. Evy. nauganufi 2:1. .53.. Eggnog . .3...
“Aria-“mm... :55... a. 3%“... 534.333.! pr».

Etltii‘ .49.... £531.. 13.! . «7/ 1‘:

. . :l. v2.6.3.3! 1: . . N .v.
Ignition“... Us}... . . r r;

.- . . 5h...

.gafiir..-¥I.I§.v§ii$s .. .JUIE. .

givistfirflxh sauna-15.. .. . w

x: r | F" ‘1 .l.dha.v.n11' in”! an"! .... «flu...-

. , 2...... 3 . . . . . . . 3... . . . $0.3qu 3.5.5.2.... 3.2... 3.... 1v

. “nihhmav. . . , , . . - . , . 332.2 , .. 59d“): . {tin-At». . . . ,e r 3.11 .PEI
v... . . . . . . it! , an: 5 53!! .Héiii. 4. p

. . . . 1_W|W§M"fih§rum.§4£mv 0.91: . 1.133%. It.

I n . 1 . ., . . (3 .

. . , _ . . . . . .. . . . . . 3.. :u........5.......:.a.....

Li. I}: . . - . . .. - . . .

1.1.1.53“... :3 an . :
amgéfir

5. .
.75:l...£75 4 (1;. 3’2.
. Hz! .1051; -
in“... nt.fl.§§2éiuix .91: . .x‘flm
insinuhulhfl. .1355 .irdiflmrfm 1 :7 {IL .
1 “1r: 3..-3.33.5363... ... .lé .. - l .
i
5.... .. :1 m

. . . . . . , - . . . . . ; . . Jerseyzrz: .1.
4 .PI.§.:.2;.7! .. . z . . . . . . . ..
_ 3. I

1 .

. .2. tilts. 734...:-

. w. . 3...)! . .33...

. :.r}...lt§?... . .9

n I. '11,. . .

S :l..t.t3..tat.rtԤ5}
g..v.z.f.t.f..ti‘=i5‘§i:§

3.1.53.5 2 If} .- Jr. .

I .

. cite-x1»:

a 1-3.:

. . a. 13..
.a v! . 1.2.433.
”2.1.5“. .ui-cuvxléa313 gran
A. it... 33123":
, . if“!!!

 

:vv Gu- ..
3......

35.13.493.55 5?}
- . 7‘.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-1.1.lx.
513...». .

 

 

 

 

 

.- 15.11;. ...- .f -. .n. -. .. . . ,. , . . 7.31.... a 1. 0'1. . .Hlul. iu‘lqda}. 4
5-52::. .. 3.... .3...- h......:........ 4.34.43.55.33,..1..,....,...n... a ., . L.r.....r..4.flfi&fi.fi9.5..:.misfi. 2... its. ,3...»qu
. . . . .- . . . - -. .. . .....Iu...Y.V...r..:.1.. italic... 3..): 13‘ . . -

gang .. - .

u. . . , ... !....v...... .

 

 

Tuesw‘

LIBRA Iv. ‘v

1 .
é hilChlgu . 55¢ ,1 ,-

L1 Unive. ft;

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP OF LANE GROUPING TO THE
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS OF THE PARENTS OF
SEVENTH GRADE PUPILS IN THREE
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

presented by

Roger Hugh Kariger

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

I ’.
DateL

0-169

- “I

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP OF LANE GROUPING TO THE SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS OF THE
PARENTS OF SEVENTH GRADE PUPILS IN THREE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

by Roger Hugh Kariger

The Problem

This study was designed to determine if an X, Y, Z system of
'lane or track grouping, supposedly based on achievement and ability,
operated independently of the socioeconomic status of the parents of the
seventh graders in three junior high schools.

This laning system had been installed in the junior high schools
of a city of over 160,000 when the schools were changed from an 8=u to
a ens-3 plan of organization in 19590 The schools in this study are
identified as School 1, School 2, and School 30 The seventh grade
enrollments in May, 1962, were 220, 23a, and 295, respectively, This
pgrade was selected because of the availability of the data plus the fact
that the lane placements, through sixth grade teacher recommendations,
reflect the laning role of teachers and principals of both the elemenw
tary and junior high school.

This study is concerned with placement in laned subjects, lane
transfers, and placement in non—laned classes in relation to the sociOa

economic status of the parents.
Procedure

The seventh grade pupils were classified in each school into

1

 

Roger Hugh Kariger

2

upper, middle, and lower groups by socioeconomic scores based on
Duncan's Modification of the North-Hatt Scale, by Stanford reading
grade equivalents, and by Stanford arithmetic grade equivalentso In
accord with city-wide recommendations, Y lane pupils were expected to be
working from a year below to a year above grade level. At the end of
the seventh grade, the Y pupil could be expected to score within the
range from 7.0 to 8.9 on a Stanford test with the X lane pupil scoring
above and the Z lane pupil scoring below this rangeo Pupils were judged
by the researcher to be correctly or incorrectly placed according to
these standards.

It was determined by the chi square technique if X, Y9 Z
laning, lane transfers, and placement in nonalaned classes were signifie
cantly related at the .05 level to the socioeconomic status of the

parents.
Conclusions
The designers of the junior high school program had hoped to:

1. Increase achievement by grouping homogeneously in basic subjects

with an individual program for each pupil

20 Provide flexibility and a method for adjusting incorrect placements

through lane transfers

3o Hedge against a possible degree of socioeconomic segregation by

grouping heterogeneously in non-laned subjectso

In practice, there was a question about the accomplishment of

these objectives in the three schools studied. Although perhaps one

 

 

Roger Hugh Kariger

3
concedes a number of pupils could reasonably be expected to be outside
their correct lanes according to a post-Stanford achievement test,
incorrect placements were related at the .05 level of significance to
the socioeconomic status of the parents in at least one lane in each of
the schools.

Although no socioeconomic bias was indicated at the .05 level
in lane transfers, there were only three and four-tenths lane transfers
per one hundred placements.

In one of the three schools, a significant relationship
existed at the .05 level in the non-laned social studies classes.

The evidence found in the statistical analysis led to the
conclusion that a significant relationship at the .05 level existed in
the three junior high schools between the seventh grade laning practices

and the socioeconomic status of the parents.

 

 

Copyright by

Roger Hugh Kariger

1963

 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF LANE GROUPING TO THE SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS OF THE

PARENTS OF SEVENTH GRADE PUPILS IN THREE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

By

Roger Hugh Kariger

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1962

is
U7
v*tfl

h‘

LO

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer has a deep feeling of gratitude for the kindness
shown him by many people during the preparation of this thesis. Dr.
Donald J. Leu, major professor and friend, has earned special commenda-
tion. He and other members of the writer‘s graduate committee, Dr.
Troy L. Stearns, Dr. Stanley E. Hecker, Dr. John T. Gullahorn, and Dr.
John C. Howell, gave unselfishly of their time in consultations,
meetings, and review of the manuscript.

Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover, friend of many years and former
colleague, planted and cultivated the seed that grew to be this paper.
Dr. Bernard R. Corman and Dr. Karl T. Hereford deserve much credit for
their efforts to teach the writer the rudiments of educational research
and for their assistance in the early planning. Dr. David A. Payne
served as a consultant in the statistical aspect of the research.

The cooperation of the superintendent, principals, assistant
principals, teachers, and pupils has been excellent. The school
officials were most accommodating in making their records available and
in exerting extra care to assure maximum completeness of information.

The writer's family carried extra responsibilities during the
period of the doctoral study. In addition, his wife, Marie, and
daughter, Ann, did much of the clerical work in the preparation of
this thesis.

To all these and many others the writer extends his sincere
thanks.

P0
P0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . .
Operational Assumptions . . . . . . . . . o .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Delimitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . o .
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . o . . . . .

Plan of Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . o . o o o o o 0
Role of the School in Society . . o . . . o 0
Development of Talents . . . . . . . . o . .
Allocation of Human Resources . . . . . . .
Maintenance of Equality of Opportunity . . .
Literature Concerning Grouping and Curriculum
Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . .

Some CommonlyaHeld Views of Ability Grouping

Findings of Selected Research on Homogeneous

Summaries of Certain Reviewers of the Research Literature

on Homogeneous Grouping . . . . . . . . o

Curricular and Grouping Recommendations . .

iii

0

Grouping

O

O

O

O

0

O

0

0

PAGE

Fry

10

ll

l3

13

1M

17

19

21

CHAPTER PAGE
Selected Junior High School Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2“
III. PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY . . . . o . o . o . . . . . . . . . 26
Cooperation of School Officials, Teachers, and Pupils and
the Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Classification of Pupils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Classification by Socioeconomic Index . . . . . . . . . . 28
Classification by Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
I B M Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Tabulation of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Statistical Method and Procedure to be Used in the Analyses
of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . 31
The Major Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Sub-hypothesis l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Sub-hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Sub-hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
IV.ANALYSISOFTHEDATA.....................34
Comparison of the Populations of the Three Schools by Socio-
economic Index with the Population of the Nation . . . . . 34
Analyses by Chi Square of the Laning in the Basic Subjects
in the Three Schools to Test Sub-hypothesis l . . . . . . 35
Analyses of Combined Basic Subject Lanes of School 1 . . . 36
Analyses of Lanes of Basic Subjects in School 1 . . . . . 38
Summary of the Analyses of School 1 . . . . . . . . . . . “2
Analyses of Combined Basic Subject Lanes of School 2 . . . #3
Analyses of Lanes of Basic Subjects in School 2 . . . . . an

iv

CHAPTER
Summary of the Analyses of School 2 . . . . . . .
Analyses of Combined Basic Subject Lanes of School
Analyses of Lanes of Basic Subjects in School 3 .
Summary of the Analyses of School 3 . . . . . . .
Summary of the Analyses of Sub-hypothesis l in the
Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of Pupil Transfers in.Laned Subjects . . .
Analysis of Sub-hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of the Analyses of Sub-hypothesis 2 in the
Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analyses of Pupil Placements
Studies and Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of School 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of School 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of School 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of the Analyses of
Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TheBaSiCPr’Oblemoooooooooooooooo

Review of the Literature

Selection of Populations

Collection and Processing of

the

Statistical Method and Procedure

Dat a 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0

Data

0

O

0

O

0

in the Analysis

0

0

O O

0

PAGE

us

49

SO

62

63

63

63

65

66

66

69

72

73

7Q

77

77

77

78

78

79

79

CHAPTER PAGE
CODCluSions O O C O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 8o
Implications and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 85

vi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
I. Socioeconomic Classification Used in This Research . . . . . . 29
2. Recommended Lane Placement of Seventh Graders Based on May,

1962, Stanford Achievement Test, Form J, Grade Equivalents . 30
3. Comparison of the Socioeconomic Distribution of the Three

Schools with the Distribution in the Nation . . . . . . . . . 35
u. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of Lane Placements in All Lanes

in All Basic Subjects in School 1 as Determined by Stanford

Grade Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of X, Y, Z Lane Placements in

Science in School 1 as Determined by Stanford Grade

Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of X, Y, Z Lane Placements in

English in School 1 as Determined by Stanford Grade

Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7. Chi Square Analysis of Placement in X, Y, Z Lanes in English

in School 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8. Chi Square Analysis of Placement in Lanes in English of Pupils

Testing X Lane in School 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “0
9. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of X, Y, Z Lane Placementsiin

Developmental Reading in School 1 as Determined by Stanford

Grade Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #1

vii

 

TABLE PAGE
10. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of X, Y, Z Lane Placements in

Arithmetic in School 1 as Determined by Stanford Grade

Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
11. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of Lane Placements in All Lanes

in All Basic Subjects in School 2 as Determined by Stanford

Grade Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”M
12. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of X, Y, Z Lane Placements in

Science in School 2 as Determined by Stanford Grade

Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o o . . o o o o . “5
13. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of X, Y, Z Lane Placements in

English in School 2 as Determined by Stanford Grade

Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o o o o o o o o . o o ”6
1n. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of X, Y, Z Lane Placements in

Developmental Reading in School 2 as Determined by Stanford

Grade Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
15. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of X, Y, Z Lane Placements in

Arithmetic in School 2 as Determined by Stanford Grade

Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”8
16. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of Lane Placements in All Lanes

in All Basic Subjects in School 3 as Determined by Stanford

Grade Equivalents . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
17. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of X, Y, Z Lane Placements in

Science in School 3 as Determined by Stanford Grade

Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
18. Chi Square Analysis of Placement in X, Y, Z Lanes in Science

in School 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

viii

TABLE PAGE
19. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of X, Y, Z Lane Placements in

English in School 3 as Determined by Stanford Grade

Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
20. Chi Square Analysis of Placement of Pupils in X, Y, Z Lanes

in English in School 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . su
21. Chi Square Analysis of Placement in Lanes in English of Pupils

Testing X Lane in School 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SS
22. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of X, Y, Z Lane Placements in

Developmental Reading in School 3 as Determined by Stanford

Grade Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
23. Chi Square Analysis of Placement in X, Y, Z Lanes of Pupils in

Developmental Reading in School 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2“. Chi Square Analysis of Placement in Lanes in Developmental

Reading of Pupils Testing X Lane in School 3 . . . . . . . . 58
25. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of X, Y, Z Lane Placements in

Arithmetic in School 3 as Determined by Stanford Grade

Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S9
26. Chi Square Analysis of Placement in X, Y, Z Lanes of Pupils

in Arithmetic in School 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
27. Chi Square Analysis of Placement in Lanes in Arithmetic of

Pupils Testing X Lane in School 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
28. Chi Square Analysis of Placement in Lanes in Arithmetic of

Pupils Testing Y Lane in School 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
29. Summary of Lane Transfers in All Basic Subjects in the Three

Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6a
30. Summary of Chi Square Analyses of All Lane Transfers in

1X

 

TABLE PAGE

Combined Basic Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
31. Distribution of Seventh Grade Pupils in Non-Laned Social

Studies Classes by S E I of Parents in School 1 . . . . . . . 67
32. Distribution of Seventh Grade Pupils in Non-Laned Music

Classes by S E I of Parents in School 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 67
33. Chi Square Analysis of Pupil Placement in School 1 in Non=

Laned Social Studies Classes in Relation to the S E I of the

Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3”. Chi Square Analysis of Pupil Placement in School 1 in Nona

Laned Music Classes in Relation to the S E I of the Parents . 68
35. Chi Square Analysis of Pupil Placement in School 1 of None

Laned Classes of Music in Relation to the S E I of the

Parents . . . . . . . . . . o . . o o . . . . . o . . . . . . 69
36. Distribution of Seventh Grade Pupils in NonwLaned Social Studies

Classes by S E I of Parents in School 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 70
37. Distribution of Seventh Grade Pupils in NonaLaned Music

Classes by S E I of Parents in School 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 70
38. Chi Square Analysis of Pupil Placement in School 2 in NoneLaned

Classes of Social Studies in Relation to the S E I of the

Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
39. Chi Square Analysis of Pupil Placement in School 2 in Non»

Laned Classes of Music in Relation to the S E I of the

Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
no. Chi Square Analysis of Pupil Placement in School 3 in Non=

Laned Classes of Social Studies in Relation to the S E I of

the Parents 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O 72

TABLE PAGE
#1. Chi Square Analysis of Pupil Placement in School 3 in Non-
Laned Classes of Music in Relation to the S E I of the

Parents 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 73

 

 

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX PAGE
A Occupational Questionnaire o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 90

BSIXthGradeEvaluationFOrmooooooooooooooooooo92

 

xii

 

 

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Most American citizens accept the concept that everyone should
have equality of opportunity for the kind and quality of education that
best suits his needs and those of society. Socioeconomic mobility is a
cornerstone of a democratic society. Today extensive education is a
prerequisite of socioeconomic mobility. The public schools are expected
to be agents in helping all individuals achieve their maximum potential.
TherefOre, schools are expected to play a significant role in furthering

the opportunity for socioeconomic mobility for all their pupils.

The Problem

The Board of Education of a Midwestern city of over 160,000 is
attempting to improve its educational program and at the same time meet
the problems of increased enrollment by changing from an 8-u to a 6-3-3
plan of organization. Since 1959 six new junior high school buildings
and two remodeled buildings have been completed or are in progress.

As part of the attempt to improve the instructional program,
grouping in X, Y, Z lanes or tracks has been instigated in the junior
high schools in science, language arts, and arithmetic. Each pupil is
given an individual program with the expectation that he will be placed
in each laned area according to his ability and achievement in the
particular subject. The principal of the junior high school is

l

2

responsible for programming incoming seventh graders on the basis of
information supplied by the feeder schools. The evaluation form lists
the Stanford Achievement Test1 grade equivalents in reading and arith-
metic, the sixth grade average reading and arithmetic grades, a rating
of the pupil's personal characteristics, the homeroom teacherVS recom-
mendation as to lane placements, and the Otis2 intelligence quotient.
The permanent record of grades and test results covering the period of
the pupil's enrollment in the feeder school is also provided for his
folder.

The pupil who ranks very high, strictly average, or very low
on the achievement continuum presents an easy task. Placement of the
borderline pupil poses the difficult decision. The fact that each
junior high school receives students from two or more feeder schools
with probable different mean levels of achievement and socioeconomic
statuses seems to add to the difficulties. At any rate, in addition
to the normal problems encountered in ranking pupils, inconsistencies
in teacher evaluations and recommendations within and among feeder
schools appear to exist. While the principal keeps these several points
of information in mind, he is faced with the practical problem of
keeping the numbers in the three lanes at figures which permit the
division of the lanes into classes reasonably even in size.

To provide for flexibility in grouping, teachers are encouraged

 

lTruman L. Kelley, et a1, "Stanford Advanced Arithmetic Test,
Form K," and "Stanford Advanced Reading Test, Form K," World Book
Company Standard Tests, January,,1961 (Chicago: Harcourt, Brace, 8
World, Inc.).

 

2Arthur S. Otis, "Otis Group Intelligence Test, Beta A," World
Book Company Standard Tests, 1961 (Chicago: Harcourt, Brace, 6 World,
InCo)o

3
to recommend a lane change immediately if they detect an error in
placement, unusual pupil growth, or lack of growth. It is possible
that a teacher may be reluctant to part with the good pupil and not
overly anxious to receive the bothersome or uninterested one. At any
rate, principals observe that the number of recommendations for lane
changes submitted for their approval are not numerous. Changes in
lanes are made at any time although they occur most often at the end
of grading periods.

While the pupils are to be grouped homogeneously in science,
English, developmental reading, and arithmetic, the intent is to group
them heterogeneously in the non-laned subjects of social studies and
music.

Much thought and study was devoted to the merits of homogeneous
versus heterogeneous grouping before adopting this laned, nonalaned
program. It would seem the hope is to achieve the claimed academic
benefits of homogeneous grouping cited by writers such as Woodring3
and, at the same time, provide the opportunity for extensive associaa
tion of pupils of the various socioeconomic statuses and levels of

achievement deemed desirable by such writers as Bettelheim.’4

Need for the Study

Since an announced objective of this junior high school program

is to lane the pupils in X, Y, Z groups in certain subjects so that a

 

3Paul Woodring, A Fourth of a Nation (New York: McGraw-Hill
Bock C00. InCo. 1957). 1310

”Bruno Bettelheim, "Segregation: New Style," The School Review,
LXVI, No. 3 (Autumn, 1958), 251-72.

u
fast, average, or slow moving pupil will be working in a group of pupils
of similar speed, a study of the grouping in actual operation is in
order.

If pupils are grouped as homogeneously as possible on the basis
of academic achievement, pupils with the prescribed academic achievement
from all statuses of society can reasonably be expected to be laned .
correctly in comparable percentages from‘all'levels-<mf.society. unless
a factor or factors other than achievement are operating. A similar
situation could be expected to prevail in lane transfers. To assure
equal educational opportunities for every pupil in the school, the
school and its social system are expected to operate in such a manner
that no arbitrary limitation through its laning system exists for any
one pupil or segment of pupils. In short, the laning system can
reasonably be eXpected to be operating independently of the socio-
economic status of the parents.

Another understood objective of the program is to provide each
pupil with the opportunity for association with pupils of various social
statuses and levels of ability and achievement through the method of
heterogeneous grouping in the non-laned classes. The researcher pro-
poses to determine if there are differences in the distribution and
concentration of seventh grade pupils by the socioeconomic statuses of
parents in the non-laned classes in social studies and music.

It is hoped some light will be shed on these questions by this
research as a step in the evaluation and improvement in the operation

of the junior high school program in the city.

l.

2.

9.

5.

6.

8.

5

Theoretical Assumptions
The school is a functioning social system.

The school social system is characterized by a pattern of stratifi-
cation which may or may not correspond to the stratification

patterns of the community in which it functions.

When practiced, lanes or tracks are one aspect of the stratifica=

tion system.

The principal and teachers make decisions which determine the lane
or track placement for students and thus influence stratification

patterns of the student population of the school social system.

Lanes or tracks may correspond to and reinforce the community
stratification patterns, or may operate independently of community

stratification patterns.

The stratification patterns-~particularly lanes or tracks--of the
school social system affect the nature of the education obtained by

the students.

Since the curriculum material and pupil interest in learning for
the various lanes are not identical, student opportunity to achieve
and prepare for various positions and statuses in society may be

affected by laning.

Maximization of school achievement increases the range of oppor-

tunities for the individual students.

9.

10.

l.

2.

3.

9.

6
The grouping as done in these junior high schools is based on the
assumption that improved learning will occur for all students when

laned in the basic subjects.

The grouping as done in these junior high schools is based on the
assumption that grouping in non-basic subjects should be on a
heterogeneous basis in order to provide the opportunity for
students to learn to know and get along with pupils of various

levels of achievement and statuses in society.

 

Operational Assumptions

Duncan“s Modification of the North-Hatt Scale5 is an acceptable
instrument for determining the socioeconomic status of parents
and indirectly that of their children. The scale is based on the

occupation of the father or male head of the household.

Based on the classification according to Duncan°s Modification of
the North-Hatt Scale, it is appropriate to combine the socio—
economic statuses into upper (70 and up), middle (30-69), and

lower (1-29) for this study.

The seventh graders in three all-white junior high schools provide

a suitable population for this research.

In regard to the non-laned areas, a study of the grouping in social
studies and music will answer the significant questions concerning

the non-laned subjects in the seventh grade program.

 

5Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Occupations and Social Status (New York:

The Free Press of Gencoe, Inc., 1961), Chapters 6, 7, and Table B-1 of
Appendix B prepared by Otis Dudley Duncan.

5.

6.

7.

7
Since few lane changes are made after March 30, pupils enrolled in
lanes and classes from March 30 to June 8, 1962, comprise the
logical groups for the study. The record of lane changes includes

those made at any time during the seventh grade year.

The achievement test grade equivalents from the Stanford reading
and arithmetic tests given in May, 1962, during the seventh grade
are the most objective criteria available to the researcher for
determining possible discrepancies in pupil lane placement. The
limitations of the validity of any test or tests as a measure of
the correctness or incorrectness of pupil lane placements are
recognized. However, Stanford tests are assumed to be of somewhat
comparable validity for the upper, middle, and lower socioeconomic

groups and therefore suitable for use in this research.

A pupil should be a Y lane pupil when he is working at a level
from approximately a year below to a year above grade level. At
the end of the seventh grade this is established as a range from
7.0 to 8.9, as measured by a Stanford reading or arithmetic test.
An X lane pupil is one who scores above the Y range. A Z lane

pupil is one who falls below the Y range.
Hypotheses

No significant relationship exists in three junior high schools
between the seventh grade X, Y, Z laning practices and the socio-
economic status of the parents.

S-H l: Discrepancies between pupil lane placement and pupil
achievement in science, English, developmental reading,
and arithmetic are not significantlv related to the
socioeconomic status of the parents.

S-H 2: Lane transfers in science, English, developmental

8

reading, and arithmetic are not significantly related
to the socioeconomic status of the parents.

SmH 3: Grouping in the non-laned classes of social studies and

music is not significantly related to the socioeconomic
status of the parents.

Delimitation

The study is limited to seventh grade pupils who enrolled at the
beginning or at any time during the 196121962 school year, provided they
continued to be enrolled during the period from March 30, 1962, to

June 8, 1962, inclusive, in one of the three selected junior high

 

schools.
Definition of Terms

22 g and 33223 are used as synonyms.

Language arts is understood to include the two subjects of
English and developmental reading.

The abbreviation used for socioeconomic index or status, or
Socioeconomic group, is S E I. _

.‘Basic subjects refer to science, English, developmental reading,

and arithmetic.
Plan of the Thesis

Chapter I explains the nature of the problem as well as a
statement as to the need for the study. Chapter II reviews the related
literature. Chapter III indicates the procedure and methodology used.
Chapter IV presents an analysis of the data. Chapter V includes the

summary, conclusions, and implications and recommendations.

CHAPTER II
RELATED LITERATURE

”A review ofthe related literature is essential fer better under:
standing and insight into this study. It seems advisable to present
commonly accepted views of the role of the school in society as well as
to note the schoolis attempt to fulfill these expectations through its

curriculum and organization.
Role of the School in Society

Development of Talents. .Throughout the literature the reviewer
discerns the feeling of an imperative need for maximum development of
the collective talents and abilities of American youth. Brookover
expresses this emphatically by saying, "Our economic progress, our
defense strength, and our position in the world depend: on an increasing
supply of highly educated people, both in quantity and in quality."1 He
adds that our professional, technical, and managerial people have become
our most numerous group with every prospect for the percentage to
increase with the increasing productivity and complexity of our indus-
trial system. Extensive education is a prerequisite to secure and
and perfbrm the highly skilled tasks associated with these white-collar

positions. Even the blue-collar jobs are requiring more and more

 

1W. B. Brookover, Presidential Address to the Ohio Valley
Sociological Society, May, 1962.

10
education while most of our unemployed are those with little formal

education.

Allocation of Human Resources. Kahl states:
The school system has become the major institution not only for
training people but also for selecting and placing them. A man
starts in the occupational world according to the level he has
achieved in the educational world.2 I
Parsons3 and Brookover” both emphasize that the school has become
society's principal medium for the selection and allocation of our youth
for various professional and occupational roles. In turn, Barber5 notes
a person's socioeconomic status is largely determined by his occupation.
This allocation process begins as pupils are assigned to slow, average,
or fast reading circles and continues on through repeated evaluations of
pupil performances, report cards, and later through counseling as to
choice of courses and curricula.
WoodringG is representative of the school of thought which
assumes that early identification of gifted children is possible and

proposes differential curricula beginning at an early age. Critics

such as Bettelheim7 doubt that such programs will result in increasing

 

2Joseph A. Kahl, The American Class Structure (New York:
Rinehart 5 Co., Inc., 1957), 293.

3Talcott Parsons, "The School as a Social System: Some of Its
Functions in American Society," Harvard Educational Review, XXIX, No. u
(Fall, 1959), 297-318.

“Brookover, Presidential Address to the Ohio Valley Sociological
Society.

5Bernard Barber, Social Stratification (New York: Harcourt,
Brace, 5 Co., 1957).

6Woodring, A Fourth of a Nation.

jBettelheim, The School Review, LXVI, No. 3.

ll
achievement and may well lead to a new elite created through an educa-
tional caste system. Obviously, marked differences of opinion exist
concerning the most desirable programs to develop the talents of our

youth.

Maintenance of Equality of Opportunity. John W. Gardner in a
report of the President”s Commission on National Goals writes:
Ultimately education serves all our purposes==liberty, justice,
and all other aims~abut the one it serves most directly is
equality of opportunity. We promise such equality, and education
is the instrument of which we hope to make good the promise. It
is the high road of individual opportunity, the great avenue
that all may travel.8
How ever much the majority of Americans may applaud these
objectives, a review of the literature reveals that doubt exists in the
minds of a number of investigators as to the reality of their attain-
ment. In his analysis of Middletown in 1925, Lynd9 observes the people
are very much concerned that their children be educated. Yet many of
the lower class children drop out. Lynd believes the school system with
its middle class expectations and values tends to discourage attendance
by lower class pupils. In his return to Middletown in 1935, Lyndlo
finds much the same conditions except for greater obstacles, associated
with the depression, in the paths of the working-class people.

In 1999 Warner, Havinghurst, and Loeb in their study of Yankee

City contend the schools serve to restrict upward mobility. They

 

8Goals for Americans (New York: The American Assembly, Columbia
University, Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1960), 81.

9Robert S. and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown: A Studyyg
American Culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace 8 Co., 1929), 181-222.

10Robert S. and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown in Transition
(New York: Harcourt, Brace 8 Co., 1937), 2oua291.

l2

observe:

Whatever figure of speech we use, the school system appears to

be a sorting device with various selective principles operating.

In addition to the principle of intellectual ability, there are

such principles of selection as economic status, social class,

and social personality.ll
They add that the lower socioeconomic groups are apt to be uncomfortable
in school since their way of life does not conform to the school's middle
class social standards.

The study of Elmtown finds differential treatment of the upper
and lower social classes in the school. Hollingshead reports that the
youth of the lowest class finds his Wbackground and prestige positions
are such that he is made to feel unwanted in the classroom, on the play-
ground, or in the clubs and extracurricular activities that are an
essential part of the school situation."12

It is possible these descriptions and observations paint the
picture too dark. A study conducted by Gottlieb13 of a sample of
universities in the United States reveals that over half of the graduate
students in social sciences, natural sciences, and the humanities came
from lower or lower middle class backgrounds. Pisherlu points out there

is some danger of developing a stereotype of the lower class pupil. He

says many of these lower socioeconomic class pupils do show an interest

 

llW. Lloyd Warner, Robert J. Havinghurst, and Martin B. Loeb,
Who Shall Be Educated? (New York: Harper 6 Brother, 19uu).

l2August Hollingshead, Elmtown°s Youth (New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1999), 358.

 

13David Gottlieb, "Processes of Socialization in the American
Graduate School (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago,
1960).

luRobert J. Fisher, "Who is This Lower~Class Child?", Journal of
Educational Sociology, XXXIV (March, 1961), 309-11.

(0.3

l
in school, do strive to achieve, and do behave in accord with middle

class values.
Literature Concerning Grouping and Curriculum

Historical Perspective. In reviewing the writings of numerous
writers it becomes apparent that the degree of homogeneity in grouping
which the school should attempt to achieve is a basic question. Cook15
details steps in the history of attempts at homogeneity by citing the
McGuffey Readers introduced in 1837 as the first graded textbooks, the
first eightegrade school in 1898, grouping of pupils in the eight
grades in one room rural schools by l870, and emphasis on retensions
even into the 192095. He says the 192095 and l930”s witnessed an
attempt to achieve even greater homogeneity within the classroom by
increased use of ability grouping. Detroit Public Schools, a pioneer
in this movement, used X, Y, Z laning based on intelligence scores as
early as 1920. Baker16 refers to the 192093 and 193098 as a period of
excessive ability grouping.

Ottol7 in 1959 writes that the period beginning with the 199095
found a shift away from ability grouping toward a growing concern for

the development of wellerounded, emotionally and socially adjusted boys

 

15Walter W. Cook, WClassroom Methods: The Gifted and Retarded
in Historical Perspective," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIX (March, 1958),
2u9’550

16G. Derwood Baker, WWhat Crucial Problems Confront the Junior
High School Principal?W A report to the FortyeFifth Annual Principals'
Convention. National Association of Secondary-School Principals, XLV, .
Part I (April, 1961), 181m82.

 

17Henry J. Otto, The Elementary School Organization and Adminis-
tration, 3rd ed. (New York: AppletoneCentury=Crofts, Inc., 1954),
199~203.

 

 

1n
and girls withlessening concern for academic superiority. This is
reflected in the view identified by Gruhn and Douglass as the modern
view in which "the curriculum is thought to consist of the total
controlled environment created under the direction of the school for
the purpose of stimulating, influencing4_and contributing to the wholee
some growth and development of boys and girls."18 However, the arrival
of the space age and the present-day cold war has been accompanied by a
deepening interest in academic excellence and attempts to achieve it
through the mechanics of grouping. The literature indicates the renewed

interest in ability grouping under a variety of names such as "cluster

 

grouping,"19 "cross grouping,"20 "tracks,"21 and--as used in this

study-~"1anes" or "laning."

Some Commonly-Held Views of Ability Grouping;. The editorUS note
in Clearing House observes, "Leading research specialists say there is
much feeling but practically no valid research to support one or
another method of grouping over all other methods.0022 This does not

prevent some educators and writers from having pronounced opinions on

 

lBWilliam T. Gruhn and Harl R. Douglass, The Modern Junior High
School (New York: The Ronald Press, 19u7), 89-191.

19D. J. Kincaid and T. M. Epley, "Cluster Grouping," Education,
LXXXI (November, 1960), 135-39.

20Jeff West and Callie Sievers, "Experiment in Cross Grouping,"
Journal of Educational Research, LIV, No. 2 (October, 1960), 70e72.

21Dan J. Hull, "Curriculum Design--Strength and Weaknesses of
the Track System." A report to the Forty-Fifth Annual Principa1“s
Convention. National Association of Secondary-School Principals, XLV,

Part I (April, 1961), 286-87.

22Clearing House, Editor's note concerning "The Dexter Plan for
Ability Grouping' by Jack W. Humphrey, XXXV (March, 1961), M23.

15
the subject. Typical statements are given herein.

Bue1123 says a below average teacher can do a better job
teaching homogeneous groups. He believes it results in an easier
teaching situation leading to more effective learning, that teaching
methods and materials can be better adapted, that it is more challenging
for the able pupils, and that slow pupils have a greater opportunity to
react and interact. He points out that practice supports the wisdom of
his position as evidenced by results of a questionnaire indicating that

three fourths of the schools in the Philadelphia area are grouped by

 

general ability in academic subjects in grades 7, 8, and 9. He
questions the research supporting heterogeneous grouping.

Mott?“ espouses ability grouping as he points to his years of
experience and observation as evidence for his support of the system.
He says democracy does not mean equal in every respect. It is a favor
neither to the high nor low ability pupils to require them all to go
through the "common mold." He illustrates his view by stating that
heterogeneous grouping is comparable to asking a swimming teacher to
teach a class of individuals of widely varying ability and achievement.
He asks how such a teacher could help all without neglecting some if a
few were experts, some beginners, and some were paralytics and para-
plegics. He believes homogeneous grouping is the sensible way to

organize either group.

 

23Clayton E. Buell, "How Much Homogeneous Grouping in the Junior
High School?", National Association of Secondary-School Principals,

XLIV, Part II (April, 19605, 257-69.

2“Kenneth Mott, "The Case for Ability Grouping," National
Association of Secondary-School Principals, XLV, Part II (November,

1""‘7‘961 , ‘5'3-62.

 

l6

Ellis25 points out that homogeneous grouping makes possible both
vertical enrichmentacsuch as algebra in the eighth grade, and horizontal
enrichment==such as going into the subject in greater depth. He
observes that for the first time some pupils average or below have the
opportunity for leadership when in a classroom grouped homogeneously.

Loomis objects to homogeneous grouping on the grounds that
children may feel stigmatized when placed in slow groups, that teachers
often are reluctant to teach slow classes, and that it is undemocratic
since it tends to accentuate social stratification. However, she

qualifies the criticism somewhat by adding that research in the Colfax

 

School in Pittsburgh "indicated acceptance and rejection patterns were

more marked within an ability group than between ability groups.W26

Baker objects strongly to extreme homogeneous grouping as
follows:

We profess to value the dignity and worth of each personality,
but we do violence to this principle when by administrative
arrangements, we say to eleven and twelve year olds, "We have
tested you and found you lacking in intelligence," or "You are
only average," or "You are bright and potentially talented." We
can grade eggs without affecting their quality, but children are
dynamic, perceptive, and responsive. They re3pond to our
estimate of them. It is necessary to make adjustments for
individual differences, but experience and research have amply
demonstrated that ability grouping and sectioning by intelli-
gence is not the way.

He adds that he thinks grouping by interests a wiser course in seventh

 

25George J. Ellis, "How Much Homogeneous Grouping in the Junior
High School?", National Association of Secondary-School Principals,
XLIV, Part II (April, 1960), 259-62.

26Mary Jane Loomis, "The Right Child in the Right Classroom,"
figtional Educational Association Journal, XLVIII (September, 1959),
17-18.

27Baker, National Association of Secondary—School Principals,
XLV, Part I (April, 1961), 181-82.

l7
and eighth grades, while subject choices begin to do grouping less

painfully in the ninth grade.

Findings of Selected Research on Homogeneous Grouping,_ West

and Sievers28

report on a plan of grouping in Dade County, Florida,
schools in which 218 fifth and sixth grade pupils were removed from
their regular classrooms each forenoon to be sent to special teachers
for instruction in academic subjects. They returned to their regular
rooms for the afternoons. The study of twenty-eight of the pupils was
continued in the seventh and eighth grades. Sociograms and Iowa Tests
indicated no loss in social relationships and significant gains in
academic achievement.

Lovell2g reports ”The Bay City High School Experiment”v in which
five hundred pupils were divided into equal groups. The 250 in the
experimental homogeneous groups were divided into groups of approXa
imately 30, with the best 30 in the subject in one class, the next 30
in the second class, and so on. In English the homogeneous groups
achieved better as measured by standardized test. In algebra and
biology there was no significant difference between the homogeneous and
heterogeneous groups. He said there was no effect on social acceptance
although the experimental group developed a more positive attitude
toward school. He admitted there was no way to measure the effects of
the teacherS' strong bias for the homogeneous grouping which existed at

the beginning and continued to exist to the end.

 

28West and Sievers, Journal of Educational Research, LIV, No. 2
(October, 1950), 7o~72.

29John Lovell, "The Bay City High School Experiment," Educa-
tional Leadership, XVII (March, 1960), 3836387.

18

Van Wagenen30

found that a homogeneous group of pupils with I Q°s
120 or higher did not result in higher achievement compared with similar
pupils taught with average children. He concluded that the failure to
show any benefits may have resulted from the failure to enrich or change
the program for the selected group.

Barthelmess and Barthelmess,31

in the evaluation of ability
grouping in five elementary schools in Philadelphia, state the evidence
ismsignificantly in favor of homogeneous over heterogeneous grouping in

the skill subjects of reading, English, and arithmetic for the slow,

medium, and fast groups.

 

Justman32 reports the selection of a group of children with
I 0'8 130 or above for an acceleration program in which the selected
group was given the three years of junior high school in two years. The
acceleration by one year was accompanied by some gain in academic
achievement and a significant superiority to matched pairs in normal
progress groups .

Herr33 relates another acceleration study in which pupils with
I Q's of 120 or more completed grades 7 and 8 in one year and were then

promoted to the ninth grade. There were no adverse effects in their

 

30M. J. Van Wagenen, "The Effect of Homogeneous Grouping upon
the Quality of Work of Superior Children," Educational Method, VI
(February, 1927), 2no-u7.

31Boyer P. and Harriet Barthelmess, "An Evaluation of Ability
Grouping," Journal of Educational Research, XXVI (1932), 284-9n.

32Joseph Justman, "Academic Achievement of Intellectually
Gifted Accelerants and Non-Accelerants in Junior High School," School
Review, LXII (195a), 1u2-so.

33William A. Herr, "Junior High School Accelerants and Their
Peers in Senior;High”Sbhool,"gschool Review, XLV (1937),1186-95 and
289‘990

19
scholastic achievement when they were studied in high school. While
there were no outstanding differences, the differences that did exist
slightly favored the accelerants. There was no observable difference
socially, in health, in attendance, and a slight increase in extracur-
ricular participation. The accelerants did in some cases exhibit more
neurotic tendencies, but Herr questions this result because of the
failure to measure this tendency at the beginning of the study. He
felt the neurotic pupils probably had the characteristic at the

beginning of the program.

Summaries of Certain Reviewers of the Research Literature on

3” state their review of the

Hgmggeneous Grouping. Wilhelms and Gibson
research literature on homogeneous grouping causes them to conclude

that there is no significant improvement in the student mastery of
subject matter. Any improvement, if any, is so minute as to be insig-
nificant. Any gains are limited to the dull with definite advantages
for the mentally retarded.

Wrightstone35 states that experts disagree about ability
grouping whether based on I Q, achievement, or teacher grades. Organiz-
ing into three tracks reduces the range only 15 to 17 per cent.

Cook says, "The idea that the process of schooling must consist

of homogeneous groups of pupils receiving uniform instruction by mass

education techniques from uniform textbooks is the axiom which prevents

 

3"’Pred T. Wilhelms and Dorthy Westly Gibson, "Grouping:
Research Offers Leads," Educational Leadership, XVIII (April, 1961),
410-13 and 476.

35J. Wayne Wrightstone, "What Research Says about Class Organi-
zation for Instruction," National Education Association Journal, XLVI
(April, 1957) 9 25”“55 o

20

constructive approaches to the problem of variability in the class~
room."36 He adds not only is there variability of traits within any one
individual but also marked heterogeneity within any group. Cook
concludes even when grouping is done under the most favorable conditions
on the basis of achievement in reading and arithmetic, variability will
be reduced only twenty per cent. When X, Y, Z grouping is used, the
extreme X and Z groups will overlap approximately 80 per cent. Thus,
the range in achievement would be 6.4 years in reading ability instead of
8.0 in a sixth grade. In other areas such as writing, music, art, and
spelling the reduction in variability is practically nil. If grouping
is to be done, he recommends that it be on an individual subject basis.

Otto reports, "Experimental studies of ability grouping have
been fraught with such difficulties relating to the many variables to be
controlled and the diffused concepts about grouping that it can hardly
be said that ability grouping has been experimentally evaluated."37

Otto arrives at these conclusions:

1. Evidence slightly favors ability grouping when adaptions are
made.in methods and materials

2. Most teachers prefer it

3. Confusion exists as to how materials and methods should be
adapted

n. It is best for the dull, next best for the average, and
least helpful for the bright-~in fact frequently harmful for the last

SPOUP

 

36¢ook, Phi Delta Kappan, xxxxx (March, 1958), 2u9-ss.

37Otto, 199-203.

21

5. It is not clear in which subjects and grades ability group-
ing is most helpful

6. There is no conclusive evidence in areas other than knowl-
edge and skills

7. Parents normally favor it

8. The variability in achievement with three groups is about 83
per cent as great as in unselected groups, with two groups the varia-
bility about 93 per cent as great.

Bkstrom, in an extensive review of the research, summarized as

follows:

 

It can be concluded that controlled experimental studies
comparing the effectiveness of homogeneous and heterogeneous
grouping, as evaluated by student achievement, showed a great
variety of experimental design and no consistent pattern of
results. Many experiments failed to control the type of teach-
ing and to provide differentiation of teaching according to
ability levels. Poor experimental design, such as the use of
available data only and the use of matched pairs of subjects on
unwarranted assumptions of similarity, made many studies less
effective.

In experiments that specifically provided fOr differentiation of
teaching methods and materials for groups at each ability level,
and made an effort to push bright homogeneous classes, results
tended to favor homogeneous groups.

Curricular and Grouping Recommendations. Gruhn and Douglass39

point out that no serious problem of correlation of subjects existed in

the traditional seventh and eighth grades when one teacher taught all

no

subjects. However, Baker states excessive departmentalization in the

 

38Ruth B. Bkstrom, "Experimental Studies of Homogeneous
Grouping: A Critical Review," School Review, LXIX (Summer, 1961), 223.

39Gruhn and Douglass, 89-191.

uoBaker, National Association of Secondary-School Principals,
XLV, Part I (April, 1961). 181-820

22

192098 and 1930"s increased the problems of curriculum and school
organization-~a condition which he says is with us again today. He
recommends that the seventh grade be a transition period from the sixth
grade homeroom. He suggests block scheduling for the major portion of
the school day plus having one teacher teach a group for a block of
time.

Noall and Bell'sul description of the experiment in core
curriculum at Weber County, Utah, is illustrative of the attempt to
correlate subjects under departmentalization. Language arts and social

studies are scheduled consecutive periods under the same teacher in an

 

attempt to merge the areas. Mott“2 refers to this approach as the
fusion of two subjects in the block period.

Conantu3 visited 237 junior high schools in 23 states as the
basis for a number of observations and recommendations. He recommends
that English, mathematics, science, and social studies be taught one
period daily to seventh and eighth graders. Pupils should be grouped
in three levels in these academic subjects with the majority in the
middle lane. He thinks all seventh and eighth grade pupils should be
grouped heterogeneously for instruction in music, art, physical educa-

tion, home economics for the girls, shop for the boys.

 

”lMatthew F. Noall and Tarrol H. Bell, "Core Curriculum at Weber
County, Utah," National Association of Secondary-School Principals, XLIV,
Part I (January, 1960), 141-u7.

1+2Mott, "Language Arts-~Social Studies Fusion in the Junior High
School Block Period," National Association of Secondary-School Princi-
pals, XLIV, Part I (March, 1960), 12u-31.

”3James B. Conant, Education in the Junior Hi h School Years
(Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1965), 1-86.

23

Selected Junior High School Plans. Cochranu”

reports a lane
grouping plan in use in Kalamazoo, Michigan, for grades 7, 8, and 9.
Students in each grade are laned in slow=moving, average, and fast-
moving groups in language arts and arithmetic with 20, 60, and 20 per
cent of the pupils in the respective lanes. Eighth and ninth graders
are each divided into two lanes in science. Rigid selection criteria
are.not used as an attempt is made to consider the total needs of the
pupil in this placement. A pupil may be in a fast group in one subject

and in a slow group in another. In the evaluation a great deal of over-

lap is found in achievement, as measured by standardized achievement

 

tests, with from 5 to 33 1/3 per cent of the pupils in the average lane
exceeding the mean of the fastamoving groups.

While this is not a carefully controlled study, the test results
slightly favor the homogeneous grouping plan. He summarizes his evalu-
ation by saying parents feel the flexible grouping plan helps their
children, teachers believe the plan makes very little difference in
results but approve its use, but that "flexible grouping does not make
much difference" in achievement.

Humphreyus identifies the plan in use at the Dexter Junior High
School in Evansville, Indiana, as "The Dexter Plan." The pupils in each
of grades)? and 8 are divided into three levels in English and arithmetic
largely on the basis of standardized tests. Transfers from lane to lane

are flexible to the extent that a pupil may move up or down at any time

 

"“John R. Cochran, "Grouping Students in the Junior High School,"
Educational Leadership, XVIII (April, 1961), u1u-19.

”SJack W. Humphrey, "The Dexter Plan fer Ability Grouping,"
Clearin House, XXXV (March, 1961), ”ZS-26.

2n
as decided by the teachers involved. However, most changes occur at
the end of grading periods. Grades in the fast-moving groups are
usually A's and B's, the average groups B's and C's, with the slowest
groups usually getting C's, D's, and some F's.

The teachers consider the advantages to be as follows: unneces-
sary to neglect the advanced students, grouping range narrowed, student
competition keener, little difficulty with discipline, student interest
high, slow students feel free to speak up without ridicule, subject
matter can be geared to the child, more creative work in all classes
because of less fear of ridicule, remedial activities not interfered
with by disciplinary problems, and pupils happier because they can more
easily cope with teacher demands.

He notes the disadvantages as: some parents upset, pupils
changing from class to class do not have the same instruction all year,
teachers have to make three preparations instead of one for three
classes, and the plan requires extra administrative time fer testing,
conferences, and lane changes.

It should be noted that the Kalamazoo and Dexter junior high
school plans are quite similar to the plan used as a basis of this

study.

Summagy

In conclusion, although there is wide difference of opinion as
to how best to assure the opportunity for an excellent education for
every child, today there is an increased interest in achieving the
objective. Many are turning to ability grouping in the expectation that

this administrative device will increase achievement for pupils thus

25
grouped. Research on ability or achievement grouping is inconclusive.
However, a review of the literature in this field seems to indicate a
slight improvement in pupil achievement, especially if pupils are
grouped by ability in the specific subject and if materials and teaching

methods are adapted to the group.

 

CHAPTER III
PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY

A resume of the procedure in the collection, processing, and
analysis of the data should help the reader as he follows the progress
of this research. Preliminary plans were fermulated early in 1960 with
the 1961-1962 school year selected as the period fer collection of the
data.

This chapter will be organized into five main headings: the
cooperation of school people and the collection of the data, classifica-
tion of pupils, I B M processing, analysis of data, and statistical
methods to be employed to test the major and subehypotheses.

Cooperation of School Officials, Teachersj and
Pupils and the Collection of Data

The researcher began by securing permission of the superin-
tendent, assistant superintendent, and the junior high school principals
in the city., They not only willingly consented but expressed the hope
that such a study would be valuable in the evaluation of the laning
practices.

Three of the eleven junior high schools were selected. While
all three are inside the city limits, schools identified in this study
as l and 3 appear to be suburban in respect to population. Pupils from

school 2 appear to be from lower income homes in comparison.

26

 

 

27

Although much of the information needed was available from the
regular school records, the principals and assistant principals of the
selected schools exerted Special care in the attempt to have all infore
mation complete. In addition to making all regular records available,
they noted lane transfers on the pupil program cards to assist the
researcher.

Although in most cases the occupation of the father was on the
student permanent record, the information was not in sufficient detail
to be usedas the primary source for assigning the S E I scores. Therea
fore, the researcher patterned an occupational questionnairel after a
section of a sheet entitled "Your Educational Plans"2 which accompanies
the "Pupil Record of Educational Progress" test published by Science
Research Associates,Inc. Pupils completed the questionnaire under the
direction of homeroom teachers and assistant principals. Several of
the teachers voluntarily edited pupil answers and.WPOte clarifying
comments. Thus, the researcher had carefully completed questionnaires
as well as the official records for comparison. As a result, he
believes he was able to assign S E I scores with an acceptable degree
of accuracy.

The researcher recorded the following information:
1. School number

2 . Pupil number

 

1See Appendix A.

2"Your Educational Plans," Sheet No. 7-2563, (Chicago: Science
Research Associates, Inc., 1961).

 

4.

5.

6.

7.

28

Otis mental ability score

Stanford Advanced Reading and Arithmetic Tests, Forms K and J grade

equivalents

Lane placements in the basic subjects

Lane transfers with the direction of the changes

Assignments to nonalaned classe in social studies and music.

This data was recorded in code to facilitate transfer to I B M cards.

Classification of Pupils

Classification by Socioeconomic Index. The researcher used

DuncanVs Modification of the North=Hatt Scale3 as the basis for the

assignment of a socioeconomic score or index to each pupil. The pupils

were then arbitrarily grouped into upper, middle, and lower socio-

economic classes as shown on Table l for the purposes of this research.

 

3ReiSS ’ 26 3-75 0

 

29

TABLE 1

SOCIOECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION
USED IN THIS RESEARCH

 

Duncan's Researcher's Rating
Coded Scale of S E I

 

|\)
on
O
I
(D
LO

Upper

00
\l
O
I
\J
(.0

Middle

\lOm-F'
01
O
I
01
(O

LOCD
PM
00
ll
l—‘N
(OLD

Lower

 

Classification by Achievement. While Form K of the Stanford
reading and arithmetic tests had been given to these pupils as sixth
graders in May, 1961, principals appear not to have let the results play
the major role in making lane placements.

The Stanford Tests in reading and arithmetic, Form J, given in
May, 1962, are the tests referred to throughout this study for determin-
ing if the pupils were in the correct lanes as seventh graders during
their last eight weeks of school. The researcher uses the reading test,
Form J, to evaluate the placements in science, English, and develop-
mental reading, the arithmetic test, Form J, to evaluate placement in
arithmetic as reported in Table 2. Since these tests were given at the
close of the school year, the results had no effect on laning decisions

during the 1961-1962 year.

 

30
TABLE 2

RECOMMENDED LANE PLACEMENT or SEVENTH GRADERS
BASED oN MAY, 1962, STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT
TESTS, FORM J, GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

Stanford Grade Recommended Lane School
Coded Equivalents Placements Rating
1 9.5 5 up X High
2 990.9.”
3 8.5.8.9
u 8.0-8.” Y Average
5 705.709
6 7.0.7.”
7 605‘609
8 600-699
9 5.5-5.9 Z Low
10 500-5.“
11 4.9 6 down

 

Obviously, pupils testing X lane who are incorrectly placed are
assigned too low; Z lane testing pupils can be incorrectly laned in an
upward direction only; Y lane testing pupils can be placed incorrectly

either upward or downward.
I B M Processing

Tabulation of Data. Following key punching of the data on I B M
cards, the researcher determined the S E I distribution of the pupils in
each school. He further determined the correctness and incorrectness of
lane placements in relation to S E I in each subject in each school
using the appropriate Stanford test as the criterion. He then tabulated
the lane changes and recorded the S E I distribution of pupils in

social studies and music in each of the classes in the schools.

 

 

31

Statistical Method and Procedure to be Used in the Analyses of the Data

The Major Hypothesis. The major hypothesis is:

H: No significant relationship exists in three junior high schools
between the seventh grade X, Y, z laning practices and the socio=
economic status of the parents.

The major hypothesis is tested through the testing of three sub-

hypotheses.

Sub-hypothesis l. The first sub-hypothesis is concerned with
the placement of pupils in the laned subjects and if such grouping is
significantly related to the socioeconomic status of the parents. The
sub-hypothesis is as follows:

S-H l: Discrepancies between pupil lane placement and pupil
achievement in science, English, developmental reading,
and arithmetic are not significantly related to the
socioeconomic status of the parents.

It should also be noted that each child was involved in four

separate, independent decisions regarding his lane placements since

each pupil was to be laned according to ability in each of feur separate
and distinct subjects. This fact makes it possible to combine the lane

placements or transfers in all subjects within the school and test for

S E I.relationship with chi square. Whether or not a significant relaa

tionship is feund, the researcher will proceed to use chi square to test
fer a significant relationship in each school in the separate lanes and
in the combined lanes in each laned subject.

It should be noted that S E I categories are combined when
thererare insufficient numbers fer a meaningful chi square test. In

discussing the use of chi square with six or more cells, Siegel states,

"Only after he (the researcher) has combined the categories so that

32
fewer than 20 per cent of the cells have expected frequencies of less
than 5 and no cell has an expected frequency of less than 1 can the
researcher meaningfully apply the chi square test."”
If a significant relationship is found between laning and the
socioeconomic status of the pupils, additional chi square tests are

used to determine where in the lane or lanes the S E I bias exists.

Sub-hypothesis 2. The second sub-hypothesis is concerned with
the lane transfers which were intended to keep the laning process
flexible so that a pupil could be moved upward or downward when his
achievement or lack of achievement merited such transfer. The sub-
hypothesis is as follows:

S-H 2: Lane transfers in science, English, developmental
reading, and arithmetic are not significantly related
to the socioeconomic status of the parents.

Chi square will be used to determine if a significant relation-
ship exists between lane transfers and socioeconomic status of the
parents. A preliminary count indicates that transfers are too few to
be tested by individual subjects within a school. Consequently, it

will be necessary to test the total transfers within each school to

determine if S E I bias exists.

Sub-hypothesis 3. This sub-hypothesis is concerned with the
socioeconomic distribution of pupils in the non-laned subjects of social
studies and music. This sub-hypothesis is:

S-H 3: Grouping in the non-laned classes of social studies and

music is not significantly related to the socioeconomic
status of the parents.

 

”Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Eehavioral
Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1956), 178. '—_

 

33
As previously mentioned in Chapter I, an understood objective of
this junior high school program is to provide the opportunity for the
various socioeconomic levels of society to be associated in the non-
laned areas. Testing this sub-hypothesis by chi square tests should
determine whether or not this objective was achieved for seventh graders

in the three schools.

 

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The analysis of the data is presented in feur sections. First,
the populations of the three schools are compared with the socioeconomic
distribution of the male workers in the nation to provide some under-
standing of S E I characteristics of the schools. Second, sub-
hypothesis 1 is tested by chi square to determine if incorrect placement
in laned subjects is significantly related to the socioeconomic status
of the parents. Third, sub-hypothesis 2 is tested by chi square to
determine if there is a significant relationship between lane transfers
and the socioeconomic status of the parents. Fourth, sub-hypothesis 3
is tested by chi square to determine if placement in the non-laned
subjects of social studies and music is significantly related to the
socioeconomic status of the parents.

Comparison of the Populations of the Three Schools
by S E I with the Population of the Nation

As a preliminary step in the analysis of the data, perhaps some
insight as to the nature of each of the three schools would be provided
by comparing the socioeconomic distribution of their pupils with that of
the nation on Duncan's scale. Table 3 indicates the percentages in

each S E I grouping used by the researcher.

31+

 

35
TABLE 3

COMPARISON or THE socxonconouIc DISTRIBUTION or THE THREE
SCHOOLS WITH THE DISTRIBUTION IN THE NATION]-

 

 

 

 

Duncan's National'“ ’School.l School‘2 School 3

SEI Scale Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage
Upper 70-99 7.3 ‘13.? 5.1 22.3
Middle 30-69 33.0 53.1 n3.8 50.1
Lower 0-29 59.7 33.2 51.1 27.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

It is noted that the socioeconomic scores of the parents of the
pupils in all three schools are above the national average with the
exception of the percentage of upper S E I in School 2. It is evident
that School 3 has the highest mean S E I with School 1 second and
School 2 third.

Analyses by Chi S uare of the Laning in the Basic Subjects
in the Three Schools to Test Subahypothesis 1
As stated in Chapters I and III Sub-hypothesis l is as follows:
S-H l: Discrepancies between pupil lane placement and pupil
achievement in science, English, developmental reading,
and arithmetic are not significantly related to the
socioeconomic status of the parents°

Each school is analyzed separately. As the first step in the
analysis, the chi square test is applied to the combined X lanes of
the four basic subjects to determine if discrepancies between pupil lane

placements and achievement are significantly related at the five per

cent level to the socioeconomic status of the parents. The combined

 

lReiss, 1u7. (The national percentages are the male experi-
enced labor ferce according to the 1950 census.)

 

36
Y lanes of the four subjects are then tested, followed by a similar
test of the combined Z lanes. Next the X, Y, Z lane placements in the
school are added together and tested. Hereafter this step will be
referred to as the testing of the corresponding and the combined lanes
in a school. The results of these tests are reported for School 1 in
Table 4, for School 2 in Table 11, and for School 3 in Table 16.

Whether or not a significant relationship at the .05 level is
found when testing the corresponding and then the combined lanes, each
school is further analyzed by applying the chi square test to each lane
in each basic subject and to the combined lanes in each basic subject.
The results of these tests for School 1 are given in Tables 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, and 10. Additional results for School 2 are reported in Tables l2,
l3, 1%, and 15. The additional results for School 3 are presented in
Tables 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 2a, 25, 26, 27, and 28.

Throughout these tables and in other tables reporting chi square
test results, the observed frequencies are indicated by an "O," the
expected or theoretical frequencies by an "E" for the upper, middle,
and lower socioeconomic groups. Throughout the test of sub-hypothesis
1, upper and middle 8 E I categories are combined when the upper group
numbers are too small to meet Siegel's criteria for test.2

The reader needs to continue to keep in mind that a pupil
testing X (high), Y (average), or Z (low) on the Stanford test is
considered in this research to be correctly laned if he is placed in

the corresponding X, Y, or Z lane.

Analyses of Combined Basic Subject Lanes of School 1. It will

 

2Siegel, 178.

 

37
be recalled that School 1 ranked second of the three schools in regard
to socioeconomic status of parents.
The results of the total number of placements in the four basic
subjects in the corresponding lanes and then in the combined X, Y, Z

lanes are reported in Table u for School 1.

TABLE 9

SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OP LANE PLACEMENTS IN ALL LANES
IN ALL BASIC SUBJECTS IN SCHOOL 1 AS DETERMINED
BY STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

_

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI df
0 E 0 E 0 E x2

x Correct 76 (59.2) 185 (188.5) 63 ( 76.3) df = 2

x Incorrect 18 (3u.8) 114 (110.5) 58 ( uu.7) x2 = 19.33

Y Correct 13 (12.u) 76 ( 80.9) 78 ( 7u.2) df = 2

Y Incorrect 5 ( 5.6) ul ( 36.6) 30 ( 33.8) x2 = 1.09

Z Correct 33a ( 37.5) uu ( 39.5) df = 1

z Incorrect 26a ( 21.5 18 ( 22.5) x2 = 2.89
X,Y,Z Correct 97 (77.6) 286 (302.1) 185 (188.3) df = 2
X,Y,Z Incorrect 23 (92.0) 181 (16u.9) 106 (102.7) x2 = 16.32
df = 1 x?05 = 3.891 df = 2 x?05 = 5.991 S-H 1: Rejected

 

aUpper and middle S E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S E I pupils testing Z lane.

The analyses of the total lane placements in all basic subjects
in School 1 indicate that there is a significant relationship between
the socioeconomic status of the parents and the laning of pupils. The
chi square values suggest that the major portion of the bias may be
arising with placement of pupils testing X lane in some subject or

subjects. However, the tests at this point do not eliminate the

 

‘,QO~

 

 

38
possibility that bias may be found in Y or Z lanes in a certain subject

or subjects.

Analyses of Lanes of Basic Subjects in School 1. The results

are shown in Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

TABLE 5

SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF X, Y, Z LANE PLACEMENTS
IN SCIENCE IN SCHOOL 1 AS DETERMINED BY
STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI d

 

 

0 E 0 E 0 E x
x Correct 16 (12.8) 92 (91.6) 13 (16.6) df = 2
x Incorrect 7 (10.2) 33 (33.9) 17 (13.9) x2 = 3.56
Y Correct 18a (17.7) 19 (19.3) df = 1
Y Incorrect 19a (19.3) 12 (11.7) x2 = 0.03
2 Correct 7a ( 8.5) 10 ( 8.5) df = 1
z Incorrect 9a ( 7.5) 6 ( 7.5) x2 = 1.13
X,Y,Z Correct 21 (16.5) 62 (63.9) 37 (39.6) df = 2
X,Y,Z Incorrect 9 (13.5) 59 (52.1) 35 (32.9) x2 = 3.23
df = 1 ' x?05 = 3.891 df = 2 x?05 = 5.991 S-H 1: Accepted

 

aUpper and middle 8 E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S E I pupils testing Y and Z lanes.

 

39
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF X, Y, Z LANE PLACEMENTS

IN ENGLISH IN SCHOOL 1 AS DETERMINED BY
STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI d5
0 E 0 E 0 E x

X Correct 21 (15.3) 98 (99.8) 16 (19.9) df = 2

x Incorrect 2 ( 7.7) 27 (25.2) 19 (10.1) x2 = 8.81

Y Correct 20a (22.1) 20 (17.9) df = 1

Y Incorrect 12a ( 9.9) 6 ( 8.1) x2 = 1.99

2 Correct 10a (11.5) 13 (11.5) df = 1

z Incorrect 7a ( 5.5) 9 ( 5.5) x2 = 1.21
X,Y,Z Correct 27 (20.2) 72 (78.7) 99 (99.1) df = 2
X,Y,Z Incorrect 3 ( 9.8) 95 (38.3) 29 (23.9) x2 = 8.75
df = 1 x305 = 3.891 df = 2 x305 = 5.991 S-H 1: Accepted

 

aUpper and middle 8 E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S E I pupils testing Y and Z lanes.

Since there is evidence of bias when X, Y,‘Z lanes in School 1
are combined, as well as when pupils testing X lane are considered
alone, further chi tests are essential to locate the bias. Results of

the tests are presented in Tables 7 and 8.

 

90
TABLE 7

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS or PLACEMENT IN x, Y, z
LANES IN ENGLISH IN SCHOOL 1

 

 

 

 

 

Correct Incorrect Chi
S E I Placement Placement Square
0 E O E
Upper 27 (20.2) 3 ( 9.8) 8.80
Middle 72 (78.8) 95 (38.2)
Upper 27 (22.1) 3 ( 7.9) 5.83
Lower 99 (53.9) 29 (19.1)
Middle 72 (79.5) 95 (92.5) 0.60
Lower 99 (96.5) 29 (26.5)
df = 1 x205 = 3.891 S-H 1: Rejected
TABLE 8
CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PLACEMENT IN LANES IN ENGLISH
OF PUPILS TESTING X LANE IN SCHOOL 1
Correct Incorrect Chi
S E I Placement Placement Square
0 E O E
Upper 21 (16.2) 2 ( 6.8) 6.28
Middle 98 (52.8) 27 (22.2)
Upper 21 (16.1) 2 ( 6.9) 8.76
Lower 16 (20.9) 19 ( 9.1)
Middle 98 (95.7) 27 (29.3) 1.09
Lower 16 (18.3) 19 (11.7)
df = 1 x205 = 3.891 S-H 1: Rejected

 

 

 

91

The chi square tests indicate there is a significant relation-
ship between the placement in English of upper S E I pupils testing x
lane and the S E I of the parents.- The lower S E I pupils have the

least chance of being correctly laned of the three S E I groups.

TABLE 9

SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF X, Y, Z LANE PLACEMENTS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL READING IN SCHOOL 1 AS DETERMINED
BY STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI d;
0 E 0 E ' 0 E x

X Correct 19 (15.6) 50 (51.0) 18 (20.9) df = 2

x Incorrect 9 ( 7.9) 25 (29.0) 12 ( 9.6) x2 a 3.25

Y Correct ' 208 (21.5) 19 (17.5) df = 1

Y Incorrect 12a (10.5) 7 ( 8.5) x2 = 0.71

Z Correct 10a (11.0) 12 (11.0) df = 1

z Incorrect 7a ( 6.0) 5 ( 6.0) x2 = 0.52
X,Y,Z Correct 25 (20.2) 79 (78.7) 99 (99.1) df = 2
X,Y,Z Incorrect 5 ( 9.8) 93 (38.3) 29 (23.9) x2 = 9.35

k

df = 1 x?05 = 3.891 df = 2 x?05 = 5.991 S-H 1: Accepted

 

aUpper and middle S E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S E I pupils testing Y and Z lanes.

 

92
TABLE 10

SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF X, Y, Z LANE PLACEMENTS
IN ARITHMETIC IN SCHOOL 1 AS DETERMINED BY
BY STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI df
0 E 0 E 0 E x2
x Correct 20 (15.6) 95 (96.1) 16 (19.3) df = 2
x Incorrect 5 ( 9.9) 29 (27.9) 15 (11.7) x2 = 9.87
Y Correct 31a (31.7) 25 (29.3) df = 1
Y Incorrect 8a ( 7.3) 5 ( 5.7) x2 = 0.19
2 Correct 6a ( 5.9) 9 ( 9.1) df = 1
z Incorrect 3a ( 3.1) 3 ( 2.9) x2 = 0.01b
X,Y,Z Correct 29 (20.7) 78 (80.8) 50 (50.5) df = 2
X,Y,Z Incorrect 6 ( 9.3) 39 (36.2) 23 (22.5) x2 = 2.03
df = 1 x?05 = 3.891 df = 2 x?05 = 5.991 S-H 1: Accepted

 

aUpper and middle S E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S E I pupils testing Y and Z lanes.

bIn eight cases in Tables 10 through 22.a 2 X 2 chi square table
does not have the recommended 5.0 or more expected frequency in each of
the cells. In each case, Yates's Correction for Continuity is used.
The-correction has the effect of reducing by 0.5 the discrepancies in
each cell between the observed and expected frequencies, thereby
reducing the size of the chi square.

Summary of the Analyses of School 1. The placement of pupils
testing Y and Z lanes in School 1 does not indicate a significant rela-
tionship between the placements and the socioeconomic status of the
parents at the 5 per cent level.

The chi square values indicate there is a significant relation-
ship between the placement of upper S E I pupils testing X lane English

and the socioeconomic status of the parents. The combined totals of

pupils testing X lane in the basic subjects indicate a bias exists

 

93

although, when tested separately, science, developmental reading, and
arithmetic chi square values do not reach the .05 level of significance.

Reference to Tablew9 indicates upper S E I pupils testing X lane
in a basic subject in School 1 are correctly placed in X lane 80.9 per
cent, middle S E I pupils 61.9 per cent, and lower 8 E I pupils 52.1 per
cent of the time.

In conclusion, sub-hypothesis l stating--discrepancies between
pupil lane placement and pupil achievement in science, English, devel~
opmental reading, and arithmetic are not significantly related to the

socioeconomic status of the parents--is rejected.

 

Analyses of Combined Basic Subject Lanes of School 2. It will
be noted that only 12 pupils are classified in the upper S E I in
School 2 with the result that upper and middle 8 E I categories are
often combined for testing with chi square.

The results of the chi square tests applied to the correspond-
ing and to the combined lanes of the four basic subjects are reported

in Table 110

 

99
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF LANE PLACEMENTS IN ALL LANES

IN ALL BASIC SUBJECTS IN SCHOOL 2 AS DETERMINED
BY STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI df
0 E 0 E 0 E x2

x Correct 16 (16.1) 136 (128.0) 86 ( 93.9) d; = 2

X Incorrect 11 (10.9) 78 ( 86.0) 71 ( 63.1) X = 2.90

Y Correct 13 (12.1) 76 ( 79.2) 87 ( 89.7) df = 2

Y Incorrect 8 ( 8.9) 53 ( 59.8) 69 ( 66.3) x2 = 0.95

z Correct 33a ( 97.6) 131 (116.9) df = 1

z Incorrect 28a ( 13.9) 18 ( 32.6) x1 = 28.76
X,Y,Z Correct 29 (30.3) 295 (255.5) 309 (292.2) df = 2
X,Y,Z Incorrect 19 (17.7) 159 (198.5) 158 (169.8) x2 = 2.62
df = 1 x?05 = 3.891 df = 2 x305 = 5.991 S-H 1: Rejected

 

aUpper and middle S E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S B I pupils testing Z lane.

While no significant relationship is shown in Table 11 except
with pupils testing Z lane, it is desirable to test each lane and
subject to determine if pupil placement is significantly related to the

S E I of the parents.

Analyses of Lanes of Basic Subjects in School 2. The results

are presented in Tables 12, 13, 19, and 15.

 

95
TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF X, Y, Z LANE PLACEMENTS

IN SCIENCE IN SCHOOL 2 AS DETERMINED BY
STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI df
0 E 0 E 0 E x2

x Correct 30a (29.3) 19 (19.7) df = 1

x Incorrect 31a (31.7) 22 (21.3) x2 = 0.08

Y Correct 21a (19.0) 16 (18.0) dg = 1

Y Incorrect 15a (17.0) 18 (16.0) x = 0.92

Z Correct 7 (11.0) 39 (30.0) df = 1

z Incorrect 9 ( 5.0) 7 (11.0) x2 = 6.69b
X,Y,Z Correct 7 (6.7) 51 (56.0) 69 (69.3) df = 2 I
X,Y,Z Incorrect 5 (5.3) 50 (95.0) 97 (51.7) x2 = 1.80
df = 1 x?05 = 3.891 df = 2 x?05 = 5.991 S-H 1: Rejected

 

aUpper and middle 8 E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S E I pupils.

bYates's Correction is used.

In school 2 lower 8 E I pupils who test Z lane science are
correctly placed in the Z lane significantly more often than the middle
S E I pupils who test Z. None of the upper S E I pupils tested Z lane

Science.

 

96
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF X, Y, Z LANE PLACEMENTS

IN ENGLISH IN SCHOOL 2 AS DETERMINED BY
STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI df
0 E 0 E 0 E x2

x Correct 37a (39.7) 21 (23.3) d; = 1

x Incorrect 29a (26.3) 20 (17.7) x = 0.88

Y Correct 18a (18.5) 18 (17.5) d; = 1

Y Incorrect 18a (17.5) 16 (16.5) X 2 0.06

2 Correct 9 (11.9) 35 (32.1) df = 1 b

2 Incorrect 7 ( 9.1) 6 ( 8.9) x2 = 3.96
X,Y,Z Correct 7 (7.2) 57 (60.9) 79 (69.9) df = 2 i
X,Y,Z Incorrect 5 (9.8) 99 (90.1) 92 (96.1) x2 = 1.25
df = 1 x205 = 3.891 df = 2 x?05 = 5.991 S-H 1: Rejected

8Upper and middle 8 E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S E I pupils.

bYates's Correction is used.

In School 2 lower 8 E I pupils who test Z lane English are
correctly placed in the Z lane Significantly more often than the middle
S E I pupils who test Z. None of the upper S E I pupils tested Z lane

EngliSh o

97

TABLE 19

SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF X, Y, Z LANE PLACEMENTS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL READING IN SCHOOL 2 AS DETERMINED
BY STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI df
_0 E 0 E 0 E x2
x Correct 909 (35.9) 20 (29.1) df = 1
x Incorrect 21a (25.1) 21 (16.9) x2 = 2.83
Y Correct 18a (18.0) 17 (17.0) df = 1
Y Incorrect 18a (18.0) 17 (17.0) x2 = 0.00
Z Correct 8 (12.1) 37 (32.9) df = 1
z Incorrect 8 ( 3.9) 9 ( 8.1) x2 = 8.29b
X,Y,Z Correct 6 (7.3) 60 (61.7) 79 (70.9) df = 2
X,Y,Z Incorrect 6 (9.7) 91 (39.3) 92 (95.1) x2 = 1.06
df = 1 x?05 = 3.891 df = 2 x?05 = 5.991 S-H 1: Rejected

 

aUpper and middle S E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S E I pupils.

bYates's Correction is used.

In School 2 lower S E I pupils who test Z lane developmental
reading are correctly placed in the Z lane significantly more often
than the middle S E I pupils who test Z. None of the upper S E I

pupils tested Z lane developmental reading.

 

98
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF X, Y, Z LANE PLACEMENTS

IN ARITHMETIC IN.SCHOOL 2 AS DETERMINED BY
STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI df
0 E 0 E 0 E x2
x Correct 95a (99.8) 26 (26.2) df = 1
x Incorrect 13a (13.2) 8 ( 7.8) x2 = 0.01
Y Correct 32a (29.7) 36 (38.3) df = 1
Y Incorrect 10a (12.3) 18 (15.7) x2 = 1.08
Z Correct 9 (10.8) 25 (23.2) df = 1
Z Incorrect 9 ( 2.2) l ( 2.8) X2 = 3.07b
X,Y,Z Correct 9 (9.1) 77 (77.0) 87 (86.9) df = 2
X,Y,Z Incorrect 3 (2.9) 29 (29.0) 27 (27.1) x2 = 0.01
df = 1 x?05 = 3.891 df = 2 x?05 = 5.991 S-H 1: Accepted

 

aUpper and middle 8 E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S E I pupils.

bYates's Correction is used.

In School 2 there is no significant difference at the .05 level
in the placement of pupils in arithmetic. None of the upper S E I pupils

tested Z lane arithmetic.

Summary of the Analyses of School 2. No significant relation-
ship is evident in School 2 between pupil placement and the socio-
economic status of the parents except with the Z testing pupils in each
of the basic subjects except arithmetic. Since all 12 upper S E I
pupils tested X or Y lane for every subject, the bias is between middle
and lower 8 E I groups. Expressed in percentages, reference to Table 11

indicates middle S E I pupils testing Z lane are correctly placed Z lane

 

99
59.1 per cent of the time, while lower S E I pupils testing Z lane are
correctly placed Z lane 88.3 per cent of the time.
In conclusion, sub-hypothesis l--stating discrepancies between
pupil lane placement and pupil achievement in science, English, devel-
opmental reading, and arithmetic are not significantly related to the

socioeconomic status of the parents-~13 rejected--except for arithmetic.

Analyses of Combined Basic Subject Lanes of School 3. As
mentioned previously, School 3 ranks highest of the three schools in

socioeconomic status of the parents. The procedure for testing the

 

S E I relationship to laning, if any, will be repeated as for the two
previous schools.

The results of the chi square tests applied to the corresponding
and to the combined lanes of the four basic subjects are reported in

Table 16.

 

50
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF LANE PLACEMENTS IN ALL LANES

IN ALL BASIC SUBJECTS IN SCHOOL 3 AS DETERMINED
BY STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI df
0 E E o E x2

x Correct 172 (199.2) 259 (259.3) 61 ( 88.5) d; = 2

X Incorrect 9o ( 67.8) .122 (121.7) 69 ( 91.5) x = 93.53

Y Correct 27 ( 18.7) 69 ( 67.1) 99 ( 59.2) d; = 2

Y Incorrect 11 ( 19.3) 67 ( 68.9) 71 ( 60.8) x = 10.83

2 Correct 19 ( 11.8) 51 ( 56.5) 69 ( 60.7) df = 2

Z Incorrect 0 ( 2.2) 16 ( 10.5) 8 ( 11.3) X2 = 7.17
X,Y,Z Correct 213 (172.9) 379 (382.3) 179 (210.8) df = 2
X,Y,Z Incorrect 51 ( 91.1) 205 (201.7) 198 (111.2) x2 = 95.69
df = 2 x?05 = 5.991 S-H 1: Rejected

 

The analysis of the total lane placements in all basic subjects
in School 3 indicates there is a significant relationship between the
laning of the pupils and the socioeconomic status of the parents. The
chi square values suggest the most significant relationship is in the
laning of pupils testing X lane. An analysis by lanes in each of the

basic subjects is in order.

 

 

51
TABLE 17

SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF X, Y, Z LANE PLACEMENTS
IN SCIENCE IN SCHOOL 3 AS DETERMINED BY
STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI ' Lower SEI df
0 E 0 E 0 E x2
x Correct 92 (37.0) 67 (67.7) 18 (22.3) df = 2
x Incorrect 11 (16.0) 30 (29.3) 19 ( 9.7) x2 = 5.00
Y Correct 22a (19.5) 12 (19.5) d; = 1
Y Incorrect 17a (19.5) 17 (19.5) x = 1.50
Z Correct 18a (18.2) 15 (19.8) df = 1
z Incorrect 5a ( 9.8) 5 ( 5.2) x2 = 0.02b
X,Y,Z Correct 53 (93.7) 96 (96.7) 95 (53.6) d; = 2
X,Y,Z Incorrect 13 (22.3) 50 (99.3) 36 (27.9) X = 9.95
df = 1 x205 = 3.891 df = 2 x?05 = 5.991 S-H 1: Rejected

 

aUpper and middle S E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S E I pupils testing Y and Z lanes.

bYates°s Correction is used.

Since there is evidence of S E I bias when X, Y, Z lanes in
science in School 3 are combined as shown in Table 17, further chi

square tests are essential. Results of the tests are given in Table 18.

 

 

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PLACEMENT IN X, Y, Z
LANES IN SCIENCE IN SCHOOL 3

 

 

 

Correct Incorrect Chi
S E I Placement Placement Square
0 E O E
Upper 53 ( 96.9) 13 (19.6) 9.59
Middle 96 (102.6) 50 (93.9)
Upper 53 ( 99.0) 13 (22.0) 10.02
Lower 95 ( 59.0) 36 (27.0)
Middle 96 ( 90.7) 50 (55.3) 2.29
Lower 95 ( 50.3) 36 (30.7)
df = 1 x?05 SaH l: Rejected

 

The chi square values indicate there is a significant relation-

ship between the placement of upper S E I pupils in science and the

S E I of the parents.

being correctly laned of the three 8 E I groups.

The lower 8 E I pupils have the least chance of

 

 

 

53

TABLE 19

SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF X, Y, Z LANE PLACEMENTS
IN ENGLISH IN SCHOOL 3 AS DETERMINED BY
STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI df
0 E 0 E 0 E x2
X Correct 93 (35.8) 67 (65.6) 13 (21.6) df = 2
x Incorrect 10 (17.2) 30 (31.9) 19 (10.9) x2 = 15.09
Y Correct 19a (18.9) 13 (13.6) df = 1
Y Incorrect 20a (20.6) 16 (15.9) x2 = 0.09
Z Correct 18a (19.8) 20 (18.2) df = 1
z Incorrect 5a ( 3.2) 0 ( 1.8) x2 = 3.15b
X,Y,Z Correct 59 (93.2) 93 (95.7) 95 (53.1) df = 2 .
X,Y,Z Incorrect 12 (22.8) 53 (50.3) 36 (27.9) x2 = 11.62
df = x?05 = 3.891 df = 2 x205 = 5.991 99H 1: Rejected
aUpper and middle 8 E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S E I pupils testing Y and Z lanes.
bYates's Correction is used.
There is evidence of S E I bias in English placement when
pupils in the three lanes in School 3 are considered together. Chi

square test results locating the bias are reported in Table 20.

 

 

59

TABLE 20

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PLACEMENT 0P PUPILS IN
x, Y, z LANES IN ENGLISH IN SCHOOL 3

 

 

 

Correct Incorrect Chi
S B I Placement Placement Square
0 E . O E
Upper 59 ( 95.8) 12 (20.2) 6.96
Middle 93 (101.2) 53 (99.8)
Upper 59 ( 99.9) 12 (21.6) 11.52
Lower 95 ( 59.6) 36 (26.9)
Middle 93 ( 88.8) 53 (57.2) 1.92
Lower 95 ( 99.2) 36 (31.8)
df = l x305 = 3.891 SaH 1: Rejected

 

The chi square values indicate there is a significant relation-
ship between the placement of upper S B I pupils in English and the
S E I of the parents.

The chi square values indicate S E I bias in the placement of
pupils in English testing X lane in SChool 3. Chi square analysis of
the placement of the three S E I groups is desirable. The results are

presented in Table 21.

 

 

 

55

TABLE 21

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PLACEMENT IN LANES IN ENGLISH
OF PUPILS TESTING X LANE IN SCHOOL 3

 

 

 

 

Correct Incorrect Chi
S E I Placement Placement Square
0 E O E
Upper 93 (38.9) 10 (19.1) 2.51
Middle 67 (71.1) 30 (25.9)
Upper 93 (39.9) 10 (18.1) 19.63
Lower 13 (21.1) 19 (10.9)
Middle 67 (60.2) 30 (36.8) 8.15
Lower 13 (19.8) 19 (12.2) '
df = 1 x205 = 3.891 . s-H l: Rejected

 

The chi square values indicate there is a significant relation-
ship between the placement of upper S E I pupils who test X lane English
and the socioeconomic status of the parents. The middle 8 E I pupils
testing X lane English also have a significantly better chance than the

lower 8 E I of being correctly laned.

 

 

 

56

TABLE

22

SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF X, Y, Z LANE PLACEMENTS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL READING IN SCHOOL 3 AS DETERMINED
BY STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI df
0 E 0 E 0 E x2
X Correct 92 (35.2) 66 (69.5) 13 (21.3) df = 2
x Incorrect 11 (17.8) 31 (32.5) 19 (10.7) x2 = 13.69
Y Correct 2Oa (18.9) 13 (19.1) df = 1
Y Incorrect 19a (20.1) 16 (19.9) X2 = 0.29
Z Correct 18a (18.8) 18 (17.2) df = 1
Z Incorrect 5a ( 9.2) 2 ( 2.8) X2 = 0.95b
X,Y,Z Correct 53 (92.8) 93 (99.7) 99 (52.5) df = 2 e
X,Y,Z Incorrect 13 (23.2) 53 (51.3) 37 (28.5) x2 = 10.91

 

x205 = 3.891 df = 2 x205 = 5.991 S-H 1: Rejected

 

aUpper and middle 8 E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S E I pupils testing Y and Z lanes.

bYates's Correction is used.

The chi square values indicate 8 E I bias in developmental
reading lane placement in School 3 when the three lanes are considered
together. Results of tests to determine the location of the bias are

shown on Table 23.

 

57

TABLE 23

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PLACEMENT IN X, Y, Z LANES OF
PUPILS IN DEVELOPMENTAL READING IN SCHOOL 3

 

 

 

 

Correct Incorrect Chi
S E I Placement Placement Square
0 E O E

Upper 53 ( 95.5) 13 (20.5) 5.78

Middle 93 (100.5) 53 (95.5)

Upper 53 ( 93.6) 13 (22.9) 10.83

Lower 99 ( 53.9) 37 (27.6)

Middle 93 ( 88.1) 53 (57.9) 1.92

Lower 99 ( 98.9) 37 (32.1)

df = 1 X?05 = 3.891 S-H l: Rejected i

 

The chi square values indicate there is a significant relation-
ship between the placement of upper S E 1 pupils in developmental read-
ing and the S E I of the parents.

The chi square test indicates S E I bias in the placement of
pupils testing X lane developmental reading in School 3. The results
of further tests to determine the location of the bias are given in

Table 29.

 

 

58

TABLE 29

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PLACEMENT IN LANES IN DEVELOPMENTAL
READING OF PUPILS TESTING X LANE IN SCHOOL 3

 

 

 

 

Correct Incorrect Chi
S E I Placement Placement Square
0 E O E
Upper 92 (38.2) 11 (19.8) 2.09
Middle 66 (6908) 31 (2702)
Upper 92 (39.3) 11 (18.7) 13.01
Lower 13 (20.7) 19 (11.3)
Middle 66 (59.9) 31 (37.6) 7.63
Lower 13 (19.6 19 (12.9)
df = 1 x?05 = 3.891 S-H 1: .Rejected

 

‘D

The results indicate an upper S E 1 bias in laning of pupils

testing X lane in developmental reading.

 

 

59
TABLE 25
SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES 0F X, Y, Z LANE PLACEMENTS IN

ARITHMETIC IN SCHOOL 3 AS DETERMINED BY
STANFORD GRADE EQUIVALENTS

 

 

 

Tested Placement Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI df
o E 0 E o E x2

x Correct 95 (36.2) 59 (61.5) 17 (23.3) df = 2

x Incorrect 8 (16.8) 31 (28.5) 17 (10.7) x2 = 12.98

Y Correct 6 ( 5.6) 29 (23.5) 11 (16.9) df = 2

Y Incorrect 5 ( 5.9) 17 (22.5) 22 (16.1) x2 = 6.91

z Correct 11a (11.0) 11 (11.0) df = 1

z Incorrect la ( 1.0) 1 ( 1.0) x2 = 0.00
X,Y,Z Correct 53 (92.9) 97 (99.8) 39 (51.3)” d; = 2
X,Y,Z Incorrect 13 (23.1) 99 (51.2) 90 (27.7) X = 15.35
df = 2 x205 = 5.991 59H 1: Rejected

 

aUpper and middle S E I categories are combined because of the
small number of upper S E I pupils testing Z lane.

The chi square values indicate bias in arithmetic lane placement
in School 3 when pupils in the three lanes are considered together.

Results are presented in Table 26.

 

 

60

TABLE 26

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PLACEMENT IN X, Y, Z LANES
OF PUPILS IN ARITHMETIC IN SCHOOL 3

 

 

 

 

Correct Incorrect Chi
S E I Placement Placement Square
0 E O E
Upper 53 ( ”607) 13 (1903) “622
Middle 97 (103.3) 99 (92.7)
Upper 53 ( 91.9) 13 (29.1) 19.78
Lower 39 ( 50.1) 90 (28.9)
Middle 97 ( 88.2) 99 (57.8) 6.32
Lower 39 ( 97.8) 90 (31.2)
i
df = 1 x?05 = 3.891 S-H 1: Rejected

 

The chi square analysis of the arithmetic placement in School 3
indicates the upper S E I pupils are correctly laned significantly more
often than the middle or lower S E I pupils. The middle S E I are also
correctly laned significantly more often than the lower S E I pupils.

The chi square value indicates S E I bias in arithmetic lane
placement of pupils testing X lane in School 3. The results of

further tests of this group are given in Table 27.

 

61
TABLE 27

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PLACEMENT IN LANES IN ARITHMETIC
OF PUPILS TESTING X LANE IN SCHOOL 3

 

 

 

 

Correct Incorrect Chi
S E I Placement Placement Square
0 E O E
Upper 95 (38.5) 8 (19.5) 6.38
Middle 59 (65.5) 31 (29.5)
Upper 95 (37.8) 8 (15.2) 12.21
Lower 17 (29.2) 17 ( 9.8)
Middle 59 (55.2) 31 (39.8) 2.96
Lower 17 (20.8) 17 (13.2)
df = 1 x?05 = 3.891 SwH 1: Rejected

 

Again upper S E I pupils testing X lane are correctly laned

significantly more often than the other two groups with the lower

8 E I having the least chance of correct placement. ;
For the first time in this study pupils testing Y lane by

Stanford test show a significant chi square value in considering the

Y lane alone. The results of further tests are reported in Table 28.

“i

 

62
TABLE 28

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PLACEMENT IN LANES IN ARITHMETIC
OF PUPILS TESTING Y LANE IN SCHOOL 3

 

 

Correct Incorrect Chi
S E I Placement Placement Square
0 E O E
Upper and Middle 35 (29.1) 22 (27.9) 6.67
Lower 11 (16.9) 22 (16.1)
Middle 29 (23.3) 17 (22.7) 6.76
Lower 11 (16.7) 22 (16.3)
df = 1 x?05 = 3.891 5-8 1: Rejected

 

 

Since the upper S E I category is too small to be appropriate
for the chi square test, it is combined with the middle S E I. Again
the lower S E I pupils are incorrectly laned significantly more often

than the other two groups.

Summary of the Analyses of School 3. School 3 with the highest
proportion of upper S E I pupils has the highest incidence of signifi-
cant relationship between laning pupils and the socioeconomic status
of the parents. The relationship is most significant with the place-
ment of the upper S E I. However, it also extends to the correct
placement of middle S E I pupils significantly more often in English,
developmental reading, and arithmetic.

Reference to Table 16 indicates upper S E I seventh grade
pupils testing X lane in a basic subject in School 3 are correctly
placed in X lane 81.1 per cent, middle S E I pupils 68.0 per cent,

and lower 8 E I pupils 97.0 per cent of the time. Pupils testing Y

 

63

lane, reported in the same order, had percentages of correct placement
of 71.1, 50.7, and 50.8. Rather surprisingly, judged from the X and
Y testing placements, all 19 of the upper S E I testing Z lane were
correctly laned Z. The percentages of the three groups are 100.0,
76.1, and 89.0.

In conclusion, sub-hypothesis l stating--discrepancies between
pupil lane placement and pupil achievement in science, English,
developmental reading, and arithmetic are not significantly related to

the socioeconomic status of the parents--is rejected.

Summary of the Analyses of Sub-hypothesis l in the Three Schools.

The rejection of sub-hypothesis 1 is indicated by the chi square
analyses in all three schools. The S E I bias in Schools 1 and 3
related primarily to the upper socioeconomic pupils. In School 3 the
bias included middle S E I in comparison with lower 8 E I pupils testing
X lane in English, developmental reading, and arithmetic. In contrast,
it should be noted that the relationship between pupil placement in the
laned subjects and the S E I of the parents, involved the lower S E I

pupils in School 2.

Analysis of Pupil Transfers in Laned Subjects

S-H 2: Lane transfers in science, English, developmental readu
ing, and arithmetic are not significantly related to the
socioeconomic status of the parents.

Analysis of Sub-hypothesis 2. A summary of lane transfers in

the basic subjects in the three schools is presented in Table 29.

 

 

 

6”

TABLE 29

SUMMARY 0? LANE TRANSFERS IN ALL BASIC
SUBJECTS IN THE THREE SCHOOLS

 

 

 

.d ~=‘ Direction of. Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI
School Lane Change N N N
l Non-transfers 113 #57 280
Upward 7 8 5
Downward __9_ __2_ __6_
Totals 120 #67 291
2 Non-transfers #6 387 #53
Upward 2 l2 9
Downward _9_ __S_ __9_
Totals us non #62
3 Non-transfers 258 561 306 ‘
Upward 5 1H 8
Downward l 9 8
Totals 5611' 5'85 372

 

The 2,962 lane placements shown in Table 29 involved 7u1 pupils
in the basic subjects. Seventy-four pupils, or 10 per cent of the en-
rollment in the seventh grade, were involved in lane transfers. Seventy-
one of the transfers were upward, thirty downward. The 101 lane
transfers are 3.H per cent of the total lane placements.

A summary of the chi test analyses of lane transfers is pro-m

sented in Table 30.

 

65

TABLE 30

SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSES OF ALL LANE
TRANSFERS IN COMBINED BASIC SUBJECTS

 

 

 

Upper SEI ' Middle SEI Lower SEI
School 0 E O E 0 E
l Non=transfers 113 (116.2) #57 (”52.1) 280 (281.7)
Transfers 7 ( 3.8) 10 ( lu.9) ll ( 9.3)
2 Non-transfers #6 ( #6.5) 387 (391.6) 953 (uu7.9)
Transfers 2 ( 1.5) 17 ( 12.h) 9 ( 14.1)
3 Non-transfers 258 (253.9) 561 (561.5) 306 (309.6)
Transfers 6 ( 10.1) 23 ( 22.5) 16 ( l2.u)
School l--x2 = u.77 2
df = 2 School 2-—x2 = 3.84 x.os = 5.991 SeH 2: Accepted
School 3--x2 = 2.83

 

While no school shows a significant relationship at the .05
level between lane transfers and the S E I of the parents, the chi
square values suggest there is some degree of significance. Conse-'
quently, the researcher further tested by combining categories in various
combinations to attempt to discover 8 E I bias. These tests consis-

tently resulted in chi square values insignificant at the .05 level.

Summary of the Analyses of Sub-hypothesis 2 in the Three
Schools. If the reader shared the researcher°s expectation of greater
incidence of transfers, the 3.u percentage of transfers of the 2,962
lane placements is of special interest.

The chi square values indicate there is no significant relation-
ship at the .05 level between lane transfers and the socioeconomic

status of the parents.

 

 

 

66
In conclusion, sub-hypothesis 2 stating-=lane transfers in
science, English, developmental reading, and arithmetic are not
significantly related to the socioeconomic status of the parents--is

accepted.

 

Analyses of Pu il Placements in Non-laned Classes
of Social Studies and Music

S-H 3: Grouping in non-laned classes of social studies and
music is not significantly related to the socioeconomic
status of the parents.

Analysis of School 1. In order to meet the requirements cited

by Siegel3 of no expected frequency less than one and no more than 20
per cent of the cells with expected frequencies less than five in

tables with six or more cells, it is necessary to combine the upper and
middle S E I categories in School 1 to use chi square to test the data.
Therefore, the actual distribution of pupils by socioeconomic status

in each of the social studies and music classes in School 1 is presented

in Tables 31 and 32.

 

3Siegel, 173.

 

67

TABLE 31

DISTRIBUTION OF SEVENTH GRADE PUPILS IN NONeLANED
SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSES BY S E I
OF PARENTS IN SCHOOL 1

 

 

 

 

Class Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI Totals
Subject Identification N N . N N
Social 008 2 la 13 29
Studies 009 7 l6 10 33
02M 4 13 15 32
025 S 20 5 30
026 3 17 10 30
027 u 21 10 35
028 .2. .22. 12. .2;
Totals 30 117 73 220
TABLE 32

DISTRIBUTION OF SEVENTH GRADE PUPILS IN
NON-LANED MUSIC CLASSES BY 8 E I
OF PARENTS IN SCHOOL 1

 

 

Class Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI Totals
Subject Identification N N N ‘ N
Music 001 2 16 15 33
002 2 22 10 an
003 1 In 17 32
(Band) 004 9 36 n 49
005 10 16 12 38
007 6 13 15 3”
Totals 30' m 73' .275.

 

Analyses of the social studies and music classes are presented
in Tables 33, 3k, and 35. As in previous tables the observed and

wexpected frequencies are indicated by "O" and "E.”

 

68

TABLE 33

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PUPIL PLACEMENT IN SCHOOL 1 IN
NON-LANED SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSES IN RELATION
TO THE S E I OF THE PARENTS

 

 

 

 

Class Upper and
Subject Identification Middle SEI Lower SEI Totals
0 E O E N
Social 008 16 (19.h) 13 ( 9.6) 29
Studies 009 23 (22.1) 10 (10.9) 33
02k 17 (21.9) 15 (10.6) 32
025 25 (20.0) 5 (10.0) 30
026 20 (20.0) 10 (10.0) 30
027 25 (23.4) 10 (11.6) 35
028 21 (20.7) ggi(lo.3) 31
Totals 107 73 220
df = 6 x2 = 8.7a x205 = 12.592 : S-H 3: Accepted
TABLE 3”

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PUPIL PLACEMENT IN SCHOOL 1 IN
NON-LANED MUSIC CLASSES IN RELATION TO
THE S E I OF THE PARENTS

 

 

Class Upper and
Subject Identification Middle SEI Lower SEI Totals
0 E 0 E N
Music 001 18 (22.0) 15 (11.0) 33
002 2a (22.7) 10 (11.3) an
003 15 (21.9) 17 (10.6) 32
(Band) con 45 (32.8) n (16.2) 89
005 26 (25.9) 12 (12.6) 38
007 19 (22.7) 15 (11.3) an
Totals W7 73 '23?

 

df

II
01

x2 = 23.77 x305 = 11.070 S-H 3: Rejected

 

 

69
There is no significant relationship at the .05 level between
the placement of pupils in School 1 in the non-laned classes of social
studies and the S E I of the parents. There is a significant relation-
ship in music. However, since band is an elective, composed chiefly
of upper and middle S E I pupils in this school, the general music
classes are tested by chi square with the band class omitted. The

results are presented in Table 35.

TABLE 35

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PUPIL PLACEMENT IN SCHOOL 1 OP
NON-LANED CLASSES OF MUSIC IN RELATION
TO THE S E I OF THE PARENTS

 

 

 

Class Upper and
Subject Identification Middle SEI Lower SEI Totals
0 E O E N
Music 001 18 (19.7) 15 (13.3) 33
002 29 (20.3) 10 (13.7) an
003 15 (19.1) 17 (12.9) 32
005 26 (22.6) 12 (15.0) 38
007 19 (20.3) 15 (13.7) 31}
Totals T52 69 I’ll-f
df = u x2 = 5.69 x?os = 9.888 S-H 3: Accepted

 

When the music classes without the band class are tested
by chi square, there is no significant relationship between the place-

ment of pupils and the S E I of the parents in School 1.

Analysis of School 2. As in School 1 where the upper and middle
8 E I groups needed to be combined, the distribution of pupils in social
studies and music by socioeconomic status of parents is shown in Tables

36 and 37.

 

70

TABLE 36

DISTRIBUTION OF SEVENTH GRADE PUPILS IN NONaLANED
SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSES BY 3 E I
OF PARENTS IN SCHOOL 2

 

 

 

Class Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI Totals

Subject Identification N N N N
Social 045 4 15 16 35
Studies 046 0 15 20 35
047 0 15 15 30

048 2 17 15 34

049 2 14 17 33

060 l 7 12 20

061 3 10 13 26

077 - .2. 1.2. .11. .22

Totals 12 102 119 233

TABLE 37

DISTRIBUTION OF SEVENTH GRADE PUPILS IN
NONcLANED MUSIC CLASSES BY 8 E I
OF PARENTS IN SCHOOL 2

 

 

Class Upper SEI Middle SEI Lower SEI Totals

Subject Identification N N N N
Music) 057 3 9 16 28
058 0 13 13 26

093 1 13 18 32

094 2 14 19 35

066 O 11 12 23

(Band) 067 1 10 13 20
068 3 18 16 37

(Band) 069 _2_ J: J; __2_§_
Totals 12 102 119 233

 

The results of the chi square analyses of the nonulaned classes

of social studies and music are presented in Tables 38 and 39.

 

71

TABLE 38

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PUPIL PLACEMENT IN SCHOOL 2 IN
NON-LANED CLASSES OF SOCIAL STUDIES IN RELATION
TO THE S E I OF THE PARENTS

 

 

 

 

Class Upper and
Subject Identification Middle SEI Lower SEI Totals
0 E 0 E N
Social 045 19 (17.1) 16 (17.9) 35
Studies 046 15 (17.1) 20 (17.9) 35
047 15 (14.7) 15 (15.3) 30
048 19 (16.7) 15 (17.3) 34
049 16 (16.1) 17 (16.9) 33
060 8 ( 9.8) 12 (10.2) 20
061 13 (12.7) 13 (13.3) 26
077 _.9_( 9.8) A]; (10.2) .22.
Totals 114 119 , 233
df = 7 x2 = 2.34 x?05 = 14.067 S-H 3: Accepted
TABLE 39

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PUPIL PLACEMENT IN SCHOOL 2 IN
NON-LANED CLASSES OF MUSIC IN RELATION '
TO THE S E I 0? THE PARENTS

 

 

Class Upper and
Subject Identification Middle SEI Lower SEI Totals
0 E 0 E N
Music 057 p 12 (13.7) 16 (14.3) 28
058 13 (12.7) 13 (13.3) 26
093 14 (15.7) 18 (16.3) 32
094 16 (17.1) 19 (17.9) 35
066 11 (11.3) 12 (11.7) 23
(Band) 067 11 (11.7) 13 (12.3) 24
068 21 (18.1) 16 (18.9) 37
(Band) 069 .12 (13.7) _1_2_ (14.3) _g_§_
Totals 114 119 233

 

df x2 = 2.69 x205 = 14.067 S-H 3: Accepted

II
\I

 

72

In School 2 the placement of pupils in Social studies and
music is not significantly related at the .05 level to the S B I of the

parents according to the chi square values.

Analysis of School 3. The results of the chi square analyses
of the placement of pupils in social studies and music classes are

presented in Tables 40 and 41.

TABLE 40

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PUPIL-PLACEMENT IN SCHOOL 3
IN NON-LANED CLASSES OF SOCIAL STUDIES IN
RELATION TO THE S E I OF THE PARENTS

 

 

Class Upper Middle Lower
Subject Identification S E I S E I S B I Totals
0 E O E 0 E N
Social 159 9 (5.2) 9 (11.5) 5 (6.3) 23
Studies 160 1 (5.6) 12 (12.5) 12 (6.9) 25
147 4 (6.3) 13 (14.0) 11 (7.7) 28
148 11 (7.2) 17 (16.0) 4 (8.8) 32
149 4 (4.7) 10 (10.5) 7 (5.8) 21
150 5 (7.4) 14 (16.5) 14 (9.1) 33
151 10 (7.8) 20 (17.5) 5 (9.7) 35
130 6 (7.0) 15 (15.5) 10 (8.5) 31
131 13 (7.4) 14 (16.5) 5*89.l) 33
132 _3_ (7.4) 23 (16.5) __7_(9.1) 33
Totals 66 1'47 81 2971'

 

df = 18 x2 = 37.36 x?05 = 28.869 S-H 3: Rejected

 

 

73
TABLE 41

CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF PUPIL PLACEMENT IN SCHOOL 3 IN
NON-LANED CLASSES OF MUSIC IN RELATION
TO THE S E I OF THE PARENTS

 

 

Class Upper Middle Lower
Subject Identification S E I S E I S B I Totals
' 0 E 0 E 0 E N
Music 133 16 (11.5) 21 (25.5) 14 (14.0) 51
134 9 (12.1) 32 (27.0) 13 (14.9) 54
135 11 (12.6) 25 (28.0) 20 (15.4) 56
136 7 (10.3) 22 (23.0) 17 (12.7) 46
(Band) 137 4 ( 3.8) 9 ( 8.5) 4 ( 4.7) 17
(Band) 138 8 ( 6.3) 14 (14.0) 6 ( 7.7) 28
(Band) 140 4 ( 4.5) 13 (10.0) 3 ( 5.5) 20
(Band) 141 __'{_( 4.9) __1_1_ (11.0) _l_g( 6.1) 33
Totals 66 147 81 294
df = 14 x2 = 13.66 x?05 = 28.869 S-H 3: Accepted

 

Chi square values indicate there is a significant relationship
at the .05 level between the placement of pupils in social studies and
the S E I of the parents. There is no significant relationship in the

placement in music classes and the S E I of the parents.

Summagy of the Analyses of Sub-hypothesis 3 in the Three

Schools. Chi square values indicate there is a significant relationship
at the .05 level between pupil placement in the non-laned subject of

social studies and the S B I of the parents in School 3. When band is
included in the analysis of the music classes in School 1, a simiIar
significant relationship is indicated. However, when School 1 music
c1aSsee are teetedt'with band omitted'from the group, there is no

significant relationship. Other classes in the three schools show no

significant relationship at the .05 level.

 

 

74
In conclusion, sub-hypothesis 3 stating-~grouping in non-laned
classes of social studies and music is not significantly related to the

socioeconomic status of the parents--is rejected.
Chapter Summary_

Sub-hypothesis l stating--discrepancies between pupil lane
placement and pupil achievement in science, English, developmental
reading, and arithmetic are not significantly related to the socio-
economic status of the parents-~is rejected. In at least one lane in
each of the three schools, incorrect placements are related at the .05
level to the socioeconomic Status of the parents.

The S E I bias in Schools 1 and 3 is related primarily to the
upper socioeconomic pupils. Both schools show significant chi square
values at the .05 level when the placements in all lanes in each of
the schools are combined. Further analysis in School 1 indicates the
problem rests chiefly with the upper socioeconomic pupils testing X
lane. However, only in English is the chi square value sufficiently
high to be significant at the .05 level when each subject is tested
separately. In School 3, discrepancies in placements in all four basic
subjects are significantly related at the .05 level to the socioeconomic
status of the parents. The bias is primarily with the placement of
upper S E I pupils although there is significant bias in the placement
of the middle S E I pupils in relation to the lower S E I in English,
developmental reading, and arithmetic.

In contrast, in School 2 no significant relationship is
indicated by chi square tests when all the placements are added

together. However, when the placement of pupils testing Z lane is

 

75
tested, the lower S B I pupils in each subject except arithmetic are
correctly placed significantly more often at the .05 level than the
middle S E I pupils. None of the twelve upper S E I pupils tested
Z lane.

Placements in the three schools can be summed up by stating
that upper S E I pupils testing X lane are correctly placed approxi-
mately four fifths of the time, middle S E I pupils two thirds of the
time, and lower S E I pupils one half the time.

Sub-hypothesis 2 stating--lane transfers in science, English,
developmental reading, and arithmetic are not significantly related to
the socioeconomic status of the parents-~is accepted. Since there are
only three and four-tenths transfers per hundred placements in the
schools, the transfers in all basic subjects in each school are added
together and tested by chi square. In none of the three schools is
there a significant relationship at the .05 level between lane transfers
and the socioeconomic status of the parents. The small number of lens
transfers is certainly of interest.

Sub-hypothesis 3 stating--grouping in non-laned classes of
social studies and music is not significantly related to the socio-
economic status of the parents--is rejected, but not in all three
schools. School 1 indicates a relationship at the .05 level only
when band, an elective,is included in the music classes for the chi
square tests. In School 2, there is no significant relationship. In
School 3, there is a significant relationship at the .05 level between
the grouping of pupils in social studies and the socioeconomic status
of the parents.

In conclusion, the major hypothesis stating--no significant

 

76
relationship exists in three junior high schools between the seventh
grade X, Y, Z laning practices and the socioeconomic status of the

parents--is rejected.

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The Basic Problem. This study is an outgrowth of the research-
er's interest in X, Y, Z laning used in some junior high schools. The
basic question investigated in this research is: IS the operation of
the X, Y, Z laning system significantly related to or independent of
the socioeconomic status of the parents? To assure equal educational
opportunities for every pupil in the school, the school and its laning
system are expected to operate in such a manner that no arbitrary limita-
tions through its laning system exist for any one pupil or segment of
pupils. Any such limitations would reduce the opportunities for upward
socioeconomic mobility deemed essential in a democratic society.

The researcher constructed the major hypothesis to be tested by
three sub-hypotheses as fellows:

H: No significant relationship exists in three junior high schools
between the seventh grade X, Y, Z laning practices and the socio-
economic status of the parents.

S-H l: Discrepancies between pupil lane placement and pupil
achievement in science, English, developmental reading,
and arithmetic are not significantly related to the
socioeconomic status of the parents.

S-H 2: Lane transfers in science, English, developmental
reading, and arithmetic are not significantly related
to the socioeconomic status of the parents.

S-H 3: Grouping in the non-laned classes of social studies and

77

78
music is not significantly related to the socioeconomic
status of the parents.

Review of the Literature. A review of the literature reveals
ability or achievement grouping to be a controversial issue. Research
findings are contradictory. Many writers question the quality and
findings of much of the research. However, the evidence to date slightly
favors the practice as a means of increasing achievement-aespecially if
pupils are grouped by ability in the specific subject and when materials

and methods are adapted to the group.

Selection of Populations, X, Y, Z laning had been adopted in
1959 for the junior high schools of a midwestern city of over 160,000
during its change from 8-4 to a 6-3-3 plan of organization. The
seventh grade pupils of three of the eleven schools were selected. A

number of considerations entered the choice of grade and schools such as:
1. Availability of data for the seventh grade

2. A range in size from one of the smallest to one of the largest

seventh grades in the city

3. All-white enrollments eliminating the possible complicating racial

factor

4. Probable differences in socioeconomic distribution of pupils among

the three schools

5. Recognition of the influence of both theeelementary and junior high

school faculties on seventh grade laning.

79

Collection and Processing ofgthgfiData. The following informa-

tion concerning the seventh graders was recorded:

1. Socioeconomic index scores, determined by the socioeconomic status

of the parents--using Duncan's Modification of the North-Matt Scale

2. May, 1961, sixth grade Stanford reading and arithmetic achievement

grade equivalents

3. May, 1962, seventh grade Stanford reading and arithmetic achievement

grade equivalents

4. Lane placements as of May, 1962, in science, English, developmental

reading, and arithmetic
5. Lane transfers during the 196l=1962 school year

6. Specific class placements as of May, 1962, in nonslaned social

studies and music.

Pupils in each school were classified by upper, middle, and
lower socioeconomic statuses. The pupils were also classified as rating
high, average, or low by Stanford reading and Stanford arithmetic grade

equivalents. The data was tabulated in preparation for analysis.

Statistical Method and Procedure in the Analysis of the Data.
The chi square technique was used to analyze the data. Lane placements
were tested by chi square in each school by combined lanes and subjects,
by combined lanes in each subject, and by each lane in each subject for
possible significant relationship to the socioeconomic status of the

parents. Lane transfers and placement in nonolaned classes were also

 

80
tested for socioeconomic bias. Upper and middle socioeconomic categories
were combined when upper S E I pupils were insufficient for meaningful‘
chi square tests. Pupils were judged by the researcher to be correctly
or incorrectly laned according to the May, 1962, Stanford achievement

grade equivalents.
Conclusions

In all three junior high schools there was evidence of socio=
economic bias in placements in laned subjects. When pupils were tested
by Stanford achievement tests at the end of the seventh grade, analysis
of the results indicated many pupils were not in the recommended lanes
according to city-wide standards. Significantly from the socioeconomic
viewpoint, upper S E I pupils testing X (top) lane were incorrectly
laned too low approximately one time in five; middle S E I pupils with
similar X lane test scores were incorrectly laned too low approximately
one time in three; while lower S E I pupils testing X lane were ins
correctly laned too low approximately half the time.

In School 2, the evidence of bias was in the laning of lower
S E I pupils testing Z (lowest) lane with these pupils being correctly
laned 88.3 per cent of the time. In contrast, the middle S E I
pupils testing Z lane were correctly laned 54.1 per cent of the time.
There were only twelve upper S E I pupils in School 2, none of which
tested Z lane.

In regard to laning, the evidence indicated that the socio»
economic status of the parents affected the opportunity of some pupils
for placement in lanes for which they were qualified according to the

post-Stanford tests.

 

81

The socioeconomic class bias did not extend to lane transfers.
Possibly'the noteworthy factor is the three and fear-tenths transfers
per hundred placements. This raises the question whether this percent-
age of lane transfers kept up with unusual pupil growth or lack of
growth as planned by the organizers of this junior high school
program.

The originators of the program had also expected, in order to
hedge against the possibility of a degree of socioeconomic segregation
in the laned subjects, to lane pupils heterogeneously in the non-laned
subjects of social studies and music. Chi square values at the 5 per
cent level indicated this objective was not achieved in social studies
in School 3, or in band, an elective, in School 1. Chi square tests
of other music and social studies classes did not indicate a significant
relationship at the .05 level between assignment to classes and the
socioeconomic status of the parents.

In conclusion, sub-hypotheses 1 and 3 were rejected; subs
hypothesis 2 was accepted. Therefore, the major hypothesis that no
significant relationship exists between laning practices and the socio-

economic status of the parents was rejected.
Implications and Recommendations

An X, Y, Z laning system is based on the premise that this
administrative device will provide the opportunity for increased
learning by permitting the adaptation of instructional materials and
teaching methods to the particular group. The literature reveals that
homogeneous grouping often is not accompanied by this adaptation. In

fact, in the Seventh grade in the schools used in this research, only in

82

language arts was there a definite effort to select instructional
materials for the specific lanes. In the other laned subjects of
science and arithmetic, all pupils were expected to cover essentially
the same materials in the same period of time. Consequently, this
left the teachers dependent on the courses of study and their own
devices for dealing with the problem of enrichment needed for the X
lanes and.fer some pupils in the Y lanes.

At the same time, the teachers had difficulty motivating the
Z lane pupils. In addition to the problem of instructional materials,
many teachers had had little or no special training for teaching slowe-
learning children. Administratively, the usual procedure was to
schedule one or twoZ lane classes for each teacher as his fair share.
Teachers doing an excellent job motivating these pupils appeared to be
in the minority, while the teacher expressing a desire to teach Z lane
classes was indeed a rarity. This suggests that teachers as well as
pupils were apt to be suffering from low motivation during the Z lane
periods.

, It is to be remembered that a disproportionate number of lower
socioeconomic pupils capable of working in higher lanes were also in the
Z lanes as well as in the Y lanes. It is assumed that the interests of
pupils are best served in homogeneous grouping when they are correctly
laned. Therefore, it is peculiar when discrepancies in pupil lane
placement-are significantly related to the socioeconomic status of the
parents with the descent on the socioeconomic scale increasing the
possibility that the pupil will be laned below his ability. It is of
interest to consider probable reasons for this discrimination. Some

possible explanations are:

 

83

1. Upper S E I families place greater emphasis on success in school
with the result that these children generally spend more time on
their studies, are more conscientious about their daily work, do
more homework, attend school more regularly, and are more likely
to do their make-up work. Usually these children adjust better to
school life, are more polite, and are more cooperative in their
dealings with teachers. In all probability their daily work is
actually better than that of middle and lower S E I pupils who make

similar scores on national tests.

2. Upper S E I parents are usually more anxious than parents of
middle and lower 8 E I pupils to have their children placed in top
lanes. In actual practice, the upper S E I parents in these schools
seldom complain about lane placements. The reader may suspect this
fact reflects the schools' ability to avoid difficulties with this

influential group.

The writer predicted at the beginning of this research that no
significant relationship would be found between laning practices and
the socioeconomic status of the parents. It is doubtful if the question
of possible bias in laning had been given much thought by principals
and teachers working in this program. At any rate, when the writer
discussed the outcome of this research with some of these people, the
usual reaction was one of surprise with the response that if bias
existed, it certainly was unintentional. They sometimes added that they
thought more faith should be placed in the teachers0 judgment than in
the results of Stanford tests.

Although the writer recognizes the importance of teachers9

84
evaluations as well as the limitations on the validity of any test or
tests as the basis for grouping children, he assumes StanfOrd tests are
of somewhat comparable validity for upper, middle, and lower socio-
economic groups.

While it is of interest to speculate as to posSible reasons for
the socioeconomic bias in laning practices, the serious implication 13
that many pupils are not making maximum use of their educational
opportunities. If the bias merely reflects pupil inertia with increased
incidence as one descends the socioeconomic scale, ways and means
should be found to overcome this inertia. On the other hand, if there
are arbitrary--although unintentional--restrictions for the lower socio-
economic groups for correct placement under the laning system, then this
is obviously contrary to the American democratic concept of equality of
educational opportunity with the related possibility of upward socio-
economic mobility. Of course inertia and arbitrary restrictions may
both be factors.

In conclusion, this research and personal observation suggest

three recommendations for improvement of the X, Y, Z laning program:
1. Instructional materials and curricula suitable for the specific lanes

2. Special training for teachers teaching slowalearning and low-

motivated pupils

3. Greater care to be certain that all socioeconomic groups have equal

Opportunity to be correctly laned.

BI BLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baker, G. Derwood. "What Crucial Problems Confront the Junior High
School Principal?", National Association of Seconda -School
Principals, XLV, Part I (April, 1961), l8l~82.

Barber, Bernard. Social Stratification. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 6
Co., 1957.

Barthelmess, Boyer P. and Harriet. "An Evaluation of Ability Grouping,"
Journal of Educational Research, XXVI (1932), 284a94.

Bettelheim, Bruno. "Segregation: New Style," The School Review, LXVI,
No. 3 (Autumn, 1958), 251-72.

Brookover, W. B. Presidential Address to the Ohio Valley Sociological
Society, May, 1962.

Buell, Clayton B. "How Much Homogeneous Grouping in the Junior High
School?", National Association_3f Secondary~School Principals,
XLIV, Part II (April, 1960), 257-69.

Clearing House, Editor's note concerning "The Dexter Plan for Ability
Grouping," by Jack W. Humphrey, XXXV (March, 1961), 423.

Cochran, John R. "Grouping Students in the Junior High School,"
Educational Leadership, XVIII (April, 1961), 414-19.

Conant, James B. Education in the Junior High School Years. Princeton,

New Jersey: Educational Testing SerV1ce, 1960.

 

Cook, Walter W. "Classroom Methods: The Gifted and Retarded in
Historical Perspective," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIX (March, 1958),
249-55.

Ekstrom, Ruth B. "Experimental Studies of Homogeneous Grouping: A
Critical Review," School Review, LXIX (Summer, 1961), 216-26.

Ellis, George J. "How Much Homogeneous Grouping in the Junior High
School?", National Association of Seconda -School Princi als,
XLIV, Part II (April, 1960), 259-62.

Fisher, Robert J. "Who is This Lower-Class Child?", Journal of Educa-
tional Sociology, XXXIV (March, 1961), 309-11.

Gardner, John. Goals for Americans. The report of the President°s

86

 

87

Commission on National Goals and Chapters submitted for consid- .
eration of the Commission, administered by the American Assembly.
New York: The American Assembly, Columbia University, Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1960, 81.

Gottlieb, David. "Processes of Socialization in the American Graduate
School." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago,
1960.

Gruhn, William T., and Douglass, Harl R. The Modgrn-Junior High School.
New York: The Ronald Press, 1947.

Herr, William A. "Junior High School Accelerants and Their Peers in
Senior High School," SchoolpReview, XLV (1937), 186:95, 289:99.

Hollingshead, August. Elmtpwn°s Youth. New York: John Wiley 5 Sons,
1949.

Hull, Dan J. "Curriculum Design=~Strength and Weaknesses of the Track
System," National Association ofISecondary=School Principals,
XLV, Part I (April, 1961), 286-87.

Humphrey, Jack W. "The Dexter Plan for Ability Grouping," Clearing
House, xxxv (March, 1961), 423-26.

Justman, Joseph. "Academic Achievement of Intellectually Gifted
Accelerants and NonaAccelerants in Junior High School," School
Review, LXII (1954), 142-50.

Kahl, Joseph A. The American Class Structure. New York: Rinehart 8
Co., Inc., 1957.

Kelley, Truman L., et a1. "Stanford Advanced Reading Test, Forms J
and K," World Book Company Standard'Tests, January, 1961.
Chicago: Harcourt, Brace, 8 World, Inc.

. "Stanford Advanced Arithmetic Test, Forms J and K," World
Book Company Stapdard Tests, January, 1961. Chicago: Harcourt,
Brace, 6 World, Inc.

Kincaid, D. J. and Epley, T. M. "Cluster Grouping," Education, LXXXI
(November, 1960), 136-39.

Loomis, Mary Jane. "The Right Child in the Right Classroom," National
Educational Association Journal, XLVIII (September, 1959), 17-18.

Lovell, John. "The Bay City High School Experiment," Educational
Leadership, XVII (March, 1960), 383-387.

Lynd, Robert S. and Helen. Merrell. Middletown: A Study in American
Culture. New York: Harcourt, Brace 8 Co., 1929.

88

. Middletown in Transition. New York: Harcourt, Brace 8 Co.,
1937.

Mott, Kenneth. "The Case for Ability Grouping," National Association
of Secondary-School Principals, XLV, Part II (NoveEEer, ISSI),
53°62 o

. "Language Arts-=Social Studies Fusion in the Junior High
School Block Period," National Association of Seconda -School
Principals, XLIV, Part I (March, 1960), 124-31.

Noall, Matthew F., and Bell, Tarrol H. "Core Curriculum at Weber
County, Utah," National Association of Secondar «School
Principals, XLIV, Part I (January, 1960), l4l=47.

Otis, Arthur S. "Otis Group Intelligence Test, Beta A," World Book

Company Standard Tests, 1961. Chicago: Harcourt, Brace 6
World, Inc.

Otto, Henry J. The Elementary School Organization and Administration.
3rd ed. New York: Appleton~Century~Crofts, Inc., 54.

Parsons, Talcott. "The School as a Social System: Some of Its
Functions in American Society," Harvard Educational Review,
XXIX, No. 4 (Fall, 1959), 297-318.

Reiss, Albert J., Jr. Occu ations and Social Status. New York: The
Free Press of Gencoe, Inc., 196I.

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956.

Van Wagenen, M. J. "The Effect of Homogeneous Grouping upon the Quality
of Work of Superior Children," Educational Method, VI (February,
1927), 240-47.

Warner, W. Lloyd, Havinghurst, Robert J., and Loeb, Martin B. Who Shall
Be Educated? New York: Harper 8 Brother, 1944.

West, Jeff, and Sievers, Callie. "Experiment in Cross Grouping,"
Journal of Educational Research, LIV, No. 2 (October, 1960),
70-72.

Wilhelms, Fred T., and Gibson, Dorthy Westly. "Grouping: Research
Offers Leads," Educaripnal Leadership, XVIII (April, 1961),
410=13, 476. ‘

Woodring, Paul. A Fourth of a Nation. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
Inc., 1957.

Wrightstone, J. Wayne. "What Research Says about Class Organization
for Instruction," National Education Association Journal,
XLVI (April, 1957), 245-55.

89

"Your Educational Plans," Sheet no. 7=2563. Chicago: Science Research
Associates, Inc., 1961.

APPENDIX A

OCCUPATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Pupil's Name 7 __ ‘1A_ 1
Last First Middle

School Encircle: Boy Girl
Please CAREFULLY read the entire page before you write any more.

May 1, 1962
Dear Seventh Grader:

The superintendent and the junior high school principals have given
their consent for me to make a study of X, Y, Z lanes under the
direction of the Education Department of Michigan State University.
Information about your father's job is needed for part of the study.
Your answers will be considered confidential.

Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,

Hugh Kariger

WHAT IS YOUR FATHER'S JOB? (The word FATHER means the male parent you
live with, even if he is not your real father.) If you are not living

with such a person at present, tell about the job of the MALE parent you
last lived with. TRY TO BE AS EXACT AS POSSIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE:

1. If he is in business, tell what kind of business and
whether he owns it himself or works for others.

2. If he runs a machine, tell what kind of machine he runs.

3. If he is a salesman, tell what kind of goods he sells.

4. If he is a foreman or manager, tell about how many people
work under him and what sort of work they do.

5. If your father is not working, tell what kind of work he
usually does when he works.

6. If he is retired or dead, tell what kind of work he last did.

7. You probably will tell where he works.

DESCRIBE YOUR FATHER'S JOB IN THE BOX BELOW. (DO not write outside
of the box.)

V—

 

PIease read your answer carefully to Be sure you really explained what -
your father's job is or was.

91

APPENDIX B

SIXTH GRADE EVALUATION FORM

 

 

_ SCHOOLS

EVALUATION SHEET For Junior High School Placement

For Sixth Grade Students
Home Room N o. ........ Lang. Arts Sec. ........

Arith. Sec. ............ Science Sec. ...........

From ........................................
School Date

 

 

 

 

 

NAME OF STUDENT ......................................................... Sex ..................
Last First Middle

Age ........ Date of Birth ........................ Place of Birth ...................................
Mo. Day Year

Parent or Guardian ...................................................... Telephone N 0. .............
Last First Middle

 

Mental Rating, I.Q., or Binet ...................................
Reading Grade Score .............................. Arithmetic Grade Score ............................

Yearly Reading Grade ............................. Yearly Arithmetic Grade ..........................

 

 

 

Satisfactory Unsatisfactory COMMENTS

 

W

 

MIL

 

 

W11

 

General
W

 

 

 

 

 

 

IS student working at his or her capacity or ability? ......................................................

Junior High students are placed in lanes in some subject areas. The X lane is generally one year or more above
BTade level and the Z lane is generally one year or more below grade level. The Y lane is in between. There are
Other factors besides achievement. Where would you place this student in the following subject areas?

 

 

X Y Z WHY ?

 

Wino.
W

 

 

 

 

 

W

 

This Student participates in ................ Band ................ Orchestra ................ Vocal Chorus
What instrument does the student play? ..................................................

Please indicate any special abilities or handicaps .........................................................

I
......
9 e
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Efihafi Of this sheet for
1tIona] Information. Teacher’s Signature ..............................

 

 

A mlllllll‘lllllsll W1 “Wllllllllllllll ll‘llllilfillms
3 1293 03083 1303

 

 

 

Mlcllrlllllmlllllml‘llll fllll‘vllllllmllll llilallllllll Es
3 1293 03083 1303