.1 THEN5 Illiflfl't‘flljflflllfllfliflllmflflI 7 L I: ‘ ‘ 7 b u.- 7 . . _._ a .l I‘ ‘ a 0 ‘3 6": ’01:,- J. ' ‘ r._o. . ~ ’ '4nr'rx- .w-J Q'a-rsfflu __ A .- " ° ’4‘..- r .._¢,“flw- _ .__.——v This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES PARENTS HAVE TOWARD THEIR CHILD'S ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THOSE ATTITUDES TO RELIGIOUS CONVICTION, SOCIAL MO- BILITY AND SOCIAL CLASS. presented by Norman Page Nicolson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. . Educational Administration degree in K-12 Administration ‘ / I Major professor Date November 15, 1985 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU LIBRARIES BEIURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. l A» L3 A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES PARENTS HAVE TOWARD THEIR CHILD'S ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THOSE ATTITUDES T0 RELIGIOUS CONVICTION, SOCIAL MOBILITY AND SOCIAL CLASS By Norman Page Nicolson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 1985 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES PARENTS HAVE TOWARD THEIR CHILD'S ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THOSE ATTITUDES T0 RELIGIOUS CONVICTION, SOCIAL MOBILITY, AND SOCIAL CLASS By N. Page Nicolson This research investigates the attitudes parents of elementary school children have towards their child's educa- tional environment in Ontario where two publicly funded but religiously separate (Public-Roman Catholic) elementary (K-8) systems exist. Al questionnaire designed tn) elicit attitudes toward responsiveness of the school to parent wishes, effectiveness of the school, discipline in the school, and desire for a traditional school was field tested and distributed to a random sample of 410 parents. Parents were divided into groups based (”1 school support, social mobility, religiosity and social class. Using chi-square values and multiple regression analysis, the data from 314 usable questionnaires were examined to determine what signi- ficant (p.<.05) relationships existed between C1) type of school parents support and the four attitudes, (2) religio- sity of the parents and the four attitudes, (3) social mobility of the parents and the four attitudes, (4) social class of the parents and the four attitudes, (5) religiosity and type of school parents chose, (6) social mobility and type of school parents chose, and (7) social class and type of school parents chose. Analysis of the data revealed that the parents in this sample believed their schools were effective and responsive to their concerns. When given a choice of school, parents desired a traditional type of school. Religiosity and social mobility were not related to the four attitudes. Parents of the Separate (Catholic) school system rated their schools significantly higher on the discipline index than did the Public (Protestant) school parents. Separate school parents expressed concern over how the discipline level was maintained. Parents in the Separate School system also scored significantly higher (Ml the index (Ni religio- sity. The proporticni of parents iri the upper social class that desired a traditional school was significantly higher than the pr0portion of parents in the lower social class that desired a traditional school. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Appreciation is extended to the members of my committee - to Dr. Cusick for planting the seed that became the dis- sertation - to Dr. Lezotte for his unflagging interest that provided me with encouragement - to Dr. Ignatovich for his constant challenge for excellence - finally, to Dr. Marcus who nurtured me through the process with sound advice that resulted iri an excellent learning experience and intellec- tual growth. Thanks is extended to the Directors of the Public and the Separate School Board for allowing me to conduct this research into parents' attitudes about their schools. Gratitude is extended to Bruce Brousseau for his assistance with the statistical component of this study. Appreciation is also extended to Eunice McClary for her perserverance as ea typist over the course (Hi the disser- tation. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Joyce, for with- out her support, understanding, and encouragement, I could not have succeeded. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page Number I INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose ...................................... 1 Perspectives........ ......................... 2 Historical Background ........................ 7 Introduction .............. . ............... 7 Ontario to 1867 ........................... 8 Ontario 1867 to the Present ............... 14 Summary ................................. 18 Attitudes ................................ .... 18 Religion and Religiosity. .................... 20 Summary ................................. 23 Social Mobility .................. . ........... 24 Summary .......................... . ..... 29 Attitudes and Schools ........................ 29 Summary ................................. 33 Exploratory Questions ...................... 33 Hypotheses .... .............................. 35 Method and Sample. .......................... 37 Significance .. .............................. 38 Endnotes ..................................... 40 II A REVIEH OF THE LITERATURE Introduction ................................. 1 Schools and Philosophy ....................... 2 Summary ................................. 6 Ontario Schools .............................. 7 Summary ................................. 10 Voluntarism and School Support ............... 10 Summary ................................. 13 Religion and Schools ......................... 13 Summary. .... . ..................... .... 17 Finances and Attitudes ....................... 18 Summary ................................. 20 Social Class......... ........................ g 20 Chapter Summary ..... ........ ................. 22 Endnotes. ...... .. ....... . .................... 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page Number III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction ................................ 1 Development of the Questionnaire ............ 1 Religion, Social Mobility and Social Class 1 Attitude Indexes ......................... 9 Summary ................................ 14 Field Test .................................. 15 Procedures ............................... 15 Results .................................. 16 Validity of the Indexes .................. 21 Summary ................................ 24 Administration of the Questionnaire ......... 25 Sample ................................... 25 Procedures .............................. 27 Summary ................................ 31 Index Development ........................... 32 Testable Hypotheses ......................... 38 Analysis .................................... 44 Chapter Summary ............................. 47 Endnotes .................................... 48 IV ANALYSIS Introduction ................................ 1 Data Analysis ............................... 2 School Choice ............................ 2 Religiosity .............................. 6 Social Mobility .......................... 10 Social Class ............................. 15 Regression Analysis ...................... 21 Summary of Parents' Comments ................ 22 Chapter Summary ............................. 26 V SUMMARY Introduction ................................ 1 Conclusions ................................. 4 Discussion .................................. 10 Summary ................................ 16 Implications for Future Research ............ 17 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES Appendix A Field Test Questionnaire Appendix 8 Final Copy Questionnaire Appendix C Directors of Education Correspondence Appendix D Letters to Parents Appendix E Letters to Principals Appendix F Factor Analysis Statistics TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Table Page Number 1.1 Per Pupil Revenue Cost ..................... 16 3.1 Adapted Religiosity Questions From Bishop's Task Force ................................. 2 3.2 Religiosity Questions ...................... 4 3.3 Social Mobility Questions .................. 5 3.4 Social Class Questions ..................... 6 3.5 Technical Questions ........................ 7 3.6 Source of Attitude Questions and Revised Variable Title ............................. 10 3.7 Discipline Statements ...................... 11 3.8 Responsiveness Statements .................. 11 3.9 School Effectiveness ....................... 12 3.10 Traditional - Non—Traditional Statements... 13 3.11 Number of Responses For Each Religiosity Question.. ................................. 19 3.12 Number of Responses For Each Social Status Question ................................... 19 3.13 Total Number of Responses For Each Variable- Part Two ................................... 20 3.14 Total Number of Responses For Traditional Orientation - Part III.......... ..... . ..... 21 3.15 Comparison of Criterion Persons on Field Test Questionnaire (Four Indexes) .......... 24 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page Number 3.16 Summary Characteristics of Parents ......... 31 3.17 Source of Indexes .......................... 33 3.18 Factor Analysis of Variables - All Cases... 34 3.19 Reliability Alphas For Each Index .......... 36 3.20 Discipline Index Score ..................... 38 4.1 A Comparison of the Attitudes of Public and Separate School Parents Toward the Respon- siveness of Their School ................... 2 4.2 A Comparison of the Attitudes of Public and Separate School Parents Toward the Effec- tiveness of Their School ........... . ....... 3 4.3 A Comparison of the Attitudes of Public and Separate School Parents Toward Discipline in Their School ............................ 4 4.4 A Comparison of the Attitudes of Public and Separate School Parents Toward a Traditional School ..................................... 5 4.5 A Comparison of the Level of Religiosity of Parents With Type of School Chosen ......... 7 4.6 A Comparison of the Attitudes Toward School Responsiveness Between Parents of High and Low Religiosity ............................ 7 4.7 A Comparison of the Attitudes Toward School Effectiveness Between Parents of High and Low Religiosity ............................ 8 4.8 A Comparison of the Attitudes Toward School Discipline Between Parents of High and Low ' Religiosity ................................ 9 vii Table 4.9 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES A Comparison of the Attitudes Toward a Tra- ditional School Between Parents of High and Low Religiosity ............................ Page A Comparison of the Level of Social Mobility of Parents By the Type of School Chosen.... A Comparison of Social Mobility Levels (3) of Parents By the Type of School Chosen.... A Comparison of the Attitudes Toward School Responsiveness Between Parents of High and Low Social Mobility....... ...... ........... A Comparison of the Attitudes Toward School Effectiveness Between Parents of High and Low Social Mobility ........................ A Comparison of the Attitudes Toward School Discipline Between Parents of High and Low Social Mobility ............................ A Comparison of the Attitudes Toward a Traditional School Between Parents of High and Low Social Mobility ............... A Comparison of the Level of Social Class of Parents With the Type of School Chosen.. A Comparison of the Attitudes Toward School Responsiveness Among the Three Social Classes .................................... A Comparison of the Attitudes Toward School Effectiveness Among the Three Social Classes ....... . ...... . ..................... A Comparison of the Attitudes Toward School Discipline Among the Three Social Classes.. viii Number 10 11 11 12 13 14 l4 16 17 17 '18 Table 4.20 4.28 5.1 5.2 5.3 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Page A Comparison of the Attitudes Toward a Tradi- tional School Among the Three Social Classes. ............. . ..... .... ............ A Comparison of the Attitudes Toward a Tradi- tional School Among the Three Social Classes ....... . ........... . ................ Summary of Stepwise Regression of Dependent Variables with Independent Variables. Comment Differences Between Public and Sepa- rate School Parents... ..... . ........... .... Summary of Results On Attitude Indexes With Type of School as the Independent Variable.. Summary of Results With Religiosity as the Independent Variable ....................... Summary of Results With Social Mobility as the Independent Variable .................... Summary of Results With Social Class as the Independent Variable ....................... Summary of Results With Type of School as the Dependent Variable ................ Types of Relationships Reported ............ Percentage of Parents by School System and Their Very High and Very Low Ratings on Each of the Dependent Variables ......... Enrolment Patterns as Related to Religiosity ix Number 19 20 22 26 27 28 28 29 3O Table 5. 5. 5. 4 5 6 5.7 5. 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Page Number Percentage of Parents by Religiosity and Their Very High and Very Low Ratings on Each of the Dependent Variables.. .......... 7 Enrolment Patterns as Related to Social Mobility... ................... . ............ 8 Percentage of Parents by Mobility Level and Their Very High and Very Low Ratings on Each of the Dependent Variables ......... 8 Proportions of Parents in Each School Sys- tem by Class .................... . .......... 9 Percentage of Parents at Each Social Class Level Whose Scores are Very High or Very Low on Each of the Dependent Variables ..... 10 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose In broad terms, this research investigates the atti- tudes parents of elementary school children in Ontario have towards their children's educational environment. In more specific terms, the purpose can be broken into four sec- tions: (i) School Choice (a) to compare the attitudes of parents who support the two school systems. The comparison will focus on four attitudes--effectiveness of learning environment, responsiveness of the school to the parents' wishes, student discipline, and a desire for a traditional approach to teaching. (ii) Religiosity (a) to examine the relationship between the variable religiosity of the parent and school choice. (D) to examine the relationship between the variable religiosity of the parent and the four attitudes. (iii) Social Mobility (a) to examine the relationship between the variable social mobility of the parent and school choice. (D) to examine the relationship between the variable social mobility of the parent and the four attitudes. (iv) Social Class (a) to examine the relationship between the variable social class of the parent and school choice. (D) to examine the relationship between the variable social class of the parent and the four attitudes. -2- Perspective Probably the most talked about research in education in the past three years has been High School Achievement: Pub— lic,¥ Catholic, and Private Schools Compared by James S. Coleman and his colleagues. The interpretation of his re- sults, which seem to favor non-public schools, has been a subject (n: scholarLy debate and has increased interest in the public-private school controversy.1 The report has been an encouraging sign for those who sponsor various political initiatives (5.8. 150, Packwood Moynihan Bill, California Family Choice Initiative, Washington, D.C. Tax Credit Ini- tiative) designed to gain financial support for private schools. The Coleman report and political activity are regarded with interest in Canada, and in particular Ontario, where two publicly funded elementary (K-8) systems, Public and Se- parate, have been in existence for over 140 years. Since separation of church and state is an American, not a Canadian principle, ‘the use (H: public money in) support a denominational school is not an issue. In Ontario, religion is the major distinguishing factor between the two school systems. The staff and a majority of the clients of the Separate system are Roman Catholic. Backed by a large degree of government funding, the Separate Schools spend almost as nuuni per pupil as (n) the Public -3- schools (K-B). Complicated funding mechanisms and ambiguous ministry reporting practices make exact cost comparisons difficult but Carl J. Matthews S.J. estimated that elemen- tary Separate schools were funded at a level slightly less than elementary Public schools. My "guesstimate" would Ina $2,438 for ‘the Catholic junior high school students and $1,810 for the elementary' pupils the latter fi- gure is only 92.6 per cent of the Public elementary figure of $1,955.2 The Ontario School system provides an excellent oppor- tunity to research many of the ideas about private schools and public schools without the confounding variable of tui- tion. Areas of study that are found in private and public school research are: discipline, religion, social mobility, social class, school effectiveness and responsiveness of the school to its clients. This research into the two school systems iri Ontario vflll focus on comparing the attitudes parents have towards their respective school systems and will attempt to determine if the background variables of re- ligiosity, social mobility or social class have a relation- ship to the parents' attitudes about their school system. Investigations into the attitudes people have towards social institutions and in particular schools, has been the object of much research in North American society. A poll similar to the annual Gallup Poll of The Public's Attitudes -4- Towards The Public Schools in the United States was conduc- ted in Canada by the Canadian Education Association in 1984. Where it has been possible to directly compare the findings of the most recent U.S. and Canadian polls, however, we have found that public opinion in the two nations tends to be similar on many points. Like the Gallup Poll, this research seeks to discover parents' attitudes about education but the f0cus is more precise, for it; will compare parents' attitudes about the two school systems in Ontario using a variety of background variables. In addition to comparing parents' attitudes, this re- search vflll determine if' there is a relationship between certain background characteristics (Hi the parents and the attitudes they express about their schools. Since one of the school systems involved in the comparison is religiously based, the first background variable of interest is the re- ligiosity of the respondent; the importance of religion in the parent's life. The significance of religion in a man's life is best indicated by Paul Tillich. Religion is the substance, the ground, the depth of man's spiritual life. Religion, in the largest and most ba- sic sense of the word, is the ultimate concern. People who are more religious should participate in and view the social organization of our world differently than people -5- who are less religious. Dr. Ruth Whitney, a professor of religion, expresses the importance of religion to people in this manner. Religion is both the meaning of life and the activity to incarnate that meaning. Being religious is being struck by the transcendent quality of life and attempting to make it imma- nent in the world. Huber and Form noted the importance of religion in how people view the world in Income and Ideology. Religion was the main force behind Lenski's study in Detroit--The Reli- gious Factor - A Sociological Study of Religion's Impact on Politics, Economics and Family Life. As Halevy and Halevy state, the fascination with religion can be traced to Weber. The possible influence of religious affiliation on social conduct has at- tracted the interest of social scien- tists, especially since Weber drafted his thesis on the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.0 The second background variable 1x) be investigated is that of social mobility - the change in social status from one's parents as measured by occupational status. Huber and Form found that mobility experiences were related to parable interpretation. ...mobility experiences, racial and income characteristics of those taking different positions on the camel story were clear. Social mobility, an ongoing phenomenon of North American life, has been researched since 1927 when Pitirim Sorokin -5- published Social Mobility where he noted that mobility had more deleterious effects on people than positive. Blau and Duncan used the patterns of mobility to help explain the stratification process in the United States. They wrote: Processes of social mobility from one generation to the next and from career beginnings to occupational destination are considered to reflect the dynamics of the occupational structure. By an- alyzing the pattern of these occupa- tional movements, the conditions that affect them and some of their conse- quences, we attempt to explain part of the dynamics of the stratification sy- stem in the United States.8 Social class provides the third point of focus for this research. Since people of similar social class tend to con- gregate in the same type of neighborhood, will they also have similar views about their school? Tumin believes that people who have similar class experiences also have similar attitudes. He wrote: It is also quite obvious that there is an intimate relationship at all times between the general structural ar- rangements in society' and the atti- tudes, values and interests of the persons who play out their roles in these structures. This research will contribute to ea growing body of literature that seeks to compare and explain the similari- ties and differences between competing school systems. Not only will this study compare the attitudes of parents of elementary school children in Public Schools to the atti- tudes of parents of elementary school children in Separate -7- Schools on such traditional topics as discipline and effec- tiveness, it will also determine if' a relationship exists between the background variables of social mobility, reli- giosity and social class and the attitudes expressed about their children's elementary school. Historical Background Introduction Although the problems and purposes of education are similar iri different nations, each has developed a unique system of education in response to the political, religious and social demands of its pe0ple. The school system is a reflection of the traditions, hopes and characteristics of the dominant founding groups. Kandel, a comparative educa- tion scholar, wrote: Each national system of education is charac- teristic of the nation which has created it and expresses something peculiar to the group which constitutes that nation; to put it an- other way, each nation has the educationl system that it desires or that it deserves. An appreciation of the historical background is neces- sary to understand the system of education that has deve- loped in Ontario. The brief history of the development of the Ontario educational system will show how what was ini- tially grudgingly granted as a privilege to Catholics came to be regarded as a: right that the supporters extended through the judicial and political process. ~8- Ontario to 1867 The development of a dual elementary system in Ontario, based on religion, is quite different from the school sys- tems that developed in the United States. The Ontario edu- cation system, a reflection of the different historical backgrounds and philosophies of the respective founding peoples, is the political by-product of a temporary enforced union between two religiously distinct populations that sought solutions through committee and compromise. After the conquest of Quebec in 1759 the British al- lowed the French to practise their culture and religion. This right was further legitimized in the Quebec Act (1774) and the Constitutional Act (1791). As English settlers es- tablished themselves in Quebec, the development of Protes- tant English schools was a necessity because the established schools were French Catholic. Thus, by the 1800's the exis- tence of two separate denominational school systems was firmly entrenched in Quebec. When Lower Canada (French-speaking Quebec) and Upper Canada (English-speaking Ontario) were united under one government in 1841, 'the issue (Hi what type (Hi elementary school system should be legitimized in Upper Canada was ad- dressed by clerics and politicians of all hues. In the Throne Speech of the first Parliament after the Act of .9. Union the governor, Lord Sydenham, recognized the problems that education would cause when he said: The establishment of an efficient system is a work of difficulty. If it should be found impossible to reconcile conflicting opinions, so as to obtain a measure which may meet the approbation of all, I trust that, at least, steps may be taken, by which an advance to a more perfect system may be Inade; and the difficulty under which the people of this Province now la- bour may Ina greatly diminished, subject to such improvements hereafter as time and experience may point out. It was Sydenham's hope that a basis for an educational system could be found so that the inter-religious quarrel- ling over schooling would cease. At that time in Upper Canada the conflicting opinions about education were addres- sed by the various religious groups with the most powerful being that of the Anglican Church, led by Bishop Strachan. Curriculum, use of the Bible, prayers, and how responsibi- lity should be allocated for the schools were the major sources of conflict. Sydenham's instructions to the first Parliament were to establish an elementary school system that solved these problems and laid a basis for the future. To determine the system of elementary education that was to be founded in Upper Canada, a committee of the Legis- lature was struck. Since dissentient12 schools for Protes- tants existed in Lower Canada, it was only reasonable that dissentient schools be allowed in Upper Canada. In 1841, Day's Common School Act, which ensured the principle of Se- parate Schools, was passed. -10- The revisions to the Common School Act in the ensuing years attempted in) clarify taxation aunt support difficul- ties, teacher certification rights and governance liy the province. These rights, which were achieved through the political process of compromise, petition and backroom deals, were not welcomed by many leaders of the day. In re- ference to the Act of 1853, which was to give Separate School trustees the power to issue certificates to the teachers employed by them and the same power of levying taxes as that enjoyed by the trustees of Common Schools, Egerton Ryerson, the founder of the Ontario Education Sys- tem, wrote the Attorney-General: The effect of all this would be to des- troy the system of Public Schools in cities and towns and ultimately perhaps in villages and townships; and to leave all the poorer portion of the population and that portion (Hi it connected with minor religious persuasions without any adequate and certain means of education. I think the safest and most defensible ground to take is a firm refusal to sanc- tion any measure to provide by law in- creased facilities for the multiplication and perpetuation of sectarian schools. Ryerson's fear was that the further extension of rights to Separate Schools would eventually cripple the Public system, particularly in the rural areas where small numbers necessi- tated one school. Sir John A. MacDonald, who later became the first Prime Minister of Canada, while in agreement with Ryerson, reali- zed that la decision in) allow Separate Schools some power -11- was politically wise. MacDonald's biographer, Pope, indica- ted this attitude. Mr. MacDonald said that he was as desirous as anyone of seeing all children going to- gether to the Common School, and if he could have his own way there would be no Separate School. But we should respect the opinions of others who differed from us, and they fun: a right to refuse such schools as they could not conscientiously approve of. As nationhood approached, the Legislators of the Canadas struggled to draft resolutions for inclusion in the British North American (B.N.A.) Act, the founding document of Canada. Acrimonious debate about the education clauses and, in particular, over the rights of the religious minori- ty (Protestant or Catholic) to have their own schools took place from 1863 to 1865. A compromise reached on the basis of Inaintaining ‘the status (nu) was expressed iri Resolution 43(6). The Local Legislature shall have power to make laws respecting the following sub- jects....(6) Education, saving 'the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minorities in both Canadas may possess as to their denominational schools, at the time when the union goes into operation. This 1865 Resolution, it was believed, offered a permanent solution to what had been a difficult, time consuming pro- blem. The permanence of the solution was expressed by John Sandfield Macdonald, who in the course of debating the bill stated: -12- We will not be in any worse position under the new system, and in one respect we will have a decided advantage, iri that rm) fur- ther change can be made by the separate schools authorities. When the Legislators (Hi the United Canadas submitted their resolutions about schools to London for inclusion in the B.N.A. Act, they believed they had solved the sectarian school issue for eternity. However, when the Act returned to Canada in 1867, changes, deletions and additions to the Resolution had changed ‘the Legislators' intentions. The original Resolution had been changed to: In and for each province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions: (1) Nothing in any such law shall prejudi- cially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by law in the Province at the Union. The inclusion (Hi the word "prejudicially" dashed any hopes the politicians might have had for a permanent solut- ion to the Separate School issue. The word "prejudicially" had been introduced to suggest that the existing privileges represented a minimum and not a maximum as well. Sissons, a Canadian historian, makes this point clear. Roman Catholics, under the constitution are free 1x) press for extension of privileges, to push forward along three salients as they are doing at present. And the state should be free through its legislative arm to decide whether these claims are just and -13- in the public interest, and to determine as well whether time has altered the correct- ness of the original settlement. By 1867, a distinctive school system, achieved through political compromise, was “firmly iri place and tfiua oppor- tunity to extend rights to the minority had a constitutional basis. The beginnings (Hi a "more perfect system", as de- sired by Sydenham, had been completed. The architect for this system had been Egerton Ryerson, the Superintendent of Schools in Canada West (Ontario) from 1846 to his retirement in 1876. Like Horace Mann and other educational leaders of the era, he believed the school was the instrument of social cohesion. Through the school, the populace could become bound together with one set of common values and beliefs. Like his American counterparts, Ryerson look- ed on the school as a vehicle for inculcating loyalty and patriotism, fostering social co- hesion and self-rfliance, and ensuring domes- tic tranquility. 9 Although Ryerson would have preferred one common school for all children, the unique historical background, public opin- ion and the forces of organized religion made it necessary to have a dual confessional system. As he stated in his re- port of 1847: I was not prepared to condemn what had been unanimouslfi sanctioned by two successive par- liaments.2 Although he inherited a dual school system, he did not believe it would be a permanent part of the educational -14- scene. He believed that Separate Schools would die out, not by force of legislative enact- ment, but under the influence of increasingly enlightened and enlarged view (Hi Christian relations, rights and duties between dif- ferent classes of the community. The foundation of the Ontario school system was built by a man who believed in a strong central authority over a common school where all could attend. Since Separate Schools existed,, he believed iri allowing Roman Catholics freedom of choice. His success in establishing an unique school system that was appropriate for the populace is at- tested to in the first official history of the Ontario Edu- cation System. The author states: So complete is the system, so carefully is every contingency provided 1%”: that the ob- server....is apt to feel that its complete- ness is perhaps its greatest defect.22 Ontario 1867 to Present The period from Confederation until the 1960's was not- able for its lack (Hi significant legislative actions with respect to elementary education in Ontario.23 Most changes were brought about by departmental instructions or guide- lines. The courts were the venue where disputes over taxes and jurisdiction were settled.24 Through Provincial Acts and the British North America Act, the Catholics were guaranteed a Separate School System in Ontario. The funding of the system was through local taxes and provincial grants. As the population of Ontario -15- grew and the province became industrialized, the majority of commercial and industrial rnunicipal taxes lNdS directed to the Public Schools. The Separate Schools had ea right to exist but found it increasingly difficult because of limited financial resources. In 1963, the Ontario Government announced the implemen- tation (Hi the Ontario Foundation Tax Plan. It was a bold step to provide each school board: ...with sufficient revenue for the adequate financing of the educational program that it considered essential and sufficient to meet the needs of its own community, while at the same time maintaining its responsibility to the ratepayers who elected it. This plan, together* with subsequent modifications to the grant structure and tax structure, has led to almost equal funding on a per student basis in both systems as Ta- ble 1.1 demonstrates. The figures 'hi Table IIJI are not directly comparable because the Separate School figures are based on a J.K. (Junior Kindergarten) 11) X system while the Public School figures are based on a J.K. to VIII system. Matthews esti- mates the elementary relationship of per pupil revenue cost in 1979 at 93.7%.26 Through provincial funding, the minority system in numerical terms is able to spend almost the Same per student as the public system yet tax its supporters at the same mill rate as the public school supporters. -15- TABLE 1.1 PER PUPIL REVENUE c05127 Per Cent Public (P) Separate (S) S of P 1959 $ 291 $ 186 64.0% 1960 309 200 64.7% 1961 328 217 66.2% 1962 342 234 68.4% 1963 371 260 70.2% 1964 386 301 78.1% 1965 409 329 80.3% 1966 456 327 82.7% 1967 484 427 88.2% 1968 574 506 88.2% 1969 641 577 90.0% 1970 719 663 92.2% 1971 766 730 95.3% 1972 837 797 95.2% 1973 885 857 96.8% 1974 997 968 97.1% 1975 1,219 1,213 99.1% 1976 1,437 1,422 99.0% 1977 1,604 1,576 98.2% 1978 1,772 1,750 98.7% 1979 1,955 1,924 98.4% -17- Separate school supporters in Sault Ste. Marie will be paying the same education taxes as public school supporters this year... Both systems are subject to the same rules and regula- tions, employ teachers trained 'hi the same Teachers' Col- leges, use the same textbooks and have locally elected trus- tees. The major difference between the two systems is in the teaching of religion. In the Separate Schools religious instruction and family life studies occur daily. In the Pu- blic Schools, formal religious instruction is conducted sporadically, usually by volunteers. The frequency of such instruction varies from a high of one-half hour per week through to a half hour every three weeks to virtually none. A compulsory family-life (Sex Education) course is in place. Both systems are supported by local taxes and govern- ment grants. Only Roman Catholics have a choice as to which school system they wish to support with their municipal taxes. Non-Catholics, who send their children to a Separate School may be charged a fee by the Separate School Board or may be refused admission. Catholics who choose to support the Separate School System with their taxes, but send their children to a Public School, may also be charged a: fee by the Public School Board. It should be emphasized that only Catholics have a choice as to which school system receives their local taxes. -18- Summary Over time, Ontario has developed two parallel elemen- tary educational systems for the public: to choose from. Whether or not it is the "more perfect system" desired by Sydenham is debatable but it is unique and still evolving.29 Common curricula, guidelines and regulations; equalized fun- ding but separate, local, political control for each system is in place. The single distinguishing factor between the two is that the Separate system emphasizes religion. While it is possible for citizens to enrol their child- ren in either school system, the crossing of religious boun- daries is discouraged particularly by the Separate System. Consequently, the majority of Separate School supporters are Roman Catholic and the majority of Public School supporters are Non-Catholic. Attitudes The use of attitudes in research has become commonplace in the social sciences. Nine reasons are given for the popularity and usefulness of attitudes by Oskamp in Atti- tudes and Opinions. Five are noted. (1) An attitude can be considered the 'cause' of a person's behavior toward another per- son or an object. (2) The concept of attitude helps to explain the 'consistency' of la person's behavior, since a single attitude may underlie many different actions. (In turn, Allport says, the consistency of individual behavior helps to explain the stability of society). -19- (3) Attitudes are 'important' in their own right' regardless of’ their relation to a person's behavior. Your attitudes toward various individuals, institutions, and social issues (eg., a political party, the church, capital punishment, the President of the United States) reflect the way you perceive the world around you, and they are worth studying for their own sake. (4) The concept of attitude includes the idea of 'unconscious determinants' of behavior and the dynamic interplay of conflicting motives whose importance has been stressed by Freud and other psychoanalysts. (5) Within the field of sociology, some authors have viewed attitudes as the most central concept and 'basis of all social behavior', since they provide the mechanism by which cultural atterns influence individual be- haviour. Thus, an investigation of attitudes of parents of elementary school children is important not only for 'their own sake' but for a better understanding of the behavior patterns of parents towards schools and the interplay between background variables and attitudes. The term 'attitudes', which has several possible mean- ings, has been defined in a variety of ways by social scien- tists. In an attempt to arrive at a common meaning, Gordon Allport, former chairman of Harvard's psychology department, cited several definitions of attitudes before developing his own comprehensive definition of attitude which has been widely used. His definition is: An attitude is a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exer- ting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all objicts and situa- tions with which it is related. -20.. According ‘UD Allport's definition, an attitude is a state of preparedness for behavior; it disposes people toward the manner in which they perceive the world. These attitudes are not inborn but rather learned and developed through experiences. Attitudes are not stagnant but have a motivational force. Hartley, Hartley aunt Hart noted ‘the power of attitudes in mass communication when they wrote: An attitude is an product of experience, but it enters into subsequent experience as a di- rective factor.32 The background experiences in this research are reli- giosity, social mobility and social class. 'The attitudes parents (Hi elementary school children have towards their children's educational environment are iflua focus for this investigation. Religion and Religiosity As the history of the education system in Ontario de- monstrates, the role of religion was extremely important in its affect on the structure of the institution. Not only in Ontario, but worldwide, religion has been a strong force in the history of man for it has been at the root of revolu- tion, reformation, and vast cultural changes. Religion de- termines beliefs, attitudes, philosophy and a way of life. Nicholas Hans, a comparative education scholar, wrote: Among spiritual influences religion 'H; the most powerful, because it appeals to the whole man and not only to his intellect. Religion penetrates the emotional depth (H: human nature, it condi- tions habitual reactions in daily life and it colours the reasoning ability of a creative mind. -21- The significant role of religion in the lives of people was discussed tut the German sociologist Max Weber ‘Hi The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Religion was used by Weber to explain why the Catholics were not at the forefront of the capitalist movement. Thus, the principal explanation of this dif- ference must be sought in the permanent intrinsic character of their religious beliefs and not only in their 5&mporary' external historico-political situation. Religion is an important factor to be considered in explain- ing human behavior and attitudes; for it influences the ac- tions and behaviors of its adherents and thus their insti- tutions. In a study 'that investigates the attitudes of parents whose children are enroled 'Hi Public and Separate Schools, the affect of the religious background of the parents is an important consideration. The theories of Weber were crucial to a study, conduc- ted by Gerhard Lenski, designed to “discover the impact of religion on secular institutions".35 Results of his work in- dicated that religious organizations continued to be vigorous and influential in urban American life. ...from our evidence it is clear that religion in various ways is constantly influencing the daily lives of the masses of men and women in the modern American metropolis. More than that: through its impact on individuals, religion makes an impact on all other institutional systems of the community in which these individuals participate. Hence, the influence of religion operates at the social level as well as the personal level.36 -22- In addition to finding a religious affect on secular institutions, Lenski found that the manner in which religion was viewed and practiced had an influence on attitudes and behavior patterns. Not only is the behaviour of men influenced by the socio-religious groups in) which they belong; our evidence also indicates it is influenced by their religious orientation. Varying religious orientations are related to varying patterns in daily life. People have a variety of views of the church and its teachings and these views result in differing perceptions of the world and its organizations. The measure of the signi- ficance of religion in a person's life is frequently refer- red to as religiosity. At a personal level, religiosity should provide a point of view or reference point from which the world is interpreted. Lee and Clyde noted: ...religion fosters the internalization of norms, advocates particular guidelines for behavior, gives it adherents a firm notion that there are right and wrong ways. By implication, the more religious a person 'Hg the more distinct their attitudes should be from a person who is less religious. The relationship of religiosity to various social and psychological areas of interest has been studied by social psychologists and researchers.39 4 Although the effect (H’ a modern society is thought by some to have a moderating affect on religious influence,40 -23.. other sociologists consider religion and religiosity as im- portant variables to be considered when assessing attitudes. Melvin Kohn, concerned with social class in his study Class and Conformity, recognized the importance of religion and practice. Religious background and practice are potent variables, but independent of social class.4 hi a reexamination of Kohn's thesis with up-to-date data, Wright and Wright, in their discussion of results, noted that when the assumption of minimal social class effect was in place, non-class variables such as ethnicity, region, and religion account for about three-fifths of the variance.42 The inclusion of religion and religiosity in this re- search into attitudes about schools is warranted by the re- sults of previous researchers who have recognized the impor- tance of religion and religious practices on attitudes and behaviors; and by the dominant role that religion had and continues to have in the Ontario Education System. The im- portance of religion in society is summarized by Yinger: Religion is part of the complex of proscriptions Sfdmepnreisncrajlpltisooncsietrizts.ggides the interactions Summary The influence (Hi religion (”1 the orientation of’ its practitioners towards the institutions of society has been a topic of theory and research by psychologists and sociolo- gists. Religion, it is believed, leads to an interpretation -24- of the world that is different from those who do not have a similar spiritual influence. Those who practise their reli- gion will have chferent attitudes about secular institu- tions than those who don't. In a study of attitudes towards school systems where religion is significant, the inclusion of religiosity is an important variable. Religion and reli- giosity are seen as affecting how one makes sense out of the world. In “Dimensions (H: Religiosity iri Modern Society“, Orehsen maintains that religiosity is present in attitudes and action, the question is how much influence does it have. Below the level of theoretical conceptualiza- tion, the question which above all remains open is that of to what extent religiosity is actually present in every action. Social Mobility As the previous sections have shown, the role of reli- gion in education in Ontario is important and the role of religion as an influence on people's lives and their atti- tudes can be powerful. Different authors in the course of their discussions about religion consistently referred to different facets of socio-economic-status through the use of words such as class, socio-religious, historico-political and economics. The influence of class (”1 how people view the world has been studied from a wide variety of perspec- tives, and is included in most social research. Kohn writes: -25- It is commonplace among social scientists that, no matter what the subject of study, we should always measure people's social class positions for class is nearly always signifi- cantly involved. In this section one aspect of class, mobility and its rela- tionship to attitudes, will be reviewed. Class can include education, family income, posses- sions, occupation, mobility, prestige and ii range of other variables. The choice of which variables to use is depen- dent on the object of study and the inclination of the re- searcher. If class is defined in terms of money or income, and the assumption is made that most people have as their major source of income their job, then Blau and Duncan be- lieve that occupation can be used as a major determiner of class. Occupational position does not encompass all aspects (Hi the concept of class, but it is probably the best single indicator of it.46 Interest in occupations and the changing of occupations between generations (mobility) has frequently been a subject of study by social science researchers. Their work with oc- cupations was, in part, a reaction to the writings of Soro- kin more than fifty years ago. Within our societies, vertical circulation of individuals is going on permanently. But how is it taking place?.....what are the charac- teristics of this process of which very lit- tle is known? Individuals have been specu- lating too much and studying the facts too little. It is high time to abandon specula- tion for the somewhat saner method of collec- ting the facts and studying them patiently. 47 -25- Investigations into the concept of nmbility as a cHstinct variable was the focus of much of the early research. Con- centration on, and explanations of mobility were not deemed sufficient by Blau and Duncan. The tendency to conceive of mobility as a single variable and examine it largely with- out relating it to other variables has severely restricted the fruitfulness of mobi- lity research. In spite of this concern about the single mindedness of mobility research, a number of studies have been conducted investigating the relationship between mobility and other variables. After investigating these studies, Melvin Tumin concluded that there was a relationship between mobility and the values, interests and attitudes of people. The general trend of these findings is that the mobility experience in a status-minded society is likely to have some disruptive consequences, either because_cni the status orientation or anxiety of the mobile indivi- dual or because of his inability to adjust successfully to the new group into which he moves, whether it is up or down. Mobility studies have found relationships between mobi- lity and: the achievement motive (Crockett); political orientation (Lopreato); interpersonal relations (Blau); mental disorder (Kleiner and Parker); marital stability (Chester) and other social phenomenon. The results of the studies in mobility have led to many interpretations and arguments wherein one finds little agreement. Germani, like Tumin, realizing that social mobility was a strong force, but its affect was unclear wrote: -27.. Only one conclusion about the social conse- quences of mobility is likely to encounter general agreement; an enormous variety of social and individual congequences can be im- puted to social mobility. 0 Part of the difficulty in studying the effects of mobi- lity was the lack of a clear definition of mobility and an understanding of the diverse nature of it. Like the notion of social class, social mobility has combined a number of ideas into one concept. As many as nineteen possible measures of social mobility were investigated by Wilensky.51 After factor analyzing the results of 1,354 interviews with men, he stated: Thus "much intergenerational occupational mo- bility“ with a loading of .927 'H; the best clue to ”intergenerational climbin of the couple" (occupation and education).5 His factor "much intergenerational occupational mobility" was composed of a five-point scale of much up to much down, based (Mi a comparison of father's and son's occupation.53 The term intergenerational mobility is the term used to re- fer to changes that occur from one generation to another with the occupations of father and son as the key variables. Social mobility, as determined by occupational mobility between generations, and its relationshHJ to school atti- tudes will be the second important focus for this research. As previous studies have shown, the relationship between social mobility and attitudes can be discerned. In a study of the social and psychological consequences of intergenera- tional mobility, Kessin concluded: -28- I believe this study permits us to assert the existence of demonstrable empirical conse- quences of mobility. The use of mobility, as an independent variable, is seen as important ir: a study (Hi attitudes because (Hi the signifi- cance of mobility in North American life. Kerckhoff wrote: ....is the fact that social mobility is both possible and highly valued in this society. That is, the American ideology rather clearly rejects the proposition that the son should necessarily take the place of his father in the stratification system. Not only should movement from one generation to the next be possible, but mechanisms to facilitate it should be made available. People who are socially mobile should have differing atti- tudes towards those mechanisms that help make mobility pos- sible compared to those who are not socially mobile. One of those mechanisms is school. The generally increased af- fluence that has been present over the past several decades has allowed a socially mobile population to segregate itself into definite neighborhoods. Since students are enroled on a neighborhood basis, schools have become somewhat uniform in terms of students and parents. Coleman makes this point when discussing the changes iri the American public school system ....together with a: general increase iri af- fluence for all--and thus a greater range of economic options--made possible the separa- tion of workplace from residence, and the de- velopment of large socially homogeneous resi- dential greas served by socially homogeneous schools. 5 -29- Summary In addition to the influence of religion on attitudes, socio-economic-status has an important relationship to atti- tudes. One discrete part of socio-economic status is social mobility--the opportunity in society to change social posi- tion either up or down from that of one's parents. The ef- fect (Hi mobility on how a person views the world has been discussed and researched for over fifty years. The belief that mobility, both downward and upward, has an affect on interests, values, associations, aunt attitudes is consis- tent. In summarizing, studies carried out by sociologists, Tumin noted: ...virtually every study of any social pheno- menon-—-whether it be of population fluctua- tions, divorce rates, family styles, or what- ever---takes into account, often to consider- able degree, the possibility that some one or several factors indicative of social and eco- nomic position and resources will exert sig- nificant influence on the behavior being studied.57 For this study a factor believed to “exert significant influence" on the attitudes being studied is social mobility. Attitudes and Schools The previous sections have shown that religious values and social mobility may affect a person's attitudes. (In this section, the importance of parental attitudes towards school and which attitudes will be used in the study will be discussed. -30- Just as religious values and social mobility are be- lieved to affect peoples' attitudes, the type of social en- vironment that a child is raised in may bear a relationship to success in school. In the home, the child is exposed to and learns a set of values that either help or hinder him in school. Exposure to a set of positive values about school would seem to augur for success in school more so than ex- posure to a set of negative values about schools. In a study of Ethnicity, Family Environment, School Attitudes and Academic Achievement the results indicated that: ...there are differential relations between family environments, attitudes, and child- ren's academic achievement within the ethnic and social status groups. While the object of this research is not to become involved in the ability - environment - achievement controversy, most people believe that academic performance is a: function of some combination of environment and ability. The attitudes that parents have towards schools are part of the environ- ment that the child absorbs. Betty Miners of the Coopera- tive Educational Research Laboratory emphasized the impor- tance of background values and learning. Obviously, the child's assimilation of a set of values regarding education and successful performance, in part, determines his motiva- tion to perfgrm and, consequently, his actual performance. 9 Thus a study (Hi parents' attitudes towards schools is not only important for its own sake but such knowledge may be important in trying to explain differential student achieve- ment. -31- Research that asks parents about schools or that com- pares schools is dominated by four topics. In general terms these topics are quality of classroom learning, student dis- cipline, communication and basics. Discipline in the schools has always been a major area of concern for parents. In the 1984 Gallup Poll of the Pub- lic's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, 68% of the public said discipline was either a "very serious" or "fairly serious" problem in the public schools.60 Discipline has led the list of problems since the poll was begun in 1969. In Coleman's Public and Private Schools he found strong support for his premise that: Private schools provide a safer, more discip- lined, and more ordered environment than do public schools.61 A second common thread in the research that investi- gates what parents think of schools is that of student achievement levels or effectiveness of learning in the school. In Montgomery County, Maryland, public school parents who had transferred their children to a: private school frequently mentioned a "perceived drop in the excel- lence of school programs" as their reason for leaving the public schools.62 This perception of schools is also reflec- ted in the 1984 Gallgp Poll. Only four in ten parents gave Public Schools an A or B rating and that was the highest in the last decade.63 -32- A third area of commonality among school studies is a concern for curriculum, basics, or a traditional education. hi the 1984 Gallup Poll, "poor curriculum/poor standards" was third in a. list of’ twenty-seven parent answers to a question about problems ““1 public schools.64"This concern for a traditional approach was voiced by parents in Mont- gomery County, Maryland when they were asked what public schools could do to achieve excellence. They responded: Give more authority to teachers and less freedom to students; provide stronger admini- strative leadership; offer more challenging work in the curriculum; and assign more home- work to students.65 ll fourth area (Hi attention iri studies of' schools is that of communication between the home and the school. In a comparison of Public Schools and Fundamental Schools, Weber et al. stated: Because enrolment is voluntary, parents must endorse the rules and policies of the schools Parental involvement in terms of school aims and volunteer work is expected.66 In the 1984 Gallup Poll of Teachers' Attitudes Toward the Public Schools thirty-one per cent of teachers indicated the biggest problem with public schools was "parent lack of interest/support".67 Communications between home and school is seen as very important in Fundamental Schools and poor parental support is seen as a problem by public school teachers. Both groups see contact with the home as important. Since this research -33.. deals only with parents' attitudes, their perception of the responsiveness of the school to their requests will be probed. When parents do contact the school do they feel that the principal and staff are responsive in) their re- quests? In this research into parents' attitudes towards their child's school the focus will be on four areas: effective- ness - how effective is the learning environment in the child's school? discipline - how good is the student dis- cipline in this school? responsiveness - how responsive is the school to their communication? traditional - how tradi- tional a school would the parents like? Summary In educational research that asks parents their Opinions about schools, or research that compares types of schools, common topics are found. These topics can be cate- gorized into four general areas: school effectiveness, dis- cipline, communication and basics. In this. research the parents were asked questions that dealt with parts of each of these four topics - teacher effectiveness, student disci- pline, school responsiveness and parental desire for a tra- ditional school. Exploratory Questions The purpose of this study is to investigate the attitudes parents of elementary school children have towards their child's elementary school. As previous discussion has -34- shown, the attitudes people have are related not only to the object of discussion but are related to social mobility, social class, and religious views. Schools in Ontario offer an excellent focus for investigating the interplay of social and religious forces. While it is obvious that social mobi- lity, social class, religion and education intersect in the schools, the nature of the relationships is not clear. The exploratory questions are based on the fact that two public- ly funded systems exist in Ontario, and that religious views, social mobility and social class may have an effect on people's attitudes. (i) Is there a relationship between the type of school the child attends and his parents' attitude towards it? (ii) Is there a relationship between the parents' religious views and their atti- tude towards their child's school? (iii) Is there a relationship between the parents' social mobility and their atti- tudes toward their child's school? (iv) Is there a relationship between the parents' social class and their attitudes towards their child's school. These four general questions will focus on four areas of interest in schools. These areas are: school effective- ness, school discipline, school reSponsiveness to parents, and a desire for a traditional school by parents. -35- HYPOTHESES In view of the purposes of this study, the exploratory questions that have been outlined and the limitations impos- ed by the Ontario School structure, the following hypotheses will be tested. The hypotheses are listed under the four themes (H: school choice, religiosity, social mobility and social class. (i) School Choice (a) Parents who view their child's school as responsive, effective, and with good stu- dent discipline will be discriminated from parents who view their child's school as unresponsive, ineffective and with poor student discipline by school choice. (D) Parents who desire a traditional approach to education will be discriminated ‘from those parents who desire a more liberal approach to education by school choice. (ii) Religiosity (a) Parents who desire a Public school will be discriminated from those parents who de- sire a Separate school by religiosity. (b) Parents who view their child's school as effective, responsive and with good stu- dent discipline will be discriminated -36- from parents who view their schools as in- effective, unresponsive and with poor stu- dent discipline by religiosity. Parents who desire a traditional approach to education, will be discriminated from those parents who desire a more liberal approach to education by religiosity. (iii) Social Mobility (6) Parents who desire a Public school will be discriminated from those who desire a Separate school by direction of social mo- bility. Parents who view their child's school as responsive, effective aunt with good stu- dent discipline will be discriminated from parents who view their child's school as unresponsive, ineffective and with poor discipline by direction of social mo- bility. Parents who desire a traditional approach to education will tua discriminated from those parents who desire a more liberal approach to education by direction of social mobility. -37- (iv) Social Class (a) Parents who desire a Public school will be discriminated from those parents who desire a Separate school by social class. (D) Parents who view their child's school as responsive, effective aunt with good stu- dent discipline will be discriminated from parents who view their child's school as unresponsive, ineffective and with poor student discipline by social class. (c) Parents who desire a traditional approach to education will Ina discriminated from those parents an3 desire a more liberal approach to education by social class. Method and Sample The investigation into parents' attitudes was conducted via a: questionnaire composed of researcher designed ques- tions and questions drawn from previous studies. The ques- tionnaire consisted of three parts: background information, attitudes towards their school, and type of school desired. After field testing and revisions, the questionnaire was distributed to parents via the schools. Anonymity for schools and respondents was assured. Results were analyzed with respect to the hypotheses stated. A random sample of parents was drawn from all parents with children in English speaking regular classrooms in -38.. elementary (K-VIII) schools in a medium sized Ontario city served by a Public Board of Education and a Separate Board of Education. In each system, approximately two hundred questionnaires were distributed on aproportionate basis to each school. Principals were instructed how in) randomly distribute the questionnaires within their school. By this method representation from each school in the area was assured. Signficance It is important to conduct this study for four reasons. First, it is important to determine if parents whose child- ren attend two different but publicly funded schools see their schools differently. This information will be of value to Americans who are studying public and private schools, to advocates of state funding for private schools, and to Ontario educators who must reSpond to critics in and out of the system. Second, it is important to evaluate the effect of religious values on attitudes towards schools. In a dual system where one system emphasizes its religious values, it is important to determine if the religious values of the clients are related to their attitudes towards schools. Such information will be (Hi value to those who study schools, particularly religious schools, and to those who are interested in the relationship between religion and attitudes. Third, it is important to evaluate the effect of social mobility on attitudes towards schools. Since North -39.. American society is socially mobile, the effects of mobility on attitudes towards schools is important both for those who study schools and those who work in them. Fourth, it is im- portant for Americans to learn of a foreign system of educa- tion for it enables them to better understand their own sys- tem and to be sensitive to the possible long term effects of change within their own system. The importance of learning from another system (Hi education was emphasized by I.L. Kandel in his book Comparative Education where he wrote: The study of foreign systems of education means a critical approach and a challenge to one's own philosophy and, therefore, a clearer analysis of the background and basis underlying the educa- tional systmn of one's own nation. It nmans, further, the development of a new attitude and a new point of view which may be derived from a knowledge of the reasons for establishing sys- tems of education and of the methods of conduc- ting them. -40- ENDNOTES CHAPTER I 1Three of the critics of Coleman's study are: Michael W. West, "The Rationale for Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, 63 (November 1981), pp. 164- 165. Andy C. Porter, "Some Comments on Public and Pri- vate School" (paper presented at the N.I.E. sponsored con- ference on Methodological Considerations Affecting The Cre- dibility of Conclusions: The Instance of Three Conflicting Studies on Public and Private Schools. National Institute of Education, Washington D.C., July 21,22, 1981). Douglas Willms, "Achievement Outcomes 'hl Public and Private Schools: A Closer Look at the 'High School and Beyond' Data" (Occasional Paper. Stanford, California: Stanford Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance 1982). 2Carl J. Matthews, "Trends in Separate School Enrolment," C.T. Reporter (November, 1981), p. 19. 3G.E. Malcolm MacLeod, "Voices From The Attic: Canadian Public Opinion on Education," Phi Delta Kappan, 66 (January, 1985),p. 348. 4Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959), pp. 7-8. 5Ruth Whitney, "Religion and the Secular: Creative and Destructive," Religion In Life, 48 (Summer, 1979), p. 239. 6Zvi Halevy and Eva Etzioni Halevy, "The 'Religious Factor' and Achievement in Education,“ Comparative Educa- tion,10 (October, 1974), p. 193. 7Joan Huber and William H. Form, Income and Ideology An Analysis of the American Political Formula TNew York: The Free Press,’1973), p. 114. 8Peter M. Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, The American Occupational Structure (New York: John Wiley' and Sons, 1967), p. 1. . 9Melvin L. Tumin, Social Stratification The Forms and Functions of Inequality (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967), p. 94. -41- 10I.L. Kandel, Comparative Education (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Riverside Press, 1933), p. XXIV. 11J.G. Hodgins, ed., Documentary History of Educa- tion in Upper Canada (Toronto: Warwick Brothers and Rutter, - D 0 o , p.40 12Dissentient was the term used to describe those schools that dissented from the majority of schools in place at the time. Thus, in Lower Canada (Quebec), dissentient schools were Protestant and Upper Canada (Ontario) dissen- tent schools were Catholic. 13Harold Putman, Egerton Ryerson and Education in Upper Canada (Toronto: WiTliam Briggs, 1912), p. 186. 14Joseph Pope, Memoirs of the Right Honourable Sir John Alexander MacDonald G.C.B. (Toronto: oxford University Press, 1930), p. 138. 15C.B. Sissons, Church and State in Canadian Educa- tion An Educational Study (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1959), p. 56. 16Ioio., p. 112. 17E.A. Driedger, A Consolidation of the British North American Act 1867-1952 (Oftawa: Queen's *Printer, 1956), p. 28. 18C.B. Sissons, op. cit., p. 112. 19Brian E. Titley and Peter J. Miller, Education In Canada: An Interpretation (Calgary, Alberta: Oetselig Enterprises, 1982), p. 62. 20Hodgins, Documentary History, VII, p. 178. 21Sissons, op. cit., p. 20. 22H.T.J. Coleman, Public Education in Upper Canada (New York: Brandon Printing’Company, 1907), p. 105. 23In 1886, 1913 and 1936 different laws were passed in an attempt to have corporations pay taxes to the school system in proportion to the religion of their shareholders. The courts did not uphold the laws. In fact, the 1936 at- tempt was so poorly worded, it was repealed in 1937. -42- 24Prior’ ‘to Confederation (1867), the Separate Schools of Ontario were able to operate schools to the end of Grade X. In 1928, the Trustees of Tiny Township argued that the lack of government grants to operate a Grade XI, XII, XIII program was unconstitutional. The Privy Council, the final appeal body, turned down their request. 25W. G. Fleming, Ontario's Educative Society 11, The Administrative Structure (Toronto: ’University of 'Toronto Press, 1971), p. 245. 26Carl J. Matthews, op. cit., p. 19. 27Carl J. Matthews,op. cit., p. 19. 28Sault Star, (April, 1982), p. 32. 29On Tuesday, June 12, 1984, the Premier of Ontario announced that he was extending full funding for the Sepa- rate Schools through to Grade XIII, beginning in September 1985. 30Stuart Oskamp, Attitudes and Opinions (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1977), p. 5. 31Gordon W. Allport, "Attitudes," in Readings in At- titude Theory and Measurement, ed. by Martin FishbeTn (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967), p. 8. 32E.L. Hartley, R.E. Hartley, and Clyde Hart, "Atti- tudes and Opinions" in The Process and Effects of Mass Com- munication, ed. by W. Schramn (University of Illinois Press, 1961), p. 219. 33Nicholas Hans, Comparative Education (London, Eng- land: Unwin Bothers Limited, 1982), p. 85. 34Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism, trans. by Talcott Parsons (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), p. 40. 35Gerhard Lenski, The Religious Factor (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1961), p. 1. 36Ibio., p. 289. 37Ibid., p. 291. 38Gary R. Lee, and Robert W. Clyde, “Religion, Socio-economic Status and Anomie," Journal For The Scienti- fic Study of Religion, 13 (1974), pp. 36-37. -43- 39Some examples of the diverse range of topics that have been studied in relation to religiosity are: Anomie (Carr and Hauser, 1976), Abortion (McIntosh et al., 1979), Community Orientation (Martinson et al., 1982), Self—Esteem (Bahr and Martin, 1983), Politics (Miller and Wattenburg, 1984), Educational Expectations (Rhodes and Nam, 1970). 40W.C. Roof, "Traditional Religion in Contemporary Society,“ American Sociological Review, 41 (1976), p. 195- 208. 41Melvin L. Kohn, Class and Conformity, (Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1969), p. 61. 42James D. Wright and Sonia R. Wright, "Social Class and Parental Values For Children: A Partial Replication and Extension of the Kohn Thesis," American Sociological Review, 41 (June, 1976), p. 536. 43M. Yinger, The Scientific Study of Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1970), p. 203. 44Volker Orehsen, "Dimensions of Religiosity in M0- dern Society,“ Social Compass, 27 (1980/1), p. 52. 45Melvin L. Kohn, op. cit., p. 3. 45Peter M. Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, op. cit., 47Pitirim Sorokin, Social Mobility (New York: Har- per and Brothers, 1927), p. 414. 48Peter M. Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, op. cit., 49Melvin M. Tumin, op. cit., p. 97. 50Gino Germani, "Social and lhalitical Consequences of Mobility," in Social Structure and Mobility in Economic Development, ed. by Neil J. Smelser and Seymour Martin Lip- set (Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1966), p. 364. 51Harold L. Wilensky, "Measures and Effects .of Social Mobility,“ in Social Structure and Mobility in Econo- mic Development, ed. by Neil U. SmeTSer andTSeymour Martin Lipset (Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1966), pp. 98-135. 521oio., p. 107. 53Ibid., p. 108. -44- 54Kenneth Kessin, “Social and Psychological Conse- quences of Intergenerational Occupational Mobility,” Ameri- can Journal of Sociology, 77 (July, 1971), p. 16. 55Alan c. Kerckhoff, Socialization and Social Class (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972), p. 3-4. 56James S. Coleman, "Rawls, Nozick, and Educational Equality," The Public Interest, 43 (Spring 1976), p. 124. 57Melvin Tumin, op. cit., p. 11. 58Kevin Marjoribanks, "Ethnicity, Family Environ- ment, School Attitudes and Academic Achievement,“ The Australian Journal of Education, 22 (October, 1978), p. 249. 59Betty Miner, "Sociological Background Variables Affecting School Achievement," The Journal of Educational Research, 61 (April, 1968), p. 372. 60George H. Gallup, "The 16th Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools,“ Phi Delta Kappan, 66 (September, 1984), p. 37. 61James Coleman, Thomas Hoffer' and Sally l and William Hoffman co-chairperson, Bishop's Task Force on Secondary Education (Cleveland, Ohio, Diocese of Cleveland, 1980), p. 60. 2Ihid., p. 4. 3Overall supervision for the study was Dr. David C. Leege, Director of Centre for the Study of Man in Contem- porary Society. His co-investigators were IN“. C. Lincoln Johnson and Dr. R. Robert Huckfeldt. 4D. W. Livingstone and D. J. Hart, Public Attitudes Toward Education in Ontario 1980 (Toronto, Ontario: OISE Press, 1981), p. 54. 5Meetings with Dr. Marcus, Director of Social Science Research Bureau, Michigan State University, October 1983. 6A. N. Oppenheim, Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement (New York: Basic Books, 1966), p.7263. 7D.W. Livingstone and D.J. Hart, op. cit., pp. 53- 54. 8William H. Sewell, et al., "Social Status and Edu- cational and Occupational Aspiration,“ American Sociological Review, 22 (1957), p. 73. 9George Gallup, "The 14th Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, 64 (September, 1982), p. 39. 10Donald A. Erickson, et al. Characteristics and Relationships in Public and Independent Schools (San Fran- cisco: Center For Research on Private Education, 1979) p. 1. 111oid., p. 87. lzIbid., p. 107. 13Meetings with Dr. Houang, Statistical Analyst, and Dr. Marcus, Sociologist, August 1984. 14Lee J. Cronbach, Essentials of Psychological Tes- ting (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949), p. 48. -49- 15Ioid. 16T.W. Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Persona- lity (New York: Harper and Row, 1950), p. 311 17H. Kellerer in Tore Dalenius, Sampling in Sweden: Contribution to the Methods and Theories of Sample Survey Practice (Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1957), p. 216. 18Jae On Kim, and Charles W. Mueller, Introduction To Factor Analyses What It Is and How To Do It (Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications,71978), p. 8. 19Ioid., p. 9. 20Duane F. Alwin, "The Use of Factor Analyses in the Construction of Linear Composites in Social Research," Sociological Methods and Research, 2 (November, 1973), p. 191. 21Marilyn W. Wang and Julian C. Stanley, "Differen- tial Weighting: A Review of Methods and Empirical Studies." Review of Educational Research, 40 (No. 5), p. 664. 22Delbert C.Miller, Handbook of Research and De- sign (New York: David MacKay, 1977), p. 211. 23c. Hadlai Hull and Norman H. Nie, SPSS Statisti- cal Package for the Social Sciences (New York: McGraw Hill, 1981), p. 223. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS Introduction In this chapter each of the four independent variables: school choice, religiosity, social mobility and social class will be analyzed in terms of the four dependent variables: responsiveness, effectiveness, discipline and desire for a traditional school. Using the chi-square statistic, levels of the different dependent variables will be compared in 2x5 or 3x5 tables. lau C will be used to determine the strength of the relationship. As independent variables, religiosity, social mobility, and social class will be analyzed with type of school as the dependent variable. Using the chi-square statistic, levels of the dependent variable will be compared in an 2x2 table. Phi will be used to determine the strength of the relationship. Regression analysis will Ina used to examine relation- ships between dependent and independent variables. Rela- tionships found, and significance levels will be reported. Unintended effects if any, will be identified. -2- Data Analysis School Choice This independent two level variable (Public, Separate) was used to determine if parents of the two school systems expressed any significant differences on the four dependent variables: responsiveness of the school, effectiveness of the school, discipline in the school and desire for a tradi- tional school. Only those cases that had responded to all the questions on the index being tested were used in the analysis. That is, those cases that had left an answer blank or had circled - no basis for opinion - were elimina- ted from the analysis of that index. On the responsiveness index, the number of valid cases was 238 - 50% Public, 50% Separate. A comparison between TABLE 4.1 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES OF PUBLIC AND SEPARATE SCHOOL PARENTS TOHARD THE RESPONSIVENESS OF THEIR SCHOOL Responsiveness of School (% of n) Type of School Parents Very Very n of Support Low Low Middle High High Cases Public 18 19 25 19 19 118 Separate 23 12 ‘ 22 26 17 120 Public school parents and Separate school parents on the re- sponsiveness of the school index resulted 'hl a chi-square value of 4.9 with four degrees of freedom and a significance level of .29 (Table 4.1). Tau C statistic for the -3- relationship was .005. Since p>.05, the null hypothesis that the proportion of Public school parents who view their schools as responsive to their needs is the same as the pro- portion of Separate school parents who view their schools as responsive to their needs was retained. The second dependent variable tested was school effec- tiveness. The nature of these questions, in that they in- volved a judgement on school effectiveness or a comparison of the parent's school to another school, caused an unusual- ly high number of “0's" -nO basis for Opinion - or questions left blank. Consequently, the number of usable cases on the index was 225 - 47% Public, 53% Separate. (Table 4.2) TABLE 4.2 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES OF PUBLIC AND SEPARATE SCHOOL PARENTS TOHARD THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR SCHOOLS Effectiveness of The School (% Of n) Type of School Very Very n of Parents Low Low Middle High High cases Support Public 20 23 29 13 15 106 Separate 17 16 28 23 16 119 A comparison between Public school parents and Separate school parents on the school effectiveness index resulted in a chi-square value of 4.9 with four degrees of freedom and a significance level of .30. Tau C statistic for this rela- tionship was .11. Although a slight tendency was observed for Separate school parents to view their schools as more -4- effective, the results were not significant at the .05 level. Since p>.05, the null hypothesis that the proportion of Public school parents who view their school as effective is the same as the proportion of Separate school parents who view their schools as effective was retained. The third dependent variable tested was discipline. The total number of usable cases was 242- 48% Public, 52% Separate. (Table 4.3). A comparison between Public school parents and Separate school parents on the index of school discipline resulted in a chi-square value of 20.7 with four degrees of freedom and a signifcance level of .OO. Tau C statistic for this relationship was .23. Since the TABLE 4.3 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES OF PUBLIC AND SEPARATE SCHOOL PARENTS TONARD DISCIPLINE IN THEIR SCHOOL Discipline In The School (% of n) Type of School Very Very n Of Parents Low Low Middle High High Cases Support Public 34 19 15 16 16 115 Separate 11 20 28 23 18 127 reliability coefficient for the discipline index of .54 would ferences, cause the an parents of the underestimation two of the systems did significant_ dif- see their schools as having Significantly different standards of dis- cipline. Since p<.05, the null hypothesis that the -5- proportion of Public school parents who believe their schools have strong discipline is the same as the proportion of Separate school parents who believe their schools have strong discipline was rejected. The fourth variable tested was the desire for a tradi- tional school. The response rate (Hi the index was the highest Of all four; 300 cases, equally divided between Pub- lic and Separate. The results are indicated in Table 4.4. TABLE 4.4 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES OF PUBLIC AND SEPARATE SCHOOL PARENTS TOHARD A TRADITIONAL SCHOOL Desire for Traditional School (% of n) Type Of School Parents Very Very n of Support Low Low Middle High High Cases Public 17 18 21 27 17 150 Separate 13 19 20 23 25 150 A comparison between Public school parents and Separate school parents on the desire for a traditional school index resulted irl a chi—square value Of 3.7 with four degrees of freedom and a significance level of .45. Tau C statistic for this relationship was .08. Since p>.05, the null hypo- thesis that the proportion of Public school parents who de- sire a traditional school is the same as the proportion of Separate school parents who desire a traditional school was retained. -6- With type of school the parents support as the indepen- dent variable (summarized in Table 4.24), one statistically significant difference was revealed. Parents, whose child- ren were enroled in a Separate elementary school rated their child's school significantly higher on the discipline index than did parents Of children in Public elementary schools. Parents Of the two school systems did not rate their respec- tive schools significantly different on the responsive and effectiveness index. Both Public and Separate school sup- porters desired a traditional type of school environment. Religiosity This index was designed to measure the degree of reli- gious conviction of the respondents. The index was divided at the median with 51% (Hi the cases deemed in) be of low religiosity and 49% of the cases deemed to be of high reli- giosity. The first variable tested was type of school chosen. Of 285 valid cases, 47% were Public school supporters, and 53% were Separate school supporters (Table 4.5). A compari- son between Public school parents and Separate school parents on the index of religiosity resulted in a corrected chi-Square value of 16.9 with one degree of freedom and a significance level of .00. The phi statistic for this rela- tionship was .25. Since p<.05, the null hypothesis that there were no differences between people with high religio- sity scores and those with low religiosity scores in terms of school selected was rejected. -7- TABLE 4.5 A COMPARISON OF THE LEVEL OF RELIGIOSITY OF PARENTS HITH THE TYPE OF SCHOOL CHOSEN Level of Religiosity (% of n) Type of School n of Parents Support Low High Cases Public 64 36 134 Separate 39 61 151 The second variable tested was school responsiveness. The 218 valid cases were divided into 50% with low religio- sity and 50% with high religiosity (Table 4.6). A compari- son between parents with high religiosity scores and parents with low religiosity scores on the index of responsiveness of the school resulted 'Hi a chi-square value cfl’ .92 with four degrees Of freedom and a significance level of .92. Tau C statistic for this relationship was -.01. Since p>.05, the null hypothesis that no difference would exist TABLE 4.6 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES TOHARD SCHOOL RESPONSIVENESS BETHEEN PARENTS OF HIGH AND LOH RELIGIOSITY Responsiveness of School (% of n) Level Of Religiosity Very Very n of of Parents Low Low Middle High High Cases Low 18 16 27 21 18 110 High 21 14 24 24 17 108 -8- between people with high religiosity scores and low religiosity scores (Hi the index (n: responsiveness Of’ the school was retained. The third variable tested was school effectiveness. Of 207 valid cases, 49% were in the low religiosity category and 51% in the high religiosity category. (Table 4.7). A comparison between parents with high religiosity scores and parents with low religiosity scores on the index of school effectiveness resulted “hi a chi—square value (Hi 4.4 with four degrees of freedom and a significance level of .36. Tau C statistic for this relationship was .04. Since p>.05, the null hypothesis that no difference would exist between people with high religiosity and low religiosity scores on the effectiveness of the school index was retained. TABLE 4.7 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES TOHARDS SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS BETHEEN PARENTS OF HIGH AND LOH RELIGIOSITY Effectiveness of The School (% Of n) Level of Religiosity Very Very n of of Parents Low Low Middle High High Cases Low 19 18 32 14 17 102 High 16 18 27 25 14 105 The fourth variable tested was discipline. The 219 cases were divided evenly between high religiosity (50%) and low religiosity (50%). (Table 4.8). A comparison between parents with high religiosity scores and parents with low -9- religiosity scores on the index of school discipline resul- ted in a chi-square value of 5.0 with four degrees of free- dom and :1 significance level of .29. Tau C statistic for this relationship was .0. Since p>.05, the null hypothesis that no difference would exist between people with high re- ligiosity scores and low religiosity scores (Hi the school discipline index was retained. TABLE 4.8 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES TOHARD SCHOOL DISCIPLINE BETHEEN PARENTS OF HIGH AND LOH RELIGIOSITY Discipline in The School (% of n) Level Of Religiosity Very Very n of Of Parents Low Low Middle High High Cases Low 25 16 18 21 20 110 High 16 23 24 23 14 111 The fifth variable tested was the desire of parents for a traditional school. The 276 valid cases were divided into 51% with low religiosity' and 49% with high religiosity. (Table 4.9). A comparison between parents with high reli- giosity scores and parents with low religiosity scores on the index of desire for a traditional school resulted in a chi-square value of 4.4 with four degrees of freedom and a significance level of .35. Tau C statistic for this rela- tionship was .01. Since p>.05, the null hypothesis that no difference would exist between people with high religiosity scores and low religiosity scores on the desire for a tradi- tional school index was retained. -10- TABLE 4.9 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES TOHARD A TRADITIONAL SCHOOL BETHEEN PARENTS OF HIGH AND LOH RELIGIOSITY Desire for Traditional School (% of n) Level of Religiosity Very Very n Of Of Parents Low Low Middle High High Cases Low 17 17 18 29 19 140 High 15 20 21 20 24 136 With religiosity as the independent variable, (sum- marized in ‘Table 4.25) no statistically significant dif- ferences were found using the dependent variables respon- siveness, effectiveness, discipline and desire for a tradi- tional school. People vntwl high religiosity scores were more likely in) be enroled irl a Separate school than irl a Public School. Social Mobility The social mobility index was constructed by subtrac- ting the father's job score as determined by Duncan's Socio- economic Index from the respondent's job score. In the case of working couples, the male's job score was used. If the difference was a positive number, the respondent was ddfined as socially nmbile (high); if" the difference was (1 or a negative number, the respondent was defined as non-(mobile (low). Of the 314 cases, 39% were non-mobile (low) or downwardly mobile and 61% were mobile (high) or upwardly mobile. -11- The first variable tested was type of school chosen. Of 297 valid cases, 49% were Public school supporters, 51% were Separate school supporters (Table 4.10). A comparison between Public school parents and Separate school parents on the social mobility index resulted in a corrected chi-square TABLE 4.10 A COMPARISON OF THE LEVEL OF SOCIAL MOBILITY OF PARENTS BY THE TYPE OF SCHOOL CHOSEN Social Mobility Level (% Of n) Type of School n of Parents Support Low High Cases Public 45 55 145 Separate 34 66 152 value of 3.5 with one degree of freedom and a significance level of .06. The phi statistic for this relationship was .12. Since the significance level was very close to the cut-off point of .05 the social mobility scores were divided approximately into thirds and :1 2x3 table was established (Table 4.11). TABLE 4.11 A COMPARISON OF SOCIAL MOBILITY LEVELS (3) OF PARENTS BY THE TYPE OF SCHOOL CHOSEN Social Mobility Level (% Of n) Type of School n~Of Parents Support Low Middle High Cases Public 36 32 32 145 Separate 25 40 35 152 -12- Using this method Of comparison, a chi-square value of 4.8 with two degrees of freedom and a significance level of .09 resulted. Tau C statistic for this relationship was .10. Since p>.05 in both comparisons,and the strength of the re- lationship ‘is weak, ‘the null hypothesis ‘that there: are no differences between parents with a high level of social mo- bility and parents with a low level Of social mobility in terms of school chosen was retained. The second variable tested was responsiveness Of the school. The 230 valid cases for this index were divided in- to 38% low mobility and 62% high mobility. (Table 4.12). A comparison between parents with high social mobility and parents with low social mobility on the index of responsive- ness of the school resulted in a chi-square value TABLE 4.12 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES TOHARD SCHOOL RESPONSIVENESS BETHEEN PARENTS OF HIGH AND LOH SOCIAL MOBILITY Responsiveness Of The School (% Of n) Mobility Level Very Very n Of Of Parents Low Low Middle High High Cases Low 22 19 24 19 16 88 High 19 14 23 25 19 142 of 2.1 with four degrees Of freedom and a significance level of .72. Tau C statistic for this relationship was .09. Since p>.05, the null hypothesis that there are no dif- ferences between parents with a high level of social mobi- lity and parents with a low level of social mobility on the -13- index Of responsiveness was retained. The third variable tested was effectiveness of the school. The 216 valid cases were pivided into 36% low mobility and 64% high mobility. (Table 4.13). A comparison between parents with high social mobility and parents with low social mobility on the index of school effectiveness re- sulted irl a chi-square value cH’ 3.6 with four degrees of freedom and a significance level of .46. Tau C statistic for this relationship was .02. Since p>.05, the null hypo- thesis that no difference would exist between parents with a high social mobility and parents with a low social mobility score on the index of school effectiveness was retained. TABLE 4.13 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES TOHARD SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS BETHEEN PARENTS OF HIGH AND LOH SOCIAL MOBILITY Effectiveness of The School (% Of n) Mobility Level Very Very n of of Parents Low Low Middle High High Cases Low 17 25 23 19 16 77 High 19 15.1 31 19 16 139 The fourth variable tested was school discipline. Of 233 valid cases, 35% were in the low mobility category and 65% were in the high mobility category (Table 4.14). A com- parison between parents of high social mobility and parents Of low social mobility on the index of school discipline re- sulted in a chi-square value of 4.5 with four -14- TABLE 4.14 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES TOHARD SCHOOL DISCIPLINE BETHEEN PARENTS OF HIGH AND LOH SOCIAL MOBILITY Discipline in The School (% Of n) Level of Mobility Very Very n of of Parents Low Low Middle High High Cases Low 26 21 22 13 18 82 High 20 17 22 25 16 151 degrees of freedom and a significance level of .34. Tau C statistic for this relationship was .08. Since p>.05, the null hypothesis that there are no differences between parents with high social mobility and parents with low social mobility on the school discipline index was retained. The fifth variable tested was desire for a traditional school. Of 287 valid cases, 38% were in the low social mo- bility category and 62% in the high social mobility cate- gory. (Table 4.15). A comparison between parents Of high TABLE 4.15 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES TOHARD A TRADITIONAL SCHOOL BETHEEN PARENTS OF HIGH AND LOH SOCIAL MOBILITY Desire for Traditional School (% of n) Level of Mobility Very Very n of Mobility Low Low Middle High High Cases Low 19 19 23 20 19 109 High 11 18 20 28 23 178 -15- social mobility and low social mobility on the index of de- sire for a traditional school resulted in a chi-square value of 6.3 with four degrees of freedom and a Significance level of .18. Tau C statistic for this relationship lNdS .14. Since p>.05, the null hypothesis that rni difference would exist between parents with a high level of social mobility and parents with a low level of social mobility on the de- sire for a traditional school index was retained. With social mobility as the independent variable, (sum- marized irl Table 4.26) no statistically significant dif- ferences were found using lflna dependent variables reSpon- siveness Of the school, effectiveness of the school, school discipline and desire for a traditional school. Enrolment patterns in the two systems were not statistically related to social mobility. Social Class Interpretation of the statistics using the social class index must of necessity be tentative because Of the low re- liability coefficient of .40 on this index. NO significant differences may indicate either that rn) differences do in fact exist or that the index is too insensitive to measure differences. Any significant differences that are 'found will likely be underestimated. The social class index was divided into three parts such that lower class was 23%, middle class was 49% and up- per class was 28% of the valid cases. -15- The first variable tested was type of school. Of the 297 valid cases 49% were Public school supporters, 51% were Separate school supporters. (Table 4.16). A comparison be- tween Public school parents and Separate school parents on the social class index resulted in a chi-square value of .35 with two degrees of freedom and a significance level of .84. TABLE 4.16 A COMPARISON OF THE LEVEL OF SOCIAL CLASS OF PARENTS HITH THE TYPE OF SCHOOL CHOSEN Social Class Level (% Of n) Type Of School n Of Parents Support Low Middle High Cases Public 22 51 27 146 Separate 24 48 28 151 Tau C statistic for this relationship was .02. Since p>.05, the null hypothesis that the proportion of parents from each of the social classes (low, middle, high) that enrol their children irl Public, and Separate schools 'hs the same was retained. The second variable tested was responsiveneys of the school. (Hi 229 valid cases, 24% were lower class, 50% were middle class and 26% were upper class. (Table 4.17). A comparison Of parents' attitudes among the three social classes on the index of responsiveness Of the school resul- ted in a chi-square value of 2.4 with eight degrees of -17- TABLE 4.17 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES TOHARD SCHOOL RESPONSIVENESS AMONG THE THREE SOCIAL CLASSES Responsiveness Of The School (% Of n) Social Class Very Very n of Level of Parents Low Low Middle High High Cases Low 20 18 26 18 18 55 Middle 22 16 22 25 15 115 High 20 14 29 20 17 59 freedom and :1 significance level of .97. 'Tau C statistic for this relationship was .01. Since p>.05, the null hypo- thesis that the proportion of parents classes (low, middle, high) who view their schools as responsive is the same was retained. The third variable tested was school effectiveness. The 215 valid cases were divided class, AMONG THE THREE SOCIAL CLASSES 53% middle class TABLE 4.18 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES TOHARD SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS and 26% upper class in each of the social into three levels 21% lower (Table 4.18). Effectiveness Of The School (% of n) Social Class Very Very n of Level of Parents Low Low Middle High High Cases Low 18 14 29 25 14 44 Middle 16 20 27 20 17 114 High 25 19 32 12 12 57 -18- A comparison (Hi parents' attitudes among the three social classes on the index of school effectiveness resulted in a chi-square value of 5.4 with eight degrees of freedom and a significance level Of .71. Tau C statistic for this rela- tionship was .09. Since p>.05, the null hypothesis that the proportion of parents in each of the social classes (low, middle, high) who view their schools as effective is the same was retained. The fourth variable tested was school discipline. The 233 valid cases were divided into 21% lower class, 52% mid- dle class and 27% upper class (Table 4.19). A comparison Of parents' attitudes among the three social classes on the in- dex of school discipline resulted in a chi-square value of 12.7 with eight degrees of freedom and a Significance level of .12. Tau (2 statistic for this relationship was -.O9. Since p>.05, the null hypothesis that the proportion of TABLE 4.19 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES TOHARD SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AMONG THE THREE SOCIAL CLASSES Discipline In The School (% Of n) Social Class Level Very Very n of of Parents Low Low Middle High High Cases Low 29 12 22 16 21 49 Middle 16 20 22 21 21 121 High 30 24 16 22 8 63 -19- parents in each (Hi the social classes (low, middle, high) who believe their school has strong discipline is the same was retained. The fifth variable tested was desire for a traditional school. The 294 valid cases were divided into three levels -- 23% lower class, 47% middle class and 30% upper class (Table 4.20). A comparison (Hi parents' attitudes among the three social classes on the desire for a traditional scnool index resulted irl a chi-square value (H: 15.3 with eight degrees of freedom and a significance level of .05. Tau C statistic for this relationship was .05, which indi- cates a weak relationship. Since the reliability of the social class index was low, it is likely that differences TABLE 4.20 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES TOHARD A TRADITIONAL SCHOOL AMONG THE THREE SOCIAL CLASSES Desire for Traditional School (% of n) Social Class Level Very Very n of of Parents Low Low Middle High High Cases Low 3 19 11 37 3O 67 Middle 4 11 17 35 33 140 High 1 8 28 24 39 87 are underestimated. In order to gain a clearer understand- ing of the differences among the classes on the desire for a traditional school index, it; was broken er1) four equal parts. (Table 4.21). In this comparison among the classes, the chi-square value was 14.4 with Six degrees of freedom -20- TABLE 4.21 A COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES TOHARD A TRADITIONAL SCHOOL AMONG THE THREE SOCIAL CLASSES Desire for Traditional School (% of n) Social Class Very n of Level of Parents Low Middle High High Cases Low 23 10 37 30 67 Middle 15 17 35 33 140 High 9 28 24 39 87 and a significance level of .03. Tau C statistic for this relationship was .05. Among social classes a similar percentage Of each class strongly desires a traditional school. As desire for a tra- ditional school decreases differences among classes become more apparent. The tendency exists for the higher social class to be more strongly in favor of a traditional school. The constant significance level in the tables and the low reliability of the social class index results in the re- jection of the null hypothesis that the proportion of parents in each (Hi the social classes (low, middle, high) who desire a traditional school is the same. Based on the statistics generated from the two indexes, social class and traditional, a weak relationship exists between social class and desire for a traditional school. With social class as the independent variable (sum- marized in Table 4.27) no statistically Significant dif- ferences were found using the dependent variables school -21- choice, responsiveness of the school, effectiveness of the school and school discipline. A weak relationship was found between social class and desire for a traditional school - the higher the social class the stronger the desire for a traditional school. Regression Analysis In the regression analysis, cases that had left answers blank, used O-no basis for opinion -, or had not specified a level (Hi education in question 18 part 1 (necessany for social class index) were eliminated from this analysis. The number of valid cases was 137. The dependent Theasures responsiveness (Hi the school, school discipline, effectiveness of the school, and desire for a traditional school were each used irl a stepwise re- gression with the independent variables religiosity, social class, social mobility and type of school. One statistical- ly significant relationship (p<.05) was found. (Table 4.22).Eight per cent (8%) of the variance on the discipline index was explained by the four independent variables. Of the four, type of school madel the most independent and statistically significant contribution. These results support the analysis of the school disci- pline index with type of school as the independent variable where Separate school parents rated their schools signifi- cantly higher than did Public school parents. The weak re- lationship found between social class and desire for a -22- TABLE 4.22 SUMMARY OF STEPHISE REGRESSION OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES HITH INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Dependent Step Overall Variable Variable Beta Sig. R2 F Sig. Responsiveness Religion -.16 .08 .03 Class -.15 .09 .04 School -.04 .63 .04 2.2 .07 Mobility .14 .10 .06 Effectiveness Religion .06 .54 .01 Class .07 .41 .01 School .07 .44 .02 .80 .53 Mobility .09 .34 .02 Discipline Religion -.18 .05 .03 Class -.10 .24 .04 School .18 .04 .07 2.7 .03 Mobility -.O9 .33 .08 Traditional Religion -.10 .27 .00 Class .06 .50 .01 School .10 .27 .02 .85 .50 Mobility .08 .36 .03 traditional school is not supported in the stepwise regres- sion analysis. Summary of Parents' Comments At the conclusion of the survey instrument, parents were invited to write any comments they might have. The invitation read: Thank you for your time. If any important issues or topics have been missed, please note them in the space provided. Use the back (n: the page if necessary. -23- Twenty-nine Inar~ cent (29%) of Public school parents and twenty-two (22%) of Separate school parents commented on a wide variety of topics. TO bring some order to the di- verse comments, four general categories were devised; Cur- riculum and Learning, Staff and School, Discipline and Ques- tionnaire. The comments WNH & (UNI-4 wNH UW-wal—A Page 3 Think (Hi five close friends. How many (H: them are members Of your church? None One Two Three Four Five 0501-5me How would you rate your participation in church activities? Very active Active Help when I can Occasionally participate Seldom participate Never participate 0301-5me Considering your income, do you feel your contributions to the church are: A considerable amount A moderate amount A little A meager amount ~5me What do you ? (Be specific about your job, ie., salesperson in a department Store, but do not give the name of the company). What did your father do when you were in High School? (Again, be specific). Does your husband/wife work outside the home? Yes 1 No 2 Not applicable 3 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Page 4 What does he/she do? (Again, be Specific) What did your husband's/wife's father do when he/she was in high school? (Again, be specific) Students are often given the grades A, B, C, D and Fail to denote the quality cni their work. Suppose that the school your children attend now was graded in the same way. What grade would you give your child's elementary school? A B C D F (.31->me ail As a general rule, how important do you think it is for young people to marry a member of their own reli- gion? Very important 1 Fairly important 2 Not important at all 3 If you were asked to use one of the following names for your social class, which would you say you belong- ed to? Upper class Upper middle class Lower middle class Working class Lower class Can't say Deny there are classes VOW-DWNI—J 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Page 5 Which Of these was the last school you graduated from? Public/Grade School Secondary School Community College University NO formal schooling Other 0301-5me (specify) In comparison to other peOple your age, how do you feel you are doing economically and socially? Very much better Better Same Worse Very much worse 01$me Thinking generally' about your neighborhood, how satisfied are you with it? Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied bump—4 AS a general rule, how important do you think it is for your children to have a university education to be successful? Very important Important Unimportant Of no importance thl—I How long has your child (children) attended this school? (i.e. 1 month, 4 years, etc.) Page 6 PART 11 Your School Thirteen statements about schools are (Ml the following pages. You are asked to respond to each one as a separate statement. Although some items may seem similar, they ex- press differences that are important in describing how you feel about Your School. There are TH) right (n: wrong answers. The purpose laf the statements is to make it possible for you to describe as ac- curately as you can Your Child's School, or your feeling about That School. Directions: 1. Read each item carefully. 2. Decide whether you (1) have no basis for opinion (2) strongly agree (3) tend to agree (4) neither agree nor disagree (neutral) (5) tend to disagree (6) strongly disagree. 3. Draw a circle around one (Hi the six numbers l,2,3,4,5,6 following the item to Show the answer you have selected: = no basis for opinion = strongly agree tend to agree 3 u N ..u II = neither agree nor disagree (neutral) 0‘! II tend to disagree 6 = strongly disagree Part II (cont'd) 1 2 3 4 Neither Agree No Basis Strongly Tend To Nor Disagree For Opinion Agree Agree (Neutral) 1. The students seem to have a lot of 10. 11. 12. 13. respect for the teachers in this school. The school this child attends is trying to do too many things all at once, rather than doing a few things well. This school does a lot of things that I wish it would not do. When the school does things I do not like, I feel powerless to do anything about it. Getting ahead depends on who you know more than how well you do something. The Principal and teachers in this school don't pay much attention to what parents think. The rate of student learning is above average in this school, in comparison with most other schools. In my Opinion, this school is making good use of the money it gets. It seems to me that student discipline is better in this school than in most other schools. This child's teacher seems to try very hard to do a good job. When I see how dedicated many teachers are in this school, I feel I must do my best to help out. Almost all teachers at this school seem very well trained for the jobs they do. The following of rules and regulations by students is important in this school. Page 7 5 6 Tend To Strongly Disagree Disagree Page 8 PART 111 School In General The following seven items are extreme statements about schools in general. You are asked to respond to each one as a separate statement. Although some items may seem similar, they express differences that are important in describing how you feel schools Should be organized. There are no right or wrong answers. The purpose of the comparisons is to give you a clear choice to inake it: possible for .you tn) express your feeling about these school issues. These statements apply in) your feelings about SCHOOLS IN GENERAL. If you agree with the first statement, please circle number 1 under it. If' you agree with the second statement, please circle number 5 under it. If you are somewhere in between, please circle either the middle number (3) or one of the numbers nearest to (1) or (5). PLEASE CIRCLE ONE NUMBER ONLY Which school would you prefer or at least lean towards? A school where students A school where students learn practical things they study academic subjects can use when they get out of OR most of the time (like school (like Woodworking and Mathematics and English). Cooking). 1 2 3 4 5 Which school would you prefer or at least lean towards? A school where students A school where students generally learn at an OR are constantly pushed easy rate. and challenged to learn rapidly. 1 2 3 4 5 Page 9 PART III - Schools in General (cont'd) Which school would you prefer or at least lean towards? A “strict school" where A “free school“ where students were tightly OR students could act disciplined. naturally 1 2 3 4 5 Which school would you prefer or at least lean towards? A school where students A school where students took only the most basic OR took a wide variety of academic subjects until subjects, even before they they really learned them. mastered any Of them. 1 2 3 4 5 Which school would you prefer or at least lean towards? A school where the teacher A school where the stu- decided what the students OR dents could choose what would learn most of the they wanted to learn time. most of the time. 1 2 3 4 5 Which school would you prefer or at least lean towards? A school where a wide range A school where a clearly of behaviour is considered OR defined position is morally acceptable. taken on what is moral. 1 2 3 4 5 Which school would you prefer or at least lean towards? A school where teachers and A school where a definite administrators are pretty OR set of goals amd methods free to "do their own thing" is pursued by everyone. 1 2 3 4 5 THANK YOU Comments: APPENDIX B Final Questionnaire Appendix B contains a copy of the cover letter and the forty-two (42) questions used in the final questionnaire which was distributed to parents in September 1984. ATTITUDES ABOUT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS I am presently engaged in a research project to determine what parents think of their child's elementary school and schools in general. In order to provide a better education for your children, it is important for policy makers, prin- cipals. and 'teachers in) know what parents think of 'their child's school. Information is required in order to better understand and improve your school system. A summary of the results from all questionnaires will be forwarded to the Director of Education and each principal. The Director of Education has given permission for distribution of the ques- tionnaires through the schools. I recognize that questionnaires require time to complete. I hope you will find this questionnaire about yourself (Part 1), your child's school (Part II), and edementary schools in general (Part III) interesting. Because of the personal nature (Hi the questions, individual responses will NO: be reported. Confidentiality is assured. Please do not put any distinguishing marks on the ques- tionnaire. Hon as an individual will not be identified. Neither you nor your school will be identified in reporting the results of this research. If you have any questions about the questionnaire, please contact me. This study is based on a carefully selected random sample of parents such as you. The return of this questionnaire is, therefore, essential for this study. Please send the questionnaire, sealed in the enclosed en- velopegyto the school withyyour child. All envelopes remain sealed until Opened for keypunching purposes. Sincerely PAGE NICOLSON, Principal Researcher Elementary School Vice-Principal QUESTIONNAIRE Page 2 Part I It is important to have background information on the people who are responding to the questionnaire. PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOU. 1. What type (Hi elementary (k-8) school (n) your children attend? Public 1 Separate 2 Children in both systems 3 2. What is your religious preference? Protestant Roman Catholic Other (Specify) NO religious preference 4 WNH 3. What is your husband's/wife's religious preference? Protestant Roman Catholic Other (Specify) No religious preference Not applicable U‘l-b WNH 4. TO which school system do you direct your municipal tax support? Public Separate Don't Know “NV—J 5. How Often do you attend church? Once a week or more 1-3 times a month Several times a year Almost never Not applicable 015me 6. How long have you been a member of your current church? Less than 1 year 1 1-2 years 2 3-5 years 3 5 or more years 4 Not applicable 5 10. 11. 12. Page 3 What do you do? (Be specific about your job, i.e., salesperson in a department store, but do not give the name of the company). What did your father do when you were in High School? (Again, be specific. If father deceased or‘ not in home, write irl his usual occupation before Ina left home). Does your husband/wife work outside the home? Yes 1 No 2 Not applicable 3 (If NO or Not applicable go to Question #12) What does he/she do? (Again, be specific) What did your husband's/wife's father do when he/she was in high school? (Again, be specific) Think (Hi five close friends. How many (Hi them are members of your church? None One Two Three Four Five 0301-9-me 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Page 4 How would you rate your participation in church activities? Very active Active Help when I can Occasionally participate Seldom participate Never participate OlU'I-bUONH Considering your income, (n) you feel your contribu- tions to the church are: A considerable amount A moderate amount A little A meager amount thl-J Students are often given the grades A, B, C, D and Fail to denote the quality (n: their work. Suppose that the school your children attend now was graded in the same way. What grade would you give your child's elementary school? A B C D F Ul-DWNI-J ail As a general rule, how important do you think it is for young people to marry a member Of their own religion? Very important 1 Fairly important 2 Not important at all 3 If you were asked to use one Of the following names for your social class, which would you say you belonged to? Lower class Working class Lower Middle class Middle class Upper Middle class Upper class 0101-9me 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Page 5 Which of these was the last school you graduated from? No formal schooling Public/Grade School Secondary School Community College University Other ODU'IhWNl-H (Specify) In comparison to other people your age, how do you feel you are doing economically and socially? Very much better 1 Better 2 Same 3 Worse 4 5 Very much worse Thinking generally about your neighborhood, how satisfied are you with it? Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied (fl-DOONH AS a general rule, how important do you think it is for your children to have a university education to be successful? Great importance Very important Somewhat important Slightly important Not important at all U'l-D-(AJNH How long has your child (children) attended this school? (i.e. 1 month, 4 years, etc.) Page 6 PART 11 Your School Thirteen statements about schools are (hi the following pages. You are asked to respond to each one as a separate Statement. Although some items may seem similar, they express differences that are important in describing how you feel about Your School. There are in) right (n: wrong answers. The purpose (Hi the statements is to inake it. possible for ,you in) describe as accurately as you can Your Child's School, or your feeling about That School. Directions: 1. Read each item carefully. 2. Decide whether you (5) strongly agree (4) tend to agree (3) neither agree rnn‘ disagree (neutral) (2) tend to disagree (1)strongly disagree (0) no basis for Opinion 3. Draw a circle around one of the six numbers O,1,2,3,4,5, following the item to show the answer you have selected: 5 = strongly agree 4 = tend to agree 3 = neither agree nor disagree (neutral) 2 = tend to disagree 1 = strongly disagree 0 = no basis for Opinion Page 7 Part II (cont'd) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Neither Agree Strongly Tend To Nor Disagree Tend TO Strongly No Basis Agree Agree (Neutral) Disagree Disagree For Opinion 1. The students seem to have a lot of respect for the teachers in this 5 4 3 2 1 0 school. 2. The school this child attends is trying to do too many things all at once, rather than doing a few things well. 5 4 3 2 1 O 3. This school does a lot Of things that I wish it would not do. 5 4 3 2 1 O 4. When the school does things I do not like, I feel powerless to do anything about it. 5 4 3 2 1 O 5. Getting ahead depends On who you know more than how well you do something. 5 4 3 2 l O 6. The Principal and teachers in this school don't pay much attention to what parents think. 5 4 3 2 1 O 7. The rate of student learning is above average in this school, in comparison with most other schools. 5 4 3 2 1 O 8. In my opinion, this school is making good use of the money it gets. 5 4 3 2 1 O 9. It seems to me that student discipline is better in this school than in most other schools. 5 4 3 2 1 O 10. This child's teacher seems to try very hard to do a good job. 5 4 3 2 1 O 11. When I see how dedicated many teachers are in this school, I feel I must do my best to help out. 5 4 3 2 1 O 12. Almost all teachers at this school seem very well trained for the jobs they do. 5 4 3 2 1 O 13. The following Of rules and regulations by students is important in this school. 5 4 3 2 1 O Page 8 PART 111 School In General The following seven items are extreme statements about schools in general. You are asked to respond to each one as a separate statement. Although some items may seem similar, they express differences that are important in describing how yeu feel schools should be organized. There are no right or wrong answers. The purpose of the comparisons is to give you a clear choice to Inake it possible for ,you in) express your 'feeling about these school issues. These statements apply in) your feelings about SCHOOLS IN GENERAL. If you agree with the first statement, please circle number 1 under it. If you agree with the second statement, please circle number 5 under it. If' you are somewhere 'hi between, please circle either the middle number (3) or one of the numbers nearest to (1) or (5). PLEASE CIRCLE ONE NUMBER ONLY Which school would you prefer or at least lean towards? A school where students A school where students learn practical things they study academic subjects can use when they get out of OR most of the time (like school (like Woodworking and Mathematics and English). Cooking). 1 2 3 4 5 Which school would you prefer or at least lean towards? A school where students A school where students generally learn at an OR are constantly pushed easy rate. and challenged to learn rapidly. Page 9 PART III - Schools in General (cont'd) Which school A "strict school" where students were tightly disciplined. 1 2 Which school would you prefer A school where students took only the most basic academic subjects until they really learned them. 1 2 Which school would you prefer A school where the teacher decided what the students would learn most of the time. 1 2 Which school would you prefer A school where a wide range of behaviour is considered morally acceptable. 1 2 Which school would you prefer A school where teachers and administrators are pretty free to "do their own thing" 1 2 THANK Comments: OR OY‘ OR OY‘ OR OT‘ OR OI" OR YOU at at at at would you prefer or at least lean towards? A "free school" where students could act naturally 4 5 least lean towards? A school where students took a wide variety of subjects, even before they mastered any of them. 4 5 least lean towards? A school where the stu- dents could choose what they wanted to learn most of the time. 4 5 least lean towards? A school where a clearly defined position is taken on what is moral. 4 5 least lean towards? A school where a definite set Of goals amd methods is pursued by everyone. 4 5 APPENDIX C Appendix C contains copies of correspondence to and from the two Directors of Education relating to this re- search. These include formal permission tO conduct the study, information updates, and a follow-up letter from the Director of the Public Board to the parents. Page 1 COPY OF LETTER FROM DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC BOARD 1984 05 08 Mr. Page N. Nicolson Dear Mr. Nicolson: This letter will constitute permission to proceed with dis— tribution in the public schools Of questionnaires related to your Doctoral thesis. It is understood that the questionnaires will be sent home to parents of students in Grades 3 and 8 and that they will relate to "a study of the attitude parents have toward their child's elementary school and relationship of those attitudes to religious conviction and social mobility". It is further under- stood that the parents will be asked not to identify themselves through the questionnaires and that the schools will not be iden- tified in your report. If I can be of any additional assistance in your project please feel free to ask. Yours sincerely DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & SECRETARY Page 2 1984 05 O9 COPY OF LETTER FROM SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD DIRECTOR Mr. P. Nicolson Dear Mr. Nicolson: Please be advised that permission is granted to conduct research in the schools of the Roman Catholic Separate School Board in relation to your doctoral thesis, A Study of the Attitude Of Parents TOward Their Child's ElEmentary School and the Relationship of Those Attitudes to Religious Convictions and Social Mobility. I wish you success in your very interesting undertaking. Sincerely yours Director Of Education Page 3 80 Fort Creek Drive SAULT STE. MARIE, ONTARIO P6C 5T9 1984 O9 13 COPY OF LETTER TO DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC BOARD Dear Sir: Information Update Re: A Study of the Attitude Parents have Towards Their Child's Elementary SchoOl and thelRelationship of Those Attitudes to Religious’COhViction and Social Mobility A presentation regarding the purpose of the study and the process by which the questionnaires are to be distributed was made at the Elementary School Principals' Meeting on September 6, 1984. CO-Operation on the part of the principals was excellent. The questionnaires relating to the stuoy will be sent to over two hundred (200) parents in the Public System on Thursday, September 20, 1984. A summary of the results will be made available to you and the principals in January 1985. Yours very truly N.PAGE NICOLSON NPNzem Enclosure (2) Page 4 80 Fort Creek Drive SAULT STE. MARIE, ONTARIO P6C 5T9 1984 O9 13 COPY OF LETTER TO SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD DIRECTOR Dear Sir: Information Update Re: A Studyyof the Attitude Parents have Towards Their Child's Elementary SEhoOl and the Relationship ofTThose Attitudes to ReligiOus Conviction andTSOciallMobility Over the past week, I have visited each Separate School and explained the purpose of the study and the process by which the questionnaires are IX) be distbuted to parents. CO-Operation on the part of the principals was excellent. The questionnaires relating to the study will be sent to over two hundred (200) parents in the Separate System on Thursday, September 20, 1984. At your next Principals' Meeting, I would be happy to answer any questions/concerns about the study. I will be out Of town September 17 and 18, 1984. A summary of the results of the study will be made available to you and the principals in January 1985. Yours very truly N.PAGE NICOLSON NPN:em Enclosure (2) Page 5 TO: PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1984 09 21 FROM: DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION COPY OF NOTE SENT TO PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IMPORTANT Re: Page Nicolson's Survey Please see that the attached letters are sent home in enve- lopes to the parents to whom the survey was sent. Would you take steps to see that no pressure is put on any student to have the survey returned. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION Attachments Page 6 1984 O9 24 COPY OF LETTER SENT TO PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENTS BY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC BOARD Dear Parent Last week you received a survey related to attitudes about elementary schools. There has been some misunderstanding about the survey and I would like to allay any concerns in that regard. That survey is not Board or School sponsored and your particpation in it is purely voluntary. Distribution on a randomly selected basis was permitted because it is a project of a staff member now engaged in educational research and is part of the requirements for obtaining a doctoral degree. If you are interested in helping in the research then of course complete the survey and return it, unidentified, as requested. If you prefer not to participate then please destroy the survey. There will be no follow-up from the school and your child will not be asked about returning the envelope. Yours truly DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION APPENDIX D Appendix 0 contains copies of the notification letter and the thank you letter to parents who received the ques- tionnaire. Page 1 ATTITUDES ABOUT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS September 14, 1984 Dear Parents You are one of a small group of parents selected from your elementary' school to complete ii questionnaire about your school. On Thursday, September 20th, 1984, your son/daugh- ter will be bringing home a survey for you to complete. This survey is part (H: a doctoral research project de- signed to provide information to the policy makers and prin- cipals of your school system. Information will be calcula- ted (ni a system wide basis NOT on a per school basis. lp;_ dividual responses will be confidential. Since only a small number of parents from each school are being contacted, it is very important that you complete your survey and send it back to the school with your child. Your opinion counts!! SURVEY DAY ---- SEPTEMBER 20, 1984 If for some reason you don't receive a survey on Thursday, please contact the school. Sincerely N. PAGE NICOLSON Principal Researcher Elementary School Vice-Principal Page 2 ATTITUDES ABOUT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS September 24, 1984 Dear Parents On Thursday you should have received a school attitude questionnaire. If you have completed your questionnaire and have sent it back to school with your child -- Thank you. If you have not completed the questionnaire, please do so as soon as possible. Since only a few parents have been se- lected to report from each school, it is important to have all the questionnaires returned. If you did not receive a questionnaire on Thursday, please telephone the school in order to receive a question- naire. Your opinion is important to the policy makers Of your school system and the researcher. A summary of the results of the questionnaire will be available in January 1985. If you would like a COpy of the Summary, please contact me in January. Sincerely N. PAGE NICOLSON Principal Researcher Elementary School Vice-Principal APPENDIX E Appendix E contains COpies of the introductory letter, and the instructional letter sent to the principals. Page 1 PARENTS' ATTITUDES ABOUT THEIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Sept. 5, 1984 Dear Principal I am asking for your cooperation in distributing a questionnaire to a few parents in your school area. The questionnaire deals with parents' ideas on school discipline, school responsiveness to their concerns and how effective they see their school. There are also a number of questions re- lating to the sociological background of the parents. Permission to dis- tribute the questionnaire via the schools has been received from the Direc- tor of Education. AS we all realize, parental support of the school is an important fac- tor in a child's success and necessary for a successful school. Parents' ideas about our schools are the topic of much speculation but not a geat deal of research. The results of this research on a system wide basis, in addition to being used as part of a cHssertation will be sent to you in January 1985. Individual or school responses are confidential and will NOT be reported. On a RANDOM basis a few parents from each school will be asked to complete a questionnaire. Your cooperation in sending out the notification letter, the questionnaire and the follow-up letter is essential. The more questionnaires returned the more accurate results will be. It is hoped that the results will provide insight and understanding into how parents view schools. The information will be of value to those administrators and principals who are responsible for organizing schools. In order to select the parents who will receive a questionnaire, two (2) alphabetized lists are required -- one for Grade III and one for Grade VIII. Next week each school will receive a packet complete with instruc- tions, letters and questionnaires. Thank you. N. PAGE NICOLSON PRINCIPAL RESEARCHER Elementry School Vice-Principal Page 2 PARENTS' ATTITUDES ABOUT THEIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Dear Principal The enclosed questionnaire is designed to provide information of value to you, your school system and me. Permission to distribute the question- naire to parents via the school system has been received from the Director of Education. The results on a system wide basis will be reported to each principal. Your cooperation for a successful, meaningful report is essen- tial. Please follow the instructions for distributing the questionnaire carefully. If you have any questions, please telephone me. 1. You will need an alphabetical list of the entire Grade III and the en- tire GradeVIII class. 2. In the packet, locate the address labels in multiples Of three (3). 3. On the Grade III list locate the names. Enter each parent's name on three labels. Thus Mrs. Rosebud will have her name on three (3) labels. 4. On the Grade VIII list locate the names. Enter each parent's name on three (3) labels. 5. From each set of three labels, place one label on the blue note, one on the yellow and the third on the small brown envelope. 6. On Friday;, September 14, 1984, have the students whose names were se- lected in Grade III and Grade VIII take the yellow Sheet home. (Noti- fication Letter). 7. On Thursday, September 20, 1984, please send the brown envelope home. (The questionnaire). 8. On Monday, September 24, 1984, send the blue sheet home. (Reminder and Thank you Note). 9. Put all returned questionnaires in the large brown envelope and return it to the Board Office in the September 26 courier. Please leave the questionnaires sealed in their envelopes. 10. Any questionnaires sent in after September 25 can also be forwarded to me via the courier. If you have any questions about this process, please contact me. I appreciate your time and cooperation in distributing and collecting the questionnaire. Sincerely N. PAGE NICOLSON Principal Researcher Elementary School Vice-Principal. APPENDIX F Appendix F contains the factor analysis of sets Of variables. FACTOR ANALYSIS OF VARIABLES BY CONCEPT PAIRS Question Question Factor Factor Number Precis 1 2 Religion and Effectiveness A5 attendance at religious services .89 .03 A6 years active religiously .43 .14 A12 number of religious friends .53 .06 A13 participation in church activities .67 .02 A14 monetary contributions .66 .01 A16 importance of one religion in .63 .18 marriage A15 school report card grade -.00 .44 B7 student learning —.02 .13 B8 school use of money .08 .38 B10 teacher hard work .08 .44 811 teacher dedication .06 .68 B12 teacher training .13 .63 Social Class and Discipline A17 social class level .05 .53 A18 highest education level -.21 .53 A19 economic comparison .06 .11 A20 neighborhood satisfaction .19 .16 A21 importance of university education .19 .22 81 student respect for teachers .64 .03 B9 student discipline .45 .14 813 school rules important .57 04 Social Class and Desire for a (Factor Traditional School 3) A17 social class level .03 .51 A18 highest education level .02 .50 A19 economic comparison .02 .04 A20 neighborhood satisfaction .03 -.00 A21 importance of university education .08 .17 Cl desired academics .24 .22 C2 desired challenging pace .14 .24 C3 desired "tight" discipline .55 .19- C4 desired "core“ curriculum .19 -.02 C5 desired teacher centred .53 -.07 C6 desired clear moral stand .48 .09 C7 desired common goals .31 .02 -2- FACTOR ANALYSIS OF VARIABLES BY CONCEPT PAIRS Question Question Factor Factor Number Precis l 2 Discipline and Responsiveness Bl student respect for teachers .19 .17 813 school rules important .19 .44 89 student discipline .04 .47 82 school does a few activities well .50 .20 B3 school does what I like .72 .13 B4 have power in school decisions .60 .07 B5 success dependent on ability .57 .10 86 staff listens to ideas .64 .26 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adorno, T.W.; Frenkel-Brunswick, Else; Levinson, Daniel J.,; and Stanford, R. Nevitt. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Row, 1985. Alexander, Karl L., and Pallas, Aaron. "In Defense of 'Private Schools and Public Policy': Reply to Kilgore.“ Sociology of' Education, 57 (January, 1984), pp. 56-58. Alexander, Karl L., and Pallas, Aaron. "School Sector and Cognitive Performance: When Is Little a Little?" Sociology of Education, 58 (April, 1985), pp. 115-128. Allport, Gordon, W. "Attitudes." Readings in Attitude Theory' and Measurement. Edited by Martifi Fishbein. New York: John Wiley and Sons., 1967. Alwin, Duane, F. “The Use of Factor Analysis in the Con- struction of Linear Composites in Social Re- search." Sociological Methods and Research, 2 (November, 1973), pp. 191-214. Bahr, Howard M., and Martin, Thomas K. "'And Thy Neighbor as Thyself': Self-Esteem and Faith in People as Correlates of Religiosity and Family Solidarity among Middletown High School Students." Journal For The Scientific Study of Religion, 22 (2), pp. 132-144. Bidwell, Charles E. "Students and Schools: Some Observa- tions on Client Trust in Client Serving Organiza- tions." Organizations and Clients: Essays in the Sociology of’Service. Edited by W.R. Rosegren and M. Lefton. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1970. Blau Peter, M. "Social Mobility and Interpersonal Relations." American Sociological Review, 21 (February, 1956), pp. 290-95. Blau, Peter M., and Duncan, Otis D. The American Occupa- tional Structure. New York: John Wiley and Sons, I967. Calamai, P. "Poll Finds Traditional Church Reviving in Canada," The Sault Star, V. 73, NO. 145 (Septem- ber 6, 1984). pp. A1,A2. -2- Carr, Leslie 8., and Hausen, William J. "Anomie and Religo- sity: An Empirical Re-examinat.“ Journal For the Scientific Study of Religion, 15 (1976,1), pp. 69- 74. Cassie, Bruce J.R.; Student, John E.; and Unwin, Alan L. The Joint Occgpancy and Sharingyof School FacilitieST_ An Experiment between the Lincoln County Board of Educathni and the Lincoln County Roman CathOlic Separate School Board. Toronto: Ontario Insti- tute for Studies in Education, 1980. Chester, Robert. "Marital Stability and Social Mobility." International Journal Of Sociology of the Family, 8 (July-Dec. 1978), pp. 159-170. Coleman, H.T.J. Public Education 'hi Canada. New York: Brandon Printing Company, 1907. Coleman, James S. "Quality and Equality in American Educa- tion: Publh: and Catholic Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 63 (November, 1981), pp. 59-164. Coleman, James S. "Rawls, Nozick, and Educational Equali- ty." The Public Interest, 43 (Spring, 1976), pp. 121-128. Coleman, James S.; Hoffer, Thomas; and Kilgore, Sally. High School Achievement Public Catholic and Pri- vate SchoOls Compared. New YOrk: Ba§ic Books Inc., Publishers, 1982. Coleman, James S.; Hoffer, Thomas; and Kilgore, Sally. Public and Private Schools. Report to the Nation- al Center For Education Statistics. March, 1981. Crockett, Harry J. “The Achievement Motive and Differential Occupational Mobility in the United States." American Sociological Review, 27(1), pp. 191-204. Cronbach, Lee J., Essentials of Psychological Testing. New- York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. Dalenius, Tore. Sampling in Sweden: Contributions to the Methods and Theories