofunsuitable difficulty level, too easy or toohard, since they would revealnothing about individual differencesand would not affect the variabilityof test scores, and could contributenothing to the reliability or validity of the test. The closer the difficulty levelapproaches .50 (r° answering it correctly), the moredifferentiations the item can make. It is impossible to provide formaximum differentiation by makingall items at the .50 level. Because of item intercorrelations,items with moderate spread of difficuliq level are usedwith the average difficulty being near .50. 9 In the first and second item analysisfor each form of the test, the writer used theupper and lower 27% (approximately) of the distribution the first time and the top andbottom 1/3 the second time. In both cases, the top group is called"U" andthe bottom group is called "L"; the middlegroup, "M" was not used. Tables IX and XVIII show the rank of each item -in each subtest of Form A and of Form B, respectively,based on difficulty. Several older children made perfectscores on both Form A and Form B, indicating that the experiencewas too easy and unchallenging for them.

With thd,large and somewhat normally distributedsamples em- ployed in the final refinement of thesetests, the writer decided. that the top 1,000 answer sheets and the bottom1,000 answer sheets would compose the criterion distributionfor the upper group ("U") and the bottom or lower group ("L"). These differences are shown in Table IX for Form A and in Table XVIII for Form B. A measure of item difficulty is shown from the same answersheets by adding the number passing each item in the two criteriongroups ("U" and n"). In this way, items which are tooeasy or too difficult' can be seen readily. However, difficulty level alone is- insufficient. Even with satisfactory difficulty level,sometimes items show a negative and zero discriminative value whenmore of the L group pass the item than of the Ugroup or when there -15.; no difference. Further supplementary analysis was made by tabulatingthe number of students in the "U" and "L" groups who chose eachoption in answering the particular items. This enabled the writer to eliminate onlypoor decoys rather than discarding the item. When the writer administered both the experimental forms and the printedforms of the tests, she asked some of the more mature pre-schoolersto explain why they chose certain incorrect alternatives and encouragedthe Teachers, Head Start Directors, Curriculum Coordinators,Day Care Center Di- rectors, Psycholgists, and. others who cooperated inthe field- trial, for the printed instruments to solicit similarexplanations; the answers given by these children resulted indefinite improvement of many items since their reasons for choosingan incorrect answer appeared valid. In the preliminary form of Test A, children chose the "different" baby as the one with onlyone safety pin, when the answer expected was the baby facing in the opposite directionfrom the others. This oversight was corrected in the printedForm A, along with others pointed out in adults' reactions to various itemsand in children's comments. Improved art work on both forms in the printed testsre- sulted in more valid responses, but careful attentionto'comments made by the test administrators haz resulted instill further improvement and refinement. It is hoped that the refinements and improvements effected through the cooperation of hundreds ofpeople in the field will result in broader usability of theinstruments as they are made available to workers with disadvantaged pre-school children, along with the norms which they helped to develop. During the course of this research project, criticismwas sought and appreciated; dozens of suggestions for improvement have been incorporated into the refined instruments presentedas Appendixes G and H of this report.

Tables IX and XVIIIalso show the numbers of students passing each item in the "U" and "L" criteriongroups expressed as proportions 10 (percentage reported as adecimal, as 50% ..50), the difference index of item validity between these twoproportions providing an of the particular that can be interpretedindependently of the size quite closely with sample in which it wasobtained and it agrees This difference other more elaborate measuresof item validity. the numbers of persons pass- is computed bychanging to proportions and can have any valuebetween ing each item inboth criterion groups none,of the +1.00 and -1.00. If all members ofthe "U" group and On the other hand,if all "L" group pass anitem, D equals +1.00. it, the difference members of the "L" and noneof the "U" group pass item are If the proportionsof both groups passing an is -1.00. proportional to the equalf the differenceis O. It is directly incorrect discrimina- difference between thenumbers of correct and several other indicesof tions; it also sharesother traits with The values are notindependent of itemdifficulty item validity. It but are biased in favorof intermediatedifficulty levels. retained should be noted that someapparently too easy items were motivation purposes, but in the refined formsof the tests for more difficult. the decoys were alteredto make them somewhat in All items with anegative discrimationvalue were eliminated the early stages ofdevelopment. Tests Methods of DeterminlngValidity of Readiness instruments was ascer- Curricular or logicalvalidity of the terms of tained by checkingthe content ofpublic kindergartens in taught and how itis taught in pre-schoolprograms, material ordinarily (lesson plans and teach- including objectives,methods of instruction pictures and otherrelated materials. The problem ing unite), books, validity by a in this area ismuch greater thantesting curricular since these tests maybe used throughoutthe entire classroom teacher discussing, confer- involved a greatdeal of reading, nation. This project, who agreed to serveasconsultants for this ring with people of teaching coursesin observation whilein the process and personal had to be madefor psychology by theriter.. A judgment the field of since items mustbe commonelements taught onecriterion as to the in difficulty sufficiently complete,and appropriate representative, well the instrumentsre- Further judgment wasmade as to how level. skills and knowledges of the mostfrequently taught flect the content material customarily based on across-section of the with selection returned in which it istaught. Evaluations were taught and the way involved in school pro- from the teachersand directors to the writer who so graciouslycooper- for-disadvantagedpre-school children grams standardization of theseinstruments and ated in therefinement and to the project,with. only one purpose who devotedthousands of hours which would bevalid, reliable,and in mind,evaluation instruments disadvantaged. pre- schoolchildren. usable in the.education of- and directorsrecommended A few of thepsychologists, teachers, in the last twoparts of thetests, that more testitems be included additional and Missing Parts; onesuggested that an Numerical Analogies and two included to test thechildren's vocabulary; part should be children's socialand emo- recommended sub-testswhich would assess into publicschool programs. tional maturity asneeded for entrance test was longenough withoutaddi- Hundreds of othersfelt that the simplified and that thedirections be tion of items;four recommended 11 that provisions be madefor gestures to appropriatepictures; six beginning of each sub- suggested that sampleitems be included at the omitted for test; one suggested thatcertain parts of the test be four-year-olds but administeredto five-year-olds; and ten suggested Spanish for the bene- that the directions beprinted in French and in telephone fit of non-English speakingchildren (two long-distance calls also pointed upthe need for thesetranslations by requesting permission to translatethe directions for theirnon-English speaking children; it was decidedthat the translations shouldbe uniform and included as part of theinstruments rather thanrelying upon transla- lengthen tions made by workers inthe field). It was decided not to the tests and not tosuggest omission of certainitems for four-year- olds since the separate normsfor different age levelsreflect their lower scores because oftheir lack of familiaritywith numerical con- felt that cepts, for instance. Twopsychologists and eight teachers itwould be better to recordall of the children's answersrather than only the incorrect ones asthey were instructed to do inthe field-trial of the instrumentsfor the convenience of theresearcher the in calculating scoresquickly. When workers in the field use refined instruments, they maywish to record all of thechild's answers and scorethe answer sheets with ascoring stencil or tem- plate (included in AppendixesG and H of thisreport), instead of simply counting the wrong answerswhich have been recorded.Although too much this is the recommendedprocedure, it would have consumed problem time for thousands of answersheets; it will not constitute a for the teacher whois scoring the answer sheetsfor only one class. The refined forms of thetests 'reflect many of thesuggestions made grateful for those by workers in thefield and the writer is deeply comments and criticismswhich have resulted in improvedinstruments.

The empirical or statisticalmethod for determining validity examines the instrument bychecking the results' obtainedafter the is the test is administered topupils. It is more objective than curricular method because anindex of validity is obtainedfrom which correlating the results of an an interpretationis made." It involves the instrument of unknown validityagainst a set of criterion scores, validity of which. has beenestablished or accepted. The higher the unknown set of scorescorrelates or relates to theknown set, the considered as greater is the validity. Empirical validity may be either concurrent orpredictive, sometimes classified asseparate validity types of validity; bothare, however, examples of empirical differing only as to time sequenceof the criterion score. Concurrent validity relates a set ofscores to an accepted presentcriterion to-a of performance; predictivevalidity relatei a set of scores criterion based on performanceat some later time. Examples included of in Appendix C of thisreport include correlations between scores children on Form A and FormB of the Readiness Testsbeing developed with scores of the samechildren on the followingstandardized tests: (A) Peabody Picture VocabularyTest,.(B) Goodenough-Harris "Draw-a-Man" (E) Metro- Test, (C) ABC Inventory,(D) Caldwell Pre-School Inventory Research Asso- politanTeadiness Test,(F) Stanford-Binet, (G) Science (I) Co- ciates Pre - SchoolTest, (H) Vineland Scale ofSocial Maturity, Pre-School Attain- lumbia Mental MaturityScale, (J) American Guidance Attainment Test ment Test Form I,(K) American'Guidance Pre-School 12 (M) Screening Test of Academic Form II, (L) MacmillanReadiness Test, Readiness Readiness Potential Score,(N) Screening Test of Academic of Visual Per- IQ Score, (0) MarianneFrostig's Developmental Test Slosson Intel-' ception, (P) Jordan andMassey Readiness Test,and found between each ofthese ligence Test. The average correlation Test and between tests and Form A andForm B' f the Walker Readiness of the child- the standardized test scoresand the teachers' rankings entrance into public schoolprograms ren in theirorder of readiness for report, Findings andAnalysis: is presented in alater section of this each of Validity of ReadinessTests. Individual correlations between of child- the standardized test scoresmentioned above and the scores and Form B of theWalker ReadinessTest and between the ren on Form A in standardized test scoresand the teachers'rankings of the children public school programs may their order of readinessfor entrance into be found in Appendix Cof this report. A and B of the During the early stagesof development of Forms and the mimeo- Readiness Test, correlationsbetween standardized tests somewhat lower than graphed forms of theexperimental tests where printed forms of the those found betweenstandardized tests and the latter would probably experimental tests. Improved art work in the deficiency can account for the increasedcorrelations. Any mechanical affect the validity of ameasuring instrument. It is felt that sub- improvement at dif- jecting instruments to a processof refinement and in more valid ferent stages of developmentshould certainly result instruments. stages of develop-: Only a few of the centersinvolved in the early children's scores onstandardized tests. Of the 364 ment reported of Form A of the classes represented instandardization and validation children Readiness Test, only 54reported havingadministered to the represented in standardiza- 'standardized tests. Of the 301 classes of tion and validationof Form B of the test,48 reported stoics in areas which children on standardizedtests. The most popular test Vocabulary Test. did give such testsseemed to be thePeabody Picture Peabody Picture Twenty-five of the centerswhich reported using the with Form A of theWalker Vocabulary Test testedthe same children able to administerForm Readiness Test; only19 of the centers were if comparisons couldbe made with B of the test. It would, be helpful administered to more childrenand with the Wechsler the Stanford-Binet using these Intelligence Scale forChildren. Several centers reported well-known scales with afew children recommendedfor psychological troubled Head Startchildren; testing by trainedpersonnel working with but could not be used these findings werereported to the researcher since socres of only one ortwo children wereusually in this research found between available from any onecenter. Higher correlations were standardized tests than the Walker Tests and someof the non-verbal between the WalkerTests and tests whichstress vocabulary; were found correlations were found. with vocabulary -- orientedtests only moderate Correlations would be expectedto be higher withindividual non-verbal lower than or performancetests. All of these correlations were 13 were found between children's scoresand the way in which the teacher ranked the children in their order ofreadiness for entrance into public school programs; Appendix Bcontains tables showing those correlations and correlations found betweenchildren's scores on Form A and Form B of the V)alker Test forFull-Year Urban, Full-Year Rural, Summer Urban, and Summer RuralPrograms, both in centers where both forms of the Walker Test wereadministered and where just one form was given. Significant findings in connection withthese correlations are presented in alater section of this report. It would be helpful if a correlation with other outsidecriterions could be 'computed to see if theinstrument is a good predictor of readinessfor entrance into public sbhool. A follow-up study of the performanceof the child when he actually enters school isrecommended but.was not within the scope of this project; this would be a good way tc establishpredic- tive validity of the instruments.

To date, efforts have been made toestablish concurrent validity through two techniques: (1) correlations between children's scores on the experimental instruments and their scores onstandardized tests, described briefly above and included in detailin Appendix C. The more closely the instruments candifferentiate among the students being measured, the higher the validitycoefficient is likely to be. 'The higher the coefficient of validity, the betterthe instruments will be. Concurrent validity was established bycomparing results of the instruments to results that criteria havealready established to see whether comparable results could be achieved moreeconomically, ob- jectively, and simply. The relatively low correlations in some cases may be attributed tothe fact that many of theinstruments used as criterions were probably, not culture-fair,discriminating against the disadvantaged children because of theirimpoverished background which would not permit many intellectual andcultural experiences presumed on the part of many ofthe standardized tests. Obviously, pe'rfect validity is an.ideal and it is rarely approached. Evidence of validity will have to be evaluated in terms ofappropriateness of the criteria for disadvantaged children, the degree ofagreement, and the extent to which the instruments will help to achievethe present situational demands.

(2) Teachers of disadvantaged children who participated'in this research project were asked to ranktheir children in order of their readiness for entrance into public schoolaccording to the subjective appraisal of the teacher of the, children'sintellectual maturity and readiness for school-like experiences. When possible, it was recommended that some person other thpl theteacher who did the ranking of the children should do the actualtesting; in many cases it was not possible to have two separate personsinvolved, but in most instances, the teacher most intimately involvedwith the children in their every- day-experiences did the ranking, and the tests wereadministered by Head Start Directors, Day Care CenterDirectors, Vista Volunteers, Graduate Students, Social ServicesCoordinatort, Curriculum Coordinators, and School Psychologists. It was felt that the correlationsfound when the'two tasks we're performed by differentpeople were more valid, although often somewhat lower. In a few instances, correlations were extremely high and positive(some were .95 and higher); it was thought . that Test Form A might have beenadministered prior to the ranking pro- 14 cedure in some cases; often equally high correlations were found between those teachers' rankings and the scores on Form B which was administered long after Form A results and the ranking letter had been mailed to the researcher. Higher correlations were usually found between results on Form A and the teachers' rankings in Full-year Programs where the teachers had had the opportunity to work with the children for several months than were found in summer programs where the children were enrolled usually only for six to eight weeks. These rankings of children (presented in Appendix B) ser:ed as another criterion outside the test situation and the method of checking the validity of the sets of scores by this empirical method is through the technique of correlation or the degree of relationship found existing between the ranks of children as assigned by teachers and their ranks on the tests themselves, using the Rank Coefficient of Correla- tion Method. Significant statistical findings are discussed in a later section of this report. The higher the correlation between the meas- uring instrument and the criterion, the better the validity. It is difficult to find good criterions outside the instrument with which to validate the instruments. A judgment had to be made concerningto what degree a criterion was appropriate for the specific purpose involved; in the absence of valid culture-fair standardized tests for use with disadvantaged pre-school children in most centers, teachers' evaluations seemed to be the alternative. In most cases, higher correlations were anticipated and found between the teachers' rankings and the instruments being developed in this project than were discovered between those instruments and currently available standardized tests.

Methods of Determining Reliability of Readiness Tests

While validity of an instrument refers to its truthfulness and the extent-to which it measures what it purports to measure, reliability refers to the dependability, stability, and confidence afforded to an instrument which measures consistently what it does measure. Reliabil- ity makes possible the obtaining of similar results upon repetition. An instrument can be reliable (consistent) without being valid, but it cannot be valid without also being reliable. This means that similar results might be obtained if an instrument is used a second time; the instrument could be reliable but one would be unsure that it was meas- uring what it should measure if validity were not first established for the instrument. Although high reliability is not a guarantee that an instrument is completely good, low reliability would indicate that it was poor. Validity must be ascertained before an apparently reliable instrument can be used with assurance.

Three methods of determining the reliability of an instrument also involve the technique of correlation. The closer the agreement between the two sets of scores, the greater the reliability. (1) Test-Retest Method: the same instrument is used twice with the same group of pupils and the two sets of scores are correlated to determine the degree of agreement. This form of reliability index is called the coefficient of stability. Results obtained from this method are usually lower than correlations found with the other two methods. The main problem involved is the length of time elapsing between the two administrations of the test. If the time lapse is too short, immediate prac- tice or remembering effect will modify results; if too long, the learning which takes place causes results to be different. (2) Alternate or 15 Eouivalent or Parallel Forms Method: two or more forms of the instrument are prepared, equivalent as to content, difficulty, type of items, and the like. One form is administered and the results correlated with those of the equivalent or alternate form. This is called the coefficient of equivalence. The greater the agreement or correlation, the greater the reliability. It is difficult to make alternate forms of a test, but in this project a comparison was made betv.,,..en results on the crude original form of the test and the mimeographed Form A and the printed Form A used in the nation-wide field-trial; the same was done for Form B. Significant findings are presented in a later section of this report. Appendix B shows a summary of the correlations between Form A and Form B results divided into Full-Year Programs, in which case several weeks could elapse between administrations, and Summer Programs, in Which Form A was administered as early as possible and Form B was given to the same children as late as possible and results returned to the writer on or prior to the date arbitrarily set as the cut-off date beyond which returns could not be included in-item analysis or norm development. (3) Split-Halves or Chance-Halves Method: this is the most practical because the instrument needs to be administered only once. After the test is given, it can be scored in two parts; first, the odd-numbered its are scored to obtain a total score for this half, then the even-numbered items are scored to obtain a total score for the other half. Thus, there are two columns of scores, the odd and the even; a correlation is run between the two scores. When this method is used, the initial coefficient of reliability obtained is for one-half of the test only and must be converted to the total reliability by a conversion formula. This method measures the internal consistency of the test items. As an additional assessment of reliability, this method was used to check against other correlations in four classes of a Summer Program where the writer could administer the tests hersalf. Significant findings are presented in a later section of this report.

Frequent reference has been made to the term "coefficient of correlation."The formulas used in assessing the validity and. the reliability of the instruments include tOe following: Rank Coefficient of Correlation (Rho) oxum 1:1 4- (D= difference inranks) (N= number ofpeople) Product Moment Correlation Coefficient = ray Mxdy - (Efxdx) CiLfydy) =fr INtfxdx2- x)2 -(ilfydy)i Many factors will affect the reliability of an instrument; any one of the following can distort the picture: length of instrument, objec-. tivity, classroom environment, motivation, directions, supervision, and pupil factors such as physical condition, emotional condition, pupil- teacher attitude, and the desire to learn. Many of these things could not be controlled in such a project, but objectivity and length of instrument could be adequately controlled. If a child is shy or reluctant to respond, the examiner may need to spend a few minutes in reassuring him and convincing him that the test is really only a game, but an average of 8 to 10 minutes was reported by most test administrators in an individual (one-to-one) relationship; a few reported requiring more time. Increased familiarity with test items and possible reactions caused the time of administration to decrease with increased numbers of children tested by the same administrator. 16 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

The most significant findings are the Test Forms A andB which have been developed and refined asa major objective of this project. These are the result of careful item analysis outlinedin this report in the section on Methods. Items are arranged in order of increasing difficulty as they are so ranked in Table IX forForm A and XVIII for Form B. In the refined forms, directions have been translated into French and Spanish for greater uniformity of results whenadministered to non-English speaking pre-school children. A summary of important statistical measures and percentile ranks for eachage level is included on the:last page of each test. A sample answer sheet and a scoring stencil complete Appendix G for Form A and Appendix Hfor Form B. These appeadixes may be removed for copying by ERIC fordissemi- nation to Head Start and Day Care Center Directors and otherworkers with disadvantaged children whomay request them. It is felt that most people will not need a copy of the entire report, butthey may wish copies of the pages which present the statisticalmeasurements for each age level as wellas the percentile ranks given on the back page of each form of the test. These additional measurements are presented in Tables VIII for Form A andXVII for Form B; in these tables the percentile ranks are given in the terms of class intervals. Table VII for Form A and Table XVI for Form B present percentile ranks for all of the scores on each in a discrete series, if these are de- sired.

Validity of Readiness Tests

Appendix C of this report shows correlations between scores of children on various standardized tests and Form A and Form B of the Walker Readiness Test and between scores on standardized tests and- teachers'rankings of children in their order of readiness for entrance into public school programs.Appendix C of this report gives more details concerning the empirical validity of the instruments as ascertained by this method of correlation between results of an unknown validity against sets of criterion scores, the validity of which has been established or accepted. The highest correlations were found between the Readiness Tests being developed in this project and the Metropolitan Readiness Readiness Test (.791 with Form A and .757 with Form B), the Caldwell Pre-School Inventory (.807 with Form A and .708 with Form B), the Columbia Mental Maturity Scale (.677 with Form A and .697 with Form B), and Slosson Intelligence Test (.628 with Form A). Moderately high correlations were found with several others, such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (.404 with Form A, .504 with Form B), Goodenough-Harris "Draw-a-Man" Test (.572 with Form A, .505 with Form B), Stanford-Binet (.437 with Form A, .429 with Form B), Screening Test of Academic Readiness Potential Score (.576 with Form A, .561 with Form B), Screening Test of Aca- demic Readiness IQ Scores (.515 with Form A, .428 with Form B), Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception (.442 with Form A, .516 with Form B), and Jordan and Massey Readiness Test (.429 with Form A and .632 with Form B). Lower correlations with others were found. 17 The average correlations for all of the standardized tests reported by 54 teachers who also administered Form A of the Walker Test and 47 teachers who also administered Form B of the Walker Test are presented below, along with the average correlation between the children's scores on the standardized tests and the teachers' ranking of the children in their order of readiness for entrance into public school programs. The standardized tests are identified by letters of the alphabet as follow: (A) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, (B) Goodenough-Harris "Draw -a -Man" Test, (C) ABC Inventory, (D) Caldwell Pre-School Inventory,(E) Metropolitan Readiness Test, (F) Stanford-Binet, (G) Science Research Associates Pre-School Test, (H) VIneland Scale of Social Maturity, (I) Columbia Mental Maturity Scale, (J) American Guidance Pre-School Attainment Test Form I, (K) American Guidance Pre-School Attainment Test Form II, (L) Macmillan Readiness Test, (M) Screening Test of Academic Readi- ness Potential Score, (N) Screening Test of Academic Readiness IQ Score, (0) Marianne Frostig's Developmental Test of Visual Percep- tion, (P) Jordan and Massey Readiness Test, and (Q) Slosson In- telligence Test.

RANK COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION BETWEEN SCORES ON VARIOUS STANDARDIZED TESTS AND FORM A AND FORM B OF WALKER READINESS TEST AND BETWEEN SCORES ON STANDARDIZED TESTS AND TEACHERS' RANKINGS OF CHILDREN IN THEIR ORDER OF READINESS FOR ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS

Number Number Average Average Average Standardized of of CorrelationCorrelation Correlation Test CentersChildren with Form Awith Form B with Teachers' Rankings

A 25 368 .404 .504 .474 B 3 42 .572 .505 .397 C 4 52. .584 .716 .610 D 2 43 .807 .708 .629 E 5 69 .791 .757 .650 F 4 47 .437 -429 .418 G 1 15 .204 .356 .301 H 1 10 .370 .425 .398 I 1 20 .677 .697 .698

J 1 10 .213 .309 . .402 K 1 10 .201 .671 .410 I 1 10 .249 .355 .331 M 1 10 .576 .561 .571 N 1 10 .515 .428 .501 0 1 19 .442 .516 .496 P 1 20 .429 .632 Q 1 14 .628 .610

As can be noted by comparing the last column above, indicating correlations between teachers' rankings of children and their scores on various standardized tests, with similar correlations between teachers' rankings and childrens scores on Form A and Form B or the Walker Readiness Tests presented in Tables XXV through XXXII', the correlations are somewhat higher in the latter. (See Appendix B.) 18 Appendix B, which lists in differenttables the coded centers classified as Full-Year Urban, Full-Year Rural,Summer Urbailland. Summer Rural, reveals the followingsignificant findings:

In Full-Year Urban Programs( See Table XXV), the correlations found in the 113 classes represented between theteacher's' rankings of the children and their scores on Form A of theReadiness Test ranged from .985 to -.433, the average correlationbeing .705. The average weighted correlationfor the 1746 children enrolled in Full - Year Urban Programs was .696.

In Full-Year Rural Programs(Table XXVI); the correlations found in the 85 classes represented between the teachers'rankings of the children and their scores on Form A of the ReadinessTest ranged from .997 to -.143, the average correlationbeing .707. The average weighted correlationfor the 1439 children enrolled in Full- Year Rural Programs was .708.

In Summer Urban Programs(Table XXVII),the correlations found in the 61 classes represented between the teachers'rankings of the children and their scores on Form A of the ReadinessTest ranged from .976 to .107, the average correlation being.657. The average weighted correlation for the 939 children enrolledin Summer Urban Programs was .682.

In Summer Rural Programs(Table XXVIII),the correlations found in the 45 classes represented between the teachers'rankings of the children and their scores on Form. A of the Readiness Testranged from .999 to -.080, the average correlation being.588. The average weighted correlation for the 720 children enrolled in SummerRural Programs was .591.

In Full Year Urban Programs'(See Table XXV), correlations found between the teachers' rankings of the childrenand their scores on Form B of the Readiness Test ranged from1.00 to -.1075 the average being .661. The average weighted correlation for the1581 children tested with Form B in Full-Year Urban Programs was.655.

In Full-Year Rural Programs(Table XXVI), correlations found between the teachers' rankings of the children andtheir scores on Form B of the Readiness Test ranged from .992 to ..055,the average being .660. The average weighted correlation for the1308 children tested with Form B in Full-Year Rural Programs was.660, also.

In Summer Urban Programs(Table XXVII),correlations found between the teachers' rankings of the children and their scores .onForm B of the Readiness Test ranged from .980 to -.047, the averagebeing .608. The average weighted correlation for the863 children tested with Form B in Summer Urban Programs was.681.

In Summer Rural Programs(Table XXVIII), correlations found between the teachers' rankings of the children andtheir scores on Form B of the Readiness Test ranged from .977 to -.430, the averagebeing .562. The average weightedcorrelation for the 680 children tested with FormB in Summer Rural Programs was.586. 19 These correlations were indications that the experimental instruments possess validity sufficient to qualify their dissemination throughout the nation to persons involved in the education of disadvantaged children. This observation was further confirmed by the "in depth" evaluation of returns from several agencies who mailed to the researcher answer sheets for all of the children enrolled in their summer programs. One class was selected at random from each of these to include in the sample used for norm development and in the item analysis for each form of the test. The remainderwere analyzed separately in an attempt to determine whether further sampling might result in appreciably different results. Returns from both Rufal and Urban centers were organized into separate scattergrams and statistical tables. Results were quite similar to those found for the samples taken.from each of the 50 states. "In depth" tables and statistical measures are given in Tables XXIII, XXIV, XXXV, and XXXVI. These indicate that collection of additional returns would not affect the percentile ranks presented in Table VII for Form A and in Table XVI for Form B greatly enough to justify the additional time and expense which would be involved. The same conclusion was drawn by comparing the measures of central tendency and variability found in the "in depth" evaluation with the same measures for the sample classes presented in Table VIII Form A and Table XVII for Form B.,

Table XXXI presents correlations between teachers' rankings of

children and the children's scores on.one form of the test when the . other form was not administered. For Full Year Urban Programs in 33 centers, the average correlation between the teachers' rankings and Form A scores was .621, the average weighted correlation for the 509 children involved being .597. In five Summer Urban Prog- rams, the average correlation between Form A scores and the teachers' rankings was .769, the average weighted correlation for the 72 children involved being ..764. In one Summer Urban Program, 10 children were tested with Form B only; the correlation was .306. Two Full-Year Urban teachers who gave Form A to a total of 24 children did not rank their children; one-gave Form B to 20 children. Two Summer` Urban teachers administered Form A of the test but did not rank their 40 children. These scores were all used in the percentile ranks but could not be included in the correlations. This accounte for some of the discrepancy between totals reported for each set of statistical computations.

Table XXXII presents correlations between teachers' rankings of children and the children's scores on one form of the test when the other form was not administered to Rural children. For Full-Year Rural Programs in 19 centers,, the average correlation between the teachers' rankings and Form A scores was .746, the average weighted correlation for the 272 children involved being .726. One Full-Year Rural Program administered Form B but not Form A to 12 children.The correlation was .735. In five Summer Rural. Programs, the average correlation between Form A scores and teachers' rankings of the children was .491, the average weighted correlation for the 77 child- - ren involved being .388. One Summer Rural Program administered Form B but not Form A to their 15 children; the correlation was .218.

Totals for all of these tables do not represent all of the 20 children involved in the standardization of Form A and Form B. One Summer Rural teacher administered Form A of the test to 20 children but did rot rank them; one Full-Year Rural teacher gave Form A of the test to 20 children but did not rank them; and one Summer Rural teacher gave Form B to 19 children.but did not rank them. It in felt that the ranking letters were enclosed with packets of "executed answer sheets which were reported lost in the mail. 'Although these children were not included in computing the coefficients of correlation discussed in this report, they were used in the development of percentile ranks, means, medians, standard deviations, and semi- interquartile. ranges which were computed for a total of 6662 children on Form A of the test and 5271 children on Form B of the test.

Combining data presented in Tables XXVthrough XXXIII, the' average correlation between 367 teachers' rankings of children and the childrens scores on Form A of the test in all situations (Full-Year Urban, Full-Year Rural, Summer Urban, and Summer Rural, both when both forms of the test were administered to the children and when only Form A could be used), the average correlation was .668, the average weighted correlation for the 5774 children thus ranked was .675. It was reported that only 364 centers participated in this project, but in a few instances two or more teachers ranked 10 or fewer children; not all 364 centers involved in standardization procedures were included in the tables which present correlations.

Combining data, presented in Tables XXV through XXXIII, the average correlation between the 337 teachers' rankings of children and the children's scores on Form B of the test in all situations (Full-Year Urban, Full Year Rural, Summer Urban, and Summer Rural, both when both forms of the test were administered to the children and when only Form B could be used), the average correlation was .632, the average weighted correlation for the 4469 children thus ranked was .633.

This method of assessing the empirical validity for the test revealed that validity was somewhat higher for Form A than for Form B, .675 as compared with .633.

Combining data presented in Appendix C 'of thisre'por.t; the average correlation betweenthe children's scores on Form A of the test and all of the standardized testsadministered in the 54 centers which reported administering standardized tests was.476, the average weighted correlationfor the 769 children involved being .477. The average correlation between Form B scoresand all standardized tests administered in the 47 centerswhich reported administering standardized tests was .535, the averageweighted correlation for the 677 children involved being .524.This method of ascertaining empirical validity for the instruments resultedin somewhat lower correlations than those found with teachers'rankings of the chilc,- ren discussed above; this wasanticipated in view of the fact that someof the standardized tests used ay discriminateagainst disadvantaged pre-school children because of lackof culture-fairness. It was interesting to note that thecorrelations between children's scores on standardized testsand teachers' rankings of the children were also lower than thosefound wiLh the Walker Readiness Tests. 21 The average correlation betweenteachers' rankings and standardized test scores in the 47 centerswhere both forms A and B were administered and where standardizedtests were givenwas .493, the average weighted correlation for the 671children involved being .562.

It was interesting to computesome of the coefficients of correlation for answer sheets and rankingletters chich were returned after all of the scattergrams andstatistical computations had been completed for the children involvedin Standardization of thetests. The late arrivals did notappear to to differ very substantially from the earlyones. Seven packets arrived late. The correlations arepresented in Table XXXIII. The average correlation between Form A scores and the teachers'rankings of late arrivalswas .650, the weighted average being .549 for the 95 children involved. The average correlation between Form Bscores and the teachers' rankings was .571, the average weighted correlationbeing .493 for the 95 children. The average correlation forthe first 5774 childrenon Form A with their teachers'rankings was .675, for the 4L69children on Form B, it was .633. The lower correlations for the latearrivals can probably be explainedby the short time the teacherhad known the children before rankingthem, in comparison with all of the Full -Year children includedin the ;arminggroups, where the teachers had worked with the childrenfor 6 or 7 months before being asked to rank them. The larger numbers ofchildren involved also would appear to indicatethe greater validity ofthe "on time" returns in comparison with thesmall number of latearrivals.

Reliability of ReadinessTests

On a limited scale, the writer used all threemethods for assessing reliability of theinstruments being developed,discussed in an earlier section of this report, Methodsof Determining Relia- bility of Readiness Tests. The Test-Retest Methodprobably had less value for this project thanprobably would be claimedin other forms of research. While the itemswere not identical, thesame questions and decoys were used inthe early mimeographed andduplicated forms of the tests as were included in the printed formsused in the nation- wide field trial. With crude art workon the former and poorer work- manship in general, incomparison with the printer'_forms, the correlation between children'sscores on the two was significantly high, .875. Unfortunately, too few childrenwere available for testing with the crude form and.theprinted form whichwas not available in most instances until afterthe children had alreadybeen enrolled in public school programs. Obviously, the other methodsdiscussed would have more value for this project. A larger number of childrenwere available for testing withthe crude mimeographed FormB and the printed Form B; the average correlation for these two setsof scores for fewer than 200 children was .860; early ones were .889 and.910.

It is difficult to make equivalentitems for Alternateor Parallel Methods for appraisal ofan instrument's reliability. While Form A and Form B of the WalkerTest are equivalentas to content, number of items, type of items, anddirections for administeringand scoring, and both are arranged withitems presented in orderof increasing difficulty, an analysis of thepercentile ranksand statistical tables (Tables VII and VIII, Form A; Tables XVI and. XVIIfor Form B) reveals 22 that Form B of the test is somewhat, easier than Form A or else the children were more "test wise" which resulted in their higher aver- ages. The latter was the explanation given by many of the teachers who participated in the project; Form A was the first experience the children had ever had with testing but they were more relaxed and enjoyed Form B for having first been tested with Form A. The teachers were about equally divided as to which of the two forms appeared easier for their particular class of children;fewer than three dozen teachers commented on the comparative difficultyof the items in the two tests, although many thought the art work was a little better on Form B which could account for the increased scores on Form B. It is felt that the higher scores on Form B might also be accounted for by a slight increase in age of the children between the administrations of the tWo tests. This discrepancy should in no way affect the validity or usabilityof either instrument if the appropriate tables of percentile ranks and statistical measurements are used for each form. (It was decided to present only the percentile ranks for different, age levels as part of the test booklets for Form A and Form B, along with the mean, median, top quartile, bottom quartile, semi-interquartile range, and standard deviation for each age groupowhich are included as Appendixes G and H of this report and which may be removed for copying by ERIC for dissemination to Head Start and Day Care Center Directors and teachers and other workers with disadvantaged pre-school children who request them. Appendixes G and H also contain sample answer sheets and scoring stencils.Most people will not need a copy of the entire report, but they may wish copies of Tables VII and VIII for Form A and of Tables XVI and XVII for Form B, in addition to the materials in Appendixes G and H).

Of greatest significance are the correlations betweenchildren's scores on Form A and Form B of the WalkerReadiness Test when both were administered in various centersin every state of the nation. These correlations are presented for coded individual centers in Appendixes A and B. Correlations were calculated by using both the Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation and Scattergramsand the Rank Coefficient of Correlation. Tables XIX through XXIV, -,show scattergrams and product moment coefficients of correlation between children's scores on Form A and Form B of the test in different kinds of programs, Full-Year Urban, Full-Year Rural, Sum- mer Urban, and Summer Rural, the last twobeing devoted to "in depth" evaluation of all children enrolled in selected Summer Urban andRural Programs. Since this method indicates correlation between actual scores on the two forms of the test,rather than correlation between children's ranks on the two tests, it is considered somewhat better for assessing reliability of the instruments. It is interesting to compare these findings with thosepresented in Tables XXV through XXXIII based on the Rank Coefficient of Correlationfor many of the same groups of children, boththose included in the sample and those involved in "in depth" evaluation of the instruments.

In Full Year Programs in Urban Centers, for1605 children who were tested with both forms of thetest in the 113 centers, the average correlation was.6!9, the average weighted correlation being .6551 when using the Rank Coefficient of Correlation Method. The 23 correlation for the same sets of scores found b-the Product Moment Method was .69l. (See Tables XIX and XXV for comparisons) .

The 1302 children tested with both forms of the test in Full-Year Rural Programs were found to have an average correlation between the two forms of .663, the weighted averae being .670, using the P.4,nk Coefficient of Correlation Method. The correlation for the same sets of scores found by the Product Moment Method was .779. (See Table XX and Table XXVIfor comparisons in the 85 centers involved).

In Summer Urban Programs, for 885 children involved in the 61 centers which administered both forms of the test, the average correlation between the two forms was .676, the weighted average being .680, using the Rank Coefficient of. Correlation Method. The correlation for the same sets of scores found by the Product Moment Method was .742. (See Tables XXI and XXVIIfor comparisons).

In Summer Rural Programs, for 671 children enrolled in the 45 Centers which. administered both forms of the test, the average correlation between the two forms was .697, the average weighted correlation being .698. For this set of scores, the Product Moment Co- efficient of Correlation was .741. (See Tables XXIIand XXVIII for comparisons).

In Summer Urban Programs, for 537 children enrolled in 43 classes selected for "in depth" evaluation of the testing instruments (not counting one class from each of these centers which was included in the sample), the average correlation between the two forms of the test was .594, the average weighted correlation being .600, using. the Rank Coefficient of Correlation Method. For the same set of scores, the Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation was .738. (See Tables XXIV and XXIX for comparisons).

In Summer Rural Programs, for 385 children enrolled in 33 classes selected for "in depth" evaluation of the testing instruments (not including one class from each of these centers chosen at random for inclusion in the sample), the average correlation between the two forms of. the test was .700, the average weighted correlation being also .700. The Product Moment Coefficient of Correlation for the same set of scores was .760. (See Tables XXIII and XXX for comparisons).

The Split-Halves or Chance-Halves Method for ascertaining the reliability .of the instruments is the most practical method, since it involves only one administration of each instrument, as described in an earlier section of this report.As an additional assessment, this method was used to check against other correlations in four classes of a Summer Program where the writer could administer the "tests. The coefficient of reliability for the even-numbered items was .880 for 62 summer children; total reliability found by the conversion formula for ;7orm A was .868. For Form B,-the coefficient of reliability for the even-numbered items was ..887 for summer children; total reliability found by the conversion formula for Form B was .889.

For determining the reliability of. Form A and Form B of the test which were administered to 6662 children and 5271 children respectively, 24 following formula was used: rt mr.i? M o-t n ] (n . 6662) was 33.61; The mean for FormA for all children tested When these two measures are its standard deviation(a-) was 8.61. substituted in the aboveformula, the. reliabilityfor Form A can be estimated as .869. The mean for Form Bfor all children tested deviation (a-) was 8.36. Substi- (n.5271) was 38.23; its standard above, the relia- tuting these two measuresin the formula presented bility for Form n of thetest can be estimated as.889. (See Table VIII for those for measurements used in formula.for Form A, Table XVII used in formula for FormB).

While it is felt that, the numberof children and sample classes involved in the standardizationof Form A and Form B of the testis sufficient to justify offeringthe instruments for widespread use, it is interesting to comparethe findings with those oflate arrival packets and other statisticalcomputations involved in this project. Evidence indicates nofurther need for broader sampling;the applicability and validity couldprobably be strengthened by another yearof field-trial in selected centersin different regions. Validity and reliability of the instruments both appearto be strong enough to qualify the instruments as worthyof inclusion in &list ofevaluation possibilities for disadvantagedpre-school children. Dozens of the adults involved inadministering these tests in the variousstates reported that they were the bestthey had seen for the purpose.of evaluating disadvantaged pre-schoolchildren because they are ob- would be viously culture-fair. Further trials and experimentation appreciated by the writer. Administration of Tests

administered the tests Comments from workersin the field who Care Centers haveresulted to their childrenin Head Start and Day usable directions foradministering the tests. in revised, completely and Directions for eachsub-test have beentranslated into FrenCh administration to non - English Spanish to encourageuniformity in test the first item in eachsub- speaking children. An example precedes whether or not thechild test; this example canbe used to decide to do by way of re- understands directionsand what he is supposed Figures and symbols sponse beforethe sub-test isactually begun. items in AppendixesG and Hare morenearly perfect used in the test test, so proportion to each other. This is an untamed and in better Eight to 10 minutes the teacher willnot need to watch theclock. form of the test to onechild. should be ample timeto administer each obtained when the childcould be It was found thatbest results were distractions. taken to a quiet room,away fromother children and with the child If a few minutes canbe spent ineetahlishing rapport play a new game, hewill feel and convincing himthat he is going to likely to do his bestthan if he feels' more secureand will be more "test" experience. apprehensive orfrightened at a strange complete so that thetests Directions are. simpleand clear and trained personnel;better re- need not beadministered by specially anticipated whenever thetest administratoris a person sults may be orientation, by the child. With some explanation, known and respected teacher aides of a teacheradministering the tests, and observation that the trained to administerthe tests. It is important may be 25 directions be followed very carefully. Deviations could very well invalidate the use of the norms provided with the test booklets (Tables A and B).

§s021,112a of Tests

The first crude forms of the tests were constructed with the intention that each child would make his own circles around chosen alternatives presented for each test item. Experiences with three -, four-, and five-year-olds soon convinced the examiners that this was not the best method. Subsequent trials were conducted in which the child was asked to point to the correct choice and the examiner then encircled the chosen figure or picture.. Since the tests contained only a few items on, each page, scoring became quite tedious, involving endless turning of many pages. Subsequent administrations have been done with separate answer sheets. This is quicker, easier to score, and makes the results more readily available for examination and interpretation when clustered on one page. It will also make for greater economy, since the teacher will need only one copy of the test booklet itself and enough answer sheets for all members of the class. Scoring is mite simple and objective; it may be done by a teacher aide or volunteer worker if the teacher can spend a little time explaining and demonstrating just how it is to be done. The scoring stencil which accompanier, each test booklet should be placed over the child's answer sheet; thb holes in the stencilwill quickly reveal whether the correct answer haS been circled. The score is simply the number of correct answers\out of a possible 50 points. The scorer should ascertain that no question has more than one answer before placing the stencil over the answer 'sheet.

For speed in scoring, test administrators who participated in this project were asked to record only the incorrect responses of children; if items were left blank, the researcher knew that the child answered those items correctly. In this way, a quick glance allowed the scorer to count the number of items for which answers had been encircled. Fifty minus the number of circles was the child's score. This method can be used with the refined forms, but the child may become concerned unless he sees the teacher recordall of his answers rather than just the incorrect ones. Several teachers reported that the children watched to see which items were marked; dozens of teachers marked all of the children's answers. This did not in any way invalidate the returns but it didrequire more time for scoring.

Interpretation and Application of Results

In a standardized instrument, the norms accompanying the instrument will, determine the ease of interpretation and application. It is felt that the percentile ranks provided in Tables A and B(on the last page of the test booklets included in Appendixes G and H of thisreport) will be sufficient for most people concerned with the evaluation of disadvantaged pre-school children. However, if a larger booklet could be made for each test form, Tables VII and VIII should be included in the Form A booklet, and the TablesXVI and XVII should be included in the Form B booklet. The additional two pages would probably be well worth the extra expense involved for each test booklet. 26 Tt should be re;4embered that norms areaids or guides in the interple,tation and applicAion ofresults, not standards for the pu2ile to meet. Th?y arc guideposts eni will sbowhere a student individual 3 ks a an ail to theteacher in planning work with the of pupil. It more iteIrs irwl been includedin the last two sub-tests each form or the Readiness Test,separate norms could have been-le- veloped for eleh sub-test. This could have helped theteacher make a drat music ofthe strengths and weaknessesof each child in order to pronare a remedial pro remfor him. Although nercentile ranks were calculatedonly for total scores forchildren of different believed that careful age levels(in intervals of six months), it is analysis of the child's responses oneach sub-test will enable the teacher to help the child ov,rcomeapparent weaknesses in suchcon- cepts as ;imilarities,differences, numerical analogies, andmissing -parts. With two forms of the test, oneform can be administered early during the school year,analysis of strengths andweaknesses of children made, andremedial programs devised foreach child. The alternate form may be used atthe end of the year to testthe ade- quacy of the programand to ascertain the growthand improvement made by each child.

Translating raw scores to a commonscale for interpretation and application is the purpose of norms,since raw scores are difficult to interpret and apply; they canbe interpreted individuallyonly with total score known and whenthey would all be weightedthe same; raw scores probablywill have different totalweights and can be compared with others only by convertingthem to some common scale,such as a percentile scale, with which onecan-interpret them individuallyand can also make acomparison between them. Since most workers in the field are more familiar withpercentile ranks than with age norms or grade norms or stanines, it wasfelt that placing childrenin a position on a scale from 0 to100 to which their raw scoreswould en- to title them would be mostappropriate. It will also be helpful compare each child's scorewith the nrpropriateclassification in Ta- bles VII and VIII for Form A and TablesXVI and XVII for Form B.

Representativeness of the Sample

Probably one of the mostsignificant problems was theinability to secure sufficient returnsfrom certain states to claim represen- in Appendix E of this tative sampling. The tables and map presented extent of report show i.zhich states endregions participated and the description of the children their cooperation. Table XXXVII compares a (in per cents), with data provid.ed bythe Head Start ResearchAnalyst in Washington, D. C., forFull-Year and Summer Programsfor 1968; that office reported this to bethe most recent dataavailable and suggested that it miEht beextrapolated to compare with the1969 sample used in this project. In very few instances werethe percentages cr-m- etc., were not reported, parable. In the sample, if age, race, sex, the answer sheets were notused; in the census report,they were indicated "not reported."A dearth of returns fromFUll-Year programs resulted in fewer younger childrenbeing included in thesample than Summer were reporte4. inthe 1.968 renort from theResearch Analyst. More prog2ars appeared tobe largely attended byolder children. 27 Caucasians were included in the project, percentagewise, than were reported in the programs for 1968. The writer had no way of anticipating which agencies would select which teachers ox which cultural or ethnic backgrounds to la:, used as their sample, since the agencies were selected at random from the Directory of CAP Grantees. Tables XXXVII, XXXVIII, IY1XXIX, XXXX, XXXXI, andXXXXII, Map I, and Appendix F all present information about the participants in the project.Table XXXVII compares descriptions of the children involved in the standardization of Form A and Form B of the Test with census data for 1968. Table XXXVIII compares 1968 data with project data to assess representativeness of the sample. Table XXXIX lists states by Office of Economic Opportunity Re- gions which provided sampling for the project to standardize Forms A and B of the Test in Full-Year and Summer Programs.Table XXXX lists the participants by CEO regions and states divided into nrban, Rural, and Total Programs. This table is of special interest since it indicates in which states were located the centers which participated not only in the standardization process but also in "In Depth" evaluation of the instruments, in early stages of development of the tests, and in sampling their total program with more than one class. Table XXXXI presents the participants in the research project by states for Form A, Rural and Urban, Full-Year and Summer.Table XXXXII presents the same information about the participants in Form-13 development.

Statistical Analysis of Returns for Form A of Readiness Test

The most significant findings of the research project have already been presented and analyzed. The data indicate that Form A and Form B of the Test are sufficiently valid and reliable for use in an evaluation program for disadvantaged pre-school children.It should never be recommended that only one test be used to assess readiness of children for any learning task. Taken into consideration along with other factors such as results from other standardized tests and the teacher's observations of social, emotional, and intellectual maturity of each child, the test results would afford some degree of assurance as to the child's readiness for participation in public school programs.

The tables which follow present information concerning the scores of the children who participated in the project. The most important data are presented in Tables VII and VIII for Form A of the Test and Tables XVI and XVII for Form B of the Test and the summaries included in the tables on the last page of each of the refined test forms presented in Appendixes G and H.

Table I presents a summary of test scores made by children enrolled in Full -Year Programs, organized by population, race, and sex. Numbers of children in each category are presented in class intervals. On Form A, very few children made scores loiter 'than 10; 111 children made scores of 49 or 50; most of these scores were made by children aged 5 years 6 months and older. Later tables reveal that most of the highest scores were generally found among children aged 6-1 to 6-6.

28 It might be expected thatchildren aged six years seven monthsand up would earn thehighest scores; however, this was notthe case. Many teachers noted that the oldest,childrenwere repeating Head Start, some of them already havingbeen in Grade I. Ages of children ranged from two yearseleven months in two different Day Care Centers up to nine years in onerural summer Head Start program;this oldest child had been in Grade I fortwo years and was still not making proper progress, accordingto his teacher's comments.

Table II presents. asummary of test scores made by children enrolled in Summex pregeaeslorganizedby population (Rural and Urban and Total of Rural andUrban Combined) as well as by raceand sex. Numbers of children in eachcategory are presented in class intervals; these are the bases ofstatistical tables presented later. Only 17 summer children made scoresof 49 or 50, although their average age appearedto be somewhat older. The comments made in the paragraph above relative to scoresof older children in comparison with others enrolled in Full-YearPrograms also apply to these children enrolled in Summer Programs.

Table III coeibines informationpresented for Full-Year and Summer Programs and gives thetotal figure of 6,662 which isused throughout the report as the numberof participants in the projectal- though over 1000 other answer sheets werereturned and analyzed and many of them are included in the"in-depth" study of certain centerspartici- pating in the study but notincluded in the norming group anditem analysis. The Tables in Appendix D presentinformation concerning the "in- depth" evaluation conducted toascertain representativeness of the sample. Table XXXIII presentsinformation about children whose returns arrived too late for inclusion inother tables. These also support the findings as sufficientlyrepresentative. It is felt that further sampling would not affect any of thestatistical tables or percentileranks appreciably. (See Appendixes B and D).

Table IV gives a summary of Form Atest scores for children of different ages enrolled in both Full-Year and Summer Programs. These scores are alsoarranged in class intervals fordevelopment of ea- tistical tables presented laterand for percentile ranks.

Table V summarizes Form A test scoresfor children of different ages enrolled inUrban and Rural Programs; these scores areused in statistical measurements tablesand percentile ranks presentedlater.

Table VI presents Form A test scoresfor Boys and Girls of different ages enrolled in combinedFull-Year and Summer Programs. It is interesting to note that a few moreboys than girle participated in the standardization of Form Aof the Readiness Test. If the scores are analyzedfor different age levels, it is seenin Table VI that boys outnumber girls in thefour oldest groups while girls outnumber boys in the three youngest groups. No significant differences were found between scoresof boys and girls in the TotalColumns but for some age levels, girls excelled;for other levels, boys excelled. 29 o Scores SUMMARY OP FORM A TEST SCORES MADE BY CHILD= URBAN CHILDREN INTABLE FULL-YEAR I PROGRAM, 1969, BY POPULATION, RACE AND SEX Inter-Class sianCauca- Negro. Other I Total Urban ClIca.. Negro RURAL CHILDREN Other Total Rural ALL CUMMIT TOTAL !Mk,49-51 15 10 11' 16 s 0 0 z 26 26 o 52a 15sian= 18 2 6 12 7 1 23 G 31 TotPa 59 54 0 57 Total. 111 37-3940-4243-4546 -46 59355925 614637 674152 78776540 121310 15 7 1716 5 138139 9773 156139141 82 294278238155 65677445 63666744 46383014 36394821 20 768 13 87 118125112 65 112113122 73 230238133234 256264209138 252263155 472516293 28-3031-3334-3625-27 42695756 30465056 64377077 57628995 12142514 17192415 135151160 91 104127163166 195262314326 36485259 36465469 21232846 13264041 101611 4 1120 116 8592 105130 83 168197246 220243276 210268296 430511572524 16-1819-2122-24 161723 122022 141628 2129 9, 297 12 16 324258 476322 121 89 2331 23 7 11 9 17 18 58 10 28 394861 174859 120 5696 106152 81 111163 64 315145217 10-1213-15 7- 9 192 213 124 016 0 02 01 13 26 10 2 23*54 48 163 02 12 102 017 01 123 12 25 417 14 25 1239 36 102057 3 1536 4 143593 TOTAL 4-1- 3 6 485 0 457 0 552 10 645_127_115....= 0 00 0 01 12 0 0 2 10 16.508 0 00 280 0 3.0.41101092616....4...... 2145220q02166A260 0 0 0 0 .0 0 10 0 107 SUMMARY OF FORM A TEST SCORES TABLE II Inter-ClassScores sianCauca- Negro URBAN CHILDREN Cther Total Urban MADE BY CHILDREN IN SUMMER Cauca- Negro RURAL CHILDREN PROGRAM, 1969, BY POPULATION,Other Total Rural ALL CHILDP73 RACE AND SEX TOTAL 49-51val B 1 12G 3 B 0 G 2 B 1 G 2 B 2 G 7 Total '9 Bscan 4 G 3 B 0 G 0 B 0 1G B 4 G 4 Total 8 B 6 11G i otal 17 37-3940-4243-4546-48 21241910 252620 2011 81 2212 43 1412 3 11 954 44335514 56492919 111.62 9333 58461754 533624 4632 503 453 3563 69615422 42635920 132120 9652 124105 8736 108 4971 213158 85 25-2728-3031-3334-36 40283930 23302632 17272523 '29 322732 201813 1810 6 77738266 61797568 138152157134 513864 42695163 141113 11 895 7862 675 72608179 59668373 131126164152 149133163145 120145158141119 269278321286243 13-1516-1819-2122-24 1120 1715 59 161925 6 1227 56 1311 7 2564 345256 203546 102 8754 153331 1928 9 10 76 10 27 12 75 36 274653 143244 417897 109 6198 346790 165199 95 10-12 4-7- 96 a 012 103 102 041 001 00 17 15 12 17 1229 2 0076 124 012 0.03 013 001 11 09 128 1119 1 1428 1 20 29 4823 3 TOTAL 1- 3 277 0 247 0 201 0 218 0 134 0 100 0 612 0 565 01 1177 0 489 1 457 0 93 00 66 0 67 00 57 0 649 10 580 0 1229 10 1261 1 1145 01 2406 12 SIMARY OF FORM A TEST SCGRES MADE BY CHILDREN IN FULL-YEAR AND TAME III SUMER PROGRAM, 1969,BY POPULATION, ..)eores.Class URBAN CHILD, EN ROE AND SEX RURAL CHILDREN ALL cHTLDar valTriter- Calicasian Norro G G BGther G Total Urban G TOTAL aucasian B G BNerTo C Gther Total Fazral C TuTAI r.> Totra 43-4546-4849-51 543516 814913 634211 694318 1310 1 20 92 130 8728 170101 33 30()188 61 120 6219 103 2163 3416 6' 245112 12 97 1011 2 166 3287. 103 164 35 J.90 67 174 60 2CL 68 370128 31-3334-3637-3940-42 95998033 80828672 100 958775 116127100 89 43272625 42252627 233226193183 238234212188 471460405371 112123121 123132116119 39595241' 464139 22131224. 25161814 195187186 203175172 16'398362358330 369421380n6 437.337 76785C6orte. 22-2425-2728-30 4382 375378 535491 56.8991 3218 371623 114168208 109165206 223333414 628790 7897 353719 342449 1118 14.16t3 133145173 118149188 251294 301 353406 ;.552 5E470S 1316-1819-21 -15 202737 2137 30 8. 1035 113315 22 09 12 36 6694 224282 108176 3156 212651, 6 1417 1527 3 1220 7 4 101 5285 284992 134193 rsn, 118179215 131201 70 1CS416 10-12 4-67-9 024 124 141 015 30 0 3011 31 319 2052 26 09 02 031 0140 0316 031 1318 10 13 034 3117 40 24.48 14 35 1 371063 TOTAL 1-3 fr62 0 704 753 0 1 863 0 261 0 248 0 1776 1 1815 0 3591 1l 1025 1 965 0 373 0 359 177 0 0 161 0 15 75 1496 1 0 3071 3351 3311 1 2 0 6662 2 SUMMARY OF FORM A TEST SCORES FOR CHILDREN OF DIFFERENT AGES ENROLLED TABLE IV IN FULLYEAR AND SUMMER PROGRAMS Scores:Class 6-7 up 6-1:6-6 5-7:6-0 5-1:5-6 AGES 4-7:5-0 4-1:4-6 0 down! TOTAL 46-4849-51valInter 1 Y 10 Sum. 21 11014%.-Y 46 Sum. 8 PY 9329 Sum 21 3 F-1/ 2261 Sum. 81 F=( 18 3 Sum. 05 t"--Y 21 Sum. 10 0 Sum 0 F-4111 93 6um..Total. 8517 378'28 34-3637-3940-4243-45 20141518 9 442833 104132129106 2986798353 143136136143 46967757 159157150120 37322218 117 876457 1121 9 301112 0221 615 0 472572524516 243213158286 767729630858 28-3031-3322-2425-27 12 47 16182742 36182978 32917363 122 338953 75918954 146134 6382 45535664 126122108 59 454032 33252823 42 11 785 310 430217315511 199269278321 416708832r)04 10-1213-1516-1819-21 01 0286 10 029 1420 20 25 036 161950 7 122344 5 411327 3 ?.22736 441522 9 2122 45 132 0176 21 145 359314 165 489523 310188 3783 7- 69 01 0 0 0-0 1 01 0 01 14 .1 02 0 03 0 17 23 ' 10 3 TOTAL 41- 3 2L; 0 292 0 809 0 634 1 1013 0 702 0 1178' 0 121 0 841 0 322 02 230 0 24 0 61 0 11 0 1256 0 21206 1 6)62 1 SUMMARY OF FORM A TEST SCORES FOR CHILDREN OF DIFFERENTTABLE V AGES ENROLLED IN URBAN AND RURAL PROGRAMS Inter-ClassSCORES: 6-7 up 6-1:6-6 5-7:6-0 5-1:5-6 AGES 4-7:5-0 4-1:4-6 4-0 down TOTAL 49-51val Urb. Rur7 8 20Urb. hur4 34 15Urb, Rur 17 16Urb 42a, 7 Urb. 2 Rur 1 Urb. Rur.1 0 Urb. 0 Rur, 0 . Urb. Rur.61 67 128Total 37-3940-4243-4546-48 20221613 27353017 100 797765 106115105 74 103 "887755 117112105 59 117113 3678 33725960 41447516 333224 7 10 378 3450 10 4110 405371300188 358330 362190 729630378767 28-3031-3334-36 272613 262738 447180 110 5598 100101130 110102 80 140120 7076 112110 84 4454 1920 12 6 320 36 414471460 398 294361., 708,,,.853--,1,) 16-1819-2122-2425-27 3547 1718 34 1445 85 15253659 124369 32134459 197. 284972 223644 33546397 16264156 182421 '1013 68, 43 5 4667 108333176223 134193251 80 186310416584 10-1213-15 7-9 20 01 10 120 11 10 .L,78 19 16 260 1017 2 10 30 21 341 11 2-61 2052 6 3117. 3783 TOTAL 4-6 165 0 251 0 607 00 836 10 849 01 866 0 1010 0 589 0 762 02 401 0 173 0 81 0 25 00' 47 0 3591 3071 oo(2 .0 3 104 10 .),)1 SUMMARY OF FORM A TEST SCORES FOR BOYS AND GIRLS OF DIFFERENT TABLE VI Inter-ClassSCORES: 6-7 up 6-1:6-6 5-7:6-0 5-1:5-6 4-7:5-0 AGES AGES ENROLLED IN FULL -YEAR AND . TOTAL SUMMER PROGRAMS 46-4849-51val Boys Girls15 9 15 6 Boys Girls6223 7731 Boys Girls 1751 6315 Boys Girls Boys GirlsiBo39 7 3016 80 15 3 14-1:4-6 1 s Girls Boys 20 4-0 down O Girls 0 Bo s 57 Girls 202 71 Total 128 34-3637-3940-4243-45 40252923 24222823 100108 9288 107 909394 110109 86 122111 9096 103 946682 102 869072 45663931 72346337 10 245 22 89 O31 6201 420382371298176 438385358332 358767729378630 25-2728-3031-33 142234 111720 539055 494479 678696 115 6194 108104 106 66 6982 768070 739084 17 98 122017 O4 85 r 356406 352426 708832 13-1516-1819-21 266 14 031 112130 0 1220 29 13451845 3042' 67 16324558 184050 9 35123553 15144551 121617 3 1220 8 3746 452 117175215301 135201283 71 18831041658L 10-12 4-7- 6 9 0 01 01 01 10'5 2 06 12 27 06 05 203 OO2 310 2448 2 1335 8 -,./3783 TOTAL 1- 3 231 0 185 0 735 1 708 0 859 856, 0 00 826 0 773 0 ..560 01 603 01 110 0 144 0 30 O 42 0 3351 12 3311 01 6662' ln 13 Table VII divides the children who participated in the standardization of Form A into age groups and giver their percentile ranksby age. These figures combine Full-Year and Summer Programs. At one time it seemed advantageous to-prepare separatenorms for the two groupsl later analysis revealed thatages of children mere more important than whether they were enrolled in Full-Yearor Summer Programs. A comparison of these percentile ranks with the statistical measurementspre- sented in Table VIII reveals interesting data. The highest. scores were.made by children in the age group desctibedas 6 years one month to six years six manths. Scores of children aged 4 years and under were surprisingly high. Table VIII indicates that only 72 children of the 6662 involved in the standardization of Form A fell below theage of four years. Two of these were only two years eleven months ofage. Four hundred sixteen children involved in this studywere six years seven months or older, the oldest child being nine years of age. The largest number of children 1715, fell within theage interval identified as 5 years 7 months to 6 years. The highest score made by a child in the age group 4 years down was 44. In all of the other age groups at least one child made a score of 50 points. .Twenty children in the group identified as having the highest scores of all children made scores of 50 points. 'Surprisingly one of the lowest scores, 1 point, was also made by a child in this same age division.

The numbs-7 of children from whose scores the percentile ranks were developeu for the age group 6-7 up was 416; the number in the age group 6-1 to 6-6 was 1443; the number in the age group 5-7 to 6-0 was 1715; the number in the age group 5-1 to 5-6 was 1599; the number in the age grOUp 4-7 to 5-0 was 1163; the number in theage. group 4-1 'to 4-6 was 254; and the number in the, agegroup 4 -0. down was only 72.

It id rdcommended.thatworkers.with disadvantaged children who wish to administer Form A to their children should requesta'. copy of Table VII and Table VIII in addition to thesummary, of these percentile norms and statistical "measurements presented in Table Aon the last page of Appendix G, which consists of the test booklet,answer sheet, and scoring stencil for Form A.

Table IX presents the detailed item analysis for Form A of the Test from which was developed the refined form presented in Appendix G of this report. The refinementcame from rearrangement and reor- ganization of items based on. increasing difficulty of the items in each of the four sub-tests. The items were decreased'in size so that more could be printed on each page; in this way it was possible to give specific directions for administration of each sub-test in English, French, and Spanish, as well as to presentone example for each sub - testto enable the test administrator to ascertain whether the child understands exactly what is expected of him before actually beginning each sub-test. The translations into French. and English and the inclusion of examples for each sub-test resulted from recommendations made by workers in the field. Several-other improvements in specific decoys also were suggested by teachers and Head Start and. Day Care Directors who administered the test. 36 TABLE VII FORM A SCORES AND PERCENTILE RANKS FOR CHILDREN OF DIFFERENTAGES EN- ROLLED IN FULL-1'11AR AND SUMNER PROGRAMS AGE-77617up[7.1.76715-71:7;79_15-1:5-614-7:5-0 SCORE (Tile r. r. r. r. r. lier. 50 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.99 49 98.8 98.6 99.2 99.6 99.8 99.6 99.9 99.30 48 96.4 96.3 98.1 98.6 99.7 99.6 99.9 98.08 47 94.3 93.6 96.6 97.7 99.4 99.2 99.9 96.68 46 91.8 90.8 94.6 96.0 98.9 99.2 99.9 94.93 45 89.2 86.6 91.5 94.2 97.8 98.4 99.9 92.41 44 84.6 82..8 88.7 91.6 96.5, 98.4 99.9 89.72 43 81.5 78.6 85.3 88.7 93.9 96.5 98.6 86.51 42 78.1 74.0 80.9 85.6 92.0 93.3 98.6 82.96 41 13.6 69..3 77.8 82.5 89.8 92.1 98.6 79.69 40 69.3 63.9 73.9 79.2 87.9 91.3 98.6 76.07 39 64.4 59.1 69.2 74.9 85.8 89.0 97.2 72.02 38 54.7 65.4 70.7 83.4 87.8 95.8 68.45 37 57.2 50.2 61.1 67.5 80.5 85.4 91.7 64.65 36 53.1 46.3 56.4 63.0 76.4 83.9 90.3 60.51 35 47.6 41.5 51.8 58.6 72.8 81.1 86.1 59.09 34 43.3 37.3 46.8 55.1 69.1 77.6 83.3 51.98 33 37.. 7 33.1 42.9 50.8 64.6 71.3 81.9 47.63 32 33.7 29.0 38.3. 46.2 60.1 68.5 80.6 43.25 31 28.6 25.6 34.3 42.2 56.3 65.4 76.4 39.42 30 24.8 21.4 30.6 37.6 51.3 61.4 69.4 35.?-4 29 20.9 19.2 26.8 33.0 46.7 57.1 69.4 31.36 28 18.3 17.2 23.6 29.2 41.8 52.8 66.7 27.97 27 15.4 14.6 20.3. 25.8 37.6 50.0 62.5 24.51 26 13.2 12.1 17.0 22.6 31.5 47.2 61.1 21.21 25 10.6 10.0 14.3 19.3 27.9 43.3 51.4 18.22 24 9.4 7.5 12.6 17.3 23.9 38.6 45.8 15.75 23 7.2 6.0 11.0 15.3 20.2 31.5 43.1 13.46 22 5.5 4.9 8.9 12.4 17.5 28.7 38.9 11.24 21 4.6 4.0 .7.5 10.6 15.0 24.0 31.9 9.50 20 3.6 3.2 5.7 8.8 12.4 20.5 25.0 743 19 3.6 2.6 4.1 7.0 10.6 17.0 22.2 6.26 18 2.9 1.9 3.1 5.2 8.0 14.6 19.4 4.83 17 2.4 1.2 2.6 4.2 6.1 11.0 16.7 3.75 16 1.4 .8 2.2 2.9 4.7 7.3. 13.9 2.78 15 .72 .4 1.7 2.1 3.8 5.1 8.3 2.03. 14 .72 .3 1.2 1.4 2.7 3.9 .6.9 1.46 13 .48 .3 .8 .94 1.8 3.5 5.6 1.04 12 .24 .2 .6 .56 1.5 2.8 5.6 7 ll , .24 .14 .4 .38 .95 2.0 5.6 574 10 .24 .07 .4 .25 .77 1.6 5.6 .45 9 .07 .18 .06 .34 .79 4.2 .21 8 .07 .18 .06 .39 1.4 .17 7 .07 .12 .34.26 39 .12 .07 .06 .17 .06 .07 .06 .6 0 .07 .06 .05 3 .07 .06 .03 2 .07 .015 1 .07 .015 Numberin group:416 1443 1715 1599 1163 254 72 6662 37 633MEAN, MEDIAN, Q3, Q1, Q, AND STANDARD DEVIATION LEVELS IN WORMING GROUP FOR TABLE VIII FOR VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS OF CHILDREN AT DIFFERENT AGE BoysficationClassi- ment MedianMeanMeasure- 6-7 up35.4135.30 .36.686-1:6-636.08 5-7;6-034.9634.17 5-1:5-632.8633.03 AGESFoRm.A OFRLADINEsS TEST 4-7:5-029.6729.75 4-1:4-624.8526.05 4-0" dawn23.0023.99 33.19TOTAL' Q.2? . 41.3930.65 5.37 30.42.20 89 5.65 40.8428.22 6.31 26.7539.13 24.2135.73 31.8119.90 _ 30.8819.57 27.0340.0233.70 Stan. Dev. 7.87 7. 61 8.44 ' 8.446.19 8.295.76 8.485.95 7.2/.;5.65. '8.726.49 t ZT.ir3.s QQiMedianMean 30.3742.2636.70 5.950. 31.0143.6251,3838.05 6.30 29.5441.1735.2034.9D 5.81 5574827.6539.9933.78 6.17 25;2736.5632:82 5=64 ' 29.75 23.1535.41 32.6020.7526.75 . 28.1940.6334.39 Urban Q1Q3MedianMeanStan. Dev. 41.7831.2835.9635.89.8.00 31.2141.003 TM.03 7.85 28.4740.2734.5034.07----527r7.95 27.0539.2532.9 8.31 24.7936.0530.2630.2 -8.06 34.3627.5828.27 8.456.13 273523.7623700 8.815.92 M.66.22 HeanStan.Q Dev. 8.015.25 4.897.62 ,5-.90 8.22 '6.10 7.89 8.275-.63 -2 1.4i:s 21.78 8.506.29 16.44 6.955.45' 1. 8.574.97 Rural Q21Median 29.7835.83 6.02 30.9642.6136.9530.22 5.82 34.7729.4741.0535.82 5.79 40.1027.5533.9953.41 6.25 36.3124.7230.195u.4'a 5.79 33.41j21.5627.31 5.94 20.8733.46226.432 o.89 28.08?4.18193j:e.27----- Fear Q3MedianMeanStan.Dev. 43.37.3637.22 7.89 44.4239.7838.71 8.22 42.6037.2936.66 8.42 40.6735.0134.43 8.57 37.1531.6733.19 7.70 34.3527.8228.12' 8.92 30.9526.2726.44 8,256.38 3t: 8.766.45 Summer MedianMeanStan.QQ1 D ev. 35.3434.1831.75 7.965.87 34.2333.9834.08 7.405.17 31.7830.7334.54 7.714.03 28.9729.0229.23 8.02.5.72 26.0326.6326.48 75.33 .70 26.0027.2521.82 8.536.26 20.5420-.75 8.095.10 31.40121. 8.36 .1.14Stan.Dev.QQ1Q3 28.3548 7.846.39 28.2840.00 7.635.86 25.6437.61 8.40.5.98 22.8534.53 8.175.84 20.6532.23 8.465.79 10-.1733.5Q20.00 6.75 15.8826.7520.75 5.555.43 25.2337.9131.62 8.666.34 READINESS TEST FOR DISADVANTAGED (FORM A) ITEM ANALYSIS: TABLE IX PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN DIFFICULTYIN THE UNITED AND DISCRIMINATION STATES Numberitem agePercent- of Perent- Index of age of AverageIndex of Rank of i- Remarks Concerning - -M Difficulty and Discrimination anent ...... Laaar._Q_Upp2r..4..aiza.....Ulaiaulty...ault21 89.973.2 99.598.5 Ditscrimi- .096.253 .947.859 Diffx 15 SlightReasonable discrimination; discrimina too tion; low average difficulty. 543 87.962.424.1 99,598.(87.7 .116.362.636 .805.559 16 28 LowHighitem butaverage change discrimination and average discrimination; low averape decoys to make more difficult. easy. Keep for first difficulty. difficulty. 9S76 31.413.980.5 5.8 90.883.473.799.7 .594.695.679.192 .611.865.389.901.937 1424 43 HighHighNot discrimination; discriminatingdiscrimination; high low enough; bootoo easy. Change decoys. average difficulty.average ifficulty. 1,121110 63.473.759.8 99.39e.398.7 .359.246.389 .813.860.792 10 76 LowReasonableLowHigh average discrimination; discrimination; low average discrimination; low average difficulty.average difficulty.average difficulty. 161415.., 24.346.055.211.8 96.898.796.197.7 .725.435.501.859 .605.769.710.548 15111317 AverageHigh discrimination; discrimination; low average discrimination; low average difficulty. average difficulty. average difficulty. 20191817 15.821.314.2 4.9 69.279.579.084.4 .643.637.577.702 .370.477.502.493 25211920 HighHigh :discrimination;average discrimination; discrimination; averageaverage difficulty. difficulty. average difficulty. 24232221 68.222.2 7.9 .4 81.785.779.388.0 .135.778.$71.876 .468.507.442 12221823 HighVeryHigh dfaxolmination;averazehigh discrimination; discrimination; discrimination; high average difficulty. average difficulty. average difficulty. 25End of Part I: Similarities 61.6 ...... a.... 98.8 .372 -.a.. .802.749 (Continued) 9 Law diseri.Dination,; low616. average discrimination; low average difficulty. average difficulty...... 0 READINESS TEST FOR DISADVANTAGED (FORM A) ITEM ANALYSIS: DIFFICULTY AND DISCRIMINATION PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN IN THE UNITED STATES NumberItem agePercent- of Perdent- age of DiscrImi-Index, of Average Index of Diffi-Rank of MANI MOMIIM .MINSMOMM (CONTINUED) MIMI11114110 26 65.1 95.7 .306 Iliffitultoc .804 malt.% 29 Remarks Concerning Difficulty and Discrimination OD 30292827 83.473.362.377.9 99.597.696.299.1 .161.243.339.212 .915.854.792.885 26283027 ReasonableLowLay discrimination; low averageaverage discrimination; discrimination; low low discrimination; low average difficulty. average difficulty.averageaverage difficulty. difficulty. 3231 12.352.8 73.794.8 .614.420 .43,0.738 31 AverageitemSlight in discrimination;thisdiscrimination; sub-test toolow but make smallest less easy. Keepaverage for first difficulty. obvious. 3433 32.8 76.494.6 .436.618 ..637 546 3239 High discrimination; average difficulty. 373635 18.624.324.0 93.184.887.9 .605.639 745 ..545 559 560 35373436 HighAverage discrimination;average discrimination; discrimination; average difficulty. average difficulty. average difficulty. 3940 176-off`7017177731Ferences 22.126,0 5'.1 69.783.387.8 .646.612.618 .374.569. 527 384033 HighHigh discrimination; average discrimination; high average difficulty. average difficulty. average difficulty. 434241 26.032.848.1 90.694.996.9 '.622 .646.488 ..638.725 583 4241 HighAverage discrimination; discrimination; low average difficulty. average difficulty. End46454/1. of Part III: 77.017.328.8 Numerical 9g.882.887.0 Analogies .218.655. 583 .. .379.501. 579 4g4543 LowHighHigh discrimination;discrimination; averagediscrimination; discrimination; low averageaverage difficulty. difficulty. average difficulty. -- 49484750 16.349.465.7 7.8 61.095.455.496.5 391.460.308 533 .359.344.724.811 49504847 LowAverageAverageLow discrimination; discrimination; high low averageaverage discrimination; discrimination; high low average difficulty, average difficulty.average difficulty. average difficulty. End of Part IV: Missing Parts. End of Test Analysis: Difficultiand Discrimination. ------thlxChange will items be moreand decoys in all of Part inipoticm,.. Test reaciztatutlaverage difficulty.-_-_------..... IV so that Form B of ReadinessTest Statistical Analysisof Returns for children were involvedin the Only five thousandtvo hundred one thousand standardization of FormB of the test, ascompared with six the development ofForm A. six bundrec3 sixty-twowho contributed to full-year programs were The difference liesin the fact that many and they were unableto complete closed by the timeForm B reached them In many other caseschildren who had beentested the testing project. Over two with Form A werelater unavailable fortesting with Form B. withdrawn from the program, hundred children werereported as having been absent on test moved to anothercommunity, gone on vacation, or day because ofillness and other reasons. the test as have Identical tables weredeveloped for Form B of Most of the tables the preceding pagesfor Form A. been described in child- indicate that Form B issomewhat easier than FormA; at least, Many of the testadministra- ren madesomewhat higher average scores. the art work was some- tors felt that Form B was abetter test because uniform for In the refined formsthe art work is more what better. suggested that their the two forms ofthe test. Other participants because they had hadthe children might have madehigher scores simply For most child- experience of havingbeen tested first withForm A. they had ever seen. They re- ren, thesetests were the first ones practically all instances,but teachersreported acted positively in like a new better results whenthe children approachedt1'. experience game they wereto play. by children en- Table X presents a summaryof test scores made population (Urban, Rural, rolled only in Programs divided by and Rural), and by raceand sex. Numbers of child- and combined Urban these are the ren in eachcategory are presentedin class intervals; included in percentile norms. bases of laterstatistical tables and are 10; 309 made scoresof 49 or Very few childrenmade scores lower than into other categories. 50. Later tables dividethe same children for children enrolledin Table XI presentsthe same information hundred thirty-twochildren were Summer Programs. Three thousand one with 2139 enrolledin involvt.0 during the -i:interterm in comparison 118 made scores of 49 or50 on summer school. Of these children, who had such scores onForm A. Form B as comparedwith only 17 children presented in Tables Xand XI Table XII combinesthe information children, Rural andUrban, Boys showing togetherdata for all of the Boys outnumberedthe and Girls, Caucasian,Negro and Other Races. but the margin wasnot great. girls in both Urbanand Rural Centers for children ofdif- Table XIII shows scoresby class intervals separately ferent age levelsenrolled in Full-Yearand Summer Programs figures are to befound and for the combinedtotal. These same total in a discreteseries also in Table XVI whichgives percentile ranks which presents variousstatistical measurements. and in Table XVII 41 N.) SU:.2,1ARY OF FOR 13 TEST SCORES MADE BY CHILDREN IN TAPLE FULL-YEAR PRUGRAM, 1969,BY KPULATION, RACE, AND LEX ScoreClass : Caucasian Occro UaBAN CHILURFN Lthcx' T717775.ban' RURAL CHILDREN t. Cher ALL CHTLMEN vv.?Inter G D 0 B, G 13 G TOTAL Caucas4an ft:iroJ.) G B .1 G BTt.tal Rural TLTAL .4111 Total 43-4549-51 465623 544929 396147 857541 1516 4 1416 7 122119 66 153140 77 275259143 646941 706754 36 3623 413154 131410 11 97 113119 74 122130 92 235249166 235'8140 27527C169 50S309 34-4637-3940-42 321L40 25el?2940 516265 5261.54 11 151124 121116 101118 222234 44.45 3257 2925 3536 11 14 6 8481 107 73 157188 205197 174225 37422510 28-3025-2731-33 102033 101C26 153046 143536 10 73 11 36 32538994 27597392 112162186 59 153633 17112034 13101618 131217 5 3265 558 285856 293759 115 5795 147150 e+1 110151 CC 257301 13-1516-1822-,2419_21 018 0145 10 1C7 12 31 12 00 101620 2 1617 41 323714 479 075 371 21 23 244 121824 7 131026 4 25281150 281756 2c;53 8 163.109 2557 10-12 1-34-67-9 012 00 001 00 00 0,00 0013 00 031 O1 031 001 0101 002 1002 OO43 116 13 O15 1 12 26 TherAL 328 290 443 481 93 107 864 878 1742 0 377 O 378 218 251 0 0 0 84 0 82 0 679 O 711 0 1390 0 1543=11, O 1589 0 3132 0 TAPLE rttrvAnyOF FORE !3 TEST SCORES MADE BY CHILDREN DI PPOC"Wl1969, DY. POPULATIOi3 .n:1^170.1.../ 3 :-D. 01 UMAN KLDP.IT RURAL Cc' IL T "'" r: TDT- ' crA. Cacasian re(7.ro °tiler Tctrtl Urban Caucasian *torso Other Total nural ----____-. VP IP 0 13 ;) aa.1101.0.1111.1.. GTotql 1110.111 .11111, 1. G

16 23 3 32-, 39 44 3. 0 4 ... 47 70 eP -; ft " . 11 50 42 92 73 R :I / 5 , 8 t.) 611 11:5 12A ,2 Z 57 72 12r, 56 69 9 2 7 3 72 74146 I .) 57 62 319 50 55 3 8 3 ., ..).-; .1 8 (6 71 .,...)i r2 -:- 66 64 330 .), 46 10 11 10 8 05 1-.,r, 62 60122 40 38 :11.1. 8 11 16 05 (2 127 12.7 36 / 9/ '1 lln 47 47 ..1 11 0 16 6 64 48 rr ;() 1,, ) 100 ..).. 5 rr n8 ) 45 8 .., 11 6 )) 47. , 110 11 7 23 62 26 71 18 9 6 10 4.. 45 26 .J 0 5 I h 1.0 1, 26 20 46 24 t: 3 o 1 3 34 I 4.31 Cc) , 1 r% 3.2 10 '3 i. 2 24 5 2 4 , 17 j...I. ...e., ri 4 1 1 10 9 (3 '3 r, ,-)- 3 5 19 4 , 2 3 2 1 4 t J d..e. 24 -I ..) 7 3 ... 0 2 2 0 0 3 1 4 . C) 0 0 1 2 3 5 C) .,. O 0 0 0 . 0 1 3. 0 C) 0 J.1 0 3 0 4 O 0 0 0 1 0 3. 0 1 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3. 1 1 2 0 0 0 C' 0 J. 0 7. O C) 0 3. 0 0 f N 1 0 C) \J 0 0 0 n 0 0 0

PO'll AT k 199 179188108 95 503 482 985 433 409 94 5! 90 70 617 537 11541120 1010 213

LJ smiAny t F FOR 13 1ST SCORES NADE BY CHILDREN IN FULL,YEAR AND RACE, AND SEX TABLE XII SUMMER PROGRAMS, 1969, BY POULATIGH, bcoresInter-Class Caucasian Negro URBAN CHILDREN (:Thor Total Urban CauCasian Negro RURAL CHILDREN uther Total Rural tlaAa'ITT rfrrTr!':: al 3513 45G i. G 13 G TOTA L B LT 13 G 13 G B G rp., 46-4849-51 6967 9171 438258 109 4286GB 4.1-,24 2513 179169 82 225182100 404351182 120132 68 139121 98 454124 433161 2214 1710 185195106 d-,J199139nn/ 38394245 36:i.364138 ., .....239 7e5427- ' r(4) 34-3637-3940-42 r:r7468 n 494662 758387 769084 223028lc,.:_ 272934 156187173 152165180 308352353 739695 139 7278 323938 254644 21201614 24...4.1,2214 121156147 121138178 242294325 277343320 2733r-,3...,,,,, 6460/0. 25-5728-3031-33 38i,..),. 3646 6454 5654 2016 1220 108136 104120 212256 355173 354356 2227.I.01,t 1118 121422 'I11....L 6 122 83 527285 1.211552(.fl 19125$ 17o2(.5 ..)-14:)3550 , 22-2419-21' 142116 1812 31 8 1118 182122 1219 3 10 24 4671 3750 121 5683 3.) 10 15 6 2i 65 7 5269 19 5371 140 5798 102 5256 24210ci154 13-1516_18 26 41 12 2 18 21 01 2028 5 2813 4,,, 33 7/. 1217 3 12 54 04 14 25 348 2;21 5 2412 19 1433 1041 2511 1 2166 10-12 4-6, 02I 0C..1 02 010 10 0 124 10 2, 1042 01 01 010 001 10 04 2 25 28 2 49, 1-3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 02 20 .i.21 14 Ti TAT, 544 (; 622 669 201 202 1367 1360 AM. 2727 810 787 312 309 174 152 1296 1248 2544 2663 26G8 5271 SUMMARY OF FORM B TEST SCORES FOR CHILDREN OF DIFFEREIT TABLE XIII AGES ENROTIR1 IN FULL-YEAR AND SUMMER PROGRAMS SCORES:Claps AGES '4- 4-1:4-6 4-0 down TOTAL val49-51Inter- F-Y6-7 up 20 Sum. 38 F-Y1246-1:6-6 Sum. 47 F-Y 955-7:6-0 Sum. 23 F-Y 5-1:5-653 Sum. 8 F-Y 4-7:5-013 Sum. 1 F-Y 4 Sum. 21 7-Y 01 Sum. 00 F-Y309508 Sum.237118 Total 745427 46-4837-3940-4243-45 12162433 43344357 154134 7089 108 9188 149135147 90 86787659 131115109103 24423225 75626453 23161326 4 152216 93 0410 181 011 379422301510 256275249267 678785550646 34-3631-3325-2728-30 10 05 24222810 43111434 29426054 71173862 85285454 69772152 32353650 4249771857 30303819 2011 99 45 10 727 00 169257109 65 198206133 89 242367463154 19-2122-24 12 55 37 88 10 9 1028 18 1425 14 10 0 . 4 0 2 1 57 52 109 66 16-1810-1213-15 7- 9 01 014 02 012 410 13 012 3480 0804 3021 291 .4 015 040 013 01 1225 216 41 392 21 639 TOTAL. 4-1- 36 124 ....324___60 0 0 0 628 01 82 00 0 81 0 0 00 22 03 1 8 01 00 A 01 00 1 2 0 2139 04 5271 0 cr% SUMMARY OF FORM B TEST SCORES FOR CHILDREN OF DIFFERENT AGES TABLE XIV ENROLLED IN URBAN AND RURAL PROGRAMS ClassSCORES: I AGES valInter- Urb. Rur. -7 up : 6-6 5 -7:677177757-4 4-7:5-0 4-0 down I TOTAL 46-4849-51 3326 3257 108 63Urb. Run 137108 8942Urb. Rur. 119 6 Urc. 7737 6224Rur. Urb. 42.11 16Rur. Urb. Rur.3 2 Urb. rtur.0 10 Urb. Rur. Total182 245 427 34-3637-3940-4243-45 193o1829 19282938 107 467873 104135 8051 112115 8273 118. 749599 809582 47615653 704551 35283326 111610 7 8726 021 801 308352353404351 242294381394325 550646785745678 22-2431-3325-2728-30 3597 1520 5 112347 6 .47 2933 9 16245364 22213952 23337056 203135 25416155 12312632 10lo12 5 lo12 34 021 2795 121212256 83 121207155 71 154367463242 13-1516-1819-21 O2 .2435 021 10 12 27 1012 1 20 9 12 7 16 17 285 o78 425 12 31 3356 7 143353 109 2166 10-12 1-4-7- 369 O 0 0 01 O 02 O23 032. 312 .0 02 o0 01 0 100: 41 C25 639 TOTAL 181 257 565 748 686 O 740 0 682 O 432 0 500 o 259 0 103 o 68 0 10 0 40 0 I 2727 2544 0 5271 Table XIV combines the class intervals into Urban and Rural children for each age level for the total 5271 children involved in the standardization and refinement of Form B. Although the total of 2727 urban children outnumbers the 2544 who were considered rural, rural children far out-numbered the urban ones in the three, top age levels: 6-7 up, 6-1:6-6 and 5-7:6-0. Younger children were enrolled in urban centers, and more of these were Day-Care Centers which are rather scarce in most rural communities.

Table XV combines Full-Year and Summer, Rural and Urban Programs and shows scores by class intervalsand different ages for Boys and Girls. Boys outnumbered girls only slightly in the total number of 5271; the only two age levels which contained more girls than boys were 4 -7 to 5-0 and 4-1 to 4-6.

All of these tables are used for later statistical tables and are combined into percentile norms both in a discrete series in Table XVI and by class intervals in Table B on the last page of the Test Form B presented in Appendix H of this report.

Table XVI divides the children into age groups for Form B results and gives their percentile ranks by age. These figures combine both Full -Year and Summer Programs, Rural and Urban Children, and Boys and Girls of different ages. At one time it seemed advantageous to prepare separate norms for the various groups; later analysis-of statistical tables revealed that ages of children were more important than whether they were rural or urban or were enrolled in Full-Year or Summer Programs. A comparison of the measurements presented in Table XVII reveals that the highest scores were made by the children in the age group 6-1 to6-6, thesame picture as was found from results for Form A of the Test. One four-year-old cnild made a score of 50 on Form B, compared to a high score for this age level of 44 points on Form A of the Test. While numbers of children in each age group were somewhat smaller than those for Form A, the largest number, 1426, was found in the age range 5-7 to 6-0, also the most populous group for Form A. More children made higher scores on Form B than on Form k; the greatest range of differences in scores were found in the age group 4-7 to 5-0.

Table XVIII presents the item analysis for Form B of the Test. As with Form A of the Test, the items were analyzed at three different times during this project, each resulting in rearrangement and reorg- anization of items similar to the final refined Form B of the Test presented in Appendix H of this report. In addition to changes in some of the decoys to make them less obvious and a decrease in size of items so that more could be presented on each page, a few changes resulted from comments made by participants in the project.Two of these suggestions which were inculcated into' the refined test were the printing of directions in French and Spanish for non-English- speakingthildren and the inclusion of an example for each sub-test. 47 4-- UM MARY OF FORM B TEST SCORES FOR BOYS AND GIRLS OF DIFFERENT AGES ENROLLED IN FULL -YEAR TAPLE XV AND SUMMER PROGRAMS ClassSCORES:Inter- 67.7 un 6-1LE-6 .5-7:6-0 '.5 -1:5 -6 AGES 4-7:5-0 4-1:4-6 4-0 down TOTAL 46-4849-51val 23Boys53 Girl; Boys 3735 115 83 130 Girls!88 112 47Boys Girls Boys Girl; Boys Girls 9671 6628 3373 17 6 40 8 Boys Girls1 4 Boys Girls0 10 .188 364Boys 381239Girls Total 427745 34-3637-3940-4243-45 1625'3028 39222129 107 529386 135 456591 113 838299 112120 7386 86697858 69656678 48323455 464350 3497 101613 5 4210 410 343320364277 273303358421 646678550785 25-2728-3031-33 1016 67 1411 3 342651 142243 5 334465 124851 294959 382446 334351 394436 12 78 12 686 345 246 140191258 102176205 367242463 16-1819-2122-24 405 . 20 10 27 24 28 97 1210 8 121426 1817 4 1719 9 18 37 37 6 20 320 415798 255256 109154 66 10-1213-15 7- 9 / 0 20 01 0 20 201 302 40 312 01 120 02 01 01 10 18 11 21 '21 a TOrIAL2223aL24LAm66621-4/ "" 0 0 0 o1 o0 0 00 579 0 535 0 372 20 387 01 72 0o 99 01 24 0 26 01 2663 3 2608 5271 36 TABLE XVI FORM B SCORES AND PERCENTILE RANKS FOR CHILDREN OF DIFFERENT AGES EN- ROLLED IN FULL -YEAR AND SUMMER PROGRAMS AGES: -1:6-6 577:6-0 5-1:5-6T-7:5-0 4-1:4-6 4-0 do ij TOTAL SCORE ile r. 50 99.8. 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.99 49 93.3 93.4 96.0 97.7 99.2 98.8 99.9 96.12 48 86.6 86.7 92.0 94.5 98.2 97.1 99.9 91.87 47 79.1 80.1 87.0 90.7 95.4 95.9 99.9 87.07 46 70.9 74.4 81.9 86.0 93.4 95.3 98.0 82.48 45 63.8 68.1 77.1 82.0 90.6 94.2 98.0 77.71+ 44 59.7 62.5 72.2 77.6 .86.3 93.0 98.0 73..8609 43 53.6' 55.3 66.4 73.1 84.1 90.6 96.0 67 42 48.6 49.7 60.8 68.0 80.5 88.9 96.0 62.85 41 47.0 44.2 55.8 64.2 77.3 84.8 94.0 58.12 40 42.2 40.5 49.8 60.0 74.0 8'....0 92.0 54.01 39 37.4 36.3 46.0 55.9 70.2 79.5 82.0 49.99 38 33.5 31.6 42.0 51.0 66.9 88.0 37 30.3 27.4 37.9 46.6 62.6 0.2 88.0 36 26.9 24.2 34.2 42.4 57.3 6.1 88.0 37.73 35 25.,1 21.1 31.0 37.8 52.3 63.7 84.0 34.11 34 20.8 19.2 26.2 33.8 47.3 60.2 78.0 30.26 33 18.2 16.9 23.3 31.0 43.5 55.0 72.0 27.30 32 17.6 14.8 19.9 28.0 38.7 49.7 68.0 24.30 31 13.0 12.2 18.0 25.2 36.2 46.2 60.0 21.61 30 12.1 9.7 15.1 21.5 32.0 40.9 52.0 18.52 29 11.6 7.8 12.5 19.2 26.4 36.8 46.0 15.76 28 9.1 6.4 10.8 16.9 23.8 35.1 42.0 13.81 27 6.6 5.5 13.9 20.6 32.8 38.0 11.55 5.5 4.5 Z.4 12.1 17.4 31.6 32.0 9.98 25 4.6 3.1 13.8 27.5 28.0 8.25 24 4.3 2.4 5.5 9.0 11.1 24.0 24.0 6.96 23 3.9 1.9 4.3 7.6 9.1 17.5 22.0 22 3.4 1.6 3.6 6.2 7.4 16.4 20.0 4.74 21 3.0 1.3 2.5 5.1 6.2 16.4 20.0 4..04 20 2.3 1.0 2.2 3.9 4.3 13.5 18.0 3.09 19 1.8 .7 2.0 3.1 3.3 9.9 18.0 2.47 18 1.4 .5 1;5 2.2 3.0 8.8 14.0 1.97 17 1.1 .3 1.1 1.3 2.5 5.8 12.0 1.39 16 .7 .23 .63 .98 1.8 4,1 6.0 .95 15 .5 .15 .35 .81 1.5 3.6 6.0. .72 14 .28 .81 1.3 2.9 6.0 ,61 13 .28 ,.45 1.1 1.8 6.0 .46 12 .14 .27 1.1 1.2 2.0 .32 11 .14 .18 .92 1.2 2.0 .29 10 .14 .09 .79 .59 2.0 .23 9 .14 .53 .59 2.0 .17 8 .07 .40 2.0 .11 7 .07 .40 2.0 .11 .40 2.0 .095 5 .132 .019 4 .132 .019 3 .132 .019 2 1 umber doup: 438 1313 1426 1114 759 171 50 5271

49 %EAN, MEDIAN, Q3, Qi, Q, AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS OF CHILDREN AT DIFFERENT AGE L. a IN NORMING GROUP FOR FORM B OF READINESS TEST TABLE XVII BoysficationClassi- meat MedianmeanMeasure- 6-7 uo 42.20 6 =1:6-6 42.79 39.77-7:6-0 37.81-1:5-6 AGES. 4-7:5-0 34.07 4-1:4-6 30.75 4-0 down 28.70 775 38.6637.61TOTAL Q3 46.65 47.87 44.92 43.55 39.25 35.83 34.25 . 44.48 Qi 34.86 36.57 33.18 27.99 23.64 . 25.10 31.86 Gir s Q3MedianMeanQ'Stan.Dev. 46.9842.7741.24 8.295.89 46.8143.1941.99 7.675.65 45.2940.7839.50 7.745.87 44.3338.6937.7131.00 8.486.27 42.1336.1135.67-----527q1-----2-0-658.425.63 39.7934.25 8.496.09 30.5033.88 4.577.59 45.2440.3038.88 8.536.31. Stan.Dev.QQi 36.46 7.335.26 . 37.70 '4.556.64 34.79 7.855.25 32.38 8.275.97 29.32 8:066.40 25.90 9.336.79 21.00 9.286.44 33.71 8.155.76 ban Q3MedianQQilean 36.5445.751.2.25 5.10 46.3341.3136.70 4.82 43.4033.4144.42 5.108.54 31.5543.7337.91.3911 6.09 28.9341.0337.1234.0 5.55 24.4336.9833.1332723 o.27 19.2537.2526.002774 9.00 .38.8732.3844.39)770) 6.00 I am .Stan.Dev.Q1Q3MedianMean 35.1246.8042.3540.2' 7.15 36.5546.7642.62 0..56.71 34.5545.7440.2639.35 7.68 31.7043.4238.6337.37 8.26 40.7028.0534.48 4.148.39 25.1037.3633.05 9.948.78 25.7033.8830.50 9.239.12 40.1733.1146.68 8.18 b4 Year Q3MedianMean"Stan.Dev.Q 47.5044.4142.79 8.165.84 47.8944.0342. 0 7.655.11 46.2541..9740.04 8.075.59 44.8739.833..59 8.615.86 42.3836.5830..5 8.166.32 39.1633.5032.50 6.086.13 33.7830.28 9.7.854.09 3 45.7040.8039.36 8.256.78 ammer MedianQiStan.Dev.Q-lean 8 41.1739.5o 4.006.62 40.1838.92 4.486.53 37.4036;8336.26 4.997.23 33.5953774 8.055.64 30.553075730.68 7.765.85 27.8026.00 9.116.58 20.0o-24.46 7.724.16 37.4434.30 8.035.70 Stan.Dev.QQi t3046.37 8:U .b 33.7844.97. 31.2443.15 kgg 27.6940.04 8.816.17 36.4725.63 8.305.42 33.33237423.36 4.988.56 6U 11.2211.216.2538.75 30.5543.54 8.576.49Q3 Item Percent- Percent- READINESS TEST FOR DISADVANTAGED PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN (FORM B) ITEM ANALYSIS: TABLE XVIII DIFFICULTY AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES Number Lower.g..Uperage of q age of nationDiscrimi- Average Difficulty. culty Diffi- Remarks Concerning Difficulty and MIMMOMMUMMUNWOMMU001.110011.74WWIRINIVAIMMOM Discrimination 4321 62.181.767.586.5 97.599.599.099.4 .354.177.315.129 .798.906.833.929 11 429 LowSlightLow average discrimination; liscrimin6aon; too low easy. Change decoys.star decoys. average difficulty...... NNW.= 876 5 53.156.171.550.7 91.485.799.483.3 .383.296.326.279 .722.709.854.670 161721 7 ReasonableLowReasonable discrimination; discrimination; low low average discrimination; averagelow average difficulty. difficulty. average difficulty. 121110 9 55.374.077.554.7 93.794.199.582.1 .384.201.274.220 .745.841.885.684 1420 85 LowLow discrimination; low average discrimination; averagelow average difficulty. difficulty. average difficulty. 151413 43.854.493.9 93.896.899.4 .500.424.055 .688.736.966 1813 1 HighAveragebutSlight changeaverage discrimination;discrimination; decoys discrimination; to make lowtoo average discrimination; low average difficulty. more difficult.easy. Keepaverage for first difficulty.average item difficulty. 19181716 44.834.872.6 77.479.599.2 .326.447.266 .71%0.611.371.859 2325 6 LowAverageReasonable discrimination; discrimination; low average discrimination; average difficulty. average difficulty. average difficulty. 23222120 65.439.049.955.782.,2 97.780.399.298.2 .323.413.170.483 .597.816.907 241015 3 AverageLowSlightAverage discrimination;discrimination; discrimination; too low average discrimination; low average difficulty. average difficulty. easy. Changeaverage decoys. difficulty. 2524 46.750.5 87.098.7 . .375.365.430 .655.687.772 221912 LowAverage discrimination; law average discrimination; average difficulty. average difficulty. "LniLQLEArtISIIN1111104011itnl.~OMMOINIMMMian).4 ...... -...... 040MODMONNeUEMMmMONN ...747111.1.1.mommmemmeammem.....mb( on nu ) average discrimination; average difficulty. mmmmm . OM ..n READINESS TEST FOR DISADVANTAGED PRE-SCHOOL(FORM CHILDREN 0 ITEM IN ANALYSIS:THE UNITED STATES DIFFICULTY AND DISCRIMINATION (CONTINUED) W NumberItem..------Percent-age of Percent- age of Discrimi-Index of Average Index of ...... Diffi-Rank of ...... Remarks Concerning Difficulty and Discrimination ..... --- ...... --- 282726 Lowed Q--URDtr-Q.--natip..---Piffic411X-88.488.684.0 cultE.------98.599.694.8 .101.110.108 .934.941.894 282630 Slight discrimination; too easy. ------...... ------Change .choices.choices. --- -- 3029 88.582.3 99.099.1 .386..107.106 .907.938 2927 Slight discrimination; too easy.easy. Change choices. 333231 43.655.358.8 91.494.097.4 ...... _...... lialag...large.ati_lsal_abminua_in_all_itema..iu_autmtuatia..387.478 .675.747.81 32313/.1, kvettigi'discrimination;Low average discrimination; average lourlow averagedifficulty.average difficulty.difficulty. 37363534 40.430.737.427.7 95.992.689.287.7 .600.619.518 .633.571 33373638 AverageHigh average discrimination; discrimination; average average difficulty. difficulty. .L0 End3938 of Part II: Differences 24.437.7 2 74.492.2 ...aka. . .500.545.55 -- .. 4122.494 -- .44.___Loimmet_diomiminattigal.hieh_amtrau_diffimalta.J.3935 HighAverage average discrimination; discrimination; average average difficulty. difficulty. 44434241 26.932.948.043.2 86.693.379.794.5 .528.537.453.513 -. - .533.598Ag.707 44414245 Average discrimination; averageloWaveraged average difficulty. irricu:Ey. difficulty. 47Z6--Eraa-Firt42 ''---64.1 iir-Rumerical-Inalo ies .2241 62.9 -NJ.--93.994.7 -.1.21a- .310.3 L642...... 41.---&ntin-liftednalaatiani-ntin-difficultY..7§7------11-17---"r37717.0ZirariFFIELTIECIE77.<3700E.F-aummulu7.784 47 Low average discrimination; low average difficulty. End494850 _a_Bart-IIEL--Miasing-Parta...Fard-of-Test-AnalgaiaL.Iliflicultg-and_Diacrimination..-Test...nead*-to-reliae....6.1.1.246.959.8 96.779.9g2.1.6....a17...... 1.267.--.42...... 4219.20119....diimiainatimal_lmisamea_limacitai... .369.330 .783.634 4850 Low average discrimination; lowaverage average difficulty. difficulty. CONCLUSIONS ANi) RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

The major objective of thisresearch project was ito develop a culture-fair,non-verbal individual readiness testOr possible administration to both rural andurban disadvantagedilre-school children in the United States. Specific objectivesincludedpre- paration of easily administered testswith adequate directions and instructions to insure uniformresults with a minimum!of time invested by teachers; preparationof norms in the form a percentile ranks for children of differentchronological ages; preparation of equivalent forms of the test so thatthe first might to used to identify weaknesses early during theschool year and the second used at the end of the year to assessthe efficiency of the program provided for and the progress made byeach child; preparation of the instruments for disseminationthrough the approprilate agency of the Unites States Office ofEducation; and making ivailable refined instruments through carefulitem analysis which should improve the entirerationale of measurement andevaluation. It is felt that these objectives have beenachieved.

Included with this report are FormA and Form B of the Walker Readiness Test with percentile ranks foreach age level in intervals of six months, beginning with agesix years, seven months and up and concludingwith age four years and downward, sample answer sheets, and scoring stencils for eachform of the test.

Many statistical tables areincluded in the report to show how validity and reliability ofthe instruments were established. Empirical validity of .675 wasascertained for Form A of the test, :633 for Form B. A slightly lower validity wasobtained using only the few children in 54 centerswho were administered standardized tests. The figures given above representfindings based on calculations for 5774 of the 6662 childrenchosen as the samples from 364 agencies for whom percentile ranks werecomputed for Form A and calculations for 4469 of the 5271children chosen as the samples from 301 of the same agencies forwhom percentile ranks were computed for Form B. Curricular validity is also claimedfor the tests.

Reliability of Form A of the test wasestablished at .869 for the 6662 children included instandardization of that instrument; reliability of .889 wasascertained for Form B of the test for the 5271 children includedin its standardization procedures.

In depth evaluation of theinstruments was completed inseveral rural and urban summer Head Start programs,where the tests were administered to all children enrolled. Statistical findings and calculations were not found to beappreciably different from those provided for the children used intte norming groups.

The tests may be easilyadministered by teachers or trained aides or volunteer workers;directions are clear and simpleand are translatedinto both French and Spanishfor greater uniformity 53 of results and more validityfor the norms presented withthe insufficient time to ad- struments. Eight to 10 minutes should be minister each form of the test to onechild; however, the tests are not to be timedsince some children respond moreslowly than others. The test items do not appear todiscriminate against children from impoverishedenvironments and thuz: may be described as relativelyculture-fair.

Scoring can be done quicklyand easily by placing thescoring stencil over the child's answersheet and counting correct responses when all of the child's answers arerecorded by the test administra- the tor. During the research project,it was recommended that only child's incorrect answers berecorded. For the average teacher, however, use of the scoringstencil andrecording all ofthe child's answers appears tobe the better method.

In addition to Tables Aand B which appear on the back pages of the test booklets for FormA and Form B respectively, prospec- VII and tive users of the instruments maybenefit from using Tables These tables VIII- for Form It and Tables XVI andXVII for Form B. present percentile ranks foreach age level in a discreteseries rather than in class intervalsE,L0 the Mean, Median, TopQuartile, Bottom Quartile, Semi-Interouartic! Range, and StandardDeviation for each age leVel divided-into the following classifications: Boys, Girls, Urban Children,RuralChildren, Children enrolled in Full-Year Programs andChildren enrolled in Summer Programs. When these tables are consulted,the comparative score foreach individual child can be found forwhichever classifications are warranted.'

This has been a very rewardingexperience for the Project Director and it is hoped thatthe instruments may be usedto help de- set up evaluation programsand subseouent remedial programs signed to help prepare eachdisadvantaged pre-school childfor enrollment in public school programs.

Recommendations

It is recommended that someprovision be made forpossible feed-back from users of theseinstruments so that furtherstatis- tical analysis and refinementmight be achieved. It would be helpful if the instrumentscould be administered asthey were Originally designed to be used,Form A early in theschool year and Form B at the end of the year. It is felt that real progress can limited be seen in this length oftime. Since the time was somewhat during this between administrations ofthe two forms of the test with . pro; et, it is hoped thatresults of using the instruments be reported to thoseinterested in further work proper spacing can is in order. and research with theinstruments.A follow-up study

The instruments appear tobe sufficiently valid,reliable, and usable to be offered toworkers in the field. It is recommended that test booklets toprepared using the originalplates for the __items which will bepresented it} the FinalReport for the Re- ---J -7"iearch Project; that the propertables can be printed to accompany 54 the test booklets if it is not possible to include them within the booklets themselves; that provisions be made for providing uniform answer sheets from the Government Printing Office, if possible; and that scoring stencils can be produced from heavy poster paper for distribution with the test booklets andanswer sheets.

Even without a further research counittment, the writer would be happy to receive results from further experimentation with the' instruments and would volunteer to bring the percentile norms and other statistical tables designed to accompany the test booklets for maximum usage up to date, ifusers can be encouraged to share their answer sheets with her.

It is recommended that further efforts be made to find centers which administer other standardized tests to their disadvantaged pre-school children and conduct additional studies in correlations between results of the Readiness Tests herewith presented and results of such standardized testsas are available. During this project, scores on standardized testswere- provided for only 769 children who were administered Form A of this test and for 677 who were administered Form B of the test. These numbers are too small to be considered significant.

If the instruments are used as designed to help each individual child rather than to label him early during his school career, they can result in improved educational practices and materials for disadvantaged pre-school children. If the instruments are used simply to decide which children are ready for entrance into public school programs and nothing is done to help overcome weaknesses in concepts thus revealed, then administration of the tests would be a pure waste of timer

If further research is attempted in this area, it is hoped that some effort can be made to include color charts and items for the children; this was part of the original plan but had to be abandoned because of problems involved in reproducing true colors. This would make the two instruments more expensive to reproduce, but children need to be tested for their knowledge of colors before they are enrolled in public school programs. If the items already included in the instruments could be reproduced in color, this would also enhance the items by providing greater motivation and interest on the part of young children.

If further research is conducted with these instruments, it is hoped that an effort can be made to secure cooperation from all of the states and regions involved so that each state will have sufficient returns to be considered representative. In this project, certain states returned a much larger proportion of their testing materials than did others. Since participation was on a voluntary basis and involved several'hours of time for each center involved, failure to cooperate is understood in view of the fact that the findings and results of their children could not be made immediately available to them. Great appreciation is felt for the wholehearted cooperation which came from a great variety of sources. 55 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bloom, Benjamin S., Allison Davis, nd Robert Hess; Compensatory Education for Cultural Deprivation, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1965.

Deutsch, Martin, "Nursery Education: The Influence of Social Pro- gramming on Early Development," The Disadvantaged Child, ed., Joe L. Frost and Glenn R. Hawkes, Boston: Houghton- Miff].in .Co., 1966.

Fantini, Mario D, and Gerlad Weinstein, The Disadvantaged, New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

Havighurst, Robert J., The Disadvantaged Child, ed., Joe L. Frost and Glenn R. Hawkes, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1966.

Keabh, Everett T., Robert Raton, and William E. Gardner, Educa- tion and Sodial Crisis, New Hork: Hohn Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967.

Lien', Arnold J., Measuremennd Evaluation of Learning, Duhnque, Iowa: ililliam C. Brown, Publishers, 1967.

Marans, Allen E., and Reginald Lourie, "Hypotheses Regarding the Effects of Child Rearing Patterns on the Disadvantaged Child," 'Disadvantaged Child, Vol. 1, ed., Jerome Hellmuth, Seattle: ,Seat,tle Seguin School, Inc., 1966.

Noll, Victor H., Introduction to Educational Measurement, 2nd edition, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1965.

Stanieyl.Julian C., Measurement in Today's School, 4th edition, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,'1964.

56 APPENDIX A TABLE XIX PRODUCT MONENT COEFFICIENT CF CORRELATION AND SCATTERGRAM FOR 16C5 URBAN CHILDREN ENROLLED IN FULL YEAR HEAD START AND DAY CARE CENTERS, SHOWING RELATIONSHIP BETUEEN SCORES ONFoamA AND FORM B OF TEST

Frsdxdy (17,f.xdx)( fyly) xY fiT7-(Efxdx)2 147ydy11-lefydy)'

1605 (129019) - (12,918) (14,939)

11605 (115,540)-(12,918)7 ifi'605 (151,755) (14,939)'

207,075,495 - 192,982,002

IT-85,441,70o 166,874,724.11;6,566,775 223,173,721

14,093,493 14,093,493.00=.691 (4308.94) (4515.87) 20,393,079.79 To- tat 2 17 2747 82 10:17218e2 420 213163121381605 9 1 5 : 22112111 0 21 29147 a 11IBC68 7041 5 253 3- 6 2 33 65 65 4117 2256 0- 2 6 19 ' 4611111116 5 2220 15 5 1 203 34MI 6IIIII 4 2 10 15 44 3 2918 8 3 111165 31- IL. 10 6 30 2315 5 1 2 2 139 28- 9 15 26 12 8 1111 1 1111'96 30 5 2 1 53 2? 5 1111 22 27 24 LIion T 111111 , iris... 29 18'111111 10 13.111111111111III IIIIHIIIIIlli 1 am El 1111 1111 11111 12-13 6 -19-22-* $4 37 =4043- 4 49-Iota i down3 a21 21. ; f SCORES ON FORM A 57 TAFLE XX PRODUCT MOMENT COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION AND r:CATTERGRAM FOR 1302 RURq CHILDREN EN?OLT.ED IN FULL --YEAR HEAD START AND DAY CARE CENTERS SHOWING RELATICNSIIIP BETWEEN SCORES ON FORM A AND FORM B OF TEST

Nidnly (2C.:,:dx)(eycly) Nffixcl (fifxdx) Neyd;y--(e.Z.fydy)27 1302 (112065) - (10820) (12591)

132 (99526)--(10820) 1.302 (131229) -6728.597"..) 9674010

?1251r7074.52

9674101 9674010 12418335.9997 12418336 = .779

~NrarissosAmmiriAikba..` -bid 7 519.31698610250'18316117. 166.106451302 9- 50 1 1 1 2 315536154 46- 41 1 1 3 6.193 6673 7230 43- 2 3 8.1?44'4 4 46 219 Al_ '42 1 4143553..3.3 189 , 37- 1 .2 61515,41.252'1 39 147 tO345. 214`1227'1718 106 36 1' 31- 1 7121615 1.8 2 89 20- 42 410.10 7 8 . 51

5 410 9 6 27 2 44 22- 24 1 3 7 8 1 27 19- in----- 23: 3 6 4. 6 2 23

. . n,, 2 2 2 2 32 13- 11112 , 15 9 MEM NM 2 t 3.3 16.=19:.*;.1-. 28- 43-46-- Tota 12- 5- ;4- 37 40- dov, 1821 2,!,. '20' .6,3.9---7 tIL,_. SCORES ON FORM A 58 TAFIE XXI PRODUCT MOMENT COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION AND SCATTERGRAM FOR 885 UREAN CHILDREN ENROLLED IN SUMMER HEAD START CENTERS, SHOWING RE- LATIONSHIP BEMEEN SCORES CN FORM A AND FORM D OF TEST (Vxdx) WYdY) rte' gifxdx!'-(Oxdx)- N*dy2-(5:fydy)2

885 (53920)-(5872) (7298)

88'5 (46300)-(58727 885 (6748) - 7298)

47719200- 42853856 4865344

49511 16607676 (2548.55) ( 2570.54)

4865344 =.742 6551149.717

. TO- . tai. 1421.416376 93 11510610 93/8 55 23 5 885 49- 1 5 9 7 8 1 0. 33 467 _a 410 172023 9 4 87 43- 2 1 3 714212226 16 112 45 40- 3 11 16le2222 16 4 2 114 42 . 37- 8 2 13 181520 12 2 2 2 98 34- 1 4 9 19 24 2112 6 2 2 2 105 31° 31- 1 , 11 12'18 18 144 4 2 85

033 ) 28- 13 13 15 20114 1 1 1 94 30 .3

25.- . 911;16 7 57

... Ze-110 ,i . 44 '1* 39 allele'4 3 7. 26

:s- 5 6 3 2 ka. 15- 1 1 5 i EU Z2." 4III 2 6 .low ill. 49_Tota -b-112- 13-16-19-z2-''25-p8- t 1.-134-ai 40,43-46- dam 1 18. :.21 2 V.,_,..0 6 n SCORES ON FORM A 59 TA PIT: XXII PRODUCT MOMENT COEFFICIENT OF COHREI. kTI olt AND SCA TT.E',RGRAM FCR 671 RURAL CHILDREN ENROLIED IN St11,21F,R HEAD START CENTERS SHOVIYG RE- LATIONSHIP PETWEEN SCORES ON FORM A AND FORM P OF TEST

N.S.Idxdy -(IT fxdx) (2,Erydy ) N.Sfxdx2-(t* fxdx) Nefydy. - (`Z. fydy)`' 671 (40455)_(4375) (5598) 671 (33693 )1*-75737 671 (52204) (5598 271453s5 - 24491250 22608003 -r"411714062535028884 - 31337604 26 54055 26 54055 Fr-3777734 17-691= (1862.09)(1921.53) 26 54055 3578061.797 .741.

To...... 7-...... ,...... tal7 13264967928196 7416b483519 4 67 49 NEM 1 :5i03.2 40 4. a IN1III 8,121716 4 62 p/4 5mei915 9 :8 3 68 40- 1 5 251312 1 89 442 11 37- 5, 10 .169 3 78 34 3 85 6 1 82311116 9 2 31 2 5.7 11. 21 72 28 62 0 5 52013 25 0 : 2 5 5 1110 8 r 5 . 46 CO 22- 2.411 7 3 111 11 34 24 . 12 21 1111111111111111111 I , 16 1189 MEM 13- 4 15 11111111 12- am 1 1 3 MIMI Tota 12-13 1.6-1922 ' : 4- 37-40-43-,46-49-

SCORES ON FORM A 60 .XX_IIT. PRODUCT tiel-IENT COEFFICIEilT. 01. CoiiitE.LiviiON AND SCATTERGRAi FOR 385 RURAL CHILDREN EHROLLED SUMNER HEAD START PROGRAMS IN SELECTED SOUTIM'ST, IIID-AMANTIC, AND NORTH CENTRAL CENTERS SHOWING RE- LATIONSHIP PiEIVEEri SCORE3 014 FORM A AND FORM 13 OF TEST (IN DEPTH)

nfxdx2 (_fxdx)2 irlitrydy2-(gfydy)2 85 (30207)- (3008) (3572) 385(26366)- (3008)2 385 (36266) - (3572)2 11,629,695 -10,744,576 110,150,910- 94 317962,410- 12,759,184 885,119 = 885,119 .76 11,3112,846 41.72-6,27-126 115,194.5072

To- 3 2C314149446543628 4385 9 0 lin1C15 39 4.4 2 10 1 62 3-- 41191. 1C 12 3 62

2 = 410 11 37 7- 2 2 4 9 3117 53 4- n 6 1MIN 7 4 1- 4 4E 5 5 11/ 28- 6 1 221 0 1 3in 25- 6 1 r 1 . 18 2? 2 3. . # .. 2 2 2 7 24 1 19 2 12 21 i 2 4 . 1. 1 11.. 18 11111011 13- 0 15 . 32- 2 1 Limn, 112-113- 19 :) 8-51-1-i.-4 40-43-46-49Iota le.v...7435_.8116-1 1. SCORESONFORMA I., TAME XXIV PRODUCT 4ONF T COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION ANDSCATTERGRAM FOR537 URBAN CHILDREN ENROLLED IN SUMMER HEAD START PROGRAMSIN SELECTED CENTERS IN THE MIDATIINTIC SOUfRa-ST, AND WESTERNREGDNE,SHOWING IN DEPTH RELATIONSHIP BETITIM SCORES ON FORg A AMFORM B OF TEST

= Etcl-xci.y ..(SfAx) fydy) "v- 14Eitr=cd:ievixime2 Ptilydy2 (Efydy)2

1(7(29570)- (3780)41(537(50053)-(5023) 20182608-18986940 115879090-14288400 1'26676461- 25230529 1195668 1195668

11-393690 161-1-71951 (32 61.225)(1283 .72) 3.195668 1.6129oo2.44 = 738

To- tal 1428326675 82 7161413121 6537 49- 0 1 512 3 30 46- 3 3111213 13 12 q3 7 79 43- 1819 6 45 412 17 9 1 1 90 40- 42 1 1 4111611179 9 1 37- 1 2.6 918191013 2 2. 1 34 - 36 171010 84 4 2 60. 31- 21 710 9 7 7- 31 1 1 . . 49 28- 30 12 5 2 4 20 25- 27 23 5 3 11 1 25 22 3 1 24 1 . 10 19- '21 12 1 4 16- 18 2 13 15 12

12-3.3-6- a.9:- 1-34-37- 40-43-46-4.9-Tota dolzu1 18 ,21 6 2 : Co SCORES ON Fora' A 62- RANK COEFFICIENT CF CORREI ATION BETWF2N TEACFERSI RANKS CF CFILDREY AND CHIIDREK'S SCORES OK FORM A AND FORM B OF TEST AND BETWEEN FORM A AND FORM B TEST SCORES APPENDIXTABLE XXV P ProgramsYearCoded Urt.an Fu Children Number orm A-Teacher le Rankinr lationCorre- Value Weighted ChildrenNumberForm F-Teacher's Rank nr lationCorre- WeightedValue ChildrenNumber Form A - Form F lat;LonCorre7 ValueWoighted 4231 1610 .663.746.368.803 10.608 7.4603.6808.030 1610 48 .855.661.576.250 13.680 5.2885.7601.000 1610 85 .569.959.524.438 9.1047.6725.2402.190 8765 141614 .856.780.778.475 10.89211.98410.920 7.600 141512 .627.1844.764.740 10.69610.12811.1008.778 141214 .766.875.624.771 10.72412.250 9.2528.736 1211:0 9 18 67 .886.893.813.771 13.878 6.2515.6915.316 17 67 .086.678.402.713 12.121 4.7462.814 .316 17 67 -.085 .4E2.411.821 ..0.51013.9573.3742.877 16151413 18131716 -.433 .924.829.827 1°4.784-7.79410.77714.059 15161314 .415.731.782.6E5 10.16610.9656.6409.590 15131417 .696.875.043.327 13.1254.2519.744 .731 17 (NO TEACHER RATING) ' 18 .355 6.390 21201819 2019 8 .926.810.424.746 18.52014.174 6.4808.480 201018 .913.789.634.921 1.1.41218.26015.7809.210 2018 8 .6e:0.854.669.677 17.0E013.20012.4E6 6.952 23252422 201416 4 .344.350.713.643 .1.40014.2605.5049.002 141815 5 .575.641.615 11.538 8.6102.8759.225 1418 4 .600.316.447.7L8 10.4722.4004.4248.046 wcf.% ...... 2-26 7 20 .484.691 1 9.680 .820 1615 .807. (1 12.105 .424 16 ..724 11.584 8.880ccntinued YearCodedRANK UrbanCOEFFICIENT Full- Form OFA-Tolcher's CORRLATI Number FORM P OF Corre- ON BETAENWeighted TEACHERS'RankingTEST AND PETWEENRANKS OF FORMA CHIT ANDDREN FORM AND CHILDREN'SB TEST SCORES SCORES ON NumberForm F-Teacher's Rnnkinr Corr©- Weighted Number Form A - Form B (CONTINUED) Corre- FORMA ANDWeighted assrams 302820 Children 191110 lation.824.767.761- Value15.6567,6708.382 Chlldren 19. 99 lation.774.560.24 Value14.136 2.2145.040 Children 19 9 lat3.on.736.160.000 Value 0.0001.440 34323133 20201514 .871.231.809.715 12.19416.18010.7254.620 131815 .398.751.396.835 12.5257.1289.7635.970 131815 .872.547.513.817 11.35614.706 8.2057.695 38373635 272710 8 -.024 .650.848.908 -0.19222.89617.550 9.0E0 2726 79 -.107 .672.601.863 18.14415.626-0.7497.767 2726 79 .513.653.524.879 17.6.?213.624 3.5917.911 42414039 20121915 .886.94?.890 16.8317.80014.14510.680 181311 8 .388.841.813.595 14.634 4.7607.61449.251 181311 8 .881.291.777.732 13.176 3.7638.5477.048 46444543 15181319 .891.929.792.863 16.03812.07711.88016.397 16131418 .03.840.946.787 13.44012.29812.50214.166 16131418 .838.907.891.786 11.79111.0413.40816.038 49484750 23141618 -.156 .788.911.706 .2.80811.03214.57616.238 211416 .873.621.502.537 12.22210.5428.5929.936 211416 -.163 .832.822.594 -2.60811.64817.242 9.504 53545251 141315 .643.727.698.850 10.47011.050 9.0029.451 131414 .310.624.591.804 4.3407.2368.1128.274 1413 9 .897.622.767.697 (continuedr11.661,9.7588.7086.903 RANK COEFFICIENT CF CORRELATION PETWEEN TEACHERS' RANKS OF CHILDREN AND CHILDREN'S FORM E OF TEST AND BEEN FORM A AND FORM E TEST SCCRES (CONTINUED) SCORES CN FORM A AND YearProsPramsCoded Urban Full- ChildrenNumberForm A-Teacher's Rankin lationCorre- WeightedValue ChildrenNumberForm P-Teacher's lationCorre- Rankin.WeightedValue ChildrenNumber Form A - Form E lationCorre- WeightedValue 58575655 201410 .927.830.761.807 15.22018.54011.298 8.300 191319 9 1.000 .010.758.917 19.000 9k8548.253 .190 1911 9 .684.793.039.700 7756012.99610.309 .741 62616059 20192014 .291.721.666.712 14.42014.2405.5299.324 20151318 .428.729.692.641 14.58011.538 6.4208.996 20151318 .349.736.968.6E2 12.58414.72012.276 5.235 65646366 2015 98 .779.807.917.889 11.68516.1407.1128.253 1315 79 .860.929.842.715 12.90012.077 7.5785.005 1513 97 .780.763.713.956 11.700'6.417 9.9196.692 70696867 20151316 .891.795.663.872 15.90013.36510.60811.336 20151413 .998.626.687.866 14.97013.74011.258 8.764 20151413 .905.803.533.781 13.57516.06010.153 7.462 74737271 18201815 .973.602.709.530 17.51410.83610.61510.600 141617 .602.576.538.eo5 11.22813.6859.2167.532 141617 .839.61e.697.748 11.74612.7169.8889.758 777675 19151714 .871.691.985.964 16.54910.36516.74513.496 171314 .558.707.926.979 15.793 7.2549.898 171314 .845.545.948.602 16.116 7.0858.428 81807978 2015 .198.770.383 15.4007.9605.745 1916 6 .181.239.734 15.7427.2?4.4043.824 191716 6 .689.661 -mc (continued)15.i0514.02414.365 3.y66 YearCodedRANK Url-an Full-COEFFICIENT Form .A-Teacher's CF CORK! FORM B CF TEST AND BETWEEN ATION FETWEEN TEACHFRS' Ranking Form F-Teacher's Rankin, FORM A AND FORM B TEST SCORESRANKS OF CRITDREN AND CHITDREN'S SCORES CN FORM Form A - Form B (CONTINUED) A AND Pro!rams 848382 Children Number 15 lationCorre-.809.919 ValueWeighted12.11513.785 ChildrenNumber 15 lation.732.840Corre- ValueWeiehted10.98012:600 Children Number 1515 1Ption.635.e06Corre- ValueWeighted12.090 9.525 85 96 .742.714 6.6784.284 56 .4 .838.471 4.1902.826 56 .575.814 2.8754.884 898a8786 2019 .688.400.430.660 13.07213.2008.000P.170 201918 .741.478.742.307 14.07914.098 9.5605.526 20191819 .773.887.733.611 14.68717.74013.927 93929190 20201517 .832.742.603.680 16.64011.130.12.06011.560 2011 8 .802.582.463.358 16.040 6.4029.2602.864 202011 8 .872.433.475.300 17.440 4.7639.5002.400 97969594 2015 59 1.000 .742.499.721 11.130 9.9806.4895.000 1517 56 .578.700.402.572 3.5008.670.6.8343.432 1517 56 .749.700.515.829 3.5004.9748.755 101100 9998 252015 6 .843.543.641.764 12.65416.02515.2803.258 142013 7 ' 1.000 .766.642.668 10.72413.3607.000 F: 346 231420 6 .756.600.798.626 12.52011.2353.600 105104103102 15201819 .865.653.700.555 12.97511.75414.00010,545 14181916 .775.617.671.661 10.85011.10612.74910.576 14181916 .508.873.778.250 12.22274.78210.5849.1444.000 108107i06 1316 9 .723.753.319 12.048 92.871 .399 1416 9 .970.877.300 1.5801A.0322.700 1516 9 .686.808.526 (4OITEr777a7-10.29012.9.;8 4.734 nANK COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION B7TWEST FORM B OF TEST AND BETWEEN FORM A AND FORM B T2ST TEACHERS' RANKS CF CHILDREN AND CHIIDREN'S SCORES ON FORM SCORES (CONTINUED) A AND Pro,YearCoded Urtan Full- 109 ChildrenFormNUmber A-Teacher's Rankinr13 laCorre-.7t" ion WeightedValue ChildrenNumberForm B-Te&cher's RAnkinl Corre-lation ValueWeight4.1d Children Number Form A - Form P Corre- Weighted 113112111110 301412 8 .817.756.509.656 10.2186.0486.1089.184 1413 98 .810.700.634.841 10.9336.4809.8005.706 1413 69 .243.751.913 10.54410.6861.4588.217 AverageTOTALS 1746 78.990 .705 1214.270 24.510 .696 . 15(1 29 7/4.0,2 .661.789 1036.210 22.881 .655 ab5 29 73.374 .271.649 1050.606 7.8 .655 TABLE o. RANK COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACHERS'. RANKS OF CHILDREN AND CHILDREN'S SCCP.ES ON FORM: A AND FCRM.B OF TEST AND BETWEEN FORM A AND FOR!! B TEST SCORES ProgramsYearCorded Rural Full- Form A-Teacher's Rankin Children lationNumber Value Corre- Weighted Children lationFormNumber 131-Teacher's Ranki Corre- WeightedValue. Children lationNumber Form A - Form B Corre- Weighi;d- Value 321 1710 9 .69.6.713.630 11.8327.1305.670* 1310 9 .806.364.946 10.4783.6408.514 1310 9 .750.402.805 9.7504.0207.245 7645 15191518 , -.143 .284.880.609 -2.14516.72010.9624.260 15171819 .259.594.695.716 12.88810.42511.286 4.403 151815 .204.727.832.791 10.90514.97614.238 3.060 1110 98 20351619 .886.628.277.788 27.58014.17611.932 5.540 31111618 .441.167.088.840 26.040 4.8513.0061.408 29111916 .395.503.716.934 27.08611.456 3.3459.557 15141312 .14 202019 .621.982.624.500 19.64011.85612.4207.000 20171019 .797.941.333.119 13.54918.820 3.3302.261 2017101 .632.937.771.283 10.74418.740 7.7105.094 19181716 16151310 .971.789.877.146 13.155.1.46012.62412.623 151310 .992.881.849.537 13.21512.73512.896 5.370 151310 .766.913.547.155 11.49013.695 7.1111.550 222120 152018 .784.733.869 11.76014.66015.642 1.517 3 .786.834.886 11.79015.062 2.502 1517 3 .803.834.827 12.04514.0532.502 25242326 171520 9 .813.500.825.930 16.26012.375 8.5008.370 201613 9 .771.834.816.617 15.42013.34410.608 5.553 201613 9 .740.732.678.613 11.712 8.814'5.5;7 2827 20 .673.403 13.4608.060 1912 .413.675 12.8254.956 112 .37.324 continued14.800 3.688 12 RANK COEFFICIENT CF CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACHERS' FORM B CF TEST AND BETWEEN FORM 'A AND FORM RANKS OF CHILDREN AND CHILDREN'S SCORES ON FORM A B TEST SCORES (CONTINUED) AND ProgramsYearCoded Rural Full- ChildrenNumberForm A-Teacher's Ranking. Corre-.472 ----73.C.96 Weighted Value NumberForm P- Teacher's Rankin13 Corre-. 31 WeightedValue Number Form A - Form B Corre- Weighted 3233303129 2020151e lation.562.744.864 11.24014.88012.960 Children 2015 .564.742lation.784 11.22014.84011.7603.450 Children. lation 201513 .340.804.637.607 12.06016.7406.2007.9207.891Value 37363534 20161517 .863.401.667.542.658 13.80811.33910.8406.0159.870 1513201815 .502.806.491.230 14.5086.5269.820 2015131815 .086.834.704.203.528 12.6724.0601.118 3839 . . 2017 .338 6.760 1418 .171.852 12.7E03.078 1418 .589.628 11.30412.510 43424140 201119 .503.868.658.797.738 17.36012.50212.5468.767 201610 .794.906.824.471 15.88011.5367.5369.060 201610 ..831.513.940 16.620 9.4008.2088.246 4847464544 20141015 7 .645.616.816.646 12.920 4.31.27.5458.160 181014 0 .7X.709.692 11.0724.3406.7149.926 1418 79 -.080 .584.444.695 -0.560 5.2567.1049.730 495150 121512 .824.946.677.794 10.60813.93511.35210.15515.6809.03o 11111514. .616.953.625.622.838 10.48311.55015.0846.7769.330 11111514 .247.902.605.800.859 12.00015.4629.9229.3178.470 345352 20171415 .64.856.930.929 1614.55213.020 00 181614 .925.731.692 780 14.04012.95011.696 9.688 181614 .648.860.638.929 (continued)10.20811.66413.00612.040 TABLE XXVI CONTINUED ProgramsYearCoded Rural Full- FormChildren A-TeachersNumber, ' Ranking lationCorre- ValueWeighted ChildrenNumberForm B- Teachers" Ranking lationCorre- ValueWeighted Number , Children lation Form A - Form B Corre- ValueWeighted 585756 181320 ..437 567 11.15410.206'8.740 181220 .572.519.545 10.29610.900 6.228 181220 ..771.656 506 g9 0 1714 . 680576 11.560 8.064 16 1116 ..621 815 1:16930393 ...... 410182143:2650:8265 64636261 201918 ..654.920 718818 11.77218.40013.64216.3o0 13122018 .76;4.778.716.359 12.88812.640 9.6599.3367.180 .20 131218 .495.556.732.805 11.120 5.940 68 120 .658.8725 8 5 15.0018.88613:16016.7500 17201819 .739.291.920 14.89612.56316.560 5.820 17201823 .625.863.585 775 113513.17 2.5005 0. 145 35 45 -1 7069 152021 .502.997.880 5 78 19.94011.56018.480 7.530 101221 .883.055.800 494 ' 18.5439.386 0.5503.200 1821 49 .596. 650825820 14.85017.220 2.6005.364 757473 202016 ..755.438 10 14.20012.080 8.760 151920 .899.573.711 13.50917.980 8.595 201519 .660.743. 644 12.236 9.900 8079787776 2014121120 .867.811..925.881 844 12.13816.88010.17517.620 9.732 20141211 .?56.311.884.884 742 12.37617.680 9.0726.2208.162 122011 .463.800.845.649.842 11.20010.140lidg 9.2607.139 818382 151920 .870.934.231 16:5018.680 3.465 13151820 .873.891 15.71417.820 9.8935.355 1514131820 ..747.831.879 612 17.58014.958 'TOTALSAVerage 8485 1713 *.918 .707'. 888 1018.221 15-.09611.934 .708 1308 16 ..R1.660.085 91 8.3.454 9.4 6 .660 1302 16 .5 -.357 .663.782 872.32511.2012.512 7.950 .670 TABLE XXVII RANKmer COEFFICIENTUrban OF CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACHERS' RANKS OF CHILDREN AND CHILDREN'S SCORES ON Numberorm A-Teachers' Ranking FORMCorre- B OF TEST AND BETWEEN FORM A AND FORM B TEST SCORES Weighted Number Form B-Teacher's Ranking Corre- Weighted Number Form A.-: Form B Corre- FORM A ANDWeighted ProPrams Children , lation.b Value Children lation Value Children 1 lation.338 . . Value 5.408. .b 5 2 43265 161917(No Teacher Rank) .528.641.872.332 12.17914.824 8.5.312 8 111816 -.047 .679.786.316 - 0.517 12.22212.576 5.506 111816 .696.784.839.855 13.680 7.656 987 111315 .757.683970 lg.21;? 8.327 111314 .728.149.918 12.852 8.0081.937 1113 ..972 .826514 12.636 9.0866.682 121110 2017(No Teacher Rank) . .577.124 2.108 1620 .581.464 11.620 7.424 201618 .729.564 526 1716151413 1711201314 .704.612.418.229.079 11:10611.968 2.9776.7328.360 15101711 .662.309.665.475.306 11.305 9.9303.0903.0605.225 1510171116 -.327 .839.173.348. 509 -3.59712.585 1.7308.1445.916 22211918'20 20111412 9 .817.155433.802.845 16.34011.830 1.3955.196.8.822 .1 201112 89 .950.417.72.650.701 19.000 3.3368.0088.4125.850 171112 89 .727.071.806.778.720 2:0.7819.336 272423 201320 7 .647.628.215.514.901 11.71312.94014.44410.280 1.505 151720' 7 .533.321.536.331.997 14.955 9.0613.7526.4205.627 131720 4 _. .664.905.732.538 .13.280-0.80011.76512.4441a8 9.146 3029ig28 23 it18. 118 504 4 14,184 191218 .833.572794 10.86814.292 9.996 .161218 .678. .A. 10.84815.R18 31 19 .789 , 14.9911:84 14 .884 12.376, 34 .888.T (Continued) 12.432 merPrortramsCoded Urban Sum- Children NumberForm A- Teacher's Corre-lation WeightedValueRanki ChildrenTABLENumerForm XXVII F-Teaeherts (CONTINUED) Ranking lationCorre- WeightedValue Children Number Form A - Form E lationCorre- 1 Value;eighted 353k3`332 201''-lo 9 .481.936.886.733 14.17612.461 9.6208.424 1917 97 .235..980.679.323 4.4658.8204.7535.491 1917 97 .848.829.992.623 15.7510.591 8.92a5.936 38393736 201617 8 .585.894.716.581 14'.30411.7005.7289.877 16141913 .924.349.806.279 12.89612.9365.3014.537 161913 8 .905.839.448.304" 14.480 6.7128.5123.952 43424140 131518 .786747.806.555 10.21813.44612.090 8.325 13151715 .614.557.396.708 10.6207.9829.4695.940 131715 .785.342.602.769 10.20511.835 5.8149.030 47464544 2015 .473.965.741.605 14.47514.8209.4609.660 20151619 .601.644.667.486 12.02012.673 9.6607.776 20151916 ;708.714.757.414 14.16010.71014.383 6.624 49485150 2015231312 .955.746.565.079 14.32511.3009.6980.948 141215 .821.894.867.666 11.49410.72813.0')5 7.992 12141512 .901.698.768.726 12.61411.520 8.3768.712 54555352 20191215 .958.839.107.918 18.20216.76013.770 1.284 20161215 .01.682.624.762 13.64011.4307.4886.896 20161215 .520.725.594.090 14.50013.5007.128 59585756 17151714 .783.949.850..769 13.31114.23510.76614.450 12151714 .819.665.851.619 14.4679.8289.9758.666 15171214 .942.816.841.912 11.30412.24014.297 6160 20 .657.976 . 13.14019.520 1519 .622.871 11.1:.1813.065 1915 .834.882 15.84613-.230 AverageTOTALS 939 8..7p .657 639.959 .682 862_25:905 524.522 885 41.252 _ 601J66 _6E9_ 40.11 RANK COEFFICIENT CF CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACEERS' RANKS CF CFITDREN AND CPI1DREN'S SCORES CN FORM A AND TABLE XXVIII merProgramsCoded Rural Sum- Children FormNumber A-Teacher's Rankine; FORM B lationCorre- ValueWeighted TEST AID BETWEEN FORM A AND Fan: B TEST SCORES ChildrenFormNumber t- Teacher's Nankin? lationCorre- ValueWeighted Children Number Form A - Form B lationCorre- WeightedValue 4321 20281914 .592.587.656.829 12.46411.84011.60616.436 28161118 .711.764.880,252 13.75211.376 9.6807.05 28181611 .759.609.848.302 3.6629.7449.3288.456 675 20141316 .647.697:999.697 11.15213.9E612,9409.061 1317 .231009.656.572 4.0173.0039.7248.528 131317 .208.613.818.134 13.906 2.7047.9691.742 121110 9 201218 9 .729.879.426.612 17.58011.0166.5615.112 191317 9 .815.653.583.438 15.485 3.9428.4E99.911 121917 9 .854.688.459.819 15.09615.56110.2h84.131 16151413 13111814 .745.218.377.709 10.43012.7624.1472.834 201113 .654.505355.977 19.5406.5653.9058.502 131118 .757.823.703.753 14.614 9.84191398.283 20181719 201718 .783.466.644.678 13.31110.94613.560 6.388 161718 .680.616.795.649 14.96010.47212.72011.682 171518 .701.737.748.794 12.52910.51514.29212.716 23212422 '15202216 4767.845.858.749 16.90o11.805f.1.72816.478 20141519 .626.764.655 16.7P011.46012.445 8.764 ,15 201419 .473.545.854.656 17.0P012.84010.3556.622 ;2.21_ 2625 2014.16 -.000 .414.094 -1.120 8.2801.504 1613 -4430 .055 502 -5.590 0.715 2 161313 .659.826 A6 conilr;a77--10.78 7.'1768.567 v. RANK COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION BEVATEN TEACHES' RANKS CF CHILD ' AND CHILDREN'S. SCORES ON FOTM A AND ZISEramsmerCoded Rural Sum- ChildrenFormNualber A-Teacher TrkEram FORM B OF TESTlationCorre- AND ValueBET,...'EEN FORM A AND FORM B TEST SCORES (CONTINUED) ';:eighted Children NumberForm P-Teach 1Corre- tion ValueWeielted Children Number Form A - Form 13 latl.onCorre- WeightedValue 302928 201411 .421.516.588 8.7208.4207.224 .17=1"."- 17191113 .433.560.465.571 10.6407.3616.045 .281 17191311 .752.848.667.883 12.7P416.112' 9.7,38.671 34333231 14181510 .728.198.4%.548 3.104 8.2201.980 14191510 .602'.524.0f4 11,438 7.8600.140 181510 .809515.227 14;6 2 7.7752.270 38373536 23201910 .794.799.600.595 10.97115.18112.0007.9408.330 1910 .825.434.770.934 15.67514.63013.0764.340 191014 .864.704.757.658 16.41614.383 7.01.09.212 414039 15 9 -.059 .496.292.477 -0.80 4.4644.3E0 23111315 .867.241.611.486 11.178 9.5373.1339.165 241115 8 .9E1.530.835.845 20.28010.79112:5254.240 TOTALS 45444342 720 1512 6 2 .439 .704.826 42 5. 756 10.560 9.912 1410 .879.778 10.892 8.790 1410 6 31.?52 .683.812.986 6.1209.5625.916 Average et .588 .591 .562 JILL. 212 .586 .697 468`.496 .698 11 IM1.11.1111.1. RANK COEFFICIEMT OF CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACHERS' RANKS OF CITTIDREN AND CPITDf!N'S SCORES TABLE XXIX ON FORM A AND perPro.ramsCoded Urban glm"gmlum-For7771;;;71;7711771Ti Childre Number FORM B OF TEST AND BETWEEN FCRM A AND FORM B TEST SCORES (INCorre. DEPTH NALUATION)Weighted FormNuMber lit-fu Corre-exhorts Rar.k nWeighted Number Form A - Form E Corre- Weighted 11 9 lation.805.330 Value 2.9708.855 Children 101312 lation.103.034.122 Value 0.4081.0301.58 Children 1013 8 lation.513. 523127 Value 6.7995.1301.016 0FED 21181514 .622.756.651.386 11.19613.67110.584 5.630 21181312 .753748.360.457 13.55415.7084.6805.41'4 21161312 .668.765.179.382 12.02416.0654.542.327 IHJ 191617 .305.689.600 11.02410.200 5.795 181517 .681.476.372 10.215 8.5686.324 1815 ..959.923 311 13.814.514.325 5.598 MNLK 1313(NO TEACHER RANK)RANK, .488.710 9.2306.344 13 .617.586 7.6188.021 13111311 .622.576.545.761 8.0867.4es8.3715.995 P0 14 68 .242.422.?87 3.3885.9083.056 1413 68 .545.260.814.327 7.6303.6404.8842.616 1414 68 .248.649.686.504 11.872 9.0262.4325.316 VUS 151314 .511.565.727.550 7.6658.4759.4517.700 151314 .590.451..508 633 8.8506.7658.2297.112 151314 .320.760.519.310 11.4004.8006.7474.34o TX 12161415 .955.643.676.628 11.46010.288 9.4649.420 14151?14 .937.660.761. 693 11.24410.65410.4259.240 121415 .804.890.906.639 .WWff.17.07-12.1.6012.684 9.648.565 0NRANK COEFFICIENTmermad OF UrbanSum- FORM B OF TEST AND NumberForm A-Teacher's CORRELATION BETWEENCorre- TRACHERS/ BETWEEN FORM A AND WeightedRanking roan B-Teacher's FORM B TEST SCORES (IN RANKS OF CHILDREN DEPTHAND CHILDREN'SEVALUATION SCORES Form A - Form CONTINUED) ON FORM A AND Programs ba Children lation 13 79 .679.744 Value 4.7536..696 Children Nuhberlation 79 .500Come-.946 ValueWeightedRVAIL3.5008.514 Children Number 79 lation.893Corre-.646 ValueWeighted 6.2515.814 fed 14151312 .150.428.604.863.732 10.356 6.4207.8529.516 12331213 .882.893.301.541 10.584 6.0127.0335.109 12131213 .453.580.407.479 5.4367.5405.6406.227 jhg 1414 88 -.260 .638.238.738 -3.640 2.1001.9045.904 14 8 -.071 4262.078.688 -0.586 2.0961.0929.632 14 88 .857.048.284.712 6.8563.9760.3849.968 In0n1ki 10101511 .910.443.643.948 10.4289.1004.4309.6458.932, 10151114 .528.580.673.732 10.2485.2808.7007.403 10151114 .606.694.545.821 10.41011.494 6.0605.995 TOTALS 528 11 23. 48 .641 298.15 7.051 521 1110 22.234 .670.715 651 7.3707.150 208 1110 8 .580.579.688 22.02 44.6.406.3696.880 MIAIMIZSLIr=j311Lm1 e 6i_ MAILMMMMNIO WW1= =IMARLINDONM at 096 1M RANK COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACHERS' TABLE XXX RANKS OF CHILDREN AND CHILDREN'S SCORES ON FORM A AND merProgramsCoded Rural Sum- FORM B OF TEST AND BETWEEN FORM A AND FORMChildren B TEST SCORESFormlation A-Teacher's (IN umberDEPTH EVALUATION)R,nkin Corre- WeightedValue ChildrenNumberForm B-Teacher's Rankin Corre-lation Weighted Value ChildrenNumber Form A - Form B lationCorre- ValueWeighted t 1315 78 .951.995.817.727 12.36314.925 5.8165.719 15 8 .925.789.714. 998 11.83512.025 7.9845.712 1314 8 .792.960.797.889 11.08811.557 7.6806.376 V 1114(NO TEACHER RANK .979.893 13.706 N. 13 8 ..928 617 12.064 4.936 1213 8 .920.691.935 11.960 8.2927.480 BBAA x 131012(NO TEACHER RANK) 1.000 .929.833 13.000 9.2909.996 121110 .941.525.530 10.351 3.9605.250 101211 .902.240.584.630 2.4009.9227.0087.560 EEDDFFCC 16151411 .859.557.911.578 13.74412.754 6.3588.355 15111310 .488.945.949.587 12.285 7.3206.4579.490 141012 .691.952.000.499 11.424 6.9100.0006.986 ITHHGO 1816 .655.947.908 17.04614.52811.790 17131412. .781.786.678.671 11.52610.153 9.394 12171314 .659.710.778.755 12.07010.11410.570 MMLLKKJJ 1311 ,.116.593.448.309 4.0171.2767.7095.824 141412 -.292 .794.562.574 -3.50411.116 6.8887.8689.432 14111013 .626.696.427.748 8.7647.6564.2709.7247.908 PP00NN 1415 7 .865.764.779 8 10.69611.685 6.055 .280 12 60 .100.849 8 10.18$ 6.000 1210 6 .743.831 (CONTINUED)4.4589.972 c* RANK COEFFICIENT OP CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACHERS' RANKS OF CHILDREN AND CHILDREN'S SCORES ON PromerCoded ramsRural Sum- FORM B OF TEST AND BETWEEN, 'NumberForm A Teacher's Ra Corre - Weighted FORM A AND FORM B NumberForm 8-Teacher's Ranki Corre- TEST SCORES (IN DEPTH Weighted Number Form A EVALUATION CONTINUED) Corre-- Form B FORM A ANDWetghted UUTTSSRR Children lation 18141915 ..563 .521.682.585 Value10.697 9.5488.775 Children lation 141812 .397.561..82 10.098Value 5.5589.912 Children 141811 .567lotion.776.733 Value13.968 7.9388.063 VV 14 .156 2 .1849.378 1211 . .691.446 4.9068.292 1211 .885.560 6.160 TOTALSAvera e XXWW 408 13 8 22.027 .717 .680.499 2421.69. 3.9928.8.40 04 370 13 7 20.479 .786.661 6 250.870 10.088 5.502.678 385 15. 7 23.092 .721.700.893 2695/42 10.620 9.3736.251 .700 TABLE XXXI RANK COEFFICIEflT OF CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACHERS' RANKS OF CHILDREN AND CHILDREN'S SCORES ON ONE FU RN OF TEST WHEN OTHER FORM NOT ADMINISTERED

Coded Full-Number Corre Number Corre- Weighted Weighted Year Rural of lation of lation Value Value pagrams ChildrenA - TR Children B -- TR 1 15 .765 11.475 2 17 .625 10.625 3 15 .687 10.305 4 14 .756 10.584 5 17 .393 6.681 6 17 429 12.393 7 16 .667 10.672 8 15 .861 12.915 9 6 .986 5.916 10 9 .821 7.389 11 13 .870 11.310 12 18 .722 12.996 13 20 .649 12.980 14 12 .752 9.024 15 13 .857 11.141 16 20 .600 12.000 17 5 .700 3.500 18 13 .922 11.986 19 17 .805 13.685 20 12_ .735 8.820 TOTALS 272 14.107 197..577 12 .735 8.820 Avera .746 .726 .735 .735 Gode 4 Summer tams 1 9 .630 5.670 2 9 .155 1.395 3 11 .977 10.747 4 16 .934 14.944 5 12 -.239 -2.868 6 15 .218 3.270 TOTALS 77 2.457 29.888 15 .218 3.270 Averege .491 .388 .218 .218

Totals do not represent all of the children involved in the standardization of 7orm A and Form B. One summer rural teacher administered- Form A to 20 children but did not rank them; one full-year rural teacher gave the Test Fzun A to 20 children but did not rank them; and one summer rural teacher gave Form B to 19 children but did not rank them. It is possible that the ranking letters were enclosed with packets of'executed answer sheets which were lost in the mail.Although these children were not included in computing the coefficients of correlation discussed in this report, they were used in the development of percentile Tanks, means, medians, standard deviations, and semi-interquartile ranges which were computed for a total Of 6662 children on Form A and 5271 on Form B. 79 TAPLE XXXII RANK COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION BEWEENTEACHERSRANKS OF CHILDREN AND CHILDREN'S SCORES ON ONE FORM OF TEST WHEN OTHERORM .30T 1DMINISURED Corre- tieigtittedNumber 1orre- Weighted Year Urban of lation Value of lation Value Programs Children A - TR ChildrenB - TR

1 16 .912 18.240 2 20 .460 9.200 3 15 .686 10.290 4 13 .752 10.582 5 11 .697 7.667 6 '.17 .724 12.208 7 15 .866 12.990 8 14 .727 10.178 9 .12 .435 5.220 IC 14 .748 10.472 11 15 .919 13.785 12 20 .842 16.840 13 12 .880 10.560 14 17 .977 16.609 15 20 .233 4.660 16 16 .690 10.950 17 15 .482 6.420 18 20 .661 13.220 19 13 .525 7.875 20 19 .717 13.623 21 12 .525 6.300 22 15 .965 14.475 23 14 .871 11.774 24 12 .577 6.924 25 14 .489 6.846 26 18 .465 8.370 27 16 .392 6.272 28 16 .216 4.456 29 10 .328 3.280 30 13 .640 8.32o 31 20 .283 5.660 32 15 .154 2.310 20 .755 14.345 21.,.....

TOTALS 509 20.593 320.921 j.11mmly Average .621 .587 ..=1111, Coded Summer Urban Programs .1 20 .826 16.520 2 15 .564 8.460 3 12 .887 10.644 4 16 .747 11.952 5 9 .825 7.425 6 10 ,43,2612_ TOTALS 72--____.84Q 55.001 Average .769 .764 10 .306 3.060 80 It was interesting to compute some of the coefficients of correlation for answer sheets and ranking letters which were returned after all of the scattergrams and statistical computations had been completed for the 6662 children involved in standardi.ation of Form A. and the 5271 used in similar computations for Form B. The late arrivals did not appear to differ greatly from the ones which were received in time to be used in the study. In one instance, the late arrival did not include a ranking letter, but the correlation between Forms A and Bfor those 11 children was .510, weighted value 5.610. Other late arrivals are presented in the following table. TAME XXXIII

Program Number A-TR Wt.Val. B-TR Wt.Val. A-B Wt.Val. Sum.Uru. 11 .266 2.926 .734 8.074 .247 2.717 Sum.Urb. 20 .288 5.760 .168 3.360 .609 12.180 Sum.Rur. 9 .571 5.139 .595 5.355 .804 7.236 Sum.Rur 10 .494 4.940 -.227 -2.270 .133 1.330 Sum.Rur. 10 .964 9.640 .870 8.700 .939 9.390 F-Y Rur. 15 .533 7.995 .423 6.345 .483 7.245 F-Y Urb. 20 787 1 40 .863 lr 26o 4114.820 TOTAL 95 3.903 52.140 3.42646.824 4.466 6o. r28 Averace .65ci______.549.5L. .493 .744 _.637 APPENDIX C TABLE. XXXIV RANK COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION BETWEENSCORES ON VARIOUSSTANDARDIZED TESTS AND FORM A AND FORM B OF WALKERREADINESS TEST AND BETWEENSCORES ON STANDARDIZED TESTS AND TEACHERS'RANKINGS OF CHILDREN IN THEIRORDER OF READINESS FOR ENTRANCE INTOPUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS

Stand-Number Corre- Corre- Corre- Wei ghted Weighted Weighted ardized of lation lation lation Value Value Value Test* Childrenwith A with B with TR A. 15 -.080 - 1.200 .405 6.075 .376 5.640 13 .748 9.724 .599 7.787 .660 8.580 20 ..396 7.920.426 8.520 .679 13.580 10 .334 3.340.700 7.000 .478 4.780 13 .385 5.005 .245 3.185 .312 4.065 14 .881 12.334.698 9.772 .761 10.654 18 .429 7.722 .390 7.020 .410 7.380 19 .390 7.410 .536 10.184 .429 8.151 5' .300 1.500 .700 3.500.300 1.500 15 .645 9.675 .709 10.635 .727 10.985 27 .46, 11.160 .533. 14.924.496 13.392 18 .251 4.518 .607 10.926 .232 4.176 13 .354 1x.602 .270 3.510 .270 3.510 8 .185 1.480 .536 4.288.822 6.576. 13 .364 4.732 .751 4.563 .437 5.681 12 .327 3.924 .000 .000.450 4.950 11 .710 7.810 .689 7.579 .901 9.911 13 .369 4.797 .413 5.369 .512 6.656 18 .262 4.716 .442 7.956.442 7.956 15 .124 1.860 .439 6.585 .367 5.505 15 .777 10.101 .610 9.150 15 .228 3.420 .212 3.180 12 7.284 .607 .430 5.160 17 .477 4.109 .326 5.542 19 .107 2.033 .210 3.990 TOTALS- 1322.276 10.088 139.27811842 170.650 AVerage .404 .380 .504 .481 .474 :464 B 13 .600' 7.800 .365 4.745 .465 12.835 10 .527 5.270 .800 8.000 '.310 3.100 ---11t171.-4142 6.980 .416______71904___ _1&215_ .572 Average 50 429.- C 12 .609 7.917 .741 9.633.560 6.720 12 .810 10.530.688 8.256.800 9.600 12 .388 4.656 .719 8.628 .412 4.944 16 .530 8.480 .667 11.832 --g2.227____211582 2.148 26.17 Average .584 .607 .716 .737 .610 .636' 82 TABLE XXXIV (CONTINUED)

Stand- Number Corre- Corre- Corre- Weighted Weighted Weighted ardizedof lation lation lation Value Value Value. Test*Childrenwith A with TR D 20 27 18.540 .913 18.2.0 .600 12.000 23 .686 15.778 .502 11.546 .657 15.111 TOTALS43 1.613 34.3181.415 29.806 1.257 27.111 Average .807 .798 .708 .697 .629 .631 E 184. .605 10.890 .349 6.282 .595 10.710 9 .884- 7.956 .805 7.245 .821 7.389 15 .759 11.385 .796 11.940.694 10.410 9 .921 8.289 .613 5.517 .890 8.010 18 .788 14.184 .685 14.166 .787 14.166 TOTALS 69 3.957 52.7043.787 50.685 3.248 40.657 Ayerage___ .791 .763 .757 .735 .650 .607 F 15 .334 5.010 .338 5.070 .335 5.025 4 .400 1.600 .600 2.400 .420 1.680 12 .558 6.696 .192 2.304 .550 6.600 16 .459 7.344 .586 9.392 .369. 5.904

15 .204 3.060 .356 4=515 H 10 .370 3.700 .425 !.3.2tg 3338: 3.980 I 20 .677 13.540 .697 13.960 J 10 .213 2.130 .309 4.020 K 10 .201 2.010 .671 1::9741: 4.100 .249 L 10 2.490 .355 3.550 6.4303: 3.310 10 576 5.760 .561 5.610 .571 5.710 N 10 .515 5.150 .428 4.280 .501 5.010 0 19 .442 8.398 .516 496 9.424 P 20 .429 8.580 .632 192.16t .628 .610 _SAUD_ Average 769(B:677).476 .477 .535 .524 .493 .562 for l * The Standardized Tests listed in Table XXXIV are coded asfollows: (A) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, (B) Goodenough-Harris "Draw-a- Man" Test, (C) ABC Inventory, (D) Caldwell Pre-School Inventory, (E) Metropolitan Readiness Test,'(F) Stanford-Binet, (G) Science Re- search Associates Pre-School Test, (H) Vineland Scale of Social Ma- turity (I) Columbia Mental Maturity Scale, (J) American. Guidance Pre- School Attainment Test Form I, (K) American Guidance Pre-School Attain- ment Test Form II, (L) MacMillan Readiness Test, (M) Screening Test of Academic Readiness Potential Score, (N) Screening Test of Academic Readiness IQ Score, (0) Marianne Frostig's Developmental Test of Visual Perception, (P) Jordan and Massey Readiness Test, and(Q) Slosson Intelligence Test. 83 0) - InterClassScores:SUNNARY OF FORM A AND FORM B SCORES Caucasian Negro FORMA Other TOTAL BY ALL CHILDREN tE9E&TAA LL Caucasian Negro ENROLLED IN SKACTED URBAN SUMM1R FORM B Other TOTAL PROGRAMS, 1969 46-4849-51val 25B GB G 25 40 10 1 0'0B 0G B 92 3.G Total 5 B 5 .G 7 B 8 0B 0G 13B G 17 Total 34-3637-3940-4243-45 9738 1211 49 28221613 2329,16 220 3121 312416 2541 2615 72494224 1112 78 7698 25343728 2724253010 00 02.1 32454540 34323439 66743079 22-2425-2728-3031-33 2935 2183 13222728 102326 010 02 1527364239 3140 50 1126 2658628269 19 2457 3279 102117 a 2224 96 200 0214 16272624 12102937 28375561 10-1213-1516-1819-21 2o2 010 12 043 10e7 00 0011 14 10245 19 1424 35 020 010 30'1 3O 00 o0 O155 0304 0459 1 4-7- 69 - 3 O1 0 00 0O.0 00 00 O1o 0o 01 0 0 00 O0O 00'0 0o0 OJO 0 00 TOTALTheevaluation children of all children enrolled 70 65 represented in this table192 were enrolled 193' 5 11 1 267 269to determine whether further 536 in summer 82 59 programs in urban195 centers selected for 183 2 10 1 279 251 527 an renenrolleddifferentdata were presented presentin from a centerinthose at this the fromfor study.time theeach of ofthe the second representative sampleThe collected computations from allfor children Mid-Atlantic, the Western, and testing. in this "in sampling would improve the statistical the Southwestfifty states. depth" analysis were regions. Only,527 child- All 536 children not greatly were Scores:SUMMARY OF FORM A AND FORM B SCORES MADE BY ALL CHILDREN ENROLLED IN SELECTED TOLE XXXVI -I-- RURAL SUMER PROGRAMS, 1969 ClAssInter-1 1Caucasian B G Negro EIBM_A.,______'Other G I , TOTAL 4aucasian ...... INOMMMiMMOMMMMINOMOMMMIMMOMMMMINON mmmmm Negro____ Other ______EQUJI______..______TOTAL_ ---- 43-4546-4849-51mat L 10 1 1111 3 220B 31G 230B -.4- BGTotalBGBGBGIBG -6.------_-_----1___------_ _4.___ - Total 31-3334-3637-3940-42 13141618 151713 3478 42 6788 19-2122-2425-2728-30 1016 9 14 78 345 301 301 10-1213-1516-18 140 4o10 0o 01 0 4- 1-67- 3 9 0 128 oo 42 o 26 0 00 dataTOTALevaluationThe presented children1131 of represented inall this children study. in enrolledthis table to determine whether ll children enrolled to determine whether 39 The compUtations for 2hildren in this "in were enrolled in summer. further sampling would programs in rural centers selected for an depth" analysis wura not greatly improve the statistical UI 385differentenrolled children fromin wereone those orpresent morefor thecentersat therepresentative timein the of Mid-the second samplettlantic, collected from all fifty states. testing. the Southwest, and North Central regions. Only All 400 children were APPENDIX E aNo) PROJECT HEAD START: Children in 1968 Program CHILDREN AND FAMILY Full4ear* INFORMATION(PERSample CENTS) TABLEA XXXVII1968 COMPARED WITH 1969 B 1968 Program Sumner' PROJECT DATASample A B 1. a.Age Under 3 years 100.0 2.5 100.0 1.3,0.1 100.0 1.30.1 100.0 3.20.5 100.0 0.50.0 100.0 0.20.0 d.b.e.c. 5-53-3 64-4 yera.s years years and11 monthsMonths 11 months older 31.043.217.8 3.02.3 2.5.2not21.951.5 used 25.921.3not51.4 used. 33.620.240.1 2.4 38.546.614.4not used 44.043.512.3 2. Sex f. a.Not Male reported 100.0 52.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 51.4 100.0 100.0 3. Ethnic/b.c. Female Not Cultural Group reported 100.0 47.3 0.2 100.0 100.0 100.0***48.5 0.1 100.0 100.0 b.a. CaucasianNegro 23.451.0 0.2 41.846.6 0.1 24.061.1 .2 37.238.0 o.o 44.543.8 o. 03 24.358.8 .2 d.e.c. f.American Oriental Puerto IndianRican Mexican-American 6.6'8.82.3 7.6'1.90.00.5 4.07.9 .7.1 10.2 1.20.30.6 8.71.30.00.4 4.69.2 .6.2 * Bureau of Census i.h.j. EskimoOther Not reported 4:488:- 5% sample 1.o0.56.2 1.5 2.0 6.55.9 1.3 2.1 ****Mexican,iian-German,***These**Bureau In the Cuban, sample,areof Censusthe figures Puerto-Rican-Portuguese, Negro-Indian, 1% sampleOther races include mailed from Project Spanish-Antr4lo, Spanish-Scotch, Portuquese-Samdan, Italian,Panamanian, Yaqui Indian, Head Start; they do Japanese-American,not addHawaiian,Japanese-Hawaiian,Portuguese-Chinese, up to 100%. Samoan-Filipino.Mexican-Hawaiian, Hawa- Negro- and Portuguese. TABLE XXXVIII COMPARISON OF 1968 DATA FURNISHED BY THE RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ANALYST FOR PROJECT HEAD START AND DATA CONCERNING REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SAM-' PLING INVOLVED IN THE CURRENT RESEARCH PROJECT FOR SPRING AND SUMMER11969

FULL-YEAR DATA . FULL-YEAR SAME A FULL-YEAR SAMPLE B REGION Uranfeeg-Uaters rainien centers i aren Centers Children I. NE 112 635 25,078 57 937 35 496 II. MA 94 506 26,025 20 416 18 340 III.SE 96. 878 57,625 62 1091 50 837 IV. GL 102 792 25,048 12 237 9 199 V. SW 9; 822 24,840 23 424 3.8 319 VI. NC 91 655 19,369 50 955 40 769 VII. W 610 10 74" 23.037 96 172 . TOTALS 668 4918 201.022 2314 4256 180 3132

SUMMER DATA SUMER SAMPLE A SUMMER SAMPLE B REGIONGrantees Centers ChildrenCenters Children Centers Children I. NE 154 ',1,328 60,379 164 8 116 II. MA 224 1,778 89,862 32 629 28 554 III.SE 138 979 82,934 14 224 12 172 IV. GL 208 2,709 95,629 14 257 17 296 V. SW 206 1,160 77,895 23 420 21 372 VI. NC 146 798 32,271 17 314 18 299 VII. W 101 682 27,131 19 398 17 330 TOTALS 1177 5,434466.101 130 2406 121 2139

Although more grantees, centers, and children were reported for summer sessions than for Full-Year Programs during the year 1968, the sampling did not show the same ratios. The reason for this, was that the original plan was to sample only Full-Year Programs, but lateness of announcement of the awarding of the grant and slowness*in receiving lists of possible participants from each Region, as well as slowness in Full-Year returns, required an alteration in plans. The change came too late during the course of the research project to sample as many summer centers as would have been required to have the correct ratio of summer to Full -Year participants..

It is gratifying that all states and all regions did cooperate, although the returns were more numerous from certain areas, partly because they were among the early regions for which lists were prOvided by officials in charge of such participation and partly because of somewhat greater interest. In six states, only summer programs sere involved in the project; so also was the case for Yashington, D.C. In eight states only Full-Year programs were represented. In all of the others, the sample included both Full-Year and Summer programs.

87 TABLE XXXIX STATES BY 0E0 REGIONS VIHICH PROVIDED SAMPLINGFOR TESTSTANDARDIZATION FORE A FORM B REGIONSTATE Full-Y SummerTotal Full SummerTotal NE Maine 7 -142 2- 35 9-177 6- 94 .1- 18 7-112 New Hampshire 2- 25 1- 9 3- 34 1- 9 1-9 Vermont 3- 46 1- 9 4- 55 2- 26 2- 26 Massachusetts10-147 1- 1211-159 8-107 8-107 New York 20-309 1- 16217325 9-121 1- 1510-136 New Jersey 10-181 2- 3712-218 8-119 2-3210-151 Connecticut 4 -67 2- 34 6-101 2- 29 2-, 30 4- 59 Rhode Island 1- 20 1- 12 2- 32 1- 12 1- 12 Delaware 1- 14 1- 14 1- 10 1- 10 Washington,DC 1- 11 1- 11 1 -11 1- 11 Kentucky 4-11410-182 "14-296 3- 48 8-133 11-181 Maryland 3- 55 3- 55 1- 1T4 1- 19 North Carolina3- 5410-18513-239 4- 6011-21015-270 Penrzylvania 3 -46 6-107 9-153 3- 47 3- 56 6-103 Virginia 4-104 3- 79 7-183 4-127 3- 31 7-208 West Virginia 2- 29 2- 65 4- 94 2- 29 2- 63 4- 92 .15E Alabama 7-119 7-119 5- 90 5- 90 Florida 13-220 1- 11 14-23110-168 1- 1111-179 South Carolina9-168 9-168 9 -146 9-146 Georgia 9-130 8-128 17-258 7- 79 6- 8113-160 Mississippi 19-359 2- 39 21-39814-262 2- 3416-296 Tennessee 5- 95 3- 46 8- 1415- 92 3 -46 8-138 GL Illinois 3 -99 1- 20 4-119 3- 96 1- 19 4-115 Indiana 3- 32 2- 30 5- 62 3- 47 3- 47 Ohio 1- 39 4- 89 5-128 1-37 4- 84 57121 Michigan. 1 -14 1- 16 2 -30 1- 13 1- 19 2- 32 Minnesota 4- 76 4- 76 6-106 6-106 Wisconsin 4- 53 2- 26 6- 19 4- 53 2- 21 6- 74 Arkansas 3 -46 9-190 12-236 3 -41 8-17211-213 Louisiana 4- 87 3- 42 7-129 1- 15 3- 39 4- 54 New Mexico 60 2- 36 5- 96 2- 35 1- 19 3- 54 Oklahoma 3- 40 4- 67 7-107 3- 58 4- 62 7-120 Texas 10-191 5- 8515-276 9-170 5-'8014-250 NC Colorado 10=190 1- 20 11-210.9-167 1- 1710-184 Idaho 4- 70 1- 20 5- 90 3- 47 1- 20 4- 67 Montana 5- 77 5- 77 4- 61 4- 61 Wyoming 1- 17 1- 20 2- 37 1- 16 1-20 2- 36 Nebraska 4- 66 4- 66 2- 32 2- 32 Iowa 8-138 1- 9 9-147 6- 82 1- 9 7 -91 Kansas 5- 80 5- 80 4- 61 4-, 61 Missouri 9-255 4-110 13-365 9-245 4 -109 13-354 Utah 2- 33 2- 33 2-32. 2- 32 North Dakota 7-103 7-103 6- 90 6- 90 South Dakota 2-, 29 2- 32 4- 61 2- 26 2- 34 4- 60 Alaska 3- 67 3- 67 3- 67 3- 67 W Arizona 5-121 .5421 5-109 5-109 California 5-99 5- 83 10-182 5- 92 4- 71 9-163 Nevada 1- 16 1- 16 1- 7 1- 7 Hawaii. 1- 19 1- 32 2- 51 1" 19 1- 28 2- 47 Oregon 1- 24 1- 15 2- 39 1- 19 1- 14 2- 33 Washing,t2ri17511. 6/4. 6-118 3- 42 27 34 5- 76 TOTAL 234-125613G: 242,-6562.] 10- 2139301 -5271 88 TABLE XXXX 0E0 REGIONS AND STATESWHICH PROVIDE') SAMPLINGFOR TESTSTANDARDIZATION FDA4 A REGION STATE NM FOgh ;111:11.b43:1 Rural---17507 Urban Rural Mgr'. I. NE Maine 15 3- 61 6-116 9-177 1- 4. (128)New Hamp. 6 2- 16 1- 18 3- 34 1-9 1-9 Vermont 4 2- 29 2- 4- 5 2-26 2- 26 * Mass. 19 3- 48 8-107 New York 4917)=1U 11±%) ;: g8 5- 68 10-136 New Jersey 1910-178 2- 4012-218 8-113 2- 3810-151 Conn. 10 6-101 6-101 4- 59 4- 59 Rhode Is. 6 2- 32 2- 32 I- 12 1- 12 II. MA Delaware 2 1 -14 1.,14 1- 10 1- 10 (74) Wash.,DC 1 ** Kentucky 20 '5: 41 9-205ik:24 k: 7-1101121A1 Maryland L 3- 20 2- 35 3- 55 1- 19 1- 19 ** N. Car. 17 6-16 7-12313-239 9-161 6-100 15-270 Penna. 16 5-157 4- 78 9-153 2- 28 h5-.75 6-103 ** Virginia 2 2- 65 5-138 7-183 2- -121 7--208 **WesttVa. 1- 14 3- 80 h- 94 1- 3-78 492 III. SE Alabama 7 4- 67 3- 52 7-119 2- 54 (106) Florida 1811-174 3- 57 14-2.31 9-1 2- 3711-179 S. Car.+ 10 3- 55 6-113 9-168 4- 62 5- 84 Georgia 2812-192 5- 6617-24510-124 Miss. 2910-17711-221 21-398 7-136 ;21Z8i9-146l:g2 Tenn. tig 3- 56 8-141 5- 84 3- 54 e-138 IV. GL Illinois lh 4-119 4-115 4115 (49) Indiana 11 5- 62 5-62 3- 47 3- 47 *** Ohio 10 4- 97 1- 31 5-128 4- 94 1- 27 5-121 Michigan 4 2- 30 2- 30 2- 32 2- 32 Minnesota 8 4- 76 4- 76 6-106 6-106 WiE-consin 8 4- 60 2- 19 6- 79 4- 55 2- 19 6- 74 V.$11,t**Arkansas 14 7-112 5-12412-236 6- 74 3-13911-213 vui Louisiana 10 4- 86 3- 43 7-129 1- 12 42 454 New Mexico 12 5- 96 5- 96 3- 56, 3- 54 Oklahoma 14 3- 33 4- 74 7-12F 3- 1'8 4- 72 7-120 . **Texas 3.5 12:133 11:2 ?:16a VI. NC Colorado le ;7- im.xit (97) Idaho 5 3- 55 2- 35 5- 90 3- 50 1- 17 4- 67 Montana 7 4- 63 1- 14 5- 77 3- 47 1- 14 4- 61 Wyoming 3 1- 20 1- 17 2- 37 1- 20 1- 1 36 Nebraska 8 2- 37 2- 29 4- 66 1- 16 1- 16 2- 32 * Iowa 16 4- 69 5- 78 9-147 3- 39 4- 52 7- 91 Kansas 8 5- 80 5- 80 4- 61 4- 61 * ** *** Missouri 15 5- 81 8-28413-365 8-27613-354 Utah 6 2- 33 2- 33 32 2- 32 N. Dak. 7 h- 61 3- 42 7-103 6i 2- 29 - 90 S. Dak. 4 1-9 3- 52 4- 61 3- 54 4-- 60 VII. W Alaska 4 2- 39 1- 28 3, 67 2- 38 1- 29 3- 67 ** *** Arizona 10 2- 30 3- 91 5-121 2- 29 3- 80 5-109 ** California 22 5- 91 5- 9110-182 4- 74 5- 89 9-163 Hawaii 6 2- 51 2- 51 2- 47 2- 47 Nevada 5 1- 16 1- 16 1-7 1-7 Oregon 10 1- 15 1- 24 2- 39 1- 14 1- 19 2- 33 Wash. 11 h- 74 2- 44 6-118 2- 26 3- 50 5- 76 TOTAL,592 592 208- 359115 30713646662166-2727135-2544301-5271 .41 Experimental forms. ** In Depth Evaluation. *** Sampled more than one class. + Total 10 centers; 1 did Form A only, another did Form B only. 89 TABLE XXXXI FORM A RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS BYSTATE: RURAL ANfJ URBANFULL-YEARAND SUMER FULL Y1 SUMER TOTAL STATE Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Total 4- 67 3- 52 3:1M EVRTa 2- 39 1- 28 1: N Arizona 2- 30 3- 91 2- 30 3- 91 5-121 Arkansas 1- 10 2- 36 6-102 3- 88 7-112 5-124 12-236 California 3- 64: 2- 35 2- 27 3- 56 5- 91 5- 91 10-182 Colorado 4 -83 6-107 1- 20 4- 83 7-127 11-210 Connecticut 4- 67 2- 34 6-101 6-101 Delaware 1- 14 1- 14 1- 14 Florida 10463 3- 57 1- 11 11-174 3- 57 14-231 Georgia 8-120 1- 10 4- 72 4- 56 12-192 5- 66 17-258 Hawaii 1 -19 1- 32 2- 51 2- 51 Idaho 2= 35 2- 35, 1- 20 3- 55 2- 35 5- 90 Illinois 3- 99 1- 20 4-119 4-119 Indiana 3-.32 2- 30 5- 62 5- 62 Iowa 69 4- 69 1- _9 4- 69 5- 78 9-147 Kansald 5- 80 5- SO 5- 80 Kentucky 1 -18 3- 96 4 -73 -6-109 5 -91 9-205 14-296 Louisiana 3- 72 1- 15 1- 14 2- 28 4- 86 3- 43 7-129 Maine 2- 46 5- 96 1- 15 1- 20 3- 61 6-116 9-177 Maryland 1- 20 2- 35 1- 20 2- 35 3- 55 Massachusetts6- 84 4- 63 7-.96 4- 63 11.-159 Michigan 1- 14 2- 30 2- 30 Minnesota 4- 76 4- 76 4- 76 Mississippi 9-158 10-201 1- 20 10-177 11-221 21-398 'Missouri 4=.64 5-191 3- 93 5- 81 8-284 13-365 Montana 4- 63 1- 14 4- 63 1- 14 5- 77 Nebraska 2- 37 2- 29 2 -37 2= 29 4- 66 Nevada 1- 16 1- 16 1- 16 New Hampshire1-7 1- 18 1- 9 2- 16 1 18 3- 34 New Jersey 8-141 2 -40 2-37 10-178 2-40 12-218 New Mexico 3-60 2- 36 5- 96 5- 96 .'New York 10-146 10-163 1- 16 10-146 11-179 21-325 North Carolina 1-'19 2- 35 5- 97 5- 88 6-116 7-123 13-239 North Dakota_ 4 -61 3 -42 4 -61 3 -42 7-103 Ohio 1- 39 3- 58 1- 31 4- 97 1- 31 5-128 Oklahoma 2- 20 1- 20 1- 13 3- 54 3- 33 4- 74 7-107 Oregon 1 -24 1- 15 1- 15 1- 24 2- 39 Pennsylvania 2- 26 1- 20 3- 49 3- 58 5- 75 4- 78 9-153 Rhode Island. 1- 20 1- 12 2- 32 2- 32 SouthCarolina 3-55 6-113 3- 55 6-113 9-168 South Dakota 1-9 1- 20 2 -32 1- 9 3- 52 4- 61 Tennessee 2- 39 3- 56 3- 46 5- 85 3- 56 8-141 Texas 7-140 ?- 51 3- 48- 2- 37 10-188 5- 88 15-276 Utah 2- 33 2- 33 2 -33 Vermont 1- 20 2- 26 1- 9 2- 29 2- 26 4- 55 Virginia 2- 65 2- 39 3- 79 2- 65 5-118 7-183 Washington 2- 37 1- 17 2- 37 1- 27 9- 74 2 -44 6-118 West Virginia1- 14 1- 15 2- 65 1- 14 3- 80 4- 94 Wisconsin 3- 40 1- 13 1- 20 1- 6 4- 60 2- 19 6- 79 Wyoming 1- 17 1- 20 1- 20 1- 17 2- 37 WashinEton,DC 1- 11 1- 11 1- 11 TOTAL 138-2414 96-1842 70-1177 60-1229 208-3591 156-3071 364-6662

9(34 TABLE XXXXII PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH PROJECT BY STATE: RURAL AND URBAN,FULL-YEARAND SUMMER PROGRAMS PORN B) FULL-YEAR SUMMER TOTAL STATE Urban Rural UrbanRural Urban Rural Tot al Alabama 2-36 3- 54, 2-36 3- 54 90 Alaska 2- 38 I-29 2- 38 1- z9 J-67 Arizona 2- 29 3-80 2. 29 9 Arkansas 1- 42-37 5- 70 3- 102 6- 74 5-139 11- 213 3- California 58 2-34 1- 16 3- 55 4- 74 5-- 89 9- 163 Colorado 5-984- 69 1-- 17 5- 98 5. 86 10- 184 Connectieut 2-29 2- 30 4- 59 4- 59 Delaware 1-10 10 1-10 Florida 8-131 2- 37 1- 11 1- 142 237 11-179 Georgia 6-69 1-10 4- 55 2- 26 10- 124 3-36 13-160 Hawaii 1- 19 1- 28 2-47 2.47 Idaho 2- 301- 17 1- 20 3-50 1- 17 4-67 Illinois 3-96 1- 19 4- 115 4-115 Indiana 3- 47 3- 47 3-47 Iowa 7- 3-393-43 . 1- 9 3- 39 4- 52 91 Kansas 4-61 4- 61 4-61 Kentucky 1-182-30 3- 53 5-80 4-71 7- 11011-181 Louisiana 1-15 1- 12 2-27 1.. 12 3- 42 4- 54 Maine 1-145-80 1- 18 1- 14 6- 98 7- 112 Maryland 1-19 I- .19 1- 19 MassFtchusetts 59 3-48 3-48 8- 107 Michigan 13 1- 19 2- 32 Minnesota 6- 106 6- 106 6- 106 Mississippi 6-1228- 140 1. 14 1-20 7- 136 9- 16016- 296 Missouri 4-61 5- 184 1- 17 3. 92 8-27613- 354 Montana 47 1-14 3= 1-14 4-61 Nebraska 1-16 1.16 1-16 1- 16 2- 32 Nevada 1. 7 1- 7 . 1. 7 New Hampshire 1- 9, 1- 9 1- 9 New Jersey 6-.81 2-38 2- 32 8- 113 2- 38 10-151 New Mexico 2-35 1- 19 3-54 3- 4 5- New. York 684- 53 1- 15 5-68 5-6810- 136 North Carolina 2- 26 2- 34 7-135 4-75 9.1. 161 6-.109 15- 270 North Dakota 4, 61 2- 29 4- 61 2- 29 6.20 Ohio 1- 37 3- 57 1- 27 94 27 121 Oklahoma 2-36 1-22 1- 12 3- 50 1: 4: 3=120 Oregon I- 19 1- 14 14 1- 19 2. 33 Pennsylvania 2- 281- 19 3- 56 2. 28 4-: 75 6- 103 Rhode Island 1- 12 1-12 South Carolina 4-62 5- 84 4-62 5-84 9- 146 South Dakota 1- 6 1-20 2- 34 1- 6 3-54 4-60 Tennessee 2-383-54 3- 46 5-84 3- 54 8- 138 Texas 6-119 3- 51 3- 44 2- 36 9- 163 5- 87 14- 2V Utah 2-32 2- 32 Vermont 2-26 2- 26 -2- 26 Virginia 2- 87 2-40 3- 81 2- 87 z.7. 121 Washington 1- 13 2. 29 1- 13 1-21 2- 26 J- West Virginia 1- 14 I- 15 2-63 1- 14 3- Wisconsin 3-40 lg 1- 15 1- 6 4- 55 2- 19 6-74 Wyoming 1- 1- 20 1- '21 1- 16 2-36 Washintmag 11 1- 11 1- 11 TOTAL 104-174278-139062 -985 57-11506-2727 135-2544 301-5271 PARTICIPANTS IN STANDARDIZATION OF READINESS TESTS BY.STATES AND OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY RETIONS .Hawaii Alaska2 3 'MAP I

0E0 REGIONS: IV.III.II.I. Southeast 77/106 GreatMid-AtlanticNortheast Lakes 68/128 27?49 52/74 VII.VI.TOTAL:V. Western 29/68 NorthSouthwest Central 46/70 69/97 364/592 APPENDIX F PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH PROJECT TO DEVELOP READINESS TESTS FORDISAD- VANTAGED PRE -SCHOOL CHILDREN, FULL-YEAR AND SUMMER, URBANAND RURAL Starred agencies (*) were involved in the study both inthe sample classes and either experimental preliminary study ofthe instruments or "in-depth" evaluation. Table XXXX indicates which stateswere involved in each of these phases of test development. ALABAMA 1. Cullman City Child Development Center,P.O. Box 955, 512 Second Ave. E., Cullman; Alabama 35055; Exec, Dir., Jere R. Aldridge;Psych. Couns., P. Etdberg..F-Y U. 2. Cullman Co. Comm. on Education, P.O. Drawer 518,Cullman, Alabama 35055; Exec. Dir., W. H. Supt.; Head Start Dir.,Grace Luker; Teacher, Mrs. Ival White. F-Y R. 3. Alabama Council on Human Relations, P.O.Box 1632, Auburn, Alabama 36830; Exec. Dir., Nancy S.Spears; Teacher, Sally Ott. F-Y U. 4. Lowndes Co. Board of Education, P. O. Box 125, HaynesvillelAlabama 36042; Exec. Dir., Miss LaverneO'Rear; Teacher, Flora Hardin.F-Y R. 5. Sumter Co. Opportunity Inc., P. O.Box 430, Aliceville, Alabama 35442; Ed. Dir., Marilyn Besh; York Center Dir"., ElizabethRice; Teacher, Sharon Kling. F-Y R. 6. Renaissance Wives Club, Inc., 217 W. North St.,Dothan, Alabama 36301; Teachers, Maggie Chambersand Elaine Slaughter. F-4 U. 7. Tuscumbia Public Schools, Cave Street School;Tuscumbia, *Alabama 35674; Head Start Dir., Virginia-Clark;Teacher, Saim Breineman.F -Y U. ALASKA 1. Greater Andhorage Area CAA, Box 4 2136, Anchorage,Alaska:99503; Exec. Dir., John Buchnoldt; Child Dev.Dir., Jesse Kinard. S U. 2. North Star Borough CAA, 516 Church st.,1,..o.Box 1049, Fairbanks, -.Alaska 99701; Exec. Dir., C. MauriceSorensen; Head Start Dir., Constance. Smith; Teacher, Mae'Johnson. SU; Metlakatla Indian Community,. P. 0. Box 142,Metlakatla, Alaska 99926; Teacher- Director,' MarjorieI. Pratt. S R. ARIZONA Y. Coconino Co. CAA, P. O. Box 1964, Flagstaff,Arizona 86001 ;' Exec. Dir., M. L. Eeshaw; Head Start Dir., EddieCasillast Teacher, Ann 'Watkins. SU. 2. Wilson Head Start, Phoenix, Arizona; Teacher, K. Knepshield.S U. 3. Gila Co. CAA, P. O. Box 422, Miami, Arizona 85539; EieciDir., Salvador B. Portillo; Teachers, Ruth K. Thomas,Barbara Herring,S U. 4. Office of Economic Opportunity, P. O. Box 890, 38413th St., Yuma, Arizona 85364; Exec. Dir., William D.Gray; Head Start Coord., Elaine Trbovich; Teacher, Jo Ann Ham. S R. 5. Quechan Tribal Council, P. O. Box 890, Yuma,Arizona 03644 Exec. Dir., William D. Gray; Teacher, ArlenePatterson. S R. 6.* Committee for Et. Opp. Inc., 161W. Alameda St., Tuscon, Arizona 85701;-Dr. Joyce Huggins, Mrs. P. J.Larsen, Frances Haworth,Head Start Coord; Teachers: Miss Horn, Mrs. Adams,Mrs. Rosdega; Mrs. Goza, Miss Dobson, Mrs. Sterner, Roy Saintz,M. Wilson. S-U and S R. 93 ARKANSAS 1. Arkansas Mid-Delta 0E0 Inc., County Courthouse, Helena, Arkansas 72342; Exec. Dir., James E. Murphey. S R. 2. Central Arkansas Dev. Council Inc., 125 Main, P. O. Pox 646, Benton, Arkansas 72015; Exec. Dir., James M. Goza; Dir. Ch. Dev. Prog., T. O. Miller; Teacher, Mrs. Hatley Reaves. S U. 3. *ARVAC, Inc., 1031- Locust St., P. O. Box 248, Dardanelle, Arkansas 72834; Exec. Dir., Bob Adkinson; Staff Nurse-Tester, Mrs. Dawn Gardner. F-Y R. 4. *Economic Opp. Agency for Washington Co.,226 N. College Ave., Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701; Exec. Dir., Steve Cummings; Head Start Coord., Nonnie L. Vance; Head Start Directors, Ruth Turner, Donna Kay Dyson, Mamie Pridemore; Teachers: Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Ledford, Mrs. Parks, Mrs. Nickerson, Miss Eason, Miss Looney, Miss Thomason, Miss Anderson, Miss Barker, Miss Ball, Miss Braswell, Miss Coleman, Miss Doster, Miss Eubanks, Miss Green, Miss Hobson, Miss Moss. S R. 5. Black River Area Dev.. Corp., 104A Broadway, Pocahontas, Arkansas 72455; Exec. Dir., J. M. Jansey; Day Care Dir., Virginia Atkison; Teacher, Mrs. L. B. Harrell. S U. 6. Ozark Opportunities Inc., P. O. Box 877, Harrison, Arkansas72601 Exec. Dir., James Don Young; Teachers, Shirley Lee and Gladys Pledger. S U. 7. Econ. Opp. Council of Ozarks, Inc., Mountain Home, Arkansas72653 Exec. Dir., Robert Sanner; Teachers: Evelyn Blankenship(Calico Rock) and Carol Harvey (Norfork) F-Y R. 8.. Pine Bluff-Jefferson Co.- EOC, Inc., City Hall, Pine Bluff,Arkansas 71601; Bennie S. Price; Ass't Dir., Elmer Bell; Teacher, Dorothy Haynie. S U. 9. Arkansas Office of Ec. Opp., Capitol Hall, Little Rock,Arkansas 72202; Child Dev. Prog. Spec., J. Larry Taylor;Follow-Through Teacher. F-Y U. 10. Crowley's Ridge Dev. Counc., Inc., P. O. Box 1343,Jonesboro, Arkansas 72401; Exec. Dir., Bobby J. Yopp;- Head StartDir., Dorothy Book; Teacher, Myra Davis. F-Y R. U. Southwest Ark.Dev. Counc. Inc., Miller Co. Courthouse,Room 2, Texarkana, Arkansas 75501; Exec. Dir., Alvin Brannon;Head Start Dir., Peggy Ryan; Teachers, Edith,Brown, LouiseFuller. S U. 12. East Central Ark. Ec. Opp. Corp., P. O. Box 709,Forrest.City, Arkansas 72335; Exec. Dir., John B. Clark; Teacher, Mrs.Billy Rose. S R. CALIFORNIA 1. Ec. Opp. Comm of Santa Clara Co., Inc., 40 N. 4th St., SanJose, California 95112; Exec. Dir., Jorge T. Acevedo; Head StartCoord., Winona Sample; Training Dir.-Tester, Lucille Gold;Teacher, Ber- nice Ruff. S U. 2. Placer Co. Coordinating Com., 285 Sacramento St., Auburn,California 95603; Exec. Dir., Leonard H. Down; Head Start Dir., F. L. Honnold; Psychometrist-Tester, jean Maxwell; Teachers, Gary Corbettand Carol Stiles. S R. 3. Ec.Opp. Comm., 221 Main P.O. Bldg., Fresno, California93721; Exec. Dir., Frank S. Rodriguez; Psychometrist-Tester, DonnaPlatzek; Teacher, Valerie Knadler. S R. 94 4. Econ. and Youth Opp. Agcy. L. A., 314 W. Sixth St., Los Angeles, California 90014; Exec. Dir., Manuel Aragon; Head Start Dir., Charles Manfred; Teacher, Mildred Hockeday. F-Y U. 5. Stanislaus Co.Com.Act.Com, 1317 Eye St., Modesto, California 95354; Exec. Dir., Jessie Smallwood; Head Start Coord., Neil Bodine; Tester, Mrs. Pickett, Ceres D.C.; Teachers, Audrey Handy, A. Files. F.4 U. 6. Pasadena Com. on Hum. Need and Opp., 641 N. Fairoaks Ave.; Pasadena, 'California 91103; Exec. Dir., Lawrence Whitehead.; Ch. Dev.. Supv., Lois Richard; Teacher, Ruth Stevens, Altadena. ,F-Y.U. 7. Dependency Prevention Com.., 104 W. Sixth St., San Bernardino,

California; Exec. Dir., Robert McBay; Chm.,Pre-Sch.Prog., Barbara Phelps, Redlands Unified Sch. Dist. 92373; Teachers, Bettie Peatz and Anna Burgess. S U. 8. EC. Opp.. Board, Riverside Co., 3570 9th St., Suite 240, Riverside, California 92501; Exec. Dir.,. Sidney Wolverton; John E. Gustaysen, Del Rey Day Care; Psych., Elizabeth Newman, Thermal. F-Y R. 9.* Ventura Co. Comm.Act. Com., 3451 Foothill Road, Ventura, California 93001; Exec. Dir., John Sharon; Head Start ,Dir., Mamie Island; Cen-

ter Coord,-Tester, J. Singleterry;, Teachers: Deborah Morgan (Ventura) Joanne- Johnson, Hortense Arias, (Hueneme), Constance Reis chman (Oxnard). S U. 10. Tulare C. Com. Act. Agency, Box 289, 204 E. Oak St., Visalia, Cali- fornia 93227; Exec. Dir., Nathan Unikel; Head Start Dir., Senaida Garcia;. Teacher-Area Consultant, Lorraine Vernon. F-Y R. COLORADO 1. Freemont Co. Com. Act. Inc., 531 Main St:, '1st. Nat: Bank Bldg., Canon City, Colorado' 81211; Exec. Dir., Frank J. Cervi; Head Start Dir., Mrs.' Jeanie Dageforde. F-Y R. 2. Mesa Co. Comm. Act. Counc. Inc., 628' Reed Ave.,.Grand Junction, Colorado 81501; Exec. Dir., David F. Munns; Teacher, Joy Wexels.F-Y R.

3. Pueblo S. War on Poverty, Inc. , .Bon Durant Bldg.,Room M -103, Pueblo, Colorado 81003; Exec. Dir., Wilfred' O. Martinez; -Teacher, Josephine Montez. F-Y R. 4. Pikes Peak Com. Act. Prog.., Ind., 21st and BearCreek aikido Box 6025, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80904; Soc. Serv. Tr. COord.4 Joe Ortega; TeachersMri. Ellen Stillman, Mrs. Laverne Dotson, Mrs.

Geneva Coleman. F-Y U. - - 5. Southwest Colorado CAP Inc., P.O. Box 259, Durango, Colorido 81301; Soc. Servs Dir., Tom Armenta; Teacher, Mesa Elem.Sch. , Cortez:I'S R. 6. Weld Co. Com.Cent.Found., 1416 Ninth Ave., Greeley, Colorado'80631; Exec. Dir., Chester Hatch; Teachers, Pat Martens, Mrs. Nearpass.F-Y U. 7. Cenejos COstilla Com. Act.Assoc., P. O. Box 56, San Luis, Colorado 81152; Exec. Dir.., Abel I. Virgil; Teacher, Lucy Quintana. Yry'R. 8. Southern Colorado' Com.Act.Com.,Inc., 201,. County 'Court House, Trinidad, Colorado 81082; .Exec. Dir., Joe LaCrue; Teacher, Barbara Burrescia. F-Y U.

9. Dept., of Ed., AlatOsa College, Geo. B. Hugins, Head, 610 State St., Alamosa, Colorado 81101; Head Start Dir., Clara Warner; Teacher, Connie Smith. F-Y R. 10. Sheridan Public Schools, Carl E. Slott, Dir., Box 54, Fort Logan, Colorado 80115. F-Y U. 11, Center CAP, Centers, Colorado' 811254 Head Start Dir., Betty Hensley; Teachers, Betty Cooper, Geneva Cortez. 95 CONNECTICUT Community Action Com. of Danbury, 7 Elm St., Danbury, Connecticut 06810; Exec. Dir., Preston D. Wiley; Head Start Dir., Eileen Clark; -Early Ch. Ed. Coord., Nancy Terrill; Teachers, Mrs. Pierce, J. Barendse. F-Y U. 2. New Britain Off. Ec. Opp., 61 Main St., New Britain, Connecticut 06051; Exec. Dir., Carolyn Lounsbury; Teacher, Jane Nichols. F-Y U. 3. Community Progress, Inc., 270 Orange St., New Haven, Connecticut 05611; Pre-Kg. Prog.Dir., Adelaide Phillips; Psych.-Research Ass't, Elizabeth Levine; Teacher, L. Eberle. S U. 4. Comm. Renewal Team of Greater Hartford, 721 Main St., Hartford, Connecticut 06103; Exec, Dir., Floyd H. Jackson; Ch.Dev. Prog. Supv.., Lillian Ransom; Teacher, Beverly Price. S U. 5. Com. on Training and Employment, 417 Main St.,, Stamford,, Connecti- cut 06901; Exec. Dir., Patrick J. Hunter; Head Start. Dir., Daisy Bache; Teacher, Mabel Thomas. F-Y U. 6. New' Opportunities for Waterbury, Inc., 769 N. Main St., Waterbury, Connecticut 06704; Dir., Mrs. Alice Briggs; Pre-Primary Prog., Dept of Ed.; Teacher, Jane Finn, Maloney Center. F-Y U. '- DELAWARE Sustex Co,. CAA, Inc., 14 S. Race St., Georgetown, Delaware; Exec. Dir., Jon Lowe; Soc. Worker, Janet McPherson, Tester; Teachers, Yvonne. Hearn, Ellen Elzey, Seaford Center 19973. F-Y R. FLORIDA 1. Tampa Ec. Opp. Council, 707 E. Columbus Drive, Tampa, Florida 33602; Exec. Dir.., James V. Minardi; Head' Start Supv., Mary A. Centinaro; Teacher, Georgia Danahy, Evesta Center. F-Y U. 2. Manatee Opportunity. Council, Inc., 215 Manatee' Ave. W., P.O. Box 2069, Bradenton, Florida 33505; Exec. Dir., Leon Esachenko; Head Start Dir., Lee Ratliff; Teacher, Etta M. Samuel, Palmetto. F-Y U. 3. Charlotte Co. Bd. of Publ. Instr., Rm. 305, Courthouse 'Bldg., 1016 Ed. Ave., Punta Gorda, Florida 33950; Supt., J. W. LongStreth: Psych.,-_ Patti. Disler; Teachers., Rose Willis and Gertha Haddock S U and F-y U. 4. Child Development Component, Neighborhood Service Centers, Div. of Welfare, HWB, 205 Marion StreetiTampa, Florida 33602; Exec. Dir., Rudolph Spoto;,Teacher, Mrs. F. M. Wright. F-Y U. Ec. Opp. Counc. of Indian River, Inc., 4580 33rd Ave., Vero Beach, Florida 32960; Dir., Ch. Dev. Prog. Rev. G. S. Freeze; Teacher, Arthur Felton. F-Y U. Wee Care, 209 S.W. 10th St., Belle Glade, Florida 33430; Dir., Marjorie K. Carew; Sylvia C. Fundora, Ass't Dir., F -Y, U. Pinneallas Opp. Council, Inc., 709 Mirrot Lake Drive, St. Peters- burg, Florida 33701; Exec. Dir., Donald Jones;. Teacher., Rhunette Steward, Lakeview. F-Y U. 8. Community Action Org.". Inc., P.O. Box 3070, Fort Pierce, Florida 33450;. Exec. Dir. S. T. Abodo; Teadher, Verdell,Floyd. F-Y U. 9. Pasco Co. Bd. of Pub. Instr., 115 Courthouse, Box 336, Dade City, Florida. 33525; Supt., Chester W. Taylor; Teacher, EUnice Weisman, Elfers Center, Trilby, Florida 33593. F-Y R. 10. -Hernando Co. Action Inc.,, 613 Woad. Drive, Brooksville, Florida 33512; Teacher Nina Ausby. 96 11. Okaloosa Co. CAP, Inc., 310 E. Lang Road, Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548; Exec. Dir., T. E. Lawrence; Teacher, Mary Woodson.F-Y. 12. Greater Jacksonville Ec. Opp. Inc., 427 OceanSt., P. 0. Box 208, Jacksonville, Florida 32201; Exec. Dir., Gordon Bunch; HeadStart Dir., June Gibson; Teacher, Capitola Hopkins. F-Y U. 13. Orange County CAA, 27 E. Central Ave., Orlando,Florida 32801; Exec. Dir., Noraan Braxton; Ed. Dir., Cheri Goyette; Teacher, John Ferringno, Lockhart Center. F-Y R. 14. Brevard CAC Inc., 307 Avocado Ave., Cocoa, Florida32922; Dir., Alice Lacy; Head Start Dir., Juanita Johnson; Teachers, Marie Hill and Cora:Knighton. F-Y U. GEORGIA 1. Central Ogeechee Com.Act. Inc., 136 E. Broad St.,P. 0. Box 405, Louisville, Georgia 30434; Exec. Dir., I. T. Southerland; Head Start Dir., William Eason; Teacher, Mrs. P. Baldwin, Swainsboro. S U. 2. DeKalb Co. Bd. of Ed., DeKaib Co. Courthouse, Decatur, Georgia 30030; Supt., Dr. Amos Trotter; Teachers, Nannie Harms and Mrs. D.Green.SU. 3. Decatur City Pd. of Ed., E0A, Decatur, Georgia 30030; Supt., Rev. Ed. J. Grant; Head Start Dir., Nancy Blaisdell; CAP Director, Mrs. Strain; Teacher, Mrs. DeWeese, Oakhurst Center. S U. 4. Et. Opp., Atlanta, Inc., 101 Marietta St., Atlanta, Georgia 30303; Antioch North Day Care Center, Atlanta, Georgia 30318; Director, Mrs. Mary Ray; Prog. Dir. Mrs. W. Roy Mason; Teacher, Mrs. Annie Wideman. F-4 U. 5. Altamaha Area CAA, P.O. Box 126, 110 Brazell St., Reidsville, Georgia 30453; Teacher, Mozelle Herrington, Glenville: S R. 6. Clayton C. Econ. Opp. Auth., Box 728, 157 Smith Street, Jonesboro, Georgia; Exec. Dir.,'Wilma Shellnut; Head Start Dir., Ted Key. S U. 7. Community Act. for Improvement, Inc.,.P.O. Box 479, LaGrange, Georgia 30240; Exec. Dir., Luke Gill, Jr.; Head Start Coord., Aileene Broome; Teacher, Mrs. Cofield, Tatum Center. FY R. 8. East Point Child Caie Center, 1147 Calhoun Ave., East Point, Georgia 30044; Exec. Dir., Mrs. Lavern KOvell. FY U. 9. Fort Street Kiddie Korner Day Care, 562 Boulevard N. E.,- Atlanta Georgia 30308; Exec. Dir., Mrs. Veronia Johnson; Teachers: Mrs. Knight, Mrs. Freeman, Mr. Embry. F-Y- U. 10. St. Paul Day Care Center, 1540 Pryor Road, S. W., Atlanta,Georgia 30315; Exec. Dir., Mrs. Barbara Martin; Teacher, Mrs. Tate FY U. 11. Grady Homes Day Care Center, 100 Bell St., S.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303; Dir., Mrs. 'Elizabeth R. Carter; Teacher, Mrs. Sarah Gordon. FY U. 12. Coastal Georgia Area CAA, Inc., P. 0. Box 1814, Brunswick,Georgia 31520; Dir., J. H. McQuaig; Teacher, Sandra Henderson. S R. 13. Tift Co. Bd. of Ed., Industrial School Head Start, Tifton,Georgia 31794; Director, Laura Jo Mikell. S R. 14. Carrollton Service Counc. Inc., 402 Park Lane, Carrollton,Georgia 30117; Dir., Griffin Homes, Mrs. Sally Fisher. FY U. 15. College Park Civ. and Ed. Center, 407 W. Harvard St., CollegePark, Georgia 30337; Dir., Mrs. Eloise Thomas. F-4 U. 16. Tabernaae Baptist Church, 475 BoulevardN.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30308; Teacher, Hattie D. Bruce. F-4 U. 17. Wayne Co. Ed. 41f-Ed., Jesup Elem. and Jr. High, Jesup, Georgia 31545; Prog. Dir., James Bacon; Teacher, Jan Sullivan. S R. HAWAII 1. University of Hawaii, 1776 University, Nonolulu, Hawaii 96822; Dr. Hannah Herman, Eval. Coord.; Reg. Tr. Officer, Mrs. Kimi Matsuda; Teachers: Mrs. Shimotsu, Mrs. Hook, Mrs. Takahashi, Mrs. Ige. S U. 2. Maui Econ. Opp. Inc., Old Lihikai School, School Street, Kahului, Hawaii 96732; Dir., Joseph H. Souki; Teacher, Mrs. Winifred Marsh. F-Y U. IDAHO 1. Pocatello School District # 25, P. O. Box 1766, 3115 Pols Line Road, Pocatello, Idaho 83201; Head Start Dir., Virgil Allen; Teacher, Sally Jo Tappendorf. F-Y U. 2. El-Ada CAP, Box 1661, 105 So. 6th St., Boise, Idaho 83702; Head Start Dir., Mr. Russell, Lincoln School; Teachers, Gail Grovom, Mrs. Lin- genfelter. S U. 3. Western Idaho Com.Act. Prog. Inc., P. O. Box 37, Emmett, Idaho 83617; Teacher, EUla McCoy, Weiser Center. F.4 R. 4. Snake River Sch. Dist. No. 52, Rt. 2, Moreland, Idaho; Teacher, Jack Thompson, Blackfoot, Idaho 83221. F-Y R. 5. South Central Com.Act. Ag. Inc., 156 3rd Ave., North, P. O. Box 531, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301; Director, A. W. Morgan; Teacher, Dolores Tjarks. F-Y U. ILLINOIS 1. Jackson Williamson Comm.Act. Ag., City Hall, Third Floor, Carbon- dale, Illinois 62901; Exec. Dir., Dempsey Grim; Head Start Coord., Sylvia E. Parks; Head Start Dir., Mrs. Jo Lowe; Teacher, Kathleen Taylor. S-U. 2. Chicago Committee on Urban Opp., Montrose Center, 901 W. Montrose Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60613; Director, Pearl Steinman. F.4 U. 3. Vermilion Co. Com.Act. Comm., P. O. Box 539, Danville, Illinois 61832; Director, Louis Morris; Teachers, Mrs. Dorothy Paden and Mrs. Kenneth Redenbaugh. F-Y U. 4. Quincy, Illinois, CAP, Bd. of Educ., 1444 Main St., Quincy,-Illinois 62301; Director, William Sacadat; Teachers, Mary Pobanz and Mrs. Alice Anderson. 74 U. INDIANA I. Allen Co. Ec. Opp. Council, 2205 Holton Ave., Ft. Wayne, Indiana 46803; Dir., William G. Williams; Head .Start Coord., Margaret Earl. F4. U. 2. Community Org. of-Soc. Concerns, Inc., 121 East 7th St., Michigan City, Indiana 46360; Dir., Rev. John F. Carter; Head Start Dir., R.. D. Howell; Teacher Coord., Mrs. Virginia Cisler; Teacher, Cora Payne. S U. 3. Hancock -Henry Counties CAP, Inc., 214 S. 14th St., Pa. 205, New CaStle, Indiana 47362; Dir., Curtis Anderson; Head Start Dir., John Dickson; Teacher, Sylvia Herran. FY U. 4. Ec. Opp. Com. of Knox and Sullivan Co., Inc.,.1312 Chestnut St., _Vincennes, Indiana 47591; Dir., Isaac-K. Beckes; Head Start-Ch. Dev. Ctr. Dir., MrS. LaVaughn De Hon; Teacher, Judith K. Bobe. F-Y IL 5. ACTION, 811 E. Jefferson Blvd., South Bend, Indiana 46617; Dir., James T. Gentry; Head Start Dir., Mrs. James Whitmer. S U. 6. Joint Org. for Broader Serv., Jay Co.Courthouse, Portland, Indiana; Dir., E.J. Priest; Head Start Dir., Mrs. Nedra Iliff; Teacher, Mrs. Wilburta Shannon, Dunkirk, Indiana 47336. S U. 98 IOWA 1. Iowa East Central Training, 704 S.2nd St., P. O. Box 747, Clinton, Iowa 52732; Assoc. Dir., W. E.McDonald; Teacher, Mary Hill Grim- mett. F-Y U. 2.* West Central Dev. Corp., P. 0. Box46, City Hall, Harlan, Iowa 51537; Dir., Wilbur F. Peters; Teacher,Barbara Jones, Dunlap. Ex. 3.* Bedford Community Head Start,Bedford, Iowa 50833; Counselor, Blaine Shupe; Supt., Johnny Smith. Ex. 4. Southeast Iowa CA Org., Inc.,601 N. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601; Ex. Dir., Violet E. Lundquist; Teacher,Mrs. Kathryn Bell.F-Y U. 5. Greater Opportunities, Inc., 212Plymouth Bldg., Des Moines, Iowa 50309; Exec. Dir., Don McKenzie;Teacher, Mary Jo Ramsey. F-Y U. 6. Your Own United Resources, Inc.,719 Des Moines, P. O. Box 1194, Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501; Exec. Dir.,Robert W. Tarbox; Teachers, Jane Munson and Marilyn McNulty.F-Y U. 7. South Central Iowa CAP, Inc., Leon,Iowa 50144; Exec. Dir., Clyde I. Taff; Teacher, Mrs. CamilleJackson, Decatur. F-Y R. 8. Earlham Com. Sch. Title I., Earlham,Iowa 50072; Teachers, Patti Wells and Marjorie Jones. S R. 9. Southern Iowa Ec. Dev. Assn., 102 ChurchSt., Coliseum Bldg., Ottumwa, Iowa 52501; Exec. Dir., JosephD. Mondanaro; Early Ch.Dev. Dir., Elizabeth Birchen; Teacher, Mrs.John Taylor, Kesauqua. F-Y R. 10. Boone Co. Head Start, Fraser,Iowa Center, Boone Iowa50036; Teacher, Kjella Piper. F-Y 11. Eastern Allamakee Com. Sch.Dist., North East Iowa Com.Act.Corp., Lansing; Iowa 52151; Exec. Dir.,Neal Weidenmarin; Sch. Soc. Wkr., Sarah Smerud; Teacher, BettyGranlich, New Albin. F-Y R. KANSAS 1. East Centr&1 Kans. Ec. Opp. Corp.,Franklin Co. Courthouse, Ottawa, Kansas; Exec. Dir., James W.Smith; Teacher, Mrs. Alice Crawford. F-Y U. James 2. SuK-CAP Inc., 110 N. Ozark,Girard, Kansas 66743; Exec. Dir., W. Garrison; Early Ch. Dev.,Mrs.. Diana Carter; Teacher, Mrs.Joan Parker; F-Y U. Econ. Opp. Bd. of Shawnee Co.,Inc., 406 Jackson, Topeka, Kansas 66601; Dir., Robert Reed; Research Dir.,L. R. Gaston; Teacher, Katie I. Hanson. F-Y U. 1102 W. Douglas, Wichita, Kansas 4. Wichita Area Conan. Act. Prog. Inc., 67203; Exec. Dir., Jack H. Chapman; Teacher,Judith Lujan, Kechi Center; Head Start Dir., RuthNathan. F-Y U. 66502; Dir.., 5. Opp. Pre-School, Inc., 2031Poyntz, Manhattan, Kansas Margaret S. Kitterman; Teachers,Diane Rawson and Olive Hooper.F-Y U. KENTUCKY BOX 197, 1. West Lake Cumberland Area Dev.Counc., 202 Publ. Sq., Columbia, Kentucky 42728; Prog.Dir., John Phelps; Teacher, Gladys Rogers. S R. 2. Pennyrile CAA Inc., 0E0, 308 CourthouseAnnex, Hopkinsville, Ken- tucky 42240; Exec. Dir., Fred Porter;Tester, Mr. Sandusky, .Reg. Mental Clinic; Teachers Robbie. Gary. SR. 3. Eminence Indep. Bd. of Ed., Eminence, Kentuck7 40019;Supt., Mr. McCoy Terry; Teachers, Mildred Robingand Ruby Collette. F-Y R. 99 4. 'Licking Valley Comm.' Act. Prog., Inc., 235(B) Water St., Flemings- burg, Kentucky 41041; Dir., Martin Wisecup; Ed. Dir., Mrs. Eleanor Talbert; Head Start Dir., Adeline Shepherd, Carlisle, Nicholas Co.; Teachers, Jane Becker, Edna Huddleston, Lois Hamm, Pameliz. Cameron, Lucille Feeback, and Judy Owen. S 5. Central Kentucky CAP Council, 406 W. Main St., Lebanon, Kentucky 40033; Dir., T. W. Grant; Assoc. Dir., John F. Brennan; Teacher, Herman Rowlett. S R. 6. East Lake Cumberland Area Improv. Counc., Rox116, Monticello, Ken- tucky 42501; Dir., Thurston Frye; Teacher, Mrs. Paul Jones. SU. 7. Bell-Whitley CAC, Henderson Settlement, Frakes, Kentucky 40940; Dir., Arthur A. Ankeny; Teacher, Mrs. Charles Taylor, Pineville. S R. 8. Kentucky River Foothills Dev. Counc., 416 Chestnut St., Berea, Ken- tucky 40403; Dir., John Artesani; Teacher, Pauline R. Tincher. S R. 9. Owensboro Area Ec. Opp. Counc. Inc., 102 E. 15 St., Owensboro, Ken- tucky 42301; Dir., William O. Munsell; Head Start Dir. -Tester, Mary Shields; Teachers, Mrs. Benita Piney and Mrs. Addie Talbott.F-Y& S U. 10. Leslie Knott Letcher Perry CAC, Letcher Co. Courthouse, Box160, Whitesburg, Kentucky 41858; Dir., Jesse I. Amburgey; Teachers, Les- lie Smith and Mabel Hall. S R. 11. North Kentucky CAC, Newport, Kentucky 41071; Mr. Jack Blumenthal, Exec. Dir., 101 Pike St., Covington, Kentucky41016; Speech Thera- pist-Tester. S U. LOUISIANA 1. Community Advancement, Inc., P.O. Box 66043, 2147 Govern St., Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806; Exec. Dir., Charles Tapp;Dir. of Ed., Rosetta Jackson; Teacher, Mrs. Jessie W. Petin. F-Y U. 2. Beauregard CAA Inc., P.O. Box 573, De Ridder, Louisiana70634; Exec. Dir., Margaret Lewis; Teachers, Lillian Scott, CarolynJohnson. S R. 3. Allen Action Agency, Inc., Box 757, Kinder, Louisiana70648; Exec. Dir., George M. Peck; Head Start Dir., Louis Jeans; Teacher, Vivian Nevils. S U. 4. Gulf Assistance Prog. of SW La., Inc., P. O. Box3049, Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601; Dir., Mr. Inge; Prog. Coord., Earl F.Sims; Teacher, Mrs. Edith Benoit, Sulphur. F-Y U. St. James Parish Com.Act. Inc., Box429-506 Louisiana Ave., Lacher, Louisiana 70071; Dir., Wm. A Abreo; Teacher, SuzanneMelancon, Paulin Center. S R. 6. Evangeline Com. Act. Inc., Courthouse Bldg., VillePlatte, Louifv:.ana 70586; Dir., Allen Bertrand; Head Start Dir., Michael Latigue; Teacher, Beverly Miller. F-Y R. 7. Total Community Action, Inc., 615 N. St., Ed. Dept., Rm.609, New. Orleans, Louisiana 70130; Dir., Winston C.Lill; Coord.-Tchr. Ed., Sophia Sellars; Teacher, Mrs. Mariam Parker. F-Y U. MAINE 1. 'York Co. Com.ALL. Corp., County Court- House, Alfred, Maine04002; Dir., Raymond F. Savage; Head Start Coord., Tho. N. Collay;Teachers: Mts. Desmarius, Nancy Cole, M.H. Hay, Diane Erskine, JuneHurd, and Glynis Roberts. F-Y U, S U, and S R. 2. Penobscot Cnt., Coin. for CA Inc., 611 Hammond St., Bangor, Maine 04401; Dir., Orville Cookson; Teacher, Mrs. Marcia Smith. F-Y U. 100 3. Waldo Co. Com. for Soc. Act. Inc., RFD # 2, Freedom, Maine 04941; Dir., Miss Winifred C.- Black; Teachers, Marjorie Williams and Harriet Morrow. F-Y R. 4. Central Aroostook Act. Prog., Bldg. 123, Skyway Industrial Park, P.O. Box 1116, Presque Isle, Maine 04769; Exec. Dir., Wm. H. Ram- sey; Teacher, Johnnie Cancelarich. S R. 5. St. John Valley Act. Counc. Inc., 14 W. Main St., Fort Kent, Maine 04763; Dir., Quentin Paradis; Head Start Dir., ThereseOuellet, Van Buren, Hamlin Center. F-Y R. 6. Central Community Council, Central Hall, Municipal Bldg., Dover-Fox- croft, Maine 04426; Dir., H.H. Gordon, Jr.; Teacher, Mrs. Sheila Thompson, Sangerville. F-Y R. 7. Portland Regional Opp. Program, 157 State St., Portland, Maine 04111; Dir., Carmine Piscopo; Head Start Dir., Philip Butterfield; Teacher, Carol Small. F-Y U. 8. Oxford Co. Ec. Council, Co. Court Bldg., Western Ave., South Paris, Mains 04281; Exec. Dir., Robert R. Reny; Head Start Dir., Robert O'Connor; Teacher, Mary Paine, Bethel School. F-Y R. 9. Franklin County CAC., Inc., Strong, Maine 04983; Dir., Clinton A. Conant; Teacher, Elaine Haggan, Phillips. F-Y R. 10. Knox Co. CAC, 431 Main Street, Rockland, Maine 04841; Dir., Dominic J. Gacetta; Teacher, Mrs. Patricia Saunders. F-Y R. MARYLAND 1. Southern Maryland Tri-Co. CAC, Inc., Hughesville, Maryland 20637; Dir., Wm. A Welch, Marshalls Corner; Head Start Dir., Marion Thomas; Teacher, Mae Bowie. F-Y R. 2. Community Action Agency, Baltimore City, 11 E. Mount Royal Ave., Baltimore, Maryland 21202; Dir. Frank J. Ellis; Day Care Dir., Gladys Combs; Teachers, Patricia Renwick and-Marie Knowlin. F-Y U. 3. tom. Act. Comm. of Allegany Co., P. O. Box 246, 303 Wash St., Cum- berland, Maryland 21502; Dir., Oswald Gigliotti; Par. Coord., Ruth Oglesbay; Prog. Dir., Harry R. Thomas, Lanaconing; Teachers, B. J. Hemmis and Mary Lewellen. F-Y R. MASSACHUSETTS 1. Self Help, 71 Centre St., Brockton, Massachusetts 02401; Dir., Dr. Ray T. Mentzer, Jr.; Head Start Adm., Carol Fanning; Teacher, Barbara Spillman, Whitman Center. F-Y R. 2. Community and Reg. Opp. Prog. (CROP), 161 School St., Chicopee, Massachusetts 01013; Gerald Winter, Dir; Teacher, Mrs. Henry Jen- nings, Holyoke. F-Y U. 3. Montachusett Opp. Council Inc., 305 Whitney St., Leominster, Massa- chusetts 01453; Dir., John R. Ford; Head Start Dir., A.G. Crossman; Ed. Dir., Ruth Pierce; Teacher, Mrs. Holms, Holy Cross. F-Y R. 4. Lynn Ec. Opp. Inc., 58 Andrew St., Lynn, Massachusetts 01902; Dir., Arthur Kimber; Head Start Dir., Wm. Lelaney; Teacher, Vicki Fling, FY U. 5. ONBOARD, Inc., 18 So. Water St., New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740; Dir., John Sharp; Head Start Dir., Mrs. Louis A. Gomes; Psychome- trist, Mrs. Frances H. Wetmore. F-Y U. 6. Community Teamwork, Inc., 10 Bridge St., Lowell, Massachusetts 01852; Dir., John J. Mahoney; Head Start Dir.: Mrs. Rosalie Dixon; Teacher, Dorothy Turner. F-Y U. 101 7. Comm.Act. Com. of Cape Cod & Islands,P. O. Box 406, West Bay Road, Osterville, Massachusetts 20655; Dir.,Frank Haan; Ad. Asst.,Cath- erine Hansen; Teachers, Joice McClainand Linda Robinson, Center- ville Center 02632. F-Y R. 8. *Worcester Com.Act.Count. Inc., 340 Main St., Rm. 384,Worcester, Massachusetts 01608; Dir., JamesPopeo; Head Start, Mrs. Janet O'Connor. F-Y U and Ex. 9. Berkshire Com. Act. Counc. Inc. 54 Wendell Ave., Pittsfield, Massa- chusetts 01201; Dir., James Barnes; HeadStart Dir., Jean Hunter; Ed. Supv., Sandra Clark; Teacher,Fanny Culleton, Stockbridge.F-Y U. 10. Eastern Middlesex Opp. Counc.,Inc., 182 Washington St., Somerville, Massachusetts 02143; Dir., RobertMuzzy; Psychologist, Sylvia Pollock; Tester, Linda Geary. S U. 11. Springfield Action Comm. Inc., 1660Main St., Springfield, Massa- chusetts 01103; Dir., Lewis C. Frayser;Head Start Dir., Dorothy Butler; Teacher, Linda Ulrick.F-Y MICHIGAN 1. St. Dominic's Head StartCenter, Pre-School # 2, Detroit,Michigan; Teacher, Eleanor Harper. F-Y U. 2.. Bay- Midland. Area Com. on E.O., Bangor-Lincoln Head Start, 100 15th St.., Bay City, Michigan 48706;Teachers, Margaret Jones, Virginia Phillips. S U.

MINNESOTA 1. Mahube ConiMunity CouncilInc., 200 East State St., Detroit Lakes, Minnesota 56501; Dir., DelMoure H. Hultgren;Asst. Dir., Maurice Strom; Head Start Dir., Donald McGillis;Teacher,- Paul Ness. S R. South Central Comm.ACt.--Counc., Inc., 711Second St., Jackson, Minn- esota 56143; Dir., Fred D. Huemoeller;Head Start Dir., Merna Kan- fling; Teacher, Mrs. Joe Eiden, St.James; Center'Coord.-Tester, Mary Kvoleski. S R. 3. KoOchiching-Itasca Action Program,5 East 5th St., Grand Rapids, Minnesota 55744; Dir., James Gabrielson;Head Start Dir.,'Constance Richardson; Teacher, Mary Rierson, DeerRiver. S R. Minnesota Valley Action Coun., Inc.,State Hosp. Campus Bldg. 32; St. Peter, .Minnesota 56082;. Dir., CarrollStenson; Head Start Dir., Myrtle Tarbes. S R. 5. inter County Com.Coupc. Inc., Box 187,Oklee, Minnesota 56742; Dir., Roy A. Jorgenson; Head Start Dir., AlbertJohnson; Teacher, Mrs. Orris, Bagley Center. S R. 6. White Earth Reservation CAP! P.O.Box 274,- White Earth, Minnesota 56591; Dir., George V. Goodwin;Teacher,, Rosemary Jasken. S R. MISSISSIPPI 1. United CAC Inc., P. O. Box 116, AShland,Miss., 38603; Head Start, Ellie Steward. FY R. 2. Coahoma Opportunities, Inc., 321E. 2nd St., Clarksdale, Miss.; Head Start, Mayo Wilson; Teacher, ArchieBrown. F-Y R. 3. Associa.Com. of Boliver, P.O.Box 749, Cleveland, Miss. 38732;Head Start Dir., Aaron Vande; Exec. Dir.,Billy J.McCain; Teachers, Mrs. Frances Smith. and Mrs. C. R. Washington.FY U. 4. Sunflower County ProgressInc., P. O. 'Box 482, Indianola, Miss. 38751; Dir., Colbert Crowe.; Head Start Dir.,Walter Gregory; Ed. Dir., Jimmy L. Strong. F-Y U. 102 5. Assoc. Com. of Sunflower Co., P.O. Box706, Indianola, Miss. 38751; Dir., Mrs. Cora Fleming;. Teacher, Miss Helen Smith. F-Y R. 6. Mid-State Opp. Inc., P.O. Box 146, Charleston, Miss. 38921; Dir., Robert R. McRaney; Head Start Dir., Bobby Jones; Teacher, Frederick C. Roberson. F-Y U. 7. Pearl River Valley Opp. Inc., 701 High S. Ave., P.O. Box266, Columbia, Miss.; Dir., John Paul Roblin; Head Start Dir., Bernice White;Dir. of Ed., E. L. Butler; Ed. Coord., Pauline Stepney; Teachers,Arlene Averett and Carrie Abram, Owen Chapel. SU. 8. Mid-Delta Ed. Assn. Inc., 304 North St., Greenville, Miss.38702; Dir., Cldrence Hall; Head Start Dir., Betty Grayson; Tr.Officer, ReJohnna Brown. F-Y U. 9. Com. Serv. Assoc., Act. for Progress, Wells Bldg.,320 N. West St., Jackson, Miss. 39201; Head Start Dir., Dr. AaronShirley; Teacher, Bernice Hughes. F-Y U. 10. CE& MHC, Vincent Bldg., 203 W. Capitol St., Jackson,Miss. 39201; Prog. Dir., Jeraldine Watts; Rankin Co. Dem. Ctr. , Brandon39042.F-Y R. 11. Jackson Co.Civ. Act. Com., Citizens for Child Dev., 1011 So.Market, Pasagoula, Miss. 39567; Dir., Richard B. Wright, Jr.; Teacher, Eloise Russell. F-Y U. 12. Lift, Inc., Box 28, Tupelo, Miss. 38802; Exec. Dir., Jack W.Mc- Daniel; Psychologist-Tester, Nancy Gilder; Teachers, Mrs.Davis and Mrs. Melton. F=Y U. 13. Adams-Jefferson Improv. Corp. Inc., 629 Franklin St.,Natchez, Miss. 39120; Dir., Jessie Paris; Ed. Coord., Mary J. Mosley; HeadStart Dir., Mammie Mazique. F-Y R. 14. Central Mississippi Inc., 110 Quitman St., P.O. Box268, 'Winona, Miss.; Dir., Eargia Winters; Teacher, Vivian Adams,Kosciusho.F-Y U. 15. Inst. of Comm.Serv.,Rest College, P. O. Box261, Holly Springs,Miss. 38635; Dir., Avery Moore; Teacher, Zula Jackson, Oxford. F-Y U. 16. Saints Junior College, P. O. Drawer F., Lexington, Miss.39095; Head Start Dir.., Andrea Clemons;. Teachers, BerniceThomas and Mausie Lewis. F-Y 17. Singing River Ed. Assn., Lucedale, Miss. 39452;Dir.,Fred Ezell.F-Y R. 18. Sophia Sutton Mission Assembly, Ch. Dev. Prog., P.O.Box 574, Pren- tiss, Miss. 39474; Dir., Dr. S. R. Richmond;Teacher, Doris E. Brown. F=Y R. 19. Milton Olive Memorial, Monticello, 310 4th St.,Lexington, Miss. 39095; Dir., Otis Nelson; Teacher, Willie Burns,Milestone S R. 20. Wesley Methodist Church H.S. Ctr., 299 Mibile St.,Louisville,Miss. 39339; Ed. Din, Billy Barnes; Teacher, Louise Cooper.F-Y R. 21. S. W. Miss. Child Dev. Ctr., P. O. Box 257, Liberty,Miss.. 39645; Dir., Henrene Matthews; Teacher, Lulu Wilkinson,Jerusalem. F-Y R. MISSOURI 1. Missouri Ozarks Ec.0p.Corp., P.O. Box 158, 314 Pine St.,Richland, Missouri 65556; Dir.., Thomas D. Saunders; Ed. Dir., James D.Rank, Teacher, Sue Tally. S R. 2. *West Central )Io.Rural Dev. Corp.., 4th and Hickory, P.O. Box125, Appleton City, Missouri 64724; Dir., Charles Braithwait; Head Start Dir., Louis Jones; Teacher, Charlene Benbow; ExperimentalForms Teachers: Jo Ann Rutherford, Clara Warrington, SybilSears,Marie Borland, Alta Frieze, Opal Van Gorden, Helen Leininger. F-YR. 3. Northeast Missouri Regional E.O. Inc., 801 W.Michigan St., Kirks- ville, Missouri 63501; Dir., Kent Collins;Teacher, INEdwards.Flq. 4. Green Hills Area Hum.Res. Dev. Corp., P.O. Box 270, Trenton, Missouri 63556; Dir., Bill Hubbard; Teacher, Ednagene Hatfield. F-Y U. 5. Delta Area Ec. Cpp, Corp. f 202 East Main, Portageville, Missouri 63873; Dir., Charles Fleer; Teacher, Virginia Andrews, Hornersville. F-Y R. 6. *NORWES CAP, 308 E. Third St., Maryville, Missouri 64468; Exec. Dir., E. C. Walker; Head Start Dir., Garth Haer; Teachers: Mrs. Armstrong, Mrs. Book, Mrs. Brown, Mrs. Cain, Mrs. Dowden, Mrs. Fisher, Mrs. Richardson, Miss Luhrs, and Mrs. Thiesfield. F-Y R and S R. 7. Ec. Opp.Corp., Greater St. Joseph, 613 Corby Bldg., St. Joselt, Mis- souri64501; Dir., Kemmyt Roebuck; Teacher, Thelma Hutchison; ilead Start. Dir., Charles H. McCann. F-Y U. 8. Mo. Valley Resource Dev. Corp., County Court House, Carrolton, Missouri 64633; Dir., Chance D Blaeuer; Teachers: Barbara Gerhard, Ina Johnson, Jess Brandon. F-Y R. 9. *Human Resources Corp., 2405 Truman Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64127; Dir., Chester E. Stovall; Psych.-Tester, Goldman; Teacher, Phyllis Powell, Dunbar, Sample, plus Exp. in 4 classes. F-Y U. 10. Quinco EOA, Inc., Box 455, Troy, Missouri 63458; Dir., John Fielder;

Head Start Dir., W.B. Middleton; Teacher, Lillie Cottrell. F-Y R. . 11. Ozarks Area Comm. Act. Corp., 309 N. Jefferson, Springfield, Missouri 65802; Dir. H.S. Francis; Teacher, Charlotte VanHoose. F-Y U. 12. Ec. Security Corp. of S.W. Area, 513 Kentucky Ave., Joplin, Missouri 64801; Dir., Daryl Andrews; Psych., John Todych. SU. 13. Central Ozarks Ec. Opp.Corp., P.O. Box 246, West Plains, Missouri 65775; Dir., Willis Mushrush; Teacher, Ilene Price. F-Y R. MONTANA 1. Mt. Powell Et. .Council, Box 1420, Anaconda, Montana 59711; Dir., C. 'Harlin Buxton; Teacher, Hollie Shrauger. F-Y R. 2. Opportunities Inc., P.O. Box 2532, Great Falls, Montana 59401; Dir., Francis 0., Mitchell; H.S. Dir.,R.K.McLeod; Teacher,Mrs. Thronson.FYU. 3. itocky Mountain Dev. Counc. Inc., Box 721, 324 Fuller Ave., Helena, Montana 59601; Dir., Judith Carlson; Psych.-Tester, L. Talkington.FYU. Community Act. Prog., Billings and Yellowstone, -2714 Montana Ave., Billings, Montana 59101; Dir., Carl Taute; Ass't,Bonny Toays; Teacher, Marlene Hall. U. 5. Hill Co. Comm. Act., Inc., 740 Second St., Havre, Montana 59501;

. Dir., Dick Lodmell; Head Start Dir., Millie Weeks. F-Y U. NEBRASKA 1. Northwest Nebraska CAC, Box 746, Chadron, Nebraska 69337; Dir., Floyd A. Lincoln, Jr.; Teacher, Caroline Hughes. F-Y R. 2. Greater Omaha Com.Act. Inc., 1805 Harney St., Omaha, Nebraska 68102; Dir., Kenneth E. Shearer; Teacher, Rose M. Moore. F-Y U. 3. Golden Hills Com.Act.Counc., P.O. Box 38, Walthill, Nebraska 68067; Dir., Bill Campbell; Head Start Dir., Reuben Snake; Teacher, Judy Moeller. F-Y R. Nebraska Panhandle CAA, 1455 11th St., Gering, Nebraska 69341; Dir., Mrs. Louise R. Korman; H.S.Dir.,Joam Cromer; Teacher, M.Howard.F-YU. NEVADA 1. Nevada State Com. Act. Prog., Blasdel Bldg., Rm. .2044 Carson City, Nevada 89701; Exec. Dir. Robert Robinson; Teacher, Bee Pogue. S U. 104 NEW HAMPSHIRE 1. Manchester Com. Act. Prog., 967 Elm St., Manchester,New Hampshire 03101; Dir., Robert Scarponi; Head Start Dir.,Robert L. Horan; Teacher, Hope Truesdale. SU. 2. Rockingham Co. CAP, Inc., North Road,P.O. Box 366, Exeter, New Hamp- shire 03833; Dir., Marilyn Levine; HeadStart Dir., Peter Jarret; Teacher, Ann McGranaghan, Raymond Center. F-Y R. 3. Community Action Com., Hillsborough Co., 1 MainSt., Box 361, Nashua, New Hampshire 03060; Dir., Donald A. Philbrick;Head Start Dir., Mary Malarkey. F-Y U. NEW JERSEY 1. Burlington Co.Com.Act.Prog., Riverton-BridgeboroAds.,,Mooiestown Ch. Dev. Ctr.; Moorestown, New Jersey 08016;Dir., Rev, Enoch Rochester; Teacher, Ers. Charles Cunningham. F-Y U. 2. Bergen Co. CAP Inc., 57 Main St.,Hackensack, New Jersey 07601; Dir., Jack Lyle; Head Start Dir., Betty Springer;Teacher, Mrs. Meeks.F-YU. 3. Monmouth CAP Inc., 279 Broadwayt LongBranch, New Jersey-07740; Dir., Joseph Taylor; Ed. Coord., Greta V. Butler;Teachers, Joyce Brown and Elsa Campbell. FY U, 4. Bayonne Ec, Opp. Found., 473 Broadway BergoffBld., Bayonne, New Jersey 07002; Dir., Thomas J. Downey; H.S.Dir., 'Rabbi R.H. Bendel- stein; Teacher, Ethel Cohan. F-Y U. 5. Somerset CoM.Act. Prog., HamiltonSt., Boro Hall, Bound *Brook, New Jersey 08805; Dir., Theodore Taylor; Teacher,Malverse Mait4p. F-YR. 6.- Camden Co. Councilon E.O. Inc., 320 Haddon Ave., Convention Hall, Camden, New Jersey 08103; Dir., David K. Tabor;Ctr. Dir., Dr. Phyllis Scott; Teachers, Patricia Thompson andMrs. Bowman. SU. 7. Jersey City Com. 4k, Neigh. Dev.Org., 391 JacksonAve., Jersey 'City, New Jersey 07305; Dir., Earl-W. Byrd; H.S. Dir.,Gertrude Zeitlin; Teacheru Ethel Persky. F-Y U. 8. Paterson Task Force for Com.,Act., 236 240 Broadway,Paterson, New Paterson, New Jersey 07501; Dir., Kenneth Marshall;,Head Start Dir., Catherine Micken; Teacher, Winifred Allworth.F-Y U. 9. Ocean Comm. Ec. Act. NOW Inc.1.38 Main St,, Toms River,New Jersey 08753; Dir.; Roberti,. Tarver, LTC (Ret.);Teacher, Audrey Walter.FYU. 10. Mercer Co.Com.Act. Counc., Mercer Co.-Court House, Trenton, New Jer- sey 08607; Dir., Lloyd L. Fletcher;.H.S. Din, Mrs.Stevens;-Day Care Coord., Johnny Singleton. F-Y U. 11. United Progress, Inc., 443,E. State St., 602Greenwood, Trenton, New Jersey 08605; Dir., D.J. Cogsville; Cur.Spee., LouiseBennett; Teacher, Gladys Dixon. F-Y U. 12. North Hudson Com.Act. Corp., 507 26thSt., Union City, New Jersey 07087; Dir., Nicholas Mastroelli; Teacher,Diane M.Kvilesz. SU.' NEW MEXICO 1. Otero Co.CAA, P.O. Box NN, Alamogordo,New Mexico 88310; Dir.., L. D. Graft; H.S. Dir., Jacq. Gervais; Teacher, DoloresCanfield. F-Y U. 2. San Juan Co.Et.Opp.Counc., BOx 1822; Farmington, New Mexico 87401; Dir., F.A. Budai; Test.Adm., M.W. Gilbert.S U. 3. Albuquerque-Bernalillo Co.Et.Oppad.1222 3rd St.,NW, Albuquerque, New Mex. 87101; Dir.,James C.Jaramillo; Ch.Dev.Prog.Dir.,-Darline Wilson; Teacher-Dir., Gertrude Reynolds.,F-Y U. .105 4. Eddy Co. Com. Act. Corp., Room 106, Carlsbad, New Mexico 88220; Dir., Luis Negrete; Ch.Dev.Spec., Dr. F. Elena DeVaney. F-Y U. 5. Santa Fe Com.Act. Org., 811 Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501; Dir., C.C. Capshaw; H.S.Dir., Albert Valdez; Teacher, Betty Valencia. S U. NEW YORK 1. Albany Co. Opp. Inc., Coun. Com.Serv., 91 State St., Albany, New York 12207; Dir., James Heron,. Pearl St. School # 5. F-Y U. 2. Roosevelt Ec. Opp. Count., Roosevelt Day Care Center, 20 Whitehouse Ave., Roosevelt, New York 11575; Dir. Leanna Hercules. F-Y U. 3. Erie Co.Com.Act. Org., 722 Main St., Buffalo, New York 14202; Dir., Ambrose Lane; Ed. Serv.,H. Gaglione; Teacher, Alpina Howard. F-Y U. 4. Opp. for Otsego,-Inc., 199 Main St., Cooperstown, New York.13326; Dir.,' Alva Welch; H.S. Dir., Esther Fink; Teacher, M. Dutcher. F-YR. 5. Eastchester Com. Opp.Prog. Inc., Hartsdale CAP, 35 Bronx, Tuckahoe, New York; Dir., Phyllis Shearer; H.S. Coord., Glorine Edwards; Teacher, Sandra Jackson. F-Y U. 6. Opportunities for Broome, Inc., Box 496-183 Washington St., Bingham- ton, New York 13902; Tester, Kathleen Blackman; Teacher,B. Gates.FYU. 7. Schoharie Co..CAP Inc., Middleburg Day Care Center, Box-28, Richmond- ville, Nei York 12122; Dir. Henry Gaffey. F-Y R. 8. Ulster Co. Cta. Act. Com., Fair and Main St:, Kingston, New York 12401; Dir., Stanley Leyden; Teacher, Joyce Kenyon. F-Y U. 9. Opportunities for Cortland Co., Inc., 133 Homer Ave.,"Cortland, New York 13045; Dir., Daniel W. Sherman, Jr.; Teacher, Mrs. Sweet. S R. 10. St. Lawrence Co.Com,Dev. Prog. Inc., Court and Judson Sts., Canton, New York 13611; Dir. W. R. Bourdette; Teachers, Ruth Hogan and H. La Rouech. F -Y. R. 11. Ec. Opp. Prog. Chemung Co., 150 Fox St., Elmira, New York 14901; Dir., Wm. A. Robson; Psych., Stephen Davis; Dir. Day Care' Ctr., Naomi Dreyfull; Teachers:.C. Jones, D. Emblidge, A Larson. F-Y U. 12. Newburgh CAC Inc., 150 Liberty St., Newburgh, New York 12550; Dir., Frank E. Jones; Teacher,Cathy Moore. F-T U. 13. Hancock Day Care Center, Fish's Eddy Center, Long Eddy, N.Y. F-Y R. 14. Warren- Hamilton COS for EO Inc., Warren Co. Municipal Center, Lake George, New York 12845; Dir., Robert D. Muncil; H.S. Dir. E.V. Hamelin; Teacher, Marilyn Somerville, Glenn Falls. F-Y U. 15. Wayne Co.Act. Prog. Inc., Wayne Co. Courthouse, 26 Church St.,Lyons, New York 14489; Act.Dir., Darwin Allison; Dir. Red Creek Center,

- Marian Curtis; Teacher, Patricia Hartley. F-Y R. 16. Chautauqua Opportunities Inc., 12 Blanchard St., Mayville, New York 14757; Dir. Rolland H. Taft; Falconer, Betty Gilmartin; Sch. Psych. Tester, Robert Pender, Ellington Center. F-Y R. 17. White Plains CAP, 50 Martine Ave., White Plains, New York 10601; Dir. Mrs. Sioux Taylor; D.C. Ctr Dir., Helen Donly; Barbara Banks. F-Y U. 18. Tioga Opportunities Prog. Inc. 68 North Avenue, Owego, New York 13827; Dir. Lloyd Strombeck; Teacher, Erma L. Clupper. F-Y R. 19. Opportunities for Chanango, Inc.,12 W. Park Place, Norwich, New York 13815; Dir. H. Ellison; Day Care, Audrey Spencer. F- Y. R. 20. Utica Com.Act. Inc., 520 'Plant St., Utica, New York 13501; Dir. K.R. Mochel; H.S. Dir., Betty Hsiao; Psych. B. Buszek; Teacher, Ellen Boerger. F-Y. U. 21. Oneida Co. CAA, 811 Charlotte St., Utica, New York 13501; Dir. R.La Perap H.S. Director, F. B. Turner. F-Y R. 106 NORTH CAROLINA 1. Anson Co. Head Start, Bd. of Ed., Caniden Road, Wadesboro, N. C. 28170; Dir., Mae T. Lindsey;. Teachers: Mary R. Caple, Marven, and Mary J. Bennett, Wadesboro. S R, 2. Almanance Co.CAP Inc., P.O. Box 38, Burlington, N.C. 27215; Dir., Wm. F. Ross; H.S. Dir., Vance Vines; Teacher, Caroline Hutton. S U. 3. sloint Orange-Chatham CAA, 110 Barnes St., Carrboro, N.C. 27510; Dir., Paul Aldon; H.S. Dir.,J.H. Peace; Teacher, Margaret Thomas. S U. 4. Opp. Corp Madison-Buncombe Co., 170 Woodfin St., Asheville; N.C. 28801;'D.C. Dir., Rebecca Johnson; Exec. Dir., Ora A. Spaid. F-Y U. 5. Operation' Breakthrough Inc., P.O. Box 1470, Durham, N.C. 27702; Dir., Gerald Underwood; H.S. Dir., Marianne Cohen; Ch. House Dir., Sandra Middleton. F-Y U. 6. Gaston Corn. Act. Inc., P.O. Box 2319 to 2359, Gastonia, N.C. 28053; Dir., Walter Windlex; Teacher, Rebecca O.Howe, Woodhill. S U. 7. Franklin- Vance - Warren Opp. Inc., Law Bldg., 116 Young St., Henderson, N.C. 27536; Dir., Cornell Manning; Ed. Dir., Mrs. Anna Gerber.F-Y R. -8. Salisbury-Rowan Com. Serv. Counc. Inc., Box 631, Salisbury, N.C. 28144; Dir., Jeffrey M. McArthur; H.S. Supv., Shirley R. Ramseur; Teacher, Shirley Frye. F-Y R. 9. Cleveland Co.Com. Act., Inc, P.O. Box 1808; Shelby, N.C. 28150; Dir., George Newthan; Teacher, Jeanette Blanton. S U. 10. Sencland Com. Act. Inc., P.O. Box 329, Whiteville, N.C. 28463;Dir., James C. Cox; Ed.Dir.-Tester, Mary Caldwell; Dep. Dir.'Charles Mum- ford; Teacher, Rebecca Hilburn, Elizabethtown. S R. 11. Mountain Projects, Inc., 50 C. West Main St., Sylva, N.C. 28779;Dir., George C. Carpenter; Teacher, Edna La Fountaine, Waynesville.F-Y R. 12. Blue Ridge Opp. Comm. Inc., P.O. Box 144; Jefferson,'N:C.;-Dir., Elizabeth Baker;' Teacher, Jewel Miller, Riverview. S R. 13.*Wake Co. Opportunities Inc., 713 N. Person St., Raleigh N.C.; Dir., Etigene.Toten; Teachers: Mrs. Shakford, Diane Aldridge; Marina Bell, Edna Buffaloe, I. Brown, Mrs. James Crew, Adelaide Earp, June Fisher, Louise Flagg, Betty Greenwood, H.L. Nickerson, M.H. Howard, Joan Brown, Sandra Canipe, Bessie Lewis, Margaret McIntosh, Winnie Lace- well, D.D. McLeod, Shirley Payne, Mrs. D.B. Nelson,-C.S. Royster, M.C. Riddick, R.B. Smith, Christine Taylor, Patricia Tolley, Vic- toria Walters, Harriet Webster,-Mrs. B.S.-Williams, Jonibel:Willis, Lois Wheeler, Annie Whitfield, Gloria Wilder, Delores Wilder.S U. NORTH DAKOTA 1. Mandan Pub. Schools, Roosevelt Sch., 905 8th 'Ave., N.W.; Mandan, N. D. 58554; Prin., Everett E. Stromme; Teachers: Mary LaDuke and Sally Sharpe. S U 2. Minot Public Schools, 215 Second St., S.E., Minot, N. D.; Bernard Rostberg, H. S. Dir.;Teacher, Harris Walstad. S U. 3. Head Start Prog., Braddock Pub. Schools, Braddock, N. D. 585241 Teacher-Dir., Mrs. Gertrude Liversage. S R. 4. Epping-Wheelock-Springbrook CAA,,Williston Pub. Sch.. System, Willis- ton, N. D. 58801; Sum.H.S. Dir., Herb Coons; Teacher, Jane Innis SR. 5. Winship School Head Start, Grand Forks, N. D. 58201; Dir.,. Donn Erickson; Teacher, Mary M. Steckler. S U. 6. Lincoln School Head Start, 2120 S. 9th, Fargo, N.D. 58102; Dir., George Booth; Counselor-Tester, Mr. Durkee. $ 7. Mt. Pleasant Sch. Dxst.,Rollo, N.D. 58367; Dxr.-Tester, Gwen KX1son; Teacher, Pat Shape. S R. 107 OHIO 1. * Stark Co. Of. of Ec. Opp., 852 Stark Co. Office Bldg., Canton,Ohio 44702; Dir., James Kilkenny; H.S. Coord., Doris S. Newman; Sampled Program with 4 centers. Teachers: Marvel H. Brown, Alliance; Mrs. Judy May, Waco; Donamarie Dunkel, Belden, Canton; Stark County Mi- grant Center, Hartville. S U and S R. 2. Lima-Allen Co. CAC, Memorial Hall, Elm and Elizabeth, Lima, Ohio 45801; Cur. Coord., Betty Bowers; Teachers: Mrs. Nolan and Nancy Pfouts. F-Y U. 3. Marion-Crawford CAC, Kennedy Park, Rte. 1, Marion, Ohio 43302; Dir., Donald P. Shanahan; Teacher, Margaret Topliff. S U. 4. CAC of Belmont Co., Inc., 108 E. Main St., St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950; Dir., J.C. Hornberger; Bellaire Ctr., Ed. John; Teacher, Judy Allen. S.. U. 5. Summit Co.-Greater Akron Com. Act., Springfield Brethren Church Ctr., 75 E. Market St., Akron, Ohio 44312; Exec. Dir., William Fowler; H. S. Dir., W. David Lyda; Teachers, JudithGreen, Margaret Roberts. S R. OKLAHOMA Pontotoc Com. Act. Found. Inc., 13th and Stockton, Ada, Okla 74820; Dir., J. E. Teague; H.S. Dir., Paul Landrith; Teacher, Janet Bare.SU. 2. Delta County CAP, 1024 Main, Duncan,, Okla. 73533; Dir., M. F. Good- rich; H.S. Dir., Dennis Yoakum; Teacher, Kathi Morgan, Purcell. S R. 3. Muskogee Co. Com. Act.. Found.,. 301 So. Cherokee, Box 647, Muskogee, Okla. 74401; Act. Dir., Maurice Jones. S U.. 4. Southwest Okla. Com. Act. Group, 116 South Lee, Altus, .Okla 73521; Dir., Fred Beihl; Teacher, Rubye Wooldridge, Magnum. 'S R. 5. Delaware,Cty. C.A. Found. Inc., Box 428, Jay, Okla. 74346; Dir., J.R. Pendergraft; .Teacher, Mrs. Alpha Haggard. F-YR. 6. Com. Dev. Found., Pottawatumie Co., Inc., Rm. 608 American Bldg., Shawnee, Okla 74801; Act.Dir., Mrs. Joe Russell; Teachers: Mrs. Raymer, Mrs. Garrett, Mrs. Miller, Mrs. Pecare. F-Y U. Okmulgee Co. dom. Act. Found., 408 W. 6th, Okmulgee, Okla. 74447; Dir., Felix Taylor; ,H. S. Dir., Deverreaux McMurry. S. R. Tulsa Ec.Opp. Task Force Inc., 217 Wright Bldg., 115 W. ,Third St., . Tulsa, Okla. 74103; Dir., Billy R. Leathers; Prog.,Mgr., Paul Sen- koffi H.S. Dir., Roger Kruse; Psych-Tester, Mary Owen; Teacher, S. Daney, Frost School. .S U.

OREGON' ,East Oregon Com. Dev. Couhc., P.O. Box 1006, La Grande, Oregon 97850; Dir., Dale L. Young; Teacher, Janice Masten. S. U. 2. Jackson Co. Comm. Act. Counc. Inc., Jackson Co. Courthouse,'Medford, Oregon 97501; Dir., Richard D. Engstrom; Teacher, Mrs. E. Upp. F-YR. PENNSYLVANIA Adams Co. Counc. of Com.Serv. Inc., 111 Baltimore St., Office #5, Gettysburg, Penna. 17325;, Dir., Eugenia Meligakes; Teacher, Mrs. H. G. Ecker. S U.. 2. Greater Erie Anti-Poverty Act. Com., 345 E. 8th St., Erie, Penna. 16501; Dir., Ben Wiley; Teachers: Miss Berraducci, Loretta Speed, and Ruth Watson. F-Y U. 3. Cumb. Dauphin Perry Co. Com. on Et. Opp., 477 N. Front St., Steelton, Penna. 17113; Ed. Spec., David Messner; R.S.'Dir. Dr. Harry G. Jacobs; Teacher, Dorothy Mains, Shippen-burg. S R. 108 4. Blair Co. Ec. Op. Council, Altoona Area Sch. Dist., Altoona, Penna. 16603; Dir. Walter Betar, H.S.; Soc.Wkr.,Ann Petrarca. S U. 5. Allegheny Cnty. Of.-of Ec. Opp., 429 Forbes Ave., Alleghery Bldg., Pittsburgh, Penna. 15219; Dir. M. D. Kelsey; Teacher, Donna Ford; Prog. Coord., Margaret Clark. F-Y U. 6. Washington Greene CAC, 2198 N. Main St., Washington, Penna. 15301; Dir., Charles A. Gillespie; Prog. Dev., Rosamund F. Fergus; Teacher, Betty Canning, Burgettstown. S R. 7. Community Progress Counc. Inc., 225 E. Market St., York House, York, Penna. 1740; Dir., Henry B. Harman, Parkway CDC Dir., Marilee K. Jones; Teacher, D. Stoutzenberger. S. U. 8. Westmoreland Co. Coral. Ec. Opp. Inc., 415 Bank and Trust Bldg., Greensburg, Penna. 15601; Dir.-Prin., R. D. Vandergrift. S. R. 9. Opp. Bd. of Montgomery Co., 411 Cherry St., Morristown, Penna.; Dir., Harry Webster, North Hills Day. Care Center 19038. F-Y R. RHODE ISLAND 1. Soc. Progress Act. Corp. of Woonsocket, 285 Main St., Woonsocket, R. I. 20895; Dir. Charles Peloquin; Teacher, R. E. Finkelstein.F-I U. 2. Blackstone Valley CAP Inc., City Hall, Pawtucket, R.I. 02860; Dir., Vincent S. Ceglie. S U. SOUTH CAROLINA 1. Charleston Co. Ec. Opp. Comm., 1000 Kingstree St., Charleston, S.C. 09402; Dir., David W. Cox; H. S. Dir., Emily Kline. F-r U. 2. Lexington Richland Ec. Opp. Agency Inc., USO Bldg., 1729 Assembly St., Columbia, S. C. 29201; Dir., Kirby Jordan; H.S. Dir., Gina Perez; Teachers: Lillian Speaks and Jeannie Graham,Arthurtown. F-YR. 3. Darlington CI. Cora. Act. Agency, Box 596, Darlington, S. C. 29532; Dir., Walter Copeland; H.S. Dir., Thomas Heatley; Teacher, Louise Huldrow; Chief Tester, Anne Timmons. F-Y R. .- 4. Lam-ens Co. Com. Act. Inc., Box 329, Laurens, S. C. 29360; Dir.,J.S. BoLck; H.S. Dir., Dolly Mae Hill; Teacher, Margaret McIntyre. S U. 5. Cle-endon Co., Improvement Assoc., Marvin OIC Co. Mill St. Dr. 520, =ting, S. C. 29102; Dir., Mrs. George Fuller; Teacher, Mrs. E. M. Keels. F-Y R. 6. Florence Co. 0E0 Committee, 162 Irby St., Florence, S. Car. 29501; Dir., Haskell M. Thomas; H.S. Dir., Thelma Brown; Teachers, Inez Thompson and Winifred Welch. F-Y D. 7. Greenwood-McCormick-Abbeville CA., Old Armory Bldg., Box 707,Green- wood, S. C. 29646; Dir., W. A. Pruitt; Coord. of EL & Tr., Rose Williams; Tester, W.R. Granter; Teachers, Miss Stratton and Mrs. Dowlin. F-Y U. 8. Sumter Co. t..0. Corp. Inc., P.O. Box 1251, Sumter, SC. 29150; Dir., Morgan B. Moyer; Teacher, Lenora Annette. F-Y R. 9. Corm. Act. Prog., Pendleton, S. Car. 29697; Center Dir., Reba Williams; Teacher, Elsie Thompson. F-Y R. 10. Carolina Con. Actions, Inc., 220 E. Black St., Rock Hill, S.C. 29730; Dir., John R. Rumford; H.S. Dir., James Etheredge; Teacher, Theresa Massey. F-Y R. SOUTH DAKOTA 1. Inter-Lakes Corn. Act. Inc., Box 285, Madison, S. D. 57042; Dir., Elmer Biel; Dep.Dir.,Frances Redfield; Teacher, Mrs. Dave Ellis.FYLT. 109 2. South Central S. Dak. Corn. Act. Prog. Inc., Box 487, Lake Andes, S. D. 57356; Dir., Ed. Krell; H.S. Dir., Kenneth Martz; Teacher, Susan Keene, Parkston. S R. 3. Western So. Dak. Corn. Act. Inc., 400 E. Main St., Rapid City, S.D. 57701; Dir., Frederick P. Whiteface; Teacher, Mrs. Deeds. F-Y R. 4. North East. So. Dak. Com. Act. Prog., P. O. Box D, Sisseton, S. D. 57262; Tri- Co.H.S. Adm. Supv., Betty J. Hagen; Teacher, E.Cdland.SR. TENNESSEE 1. North Cumberland CAC Inc., Box 61, Jacksboro, Tenn. 37757; Dir., Randall Wortley; Teacher, Lois Tidwell, Wartburg. F-Y R. 2. Elk and Duck Rivers Com. Assn., 414 N. Elk Ave., Fayetteville, Tenn. 37334; Dir., W. Mark Whitaker; Ctr.Dir., Reba Williams. F-Y U. 1. Knox Co. Com. Act. Com., 318 Winona St., Knoxville, Tenn. 37917; Dir., T. L. Ross; Teacher, Miriam Lawhon. F-Y R. 4. War on Poverty, Memphis Sc Shelby Co., 97 N. 3rd St., Memphis, Tenn. 38102; Dir., laShington Butler, Jr.; Teacher, Bernice Spratlen. F-YR. 5. Douglas Cherokee Ec. Opp., 225 E. 6th St. N., Morristown, Tenn. 37814; Dir., Gordon Acuff; Teacher, E. Hannon, New Port. FT U. 6. Jackson City Sch. System, City Hall Bldg., Jackson, Tenn. 38301; Supt., Fred Stanley; CAP Dir., John Morris; Teacher, Bettye Morris.SU. 7. Man City Sch. System, 121 College St.., Milan, Tenn. 38358; Supt., Milton Maya: Teacher, Mrs. Martin Alexander. S U. 8. Clarksville-Montgomery Co. Sch. Syst.,1209 Madison St., Clarksville, Tenn. 37040; Supt., WM. H. Sanford. S. U. TEAS Mary Bailey'Day Care Center, Second and Timber, Georgetown, Texas.FYU Potter-Randall CAC, 1900 Y. Ninth St., Amarillo, Texas 79102; Dir., Argus A. Burnet; Teachers:Annabelle and Beverly TUrner. F-Y U. 3. ,Jefferson Co. Ec. Opp. Comm., 650 Main St., Beaumont, Texas 77701; Dir., James Hendricks; Teacher, Joyce Kohler, North Side F-Y U. 4. Cameron Co. Com. Projects Inc., 404 Security Bldg., Brownsville, Texas 78520; Dir., R.A. Ramon; Dir., Mr. Toeller, La Feria; Teacher, Mariana Esparza. S R. 5. Central Texas Opp. Inc., P. 0. Box 882, 117 W. St.., Coleman. Texas 76834; Dir., A. F. Lamb; Teacher, Helen T. Egger, Brownwood. FY U. 6. Harris Co. Com. Act. Assn., 6300 Bowling Green, Houston, Texas 77021; Dir., F. L. Dev. Spec., Doris Anderson; Teachers, Katie Davis and Virginia Hawkins. F-Y U. 7. *Comm.Cou. of Brooks Jim Hogg and Zapata Cos., P.O. Box 222, Fal- furrias, Texas 78355; Dir., Manuel Lunoff, Jr.; Teachers: Miss Oli- *arez, J.B. Gonzalez, A. Gonzalez, Mrs. Lopez,. Miss Ramirez, MA. Vela, Miss Salinas, I. Garza, Hebbronville; Mrs. Emma Uribe, Mrs. Elia Uribe, Miss Rathnell, Mrs. Flores, Mrs.Rubio, Mrs. Sheeran, Zapata. S U and S R. 8. Com. Act. 'Board in Lubbock Co., Inc.1616 19th St., Lubbock,.Texas 79401; Dir., D.M. McElroy; H.S. Din, Warner Sims; El. Coun. Sc Psych.-Tester, Louise Allison. S 9. Harrison-Panola Com. Act. Assn. Inc., P. O. Box 1343, Marshall, Texas 75670; Dir., Harold M. Nilson; DCC Coord., Elizabeth Porter; Teacher, Mrs. J. P. Jones. F-Y R. 10. Assoc. City-Co. Ec. Dev. Corp of Hidalgo Co., Box 36, 314 S. Clos- ner, Edinburg, Texas 73539; Delia Garcia,- Soc.Serv.Coord.; Teacher, Leocadia Costillo, Elsa. F-YP. 110 11. Starr Co. C-m. Act. Counc., 420 E. Main St., Box 14, Rio Grande City, Texas 78582; Dir., Francisco G. Zarate; Soc.Serv.Coord., Elma O. Garza; Teachers: Elia Munoz, Marianela Sanchez, Mrs. J. Smalley, M.H. Guillcn. S. U. 12. Et. Opp. Dev. Corp. San Antonio-Bexar Co., P. O. Box 9326, San An- tonic, Texas 78204; Dir., Jose Lucero; Tester, Marilyn Goff; Teacher, Cora Smith, Sutton and Mirasol Day Care Centers. F-Y U. 13. San Patricio Co. Comm. Youth Edu., Job Opportunities, Courthouse, Sinton, Texas 78387; Dir., Humberto Chavana; Teacher, Susan Ed- wards, Odem School. F-Y R. UTAH 1. Com. Act. Prog. Ec. Opp. Salt Lake Area, 116 So. 5th St. E., Salt Lake City, Utah 84115; Dir., Miss Lorrain,: Cook; Tester, Dr. R. Tongas; Teacher, Pat Eager. F-Y U. 2. Southeastern Utah CAP, 220 E. 1st North, Price, Utah 84.501; Dir., Harry J. Schultz; Teacher, Nadine Leonard. F-Y U. VERMONT 1. Champlain I'alley 0E0 Inc., Burlington, Vermont; Teacher-Director, Marjorie Stebbins, Richmond Center 05477. F-Y R. 2. S.E. Vermont CAA Inc., Bridge St., Bellows Falls, Vermont 05101; Dir., David O'Neil; H.S. Dir., I. Carrier; Teacher, I. O'Neil.F -Y U. 3. Orleans Co. Counc. Soc. Agencies, Inc., 10 Main St.., Newport, Ver- mont (Com. Act. for Northeast Kingdom); Dir., Thomas J. Hahn; Dir., DCC, Vernon Clogston, St. Mark's Day Care Center.. F-Y R. VIRGINIA 1. * Charlottesville and Albemarle Com. Act., Rm. 112, Co. Of. Bldg., 800 Concord Ave., Charlottesville, Va. 22901; Dir., Jay Morrell; Projects Coord., Suzanne Micaud. F-Y U, S U, and S R. 2. Montgomery Floyd Radford Craig Cop. Act., P. O. Box 332, Christians- burg, Va. 24073; Dir., George W. Daley; Cord. of Serv., Beverly Braden; Psych.-Tester, J. T. Bridge, Radford; B.D.. Hayden. S U & SR. 3. Buchanan. Dickerson Rural Dev. Corp., Grundy, Va.; Ed. Dir., Agnes M. Fields; Teachers, Virginia Ashby, Ann Ratliff.. S R. 4, Carroll-Grayson-Galax Dev. Inc., P.O. Box 853, Galax, Va. 24333; Asst. H.S. Dir., Frank Hawks; Exec. Dir., Tom E. Hawks; Lansburg CenteDir., Rudolph Lyons. S R. 5. Lee Co. Comm. Act., P. O. Box 26, Jonesville, Va. 24263; Dir., James B. Faulks; Asst.Dir., Ida Pendleton; Teacher;Leuise 'eade.F-YR. 6. Richmond Com. Act. Prog. Inc., 2600 Idelwood Ave., Richmond, Va. 23320; Dir., Weston Hare; DC Socakr.,Viola Anderson. F-T U. 7. Wythe-Bland-Smith-Pulaski Dev. Corp., Mountain CAP, Box 65, Wythe- ville, Va. 24382; Dir., Howard Chitwood; Teacher, Mrs. Rash. F-YR. WASHINGTON 1. Clallam-Jefferson Co. CAC, P. O. Box 553, Port Townsend, Wash.98368; Dir., Robert N. NacDicken; Port Angeles Ctr. 98362; Dir., R. Lang; Teacher, Mrs. Lois Larsen. S U. 2. Seattle-King Cnty. Ec. Opp. Bd. Inc.,611 Municipal Bldg., Seattle Wash., 98104; Dir., Ulysses Rowell, Jr., Ed. Dir. ,Margaret Bland. SU'. 3. Tacoma-Pierce Co. Opp. Dev. Inc., P.O. Box 165, Tacoma, Wash., 98401; Dir. W. G. Seline; H.S. Dir., Jame; Robertson; Teachers, Annette Muklin and Marpro Rehyner. F-Y fit. 111 4. Ec. Opp. Com. of Clark Co., 205 E. 11th St., Vancouver, Wash., 98660; Dir., Sumner M. Sharpe. F-Y R. 5. Sumner Sch. Dist. 1320, 1625 Main St , Sumner, Wash., 98390; Cur. Dir., Dr. Robert Patterson; Psych.-Tester, Dale Gentry;Teachers, Mrs. Barclay, Mrs. Meecham, I. Staeheli, Ed. Eval.S R. WEST VIRGINIA 1. AA! Com. Dev. Inc., P. O. Box 3228 Canawha CTOV,Charleston, W.Va.; Dir., Mrs. Sylvia Parker, Sissonville Center 25320. F-Y B. 2. North-Central West Va. CAA Inc., 211 Adams, Fairmont, W.Va. 26554; Dir., J.J. Straight, W. Grafton El. Sch. Ctr. 26354. F-Y U. 3. Eastern W. Va. Com. Act. Inc., Municipal Bldg., Moorefield,W.Va. 26726; Pres. Sterling Method; H. S. Coord., rallieLeatherman; Teacher, Mrs. Jean Zirk. S R. 4. * Summers Co. Ec. Opp. Assoc., Drawer J., Hinton, W. Va.;Dir., Joe William Hatfield; H. S. Directors, Flora .Bennett and JoeHicks; Teachers: Mildred Guinn, Danese Haynes, Juanita Basham, EdithGoode, Mae Dodd, Mrs. Laslo, and Mrs. Bowen. S R.

WISCONSIN 1. Menominee Co. CAC, Court House, Keshena, Wisc.54135; Dir., Richard R. Dodge; H. S. Dir., Clyde Atwood; Teachers, MarlineVoight and Barbara Baker. S 2. United Migrant Opp. Services, Inc., 524 W. National Ave.,Milwaukee, Wisc., 53186; Dir., Frank Mueller; Day Care Prof. Sup.,Margaret Balkrnan. F-Y U. 3. Mood Co. Com. Act. Org. Inc. WCCA, P. O. Box 126, Pittsville,Wisc. 54466; Dir., Neil Rasubsen; Teacher, Minne Sitenga,Cranmoor. F-Y E. 4. Dane County Com. Act. Comm., 224 Washington Ave., Madison, Wisc. 53703; Dir., Father St. John; Teacher, Mary Beth Negro, Monona.F-YU. 5. Comm. Rel.-Soc. Dev. Com. in Milwaukee County, 161 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, Wisc. 53203; Dir., Frank Steggert; Tester, Sister M. Patricia Ann; Teachers, C. Saleska and Olga Schwartz. F-Y U. 6. Racine Co. Com. Act. Prog. Comm. 7th and Lake Streets, Racine, Wisc., 53403; Dir., Mrs. Vivian Newton; Head Start Dir., Dawn E. Klofton.

WYCI4ING 1. Snowy Range CA Agency, Inc., 1541 N. Cedar, Laramie, Wyoming 82070; Dir., Al Littler; Head Start Dir., G. S. Gustafson, Washington School; Teacher, June Vialparido. S U. 2. North Western Comm. Act. Prog., Box 666, Thermopolis, Wyoming 82443; Dir., H.P. Christiansen; Teacher, Mrs. Marian Webster, Worland; Head Start Dir., Jim J. Argeris. F-Y R.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 1. United Planning Org. of the National CapitalArea, 1100 Vermont Ave., N. W., Washington, D.C. 20005p Virginia Morris, Coordinator Pre-School/Day Care Programs;Teacher, Bettie Crawford. S U. NOTE: THE ABBREVIATIONS FOLLCWING EACHINDIVIDUAL ENTRY IDENTIFY EACH AS FULL-YEAR (F-Y) OR SUMMER (S)AND URBAN (U) OR RURAL (R). APPENDIX G

WALKER READINESS TEST FOR DISADVANTAGED PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN

FORM A

Dr. Wanda Walker Professor of Psychology Northwest Missouri State College Maryville, Missouri 64468

113 DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE TEST ,

For best results, take the child toa room where you will have his undivided attention and explain that youare going to play a new game with him. To avoid distraction, use a blank sheet ofpaper to keep covered all of the items except the one you are showing the child. Be sure that he understands directions,but do not help him with the test items. An example is given for each sub-test;it should be used to determine whetheror not the child understands what is expected ofhim. Do not deviate from the instructions. When the child indicates hischoice of answers, encircle on his answer sheet the capital letterwhich corresponds to his choice. Scoring may be done later with the scoringstencil provided with the test.

PART I:.'LIKENESSES OR SIMILARITIES (Items 1-25) Specific instructions are given at the beginningof the sub-test. The test administrator should point first to the pictureon the left, then to those on the right while asking the child to indicate whichone is just like the one on the left. PART II: DIFFERENCES (Items 26-40) This sub-test has three different parts.Each part has itsown directions at the top of the page. The first part, items 26-30, deals withthe concept of size. The child is expected to select thelargest one of the four pictures presented. The second part, items 31-35, dealswith differences. Three of the pictures in each item are alike; the child is directed toselect the one which is not likethe others. The third part, items 36-40, dealswith a more difficult concept. In each item, three of the pictures belong together;the child is asked to select theone which does not belong with the others. PART III: NUMERICAL ANALOGIES (Items 41-45) This sub-test'deals with number concepts. Arrangements of picturesare different, but for each item one alternative containsthe same number of objectsas the one on the left. Pointing to the pictureon the left, the test administrator should askthe .child to indicate the pictureon the right which contains thesame number of objects. PART IV:MISSING PARTS (Items 46-50) In this sub test the child is expected tochoose from four pictures theone which will make a complete object ofthe picture on the left. The test administrator should point to the incomplete objecton the left and ask the child to indicate the one on the right which belongs to it.

PART I: SIMILARITIES: Point to the pictureon the left and say, "Now, show me theone over here" (gesture toward items on right) "that looks justlike this one." "Maintenant, niontre-moi celui ici qui estexactement comme celui. -ci." "Ahora, muestrame el aqui quees mlAy semejante a fste."

1M. A D PART I: SIMILARITIES: Point to the picture on the left and say, "Now,showme the one over here" (gesture toward items on right) "that looks just like this one." "Maintenant, montre-moi celui ici que est exactement come celui-ci." "Ahora,muestrame el aquique es muy semejante a 6ste."

A C D FO0 000 I00ri)0 000 11- PART I: SIMILARITIES: Point to the picture on the left and say, "Now show me theone over here" (gesture toward items on right) "that looks just like this one." "Maintenant, montre-moicelui ici que est exactementcomme celui-ci." "Ahora,mugstrame el aqui que es muy semejantea Este."

B C D A III lir4 WP qt:=. 8. A B O 9. A B

, . y I 1avi black red green yellow

B C D

111

B C

. .

A B D

- PART I: SIMILARITIES: Point to the picture on the left and say, "Now, show methe one over here"(gesture toward items on right) "that looks just like this one." "Maintenant, montre -moi celui ici que estexactement come celui-ci." "Ahora,mu4strame el aqui quo es muy sernejante aeste."

B C

A B C D

\ A-4111111 _ 16.

1 A B C D

18. A B C D

1---- V 19. PART I: SIMILARITIES: Point to the picture on the left and say, "Now, show me the one over here" (gesture toward items on right) "that looks just like this one." "Maintenant, montre-moi celui ice que est exactement comme celui-ci." "Ahora,mu6Strame el aqui que es muy semejante a este."

A B C d PART II: DIFFERENCES: Point to the pictures in each item and say,"Now, show the which one of these is the biggest one." "Maintenant, montre-moi,lequel de ceux-ciqui est le plus grand." "Ahora, mastrame cualde estos que es el mAs grande." PART II: DIFFERENCES: Point to the pictures in each item and say,"Now, show me which one of these does not looklike the others." "Maintenant, montre-moi le5uei de ceux-ci quiWest pas come les autres." "Ahora, muestrame cual de estos que no essemejante a los otros."

A B C D

...... , ,

All

31. A B C

...11b.

32.

tat . bes:

. .

, 33. B

3 A B C D ,

ED CD I ...... ---f.1.17A .0-""0" 35. ... PART II:DIFFERENCES: Point to the pictures in each item and say,"Three of these belong together. One does rot belong. Shnw mewhich one does not belong with the others." "Trois de ceux-ci sont du!Arne genre. Un ne Pest pas.Montre-moi lequel qui ne Pest pas." "Tres de 6stos son de mismoOnero. Uno no lo es. Muestrame el que no lo es."

A B C D O

A B C

V' V

vie remammoviammemEr

tw) and say, "Now, show me PART III: NUMERICAL ANALOGIES: Point to the picture on the left the same number the one over here"(gesture toward items on right) "that has as this one." "Maintenant, montre-moi celui iciqui a le meme num6ro que celui-ci." "Ahora, mu6strame elaqui que tiene el mismo ndmero quegste." A B C D

O 0 13 O CI O O A XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X x

41111111111111/

00 0 0 the left and say, "Now, point tothe HISSING PARTS: Point to the picture on PART IV: belongs to this one." one overhere" (gesture towarditems on right) "which "Maintenant, indique eeluiici qui appartienta celui-ci." "Ahora, sellala el aqui quepertenece a Este."

IMIMIIIIIIIIININIIIIIII6011110=1011111111111111111111111, B D A73

A B C D

47.

48. A

49. A

00CI

50. arivshowellilleM10111111k TABLE A MEAN, MEDIAN, Q3, Qi, Q, STANDARD DEVIATION, AND PERCENTILE RANKS FOR CHILDREN IN FORM A NORNING GROUP 6-1:6-6 AGES 4 -0 down Measurement 6-7 up ' 5-7:6-0 5-1:5-6 4-7:5-0 4-1:4-6 TOTAL MedianMean 35.8935.69 ' 37.3736.88 33.65.34.36 34.3233.04 29.30 27.5028.02 25.54 33.61 Stand.QQ1Q3 Lev. 30.5541.81 7.975.63 31.4242.73 7.975.65 28.7140.95 8.48,6.14 27.2339.54 8.496.15 24.7736.1630.24 8.225.69 21.7034.59 8.646.34 -25.25 31.8319.83 8.056.00 28.4942.8335.45 8.617.17 Percentile(Class intervals) Ranks 46-4849-51 99.84 99.57 99.47 99.94 99.99 99.99 99.94 99.93 34-3637-3940-4243-45 53.0464.3278.0089.0496.24 46.0958.8673.6986.2595.84 56.0968.8580.4591.0097.61 63.0074.8185.5694.1998.50 76.3585.6491.9197.7699.74 88.9893.3198.4399.61 99.9490.2297.1698.5599.94 71.9692.3482.8998.01 22-2425-2731-3328-30 15.3624.7237.68 9.36 14.4921.3232.98, 7.45 .19,95 12.5330.3942.63 17.3125.7537.6350.75 23.8236.9751.2464.49 61.4250.0071.2683.86 45.8062.4669.4081.89 24.4835.1015.7247.5860.45 10-1223-1516-1819-21 2.884.56 .24.72 1.934.00 .21.35 1.683.137.48. .58 10.56 2.135.25 .56 14.87 3.781.468.00 38.5814.5724.02 5.12 19.4331.92 8.335.55 2.014.839.48 'Number in Grou 1=4-7 -'9 6 41 .07 0 11 .C6.17 .06 .17.34 2.76 .79 4.16 6662 .011_.06.21.77 WALKER READINESSTES ZIMENANZAGED PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN Form A andimb

ANSWER SHEET (Make No Marks on the Test Itself. Record all of the child's answers here.)

Child's Name Name of Center

Child's Age Location of Center (years) (months) (birthdate) (town) (state) (zip) Child's Race Population Density (rural or urban) Child's Sex

Date of Test Administration Name of Test Administrator Official Capacity Child's Score Percentile Rank

PART I: SIMILARITIES PART II: DIFFERENCES PART III: NUMERICAL ANALOGIES 1.ABCD 16.ABCD 26. ABCD 41.ABCD 2.ABCD 17.ABCD 27. ABCD 42. ABCD 3.ABCD 18.ABCD 28. ABCD 43. /CB CD- 4.ABCD 19.ABCD 29. ABCD 44.ABCD 5.ABCD 20. ABCD 30. A B C-D -45: A B c.p 6.ABCD 21. ABCD 51. ABCD 7.ABCD 22. ABCD 32. ABCD PART IV:MISSING PARTS 8,ABC.D 23. ABCD 33. ABCD 46. AI-B C-D 9. ABCD 24. ABCD 34.ABCD 47. ABCD 10.ABCD 25. ABC!) 35. ABCD 48. ABCD 11.ABCD 36. ABCD 49,ABCD 12.ABCD 37. ABCD 50. ABCD 13.ABCD 38. A B CD

14. ABCD 39. A, "B "C D

15. ABt15 40.. ABCD

Please record below any unusualcircumstances concerning the child orthe situation which might affect -the validity orreliability of the test.

225 WALKER READINESS TEST FOR DISADVANTAGED PRE-SCHOOLCHILDREN Form A and-*

ANSWER SHEET (Make No Marks on the Test Itself. Record all of the child's answers here.

Child's Name Name of Center

Child's Age Location of Center (years) (months) (birthdate) (town) (state) (zip) Child's Race Population Density (rural or urban) Child's Sex

Date of Test Administration Name of Test Administrator

Official Capacity Child's Score Percentile Rank

PART I: SIMILARITIES PART II: DIFFERENCES PART III: NUMERICAL ANALOGIES

)D - 41. AB D 1, Al D 16. A B C 26. A$

2.ADC D 17. A B C , 27. ABCs 42 B C D

3.0BC D 18, C D 28. A B! 431 B C D

4. AB( )D 19. ABC' 29. ABC( 44. Al CD

5. A-7,c D 20. A; D B C D 45. C D

6. A D 21. A B( D 31i B C D

7. A B C 22. A B' D 32. A ;C D PART IV: MISSING PARTS

8. A 8 Ci 23. A C D 33.E ,B C D 46. A B( 'D

9. A BC(1' 24. AB(. D 34. AB( 'D 47. A Pd,

10. A B 25. AB` D 35. A D 48 B C D

49. A 1% 11. AB( )D 36. A B

B C D 12.AOCD 37.Ai 4: D 50( 13. A BLD 38.ABCy

14. A BI D 39. ABAThEf

15. A Bi D 40.A(-CD

Please record below any unusual circumstances concerningthe child or the situation which might affect the validity or reliability ofthe test. APPENDIX H

WALKER READINESS TEST FOR DISADVANTAGED PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN

FORM B.

Dr. Wanda Walker Professor of Psychology Northwest Missouri State College Maryville, Missouri 64468

. 127. DIRECTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE TEST

For best results, take the child to a room where you will have his undivided attention and explain that you are going to play a new game with him. To avoid distraction, use a blank sheet of paper to, keep covered all of the items except the one which you are showing the child. Be sure that he understands directions, but do not help him with the test items. An example is given for ee'h sub-test; it should be used to determine whether or not the child understands what is expected of him. Do not deviate from the instructions. When the child indicates his choice of answers,

. encircle on his answer sheet the capital letter which corresponds to his choice. Scoring may be done later with the scoring stencil provided with, the test.

PART I: LIKENESSES OR SIMILARITIES (Items 1-25) Specific instructions are given at:the beginning of the sub-test. The test administrator should point first to the picture on the left, then to those on the ght-while_asking_Ihschild to indicate which one is just like the one on the left. PART. II: DIFFEREMES-tabins 26-40) This sub-test has three different parts. Each part has its own directions at the top of the page. The first part, items 26-30, deals with the concept of size. The child is expected to select the smallest one of the four pictures presented. The second part, items 31735, deals with differences. Three of the pictures in each item are alike; the child is directed to select the one which is not like the others. The third part, items 36-40, deals with a more difficult concept. In each item, thieerof the pictures` belong together; the child is asked to select the one which does not belong with the others. PART III: NUMERICAL ANALOGIES (Items 41-45) This sub-test deals with number concepts. Arrangements of pictures are different, but-for:each item one alternative contains the same number of objects as the one on the left. Pointing to the picture on the left, the test administrator should ask the child to indicate the picture on the right which contains the'same numberof objects.

. PART IV: MISSING PARTS (Items 46-50) In this sub-test the child is expected to choose from four pictures the one which will make a complete object of the picture on the left. The test administrator should point to the incomplete object on the left and ask the child to indicate the one on the right which belongs toit.

PART I: SIMILARITIES: 'Point to the picture on the left and gay:, "Naw, show me the one over here"(gesture toward items on right) "that looks just like this cne." "Maintenant-, montre-moi celui ici qui est exactement camme celui-ci." "Ahora, muestrame el aqui que es miAy semejante a gste."

128 7

loft and say, "Now, show me the one PART I: SIMILARITIES: Point to the picture on the right) "that looks just like this one." over here"(gesture toward items on Maintenanto'montre-moi celui icique est exactement comme celui-ci." "Ahoralmuestrame el aqUi que es muysemejante ,a este."

',' PART I: SIMILARITIES: Point to the pictureon the left and say, "Now, show me theone over here" (gesture, toward itemson right) "that looks just like this one." "Maintenanb, montre -moi celui icique est exactement comme celuici." "Ahoralmugstrame el aquique es muy semejante a este."

NUM& 111 I 111I I I I I I I II I I I I PART I: SIMILARITIES: Point to the picture on the left and say, "Now show me the one over here"(gesture toward items on right) "that looks just like this one." "Maintenant, montre -moi celui ici queeatexactement come celuici." "Ahoralmuestrame el aqui qui es mty semejante a este."

A B . D

110.. de

. .

. Cil

. r:'

'.1. . "'S. . ..

lio . . * , 11. . ..- 4111 0

--.01.1W '' . A K

AP A -

- ...... A ,. _ , . 4 . \ . --.7.----

. . ,...... I A

_ .. 4 . 011 11100# fro0 01,-

.4...... PART I: SIMILARITIES: Point to the picture on. the left and say, "Now, show methe one over here"(gesture toward items on right) "that looks just like this one." "Naintenant, montre-moicelui ici que -est exactement comaeceluici." "Ahommuestrame el aqui que es muy semejante a Sate."

A PART II:DIFFERENCES:Point to the pictures in each item andsay "Now,, show-me whiCh one of these is the smallestone." "Maintenant, montre-moi lequel de ceux-ci qui est leplus ,petit." "Ahora, muestrame cual de gstos-quees elms pequdifp."

Ic A C

A B -D-

Ow PART II:DIFFERENCES: Point to the pictures in each item and say;"Now, show me which one of these does.not look - hers." . "Maintenant, montre-moilequel de ceux -ci quinest -pas comme les autres." "Ahora, muestraMe cual de fistos que no essemejante a los otros."

01.

OW PART II: DIFFERENCES:Point to the pictures in each item and says, "Three!of these belong together. One does not belong. Show me which onedoed not belong with the others. "frois de ceux -ci sont du Ame genre. Un ne l!est-paS. lequel qui ne Vest pas." _ . "Tres de 4stos son de mismoOnero. Uno no lo es.Mastrame,e1 quq.,no.lo es." A 'B C

Ex. A B

39. A C

4 PART III: NUMERICAL ANALOGIES: Point to' the picture on the left and say, "Now, show me the me over here (gesture toward items on right) "that has the same number se this one." "Maintenanto montre-moi celui ici qui a le mere numgro que "Ahora muestrame el a. uiue tiene el mismo n(imero ue gste."

_ - PART IV:MISSING PARTS: Point to the picture on the left and say, "Now, pointto the one over here"(gesture toward items on right) "which belongs. to this one." "ftintenant, indique.ielui ici qui appartient celui-ci." "Ahora, seliala elaquiquo pertenece aEste."

A B

A I VA: ,,,,4.44 :TABLVA ' >14 -7' MEALMe MEDIAN, Q3, Q1, Q, STANDARD DEVIATION,uremen MID PEROENTILE RANKS AGES FOR CHIIDREN IN iiQR24 B NORICENG GROUP MedianQ3 41.8940.516- 42.5241.10 38.9a40.29 304937.20'- 34.9134.56 32.4430072 30.0728.82 39.5038.23 Percentile(Class Intervals) Reriks QQlStand. Dev. 35.2046.51 7.825.65 36.6646.17 4.757.20 33.9745.11 7.855.57 43.9931.60. 8.396.19 40.8928.66 6.117.39 38.4924.85 9.186.82 .36.0724.71 8.115.68 32.7144.94 8.366.11 43-4534-3637-3940-4246-484941 86.6452.6899.8628.739.2267.94 24.3236.3349.7868.17867999.79 34.2145,99,60.7877.13.91.69.99.96 - 99.93 42.3455.,8867.9981.9994.45 98.2270.2080.4790.6199.9657.29 66.0779.5288.8794.1497.0699.98 99.99+.92.0096.0098.0099.9988.00 37.6149.8262.6377.4791.5599.62 31-3328-30 11.6320.06 6.16 16.95 5.559.80 . 15.1423.27 8.69 13.7221.51-30.95 32.00z0.'5543.46 32.7440.9354.96 38.0072.0054.00 27.2211.5318.4? 13-1516-1819442244 3.881.3?2.5. .456 1.372.51 .23.53 1.542.875-,54 .35 'S 2.24541 .81 11.06 3.031.456.19 16.3723.97 3.518.77 24.0014.00 6.00 .. 4.046.961.98 .74 wilier in 10-12 .4- 7=6 9' ou 13L3 .15 1426 ,^t 75 1.05 .39.53 171' 147 .58.58 24002.0021.00 .11.17 ,9,410.111$111,..-4' 1,1,,.. ; ..4 "^-, 7.. ;. ('s ; WALKER READINESS TEST FOR DISADVANTAGEDPRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN FormAmoy* B

here.) ANSWER SHEET (Make No Marks on the TestItself. Record all of the child's answers

Child's Name Name of Center

Child's Age Location cf Center (zip) (years) (months) (birthdate) (town) -(state) Child's Race Population Density (rural or urban) Child's Sex

Date of Test Administration Name of Test Administrator Official Capacity Child's Score Percentile Rank

PART III,: NUMERICALANALOGIES PART I: SIMILARITIES PART DIFFERENCES 1.ABCD 16.. ABCD 26.ABCD 41. ABCD 2.ABCD 17.ABCD 27.ABCD 42. A B CJ). 3. ABCD 18. ABCD 28. ABCD 43..ABCD 44. ABCD 4. A B C D 19. A-B C D 29.ABCD S. ABCD 20.ABCD 30. ABCD- 45. ABCD 6.ABCD 21.ABCD 31.ABCD PART IV: MISSING PARTS 7 A B C D 22.ABCD 32: A B C D 23. ABCD 33.ABCD 46. ABCD 9.ABCD 24.ABCD 34.ABCD 47. ABCD 10.ABCD 25.A.BCD 3S. A.BCD 48.ABCD 11. ABCD 36. A B C D' 49. ABCD 12.ABCD 37.ABCD SO.ABCD 13.ABCD 38.ABCD 14.ABCD 39.ABCD 15.ABCD 40.ABCD

concerning the child orthe situation Pleaserecordbelow any unusual circumstances which might affect thevalidity-or reliability of the test.

*139 WALKER READINESS TEST FOR DISADVANTAGEDPRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN Form A-md B

ANSWER SHEET (Make No Marks on the Test Itself. Record all of the child's answers here.

Child's Name Name of Center

Child's Age Location of Center (years) (months) (birthdate) (town) (state) (zip) Child's Race Population Density (rural or urban) Child's Sex

Date of Test Administration Name of Test Administrator

Official Capacity Child's Score Percentile Rank

PART I: SIMILARITIES PART II: DIFFERENCES PART III,: NUMERICAL ANALOGIES:

1. ABC:4D 16(2 )BCD 26. A B( p 41. A BCC)

2'. A B 17. A'BC( 27. A( D 42 ,BCD

43.( '73 C 0 t.A B Ct 1 18. A8( P 28. A BO

4: A '13 19. Ai D 29. A B(4r0 44. A BCr

)8 C D 30. A B Cf- 45. A( C D 5. A B Cr-) 20.(1

6. )C,D 21. A 8Cr) 31. A B C(:-

D 22()VC,D 32. ACC D PART IV:MISSING PARTS

8. A 23. A CL 33. AL)F D 46. A B D 9. AC, )C D 24.AnC D 34. A B(- }D 47. A(

1:: D 10('-')B C D 25. A C D 35. A BC )1) 48.

11. A B CC) A.36. ABC 49. A BOD

50: A B 12.. A( --)C D 37.()B C D

13. Ar D 38. A B(--D

14. ABC( D

15. A D 40. A B C

Please record below any unusual circumstancesconcerning the childwor the situation which might affect the validity orreliability of the test.