Reading Progress Monitoring for Secondary‐School Students: Reliability,Validity, and Sensitivity to Growth of Reading‐Aloud and Maze‐Selection Measures

The validity and reliability of curriculum‐based measures in reading as indicators of performance and progress for secondary‐school students were examined. Thirty‐five grade 8 students completed reading aloud and maze‐selection measures weekly for 10 weeks. Criterion measures were the state standards test in reading and the Woodcock–Johnson III Test of Achievement. Different time frames for each measure were compared. Most alternate‐form reliability coefficients were above .80. Criterion‐related validity coefficients ranged from .77 to .89. No differences related to time were found. Only maze selection reflected significant growth, with an average increase of 1.29 correct choices per week. Maze growth was related to the reading performance level and to change on the Woodcock–Johnson III from pre‐ to posttest.     

Publishing education

This article is an overview of the development of education for publishing programs in the U.S. Information and addresses for the main introductory summer programs, the continuing education programs, the degree-granting Masters Programs, and a selection of organizations outside the United States offering courses in publishing are included in the article.     

Performance Assessment: Moonstruck or the Real Thing?

What are the advantages of performance assessment? What are the risks of employing only performance assessments in large-scale testing programs?     

The Merging of the PCFC and the UFC: Probable,Desirable or Inevitable?

Post-war growth of higher education has attracted the interest of national governments. They are properly concerned with higher education's contribution to economic success and equity, and the efficient and effective use of public funds. They can intervene by means of legislation (which is unwieldy), exhortation (which is ineffective), or funding incentives. Funding councils must operate within a social and political context which determines the balance between planning and the market, central and local direction, public and private funding. They have only four strategies to choose from: deficiency-, formula-, contract-, and core-funding. The first was nearly fatal; the last is the preferred option for the future.
There are two issues: the merging of the two funding councils (PCFC and UFC), and the ending of the binary system. The first could produce a welcome single guiding intelligence for UK higher education, and economies of scale. The second raises the question of the funding of fundamental research. The merging of PCFC and UFC and the reorganisation of research-funding is a two-headed nettle. It must be grasped soon.