TJS SQA cud/“Jo TV‘ESI.) RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from ”3—— your record. FINES WIII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped be10w. A STUDY OF STUDENT ATTITUDE AND ACHIEVEMENT IN AN ALTERNATIVE FUNDAMENTAL PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAM By Richard Paul Dyer A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1985 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF STUDENT ATTITUDE AND ACHIEVEMENT IN AN ALTERNATIVE FUNDAMENTAL PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAM By Richard Paul Dyer The purpose of this study was to compare the academic achievement and attitude toward school of students in an alternative fundamental school program with students in a regular school program. The subjects were 140 male and 130 female students in grades one, two, and three from two pub- lic elementary schools in the Saginaw Township (Michigan) Community School District. The research methodology used to evaluate academic achievement was the non-equivalent control group pretestj posttest design. Data was obtained from several levels of the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills which evaluated achievement in reading, language, mathematics, as well as total battery. The School Sentiment Index measured students' attitude toward school. The three-way analysis of co—vari- ance was used to determine relationship of program, grade level, and sex for academic achievement. Analysis of vari- ance was used to evaluate the attitude toward school of the students. Post hoc comparisons consisted of t-tests for independent means to determine rejection of null hypotheses. A two-tailed probability level of .05 was set for the Richard Paul Dyer inferential testing of all null hypotheses in the study. The analyses showed that mean performance increase for the academic achievement of all students in the sub-test areas of reading, language, mathematics, and total battery was not related to student participation in either the alter- native fundamental school program or in the regular school program. However, fundamental school students at the first grade level performed at a statistically significant higher level in reading than first grade students in the regular school program. The attitude toward school expressed by fundamental school students at the end of their participation in the program was significantly higher than that expressed by regular school students. The data indicated this was true for both male and female students. The results of this study are in line with most past research regarding alternative educational programs. Fur- ther research was recommended to investigate long term par- ticipation in an alternative fundamental program and to analyze the instructional conditions which influence aca- demic performance in such a program. To Mary Kay, of course. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The assistance of many friends and acquaintances made this research study possible. I am deeply indebted to my doctoral advisor, Dr. William Walsh. His continued assis- tance and encouragement was beneficial throughout the doc- toral program. An expression of gratitude is due to the members of my doctoral committee. Dr. Janet Alleman-Brooks, Dr. Calhoun Collier, and Dr. Samuel Moore II were generous with their time and expertise. The support provided by Dr. Gerald S. DeGrow, Superin- tendent of the Saginaw Township Community School District, and the administrators and staff in Saginaw Township was very helpful during this time of study. The technical assistance provided by Dr. Gene Packwood and Jeannie Laverty was invaluable. A special thank you is extended to Joanne Terrian for her editorial assistance. I wish to express a special acknowledgment to my par- ents, Paul and Bonnie, who instilled a great respect for the value of education in all their children. To my wife, Mary Kay, and my children, Matthew, Marissa, and Bryan, I extend my heartfelt thanks and admiration. Their encouragement, sacrifices, and prayers were inspira- tional to me throughout this educational endeavor. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . CHAPTER I II III IV THE PROBLEM. Introduction to the Problem. Need . . . Purpose of the Study . . Significance of the Study. Hypotheses . . . Definition of Terms. . . Limitations of the Study . Summary and Overview . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . Introduction . Review of the Literature Summary. DESIGN OF THE STUDY. Introduction . Sample . Measures . Validity of the Measuring Instruments Reliability of the. Measuring . Instruments Design . . Testable Hypotheses. Analysis . . . Summary. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS. Introduction . Hypotheses Summary. iv Page vi V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . 76 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Summary. . . . . . . . . 76 Findings of the Study. . . . . . . . 80 Conclusions of the Study . . . . . . 85 Implications of the Study. . . . . . 87 Recommendations for Further Research. . . . . . . . . 9O BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 APPENDIX A Letter of Approval. . . . . . . . 96 APPENDIX B School Sentiment Index. . . . . . 97 APPENDIX C Breakdown of Analyses by Main Effects and Interactions . . 99 APPENDIX D t-test Breakdowns . . . . . . . . 104 Table LIST OF TABLES Grade Level and Sex of Students in the Experimental and Control Groups Average KR-20 Reliabilities for Compre- hensive Tests of Basic Skills (1981 ed.). "F" Statistics Associated with Research Hypotheses. "t" Values Associated with Research Hypotheses. Mean Scale Score Performance Increase: Total Battery Male x Program x Grade Level. Mean Scale Score Performance Increase: Total Battery Female x Program x Grade Level. Mean Scale Score Performance Increase: Total Battery Program x Grade Level . Mean Scale Score Performance Increase: Total Reading Male x Program x Grade Level. Mean Scale Score Performance Increase: Total Reading Female x Program x Grade Level. Mean Scale Score Performance Increase: Total Reading Program x Grade Level . Mean Scale Score Performance Increase: Total Language Male x Program x Grade Level. vi Page 34 41 49 50 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 Mean Scale Score Performance Increase: Total Language Female x Program x Grade Level. Mean Scale Score Performance Increase: Total Language Program x Grade Level Mean Scale Score Performance Increase: Total Mathematics Male x Program x Grade Level. Mean Scale Score Performance Increase: Total Mathematics Female x Program x Grade Level. Mean Scale Score Performance Increase: Total Mathematics Program x Grade Level Mean Scores: Attitude Toward School Male x Program x Grade Level. Mean Scores: Attitude Toward School Female x Program x Grade Level. Mean Scores: Attitude Toward School Program x Grade Level . vii 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction to the Problem During the last decade, American education has experi- enced the emergence of alternative schools as a strategy for reform with the potential to improve public education. In its infancy, the term "alternative school" often referred to voluntary, experimental programs which emphasized par- ental‘and student involvement in decision making as well as student self-discipline and motivation. According to Fantini (1972), in the early 1970's the alternative public schools were "the only major movement in American education.” This movement developed as a response to the educational concerns of individual communities rather than as‘a response by the mainstream of the profession to a concern for the national interest (Smith, 1973, p. 434). Alternative schools have been a grass-roots level thrust in public education to provide options and a strategy for making schools more re- sponsive to the demands of parents who seek a different edu- cational environment for their children as opposed to that prevailing in the traditional school. No exception to this reform strategy is the conservative back-to-basics funda- mental public school alternative to the regular schools. The basic education movement of the 1970's accompanied the alternative school movement into the 1980's and its im- pact on American education has been widespread. Both 1 movements are unique in that they originated among parents, citizens, and educators at local levels, rather than resul- ting from national or state models. The trend of higher tax levies being funneled into public education has often resulted in parental demands for higher achievement results in the three R's or other basic subjects. This concern is due in part to the fact that school patrons increasingly receive information concerning students' declining SAT scores, deteriorating discipline, and the apparent failure of education innovations (Weber, 1975, p. 45). Those indi- viduals critical of traditional education programs for not meeting the social, emotional, and academic needs of stu- dents often look upon alternative fundamental school pro- grams as the kind of experience they remember from.their earlier schooling (Shaw, 1975). This recollection is one of a less society—oriented school which concentrated on teaching children to read, write, compute numbers, and be- have—things that many public school programs have had diffi- culty in maintaining over the last two decades. Fundamental schools have been one of the major growth areas among alternative school types in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Lynne Miller, a staff member of the National Alternative Schools Program of the University of Massachu- setts, thinks that the fundamental schools may have a sig- nificant impact. They have "fostered a split in the whole alternative movement, she says, and although she would hate to see such schools replace those that stress internal motivation, self-discipline, and a less structured atmo- sphere, she claims "there are going to be a lot more funda- mental schools" (Miller, 1975, p. 39). Miller sees this broadening of options as a healthy development, breaking away from the "traditional school monopoly" which offered no choice. Vernon Smith (1981) of the University of Indiana reports that fundamental schools are increasing at a faster rate than any other kind of alternative education today. For years, private and/or parochial schools have offered a basic school program as an alternative to the traditional public school curricula. It is apparent that as part of the alternative school movement, fundamental schools have become one of the educational options provided in many pub- lic school districts throughout the country. The rapid growth of alternative fundamental schools gives rise to the concern that a philosophical basis is often used as a crite- ria for their implementation. Despite the impact of the back-to-basics movement and the growth of fundamental schools, there are relatively few studies available regarding the attitude and academic achievement of students who have been exposed to this educational alternative. Empirical informa- tion appears to be not only limited but also seldom consid- ered as a motive for the existence of this type of alterna- tive school organization. With a concern for current objective information about alternative school approaches, this study was designed to compare the attitudes and academic achievement of students in an alternative fundamental school program with students in the traditional program, both part of the Saginaw Township (Michigan) Community School District during the 1982-83 school year. The approach used in assessing the results of student participation in the alternative fundamental school program is theory-based. The fundamental school philosophy is one which places an emphasis on the basic skills of reading, writing, and math computation. In addition, authority of the classroom teacher and strict discipline procedures are promoted. A theory of learning prevails which views aca- demic time on task and elimination of curricular "frills" as critical to attaining good results toward which the pro- gram.aims. Essentially, advocates of the fundamental school program believe that to master the basic skills of contin- ued learning, a structured, academically-oriented environ- ment must be maintained. Need Politically, common elements characteristic of funda- mental schools have been and will most likely continue to be supported by many school patrons as their objectives have been firmly accepted in many communities. The 1976 Gallop Poll on education revealed that fifty-five per cent of re- spondents would send their children to schools with strict discipline codes and strong emphasis on the three R's, both earmarks of the fundamental school philosophy (Enochs, 1979). It seems that each succeeding Gallop Poll on K-12 educa- tion has cited academic standards and discipline as major concerns. Wellington (1977) cites discipline as the core of most of the problems in American education, because without discipline there will be no learning. He views the funda- mental school as a viable alternative in achieving the basic purposes of education partly because it augments the home support needed to maintain good discipline and responsible attitudes. School board respondents to an American School Board Journal Ballot Box (1975) voted overwhelmingly (nine to one) in favor of establishing fundamental schools as alternatives to regular schools and experimental schools. In like manner, an NBA research teacher opinion poll (1980) showed that ninety per cent of public school teachers fa- vored increased emphasis on basic curriculum, setting higher standards, maintaining stricter discipline, and teaching moral and social values. Most parents, students, and teach- ers who try fundamental school programs seem to like them and appreciate being offered the option these schools repre- sent (Jones, 1976). However, whether alternative fundamental schools have implemented their promises of improved performance in the curricular areas of reading, writing, arithmetic, and behav- ior is not clear. There have been claims of success, but few evaluations have been published and there has seemingly been no systematic effort to collect, analyze, and summarize the studies that are available. Because the fundamental school movement is still in its early stages and individual school studies are often formative evaluations designed to identify areas for improvement, it is possible that such re- ports are considered confidential to the school system and are not published in the media. Since fundamental schools have been elevated to the position of being a recognized factor in American education, it is important that the claimed impact on student academic achievement and attitudes be evaluated. Moreover, the de- velopment and use of alternative fundamental schools will eventually dictate evaluation nationally as well as with individual schools in local school districts. In partial expectation of those needs this research study was designed to provide information and understanding of one such program, the alternative fundamental school program in Saginaw Town- ship, Michigan. The study was structured to provide insight into the impact of a fundamental school program upon early elementary student academic achievement and attitude in its initial stages of operations. Purpose of the Study The researcher's purpose in this study is to compare the academic achievement and attitudes of first, second, and third grade students in an alternative fundamental school program with a control group in the Saginaw Township Community School District. The evaluation procedure and analysis will provide empirical data as to whether materials and methods used to implement a fundamentalist school philosophy do produce a significant difference in student academic achievement and attitude. Significance of the Study Since little research and evaluation of the fundamental alternative school concept is available in the literature, it would appear that a study of the concept is both timely and appropriate. As it is important that alternative funda- mental schools be assessed in order to make valid generali- zations about their educational programs, the author was professionally convinced to study the academic achievement and school attitude gains made by students in a fundamental school setting during the initial year of the program's implementation. Since the alternative fundamental school program of the Saginaw Township Community Schools, which was evaluated in this study, is similar in philosophy to many implemented nationally, the results are expected to be of value in the following ways: 1. Data derived from this study may be used to help determine whether to continue the fundamental school program in Saginaw Township at the middle school level. 2. Data derived from this study may serve as a basis for curriculum change in specific areas in the Saginaw Township Community School District. 3. Data derived from this study may provide insights and information helpful to other school districts in the state or nation which have a fundamental school program or are planning to implement one in the future. Hypotheses The major research objectives to be investigated in this study are expressed by the following hypotheses written in broad research form. These hypotheses are restated in more specific testable form in Chapter III along with the research questions from.which they were generated. 1. Students in the alternative fundamental school program will attain higher academic achievement gain scores at the end of treatment than will students in the regular school program. 2. Students in the alternative fundamental school program will attain higher attitude toward school mean scores at the end of treatment than will students in the regular school program. Definition of Terms It is important to know the explicit meaning of a term in order to evaluate research or determine whether the re- searcher has realized a valid response to a stated problem. The following terms have been used in this research study in accordance with the operational definitions provided. Academic Achievement: Alternative School: \ Analysis of Co-Variance: Attitude toward School: Back-to-Basics: Knowledge obtained or skills developed in school subjects— designated in this study by an individual's subtest and total battery scores on the Comprehen- sive Test of Basic Skills. A school which contains a com- peting educational philosophy to that of the traditional school, providing an additional choice for parents and students. An analysis procedure in which ad- justments are made in data for the criterian variable. It essentially adjusts statistically the effects of differing pretest scores from the posttest. An individual's score on the School Sentiment Index, primary level. A philosophical term which places emphasis on reading, mathematics, and language arts instruction, stressing basic skills mastery. Basic Education: Control Group: CTBS: Experimental Group: Fundamental School: 10 An educational program based on unspecialized knowledge, skills, and understandings deemed neces- sary for effective living. A group consisting of students who are similar to the experimen- tal group, are measured at the same time, but do not receive the experimental (fundamental school) program. The Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, used in this study to pro- vide measures of academic achieve- ment in three major subject areas: reading, language, and mathematics. A group consisting of students who receive the program.which is to be evaluated. An alternative public school whose educational philosophy is earmarked by the teaching of basic skills, use of textbooks, regular homework, strong discipline, citizenship and character building, accounta- bility and parental commitment. Performance Increase: Regular Classroom: Scale Scores: Traditional School: 11 The increase in CTBS scale scores from pretest performance to post- test performance. A classroom designated for regular academic work as opposed to class- rooms used for special or innova- tive work. The basic score of CTBS, these are units of a single equal-interval scale that is applied across all CTBS levels ranging from 0 to 999. The equal-interval property of scale scores makes them especially appropriate for various statisti- cal purposes. A school following the standard education traditions of the last century, where innovation and ex- perimentation are minimal. Limitations of the Study Certain limitations exist in this study and the extent to which the findings can be generalized is restricted by these limitations. 1. The sample of this study is limited to students 12 enrolled in the fundamental school program and the regular school program at two elementary schools in the Saginaw Township Community School System during the 1982—83 school year. Assessment of the cognitive domain is limited to student scores obtained from the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS). Assessment of the affective domain is limited to student scores derived from the School Sentiment Index. In all measurements of students obtained for this study, precautions were taken to obtain valid reac- tions so that any interpretation is based upon genu- ine, sincere, student performance and response. In all attitude instruments requiring self-response, truthfulness of response is an issue and therefore in- terpretation should be made accordingly. Prior experiences and attitudes of students in the study are assumed to be similar and typical for the grades, schools, and community. Teachers in the fundamental school program and teach- ers in the regular school program taught in these schools the previous year and were assumed to be equal in ability. Student awareness of participation in an experimental program may have made the study vulnerable to the Hawthorne effect. It was assumed, however, that after a year's exposure to the program, this effect was reduced. 13 Summary and Overview This research study consists of five chapters. In Chapter 1, information concerning the need, purpose, sig- nificance, and limitations of the study are presented as well as hypotheses to be tested and a definition of terms. The relevant literature is reviewed in Chapter II. The design of the study is described in Chapter III, including the sample, measures, testable hypotheses, and statistical analysis instruments. In the fourth chapter, the analysis of the results is presented. In Chapter V, the summary and conclusions are discussed as well as implications for future research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The public school systems of the United States are now entering the second decade of fundamental schools as an alternative educational program to the more traditional school curricula. Beginning with the first fundamental alternative in San Geronimo, California in the early 1970's, other fundamental schools have been established on a regular basis at the urging of parents or board members throughout the country. The visibility and economic success of funda- mental schools are good indicators that they will continue to exist and develop. It also appears that in communities where fundamental schools are founded, there is substantial support from parents, students, and teachers to make this educational alternative a welcome addition. Traditionally, private and/or parochial schools have offered basic education alternatives to the traditional public school curricula. Now many alternative fundamental public schools have been established based on the premise that they are the answer to parental concerns in regard to teaching children to read, write, compute numbers, and be— have. It still is not clear whether the fundamental schools have been able to fulfill such expectations, for although there are claims of success, insufficient research-supported information is available to warrant an overall evaluation of 14 15 their effectiveness. In this review of related literature the philosophy of the basic education movement in the United States will be examined as well as the impact of alternative educational programs in the last decade. An ERIC search was initiated through the Michigan State University library to help identify selections of the literature pertaining to the topic of this study and to provide the basis for an indepth investigation of those studies having a direct relationship to fundamental schools and the achievement of the students who attend them. Review of the Literature The idea of a basic education philosophy and a limited curriculum, earmarks of the fundamental school, certainly are not new. For most of the history of formal education, teachers and philosophers have believed in it (Weber, 1975). During the last ten to fifteen years, the concept of basic education has come to the forefront of educational issues. Its impact, often led by parents, ministers, business people, and politicians, has put many an educator on the defensive. Those supportive of the fundamental school concept contend that today's students are not learning basic skills, class- room discipline is lax, and curricula are suffering an influx of frill subjects. With the demand for a return to traditional ideals and fundamental concepts in education widely proclaimed, Ham (1982) reported that parents who send their children to fundamentalist Christian schools believed 16 that public schools were academically inferior and disci- pline had broken down. The back-to-basics movement of the 1970's parallels the emphasis on subject matter and the intellectually rig- orous curriculum of the late 1950's and early 1960's (Donmoyer, 1979). Both movements were spawned by dissat- isfaction with what communities perceived as nonrigorous, overly child-centered schools. However, Donmoyer notes that while the earlier educational movement arose in an era of new frontiers, this latest movement advocates a retreat to older values. The earlier demand was for excellence while this latest demand is for adequacy. A major concern is that students who are already academically adequate may be ignored at a time when they may require subject matter challenge and teacher expectations of excellence that were central concerns of the earlier movement. It would seem apparent that the back-to-basics movement of the 1970's had a strong impact on the growing popularity of fundamental schools. At present, the basic education movement lacks concep- tualization, but at various times and places, back-to-basics advocates have demanded: 1) renewed emphasis on reading, writing, and arithmetic; 2) directive authority for the classroom teacher (together with a corresponding decline in pupil-directed activities); 3) elimination of curricular "frills” and elective courses; 4) elimination of the school's "social services"; 5) a moratorium on "nontraditional" l7 curricular and programmatic innovation; 6) procedures cal- culated to enhance schools' accountability for learning outcomes; 7) increased emphasis on vocational-related in- struction and curricula; 8) inculcation of "core Values" thought essential for maintaining societal stability (e.g. patriotism, respect for tradition and authority); 9) strict discipline and control; 10) implementation of pedagogy cen- tered on drill, recitation, daily homework, and frequent testing; 11) enhanced community control over schools and; 12) reduction of school costs (Lucas, 1978). Beyer (1978) reports that the evidence indicates that action to improve reading comprehension and writing is needed and the demand for back-to-basics in these areas is justified. Concerted action, not rhetoric, is needed and can be provided in a variety of inexpensive ways. He feels the most realistic and productive approach to improved instruc- tion in reading and.writing builds on resources and opportu- nities already existing in our school systems. Since back-to-basics covers a large range of philosoph- ical convictions, it is not unusual to find that educators may embrace some of them while rejecting others. Educators counter simplistic demands for the three R's with what Brodinsky (1977) calls a new educational trinity: l) min- imal competency, 2) proficiency testing, 3) a performance- based curriculum, These technical goals are clustered with philosophical aims and concepts with which educators are working on at a slow but steadily increasing tempo. While 18 some school boards are pushing their schools to get on the "basics tract, many await a national pattern to develop or for state laws to formulate minimum expectancies codes. What does appear to be happening is that fundamental alter- native schools are causing some changes in conventional school philosophies from the middle-of—the-road toward the right or more conservative position. For example, in Pasadena, California, where several fundamental schools are in operation, reading is being emphasized throughout the district and reading scores of Pasadena students have im- proved. Leonard Blanard, principal of the Panama "Academic Plus" School, an alternative fundamental school in Cupertino, California, notes that increasing numbers of conventional schools in his district are trying out some of Panama's techniques (Nation's Schools Report, 1976). It appears that many administrators who cannot accept the entire back-to- basics philosophy are incorporating some parts of it into their regular programs. Down (1977) notes that fundamental schools are having an influence on other schools in their districts. To compete for student enrollments, other schools are paying more attention to student achievement, orderly environments, and sequential curricula. There are obvious parallels between philosophical tenets for back~to~basics and the expressed goals of most existing alternative fundamental schools. These goals can usually be lumped into five general categories: 1) to master the basic skills for continued learning; 2) to know and 19 understand one's history, heritage and government structure, and to reason in a logical and objective manner; 3) to challenge each child to do his/her best; 4) to insure accountability; 5) to reinforce parental teaching of citi- zenship, respect, discipline, and personal responsibility (Jones, 1976). Most fundamental schools also stress the use of textbooks, homework, dress codes, and patriotism. In summary, at fundamental schools formal structure, rigid rules, and authoritative discipline prevail (Neill, 1976). A study by Bonds (1979) was initiated on the nature of fundamental schools. He sought to identify the existence of alternative fundamental schools, to determine a set of characteristics of such schools, and to provide information, concepts, and insights that would be helpful to educational managers who have the responsibility to affect change from a conventional school program to a fundamental program of instruction. Participants in the study were fifteen build- ing and four central office administrators from seven school districts. A questionnaire was designed to measure the char- acteristics of the alternative fundamental schools as well as a six item interview guide to identify incidents in the developmental process of the schools. The findings of this study were: 1) The initial effort to establish the school pro- gram originated from interested members of the commun1ty. 2) All districts offered ability grouped, self- contained classrooms for K-6 and departmental- ized instruction for 7-12. 20 3) Teaching experience of the majority of the teaching staff ranged from 6 to 15 years. 4) Teachers' attitude was considered the most impor- tant factor in effectiveness. 5) Changes in the instructional program.were reported as being significantly changed from the conven- tional program except for curriculum development and scheduling. 6) Parents selected the alternative fundamental school so that their children would be exposed to a more disciplined school environment. 7) Administrators believed their school's contribu- tion permitted parents to practice the philosophy of education to which they subscribed. 8) Parental support of the school was the single most positive development in the school as a result of implementing the fundamental school program. Other conclusions that Bonds drew as a result of his study were that fundamental schools may be located in both small and large school districts and can be designed to serve all grade levels. The fundamental schools appear to be closely structured and maintain a carefully controlled teacher-centered learning environment. Little additional funding is required to establish a fundamental school phil- osophy since the existing staff, school facilities, and district resources can be utilized effectively. Finally, it was evident that fundamental schools result in a strong and supportive community. Reports from school districts throughout the country that have implemented fundamental schools appear to con- firm Bond's findings. For example, Rebecca Morgan, President of the Palo Alto, California School Board, states 21 in a reference to her school district's fundamental school: A group of previously unhappy parents pro- posed the structured alternative and we, the board, approved it. Upshot: A lot of parents who were dissatisfied with some of the other schools in the district, now have the type of school they want and will support enthusias- tically with their tax dollars (Morgan, 1976, p. 24). Johnson and Pearson (1979) found that parents reported choosing the three fundamental schools in the Minneapolis School System for their children because of the emphasis on reading, arithmetic, writing, discipline, self-contained classrooms, citizenship, and character development. Their survey showed the parents generally satisfied with the homework load, opportunity for involvement with the teacher, child's progress, and the communication about that progress. Myers (1977), a basic education proponent and the in- tegral force behind the 1973 opening of the John Marshall Fundamental School in Pasadena, California, wrote a book entitled Fundamentally Speaking, which is essentially a manual for establishing such schools. Myers states that "a Fundamental School is simply a school where basics of education are stressed with little or no experimentation, where discipline reigns and patriotism flourishes" (p. 56). He suggests the basic activities of a fundamental school he as follows: 1) emphasize instruction in reading, writ- ing, speaking, arithmetic, and the teaching of basic sci- ence and cultural subjects; 2) specify a uniform policy for homework on all levels; 3) seek to develop efficient 22 study and work habits; 4) place emphasis on character building, and the teaching of moral principles and common courtesy; 5) emphasize discipline, respect for authority and partoitism; and 6) have a dress code for teachers and students. In Myers' opinion, conventional schools are lacking in a number of areas, ranging from lack of basic instruc- tion to poor discipline. He attributes these problems to such things as progressive school boards, militant teach- ers' unions, innovative curriculum, and social promotion. However, a part of our population that is growing and be- coming increasingly articulate, desires a more academic and structured type of fundamental education for their children. Myers believes that the "alternative school" concept which is sweeping the nation represents the idea that, in a soci- ety such as ours, parents should have a choice as to how they want their children educated. "Most successful funda- mental schools," he states, "are greatly influenced and strongly monitored by the parent group that started them" (p. 81). Page (1977) acknowledges that Myers helped establish four back-to—basics schools while serving as chairman of the Pasadena, California School Board in the 1970's. She feels his book extols the virtues of fundamental schools with near-messianic fervor and is sure it will "keep the educational pot boiling.’ While Ferguson (1978) agrees with Page that Myers represents an "alarmist" position 23 which influences all those concerned with American educa- tion, he also views Fundamentally Speaking as an invaluable book for the enlightened educator. He feels that princi- pals should be knowledgeable of the extreme conservative viewpoint so they can react intelligently. Ferguson states that Myers' book has the redeeming feature of providing a strong case for the right to alternative schools with volun- tary enrollment. Since alternative liberal programs have been established and accepted, Ferguson believes parents have the right to call for the establishment of alternative conservative schools. The concept of alternative schools has been in exis- tence for many years, longer than the fundamental school movement. Alternative schools are characterized by volun- tarism according to Lieberman and Griffin (1977). Their study also found the decision making involved more partici- pation on the part of the community than in traditional schools and that alternative schools, with some limitations, can serve as a change agent. Salerno (1977), in his analy- sis of the development of a K-3 alternative school, concluded that the alternative school served as a complement to the neighborhood school and enabled the school district to be- come more responsive to parents and students. Alternative schools support the theory that different students learn in different ways according to Mazzarella (1978). These schools can be distinguished by their philosophy, sponsor, or curric- ulum and provide a variety of educational programs for 24 students. A study of all the public alternative schools in six New England states (Barkhurst and Wolf, 1978) revealed that these schools were initiated by well-established per- sons who generated a broad base of community support. An interesting conclusion of the study was that alternative school officials did not rely upon established educational agencies for information. Staff serving such schools ac- tively exchanged information about their program.with others who shared the same ideas. The alternative school staffs in New England drew heavily from human resources within their communities to initiate and sustain school operations. These human resources, however, did tend to diminish in im- portance as the school program matured. Smith (1973) cites the fact that there are numerous types of alternative public schools in operation and many share common characteristics. The alternative school is an option within its community, he states, and therefore does not require consensus to justify its existence. It provides a strategy for making schools more responsive to families dissatisfied with conventional schools, without imposing on the rights of those who are satisfied with the present schools. According to Barr (1981), many alternative schools, although not characterized as back-to-basics fundamental school alternatives, have nontheless been influenced by an emphasis in cognitive proficiency. A Ford Foundation 25 report (1974) on alternative elementary and secondary schools, both public and nonpublic, concluded: Where standard measures of achievement, such as test scores and college admissions are ap- plicable, they show that alternative school students perform at least as well as their counterparts in traditional school programs, and usually better. Attendance rates almost without exception exceed those in regular schools (p. 6) Doob (1977) synthesized evaluation data from more than twenty-five alternative schools and found that in most cases the academic achievement of students improved or remained stable. Jennings and Nathan (1977) summed up evaluations and other research on alternative public schools as follows: Virtually every evaluation of these contempo- rary alternative schools shows students doing as well as or better than students in tradi- tional schools, when standardized tests are the evaluation instrument. Perhaps more im- portant, they feel much better about them- selves and are confident of their ability to accomplish things for themselves. They also demonstrate more positive attitudes toward school and learning (p. 568). An in-depth report by Barr, Colston, and Parrett (1977) examined the evaluations of six highly regarded alternative schools that had been in existence for at least three years. The study provided additional insight into some basic ques- tions raised about alternative schools: 1. How effective are alternative schools in the area gistudent cognitive aChievement? Each of the evaluations that measured cognitive achievement found most students to be learning at a rate consistent with or higher than the district norm. Higher grade point averages, 26 increased scholastic aptitude test scores, and student gain in reading and math levels char- acterized the findings. In short, it appears that in each of the schools that were analyzed, one could be assured that most students would achieve at least as well, if not better, than in the comprehensive school available to them. 2. How effective are alternative schools in the de- velopment pf student attitudes andself_concepts? The program evaluations consistently found the attitudes of students toward the school and themselves to be higher in the alternative set- ting. Students in attendance in these programs assume an increased level of interest in basic skills and overall curriculum development. High- ly positive feelings toward teachers, peers, ad- ministrators, and the overall instructional phil- osophy also appear to be nurtured in these pro- grams. The data provided by these reports indi- cates that student attitude levels increase with participation in the program. 3. How effective are the alternative schools in de- veloping positive behavior, especially in Ehe areas of attendanceL suspensions, and sEhool dis- ruptiofi? Each of the programs that reported attendance and enrollment data found a decreased rate of student dropout and an increased rate of school and classroom attendance. Discipline problems appear to be at a minimum, thus resulting in drastically lowered rates of suspension. One could assume that the causes of dropout problems and suspen- sions are lessened in these programs due to the low occurrence of these phenomena. Higher atten- dance rates could well be directly related to an increase in student interest and attitudes toward school (p. 27). However, when drawing conclusions from these reports and studies, one must recognize that the oldest fundamental school is barely a decade old and long term records have yet to be firmly established. In terms of affective and cognitive evaluation, research is available on programs tied closely to the back-to-basics concept. However, studies directed 27 expressly at fundamental alternative schools are still lim— ited in number. Totdahl (1977) investigated the possible relationship between a highly structured educational program to affec- tive and cognitive outcomes exhibited by students. A non- randomized control group pretest-posttest design was used with children drawn from the same Head Start classrooms. The students in the structured program were compared with students in the traditional educational program. The child- ren in the experimental group were enrolled in the highly structured program for four years (K—3) and were then fol- lowed for another two years after completing the program. Based on the findings of the study, conclusions drawn with respect to the highly structured educational program found no significant difference between those who partici- pated in the traditional program in level of intelligence, personal adjustment, attitude toward self and attitude toward school. However, the motivation of children to suc- ceed in school was related to their participation in the highly structured educational program. The level of cogni- tive achievement measured at four points during the program showed a significant relationship to the highly structured program. The level of cognitive achievement at the end of the four year program was significantly related to the high- ly structured educational program as was the level of cog- nitive achievement one year after the conclusion of the program. Two years after the conclusion of the program, no 28 significant difference appeared between children in the two programs. Instruments used for gathering data in Totdahl's study included various levels of the Metropolitan and Stanford . Achievement Test, Kuhlmann-Anderson and Otis Lennon I.Q. Tests, Children's Personality Questionnaire, two levels of the School Sentiment Index, Illinois Index of Self Derogation, and the Gumpgookies Test. The probability level for all tests of statistical significance was established at .05. A study by Warren (1976) attempted to evaluate an alter- native program developed to improve basic skills of under- achieving junior high school students. Underachievers en- rolled in an alternative program designed to improve basic skills were compared with a group of eighth and ninth grade underachievers in the traditional program. The sample pop- ulation was composed of 170 eighth and ninth grade students identitied as being underachievers by a committee of teachers, supervisors, guidance counselors, and school social workers. The subjects were randomly assigned to experimental (alter- native program) and control (traditional program) groups. Instruments used for gathering data were the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale, the Metropolitan Achievement Test (Reading and Mathematics), and official attendance books. The findings of the study showed no significant dif- ferences existed among posttest mean scores in reading and mathematics achievement of the two groups after eight months 29 participation in their respective programs. However, sig- nificant differences did exist among posttest scores in self-concept between students in the two programs. In addi- tion, significant differences in attendance were found fa- voring students in the alternative junior high program de- signed to improve skills. Irwin (1982) studied the locus of control beliefs and academic achievement between a fundamental alternative school and a regular comprehensive school in suburban Sacramento, California. His prime focus of research was to provide data useful in appraising the potential of alterna- tive education and regular comprehensive programs for im- proving academic performance and influencing locus of con- trol beliefs for intermediate level students. Mean scores were compared from sixty randomly selected students from each school on two locus of control questionnaires (the Rotter Internal-External Scale, Intellectual Achievement Responsibility)a the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, and a mod- ified social/educational/occupational survey. The data provided evidence that a fundamental alterna- tive school does not promote academic achievement more than a regular comprehensive school. Moreover, the data suggested that both schools inhibited student internal locus of control beliefs and responsibility. Of note was that the least amount of internality was demonstrated by students attending the fundamental alternative school, although students who were more internal in their locus of control beliefs did 30 not demonstrate higher academic achievement in reading or mathematics. Irwin states that this particular finding was in contrast to past research. The association between the type of school attended and those making the decision to attend demonstrated that parental influence was much greater at the alternative fundamental school. This result was supportive of prior findings. Spencer (1982) studied the academic achievement of students attending a fundamental alternative school in Saint Paul, Minnesota. SRA achievement test gains made by Benjamin E. Mays Fundamental School students during the 1978-79 through 1980-81 academic school years were compared with a control group of students who applied for admission and are on a waiting list while attending other schools in the Saint Paul Public School System. There were twenty- three experimental group students and thirty-three control group students involved in the study. Of these students, thirty-one were black and twenty-five were white, twenty- six were male and thirty were female. Students were com- pared on the basis of improvement in growth (adjusted for pretest) scores as defined by SRA from the fourth through the sixth grade in composite, reading, mathematics and language arts. The findings of Spencer's study indicated a signifi- cant difference in the following academic areas: 1) Significant differences were favorable on be- half of the experimental group in growth on composite and language scores. 31 2) Significant differences in growth by sex were indicated in reading. The female students in the experimental group made larger gains than the students in the control group (p. 63). Conclusions drawn from the analyses of the data of this study included the following: 1) It appeared that attendance at the Benjamin E. Mays Fundamental School produced no better results in mathematics than those enrolled in regular programs in the Saint Paul Schools. 2) The black and white parents who chose to enroll their children in the Benjamin E. Mays Funda- mental School have reason to be pleased with the results of this study. Both female and male students in the experimental group made larger gains in both the composite score and in lan- guage arts than their counterparts in the con- trol group. 3) The strength of the language arts program at Benjamin E. Mays Fundamental School was appar- ent. This was one set of growth scores that was consistantly higher for students who en- rolled in this program. 4) Although statistical significance between the experimental and control groups was found only in language arts and on composite scores, the students in the experimental group made larger gains in achievement in all areas tested than their peers in the control group (pp. 69-70). Summary Research specifically directed to the integral facets of alternative fundamental schools is not in abundance. The limited data showed some claims of academic success but the literature did not present a clear picture on the benefits that fundamental schools claim to provide. How- ever, many alternative educational programs have been 32 researched and evaluated with the results of these studies pointing to approaches that have effectively met the academic and social needs of children. Evaluations of alternative schools show that in the majority of cases, the students perform as well or better than their counterparts in regular school programs. These alternative schools should, however, be examined carefully before attempting to implement them into a public school system. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction This study was designed to compare the academic achieve- ment and attitude of students in an alternative fundamental school program with students in a regular school program dur- ing the 1982—83 school year in the Saginaw Township Community School District. The students were compared on the basis of growth in scale scores on the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills for Total Reading, Total Language, Total Math, and Total Battery for the second and third grades. First graders took less encompassing forms of CTBS which included Total Reading. Students in both the experimental and control groups were also compared as to their attitude toward school based on the results of their scores on the School Sentiment Index. This chapter contains the design of the study, a descrip- tion of the sample, and the measuring instruments which were selected for purposes of student comparison. Also included are the testable hypotheses and the analysis procedures. Sample The students sampled in this study came from two pub- lic elementary schools (Arrowwood and Weiss) in Saginaw Township, Michigan. Each school contained an alternative fundamental program for grades one, two, and three as well as a regular program for first, second, and third graders. 33 34 The students in the experimental group had been placed in this school grouping on the basis of parental requests to participate in the alternative fundamental program" The con- trol group consisted of students in the regular first, second, and third grade classrooms at each school. The students in both groups ranged from age six to nine, were by a large majority Caucasian, and represented a fairly equal distribu- tion of males and females. There were 140 students in the experimental group and 130 students in the control group. The breakdown by grade level and sex is shown in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Grade Level and Sex of Students in the Experimental and Control Groups Experimental Group Sex Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Total Male 27 22 27 76 Female 23 19 22 64 Total 50 41 49 140 Control Group Sex Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Total Male 23 23 18 64 Female 16 20 30 66 35 The Saginaw Township Community School District serves an area covering thirty-six square miles and has a popula- tion of approximately 40,000 people. The school district employs 478 people which includes a teaching staff of 270 assigned to six elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools. Saginaw Township is largely a middle to upper middle class community and although characterized by many small businesses and industries, General Motors is rec- ognized as a leading employer of its residents. Measures Historically, students in the district have been tested in the cognitive domain. For many years Saginaw Township has conducted a district-wide testing program using a na- tionally standardized academic achievement test, the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS). This test mea- sured students in the second and third grades in Total Reading, Total Language, Total Math, and Total Battery. First graders were given a less comprehensive level of the test which provided scores for Total Reading. All students were given the School Sentiment Index to measure their atti- tude toward school. The Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (Form U) is a series of norm-referenced, objective based tests for kin- dergarten through twelfth grade. The series is designed to measure achievement in the basic skills commonly found in state and district curricula. To identify the educational 36 objectives that would be measured, comprehensive reviews have been made of state and district curriculum guides, textbook series, and instructional programs. Because the tests combine the most useful characteristics of norm-ref- erenced and criterion-referenced tests, they provide infor- mation about the relative ranking of students against a norm group as well as specific information about the instruc- tional needs of the students. The sampling procedures for CTBS were designed to provide both Fall and Spring norms based on a sample of the entire United States school popu- lation. The norming sample contained approximately 250,000 students from public, Catholic, and other private schools. This sampling took place in the fall of 1980 and the spring of 1981. The scale score is the basic score for CTBS and is used primarily to provide a basis for deriving various other normative scores to describe test performance. Scale scores are units of a single, equal interval scale that is applied across all levels of CTBS. Since scores are expressed in numbers that can range from 0 through 999, the equal inter- val property of scale scores makes them appropriate for statistical purposes. The School Sentiment Index is an inventory device de- veloped for the purpose of securing a child's responses to questions which pertain to his/her attitude toward school. Its development began in 1970 when representatives of Title III programs in four states gathered in Washington, D.C. to 37 discuss objectives and measuring devices which might be used for educational needs assessments and evaluations, partic- ularly in the affective domain. The Title III representa- tives decided at this time to pool certain of their finan- cial resources and cooperatively support a development pro- ject by the Instructional Objectives Exchange. The Instructional Objectives Exchange (IOX) had been established several years earlier in 1968 by the UCLA Center for Evaluation. The Instructional Objectives Exchange's assignment was to produce objectives or measures which could be employed for educational needs assessments and educational evaluation in specific affective areas, the most important being the learner's attitude toward school. IOX members undertook a search of literature relevant to the topics of attitudes toward school. They found considerable literature on vari- ables which may have impact upon attitudes per se. The IOX also consulted a number of educators familiar with sociolog- ical and attitudinal concomitants of school attendance and with attitude measurement techniques. After this prelim- inary, the IOX staff began to produce items which, in a rather direct fashion, solicited the learner's feelings re- garding the school environment. The emerging instrument ultimately included five dimensions of attitude toward school: teachers, school subjects, social structure and climate, peers, and general (Instructional Objectives Exchange, 1972). As used in this study, the School Sentiment Index 38 consists of thirty-five questions regarding various aspects of school. Students responded to each question by answering yes or no. An overall score for the entire measure, reflec- tive of student attitude toward school in general was ob- tained. The rationale underlying this measure is that the more frequently students answer yes to questions reflecting positive aspects of school attitude dimensions and no to questions reflecting negative aspects of such dimensions, the more positive the students' attitudes toward school. Validity pf the Measuring Instruments Validity concerns the issue of whether or not a test is actually measuring what it is supposed to be measuring. There are several types of validity, however the one great- est concern of educators is content validity. Content val- idity depends to a large extent on whether or not the items in a test accurately represent the subject matter that the test was designed to cover. During the development of CTBS, form U, the definition and refinement of content specifications were continous processes. After the initial curricular reviews, content coverage was verified as part of the procedures for devel- opment of items, analysis of tryout data, and selection of final test items. The procedures were designed to ensure the stimulus materials and items met the content criteria established for the tests, were well constructed, and were written in language appropriate for the various levels of 39 testing. All test items were edited according to recog- nized principles of test construction. CTB/McGraw-Hill editorial staff chose content validity as its first cri- terion and applied several methods to ensure the accuracy, currentness, and curricular relevance of the materials developed for CTBS. The appropriateness of test content for various groups is also an important aspect of test devel- opment. Stringent editorial procedures were applied to CTBS so that careful attention was given to questions of ethnic, racial, age, and gender bias (CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1983). On the School Sentiment Index, the accuracy with which scores on these measures would yield valid estimates of one's attitude toward school was subjected to considerable scrutiny throughout the various stages of development. Not only were measures tried out on students, but the validity of the general rationale, and the scoring of particular individual items, were constantly checked with members of the IOX staff as well as external consultants. Items were screened, re-worked, and tried on various groups of learners. Upon the initial release, the attitude toward school mate- rials were well received by educators throughout the nation. However, it was apparent to the IOX staff that improvements in the measures would have to be undertaken using a larger and more representative student population. The measures were revised in 1972 to improve both their reliability and validity. The revision of the School Sentiment Index resulted in a more refined measure that was 40 more defensibly based on field test data from a more repre- sentative learner population (Instructional Objectives Exchange, p. 7). Reliability pf the Measuring Instruments Reliability is the consistency of test results. Reli- able tests produce scores that are dependable and stable. When tests are used repeatedly in similar situations, they can be expected to produce similar results. Usually the methods for estimating the reliability of tests utilize a correlation coefficient which indicates the degree of reli- ability. A perfect reliability would be 1.00 while 0.00 would indicate no reliability. Test reliabilities that exceed .80 are considered excellent. A frequently used mea- sure of internal consistency, the Kuder-Richardson formula 20 (KR 20), was applied to CTBS, form U. In the CTB/McGraw- Hill Technical Report (1983) the authors present reliabil- ity coefficients for the test. The reliability coefficients are shown in Table 3.2. 41 Table 3.2 Average KR-20 Reliabilities For Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (1981 ed.) Test Level B Level C Level D Level E Total Reading .88 .95 .95 .96 Total Language .91 .91 Total Math .91 .94 Total Battery .97 .98 The revised School Sentiment Index was subjected to the Kuder-Richardson 20 analysis for an internal consistency estimate. Similarly, a test-retest correlation was com- puted. Results of these analyses on the School Sentiment Index were .72 for internal consistency and .87 for test- retest stability. Design The design of this study was formulated after consul- ting Michigan State University staff as well as authorities in the public sector. The research methodology used to evaluate academic achievement was the non-equivalent control group pretest-posttest design (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). A 2x2x3 design was utilized for analysis of Total Reading 42 and attitude toward school scores. A 2x2x2 design was uti- lized for evaluating Total Language, Total Mathematics, and Total Battery. This enabled the comparison of male and female students in the fundamental and regular classrooms at the first and/or second and third grade levels. Testable Hypotheses The following research questions and the hypotheses they generate will be tested in this study. Research Question 1: Will there be a difference in the academic achievement of students in the funda- mental school program as compared to students in the regular school program? Research Question 2: Will there be a difference in the attitude toward school of students in the fun- damental school program as compared to students in the regular school program? Research Question 3: Will there be significant interactions by grade level, by sex, or between grade level and sex in the academic achievement of students in the fundamental school program as compared to students in the regular school program? Research Question 4: Will there be significant interactions by grade level, by sex, or between grade level and sex in the attitude toward school of students in the fundamental school program as compared to students in the regular school program? The research objectives were equated within the design of the study to statements in terms of the null hypotheses. Null Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference (p<.05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on mean total bat- tery performance increase. \'\l -\c- '\ '1. 43 Null Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference (p4 .05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on mean total read- ing performance increase. Null Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference (p4 .05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on mean total lan- guage performance increase. Null Hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference (p< .05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on mean total math- ematics performance increase. Null Hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference (p4 .05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on attitude toward school mean scores. Null Hypothesis 6: There is no significant interaction (p4 .05) between program and grade level on mean total battery perfor- mance increase. Null Hypothesis 7: There is no significant interaction (p‘<.05) between program.and grade level on mean total reading perfor- mance increase. Null Hypothesis 8: There is no significant interaction (p«<.05) between program.and grade level on mean total language perfor- mance increase. Null Hypothesis 9: There is no significant interaction (p (.05) between program and grade level on mean total mathematics per- formance increase. Null Hypothesis 10: There is no significant interaction (p4 .05) between program and grade level on attitude toward school mean scores. Null Hypothesis 11: There is no significant interaction (p< .05) between program and sex on mean total battery performance increase. Null Null Null Null Null Null Null Null Null used Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 20: 44 There is no significant interaction (p‘<.05) between program and sex on mean total reading performance increase. There is no significant interaction (p4<.05) between program and sex on mean total language performance increase. There is no significant interaction (p < .05) between program and sex on total mathematics performance increase. There is no significant interaction (p<:.05) between program and sex on attitude toward school mean scores. There is no significant interaction (p4 .05) between program, grade level, and sex on mean total battery perfor- mance increase. There is no significant interaction (p4 .05) between program, grade level, and sex on mean tota reading perfor- mance increase. There is no significant interaction (p<:.05) between program, grade level, and sex on mean total language perfor- mance increase. There is no significant interaction (p‘<.05) between program, grade level, and sex on mean total mathematics per- formance increase. There is no significant interaction (p4<.05) between program, grade level, and sex on attitude toward school mean scores. - Analysis The three-way analysis of co-variance procedure was for the inferential testing of all null hypotheses per- taining to academic achievement in this study. The approp- riateness of this model was determined by the fact that 45 subjects in the experimental and control groups were not selected randomly and therefore initial differences may exist between them on CTBS pretest results. The attitude survey was given as a posttest based upon the assumption that attitude is not necessarily incremental and that evaluation of student attitude after being exposed to the program.was appropriate. Furthermore, analysis of the attitude pretest did not show significant differences between the experimental and control groups. The results were analyzed by analysis of variance. The probability for rejecting the results of the indi- vidual null hypotheses was established at the .05 level of significance. The computer program used for analyzing the data was the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Summary In this chapter information was presented regarding the subjects used in the study, the instruments used for measurement, the design, and analysis. The subjects were students in the fundamental and reg- ular school programs in the Saginaw Township Community School System for grades one, two, and three. They were evaluated using the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (Levels B, C, D, E) for academic achievement and the School Sentiment Index for attitude toward school. The three-way 46 analysis of co-variance was used to determine the relation- ship of program, grade level, and sex for academic achieve- ment. The analysis of variance was used to evaluate the attitude toward school of the subjects. A probability level of .05 was set for the inferential testing of all null hypotheses in the study. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction The researcher's purpose in this study was to compare students in a fundamental school program with students in a regular school program in the Saginaw Township Community School System. Using established instruments, the inves- tigator compared students in academic achievement growth and attitude toward school after exposure to the program during the 1982-83 school year. A three-way analysis of co-variance procedure was used for inferential testing of academic achievement across the population groups in the study. The analysis of variance procedure was used to compare attitude toward school of the students after exposure to the program. Narrative presen- tations are included for the hypotheses stated broadly in Chapter I and further discussed in more specific form in Chapter III. The probability level for all tests of statis- tical significance between groups receiving the fundamental and regular school programs was established at .05. In the areas of the data where the ANCOVA or ANOVA indi- cated significant F values relevant to the null hypotheses, post hoc comparisons were applied in the form of t-tests for independent means on mean scale score performance increase (posttest score minus pretest score) of students in the two programs for academic achievement. In addition, the t-test 47 48 for independent means was used for post hoc comparison of attitude toward school scores for the experimental and con- trol groups. Null hypotheses were rejected only if statis- tically significant mean differences were established on the t-tests . ' Table 4.1 lists "F" statistics for each hypothesis tested and Table 4.2 lists "t" values for each hypothesis included in post hoc comparisons. Mean scale score perfor- mance increases for each program by sex and grade level are found in Tables 4.3 through 4.14. Tables 4.15 through 4.17 list mean scores for attitude toward school by program, sex, and grade level. Hypotheses Null Hypothesis One Null Hypothesis One stated: There is no significant difference (P4.05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on mean total battery performance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels D and E for second and third graders. No statisti- cally significant difference was found between the students in the fundamental school program and students in the regu- lar school program on mean total battery performance increase. Therefore, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. 49 Table 4.1 "F" Statistics Associated with Research Hypotheses ’Total Total Total 'Totalf Hypotheses Battery Readingi Language Math Attitude 1 9.981** l6.557** 7:364** 8.799** 20.895 2.121 3.229* 0.013 \OWVC‘MDUDN 1.420 2.083 P‘ P4 h‘ c: 1.294 0.009 [—1 N 0.089 1" 09 0.191 H ¢~ 4.289* r- :4 ox tn 1.066 1.769 1“ \I 0.199 1" CD 0.083 1" \0 0.859 N O *significant at the .05 level **significant at the .01 level 50 Table 4.2 "t" Values Associated with Research Hypotheses Total Total Total Total Hypotheses Battery Reading Language Math Attitude l -0.20 2 0.93 3 0.66 4 0.19 5 4.19** 7 Grade One 2.05* Grade Two -0.28 Grade Three -l.62 15 Males 4.09** Females 2.05 *significant at the .05 level **significant at the .01 level Two-tailed t-tests were applied as the null hypotheses did not predict a direction. In all cases, the regular school mean was subtracted from the fundamental school mean. 51 Null Hypothesis Two Null Hypothesis Two stated: There is no significant difference (p‘<.05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on mean total reading performance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels B, C, D, and E for first, second, and third graders. The statistical analysis found no significant difference between the students in the fundamental school program.and students in the regular school program on mean total reading performance increase. As a result, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Null Hypothesis Three Null Hypothesis Three stated: There is no significant difference (p< .05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on mean total language performance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels D and E for second and third graders. No statisti- cally significant difference was found between the students in the fundamental school program and students in the regu- lar school program.an mean total language performance in- crease. Thus, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Null Hypothesis Four Null Hypothesis Four stated: There is no significant difference (p<.05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on mean total mathematics performance increase. 52 To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels D and E for second and third graders. Statistical results of the analysis showed no significant difference between the students in the fundamental school program and students in the regular school program on mean total mathe- matics performance increase. The null hypothesis could not be rejected. Null Hypothesis Five Null Hypothesis Five stated: There is no significant difference (p4 .05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on attitude toward school mean scores. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on the primary level of the School Sentiment Index for first, second, and third graders. As Table 4.2 indicates, a statis- tically significant difference was found between the students in the fundamental school program and students in the regular school programs on attitude twoard school mean scores. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected at the .01 level. Null Hypothesis Six Null Hypothesis Six stated: There is no significant interaction (p4 .05) between program and grade level on mean total battery perfor- mance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels D and E, for second and third graders. No statisti- cally significant interaction was found between students in 53 the fundamental school program and students in the regular school program on mean total battery performance increase by grade level. Therefore, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Null Hypothesis Seven Null Hypothesis Seven stated: There is no significant interaction (p 4 .05) between program and grade level on mean total reading perfor- mance 1ncrease. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels B, C, D, and E for first, second, and third graders. The results of the analysis reported in Table 4.2 indicate a statistically significant interaction did exist between program and grade level. Fundamental school students at the first grade level scored significantly higher statistically than their regular school counterparts on mean total reading performance increase. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected at the .05 level. Null Hypothesis Eight Null Hypothesis Eight stated: There is no significant interaction (p4 .05) between program and grade level on mean total language perfor- mance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels D and E for second and third graders. The statisti- cal analysis found no significant interaction between the students in the fundamental school program and students in 54 the regular school program on mean total language perfor- mance increase by grade level. As a result, the null hypoth- esis could not be rejected. Null Hypothesis Nine Null Hypothesis Nine stated: There is no significant interaction (p< .05) between program and grade level on mean total mathematics per- formance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels D and E for second and third graders. No statisti- cally significant interaction was found between students in the fundamental school program and students in the regu- lar school program on mean total mathematics performance increase by grade level. Consequently, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Null Hypothesis Ten Null Hypothesis Ten stated: There is no significant interaction (p< .05) between program and grade level on attitude toward school mean scores. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on the primary level of the School Sentiment Index for first, second, and third graders. Statistical results of the anal- ysis showed no significant interaction between students in the fundamental school program and students in the regular school program on attitude toward school mean scores by grade level. Thus, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. 55 Null Hypothesis Eleven Null Hypothesis Eleven stated: There is no significant interaction (p4 .05) between program and sex on mean total battery performance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels D and E for second and third graders. No statisti- cally significant interaction was found between students in the fundamental school program and students in the regular school program on mean total battery performance increase by sex. The null hypothesis could not be rejected. Null Hypothesis Twelve Null Hypothesis Twelve stated: There is no significant interaction (p4 .05) between program and sex on mean total reading performance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels B, C, D, and E for first, second, and third graders. The statistical analysis found no significant interaction between students in the fundamental school program and stu- dents in the regular school program on mean total reading performance increase by sex. As a result, the null hypothe- sis could not be rejected. Null Hypothesis Thirteen Null Hypothesis Thirteen stated: There is no significant interaction (p‘<.05) between program and sex on mean total language performance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS 56 levels D and E for second and third graders. No statisti- cally significant interaction was found between students in the fundamental school program and students in the regular school program on mean total language performance increase by sex. Therefore, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Null Hypothesis Fourteen Null Hypothesis Fourteen stated: There is no significant interaction (p:<.05) between program and sex on mean total mathematics performance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels D and E for second and third graders. Statistical results of the analysis showed no significant interaction between students in the fundamental school program and stu- dents in the regular school program on mean total mathe- matics performance increase by sex. Consequently, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Null Hypothesis Fifteen Null Hypothesis Fifteen stated: There is no significant interaction (p< .05) between program and sex on attitude toward school mean scores. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on the primary level of the School Sentiment Index for first, second, and third graders. As Table 4.2 indicates, a sta- tistically significant interaction was found between stu- dents in the fundamental school program and students in the regular school program.an attitude toward school mean scores 57 by sex. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected at the .05 level for females and the .01 level for males. Null Hypothesis Sixteen Null Hypothesis Sixteen stated: There is no significant interaction (p< .05) between program, grade level, and sex on mean total battery perfor- ‘mance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels D and E for second and third graders. No statisti- cally significant interaction was found between students in the fundamental school program and students in the reg- ular school program on mean total battery performance in- crease by grade level and sex. Thus, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Null Hypothesis Seventeen Null Hypothesis Seventeen stated: There is no significant interaction (p< .05) between prpgram, grade level, and sex on mean total reading perfor- mance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels B, C, D, and E for first, second, and third graders. The statistical analysis found no significant interaction between students in the fundamental school program and stu- dents in the regular school program on mean total reading performance increase by grade level and sex. The null hy- pothesis could not be rejected. 58 Null Hypothesis Eighteen Null Hypothesis Eighteen stated: There is no significant interaction (p< .05) between program, grade level, and sex on mean total language perfor- mance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels D and E for second and third graders. No statisti- cally significant interaction was found between students in the fundamental school program and students in the regular school program on mean total language performance increase by grade level and sex. As a result, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Null Hypothesis Nineteen Null Hypothesis Nineteen stated: There is no significant interaction (P< .05) between program, grade level, and sex on mean total mathematics perfor- mance increase. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on CTBS levels D and E for second and third graders. Statistical analysis did not reveal a significant interaction between students in the fundamental school program and students in the regular school program on mean total mathematics perfor- mance increase by grade level and sex. Consequently, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. 59 Null Hypothesis Twenty Null Hypothesis Twenty stated: There is no significant interaction (p< .05) between program, grade level, and sex on attitude toward school mean scores. To test this hypothesis, data were collected on the primary level of the School Sentiment Index for first, second, and third graders. No statistically significant interaction was found between students in the fundamental school program and students in the regular school program on attitude toward school mean scores by grade level and sex. Therefore, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Summary The analyses of the data indicated some significant findings in specific areas of academic achievement and att- tude toward school. Students in the fundamental school pro- gram, for example, performed significantly higher than regular school students on attitude toward school mean scores (null hypothesis five). A significant interaction was found in the comparison of mean total reading performance increase by program and grade level. Fundamental school students performed signif- icantly higher at the first grade level than regular school students (null hypothesis seven). The test of null hypothesis fifteen indicated that the findings were favorable on behalf of the students in the 60 fundamental school program. Both female and male students in the experimental group performed significantly higher than their counterparts in the regular school program on attitude toward school mean scores. 61 wm.o~ No.mm om.mw Hooch Hm.¢u Nm.Ho nw.¢w Houuaou ow.no Nu.nm Hm.ow Hmuamfiwhmaxm HmDOH mmHSH momuu 039 momho Hm>mA momuo x amuwoum x.mHmz humuumm Hooch “mmmmnooH mommahomumm muoom mHmom ammz m.¢ maan 62 so.am H~.m¢ sm.qs Hmuoe mo.wm om.om om.on Houucoo No.Ho mo.m¢ w¢.¢n HmquBflhmmxm Hmuoe mmusfi momuo 039 momuu Hm>mg momuw x Emuwoum x mamamm khhmuumm HMUOH “QmNQHUGH OUfiMEOWHmm GHOUW OHGUW fimwz ¢.¢ maan 63 om.mo Hm.¢m wH.w9 Honuooa m9.¢o m9.Hm mN.ow Hmucmfiwhmaxm Hmu09 mmu£9 momua 039 momma Hm>mA momma x amuwoum mpmuumm Hmu09 ”mmmmnocH mommauomumm mhoom mamom cmmz m.e magma 64 mu.mom o¢.om w9.om Nm.oom Hmu09 mm.aom ~9.om mm.mm Hm.omm Homuaoa m¢.¢om NH.om oo.ow mo.¢mm Hmmmmammmmxm Hmu09 mmm£9 momma 039 momma moo momma Hm>mq momma x 8mmw0mm x mam: wamommm Hmu09 ”mmmmmooH mosmamommmm mmoom mmmom ammz o.¢ mem9 65 ms.mm as.ee mo.mm cm.mom mmuom om.ss mm.om om.mm ms.mmm momuaou ms.os oo.mm mm.sm m~.smm mmucmammmaxm Hmu09 mmmn9 momma 039 momma moo momma Hm>mq momma x Emmwomm N mamamm womommm Hmu09 "mmmmmocH moamamommmm mmoom mmmom 5mm: m.e «mama 66 om.om on as so om Nm.smm mmuom em.Ns as.~m so.mm m~.qmm monocoo mm.oom om.ms mm.wm om.wmm mmucmamumaxm Hmu09 mmm£9 momma 039 momma moo momma Hm>mq momma x BmmMomm WCHUNOM HMUOH. ”mmmeUCH OUGMEHOWHQm UHOUW @Hmum 9602 m.¢ mHnm9 67 o¢.mo HH.~o mo.wo Hmu09 H9.oo No.00 m¢.H9 momucoa om.¢o mo.mo mm.no Hmuamammmaxm Hmu09 mmm£9 momma 039 momma Hm>mq momma N Emmwomm x mam: mwmswamq Hmu09 "mmmmmooH mocmBmommmm mmoom mmmom cmmz s.s «spam 68 mm.9¢ mm.mq on.m¢ Homucoa m9.am om.om H~.¢o Hmuamammmaxm Hmu09 mmm£9 momma 039 momma Hm>mq momma x Emmwomm x mamamm mwmswamq Hmu09 ”mmmmmocH moamEmommmm mmoom mmmom ammz oa.¢ mHnm9 69 mo.am m¢.Hm mN.Ho Homucoa mw.oa 9m.nm no.ma Hmucmammmoxm Hmu09 mmm£9 momma 039 momma Hm>mA momma x Emmwomm mwmnmcmq Hmu09 ”mmmmmocH mommamommmm mmoom mmmom mmmz HH.¢ mHom9 70 ou.mw mm.wo 0N.Hm momuaoa Hw.wn oo.mo mm.m¢ Hmucmsmmmmxm Hmu09 mmm£9 momma 039 momma Hm>mA momma x Emmmomm x mam: momumamnumz Hmu09 "mmmmmoaH mommamommmm mmoom mmmom mmmz NH.¢ mHnm9 71 mm.mm mo.Nm 99.Hoa Hmu09 oo.m~ om.mm om.mm Homumoa H¢.m9 mo.am m9.¢oa Hmummammmmxm Hmu09 mmm£9 momma 039 momma Hm>mA momma x Emmwomm x mamfimm momumamsumz Hmu09 "mmmmmocH mommamommmm mmoom mmmom ammz mH.¢ mHnm9 72 om.m9 oo.mm Hm.¢m Homumoa 9N.mn mN.wm om.am Hmuamammmmxm Hmu09 mmm£9 momma 039 momma Hm>mq momma x Bmeomm momumamnumz Hmu09 "mmmmmonH mommsmommmm mmoom mmmom cmmz sm.s mmnmm 73 mm.mm mm.mm ¢~.o~ «a.m~ Hmu09 oo.~m m9.- mm.m~ mm.m~ Homusoa om.nm on.¢~ 99.mm o~.a~ Hmuamammmmxm Hmu09 mmm£9 momma 039 momma moo momma Hm>mq momma x Bmmwdmm N mam: Hoonom omm309 monumuu< "mmmoom cmmz mH.¢ mHnm9 74 OH.mN «$.0N OH.mN do.wN HmHOB ON.NN nm.oN mm.w~ 00.9N HOHufiOU mo.mN mm.NN w©.mN cm.mN Haufimfifimmmxm Hmu09 mmm£9 momma 039 momma mco momma Hm>mu momma x ammwomm x mamamm H00£om omm309 moSumuu< "mmmoom ommz 0H.¢ manm9 75 40.0N mm mm mm.m~ mm mm mmuom os.¢~ No.nN No.mN mm.mm monocoo o~.m~ oo.m~ o~.m~ ms.s~ mausoammmaxm Hmu09 mmm£9 momma 039 momma moo momma Hm>mq momma m Emmwomm Hoonom omm309 monumuu< ”mmmoom cmmz 9H.¢ mabm9 CHAPTER v SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, [AND IMPLICATIONS Introduction In this final chapter information regarding the summary of the study, findings, conclusions, and implications drawn from the results of the study are presented. The summary includes background information, rationale, and the design employed in the study. In the second section of this chap- ter, conclusions based on the findings are presented, as well as discussion relating these conclusions to the theory for- mulated early in the study. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings and recom- mendations for further research. Summary The 1970's were marked by the alternative school move- ment, developed as a response to the educational concerns of individual communities. Clearly, alternative schools pro- vide parents with a choice as to how they want their child- ren educated. At the conservative end of this movement grew the alternative fundamental public school. The political success of fundamental schools is evident, as they have con- tinued to exist and expand over the last decade. There ap- pears to be support for the educational philosophy fundamen- tal schools represent, that being a stress on basic 76 77 education with little or no experimentation. Discipline, homework, character building, and emphasized instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic are earmarks of the pro- gram. The rapid growth of alternative fundamental schools gives rise to the concern that a philosophical basis is often used as a criteria for their implementation. Despite the impact of the back-to-basics movement and the growth of fundamental schools, there are relatively few studies available in regard to the attitude and academic achieve- ment of students who have been exposed to this educational alternative. The researcher's purpose in this study was to assess the academic achievement and attitudes exhibited by students in the alternative fundamental school program in the Saginaw Township Community School System during the academic school year of 1982-83. To guide the investigation, the following questions were formulated and answers to them were sought: 1. Will there be a difference in the academic achievement of students in the fundamental school program as compared to students in the regular school program? 2. Will there be a difference in the attitude toward school of students in the fundamental school program as compared to students in the regular school program? 3. Will there be significant interactions between program and grade level, between program and sex, or between program, grade level, and sex, in the academic achievement of students? 78 4. Will there be significant interactions between program and grade level, between program and sex, or between program, grade level, and sex, in the attitude toward school of students? The students sampled in this study came from two ele- mentary schools in Saginaw Township. Each school contained an alternative fundamental program for first, second, and third graders as well as a regular school program for these grade levels. The experimental group consisted of those participating in the fundamental program and the control group was drawn from students in the regular program. The research methodology used in this study for testing academic achievement was a non-equivalent control group pre- test-posttest design of the following type: l 2 (pre) (post) Experimental Group 0 X 0 Control Group 0 0 The instruments chosen for gathering data included various levels of the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills for measuring academic achievement and the primary level of the School Sentiment Index for evaluating attitude toward school. The three-way analysis of co-variance procedure was used for the initial inferential testing of the hypotheses pertaining to academic achievement. The analysis of variance was performed on data obtained from the School Sentiment 79 Index to test hypotheses pertaining to attitude toward school after exposure to the program. Post hoc comparisons in the form of t-test analyses for the independent means of academic scale score gains and attitude scores between the two groups were performed to identify significant findings pertaining to the null hypotheses. The probability level for all tests of statistical significance was established at .05. Considerable care was applied to verify data accuracy and in conducting the statistical analyses. The level of significance determined by the analysis of co-variance pro- cedure did not always correlate with significance levels established by the t-tests for independent means of scale score performance increases between the two groups. One can only make conjectures concerning these differences. Possibly the different scale score ranges on the various levels of the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills contributed to the significant F values on the analyses of co-variance but did not result in significant mean differences on the t- tes tS . 80 Findings pf the Study Analyses of data collected on the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills and the School Sentiment Index produced the following results: Null Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference (p< .05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on mean total battery performance increase. Finding: No statistically significant difference was found between fundamental school students and regular school students on mean total battery performance increase. Null Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference (p<:.05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on mean total reading performance increase. Finding: No statistically significant difference was found between the fundamental school students and the reg- ular school students on mean total reading performance increase. Null Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference (p4<.05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on mean total language performance increase. 81 Finding: No statistically significant difference was found between the fundamental school students and the reg- ular school students on mean total language performance increase. Null Hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference (p<:.05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on mean total mathematics perfor- mance increase. Finding: No statistically significant difference was found between the fundamental school students and the reg- ular school students on mean total mathematics performance increase. Null Hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference (p‘(.05) between the fundamental school students and the regular school students on attitude toward school mean scores. Finding: There was a statistically significant differ-1 ence on attitude toward school mean scores. Student atti- tude toward school was significantly related to participa- tion in the fundamental school program. Null Hypothesis 6: There is no significant interaction (p4(.05) between program and grade level on mean total bat- tery performance increase. Finding: No statistically significant interaction was found between program.and grade level on mean total battery performance increase. 82 Null Hypothesis 1: There is no significant interaction (p< .05) between program and grade level on mean total reading performance increase. Finding: There was a statistically significant inter- action on mean total reading performance increase between program and grade level. At the first grade level, funda- mental school students made significantly greater gains com- pared to the regular school students. Null Hypothesis 8: There is no significant interaction (p<£.05) between program and grade level on mean total lan- guage performance increase. Finding: No statistically significant interaction was found between program and grade level on mean total lan- guage performance increase. Null Hypothesis 9: There is no significant interaction (p<<.05) between program and grade level on mean total math- ematics performance increase. Finding: No statistically significant interaction was found between program and grade level on mean total math- ematics performance increase. Null Hypothesis 10: There is no significant interaction (p<:.05) between program and grade level on attitude toward school mean scores. Finding: No statistically significant interaction was found between program and grade level on attitude toward school mean scores. 83 Null Hypothesis 11: There is no significant interaction (p<<.05) between program and sex on mean total battery per- formance increase. Finding: No statistically significant interaction was found between program and sex on mean total battery perfor- mance increase. Null Hypothesis 11: There is no significant interaction (p4<.05) between program and sex on mean total reading per- formance increase. Finding: No statistically significant interaction was found between program and sex on mean total reading perfor- mance increase. Null Hypothesis 1;: There is no significant interaction (p<<.05) between program and sex on mean total language per- formance increase. Finding: No statistically significant interaction was found between program and sex on mean total language perfor- mance increase. Null Hypothesis 14: There is no significant interaction (p‘:.05) between program and sex on mean total mathematics performance increase. Finding: No statistically significant interaction was found between program and sex on mean total mathematics per- formance increase. Null Hypothesis 1;: There is no significant interaction (p<:.05) between program and sex on attitude toward school mean S cores . 84 Finding: There was a statistically significant inter- action between program and sex on attitude toward school mean scores. Males in the fundamental school program scored significantly higher than males in the regular school pro- gram and female students in the fundamental school program scored significantly higher than female students in the regular school program. Null Hypothesis 16: There is no significant interaction (p:<.05) between program, grade level, and sex on mean total battery performance increase. Finding: No statistically significant interaction was found between program, grade level, and sex on mean total battery performance increase. Null Hypothesis 11: There is no significant interaction (p<<.05) between program, grade level, and sex on mean total reading performance increase. Finding: No statistically significant interaction was found between program, grade level, and sex on mean total reading performance increase. Null Hypothesis 18: There is no significant interaction (p<(.05) between program, grade level, and sex on mean total language performance increase. Finding: No statistically significant interaction was found between program, grade level, and sex on mean total language performance increase. 85 Null Hypothesis 19: There is no significant interaction (p«(.05) between program, grade level, and sex on mean total mathematics performance increase. Finding: No statistically significant interaction was found between program, grade level, and sex on mean total mathematics performance increase. Null Hypothesis 10: There is no significant interaction (p‘<.05) between program, grade level, and sex on attitude toward school mean scores. Finding: No statistically significant interaction was found between program, grade level, and sex on attitude toward school mean scores. Conclusions pf the Study Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions were drawn with respect to participation in the alternative fundamental school program: 1. Mean performance increase in academic achievement for the subtest areas of Total Battery, Total Read- ing, Total Language, and Total Mathematics was not related to student participation in either the alternative fundamental school program or in the regular school program. 2. Although fundamental school students as a group did not perform at a statistically significant higher level on mean total reading performance increase when compared to their regular school counterparts, 86 a significant interaction was found between program and grade level. Fundamental school students at the first grade level performed at a statistically significant higher level than first grade students in the regular school program. 3. The attitude toward school expressed by children on the School Sentiment Index at the end of their participation in the alternative fundamental school program was significantly higher than that expressed by regular school students. 4. Both males and females in the alternative fundamen- tal school program expressed a statistically signif- icant higher attitude toward school as compared to their counterparts in the regular school program. The conclusions developed from this study are limited to the population from.which the samples were drawn. The abstract nature of the concept ”attitude toward school" fur- ther restricts the results. Self report instruments such as the School Sentiment Index measure reported perceptions rather than observed behavior, thus requiring cautious inter- pretation. It is also important to note that the degree to which the reader accepts the assumptions underlying the tested theory and the statistical procedures used to test the theory constrains the generalizability of the study. 87 Implications pf the Study The following implications are warranted based on the data accumulated and analyzed in this study: 1. Given the fact that fundamental schools are becoming more popular throughout the country, it is important that educators become more familiar with outcomes of the limited studies that address cognitive and affective outcomes of student performance in such programs. The results of this study are in line with most past research regarding alternative schools in that the fundamental school students generally performed as well as or better than stu- dents in the regular school program as determined by statistical analysis. 2. Some educators recommend highly structured educa- tional programs such as that offered in the alter- native fundamental school for the purpose of im- proving the declining academic performance often reported on standardized achievement tests. The results of this study indicate some relationships between fundamental school program participation and academic achievement. However, proponents must temper their optimism as the mean performance in- crease of raw scale scores by program, grade level, and sex did not consistantly favor fundamental school students on the academic sub-tests. . /_ 88 The affective domain and its relationship to aca- demic success has received increased attention during the last decade. Educators who favor struc- tured learning environments should be encouraged with the results of this study. On the measure used, students in the alternative fundamental school program expressed a more positive attitude toward school compared to students in the regular school program. However, it is important that addi- tional investigation be done in this area as only one measure was administered to students after program exposure. Although no measurement or evaluation was conducted regarding the impact of parental involvement in the fundamental program, it is a noteworthy issue to address. Fundamental school parents signed contracts expressing their support of the philosophy of the program. It is possible that the more positive attitude displayed by fundamental school students could be attributed in part to this relationship between parents and the fundamental philosophy as well as their support for the teachers and curricu- lum. It is also conceivable that these parents might reflect a more supportive value system in their homes in regard to the importance of good study skills and a responsible effort. 89 Even though the curriculum materials used by students in both programs was similar, the organization of the school day in the fundamental classroom may have indirectly affected both the attitude and academic achievement of the students. Time on tasks and transition time were given high emphasis in the fun- damental school. Should community demand for this Fundamental School alternative remain in Saginaw Township, data exists that students in the program generally do as well as regular school students and therefore the pro- gram should be considered for continuation and/or expansion. However, neither program showed con- sistant superiority. This is not inconsistant with many studies that Show little difference between the performance gains of students in two educational programs. 90 Recommendations for Further Research Further researchers should consider improvements in methodology when gathering information using similar instru- ments and answering similar questions. These recommenda- tions include: 1. An attempt should be made to secure student samples randomly selected from a larger pool of fundamental and regular school students. A careful investigation of the difference in the instructional conditions of the two programs would help isolate reasons for student academic perfor- mance and attitude at all levels. Apart from the instruments used in the study, there would seem to be an additional need for evaluating those elements of school curriculum that pertain to students' attitudes and value systems. A study investigating the effect of long term par- ticipation in an alternative fundamental school program should be conducted to determine the impact of extended exposure to this educational environment. The affective variable should be investigated by ‘more than one written questionnaire and at differ- ent points during extended exposure to a fundamen- tal school program. 91 It could be of importance to other school systems considering a fundamental school program to evaluate the relationship between parental support of the program, as evidenced by their signing a support contract, and its effect on student attitude toward school. At the present time, most teachers who staff regu- lar and fundamental school programs are prepared in similar fashion. It would be of interest to study the implications of preparing teachers who teach in alternative fundamental schools in a dif- ferent manner. A study investigating the criteria parents use in placing their child in an alternative fundamental school program as opposed to other options would be appropriate. It would be of interest to study the relationships between students' learning styles and their academic performance in the fundamental classroom. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY American School Board Journal, "The Journal Ballot Box," ay, I975, Vol. 162, No. 5, p. 55. Barkhurst, Mike, and Wolf, W.C., "Initiating, Sustaining Alternative Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, May, 1978, pp. 635-636. Barr, Robert D., "Alternatives for the Eighties: A Second Decade of Development," Phi Delta Kappan, April, 1981, p. 573. Barr, Robert D., Colston, Bruce, and Parrett, William H., "The Effectiveness of Alternative Public Schools," Viewpoints 13 Teaching and Learning, July, 1977, p. 27. Beyer, Barry K., "Back to Basics: Actions Speak Louder Than Words," NASSP Bulletin, October, 1978, pp. 79-87. Bonds, Herbert D., "The Alternative Fundamental Schools: Their Characteristics and Selected Administrative Considerations," (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California, 1979). Brodinsky, Ben, "Back to the Basics: The Movement and Its Meaning," Phi Delta Kappan, March, 1977, p. 524. Campbell, D.T., and Stanley, J.C., Experimental and Quasi- experimental Designs for ResearCh (Chicago: Rand- McNaIly and Company, 1966 . (3TB/McGraw-Hill, Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills: Test Coordinator's Handbook, Monterey, —California, 1983, pp. 10, 54. (2TB/McGraw-Hill, CTBS: Technical Report, Monterey, Cali- fornia, 1983_ pp. - Ikmnmoyer, Robert, "Back to Basics Now and 20 Years Ago-A Comparison of Two Movements, " Educational Leadership, May, 1979, Vol. 36, N0. 8, pp. 555- 558. Docjb, Heather S. , Evaluations of Alternative Schools (Arling- ton, Virginia: EducationaI—Research Service, 1977), p. 44. Donna, Graham A., "Why Basic Education," The Education Digest, November, 1977, p. 4. 92 93 9 Enochs, James C., The Restoration pf Standards: The Modesto Plan (Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Founda- tion, 1979), p. 19. Fantini, Mario, quoted from a speech given at a regional conference on options in public education, Grand Rapids, Michigan, November 1, 1972. Ferguson, Hugh D., "Review of Fundamentally Speakipg, by H.G.Myers," Bulletin of the Natibnal Association 91 Secondary SCHOOI PrinEipals, May, 1978, p. 153. Ham, Dalton F., "Reasons Why Parents Enroll Their Children in Fundamentalist Christian Schools and Why Churches Sponsor Them,” (Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Missouri, 1982). Instructional Objectives Exchange, Attitude Toward School K-12 (rev. ed.), Los Angeles, 1972, pp. 3-9. Irwin, Thomas H., "A Comparison of Locus of Control Beliefs and Academic Achievement Between a Fundamental Alter- native School and a Regular Comprehensive School," (Docgoral Dissertation, University of San Francisco, 1982 . Jennings, Wayne, and Nathan, Joe, "Startling/Disturbing Re- search on School Program Effectiveness," Phi Delta Kappan, March, 1977, p. 568. Johnson, Lary, and Pearson, Diane, Fundamental Schools in the Minneapolis School System: An Evaluation I978-79, Mifineapolis, Minnesota, Research—andIEvaIuation Depart- ment, August, 1979. Jones, Philip C., "All About Those New Fundamental Public Schools, What They're Promising, and Why They're Catching On," The American School Board Journal, February, 1976, Vol. 163, No. 2, p. 30. Lieberman, A., and Griffin, G., The Alternative School: A Strate for Chan e (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED I63 56 , 77. Lucas, Christopher J., "On the Possible Meanings of Back to Basics," Educational Theory, Summer, 1978, No. 3, p.236. Matters pf Choice: A Ford Foundation Re ort on Alternative Schools (New York: Ford Foundation, 1974), p. 6. Mazzarela, J., Alternative Schools, (ERIC Document Reproduc- tion Service No. 163 560), I978. 94 Myers, Henry S., Fundamental1y S eakin (San Francisco: Strawberry HilI Press, 197 , pp. 56, 81, 101. Miller, Lynne, as quoted in Shaw, Jane S., "The New Conser- vative Alternative," Nation's Schools 1 Colleges, February, 1975, V0. 2, No. 2, p. 39. Morgan, Rebecca, as quoted in Jones, Philip C., "All About Those New Fundamental Public Schools, What They're Promising, and Why They're Catching On," The American School Board Journal, February, 1976, Vol. 163, No. 2, p. 24. Nation's Schools Re ort, "Back-to-Basics Trend is Here to tay,” VOI. 2, N0. 2, January 19, 1976, pp. 1-2. NEA Research, "Teacher Opinion Poll," Today's Education, February-March, 1981, Vol. 70, No. I: p. 84 GE. Neill, Shirley B., "Pasadena's Approach to the Classic School Debate," American Education, April, 1976, Vol. 12, No. 3, p. 6. Page, Betty, "Review of Fundamentally S eakin by H.G. Myers," Library Journal, August, I577, p. 1638. Salerno, J., Salem.PubliC Alternative School (ERIC Document Reproductibn Service No. ED I45 593), I977. Shaw, Jane 8., "The New Conservative Alternative," Nation's Schools Q Colleges, February, 1975, V01. 2, N0. 3I. p. Smith, Vernon H., "Options in Public EduCation: The Quiet Revolution," Phi Delta Kappan, March, 1973, Vol. LIV, N0. 7, pp. 434-4371 Smith, Vernon H., quoted from a speech delivered at the Wingspread Conference Center, Racine, Wisconsin, January 29, 1981. - Spencer, Oliver W., "The Academic Achievement of Students Attending a Fundamental Alternative School in Saint Paul," (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1982). Totdahl, Orval S., "A Study of Affective and Cognitive Out- comes of Elementary Pupils in a Structured Program and a Traditional Program,‘ (Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin—Madison, 1977). 95 Warren, Fred, "The Comparison of Pupils in an Alternative Educational Program Designed to Improve Basic Skills With Pu ils in a Traditional Program Within the Same School,’ (Doctoral Dissertation, Fordham University, 1976). Weber, George, "Back to 'the Basics' in School: Here's the Case for Pushing the Current Trend Into a Landslide," American School Board Journal, August, 1975, Vol. 162, No. 8, p. 55. Wellington, J., "American Education: Its Failure and Its Future," Phi Delta Kappan, March, 1977, pp. 527-30. APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTER OF APPROVAL SAGINAW TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 3465 N. CENTER ROAD PO. Box 6278 SAGINAW. MICHIGAN 48608 AC. (517) 792-8771 GERALD S. DeGRow. EDD. SUPERINTENDENT 0F SCHOOLS MEMORANDUM Date: August 17, 1982 To: Richard P. Dyer From: Gerald S. DeGrOW/Qgfig::intentendent Re: Fundamental School Research Proposal In regard to our pwevious discussions concerning evaluation of the Saginaw Township Community School's Fundamental Program, I am pleased to give my permission and support for such a study. Of special interest to our district is the academic achievement of students in the program during the initial year. An investigation of student's attitudes should also prove to be beneficial. I have advised Mr. Jack Cleveland, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, of your research study and he will provide assistance in the mechanics of testing. GSD/pm 96 APPENDIX B SCHOOL SENTIMENT INDEX \lO‘U‘Ibw CD 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. SCHOOL SENTIMENT INDEX: PRIMARY LEVEL Is your teacher interested in the things you do at home? When you are trying to do your schoolwork, do the other children bother you? Does your teacher care about you? Do other children get you into trouble at school? Do you like being at school? Would you be happier if you didn't have to go to school? Does your teacher give you enough time to finish your work? Are the grown-ups at school friendly toward the children? Do you like learning to read in school? Are you usually afraid to ask your teacher a question? Are the other children in your class friendly toward you? Are you scared to go to the office at school? Do you like to paint pictures at school? Do you like to listen to stories in school? Is school fun? Does your teacher like to help y0u with your work when you need help? Do you like doing arithmetic problems at school? Are the rooms in your school nice? Do you like to learn about science? Do you like to sing songs with your class? Does your school have too many rules? 97 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 98 Do you like the other children in your class? Would you like to be somewhere other than school right now? Does your teacher like some children better than others? Do other people at school really care about you? Does your teacher yell at the children too much? Do you like to come to school every day? Does your teacher get mad too much? Do you feel lonely at school? Do you have your own group of friends at school? Do your classmates listen to what you say? Do you like to learn about other people? Do you wish you could stay home from school a lot? Is school boring? Are there a lot of nice things to do at school? APPENDIX C BREAKDOWN OF ANALYSES BY MAIN EFFECTS AND INTERACTIONS 99 omn.amom owH m¢~.owmwom H<909 HoH.omo NNH omm.owmmOH HmH mamma zMH mnMH mnmH momma moo. Ham.m mmm.¢w~o H amN.maNo zoa a mo h mm mo mUMDOm MaszHmHzaHm Zoa ho mHmWHma mamm mamm moamo zmm mnamo ooo. smm.mm www.mmmmm m «No.mmmmm zoo a so a mmamom an mmm¢20m 20mm mo momoom muzoa mo mHmemm moose zmm moma mnmm mooo a so a mmaoom so mmm so momoom . mozoa mo mHmema moma moamo xmm moo. mom.o omo.oom m omo.oom xmm zma momm moomo moo. oo9.m mmH.onm H mmH.ono zmmaomm moo. ooo.o moo.momm m ooo.mmmmm mmomomm 2mm: ooo. mno.mom os~.momoom m omm.momoom mmmmmmo mmaz moo a so a mm so momoom mozoa mo mHmemH mamma zomaomm mNm. mmw.o om9.Hm N www.mo mon9aMH mnMH mamma zMH mm mo MUMDOm maz ho mHmMH mommm GOHumH>ma ommz momma m0 eaoma HHm9uN m0 mmmmwma u ommommum ommoomum mmoaoz 9mm99 mommm momumm>mn ommz mmmma m0 mooma Hmm9nN m0 mmmmwma u ommocmum ommoamum mmoaoz aZHQ mommm oomumm>mn mmmz mmmma m0 adoma HHm9nN m0 mmmmwmn u ommonmum ommoamum mmoasz ma mommm oomumm>mn ommz mmmma m0 mwoma HHm9nN mo mmmmwmn u ommocmum ommocmum mmnasz maH9 mommm nomumm>mo ommz mmwma m0 maoma HHm9uN m0 mmmmwmn u ommocmum ommocmum mmoabz Hoomam Qm<309 MQD9H99< 9mM9uu 109 oN¢.w mHo.Nm omN.¢mH mm Homuooa ooo.o mm mo.N Hn¢.w 9mm.9m «mm.w9H 9m HmuomaHmmmxm MUHHHomnomm Boommmm msHm> mommm GOHumH>mQ ommz mmmma mo maoma Hmm9nN m0 mmmmwma u ommocmum ommoomum mmoaoz mzo mn momma oomumm>ma ommz mmmma m0 edoma HHm9uN m0 wmmmwmn u ommoomum ommocmum mmoaoz 039 mn mommm somumm>ma mmmz mmmma m0 ,mwoma HHm9uN mo mmmmwma u ommoomum ommoomum mmofisz mmmmH ma momma aoHumH>mn ammz mmmma mo msoma HHm9nN mo mmmmwmo u ommoomum ommommum mmnaoz mMH mommm GOHumH>mn ommz mmmma m0 msoma HHm9nN mo mmmmwma u ommommum ommommum mmoasz mmHgmm H.Hoomam @3909 mQDHH99< 9mm9uu