Will

3m

'1 will ,

Michigan State
Unlvcnity

 

 

1 1100 7303

\ 5) WWW»

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

SCHOOL SOCIAL SYSTEMS AND STUDENT OUTCOMES IN
FRENCH PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN QUEBEC

presented by

Yvon Bouchard

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Sociology

degree in

Major professor

 

Date 3/2] /87

urtl:.....Aa-—..- . . r‘ ”L . . . , 0-12771

 

 

 

MSU

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

 

 

ngRARJES remove this checkout from
.4--zs--n. your record. FINE§ will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
‘1. if}. '-
,¢ 2:273

 

SC

SCHOOL SOCIAL SYSTEMS AND STUDENT OUTCOMES IN
FRENCH PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN QUEBEC

By
Yvon Bouchard

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCI' OR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

1987

CC coplfight b}
WON BOLC
1987

© Copyright by
YVON BOUCHARD
1987

selecrion of (
the relative ir
and mean set
and input res
school social

Michigan,

theories, edt
emphasized I
failure, and (
norhing abov
hFPOIhCSizcd
differenccs i1
COfrelated arr.

Climate.

ABSTRACT

SCHOOL SOCIAL SYSTEMS AND STUDENT OUTCOMES IN
FRENCH PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN QUEBEC

By

Yvon Bouchard

This study examined the impact of the school on cognitive outcomes in a
selection of Quebec schools. Using school level characteristics and outcomes, 1) it tested
the relative influence of school induced properties over mean school academic achievement
and mean school self-concept, 2) their impact above social composition of the student body
and input resources in the schools, and more specifically, 3) it compared the findings on
school social systems and achievement with those obtained by Brookover et al. (1979) in
Michigan.

The research problem originated (1) from the questioning of learning
theories, educational research approaches, and popular beliefs which supported and
emphasized the convictions that the individual is solely responsible for his success or
failure, and (2) from the contentions of scholars suggesting that school means little or
nothing above when social background of the student body is controlled. This research
hypothesized 1) that there are differences in school social systems in Quebec which explain
differences in cognitive outcomes among schools, 2) that school characteristics are
correlated among themselves and with achievement, and 3) that much of the effect of
school input characteristics is better explained by school social structure and school social

climate.

were SUI'VCI"
teachers. 61 1
of independfi

SUDCIUI‘C. am

the hypOthes
analysis sho
stressed the :
social-psychc
outcomes me
school socia.
bCIchn schc
aIlalyses Clea
sets of Variab

the“ school 1

Were ShOWn 1
soda] Systen
original r3562
COUCcmS the

Yvon Bouchard

A total of 61 schools from the northeastern part of the Province of Quebec
were surveyed with self-administered questionnaires distributed to 5330 students, 331
teachers, 61 principals. The principals were also interviewed in-depth. Three different sets
of independent variables were used to measure input characteristics of the schools, social
structure, and school social-psychological climate.

Several factor analyses were performed to develop meaningful variables and
the hypotheses were tested with correlations and multiple regression analyses. The data
analysis showed significant relationships among several social system variables and
stressed the important correlations between social composition of the student body and
social-psychological climate variables and between these last two sets of variables and the
outcomes measured. The regression analyses performed revealed a combined effect of the
school social system variables identified which accounted for most of the differences
between schools in academic achievement and self-concept. Furthermore, the regression
analyses clearly identified the supremacy of school climate variables over any of the other
sets of variables or social composition of the student body in accounting for differences on
these school level outcomes.

Most of the hypotheses were confirmed by the data. The main findings
were shown to correspond to a considerable extent to those obtained in the study on school
social systems done by Brookover and others in 1979 as well as to a replication of this
original research done in Saudi Arabia in 1983. The main difference in the present study
concerns the most predominant impact of school social-psychological climate on the

schools selected in Quebec.

 

 

Study.
realiza

of the:

comm:
hasbet
and ex
also lil-
Williar
Stages

subsuu

the C 0
RIMOL‘
appreci

in this .

the Cu.
effm II

was a“

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Several years have elapsed since my first involvement in this program of
study. Throughout these years, many individuals and agencies have contributed to the
realization and completion of the research reported in this dissertation. I am grateful to all
of them.

In appreciation for his continuous support, insightful questions and
comments, and respect for my pace of work, I wish to thank Dr. Wilbur Brookover. He
has been a most valuable chairperson, and has provided a Strong model for professionalism
and excellence as both a teacher and researcher throughout my doctoral program. I would
also like to express my appreciation to my committee members, Drs Harry Schwarzweller,
William Faunce and the late Philip Marcus whose comments and encouragements at various
stages of this study were most helpful. I finally thank Dr. Don Olmstead for serving as a
substitute for the doctoral defense.

The cooperation of the Ministére de [Education of the Province of Quebec,
the Commission Scolaire La Neigette of Rimouski, and the Université du Québec d
Rimouski were key contributors to the financial success of the present project. Grateful
appreciation is also extended to all school principals and teachers who agreed to participate
in this study and rendered it feasible.

I would further like to express my appreciation to a friend and colleague at
the Université du Québec d Rimouski , Mr. Jean-Denis Desrosiers, who spent time and
effort in helping process the data and providing expert statistical assistance in those years I

was away from Michigan State University. His patience and support were essential in

making this research possible. Finally, many friends, colleagues, and relatives have
supported my dissertation effort in countless ways. Their moral support and

encouragement were essential in helping me finish this dissertation.

 

 

 

 

List of
List of

Chaptl

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ..............................................................................

List of Figures ..............................................................................

Chapter

I INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM ....................................
Individual Differences, School Policies, and Educational Research

School Effect and School Effectiveness Research ........................

School Production and Status Attainment Research ...............

Educational Effect Research ..........................................

Purpose of this Study .........................................................

The Lessons from Comparative Research ...........................

The Comparison Country .............................................

Research Hypotheses ...................................................

II OVERVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE .....................
Introduction ..................................................................

Student Achievement in Single Nation Studies ...........................
Socioeconomic Background and Achievement . . . ..' ............

School Variables and Achievement .................................
Cross-Cultural Studies on School Achievement ...........................
Symbolic-Interactionism ...................................................

The School System in Quebec and Achievement ........................

Recent Evolution of the School System in Quebec ...............
The Schools of Quebec and Their Objectives .....................

III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..........................................

iv

Population Data .........................................................
Sampling Procedure ...................................................

Research Procedure .........................................................
Instruments ............................................................
Data Collection .........................................................

The School Variables Studied .............................................
Independent Variables ................................................
Dependent Variables ...................................................

Analysis Procedure .........................................................

DATA ANALYSIS .........................................................
Introduction ..................................................................

Elaboration of Clusters of Variables .......................................
School Social Structure Variables ....................................
School Climate Variables .............................................

Relationships Between Variables ..........................................
Intercorrelations Among Variables .................................
Correlations Between Independent and Dependent Variables

Contribution of Social System Variables to Outcomes ..................
Regression Analysis Technique ....................................
Regression Analysis and Outcomes .................................
Variance Partitioned by Clusters ....................................

INTERPRETATION, SUMMARY, AND CONCLUSION ............

Interpretation ..................................................................
Main Findings .........................................................
Comparison with Similar Studies ....................................

Conclusion .....................................................................

Bibliography .................................................................................

Appendices:

UOw>

Questionnaires in English and French Versions ...........................
Items Included in Each Set of Variables Used in the Analysis .........
Correlation Matrix of Variables in High and Low SES Schools ......
Supplementary Multiple Regression Analyses ...........................

62
65

66
71
72
81
84

91

91

92

97
105
106
117
131
131
133
152
161
161
161
167
174

177

180

195
283
295
297

TABLE

10

11

12

13

14

LIST OF TABLES

Population Data Concerning the French Public Elementary Schools of
the Province of Quebec and the Schools Sampled ..........................

Population Data Concerning the Geographic Location of the Schools
Sampled ...........................................................................

Population Data Concerning the Schools Participating ....................

One-Way Analysis of Variance of the Means of Selim of
Academic Ability in the 61 Schools Sampled ..............................

Mean and Standard Deviation of Mean School Variables ..................

Test of Significance of the Difference of Means Between High SES and
Low SES Schools ...............................................................

Item Loadin gs Derived from Varimax Rotation Factor Analysis of
School Social Structure Variables .............................................

Item Loadin gs Derived from Varimax Rotation Factor Analysis of
Student Climate Variables ......................................................

Item Loadings Derived from Varimax Rotation Factor Analysis of
Teacher Climate Variables ......................................................

Item Loadings Derived from Varimax Rotation Factor Analysis of
Principal Climate Variables ...................................................

Correlation Matrix of Mean School Input Variables and Mean School
Outcomes in 61 Schools of the Northeastern Part of Quebec ..............

Correlation Matrix of Mean School Social Structure Variables and Mean
School Outcomes in 61 Schools of the Northeastern Part of Quebec

Correlation Matrix of Mean School Social Climate Variables and Mean
School Outcomes in 61 Schools of the Northeastern Part of Quebec ......

Correlation Matrix of Mean School Input, Social Structure, Social
Climate and Mean School Outcomes in 61 Schools of the
Northeastern Part of Quebec ...................................................

65
67

84
86

89

96

98

101

104

107

110

111

114

15
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Simple Correlation of Input Variables with Mean School Achievement. ..

Simple Correlation of Input Variables with Mean 31W of
Academic Ability ...............................................................

Simple Correlation of Social Structure Variables with Mean School
AW .....................................................................

Simple Correlation of Social Structure Variables with Mean Self-Qeneept
of Academic Ability ............................................................

Simple Correlation Between Mean School Scores on Climate Variables

and Mean School Aehjexemem ................................................

Simple Correlation Between Mean School Scores on Climate Variable
and Mean Self-gem of Academic Ability .................................

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Of Mean School Aehievement
on Mean School Climate in 56 Schools of the Northeastern Part
of Quebec ........................................................................

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Of Mean School Self-Qanept
on Mean School Climate in 61 Schools of the Northeastern Part
of Quebec ........................................................................

Multiple Regression Analysis Of Mean School Climate Variables That
Contribute Significantly (P.<.05) to Variance in Mean School
Aehjeyemem in 56 Quebec Elementary Schools, and in the High and
Low Sub-Samples ...............................................................

Multiple Regression Analysis Of Mean School Climate Variables That
Contribute Significantly (P.<.05) to Variance in Mean School
Self-£99m in 61 Quebec Elementary Schools, and in the High and
Low Sub~Samples ...............................................................

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Comparing the Effect of
Mean Socio-Economic Status and Climate Variables on Variance in

Mean School Aehievemnt ...................................................

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Comparing the Effect of
Mean Socio-Economic Status and Climate Variables on Variance in

Mean School Selffiegeem ...................................................

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Comparing the Effect of
Mean Socio-Economic Status and Other Personnel Inputs on Variance in

Mean School Aehievement ...................................................

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Comparing the Effect of
Mean Socio-Economic Status and Other Personnel Inputs on Variance in

Mean School Self-Ceneept ...................................................

118

119

123

124

127

128

134

135

138

139

141

143

146

146

29

3O

31

32

33

34

35

C-1

D-l

D-2

D-3

D-4

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Showing the Different Effect
of Two Combinations of Input Variables on Variance in Mean School

W and Mean School Self-Emmet ..............................

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Showing the Contribution of
Three Clusters of Independent Variables to the Variance in Mean School

AW .....................................................................

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Showing the Contribution of
Three Clusters of Independent Variables to the Variance in Mean School

-
Selffieneem .....................................................................

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Showing the Contribution of
Three Clusters of Independent Variables, Inputs, Structure, and Climate
in Various Sequences to the Variance in Mean School W

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis Showing the Contribution of
Three Clusters of Independent Variables, Inputs, Structure, and Climate
in Various Sequences to the Variance in Mean School Self-Ceneept

Percent of Variance in Mean School Aehjeyemem Removed by Three
Clusters of Variables and Combination of These Clusters, the Partitions
of the Variance Uniquely Attributable to Each and Common to
Combinations .....................................................................

Percent of Variance in Mean School Self-Lem Removed by Three
Clusters of Variables and Combination of These Clusters, the Partitions
of the Variance Uniquely Attributable to Each and Common to
Combinations ..................................................................

Correlation Matrix of Mean School Inputs, Social Structtue, Social

Climate, and Mean School Outcomes in 30 High Socio-Economic Schools
and 31 Low Socio-Economic Schools of the Northeastern Part of Quebec

(High SES, Top, Low SES, Bottom) .......................................

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of Mean School Aehievemegt
on Mean School Climate in 28 W Schools of the Northeastern
Part of Quebec ..................................................................

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of Mean School Aehievement
on Mean School Climate in 28 mm Schools of the Northeastern
Part of Quebec ..................................................................

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of Mean School Self—Cement

on Mean School Climate in 30 MES Schools of the Northeastern
Part of Quebec ..................................................................

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis of Mean School Self-gzencept

on Mean School Climate in 31 Law SE5 Schools of the Northeastern
Part of Quebec ..................................................................

148

151

151

154

155

158

159

297

298

299

300

301

D-5

D-6

Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Mean School
Aehieyemem on School Social System Variables in 56 Schools of the
Northeastern Part of Quebec ................................................... 302

Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis of Mean School
on School Social System Variables in 61 Schools of the
Northeastern Part of Quebec ................................................... 303

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES

1 Model of School Social System Variables and Their Expected
Relationships to Student Outcomes .......................................... 25

2 Percent of Variance In Mean School Aehievement Removed by Three
Clusters of Variables and Combination of these clusters in Michigan,
Saudi Arabia, and Quebec Main Samples .................................... 170

3 Percent of Variance In Mean Self-gzeneept Removed by Three Clusters
of Variables and Combination of these clusters in Michigan, Saudi
Arabia, and Quebec Main Samples .......................................... 171

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM

Since the publication of the Equality of Educational Opportunity Report
(EEOR) known as the Coleman Report (Coleman et al., 1966), and its aftermath in the
form of public reactions or academic seminars and publications of which Mosteller and
Moynihan (1972) is the best known, there has been a tremendous amount of research about
school's effect on children in the United States, in Western societies, and in several
developing nations. Under pressures from tax-payers and policy-makers, the school has
been questioned for its accountability.

This led the way to a transformation in the perspectives held by researchers
in education and much of the sociological literature on the school switched gradually from a
functionalist explanation of the role of the school in society as expressed in the works of
Clark (1962), Goslin (1965) and Parsons (1959) to the questionning of its adequacy, either
for fulfilling its original mle or for betterment. It would be inappropriate to state a direct
relationship between the Coleman Report and this change in sociological perspectives,
especially so when talking of foreign countries, but this switch certainly indicates a
modification in the way sociologists express what is going on in the schools and in the
society. Berger and Luckmann (1967) showed quite convincingly that reality is a mental
and social construction and that our explanations or theories represent our beliefs.
Sociologists in education, either from a functionalist or from a conflictual standpoint,
reflected in the last two decades those popular beliefs which were questioned by the quest

for equality.

2

This evolution in sociological thought and in popular beliefs is well
documented in the American literature but can be traced outside of the United States as
well. The present research will start from this evolution and its consequences for
educational thinking and school structuring in order to establish a research design with
which to question some strong beliefs about school effect on children in schools in the
Province of Quebec. Several years after the problem of inequality was documented in the
United States, it became an object of concern in Quebec for similar reasons and the
solutions adopted were nearly equivalent.

But, exactly, what was so provoking and stimulating at the same time in this
report as to warrant such a debate from the public and from scholars in the United States
and in several developed countries of which Canada is a representative? To answer this
question, we must make a brief historical return to the hard core popular belief about

individual differences and its link with educational research.

Inivi l'ffn hl li' n 'n h

The evolution of educational research can best be understood if we frame it
in the historical and economic context within which it has developed. The Social Darwinist
"survival of the fittest" explanations of the functioning of societies at the end of the
nineteenth century had a tremendous influence. They were helpful in supporting the
development of industrial societies for several reasons, the main one being that they were
consistent with the beliefs of the business elite of that period. For Miller (1983), this elite
was responsible for the economic development of the American society as we know it
today; but at the same time it structured it in a way conducive to structured social
differentiation between individuals.

Harris' model of cultural imperialism (1968, 1979) to explain the evolution

of the American society is helpful in that regard because it makes sense for the

3
understanding of most Western societies. As stated in Miller, Harris' main contention is
that:
"...economic, technological, and ecological factors form the primary
determinants of a people's response to producing the goods and services
necessary for continued survival of that society. Energy requirements,
food, and population pressures are among the driving forces that influence
the economic response. In turn, social structures and a complex of beliefs,
values, ideologies, and intellectual perspectives develop. Such ideas,
including theories of education, help explain and justify the particular
economic response a society has adopted" (Miller, 1985, p. 5).

This perspective, as questionable as it may be from other points of view,
suggests that, in the long run, these beliefs gradually change to reflect and support—if not
justify—the economic system. The peculiarity of this system is that it carries tremendous
inequalities of wealth and an elite jealous of its power and looking for ways of maintaining
it (Marks, 1980; Bowles & Gintis, 1976).

The school reforms during that period were attemps to adapt to the
orientations of the society as if they were furnly grounded. New means for legitimating
inequalities in the economic system had to be found, and the school was thought to be a
solution (Miller, 1985). With the advent of objective measurement, plus the development
of IQ tests and the belief in their adequacy, the science of individual measurement was born
(Blum, 1978; Marks, 1980). New forms of segregation between the elite and the masses
could be supported in society and in the school as well. Differentiation between schools
with regard to the composition of their student bodies as expressed by residential
segregation, private and public schools, tracking, grouping, adapted teaching strategies,
and specialists to support these perspectives—as shown by Clark (l960)—came into use.

These forms of differentiation were supported by various research
perspectives on the school and by several theories of learning. The psychology of
individual differences became the prevailing ideology in educational research and practice.

According to Brookover and Erickson, "the prevailing conceptions of intelligence in our

society are: 1) that the ability to learn is relatively fixed or unchangeable, and 2) that it is

4

predermined by heredity" (1975, p. 3). The assumptions included here are that each
individual has a limited ability to learn, that this ability is unaffected by external social
forces, and that it can be measured adequately by intelligence tests. One direct effect of this
belief has been the adoption of a medical approach with regard to learning and instruction.
The Student is solely responsible for his learning capacity, and his success or failure; and it
is the job of the specialists in education to help him find the place in school and later in
society which corresponds best to his level of ability. Once the problem is identified, it can
be appropriately treated with a solution fitting the particularneed of a student. The solution
for the educational system lies with developing and providing the appropriate curriculum to
fit the corresponding needs. This was at the base of several reform movements and
compensatory education programs developed in the last decades.

Another long-enduring belief held by the industrial societies which justifies
inequality on an individual basis is the meritocratic idea. It goes this way: The original
position held by Jensen (1969) stated that the number of gifted in society is limited as
shown by the normal distribution curve of IQ scores, and that if we are going to make the
best use of the talents available we should select those on top. However, according to Bell
(1972) this early position is highly contested today; we must therefore redefine what
meritocracy is in the light of the quest for equality in society. This means that we should be
looking after achieved principles, rather than ascribed principles, to differentiate between
individuals. For the best allowance of resources, it is better then that the best students take
care of these. In a similar fashion, Davis and Moore (1966) point out that the various
positions which exist in society are not of equal importance, and that some kind of reward
system has to be devised to see that the positions are adequately filled. This, in their view,
is the reason for stratification in society. The people on top then, merit what they have
gained to get there, whether the incentive be power, prestige, or wealth. A good
meritocracy is based on those who have earned their status or achieved a position of

rational authority by dint of the competencies accorded them. The best way to offer an

5

equal chance for everyone to have access to the t0p is then to provide an equality of
opportunity at the beginning in equalizing school's inputs, and let personal initiative or
qualities play.

This way of justifying inequality in society supported the perspective of
individual differentiations, and at the same time introduced a perspective on school
organization and functioning which had considerable impact on resource management in the
schools. The role of the school boards could then be oriented toward the allocation of
equal resources to each school, and provide to everyone the possibility of developing his or
her potential in accordance with the American dream as the land of opportunity (Miller,
1985).

This perspective provided support for the belief that the social stratification
in society was fair, since each individual position in it could be modified by personal
investment. But it supported as well the belief that the influence of one's socio—economic
background on one's achievement could not, and need not, be modified by school
characteristics and effects. These individually based arguments, in conjunction with a
recently developed sociobiology, forwarded a determinism sufficient to justify the status
quo in society in terms of hierarchy, inequality, and economic efficiency (Caplan, 1978;
Green, 1981; Harris, 1979).

These beliefs and the theories of learning which support those assumptions
had enormous influence on the educational policies developed for the schools. School
policies took for granted that there were innate differences in the students, and that these
can be measured by intelligence tests. These policies then supported a tracking system, a
grouping of students according to ability, allowed for different expectations, and justified
the presence of a body of professional personnel which perpetuated this belief. More
pervasively, it entertained the idea that each student in the school is unique and therefore
deserves a specific set of objectives according to his or her ability. This idea in turn paved

the way for individualized instruction and similar differentiation practices.

 

6

Second, it opened the door for compensatory education in a more or less
structured manner, from pulling-out practices to complete segregation of students in
specific classes or schools. On the assumption that social equality is desirable and is best
attained when an individual fits the place he or she belongs, schools put an emphasis on
individual differences in the kinds and amounts of learning achieved by students. This is
particularly true of the learning which is provided in the schools that depends upon the
social origin of the student body. Students of the lower socio-economic strata of the
society are highly disadvantaged in that regard because they lack the symbols, attitudes and
behavioral characteristics valued by the teachers and the school system. This resulted from
a view of cultural deprivation in categories of students (Baratz and Baratz, 1970; Stein,
1971; Valentine, 1971) and in the culture of poverty thesis (Lewis, 1966; Monyihan,
1965) which helped support a deficit model in educational policies.

Third, schools served as screening devices to keep upward mobility to a
minimum in society, by teaching each individual the amount he or she deserves to receive
(Schafer & Olexa, 1971).

According to Persell, "both the genetic and the cultural deficit adherents
assumed that IQ is important for success in life and...are united in their support for the
instrumental meritocratic-ideology" (1977, p. 82). These issues and consequences for the
school system, and for educational practices, have been extensively discussed in the
literature, and need not be expanded any further here (see Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Camoy,
1974; Leacock, 1969; Persell, 1977; Rosenbaum, 1976).

h f n h ff 'v he

The Coleman Report questioned the above-mentioned beliefs in more than
one way. By giving credence to the already well established sociological knowledge

(Kahl, 1953; Parsons, 1959; Sibley, 1942; Stouffer, 1962) that the social background of

7

students is the most important variable in producing individual achievement, at least as far
as attainment of status is concerned, it supported the meritocratic view; but at the same time
it opened new questions which had to be answered. Mainly, it questioned the educational
practices towards equality and their inadequacy in bringing about change. If social
background was the most important variable with which to account for achievement, it
meant that school educational practices and management based on school input allocation
was useless. This was hard to admit. The shift made in the Equality of Educational
Opportunity Survey (EEOS) from the measurement of equality of inputs to the
measurement of equality of outputs by achievement tests and the finding of a school effect
on some perceptual variables, opened the door to substantive new research aimed at
defining whether or not school has an effect and if so which variables do in fact account for
this effect.

The perspectives interested at specifying an effect for the school can be
traced under different headings, because some were aimed at showing the presence or the
absence of an educational effect while others, convinced that this was the case, went on
looking for the variables that account for differences in school outcomes. Researchers
looked for effective schools, as far as various achievements were concerned and questioned
which aspects of the school were responsible for effectiveness. Some studies were more
scholarly in perspective (see Austin & Garber, 1985; Bickel, 1983; Miller, 1983), while
others were aimed at school staffs in order to provide ways of improving their practices and
their school (Brookover et al., 1982; Garmer, 1984; Kyle, 1985; MacPhail-Wilcox, 1983;
Sergi & Shoemaker, 1985). However, these concerns for school effect or school
effectiveness will not be differentiated here because they all depart from the same body of
literature, and are all questioning the same issue of educational impact. The orientations
and the findings are probably more important to review, in order to understand the state of
the art on this question, and to see where we have been led twenty years after the

publication of the Coleman report.

8

The research considering educational effect, as Barr and Dreeben (1983) call
them, can be traced into two predominant formulations: 1) those oriented toward the
individual level and 2) those pertaining to different levels of the school as an organization.
This breakdown might be an oversimplification of this large array of investigations but it
helps define what, in the view of the present author, ought to be taken into account in order

to proceed further in that kind of research. The present research will depart from this point.

51121.153. Bl

Sociologists and economists alike have spent much effort relating the
workings of schools to individual learning by focusing on school characteristics pertaining
to inputs and to later attainment. This is not surprising, given the quest for differentiation
described before. The perspectives on school production and status attainment do not
exactly relate one to the other; but they cannot easily be separated because they are
interested in similar things. As stated by Barr and Dreeben, "the former is concerned with
identifying those properties of educational organizations that affect individual outcomes.
The latter is concerned with the outcomes and the experiences of individuals that led to
these outcomes" (1983, p. 16).

School production research is best characterized by the economists'
formulation of the production function. According to Lau, "An educational production
function relates to levels of identifiable educational inputs. It is fundamentally a
microeconomic concept, designed to apply at the level of an individual student" (1979,
p. 33), and aims at identifying "the technological relation between educational outputs and
inputs" (p. 34). Its main concern is with compiling a plausible list of of educational
resources, and determining their marginal contribution to some outcome, ideally at the
individual level, without concern for the way this effect is produced in school (Lau, 1979;

Mumane, 1975).

9

Status attainment research suffers from the same weaknesses by focusing
on individual outcomes, and probably added confusion to the school effect literature by the
immense impact it had on this kind of research (Barr & Dreeben, 1983). Since Blau and
Duncan's The American Occupational Structure (1967), several publications reinforced the
importance of individual status reached later in life as based upon social background and
the amount of schooling obtained (Alexander, Eckland & Griffin, 1975; Haller & Portes,
1973; Sewell & Hauser, 1975; Sewell, Hauser & Featherman, 1976; Taubman & Wales,
1974). One common characteristic of these investigations is their interest in individual
attainment in later life in the form of occupational status and long-term life chances.
"Strictly speaking, these are not primarily studies of school effect even though the impact
of the amount of schooling is usually weighted in along with the effects of other influences
upon career decision making or the acquisition of human capital. These studies aim
primarily at identifying the processes entailed in the transmission of status in the form of
earnings and occupational prestige from generation to generation" (Barr & Dreeben, 1983,
p. 17). Although it may be conceived to be of limited concern for school effect research,
this orientation, along with Jenck's contention (1972) that school social system is a
fruitless area of research, turned out to be the a point of departure for several other
influential investigations on school effect and school effectiveness research. The work of
Brookover and his colleagues (1979) is such an example.

However, research on status transmission was not limited to background
characteristics. Several attempts were made to identify characteristics of the social structure
of the school which may affect status attainment, particularly tracking, and to deal with
more short-term outcomes as well as with later life attainment (e.g. Alexander, Cook &
McDill, 1978; Alexander & Eckland, 1975; Alexander & McDill, 1976; Alwin & Otto,
1977; Heyns, 1974; Rosenbaum, 1976; Sprenson & Hallinan, 1977). This body of
research did not easily distinguish between individual and school effect in the design,

probably because researchers were mainly interested in explaining variations in individual

10

attainment. Such scholars did however open the door for studies centered more directly on
the critical factors operating at various school levels that produce an effect, and that explain

variations in the effectiveness of the schools.

Wasatch

Several lines of research were followed in order to measure a school effect
with variables thought to be appropriate for that level. Most of them focused on only one
level of analysis of the educational system (school districts, schools, classrooms, or work-
groups), and the research strategies generally took into account structural or perceptual
variables, but not both of them. Of common interest is their quest for educational variables
at each level of the school's organization and for outcomes pertaining directly to the efforts
at those levels. The line will be drawn here, for demonstration purposes, between (1)
those researches interested in the school as an organization, and (2) those looking at the

school as a social system.

1 R . h l n r niz '

The body of research regarding the school as an organization fall into two
fairly distinct methodological traditions according to Tyler (1985): those that focused on
descriptive data—as was the case in the strategy developed by the Aston Group (Pugh et
al., 1968), and those interested in the perceptual approach associated with Hall's
Organizational Inventory (Hall 1963). Despite their differences, each tried to challenge the
Weberian model of ideal-type bureaucracy. This research on schools as organizations
demonstrated variations on the structural arrangment of the schools, but mostly provided
support for the theoretical tradition that has attempted to modify the Weberian ideal-type

(see Tyler 1985 for details). The consequences for educational research were that

11

educational systems came to be considered as loosely-coupled systems, and that we should
not be attempting to look at them as wholes (Weick 1976).

These ideas of "loose-coupling" have in fact influenced research at the
school level (Allison, 1983; Beck & Betz, 1975; Bell, 1980; Corwin, 1975; Holdaway 6
al., 1975; Meyer & Rowan, 1983) following the idea of organized anarchies developed for
colleges and universities by Cohen and March (1974) and Baldridgeet al. (197 8). They
have also supported the efforts at the district level by Bidwell and Kasarda (1975) to show
an impact of school district organization on student academic achievement, and by Meyer
(1970, 1977) to demonstrate such impact over environmental influence on the school. This
kind of research may have been confusing for organizational theory developed for the
school (Tyler, 1985), and takes us away from what really happens in the schools (Barr &
Dreeben, 1983); but it helped clarify the controversial problem regarding which level of
analysis is appropriate to use for educational effect research. This controversy has been
largely exposed in the literature (see Alexander & Griffin, 1976a, 1976b; Alwin, 1976;
Anderson, 1985; Bidwell & Kasarda, 1980; Hannan, Freeman & Meyer, 1976; Meyer,
1980; Raudenbush & Bryk, 1986). It helped also to position the problem of the switching
of levels of analysis in this kind of research which encompasses as well individual
appreciations, as global unitary non-aggregated effect.

Following this debate, researchers focused on more restrictive sources of
educative effects. Barr and Dreeben, building on Parsons' insight, claim that
"organizations have qualitatively distinct levels of a technical, managerial, and institutional
kind, each having an agenda of its own to work out and each being tied through
interchanges to the adjacent one" (1983, p. 41); this means also that "each level of
organization produces its own outcomes, or values, which in turn have meaningful
connections to events that occur elsewhere" (p. 42). Barr and Dreeben then proceed to
search for those aspects of the school organization that may affect the outcomes of the

schools. In their view, it is not the presence or the absence of a quality which has an

12

impact, but how it is transformed,"used", or "worked" within the school that constitutes
the operating technology, and that produces changes.

This insight is particularly interesting for two reasons: 1) it indicates the
importance of stating the problem at the appropriate level and, 2) it centers the focus of
research on aspects proper to the school's own individual workings. This line of reasoning
has been followed in Barr and Dreeben's recent research (1983), and in several other
research papers looking for aspects of the school functioning that produce effects.
Surprisingly, however, Barr and Dreeben state that "in districts and schools, production
must be understood as governance and administration; within schools, it consists of class
formation, group formation, and instruction...Needed, then, is a formulation of how
instruction is organized in classrooms and in groups located inside them" (1983, p. 25).
This concern for the classroom as the locus of production in schools can be found also in
several other research investigations which compared the effects on student achievement in
classrooms differentiated by intellectual composition (Dar & Resh, 1986), in grouped and
ungrouped classes (Hallinan & Sarenson, 1985), in homogeneous and heteregeneous
ability grouping (Good & Marshall, 1984), and in teacher-led and peer-tutoring groups
(Stodolsky, 1984). Recent orientations led these researchers to the identification of the
factors that influence the assignment process of students to ability groups (Hallinan &
Sprenson, 1986).

This concern is certainly appropriate for educational effectiveness
demonstration and to clarify some of the processes going on within the schools; but it may
be lacking in scope by limiting itself to classroom grouping practices which are a part of the

larger school social organization.

13
W

Research on the social system of the school received a strong impetus from
the EEOR. While the Coleman report showed only a limited impact of the influence of the
school on individual academic achievement compared with the socio-economic background
of the student, it also identified some characteristics within the school which explained
some of the differences in schools outcomes. It showed that 1) while teachers'
characteristics did not have a large impact, it still had some; among others, "teacher's
perception of the nature of the school" seemed to be worthy of consideration; 2) sense of
control of the students (defined as the power to determine one's own future, and a positive
attitude toward self) is highly related to student achievement, and appears to be independent
of school characteristics (Coleman et al. , 1966).

These last findings supported the idea that there might be a school effect,
and that it had to be investigated with a proper design aimed at the school instead of the
individual. This paved the way for school social system research. The most significant
contributions come from McDill, Rigsby and Meyers (1967, 1969), McDill and Rigsby
(1973), Brookover et al., (1975, 1977, 1979), and Rutter et al., (1979).

Rutter's Fifteen Thousand hours: Secondary Schools and their Efi’ects on
Children (1979) considered whether or not a child's experiences at school have any effect,
if it matters what school he goes to, and which are the features of the school that matter.
These researchers looked at four types of measures: 1) measures of individual pupils at the
time of entering high school which they called "intake" (social background, cognitive
ability and behavior); 2) process of schooling (social organization of the school and the
type of environment for learning which was provided); 3) outcomes of schooling
(attainments—behaviors, attendence, examination success, employment, delinquency—as
influenced by teachers, policies, and the pupils themselves); 4) ecological influences

(influences of the community). Their conclusion indicates a strong possibility that the

l4

association between school, processes, and outcomes which they observed reflects in part a
causal process, i. e., child behaviors and attitudes are shaped and influenced by their
experiences at school as a social institution.

Several studies addressed Rutter's conclusions (Cuttance, 1980; Heath &
Clifford, 1980, 1981; King, 1979; Marjoribanks, 1982) and demonstrated that family
background is important, but failed to demonstrate that school effect is absent. As
mentioned by Cuttance, "The significant influence that schools do account for has not been
adequately described by the findings of past research. There is no ground for saying that
schools do not make a difference. It is our job to try to explain them" (1980, p. 275).

McDill, Meyers and Rigsby (1967) and later McDill and Rigsby (1973)
provided an important innovation in this kind of study by obtaining their data from both
students and teachers in order to measure a direct school effect based on school climate.
This departed from past school effect research which only took into account the socio-
economic background of the student body, and from measures of climate limited to
students. They developed a scale measuring six (6) dimensions of school climate. They
conclude that these variables are of substantive importance in the light of the fact that they
make some contribution towards explaining achievement beyond that jointly explained by
the variables which systematically have been shown in previous research to correlate with
academic performance—ability, father’s education, and academic value. In this research,
overall student academic achievement is not attributed solely to social class context, nor to
ability, nor is it a function of inputs; it varies as well because of the social pressure applied
by other participants in the school setting.

However, the definition and conceptualization of a school effect at the
school level is best described in the works of Brookover and his colleagues on the school
social system. Their program of research is quite impressive. Starting from the prevailing
conceptions about the distribution of intelligence in our society as innate and unchangeable

by external forces, and from the learning theories and school practices that locate the

(l

15

problem in the individual (as developed in the first part of this chapter), they state after
Paris (1961) that society essentially creates its own level of human abilities, and that the
prevalent way of thinking "is no longer functional" (Brookover & Erickson, 1969, p.13)
for society. For them, the social environment is the crucial factor determining an
individual's learning ability, and it is through this environment that change can be
implemented.

The theory of human learning (Bloom, 1976), and symbolic-interactionism
(Blumer, 1969; Goffman, 1959; Kuhn, 1964; Mead, 1934) are most influential in
Brookover et al's. In their view, conditions that promote learning are as follows:

1) "There is no functional limit on what an individual can learn."

2) "Social norms and expectations of others define the appropriate behavior
for persons in various social situations."

3) "Each person learns the definitions of appropriate behavior through
interaction with others who are important or significant."

4) "The individual learns to behave in the ways that he or she perceives are
most appropriate for him or her."

5) "The individual acquires conceptions of his or her ability to learn various
types of behavior through interaction with others whose evaluations are
important to that individual" (Brookover & Erickson, 1969, pp. 15-16).

These ideas were developed in their early work on self-concept with regard
to academic ability (Brookover et al., 1962, 1965, 1967), and were applied to school
settings later on. By developing a school-climate instrument at the school level, taking into
account students, teachers and principals responses, and by using a symbolic-interactionist
framework, they were able to measure what can be considered a true school effect with
variables aggregated from individual responses. The focus on the interactions between the
respondents and their symbolic environment in the school gives this instrument a quality
that allows one to consider it as a school property. This point will be developed in more

detail in the second chapter. Second, their use of students' academic outcomes aggregated

at the school level provides them with a measure appropriate to test an endogeneous school

l6

effect of the kind provided by the climate questionnaire. Seldom indeed were student's
outcomes measured in schooloclimate research (Lezotte et al., 1980).
The definition of the school social-psychological climate used in this line of
research can be traced in Brookover and Erickson (1975):
"In the social-psychological frame of reference in which we examine
learning, the school social climate encompasses a composite of variables as
defined and perceived by the members of the group. These factors may be
broadly conceived as the norms of the social system and the expectations
held for various members as perceived by the members of the group and
communicated to members of the group" (p. 364).
Brookover's study, as described in School Social Systems and Student
Achievement (1979), comprehends three sets of independent variables (school social
input, school social structure and school social climate) which are measured against three
dependent variables: school academic achievement, school self-concept, and school self-
reliance. Their results show the important impact of school social-psychological climate on
these three variables, which is equal or superior to inputs and socio-economic background
of the student body. That finding, along with their case studies of four low SES schools
experiencing different academic results, allows them to propose the existence of a school
social system whose influence may be important for student learning, and in differentiating
schools between them. They conclude that:
"The school social system is no different from the family or other social
organizations in that children learn to behave in the ways that the social
system defines as appropriate and proper for them. Current evidence that
schools do not make a difference results from the fact that research is not
identifying the characteristics of the school that determine behavioral
outcomes. School climates and organizations that promote and perpetuate
non-learning are unlikely to produce high levels of achievement. But
schools designed to produce high levels of achievement can function as well
as any other social system" (Brookover et al., 1979, p.148).
This research, concerned with factors that "make a difference" in learning
between schools, in conjunction with Other research interested in school instructional

variables that influence behavioral outcomes, supported the movement for effective schools

in the United States. "Consequently, schools and districts throughout the country have

17

been using this research to guide local efforts to improve schooling" (Hallinger & Murphy,
1986,p.328)

W

This study aims at widening the actual knowledge about school effect as it is
developed by school social systems research. It will test the relative influence of school
induced characteristics upon school mean student achievement and school mean self-
concept, when compared with school mean social background and input resources. More
specifically, it will use a comparative design to replicate the research made by Brookover at
al. (1979), in a sample of schools selected from the French-Canadian society located in the
northeastern portion of the Province of Quebec.

The research on school effect in the United States may now be at a point
where we are confident enough about the existence of the impact of the school social
structure (which is independent of the social structure of society) to warrant a test of the
most appropriate hypothesis in Other societies. Hallinger and Murphy (1986) have already
warned the scientific community about the limited utility of effective schools research.
They argue that "The issue of generalizability of the effective schools research is critical if
the findings are to be incorporated into instructional programs and policy initiatives that
affect all schools" (p. 329). This problem of generalization is also picked up by
Rosenholtz (1985) in discussing anomalous findings of past effective schools research.
Researchers have suggested that school effect research, especially climate measurement,
has not addressed adequately the theorical and conceptual issue supporting their
measurement techniques (James & Jones, 1974). More recently, Burgess, after reviewing
school organization and school effect research in the USA and in England, says that the
models which sociologists have used "have often been derived from non-educational
settings with the results that their applicability to schools and to the educational settings is

seriously limited. Accordingly, as several commentators have indicated, we still need an

18
empirically based theory of schools" (1986, p. 176). A step further can be made with the
use of comparative research.
Brookover's research represents a valid point of departure to make such a
comparative attempt because it showed a school effect with a design proper to the school as
the level of analysis. It is also one of the few pieces of research which is organized after a

conceptual definition of school social system.

WW

Important to scientific knowledge is the verification of findings cross-
culturally, in order to develop theories that explain human and social behavior. Some of
the most significant contributions of comparative research are the possibilies it gives for
testing those findings which appear evident in one social system but which turn out to be
system-specific, and to identify the characteristics that can be generalized, and also the
degree to which they can be generalized. As stated by Grimshaw, "The particular task of
comparative sociology is to distinguish between those regularities in social behavior that are
system-specific and those that are universal [in either the substantive or the metatheoretical
sense]" (1973, p. 7).

The usefulness of the comparative method has already been well
documented in the literature as a way of producing valid theories, with the expected
qualities of accuracy, generality, parsimony and causality (Przeworski & Teune, 1970)
needed to explain human functioning. This usefulness has also been well demonstrated in
Durkheim's Suicide (1966) and The Rules of Sociological Methods (1982). In fact, the
comparative method is a useful tool to evaluate the local impact of some interpretative
hypothesis which may be valid to explain a limited number of phenomena but which fail to
go any further. It also helps us find structural similarities in various social systems or

social entities which would explain some of their functions (Cherkaoui, 1979). Cherkaoui

 

goes 0

him

simila
The f
comp

could

effec
from
Thor
den:
the
con
the
19‘

of

TE

19

goes on to suggest however that the comparative method is useful only insofar as we test
hypotheses and go beyond the mere description of some idiocratic events in a society.

One concern in school social system analysis is to establish cross-cultural
similarities or differences between school contexts with regard to their impact on learning.
The focus must be placed on schools as entities, or as social systems, and on the
comparison of their characteristics in different settings, in order to identify those which
could be said to lead to student achievement.

The issue of comparative utility has frequently been raised over school
effect research since Durkheim had shown the relative autonomy of the teaching system
from the social structure which produces school systems in the Evolution of Educational
Thought (1969). But the greatest importance of cross-cultural measurement was probably
demonstrated by the impressive research undertaking of The International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement—known as the IEA studies. This work,
contained in a nine volume set of books published between 1973 and 1976 is regarded as
the most extensive and complex piece of educational research yet undertaken (Farrell,
1979). This research involved several scholars for a decade in an in-depth study of levels
of academic achievement in six subjects areas (science, reading comprehension, literature,
English as a foreign language, French as a foreign language, and civic education). The
researchers looked for factors that affect levels of achievement in twenty-one countries.
They addressed student populations ranging fiom ten years of age to those in the last year
of secondary schooling. The purpose was to develop internationally valid evaluation
instruments, and to design a survey of educational facilities and practices as they existed in
this "laboratory" model. The aim was also to identify the factors accounting for differences
between countries, schools, and students. The data included 500 independent variables, a
lot of them capable of manipulation by policy (Heyneman & Loxley, 1982).

The finding of the IEA study, which showed results quite similar to those

reported in the United States, will not be reviewed in detail here, since this is the purpose

20

of the second chapter. However it is useful to take into consideration right now some
methodological applications and some of the general results that can be drawn from this
study and from similar cross-cultural studies in order to develop of the present research
design.

For several reviewers, one of the most interesting finding of the IEA and of
the secondary analysis made from these data is the existence of large differences observed
between the countries which are considered "developed" and the so-called developing
nations of the study (Farrell, 1979; Saha, 1983; Theisen et al., 1983). Put briefly, the
proportion of the variance in achievement accounted for by in-school variables compared to
the proportion accounted for by home background variables is much greater in the
developing nations than in the developed nations. Second, the studies from the less
developed countries show that comparing the academic achievement of students confronted
by a rigidly set curriculum with that of students in an educational system characterized by a
high degree of disciplinary flexibility is at best misleading. The danger of misinterpretation
is of a qualitative nature, not of a quantitative nature. As reported by Theisen et al. (1983),
countries which put pressure on educating for equity and social transformation cannot be
regarded as those countries which value academic achievement. On a comparative basis
then, in their views, academic performance (as measured by conventional achievement
measures) receives less social sanction in "liberation" social systems than in contest,
sponsored, and manpower-oriented systems. In these cases, academic performance is at
the backstage. The environmental press is oriented towards other goals than generally
measured, and when they are measured, they appear to be important predictors of school
outcomes. As demonstrated by Heyneman and Loxey (1982), the regression processes
used in the IEA studies were applied across all societies; this tended to reduce the
importance of school variables, because they were looking for variables equally important
across the average of many societies. The results are quite different when variables

important in that society only are used.

21

The lessons which can be drawn from these studies are that it is important
for researchers attempting to generalize to look at variables present in each of the systems,
and then to compare similar aspects within different societies. This is no surprise when the
results are similar to those found in the society where the model came from, and when
those variables susceptible of differentiation are omitted. According to several reviewers,
when you examine what is important to a school system, you touch the variables a school
has an effect on. What is needed, then, is a well articulated, stratified sampling procedure
that calls attention to (rather than supresses) regional and contextual variations in the
educational processes (T heisen et al., 1983). Also, there are advantages of using a
comparative approach (Farrel, 1979), selecting samples which are large enough and similar
enough to compare (Brimer et al., 1978), and placing the focus on differential treatments
allocated to individuals on the basis of their social and educational characteristics (Cuttance,

1980).

The province of Quebec, Canada, was chosen for this comparative study for
several different reasons. First, the researcher responsible of this study comes from
Quebec and is involved in this school system. He intended to gather informations capable
of improving knowledge regarding the functioning of schools in this society. But there are
more scholarly reasons which support this choice. The most important one is that Québec
offers a valuable setting for testing the hypothesis advanced in school social system studies
as will be demonstrated now. In order to understand where Quebec stands, however, as a
comparison setting, it is important to look at Canadian society, French—Canadian society,
and to find out how it compares and differs from these societies and from American

society.

22

It is appropriate to note, first, that researchers disagree greatly as to where
the differences lie between these three societies. The problem appears to be linked with the
rapidly changing character of Canadian society and of French-Canadian society during the
last two decades and with a problem of research design. On account of cultural
differentiation between Canada and the United States, Brym suggested recently "that at
least some of the controversy surrounding the cultural theory could be resolved if more
evidence were systematically collected and if key terms were more rigously defined and
operationalized" (1986, p. 18). This problem will not be discussed in the present research
but the knowledge of this issue warrants that only key elements of the differences between
these societies be retained.

Lipset's main contention is that Canada is a more elitist, law-abiding, statist,
collectivity-oriented, and particularistic (group-oriented) society than the United States and
that this stems from the historical development of both countries with some distinctions
between the francophones and the anglophones in Canada (1985, 1986). This would be
enough to justify a system differentiation to test the hypothesis to be traced in this research.
But of greater relevance is Lipset's (1970) previous contention that five continua define the
core values of some industrialized societies, including Canada and the United States. One
of these continua—ascription-achievement—is helpful for the present study. It suggests
that United States citizens are more achievement oriented than are Canadians. This has
been challenged by other researchers. But in a review of these investigations, Brym shows
that all of the research which addressed that issue provide support for this contention
( 1986, Table 2, p. 20).

As far as Quebec specifically is concerned, the researchers did not
frequently differentiate between Quebeckers and French-Canadians located throughout
Canada. This renders hazardous any generalization. However, the largest proportion of

francophones lives in Quebec and most data collected come from this province.

23

There is a persistent conventional wisdom among researchers (Guindon,
1978; Murphy, 1981) that "the cultural values and beliefs of French-Canadians involve
placing less emphasis on economic achievement and more emphasis on family and kinship
compared with En glish-Canadians. These views on French-English differences have been
developed in several descriptive and speculative accounts of the two subcultures and they
also have been invoked as interpretations of data on the differential social mobility of
francophones and anglophones" (see Baer & Curtis, 1984, p. 406, for details and for an
extensive listing of the researches supporting these views). However, these researches on
French-Canadian-English-Canadian differences in values do not support the economic
achievement differential (Baer & Curtis, 1984). For one thing, French-Canadians would
place greater emphasis on this type of achievement.

Closer to the educational scene and to educational variables pertaining to this
study is Guppy et al. (1984) which showed that even though its influence has been
wakening over time, social origin in Canada continues to exert a strong influence on school
attainment. In fact, its importance is still quite considerable in high school completion and
on the probability of attaining some university experience (Goyder, 1980). On the other
hand, Grabb (1980) found that French-Canadians are more likely than English-Canadians
to originate in disadvantaged socioeconomic circumstances. He hypothesised that "this
inequality in life chances and in objective power may lead to lower feelings of power in the
French group" (1980, p. 169). His results do indeed show a lower sense of control
among French-Canadian adolescents, which he links with the lower socioeconomic origin
of this group and socialization practices. Richer and Laporte define this as "a difference in
'cognitive style', involving greater 'habits of resignation and fatalism' in the French-
Canadian" (1970, p. 144).

This research provides enough evidence that French-Canada differs from
the United States even though scholars did not address this comparison directly. Since

English-Canada usually is closer to the American culture than French-Canada, and since

24

both cultures differ in the latter country, this conclusion is not inappropriate. Quebec
would then be a society characterized as socioeconomically less advantaged and less
achievement oriented than the United States, still being subject to unequal educational
opportunities due to ascribed characteristics and whose socialization practices reveal a low
sense of control of adolescents over their future. These differentiating characteristics are
interesting for this research because they identify aspects of the problem which will be
addressed with the variables used in this replication study. As stated by Lipset, 1986,
Canada and the United States have many things in common for comparative purposes:

"They have the same ecological and demographic conditions, approximately

the same level of economic development, and similar rates of upward and

downward social mobility. And alongside the obvious disdnctiveness of

franc0phone Quebec, an glophone Canadians and Americans have much in

common in cultural terms as well. Yet, although overall these two people

probably resemble each other more than any other two nations on earth,

there are consistent patterns of difference between them" (p. 114).

These characteristics correspond to the expectations for a comparative

design similar enough to measure the same things in different contexts but different enough
to show variations which might be due to the social context. These are some of the lessons

learned from previous comparative research conducted on school achievement which are

retained for this study.

W

This research will test the findings of Brookover et al. (1979) by replicating
this study in selected French public elementary schools of the northeastern part of the
Province of Quebec. Its aim is to provide information on the generalizability of the results
obtained in Michigan as to the effect of school social systems on different student outcomes
when there is variation in the social context of the kind provided by this French-Canadian

society. The findings of Brookover and his colleagues have already been tested in Saudi

25
Arabia (Al-Thubaiti, 1983 which will be reviewed in the next chapter) but never in an
industrialized society outside of the United States.

The general model of school social system variables with hypothesized
relations to student outcomes developed by Brookover and his colleagues appear as in
Figure 1. Only the student self-reliance variable has been removed from the model. This
outcome variable is omitted because it was found to be inconsistent in Brookover's
research. This model identifies four sets of variables. The three sets of independent
variables (input variables, social structure, and school climate) are shown to be interrelated
and to have an impact on the two dependent variables measured (school mean academic

achievement and self-concept). These relationships will be described in the next chapter.

 

I School Social
Structure

Input Variables Output Variables
Student body / \ School mean of student

composition academic achievement

 

 

 

Other personnel School mean of student

V
inputs \ / self-concept

rSchml Social
Climate

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 1
MODEL OF SCHOOL SOCIAL SYSTEM VARIABLES AND THEIR EXPECTED
RELATIONSHIPS TO STUDENT OUTCOMES
The hypotheses developed in the Michigan research and reassessed in the

present study appear in Brookover et al. (1979, pp.6-8) with their theoretical support. The

26

review of the literature will vouch for their plausibility. The general hypothesis measured

in the present study is stated in the following words:

Qeneralflmhcris

There are differences in school social systems in Quebec which explain

differences in student academic achievement and self-concept of academic

ability among schools.

The specific hypotheses have been modified slightly for this research
because no direct comparison has been attempted between selected schools to further the
analysis as done by Brookover and his colleagues. Hence, the measure of direct and
indirect effects among the independent variables will be limited to the identification of the
relationships between these sets of variables. The model developed in Michigan is retained
however for this research because it identifies relationships which can be supported by a
logical analysis. Indeed, what is put in the school precedes the processes that develop in it
and the social structure of the school, as defined in this kind of study, involves a level of
organization which eludes school's own internal power of its members to a certain degree.
This model does not include feedback, however, and will not test the circularity in the
variables, which comes from the possible effect of the dependent variables on social
structure and school climate.

When adapted for the present study, the working hypotheses read as
follows:

Hypothesis 1: Each school has a set of student status-role definitions,
norms, evaluations, and expectations characterizing the
behavior expected of the students.

Hypothesis 2: The nature of the student body in terms of socioeconomic
background and of the other inputs of the school social
system affect the schools' social structure and academic

climate as well as the level of mean student academic
achievement and self—concept of academic ability.

resea
vanal

Québ

is no
insm

PCI’C
deny
Same
Stude
thh
acadfi
gr Eldt
trans
imph
of Va

altere

27

Hypothesis3: The special structure which defines the patterns of
interaction that occur within the school is related to the
social-psychological climate.

Hypothesis 4: Both the social structure and the social-psychological
climate variables affect the outcomes identified by students'
cognitive achievement and their self-concept of academic
ability.

Hypothesis 5: Social structure and social climate explain much of the
variance in outcomes frequently attributed to the input

variables.
The limits Qf this [eseereh arise from a partial replication of the original

research for the reasons mentioned before, the problems associated with comparing
variables in different countries, and from the generalizability of the results to the schools in
Quebec.

First, it should be assumed that a minute comparison with Michigan schools
is not possible on all grounds because the social systems differ and the research
instruments must consequently be adapted. This is particularly true of the variable
"percent-white" which cannot be measured in Québec. This is also the case for one of the
dependant variables—school academic achievement—which will not be measured in the
same way because the Ministére de l'Education of the Province of Quebec does not assess
students on the mastering of cognitive objectives as the Department of Education does in
Michigan for fourth graders. An equivalent measure is available in the form of provincial
academic achievement tests in reading, writing and mathematics administered to sixth
graders. It is possible, also, that the research procedures vary due to resources,
translations of the instruments, and data availability. However, this research design
implies a testing of the main hypothesis in Brookover's original study. The main clusters
of variables will be retained even though the content of some specific variables will be

altered without modifying their conceptual significance.

ll

28

Finally, the sample of schools selected in Quebec for this study does not
constitute a representative sample of the schools in the province, nor is it even
representative of the schools of the region where the schools are located. The schools were
selected from the French public elementary school system and located in the northeastern
part of the province. The sample includes schools selected for specific features in order to
provide a sample different enough to allow variability in the main characteristics of the
schools which were to be measured. The third chapter will describe the sample and explain

the reasons for this research strategy.

 

CHAPTER II
OVERVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE

IlllLleJSLQQfl

The first chapter introduced those variables which have been assessed in
past research as to their impact on the school. It also looked at certain outcomes produced
by the educational system which were hypothesized to be of importance to this body of
research.

This second chapter will focus more directly on the results obtained as
expressed in the literature on school effects. Given the immense importance attributed to
socioeconomic background versus school centered variables to explain variations in
outcomes, this review will primarily address those issues. This choice stems from the fact
that Brookover's research (which is replicated here) questioned the importance of both
these types of variables in the same design.

The chapter will first review the major studies done on student achievements
in single nations with a particular emphasis given to the United States and to the description
of Brookover's et al. (1979) results. Second, findings from studies involving more than
one nation will be presented. Third, the theoretical perspective supporting the present
research will be briefly described. And fourth, the school system of the Province of
Quebec will be introduced with particular attention paid to the changes which occured
during the last twenty years in the province as well as the effects these had on the
functioning of the schools and the objecrives pursued. This last section should help explain

the differences between the Quebec school system and the American school system. This

29

30

section should also provide a basis for explaining differences between Brookover's results

and the present ones.

'v 'inl

There have been few extensive and publicized studies on the relationship
between social background, school properties and achievement in single nations. The best
known are the Coleman Report (1966), followed by its corresponding surveys in the
United Kingdom (Plowden et al., 1967) and in Australia (Karmel Report, see Cuttance
1980), and Jencks et al. (1972) which all addressed the problem of whether the nation's
schools are conducive to equality. While this research perspective stressed the importance
of social selection prior to schooling in reference to its impact on achievement, scholars like
Brookover et al. (1979), McDill, Meyers and Rigsby (1967, 1969, 1973) and Rutter et al.
(1979), proposed a school effect in addition. The main findings of their research will be
reviewed now, with the exception of the Plowden and the Karmel Reports which duplicate,

to a large extent, the Coleman Report results.

n' k n n hivmn

The Equality of Educational Opportunity Research originated from a
Congressional request to demonstrate whether or not equality is assured in the United
States' schools. It address four major questions: 1) the extent to which the racial and
ethnic groups in America are segregated in the public schools; 2) the extent to which equal
Opportunity is available to all American children in terms of those criteria normally thought
of as necessary for equal schools, i.e., curriculum, teacher quality, facilities, tracking, and
other input measures; 3) the achievement of children as measured by standardized
achievement tests; 4) the relationship between student achievement and the kind of school

attended.

 

31

This report departed from previous research and from popular expectations
as well, which considered equality to be an input characteristic, by placing the emphasis on
individual student performance as a measure of equality. Coleman and his colleagues
indeed looked at the distribution of the resources within the schools but only as a mean for
studying the effects of school differences on possible inequality among students. The
study sampled elementary and secondary school children at five grade levels, teachers,
principals and superintendants. It included three groups of independent variables: social
background, school variables, and students expectations.

The most significant and quoted findings of this study are that family
background variables are the greatest determinant of school achievement and that this
influence does not diminish throughout school. The results show however important racial
and geographical differences. Black and minority students have significantly lower
achievement than white students and this difference gets larger throughout elementary and
secondary schools. There are also significant differences between the north and the south,
south west, and between metropolitan and rural areas.

Second, there is a relatively small amount of school to school differences
accounted for by school facilities, curriculum and staff and a small amount of variance in
achievement due explicitly to variations in school facilities and curriculum. Third, of
school factors, teacher characteristics account for the greatest variance in achievement
(although it is still relatively little). Fourth, social composition of student body,
independent Of family background, is more highly related to achievement than any school
factor. Fifth, sense of control variables are related to student achievement but appear to be
independent of variations in school characteristics (Coleman et al., 1966, p. 325).

All together, these results imply that schools have little bearing on a child's
achievement that is independent of his background and general social context; that these
social inequities therefore are carried into adult life; and that schools, as presently

constituted, are not providing a strong independent effect (separate from the child's

32

background) necessary for equalization of Opportunity. These relationships between social
background and achievement were confirmed in several other research investigations
following this report (see Hauser, 1971; Hauser et al., 1976; Mayeske et al., 1969;
Mosteller & Moynihan, 1972; and Jencks et al., 1972, which will be reviewed later).

A brief analysis of the major findings of the Coleman Report will however
characterize such conclusions for school to school differences. This study shows that only
5 percent to 35 percent of the variance in achievement can be atuibuted to differences
between schools. These variations in percentage come from minorities and grade levels.
These data indicate that despite large variations in school resources, curriculum, teaching
staff and students themselves, over 70 percent of the differences in achievement between
schools must be attributed to students' individual and social background characteristics.
This led Hodson (1975) to state that "Schools make no difference".

However, some details must be considered. First, there are differences
between minorities as far as between-school achievement is concerned. Black students are
more influenced than white students by school variables and this increases from the first to
the third grade level. For Cherkaoui (1979), this is of considerable importance for the
formulation of a school policy. Second, school variables all added together explain less
than SES and race as composition factors but "attributes of other students account for far
more variation in the achievement of minority group children than do any attributes of
school facilities and slightly more than do attributes of Staff“ (Coleman et al., 1966,
p. 302). This has also been demonstrated by Carlson, 1972; Jencks & Brown, 1975).
Third, black students from the south of the United States are more influenced by school
staff characteristics than black and white students of the north. "This result is an extremely
important one" for Colemanet al., because "it suggests that good teachers matter more for
children from minorities" and that "the effect of good teachers is greatest upon the children
who suffer most educational disadvantage in their background" (1966, p. 317). Finally, of

all the variables measured in the survey, a student's interest in school, his self-concept and

33

his sense of control over environment showed the strongest relation to achievement. "The
zero-order correlations of these attitudes with achievement were higher than those of any
Other variables, in some case as high as the correlation of some test scores with others
[between .4 and .5] " (Coleman et al., 1966, p. 319). Re-analysis of these data by
Mayeske et al. (1969) and Smith (1972) show that sense of control and self-concept do
indeed contribute significantly to student achievement.

In the London area, Brimer, Madaus et al. (1978) addressed some of the
EEOS conclusions to see whether contributions of school (curriculum, resources.
organization and teaching) are greater in England than in the United states. As a general
conclusion, the total variance demonstrated by their variables is over 50 percent in half of
the schools, and there were more of the between-school differences explained than those
within-school. In fact, individual variables explained the differences within while teacher
and school variables showed an important variation between schools. Their findings differ
from those of the EEOS because the differences are not due to school factors nor
background alone, according to them, but rather are a consequence of progressive
differentiation. Schools manage to get the best out of their students while adapting to their
characteristics and, then, schools maximize differences between students. According to
these results, school makes a difference in concert with the other social agencies but school
cannot counter the beads of society.

Jencks et al. (1972), using the same data as the EEOR. questioned the same
issue of equality as Coleman et al. did, but with a significant difference. They argue that
equality is equal status in adult life and they look at the effect of education on that outcome.
Their results show that most differences in adults are due to factors that schools do not
control. The most important determinant of educational attainment is family background.
Cognitive skills are second. Occupational status is strongly related to educational
attainment in their data but there are still enormous status differences among people with the

same amount of education. In reality, the variations in what children learn in school

34

depends largely on variations in what they bring to school, not on variations in what
schools offer them. Their data uphold Coleman's findings that resources have virtually no
influence on schooling. That led Jencks and his associates to the finding that "Qualitative
differences between high schools seem to explain about 2 per cent of the variation in
student's educational attainment" (Jencks et al., 1972, p. 159).

In their view, income inequality cannot be eliminated nor even substantially
reduced in America simply by providing children from all walks of life with equal
opportunity. They then conclude that schooling seems important in and of itself, not as a
proxy for cognitive skill or family background Schools legitimize inequality and they
serve primarily as selection and certification agencies whose job is to measure and label
people. Only secondarily do they serve as socialization agencies whose efforts are aimed at
changing people. Schafer and Olexa, in Tracking and Opportunity (1971), state however
that schools put students in uacks controlled by family background and ability groups in a
way that will lower grades and increase dropout rates of the students. If so, Jencks'
Statement that schools measure and label students might better be modified to the idea that
schools just label students. Finally for Jencks et al., differences between schools have
rather trivial long-term effects and eliminating these differences between schools would do
little to make schools more equal.

These findings from Coleman, Jencks and their colleagues about the
dominating impact of socioeconomic background and individual characteristics on
achievement have been challenged in a number of studies. Among others, the Wisconsin
Social-Psychological Model of Status Attainment developed by Sewell and Hauser (1976)
has provided a useful analytical model for many researchers (Ballantine, 1983). This
group found that "socioeconomic status has no effect on high school performance
independent of measured ability, and on education and occupational aspirations, and via
these aspirations, on educational attainment and occupational achievement" (Sewell &

Hauser, 1964, p. 96). They suggest that our ability to interpret social inequalities in terms

35

of income differences is limited, and that the importance of SES variables on attainment
comes from the encouragement received from significant others and from educational
aspirations.

However, the most significant arguments developed for supporting an effect
of the school probably lie in research interested in schools as a social system. The basis for
departure from these studies include some of the secondary findings in the EEOR as

described before, and the underestimation of Jenck's data about school variables.

h 'l n hiv it

Some researchers attempted to develop a design including social
background and school variables in an effort to differentiate schools by looking more
specifically at variables closer to the school social system. We shall review the most
significant ones now.

One of the most important pieces of research to have come out in recent
years on that subject outside of North America is certainly the work of Michael Rutter and
his colleagues titled: Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and their Eflects on
Children (Rutter et al., 1979). The title refers to the number of hours spent by children in
school during the 12 years when school and teachers may have an impact on their
development. They addressed the following questions: 1) do a child's experiences at
school have any effect? 2) does it matter what school he goes to? 3) which are the features
of the school that matter? In a similar fashion as Barr and Dreeben (1983) and Hallinan and
Sprenson (1985) later on, they started from the point that buildings and resources are not
important. The crucial differences between schools concerning aspects of school life
having to do with its functionning as a social organization. They considered climate and
atmosphere as important but tried to focus on staff action or activities which lay behind the

intangible but important features. They assessed the changes due to school in attendance,

36

children's behavior, public examination results, and delinquency rates observed in the
schools.

Twelve schools from the inner city of London were chosen for this study.
They differed in size, space available, sites, newness and maintenance of the building, style
of ledership; some depended on local authority and others were operated by churches.
Schools also differed in educational aims with regard to child development versus academic
achievement, with regard to strict moral code versus liberty. Schools were assessed on
student's individual and social background composition, on the learning environment
provided, on the influence of the community and on various outcomes of schooling. The
data were obtained through questionnaires, interviews and a wide range of structured and
unstructured observation techniques.

The authors showed that schools in inner-city London differ markedly in the
behavior and attainment shown by the pupils when they controlled for intake (social
background, cognitive ability and behavior), and that these results are stable over a period
of at least four to five years. There was no influence with regard to school size, facilities
nor administrative status of the school as an organization. The differences between school
outcomes were systematically related to the following characteristics of social institutions:
the degree of academic emphasis, teacher action in lessons, the availability of incentives
and rewards, and so on. All of these factors were subject to modification by staff rather
than by external constraints. The combined measure of outcomes was much stronger than
any of the associations with individual process variables which suggested to the authors
that they combine to create a particular ethos or set of values, attitudes and behaviors
which will become a characteristic Of the school as a whole. They concluded, finally, that
there is a strong probability that children's behaviors and attitudes are shaped and
influenced by their experiences at school and in particular by the quality of the school as a
social institution. These findings have been largely supported in a subsequent similar

study in South Wales by Reynolds (1982).

oft

at;

mo

It

an
or,
“i
de

an

or
cu
de
th
ex

le

du

37

What Rutter et al. calls "ethos" however has been questioned by the critics
of this study for its lack of precision and for all of the information it included without
further explanation (Cuttance, 1980; Health & Clifford, 1980). The response to this
appropriate query may well be found in the research which addressed climate measurement
more directly.

According to Anderson (1985), "Climate is a word that seems so intuitively
understandable that at first glance it might appear to need no definition. In fact, it is often
alluded to in the literature without even being named" (p. 97-98). It was first described in
organizational research. For Forehand and Gilmer, it refers to: "The set of characteristics
that describe an organization and that (a) distinguish that organization from other
organizations, (b) are relatively enduring over time, and (c) influence the behavior of
people in the organization" (1964, p. 362). In Campbell's et al. view, it includes "a set of
attributes specific to a particular organization that may be induced from the way that
organization deals with its members and its environment. For the individual member
within the organization, climate takes the form of a set of attributes and expectancies which
describe the organization in terms of both static characteristics [such as degree of
autonomy] and behavior-outcome and outcome-outcome contingencies" (1970, p. 390).
As a general concern, it is the term used to describe the psychological structure of
organizations (DuBrin, 1974) and refers to morale, esprit , atmosphere, feeling, ethos,
culture, ecology, setting and so forth. The term has taken on several orientations,
depending on the authors or the dimension measured; those are expressed in research on
the participative groups' style of management (Lickert, 1967), on the pattern of
expectancies and incentive values (Litwin & Stringer, 1968), and on the global subjective
judgment about the organization (Gullerman, 1960).

School is a type of organization where climate measurement mushroomed
during the last decades with the impetus of the school effect and school effectiveness

movements. The same variations in orientations and expansion can be observed. It ranges

38

between climate encompassing the total environment (Tagiuri, 1968), the human
environment (Insel & Moos, 1974; Moos, 1974), schools (Brookover, et al. 1979),
individual classrooms (Coleman, 1961; Meyer, 1980; Moos, 1979; Rowan, Bossert, &
Dwyer, 1983), and groups of persons (Barker, 1968). Variations can also be observed as
far as measurement strategy is concerned. Flanders (1967) developed a measure based on
participant-observation even though the most often used approach for measuring climate
remains perceptual analysis. This strategy assumes that climate comes from the definitions
of the participants, similar to the way in which actors perceive their reality, which is most
conducive to a specific outcome like achievement (Schneider, 1973).

Since the pioneering works of Stern (1961, 1963, 1970) and Halpin and
Croft (1963), several instruments have been developed to measure school climate. They
will be differentiated here as psychological, organizational and social-psychological
orientations.

The first set of variables decribed stems from a psychological point of view.
It states that individual students can indicate whether certain statements are or are not
characteristic of their college environment. This, thus, provides an estimate of internalized
school effect (aspects of psychological functionning which had presumably been activated
and shaped by classroom experience and were then assimilated into the psychological
suucture and organization of the child) (Minuchin et al., 1969). This main orientation
focused on the establishment and measurement of climate through such scales as: Learning
Environment Inventory (Anderson, 1970; O'Reilly, 1975; Randhawa & Hunt, 1976;
Walberg, 1969), Classroom Atmosphere Scale (Silbergeld et al., 1975), College
Characteristic Index (Pace & Stern, 1958; Thistlethwaite, 1962), College and University
Environment Scale (Centra & Linn, 1970; Pace, 1963), Learning Climate Questionnaire
(Bowen & Kilmann, 1975), and Classroom Environment Scale (DeYoung, 1977; Moos &
Trickett, 1974; Moos, 1979). They are characterized by measures of variables like:

intimacy, formality, favoritism, apathy, democracy, cliqueness, relationships of

39

spontaneity or involvment, order, aggression in the system maintenance, autonomy in
personal development and so on. Such variables, based on perceptions, have been tested
cross-culturally by Walberg, Singh and Rosher (1977) and were shown to have a good
predictive validity for achievement.

The second orientation using perceived behavior addressed itself to school
organizational climate. The most widely used instrument for this has been the
Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) developed by Halpin and Croft
(1963) for the elementary schools. In many ways, it resembles a leader behavior
description questionnaire since it is believed that the principal is the one who sets the
climate described in terms of openness. This is quite similar to Lickert's Profile of School
Instrument (1967). Both, in fact, have scales which were shown to be highly related
(Hall, 1972). This questionnaire was aimed at measuring the perceived behavior of
principals and teachers on variables like: aloofness, production, emphasis, hindrance,
disengagement, thrust, and consideration. Stern (1963, 1970) developed a scale which
refers to those characteristics of environmental press which inhibit or restrict personal
expressiveness and self-actualizing behavior in terms of developmental and control press.
Even if organizational characteristics of the school are measured to an extensive degree,
these last orientations may be limited by their use of a too restrictive continuum of open-
closed characteristics of the school or classroom.

The effort to classify a school in terms of climate has been attempted with
social-psychological variables. According to Anderson (1985), the climate dimensions
developed by McDill et al. ( 1967, 1969, 1973) and by Brookover et al. (1977, 1978,
1979) "expanded the relevant climate factors to include those concerning students as well as
teachers and principals" (p. 101). Using more direct measures of climate instead of
aggregated student characteristics (once used as proxies for school climate), they were able
to find better predictors of student achievement, and to compare them with social

background.

4o

McDill et al. (1967, 1969, 1973) worked at the secondary school level.
The goal of their study was to explain why some schools are more productive than others.
They selected ten pairs of high schools that differed in aggregate academic performance and
compared them on a number of individual and school characteristics. The dependent
variables chosen were achievement in mathematics and aptitude for abstract reasoning. The
social-psychological climate variables used were factor analyzed to arrive at 6 dimensions
of climate, including:

1. Academic Emulation: the value placed on academics by students.

2. Student Perception of Intellectualism-Estheticism: the degree to which
acquisition of knowledge and learning is valued.

3. Cohesive and Egalitarian Estheticism: the extent to which the student
social system emphasizes intellectual criteria for status as opposed to
family background or other ascribed criteria.

4. Scientism: the emphasis placed on science in the school.

5. Humanistic Excellence: the emphasis placed on art, humanities, social
studies and social issues.

6. Academically Oriented Student Status System: the extent to which
intellectual and academic performance is rewarded as compared to
extracurricular activities.

Their results show that each of the climate dimensions was more strongly
related to achievement than was SES with the exception of factor 4. They also found SES
and IQ to be highly related to achievement. But when these variables were controlled, their
effect disappeared completely while each of the 6 climate dimensions retained a large
proportion of their original explanatory power on achievement. Even if none of the
dimensions alone accounted for a large portion of the variance, McDill and his associates
say that "the SES context of the school does not adequately reflect the shared norms and
motivations of students and teachers and that direct measures of school climate should be
employed in contextual research whenever feasible" (McDill & Rigsby, 1973. p. 88). The
results of this type of research "support the existence of school effects independent of the

personal characteristics of the student body [either on individuals or aggregates]"

(Boocock, 1980, p. 200).

41

This type of research was pursued and expanded upon at the elementary
school level by Brookover and his colleagues with samples of Michigan schools. This
group tried to demonstrate that social climate variables are correlated with various school
outcomes by seperating their effect from background characteristics of the student body.
This research will be reviewed in greater detail because of its direct relationship to the
present survey.

The research of Brookover et al. developed in several stages. At the
beginning, Brookover and Schneider (1975) focused their attention on pairs of elementary
schools (24) having similar SES and racial composition but significantly different levels of
achievement. A set of climate variables were factor analyzed to produce four factors for the
students and six for the teachers. When controlling for the effect of composition variables,
significant differences between these schools did appear as developed by their academic
climate. This research helped state hypotheses for subsequent investigations since it was
clear for the elementary schools that " The role of teachers' and classmates' attitudes in
establishing these feelings [was] obviously an important part of the school climate"
(Ballantine, 1983, p. 182).

The second stage appears in Brookover et al. (1978) in a study on a
representative sample of Michigan elementary schools. Using students, teachers and
principals as reporters or informants concerning the nature of the sub—culture of the school,
they developed a wider set of climate variables embodying most of the aspects of the school
normative system. The main hypothesis was that there are differences in school social
systems which explain differences in achievement among schools and that there is a school
sub-culture—set of norms, expectations, values and beliefs shared by the participants in the
school or in particular sub- groups. These norms, expectations and perceived evaluations
by significant others in the educational context could also be called school climate, and

were said not to be equivalent to composition variables.

42

As identified in this study, the authors were able to show that composition
variables used alone as a measure of school environment are inadequate measures of the
impact of school climate. Moreover, the differences attributed to composition may be
attributed as well to climate and composition. Indeed, the school climate variables used
explained a significant proportion of the difference in achievement between schools,
beyond that explained by social composition when the latter variable was placed first in the
regression analysis. Much of the variance explained by SES composition is also explained
by differences in climate variables which are associated with composition.

In the third stage of their research program, Brookover et al. (1979) added
other variables of the school social system that may affect achievement as well as other
outcomes of the school, like self-concept and self-reliance. They developed three clusters
of independent variables (inputs, school social structure and school academic climate)
which they compared as to their differential impact on academic achievement, self-concept
and self-reliance in three different samples of Michigan schools (a representative sample
composed of 68 schools, a majority white sample made up of 61 schools and a majority
black sample of 30 schools).

The input variables set is composed in this study of the social composition
of the student body as identified by: l) the mean socio-economic status of the school and
the percent of white students in the school, and 2) by characteristics of teachers and other
personnel inputs into the social system. The measure of other inputs is composed of seven
variables combined by standard scores. They include: size of the school student body,
average daily attendance of the student body, number of professional personnel per 1,000
students, number of years of teaching experience of the teachers in the school, length of
time that the teachers have taught in the particular school, the percentage of the teachers in
the school with graduate degrees, and mean teachers' salaries.

The social structure of the school involves many different variables which

were regrouped in "five indices of variables which may contribute to differences in school

43

outcomes" (1979, p. 14), even though they do not exhaust all dimensions of the school
social structure in their view. They are: parent involvment in the school, differentiation
among student programs, open and closed classroom organization, time allocation, and
staff satisfaction with the school structure.

School social climate is identified in this study "as the composite of norms,
expectations, and beliefs which characterize the school social system as perceived by
members of the social system, ...students, teachers, and principals [which] are the most
relevant participants in the school social system" (p. 19). The variables retained after factor
analysis appear as follows:

Student Climate Variables:
1. Student Sense of Academic Futility.
2. Student Perceived Future Evaluations and Expectations.
3. Student Perceived Present Evaluations and Expectations.
4. Student Perception of Teacher Push and Teacher Norms.
5. Student Academic Norms.

Teacher Climate Variables:
1. Ability, Evaluations, Expectations and Quality of Education for

College.

. Teacher Present Evaluations and Expectations for High School
Completion.

. Teacher-Student Commitment to Improve.

. Teacher Perception of Principal's Expectations.

. Teacher Academic Futility.

Lit-BUG N

Principal Climate Variables:
1. Parent Concern and Expectations for Quality Education.
2. Principal's Efforts to Improve.
3. Principal and Parent Evaluation of Present School Quality.
4. Principal's Present Expectations and Evaluations of Students.

Finally, the dependent variables were obtained from different sources. The
mean school achievement is the average of the percentage of students mastering each of the
49 objectives (reading and arithmetic) in the Michigan School Assessment Tests
administered to fourth graders in each school. Self-concept of academic ability was
measured with a scale developed and used by Brookover and his colleagues at Michigan

State University (Brookover et al., 1962, 1965, 1967, 1973, 1975). Self-reliance is a

 

44

modification of a scale developed at Johns Hopkins University (Epstein and McPartland,
1975).

The results provide evidence that a school social system is a reality that can
be measured directly and which has an important impact on school outcomes. Using
various regression analyses and techniques to partial out the effect of the different clusters
of variables, the results show an important school effect that challenges the previous
inequality studies done before. "Perhaps the most important finding of this research is that
the combination of the three sets of social system variables—social composition and other
personnel inputs, social structure of the school, and the school climate—explain most of
the variance between schools in all three of the dependent variables" (Brookover et al.,
1979, p. 139). The percent of the variance in achievement and self-concept explained by
the different subsamples ranges from 66 percent to 94 percent. Moreover:

"The major proportion of the explained variance in mathematics and reading
achievement can be attributed to either the socioeconomic and racial
composition of the student body or to the school climate variables. The
social composition and other personnel input variables, however, contribute
little to the explanation of differences in mean self-concept of academic
ability or mean self-reliance. The variance explained in each of the latter

outcome variables is largely attributable to the school climate variables"
(p. 140).

This study, which provides evidence for Michigan that school makes a
difference has been replicated in the western part of Saudi Arabia by Al-Thubaiti (1983).
This research involved 30 urban public intermediate schools selected in a developing
country characterized by its Islamic principles, its hierarchy of authority and a highly
centralized school structure forcing a standard curriculum on all schools.

The results show that social system variables explain most of the variance
on the measured outcomes as did Brookover and others. However, the main finding of
this study is that social-psychological climate variables account for most of the variance in
academic achievement and self-concept among schools. The main difference from the

original study stems from the fact that family background of the student body "predicted

f‘

 

d:

45

less of the variance in mean academic achievement between schools than did socioeconomic
status of the students in selected schools in Michigan" (Al-Thubaiti, 1983, p. 155). This
result supporting a school effect can be uaced to Other developing countries as will now be

described from the findings of cross-cultural studies.

- ' h hi v men

The studies reviewed in this section will encompass studies conducted outside
of the United States as well as those involved in a comparative design incorporating two or
more countries. Research aimed at testing hypothesis developed in this country (Al-Thubaiti,
1983; Madaus et al., 1978; Rutter et al., 1979) have been presented before and will not be
addressed again.

As mentioned before, the most impressive comparative research on schools
has been undertaken by the Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)
in 21 developed and developing countries. The general conclusions of the IEA studies are
quite similar to those found in the single nation reports of Coleman and Jencks. Basically,
academic performance is generally higher when children come from priviledged
socioeconomic backgrounds (Thorndike, 1975) and this influence surpasses the sum total of
influence resulting from measured effects of school and teacher quality.

These first-hand conclusions are quite interesting given the fact that so many
social systems were involved and the fact that one could be tempted to confirm the
ineffectiveness of schools in comparison with home background as far as achievement is
concerned. However, Farrell (1979), Saha (1983) and Theisen and his associates (1983)
have shown large differences between the four developing nations of the study—Chile,
Thailand, Iran and India—and the majority of the countries which are considered to be
developed. In-school variables have a larger impact in developing nations than in others. In

a reanalysis of the IEA data, Heyneman (1976) showed that the association between "pre-

 

46

school influence" and academic achievement diminished in linear fashion with the national per
capita income of countries—the poorer the country, the weaker the association.

On the other hand, Coleman (1975) questioned some methodological issues of
the IEA studies. Using different measures with the same data, he arrived at different results,
even though he insists that an exact comparison cannot be made between countries. His main
conclusion is that reading achievement is more a result of home influence than science and
literature. Influence, then, is subject specific. Husén (1979) noted also that reading is totally
related to home background while foreign language is directly related to school. Finally,
Postlethwaite (1975) suggests that there are large differences between countries with regard
to the relationship between attainment on the one hand and home and school variables on the
other. For example, when home background is aggregated at the school level (which gives
us a composition effect), the amount of variance accounted for between schools in science
achievement is extremely high in Scotland while it is absent in Sweden. However, school
factors do contribute largely in Sweden but not in Scotland.

In an extensive reanalysis of the IEA data to directly address the hypothesis of
the EEOR, Cherkaoui (1979) found support for the contention that social background is an
important variable in all social systems analyzed. However, he concludes that social
su'atification does not explain as much of the variation in achievement as school stratification
does. He shows that school facilities, size, teaching time, teacher training and experience
have no effect on achievement in and of themselves. Their importance would suppose a
perfect neutrality of the school staff which is indeed not the case. The differences observed
lie in the type of school or section attended. One must be reminded that the schools in several
European countries are much more segregated and hierarchical than in the comprehensive
American school system. The most important determinants of the outcomes in this reanalysis
are student expectations linked with school stratification. This comes from a socialization
process which acts differently among the various school curricula. "This socialization is so

important that it homogenizes the behaviors of students coming from different social

47

backgrounds while it differentiates those of students originating from similar socioeconomic
backgrounds" (p. 196—97). Then, "school creates different identities which do not
correspond to ascribed socioeconomic identities" (p. 206) which in turn support
differentiation among students.

Besides Rutter and the IEA research, there are relevant studies in the western
world which provide evidence of in-school effect. Israel is a case in point. During the two
decades following World War II, Israel experienced massive immigration coming from the
Near and Middle East, which now forms half of the population of this country, while in
1948, 98 percent of the population was of European origin. Compensatory educational
programs implemented over a 10 to 15 year period remained ineffective for these immigrants
because the European culture was more important in the schools and society. A school
reform was enacted in 1968 to provide ethnically inuegated education. Klein and Eshel
(1980) studied these integrated learning environments and, in particular, the impact of a
teaching method appropriate to it which they developed called "activity classroom". The
results are as follows: integration alone is not related to improved school achievement of low
class children (immigrants) neither when measured longitudinally nor cross-sectionally. In
contrast, integration, in conjunction with the application of the activity classroom technique
produces dramatic results—especially in mathematics. They conclude that in-school effect
occurs because it is the combination of integration with the application of appropriate
educational technologies that yields beneficial results. This has been demonstrated in several
other studies of school effects (Brookover et al., 1977, 1979).

In Israel also, drawing on Turner's notion of sponsored versus contest
mobility (1960), Yuchtrnan and Samuel (1975) found that the effect of interpersonal variables
on students' aspirations varies considerably within the institutional school context. The
influence of significant others is smaller within a rigid sponsored-mobility context, where the
credentialing process tends to be the more important determining factor. The effects of

differentiation in school orientations have been observed as well by Brutsaert (1982) in

 

 

48

Belgium, at the secondary level. He assessed the influence of the institutional context of
schools in two distinctive types of high schools—innovative versus traditional. Evidence
provided by this study points to some salient differences between the subjective schooling
outcomes and their determinants across school systems. There is enough evidence for him to
conclude that innovative schools in this country engender more equality of educational
opportunity. He found also that the impact of social-psychological variables was especially
pronounced for innovative school students.

As convincing as they may be, studies conducted in developed countries do
nOt provide as meaningful insights on school properties effect as those obtained in Less
Developed Counuies (LDC) because it is there where the most striking differences appear.
The educational conditions of these countries are less similar than those of developed
counuies, and the quality of the schools and outcomes lag far behind. (It should be added
that those societies often pursue objectives quite different from those found in the Western
world.)

Theisen and his colleagues (1983) analyzed the results of four types of
explanatory variables of achievement in these countries: background characteristics, school
resources, school and classroom environment, and general social and cultural context in
which instruction takes place. On the average, they found that there is a lot of variance
explained by the school factors but that the differences are larger when the general level of
economic development of the society in which measurement is Obtained is taken into account.
Home tends to be more important in more industrialized countries and school resources show
much more influence in LDC.

From another point of view, Saha (1983) examined the results obtained by 38
authors in LDC on background and teacher related variables—qualifications and behaviors.
Overall, teacher variables exert a positive influence on student achievement and only in a
small number of case are they negative. This was also found to be the case from Husén et al.

(1978) who report that teacher qualification, amount of education, experience and knowledge

 

49

of the teachers are positively related to student achievement in these countries. Attributed
variables seem highly important as well, especially positive expectations of students which
can override negative student self-image. From these studies in LDC, the authors conclude
that even if background and resources variables are important, more important is how the
equipment and money are used. For Theisen et al. (1983) then, "Achievement may be the
result of a deliberate cost—benefit analysis of the functional outcomes of the effort that must be
expended by the student" (p. 60).

The findings from cross-cultural studies, along with school social systems
studies, show how premature it is to generalize the results obtained from the Equality of
Educational Opportunity Survey. There seems to be evidence within and outside of the
United States that school characteristics play a large role in determining various student
outcomes. These studies also suggest that the socialization processes within the school may
be supportive of differences between schools. It is important, then, that these processes be
Observed with a proper theoretical perspective that addresses school internal sub-culture

directly.

mli- "m

The research instruments developed by Brookover and his associates to
measure school climate and self-concept rest heavily on the assumptions underlying the
symbolic interactionist perspective. Since these instruments were adapted for the assessment
of the schools of the Province of Quebec on these matters, it is important to review some of
the basic assumptions of this theoretical orientation.

Symbolic interactionism cannot be considered a theory but a perspective, or a
frame of reference, that identifies important aspects to consider in order to explain human
behavior. Unlike predispositional and expectational perspectives which place the

determinants of behavior on the individual or on encounters in social situations respectively,

50

symbolic interactionism state that the most important determinant of behavior is the interaction
of predispositions and expectations mediated by symbolic environment.

At the heart of symbolic interactionism is the notion that people are the
constructors of their own actions and meanings, and active agents in the determination Of
their behavior. PeOple live in a physical world, but the Objects in that world have a meaning
for them and people respond to those meanings rather than directly to the objects. The things
people encounter in social situations are symbols for them because "they indicate to a person
certain meanings which are dependent on them for their construction" (Woods, 1983, p. 1).
A symbol is "a stimulus that has a learned meaning and value for people, and man's response
to a symbol is in terms of its meaning and value rather than in terms of its physical
stimulation of his sense organs" (Rose, 1962, p. 5). People interact through symbols and, as
symbol using creatures, humans respond to the world as they conceive and believe it to be,
and then act in terms of emergent definitions and meanings (W arriner, 1970).

The functioning of symbolic-interactionism has been described by Blumer as
follows:

"...the world that exists for human beings and for their groups are composed
of 'objects' and those objects are the product of symbolic interaction...The
nature of an object—of any and every object-consists of the meanings it has for
the person for whom it is an object. This meaning sets the way in which he
sees the object, the way in which he is prepared to act toward it, and the way
in which he is ready to talk about it...The meaning of objects for a person
arises fundamentally out of the way they are defined to him by others with
whom he interacts" (1969, p.11).

The presence of others is determinant in the construction of individuality and
for the conduct of individual behavior in this perspective. The interactionist view of the
relationship between the individual and society is a dialectical one as expressed by Berger:

"Society is a dialectic phemonenon in that it is a human product and nothing
but a human product, that yet continuously acts back upon its producer.
Society is a product of man. It has no other being except that which is
bestowed upon it by human activity and consciousness. There can be no
social reality apart from man. Yet, it may also be stated that man is a product
of society. Every individual biography is an episode within the history of

society, which both precedes and survives it...What is more, it is within
society, and as a result of social processes that the indrvrdual becomes a

 

51

person, that he attains and holds on to an identity and that he carries out the
various projects that constitutes his life..." (1969, p.3).

What enables the construction of meanings, and then of identity, is the
individual's possession of a "self' which allows him to develop a view or views of himself.
In this symbolic-interactionist perspective, self-image is one general conception an individual
has of himself which is based upon his perceptions of other’s expectations and evaluations of
himself. Sometimes equated with self-concept, it represents the cumulative image of the self
taking into account all situations into which the self is enacted (Hewitt, 1984). As implied by
the definition, this image is created in situations and interactions, and is elaborated by the
symbolic appropriation of others' views of oneself. The processes through which this is
done have been described as "role playing" and "role taking" where a child comes to
differentiate between what Mead (1934) has called the "I" and the "Me". The first stage of
this development is subjective, where people respond as active subjects to objects in
situations or to specific or generalized others. The "Me" is termed to represent the objective
phase of the process where people respond to themselves as objects in their situation and
where they can take the role of the generalized others. The mere ability to imagine oneself in
a role and the making of a role are sufficient conditions for the development of the self
because the individual learns to think of himself as an object.

. However the aspect of the process which gives the individual his particular
image is the evaluative dimension of the self-concept. Who an individual thinks he is and the
unique traits he believes himself to possess are the determinant of the conceptions of himself
(Webster & Sobieszek, 1974). Through what Cooley (1964) has termed the "Looking-glass-
self", an individual comes to reflect on himself the ideas he imagines others have of him.
This image, says Cooley, is also modified by the individual's knowledge of others and by his
assessment of them. The evaluation process is then twofold and always includes interaction
with others and "significant others" in a symbolic manner. Through the allocation of

attributes to himself, based on his interactions with others in social encounters, the individual

 

52

comes to a conception of himself that is determinant in the future presentation of himself and
his achievement on that regard.

The consequences of this human way of functioning have been largely
described in the literature. For James , "Our self-feeling in this world depends entirely on
what we back ourselves to be and do. It is determined by the ratio of our actualities to our
supposed potentialities; a fraction of which our pretentions are the denominator and the
numerator our success" (1970, p. 375). He was referring to the self-esteem process through
which people tend to maintain a positive image of themselves in those areas of social reality
considered to be important for them. People who have high self-investment in one aspect
will be concerned by evaluations made, will look for them and perform in accordance with
the expected behavior (Webster & Sobieszek, 1974). On ther other hand, people tend to
withdraw self-investment in situations carrying negative feedback for them and will seek not
to be evaluated in terms of performance on that role, reduce the importance of that kind of
achievement or simply avoid the situation (Goffman, 1959, 1967). Rosenthal and
Jacobson's Pygmalion in the School (1968) and subsequent replications and reanalyses
(Brophy, 1983; Harris & Rosenthal, 1985; Marshall et al., 1986) show such situations where
belief in success engenders success and where belief in failure leads to further failure.

The positive or negative consequences of a specific outcome rests in the realm
of the individual's capacities because, in order to act, the individual has to identify what he
wants, establish objectives or goals and map out a prospective line of behavior to attain them
(Blumer, 1976). The oft-quoted passage of W. 1. Thomas goes farther with regard to that
when it says that "Very often it is the wide discrepency between the situation as it seems to
others and the situation as it seems to the individual that brings about...overt behavior
difficulty...lf man defines situations as real, they are real in their consequences" (1928,
p. 572). For Woods, the message is simple:

"No matter what the objective circumstances are, or the prevailing official

definition, if a person defines a situation in a certain way, that will be the
context in which his plans for action are formed.

53

Situations, therefore, are constructed and it is the task of the interactionist to
discover how they are constructed, and not to take them for granted" (1983,

p. 7).

This perspective has been applied to the educational setting to determine ways
in which the interactions between students and teachers influence the process of learning of
the actors involved in this encounter, mainly through the student's goals, those of his
teachers and through evaluations and expectations of significant others (Johnson, 1970).

This perspective also supported Brookover's climate and self-concept
instruments as well as his interpretations of the functioning of the schools:

"The basic theory underlying this research is that the behavior of children in
school, especially their achievement in academic subjects, is partly a function
of the social and cultural characteristics of the school social system. The
children take their cues from those important to them and with whom they
interact, attending carefully to their expectations and definitions of appropriate
behavior in the student role. In the context of the school social system,

students come to perceive the role definitions, the norms, expectations,
values, and beliefs that others hold for them and act accordingly" (1979,

p. 6).

The concept of school climate holds two general dimensions—norms and
expectations—that are transmitted in the socialization process of the school. This was
defined in the first chapter as comprehending "the norms of the social system and
expectations held for various members as perceived by the members of the group and
communicated to members of the group" (Brookover & Erickson, 1975, p. 364). In a
similar evaluative fashion, self-concept of academic ability refers specifically to the student's
perception of himself as a student in comparison with other classmates and students he
knows. In their viewpoint, "Extensive research has demonstrated that individual student
scores on the self-concept of academic ability scale are significantly and highly correlated
with individual school achievement" (Brookover et al.,l979, pp. 24-25). These correlations
are not always as consistent however between mean self-concept and mean school academic
achievement as discussed in their research on school social systems and in Passalacqua

(1979).

54
A hi n

This last section will attempt to characterize the school system where the data
for this research was collected. There are some reasons for doing this. The first chapter
showed the ways in which Quebec differs from the United States and the ways in which it
ressembles this country. But this comparison does nOt permit a reliable underStanding of the
school social systems considered unless the external and internal context in which the schools
in Quebec evolve and function is taken into account. This will be attempted here in
describing the recent important transformations of this school system and its impact on the
organization of the schools and on the objectives pursued.

There is a second reason which supports such a description, the absence of
French-Canadian literature on school effect. It may seem surprising to an outsider, due to the
fact that Canada is a modern industrial society sharing a long border, economic, and
communication ties with the United States, that the questions raised by this research have
hardly been considered by researchers in Quebec before. A review of the scientific journals
in Quebec and of the the bilingual publications in sociology and education in Canada show
rare interest in this matter.

The problems of equality of educational opportunity are well documented as
far as the impact of social background is concerned. The most significant research on this
subject in Quebec have been done by the ASOPE group (16 volumes published at various
dates) which considered the influence of individual background and expectations on later
achievement. This longitudinal study involved several cohorts of high school and college
students in the seventies. The results show an important influence of home background,
years in school, and track placement on later achievement. Results supporting those found
by Coleman, Jencks and their colleagues can also be traced in Bélanger and Rocher (1970),
CEQ (1972), Mellouki (1983), Laforce and Massot (1983), and Roberge (1979). School

variables, such as size, grouping differentiation and expectations, have been addressed, but

 

55

always at the individual level. There does not seem to have been an effort to differentiate
between schools on those aspects to measure a parallel influence of school level variables.

Similarly, different forms of climate and self-concept scales have been used in
some studies but never to measure an effect concerning the school as a unit of analysis. More
Often than not, these scales were used as dependent variables to show the influence of various
independent variables on these achievements considered to be desirable. Finally, if its
occurrence is a cue as to its importance, academic achievement is only occasionally
considered to be an outcome worthy of consideration in research done on the schools in
Quebec.

The following section will try to advance reasons for this particularity in
describing the evolution of the specificities of this school system. This short description will
focus, however, on the sixties and the seventies because the data for this research was
collected in 1979. Changes have been made since then, but not so much as to alter the basic

state of the art on that matter nor the conclusions reached by this study.

R nvlin h min

Prior to 1960, Quebec was described as a traditional "clerico-nationalist"
society oriented toward the conservation of French-Canadian values and culture. It was
controlled by a small powerful elite characterized by the paternalistic authoritarianism of its
hierarchy and by intimate relationships between church and state where the church played an
important secular role (Guindon, 1964, 1978). The "Quiet Revolution" of the 60's,
supported by the aspirations of a new middle-class, was set to change this pattern. As stated
by Guindon, "This coming out of the 'Dark Ages', as the ancient dispensation used to be
labelled by many, was widely acclaimed. Quebec had entered the modem era...Under the
aegis of a 'catch up' ideology, Quebec was putting its house in order, in a new order more in

line with the structural features of developed industrial societies...This new order was a

56

bureaucratic one" (1978, p. .214). As a consequence, "The educational system was
completely revamped and modernized. The provincial state took over the leadership from the
church in all spheres of social life. Catholicism as a set of values and as a set of practices
collapsed" (p.231).

The changes were tremendous for the school system. Small urban and rural
schools had been under the authority of hundreds of local school boards before 1960. Under
the initiative of the Parent Report (1964), a Ministére de [Education was created and made
responsible for administering and coordinating education at all levels. The educational reform
was enacted to 1) render public education accessible to everyone regardless of social origin,
2) respond to the post-war population explosion, 3) adapt the system to the more diverse
training needs of an industrial society and 4) respond to the awareness that the province was
far behind in the area of education.

Changes were made and the general level of education of the population
increased sharply under this centralized system. In this period, "priority was given to a more
thorough training, to the quality and precise definition of programs, to pedagogical practices,
to curriculum, to evaluation of what was being learned, and to pupil grouping based upon
pedagogical considerations" (MEQ, 1982, p. 12). Several authors criticized the net results
as far as equalizing opportunity (see Bélanger, 1971) while popular opinion questioned the
importance placed on restructuring the system over the quality of pedagogy and learning
processes. This was the context for a second effort to orient the school system in the late
seventies in what was called The Schools of Quebec: A Plan for Action (1979). It was
decided to "make it a priority to develop educational projects where responsibility was given
to local educators and local communities. It also urged that schools become open to their
communities and encouraged pluralistic values that corresponded more closely to an
increasingly diversified society" (MEQ, 1982, p. 12). Laws were also passed that "laid the

foundation for greater participation on the part of the school's partners, mainly parents"

(p.13).

 

57

The evaluations of the system of education at that time, by the Ministere de
l'Education explain the orientations taken today:

"When addressing the question of the planning and the implementation of the
educational project, which is the key to the pedagogical renewal
recommended, L'Ecole québécoise attempted to approach the problems at
their very source and proposed solutions which were just as fundamental as
resourceful. This intention was affirmed at a time when the forces of
development in our school system were inclined towards local differentiation.
For, just as in the course of the first phase of educational reform in the 60's,
democratisation had to go through a stage of concentrating powers and
resources—no equal accessibility without measure of uniformity in the rules
and without a strong cenual power to redistribute resources—in the same way
we had to initiate a return toward local responsibility and recognition of
differences. Once conditions of equality and accessibility were firmly
established and guarantees of high educational standards were consolidated
and reinforced, this very quality led us to turn boldly back to the educational
project and the local educational community" (p.14).

Then, in the 60‘s, the importance was placed on structuring a school system,
on expanding the general level of education of the population, and on accessibility. In the
70's, the orientations taken led to pedagogical questionning, the respect for cultural
diversity, and local concern. Most research was oriented toward these interests. This, in
conjunction with the objectives pursued by the schools (to be seen next), might explain the
apparent lack of interest for the effect of school related variables on achievement in this

society.

There are a few major characteristics of the Quebec schools which are
important to be aware of in order to understand the limits of this research, aspects of the
questioning, and to discuss some of the results later on.

This school system is divided into two separate sections according to the
language used in the school. The system used to be confessional in its structure with the
French schools being catholic and the English schools being protestant. This is no longer

the case. Public schools may be legally Catholic, Protestant or non-confessional. In the

58

confessional schools however, the school program takes care of spiritual matters including
either religion or moral formation as options. The latter choice, however, only became
more popular in the French schools in the eighties. There is virtually no church-run or
"parochial" schools in that part of Quebec.

There are school boards responsible for the organization of the schools in
their disuict. They function in a way similar to that which is found in the United States.
The school levels are divided into four blocks. The elementary level from K-6, the
secondary level from I-V (including general and vocational education), college level I-II or
III (including general and vocational education as well), and the university level granting
B.A. degrees after three years. Only the first two levels fall under the responsibility of
local school boards (which were, for the most part, responsible for only one level at the
time the data was collected).

The elementary schools, which concern us most here, vary according to the
number of grade levels, services offered, basic instructional material, and organizational or
pedagogical functioning. Some schools offer all grades levels, others specialize from K-3
or 4-6 or some other combination, while several schools have double-grade and sometimes
triple- grade classrooms. Special education is taken care of in several ways. Large schools
usually have special classes, but not necessarily. Some schools have "pulling-out"
practices and others integrate children totally in the regular classroom. Large city schools
will sometimes move all special students to a specific school while small rural schools
usually offer little compensatory services. Some school boards even offer a grade 7 in
some schools for students who they consider not ready to have access to the secondary
level.

Even though the MiniStere de l'Education is considered to be exerting a
strong central control (by defining the objectives, the programs to be taught in the schools,
suggesting teaching strategies to be used and textbooks, enforcing evaluation of the

students, and providing standardized assessment tests), there exists a large variety of

 

59

practices among the schools. In fact, the law on education was modified at the end of the
seventies to "reinforce the role of the school as compared with that of the school board by
giving the school the legal right to set up educational projects and provide itself with an
advisory council and by defining the authority of the school principal" (MEQ, 1982,
p. 13). The educational project refers to "the dynamic initiative by which a school,
through the concerted will of the parents, the students, the administrators and the staff,
undertakes to implement a general plan of action" (MEQ, 1979, p. 35). The functions of
this project, which have been subject to much debate (see Anderson & Rahming, no date;
Ambroise & Ouellet, 1981), reasserts the desire for diversity already implemented in much
of the schools at the time of the latter reform through active participation of the parents.
Durkheim (1956) pointed out that schools reflect the society in which they
are elaborated. Canadian Society has been characterized by its cultural diversity, and by its
comrniunent to favor cultural pluralism and to protect the rights of its minorities (Mallea &
Young, 1984; Porter, 1965). The school systems where the data for this research were
derived do not differ in this regard. The aims and objectives of public education in Quebec
show this commitment to diversity and pluralism. They may reflect local particularities, but
at the same time this has consequences for the identification of compromising cognitive
objectives to be pursued throughout the school system. Since academic achievement is not
as outspokenly asserted in Quebec as in the United States or even in English-Canada and
since local interest must be respected for its own values, the aims and objectives of the
school system cannot be translated into easily assessed statements.
The Policy Statement and Plan of Action of 1979 describes the aims and

objectives of elementary and secondary education as follows:

"Education in Québec aims at developing the personality in all its

dimensions: physical, intellectual, emotional. It has a social

dimension...[lt] aims to promote, by creating a balanced educational

environment, the development of a creative personality...to ensure the

development of a person who aspires to autonomy, fieedom and happiness;

who needs to love and to be loved; who is open to transcendental
values...considers the person as a social being, in close relation With a

60

community and groups sharing a common history and a particular
culture...should be accessible to all" (MEQ, p. 26).

"The main objectives of education in the schools...[are] to enable children
and young people to develop according to their own talents and their own
personal resources, to evolve into autonomous and creative individuals and
to prepare themselves for their role as citizens...This general objective of
education must be further refined...at the primary level, to enable the child
to develop harmoniously all the resources of his or her personality by
respecting the most fundamental values of his or her age-level, by
introducing him or her to life in a society larger than his family and his
immediate neighborhood" (p. 29).

Even when Stated more clearly, the objectives never go beyond expressions
like "acquire basic knowledge and skills" and "ensure the continued progress of the child"
(p. 30). Academic achievement is never mentioned as a pursued objective, and only the
specific programs of study (french, mathematics, social sciences, and so on) relate more
specifically to cognitive learning outcomes. This does not prevent however the daily
activities of most schools to be primarily centered on cognitive learning.

These few elements should be helpful in understanding the cultural context
in which this research was done. They should be born in mind in comparing these findings
with those from the American and Saudi Arabian societies where similar studies were done.
Among other things, the school system in Quebec seems to be much less centralized and
hierarchical than the one found in Saudi Arabia, while it overtly places much less stress on

cognitive achievement than the school system in the United States.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

111mm

This replication study uses data collected by the author in 1979 in the
schools of the Province of Quebec. The research undertaken at that time included the
material useful for such a replication in addition to data for a more diversified investigation.
The author received a grant from the Ministére de [Education to do research on elementary
schools which would focus on various forms of parental involvment in the schools, school
organizational characteristics—such as specialization, formalization, size, and technology,
—variation in the tracking practices, rural-urban differences, socioeconomic background of
the students, climate, and so forth.

This new context called for a research strategy slightly different from the
one followed by Brookover in some aspects of the sampling procedure and data collection,
but not so much as to prevent a valid comparison. The present chapter contains details
about the procedure followed as well as identifies where this study and Brookover's differ.

This chapter describes first the sample selected and its limits as far as
generalization is concerned. Second, it provides information on the research instruments
used to collect the data and on the procedure used to do so. Third, it contains a description
of the independent and dependent variables selected. Fourth, the data analysis procedure to
be followed in the next chapter is briefly introduced.

61

62
W

The schools selected for this research do not constitute a representative
sample of the schools in the province of Quebec. They were chosen only in the
northeastern part of the province of Quebec. There were specific reasons for this. First,
the author was, and is, actually working in this area. It made sense to gather information
from the regions where he was involved. Second, this area of the province provides a
large variety of population characteristics which allow for important variations in the
schools to be selected in a relatively small area. For economical reasons, and to gather a
sample different enough to provide information on all of the variables identified originally
in the study, it was important to find this variety close by. But how distinct is it, exactly,

from a sample which would have been collected in the total territory?

W

The main characteristic of the population of the Province of Quebec is its
uneven geographical distribution. Montreal and Quebec City are the only two big cities and
a large majority of the inhabitants live within a radius of about 100 miles around Montreal
in the south of the province. The other regions share the rest of the population which is
largely dispersed throughout the territory where we find medium-sized cities, and where
most of the adminisuative services are concenuated. The sample was collected in the area
outside of Montreal which is located in the northeast of the province. It includes four
natural regions: 1) metropolitan Quebec and its surroundings which are characterized by
urban population and satellite cities; 2) the Bas-St-Laurent-Gaspésie region on the south
shore of the St-Lawrence River includes many small villages, few important cities and is
described as socioeconomically disadvantaged; 3) the COte-Nord on the north shore of the
River which is a newly developed area with rapidly growing industrialized cities

surrounded by small poor villages; 4) the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean, north of Quebec City,

63

which includes several mid-sized industrialized cities located fairly close to one another and
relatively flourishing agricultural sectors.

These regions provided the necessary variety for the research and their
characteristics altogether render them comparable with the rest of the province on most
grounds. It does not, however, for research on education. As mentioned in the previous
chapter, schools in Quebec are divided according to the language used in the classrooms.
The areas retained for the selection of the sample are characterized by their primarily french-
speaking schools. They are, in fact, rather homogeneous in several ways compared with
the south of the province. Only a small percentage of the population is anglophone,
protestant, and non French-Canadian in origin. This sample includes almost exclusively
French-Canadian children of this part of the province registered in french public elementary
schools where the roman-catholic religion is predominant.

The sample includes a total of 61 schools out of the 1,621 identified in the
records of french public elementary schools for the year 1978-1979 in Quebec. These are
institutional schools which means that they identify school entities under the responsibility
of one principal, even if more than one building is concerned. This is frequently the case in
rural areas where one principal takes charge of two or three small schools located several
miles apart in small towns. As can be seen in Table 1, there are 551 schools in the regions
where the sample was chosen.

All schools identified in the sample participated in the research even if the
data cannot be used with all variables. The schools selected had agreed to take the
provincial assessment tests at the end of the year as part of their conuibution to the study.
This test was strongly encouraged to schools at that time but not enforced by the Ministére
de l’Education . This resulted in some schools not using them at the end of the year. The
main reasons for this withdrawal were their beliefs that testing students with standardized
tests was inappropriate or their expressed concerns for developmental objectives over the

cognitive achievements measured by the tests. This consequence had been anticipated and

64

the 50 original schools thought necessary for this research were increased to allow for
dismissal. Out of the 61 schools, 5 chose not to take the achievement tests. This outcome
is measured on 56 schools in the data analysis chapter. A brief study of these excluded
schools shows no particular bias in the reduced sample since these schools have different
characteristics. All of the other variables could be used in the whole sample. All principals

participated, 331 teachers returned the questionnaires and 5330 students were questioned.

TABLE 1

POPULATION DATA CONCERNING THE FRENCH PUBLIC ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS‘ OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC AND THE SCHOOLS SAMPLED

 

Characteristic Size

 

Total Number of French Public Elementary Schools

in Quebec in 1978-79 1,621
Total Number of French Public Elementary Schools

in 197 8-79 in the Districts Involved 551
Number of Schools Participating 61
Number of Students Participating 5,330
Number of Teachers Participating 331
Number of Principals Participating 61

 

‘ These are instiurtional schools. These schools are under the responsibility of one principal and may
concern more than one building.

Table 2 shows the disuibution of the schools among the regions selected.
Two regions—Saguenay-Lac-Jean and COte-Nord—were regrouped because they share
similar population characreristics. Twenty schools were selected in each area with the
exception of the Bas-St-Laurent-Gaspésie where one school was added at the end. (It
consists of one school which was used as a final rehearsal for the research team. It was

decided that the data could be integrated in the study because there was no indication that it

65

TABLE 2

POPULATION DATA CONCERNING THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF THE
SCHOOLS' SAMPLED

 

 

Geographic Total N. of N. of Schools N. of School
Location Schools in 78-79“ Sampled Districts Involved
Bas-St-Laurent-Gaspésie 84 21 8
Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean, COte~Nord 148 20 13
Quebec City and Area 319 20 8

TOtal 551 61 29

 

" These are institutional schools. These schools are under the responsibility of one principal and may
concern more than one building.

"‘ Data obtained from: Ministere dc l'Education du Quebec. Statistiques de l'Enseignement 1978-79,
Repertoire des organismes et des écoles. Gouvernement du Quebec, 1979, p.5.

was any different from the data obtained in the other schools.) The number of schools
selected in each region is not proportional to the total number of schools. Each area was
selected for its characteristics and each provided schools corresponding to the available
features. Finally, several school districts were included in each area to insure a variation in

the practices.

Sampling meeduge

In order to achieve variability in the sample, the schools were chosen
according to their position along several continua. The dimensions which were expected to
provide variations in the sample are the following: 1) size of the student body; 2) number
of grades offered; 3) level of urbanization of the community; 4) socioeconomic
characteristics of the pOpulation surrounding the school; 5) teachers' qualifications; 6)

innovativeness of the school; and 7) type of ledership exerted by the principal.

66

The data used to make the first selection came from the Ministére de
l'Education . It was possible to differentiate, based on this primary information, districts
and sectors according to several socioeconomic characteristics of the family
households. Once the districts were chosen in each area, the head of each school board and
civil servants of theMinistere involved in running the schools were consulted to
identify schools which would have the desired characteristics. This resulted in a sample
including large, rural, modern, qualified schools as well as small, traditional, low SES,
urban schools, and all possible mixes in most regions.

This type of sampling introduces differences from Brookover's samples. In
Brookover's study, the state sample was chosen at random and all schools selected
included fourth and fifth graders. In this study, besides direct identification of the selected
units, schools vary extensively so far as the number of grades surveyed is concerned, as
shown on Table 3. All schools with the exception of two had fifth graders but their
compositions vary for the other grades. Data were obtained first from fifth graders, next
from sixth graders, and then from fourth graders in order to gather enough responses in
each school. Some third and seventh graders had to be included because they were mixed
with students of other grades in the schools. This table also shows a large variation in the
size of the student body in the schools and in the number of full-time teachers. The mean
number of students visited in each school was 87.4 and ranges from 38 to 112. The
number of teachers participating varied from school to school but in all cases, with the
exception of four schools where some responses are missing, all teachers in charge of the

visited classrooms responded to the questionnaire.

W

The data for this study were obtained from four main sources: 1) a student

questionnaire administered to pupils of the second cycle of the elementary level; 2) a

 

- .l

 

 

 

67
TABLE 3

POPULATION DATA CONCERNING THE SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING "

 

Grade Levels
Sch. F-T Part. School Part. Part.
No“ Teach. Teach. Size Stud. 3 4 5 6 7 Class.

 

l 10 5 230 100 1 1 1 4

2 10 7 260 96 1 1 1 4

3 10 8 180 87 1 1 1 1 4

4 3 3 140 63 1 1 1 3

5 26 6 590 100 1 1 4

6 16 10 310 82 1 4

7 14 11 300 91 1 4

8 7 3 130 66 i ll: 313 3

9 27 14 490 87 1 1 1 4
10 16 2 310 85 1 1 4
1 1 l9 7 360 109 1 1 4
12 22 7 450 89 1 1 4
13 l l 5 290 89 1 1 4
l4 7 3 110 47 1 1 1 3
15 7 4 140 79 1 1 1 1 4
16 12 5 290 93 1 1 1 4
l7 6 3 100 52 1 1 1 1 3
18 34 13 810 104 1 4
l9 8 3 220 83 1 1 1 3
20 3 2 50 40 1 1 1 1 1 2
21 6 3 150 68 1 1 1 1 3
22 15 4 300 90 1 1 1 4
23 10 4 230 85 1 1 1 4
24 13 4 290 92 1 1 1 4
25 12 4 310 85 1 1 4
26 14 3 350 106 1 1 4
27 8 4 200 85 11 1 4
28 10 4 270 112 1 1 4
29 9 3 180 88 I: i 4
30 7 4 230 100 1 1 4

 

" Column titles read as follows: 1) School Number. 2) Number of Full-Time teachers in the School.
3) Number of Teachers in Each School Participating in the Study. 4) Size of the Suldent Body in ten.
5) Number of Students in Each School Participating in the Study. 6) Grade Levels of enrolment of
students Participating. 7) Number of Classes Involved in Each School.

" Table continued on next page.

68
TABLE 3 (Continued)

 

Grade Levels
Sch. F—T Part. School Part. Part.
No"I Teach. Teach. Size Stud. 3 4 5 6 7 Class.

 

31 27 4 620 95 1 1 4
32 26 7 700 89 1 4
33 19 4 520 97 1 1 4
34 13 4 310 92 1 1 1 4
35 19 6 490 94 1 1 4
36 25 4 570 80 1 1 4
37 7 2 180 38 1 1 1 2
38 19 6 480 103 1 1 4
39 12 6 240 102 1 1 4
40 21 10 590 101 1 4
41 16 6 380 107 1 1 4
42 12 3 320 92 1 1 4
43 12 7 230 88 1 1 4
44 22 8 420 103 1 4
45 10 5 270 87 1 1 1 4
46 9 9 240 108 1 4
47 5 3 110 63 1 1 1 1 1 3
48 13 6 320 100 1 1 4
49 12 4 280 98 1 1 1 4
50 3 2 6O 38 1 1 1 1 2
51 9 3 240 87 1 1 1 3
52 8 4 170 69 1 1 1 1 4
53 19 6 480 109 1 1 4
54 19 7 450 98 1 1 4
55 18 5 480 103 1 1 4
56 15 6 300 83 1 1 1 4
57 23 10 590 97 1 1 1 4
58 10 3 160 52 1 1 1 3
59 22 10 550 110 1 1 4
60 5 5 120 93 1 1 4
61 24 8 440 101 1 1 4
Total 848 331 19,580 5330 46 560 28271839 52 227

 

" Column titles read as follows: 1) School Number. 2) Number of Full-Time teachers in the School.
3)Number of Teachers in Each School Participating in the Study. 4) Size of the Student Body in ten.
5)Number of Students in Each School Participating in the Study. 6) Grade Levels of enrolment of
students Participating. 7) Number of Classes Involved in Each School

69

teacher questionnaire administered to teachers of these students and other full-time teachers
of the school; 3) a principal questionnaire responded to by the administrator in charge of

each school; and 4) a principal interview.

Instruments

The three self-administered questionnaires and the interview questionnaire
contained the sets of variables developed by Brookover et al. as they appear in School
Social Systems and Student Achievement (1979). These variables assess school social
climate, self-concept of academic ability, several aspects of the school social structure, and
input characteristics.

These variables were translated and adapted for the school system of the
Province of Quebec. The main modifications which had to be included, after some pre-
testing experiments in regular schools and classrooms of the area, concern: 1) adjustments
to the identification of school levels (for example, the vocational stream at the secondary
level had to be included, going to college means going to the university, it takes three years
to obtain a B.A., and so on); 2) the significant levels of future school expectations had to
be reduced considerably (going to "college" is not as value-laden as it is in the United
States); 3) the use of the word "academic achievement" and of direct comparisons with
peers had to be presented with care. Considering the importance placed on integral child
development as a major objective in the school system and the belief that personal
improvement does not occur as a result of competition and comparison in the eyes of the
school staff in several schools, the use of cognitive achievement and comparison
propositions were made with much care. This problem was visible mostly in teachers'
reactions and in some principal's comments. Some schools even refused to participate in
the study knowing that these aspects were considered, and some of the sampled schools

which refused to use the state assessment test later on did it for the same reason. The

70

verifications made on the responses obtained do not show, however, any difficulty with the
wording of the questionnaires. These adaptations from the original instruments do not
appear to significantly modify the meanings supported by Brookover's instruments.
Copies of the English and French versions of these questionnaires can be found in
Appendix A.

The student questionnaire contains almost exclusively measures of climate,
self-concept, father's occupation, and student's views of the open-closed characteristics of
the classroom. The teacher's questionnaire includes social climate variables and various
aspects used as measures of school social structure (grouping practices, teaching strategies,
parental involvment in their classroom, hierarchy of authority in their school, and their
views of the open-closed characteristics of their classroom).

The principals were considered as important informants on several school
organizational characteristics besides school climate. Since this study originally included
the measurement of these aspects in the schools, the principals were given two distinct
instruments. A self-responded questionnaire measured their climate position,
qualifications, time allocation, and parental participation in the running of the school. An
interview was used to collect data on a large variety of school inputs, grouping practices,
standardization, formalization of school teaching and organizational practices, and so forth.
These aspects were expected to vary considerably between schools. The interview was
considered the apprOpriate method to understand the subtleties of school organizational
pracrices in order to be able to compare schools on such matters. The instrument used for
the codification of the interviews can be found in appendix A. It should be noted,

however, that a lot of the material included there is not used in the present study.

71
cameraman

Authorization to enter schools for survey purposes had to be obtained in
several different ways. Each school board head was contacted first. In some cases he
directed schools to open their doors, while in other cases, a resolution from the school
board was necessary. In most situations, he directed the author to the school principal
directly who consulted with his staff before agreeing to participate. A written description
of the research to be undertaken was made available for this consultation.

The data from school participants were collected during the month of April
1979 in the selected schools. The questionnaires and interviews were administered by a
research Staff since it was impossible for the author to survey 61 schools in a short period
of time for such distant schools. Three former teachers living in each of the main regions
involved in the study collected the data. Intensive training was given to the group in order
to standardize the collection methods.

The interviewers spent a day in each school in order to gather as many of
the responses as possible on the spot. The principal was given his questionnaire at the
beginning of the day and it was collected at the end. Student questionnaires were
administered in the presence of the research staff. This was useful in making sure the
questions were well understood and the responses entered correctly. This was particularly
important for identifying the father's occupations where the staff provided much help to
younger students. The teacher was asked to leave the room during this period and to
answer his or her questionnaire immediately. A copy of the questionnaire was offered to
all other teachers in the school and the completed copies were collected at the end of the
day. The interview with the principal usually occured after regular school hours to avoid
disturbance. The responses were entered by the interviewer on a prepared sheet with ample
room for added comments. Whenever possible or feasible, data taken directly from a file

were used instead of the principal's approximation. When the principal could not give

72

straight immediate answers to quantitative questions, he was left with an extra
questionnaire including a list of items to be described and returned later on. All principals
cooperated in this process and most data were available for ueatment.

Finally, information for the academic achievement outcome variable was
Obtained with the cooperation of the Ministere de I'Education from computer files of

school level data collected in these schools at the end of the school year.

1151 lli'll 51.1

The problem stated by this study calls for the measurement of three sets of
school social system variables over two school outcomes. These independent variables
include (1) school inputs, (2) school social system, and (3) school social climate variables.
They were described as being linked together and as having an impact on (1) student
academic achievement and (2) student self-concept when school is considered as the unit of
analysis. The operational definitions of the variables are now described as they were used

in this study.

In nnV'l

I In ' l

The input variables are composed of two sets which were utilized
independently and as a cluster in the present research. They are composed of: 1) social
composition of the student body and 2) characteristics of the school and of the teachers
involved into the social system.

(1) Social composition of the student body is identified in this study as the
mean socioeconomic status background of children in the school. It is based on the
father’s (or other main breadwinner's) occupation of students included in the study. The

occupation was obtained from the students' questionnaires as identified by the children. As

73

mentioned earlier, the research staff provided necessary assistance to students in describing
as precisely as possible the nature of this occupation. This information was rated on
Blishen’s Socioeconomic Index for Occupations in Canada (1967) as revised by Blishen
and Mc Roberts (1976). The authors used the same method as the one developed by
Duncan in the United States to elaborate this socioeconomic class scale which constitutes
the most widely used technique in Canada for this purpose. It ranges from 14 to 75. Since
most farmers in the area covered by this study do not correspond to the characteristics
usually found in farmers measured by this scale, their score was reduced to represent more
precisely the low status of this group in Quebec. The score retained for this study is the
average of all scores attributed to children's responses in each school. This provides a
mean school SES score.

(2) The second set of inputs is identified as other inputs. This measure is
composed of 6 variables. The first three variables are related to characteristics of the staff
working in the classrooms. First (1) is the mean of teacher's salaries in the school.
Second (2) is the mean number of total years of teaching experience of the teachers in the
school and third (3) is the mean number of years of teacher training in the school. The next
two variables are related to the number of persons in the school. The first (4) identifies the
size of the school student body transformed into log size. The second variable in this
group (5) is the ratio of the number of professional personnel per 100 students in the
school. It includes full-time teachers, part-time teachers, and specialized personnel
engaged in teaching activities in the school. Part-time employees were transformed as full-
time equivalents to allow for comparison between schools. The data for these other input
variables are based on principal's records. The last variable considered as an "other input"
(6) is the quantity of technological material available in the school. It was established from
the principal's list of the audio—visual material and computing instruments present in the

school at the time of the data collection. This material was weighted for sophistication

 

 

 

 

74

before computation. Elaborate gear like computers, television sets and film projectors
received more weight than record players or reuoprojectors.

In several of the analysis reported later on, these "other inputs" variables are
combined to provide a single measure identified as "Combined Other Inputs". This
measure is based on the summation of the standard score calculated for each variable.
These variables were given a score of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. The inclusion of
these six variables as an index is based on the correlations between the variables "as well as
the variables' common usage as a measure of school inputs" (Brookover et al., 1979,
p. 14). As far as comparison is concerned, all these variables appear in Brookover's list
with the exception of technological material. Two variables are missing—average daily
attendence of the student body (which was not usable) and the percentage of teachers in the
school with graduate degrees. This last variable was measured but deemed useless for

discrimination purposes.

II h i l V ' l

The social structure of the school refers to social stratification, patterns of
relationships, and status-role definitions prevailing within the school. It involves many
different variables which were grouped with the help of a factor analysis to be described in
the fourth chapter. Seven sets of variables had to be identified to characterize school social
structure in the schools sampled. These dimensions do not correspond totally to what
Brookover has used in the United States but they identify these aspects of school internal
functionings which were reported to contribute to differences in school outcomes in
Michigan and other similar studies. The seven variables describing the social structure of
interaction among school personnel appear in the following paragraphs. The specific items
are grouped in Appendix B and can be traced in the various questionnaires shown in

Appendix A.

75

(1) Open and closed characteristics of the school and of the classroom refer
to the level of freedom allowed in the school and to the diversity in daily arrangements
within an open or closed type of classroom organization. Four items in each of the student
and principal questionnaires, and five in the teacher questionnaire were retained for the
composition of that variable. They determine (a) the extent to which students are permitted
to move about the school or the classroom without permission, (b) the extent to which
students are all working on the same lesson at the same time, (c) the extent to which
students are free to express their views in the school and talk to others in the classroom,
((1) the extent to which seating arrangements are modified, and (e) the frequency with
which teachers meet with parents individually out of the regular prescribed meetings. The
standard scores of the responses to the thirteen items used were combined to provide a
measure of the degree to which schools and classrooms are open or closed in each school.

(2) Standardization of the processes and of the material used in the school is
meant to identify the level of expected similarity in the school system. Eight items fiom the
principal's interview measured this aspect. They concerned: (a) the extent to which the
content is organized so that each individual student is exposed to the same material as the
others at each grade level and at the end of his stay at the elementary level; (b) the extent to
which teachers are using the same books, texts, and teaching material at each grade level
and the extent to which the written texts must be seen by all students; (c) the extent to
which the same school-made assessment tests are used for all students at each grade level
and for each topic; and (d) the extent to which subjective evaluation is present in the
school. The standard scores of the responses to the eight items used were combined to
provide a measure of the degree of standardization in the school processes. Standardization
is high when similar material, content, and objective evaluation strategies are used at each
grade level and when each student is equally exposed to them.

(3) Principal's time devoted to parents and teacher's time oriented toward

formal instruction refer to the time allotted in the school by the principal and the teachers to

76

structure their activities. Among the various daily activities of these actors, several concern
administrative duties while others are oriented more toward pedagogical concerns. These
may affect the school's social structure in more than one way by modifying the patterns of
interaction. The six items which could be selected from the factor analysis on that variable
address the relationships between the principal and the community and the the dealings of
the teachers with their class in terms of efforts allocated to these activities. The items come
from all three written questionnaires and include: (a) the percent of principal's time devoted
to the community and parents, and the number of meetings he has monthly with parents to
discuss the children; (b) teacher's time devoted to classroom or small group instruction;
(c) the active role of the teacher in running the classrom according to teachers and students.
Some items which were expected to be associated with the open-closed characteristics of
the classroom turned out to be more appropriate here. This explains why some of the items
resemble those described previously. The standard scores of the responses to the six items
used were combined as a measure of staff time allocation to academic activities and parents
concerns in the school daily activities.

(4) Similarity of the objectives pursued in the school measures the
standardization of the teaching objectives. It differs from the standardization of processes
and materials described as the second social suucture variable in the sense that it refers to
the diversity of teaching-role expectations for teachers. Three principal items and one
teacher item measured (a) the extent to which the teaching objectives are the same for all
teachers and all students at the same grade level, and (b) the extent to which the teaching
objectives are the same for all students in the same class. The standard scores of the
responses to the four items used were combined as a measure of standardization of teaching
objectives in the school.

(5) Practical parental involvement in the school concerns the relationship
parents have with the daily activities of the classrooms. The participation of parents in the

school takes various forms. In some schools, they favor only political participation, in

77

others they take an active part in the running of the school and of the classrooms.
Sometimes they collaborate with the teachers in their daily activities, and, at times, they
limit their participation to general meetings and/or home support. Several questions
measured these aspects in each school but could not be included in the present research
with the exception of practical parental involvement in the classrooms. None of the other
measures related significantly to one another. Practical parental involvement, however,
was measured by a Guttrnan type scale assessing the level of parents participation in
classroom activities and came out as such in the analysis. Five questions from the teachers'
questionnaires measured the frequency with which parents provided help (a) monitoring or
taxiing students when the classroom went on trips, (b) during workshops in the
classroom, (c) during teaching activities, (d) with slow learners, and (e) taking
responsibility for a regular classroom activity oriented toward instruction. The sum of the
response scores to the five items used were combined as a measure of the parents'
involvement in the practical classroom activities.

(6) Differentiation of the students in the school and in the classroom is a
widely discussed variable about the social structure of the schools. It indicates the degree
to which students are classified or differentiated in the school in a way that is conducive to
differentiation in student instructional programs and to the separation of students in various
categories. Two responses from the teachers' questionnaires and one from the principals'
interviews were used to measure differentiation in the school. Teachers were asked to
report about (a) the extent of homogeneous grouping according to ability in their school
when forming classes at the beginning of the year, and (b) the extent of grouping
according to ability in their own classroom when doing team work. Responses were:
homogeneous grouping according to ability on all school subjects, homogeneous grouping
according to ability in some subjects (e.g. french, math., and so forth), heterogeneous
grouping according to ability on all school subjects, heterogeneous grouping according to

ability in some subjects (e.g. french, math., and so forth), random grouping , or no

78

intentional grouping. Responses were coded so that homogeneous grouping was
differentiated from the Other four responses. Thus, it measures the differences in school
practice with regard to homogeneous grouping according to ability in contrast with other
grouping practices. The principal was asked the extent to which individualized teaching is a
common practice in the school. It has been taken into consideration that differentiation will
occur when students have different curricula or different learning paces. The standard
scores of the responses to the three items used were combined as a measure of
differentiation of the students in the school.

(7) Centralization of the decision-making in the school refers to the
hierarchy of authority in the school social structure. It is measured by teachers' and
principals' evaluations in reference to decision-making in the school. Teachers were asked
(a) to identify the locus of decision on 18 items (hiring new teachers, selecting substitutes,
selecting a process for teacher and student evaluation, determining methods and techniques
for teaching, determining school policies concerning student discipline, and so forth), and
to rate them according to the following: principal makes the decision alone or follows the
advice of the school board, principal consults teachers but makes final decision, principal
and teachers make a collective decision, group of teachers make decision with or without
principal's views, teachers make decision individually. The sum of scores of the responses
to the eighteen items suggested were considered as a measure of teachers' opinion on the
centralization of the decision-making in the school. Five items from the principal's
interview questioned the extent (b) to which he (alone or following the advice of the school
board) or the teachers by themselves make decision on classrooms working plans, teaching
methods and material to be used in the classroom, taking care of the evaluation of the
teachers and determining criteria for the evaluation of the teachers. The sum of scores of
the responses to the five items suggested were considered as a measure of the principal's

Opinion on the centralization of the decision-making in the school. The standard scores of

79

the responses to these two correlated indexes were combined as a measure of centralization
of authority in the school.

These seven social structure variables wil be examined in relation to one
another in the next chapter. In some analysis, a "Combined Social Structure" will be
referred to. It is a composite variable made of the summation of standard scores obtained
for each social structure variable. These variables were given a score of O and a standard

deviation of l.

HISIIEI'U 1:.”

The variables used to measure school academic climate are derived from
those used by Brookover and his colleagues in Michigan. The items were taken from the
questionnaires written for Students, teachers, and principals in the last developmental stage
of their study (1979). Most items were kept, but some had to be modified in order to
correspond to the organization of the school system in Quebec. Some words and sentences
were not directly translated because of the meaning they carry in french, and a few
equivalent items were added to cover aspects thought to be important to measure school
climate in this province. The translation of the items in the English version of the
questionnaires in Appendix A and the items included in each set of variables used in
Appendix B Show where the differences were made. In general however, the set of items
proposed to respondents corresponded to Brookover's. The resulting factor analysis of
these items shows 14 climate variables. This is the number obtained in Michigan even
though some factors are a bit different and are not composed of the same set of items. Each
item was responded to on a five-point scale and the value of each variable comes from the
summation of total item scores which were modified in some cases to fit the same
continuum of positive or negative orientations.

(1) The student climate variables were identified as (a) Student Future

Evaluations and Expectations: this variable refers to how students perceive their friends,

80

teachers and parents believe they will succeed later in school and their own perspectives on
this matter; (b) Student Sense of Academic Futility: this variable indicates the extent to
which students feel there is nothing they can do about their own success and that school
impedes their own ability to succeed in schoolwork (values for these items were reversed
so that a high score indicates a low sense of academic futility); (c) Student Academic
Norms: this variable refers to the pressure for schoolwork felt by respondants coming
from other students in the school; ((1) Student Present Evaluations and Expectations for
High School: this variable measures 1) the students' actual evaluation of the school and of
themselves, 2) students' expected performance in high school, 3) how students perceive
teachers and parents evaluate their actual performance, and expect them to succeed at the
elementary level; (e) Student Perception of Teacher Push and Teacher Norms: this variable
refers to how students perceive the teachers in their school to be concerned with their
learning and how committed they are.

(2) Teacher climate was measured by five variables. The grouping obtained
from the factor analysis differ slightly from Brookover's, even though the same items were
used. These variations will be analyzed in Chapter IV. In this research, the variables
retained are (a) Teacher Future Expectations for Students: this variable refers to the
expectations teachers have for high school, college and university completion for the
students in their school and classroom, and their perceptions of principal's and parents'
attitude in these matters; (b) Teacher Present School Evaluation: this variable indicates
how teachers rate students academic ability in their school, their perception of principal's
rating and of parents' concern for top quality education; (c) Teacher Determination with
Having Student Succeed: this variable measures various forms of reported teachers
commitment to academic success and their encouragement to the students for higher grade
levels; ((1) Teacher Perception of Student's commitment to success: this variable measmes
how teachers perceive students in their school to be concerned with their schoolwork and

their grades; (e) Teacher Present Evaluation of Students and Sense of Fatalism: this

81

variable refers to l) teacher's perceptions of the students' academic capacity in their school
and to their influence on that matter, 2) to their perceptions of the principal's evaluation of
the students, and 3) to their perceptions of parents' concerns for the school and their child's
success.

(3) There are four principal climate variables. They came out from the
factor analysis as (a) Principal's Expectations and Perceptions of Parents' Expectations:
this variable measures how far in school the principal expects students to go and his
perceptions of parents expectations in reference to this subject; (b) Principal's Present
Evaluations of the Students and of the School: this variable refers to the principal's
academic rating of the students in his school as compared with other schools and his
perceptions of parents' feeling about achievement; (0) Principal's Feelings of
Responsibility for Success: this variable indicates to what point the principal is committed
to having students in his school succeed and feels it is his responsibility to work toward
this end; (d) Principal's Perception of the Interest of the Parents with School Matters: this
variable refers to the perceptions of the principal about parents' interest in the school and
with the education of their children.

These fourteen climate variables will be examined in relation to one another
in the next chapter. In some later analysis, a "Combined School Climate" will be referred
to. It is a composite variable made of the summation of scores obtained for each social

climate variable in each school.

nnV'le

As indicated in the hypotheses and in the model presented in Figure 1
(Chapter 1), two dependent variables have been retained in this study: (1) mean school

academic achievement and (2) mean school self-concept.

82

(1) Academic achievement was measured in the province of Quebec in 1979
by tests given to 3rd graders and 6th graders in each school of the province which agreed to
do so. The majority of the schools administered them to students as was the case for 56
out of the 61 schools included in the sample. Several tests were distributed to schools for
use but they were not all available for both grade levels. The most widely used tests
included IQ tests, French reading, French writing, mathematics, and english as a foreign
language. These tests were based on the topics expected to be taught in each school as
stated in the specific subject programs elaborated on by the Ministére de l'Education . The
Ministere developed the tests, assessed their validity and corrected the tests. These
national examinations insured that a reliable comparison could be made between schools on
such academic achievements. Several researchers have shown that the use of this kind of
national test results accurate cues as to the effects of schooling (Rutter et al. , 1979; Madaus
et al., 1979).

For the present study, French reading, French writing, and mathematics
tests given to 6th graders were used. These tests are the most frequently used and measme
basic learning appropriate to the elementary level. One may question the validity of
measuring only cognitive outcomes when so many other important objectives are pursued
in the schools as was described in Chapter II. In fact, in Quebec, as in the United States,
most of the daily activities of the classrooms are centered on cognitive learning and the
other objectives are worked out during academic activities. 6th graders were chosen over
3rd graders for three reasons: 1) many schools are reluctant to test children at that low
grade level which would have resulted in missing data; 2) several schools in the sample
included only children from grades 4 through 6; 3) finally, and most important, chances
are that the measures obtained from older students reflect a truer school effect since
students have been socialized for a longer period of time in the sub-culture of each school.
The limitation introduced by the use of achievement data only from sixth graders while

students from Other grades were over-represented in the sample creates a bias but its

83
validity has not been challenged so far. In fact, Hannan et al., (1976) report no difference

between the results at one grade and the results for the entire school as far as mean
academic achievement is concerned.

Analysis of the intercorrelations among the school mean test scores revealed
correlations of .70 minimum on these three achievements. The mean school scores on each
test were standardized, and added, and a mean school score was obtained. It was given a
mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 30. It is impossible to know if this disuibution of
mean academic achievement scores between schools is greater than the differences which
could have been observed within schools because individual data was not available for such
a computation. The original unweighted school scores for the three tests range from 27 to
66. These scores have a mean of 49.5 and a standard deviation of 9.05.

(2) Self-concept of academic ability was described in the second chapter as
the perception a student has of himself as a student and it is viewed as a social product
developed through social interaction as is the case for school climate. It is measured in the
present study with the self-concept of academic ability scale developed at Michigan State
University by Brookover and others (1967) and as used in the school social system study
(1979).

The eight items used to measure self-concept of academic ability will be
found in Appendix B. They refer "to student's conception of himself as a student and in
comparison with other classmates and students whom he knows" (Brookover et al., 1979,
p. 24). The original items were used but adapted for the context of the schools in Quebec
as was the case for the items comprising school climate. The Guttrnan split-half correlation
coefficient provided a reliability of .82 for this self-concept scale.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to test the
differences in means for self-concept of academic ability between schools. This was
possible for this dependent variable because individual data were available. Table 4 shows

that this variable differentiates schools among them at a significant level.

84

TABLE 4

ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE MEANS OF SELF-CONCEPT OF
ACADEMIC ABILITY IN THE 61 SCHOOLS SAMPLED

 

 

 

Source Sum of Mean F F
of Variation Squares DF Squares Ratio Probability
Between Schools 67.6908 60 1.1282 3.156 .0000
Within Schools 1884.0328 5271 .3574
Total 1951.7236 5331

All i

One of the main features of this research is its reference to school related
data. Researchers used to individual level data may fail to understand the significance of
the results unless the method used is clearly expressed. This research focused on the
school as a higher unit of analysis in order to question a true school effect associated with
social background of the student body and school's internal system characteristics of the
kind identified above. It was hypothesized that these school characteristics 1) would
differentiate schools, 2) would be related to school level outcomes, and 3) would show
relationships among themselves.

Some variables like size of the student body and number of teachers in the
school were obviously relevant to a school level analysis because they were direct unitary
measures collected at that level. Most others had to be computed. All input variables came
from the principal's files with the exception of the childrens' father's occupation. No
further computation was necessary for most input variables since a single piece of
information was provided. Teacher's salary, experience in the school, and years of

training had been transformed to a school mean prior to returning the information to the

85

research staff. Ratio of professional personnel per 100 students was computer processed
from school data and the quantity of technological material was established as described in
this chapter from the principals' files. School academic achievement is also a school level
variable originating from school mean results on provincial examinations.

All social structure, social climate, and self-concept variables come from
individual data aggregated at the school level. The first step consisted of obtaining for each
individual a score on each item included in the study. It should be remembered that some
items are made up of several indicators. When an indicator was missing, its value was
replaced by the mean score of all Other indicators for that respondent. When more that 66%
of the responses were missing for a respondent, his result was considered to be missing
data. Descriptive statistics were applied to these results for principals, teachers, and
students on all variables. This led to the exclusion of some items which did not
discriminate enough and others which showed too many missing data.

The second step provided aggregated data for each school. Each individual
item score was added at each school and divided by the number of respondants to arrive at
a school mean for that item. Then, the values of each school item were added to obtain a
school score for each variable. In a few instances, principal or teacher data were not
available for computation in a school score. Since the scores are based on few informants
and two or three items on some variables, when an item score was missing, its value was
replaced by the mean score of the school. The school data used in this study are then single
data for 61 schools aggregated from the responses of 5,330 students, 331 teachers and 61
principals.

Table 5 shows school means and standard deviations of the school level
variables included in the study. Besides "other inputs" variables, social suucture variables,
and mean school achievement (which were standardized for computation and could not
reveal Operational variations), it is clear that there exist important differences among

schools on most variables measured in the study. Although individual student or teacher

86

TABLE 5

MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF MEAN SCHOOL VARIABLES

 

 

Variable Mean Standard Deviation
Mean SES 38.64 8.589
Other Inputs' 0.00 1.000
Sega} Smemre Variables. 0.00 1.000
S l , C]. If . l l
1. Future Evaluations and Expectations 39.21 2.367
2. Sense of Academic Futility 40.91 2.272
3. Academic Norms 26.27 1.331
4. Present Eval. and Expectations for H. S. 31.33 .884
5. Perceptions of Teach. Push & Norms 29.69 1.060
I l , :1. If . l l
1. Future Expectations for Students 37.72 6.285
2. Present School Evalaluation 21.68 2.390
3. Determination w/Having Stud. Succwd 18.69 2.813
4. Percept. of Stud. Commitment to Success 22.68 2.456
5. Present Evaluation of Students

and Sense of Fatalism 19.151 2.844
E°°I'Cl° II.”
I. Expect. and Percept. of Parents Expect. 18.12 3.387
2. Present Eval. of Students & School 24.88 3.090
3. Feelings of Responsibility for Success 17.05 2.459
4. Percept. of Parents' Interest w/School 12.45 1.622
Combined Climate Variables 359.82 17.361
Qllmutiadablas
Mean School Achievement' 100.00 30.000
Mean School Self-Concept 3.48 0.113

 

"' These variables have been standardized for computation.

87

perceptions may vary within a school, this dispersion of results among different schools
lends credence to the possibility that there exist school differences with regard to those
characteristics. The next chapter will try to demonstrate the relationships among these
school variables and their distinctive impact on school outcomes through correlation and
multiple regression analysis.

Finally, the analysis will regularly refer to two different sub-samples taken
from the 61 schools. A "High SES School" sub-sample will identify those schools
attended by students originating from majority high socioeconomic backgrounds and a
"Low SES School" sub-sample will identify those schools attended by students originating
from majority low socioeconomic backgrounds. There are several reasons for this
procedure. First, the review of the relevant literature showed frequent references to
idiosyncratic results obtained on school effects when particular societies or characteristics
of the samples were considered and in some cases, this was enough to alter the general
findings of the study. Brookover's study also demonstrated variations on the effect of
different clusters of variables on achievement among majority white and majority black
samples and among high SES and Low SES majority white school samples. These
variations by themselves added to the belief that schools make a difference since the effect
is not equivalent everywhere.

Second, Quebec has been traditionally characterized by its low
socioeconomic population and a relatively differentiated elite (Guindon, 1964) as expressed
in the second chapter. Things have changed over the years but the early stratification of the
population along these lines between the cities and the rural areas have not completely
disappeared along with their cultural differences. These two sub-samples should show the
differences if there are any as to the effects of the school and serve as a control for the main
observations.

Schools were divided at the mean of the distribution. The low SES school

sub-sample shows a range of 11.5, from 27.1 to the mean of the distribution (38.64); the

88

high SES school sub-sample varies from 38.65 to 66.4 with a range of 27.8. The
disuibution is rather skewed for that last sub-sample, but since only 5 schools scored
above the 50 point mark, the range of the variations is not as large as it appears to be at first
glance. These sub-samples will include 28 schools each when academic achievement will
be considered due to missing data for 5 of the schools for that variable. Self-concept will
be measured over 31 low SES schools and 30 high SES schools.

Table 6 shows each variable mean when the computation described before is
done for each sub-sample. The probability that the means differ between sub-samples is
significant for half of the other input variables, two social Structures variables, several
climate variables, and mean school achievement. According to these observations, chances

are that the variables identified in this study vary among schools.

89

 

 

 

TABLE 6
TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE OF MEANS BETWEEN HIGH SES
AND LOW SES SCHOOLS
School Mean
Variables High SES Sch. Low SES Sch. Probl.
Innutlarlalzlcs
Other Inputs
1. Mean Teachers Salary .113 -.110 .385
2. Mean Years Of Teachers' Experience -.012 .012 .926
3. Mean Years Of Teachers' Training -.022 .021 .866
4. Size of the Student Body .458 -.441 .000 *
5. Professional Pets. per 100 Students -.331 .321 .010 *
6. Quant of Techn. Material in School .367 -.355 .003 *
Combined Other Inputs .573 -.552 .082
5 . l 5 If . l l
1. Opened Charact of School & Class. 1.376 -1.331 .190
2. Standardization of Proces. & Mat. .198 -.191 .755
3. Time to Parents & Formal Instr. .230 -.221 .294
4. Similarity of Objectives -.033 .032 .929
5. Parental Involvment 1.024 -.990 .036 *
6. Differentiation of Students -.239 .238 .321
7. Cenualization -.518 .498 .015 *
Combined Social Structure 2.039 -1.966 .066
S l , :1. If . l l
1. Future Evaluations and Expectations 40.659 37.806 .000 *
2. Sense of Academic Futility 41.827 40.030 .001 *
3. Academic Norms 25.704 26.811 .001 *
4. Present Eval. and Expect. for H. S. 31.300 31.355 .811
5. Perceptions of Teach. Push & Norms 29.392 29.986 .027 *

 

1'-

Significant at .05 Level

" Table continued on next page.

 

 

 

TABLE 6 (Continued)
School Mean
Variables High SES Sch. Low SES Sch. Probl.
I l , CT I: . l l
1. Future Expectations for Students 40.657 34.873 .000 "‘
2. Present School Evalaluation 21.974 21.391 .345
3. Deterrn. w/Having Stud. Succeed 18.036 19.314 .076 *
4. Percept. of Stud. Commit. to Success 22.791 22.567 .726
5. Present Evaluation of Students 19.219 19.086 .857
and Sense of Fatalism
E"I'Cl' If.”
1. Expect. and Percept. of Par. Expect. 19.867 16.436 .000 *
2. Present Eval. of Students & School 25.475 24.300 .139
3. Feelings of Resp. for Success 16.233 17.839 .010 *
4. Percept. of Par. Interest w/School 12.883 12.032 .039 *
Combined Climate Variables 366.017 353.826 .005 *
Wank:
Mean School Achievement 108.255 88.966 .007 *
Mean School Self-Concept 3.506 3.459 .107

 

* Significant at .05 Level

CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS

Emma

One of the problems faced by those researching school social systems, and
to a certain extent by those interested in school effect research, is the large number of
variables usually involved and their interrelationships. This research is no exception. The
length of the questionnaires presented in Appendix A, the description of the variables and
their items in Appendix B, and the correlation matrices in Appendix C will show the
complexity of such a task. This called for a strategy of analysis which would allow a
reduction in the number of variables, comparison among clusters of variables, and a
technique to partial out these groups of variables in order to find their single and combined
effects. It should be remembered that the hypotheses claimed certain relationships among
these sets of variables which we identified as (1) inputs, (2) social structure, and (3) school
climate, and that the last two clusters would explain much of the variation in school
outcomes expressed as mean school academic achievement and mean school self-concept.

The first part of this chapter will describe how the statistical technique called
factor analysis was used to reduce the number of variables and obtain significant clusters
for the social structure and school climate variables. The second part will analyze the
intercorrelations between the independent variables, the dependent variables, and the
correlations between independent and dependent variables. The last part will assess the
single and joint contribution of the three independent clusters of variables to school

outcomes through various mutiple regression analyses.

91

92

El! . [:1 E1! .11

The measurement of social structure and social climate is not direct as is the
case for the measurement of a simple object—even if it carries different meanings for each
individual. The only way to derive some understanding of these complex aspects of human
functioning is through indirect measurement and through multiple observations of various
behaviors associated with the conceptual definition of the object of inquiry. This use of a
large number of characteristics or variables presents a problem for the researcher because
so many variables would render the statistical analysis extremely complex, and the data
analysis more confusing than helpful. It is important to circumscribe a large array of
aspects, but which can then be reduced to simple characteristics for purposes of analysis.
This result was obtained in the present research with the statistical technique called factor
analysis.

Factor analysis has been described by several researchers as a powerful way
to produce a more parsimonious description within a domain of study and as a variable—or
item—reduction device which provides meaningful dimensions that are highly correlated
with each other but which have low correlation with all other factors, and providing
approximately the same amount of information (Bennett & Bowers, 1976; Boocock, 1980;
Harman, 1967; Hays, 1973). Also, "as a preliminary to regression analysis, [it is useful]
to analyze the factorial structure of criterion variables, and hence point the way to those
variables which are most likely to be usefully included in a regression equation" (Bennett &
Bowers, 1976, p. 142). One of its inconveniencies however is its proclivity to gather
elements which may have little substantive meaning. This problem is alleviated by a careful
content analysis of the items comprising each factor, and by the elimination of those items

not concerned with the factor identified first.

93

All variables included in the social structure and social climate clusters were
generated with a varimax rotated factor analysis. All items that did not have a substantive
meaning for each corresponding factor were eliminated. As is common practice in this
statistical procedure, a factor loading of .30 or more was used as a minimal criterion in
order to allow for the inclusion of items in each factor. The factorial solutions adopted for
this research make a compromise between the smallest number of factors for the largest
explained cumulative variance in each analysis. Each factor analysis revealed a cumulative

percent of the variance explained by the matrix above 60 percent

chli V'l

The items included in the social structure variable cluster originate from
Student's, teacher's, and principal's questionnaires, and from principal's interview. A total
of 53 items were introduced in the factor analysis, and missing values were replaced by the
variable's mean. The solution retained for operational purposes contains seven factors, and
appears as follows after 11 items were removed from the equation because of inadequate
loading or unsubstantive meaning. Table 7 shows the distribution of the items within each
factor, in the order they are described in Appendix B, and the corresponding factor
loadings.

The first factor is comprised of several items taken from all three groups of
informants. It is composed of thirteen items whose loadings vary from .32 to .76. These
items were considered to serve as indicators of the way the school and the classroom are
governed in as much as opened and closed characteristics are concerned. This factor
appeared in the Brookover et al. (1979) study, with these items and some similar others. It
was given the same identification in the present study.

The second factor to emerge was composed of eight items taken from the

principal's interviews. Their loadings vary from .35 to .78. This factor was described as

94

characterizing the "standardization of the processes and of the material used in the school"
and the classroom. It concerns the content, books, teaching material, and tests as they are
imposed on all or as they differentiate between classrooms, teachers and students. This
factor has no direct correlate in Brookover's study, which found, however, some similar
items that could be related under a grouping practices variable to be described later.

The third factor provided by the analysis is described as "Principal's time
devoted to parents and teacher's time oriented towards formal instruction." Even though
the six items appeared at first glance as two different factors, they were correlated highly
enough with one another to consider them associated under a staff-time dimension. The
factor loadings range from .51 to .76. This variable is present in Brookover's study under
"Staff time allocation to instruction and parents concerns." Unlike the original study, this
one used teachers' and student's report of time allocation as well as principal's report to
measure these aspects.

The fourth factor was related to the objectives pursued in the school, and the
extent to which they were similar for all students at the same grade level. Three principal
items and one teacher item emerged for this factor, with loadings ranging from .46 to .79.
This variable does not appear alone in Brookovers' study. The only item measuring this
aspect can be found there under the grouping and differentiation social structure variable.

The fifth factor comprises some high loading items and some middle ones.
The five items ranging from .37 to .88 come from the teachers' questionnaire, and were
elaborated primarily as an index. The factor analysis results show that they indeed correlate
meaningfully with one another and that they differ from the other items in the list. They
concern various forms of parental participation in the classrooms, participation intended to
provide help to the teacher, and were called "Practical parental involvement in the school."
In fact, several other measures of parental participation in the school (level of participation
at parent-teacher meetings, degree of activism of school committee, frequency of contacts

between teachers and parents, and so on) were included in the analysis, but only practical

95

parental involvement could be retained as being significantly associated with any others.
Such types of participation or contacts appeared in Brookovers' study under "Parent
involvement in the school social system."

The sixth factor contains three well correlated items from principal's
interviews and teachers' questionnaire. They loaded from .60 to .70 in the analysis. They
were meant to describe the practices of differentiating students in the school and in the
classroom through grouping according to ability, and through the use of individualized
teaching. A similar variable is found in the original study under "Grouping and
differentiation of students programs," which included two of the present items plus several
others which found a better fit here under the "Standardization of processes' and
"Similarity of objectives" factors.

Finally, the two centralization indexes computed respectively from the
teacher’s and principal's questionnaires turned out to be associated highly enough to be
considered as a variable significant enough to include in the present study. The loadings
are .65 and .45 for these composite items. No equivalent can be found in Brookovers'
study.

Overall, seven factors were used for this study against five in the original
study. As described before, the disuibution of the grouping and differentiation items under
three factors helps explain part of this difference. The centralization variable was not
measured in Brookovers' research, but, on the other hand, "Staff satisfaction with the
social system" (included in the original study as a social structure variable) was not
measured in Quebec. It was not considered here because first, it was not previously found
to be a "direct measure of the social structure of the school" (Brookover et al., 1979,
p. 17), second, it would have extended considerably the length of the already long
questionnaires, and, finally, because many other meaningful variables were available to

assess aspects of the school social structure.

96

TABLE 7

ITEM LOADINGS DERIVED FROM VARIMAX ROTATION FACTOR ANALYSIS OF
SCHOOL SOCIAL STRUCTURE VARIABLES

 

 

 

Items'
School Social
StructureFactors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213
Factor 1 : .76 .62 .75 .76 .32 .43 .58 .68 .54 .47 .39 .66 .62
Opened Characteristics of the
School and of the Classrooms
Factor 2: .55 .78 .55 .50 .59 .70 .35 .62
Standardization of the
Processes and of the Material
Used in the School
Factor 3: .57 .51 .52 .62 .76 .57

Principal's Time Devoted to Parents
and Teachers' Time Oriented
Towards Formal Instruction

Factor 4 : .75 .79 .57 .46
Similarity of the Objectives
Pursued in the School

Factor5: .41 37.65.8688
Practical Involvment
of the parents in the School

Factor 6 : .65 .70 .60
Differentiation of the Students
in the School and in the Classrooms

Factor 7 : .65 .45
Centralization of the Decision-
Making in the School

 

" The items comprising each factor are described in Appendix B.

97
511:]. V'l]

ldeentflimatLEactQts

The items included in the student social climate variable set originate from
responses inserted in the varimax rotated factor analysis from student individual
questionnaires. A total of 48 items were introduced in the factor analysis, and missing
values were replaced by the variable's mean. The solution retained for operational
purposes contains five factors, and appears as follows after 4 items were removed from the
equation due to inadequate loading or unsubstantive meaning where located. Table 8
shows the distribution of the items within each factor, as described in Appendix B, and the
corresponding factor loadings.

The first factor was comprised of ten items loading fairly high on this
factor, with a range of .74 to .90. All the items included were concerned with students'
beliefs about his or her capacity to go far in school, and with the position he or she thinks
his parents, teachers, and friends have on him or her in that regard. This factor emerged as
well in Brookover's study with the very same ten items, after minor adaptations for
Quebec, and was consequently named the same: "Student future evaluations and
expectations".

The second student factor to be identified by the factor analysis included
eleven items, with loading from .52 to .85. These items measured student's fatalism about
his or her school success, and also the feeling that school pressure is preventing one from
succeeding. Some of these items were originally written by Coleman et al. (1966) to
measure "Sense of control" over the environment; others items come from various attempts
in Brookover's past research to measure sense of control at the elementary level, including
this one which is replicated here (Brookover et al., 1975, 1977, 1979). Since eight out of
the eleven variables found under this factor have exact equivalents in Brookover's

"Student's sense of academic futility" twelve-item factor, the variable was given the same

98

TABLE 8

ITEM LOADINGS DERIVED FROM VARIMAX ROTATION FACTOR ANALYSIS OF
STUDENT CLIMATE VARIABLES

 

 

 

Items"
Student Climate
Factors 1234567891011
Factorl: .86 .87 .81 .90 .89 .77 .74 .87 .89 .86
Students' Future Evaluations
and Expectations
Factor2: .64 .69 .84 .85 .63 .80 .71 .52 .73 .75 .61
Students' Sense of Academic
Futility
Factor3: .75 .70 .62 .79 .81 .66 .73
Students' Academic Norms
Factor4: .56 .82 .56 .62 .52 .81 .72 .74
Students' Present Evaluations and
Expectations for High School
Factor5: .34 .40 .40 .78 .72 .39 .82 .54

Students' Perceptions of Teacher
Push and teacher Norms

 

" The items comprising each factor are described in Appendix B.

99

title. The three other items are additions to the scale developed for Quebec schools by the
author.

The third student factor comprised seven items ranging from .66 to .81. It
utilizes items measuring the degree to which students feel themselves and their peers to be
concerned about doing well in their school work. Although only three items corresponded
exactly in Brookover's study under "Student academic norms," substantive meaning
analysis of the items associated under this factor suggested that the same name be given to
this variable.

The fourth factor to emerge from the analysis was called "Student present
evaluations and expectations for high school". Eight items with loadings between .52 and
.82 were found to be associated there. The items measured various aspects of the
evaluation of the school, and also academic expectations towards students believed to be
held by parents and teachers. In fact, six out of these eight items were used to form the
equivalent variable in the original study.

Finally, the fifth factor comprised eight items whose loadings range
between .39 and .82. These items concerned academic pressure felt by students, pressure
stemmin g from teachers who wished to have them achieve at high levels. This factor was
called "Student perception of teacher push and teacher norms" because the four items used
in Brookover's study to measure the same aspect loaded together here with other similar
newly added items for Quebec.

In general, the factors which emerged from the student questions measuring
climate aspects resemble closely those used in Brookover's study. It would be appropriate

to say that they turned out to be equivalent instruments.

2 T h r limat t r
The items included in the teacher social climate variable set originate from

responses inserted in the varimax rotated factor analysis from teacher individual

100

questionnaires. A total of 47 items were introduced in the factor analysis, and missing
values were replaced by the variable's mean. The solution retained for operational
purposes contains five factors, and appears as follows after 5 items were removed from the
equation due to inadequate loading or unsubstantive meaning where located. Table 9
shows the distribution of the items within each factor, as described in Appendix B, and the
corresponding factor loadings.

The first teacher climate factor to be obtained from the factor analysis
comprised fifteen items ranging from .60 to .86. These items were fairly similar in the way
they measured various school levels which the teachers expected students to achieve, as
well as students' perceptions of the principal's and parents' expectations. These items
adapted for the school levels in Quebec correspond almost exactly to Brookover's "Ability,
evaluations, expectations and quality of education for college".

The second teacher factor was found to measure "Teacher present school
evaluation". Seven items with loadings between .45 and .82 were regrouped under this
factor. These various items measured the level of ability attributed to students, and what
they considered to be the principal's attributions on that regard. This factor emerged to a
large extent with the same items in the original study. The only difference is that
expectations for high school completion were located here under the first factor.

The third factor included six items ranging from .54 to .77. They were all
concerned with the stress placed on students with regard to actual and later achievement,
and was thus named "Teacher determination with having student succeed". The items
considered under this factor appeared in Brookover's study combined with the items which
were to become the fourth factor in the present study.

This fourth factor comprised eight items which could not be used as
"Student-Teacher commitment to improve" as did Brookover. These items, loading
between .39 and .74, identified in the actual research the perception the teachers have about

their students' commitment to succeed.

101

TABLE 9

ITEM LOADINGS DERIVED FROM VARMAX ROTATION FACT OR ANALYSIS OF
TEACHER CLIMATE VARIABLES

 

Items'

 

TeacherClimate
Factors 123456789101112131415

 

Factor 1 : .60 .63 .79 .86 .82 .83 .56 .63 .71 .70 .76 .77 .78 .64 .69
Teachers' Future
Expectations for students

Factor 2: .87 .49 .82 .81 .77 .67 .45
Teachers' Present School
Evaluation

Factor 3: .69 .77 .73 .54 .58 .58
Teachers' Determination

with Having Students

Succeed

Factor 4: .74 .74 .47 .39 .67 .64 .50 .55
Teachers' Pesceptions of

Students' Commitment

to Success

Factor5: .83.75.81.47.32.4l
Teachers' Present Evaluation

of Students and Sense of

Fatalism

 

‘ The items comprising each factor are described in Appendix B.

102

Finally, the fifth factor to emerge was composed of six items hardly
identifiable with one name, for it covered two aspects in Brookover's study. The items
loaded between .32 and .83, and came to be identified as "Teacher present evaluation of
students and sense of fatalism". This factor differs from factor two in that students, and
not the school, are evaluated. Some of the variables grouped under "Sense of academic
futility" in the original study appeared here, while the others were placed more easily with
"Teacher determination with having student succeed."

In general, the factors which emerged from the teacher questions measuring
aspects of school climate differ slightly from those used in Brookover's study. It would be
inappropriate to say that they turned out to be exact equivalent instruments, even if the first

two factors are about the same.

The items included in the principal social climate variable cluster originate
from responses inserted in the varimax rotated factor analysis from principal's
questionnaire. A total of 25 items were introduced in the factor analysis. The solution
retained for operational purposes contains four factors, and appears as follows after 4 items
were removed from the equation due to inadequate loading or unsubstantive meaning where
located. Table 10 shows the distribution of the items within each factor, as described in
Appendix B, and the corresponding factor loadings.

The first principal climate factor comprised six factors. The loadings were
high, and ranged between .58 and .81. These items concerned various aspects of future
expectations held by the principal towards students, and the expectations which he
considered the parents have for their children. Most of these variables are similar in
Brookover's like factor.

The second principal climate factor to emerge concerns the present

evaluation of the school and of the students. Seven items with loadings from .49 to .80

103

showed to be meaningfqu correlated to one another. This factor measures aspects of
principal's appreciation of his school insofar as academic achievement of the students is
concerned. This factor emerged under two different groups of items in the original study.

The third factor to be identified by the factor analysis technique in the
principal climate items resembles teacher climate three. It consists of five items, three of
them loading very highly and two with low loadings. The five items' loadings ranged from
.39 to .81. This factor was identified as "Principal's feelings of responsibility for success"
because all items pertain to principal's efforts with teachers to find ways to improve student
achievement and his impressions about his commitment to students' success. Two of these
items formed the equivalent factor in Brookover's study.

The last factor to occur in the analysis was called "Principal's perception of
the interest of the parents with school matters". The three items regrouped under this
heading had loadings from .39 to .76, and reflected the feelings of the principal about
parents' concerns with their children's achievement, and also the function parents attributed
to the school. These three items appeared in the original study under the same factor along
with two other items.

In general, the factors which emerged from principal's questions measuring
aspects of climate differ only slightly from those used in Brookover's study. It would be
appropriate to say that they turned out to be equivalent instruments, because most factors'
heading and content happened to be about the same. The major difference between both
studies on this aspect is the fact that the questions referring to parents loaded at different
places.

At the end of this factor analysis, WM were
obtained from the original 172 items, and were regrouped as seven social structure factors
and fourteen social climate factors. In fact, as applied to items measuring school social
structure and school climate in student, teacher, and principal questionnaires, seven social

structure factors, five student climate, five teacher climate and four principal climate factors

104

TABLE 10

ITEM LOADINGS DERIVED FROM VARIMAX ROTATION FACI‘OR ANALYSIS OF
PRINCIPAL CLIMATE VARIABLES

 

 

Principal Climate
Factors 1

 

Factor 1 : .58
Principal's Expectations and
Perception of Parents' Expectations

Factor 2 : .76
Principal's Present Evaluation
of the Students and of the School

Factor 3 : .71
Principal's Feelings of
Responsibility for Success

Factor 4 : .76
Principal's Perception of the Interest
of the Parents with School matters

.81

.80

.81

.39

.75

.56

.80

.57

.73

.49

.39

.87 .75

.72 .53 .52

.49

 

‘ The items comprising each factor are described in Appendix B.

105

emerged from the factor analysis, with various numbers of items meaningfully regrouped
under each of these twenty-one factors. Each factor identification was used thereafter as
the variable name.

Since the purpose of this study is to compare among schools as units of
analysis, and does not pertain to results at the individual level, all data used for the
elaboration of each reduced variable were aggregated at the school level with the method
described in Chapter III under "analysis procedure" (e.g. each individual item score was
computed at each school to obtain a mean school score on that item, and then the values of
each school item were added to reach a school score on each variable). This procedure
helped to reduce the number of variables, yet also to reduce the data gathered from 5,330
students and 331 teachers to school—level data. For the rest of the analysis then, and overall
for this study, these new values characterizing 61 schools are used to consider the

contribution of school social system variables to student achievement and self-concept.

l'hi n'l

Besides the large number of variables involved in such a study, the most
important difficulty encountered in this kind of research is the intercorrelations between
many of the variables which may affect school outcomes. Before any attempt was made to
partial out the contribution of each group of variables to student achievement and self-
concept, it was important to verify the degree of association among the variables in each
clusters and also among clusters. This would also help clarify the relationships among the
independent variables as stated in the hypothesis. Finally, the correlation between the
dependent variables was considered, since self-concept was shown to be associated with
student achievement in past research. The independent and intervening variables identified
in the literature (and reduced with the help of the factor analysis technique) are analyzed

here in three clusters: (1) inputs, (2) social structure, (3) school climate. The correlations

106

between these variables and the outcome variables appear in the tables for the reader’s

benefit, but will be analyzed in the next section with more information.

I 1.! II’ll

(l) The inputs cluster is composed of two groups of variables: socio -
economic composition, and other inputs. These groups will be considered together and
then separately in some later analysis; thus, their correlations need be analysed carefully.
The Other inputs are considered first. Table 11 shows a few relatively important
associations among these variables. Teacher salary is correlated to a large extent (r= .58
and .53) with teacher experience and teacher training in this sample. This observation
corresponds to the salary structure found in the bargaining agreement between the teacher's
union and the Government in Quebec. Experience or training alone warrant higher salaries
but are not associated together necessarily (r= .02). On the other hand, size of the student
body is associated with the ratio of professional personnel per 100 students at -.49, and
with the availability of technological material in the school at .50. This means that the
largest schools are better equipped than smaller schools, and that the latter have a much
higher ratio of professional personnel than the larger ones. Indeed, large schools have
more facilities in Quebec and require proportionally less personnel than small ones. This is
explained by the fact that the concentration of a large number of students and a large staff in
a school allows for more facilities and more sophisticated equipment, and that small
schools do not have enough students to attain the expected ratio in each classroom. It is
evident also that the characteristics of the professional personnel have little to do with the
other input characteristics of the school.

Socioeconomic composition, as measured by father's occupation, is
associated with the size of the student body in this sample. This means that large schools

are found in high socioeconomic environments as expressed by the .49 correlation. In fact,

107

TABLE 11

CORRELATION MATRIX OF MEAN SCHOOL INPUT VARIABLES AND MEAN
SCHOOL OUTCOMES IN 61 SCHOOLS OF THE NORTHEASTERN PART OF
QUEBEC

 

Variables ACH“I SCO SES Oll OI2 013 014 015 016 C01

 

Mean School Ach. ACH 1.00

Mean Self-Concept SCO -.05 1.00

Mean SES SES .43' 27* 1.00

Mean Teach. Salary OH .18 .00 .14 1.00
Mean Teach. Exp. OI2 .05 .06 -.02 .58'100

Mean Teach.Training OI3 -.03 .02 .13 .53' -.02 1.00

Student Body Size 014 .30‘ .12 .49' .05 -.11 .12 1.00
Ratio of personnel 015 -.12 -.16 -.35" -.19 -.21 -.12 -.49* 1.00
Technology OI6 .13 .02 .37‘ -.06 -.13 .08 50* -.24* 1.00

Comb. Other Inputs C01 .20 .02 .29" .75* .44" .61" .42* -.09 .44*1.00

 

" Significant at .05 level
” Correlation coefficients for this variable are based on 56 schools

108

most of the large schools selected from the northeastern part of Quebec could not be found
outside of medium or large cities where, as expected, the higher strata of the population
usually lives. The smaller schools came, in the majority of cases, from small villages in
rural areas, though not always. The composition variable is also associated with the
availability of technological material in the school, and further associated with the ratio of
professional personnel per 100 students with correlation coefficients at -.35 and .37. This
can be explained by the relationships between size of the student body and these variables.
Finally, socioeconomic composition of the student body has very little to do with teacher's
characteristics. The standardized score of other personnel inputs correlates with the
composition score at .29 in these 61 schools.

(2) Several W variables are associated together as expected
from the partitioning of the factors coming out from the factor analysis, as is demonstrated
in Table 12. The open-closed characteristics of the school or of the classroom is
significantly related with five of these structural variables at .32 and more. Besides staff
time with parents and instruction which has nothing to do with this variable, this aspects of
the school organization is clearly associated with other characteristics. An open school in
this sample has little standardization in its processes (r= -.57), has different objectives for
its students (r= -.37), a diffuse hierarchy of authority (r= -.52), favours parental
investment in the school (r= .32), and differentiates students from one another (r= .35).
These are characteristics which were expected from opened schools. On the other hand,
when processes are standardized in the school, objectives are the same for most students
(r= .33), and little differenciation is made among students (r= -.36). It also appears that
centralization of decision-making is correlated with standardization practices and smilarity
of objectives at .33 and .32. Finally, parents appear to be more comfortable in school
when the school is opened, students are differentiated, decision-making is diffuse, and
when objectives vary (correlations between .24 and .35). The other variables show few

significant associations. In general though, most school social structure characteristics

109

seem to associate with one end or the other of an open-close continuum form of
organization.

(3) The W}; variables defined by the factor analysis for the
students, the teachers, and the principal seem at first glance to be measuring different things
from one another when the correlation coefficients are considered in the matrix shown in
Table 13. Several correlations are significant however. Student's future evaluations and
expectations is related with sense of academic futility at .24 but these variables are not
associated with the other three student climate variables. On the other hand, student's
academic norms, student's present evaluations and expectations for high school, and
student's perception of teacher push and teacher norms are positively associated from .20
to .58. It is possible then that these two groups of variables have a different impact on the
outcomes measured later. The teacher climate variables show several significant
correlations. Teacher's future expectations for students correlates at .37 with their
evaluation of the school and at .42 with their present evaluation of students and sense of
fatalism, but is negatively associated with their determination with having student succeed
at -.35. This result would suggest that teachers show less commitment to student's
success when they expected them to succeed anyway. Teacher's actual evaluation of the
students is also related to his perception of the quality of the school (.33) and to his
perception of students' efforts in school (.44). The principals climate variables are all
associated with one another to a certain degree. Most noteworthy are the correlations
ranging from .32 to .42 between principal's perception of parental interest with regard to
school matters and the other three principal variables. As was the case for teachers
responses, though to an unsignificant degree (-.10), the principals feel less responsibility
for achievement when they expect students to succeed than when they anticipate failures.

When the fourteen climate variables are considered altogether, some
significant correlations emerge among the groups of actors. Students, teachers, and

principals share a fairly similar view of the expectations held for students, with correlations

110

TABLE 12

CORRELATION MATRIX OF MEAN SCHOOL SOCIAL STRUCTURE VARIABLES
AND MEAN SCHOOL OUTCOMES IN 61 SCHOOLS OF THE NORTHEASTERN
PART OF QUEBEC

 

Variables ACH" SCO $51 882 SS3 SS4 SSS SS6 SS7 CSS

 

Mean School Ach. ACH 1.00

Mean Self-Concept SCO -.05 1.00

Opened Sch. & Class. 831 -.08 -.07 1.00

Standardization 882 .23‘ .09 -.57‘ 1.00

Parents&lnstr. Time SS3 .05 -.17 -.05 .14 1.00

Similarityof Obj. SS4 .22. -.24- ..37. .33‘ .13 1.00

Parental Involvment SSS -.05 .17 .32" -.19 .02 -.35"'1.00
DifferentiationPract. SS6 -.01 -.21 .35* -.36"' .11 -.05 .24* 1.00
Centralization 887 .09 -.14 -.52* .33' -.07 .32* -.27* .11 1.00

Comb. SOC. Struct. CSS .13 -.13 .60" .06 .29” .08 .52“ .48‘' -.11 1.00

 

" Significant at .05 level
" Correlation coefficients for this variable are based on 56 schools

111

TABLE 13

CORRELATION MATRIX OF MEAN SCHOOL SOCIAL CLIMATE VARIABLES AND
MEAN SCHOOL OUTCOMES IN 61 SCHOOLS OF THE NORTHEASTERN PART OF

 

 

QUEBEC

A”SSSSSSTTTTTPPPPC

Variables CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCA
H012345123451234C

Mean School Ach. ACH 1.00

Mean Self-Concept SCO -.05

Students' Expect. SCI glam

Students' Futility SC2 .52-.11 .25

Students' Norms SC3 -.08 .21-.02-.19

Sludcnts'Eval. 3C4 -.06 .60-.06 -.18 .20

S. Percch of Push SC5 -.04 .21-04 .01 51 .12

Teach. Expectations TCl 11 .19 12 .21-.21-.-.28_3_Q

Teach. School Eval. TC2 .11 .12 .11 19 .05 -.11 .07 .11

Teach. Determination TC3 -.09 12.-.2121 .20 .14 .2141 .02

T. Percept.ofS.eff. TC4 01-07-02 .25. .17 -.11 .10 .11 11 .17

TcachEval.OfSlud. TCS -.10 .04 .18 .02 .16-.l9-.04 .4_2 .11-.04 .43

Princ.& Par.Expect. PCI .51 .14 .91 .11 -.m-.19-.17 a 43-11 .06 .13

Princ. School Eval. PC2 .10 .06 .17 .16, .06-.10 .01 35 .51-.16 AD, .24 .12

Princ. Feel. of Resp. PC3 -.05-.09-.18 .09 .36 .00 .17-.07 .19 .05 .4_1_ .18-.10 .fl

P. Percept. of Par. PC4 .14 .22 .18 1’i_Q-.01 .01-.07 .21 .12-.18 .31 .21 .4_0_ .4_2 .12

Comb. climate CAC .42 .28, .51 .41 .11-.11 .05 .§_9_ .15-06 .53 .5_§_ .92 .51 .31; .52

 

‘ Underligned correlations significant at .05 level
” Correlation coeffician for this variable are based on 56 schools

112

between .51 and .65. Teachers and principals seem to be evaluating the academic quality
of their school with about the same criteria (.55) and this teacher variable correlates
significantly with all the principal's variables (between .45 and .55). Teachers' perceptions
of students' commitment to success is correlated above .34 with most principal's climate
variables. More, teacher climate variables are significantly related with most principal
variables. Teachers are more committed to students' success when the latter evaluate
themselves positively (.34) than when their sense of academic futility is high (-.27). This
last variable, student sense of academic futility, is significantly correlated with seven out of
the nine teacher and principal climate variables and may be an important determinant of the
climate in the school. Finally, students academic norms are higher when principals feel
personally responsible for their success (.36) but not when they expect students to succeed
(-.30). Several other variables are significantly associated and can be found in the table.
The correlations presented above do not imply any causal relationships, but the data
suggest that school actors may well be sharing similar interpretations of the situation they
are invested in and feel incentives to behave accordingly. This is what school climate is
about.

(4) The interrelationships among sohml sooial systom variables will be
found in Table 14. A more detailed matrix is also presented in Appendix C showing the
correlations among these variables when controlling for high SES and low SES school
sub-samples. For clarification purposes, the analysis will be limited to the standardized
computations obtained from each cluster of variables in addition to social background of the
student body. This composition variable was shown previously to be correlated with
"combined other inputs" at .29, but the associations are much larger with the other
variables. Socioeconomic background is significantly correlated with combined social
structure at .35, while it is associated at .50 with combined school climate variables. This
link between SES background and school climate was found in previous research, and is

repeated here. A look at the controlled sub-samples shows important variations in the

113

results. In high SES schools, school input is not associated with social composition (.06)
but in the lower SES school sub-sample, inputs are positively correlated with social
composition at .48. This means that the worst school input characteristics—low personnel
qualities, small size, and little technology availability—are associated with the SES of the
school almost exclusively in the poorer schools of the sample. When school SES level
reaches a certain point, all schools resemble one another in this regard.

The opposite occurs when the relationship between social background and
school climate is considered. The original correlation of .50 virtually disappears in the low
SES school sub—sample (.08) and reaches .63 in the high SES sub—sample. It means that
school climate becomes associated with social composition primarily in those schools
located in higher socioeconomic environments. In this case, the higher the SES of the
school, the higher the climate. The weak association between social background and
climate in the low SES school sub-sample can be explained by the fact that these schools
are similar in composition on several accounts. The population in this part of Quebec is not
as segregated as in large American cities. In fact, there is no extremely low SES school
because most schools include students from all social origins. The differences in internal
social composition between these schools may then not be high enough to show variations
in socialization practices. Finally, the positive correlation of .35 between social
composition and social structure is maintained in both subsamples but at various degrees
(.12 and .38). Thus, it seems evident that social composition of the student body is
associated with all clu5ters of variables but that this relationship is not linear.

The "combined other inputs" measure, which excludes father's occupation,
shows little association with the other clusters. In the total sample and in the sub-samples,
the coefficients of correlation between this standardized score and combined social structure
range from non-significant -.01 to .12. The relationships between combined other inputs
and combined school climate vary from -.05 in the total sample to -.32 in the low SES

school sub-sample. This last correlation is the only one found to be significant. It means

114

TABLE 14 “

CORRELATION MATRIX OF MEAN SCHOOL INPUTS, SOCIAL STRUCTURE,
SOCIAL CLIMATE AND MEAN SCHOOL OUTCOMES IN 61 SCHOOLS OF THE
NORTHEASTERN PART OF QUEBEC

 

Variables ACH" SCO SES 011 012 013 014 015 016 C01 $81 852 SS3 SS4 885 SS6

 

Mean School Ach. ACH LN
Mean Self-Concept SCO -.05 LN

Mean SES SES .13‘ .21 LN

Mean Tach.Salary 011 .18 .N .14 LN

Mean Teach. Exp. 012 .05 .06 -.02 .35 LN

Mean Teach.Training 013 .03 .02 .13 .23 -.02 LN

Student Body Size 014 .30 .12 .12 .05 -.11 .12 LN

Ratioofperaonnel 015 -.12 -.16 ~.3j_ -.19 -.21 -.12 ~42 LN

Technology 016 .13 .02 .31 -.06 -.13 .08 .39 ~25 LN

Comb. Other 1nputa C01 .20 .02 .22 .12 .11 .61 .12 -.09 .45 LN

Opened Sch.&Claaa. $31 -.08 -.07 .33 -.02 -.32 .31 .26 -.08 .22 .14 LN

Standardization $52 .23 .09 -.O6 .04 .38 -.2_Q -.Ol -.15 .09 .03 -.5_Z LN
Parents&lnstr.Time SS3 .05 -.17 .07 .21 .25 .04 .01 -.25 .03 .11 -.05 .14 LN
SimrlarityofObj. 554 .22 -.2_‘1 -.12 .07 .18 206 .20 -.05 -.07 .11 -.31 .33 .13 LN

Parental Involvment SSS -.05 .17 .§_Q -.10 -.15 -.02 .13 -.12 .18 -.03 .32 -.19 .02 ~35 LN
DifferentiationPract. SS6 -.01 -.21 «.03 -.21 -.3_1 -.04 .01 .07 -.08 -.21 .31 -.3§ .11 -.05 .21 LN
Centralrntion SS7 .09 -.14 -.fl -.13 .09 -.22 -.2§ .22 -.19 -.22 -.32 .33 -.07 .32 -.21 .11
Comb. Soc. Struct. CSS .13 -.13 .31 -.06 -.16 11 .32 -.22 .2§, 10 .m 06 .22 .08 .22 .§_8_
Students' Expect. SCI 3_2 .EQ lo .16 11 .N .55. -.31 .22 .25 .23 -.03 -.09 -.I7 .3_8_ -.06
Students'Futrlity SC2 52 -.11 .4o -.06 -11 -.13 .20 .01 -.07 -.06 .10 -.02 .02 .25 .12 .00
Students' Norms SC3 -.08 .21 -.fl .09 10 -.02 -.22 .25 -.4_2 -.10 -.19 -.06 -.23 -.09 -.23 -.10
Students'Eval. 5C4 -.06 .69 -.13 .06 14 .13 -.12 -.05 -.06 .04 -.32 .23 .03 -.07 -.18 -.3_Z
S.Percept.of Push SC5 -.04 .25 -.2o -.04 -.09 .13 -.21 .31 -3_Q -.07 -.10 -.12 -.08 -.15 -.17 -.07
Teach. Expectations TCl 31 .19 .fl .15 02 .07 .23 -.21 .23 .17 .3_Q -.06 .04 -.22 .11 .07
Teach. School Eval. TC2 .4_1 .12 .21 -.06 -.l3 -.13 .11 .06 -.12 -.15 -.ll .04 -.I8 .16 -.06 .04
Teach. Determination TC3 -.09 .12 -.21 -.17 .07 -.13 ~21 .08 -.08 -.18 ..Q .17 .12 -.09 -.2§ -.06
T. Percept. of S.eff. TC4 .01 -.07 -.05 .07 .03 -.16 -.07 -.04 -.19 -.I4 -.06 -.13 -.01 .03 -.09 -.04
Teach.Eval.ofStud. TCS -.10 .04 .16 .15 .10 -.01 -.3_3_ .15 -.19 -.05 .07 -.23 N -3_Q 03 .08
Princ.&Par.Expect. PCT .53 .14 .63 .04 -.20 .05 .45 -.21 .20 .11 .25 -13 -.09 .09 .20 .07
Pnnc. School Eval. PC2 .30 .06 .19 -.03 -.20 .04 .03 -.08 -.l9 -.17 .01 -08 -.18 .11 -.01 -.03
Princ. Feel. of Resp. PC3 -.05 -.09 -.3_§ .04 .N -.04 «.23 .15 -.23 -.14 -.21 -03 -.22 .21 -.20 -.03
P. Percept. of Par. PC4 .14 .22 .20 -.08 -.17 -.23 .12 -.10 -.00 -.18 -.04 -.04 - 17 -.02 .21 .01
Comb. clirmte CAC .12 .28_ .50 .07 -.06 -.05 .ll «.13 -.O7 -.05 .07 -10 12 -.06 15 .00

 

‘ Underligned correlations significant at .05 level
“' Correlation coefficients for this variable are based on 56 schools

*“Table continued on next page

115

 

 

TABLE 14 (CONTINUED)
Variables SS7 CSS SCI SC2 SC3 8C4 SC5 TCI TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 PCI PC2 PC3 PC4 CAC
Mean School Ach. AC H
Mean Self-Concept SCO
Mean SES SES
Mean Teach.Sa.l.ary 011
Mean Teach. Exp. 012
Mean Teach.Training 013
Student Body Size 014
Ratioofpersonnel 015
Technology 016
Comb. Other Inputs C01
Opened Sch.&Class. SSl
Standardization $32
Parents& Instr. Time 533
Simrlanty of Obj. SS4
Parental Involvment SSS
DifferentiationPract. $86
Centralization SS7 LN
Comb. Soc. Struct. CSS -.11 LN
Students' Expect. SCI -.$_Q .21 LN
Studenu'Fuulity SC2 -.14 .20 .24 1.00
Students' Norms SC3 .3Q ~36 -.02 -.19 LN
Students'Eval. 8C4 .11 -.4_Q -.06 -.18 .20 LN
S.Percept.ofPush SC5 .11 ~22 -.04 .01 .38, .32 LN
Teach. Expectations TCI -.26 .32 .32 .21 -.21 -.28_ -.3_Q LN
Teach. Schoollival. TC2 .11-.06 .33 .39 .05 -.ll .07 .31 LN
Teach.Deterrmnauon TC3 .22 .41 .23 -.21 .20 .31 .21 -.33 .02 LN
T. Percept.ofS.eff. TC4 .07 -.16 -.02 .22 .17 -.II .10 .ll .31 .17 LN
Tcach.Eval.ofStud. TC5 -.01 -.13 .18 .02 .16 -.I9 -.04 .12 .33 -.04 .45 LN
Princ.&Par.Expect. PCI -28, .22 .93 .16, -.3Q —l9 -.17 .31 .18 -.21 .06 .13 1.00
Pnnc.Schoo|F.val. PC2 .02 -.05 .17 .3o .06 ~10 .01 .34 .33 -.I6 .40 .24 .32 LN
Pnnc.Feel.ofResp. PC3 .12 -.23 -.18 .09 .36 00 .17 -.07 .3_Q .05 .41 .18 -10 .311.N
P.Pereept.ofPar. PC4 -.06 -.01 .38, .39 -.01 01-.07 .21 .13 -.18 .35, .21 1Q .12 .32 LN
Comb.climate CAC -.07 .01 .31 .41 II -.II .05 .o2 .14 -.06 .34 .36 Q2 .31 .3o .32 100

 

116

that the better the inputs in the lower SES schools, the lower the climate. When
considering the associations involving social composition and other inputs with school
climate, the results show then the high SES school sub-sample to be more sensitive to
social composition differences and the low SES school sub-sample to be more associated
with the other inputs.

Finally, the combined social structure standard scores nshow no association
at all with the scores combining school climate variables. A correlation of .01 results from
the total sample, and -.09, and -.06 from the two sub-samples. Some single variables are
correlated significantly between these two groups in the total sample, but these associations
almost completely disappear in the sub-samples as can be confirmed by the correlation
matrices.

(5)Therl inhi w h w n n om vria 1e does
n0t turn out as expected from the literature on individual self-concept of academic ability,
which had shown consistent positive correlations with academic achievement (Brookover et
al., 1962, 1965, 1967). It also cannot be equated well with the comparative study
(Brookover et al., 1979), which demonstrated a strong reversal of this relationship (-.55),
the results reflecting the difference between the mean self—concept of academic ability of
students in majority black schools and those in majority white schools. In this study, these
variables are correlated at -.05 in the total sample; the low SES school sub-sample reveals
a negative relationship at -.12 and the high SES school sub-sample a larger one at -.17.
These correlations are not significant, but it is evident that the relationship is negative.
These data do not allow further explanation for this occurrence. The best that can be done
is to hypothesize an ecological effect as did previous studies (Brookover et al., 1979;
Passalacqua, 1979), and suggest that the phenomenon is a function of the reference group
to which students compare themselves. Since the data show unexpected results and no

consistency between both studies, however, it is possible that a measurement effect explain

117

the results obtained. It may well be that self-concept of academic ability is an individual

characteristic and that it cannot be aggregated at the school level.

latin Btw nIn n n n n nV 'able

Before any attempt was made to measure the effect of each group of
variables on academic achievement and self-concept, simple correlations were calculated
between each independent variable and the outcome variables in each sample. It should be
remembered that five mean school academic achievement scores were missing, and,

accordingly, the data referring to this independent variable will be based on 56 schools.

l.In Varibl n mV'l

The variables included in the input cluster comprise social composition and
six other inputs in the school. The results show the following associations between each of
them and the outcomes, and appear in Tables 15 and 16.

( 1) Mean student socioeconomic status composition is positively and
significantly correlated with mean school academic achievement. The relationship is
significant at .433 and is reflected in both sub-samples at .298 and .224, though not
significantly. Since some of variance in composition is controlled in the sub-samples, the
correlation coefficients remain subsrantial. The same observation emerges from the
relationship between this background variable and mean school self-concept. The only
difference is that the correlations are much lower when this outcome is considered. The
coefficients range from .136 in the low SES school sample to a significant .275 in the total
sample. These correlations suggest that the higher the level of mean school father's
occcupation, the higher the achievement and self-concept in the school.

(2) The "other inputs" included qualities of the personnel, and some other
characteristics of the school. Among these six variables, the only one showing a

significant correlation with one outcome variable is size of the student body, which is

118

 

 

 

TABLE 15
SIMPLE CORRELATION OF INPUT VARIABLES WITH MEAN SCHOOL
AW

Input All High Low
Variables Schools SES SES
MW
Mean Student SES .4333* .2981 .2244
9111111111115
1. Mean Teachers Salary .1793 .1819 .1372
2. Mean Years of Teachers' Experience .0525 .1438 .0051
3. Mean Years of Teachers' Training -.0327 .0138 -.0352
4. Size of the Student Body .2951“ .2764 .0967
5. Professional Personnel

per 100 Students -.1152 -.0271 .0129
6. Quantity of technological material

in the school .1320 .1203 -. 1773
Combined Other Inputs
(Standard Score of all 6 Variables) .2035 .2708 .0245
Number of Schools 56 28 28

 

‘Significant at .05 level

119

 

 

 

TABLE 16
SIMPLE CORRELATION OF INPUT VARIABLES WITH MEAN SELF—CONCEPT OF
ACADEMIC ABILITY

Input All High Low
Variables Schools SES SES
Widen
Mean Student SES .2748* .2553 .1356
We
1. Mean Teachers Salary .0009 -.2687 .1503
2. Mean Years of Teachers' Experience .0620 -.2213 .2099
3. Mean Years of Teachers' Training .0208 —.0201 .0610
4. Size of the Student Body .1191 .1384 -.0260
4. Professional Personnel

per 100 Students -.l646 .2769 -.2842
6. Quantity of technological material

in the school .0225 -.0057 -. 1056
Combined Other Inputs
(Standard Score of all 6 Variables) .0235 ~.0729 .0048
Number of Schools 61 30 31

 

‘Significant at .05 level

120

correlated at .295 with mean student achievement in the total school sample. This
correlation is still important in the high SES school sub-sample (.276), but is considerably
reduced in the low SES school sub-sample (.097). This result suggests overall that the
larger the school, the higher the student's achievement in the school. Since earlier on size
of the student body was shown to be highly related to mean school SES, it is probable
therefore that this relationship is spurious however it was not controlled at this point.

No Other input variable is related to the outcome variables in a significant
way even though some surprising results occured. Mean teacher salary shows some
association with mean student achievement at .179 but the other two personnel
characteristics (mean years of teacher's experience and mean years Of teacher training) have
apparently very little to do with this outcome in schools, contrary to popular beliefs.
Curiously, mean teacher salary and experience draw a negative correlation with mean self-
concept in the high SES schools sub-sample (-.269 and -.221) compared with a positive
correlation in the low SES school sub-sample (.150 and .210). Since the mean Of mean
school self-concept is not much different in those two sub-samples (see Table 6), it is
possible that these teachers' characteristics play a different role in both types of schools.
The data would have to be significant in order to be sure Of this. The age Of the teachers
might have something to do with this since experienced and best paid teachers are older.
Ratio of personnel per 100 students and quantity of technological material were shown to
be associated with the size Of the student body previously but are not related significantly
with any of the outcome variables. Noteworthy perhaps is the positive but not significant
association between the ratio of personnel per 100 students with self-concept at .277 in the
high SES school sub-sample while the relationship is negative at -.284 in the low SES
school sub-sample. These correlations between the Other input variables and the outcomes
measured, with the exception Of size, suggest that these inputs have very little to do with

student's achievement and self-concept in the schools.

121

The variables included in this cluster identify seven different aspects Of the
school social structure. Each of these variables show a significant correlation on one or
more samples and will then be analyzed in order. The detailed results appear in Tables 17
and 18.

(1) Open or closed characteristics of the school and of the classroom do not
appear to be significantly related to student achievement even if open characteristics tend to
be found more in lower achieving schools (-.083). The most striking Observation about
this variable concerns its relation with self-concept of academic ability. The correlation is
slightly negative in the total sample at -.074 but positive in the high SES school sub-sample
at .202 and significantly negative in the low SES school sub-sample at -.310. This result
suggests that more Open schools coincide with students low self-concepts of academic
ability in those schools located in the lower socioeconomic environments of the areas
included in this sample. The analysis of this surprising difference is beyond the scope Of
the present research. It may be hypothesized though that Opened schools in those low SES
environments are pursuing developmental objectives and not academic Objectives. It is
possible then that students do not invest themselves in academic competition of the kind
measured by self-concept.

(2) Standardization of the processes and Of the material used in the school is
positively and significantly correlated with student achievement at .234 and this positive
correlation is true for bOth sub-samples (.287 and .170). There is no reason to believe that
this variable has an important impact on self-concept. These data indicate that the higher
the standardization introduced in schools' operations, the higher the achievement of the
Students in these schools.

(3) Principal's time devoted to parents, and teachers' time spent on formal
instruction have apparently little to do with students' achievement in these schools.

Correlations range from -.030 to .051. However, these are associated with students' self-

122

concept to a large extent. The correlation is -.173 in the whole sample but reaches a
significant -.395 in the high SES school sub-sample. This correlations suggests that the
more time deVOted to parents by the principal and to formal instruction by teachers, the
lower the self-concept Of academic ability, particularly for students attending the higher
socioeconomic schools.

(4) Similarity of the Objectives pursued in the school by teachers and by
students is associated both with academic achievement and self-concept. This variable is
positively correlated with academic achievement in the 56 schools at .224 but positively and
significantly correlated at .337 in the high SES school sub-sample. The correlation is still
positive in the low SES school sub-sample but not significant and much lower then (.107).
The correlations with self-concept are all negative and significantly so in the total sample at
-.239 and in the high SES school sub-sample at -.459. These results show the more
priviledged schools, so far as socioeconomic background is concerned, to be more
influenced by this social structure variable. The correlations suggest that the more similar
the objectives pursued in the school, the higher the achievement Of the students but the
lower their self-concept of academic ability. This low self-concept might come from the
fact that students compare themselves with clear expectations and also with higher
achievers in those schools.

(5) Involvement of the parents in the daily activities of the classrooms sho'w
surprising results given the alleged virtues of parental participation in popular beliefs. This
variable presents no significant correlation with academic achievement and it even shows a
negative association (-.301) in the high SES school sub-sample. Their participation is,
however, positively correlated with mean self-concept at .172 in the total sample and
significantly at .353 in the high SES school sub-sample. Once again, the results show the
more priviledged the schools, so far as socioeconomic background is concerned, to be

more influenced by a social structure variable. The correlations suggest that the higher the

123

TABLE 17
SIMPLE CORRELATION OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE VARIABLES WITH MEAN

SCHOOL W

 

 

 

Social Structure All High Low
Variables Schools SES SES
1. Opened Characteristics of the

School and of the Classrooms -.0833 -.1466 -.1379
2. Standardization Of the Processes and

of the Material Used‘in the School .2335* .2873 .1701
3. Time Devoted to Parents and to

Formal Instruction .051 l - .0297 .0291
4. Similarity Of Objectives Pursued

in the School .2236 .3368* .1069
5. Practical Parental Involvment in

the School -.0485 -.3005 .0380
6. Differentiationof the students in

the school and in the classrooms -.0097 -.0687 .1489
7. Centralization of the Decision-Makin g

in the School .0868 .1067 .3578*
Combined Social Structure Variables
(Standard Score of all 7 Variables) .1327 .0329 .0944
Number of Schools 56 28 28

 

‘Significant at .05 level

124

TABLE 18

SINIPLE CORRELATION OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE VARIABLES WITH MEAN
W OF ACADEMIC ABILITY

 

 

 

Social Structure All High Low
Variables Schools SES SES
1. Opened Characteristics of the

School and of the Classrooms -.0742 .2023 -.3098*
2. Standardization Of the Processes and

of the Material Used in the School .0852 -.0936 .2239
3. Time Devoted to Parents and to

Formal Instruction -.1732 -.3952* -.0588
4. Similarity of Objectives Pursued

in the School -.2385* -.4592* -.0776
5. Practical Parental Involvment in

the School .1721 .3534* -.0707
6. Differentiationof the students in

the school and in the classrooms -.2079‘ -.2529 -.1424
7. Centralization of the Decision-Makin g

in the School -.l378 -.0566 -. 1020
Combined Social Structure Variables
(Standard Score of all 7 Variables) -.1297 -.0276 -.3011*
Number Of Schools 61 30 31

 

‘Significant at .05 level

125

practical involvement of the parents in the school, the lower the achievement of the students
but the higher their self-concept Of academic ability in those higher strata schools.

(6) Much has been said and written about the influence of grouping
practices on various school outcomes. In the present study, differentiation of the students
in the school and in the classrooms has very little to do with a student's achievement in the
school. The correlations range from -.069 in the high SES school sub-sample to .149 in
the low SES school sub-sample. This variable is, however, linked with student's mean
self-concept In the tOtal school sample, the negative correlation is significant at -.208 and
negative in both sub-samples. These correlations suggest that the more students are
differentiated according to ability in the school, the lower their general self-concept of
academic ability.

(7) Centralization of the decision-making in the school shows significant
correlation on one outcome variable in the low SES school sub-sample only. It is unrelated
with school academic achievement in the total sample (.087), but consistent is the .358
correlation in the sub-sample composed Of the lower SES schools. The correlations are all
negative with self-concept but they are not very high. This would indicate that the higher
the level at which decision is made in the low SES schools, the higher the achievement of
the students.

These correlations between the social structure variables and the outcomes
suggest that these variables are more related to the outcomes than the 'Other input
variables', that these relationships are more important over mean school self-concept than
mean school academic achievement, and that there exist differences between the samples in
reference to this. (The latter observation is more appropriate for self-concept Of academic

ability).

126
l n m ' l

The variables included in this set identify fourteen different aspects of the
school academic climate for students, teachers, and principals. These variables show
significant correlation on several samples and will be analyzed for each group of
respondants. The datailed results appear in Tables 19 and 20.

(1) Some student climate variables are correlated with mean school
achievement and all of them are associated with the self-concept outcome. Worthy of
consideration are future evaluations and expectations for higher education which are
correlated at .322 with student achievement in the total sample. Most significant, however,
are the high correlations between this outcome and student sense of academic futility. The
positive correlations range from .404 in the low SES school sub-sample to .638 in the
high SES school sub-sample. The .589 coefficient on the total sample is the highest
Obtained for a variable in this study related to mean school achievement. No other student
variable is significantly associated with achievement in either sample. Since a positive
score reflects a low sense of academic futility in this study, these correlations indicate that
the higher the future evaluations and expectations of students, and the lower their sense of
academic futility, the higher the mean achievement in the school.

The correlations with self-concept of academic ability for student climate
variables show significant results on almost all variables and for most samples. With the
exception of sense Of academic futility which is negatively correlated with self-concept in
the low SES school subsample (-.385), and to a lesser degree in the total sample (-.114),
all correlations are positive and strong. Student climate 1 and student climate 4 measuring
present and future evaluations in addition to expectations correlate significantly above .55
in all samples while students' academic norms and perceptions Of teachers push and
teachers norms do so with correlations between .291 and .510. These correlations
suggests that the higher the students 1) evaluate themselves, 2) have high future

expectations, 3) develop academic norms and 4) feel teachers' academic norms, the higher

127

TABLE 19
SIMPLE CORRELATION BETWEEN MEAN SCHOOL SCORES 0N CLIMATE

VARIABLES AND MEAN SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT

 

 

 

School Climate All High Low
Variables Schools SES SES
5 l , C]. If . 1 I
1. Future Evaluations and Expectations .3221‘ .2380 .0629
2. Sense of Academic Futility (Fut=low) .5885‘ .6384‘ .4040*
3. Academic Norms -.0820 .0598 .1176
4. Present Eval. and Expectations for H. S. -.0569 -.0951 -.0097
5. Perceptions of Teach. Push & Norms -.0388 .0818 .2857
1. Future Expectations for Students .3500‘ .1909 .2693
2. Present School Evalaluation .4095‘ .5590‘ .2053
3. Determination w/Having Stud. Succeed -.0853 .0348 -.0655
4. Percept. Of Stud. Commitment to Success .0062 -.0295 .0407
5. Present Evaluation of Students

and Sense of Fatalism -. 1008 -.0285 -.1931
I. Expect. and Percept. of Parents Expect. .4360* .4822* .0837
2. Present Eval. of Students & School .2963‘ .4190* .0919
3. Feelings of Responsibility for Success -.0477 .2343 .0078
4. Percept. of Parents' Interest w/School .1472 .2416 -.0230
Combined Climate Variables
(Standard Score of all 14 Variables) .4175* .5265* .1743
Number of Schools 56 28 28

 

‘ Significant at .05 level

128

TABLE 20

SIMPLE CORRELATION BETWEEN MEAN SCHOOL SCORES 0N CLIMATE

VARIABLES AND MEAN SELF-CONCEPT OF ACADEMIC ABILITY

 

 

 

School Climate All High Low
Variables Schools SES SES
n ' ' V ' l
1. Future Evaluations and Expectations .5609‘ .5629‘ .5570*
2. Sense of Academic Futility (Fut=low) -.1139 .0315 -.3851*
3. Academic Norms .2740‘ .3040* .5098*
4. Present Eval. and Expectations for H. S. .5977‘ .6540* .6045*
5. Perceptions Of Teach. Push & Norms .2509‘ .3941* .2911
h ' im V ' l

1. Future Expectations for Students .1946 .0435 .1793
2. Present School Evaluation .1150 -.0163 .1639
3. Determination w/Having Stud. Succeed .1218 .0028 .2874
4. Percept. of Stud. Commitment to Success -.0707 -.1455 -.0428
5. Present Evaluation of Students

and Sense of Fatalism .0385 .0161 .0472
Principals' (Elimato Variaolos
1. Expect. and Percept. of Parents Expect. .1410 .0300 .0531
2. Present Eval. of Students & School .0564 -.1229 .1110
3. Feelings of Responsibility for Success -.0947 -.2371 .0786
4. Percept. of Parents' Interest w/School .2238 -.1053 .2859
Combined Climate Variables
(Standard Score of all 14 Variables) .2757‘ .0922 .2935
Number of Schools 61 30 31

 

‘ Significant at .05 level

129

the mean self-concept of academic ability in the school. On the other hand, a high sense of
academic futility seems to be related to high student self-concept in the lower socio-
economic strata schools. This indicates perhaps that in such schools, students feel that thet
are good students but that the academic system is stacked against them. Brookover found
the same thing in his low SES white schools sample as well, while it was reversed in the
sample of black schools.

(2) Teachers' climate variables reveal some significant correlations with
student mean achievement but none with their self-concept of academic ability. The actual
evaluation of the academic quality of the school represented by the variable Teacher
climate 2 is highly related with students' achievement. The total sample shows a
correlation of .410 between these variables and the high SES school sub-sample is
correlated at .559. Given these high positive correlations, it is rather surprising to find
some small negative correlations (-.029 to -.193) between student achievement and Teacher
climate 5 measuring teachers' evaluation of the students and sense of fatalism. The Other
variable associated with achievement is future expectations for students. It is significantly
correlated at .350 in the total sample and positively in the others (.190 and .269). These
are the most important associations found in that group of variables. These correlations
suggest I) that teachers climate variables have little to do with student mean self-concept in
the school and 2) that the higher the evaluation of the quality of the school and the
expectations for students by teachers, the higher the achievement of the students in that
school.

(3) The climate variables constructed from principal's climate items show a
pattern of association with the two outcome variables which is quite similar to the one
described for teacher climate variables. Although some correlations between principal's
climate variables and self-concept of academic ability show some degree of association, no
coefficient turns out to be significant. The positive correlations found for three principal

climate variables in the low SES school sub-sample with self-concept (.111, .079, and

130

.286) contrast, however, with the negative correlations obtained for the same associations
in the high SES school sub-sample (-.123, -.237, and -.105). The most significant
correlations appear between the first two principal climate variables and student
achievement in the total sample and in the high SES school sub-sample. Principal's
expectations and perceptions of parents expectations are associated at .436 and .482 in both
samples. Principal's present evaluations of the students and of the school is significantly
correlated at .296 and .419 in the same samples. These variables are unrelated in the low
SES school sub-sample, however (.084 and .092). The correlations are far apart as well
between the sub-samples on the last two principal climate variables. These correlations
from both outcome variables suggest perhaps, that principals view schools differently
depending upon whether their school is located in a high or a low socioeconomic
environment. They indicate also that principal climate variables are much more strongly
associated with student achievement in the high SES school sub-sample. In this case, and
to a lesser degree in the total sample, the data suggest that the higher the principal's
evaluations and expectations of students, the higher the achievement of the students in the
school.

The climate variables elaborated for students, teachers and principals in this
study showed correlations with mean school achievement and mean school self-concept of
academic ability that are larger and more frequently significant than those which were found
between the outcome variables and either social structure or inputs variables if we exclude
social composition.

However, since several of these variables—within and between
clusters—are interrelated to some degree, as discussed from Table 14 and Appendix C, and
since they all show some relationship with the outcomes (T able 15 to Table 20), the next
step consisted of finding a way to differentiate between the contribution of each of these

variables to school variations in student achievement and self-concept.

131
C '1' [S .15 V '11 C m

The hypothesis elaborated in the first chapter called for a measurement of
the joint and single effect of input, social structure, and climate variables over school
outcomes. All of these variables were considered to be aspects of the school social system
and were expected to produce differentiated effects on the outcomes. Of particular
relevance to researchers was the hypothesis stating that social structure and school climate
explain much of the variance usually attributed to input variables. Since social
composition—as an input variable—and school climate were found to be highly correlated
(.50), and since all clusters of variables showed some relationships at one point or another,
it became important to find a methodology which would help dissociate those

interconnected aspects of school social systems.

Rggrossion Analysis Toohniguo

One of the most powerful statistical tools in this regard is multiple
regression analysis developed for handling a large number of independent variables at a
time. This general statistical technique was widely used in past research on school effect to
measure the contribution of several interrelated independent variables on some individual or
school outcomes. Besides its descriptive utility, however, is its predictive quality which is
more useful in this kind of research. Multiple regression helps to find the best linear
prediction equation for a given set of data and to evaluate its predictive accuracy. It leads to
the identification of specific variables or sets of variables that contribute to a specific
outcome by controlling for other confounding factors and it specifies the level of this
contribution. Hence, multiple regression computed on a set of variables can indicate how
much Of the variation in the dependent variable considered can be accounted for by each
variable singly, or by groups of variables, exclusive of any other variable or set of

variables (Hays, 1976; Guilford, 1965; Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973).

132

This statistical technique is powerful but presents some problems which we
tried to avoid in processing the data presented here. One of these problems occurs when
the independent variables are highly correlated (Sullivan, 1980). Multicolinearity can be
avoided in more than one way though. In this study, the first strategy used was to identify
a smaller load of variables through factor analysis as suggested by Bennett and Bowers
(1976). This helped to reduce several potential intercorrelations by regrouping meaningful
data under one significant factor. The second strategy used to avoid part of this
multicolinearity problem was to introduce the variables successively in the regression
analyses through the procedure called "stepwise multiple regression." This allowed for the
computation of the contribution of one variable at a time, by order of importance, while
maintaining constant the other variables. The third method used called for the introduction
of the variables as sets or clusters in the stepwise multiple regression analyses but in
alternating the order of introduction so as to force the regression analysis to consider the
contribution of each set of variables before any other, no matter what its prediction
coefficient. The analyses presented next will show how this was done with the actual data

The second problem with the use of multiple regression in this kind of
research is the limit of the sample size. It has been shown that too large a number of
variables in the regression equations leads to undifferentiation when the sample is small.
The proportion of variance in some dependent variables accounted for by one or several
independent variables is expressed in this statistical technique by the coefficient of
determination represented as R2. When the number of independent variables equals the
sample size, all of the variance turns out to be explained with a perfect result in the
pfediction (R2: 1.0) from mathematical computations only (Sullivan, 1980). For this
reason, it has become common practice in this kind of situation to accept a number of
variables that remain less than half the size of the sample. This presents no problem to this
study when the total sample is considered, but it becomes problematic when the sub-

samples are considered. As a result, an attempt was made to further reduce the number of

133

variables by using the "combined" score in the other inputs cluster for the forced regression
analyses. (The consequences of this choice will be analyzed in the coming pages). Since it
was not possible to reduce any further the other variables which had already been reduced
with the factor analysis technique, the computations were done with these remaining
variables. The level of the variance explained in the sub-samples may be overestimated in

some cases, but it will then be possible to compare the results with those obtained from the

main sample.
Rogrossioa Analysos on [ho oatoomos

Several successive regression analyses were performed in order to evaluate
the relative contribution of these social system variables on mean school achievement and
mean school selfoconcept. The following analyses will describe the amount of the variance
explained by (1) school climate variables alone, (2) social composition of the student body
associated with other variables, and (3) all the variables introduced in clusters identified as
inputs, social structure and school climate. Supplementary tables will be found in

Appendix D in addition to the tables described in this chapter.

1. Varianc Ex lain im V 'a l

The first regression analysis performed assessed the relative contribution of
the 14 climate variables to school outcome explanations. This was done since this set of
variables showed the largest and most frequent significant correlations with academic
achievement and self-concept previously.

Table 21 shows that twelve out of the fourteen variables account for over 51
percent of the variance (R2) in mean school achievement in the total school sample.
Student climate 2, "Sense of academic futility," accounts by itself for 34 percent of this
result. This variable was shown before to be highly related with this specific outcome in

the simple correlation descriptions. Three teacher climate variables add thirteen percent to

134

TABLE 21

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF MEAN SCHOOL
ACHIEXEMEEI ON MEAN SCHOOL CLIMATE IN 56 SCHOOLS OF THE
NORTHEASTERN PART OF QUEBEC

 

 

Signif' Multiple R2 Simple

Variables icance R R2 Change R
Student Climate 2,

Sense of Academic Futility .000 .58849 .34632 .588
Teacher Climate 2,

Present School Evaluation .026 .63637 .40497 .05865 .410
Teacher Climate 5,

Present Eval. of S. & Fatalism .102 .65963 .43512 .03015 -.101
Teacher Climate 1,

Future Expectations for students .042 .69241 .47944 .04432 .350
Principal Climate 4,

Percept.of Parents' Int. w/Sch. .326 .69962 .48947 .01004 .147
Student Climate 3,

Academic Norms .363 .70577 .49811 .00863 -.082
Principal Climate 3,

Feelings of Resp. for Success .403 .71095 .50545 .00734 -.048
Student Climate 4,

Present Eval. & Expect. for H. S. .613 .71286 .50817 .00272 -.057
Student Climate 5,

Percept. of T. Push & Norms .719 .71384 .50957 .00140 .039
Principal Climate 2,

Present Eval. of Stud. &School .752 .71461 .51066 .00110 .296
Teacher Climate 4,

Percept. of S. Comm.to Success .732 .71553 .51198 .00132 .006
Teacher Climate 3,

Determ. w/Having S.Succeed .639 .71729 .51450 .00252 -.085

 

Two climate variables, Student Climate 1 and Principal Climate 1, were omitted because the

F-level was insufficient for computation

135

TABLE 22

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF MEAN SCHOOL SELF-

QQNQEEE 0N MEAN SCHOOL CLIMATE IN 61 SCHOOLS OF THE

NORTHEASTERN PART OF QUEBEC

 

 

Sign“: Multiple R2 Simple

Variables icance R R2 Change R
Student Climate 4,

Present Eval. & Expect. for H. S. .000 .59765 .35719 .598
Student Climate 1,

Future Eval. & Expectations .000 .84734 .71799 .36080 .561
Principal Climate I,

Expect. & Percept. of Parents' .010 .86551 .74910 .0311 1 .141
Student Climate 3,

Academic Norms .102 .87230 .76090 .01180 .274
Student Climate 2,

Sense of Academic Futility .162 .87712 .76933 .00843 -.114
Teacher Climate 1,

Future Expectations for Students .236 .88052 .77531 .00598 .195
Principal Climate 2,

Present Eval. of Stud. &School .424 .88206 .77803 .00272 .056
Principal Climate 3,

Feelings of Resp. for Success .509 .88312 .77990 .00188 -.095
Principal Climate 4,

Percept.of Parents' Int. w/Sch. .594 .88382 .78114 .00124 .224
Student Climate 5,

Percept. of T. Push & Norms .570 .88462 .78256 .00142 .251
Teacher Climate 3,

Detemr. w/Having S.Succeed .649 .88515 .78349 .00093 .122
Teacher Climate 5,

Present Eval. of S. & Fatalism .679 .88559 .78427 .00078 .038

 

Two climate variables, Teacher Climate variables 2 and 4, were omitted because the F-level

was insufficient for computation

136

this amount before a principal climate variable appears. These variables are: "Teachers'
present school evaluation", '"I'eachers'present evaluation of the students and sense of
fatalism", and "Teachers' future expectations for students."

The same number of variables could be used in the regression analysis
measuring the effect of the climate variables on mean school self-concept of academic ablity
in the total school sample as is shown in Table 22. In this case, however, over 78 percent
of the variance is acccounted for by these variables. Two student variables contribute much
to this amount by adding 36 percent each to the total. It appears that the present and future
evaluations the students hold for themselves, as well as their close and future school
expectations (Student climate 4 and Student climate I), contribute much in defining the
perception they have of themselves as academic achievers in the school. It is possible also
that these independent and dependent variables influence one another in the school. This
interaction was not measured in the present study, however.

The tables presented in Appendix D show similar results for the high SES
and low SES sub-samples when the same type of regression is computed. Student's sense
Of academic futility and some teachers variables contribute most to student academic
achievement in school whereas students variables seem to have much more impact on self-
concept of academic ability than any of the teacher or principal climate variables.

The results can best be compared and appreciated when isolating the climate
variables that contribute Significantly (P<.05) to the variance in mean school academic
achievement in the total sample and in the low and high SES school sub-samples. Table 23
presents this summary for mean school academic achievement. In all three samples,
students' sense of academic fultility clearly contributes more to the difference in student
academic achievement among schools than any of the other climate variables. This variable
is much more important in the prediction of achievement in the high SES school sub-
sample than in the low SES school sub-sample however. The second most significant

contributor to the explanation of student achievement in the total sample and in the high

137

SES school sub-sample is the present evaluation of the school by the teachers. These two
variables account for more that 40 percent of the between-school variance in achievement in
the 56 schools of this sample and over 51 percent in the high SES school sub-sample
alone. Student sense of academic futility is the only climate variable significant at the .05
level in the low SES school sub-sample. Although it explains just a little more than 16
percent of the variance, Other climate variables accounted for an additional 37 percent of the
variance in mean school achievement (see Appendices D-1 and D-2 for a summary of
multiple regression analyses with these sub-samples).

Table 24 presents the same summary for mean school self-concept of
academic ability. The similarity in the patterns found by the regression analysis for each
sample will easily be found. In all three samples, two Student climate variables emerged
first from the computation and in the same order. These two variables alone explain
between 71 percent and 75 percent of the total variance in self-concept of academic ability
between schools. Moreover, in the total sample and in the high SES school sub-sample,
the same principal climate variable comes in third place and at a significant level to add an
additional 3 and 4 percent to the explanation of the variance. The variables that contribute
most to self-concept are the following: Students' present evaluations and expectations for
high school; Students' future evaluations and expectations; and Principal's expectations
and perceptions of parents expectations. Over 81 percent of the total variance in self-
concept is explained in the high SES school sub-sample and over 83 percent in the low
SES school sub-sample (see Appendices D-3 and D-4 for a summary of multiple regression

analyses with these subsamples).

 

and Climato Vao'aoles

Social composition deserved special attention in this study for two important

reasons. First, the review of the literature showed this variable to be frequently associated

138

TABLE 23

MULTTPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF MEAN SCHOOL CLIMATE VARIABLES
THAT CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY (P<.05) TO VARIANCE IN MEAN SCHOOL
W IN 56 QUEBEC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND IN THE HIGH

AND LOW SUB-SAMPLES

 

 

Si gnif- Multiple R2 Simple
Variables icance R R2 Change R
W:
Student Climate 2,
Sense of Academic Futility .000 .58849 .34632 .588
Teacher Climate 2,
Present School Evaluation .026 .63637 .40497 .05865 .410
i h 1
Student Climate 2,
Sense of Academic Futility .000 .63936 .40878 .639
Teacher Climate 2,
Present School Evaluation .026 .71912 .51714 .10836 .560
L w h 1
Student Climate 2,
Sense of Academic Futility .033 .40400 .16322 .404

 

139

TABLE 24

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF MEAN SCHOOL CLIMATE VARIABLES
THAT CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY (P<.05) T0 VARIANCE IN MEAN SCHOOL
W IN 61 QUEBEC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND IN THE HIGH
AND LOW SUB-SAMPLES

 

 

Si gnif- Multiple R2 Simple

Variables icance R R2 Change R
Wis
Student Climate 4,

Present Eval. & Expect. for H. S. .000 .59765 .35719 .598
Student Climate 1,

Future Eval. & Expectations .000 .84734 .71799 .36080 .561
Principal Climate I,

Expect. & Percept. of Parents' .010 .86551 .74910 .03111 .141
W
Student Climate 4,

Present Eval. & Expect. for H. S. .000 .65396 .42766 .654
Student Climate 1,

Future Eval. & Expectations .000 .84461 .71337 .28571 .563
Principal Climate I,

Expect. & Percept. of Parents' .030 .87260 .76143 .04805 .030

w h 1

Student Climate 4,

Present Eval. & Expect. for H. S. .000 .60446 .36538 .604
Student Climate 1,

Future Eval. & Expectations .000 .86922 .75555 .39018 .557

 

140

with school outcomes, either as an individual background variable or as a student body
composition variable. Very Often, it was considered as a proxy to estimate school's
internal properties and their effects on various outcomes. This made some sense since, in
this research as well, composition of the student body is considered to be part of the social
system of the school. However, the main reason for considering the contribution of
composition by itself, aside from other inputs, is to separate the effect of this variable from
school climate variables. It is clear from the correlations described before that social
composition and climate are highly correlated (.50) in the main sample. In addition,
Student climate 2, (Sense of academic futility), which turned out to be the most significant
predictor of differences in achievement between schools, is even more highly correlated
with socioeconomic background of the student body (.59). This was expected in the
general model, Figure 1, when it was hypothesized that norms, expectations and feelings
that characterize the school, (identified as climate), are in part a function of the composition
of the student body. It was believed that these norms, expectations and feelings developed
by students teachers and principals resulted in part from their perceptions of the
characteristics of the Student body. In order to estimate the specific contribution of social
composition and school climate variables to the outcomes, they were isolated in the
regression analyses prior to measuring the contribution of the three clusters of variables
identified in the original model.

The strategy used to separate the effect of the intercorrelated composition
and climate variables was to carry two successive regression analyses on each sample to
assess the unique contribution of these variables to the prediction of student academic
achievement and self-concept. In the first multiple regression analysis, mean
socioeconomic composition was entered prior to the 14 climate variables. In the second
analysis, the 14 climate variables were entered as a set into the regression analysis before

mean socioeconomic composition of the student body.

141

Table 25 shows that more than one-half of the total possible variance in
mean achievement between schools in the three samples is explained by the combination of
socioeconomic background and climate variables. The high SES school sub—sample is
particularly influenced by this combination of variables with 71 percent of the variance
accounted for. About one-fifth of the variance in achievement between schools (.188) in
the total sample is explained by the composition variable when entered prior to climate
variables. This amount is reduced considerably in each of the sub-samples to less than 9

percent of the variance explained by socioeconomic background alone.

TABLE 25

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS COMPARING THE EFFECT
OF MEAN SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AND CLIMATE VARIABLES 0N
VARIANCE IN MEAN SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT

 

 

 

 

 

All Schools High SES Low SES
Independent
Variables R2 R2 add R2 R2 add R2 R2 add
SES .188 .089 .050
Climate .517 .329 .715 .626 .539 .489
Climate .514 .656 .539
SES .515 .001 .713 .057 .540 .001

 

In each of the samples, the proportion of the variance added (R2) by the 14
climate variables is considerable when they are entered after composition. One
third of the total variance is added in the main sample and one-half in the others. The
climate variables, therefore, make an important contribution toward the prediction of mean
school achievement over and above that made by the socioeconomic composition of the

student body.

142

The second portion of table 25 presents the results of the multiple regression
analysis when the 14 climate variables are entered prior to mean socioeconomic status; In
this case, the composition variable adds very little to the explanation of the differences in
academic achievement between schools. In the total sample and in the low SES school
subsample, the climate variables account for virtually all of the variance on that outcome
and the additional variance explained in the high SES school sub-sample is less than 6
percent after controlling for the climate variables. It is clear from the analysis that the
school climate variables identified in this study explain a very significant portion of the
difference in achievement between schools beyond that explained by socioeconomic
composition and much of the contribution of socioeconomic composition is better explained
by school climate variables.

A similar regression analysis was performed with this combination of
variables on student self-concept of academic ability in the schools. The results of this
analysis are Shown in Table 26. In the first multiple regression analysis, mean
socioeconomic composition was entered prior to the 14 climate variables. In the second
analysis, the 14 climate variables were entered as a set into the regression analysis before
mean socioeconomic composition of the student body.

This table shows that approximately four fifths of the total possible variance
in mean self-concept between schools in the three samples is explained by the combination
of socioeconomic background and climate variables. The high SES school sub-sample is
the most influenced by this combination of variables with 89 percent of the variance
accounted for. Less than 7 percent of the variance in self-concept between schools in the
total sample and in the high SES school sub-sample is explained by the composition
variable when entered prior to the climate variables. This amount is reduced considerably
in the low SES school sub-samples to less than one percent of the variance explained by

socioeconomic background alone.

143

As a consequence, in each of the samples, the proportion of the variance
added (R2) by the 14 climate variables is considerable when they are entered after
composition. Between 72 percent and 83 percent of the total variance is added in the three
samples. The climate variables, therefore, make an important contribution toward the
prediction of mean school self-concept over and above that made by the socioeconomic

composition of the student body.

TABLE 26

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS COMPARING THE EFFECT
OF MEAN SOCIO—ECONOMIC STATUS AND CLIMATE VARIABLES 0N
VARIANCE IN MEAN W

 

 

 

 

 

All Schools High SES Low SES
Independent
Variables R2 R2 add R2 R2 add R2 R2 add
SES .067 .063 .008
Climate .792 .725 .894 .831 .838 .830
Climate .788 .873 .832
SES .792 .004 .893 .020 .837 .005

 

The second portion of table 26 presents the results of the multiple regression
analysis when the 14 climate variables are entered prior to mean socioeconomic status. It is
no surprise to find that the composition variable adds very little to the explanation of the
differences in self-concept of academic ability between schools. In the total sample and in
the low SES school sub-sample, the climate variables account for virtually all of the
variance for that outcome, and the additional variance explained in the high SES school

sub-sample amounts to two percent after controlling for the climate variables. It is clear

144

from the analysis that the school climate variables identified in this study explain a very
significant portion of the difference in self-concept between schools beyond that explained
by socioeconomic composition, and, once again, much of the contribution of socio -

economic composition is better explained by school climate variables.

I in i m i ' n h l
n V ' 1

Social composition deserved special attention in the school input cluster of
variables as well because of its importance in past literature. But the main reason this
combination of variables is considered here is the fact that other inputs will be computed in
future regression analyses from the "Combined other inputs" score of each school. In
order to reduce the number of variables in the multiple regression processing so as to
render the coefficients of determination (R2) usable, the choice was made to use this
combined score. It was based on the fact that these variables had not already been reduced,
as were the social structure and the climate variables in the factor analysis, and on the fact
that they were not highly correlated with the independent variables. The following
regressions assessed the reduction in the total variance resulting from this decision.

The strategy used to separate the effect of the socioeconomic composition
and "other input variables" was to perform two successive regression analyses on each
sample in order to assess the unique contribution of these variables to the prediction of
student academic achievement and self-concept, as was done for the assessment of
composition against climate variables. In the first multiple regression analysis, mean
socioeconomic composition was entered prior to the Six other input variables. In the
second analysis, these other input variables were entered as a set into the regression
analysis before mean socioeconomic composition of the student body.

Table 27 shows that less than 28 percent of the variance in mean

achievement between schools in the three samples is explained by the combination of

145

socioeconomic background and other input variables. The low SES school sub-sample is
particularly impervious to this combination of variables, with less than 17 percent of the
variance accounted for. As described before, about one-fifth of the variance in achievement
between schools (.188) in the total sample is explained by the composition variable when
entered first in the analysis. In the total school sample, the proportion of the variance
added (Rz) by the six other input variables amounts to over 8 percent when they are entered
after composition. When controlling partially for school composition in the sub-samples,
this percentage doubles the original one and ranges from 11 to 17. It must be recognized
though that a large part of the variation in social composition is eliminated when controlling
for the results in the sub-samples. The "other input variables," therefore, make some
additional contribution toward the prediction of mean school achievement over and above
that made by the socioeconomic composition of the student body.

The second portion of Table 27 shows the results of the multiple regression
analysis when the six other input variables are entered prior to mean socioeconomic status.
In the total sample, the other input variables account for almost as much of the variance in
academic achievement between schools as did social composition when entered first. The
contribution of these input variables to achievement in the sub-samples remains important
in about the same proportions (.144 and .125) in this regression analyses. The low SES
school subasample seems to be influenced more by the other input variables than from
social composition however. In this regression analysis, the composition variable adds as
much to the explanation of the differences in academic achievement between schools as did
the Other input variables in the previous regression. It appears from the analysis that the
other input variables identified in this study and social composition explain approximately
the same portion of the variance in achievement between schools except for the low SES
school sub-sample where other inputs contribute more even if this level of contribution is
limited. Once again, the results from the sub—samples must be considered with care when

social composition is introduced in the regression analyses.

146

TABLE 27

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS COMPARING THE EFFECT
OF MEAN SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AND OTHER PERSONNEL INPUTS ON

VARIANCE IN MEAN SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

All Schools High SES Low SES
Independent
Variables R2 R2 add R2 R2 add R2 R2 add
SES . 188 .089 .050
Other Inputs .272 .084 .261 .172 .165 .115
Other Inputs .165 .144 .125
SES .269 .104 .261 .117 .165 .040

TABLE 28

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS COMPARING THE EFFECT
OF MEAN SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AND OTHER PERSONNEL INPUTS ON

VARIANCE IN MEAN W

 

 

 

 

 

All Schools High SES Low SES
Independent
Variables R2 R2 add R2 R2 add R2 R2 add
SES .067 .063 .008
Other Inputs .127 .060 .280 .217 .193 .185
Other Inputs .073 .259 .192
SES .127 .054 .279 .020 .193 .001

 

147

Two similar two-step regression analyses were performed with this
combination of variables on student self-concept of academic ability in the school. The
results in Table 28 show that between 12 and 28 percent of the variance in mean self-
concept between schools in the three samples is explained by the combination of
socioeconomic background and climate variables. The total school sample is the least
influenced by this combination of variables, with less than 13 percent of the variance
accounted for. The composition variable, when entered prior to the six other input
variables, contributes very little to the total variance explained, and adds even less when
entered second. The proportion of the variance explained by composition is reduced
considerably when part of the variation in SES is controlled. In the low SES school sub-
sample, for example, less than one percent of the variance is explained by socioeconomic
background alone.

These results suggest that the other input variables are contributing as much
as social composition to the between-school difference in achievement and self-concept,
and, contributing perhaps more in the low SES school sample; but nowhere do they
contribute close to the amount of variance obtained from the climate variable set. Given
this information, further regression analyses were carried out in order to measure the
consequences, if any, of a reduction of the six input variables to the "combined other
inputs" score.

Table 29 presents a comparison of the total variance explained by different
combinations of clusters of variables, when using in the regression analyses (1) the sil
Other input variable scores (Teachers' salary, Experience, Training, and Size of the student
body, Ratio, and Technology) or (2) the Wm. No special
attention will be given here to the results, beyond a comparison of the differences obtained
in each pair of measures. The table shows differences in the total variance explained in all
samples as well as for both outcome variables. It is obvious that using a sir_rgl_e_soo_ro for

the "other inputs" reduces the proportion of the variance explained by these six variables.

148

TABLE 29

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES SHOWING THE
DIFFERENT EFFECT OF TWO COMBINATIONS 0F INPUT VARIABLES ON
VARIANCE IN MEAN SCHOOL ACHIEVEMEN I AND MEAN SCHOOL

 

 

 

 

W
Achievement Self-concept
Total variance All Sch. High SES Low SES All Sch. High SES Low SES
Explained by the: R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2
Inou; Variaolos as:
SES plus Other Inputs‘ .272 .261 .165 .127 .280 .193
SES plus Combined 01“ .195 .151 .058 .079 .073 .023
Sgia] 5&1!ng Vao'aolgs With:
SES plus Other Inputs .438 .665 .493 .293 .775 .318
SES plus Combined 01 .374 .615 .279 .238 .511 .247
h l ima V ' l Wi h:
SES plus Other Inputs .632 .947 .605 .821 .897 .888
SES plus Combined 01 .570 .812 .540 .807 .870 .847
‘i.l truc 1 ch 1 lima V ' I With:
SES plus Other Inputs .706 .843
SES plus Combined 01 .687 .837

 

‘ Other inputs: includes 6 variables (salaries, experience and training of the teachers, size of the student
body, ratio of personnel, and technology).

“ Combined Other inputs (OI) : is based on the computation of the standard score of all six other input
variables. It is used as a single score in the regression analyses.

149

The combination of social composition (SES) plus the smglo "Combined Other inputs"
score to measure the variance in mean school achievement accounted by the input variables
as a set, results in a loss of from more than 7 percent in the total sample to more than 10
percent in the low SES school sub-sample, compared to the total variance explained by
social composition added to the 512$ other input variables. These percentages vary from
approximately 4 to 20 percent when self—concept is considered as the dependent variable.
Similar or larger differences, up to 25 percent, occur when comparing the
results obtained in computing either the six input variables or the "Combined other inputs"
score with the seven social structure variables. However, when the climate variables are
inuoduced in the multiple regression analysis instead of the social structure variables, the
differences are considerably reduced. Besides the 13 percent found in the high SES school
sub-sample over achievement, no other difference reaches 7 percent. This is probably
explained by the fact that the climate variables account for much of the difference in
achievement and self-concept, as was demonstrated before; then, the addition of either set
of input measures makes little difference. It is possible also that a suppression effect have
led to the reduction of the effect of the input variables in the regression analyses. The
intercorrelations between inputs and social structure, and inputs and school climate are not
important in the total sample, but they Show up more in the sub-samples. Finally, the total
variance explained by the 28 variables included in the study is only reduced by less than 2
percent when using the "Combined other inputs" scores instead of the six "other input"
variables. It is not useful to consider the data for the sub-samples here, because the
number of variables introduced equals the number of schools in some regression analyses.
Based on these findings, it was decided to proceed further with the
"Combined other input" score for the rest of the analyses. The consequences were that
some variance that could be accounted for would be lost and that the relative contribution of
the input variables would be slightly underestimated. However, the introduction of the

climate variables gave confidence that much of the variance lost would nevertheless be

150

recovered, and even better explained, by these variables which had higher correlations with
the outcomes. This allowed for the computation of the regression analyses with a
convenient load of variables; further, it made possible the partitioning of the contribution

of different clusters of variables to the variance in achievement and self-concept.

4. Varianoo Explainod by tho 111139 Clastgs

In order to examine the relative contribution of the three sets of social
system variables—inputs (social composition and combined other inputs), social structure
and school climate (as described and reduced in the present chapter)—so that one may
explain the differences between schools in mean school achievement and mean school self-
concept in the various samples, all the variables were introduced in the multiple regression
analyses. The objective was to determine the extent to which these variables contribute to
the explanation of between-school differences, and also to examine, insofar as possible, the
relative contribution of each of these sets to the explanation of the differences. To examine
these questions, the variables were introduced as sets in three successive steps in the
regression analysis, in the order the step-wise multiple regression would choose them. The
set contributing most to the explanation of the outcome measured was expected to emerge
first, and the one explaining less of the variance was expected to appear at the end. The
results of these analyses are presented in Table 30 and in Table 31.

The amount of variance in mean school academic achievement explained by
these three sets of variables in the total school sample is above 68 percent, and much higher
in the two sub-samples. The results of these last sub-samples must be considered with
care, because the number of variables used is more than half of the sample Size. There
exist a small difference (below 10 percent) between the two sub-samples in the explanation
of the total variance in achievement, but it Should not modify the interpretation—given the
fact that both sub-samples surpass the total sample, and are fairly high. Quite

convincingly, as seen in Table 30, when the three sets compete in the explanation of the

151

TABLE 30

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS SHOWING THE
CONTRIBUTION OF THREE CLUSTERS' OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES TO THE

VARIANCE IN MEAN SCHOOL ACEEVEMEN 1

 

 

Indep. All Schools High SES Low SES
Variables ——
in Clusters R2 R2 R2 add
Climate .655 Climate .539
Structure .772 Structure .811 .272
Inputs .911 Inputs .814 .003

 

.The variables included in each cluster are listed in Appendix B

TABLE 31

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS SHOWING THE
CONTRIBUTION OF THREE CLUSTERS' OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES TO THE

VARIANCE IN MEAN SCHOOL SELF-CONCEPT

 

 

Indep. All Schools High SES Low SES
Variables __
in Clusters R2 R2 R2 add
Climate .819 Climate .838
Structure .950 Structure .907 .069
Inputs .976 Inputs .917 .010

 

' The variables included in each cluster are listed in Appendix B

V81

ha

SES

 

CX

hi,

 

211'

SC

11‘.

II.

 

152

variance in achievement between schools, school climate turns out to be the most important
in all three samples. In no case, did the amount of variance explained after school climate
had been removed exceed 28 percent. In the total sample and in the low SES school sub—
sample, the social structure set of variables comes second in importance with regard to the
explanation of the variance in achievement and the input set seems more important in the
high SES school sub-sample, although social structure adds almost 14 percent, even after
school climate and inputs have been removed.

The contribution of the three sets of variables to the explanation of the
variance in mean school self-concept of academic ability between schools is more
impressive than the total variance explained using mean school achievement as an outcome.
Table 31 shows that well above 80 percent of the variance in self-concept between schools
iS accounted for in all three samples. In the overall sample, 83.7 percent of the total
variance in self-concept is explained by inputs, social structure, and school climate, and
almost all of the variance is accounted for in the high SES school sub-sample (97.6 %). In
all three samples, the set of school climate variables came out first from the regression
analyses, and explained almost all of the variance in self-concept between schools. School
social suucture and inputs fell in second and third positions respectively in all three samples
and added only between 5 and 13 percent to the total variance explained.

Altogether, these data clearly indicate that a major portion of the variance in
mean achievement and mean self-concept between schools (among the schools selected for
this study) can be explained by characteristics of the school social system identified by

these three sets of variables.

Varin P 'tin l ters

Although it seemed evident that school climate explained much more of the

variance between schools on the measured outcomes than the other two sets of variables, a

153

further step was taken to partition the effect of these intercorrelated sets of variables. The
correlation analysis showed that many of these variables were related to one another, and
that several variables were correlated significantly with achievement and self-concept in
each set of variables in one or more samples. A consequence of these intercorrelations may
be that removing the effect of a set of variables before the others in the regresssion analysis
have reduced considerably the contribution of the other two sets. It is possible also that the
different numbers of variables included in each set may have given an undue advantage to
the larger sets.

In order to understand the relative contribution of each set of variables, two
distinct strategies were used. First, the three sets of variables were entered in the
regression analyses in all possible sequences. It was then possible to determine the amount
of variance in mean school achievement and mean school self-concept removed by each set,
and also the amount of additional variance explained by each of the sets when forced into
second and third positions. Second, the variance attributable to each of the three sets, and
common to the combination of the variables, was partitioned in all three samples.

When entered in various sequences in the regression analysis, Table 32
Shows differences among the sets and among the samples in the percent of the variance in
mean school academic achievement explained by each set. When entered first, the input
variables explain about 20 percent of the variance in achievement; social structure explains
less than 10 percent; and school climate accounts for over 51 percent in the total sample. In
this sample, social structure adds between 10 percent and 18 percent to the variance when
entered in second or in third position after either of the other sets. The input cluster of
variables adds 28 percent when considered immediately after social structure, but
contributes less than 7 percent to any additional variance in other cases. However, when
entered in either second or third position, school climate variables contribute a substantial

31 to 52 percent.

154

TABLE 32

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS SHOWING THE

CONTRIBUTION OF THREE CLUSTERS' OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES,
INPUTS, STRUCTURE, AND CLIMATE IN VARIOUS SEQUENCES TO THE
VARIANCE IN MEAN SCHOOL AQHIEVEMEN I

 

 

 

 

 

Independent All Schools High SES Low SES
Variables as

Entered R2 R2 add R2 R2 add R2 R2 add
Inputs .195 .151 .058

Structure .374 .179 .615 .464 .279 .221
Climate .687 .313 .911 .296 .814 .535
Inputs .195 .151 .058

Climate .570 .375 .812 .661 .540 .482
Structure .687 .l 17 .911 .099 .814 .274
Structure .094 .246 .161

Inputs .374 .280 .615 .369 .279 .118
Climate .687 .313 .911 .296 .814 .535
Structure .094 .246 .161

Climate .620 .526 .772 .526 .811 .650
Inputs .687 .067 .911 .139 .814 .003
Climate .515 .655 .539

Inputs .570 .055 .812 .157 .540 .001
Structure .687 .117 .911 .099 .814 .274
Climate .515 .655 .539

Structure .620 .105 .772 .117 .811 .272
Inputs .687 .067 .911 .139 .814 .003

 

" The variables included in each cluster are listed in Appendix B

155

TABLE 33

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS SHOWING TI-E

CONTRIBUTION OF THREE CLUSTERS" OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES,
INPUTS, STRUCTURE, AND CLIMATE IN VARIOUS SEQUENCES TO THE
VARIANCE IN MEAN SCHOOL SELF-QQNQEEII

 

 

 

 

 

Independent All Schools High SES Low SES
Variables as

Entered R2 R2 add R2 R2 add R2 R2 add _
Inputs .079 .073 .023

Structure .238 .159 .511 .438 .247 .224
Climate .837 .599 .976 .465 .917 .670
Inputs .079 .073 .023

Climate .807 .728 .870 .797 .847 .824
Structure .837 .030 .976 .106 .917 .070
Structure .181 .456 .218

Inputs .238 .057 .511 .055 .247 .029
Climate .837 .599 .976 .465 .917 .670
Structure . 181 .456 .218

Climate .815 .634 .950 .494 .907 .689
Inputs .837 .022 .976 .026 .917 .010
Climate .784 .819 .838

Inputs .807 .023 .870 .051 .847 .009
Structure .837 .030 .976 .106 .917 .070
Climate .784 .819 .838

Structure .815 .031 .950 .131 .907 .069
Inputs .837 .022 .976 .026 .917 .010

 

' The variables included in each cluster are listed in Appendix B

156

The basic tendencies towards a higher impact of climate variables is found
in the sub-samples as well. When the sample is controlled in part for the social
composition of the schools in these cases, social structure is more linked with school
achievement than inputs. If the social structure variables are entered after the input
variables, they consistently add an important amount of variance, which is superior to the
amount accounted for by the input variables (except in one occasion). Of particular
relevance is the poor contribution of inputs to additional variance in achievement when
considered either in second or third place in the low SES school sub—sample (from 0
percent to 12 percent). Climate variables consistently contribute an additional 29 percent or
more to the variance in mean school achievement wherever they are located in the table.

The relative contribution of the climate variables to outcomes is
demonstrated even more clearly in Table 33, which shows that 46 percent or more of the
variance in mean self-concept is added by these variables in any position and in any
sample. As found previously, social structure variables are the next best predictor of self-
concept after climate variables, and their role is more important in the high SES school
sample. Moreover, the input variables never contribute above 8 percent to the explanation
of the variance in self-concept at any location in this table.

Finally, an attempt was made to partition the variance explained among
these clusters of variables into the separate amount of variance which is attributable to each
set of variables independently of the others, and that amount of variance, if any, which is
common to pairs of clusters and to all three sets. Mood (1971) developed a technique to
help separate this variance into parts that are unique to each source and parts that are
common to groups of sources. His strategy will be followed in this last analysis.

The results from Table 34 Show that almost one-half of the total variance in
mean achievement between schools accounted for by the three sets of variables can be
attributed to the school climate variables alone (31.3 percent). The variance proper to social

struCture amounts to almost 12 percent, and that explained by the input variables in less

157

than 7 percent. The input and social suucture clusters have nothing in common with which
to explain variations between schools in achievement; in addition, social structure and
climate share very little of this variance. While 21 percent can be attributed to input and
climate variables together, the three sets have no variance in common. The low SES school
sub-sample confirms these figures, with the exception that two-thirds of the total variance
is exclusively explained by the climate variables and about one-fourth by the social
structure variables. In the high SES school sub-sample, inputs are more important by
themselves (14 percent); but the combination of inputs and climate (with 23 percent) and
that of structure and climate variables (with 36 percent) account for more of the between-
school variations in achievement This partition suggest that the cluster of variables which
explains most of the variance in achievement is decidedly the climate set. It indicates also
that the three sets have nothing in common, but that inputs and climate are linked together
to some degree, and also that in the more affluent schools sample, structure and climate are
very much tied together.

As far as mean school self-concept is concerned, the results from Table 35
Show a rather obvious contribution of the climate cluster to the explanation of the total
variance between schools in all three samples. The portion unique to inputs and social
Structure is inferior to 11 percent in all cases and that of school climate ranges from 46
percent (in the high SES school sub-sample) to 67 percent (in the low SES school sub-
sample). All three clusters share no variance in the explanation of differences between
schools in mean self-concept although social structure and school climate have some
common elements. This is especially true for the high SES school sub-sample where the
variance accounted for by these two clusters reaches 33 percent. These data confirm to a
large extent what was previously found in the partitioning of the variance for mean school
academic achievement.

After these regression analyses, it would be appropriate to conclude that

school social system variables contribute much to variations between schools in mean

158

TABLE 34

PERCENT OF VARIANCE IN MEAN SCHOOL ACHIEYEMENT REMOVED BY
THREE CLUSTERS 0F VARIABLES AND COMBINATION OF TIESE CLUSTERS,
THE PARTTTIONS OF TIE VARIANCE UNIQUELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO EACH
AND COMMON TO COMBINATIONS

 

 

All High Low
Percent of the: Schools SES SES
MW:
Inputs .195 .151 .058
Structure .094 .246 .161
Climate .515 .655 .539
Inputs and Structure .374 .615 .279
Inputs and Climate .570 .812 .540
Structure and Climate .620 .772 .811
Inputs and Structure and Climate .687 .911 .814
P. i i n V " nc :
Unique to Inputs .067 .139 .003
Unique to Structure .117 .099 .274
Unique to Climate .313 .296 .535
Common to Inputs and Structure -.012 .018 -.002
Common to Inputs and Climate .213 .230 .115
Common to Structure and Climate .062 .365 -.053

Common to All Three -.073 -.236 -.058

 

159

TABLE 35

PERCENT OF VARIANCE IN MEAN SCHOOL SELF-QQNCEEI REMOVED BY
THREE CLUSTERS OF VARIABLES AND COMBINATION OF TIESE CLUSTERS,
TIE PARTITIONS OF TIE VARIANCE UNIQUELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO EACH
AND COMMON TO COMBINATIONS

 

 

All High Low
Percent of the: Schools SES SES
Van'aat‘o Rgmovod by:
Inputs .079 .073 .023
Structure .181 .456 .218
Climate .784 .819 .838
Inputs and Structure .238 .511 .247
Inputs and Climate .807 .870 .847
Structure and Climate .815 .950 .907
Inputs and Structure and Climate .837 .976 .917
P' ' ' n V ' c :
Unique to Inputs .022 .026 .010
Unique to Structure .030 .106 .070
Unique to Climate .599 .465 .670
Common to Inputs and Structure .001 ‘ .025 -.001
Common to Inputs and Climate .035 .029 .019
Common to Structure and Climate .129 .332 .154

Common to All Three .021 -.007 -.005

 

160

school academic achievement and mean school self-concept, and that some sets of variables
are evidently more linked with these outcomes. The results which were described in this
chapter will now be discussed more systematically in light of the preoccupations of this
study as stated in the general model of relationship defined in Figure 1 and in the working
hypotheses.

CHAPTER V
INTERPRETATION, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Interpretation

The data analysed in Chapter IV assessed the relative influence of school
level social system characteristics over two school outcomes in a sample of schools chosen
in the northeastern part of the Province of Quebec. The results presented in this previous
chapter provided information on the relationships which were expected from the general
model described in Figure l and those stated in the hypothesis. These results will now be
addressed more systematically in relationship to each hypothesis. Since the concern of this
study involved two main types of questioning, this section will discuss (1) the main
findings on school social systems in Quebec, and (2) compare the results obtained with

those from similar studies to which it is related.

Main Findings

The general hypothesis was concerned with the fact that "There are
differences in school social systems in Quebec which explain differences in student
academic achievement and self-concept of academic ability among schools." This main
hypothesis was measured through five working hypothesis.

The first hypothosis stated that "Each school has a set of student status-role
definitions, norms, evaluations, and expectations characterizing the behavior expected of

the Students." This hypothesis was concerned with the presence or absence of such

161

162

characteristics in schools which would render them unique . It was called climate in this
study. The factor analysis, and the item analysis that followed, showed that there exists
such a group of variables which define aspects of the school that were called climate
variables. The overall percentage of the variance accounted for in such a regrouping of
variables in the factor analyses matrices is above 60 percent for each of the students',
teachers', and principals' sets of variables. The majority of these variables are significantly
correlated within each set and among the sets proper to each group of actors. The school
means for most climate variables and for the "combined climate variables" scores are
significantly (P<.05) different between the high SES school sub-sample and the low SES
school sub-sample. This would render it difficult to accept the null hypothesis that there is
no such characteristic as school climate (as defined here) and that schools are alike in that
regard. Therefore, it is likely that French public elementary schools in the northeastern part
of Quebec have specific sets of student status-role definitions, norms, evaluations, and
expectations characterizing the behavior expected of their own Students.

The segootLbymtbgsjs stated that "the nature of the student body in terms of
socioeconomic background and of the other inputs of the school social system affect the
schools' social structure and academic climate as well as the level of mean student academic
achievement and self-concept of academic ability." The two intervening variable sets
(social structure and school climate) positioned as such in the general model of
relationships were not formally assessed as dependent variables to compute the statistical
effect of the input variables on them. They were considered in that order for logical
reasons. Student body composition and formal features of the schools like personal
characteristics, size, ratio and technology are aspects over which schools have very little
power by themselves. These input characteristics exist before any interpretation of the
situations in the school by the actors and any social structuring of relationships can be
made. The role played by the input variables was then measured with Simple correlations.

Student body composition, as measured by father's occupation, is significantly correlated

163

(P<.05) with bOth sets of intervening variables. When the general "combined other inputs"
measured is used, no significant correlation is seen between this group of variables and
either social structure or school climate. However, the variables associated with size of the
student body—which are also linked with social composition—correlate with social
structure combined scores. Therefore, school social composition, as a dimension of school
inputs, does have an influence on the social structure of the schools and on the climate of
the schools in this Quebec sample. The Other inputs have very little or no influence except
for the size of the student body which seems to play a role in affecting aspects of the social
stucturin g of the school.

The effect of social composition and other inputs of the school social system
on the level of student academic climate and self-concept of academic ability is not as
obvious as expected. Student body composition is significantly (P<.05) and positively
correlated with both outcome variables but no other input variable (except for size of the
student body), is associated at a significant level with either outcome in any sample. Size is
correlated significantly with student achievement but was shown to be highly correlated
with social composition. In fact, its effect is no more visible when controlling partly for
SES in the sub-samples. Therefore, the only input which Significantly affects mean student
academic achievement and mean student self-concept of academic ability in the schools
selected in Quebec is social composition of the student body.

The thjtdjypotbosis stated that "the special structure which defines the
patterns of interaction that occur within the school is related with the social-psychological
variables." Several social structure variables were shown to be highly correlated with one
or several school climate variables but the combined measure of these two sets reveals no
correlation at all. Even if there exist important and significant relationships between aspects
of the social structure of the school and aspects of the social climate, it is not possible to

reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, as measured and assessed in this study, school

164
social structure as a set cannot be said to be significantly related to school climate in the
schools sampled in Quebec.

The founbbymthosjs stated that "both the social structure and the social-
psychological climate variables affect the outcomes identified by students' cognitive
achievement and their self-concept of academic ability." The influence of each set of
variables will be addressed alternatively here. The combined standard score of all seven
school social structure variables is not related significantly with mean school achievement
in either samples and only few single variables correlate at a significant level (P<.05) with
academic achievement in one sample or the other. However, several social structure
variables correlate significantly with student mean self-concept academic ability in one or
more samples. Moreover, the combined score is negatively and significantly associated
with self-concept in the less affluent schools sub-sample. Therefore, school social
structure patterns have a very limited impact on student academic achievement in the
schools selected in Quebec for this study, but they affect mean student self-concept of
academic ability in many ways and their importance is mostly found in the less previledged
group of schools.

Several of the fourteen school climate variables are positively and
significantly (P<.05) associated with mean school academic achievement while the standard
combined score is correlated significantly in the total sample and in the high SES school
sub-sample. Several climate variables, all originating fiom the student set of variables, are
correlated significantly with student self-concept of academic ability, as is the case for the
combined score in the total sample. Therefore, mean student academic achievement and
self-concept is affected in these schools by some aspects of the climate variables and by
their general combination in most samples.

It is not impossible, however, that these two outcomes influence in turn the

way school social structure and social climate are developed in the school. It is a

165

particularity of social systems to have interrelationships and interdependencies in several of
their components. These return effects were not measured in this study.

Finally, the fifttLhymtbosis Stated that "social structure and social climate
explain much of the variance in outcomes frequently attributed to the input variables." This
hypothesis is probably the most important one because of the attention it received in past
research and because it goes beyond descriptive status. It is also the one for which the
most precautions were taken in this study and which takes us closer to the general
hypothesis that states differences among schools attributable to those school social system
variables.

The results showed a substantial contribution of the three clusters of
variables to the explanation of the variance in mean student academic achievement and mean
Student self-concept of academic ability that confirm the importance of social system
variables in accounting for differences among those Quebec schools on these outcomes. It
is hard to decide at what point a contribution becomes statistically meaningful with this kind
of reasoning, but with over 68 percent of the variance explained in all samples for student
academic achievement and over 83 percent for student selfoconcept, it is probable that these
variables mean something to school achievement and self-concept as school level variables.

The results obtained in comparing the relative effects of input variables,
social structure variables and school climate variables give support to the hypothesis that
views the latter as being better explicators of student achievement and student self-concept
than the input variables. Even if the net influence of the input variables have been slightly
reduced through the variable reduction procedure used, there is evidence that much of the
variance in mean school academic achievement and mean school academic self-concept
should be attributed to schools internally developed characteristics. Social composition is
the only input variable which accounts for some variation in the measured outcomes of the
school and its influence is considerably reduced if not nullified by the impact of the

schools' own internal variables.

166

One striking finding of this study is that school climate variables are by far
the most powerful school characteristics that explain variations in student achievement and
self-concept in the schools sampled in the northeastern part of Quebec. School climate
variables account by themselves for much more of the variance in achievement and self-
concept than any of the other sets, or their combination, in any sample. It was also found
that some climate variables related significantly (P<.05) to the variance on these outcomes
and explained a large portion of this variation.

The contribution of school social structure variables, either alone or
combined with any of the other sets, provide inconsistent results among samples. Its
influence on self-concept is slightly higher when compared with the input variables but the
latter explain more of the variance in student achievement than social structure
variables—alone or combined with school climate variables—than does social structure in
some samples. Therefore, school climate explains much more of the variance in student
academic achievement and student self-concept of academic ability than the input variables,
and school social structure explains more of the variance in self-concept than inputs, but
shares its influence on student achievement with the input variables on different samples.

It is clear from the above findings that schools in Quebec possess different
social characteristics which considerably influence the way students, teachers, and
principals behave with regard to cognitive outcomes and to the development of the self-
concept academic ability within the school. Several of these characteristics are interrelated
and reinforce themselves in influencing the learning outcome of the Students in the school.
It is probable, for example, that the knowledge teachers and principals have of the
socioeconomic background of the students in their school influences their perception of
students' ability to succeed and led them to behave accordingly. The findings from this
Study render it difficult, however, to consider social composition of the student body as the
only significant variable that contributes to differences in achievement between schools and

to concur with past research which concluded that nothing about the school social system

167

can affect the learning outcomes produced by the school as a social unit. Nor do these data
support (to a large extent) the repeated contention that aspects of the school viewed as an
organization (like centralization of authority, standardization of processes, or even
grouping practices) contribute much to student cognitive outcomes in the schools. The
results mainly suggest that school academic achievement and self-concept is a product of
the academic climate that develops within the school through the evaluations of the quality
of the students and of the school by the personnel and by the students themselves.
Academic climate and self-concept also develop through the expectations held for the
performance of the students and their future achievement, through the perceptions of
students and staff interest in achievement, through the normative system that is defined
acccordingly to direct cognitive behaviors, and through the feelings of futility with regard
to school and life matters that appear in the schools.

The findings mostly support the results obtained from the bodies of research
aimed at measuring a school effect with sets of variables proper to that level of analysis
instead of proxies for school-related variables. These findings also join the findings from
other such studies measuring school outcomes as aspects of the schools' own
doing—either in single countries or cross-culturally,—in suggesting that "schools can

make a difference."

Comparison with Similar Studies

Besides its purpose of testing the relative influence of school induced
characteristics in accounting for differences between the schools in Quebec in mean school
academic achievement and mean self-concept, this study set up a design to replicate the
research made by Brookover et al., (1979) in Michigan on the effects of schools as a social
system. Similar sets of variables and a comparable research strategy were used to achieve

this comparison as described in Chapter III.

168

This section of Chapter V will now compare the main findings provided by
this study from 61 selected schools in the northeastern part of Quebec with the findings
from the original research done in the State of Michigan over a representative sample of 68
schools, and with those reached by Al-Thubaiti (1983) in Saudi Arabia using a similar
research design in 30 randomly selected boys' schools from urban locations in the western
part of that country. All these schools were public elementary schools.

The data cannot be exactly compared as in most comparative research
because of the adaptations done in each country to render the variables and the sets of
variables equivalent. This does not appear to be a major problem for the climate variables
which turned out to be assessed similarly enough in each country to waive any particular
caution (Chapter 111 made the specific comparison bemeen school climate variables in
Michigan and in Quebec). The social structure variables Show some differences among
these studies. Some aspects were not expected to be meaningful in some countries and
were not measured while others were introduced in the questionnaires. More important,
however, is the fact that the factor analysis technique revealed different ways of reducing
the variables. The social structure sets of variable do include, nevertheless, in each study,
several similar variables and some different ones which are supported by past literature.
When considering the cluster scores in the analyses instead of the individual variables, the
comparison can be accepted as valid. Finally, the input variables cannot be compared as
such without explanation of the composition of each set in the studies: 1) the research done
in Michigan includes social composition of the student body as a composite of mean
father's occupation of the students and percent white students in the school as well as other
input variables; 2) the present research, done in Quebec, includes mean father's occupation
of the students as the only composition variable and other input variables similar to those
used in Brookovers' study; and 3) the research done in Saudi Arabia considered a set of

farrrily background variables to be the only significant input variables.

169

The amount of the variance in student academic achievement between
schools that was explained in each of these studies can be compared in Figure 2. The total
variance explained and the variance accounted for by each set of variables is smaller in the
schools of Quebec when they are introduced first in the regression analyses. While the
total variance is about 17 percent less explained, each set shows more important reductions
when compared with the original study and most sets in Saudi Arabia. Particularly
impressive is the difference between the percentages of the variance explained by the input
variables in Michigan and in Quebec which amounts to 55 percent. This Should, however,
be considered in light of the composition of the input set in Brookover's study, where the
social composition variable used comprises SES and percentage of whites. When SES was
introduced first and alone in the regression analyses done in Michigan, 46 percent of the
variance in academic achievement was removed (Brookover et al., 1979, p. 38) and
percentage Of whites added 29 percent to the combined student body composition for a total
of 75 percent of the variance explained (p. 53). This left very little to the other input
variables for explanation. The comparable percentage in this original study should then be
somewhere around 46 to 50 percent. The reduction of the other input variables to the
'combined Other inputs' score for computation should not be considered as an explanation
for this difference either because the same reduction was used in Michigan. A second
important difference between the original study and this one is the variance explained by the
social structure variables. Very little indeed is accounted for in Quebec by this set of
variables.

Despite these differences, all three studies show similar patterns of
explanation. In all cases, school climate explains more of the variance in achievement than
any other set of variables when inputs is rendered comparable in Brookover's study. In all
situations as well, social structure comes in third place. The large differences between the
studies as far as the amount of variance accounted for in each set can be explained by the

interrelationships among the variables. In Michigan schools, 36 percent of the explained

170

Variance Explained
N m u—
l o 1 5 18 1 9 lg

  

 

 

 

Michigan Saudi Arabia Quebec
68 Schools 30 Schools 61 Schools
FIGURE 2

PERCENT OF VARIANCE IN MEAN SCHOOL W REMOVED BY
THREE CLUSTERS OF VARIABLES AND COMBINATION OF THESE CLUSTERS
IN MICHIGAN, SAUDI ARABIA AND QUEBEC MAIN SAMPLES
variance is common to all three sets, against 20 percent in Saudi Arabia and none in
Quebec. Much more of the variance is unique to each set of variables in Québec than in the
two other countries. It should be considered, however, that the majority white schools
sub-samples in Brookover's study Show results that compare almost exactly with those

obtained in the present study.

Another similarity between these studies is the finding that school climate
variables explain much of the variance in achievement after social composition of the
student body has been removed. More than half of the total variance in achievement
removed by SES is added (R2) when climate variables are entered in second place in
Michigan and Saudi Arabia, and almost twice as much is added in Quebec. When school
climate variables are entered first, SES add very little to the difference between schools on

that outcome at all locations.

I71

Variance Explained
:4 o oo 8
I O l O l O I 39

to
lo

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan Saudi Arabia
68 Schools 30 Schools
FIGURE 3

PERCENT OF VARIANCE IN MEAN W REMOVED BY THREE
CLUSTERS OF VARIABLES AND COMBINATTON OF THESE CLUSTERS IN
MICHIGAN, SAUDI ARABIA AND QUEBEC MAIN SAMPLES

As far as the second measured outcome is concerned, the results obtained
are almost equivalent with those obtained when achievement was the dependent variable.
The amount of the variance in self-concept of academic ability between schools that was
explained in each of these studies are compared in Figure 3. The general tendency of the
results is maintained for the total variance and for each set of variables, except for school
inputs in Quebec, which have almost no relationship to differences between schools in
student self-concept. Once again, school climate explains almost all of the variance in self-
concept by itself, and shares little with the other sets. This compares with the majority
whites sub-samples in Brookover's study more strongly than with the state sample, even if
the results do not differ considerably with this sample. Although the differences are small
on self-concept, the variable sets seem to be more linked in Saudi Arabia than in Québec or

Michigan.

172

This study involving 61 schools in Quebec confirms the general findings of
the Michigan study that school social system variables explain much of the difference
between schools, as far as student academic achievement and self-concept are concerned.
It supports the conclusions that school climate and social composition are related, and that
school climate explains much of the variance in achievement and self-concept usually
attributed to the social composition of the school. Two differences are worthy of
discussion though. First, school inputs are much less important in explaining differences
in Student achievement and self—concept between schools in Quebec, which leaves school
climate as the single most important set of variables in this comparison. Second, school
social system variables are not as interrelated in Quebec as they are in Michigan and in
Saudi Arabia, and school social structure means much less to the differences between
schools, particularly for academic achievement.

It is not easy to account for cross-cultural differences here since it was not
the main task of this study. Some tentative explanations can be attempted, however, on the
basis of the comparative elements described in the first and second chapters. To account
for the small variance in achievement coming from social composition in these schools,
some particularities of Quebec are worthy of consideration. Most researchers present
French-Canada as a society characterized as socioeconomically less advantaged than the
United States, much less achievement oriented, and whose socialization practices reveal
that children seem to have a low sense of control over their future. The 61 schools selected
in this study comprise schools from all socioeconomic levels; but given that the
differentiations are not as important in Quebec between high and low SES groups,
especially so in the area where the schools were sampled, it is probable that social class
does not have as much influence on achievement as it does in a country like the United
States where it is frequently identified, and where the spread of differentiation is larger.

A second explanation may be that achievement is not as influenced by social

background because it is simply not as important a value in Quebec as it is in the United

173

States. People in Canada do not place as much emphasis on achievement as they do in the
USA, as demonstrated by Lipset (1970) and Brym (1986) (see Chapter I). On the other
hand, the objectives pursued at the elementary school level in the school system in Quebec
lend support to the belief that academic achievement is not a fundamental value for that
society. The general objectives which were described in Chapter 11 showed that academic
achievement is never refered to before the very description of the specific subject programs.

A third reason could come from the fact that youngsters in Quebec may
indeed have a lower sense of control over their future. The most significant climate
variable which explains variance in achievement in Quebec is "Students' sense of academic
futility," and it includes a measure of sense of control over the environment and school
matters. This variable is so important that it is possible its effect overrode that of any other
variable, social background included. The combined effect of these three explanations
should not be dismissed either, but their real influence remains speculative within the realm
of this study.

The relatively weak effect of the social structure variables in Quebec and
their inconsistent relations to school climate variables come probably from the fact that
diversity and pluralism are important values in the structuring of the schools in that society.
In order to respect individual values, a large emphasis was placed on local differentiation,
as shown in Chapter II, and a fairly important responsibility was bestowed (at least by the
law) upon the local authorities and parents over several decisions taken in the schools.
This may have led to differences in the patterns of relationships, status-role definitions and
interactions among school personnel that elude in part the traditional school internal power
hierarchy. Then, open-closed characteristics of the school, parental participation, and
grouping practices for example may originate as well from school decisions as from
environmental press. If it is a political matter, as this explanation would imply, it should

not be surprising that these variables relate only to a moderate extent in the social system of

174

the schools in Quebec, and account for little of the variance in academic achievement
between schools. It is risky to go beyond hypothesizing on this account however.

These differences between the studies should not diminish the fact that the
findings resemble one another on most important accounts. On the other hand, differences
due to countries themselves should not be overemphasized, since the results in Québec
compare almost exactly with the results obtained in Michigan when the majority black

schools are removed from the samples.

Smear

This study aimed at enlarging the information known about school effect as
it has been developed in school social system research. Using school level characteristics
and outcomes, it tested the relative influence of school-induced properties over mean school
academic achievement and mean school self-concept, and their impact above and beyond
social composition of the student body and input resources in the schools. More
specifically, it tested the findings obtained by Brookover et al. (1979) in Michigan by using
a sample of schools selected from the public elementary schools of the northeastern part of
the Province of Quebec.

The research problem developed in Chapter I originated from the skepticism
regarding learning theories and popular beliefs which supported and emphasized the
convictions that the individual is solely responsible for his success or failure. This chapter
looked at various forms of school effectiveness research that partly supported these beliefs
by giving credence to the fact that school means little or nothing to the modification of this
order beyond the effect of social backgound of the students. The problem was stated after
reviewing several studies disputing these results and a research problem was elaborated to
test the findings of one of those significant studies which addressed these issues

(Brookover et al., 1979). The model and the hypothesis developed in this original study

175

were adapted to Quebec schools in order to provide a comparative design to be tested. This
research tried to account for differences in school social systems which could explain
differences in student academic achievement and self-concept of academic ability among
schools; it also attempted to separate the effect of school social-psychological variables
beyond family background.

Chapter II reviewed more directly the findings from past literature on school
effect. It focused on single nation research and cross-cultural studies that questioned this
issue. Importance was given to studies following the Coleman Report (Coleman et al.,
1966) in assessing the influence of socioeconomic background of the student body, and
also to Studies stressing in-school characteristics with a research designs developed for this
level. The conceptual definitions and the findings of Brookover and his associates were
then described. A second section in this chapter presented the theoretical perspective
supporting the data collected in this research in identifying the principal assumptions of
symbolic-interactionism and their importance in this study. Links with general theories of
socialization were shown to be appropriate in this research, as human beings come to
behave in the ways that they perceive others around them expect them to and define as
appropriate for them. Third, the school system of the province of Quebec was introduced.
Particular attention was given to the changes which occured during the last twenty years in
these schools and to their effects on the schools analysed in this study. Finally, the general
objectives pursued by the school system in Quebec were analyzed briefly.

Chapter III described the research methodology developed and followed in
this study. It showed how the 61 schools sampled were chosen in selected areas of the
province, their representativeness, and the characterictics of the schools and actors
participating. Four research instruments had to be developed and are presented there along
with the procedure chosen to collect the data This chapter described also the four different
sets of variables as operationalized in this setting. The sets contain (1) input characteristics

of the schools pertaining to social composition of the student body and other inputs

176

provided to the schools, (2) social structure variables which identify different forms of
interactions, processes, and Status-role definitions in the school, (3) school social-
psychological variables which describe the expectations, evaluations and norms defined
and developed in the social system of the school by students, teachers and principal which
were identified as school climate variables, and (4) two dependent variables, mean school
academic achievement and mean school self-concept of academic ability. Finally, the
procedure followed in the analysis to obtain data pertaining to the school level was
presented and the two sub-samples were introduced.

In chapter IV, the analysis procedure was discussed and the data analysed in
numerous Steps. Several techniques were used to assess the hypothesis stated in the first
chapter. First, four different factor analyses were used to reduce the data on the social
structure to seven logical variables, students' climate items and teachers' climate items to
five variables, and principal's items to four variables. The second part of this chapter
analyzed the intercorrelations between the independent variables, the dependent variables,
and the correlations between independent and dependent variables. It showed some
significant relationships among several variables in different sub-samples and the weak
association between the social structure and "other inputs" sets of variables with the other
sets of variables. It stressed the important correlations between social composition of the
student body and climate variables and between these two sets of variables and the
outcomes measured. The third part of this chapter showed the different regression analyses
performed to separate the between-schools variance explained on the independent variables
by each of the sets of independent variables. The results showed a combined effect of
these social system variables in explaining most of the difference between schools in mean
academic achievement and mean self—concept. Furthermore, they identified clearly the
supremacy of school climate variables over any Other set of variables or social composition

of the student body in accounting for differences on these school level outcomes.

177

This last chapter (Chapter V) demonstrated that most of the hypotheses were
confirmed by the data. The only noteworthy exception is the inconsistent association
between the social structure variables and the other variables measured in this study. The
main findings were Shown to correspond to a considerable extent with the study done by
Brookover and others in 1979 on school social systems as well as with a replication of this
original research in Saudi Arabia in 1983. The main difference in the present study
concerns the most prevailing impact of school social-psychological variables over student

achievement in the schools selected in Quebec.

Conclusion

Some widely acknowledged studies and commonly held ideas consider that
school does not do much in influencing student achievement beyond characteristics
ascribed or achieved prior to enrolling in the school system. At best, they assume that the
social background of the students attending a school and their general level of ability
explain almost all of the variance in achievement between schools and that schools by
themselves cannot make a difference in student cognitive outcomes. This Study confirms
the results submitted by those researchers which looked at variables within the school, and
(or) originating from internal processes, in order to consider an effect of the school that is
genuine and not approximated from outside aggregated characteristics. Such significant
studies include Al-Thubaiti (1983), Brookover et al. (1979), McDill and Rigsby (1973),
Rutter et al. (1979), and to a certain extent, the reanalysis of the IEA studies by Cherkaoui
(1979).

More directly, the findings presented in this analysis confirm the general
proposition stated in Brookover's study that the social interactions which occur within the
school social system explain much of the difference in achievement among schools. The

data obtained in 61 french public elementary schools located in the Bas-St-Laurent-

178

Gaspésie, Saguenay-Lac-St—Jean-COte-Nord, and Metropolitan Quebec City regions
reaffirm that the social-psychological characteristics of the school social system have a
tremendous impact on the student learning outcomes in the schools. It reasserts also the
finding, which is becoming more and more supported in different societies, that social
background of the student body as a school characteristic can no longer be accounted as the
single most important variable influencing academic achievement. Furthermore, the data
obtained in Quebec led to the conclusion that school social-psychological processes
developed in this setting by the members of this unit, above and beyond family
background, can and do make a great difference in students' achievement in school.

This study considered the school as the unit of analysis. All data were
aggregated for the school because the attention was focused on the social system which
exists at that level. In order to appreciate the social interactions in a meaningful social unit,
the school building was set as the border of the social system. This does not imply that
outside interactions or educative influences are trivial in influencing the learning of the
students in school, nor does it mean that there are no differences between individual
students or groups or even between classrooms within a school. This study simply
examined the common characteristics of the school social systems that existed at a certain
time, no matter where and when they developed in the school through the years students
have attended a particular school. The conclusions are only valid for that level of analysis.

Some more words of caution are in order at the end of this study. First, it
should be recalled that the schools selected are not representative of Quebec schools. The
schools were was originally identified to test variations on more variables than those kept in
the present study (see Chapter III for more information). Schools were selected in order to
provide differentiation on some important characteristics to make sure all the variation
necessary to assess the variables included in the first design were present Second, Quebec
has a system of public English elementary schools that runs parallel to the French public

system. These schools are located mostly in the southern part of the province (Montreal

179

being the most important source of students), and attract students mostly from Protestant
parents. It is possible that a Quebec representative random sample would have provided
different results. However, the schools selected with the method described in the third
chapter certainly account, to a large extent, for most characteristics of the French public
elementary schools of the province. They include urban and rural schools, small and large
schools, traditional and innovative schools, as well as high and low SES schools from
regions having characteristics found almost everywhere in Québec.

This research shares the same weaknesses as all other similar studies which
used data collected in a single society at one point in time. It is common to call for
longitudinal data in order to understand how the internal characteristics of the school social
system form and evolve through time. This would be in order to add to the knowledge on
the schools of Quebec and on those elsewhere. In the absence of such studies and as far as
school effect is concerned, this study renders more sound the general belief that "school
makes a difference." AS stated by Warwick and Osherson, "cross-cultural comparison is
essential, for there is no other way to determine the generality of findings than to test them
in all relevant cultural settings" (1973, p.9).

All cultural settings have not been tested on these findings but evidence
becomes more and more insistent. If this study and previous similar studies are valid, there
are reasons to believe that the learning which occurs in schools is indeed, to a large extent,
a product of the evaluations made of the students, of students' role definitions and
expectations, and of the normative climate characterizing the patterns of interaction that
develop within the school social system. In all likelihood, children learn to behave and
succeed in school according to what is defined as appropriate for them by their own school

environment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, K. L., Cook, M. & McDill, E. L. (1978). "Curriculum Tracking and

Educational Stratification: Some Further Evidence. " Amorioaa Smiologioal
Boviow, 43, 47-66.

Alexander, K. L. & Eckland, B. K. (1975). "Contextual effects in the High School
Attainment Process " Americanjocidlogicalfigm 40 402- 16

Alexander, K. L., Eckland, B. K. & Griffin, L. J. (1975). "The Wisconsin Model of

Socioeconomic Achievement: A Replication." Wow, 81,
324 42.

Alexander, K. L., & Griffin, L. J. (1976a). "School District Effects on Academic
Achievement: A Reconsideration." AW, 41, 144-152.

Alexander, K. L., &Griffin, L. J. (1976b). "On School District Organization and Student

Achievement. Some Further Observations." AmofioanMologjoaLRoyiew, 41,
755- 62.

Alexander, K. L., & McDill, E. L. (1976). "Selection and Allocation within Schools:
Some Causes and Consequences of Curriculum Placement." Amorican

Sooiologioal Roviow, 41, 963-80.
Allison, D. J. (1983). "Towards an Improved understanding of the Organizational Nature

of Schools" WWW): 19 7 34
Al-Thubaiti, A. A. (1983). lb; [topaot of tho Sohml as a szial Systom, ago of Family

=. km. n 11 ton a h"'tv n 'n -l- w chul in h W mP o
SamAtabja. Ph. D. Dissertation. Michigan State University.

Alwin, D. F. (1976). "Assessing School Effects: Some Identities." Sociology of

anoatioa, 49, 294-03.
Alwin, D. F., & Otto, L. B. (1977). "High School Context Effects on Aspirations."
Wm 50. 259-273.

Amboise, A., & Ouellet, R. (1981). "Le Projet Educatif de I'Ecole: Une Analyse
Critique." Canadia n Joamal of ancation, 6(2), 39-53.

Anderson, G. J. (1970). "Effects of Classroom Social Climate on Individual Learning."
Amgnoan anoational Roseaseh loamal, 7, 135-52.

Anderson, G. 1., & Rahming, .l. M. (no date). Tho Educational Projoot; From Policy to
Btaotjoe. Montréal: Faculty of Education, McGill University.

180

181

Anderson, C. S. (1985). "The Investigation of School Climate." In G. R. Austin & H.

Garbcr (Eds.). MW (913- 97-126). New York:
Academic Press.

Asope. (several dates). 1 nn ll Et -
dtaats. Vol. 1-16. Montreal and 1Québec: Université de Montreal and Université
Laval.

Austin, G. R. & H. Garber, H. (Eds). (1985). WWW (pp. 3-

30). New York: Academic Press.

Baldridge, J. V. Curtis, D. V. Ecker, G., & Riley, G. L. (1978). Eoljoyflakjogjod
W. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Baer, D. E., & Curtis, J. E. (1984). "French- Canadian- -English Canadian Differences in

Values National Survey findings " WW 9(4)
405-27.

Ballantinc. J. H. (1983). mammammfimmaemflm Englcwood
Cliffs, N. 1.: Prentice-Hall.

Baratz, S. S., & Baratz, J. C. (1970). "Early Childhood Intervention: The Social Science
Base of Institutional Racism." W, 40, 29-50.

Barker, R. G. (1968). EcologioaLEsyohology, Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press.

Barr, R. & Dreeben, R. (1983). W. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Bélanger, P. W. (1970). "L' Ecole Polyvalente: Ses Incidences Sociales." In P. W.
Bélanger&G. Rocher (Eds) W, Sec. Vol. (pp. 339- 66).

Montréal: HMH.
Bélanger, P. W. & Rocher, G. (1970). W. 2 Vol. Montreal:
HMH.

Bell, D. (1972, Fall). " On Meritocracy and Equality." Bubjjgjmmst, 29, 29-68.

Bell, L. A. (1980). "The School as an Organization: A Reappraisal." British Journal of
W 1. 183-89.

Bennett, 8., & Bowers, D. (1976). An Inttooaotioo to Multivariato flfoohniguos for
Bohaviogal Soionoos. New York: Wiley.

Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Con nstrbotion of Roali rty; ATreatisein
th o Sgiology ot Knowloogo. New York: Doubleday Anchor.

Berger, PL. (1969). flfbo Sgial Roality of Roligjon, New York: Faber.

Bickel, W. E. (1983). "Effective Schools" [Special issue]. anoational Rosoarohor,
12(4).

182

Bidwell, C. E., & Kasarda, 1. D. (1975). "School District Organization and Student
Achievement.” W40 55-70

Bidwell, C. E., & Kasarda, 1. D. (1980). "Conceptualizing and Measuring the Effects of
School and Schooling " MW 88 401- 30

Blishen, B. R. (1967). "A Socioeconomic Index for Occupations in Canada." 11 ian
Review of Smiology mo Anthropology, 4, 41-53.

Blishen, B. R., & Mc Roberts, H. A. (1976). "A Revised Socioeconomic Index for
Occnpations In Canada." WW 13(1)
71- 79.

Bloom. B. S. (1976). WWW): New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Blum,1. M. (1978). i n n nt ili ' ' in F 11 ci

W. New York: Montly Review Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symmlie lntetaetionism. Englewood Cliffs, N. 1.: Prentice-Hall.
Blumer, H. (1976). "Sociological Implications of the Thought of G. H. Mead." In B. R.

Cosin et al. (Eds). Sehool and Soeiety (pp. 11-17) London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.

Boocock, S. S. (1980). WWW Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin.

Bowen, D. D., & Kilmann, R. H. (1975). "Developping a Comparative Measure of the
Learning Climate in Professional Schools." Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,

71-79.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Sohmliag in Capitalist Amerioa. New York: Basic
books.

Brimer, A. Madaus, G. F., Chapman, B., Kelleghan, T., & Wood, R. (1978). Somes
9W Slough England NFER Publishing

Brookover, W. B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, 1., & Wisenbaker, J. (1979).
Seh ool Smi a1 Syste rnnsa dStaoeat thlevement New York: Praeger.

Brookover, W. B., Beamer, L., Efthirn, H., Hathaway, D., Lezotte, L., Passalacqua,
1., &Tomatzsky, L. (1982). r tin ff iv h l : An Inservic Pro ram

for Enhancing Sohml Leaming Climate and thievement. Holmes Beach, Fla.:

Learning Publications.

Brookover, W. B., & Erickson, EL. (1969). Sooiety, Schools ano Learning. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Brookover, W. B., & Erickson, EL. (1975). Sooiology of Eroation. Homewood, 111.:
The Dorsey Press.

183

Brookover, W. B., Erickson, E.L., & Joiner, L. M. (1967). n f ili
SohoolebieyemeatJn. East Lansing, Mi.: Human Learning Research Institute,
Michigan State University.

Brookover, W. B. Gigliotti, R., Henderson, R. & Schneider, 1. M. (1973). Soh ool

Env vitoamegt an no Sebooi Aehievement. East Lansing, Mi.: College of Urban
Development, Michigan State University.

Brookover, W. B. LePere, 1., Hamachek, D., Thomas, S., & Erickson, E. (1965). Se_f
Coneth of Ability aad Sebool Aehievement, 11. East Lansing, Mi.: Human

Leaming Research Institute, Michigan State University.

Brookover, W. B. & Lezotte, L. W. (1977). ' t h risti
gzoigeident witb gzbaage in Student Aehievemeat. East Lansing, Mi.: College of

Urban Development, Michigan State University.

Brookover, W. B., Paterson, A., & Thomas, S. (1962). If n f ili
Sehool Aehievemeat. East Lansing, Mi.: College of Education, Michigan State
University.

Brookover, W. B., & Schneider, 1. M. (1975). "Academic Environments and Elementary

School Achievement" WW 8. 82-
91.

Brookover, W. B. Schweitzer, 1. H. Schneider, 1. M., Beady, C. H, Flood, P. K., &
Wisenbaker, J. M. (1978). "Elementary School Climate and School Achievement."

WW 15 301- 18
Brophy, 1. E. (1983). "Research on the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and Teacher

EXPCCInIionS-" IoumaLQLEdrlcatioualfimhologx. 75. 631-61.
Brutsaert, H. (1982). "Type of High School System and Subjective School Outcomes."
n rn incl ml f mar 'v il ,23,88-98.

Brym, R. 1. (1986, Spring). "Anglo-Canadian Sociology." Wu, 34(1).

Burgess, R. G. (1986). WES. New York: Nichols.

Campbell, 1. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial
Behaviot, Eerfotmanoe and Effeetiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Caplan, A.L. (Ed). (1973). W. New York: Harper and Row.

Carlson, K. (1972). "Equalizing Educational Opportunity." R vi w E ti nal
Research. 42(4). 453-75.

Camoy, M. (1974). anoation as Qaltabai Imperialism. London: Longman.

Centra, 1. A., & Linn, R. L. (1970). "On Interpreting Students Perceptions of their
College Environments." Measurement and Evaluation in Qaignce, 3, 102-10.

CEQ, (1972). L'Eeole ab Servioe tie 1a Classe Dominante. Quebec: Corporation des
Enseignants du Quebec.

184

Cherkaoui, M. (1979). W. Paris: Presses Univer -

sitaires de France.

Clark, B. R. (1960). "The Cooling-out Function in Higher Education." Amei'ieauleumai
QLSmingng, 65, 569-76.

Clark, B. R. (1962). W. San francisco: Chandler Publishing
Co.

Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1974). Leadeiship and Ambiguigy; The Amgieg Cellege
Emsidem. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Coleman, J. S. (1961). W New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Coleman, J. S. Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfelt, F. &
York R (1966) W Washington DC: U 3

Government Printing Office.

Cooley, C. H. (1964). Human Naiure and Smial Elder, New York: Schocken Books
(First publisher in 1902).

Cuttance, P. (1980). " h l n i t nl n nc h P rf rmanc of their
Studems." Educational Review, 32, 267-80.

Dar, Y. & Resh, N. (1986). "Classroom Intellectual Composition and Academic
Achievement." Arnm'canfiducationauoumal. 23 357- 74

Davis, K., & Moore, W. (1966). "Some Principles of Stratification." In R. Bendix & S.
Lipset (Eds). W (pp. 47-53). New York: Free Press.

DeYoung, A. J. (1977). "Classroom Climate and Class Success: A Case Study at the
University We! " WM 70 252- 57

DuBrin, A. J. (1974). Fundamenials ef Qigaujzau'enfl Behavier, New York: Pergamon

Press.

Durkheim, E. (1956). W. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1966). Suicide. New York: Free Press.

Durkheim, E. (1982). W. New York: Free Press.

Durkheim, E. (1977). W. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.

Epstein, J., & McPartland, J. M. (1975). The Eff 291$ ef epen nSeh eel Organization on
Sguden n; ngeemes. Baltimore. The Johns Hopkins University Center for Social

Organization of Schools (Report 194).

Faris, R. (1961). "The Ability Dimension in Human Society." American Sociglogical
Review, 26, 835-42.

185

Farrell, J. P. (1979). "The IEA Studies: Factors that Affect Achievement in Six Subjects
in Twenty-one Countries." W, 79, 289-97.

Flanders, N. A. (1967). "Teacher Influence in the Classroom." In E. J. Amidon & J. B.

Hough (Eds.). W (pp. 103-16). Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley.

Forehand, G. A., &Gilmer, B. V. H. (1964). "Environmental Variations in Studies of
Organizational Behavior." WM 62, 361- 82.

Gartner, A. (Ed.). (1984). "School Effectiveness" [Special Issue]. Seciai Peliey, 15(2).

Gellerrnan, S. W. (1960). W New York: McGraw-Hill.

Goffman.E. (1959). MW Garden City. N. Y.:
Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1967). 111mm Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday.

Good, T., & Marshall, 8. (1984). "Do Students Learn More inHeterogeneous or
Homogeneous Groups?" In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson & M. T. Hallinan
(Eds.). h i 1 x n i n' r niz i n n rou

Messes (pp. 15-38). Los Angeles: Academic Press.
Goslin, D. A. (1965). WWW. Glenview, 111.: Scott,

Foresman.

Goyder, J. (1980). "Trends in the Socioeconomic Achievement of the University

Educated: A Status Attainment Model Interpretation." Canadian Jeumg ef Higher
Edueaiigm, 10(2). 21-38.

Grab, E. G. (1980). "Differences in Sense of Control Among French- and English-

Canadian Adolescents." Canadian Review at Seeielegy and Anghropolegy, 17(2),
169-75.

Green, P. (1981). jljhe Eursui; Qt Inequaligy. New York: Pantheon.

Grimshaw, AD. (1973). "Comparative Sociology: In What Way Different from Other
Sociologies?" In M. Amer & A. D. Grimshaw (Eds..) gem mparative Seeial

WWW (pp 3- 48) New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

Guilford, J. P. (1965). Eundamengal Sgaiisgics in Esyehelegy and Educau'en. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Guppy, N. Mikicich, P. D., & Pendakur, R. (1984). "Changing Patterns of Educational
Inequality 1n Canada." fl he Canadian Juurnal ef Smiglegy, 9(3), 319 31.

Guidon, H. (1964). "Social Unrest, Social Class and Quebec's Bureaucratic Revolution."

W. 71(2). 150-62.

186

Guidon, H. (1978). "The Modernization of Québec and the Legitimacy of the Canadian
State." In D. Glendan, H. Guindon, & A. Turowetz (Eds.). W
W (pp. 212-46). Toronto: MacMillan.

Hall, R. (1963). ”The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment." American
MW 69 3240

Hall, R, H. (1972). nganizatidns, Structure and Erccess, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall.

Haller, A. O. & Portes, A. (1973). "Status Attainment Processes." Secielegy cf
Education. 46. 51-91.

Hallinan, M. T., & Sorenson, A. B. (1985). "Class Size, Ability Group Size and Student
Achievement " Americaaloumalotfiducation 94 71- 89

Hallinan, M. T., & Sorenson, A. B. (1986). "Student Characteristics and Assingment to

Ability Groups: Two Conceptual Formulations." W 27,
1-13.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy,f J. F. (1986). "The Social Context of Effective Schools."
American qum a! cf Educau'cu, 3, 328- 55.

Halpin. A. W.. & Croft. D. B. (1963). W Chicago:
Midwest Administran'on Center, The University of Chicago.

Harman, M. T., Freeman, J. H. & Meyer, J. W. (1976). "Specification of Models for
Organizational Effectiveness." AmericatiSdcidlcgicaiRmew, 41, 136-43.

Harman, H. H. (1967). MddmjaetdLAuaiysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Harris, M. (1968). R1 f An hr
Cuituce, New York: Thomas Y. Cromwell.
Harris, M. (1979). Cultural Materialism; The Smiggle fez a Science cf Culture. New

York: Random House.

Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). "Mediation of Interpersonal Expectancy Effects:
31 Meta-Analysis." Esychelcgical Bulletin, 97, 363-86.

Hauser, RM. (1971). i n mi B k un n E ucati nal P rf rmance.
Washington DC: Rose Monograph Series, American Sociological Association.

Hauser, R.M., Sewell, W. H., & Alwin, D. (1976). "High School Effect on
Achievement." In W. H. Sewell, R. M. Hauser, & D. L. Featherrnan (Eds.).

Scheoling and Achievement in American Sccielx (pp. 309-41). New York:

Academic Press.

Hays, W. L. (1973). Statistics fer the Smial Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.

Heath, A., & Clifford, P. (1980). "The Seventy Thousand Hours that Ritter Left out."
Qafgrd Review 9f Educatidn, 6, 3-19.

187

Heath, A. & Clifford, P. (1981). "The Measurement and Explanation of School
Differences." Qx fem Revr viwe we; Educatida, 7, 33- 40.

Hewitt, J. P. (1984). Self and Smiety; A Symmlic Interactienist Secial Psychclogy.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Heyneman, S. P. (1976). "Influences on Academic Achievement: A Comparison of
Results from Uganda and More Industrialized Societies." Smielogy cf Educatien,
49, 200-11.

Heyneman, S. P., & Loxley, W. A. (1982). "Influences on Academic Achievement
Across High and Low Income Countries: A Re-Analysis of IEA Data." 5331M
We 559 13'21-

Heyns, B. (1974). "Social Selection and Stratification within Schools." Amecicadloiflacl
QLSmiQngyJ9, 1434-51.

Hodson, G. (1975). "Do Schoolsn Make a Diffehrenlee?" In Di M. Levin,, &i M. J. Bane
44). New York: Basic Books.v

Holdaway, E. A., Newberry, J. F. Hickson, D. J., & Heron, P. R. (1975).
"Dimensions of Organizations in Complex Societies: The Educational Sector."

W 20 37 58

Husén, T. (1979)W. flue Schdel 111 Questiea; A Cdm mpati ve Study cf the Schml and its
Eutur rein Western Smiety, London: Oxford University Press.

Husén, T., Saha, L. J., & Noonan, R. (1978). h r r inin an t den
Achievement in LQCIs, Washington DC: World Bank.

lnsel, P. M., & Moos, R. J. (1974). "Psychological Environments. Expanding the Scope
of Human Ecology." W19. 179-88.

James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). "Organizational Climate: A Review of Theory and
Research." Esyehdlegieaifituiedri, 81, 1096-1112.

James, W. (1970). "The Social Self." In G. P. Stone & H. A. Farberman (Eds.). ngial

Esychclcgy thrdugh Symmlic Interacdcn (pp. 373-77). Waltham, Mass.: Xerox
College Publishing.

Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., &
Michelson, S. (1972). Iaegualigt. New York: Basic Books.

Jencks, C., & Brown, M. (1975). "The Effect of Desegregation on Student Achievement:
Some New Evidence from the Equality of Educational Opportunity Survey."

Smielegy cf Educatida, 48(1), 126—40.

Jensen, A. R. (1969). "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?"
flaflaid Educatidnal Review, 39, 1-123.

188
Johnson, D. (1970). W New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston.

Kahl, J. A. (1953). "Educational and Occupational Aspirations of 'Common Man' Boys."
WW 23. 186-203-

Kerlinger, F. N., & Pedhazur, E. J. (1973). Multiple Regcessidn in Behavidral Researgch.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

King, S. (1979). "Review of Fifteen Thousand Hours." Educatienal Research and

122mm 6. 8284.

Klein , Z., & Eshel, Y. (1980). W New York: Academic
Press.

Kuhn, M. (1964, Winter). "The Reference Group Reconsidered." W1,
5. 6—21.

Kyle, R. M. (Ed.). (1985). R bin 11 n ° 11 ff

Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Laforce, L, & Massot, A. (1983). "Les Inégalités Sociales dans l'Ecole Québécoise des
Années Soixante- Dix. " In R. Cloutier, J. Moisset, .& R. Ouellet (Eds..) Anal1se

Wm (pp. 157- 85). Montreal: Boréal Express.

Lau, L. J. (1979). "Educational Production Functions." In D. M. Windham (Ed).
W on 33 69 Washington DC-' National

Academy of Education.

Leacock, E. B. (1969). T achin 11 min in i cho l . New York: Basic
Books.

Lewis, 0. (1966). "The Culture of Poverty." Scientific Americm, pp. 19-25.

Lezotte, L., Miller, S., Hathaway, D, Passalacqua, J. & Brookover, W. B. (1980).
WWW Tallahasse Fla: The SSTA

Center, Florida State University.

Lickert, R. (1967). 1] he Humaa Qgganizatien, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lipset, S. M. (1970). v 1 i n n n rr v 1 ' 11. Revised Paperback Edition.
Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor Books.

Lipset, S. M. (1985). "Canada and the United States: The Cultural Dimension." In C. F.

Doran & J. H. Sigler (Eds.). Canada and the United States: Enduring Friendship,
Eersistent Stress pp. 109-60. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.

Lipset, S. M. (1986). "Historical Traditions and National Characteristics: A Comparative

Analysis of Canada and the United States" fijbe Canadian Jeurnal of Sdciolog1,
11(2), 113-155.

Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). 'vati n n nizati n l limate. Boston:
Division of Research, Harvard Business School.

189

MacPhail-Wilcox, B. (Ed.). (1983, October). "In Pursuit of School Effectiveness"
[Special Scotionl- .NASSLEulletin. 67(465)-

Mallea. J. R., & Young. 1. C. (1984). WM
Ottawa: Carleton University Press.

Marjoribanks, K. (1982). "Fifteen Thousand Hours: A Related Study of Family School
Difference " Educarioualimdies. 8

Marks, R. (1980). ""Legitimating Industrial Capitalism; Philanthropy and Individual
Differences." In R. F. Amove (Ed..) Ehilanthmp1 arid Cult_u_cai 1m mpmalism; The
W51 (pp 87-122) Bloomington 1nd-' Indiana

University Press.

Marshall, H. H., & Weinstein, R. S. (1986). "Classroom Context of Student-Perceived

Differential Teacher Treatment." WWW 78(6), 441-
53.

Mayeske, G. W., Wisler, C.E., Reation, A. E., Weinfeld, F. 0., Cohen, W. M., Okado,
T., Pruskek, J. M., & Tabler, K. A. (1969). f Nation' .
Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of
Education.

McDill, E. L., Meyers, E. D., & Rigsby, L. (1967). "Institutional Effects on the
Academic Behavior of High School Students." Smidldguflfiducaticp, 72, 181-
99.

McDill, E. L., Rigsby, L., & Meyers, E. D. (1969). "Educational Climates of High
Schools: Their Effects and Sources." m ri n urnal f i 1 ,74,567—86.

McDill, E. L., & Rigsby, L. (1973). IL); Academic impact cf Educatienal Climates:
Stcucture and EIQQQSSQS in Seccndag Scheels. Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins
University Press.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Smiet1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mellouki, M. (1983). "Stratification, Classes Sociales et Fonctions de 1'Ecole". In R.

Cloutier, J. Moisset, & R. Ouellet (Eds.). ‘Apai1seSdciaiedeiEducatiQu(pp.129-
55). Montreal: Boréal Express.

Meyer, J. W. (1970). "The Charter: Conditions of Diffuse Socialization 1n Schools." In

W R Scon (Ed) W09 564-78) New
York: Holt, Rinehart&Winston.

Meyer, J. W. (1980). "Levels of the Educational System and Schooling Effects." In C. E.
Bidwell & D. M. Windham (Eds.). Anal i f E ' nal Pro ' '

Issues in Microanalysis, Vol. 2, (pp. 15-63). Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.

Meyer, J. W. (1977). "Education as an Institution." American icurnal of Sociolcg1, 83,
55-77.

190

Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1983). "The Structure ofi Educational Organizations. " In J.

W. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds). nm 11 1 an
Ratiehaht1(pp. 71- 98). London: Sage.
Miller, S. K.(1983). I1 o' u o ‘ 'v hm " ' ‘ - 'i -. 0v rvi w.

Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting,
Montreal, Canada.

Miller, S. K. (1985). "Research on Exemplary Schools: An Historical Perspective." In

G. R. Austin & H. Garber (Eds.). Reseaich eh Exemplag Schmls (pp. 3-30).
New York: Academic Press.

Ministere de 1'Education. (1979). II he Schmls cf Quemc; Eelic1 Statement and Elan cf
Aetipn. Quebec: Gouvernement du Quebec.

MiniStere de 1'Education (1982) W
W. Quebec: Gouvernement du Quebec.

Minuchin, P., Biber, B., Shapiro, E., & Zimiles, H. (1969). W
Schoel Experience, New York: Basic Books.

Mood, A. M. (1971). "Paritioning Variance in Multiple Regression Analyses as a Tool For
Developing Learning Models. " Ammcahflucatmaim, 8(2), 191-202.

Moos. R. H., & Trickett, E. (1974). WI, Palo Alto:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moos, R. H. (1979). E1aiuatihg_Educ_aticmaLEn1it_meeh_ts, San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Mosteller, F., & Moynihan, D. (1972). W. New

York: Random House.

Moynihan, D. P. (1965). fl he Negm family, The Case fer Naticnal Acticn. Washington,
D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office.

Mumane, R. J. (1975). jifhe Impact pf Scheei Reseurces en the Learning at inner City
Children. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.

Murphy, R. (1981). "Teachers and the Evolving Structural Context of Economic and
Political Attitudes in Quebec Society." vi w

Ambroaoloax 18 157 82
O'Reilley, P. (1975). "Classroom Climate and Achievement in Secondary School

Mathematic Classes." 1 rt rn 1 f E uca' n R h,21,241-48.
Pace, R. C. (1963). CUES; Cellege and Univei'sit1 Envimnmental Scales. Princeton, N.

J .: Educational Testing Service.

Pace, R. C., & Stern, G. E. (1958). "An Approach to the Measurement of Psychological

Characteristics of College Environments." qurnal cf Emucational Ps1cholog1, 49,
269-77.

191

A

ParentReport. (1964). ’ mu 0 .. m i i ‘o .1 .' n-,-- i nmn
MW. Vol.2. Quebec: EditeurOfficreldu Quebec.

Parsons, T. (1959, fall). "The School as a Social System: Some of its Functions in
American Society. " WM 29, 297- 318.

Passalacqua, J. (1979). An Analysis at the Ecclegical Ehenemena Qt Self-Cencept. MA
Thesis, Michigan State University.

Persell, CH. (1977). .o. .0 ._on n o. al'r "on. ..no ’- l o_ , ~1fi -o'nin
AmencasSchmls. New York: Free Press.

Plowden, B., etal. (1967). Chfldpemandflemflnmamschedls, London: Her Majesty's
Stationery Office, 2 vol.

Porter, J. (1965). Ihe_y_et;tic_al_Mesaic. Toronto: The University of Toronto Press.

Postlethwaite, T. N. (1975). "The Surveys of the International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)." In A. C. Purves & D. V. Levine
(Eds.). cainl li nnrninA mn'Imli 'nthEA

Surveys ef Educatienal Achievement. Berkeley, Ca.: McClutchan.

Przeworski. A. & Teune. H. (1970). W New
York: Wiley Interscience.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J. Hinings, C. R. & Turner, C. (1968). "Dimensions of
Organization Structure" MW 13 65- 106-

Randhawa, B. S., & Hunt, D. (1976). "Factors in Classroom Environment Variables."

,Icumal et Educatienal Esychclcgy, 68, 546-49.
Raudenbush, S. & Bryk, A. S. (1986). "A Hierarchical Model for Studying School

EffeCIs." Whoa. 59. 1-17.
Reynolds, D. (1982). "The Search for Effective Schools." Scheel Qrganizatien, 2(3),
215-37.

Richer, S., & Laporte, P. (1971). "Culture, Cognition and English-French Competition."
In J. 1. Elliott (Ed.). in ri na 1 n ' lmmi r n r , pp. 141-50.
Scorborough, Ont: Prentice-Hall of Canada.

Roberge, P. (1979). Le Nombril Vert et les Oreilles Mzolles " n r une
O '0' oi 0. V ‘ 9V 0. ‘o o 50‘ An “ ' 0. (211613602
ASOPE, Université Laval.

Rose, A. M. (1962). "A Systematic Summary of Symbolic Interaction Theory." InA. M.
Rose (Ed..) um 11 (pp. 3-19). London:
Routledge and Kegan Paulh.

Rosenbaum, J. E. (1976). Making Inequality. New York: Wiley.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). "Effective Schools: Interpreting the Evidence." American
loumaloflfiducation. 93(3). 352-88.

192

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). hgmalicminfleflassmn, New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Rowan, B., Bossert, S. T. &Dwyer, D. C. (1983). "Research on Effective Schools: A
Cautionary Note." EducationalResemchci, 12(4), 24»31.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B, Mortimore, P., Ouston, J, & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen

I 0- ,cn :0 r' '0 I o; 101-1m h'_ ff 0 .Cambridge.
Harvard University Press.

Saha, L. J. (1983). "Social Structure and Teacher Effects on Academic Achievement: A
Comparative AnalysiS” WM 27 69-88

Schafer, W., & Olexa, C. (1975). W Scranton, Pa.: Chandler.
Schneider, B. (1973). "The perception of Organizational Climate: The Customer' 3 View."

MW 57 248 56
Sergi, T. S. & Shoemaker, J. (Eds). (1985). Im mmving Studen tAchievement; Sch m1

W. Hartford, Ct.: State Department of Education.

Sewell, W. H. & Hauser, R. M. (1964). "The Wisconsin Longitudinal Study of Social
and Psychological Factors in Aspirations and Achievements." Research in
W 1 59-99

Sewell W H & Hauser R M (1975) WWW
AchievememiaAmeticaniocim New York Academic Press

Sewell, W. H. & Hauser, R. M.i (1976). Reci'venth velndpme ts in theW iscdnsin Study ef
i nP hl 1F nmiAhivmn. Madison:

University of Wisconsin, Center for Demography and Ecology, Working Paper 11.
Sewell, W. H., Hauser, R. M., & Featherman, D. L. (Eds.). (1976). Scheeling and

Achievement 1n Am menicaii Smjety. New York: Academic Press.
Sibley, E. (1942). "Some Demographic Clues to Stratification." m ri i l ical

Review, 7, 322-30.

Silbergeld, S., Koening, G. & Manderscheid, R. W. (1975). "Classroom Psychosocial
Environment "MmaLoLEducatMalBeseatch 69 151- 55

Smith, M. (1972). "Equality of Educational Opportunity: The Basic Findings
Reconsidered." In F. Mosteller, & D. Moynihan (Eds.). Qn Equality of

Educatienal thmrtunitx (PP. 230-342). New York: Random House.

Sorenson, A. B, & Hallinan, M. T. (1977). "A Reconceptualization of School Effects. "
MW 50 273- 89

Stein, A. (1971). "Strategies of Failure." Har_1ard Educational review, 41, 158-204.

193

Stern, G. G. (1960). "Continuity and Contrast 1n the Transition from High School to
College." In N. C. Brown (Ed..) n ti 11 in — al
(pp. 33-58). Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education.

Stern, G. G. (1963). "Characteristics of the Intellectual Climate 1n College Environment."
Wm. 31.5-41

Stem, G. G. (1970). ' n X' M a uri n— vir nm 11 n nc in
Educationandhdum New York: Wiley.

Stodolsky, S. (1984). "Framework for Studying Instructional Processes in Peer Work
Groups." In P. L. Peterson, L. c. Wilkinson 8:. M. T.Ha11inan (Eds..) Mai

WWW (pp 107- 24)
Los Angeles: Academic Press.

Stouffer, S. A. (1962). "The Study of Mobility: Some Strategic Considerations." In S.

A Stouffer (Ed) Wwp 225- 31) Gleneoe 111
Free Press.

Sullivan, J. L. (1980). nit 'v A 1i ti n in h ocial
Sciences. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage Publications.

Tagiuri, R. (1968). "The Concept of Organizational Climate." In R. Tagiuri & G. H.
Litwin (Eds ) WWW (PP 11- 34)
Boston: Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business
Administration.

Taubman. P. & Wales. '1‘. (1974). WWW
Qeyiee. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Theisen, G. L., Achola, P. W., & Boakari, F. M. (1983). "The Underachievement of

Cross-National Studies of Achievement." Cem mpaiativ e Educaticnal Review, 27,
46-68.

Thistlethwaite, D. L. (1962). "Rival Hypothesis for Explaining the Effects of Different
Learning Environments." f ' n l h l ,53, 310-15.

Thomas, W. I. (1928). fl he Child in America, New York: Knopf.

Thorndike, R. L. (1975). "The Relation of School Achievement to Differencves in the
Backgrounds of Children." In A. C. Purvers & D. V. Levine (eds.). Educational
7011 .n: n-.o.m‘n a - mn' Imli in f h EA rv of
Educatienal Achievement (pp. 93-104). Berkeley, Ca.: McClutchan.

Turner, R. (1960). "Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System." American
Sccielegical Review, 25. 855-67.

Tyler, W. B. (1985). "The Organizational Structure of the School." Annual Review of
Semiciegy, 11, 49-73.

Valentine, C. A. (1971). "The Culture of Poverty : Its Scientific Significance and its
Implications for Action. " In E. Leacock (Ed..) Th 1 r of P v rt '
ACtitinue (pp. 193- 225). New York: Simon and Schuster.

194

Walberg, H. J. (1969). "Social Environment as a Mediator of Classroom Learning."
Mmalofjducationiflmhologx. 60. 44348.

Walberg, H. J., Singh, R., & Rosher, S. P. (1977). "Predictive Validity of Student
Perceptions: A Cross-Cultural Replication." American Educational Research
Jeumal, 14, 45-49.

Warriner, C. K. (1970). jljhe Emergence pt Smiety, Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press.
Warwick, D. P, & Osherson, S. (1973). "Comparative Analysis 1n the Social Sciences"

in D P Warwick & S Osherson (Eds..) wwwp 3-
41). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice- Hall.

Webster, M., 81. Sobieszek, B. (1974). SemeseLSelfiEyaiuatim New York: Wiley.
Woods, P. (1983). Stmielegy and the Schedl; An Intetactienist Viempcint, London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Yuchtman, Y. E., & Samuel, E. (1975). "Determinants of Career Plans: Institutional

Versus Interpersonal Effects." American Smielegical Review, 40, 521-31.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRES IN ENGLISH AND
FRENCH VERSIONS

APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRES IN ENGLISH AND FRENCH VERSIONS

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
51 1D . . l E] I I

Research directed by Yvon Bouchard
with the collaboration
of the Ministere de l'Education du Quebec,
of the La Neigette School Board, Rimouski,
of the Université du Quebec at Rimouski

DIRECTIONS: This questionnaire is part of a survey conducted to know more about
students and their work in schools . This is not an examination, nor a test,
and it will have no effect on your grades. Your answers will not be given
to your teacher, nor to the principal of the school. There is no right or
wrong answer. What interests us is your idea on the questions asked.

ANSWER EACH QUESTION AND MAKE ONLY ONE CHOICE. CIRCLE THE
NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO THE ANSWER WHICH TELLS MORE ABOUT
YOUR IDEA.

 

Here are two examples:

1. What is the capital city of the Province of Quebec?

Montreal — 1
Quebec —@

Ottawa — 3

Chicoutimi — 4

Rimouski — 5

2. How many teachers in your school are older than your are?

All of them —63

Most of them — 2

Half of them — 3

Some of them — 4
None of them — 5

 

195

196
Student Questionnaire

. Write your name here.

 

. What is the name of your teacher?

 

. Tell us the name of your school and the city or village where it is located.

 

 

School:
Location:
. How old were you on your last birthday?
8 years old -— 1
9 years old — 2
10 years old — 3
11 years old — 4
12 years old — 5
13 years old — 6
14 years old — 7
. Are you a boy or a girl?
a boy — 1
a girl — 2
. What grade are you in?
3rd grade — 1
4th grade — 2
5th grade — 3
6th grade — 4
7th grade — 5

. How many years have you been at this school?
One year or less — 1

2years—2
3or4years—3
Sor6years—4
7or8years—4

9yearsormore—5

. What type of work does your father do?
[Give a short description of his work and where he works. ]

 

 

 

 

 

197
Student Questionnaire

ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTTONS BY PICKING THE RESPONSE WHICH
FITS MOST AMONG THOSE SUGGESTED. REMEMBER THAT NO ONE WILL
SEE YOUR ANWERS EXCEPT SOME OF US AT THE UNIVERSITE DU QUEBEC
AT RIMOUSKI. BE FRANK AND TELL US EXACTLY AND WITHOUT FEAR
WHAT YOU THINK. [Pick only one answer .]

9. If you could go as far as you wanted in school, how far would you like to go?
Finish elementary level (6th or 7th grade) — 1
Go to high school for a while — 2
Finish high school (12th grade) — 3
Go to cegep (14th or 15th grade) — 4
Go to university — 5

10. Sometimes, what one mum to see happen is not what one thinks will happen.
How far do you really think you will go in school?

Finish elementary level (6th or 7th grade) — 1

Go to high school for a while — 2

Finish high school (12th grade) — 3

Go to cegep (14th or 15th grade) — 4

Go to university —— 5

1 1. How many students in this school always try to get good grades on weekly
assignments?
All of the students — 1
Most of the students -— 2
Half of the students — 3
Some of the students — 4
Almost none of the students — 5

12. How many students in your school will work hard to get better grades on weekly
assignments than their friends do?
All of the students — 1
Most of the students — 2
Half of the students — 3
Some of the students — 4
Almost none of the students — 5

13. How many students in your school don't care if they get bad grades?
All of the students — 1
Most of the students — 2
Half of the students — 3
Some of the students — 4
Almost none of the students — 5

14. How many students in this school work more than it is necessary to succeed on weekly
assignments?

All of the students — 1

Most of the students — 2

Half of the students ——- 3

Some of the students — 4

Almost none of the students — 5

198
Student Questionnaire

15. According to you, if most students in this school could go as far as they wanted in
school, how how far would they go?
Finish elementary level (6th or 7th grade) — 1
Go to high school for a while — 2
Finish high school (12th grade) — 3
Go to cegep (14th or 15th grade) — 4
Go to university — 5

16. How important is it for you to be a good student?

Somewhat important — 3

Not very important — 4
Not important at all — 5

17. How important do most of the students in this_class feel it is to do well in school?
They feel it is very important — 1
They feel it is important — 2
They feel it is somewhat important — 3
They feel it is not very important — 4
They feel it is not important at all — 5

18. According to you, do most of the students in thisscheel feel it is important to do well
in school?
They feel it is very important — 1
They feel it is important — 2
They feel it is somewhat important — 3
They feel it is not very important — 4
They feel it is not important at all — 5

19. How many students in thisciass feel it is fun to study?
All of the students — 1
Most of the students — 2
Half of the students — 3
Some of the students — 4
Almost none of the students — 5

20. How many students in your school make fun of or tease students who get real good
grades?
All of the students — 1
Most of the students — 2
Half of the students — 3
Some of the students — 4
Almost none of the students — 5

21. How many students don't do as well as they could do in school because they are afraid
Other students won't like them as much?

All of the students — 1

Most of the students — 2

Half of the students — 3

Some of the students — 4

Almost none of the students — 5

199
Student Questionnaire

REMEMBER, YOU MUST GIVE ONLY ONE ANSWER BY CIRCLING THE
NUMBER WHICH CORRESPONDS TO YOUR RESPONSE.

22. How many students don't do as well as they could do in school because they are afraid
theiehesimends won't like them as much?

All of the students — 1

Most of the students — 2

Half of the students — 3

Some of the students — 4

Almost none of the students — 5

23. Should the teachers not grade the work done in class, how many students in thisschpel
would work hard anyway?
All of the students — 1
Most of the students — 2
Half of the students — 3
Some of the students — 4
Almost none of the students — 5

24. Purple like me will not have much of a chance to do what we want to in life.
Strongly agree — l

Agree—2
Agreemoreorless—3
Disagree—4

Strongly disagree —- 5

25. People like me will never be successful in school even if we try.
Strongly agree — 1

Agree — 2
Agree more or less — 3
Disagree — 4

Strongly disagree — 5

26. I can do well in school when I work hard.
Strongly agree —- 1

Agree—2
Agree more or less — 3
Disagree—4

Strongly disagree — 5

27. In this school, students like me don't have any luck, nothing good ever happens to
them.

Strongly agree — 1

Agree — 2
Agree more or less — 3
Disagree — 4

Strongly disagree — 5

200
Student Questionnaire

28. You have to be lucky to get good grades in this school.
Strongly agree — 1

Agree—2
Agreemoreorless—3
Disagree—4

Strongly disagree — 5

29. Think of your best friends. Do you think you can do school work better, the same or
poorer than them?
Better than all of them —1
Better than most of them — 2
About the same — 3
Poorer than most of them — 4
Poorer than all of them — 5

30. Think of the W. Do you think you can do school work better, the
same or poorer than them?

Better than all ofthem — 1

Better than most of them — 2

About the same — 3

Poorer than most of them — 4

Poorer than all of them — 5

31. When you get to high school, how good of a student will you be in comparison with
the Others students?

One of the best — 1

Better than most of the students — 2

Same as most of the students — 3

Below most of the students — 4

One of the worst — 5

32. Do you think you could succeed at university?
Yes, for sure — 1
Yes, probably — 2
Maybe — 3
No, probably not — 4
No, for sure — 5

33. If you went to university, do you think you would be a very good student, same as
most or a bad student?
One of the best — 1
Better than most of the students — 2
Same as most of the students — 3
Below most of the students — 4
One of the worst — 5

201
Student Questionnaire

34. Someone who wants to be a doctor or a teacher must go to the university for at least
three years. Do you think you could do that?
Yes, for sure — 1
Yes, probably -— 2
Maybe — 3
No, probably not — 4
No, for sure — 5

35. Forget about how your teachers mark your work. How good do you think your own
work at school is?

It is excellent work — 1

It is good work — 2

It is as good as others' — 3

It is worse than others' — 4

It is bad work — 5

36. How good of a student do you think you are in this school?
Yes, for sure — 1
Yes, probably — 2
Maybe — 3
No, probably not — 4
No, for sure — 5

37. How far do you think your best friend believes you will go in school?
Finish elementary level (6th or 7th grade) — 1
Go to high school for a while — 2
Finish high school (12th grade) — 3
Go to cegep (14th or 15th grade) — 4
Go to university — 5

NOW HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TEACHERS IN THIS SCHOOL.
ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AS YOU ANSWERED THE OTHER ONES BY
CIRCLING THE NUMBER. REMEMBER, IiQ TEACHER IN THE SCHOOL WILL
SEE YOUR ANSWERS. PLEASE, BE HONEST.

38. Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many tell students to try hard to get
good grades at examinations, tests and school work?

All of the teachers — 1

Most of the teachers — 2

Half of the teachers — 3

Some of the teachers -— 4

Almost none of the teachers — 5

39. How many teachers in this school tell students to try to get better grades than other
students in the class?
All of the teachers — 1
Most of the teachers — 2
Half of the teachers — 3
Some of the teachers — 4
Almost none of the teachers — 5

202
Student Questionnaire

40. Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many feel really sorry when students
get bad grades?

All of the teachers —- 1

Most of the teachers -— 2

Halfof the teachers — 3

Some of the teachers — 4

Almost none of the teachers —- 5

41. Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many tell their students to do extra
work after school to get better grades?

All of the teachers -— 1

Most of the teachers — 2

Half of the teachers — 3

Some of the teachers — 4

Almost none of the teachers — 5

42. Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many ask too much work from the
students?

All of the teachers — 1

Most of the teachers — 2

Half of the teachers — 3

Some of the teachers — 4

Almost none of the teachers — 5

43. It is useless to work hard in this school since the teachers are satisfied as long as you
just pass.
Strongly agree — 1

Agree—2
Agree more orless — 3
Disagree—4

Strongly disagree — 5

44. Think of WW. How far does he believe you will go in school?
Finish elementary level (6th or 7th grade) — 1
Go to high school for a while — 2
Finish high school (12th grade) — 3
Go to cegep (14th or 15th grade) — 4
Go to university — 5

45. Think of the W. Does he expect you to be a good student, an
average student or a poor student in this school?
One of the best — 1
Better than most of the students — 2
Same as most of the students — 3
Below most of the students — 4
One of the worst — 5

203
Student Questionnaire

46. Think of W. Does he think you can do school work better, the same or
poorer than Other people your age?

Betterthan allofthem— 1
Better than most of them — 2
About the same — 3

Poorer than most of them — 4
Poorer than all of them — 5

47. Would your teacher say that you will graduate from high school with grades which are
better, the same or poorer than other high school students?

Better grades than them — 1
Very good grades — 2
About the same as them — 3
Not as good grades —— 4
Worst grades than them — 5

48. Do you often find teachers in this school which try to help students which are not as
successful as the others.

They always try to help them — 1
They usually try to help them — 2
They sometimes try to help them — 3
They seldom try to help them — 4
They never try to help them — 5

49. Compare with students from Other schools, do students in this school learn more, the
same or less than Other students?

They learn a lot more in this school — 1
They learn a little more in this school — 2
About the same as other school — 3

They learn a little bit less in this school — 4
They learn a lot less in this school — 5

50. Compared to students from Other schools, will the students from this school be
successful in high school?

They will be among the best — 1

They will do bit better than most — 2
They will be about the same as most — 3
They will do poorer than most — 4

They will do worst than most — 5

51. How important is it for the teachers in this school that the students learn what is
thought in class?

It is the most important thing to the teachers — 1
It is very important to the teachers — 2

It is somewhat important to the teachers — 3

It is not very important to the teachers —- 4

It is not important at all to the teachers — 5

204
Student Questionnaire

52. Think of the teachers you know in this school. Do you believe that they care more or
less than teachers in other schools about whether or not students learn what is thought in
class?

Teachers in this school care a lot more — 1
Teachers in this school care a little more — 2
There is no difference — 3

Teachers in this school care a little less — 4
Teachers in this school care a lot less — 5

53. When most of the students in this class fail in an assignment, does your teacher always
try to help you understand or does he never?

They always try to help us — 1

They usually try to help us — 2

They sometimes try to help us — 3

They seldom try to help us — 4

They never try to help us — 5

54. Does your teacher think you could attend university some day?
Yes, for sure — 1
Yes, probably — 2
Maybe — 3
No, probably not — 4
No, for sure — 5

55. Remember that one needs at least three years of university to become a teacher or a
doctor. Would your teacher think you could do that?
Yes, for sure — 1
Yes, probably — 2
Maybe — 3
No, probably not — 4
No, for sure — 5

56. How far do you think your parents believe you will go in school?

NOW WE ARE ASKING YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR PARENTS.
ANSWER THE SAME WAY YOU ANSWERED THE OTHER ONES.

57. Do your parents say you can do school work better, the same or poorer than your
friends?
Finish elementary level (6th or 7th grade) — 1
Go to high school for a while — 2
Finish high school (12th grade) — 3
Go to cegep (14th or 15th grade) — 4
Go to university — 5

58. Do your parents say your grades will be better, the same or poorer than other students
when you finish high school?

Better than all of them — 1

Better than most of them — 2

About the same -— 3

Poorer than most of them — 4

Poorer than all of them — 5

205
Student Questionnaire

59. How good of a student would your parents like you to be in school?
One of the best — 1
Better than most of the students —- 2
Same as most of the students — 3
Below most of the students — 4
One of the worst — 5

60. Do your parents believe you could attend university some day?
Yes, for sure — 1
Yes, probably — 2
Maybe — 3
No, probably not — 4
No, for sure — 5

61. Remember that one needs at least three years of university to become a teacher or a
doctor. Do your parents think you could do that?
Yes, for sure — 1
Yes, probably — 2
Maybe — 3
No, probably not — 4
No, for sure — 5

READ EACH STATEMENT BELOW. CIRCLE THE NUMBER WHICH INDICATES
IF THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE OR NOT FOR YOU.

62. In class, I can move about the room without asking my teacher.

Always — 1
Often — 2
Sometimes — 3
Seldom — 4
Never — 5
63. I can talk to other students while I am working.
Always — l
Often — 2
Sometimes — 3
Seldom — 4
Never — 5
64. In the classroom, I sit at the same place and besides the same students.
Always — 1
Often — 2 '
Sometimes — 3
Seldom — 4

Never — 5

206
Student Questionnaire

65. When I am working on something in class, the other students are also working on the
same thing.

Always — 1
Often — 2
Sometimes — 3
Seldom — 4
Never —— 5

66. In most of my classes, the teacher tells me what I must work on; I have no choice.

Always — l
Often — 2
Sometimes — 3
Seldom — 4
Never — 5

67. In class, the teacher stands in front and works with all of the students at the same time.

Always —— 1
Often — 2
Sometimes — 3
Seldom — 4
Never —— 5

NOW, ANSWER THE FOLLOWING FEW QUESTIONS BY CIRCLING THE
ANSWER WHICH INDICATES BEST WHAT YOU THINK.

68. Think of the students in this school. Do they say that there are too many rules which
force them to work in this school?

They say so every day — 1

They often say so — 2

They sometimes say so — 3

They seldom say so — 4

They never say so — 5

69. In this school, it is impossible to know when we are doing good or when we are doing
bad.
Strongly agree — 1

Agree — 2
Agree more or less — 3
Disagree — 4

Strongly disagree —— 5

70. In this school, we would learn much more things if the teachers would tell us what to
do.
Strongly agree — 1

Agree — 2
Agree more or less -—— 3
Disagree — 4

Strongly disagree — 5

TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

5‘1 1: .. 1131 IV!

Research directed by Yvon Bouchard
professor of sociology and education
Deparmrent of Education, Université du Quebec at Rimouski
300 Ave. des Ursulines, Rimouski, G5L 3A1
Telephone: (418) 724-1670 or 724—1682

This research is sponsored by the La Neigette School Board, Rimouski, and
the Université du Quebec at Rimouski, with a grant from the Minister'e de
l'Education du Québec (project 78-57 DGDP)

DIRECTIONS: The information which is provided by this questionnaire is completely
' . Neene will see your answers except the members of the
research Staff. The report which will follow this survey will use school
aggregated data so that no one person will be identified with his or her
data. After your questionnaire has been transfered on IBM cards, it will be
destroyed. MW. It is very important for us
that you be as candid as possible in your answers. Even if all answers are
important, do not feel compelled to answer those questions that you feel are
too personal or that you for any other reason prefer to avoid.
Given the little sample used in this research, it is necessary that all teachers
identified participate. Your name will allow the verification of our sample
and provide information on the importance of the error introduced if you
decide not to participate.

 

We very sincerely thank you for your collaboration.

 

 

 

2. Write the name of the school where you are working

 

CIRCLE THE NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO THE CHOSEN ANSWER.

3. Are you a male or a female?
' Female — 1
Male — 2

4. How many years of teaching experience have you, including the present year?
This is my first year — 1
2 to 4 years — 2
5 to 9 years — 3
10 to 15 years — 4
16 years or more — 5

207

208
Teacher Questionnaire

5. How long have you taught in this school?
This is my first year — 1
2 to 4 years — 2
5 to9 years— 3
10 to 15 years — 4
16 years or more — 5

6. What grade level are you teaching?

4th grade only — 1

5th grade only — 2

6th grade only — 3

7th grade only — 4

Combination 4th & 5th — 5

Combination 5th & 6th — 6

Combination 6th & 7th — 7

Combination 4th, 5th & 6th or 5th, 6th & 7th — 8

7. How many years of training are you recognized by your employer?
13 years or less — 1

14 years— 2
15 years— 3
16 years—4
l7 years—5

18yearsormore—6

8. Indicate your highest diploma obtained according to the following list.
Less than A or B Certificate —1
A or B Certificate or the equivalent — 2
Bachelor's degree in education — 3
Some graduate work but less than Master's degree — 4
Master's degree or the equivalent — 5

HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT GROUPING PRACTICES IN THE
SCHOOL. WRITE ANY IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW THE
ANSWER.

9 At the beginning of the school year, how are students inihesamemdeleyfl assigned
to different classes mihisschmi?

Homogeneous grouping according to general level of ability in all subject — 1
Homogeneous grouping by level of ability in some

subjects (e. g. french, maths., and so on.) — 2

Heterogeneous grouping according to general level of ability 1n all subject — 3
Heterogeneous grouping by level of ability in some

subjects (e. g. french, maths, and so on.) — 4

Random grouping or according to special features (sex, bussing, and so on.) — 5

No intentional grouping — 6

209
Teacher Questionnaire

10. Students are very often grouped within a classroom to do schoolwork. If you do so,
how do you group students within your class?

Homogeneous grouping according to general level of ability in all subject — 1
Homogeneous grouping by level of ability in some

subjects (e. g. french, maths., and so on.) — 2

Heterogeneous grouping according to general level of ability in all subject — 3
Heterogeneous grouping by level of ability in some

subjects (e. g. french, maths., and so on.) — 4

Random grouping or according to special features (sex, space, and so on.) — 5

There is no intentional grouping in my class -— 6

1 1. Up until now this year, how did you work with your students?

[ If you have combined grades, consider each as a class in the answer. If you changed

your method during the year, consider the longer lasting one only. 1
Almost exclusively with the class as a whole -— 1
Mostly class work but individual attention to slower and faster students — 2
An equal mix of class work and group work — 3
Most work is done in small teams or groups — 4
Mostly individualizedl work — 5

 

WE ALL DEVELOP THOUGHTS ABOUT FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
CHILDREN IN OUR SCHOOL AND CLASSROOM EVEN KNOWING THAT
CERTAIN OUTSIDE FACTORS MAY INFLUENCE IN A WAY OR THE OTHER
EACH STUDENT FUTURE ACHIEVEMENT. ANSWER THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS ON THE BASIS OF YOUR ACTUAL FEELINGS AND ESTIMATE THE
ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS FROM YOUR OWN DATA EVEN IF
UNVERIFIABLE. IF YOU SEE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR CLASS AND THE
SCHOOL, EXPRESS TI-EM; IF NOT, GIVE THE SAME ANSWER FOR BOTH.

12. What percent of the students in thisschedmdypu expect to complete high school?
Almost all, at least 90% — l

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

13. What percent of the students in W expect to complete high school?
Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 75% -— 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

14. What percent of the students in misjethddyeu expect to choose the vocational
sector in high school?
Almost all, at least 90% — l

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

2 10
Teacher Questionnaire

15. What percent of the students in W expect to choose the vocational sector
in high school?
Almostall,atleast90% —1

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

16. What percent of the students in thisschecidmu expect to go to college?
Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

17. What percent of the students in yeueclassmdu expect to go to college?
Almost all, at least 90% — l

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

18. What percent of the students in this_schm_l_dp_1qu expect to go to university?
Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

19. What percent of the students in Wu expect to go to university?
Almost all, at least 90% -— 1

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

20. What percent of the students in misseheeldmyeu think will be able to get a master's
degree if they want?
Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

21. What percent of the students in W think will be able to get a master's
degree if they want?
Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 75% — 2
About one-half —— 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

21 1
Teacher Questionnaire

22. How many students in this_seheel are capable Of getting mostly A's and B's or the
equivalent?

Almost all, at least 90% -— 1

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

23. How many students in yeueclass are capable Of getting mostly A's and B's?
Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

24. How would you rate the academic ability Of the students in W compared to
Other elementary schools which you know?
Ability is much higher here — 1
Ability is somewhat higher here — 2
Ability is about the same here — 3
Ability is somewhat lower here — 4
Ability is much lower here — 5

25. What percent Of the students in this_scheel would you say are attracted by the idea Of
studying for a long period Of time?

Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

26. How would you rate the academic ability Of the students in yduLclass, compared tO
Other elementary schools which you know?
Ability is much higher here — 1
Ability is somewhat higher here — 2
Ability is about the same here — 3
Ability is somewhat lower here — 4
Ability is much lower here — 5

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS CONCERN THE PRINCIPAL OF THIS SCHOOL.
ANSWER AS YOU DID PREVIOUSLY USING YOUR PERCEPTIONS TO ANSWER,
NO MATTER THE INFORMATION YOU ARE HAVING. NO ANSWER IS WRONG
OR RIGHT, SO, WE WOULD APPRECIATE AS CANDID A RESPONSE AS
POSSIBLE. WE REMIND YOU THAT THIS STUDY IS CONFIDENTIAL.

27. What percent Of the students in W think the principal expects tO
complete high school?

Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 75% -— 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

2 12
Teacher Questionnaire

28. What percent Of the students in this_scheel_deyeu think the principal expects to gO tO
college?

Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

29. What percent Of the students in mm think the principal expects to Obtain
a university degree?

Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

30. What percent of the students in thiuehmljmu think the principal consider capable
Of getting mostly A's and B's or the equivalent?

Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 7 5% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

31. How dO 1111141111115 your principal rates the academic ability Of the students in this
schml, compared to Other elementary schools which you know?
It is rated much higher — 1
It is rated somewhat higher — 2
It is rated about the same — 3
It is rated somewhat lower — 4
It is rated much lower — 5

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS CONCERN YOURSELF. DO NOT FORGET TO
WRITE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT USEFUL TO UNDERSTAND YOUR
ANSWER IF YOU CARE TO.

32. Completion Of a hiehschmlmatienal degree is a realistic goal which you set for what
percentage Of your students?

Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 75% —— 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

33. Completion Of a cellege degree is a realistic goal which you set for what percentage Of
your students?

Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

2 l 3
Teacher Questionnaire

34. Completion Of a uniyersint degree is a realistic goal which you set for what percentage
Of your students?

Almost all, at least 90% — 1

About 75% — 2
About one-half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

35. How Often dO you stress tO your students the necessity to gO to school for a long
period Of time in order tO Obtain better chances Of success in the future?

Very Often — 1
Often — 2
Sometimes — 3
Seldom — 4
Never — 5

36. DO you encourage your students whose parents do not have much economic resources
tO try to stay in school for a long period Of time and to go to university if possible?

Very Often — 1
Usually — 2
Sometimes — 3
Seldom — 4
Never — 5

37. DO you push your students whose academic ability looks deficient tO try to stay in
school for a long period Of time and to gO to university if possible?

Very Often — 1
Usually — 2
Sometimes — 3
Seldom — 4
Never — 5

38. Accezdingimu, how many teachers in this school believe that all students should be
taught to read well and mastet Other academic subjects in the elementary program, even
though some students may not appear to be interested with school?

Almost all of the teachers — 1
Most Of the teachers — 2

Half Of the teachers — 3

Some Of the teachers — 4
Almost none Of the teachers — 5

39. It would be unfair for teachers in this school tO insist on a higher level Of achievement
from students than they now seem capable Of achieving.

Strongly agree — 1

Agree — 2
Agree more or less — 3
Disagree — 4

Strongly disagree — 5

214
Teacher Qrestionnaire

40. If I think a student is not able tO do some school work, I try to push him anyway.

Very Often — 1
Usually — 2
Sometimes —- 3
Seldom — 4
Never —— 5

41 . I am generally very very careful not to push students to a level Of frustration.
Strongly agree — 1

Agree—2
Agreemoreorless—3
Disagree—4

Strongly disagree — 5

42. How many students in W work hard tO do better school work than their
classmates do?

Strongly agree — 1

Agree—2
Agreemoreorless—3
Disagree—4

Strongly disagree — 5

43. How many teachers in this_scheel encourage students to seek extra work so that they
get better grades?
Almost all of the teachers — 1
Most Of the teachers — 2
Half of the teachers — 3
Some Of the teachers — 4
Almost none Of the teachers — 5

44. How many students in this_schedl dO you feel try hard tO improve on previous work?
Alrrrost all Of the students —- 1
Most Of the students — 2
Half Of the students — 3
Some Of the students — 4
Almost none Of the students — 5

45. How many students in Was do you feel try hard to improve on previous work?
Almost all Of the students — 1
Most Of the students — 2
Half Of the students — 3
Some Of the students — 4
Almost none Of the students — 5

46. How many students in this schecl dO you feel will try hard tO do better school work
than their best friends?
Almost all of the students — 1
Most Of the students —— 2
Half Of the students — 3
Some Of the students — 4
Almost none Of the students — 5

2 1 5
Teacher Questionnaire

47. How many students in W work hard to do better school work than their
classmates do?
Almost all Of the students — 1
Most Of the students — 2
Half Of the students — 3
Some Of the students — 4
Almost none Of the students — 5

48. How many students in misseheeLdeydufeel are content tO do less than they can?
Almost all Of the students — 1
Most of the students — 2
Half Of the students — 3
Some Of the students — 4
Almost none Of the students — 5

49. How many students in yduLelass are content tO do less than they can?
Almost all Of the students — 1
Most of the students — 2
Half Of the students — 3
Some Of the students — 4
Almost none Of the students — 5

50. As far as you can say, how many students in mm seek extra work so that they
get better grades?
Almost all Of the students — 1
Most Of the students — 2
Half Of the students — 3
Some Of the students — 4
Almost none Of the students — 5

51. How many students in yeueclass seek extra work so that they get better grades?
Almost all Of the students — 1
Most Of the students — 2
Half Of the students — 3
Some Of the students — 4
Almost none Of the students — 5

52. According to your judgment, what level Of achievement can be expected Of the
students in misschmi?
Much above provincial norm — 1
Above provincial norm — 2
Approximately at provincial norm — 3
Slightly below provincial norm — 4
Much below provincial norm — 5

53. On the average, what level Of achievement can be expected Of the students in yem
class?
Much above provincial norm — 1
Above provincial norm — 2
Approximately at provincial norm — 3
Slightly below provincial norm — 4
Much below provincial nomr — 5

2 16
Teacher Questionnaire

THE NEXT QUESTIONS REFER TO PARENTS OF THE STUDENTS IN THIS
SCHOOL. ESTIMATE TI-EIR ANSWERS FROM YOUR OWN OBSERVATIONS.

54. The parents Of students regard this school primarily as a "baby-sitting" agency?
Strongly agree — 1

Agree—2
Agree more or less — 3
Disagree—4

Strongly disagree — 5

55. The parents Of students in this school are deeply concerned that their children receive a
top quality education.

Strongly agree — 1

Agree—2
Agree moreorless—3
Disagree—4

Strongly disagree — 5

56. How many Of the parents Of students in W think expect their children
tO complete high school?
Almost all Of the parents — 1
Most Of the parents — 2
Half Of the parents — 3
Some Of the parents — 4
Alrrrost none Of the parents — 5

57. How many Of the parents Of students in thiesehegidueu think expect their children
to go to university some day?
Almost all Of the parents — 1
Most Of the parents — 2
Half Of the parents — 3
Some Of the parents —- 4
Almost none Of the parents — 5

58. How many Of the parents Of students in this_seheel do you feel don't care if their
children Obtain low grades?
Almost all Of the parents — 1
Most Of the parents — 2
Half Of the parents — 3
Some Of the parents — 4
Almost none Of the parents — 5

59. What prOportion Of your students' parents dO you know when you see them?
Almost all Of them — 1

About 75% — 2
About 50% — 3
About 25% — 4

Only some Of them — 5

2 1 7
Teacher Questionnaire

THESE LAST QUESTIONS REFER TO ASPECTS OF T'I-E ADMINISTRATION AND
OF THE PEDAGOGY IN THIS SCHOOL. BE CAREFUL TO INSTRUCTIONS
BEFORE ANSWERING IRREGULAR FORMS OF QUESTIONS.

60. How would you characterize your teaching Objectives?
They are the same for all students — 1
They are the sarrre for most students — 2
They are the same for some students — 3
They are different for most students -— 4
They are different for each student — 5

61. Here are some assertions coming from teachers. Tell us up tO what point they
represent what you dO in your class.
I Circle the number corresponding to your answer for each assertion.)

very more not at
much much or less little all

a) When a student is wrong in a schoolwork,

I tell him right away unambiguously. l 2 3 4 5
b) In my class, I apply this: "A good student does

not need to be told he is right, he knows it." 1 2 3 4 5
c) When a poor student makes several mistakes

in a work, I try not to signal all Of them

not to discourage him. 1 2 3 4 5
d) In my behavior in class, I always try tO find a

way tO reinforce students even if this might

lead to skip important mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5
e) I always tell students about those behaviors

I feel right or wrong in class. 1 2 3 4 5
I) At times, I note inappropriate mistakes when

I feel this is good for a student. 1 2 3 4 5
g) In my class, I insist only on good answers and

good works and I avoid mentioning errors. 1 2 3 4 5

h) Not tO hurt a student which turns in a bad work,
I will generally tell him "This is a gOOd try." 1 2 3 4 5

i) If a poor student improves considerably, I
congratulate him while telling him exactly
what is before him. 1 2 3 4 5

j) 1 am much more strict toward works Of
good students than poor students. 1 2 3 4 5

21 8
Teacher Questionnaire

62. Continue answering the same way and indicate up to what point the following
statements apply tO your class this year.

very more not at
much much or less little all
a) I encourage students tO talk each Other
when doing their school work in class. 1 2 3 4 5
b) I usually determine by myself where
students will seat in class. 1 2 3 4 5
c) Usually, students are permitted tO move
about the class without asking permission. 1 2 3 4 5

d) Seating and furniture arrangements are frequen-
tly modified (at least 5 times per semester). 1 2 3 4 5

e) Students are usually working on the same
lesson at the same time 1 2 3 4 5

63. Think of your last typical day Of schoolwork with students. Indicate the portion Of the
time you talked compared with students.

95% an more Of the time —1

81-94% Of the time — 2

61-80% Of the time — 3

31-60% Of the time — 4

less than 30% — 5

64. Think Of last week (or Of the last regular week). Distribute your time spent with
students according tO the following categories:
[Read all choices before answering and be as accurate as possible.)

 

Time spent on administrative duties (attendence, records, notes tO parents) |_|_| %
Time spent on planning class life, group functioning and maintaining order |_l_| %
Time spent on instruction or
on an instructional activity (in large or small groups) |_l_l %
Time spent on relatively
free activities (free time, reading or studying, library, and so on.) |_|_l %
Time reserved to relaxation
or entertaining (plays, sports, recreation, and so on.) l_l_| %
Time spent on evaluation, corrections,
or on conferring with a student about individual problem l_l_| %
Others (please specify) :_I_: %
I %

 

TOTAL 100%

65. What do you consider tO be your primary responsibility tO students in your class?
I Circle only me answer.)
Teaching Of academic subjects — l
Enhance social skills and social interaction — 2
Personal growth individual development (actualization) — 3
Encouraging educational and occupational aspirations — 4
Other (please specify) —2

 

2 19
Teacher Questionnaire

66. In certain schools, parents play an active role in school activities, but through different
forms. Here are some such examples. Tell us the frequency with which these forms are
used in your class, if they are.

I Give me answer for each case using the following scale. Indicate your answer by
circling the corresponding number at the end of each line.)

This happens every day

This happens al least twice a week
This happens once a week

This happens about once a month
This happens very occasionally
This never happens

P‘S‘FP‘PT‘

:1) Take part in a support activity (student transportation,
monitoring when the class goes out, and so on.) 1 2 3 4 5 6

b) Take charge Of a workshop (sewing, woodwork, ans so on.) 1 2 3 4 5 6
c) Provide help for a teaching

activity (library, tale reading, and so on.) I 2 3 4 5 6
d) Provide support to children

slower at reading or at other school subject 1 2 3 4 5 6
e) Take responsibility for a regular classroom activity

directly oriented towards instruction 1 2 3 4 5 6
1) Other (specify) 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

123456

 

67. On an average, how many individual meetings are you having at school with students'
parents each month to discuss subjects concerning their children? Do not consider
regular report meetings.

21 and more — 1

13t020—2
6tol2—3
3t05—4
lor2—5
none—6

68. On an average, how many telephone conversations are you having with students'
parents each month tO discuss subjects concerning their children?
21 and more — l

13t020—2
6t012—3
3tOS—4
lor2—5

none — 6

220
Teacher Questionnaire

69. You are now presented a scale which indicates levels Of decision-making at school.
Tell us who decides in your school on the following eighteen (18) aspects.
[As you did previously, answer by circling a number at the end of each line.)

Principal makes decision alone or follows the advice Of the school board
Principal consults teachers but makes final decision
Principal and teachers make a collective decision

Teachers as a group make decision with or without principal's view
Teachers make decision individually

osz—

Hiring new teachers.
Selecting teacher aides.
Selecting substitutes.
Determining the criteria for the evaluation Of the teachers.
Selecting a process for the evaluation Of the teachers.
Selecting a process for the evaluation Of the students.
Deciding students' setting in the classroom.
Determining methods and techniques Of teaching.
Modifying the schedule tO allow for special activities.
Planifyin g the schedule for teachers workshops.
Selecting the subjects for education related meetings.
Selecting the program to be pursued during each year.

. Deciding on the class list at the beginning of the year.
Selecting school books tO be used.
Contacting parents in case of emergency.
Contacting parents for minor problems.
Determining the objectives to be pursued during the year.
Setting school's policy over students' discipline.

neooaarrreenoooooe

H—rdH—r—HHHu—nu—tu—Hu—au—n—ar—au—a
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
umwwwwwwwmwwmmmwww
h-B-h-bh-hbkhhh-fi-fiAk-h-b-fi
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

70. Several schools have internal rules concerning the whereabouts Of personnel,
attendence, work plans, record keeping, teaching Objectives to pursue, and so on. TO
what extent do such rules exist in this school?

There is a tremendous number Of rules here — 1
There are a lOt Of rules here — 2

Rules are average here — 3

There are not much rules here — 4

There are no rules Stated here — 5

71. If there are rules stated in this school, how rigorously are they implemented?
They are implemented to the letter in all cases — 1
They are implemented to the letter in most cases — 2
Their level Of implementation varies — 3
They are barely implemented — 4
They are not implemented at all — 5

PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE
51 1C . . 1 El I I

Research directed by Yvon Bouchard
professor Of sociology and education
Department of Education, Université du Quebec at Rimouski
300 Ave des Ursulines, Rimouski, G5L 3A1
Telephone: (418) 724-1670 or 724- 1682

This research is sponsored by the La Neigette School Board, Rimouski, and
the Université du Quebec at Rimouski, with a grant from the Ministere de
l’Education du Quebec (project 78-57 DGDP)

DIRECITONS: The information which is provided by this questionnaire is completely

‘ . him will see your answers except the members Of the
research Staff. The report which will follow this survey will use school
aggregated data so that no one person will be identified with his or her
data. After your questionnaire has been transfered on IBM cards, it will be
destroyed. Cempletecenmmsuped. It is very important for us
that you be as candid as possible in your answers. Even if all answers are
important, do not feel compelled to answer those questions that you feel are
tOO personal or that you for any other reason prefer to avoid.

Given the little sample used in this research, it is necessary that all
principals identified participate. We would be grateful if you would return
this questionnaire as soon as possible.

Thank you for your collaboration and your participation.

 

 

 

2. Write the name Of the school where you are working and which is identified in this

research

 

CIRCLE THE NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO TI-E CHOSEN ANSWER.

3. Are you a male or a female?

Female -— 1
Male— 2

4. How long have you been the principal in this school?

This is my first year— 1
2to4years—-—2
5tO9years—3

lOtO 15 years—4
16 years ormore—S

221

222
Principal Questionnaire

5. How long have you been a principal?
This is my first year — 1
2 to 4 years — 2
5 to 9 years — 3
10 to 15 years — 4
16 years or more — 5

6. How long did you teach before becoming a principal?
I never taught — 1
l to 4 years — 2
5 tO 9 years — 3
10 tO 15 years — 4
16 years or more — 5

7. Indicate your highest diploma Obtained according to the following list.
Lesstlran AorBCertificate—l
A or B Certificate or the equivalent — 2
Bachelor's degree in education — 3
Some graduate work but less than Master's degree -— 4
Master's degree or the equivalent — 5

8. In your judgment, what is the general reputation of this school among educators?
Among the best — 1
Better than average — 2
About average —— 3
Below average — 4
Bad — 5

9. How would you rate this school as far as the academic ability of the students is
concerned?
Among the best — 1
Better than average — 2
About average — 3
Below average — 4
Bad — 5

10. With regard to student achievement, how good a school do you think this school can
objectively be?
Among the best — 1
Better than average — 2
About average — 3
Below average — 4
Bad — 5

1 1. What do you consider tO be the school's primary responsibility to the students?
/ Circle only one answer.)
Teaching Of academic subjects — 1
Enhancing social skills and social interaction — 2
Personal growth and individual deveIOpment (actualization) — 3
Enhance educational and occupational aspirations — 4
Others (please specify) —2

 

223
Principal Questionnaire

ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BY CIRCLING THE NUMBER
CORRESPONDING TO WHAT INDICATES BEST YOUR OPINION, NO MATTER
YOUR BASIS FOR SUCH A CHOICE. WE ARE NOT INTERESTED HERE BY THE
ACCURACY OF YOUR RESPONSES BUT BY mm POINT OF VIEW.

12. On the average, what achievement level can be expected of the students in this school?
Much above provincial norm — 1
Above provincial norm — 2
Approxamately at provincial norm — 3
Below provincial norm — 4
Much below provincial norm —— 5

13. What percent Of the students in this school duet; expect to complete high school?
Almost all, more than 90% — 1

About 7 5% — 2
About half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

14. What percent of the students in this school duels expect to choose vocational
education in high school?
Almost all, more than 90% —l

About 75% -— 2
About half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% —— S

15. What percent Of the students in this school do you expect to gO to college?
Almost all, more than 90% —- 1

About 75% — 2
About half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

16. What percent Of the students in this school do you expect to go to university and Obtain
a degree there?
Almost all, more than 90% —— 1

About 75% — 2
About half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% — 5

17. How many Of the students in this school are really capable Of getting good grades?
Almost all, more than 90% — 1

About 75% — 2
About half — 3
About 25% — 4

Very few, less than 10% —— 5

224
Principal Questionnaire

18. How would you personnaly rate the academic ability Of the students in this school
compared tO those in other elementary schools that you know?
Ability is much higher here — 1
Ability is somewhat higher here — 2
Ability is about the same — 3
Ability is somewhat lower here —- 4
Ability is much lower here — 5

19. The parents Of your students regard this school primarily as a "baby-sitting" agency.
Strongly agree — 1

Agree—2
Agreemoreorless—3
Disagree—4

Strongly disagree — 5

20. The parents of students in this school are deeply concerned that their children receive a
top quality education.

Strongly agree — 1

Agree — 2
Agree more or less — 3
Disagree — 4

Strongly disagree — 5

21. How many Of the parents Of students in this school de1eu think expect their children
to complete high school?
Almost all of the parents — 1
Most of the parents — 2
Half of the parents — 3
Some Of the parents — 4
Almost none Of the parents — 5

22. How many Of the parents Of students in this school expect their children to go tO
cohege?
Almost all of the parents — 1
Most Of the parents — 2
Half Of the parents — 3
Some Of the parents —— 4
Almost none Of the parents —- 5

23. How many Of the parents of students in this school $1919.11 think expect their children
to Obtain a university degree some day?
Almost all Of the parents — 1
Most Of the parents — 2
Half Of the parents — 3
Some of the parents — 4
Almost none Of the parents — 5

225
Principal Questionnaire

24. How many Of the parents Of students in this school do not matter if their child gets bad
grades?

Almost all Of the parents — 1

Most Of the parents — 2

Half Of the parents — 3

Some Of the parents — 4

Almost none Of the parents —- 5

25. How many Of the parents of students in this school want feedback from the principal or
teachers on how their children are doing in school?
Almost all of the parents — 1
Most Of the parents — 2
Half of the parents — 3
Some of the parents — 4
Almost none of the parents — 5

26. What percentage Of the students in this school dO you feel are capable of learning to
read conveniently by the end Of the second grade?

100% — 1
90-99% — 2
80-89% — 3
70-79% — 4
50-69% — 5

Less than 50% — 6

27. How Often do you suggest ways of improving student achievement to you teachers?

Very Often — 1
Often — 2
Sometimes — 3
Seldom — 4
Never — 5

28. How Often do you meet with the teachers as a group to discuss concrete ways Of
improving student achievement?

Very Often — l
Often -— 2
Sometimes — 3
Seldom — 4
Never — 5

29. As a principal, which effect do you think you are having on students' achievement?
A major effect — 1
Substantial effect — 2
Some effect — 3
Very little effect — 4
NO effect at all — 5

226
Principal Questionnaire

30. It is the principal's responsibility to make sure that all students in his school succeed at
a high level.
Strongly agree — 1

Agree—2
Agree more or less —- 3
Disagree—4

Strongly disagree — 5

31. NO matter the students in a school, it is possible for a principal, with the help of the
teachers, to change a low achieving school into a high achieving school.
Strongly agree — l

Agree—2
Agreemoreorless—3
Disagree—4

Strongly disagree —— 5

32. In general, how do your students' parents feel about the achievement Of their children?
Nearly all feel they are doing well — 1

Most think students are achieving as well as they should — 2

Most think they should achieve better — 3

Nearly all feel they should achieve better — 4

They do not mind — 5

33. How do you feel about the achievement Of the students in this school?
Nearly all students are achieving as well as they can — 1
Most students are achieving as well as they can — 2
Half the students are achieving as well as they can — 3
Less than half the students are achieving as well as they can — 4
Only a few of the students are achieving as well as they can — 5

34. What proportion of your time during a regular week is attributed to each of the
following activities?

 

 

 

Long-term planification I_ I__ I %

Supervision Of teaching personnel I_ I_ | %

Supervision Of non-teaching personnel l_ I_ l %

Conferring with parents and social environment I_ l_ l %
Discipline l__ I_ I %

Other administrative duties I_ |_ I %

Educational activities (specify) I | (7
I o

Other (specify) I_I_I %
I I I %

 

TOTAL 1'0?) %

227
Principal Questionnaire

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS CONCERN THE PARENTS OF THE STUDENTS

ATTENDING THIS SCHOOL. BE AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE IN YOUR
ANSWERS, PLEASE.

35. During the last three (3) years, how many regular formation or information meetings
with all parents have been held in this school?

[ Answer according to an annual mean and forget about special meetings.)
5 or more per year — 1
3 or 4 per year — 2

2peryear—3
lperyear—4
none—5

36. What percentage Of the parents did show for these meetings?
90% or more — l

70 to 89% — 2
50 to 69% — 3
30 to 49% — 4

Less than 30% — 5

37. During the last three ( 3) years, on the average, how many school committee meetings
have been held each year?

15 meetings or more per year — 1

10 to 14 meetings per year — 2

7 to 9 meetings per year — 3

3 tO 6 meetings per year — 4

2 meetings or less per year — 5

38. What percentage Of the parents' representatives on the school committee did show for
these meetings?

90%Ormore—l

70 to 89% — 2
50 to 69% — 3
30 to 49%—4

Less than 30% — 5

39. On the average, how many indiyidual meetings at school are you having with parents to
discuss about their children?

21 or more per month —— 1

15 to 20 per month — 2

9 to 14 per month — 3

4 to 8 per month — 4

2 or 3 per month — 5

1 or none — 6

40. On the average, how many meetings are you having with gmup of parents at school?
21 or more per month —1
15 tO 20 per month — 2
9 to 14 per month — 3
4to 8 permonth—4
2 or 3 per month — 5
1 or none — 6

228
Principal Questionnaire

41 . DO you happen frequently to go to parents' heme to meet some Of them?
Almost every day -— 1
Often and at each week — 2
Several times a week — 3
Occasionally — 4
Never — 5

42. What proportion Of the students' parents do you know when you see them?

Nearly all — 1
About 75% — 2
About 50% — 3
About 25% — 4
Only a few — 5

43. Indicate the level Of participation Of parents in this surrounding according to the seven
(7) following activities.
[Answer by circling the number corresponding to to the percentage of parents
participating. I
less from from from more
than 11% to 40% to 60% to than
10% 39% 59% 89% 90%
a) Vote to School Board members elections 1 2 3 4 5

b) Attend at least one School Board
meeting per year 1 2 3 4 5

c) Attend at least one Parent-School
meeting per year 1 2 3 4 5

d) Meet with their children's teachers
at least since a year 1 2 3 4 5

e) Meet with their children's teachers
at least threeiimes per year 1 2 3 _ 4 5

1') Provide help tO school or classroom for
activities (day out, workshops, and so on.) 1 2 3 4 5

g) Take part in a comnrittee or a group
interested with educational matters
linked with the school or not 1 2 3 4 5

44. What would describe best the participation Of parents to your school committee this
year?
Parents are very active and protest a lot — 1
Parents are very active and protest sometimes —— 2
Parents are very active but do not protest — 3
Parents are lightly involved -— 4
Parents content themselves with receiving information — 5

229
Principal Questionnaire

45. Here are some school matters which must be decided on. Tell us about the influence Of
parents Of this surrounding on these aspects.
[ Choose one answer for each aspect and indicate your answer by circling the
corresponding number at the end of each line.)

1. Parents participate and have a decisive influence

2. Parents participate and influence sometimes the decision

3. Parents participate but have little influence

4. Parents do not participate much and have no influence

5. Parents do not participate
a) Selecting school books 1 2 3 4 5
b) Selecting teaching material 1 2 3 4 5
c) Selecting Objectives to be pursued (beside those

specified by the Ministere) 1 2 3 4 5

(1) Selecting teaching methods 1 2 3 4 5
e) Deciding on weekly activities and lessons 1 2 3 4 5
f) Fixing and modifying school schedule 1 2 3 4 5
g) Scheduling Parent-Teacher meetings 1 2 3 4 5
h) Deciding on agenda for Parent-Teacher meetings 1 2 3 4 5
i) Distributing school budget 1 2 3 4 5
j) Determining student evaluation policies 1 2 3 4 5
k) Establishing disciplinary norms l 2 3 4 5
1) Selecting new teachers 1 2 3 4 5
m) Establishing policies and procedures to evaluate teachers 1 2 3 4 5
n) Establishing criteria for snrdents assignment in class 1 2 3 4 5
O) Deciding on policies regarding horrreworks 1 2 3 4 5

PRINCIPAL'S INTERVIEW
51 ID . . 1 El I v]

Interviewer's Document

 

A)
l.

91”!"

 

 

fienemllnfnnnannns

Name:

School:

Title: principal ( ) Assistant ( )

Principal's status:

- Full-time in this school only ......................................................... (

- Part-time in this school ............................................................... (
m how many schools administrative duty ......... (
-1 % of time here

- Part-time principal .................................................................. (

- Other (

 

B)Los:atinn_nf_the_schnnl

Description Of school's community (students' origin)

5.

rep we?

fi~

- City
(5m. +)

- Village

- Mix

Population of the community :
Population Of area served by the school:
Distance in miles from a significant urban community:

-. homogeneous districts only .................................... (
-. several mostly homogeneous districts ........................... (
'm several heterogeneous districts ................................. (
-. only one village and surroundings .............................. (
m several homogeneous villages ................................. (
-1 several heterogeneous villages ................................. (
-1 urban % rural %

 

 

 

(city if rural area — downtown if urban)

School transportation? % of students using
Meandistanee to travel? Farthest distance?
Type of work of population?

VVV

vvvvvv

 

 

C) Students' chatacteflstics (use file whenever possible)

12. et 13. % years Of schooling above secondary level: father %
14. et 15. % years Of schooling below 7th grade: father % mother_%
% Of fathers professional, administrators, technologists .....................
% of fathers skilled workers, civil servants, teachers ........................
% Of fathers day labourer .........................................................

l6.
l7.
l8.
19.
20.
21.
22.

% Of fathers unemployed for more than 3 months per year

% Of fathers with salary below 6,0003 .....................
% Of fathers with salary above 18,0005 ....................
% Of working mothers ........................................

__ (

230

mother__%

 

D)
24. Grade levels:

25. Number of classes (including special classes):
26. Class Organization :

231
Principal's Interview

51 l l . .
23. Number of students (03/30/1979) ................................................

- all levels ( )
- 3rd to 6th only ( )
)

-7th grade: yes ( no ( )
aprep. for high-schOOl( ) continuation( )

 

 

 

- how many single grades all ( )
- how many combination classes

(describe)

 

- mOtives for combination classes

 

 

- how many special classes none ( )

m local attendence outside( )
-. describe:

 

 

- transition, recuperation or maturation classes ( )
27. Average daily attendance %
28. Besides french and mathematics, which matters are taught here?

- moral teacher

 

 

 

 

 

 

- religion ........................................... ( )
- social studies .................................... ( )
- physical education .............................. ( )
- natural sciences ................................. ( )
- music (rythmics) ................................. ( )
- Others ( )
)
29. List all specialists working in the school and the time they spend in this school.
List Number Number Of hours per week 1n the school
(1/10 Of week) for each.
- physical education
- music
- orthopedagogist

 

 

30. Mean number Of hours taught by specialists per week ur a regular class?

 

 

 

 

31. List all professional resources available and the time they spend in the school.
Number of hours per week 1n the school

List

- nurse

- psychologist

- guidance counselor
- social worker

- special ed. specialist

 

E) '

32. Number Of teachers:

(1/ 10 Of week) for each.

 

 

 

 

 

 

- full-time ..........................................
- part-time ..........................................
- teacher assistants .................................

232
Principal's Interview

' (include list or enter mean) List (
33. Years Of schooling recognized ...................................................
34. Years Of teaching experience ...................................................
35. Years of teaching experience in this school ....................................
36. Last diploma (Brevet A, B, C, Bacc., MA, Med) ...........................
37. Teaching certification: - number with teaching permit ..................
- number with temporary authorization ........
- Other

llllll-

 

3 8. Mean teachers' salaries

 

39. How many teachers teach all subjects in one single class (do not count specialists)?
Number all ( )
If exceptions: describe number Of classes and subjects taught

 

 

 

F)El‘l""

Studenturnnntns
40. Describe hm students are grouped at the beginning of the year:

- hemegeneeus grouping according to general ability ........................ ( )

- hemdgeneeus grouping according to ability in one or 2 subjects ......... ( )

- hetemgeneeus grouping according to general ability ..................... ( )

- hetemgeneeus grouping according to ability in one or 2 subjects ......... ( )

- at random or according to practical features ................................. ( )

- no intentional grouping ......................................................... ( )
41. Describe the {can of grouping practiced:

- none .............................................................................. ( )

- strong, normal, slow ............................................................ ( )

- advanced, lightened ............................................................ ( )

- other .............................................................................. ( )
42. The leyel of grouping?

- by year, grade level, or age ................................................... ( )

- among grade levels ............................................................... ( )

- Other .............................................................................. ( )
43. Describe how special students are integrated, if they are.

(several choices may be necessary)

- pulling-out ........................................................................ ( )

- special classes .................................................................. ( )

- partial integration (some subjects) ............................................. ( )

- total integration (all subjects) ................................................... ( )

m Level to which integration is generalized:
- all students in the school ....................................... ( )
- some students or classes ....................................... ( )

233
Principal's Interview

44.0rthopedagogy processing
- no orthopedagogy ............................................................... ( )
- special classes only ............................................................ ( )
- groups Of students only ......................................................... ( )
- individuals or groups ............................................................ ( )
- individuals only .................................................................. ( )
- mm, frequency Of meetings

 

- average of months students attend orthopegagogy
- selection by subject( ) or general ( )
45. Reasons for functioning this way? (e. g.: parents pressure, past experiences, faster
students can go faster, we can adapt to each student's capacity, and so on.)

 

 

 

46. What are the basis for grouping, if there is any, and rank them.

 

 

 

 

 

- IQ tests ........................................................................ ( )
- last year's grades ............................................................ ( ) __
- this year's grades ............................................................ ( ) _
- teachers' evaluations ...................................................... ( ) _
- Others ( ) _
Icachmummes
47. Are teaching Objectives used? yes ( ) no ( )
48. Leyel of generalization Of pumped Objectives?
They are the same for:
a) - all teachetsat the sameieyel .................................... ( )
- most teachem at the sameJeyel ................................. ( )
- some teacheis at the sameJeyel ................................. ( )
- no teacher at the samelem .................................... ( )
b) - all students at the sameieyel .................................... ( )
-moststiidentsatthesamc_leyel ................................. ( )
- some studentsat the sameleyel ................................. ( )
- no snident at the same level .................................... ( )
c)-allstndentsinthe_same_class .................................... ()
-moststudentsinthesame_c_lass ................................. ( )
- some students in the same_clas_s ................................. ( )
- no student in the sameelass .................................... ( )
49. Up to what point is individualized teaching practiced?
totally U I l I 1 LI not at all
- variations in individualization practices: (specify)
50. Are teachers following a precise plan?
very precise U I I I I |__I none
51. Who makes decision? - principal ....................................... ( )
- teachers and principal ........................ ( )
- teachers in group .............................. ( )
- teachers individually ........................... ( )

52. Is material scheduled so that each student sees the same thing as other students while

he or she is atiheelemematyleyel? (consider special classes).

yes U I I l I I_I no

234
Principal's Interview

53.15 material scheduled so that each student sees the same thing as other students ateach

54.
55.
56.

S7.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

Israel?

yes I_I I I I I I_I no
Are teachers all using the same bepks or tens?

yes I_I | I I I I_I no
Must they make sure that all student do see them during the year?

yes I_I I I I I I_I no
As far as classroom teaching methods are concerned (e. g.: french teaching method),
how are they generalized in the school?

same for all I_I I I I I I_I different for all

Who makes decision? - principal ....................................... ( )

- teachers and principal ........................ ( )

- teachers in group .............................. ( )

- teachers individually ........................... ( )
ls teaching material, besides books, the same for all classes? (e. g.: educational

games, cards, and so Oh.)
yes I_I I I I I I_I no
Who makes decision? - principal ....................................... (
- teachers and principal ........................ (
- teachers in group .............................. (
- teachers individually ........................... (
Are Ministere de l'Education's assessment tests used? yes ( ) n
- which ones: - IQ tests ................................................... (
- grade levels: .............................................
- for how many years ....................................
- subjects: - french ................................. ( )
- mathematics ........................... ( )
- Others ................................. ( )
- grade levels: .............................................
- for how many years ....................................
School tests? yes I_I I | I I I_I no
- grade levels .............................................
- which subjects ..........................................
- used in the whole school or different for each class?
whole I_I I I I l I_I class
What room is made for other forms of evaluation?
(e. g.: teacher assessments, self-evaluation, and so on.)
large room I_I I I I I I_I no room
What are test results used for? (rank the choices)
- student classifications ....................................................... ( )
- high school graduation or not ............................................. ( )
- informations to parents ................................................... ( )
- achievement improvement ................................................ ( )
- other ( )
Who is allowed to consult the results from Ministere de l'Education's tests an
from school-made tests? (who sees them?)

 

 

-students .......................................... ( ) ( )
-parents .......................................... ( ) ( )
-allteachers ....................................... ( ) ( )
-principal .......................................... ( ) ( )
-School Board .................................... ( ) ( )

235
Principal's Interview

65.What would describe best, for the whole school, what happens in classes?
3) Students are allowed to move freely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes I_I I | I I I_I no
b) Who allocates seats?
teacher I_I I I I I I_I student decide
c) Frequency with which seats are changed?
several times per day LI I I I 1 LI once per semester
d) Students are encouraged to talk each Others?
yes I_I I I l I I_I no
e) Students are all working on the same material at the same time?
yes I_I I I I I I_I no
66. Are there differences among classes with regard to these questions?
yes I_I I I I I I_I no
(details) :
G) . . .v
Are you having mile the following documents?

[on file = (_)]

 

67 A mien description of everyone's responsibility in the school (teachers, principal,
assistant, specialists, and so on.) and of the limits Of their responsibilities?
yes I_I I I I I I_I no (_)
68. A smitten schedule for the year, including timetable, holidays, special activities?
yes I_I I I I I I_I no (_)

 

69. A description of each teacher's objectives for the year? (given at the beginning of the
school year)

 

 

 

yes I_I I I l I I_I no (_)
70. Student evaluation procedures to be followed during the year?
yes I_I I I I I I_I no (_)
71. Is there a code Of rules or regulations regarding the staff?
yes I_I I I I I I_I no (_)
a) for general situations only ...................................................... ( )
b) for litigious situations only ................................................... ( )
c) for all reasons to avoid confusion and conflicts ........................... ( )
(1) other ( )

 

72. Written material about restrictions placed on personal and professional activities?
a) regulation which specify when a teacher can leave the school ............ ( ) ( )
b) regulations with regard to participating in outside activities ............... ( ) (_)
c) regulations regarding what teachers can and cannot say in class ......... ( ) ( )
d) regulations regarding teachers' movement in the school?
(caution, Opened classroom at absence Of control) ........................ (
e) regulations regarding students' movement in the school .................. (
73. Up to what point are these rules enforced in the school?
maximum I_I I I I I I_I minimum
74. Procedure to be followed to implement:
a) an important feature (experimentation or innovation) (describe):

 

 

 

 

236
Principal's Interview

b) minor feature (outing) (describe):

 

 

 

 

c) departure from a rule:

 

a important: - individual:

 

 

 

 

- group:
—i minor: - rndivrdual:
- group:
75. Are teachers evaluated each year?
yes ( ) no ( )
76. Who does it? - School Board ....................................... ( )
- principal ............................................. ( )
- teachers ............................................. ( )
- principal and teachers .............................. ( )
77. Are criteria to be used for evaluation decided prior to assessment?
at the beginning of the year I_I I I I I I_I no criteria
78. Who decides on criteria? - School Board .............................. ( )
- principal .................................... ( )
- teachers .................................... ( )
- principal and teachers ..................... ( )
79. Criteria applied for everyone without exception?

80.

81.

H)

yes I_I I I I | I_I no
Use made of the results of the evaluation? (describe)

 

 

 

 

How is information transmitted in the school?

 

 

 

 

a) nature frequency in %
- posters ..................... ( )
- letters ..................... ( )
- meetings .................. ( )
- individual meetings ...... ( )
- Others ..................... ( )

 

b) reasons for differences if appropriate

 

 

 

 

Number of new things introduced in the school during the last three (3) years?
(innovations for the school)
Indicate their degree of survival according to the following scale:

1- adopted for the whole school

2- adopted for part of the school

3- more or less kept

4- tried for a while and then rejected

5- rapidly rejected

237
Principal's Interview

82.List new pedagogical features:
(teaching methods , books, grouping, and so on )
I_I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83. List new administrative features:
(new programs, staff differentiation, rules, and so on.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I l
84.Percentage of teachers which accept innovations and change easily?
100%I_I I I I I I_I 0%
85. How would you like your school to be considered outside?
(do not suggest answers)

 

 

 

 

86. List audio-visuel material available in the school (projectors, calculators, and so on.)
and how often they are used.

L151 115; (times per week)

 

 

 

 

 

 

87.Availability_ of outside material and frequency of its use in the school.

mummy use (times per week)

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ '

QUESTIONNAIRE AUX ETUDIANTS

C"Sl' ..

Recherche dirigee par Yvon Bouchard
avec la collaboration
du Ministere de l'Education du Quebec,
de la Commission Scolaire La Neigette, Rimouski,
de l'Université du Quebec in Rimouski

DIRECTIONS: Ce questionnaire fait partie d'une enquéte pour connaitre plus de choses a
propos des étudiants et de leur travail dans l'école. Il ne s'agit pas d'un
examen, ni d'un test et i1 n'aura aucun effet sur tes résultats scolaires. 'I‘es
réponses ne seront pas remises a ton professeur, ni au principal de ton
école. Il n'y a done aucune bonne ni mauvaise réponse. Tout ce qui nous
inte’resse est ton idée sur les questions qui tes sont posées.

REPONDS A CHAQUE QUESTION ET FAIS UN SEUL CHOIX. ENCERCLE LE
CHIFFRE CORRESPONDANT A LA REPONSE QUI EXPRIME LE MIEUX TON
IDEE.

 

Voici deux exemples:

l. Quelle est la capitale de la province de Quebec?

Montreal — 1
Quebec —@
Ottawa — 3

Chicoutimi — 4
Rimouski — 5
2. Combien de professeurs dans ton école sont plus ages que toi?
Tous —
La plupart —
la moitié — 3
Quelques-uns — 4
Aucun — 5

 

w—v'v w v

1. lnscris ton nom ici

 

N

. Quel est le nom de ton professeur

 

b.)

. lndique nous le nom de ton école et la ville ou le village oir elle est situé.
Ecole:

 

Endroit:

 

238

- V

£-

239
Student Questionnaire (French)

4. Quel age as-tu eu a ton demier anniversaire se naissance?

8 ans—l
9 ans— 2
10 ans— 3
11ans—-4
12 ans— 5
13 ans— 6
14 ans—7

5. Es-tu un gareon ou une frlle?
garcon—l
fille— 2

6. En quelle année es-tu?

3c année—l

4° année — 2

5° année — 3

6e année — 4

7c année — 5
Depuis combien d'années es-tu dans cette école-ci?

1 an ou moins — 1

2 ans — 2

3 cu 4 ans — 3

5 on 6 ans — 4

7 on 8 ans — 4

9 ans ou plus — 5

8. Quelle sorte de travail fait ton pére?
IDécris-mus en quelques mots ce qu'ilfait et 012 i! travaille. I

 

 

 

 

 

REPONDS AUX QUESTIONS QUI SUIVENT EN CHOISISSANT LA REPONSE QUI
TE SEMBLE LA PLUS JUSTE PARMI CELLES SUGGEREES. SOUVIENS-TOI QUE
PERSONNE NE VERRA TES REPONSES EN DEHORS DE QUELQUES-UNS PARMI
NOUS A L'UNIVERSITE DU QUEBEC A RIMOUSKI. SOIS FRANC ET DIS-NOUS
EXACTEMENT ET SANS CRAINTE CE QUE TU PENSES.

I C hoisis une seule réponse.)

9. Si tu pouvais aller aussi loin que tu le de’sires a l'école, jusqu'oir aimerais-tu te rendre?
A la fin du primaire (6° ou 7e année) — 1
Au secondaire pour quelques années — 2
A la fin du secondaire (12¢ année) — 3
Au Cegep (146 on 156 année) — 4
A l'Université — 5

240
Student Questionnaire (French)

10. Il arrive parfois que ce qu'on 1911:1131: voir se realiser n'est pas ce qu'on pens; qui va
se produire. Jusqu'ou penses-tu reellement te rendre a l‘école?
Alafin du primaire (6¢ou7¢ année)—1
Au secondaire pour quelques années — 2

A la fin du secondaire (12¢ année) — 3
Au Cegep (14¢ ou 15¢ année) — 4
A l'Université — 5

l 1. Combien d’éleves dans ton école essaient toujours d'avoir des bons résultats aux
travaux de chaque semaine?
Tous les eleves — 1
La plupart des éleves — 2
La moitié des eleves — 3
Quelques eleves — 4
Presqu'aucun eleve — 5

12. Combien d'éleves dans ton école vont travailler fort pour essayer d'obtenir des
meilleurs résultats que leurs amis aux travaux de chaque semaine?
Tous les eleves — 1
La plupart des eleves — 2
La moitié des éleves — 3
Quelques eleves — 4
Presqu'aucun éleve — 5

l3. Combien d'éleves dans ton école ne s'en font pas lorsqu'ils obtiennent des mauvais
résultats?
Tous les éléves — 1
La plupart des eleves — 2
La moitié des eleves — 3
Quelques eleves — 4
Presqu'aucun éleve — 5

l4. Combien d'éleves dans ton école étudient plus que nécessaire, pour pouvoir réussir les
travaux de chaque semaine?

Tous les éleves — 1

La plupart des eleves — 2

La moitié des eleves —- 3

Quelques eleves — 4

Presqu'aucun eleve — 5

15. Si la plupart des éléves ici pouvaient aller aussi loin qu'ils le désirent a l'école,
jusqu'ou se rendraient-ils d'apres-toi?
Ala fin du primaire (6¢ ou 7¢ année) —1
Au secondaire pour quelques années — 2
A la fin du secondaire (12¢ année) — 3
Au Cegep (14¢ ou 15¢ année) — 4
A l'Université — 5

 

241
Student Questionnaire (French)

16. Est-cc tres important pour toi d'étre un bon eleve?

Tres important — 1
Important — 2

Plus on moins important — 3
Pas tres important -— 4

Pas important du tout -- 5

17. Est—cc que la plupart des él‘eves dans 1351355; trouvent que c'est important de bien
réussir a l'ecole?
Ils trouvent que c'est tres important — 1
[Is trouvent que c'est important — 2
Ils trouvent que c'est plus ou moins important — 3
115 trouvent que ce n'est pas tres important — 4
[Is trouvent que ce n'est pas important du tout — 5

18. Selon ce que tu penses, est-cc que la plupart des eleves dans W trouvent que
c'est important de bien reussir a l'école?
Ils trouvent que c'est trés important — 1
I15 trouvent que c'est important — 2
115 trouvent que c'est plus ou moins important — 3
115 trouvent que ce n'est pas tres important — 4
Us trouvent que ce n'est pas important du tout — 5

l9. Combien d'éleves dans W trouvent qu'il est plaisant d'étudier?
Tous les eleves — 1
La plupart des eleves — 2
La rnoitié des éléves — 3
Quelques eleves — 4
Presqu'aucun éleve — 5

20. Combien d'éléves dans ton e’cole agacent ou se moquent des éléves qui om de vrais
bons re’sultats?
Tous les eleves — 1
La plupart des éleves — 2
La moitié des éléves — 3
Quelques eleves — 4
Presqu'aucun éleve — 5

21. Combien d‘éléves ne réussissent pas aussi bien a l'école qu'ils le pourraient parce
qu'ils ont peur que W168 aiment moins?
Tous les eleves — 1
La plupart des éleves — 2
La moitié des eleves — 3
Quelques eleves — 4
Presqu'aucun eleve — 5

N'OUBLIE PAS, IL FAUT DONNER UNE SEULE REPONSE PAR QUESTION EN
ENCERCLANT LE CHIFFRE CORRES PONDANT A TA REPONSE.

22. Combien d'éleves ne réussissent pas aussi bien a l'école qu'ils le pourraient parce

qu 'ils ont peur que W les aiment moins?

Tous les éléves — 1

242
Student Questionnaire (French)

La plupart des eleves -— 2
La moitié des eleves —— 3
Quelques eleves ‘— 4
Presqu'aucun eleve — 5

23. Si les professeurs ne corrigeaient pas les travaux, combien d'éleves dans ton école
travailleraient fort quand meme?
Tous les éléves — 1
La plupart des eleves — 2
La moitié des eleves — 3
Quelques eleves — 4
Presqu'aucun eleve — 5

24. Des personnes comme moi n'auront pas beaucoup de chances de faire ce qu'elles
veulent dans la vie.
Tout a fait d'accord — 1
D'accord -— 2
Plus ou moins d'accord — 3
Pas d'accord — 4
Pas du tout d'accord — 5

25. Des personnes comme moi ne réussiront jamais a l'école méme si on essaie.
Tout a fait d'accord — 1
D'accord — 2
Plus on moins d'accord — 3
Pas d'accord — 4
Pas du tout d'accord — 5

26. Je suis capable d'étre tres bon a l'e’cole lorsque je travaille fort.
Tout a fait d'accord — l
D'accord — 2
Plus on moins d'accord — 3
Pas d'accord — 4
Pas du tout d'accord — 5

27. Dans cette écoIe-ci, les éléves comme moi n'ont aucune chance, il ne leur arrive rien de
bon.

Tout a fait d'accord — 1

D'accord — 2

Plus ou moins d'accord — 3

Pas d'accord — 4

Pas du tout d'accord — 5

28. Il faut étre chanceux pour obtenir des bons re’sultats dans cette école-ci.
Tout a fait d'accord — 1
D'accord — 2
Plus ou moins d'accord — 3
Pas d'accord — 4
Pas du tout d'accord — 5

243
Student Questionnaire (French)

29. Pense a tes meilleurs amis. Penses-tu étre capable de faire tes travaux scolaires rrrieux,
pareil ou moins bien qu'eux?

Mieux que tous — 1

Mieux que la plupart — 2

A peu pres pareil — 3

Moins bien que la plupart —— 4

Moins bien que tous — 5

30. Pense aux Wm. Penses-tu étre capable de faire tes travaux scolaires
mieux, pareil ou moins bien qu'eux?
Mieux que tous — 1
Mieux que la plupart — 2
A peu pres pareil — 3
Moins bien que la plupart — 4
Moins bien que tous — 5

31. Quand tu vas aller au secondaire, quelle sorte d'étudiant penses-tu que tu seras en
comparaison avec les autres?
Un des meilleurs -— 1
Meilleur que la plupart — 2
A peu prés pareil — 3
Moins bien que la plupart — 4
Un des moins bons — 5

32. Penses-tu que tu pourrais étre capable de réussir a l'Université?
Oui, siirement — 1
Oui, probablement — 2
Peut-étre — 3
Non, probablement pas — 4
Non, sfirement pas —— 5

33. Si tu te rendais a l'Université, penses-tu que tu serais un tres bon étudiant, un étudiant
moyen ou un mauvais étudiant?

Un des meilleurs — 1

Meilleur que la plupart — 2

A peu pres pareil — 3

Moins bien que la plupart — 4

Un des moins bons — 5

34. Une personne qui veut devenir médecin ou professeur doit aller au moins trois ans a
I'Université. Penses-tu que tu serais capable de faire cela?
Oui, sfirement — 1
Oui, probablement — 2
Peut-étre — 3
Non, probablement pas — 4
Non, sfirement pas — 5

35. Oublie un instant les résultats que tes professeurs te donnent et dis-nous comment toi tu
evalues ton travail a l'école.

C'est un excellent travail — 1

C'est un bon travail — 2

Il est aussi bon que celui des autres — 3

244
Student Questionnaire (French)

Il est moins bon que celui des autres — 4
C'est un mauvais travail — 5

36. Penses-tu étre un des bons étudiants de ton école?
Oui, sfirement — 1
Oui, probablement — 2
Peut—étre — 3
Non, probablement pas — 4
Non, sfirement pas — 5

37. Jusqu'a quel degré ton meilleur ami ou ta meilleure amie s'attend-t-il ou s'attend-t-elle
que tu te rendes a l'école?

Ala fin du primaire (6¢ ou 7¢ année) — 1
Au secondaire pour quelques annees — 2

Ala fin du secondaire (12¢ annee) — 3
Au Cegep (14¢ ou 15¢ année) — 4
A l'Université — 5

MAINTENANT. VOICI QUELQUES QUESTIONS A PROPOS DES PROFESSEURS
DANS TON ECOLE. REPONDS DE LA MEME FACON QUE POUR LES AUTRES
QUESTIONS EN ENCERCLANT UN CI-IIFFRE. RAPPELE-TOI QU'AUQUN
PROFESSEUR DANS TON ECOLE NE VERRA TES REPONSES. SOIS HONNETE.

38. Parmi les professeurs que tu connais dans l'école, combien disent aux eleves de
toujours forcer pour bien réussir aux examens, aux tests et dans les travaux scolaires?
Tous les professeurs -— 1
La plupart des professeurs — 2
La moitié des professeurs — 3
Quelques professeurs — 4
Presqu'aucun professeur — 5

3‘). Combien dc professeurs dans ton école disent a leurs éleves d'essayer d'avoir des
meileurs résultats que les autres eleves dans la classe?
Tous les professeurs — 1
La plupart des professeurs — 2
La moitié des professeurs — 3
Quelques professeurs — 4
Presqu'aucun professeur — 5

40. Parmi les professeurs que tu connais dans l'ecole, combien sont vraiment décus
lorsque les él‘eves obtiennent des mauvais résultats?
Tous les professeurs -— 1
La plupart des professeurs — 2
La moitié des professeurs — 3
Quelques professeurs — 4
Presqu'aucun professeur — 5

 

245
Student Questionnaire (French)

41. Parmi les professeurs que tu connais dans l'école, combien disent a leurs éléves de

faire du travail en dehors de la classe pour obtenir des meilleurs resultats?

Tous les professeurs — 1

La plupart des professeurs — 2

La moitié des professeurs — 3
Quelques professeurs — 4
Presqu'aucun professeur ——- 5

42. Parmi les professeurs que tu connais dans ton ecole, combien font trop travailler les
eleves?

Tous les professeurs — 1

La plupart des professeurs — 2
La moitié des professeurs — 3
Quelques professeurs — 4
Presqu'aucun professeur — 5

43. ll est inutile de travailler tres fort dans cette école~ci puisque les professeurs se
contentent uniquement de nous faire passer.

Tout a fait d'accord — 1

D'accord — 2
Plus on moins d'accord — 3

Pas d'accord — 4
Pas du tout d'accord — 5

44. Pense au professeur W. Jusqu'oir croit-il que tu peux te rendre a
l'école?

Ala fin du primaire (6¢ ou 7¢ année) —-1
Au secondaire pour quelques annees — 2
A la fin du secondaire (12¢ année) — 3

Au Cegep (14¢ ou 15¢ année) — 4
A l'Université — 5

45. Pense encore au professeur W- Est—cc qu'il s'attend a ce que tu sois
un bon éléve, un éléve moyen ou un mauvais e’leve dans cette école?

Un des meilleurs — 1
Meilleur que la plupart — 2

A peu pres pareil — 3

Moins bon que la plupart — 4
Un des moins bons — 5

46. Pense a ton professeur. Pense-t-il que tu peux faire tes travaux mieux, aussi bien ou
moins bien que les autres personnes de ton age?

Mieux que tous — 1

Mieux que la plupart —— 2

A peu pres pareil — 3

Moins bien que la plupart — 4
Moins bien que tous — 5

I’.h“‘-fi ‘

 

246
Student Questionnaire (French)

47. Est-ce que ton professeur dirait que tu vas finir le secondaire avec des resultats
meilleurs, pareils ou moins bons que les autres eleves du secondaire?

Meilleurs résultats — 1

Tres bons résultats — 2

A peu prés pareils a ceux des autres — 3
Moins bons résultats — 4

Pires resultats — 5

48. Est-cc qu'il arrive souvent que les professeurs dans ton école essaient d'aider les eleves
qui réussissent moins bien que les autres?

Ils essaient toujours de les aider — 1

I15 essaient la plupart du temps de les aider — 2
Us essaient parfois de les aider -— 3

Us essaient rarernent de les aider — 4

115 n'essaient jamais de les aider — 5

49. Si tu compares avec les eleves de d'autres ecoles, est-cc que les eleves dans cette école-
ci apprennent plus, pareil ou moins que les autres? '

Ils apprennent beaucoup plus dans cette école-ci — l
115 apprennent un peu plus dans cette école-ci — 2
C'est a peu prés pareil — 3

Us apprennent un peu moins dans cette école-ci — 4
115 apprennent beaucoup moins dans cette école-ci — 5

50. Si tu compares avec les eleves de d'autres écoles, est-ce que les eleves de cette école-ci
vont bien réussir au secondaire?

Ils vont étre parmi les meilleurs — 1

115 vont étre un peu mieux que la plupart — 2
[Is vont étre comme la plupart — 3

I15 vont étre plus faibles que la plupart — 4
115 vont étre pires que la plupart — 5

51 . Est-cc tres important pour les professeurs de cette école-ci que les éléves apprennent ce
qui leur est montre en classe?

C'est la chose la plus importante pour les professeurs — l
C'est ties important pour les professeurs — 2

C'est un peu important pour les professeurs — 3

Ce n'est pas tres important pour les professeurs — 4

Ce n'est pas important du tout pour les professeurs — 5

52. Pense aux professeurs que tu connais dans cette école-ci. Crois-tu qu'ils sont plus
intéresses ou moins interessés que les professeurs des autres écoles a ce que les éléves
apprennent ce qui leur est montré en classe?

Les professeurs dans cette école-ci sont beaucoup plus intéressés — 1
Les professeurs dans cette école-ci sont un peu plus intéressés — 2

Il n'y a pas de difference —— 3

Les professeurs dans cette école-ci sont un peu moins intéressés — 4
Les professeurs dans cette école-ci sont beaucoup moins intéressés — 5

 

247
Student Questionnaire (French)

53. Lorsque la plupart des eleves dans ta classe réussissent mal un travail, est-ce ton
professeur essaie toujours de vous aider a comprendre oir s'il ne 1e fait jamais?
Ils essaient toujours de nous aider — 1
Us essaient la plupart du temps de nous aider — 2
115 essaient parfois de nous aider —-— 3
115 essaient rarement de nous aider — 4
115 n'essaient jamais de nous aider — 5

54. Est-cc ton professeur pense que tu seras capable d'aller a l'Université plus tard?

Oui, sfirement — 1
Oui, probablement — 2
Peut-étre — 3

Non, probablement pas — 4
Non, sfirement pas — 5

55. Souviens-toi qu'il faut trois ans d'Université aux personnes qui veulent devenir
professeur ou médecin. Est-cc ton professeur te croirait capable de faire cela?
Oui, sfirement -— 1
Oui, probablement -— 2
Peut-étre — 3
Non, probablement pas — 4
Non, sfirement pas — 5

NOUS TE DEMANDONS MAINTENANT QUELQUES QUESTIONS A PROPOS DE

TES PARENTS. REPONDS DE LA MEME FACON QUE POUR LES AUTRES
Qussrrorvs.

56. Jusqu'oir crois-tu que tes parents s'attendent a ce que tu te rendes a l'école?

A la fin du primaire (6¢ ou 7¢ année) — 1
Au secondaire pour quelques années — 2

A la fin du secondaire (12¢ année) — 3

Au Cegep (14¢ ou 15¢ année) — 4
A I'Université — 5

57. Est—cc que tes parents disent que tu peux réussir mieux, aussi bien ou moins bien que
tes amis dans les travaux scolaires?

Mieux que tous -— 1

Mieux que la plupart — 2

A peu pres pareil — 3

Moins bien que la plupart — 4

Moins bien que tous — 5

58. Est-ce que tes parents disent que tes résultats seront meilleurs, aussi bons ou moins
bons que ceux des autres eleves lorsque tu vas terrniner le secondaire?
Meilleurs résultats — 1
Tres bons résultats — 2
A peu pres pareils a ceux des autres — 3
Moins bons résultats — 4
Pires résultats —— 5

 

248
Student Questionnaire (French)

59. Tes parents voudraient que tu sois quelle sorte d'éleve a l'école?
Un des meilleurs —— 1
Meilleur que la plupart — 2
Pareil a la plupart — 3
Moins bon que la plupart — 4
Un des moins bons -— 5

60. Tes parents pensent-t-ils que tu pourrais aller a l'Université?
Oui, sfirement — 1
Oui, probablement — 2
Peut—étre — 3
Non, probablement pas — 4
Non, sfirement pas — S

61 . Rappelle-toi. il faut trois ans d'Université aux personnes qui veulent devenir professeur

ou me’decin. Est-ce que tes parents pensent que tu pourrais faire cela?

Oui, sfirement — 1
Oui, probablement — 2
Peut-étre — 3

Non, probablement pas — 4
Non, sfirement pas —— 5

L18 CHAQUE PHRASE QUI SUIT. ENCERCLE LE CHIFFRE QUI INDIQUE SI
CELA SE PRODUIT SOUVENT OU NON POUR T01.

62. En classe, je peux me promener dans la piece sans demander la permission a mon
professeur.
Toujours — 1
Souvent — 2

Parfois — 3
Rarement — 4
Jamais — 5

63. Je peux parler aux autres eleves lorsque je fais un travail.
Toujours — l
Souvent — 2

Parfois — 3
Rarement — 4
Jamais — 5

64. En classe, je m'asseois a la méme place eta cote des memes e’tudiants.
Toujours — 1
Souvent — 2
Parfois — 3
Rarement — 4
Jamais — 5

 

249
Student Questionnaire (French)

65. Lorsque je travaille sur quelque chose en classe, lea autres eleves travaillent aussi sur la
méme chose.

Toujours — l

Souvent — 2

Parfois — 3
Rarement — 4
Jamais — 5

66. Dans la plupart de mes classes, le professeur me dit ce sur quoi je dois travailler, je n'ai
pas le choix.

Toujours — 1

Souvent — 2

Parfois — 3
Rarement — 4
Jamais — 5

67. En classe, le professeur se tient en avant et tr'availle avec tout le monde en méme temps.
Toujours -— l
Souvent — 2

Parfois — 3
Rarement — 4
Jamais — 5

REPONDS MAINTENANT AUX QUELQUES QUESTIONS QUI SUIVENT EN
EN CERCLANT LA REPONSE QUI REPRESENTE LE PLUS CE QUE TU PENSES.

68. Pense aux eleves de ton école. Est—ce qu'ils disent qu'il y a trop de réglements qui les
obli gent a travailler dans cette école-ci?

Ils 1e disent tous les jours — 1

Us 1e disent souvent — 2

113 le disent parfois — 3

Us 1e disent rarement — 4

I15 ne le disent jamais — 5

69. Dans mon école, il est a peu pres impossible de savoir quand on fait quelque chose de
bien ou quand on fait quelque chose de mal.

Tout a fait d'accord — 1

D'accord — 2

Plus on moins d'accord — 3

Pas d'accord — 4

Pas du tout d'accord -— 5

70. Dans cette école-ci, on apprendrait beaucoup plus de choses si les professeurs nous
disaient plus quoi faire.
Tout a fait d'accord — l
D'accord — 2
Plus ou moins d'accord — 3
Pas d'accord — 4
Pas du tout d'accord — 5

 

QUESTIONNAIRE AUX ENSEIGNANT S

3"l' ..

Recherche dirigée par Yvon Bouchard
professeur de sociologie et d'éducation
Département des Sciences de l'Education,
Université du Quebec at Rimouski
300 Ave des Ursulines, Rimouski, GSL 3A1
Telephone: (418) 724-1670 or 724—1682

Cette recherche est réalisée grace a la collaboration de la Commission
Scolaire La Neigette, Rimouski, et de l'Universite du Quebec a Rimouski,
avec une subvention du Ministere de l'Education du Quebec (projet 78-57

DIRECTIONS: L'information qui est fournie par ce questionnaire est absolument

mnfldgnmfle. Barman; en dehors de l'équipe de recherche ne verra vos
reponses. Le rapport faisant suite a cette enquéte utilisera des données au
niveau de l'ensemble dc l'ecole de sorte qu‘aucun répondant ne pourra étre
identifié avec ses réponses. Lorsque votre questionnaire aura été transféré
sur carte IBM pour utilisation, celui.ci sera détruit. Nous vous assurons de
l'absolue confidentialite. Il est donc tres important pour nous que vous
répondiez de maniere aussi franche que possible. Meme si toutes les
réponses sont importantes, ne vous sentez pas forces de répondre aux
queStions que vous croyez trop personnelles ou que vous préférez éviter
pour une raison ou l'autre.

Etant donné Ie faible échantillon utilise pour cete recherche, il est nécessaire
que tous les enseignants vise’s par l'enquéte répondent. Votre nom sert a
ve’rifier si nous avons atteint cet objectif ou pour apprécier l'ampleur de
l'erreur introduite si vous décidez de ne pas répondre.

Nous vous remercions vivement pour votre collaboration.

 

1. Nom

 

2. Veuillez lnSCI’il‘C le nom de l'école oir vous travaillez

 

REPONDEZ EN ENCERCLANT LE CHIFFRE CORRESPONDANT A LA REPONSE
QUE VOUS AVEZ CHOISIE

3. Quel est votre sexe?

Femme — 1
Homme — 2

250

 

 

25 1
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

4. Au total, combien d’années d'expérience possédez-vous dans l'enseignement, en
incluant l'année scolaire en cours?
C'est ma premiére année — 1

2a4ans—2
5a9ans—3
10a15ans—4

16 ans ou plus — 5

5. Depuis combien de temps enseignez-vous dans la presente école?
C'est ma premiere année -— 1

2a4ans—2
5a9ans—3
10a15ans—4

16 ans ou plus — 5

6. A quelle annéc enseignez-vous?

4¢ annee seulement — 1

5¢ année seulement — 2

6¢ annee seulement — 3

7¢ annee seulement — 4

4¢ et 5¢ années jumelées — 5

5° et 6" annees jumelecs — 6

6¢ et 7¢ années jumelées — 7

4¢, 5¢ et 6c ou 5¢, 6¢ et 7" années jumelées— 8

7. Combien d'années de scolarité vous sont reconnues par votre employeur?
13 ans ou moins — 1

l4ans —2
15ans—3
16ans—4
17 ans—5

18 ans ou plus — 6

8. Situez votre formation professionnelle en fonction de l'échelle de diplomation suivante
en indiquant la plus élevée seulement.
Diplome inférieur au Brevet A on B — 1
Brevet A on B on l'équivalent — 2
Baccalaureat d'enseignement — 3
Etudes au niveau de la Maitrise sans le diplome — 4
Licence ou Maitrise terminée — 5

VOICI QUELQUES QUESTIONS A PROPOS DES HABITUDES DE GROUPEMENT
D'ELEVES DANS LES ECOLES. VEUILLEZ INSCRIRE TOUTE INFORMATION
ADDITIONNELLE NECESSAIRE AU BAS DE LA REPONSE S'IL Y A LIEU.

9. En début d'année, comment sont répartis les e’leves d'un meme niveau scolaire parmi les
differentes classes dans votre école?
En classes homogenes formées a partir du niveau d'habileté
general pour l'ensemble des matieres scolaires — 1

 

252
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

En classes homogenes formees a partir du niveau d'habilete
dans quelques matieres scolaires (ex: francais, maths, etc.) — 2
En classes heterogenes formées a partir du niveau d'habileté
general pour l'ensemble des matieres scolaires — 3
En classes hétérogénes formées a partir du niveau d'habileté
dans quelques matiéres scolaires (ex: francais, maths, etc.) — 4
Le groupement se fait au hasard on a partir de données
spéciales (sexe, transport scolaires, etc.) — 5
I1 n‘y a pas de groupement intentionnel — 6

10. ll arrive fréquemment que les eleves soient regroupés a l'intérieur d'une meme classe
pour effectuer les travaux scolaires. Si tel est votre cas, comment s'effectue le
regroupcment dans votre classe?

En classes homogenes forrrrées a partir du niveau d'habileté
general pour l'ensemble des matieres scolaires — 1

En classes homogenes formees a partir du niveau d'habileté
dans quelques matiéres scolaires (ex: francais, maths, etc.) — 2

En classes heterogenes forrnées a partir du niveau d'habileté
general pour l'ensemble des matieres scolaires — 3

En classes hétérogénes formées a partir du niveau d'habileté
dans quelques matieres scolaires (ex: francais, maths, etc.) — 4

Le groupement se fait au hasard on a partir de données
spéciales (sexe, espace, etc.) — 5
ll n'y a pas de groupement intentionnel dans ma classe — 6

l l. Jusqu'ici cete année, quelle a été votre maniere de travailler avec vos eleves?

[Si vous avez des niveau: multiples, considérez chaque niveau comme une classe pour

la réponse. Si vous avez changé de méthodes au cours de l'année, considérez celle qui a
duré plus longtemps seulement. I

A peu pres exclusivement du travail avec l'ensemble de la classe — l

Surtout du travail avec l'ensemble, mais travail individuel

avec quelques éleves plus lents ou plus rapides — 2

Un mélange égal de travail d'ensemble et de travaux d'équipes — 3

Le travail se fait surtout en petites equipes ou petits groupes — 4

Le travail est surtout individualisé — 5

NOUS NOUS FAISONS TOUS UNE IDEE SUR LES CHANCES DE REUSSITE
FUTURE DES ELEVES DANS NOTRE ECOLE ET DANS NOTRE CLASSE MEME SI
NOUS SOMMES CONSCIENTS QUE CERTAINS FACTEURS HORS DE NOTRE
CONTROLE PEUVENT INFLUENCER FAVORABLEMENT OU DEFAVORABLE -
MENT LA REUSSITE DE CHAQUE ELEVE DANS L'AVENIR. REPONDEZ AUX
QUESTIONS QUI SUIVENT EN VOUS BASANT SUR VOS IMPRESSIONS ACTU -
ELLES ET ESTIMEZ LE POURCENTAGE DE REUSSITE DES ELEVES A PARTIR
DES DONNEES QUI SONT m3 MEME SI ELLES NE SONT PAS TOUJOURS
VERIFIABLES. SI VOUS VOYEZ DES DIFFERENCES ENTRE VOTRE CLASSE ET
L'ENSEMBLE DE L'ECOLE, FAITES-LES RESSORTIR; SINON, FOURNISSEZ UNE
REPONSE SEMBLABLE POUR LES DEUX.

 

253
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

12. W5, quel pourcentage d'éleves dans mega]: vont étre capable de terminer
leur secondaire?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2
A peu pres la moitié — 3
Environ 25% — 4
Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

l3. Mm; quel pourcentage d’éléves dans W vont étre capable de
terminer leur secondaire?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1
Environ 75% -— 2
A peu pres la moitié — 3
Environ 25% — 4
Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

l4. Quel pourcentage d'éleves dans mm vont vraisemblablement opter pour le
secteur professionnel au secondaire W5?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — l
Environ 75% — 2
A peu pres la moitie — 3
Environ 25% — 4
Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

15. Quel pourcentage d'éleves dans mm vont vraisemblablement opter pour le
secteur professionnel au secondaire 552152119115?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — l
Environ 75% — 2
A peu pres la moitié — 3
Environ 25% — 4
Trés peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

l6. Quel pourcentage d'éleves dans mm; vous attendez-vous a voir aller au Cegep?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2
A peu pres la moitié — 3
Environ 25% — 4
Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

17. Quel pourcentage d'éleves dans mm vous attendez-vous a voir aller au Cegep?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2
A peu prés la moitié — 3
Environ 25% — 4
Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

18. Quel pourcentage d'éleves dans 9911219521.: peut-on s'attendre a voir aller a l'Université?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% —— 1

Environ 75% — 2

A peu pres la moitié — 3

Environ 25% — 4

Trés peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

 

254
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

19. W, quel pourcentage d'éleves dans W peut-on s'attendre a voir
aller a l'Université?

Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2

A peu pres la moitié — 3

Environ 25% — 4

Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

20. W, quel pourcentage d'éleves dans We seront capables d'obtenir un
dipléme de maitrise s'ils le désirent?

Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2

A peu pres la moitié — 3

Environ 25% — 4

Tres peu, soit moins de 10% —— 5

21. W, quel pourcentage d'e’leves dans W seront capables d'obtenir
un diplénre de maitrise s'ils le désirent?

Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2

A peu pres la moitié —— 3

Environ 25% — 4

Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

22. Combien d’éléves dans mm; sont capable d'obtenir surtout des A et des B ou
l'equivalent?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2
A peu pres la moitié — 3
Environ 25% — 4
Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

23. Combien d'e’leves dans W sont capable d'obtenir surtout des A et des B ou
l'équivalent?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2
A peu pres la moitié — 3
Environ 25% — 4
Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

24. Comment evalueriez-vous personnellement l'habileté scolaire des eleves dans me
{9:11; comparativement aux autres écoles élémentaires que vous connaissez?
L'habileté est beaucoup plus éleve’e ici — 1
L'habileté est un peu plus élevée ici — 2
L'habileté est a peu pres pareille ici — 3
L'habileté est un peu plus faible ici — 4
L'habileté est beaucoup plus faible ici — 5

 

255
Teacher QueStionnaire (French)

25. Quel pourcentage d'e’leves dans votre 6cole, diriez-vous, sont attirés par l'idée d'étudier
Iongtemps?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — l
Environ 75% — 2
A peu pres la moitié —- 3
Environ 25% — 4
Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

26. Comment évalueriez-vous personnellement l'habileté scolaire des eleves dans your,
class: comparativement aux autres écoles élémentaires que vous connaissez?
L'habileté est beaucoup plus élevée ici — l
L'habileté est un peu plus élevée ici — 2
L'habilete est a pen pres pareille ici — 3
L'habilete est un peu plus faible ici — 4
L'habileté est beaucoup plus faible ici —- 5

VOICI QUELQUES QUESTIONS A PROPOS DU (DE LA) PRINCIPAL (E) DE VOTRE
ECOLE. REPONDEZ COMME POUR LES QUESTIONS PRECEDENTES EN VOUS
APPUYANT SUR VOS PERCEPTIONS DE LA REALITE, POUR FAIRE VOS
ESTIMES, PEU IMPORTE LA QUANTITE OU LA QUALITE D'INFORMATION QUE
VOUS PENSEZ AVOIR. IL NY A PAS DE BONNES OU DE MAUVAISES
REPONSES. AUSSI, NOUS APPRECIERIONS BEAUCOUP UNE REPONSE AUSSI
NATURELLE QUE POSSIBLE. NOUS VOUS RAPPELONS QUE CETTE
RECHERCHE EST ABSOLUMENT CONFIDENTIELLE.

27. D'apres ce que you: pensez, quel pourcentage d'éleves dans M19, le ou la
principal (e) s'attend a voir compléter le secondaire?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2
A peu pres la moitié — 3
Environ 25% — 4
Trés peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

28. D'apres ms, quel pourcentage d'éleves dans mm, le ou la principal (e) s'attend
a voir aller au Cegep?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2
A peu pres la moitié — 3
Environ 25% — 4
Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

29. Quel pourcentage d'éleves dans We, 1e ou la principal (e) s'attend a voir obtenir
un dipléme universitaire, W?

Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1

Environ 75% — 2

A peu pres la moitié — 3

Environ 25% — 4

Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

 

 

256
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

30. Quel pourcentage d'éleves dans 10.31921: estimez-vous que le ou la principal (e) croit
capable d'obtenir surtout des A ou des B ou l'équivalent?

Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1

Environ 75% — 2

A peu pres 1a moitié — 3

Environ 25% — 4

Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

31 . A quel niveau pensez-mus que le ou la principal (e) évalue l'habileté scolaire des eleves
dans nmn; comparativement a d'autres écoles?
Elle est considérée comme bien meilleure — 1
Elle est consideree un peu meilleure — 2
Elle est considérée sur le meme pied — 3
Elle est considérée un peu plus faible — 4
Elle est considérée beaucoup plus faible — 5

LES QUESTIONS QUI SUIVENT VOUS CONCERNENT. N'OUBLIEZ PAS
D'AJOUTER TOUT RENSEIGNEMENT QUI SERAIT NECESSAIRE POUR
COMPRENDRE VOTRE REPONSE SI VOUS EN SENTEZ LE DESIR.

32. Obtenir un diplome W est un objectif réaliste que vous fixez pour
quel pourcentage de vos el‘eves?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2
A peu pres la moitié — 3
Environ 25% — 4
Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

33. Obtenir un diplome collegial est un objectif réaliste que vous fixez pour quel
pourcentage de vos éleves?

Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1

Environ 75% — 2

A peu prés la moitié — 3

Environ 25% — 4

Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

34. Obtenir un diplome W est un objectif réaliste que vous fixez pour quel
pourcentage de vos eleves?
Presque tous, soit au moins 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2
A peu pres la moitie — 3
Environ 25% — 4
Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

35. Vous arrive-t-il souvent de parler a vos eleves de la nécessité d'aller a l'école pendant
Ion gtemps pour obtenir de meilleures chances de réussite dans le futur?

Tres souvent — 1

Souvent — 2

Parfois — 3

Rarement — 4

Jamais — 5

 

-.

”s.‘-Q'-

I

257
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

36. Encouragez-vous vos eleves dont les parents sont peu fortunes a essayer d'aller
longtemps a l'école, jusqu'a l'universite si possible?

Tres souvent — 1
Souvent — 2

Parfois — 3
Rarement — 4
Jamais — 5

37. Poussez-vous vos eleves dont l'habilete scolaire vous parait déficiente a essayer d'aller
longtemps a l'école, jusqu'a l'université si possible?

Tres souvent — l
Souvent — 2
Parfois — 3
Rarement — 4
Jamais — 5

38. mm combien de professeurs dans cette école croient qu'on doit montrer a L

tous les eleves a lire correctement et a m les autres matieres au programme du
primaire. meme si quelques eleves semblent manifester peu d'intérét pour l'école?

Presque tous les professeurs — 1
La majorité des professeurs — 2
La moitié des professeurs —— 3
Quelques professeurs — 4
Presqu'aucun professeurs — 5

39. Ce serait injuste de la part des professeurs dans cette école-ci d'insister aupres des

eleves pour qu'ils obtiennent des résultats scolaires plus élevés que ce qu'ils sont
actuellement capables de faire?

Tout a fait d'accord — 1
D'accord — 2
Plus on moins d'accord — 3

Pas d'accord — 4
Pas du tout d'accord — 5

40. Lorsque je pense qu'un éléve est incapable de faire certains travaux scolaires, j'essaie
quand meme de le pousser?

Toujours — 1
Habituellement oui —— 2
Parfois — 3

Rarement — 4

Jamais — 5

 

41. Je suis ge’néralement tres tres prudent (e) pour éviter d'amener les eleves jusqu'a un
niveau de frustration.

Tout a fait d'accord — 1
D'accord — 2

Plus on moins d'accord — 3
Pas d'accord — 4

Pas du tout d'accord — 5

258
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

42. Dans cette ecole-ci, il est a pen pres impossible pour un professeur de faire en sorte que
tous ses eleves reussissent a un niveau eleve?

Tout a fait d'accord — l

D'accord — 2

Plus on moins d'accord — 3

Pas d'accord — 4

Pas du tout d'accord — 5

43. A combien estimeriez-vous le nombre de professeurs dans m1: qui encouragent
les eleves a demander du travail supplementaire afin d'obtenir des meilleurs resultats?
Presque tous les professeurs — 1
La majorite des professeurs — 2
La moitie des professeurs — 3
Quelques professeurs — 4
Presqu'aucun professeurs — 5

44. Combien d'eleves dans We essaient toujours de s'ameliorer par rapport a leurs
travaux precedents, selon vous?

Presque tous les eleves — 1

La plupart des eleves — 2

La moitie des eleves — 3

Quelques eleves — 4

Presqu'aucun eleve — 5

4S. Combien d'eleves dans W essaient toujours de s'ameliorer par rapport a leurs
travaux precedents, selon vous?
Presque tous les eleves — 1
La plupart des eleves — 2
La moitie des eleves — 3
Quelques eleves — 4
Presqu'aucun eleve — 5

46. Combien d'eleves dans m1; vont forcer afin de faire de meilleurs travaux que
leurs amis preferes, selon ce que vous seriez portes a croire?
Presque tous les eleves — 1
La plupart des eleves — 2
La moitie des eleves — 3
Quelques eleves — 4
Presqu'aucun eleve — 5

47. Combien d'eleves dans W travaillent fort dans le but de faire des meilleurs
travaux que les autres dans la classe?
Presque tous les eleves — 1
La plupart des eleves — 2
La moitie des eleves — 3
Quelques eleves — 4
Presqu'aucun eleve — 5

 

259
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

48. Y a --t il beaucoup d eleves dans mm qui se satisfont de resultats scolaires

inferieurs a leurs capacites, selon vous?

Presque tous les eleves -— 1
La plupart des eleves — 2
La moitie des eleves — 3
Quelques eIEVes — 4
Presqu'aucun eleve — 5

49. Combien d'eleves dans W se satisfont de resultats scolaires inferieurs a leurs
capacnes?

Presque tous les eleves — 1
La plupart des eleves — 2
La moitie des eleves — 3
Quelques eleves — 4
Presqu'aucun eleve —- 5

SO. Selon vos observations, y a-t-il beaucoup d'eleves dans mm: qui demandent des
travaux supplementaires afin d'obtenir dc meilleurs resultats?

Presque tous les eleves — 1
La plupart des eleves — 2
La rnoitie des eleves —— 3
Quelques eleves — 4
Presqu'aucun eleve — 5

51. Combien d'eleves dans W demandent des travaux supplementaires afin
d'obtenir dc meilleurs resultats?

Presque tous les eleves — 1
La plupart des eleves — 2
La moitie des eleves — 3
Quelques eleves —— 4
Presqu'aucun eleve — 5

52. En vous basant sur vos appreciations, quel niveau de reussite scolaire peut- on
s 'attendre des eIEVes dans W?
Tres au dessus de la moyenne provinciale — 1
Au dessus de la moyenne provinciale — 2
A peu pres dans la moyenne provinciale — 3
Legerement en dessous de la moyenne provinciale — 4
Tres en dessous de la moyenne provinciale — 5

53. En moyenne, quel niveau de reussite scolaire peut-on s'attendre des eleves dans mm;
glass: ?

Tres au dessus de la moyenne provinciale — 1

Au dessus de la moyenne provinciale — 2

A peu pres dans la moyenne provinciale — 3
Legerement en dessous de la moyenne provinciale — 4
Tres en dessous de la moyenne provinciale — 5

'.’. it... _

 

260
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

LES PROCHAINES QUESTIONS SE RAPPORTENT AUX PARENTS DES ELEVES
DANS VOTRE ECOLE. ESTIMEZ A NOUVEAU QUELLES DEVRAIENT ETRE
LEURS REPONSES EN VOUS APPUYANT SUR VOS PROPRES OBSERVATIONS.

54. Les parents des eleves considerent cette ecole-ci principalement comme une garderie ou
une place pour s'occuper des enfants?

Tout a fait d'accord — 1

D'accord — 2

Plus on moins d'accord — 3

Pas d'accord — 4

Pas du tout d'accord — 5

55. Les parents des eleves dans cette ecole-ci ont un souci tres marque pour que leurs
enfants recoivent une formation de premiere qualite.
Tout a fait d'accord — 1
D'accord — 2
Plus on moins d'accord — 3
Pas d'accord — 4
Pas du tout d'accord — 5

56. D'apr‘es vous, combien de parents d'éléves dans We pensent que leurs enfants
vont terminer leur secondaire?
Presque tous les parents — 1
La plupart des parents — 2
La moitie des parents — 3
Quelques parents — 4
Presqu'aucun parent — 5

57. Selon mus, combien dc parents d'eleves dans cette ecole-ci s'attendent a ce que leurs
enfants se rendent a l'universite un jour?

Presque tous les parents — 1

La plupart des parents — 2

La moitie des parents — 3

Quelques parents — 4

Presqu'aucun parent — 5

58. Combien de parents d'eleves dans m1; restent indifferents lorsque leurs enfants
obtiennent des mauvais resultats, d'apres vous?
Presque tous les parents — 1
La plupart des parents — 2
La moitie des parents — 3
Quelques parents — 4
Presqu'aucun parent — 5

59. Quelle proportion parmi les parents de vos eleves reconnaissez-vous lorsque vous les
rencontrez?
Presque tous — 1
A peu pres 75% — 2
A peu pres 50% — 3
A peu pres 25% — 4
Seulement quelques-uns —— 5

 

_-"‘—I I : '

l
.I

)5

261
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

LES DERNIERES QUESTIONS TOUCHENT A CERTAINS ASPECTS DU FONC -
TIONNEMENT ADMINISTRATIF ET PEDAGOGIQUE DE VOTRE ECOLE. SUIVEZ
BIEN LES DIRECTIVES AVANT DE REPONDRE AUX QUESTIONS A FORME
IRREGULIERE.

60. Comment administrez-vous vos objectifs pedagogiques?
Ils sont les mémes pour tous les etudiants —— 1
115 sont les mémes pour la plupart des etudiants — 2
[Is sont les memes pour quelques etudiants — 3
[Is sont differents pour la plupart des etudiants — 4
Us sont differents pour chaque etudiant — 5

61. Voici une serie d'affirmations relevees aupres d'enseignants. Dites jusqu'a quel point
celles-ci sont representatives de vorre comportement en classe.
[ E ncerclez Ie chtflre correspondant d votre réponse pour chaque afi'innation.)

Tres re- repre- + on - Peu re- Pas re-
presen- sent- repre- presen- presen-
tatif tatif sentatif tatif tatif
a) Lorsqu'un eleve en general commet
une erreur dans un travail, je lui note
aussitot Ia faute sans equivoque. l 2 3 4 5

b) Dans ma classe, j'applique le dicton qui
veut qu‘"un bon eleve n’a pas besoin
qu'on lui dise qu'il a raison, il le sait." l 2 3 4 5

c) Lorsqu'un eleve que je considere faible
commet plusieurs erreurs dans un travail,
j'essaie de ne pas toutes les souligner
pour ne pas Ie decourager. l 2 3 4 5

d) Dans mon travail en classe. j'essaie toujours
de trouver un moyen pour renforcer les ele-
ves meme si cela peut leur faire negliger de
corriger des erreurs importantes. 1 2 3 4 5

e) .I'informe toujours les eleves des compone-
ments que je considere acceptables et
ceux non desirables en classe. 1 2 3 4 5

f) En certaines occasions, il m'arrive volontai-
rement de noter des fautes lorsqu'il n'y a
pas lieu parce que cela m'apparait un
service a l'eleve. 1 2 3 4 5

g) Dans ma classe, je ne souligne que les
bonnes reponses ou les bons travaux
et j'evite de parler des erreurs. 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

262
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

h) Pour eviter de blesser un eIEVe qui foumit
un mauvais travail, je vais generalement
lui souligner que c'esr un "bon essai". 1 2 3 4 5

i) Si un eleve faible s'ameliore considerable-
ment, je l'en felicite tout en lui notant clai-
rement le cherrrin qu'il reste a parcourir. l 2 3 4 5

j) Je suis beaucoup plus severe pour les bons
eleves dans mes corrections que pour
les mauvais. 1 2 3 4 5

62. En utilisant le méme mode dc reponse, que pour la question precedente, dites jusqu'a
quel point les enonces suivants sont caracteristiques de votre classe cette annee.

Tres re- repre- +ou- Peu re- Pas re- 1
presen- sent- repre- presen- presen-

tatif tatif sentatif tatif tatif “‘1
a) J'encourage les eleves a parler entre eux
lorsqu'ils font leurs travaux en classe. l 2 3 4 5
b) C' est habituellement moi qui determine
ou les el‘eves vont s'asseoir. l 2 3 4 5
c) Regle generale, les eleves sont autorises
a se promener a leur guise sans
demander la permission. 1 2 3 4 5
d) La disposition des eleves et des meubles
est modifiee frequemment (au moins
5 fois par session). 1 2 3 4 5
e) Les eleves travaillent habituellement A f?
tous sur le meme sujet en méme temps. l 2 3 4 5 i

63. Pensez a hier on a la demiere journee or‘r vous avez travaille avec vos eleves sur des
taches regulieres. Determinez Ia proportion du temps oir vous avez eu la parole .
comparativement aux eleves. L a...

95% et plus du temps — 1 ‘
81-94% du temps — 2
61-80% du temps — 3
31-60%du temps —— 4
moins de 30% — 5

 

263
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

64. En vous referant a la semaine demiere (ou la demiere semaine reguliere), repartissez
votre temps de presence avec les eleves selon les categories suivantes:
[Lisez tous les choir avant de répondre et soyez aussi précz's que possible. ]
Temps consacre a des taches administratives

(presences, dossiers, notes aux parents, etc.) I_I_I %
Temps passe a organiser la vie de la classe, 1e
fonctionnement du groupe et a maintenir l'ordre I_I_I %
Temps consacre a l'enseignement on a une activite (en grands
ou en petits groupes) centres sur l'instruction directement I_I_l %
Temps consacre a des activites plus ou moins dirigees
(travail libre, temps (1: lecture ou d'etude, bibliotheque, etc.) |_I_| %
Temps reserve a des activités de detente ou de
divertissement (jeux, activites sportives, recreation, etc.) I_I_l %

Temps passe a faire de l'evaluation, correction on a discuter

 

avec un eleve de problemes particuliers I_I_| %
Autres (specifiez s'il vous plait) |_I_| %
I_I_I %

 

TOTAL 100%

65. Que considerez vous comme etant votre principale responsabilite envers les eleves dans
vorre classe?
[ Encerclez an: seule réponse. I
L'enseignement des matieres scolaires — 1
Favoriser la socialisation et la capacite d'entrer en
relation avec les autres — 2
La croissance personnelle et le développement
de l'individu (actualisation) — 3
Susciter le desir de reussir a l'ecole et dans le travail — 4
Autres (specifiez) — 5
— 6

 

66. Dans certaines ecoles, les parents prennent une part aCtive aux travaux scolaires, mais
celIe-ci prend des formes differentes. Voici quelques exemples de participation.
Indiquez-nous la frequence avec laquelle ces domaines sont touches dans votre classe, si
tel est Ie cas.

I C hoisissez um: réponse pour chaque cas en vous servant de l'échelle suivante et
imiiquez-la en encerclant 1e chrfire correspondant au bout de la ligne.)

l. Cela se presente tous les jours

2. Cela se presente au moins deux fois par semaine

3. Cela se presente l fois par semaine

4. Cela se presente environ une fois par mois

5. Cela se presente tres occasionnellement

6. Cela ne se presente jamais
a) Participer a un travail de support (transport d'éléves,

surveillance pour sorties, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 6
b) Diriger un atelier en classe (couture, menuiserie, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 6

c) Aider lors d'une activite pedagogique (bibliotheque,
lecture d'un conte, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

264
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

d) S'ocuper d'aider les enfants plus lents en lecture on
en d'autres matieres scolaires 1 2 3 4 5 6

e) Prendre en charge la classe pour une activite direc-
tement educative 1 2 3 4 5 6

f)Autre(specifiez): 1 2 3 4 5 6
l 2 3 4 5 6

 

67. En moyenne, combien de rencontres individuelles a l'ecole avez-vous chaque mois
avec des parents de vos eleves, en dehors des periodes de remise de bulletins, pour
discuter de divers sujets concernant leurs enfants?

21etplus—1
13a20—2
6a12—3
3a5—4
lou2—5
Aucune—6

68. En moyenne, combien de conversations télephoniques avez-vous chaque mois avec des
parents de vos eleves pour discuter de divers sujets concernant leurs enfants?

21 etplus—l
13a20—2
6a12—3
3a5—4
lou2—5
Aucune—6

69. Nous vous presentons maintenant une echelle qui identifie des niveaux de prise de
decision a I'ecole. Dites-nous, par rapport aux dix-huit (18) elements suivants, qui
prend les decisions dans votre ecole.

I C omme précédemment, indiquez votre réponse en encerclant an chiffre au bout de

chaque lignej

l. Le principal decide seul ou en suivant l'avis de la Commission Scolaire

2. Le principal consulte les professeurs mais decide finalement

3. Le principal et les professeurs decident collectivement

4. Les professeurs decident en comite avec ou sans l'avis du principal

5. Les professeurs decident individuellement
a. L'engagement de nouveaux professeurs 1 2 3 4 5
b) La selection d'assistants ou d'aides pedagogiques 1 2 3 4 5
c) La selection des remplacants 1 2 3 4 5
d) La seleCtion des criteres d'evaluation des professeurs 1 2 3 4 5
e) La procedure d'evaluation des professeurs 1 2 3 4 5
f) La procedure d'evaluation des etudiants 1 2 3 4 5
g) La disposition des eIEVes en classe 1 2 3 4 5
h) Les methodes d'enseignement a utiliser 1 2 3 4 5
i) Les modifications a l'horaire pour sorties ou autres 1 2 3 4 5
j) L'horaire des arréts pedagogiques 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

265
Teacher Questionnaire (French)

k) Les themes traites lors des rencontres pedagogiques 1 2 3 4 5
1) Le programme a voir chaque annee 1 2 3 4 5
m) Le classement des eleves en debut d’annee 1 2 3 4 5
n) Les manuels de classe a utiliser l 2 3 4 5
o) Prendre contact avec les parents pour les cas graves l 2 3 4 5
p) Prendre contact avec les parents pour les cas mineurs 1 2 3 4 5
q) Les objectifs a poursuivre durant l'annee 1 2 3 4 5
r) L'etablissement des methodes de discipline relativement

aux etudiants 1 2 3 4 5

70. Beaucoup d'ecoles possedent des reglements intemes relativement au va-et-vient du
personnel, heures de presence, plan de travail a suivre, rerrrise des dossiers, objectifs
scolaires a poursuivre, etc.

Jusqu'a quel point de tels reglements existent-ils dans votre école?
I] y a enormement de reglements ici — 1
I] y a beaucoup de reglements ici — 2
[1 y a plus ou moins de reglements ici — 3
11 y a peu de reglements ici — 4
Il n'y a pas de reglements enonces ici — 5

71. S'il y a des r‘eglements enonces dans votre ecole, jusqu'a quel point sont-ils mis en
apphcauon?
Ils sont appliques a la lettre dans tous les cas — 1
[Is sont appliques a la lettre dans la plupart des cas — 2
La force de leur application varie — 3
Ils sont peu appliques — 4
[Is ne sont pas du tout appliques — 5

 

QUESTIONNAIRE AUX PRINCIPAUX

{2"1' ..

Recherche dirigee par Yvon Bouchard
professeur de sociologie et d'education
Departement des Sciences de l'Education,
Universite du Quebec at Rimouski
300 Ave des Ursulines, Rimouski, G5L 3A1
Telephone: (418) 724-1670 or 724-1682

Cette recherche est realisee grace a la collaboration de la Commission
Scolaire La Neigette, Rimouski, et de l'Universite du Quebec a Rimouski,
avec une subvention du Ministere dc l'Education du Quebec (projet 78-57
DGDP)

 

DIRECTIONS: L'information qui est fournie par ce questionnaire est absolument
mildew. mom]; en dehors de l'equipe de recherche ne verra vos
reponses. Le rapport faisant suite a cette enquéte utilisera des données au
niveau de l'ensemble de l'ecole de sorte qu'aucun repondant ne pourra étre
identifie avec ses reponses. Lorsque votre questionnaire aura ete transfere
sur carte IBM pour utilisation, celui-ci sera detruit. Nous vous assurons de
l'absolue confidentialite. Il est donc tres important pour nous que vous
repondiez de maniere aussi franche que possible. Meme si toutes les
reponses sont importantes, ne vous sentez pas forces de repondre aux
questions que vous croyez trop personnelles ou que vous preferez eviter
pour une raison ou l'autre.

Etant donne le faible echantillon utilise pour cete recherche, il est necessaire

que tous les principaux vises par l'enquéte repondent. Nous vous serions F3
evidemment reconnaissants de nous retoumer ce questionnaire le plus tot I
possible. .,

Merci de votre collaboration et de votre participation.

 

 

l.Nom t..:

 

2. Veuillez inscrire le nom de l'ecole ou vous travaillez et qui est visee par cette recherche.

 

REPONDEZ EN ENCERCLANT LE CHIFFRE CORRESPONDANT A LA REPONSE
QUE VOUS AVEZ CHOISIE

3. Quel est votre sexe?
Femme — 1
Home —- 2

266

267
Principal Questionnaire (French)

4. Depuis combien de temps étes-vous principal (e) W?
C'est ma premiere annee — l

2a4ans—2
5a9ans—3
10a15ans—4

16 ans ou plus — 5

5. Depuis combien de temps étes-vous principal (e)?
C'est ma premiere annee — 1

2a4ans—2
5a9ans—3
10a15ans—4

16 ans ou plus — 5

6. Quelles etaient vos annees d'experience dans l'enseignement avant de devenir
principal (e)?

 

Je n'ai jamais enseigne (e) — 1

1a4ans—2
5a9ans—3
10a15ans—4

16 ans ou plus — 5

7. Situez votre formation professionnelle en fonction de l'echelle de diplomation suivante
en indiquant la plus elevee seulement.
Diplome inferieur au Brevet A on B — 1
Brevet A on B on l'equivalent — 2
Baccalaureat d‘enseignement — 3
Etudes au niveau de la Maitrise sans 1e diplome — 4
Licence ou Maitrise terminee — 5

8. Selon votre jugement, quelle est la reputation de cette ecole-ci parrrri les educateurs en
general? F
Une des meilleures — l

Meilleure que la rrroyenne — 2

Dans la moyenne — 3

En dessous de la moyenne — 4

Mauvaise — 5

 

9. Comment evalueriez-vous cette ecole en regard de la reussite des eleves?
Une des meilleures — l
Meilleure que la moyenne — 2
Dans la moyenne — 3
En dessous de la moyenne — 4
Mauvaise — 5

10. En ce qui conceme la reussite des elc‘wes, quel niveau cette ecole est-elle objectivement
mam; d'atteindre selon vous?
Une des meilleures — 1
Meilleure que la moyenne — 2
Dans la moyenne — 3
En dessous de la moyenne — 4
Mauvaise — 5

268
Principal Questionnaire (French)

11. Que considerez vous comme etant la principale responsabilite de l'ecole envers les
eleves?

[Encerclez mg seule réponse. I

L'enseignement des matieres scolaires — 1

Favoriser la socialisation et la capacite d'entrer en
relation avec les autres — 2

La croissance personnelle et le développement
de l'individu (actualisation) — 3
Susciter le desir de reussir a l'ecole et dans le travail — 4
Autres (specifiez s'il vous plait) —— 5

—6

VEUILLEZ REPONDRE AUX QUESTIONS QUI SUIVENT EN ENCERCLANT LE
CHIFFRE CORRESPONDANT A W VOTRE
OPINION , PEU IMPORTE LA QUANTITE OU LA QUALITE DE L'INFORMATION
QL’E VOUS PENSEZ AVOIR POUR LE FAIRE. CE N'EST PAS L'EXACTITUDE
DES REPONSES QUI NOUS INTERESSE ICI MAIS BIEN XISIQH DES CHOSES.

 

12. En moyenne, quel niveau de reussite scolaire peut-on attendre des eleves de cette ecole-
Ci?

Tres au-dessus de la moyenne provinciale — 1

Au-dessus de la moyenne provinciale — 2

A peu pres dans la moyenne provinciale — 3

En dessous de la moyenne provinciale — 4

Tres en dessous de la moyenne provinciale — 5

l3. Wu: quel pourcentage d'eleves dans cette ecole vont étre capable de terminer
leur secondaire?

Presque tous, soit plus de 90% — 1

Environ 75% — 2

A peu pres la moitie — 3

Environ 25% — 4

Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

l4. Quel pourcentage d'eleves dans cette ecole vont vraisemblablement opter pour le
secteur professionnel au secondaire W?
Presque tous, soit plus de 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2
A peu prES la moitie — 3
Environ 25% — 4
Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

15. Quel pourcentage d’el‘eves dans cette ecole vous attendez-vous a voir aller au Cegep?
Presque tous, soit plus de 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2
A peu pres la moitie —— 3
Environ 25% — 4
Tres peu, soit moins de 10% —-— 5

 

 

"I :0.

269
Principal Questionnaire (French)

16. Quel pourcentage d'eleves dans cette ecole vous attendez-mus a voir aller a l'universite
et y obtenir un diplome?

Presque tous, soit plus de 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2

A peu pres la moitie — 3

Environ 25% -- 4

Tres peu, soit moins de 10% -— 5

l7. Combien parmi les eleves de cette ecole sont reellement capable d'obtenir des bons
resultats?

Presque tous, soit plus de 90% — 1
Environ 75% — 2

A peu pres la moitie — 3

Environ 25% — 4

Tres peu, soit moins de 10% — 5

18. Comment eval ueriez-vous personnellement l'habilete scolaire des eleves de cette ecole-
ci comparativement a ceux de d'autres ecoles elementaires que vous connaissez?

L'habilete est beaucoup plus elevee ici -— 1
L'habilete est un peu plus elevee ici — 2
L'habilete est a peu pres pareille — 3
L'habilete est un peu plus faible ici — 4
L'habilete est beaucoup plus faible ici — 5

19. Les parents des eleves d'ici regardent cette ecole principalement comme une garderie ou
comme une place pour occuper les enfants.

Tout a fait d'accord — l
D'accord — 2

Plus on moins d'accord —— 3
Pas d'accord — 4

Pas du tout d'accord — 5

20. Les parents des elatves dans cette ecole-ci ont un souci tres marque pour que leurs
enf ants recoivent une formation scolaire de premiere qualite.

Tout a fait d'accord — 1
D'accord — 2

Plus on moins d'accord -— 3
Pas d'accord — 4

Pas du tout d'accord — 5

21. Parmi les parents des eleves de cette ecole-Ci, combien s'attendent a voir leur (s)
enfant (s) terminer leur secondaire, momma?

Presque tous les parents — 1

La plupart des parents — 2

A peu pres la moitie des parents — 3
Quelques parents — 4

Presqu'aucun parent — 5

 

Fur-:3

 

270
Principal Questionnaire (French)

22. Parmi les parents des eleves de cette ecole-Ci, combien s'attendent a voir leur (s)
enfant (5) se rendre au Cegep?
Presque tous les parents — 1
La plupart des parents — 2
A peu pres la moitie des parents — 3
Quelques parents —— 4
Presqu'aucun parent — 5

23. D’apres mus. parmi les parents des eleves de cette ecole-Ci, combien s'attendent a voir
leur (s) enfant (s) obtenir un diplome universitaire un jour?
Presque tous les parents — 1
La plupart des parents — 2
A peu pres la moitie des parents — 3
Quelques parents — 4
Presqu'aucun parent — 5

24. Parmi les parents des eleves de cette ecole-Ci, combien restent indifferents lorsque
leur (s) cnfant (s) obtiennent des mauvais resultats?
Presque tous les parents —— 1
La plupart des parents — 2
A peu pres la moitie des parents — 3
Quelques parents — 4
Presqu'aucun parent — 5

25. Parmi les parents des eleves de cette ecole-Ci, combien desirent recevoir de
l'information (feedback) de la part du (de la ) principal (e) ou des professeurs a propos
de leurs enfants a l'ecole?

Presque tous les parents —— 1

La plupart des parents — 2

A peu prés 1a moitie des parents — 3
Quelques parents — 4

Presqu'aucun parent — 5

26. Quel pourcentage d'eleves dans cette ecole-Ci croyez-vous capable d'apprendre a lire
convenablement pour la fin de la 2¢ annee?

100% — 1
90-99% — 2
80-89% — 3
70—79% — 4
50-69% -- 5

Moins de 50% — 6

27. Vous arrive-Lil souvent de suggerer a vos professeurs des moyens pour ameliorer le
rendement scolaire?
Tres souvent — l
Souvent — 2
Parfois — 3
Rarement — 4
Jamais — 5

 

 

f

3"”!

271
Principal Questionnaire (French)

28. Vous anive-t-il frequemment de rassembler les professeurs en groupe pour discuter de

moyens concrets pour ameliorer le rendement scolaire?

Tres souvent —-— 1
Souvent —- 2

Parfois — 3
Rarement — 4
Jamais -— 5

29. Come principal (e), quel effet pensez-vous avoir personnellement sur la reussite des
eleves?
Un effet majeur — 1
Un effet assez important — 2
Un effet important — 3
Un effet peu important — 4
Pas d'effet du tout — 5

30. C'est la responsabilite du (de la) principal (e) de s'assurer que tous les eleves dans son
ecole reussissent a un niveau eleve.

Tout a fait d'accord — l
D'accord — 2

Plus on moins d'accord — 3
Pas d'accord — 4

Pas du tout d'accord — 5

31. Peu importe le type d'eleves dans une ecole, c'est possible pour un (e) principal (e),

avec la collaboration des professeurs, de changer une ecole qui a un faible taux de
reussite en une ecole qui reussit bien.

Tout a fait d'accord — 1
D'accord — 2

Plus on moins d'accord — 3
Pas d'accord — 4

Pas du tout d'accord — 5

32. Quelle est. en general, l'appneciation des parents des eleves de cette ecole-ci, en regard
de la reussite dc leurs enfants?
Presque tous trouvent qu'ils reussissent tres bien — 1
La majorite pensent qu'ils font aussi bien qu'ils devraient — 2
La majorite pensent qu’ils devraient reussir mieux — 3
Presque tous pensent qu'ils devraient reussir mieux — 4
[Is sont indifferents — 5

33. Quelle est votre attitude en regard de la reussite des eleves dans cette ecole-Ci?
Presque tous les eleves reussissent aussi bien qu'ils le peuvent — 1
La plupart des eleves reussissent aussi bien qu'ils le peuvent — 2
La moitie des eleves reussissent aussi bien qu'ils le peuvent -— 3
Moins de la moitie des el‘eves reussissent aussi bien qu'ils le peuvent — 4
Seulement quelques eleves reussissent aussi bien qu'ils 1e peuvent — 5

 

 

272
Principal Questionnaire (French)

34. Quelle proportion de votre temps dans une semaine normale est consacree a chacune
des activites suivantes?

 

 

 

Planification a long-terme |_|_I %
Supervision du personnel enseignant |_|_I %
Supervision du personnel non-enseignant |_|_I %
Rapport avec les parents et le milieu social |_|_I %
Discipline |_|_I %
Autres taches administratives |_|_I %
Activites pedagogiques (specifiez)
|_|_I %
Autres(specifiez) |_|_I %
. TOTAL 100 %

VOICI UNE SERIE DE QUESTIONS CONCERNANT LES PARENTS DES ELEVES
QUI FREQUENTENT CE'I'I'E ECOLE. SOYEZ AUSSI PRECIS QUE POSSIBLE
DANS VOS REPONSES, S'IL VOUS PLAIT.

35. Dans les (3) trois demieres annees, combien de rencontres regulieres avec l'ensemble
des parents, ont ete organisees dans cette ecole pour des activites de formation ou
d'information?

[Basez votre réponse sur une moyenne annuelle er ne calculez pas les rencontres
extraordinaires pour régler un cas précis. I

5 ou plus par annee — 1

3 on 4 par annee — 2

2 par annee -- 3

1 par annee — 4

Aucune rencontre — 5

36. Quel a ete le taux moyen de participation des parents a ces rencontres d'ensemble?
90% on plus — 1

70-89% — 2
50-69% — 3
30—49% — 4

moins de 30% — 5

37. Dans les (3) trois demieres annees, quel a ete le nombre moyen de rencontres du comite
d'ecole par annee?
15 rencontres ou plus par annee — 1
10 a 14 rencontres par annee — 2
7 a 9 rencontres par annee — 3
3 a 6 rencontres par annee —- 4
2 rencontres ou moins par annee — 5

38. Quel a ete le taux moyen de participation des parents membres du comite a ces

rencontres?
90% on plus —- 1
70—89% — 2
50-69% — 3
30-49% — 4

moins de 30% — 5

 

ir' 4W?
‘ r

 

273
Principal Questionnaire (French)

39. En moyenne, combien de rencontres W, a l'ecole, avez-vous chaque mois
avec des parents des eleves pour discuter de divers sujets concernant leurs enfants?

21 ou plus par mois — 1

15 a 20 par mois — 2

9 a 14 par mois — 3

4 a 8 par mois — 4

2ou 3 parmois—S

Une ou aucune — 6

40. En moyenne, combien de rencontres avez-vous avec W de parents a l'ecole
chaque mois?

21 on plus par mois — 1

15 a 20 par mois — 2

9 a 14 par mois — 3

4 a 8 par mois — 4

2 cu 3 par mois — 5

Une ou aucune — 6

41 . Vous arrive-t-il frequemment d'aller rencontrer a la maison certains parents des eleves
de cette ecole-Ci?

Presque tous les jours — l

Souvent et a chaque semaine — 2

Plusieurs fois par mois — 3

Oocasionnellement — 4

Jamais — 5

42. Quelle proportion parmi les parents des eleves de cette ecole reconnaissez-vous lorsque
vous les rencontrez?

Presque tous — 1

A peu pres 75% — 2

A peu pres 50% — 3

A peu pres 25% — 4

Seulement quelques-uns — 5

43. Par rapport aux (7) sept activites suivantes, indiquez 1e taux de participation des parents
du secteur couvert par cette ecole.
[Repondez en encerclant 1e chime correspondant au pourcentage de participation des
parents. I
moins de 11% de 40% de 60% plus de

de 10% a 39% a 59% a 89% 90%
a) Voter aux elections des

Commissaires d'ecole 1 2 3 4 5

b) Assister a au moins une reunion de
la Commission Scolaire par annee 1 2 3 4 5

c) Assister a au moins une rencontre
parents-ecole par annee l 2 3 4 5

d) Rencontrer le (s) professeur (5) de leur (s)
enfant (s) au moins m]; fois par annee 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

274
Principal Questionnaire (French)

e) Rencontrer le (s) professeur (s) de leur (s)
enfant (s) au moins mfois par annee 1 2 3 4 5

t) Aider a des activites de l'ecole ou de la
classe (surveillance pour sorties,
ateliers en classe, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5

g) Participer a un comite ou groupe
interesse a un domaine educatif
relie ou non a l'ecole 1 2 3 4 5

44. Qu'est-ce qui decrirait le mieux 1e role joue par les parents dans votre comite d'ecole
cette annee?
Les parents sont ties actifs et tres revendicateurs — 1
Les parents sont tres actifs et revendiquent parfois — 2
Les parents sont tres actifs mais ne revendiquent pas — 3
Les parents s'impliquent faiblement — 4
Les parents se contentent de recevoir de l'information — 5

45. Voici une série de domaines scolaires qui font objet de decisions. Nous vous
demandons d'indiquer la part prise par les parents de ce secteur en regard de leur
influence sur ces aspects.

I C hoisissez m réponse pour chaque eas en vous servant de l'échelle suivante et
indiquez-la en encerclant le chrfl’re correspondant au bout de la ligne.)

1. Les parents participent et ont une influence decisive
2. Les parents participent et orientent parfois la decision
3. Les parents participent mais ont peu de pouvoir d'influence
4. Les parents participent peu et n'ont aucune influence
5. Les parents ne participent pas
a. La selection de manuels de classe 1 2 3 4 5
b) La selection du materiel didactique l 2 3 4 5
c) L'etablissement des objectifs a poursuivre par l'ecole
(en dehors de ceux fixes par le Ministere) 1 2 3 4 5
d) Le choix des methodes d'enseignement l 2 3 4 5
e) La determination des activites et des lecons de chaque semaine 1 2 3 4 5
f) L'etablissement ou la modification de l'horaire de l'ecole 1 2 3 4 5
g) La determination de la date des reunions parents-professeurs l 2 3 4 5
h) La determination de l'ordre du jour des reunions parents-
professeurs 1 2 3 4 5
i) La repartition du budget de l'ecole 1 2 3 4 5
j) La poIitique d’evaluation des etudiants l 2 3 4 5
k) L'etablissement des norrnes disciplinaires l 2 3 4 5
1) La selection des nouveaux professeurs 1 2 3 4 5
m) L'etablissement des politiques et des procedures
pour evaluer les professeurs 1 2 3 4 5
n) L'etablissement des criteres utilises pour le
classement des eleves l 2 3 4 5
0) La poIitique en regard des travaux a dorrricile
(devoirs et lecons) 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

SCHEMA D'ENTREVUE: PRINCIPAL (E)
C . . 1 . . .

Document de l'interviewer

 

A) W2:
Nom du repondant:

Ecole:

Fonction: principal ( ) Assistant-principal ( )

Statut du (de la) principal (e):

- plein temps dans cette ecole seulement .......................................... (

- temps partiel dans cette ecole ...................................................... (
a combien d'ecoles poste administratif ............... (
a % du temps ici

- principal (e) a temps partiel ......................................................... (

- autre (

B) Localisatiandeleml:
5. Description du secteur couvert par l'ecole (provenance des eleves)
- ville -: quartiers homogenes exclusivement ........................... (
(5m. et 4») —. plusieurs quartiers surtout homogenes ........................ (
*1 plusieurs quartiers heterogencs ................................. (
- village a un seul village et environs ....................................... (
fl plusieurs villages homogenes .................................... (
a plusieurs villages heterogenes ................................. (
- mélange a ville % campagne %
Population de la localite dc l'ecole: .3

 

 

95”.“?

 

 

vv vvv

vvvvvv

 

Population du secteur desservi par l'ecole:
Distance en milles d'un centre significatif:
(ville si milieu rural — centre-ville si urbain) ‘5
Transport scolaire? % d'eleves utilisateurs
a parcourir? Plus longue distance?
Travail type des habitants du secteur?

 

 

 

#99 PH?

 

-

UPI 0: 'I'e‘ln

 

 

C) W: (utiliser dossiers si possible)

12. et 13. % scolan'te superieure a secondaire: pere % mere %
14. et 15. % scolarite inferieure a 7e annee: pere % mere %
l6. % des peres professionnels, administrateurs, technologistes ...............
l7. % des peres ouvriers specialises, fonctionnaires, profs. .....................
18. % des peres journaliers .........................................................
l9. % des peres en chomage plus de 3 mois par annee

20. % des peres a salaire inferieur a 6,0003 ............... __

21. % des peres a salaire superieur a 18,000$ ............. __ dossier
22. % des meres qui travaillent a l'exterieur ................ ( )
D) . . .,

W
23. Nombre d'eleves au 30 mars 1979 .............................................

 

275

 

276
Principal's Interview (French)

24.Niveaux offens: - tous les niveaux( )
-2ecycle seulement ( )
-7e annee: oui ( ) non ( )
a pre-secondaire ( ) additionnelle ( )
25. Nombre de classes (incluant EI):
26. Organisation des classes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- enseignement moral

 

- combien a niveau unique toutes ( )
- combien a niveau multiples
(decrire)
- motifs pour classes multiples
- combien de classes pour inadapte’s aucune ( )
a origine locale exteme ( )
- classes d'attente, de recuperation ou de maturation ( )
27. Taux de frequentation quotidien moyen %
28. A part le francais et les mathematiques, quelles matieres sont enseignees ici?
- catechese .......................................... ( )
- sciences humaines .............................. ( )
- education physique .............................. ( )
- sciences de la nature .............................. ( )
- musique (arts rythmiques) ..................... ( )
- autres . ( )
( )
29. Faire la liste des specialistes travaillant dans l'ecole et leur taux de paticipation.
List: Hamlin: Nombre 411W Par semainc
(1/10 de semaine) pour chacun.
- education physique
- musique
- orthopedagogue

 

 

 

 

 

30. Nombre moyen d 'heures assurees par les specialistes pour une classe type par

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

semaine?
31. Faire la liste des ressources professionnelles accessibles et leur taux de presence dans
l'ecole.
List: Emmi: Nombre 4W par semaine
(1/10 de semaine) pour chacun.
- infirmier (ere)
- psychologue
~ c. d'orientation
- travailleur social
- c. en enfance inad.
E)
32. Nombre de professeurs: - temps plein ....................................... __
- temps partiel .................................... __

- assistants (aides pedagogiques) ...............

 

 

 

 

277
Principal's Interview (French)

(joindre la liste ou inscrire 1a moyenne) Liste (
33. Annees de scolarite reconnues ...................................................
34. Annees d 'experience dans l'enseignement ....................................
35. Annees d'experience dans cette ecole ..........................................
36. Demier diplome obtenu (Brevet A, B, C, Bacc. Spec., MA, Med) .........
37. Qualification legale: - nombre de pcrrrris d'enseignement ............
- nombre d'autorisations provisoires ............

- autre

 

38. Salaire moyen des professeurs

 

A

39. Combien de professeurs enseignent toutes les matieres dans une seule classe (a part
les spe’cialistes)?
Nombre tous ( )
Si exceptions: decrire nombre de classes et matieres enseignees

 

 

 

 

F): .. '1 .

W
40. Decrire lc mom: de groupement des eleves en debut d'annee:

- We selon les habiletes d'ensemble .................................... ( )

- 1131mm; selon les habiletes dans une on 2 matieres ..................... ( )

- heterogeneselon les habiletes d'ensemble ................................. ( )

- memenselon les habiletes dans une ou 2 matieres ..................... ( )

- au hasard ou selon des particularites pratiques .............................. ( )

- non intentionnel ............................................................... ( )
41. Decrire la {gum de regroupement des eleves utilisee:

- aucune ........................................................................... ( )

- forte, moyenne, lente ............................................................ ( )

- avancee. allegee .................................................................. ( )

- autre .............................................................................. ( )
42. Le niveau de regroupernent?

- par annee ou niveau scolaire on age .......................................... ( )

- entre les niveaux .................................................................. ( )

- autre .............................................................................. ( )
43. Decrire 1e mode d'integration des eleves speciaux s'il y a lieu.

(utiliser plus d'une case si necessaire)

- denombrement flottant ......................................................... ( )

- classes fermees .................................................................. ( )

- integration partielle (quelques matieres) ....................................... ( )

- integration totale (toutes les matieres) .......................................... ( )

Niveau de generalisation de l'integration:
- tous les eleves de l'ecole ............................................. ( )

- quelques eleves ou classes .......................................... ( )

 

 

 

 

278
Principal's Interview (French)

44.Fonctionnement du travail d'orthopedagogie

45.

46.

47.
48.

49.

50.
51.

52.

- pas d'orthopedagogie ............................................................ ( )

- classes speciales seulerrrent ................................................... ( )

- travail avec des groupes d'eleves seulement ................................. ( )

- travail individuel et en groupe ................................................ ( )

- travail individuel seulement ................................................... ( )
- mnhmdmgie. frequence des rencontres

 

- duree de frequentation moyenne des eleves en mois

- recrutement par matiere ( ) ou d'ensemble ( )
Raisons ou motifs pour avoir choisi de fonctionner de cette maniere? (ex.: pressions
des parents, resultats d'experiences passees, cela aide les plus forts a progresser plus
vite, on s'adapte au rythme de chacun. etc.)

 

 

 

Sur quelles donnees se base-t-on pour effectuer le regroupement s'il y a lieu et donner
l'importance de chacunes.

- tests de fonctionnement intellectuel ou IQ .............................. ( )
- resultats scolaires de l'an passee .......................................... ( )
- resultats scolaires de l'annee en cours .................................... ( )
- evaluations des professeurs ................................................ ( )
- autres ( )

 

Lenseignement se fait-i1 a partir d'objectifs? oui ( ) non ( )

Dem d' application des objectifs a W?
113 sont les mémes pour.

a) touslesnmfesmmd'unmgmmmu ..................... ( )
-la plupartdesnmfcsseursd'unmemmn ............... ( )

‘ quelques professeurs d' un W ..................... ( )
-aucun M d' un W ........................ ( )

b) - tous les fill! 15mm n15 d' un W ........................ ( )
- Ia plupart des Wd' un W .................. ( )

- quelques Md un W ........................ ( )

- aucun mummdun W ........................... ( )

c) - tous les Wd'une mm ........................ ( )
- la plupart des Mmdune W .................. ( )

- quelques mundane mm ........................ ( )

- aucun Wd'une mémulasse ........................... ( )

Jusqu'a quel point l'enseignement est-i1 individualise?
completement I_I I I I I I_I pas du tout
- diversite d'application: (specifier)

 

 

Les professeurs suivent-ils un plan de travail precis?
tres precis I_I I I l I I_I aucun

Qui le dicte? - principal (e) ............................................. ( )
- professeurs et principal (e) ........................... ( )
- professeurs en groupe ................................. ( )
- professeurs individuellement ........................ )

Le materiel est il planifie de facon a ce que chaque eleve voit le meme materiel que les

autres sur lensemble de son W? (attention classes speciales).

ouiI_ I I I I_ Inon

 

 

 

279
Principal's Interview (French)

53.Le materiel est-i1 planifie de facon a ce que chaque eleve voit le meme materiel que les
autres sur l'ensemble de son programme a W?

 

 

oui I_I I I I I I_I non

54. Les professeurs utilisent-ils les memes lines ou mes?
oui I_I I I I I I_I non

55. Doivent-ils s'assurer que me les eleves les voient durant une annee?
oui I_I I I I I I_I non

 

56. Au niveau des methodes d'enseignement apprentissage utilisees dans chaque classe
(ex.: methode pour l'enseignement du francais), quel est le niveau d'application dans

 

l'ecole?
méme pour tous I_I I I I I I_I different pour tous
57. Qui les dicte? - principal (e) ............................................. ( )
- professeurs et principal (e) ........................... ( )
- professeurs en groupe ................................. ( )
- professeurs individuellement ........................ ( )

58. Le materiel didactique utilise en dehors des manuels est-i1 le meme dans toutes les
classes? (ex.: jeux educatifs, fiches, etc.).

 

 

oui I_I I I I I I_I non
59. Qui le dicte? - principal (e) ............................................. ( )
- professeurs et principal (e) ........................... ( )
- professeurs en groupe ................................. ( )
- professeurs individuellement ........................ ( )
60. Utilisation des tests du Ministere de l'Education? oui ( ) non ( )
- lesquels: - fonctionnement intellectuel ........................... ( )
- quelles annees: ..........................................
- depuis combien d'annees ..............................
- discipline: - francais ................................. ( )
- mathematiques ........................ ( )
- autres .................................... ( )
- quelles annees: ..........................................
- depuis combien d'annees ..............................
61. Tests maison? oui I_I I I I I I_I non
- a quels niveaux ..........................................
- pour quelles matieres .................................

- sont-ils appliques pour l'ensemble de l'ecole ou niveaux, ou
reserves a chaque classe?
ensemble I_I I I I I I_I classe
62. Quelle place est faite aux autres formes devaluation?
(ex.: appreciation des professeurs, auto-evaluation, etc.)
large place I_I I I I I I_I aucune place
63. A quoi servent les resultats aux tests on examens? (indiquer un ordre de priorite)

- classement des eleves ...................................................... ( )
- passage ou non au secondaire ............................................. ( )
— bulletin aux parents ......................................................... ( )
- amelioration du rendement ................................................ ( )
- autre ( )

 

 

 

 

 

280
Principal's Interview (French)

64. A qui sont accessibles les resultats aux tests du Ministere et ceux maison?
(qui les voit?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEQ Maison
- eleves ............................................. ( ) ( )
- parents .......................................... ( ) ( )
- tous les professeurs .............................. ( ) ( )
- principal (e) ....................................... ( ) ( )
- Commission Scolaire ........................... ( ) ( )
65. Comment pourrait-on decrire, pour l'ensemble de l'ecole, 1e type de fonctionnement

en classe?
a) Liberte de deplacement des eleves

oui I_I I I I I I_I non
b) Qui assigne les sieges ou places?

prof esseur I_I I I I I I_I eleve decide
c) Frequence des changements dans la disposition des places?
plusieurs fois par jours I_I I I I I U l fois semestre

d) Encouragement des eleves a parler entre eux?

oui I_I I I I I I_I non
e) Eleves travaillent tous en meme temps sur le meme materiel?

oui I_I I I I I I_I non

66. Y-a—t-il des differences entre les classes par rapport a ces questions?

oui I_I I I I I I_I non

(details) :

 

0) WW
Possedez-vous elm des données ou des dossiers sur les elements suivants?
[filiere = (_)]
67. Une definition eeme de la tache de chacun dans l'ecole (professeurs, principal,
adjoint, specialistes, etc.) et des limites de leurs responsabilites?
oui I_I I I I I I_I non (_)
68. Cedule e’eme pour I'annee incluant horaire, conges, activites particulieres?
oui I_I I I I I I_I non
69. Une description des objectifs de chaque professeur pour l'annee? (remise en debut
d'annee)
oui I_I I I I I I_I non (_)
70. Les methodes d'evaluation des eleves devant etre utilisees durant l'annee?
oui I_I I I I I I_I non _
71. Existence d'un eQde de regles ou reglements en regard du travail des employes?
oui I_I I I I I I_I non (_)
a) pour cas generaux seulement ................................................
b) pour cas litigieux seulement ...................................................
c) pour toutes les raisons de facon a preciser la confusion et les frictions. (
d) autre (
72. Ecrits sur Ie degre de restriction place sur les activites professionnelles
et personnelles?
a) regles qui specifient quand un professeur peut partir de l'ecole ......... ( ) )
b) regles en regard de la participation in des organismes externes ............ ( ) )
c) reglements qui determinent ce que les professeurs peuvent dire
ou ne pas dire en classe ......................................................... ( ) (_)
d) liberte de mouvement dans l'ecole des professeurs?
(attention, classe ouverte at absence de controle) ........................... ( )
e) liberte de mouvement des eleves dans l'ecole .............................. ( )

AA
vvvv

 

(_
(_

 

 

73.

74.

75.
76.

77.
78.

79.
80.

81.

281
Principal's Interview (French)

Jusqu'a quel point ces reglements sont-ils appliques
a la lettre dans l'ecole?
maximum I_I I I I I I_I minimum
Procedure 3 suivre pour mise en oeuvre d'une:
a) chose importante (experimentation ou innovation) (decrire):

 

 

 

 

b) chose mineure (sortie) (decrire):

 

 

 

 

c) derogation a une régle:
—1 irnportante: - individu:

 

- groupe:

 

-: mineure: - individu:

 

-gou

 

Est-ce qu'il se fait une evaluation des professeurs a chaque annee?
oui ( ) non ( )
Qui s’en occupe? - Commission Scolaire ..............................
- principal (e) ..........................................
- professeurs .......................................
- principal (e) et professeurs ........................
Les criteres devant servir a l'evaluation sont-ils decides a l'avance?
en debut d'annee I_I I I I I I_I aucun critere fixe
Qui decide des criteres? - Commission Scolaire ........................
- principal (e) .................................
- professeurs .................................
- principal (e) et professeurs ..................
Crit‘eres applique’s pour tous sans exception?
oui I_I I I I I I_I non
Utilisation des résultats de l'evaluation? (decrire)

vvvv

VVVV

 

 

 

 

 

Comment se fait la transmission de l'inforrnation dans l'ecole?

 

 

 

 

 

a) nature frequence en %
- affichage .................. ( )
- lettres ..................... ( )
- reunions .................. ( )
- rencontres individuelles .. ( )
- autres ..................... ( )
b) raison pour differences s'il y a lieu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

282
Principal's Interview (French)

H)
Nombre de nouveautes introduites dans l'ecole au cours des trois (3) demieres
annees? (innovations pour I'ecole)
lndiquer leur degre de survie selon l'echelle suivante:
l- adopte pour l'ensemble dc l'ecole
2- adopte pour une partie de l'ecole
3- plus ou moins conserve
4- essaye quelques temps, puis rejete
5- rejete rapidement
82. Faire la liste au niveau pedagogique:
(methodes d'enseignement, livres, regroupements etc.)

I:I I_I ' D

I I_I

_I I_I

_| I_I I
I I_I '
l I_I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

I

I

|

I-
83. Faire 1a liste au niveau administratif:
nouveaux programmes, differenciation du personnel, reglementation, etc.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
|_
|_
I
I
I
I

 

 

84. Pourcentage des professeurs qui acceptent 1a nouveaute et le changement facilement?
100%I_I I I I I I_I 0%
85. Comment aimeriez-vous voir votre ecole reconnue a l'exterieur?
(ne pas suggerer de choix de reponses)

 

 

war—L.,

F r.‘-rd

86. Faire Ia liste du materiel audio-visuel disponible dans l'ecole (projecteurs,
calculatrices, etc.) et Ie taux d'utilisation.

Llfrl: Utilisatian (fois par semaine)

 

 

 

 

 

 

87. Disponibilite du materiel exterieur et fréquence d' utilisation dans l'.ecole

Qimmbilil: lltilisatiamfois par scmamc)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
a:
i
I .
APPENDIX B ‘
ITEMS INCLUDED IN EACH SET OF VARIABLES
USED IN THE ANALYSIS

 

A .
. __—.__J."

 

APPENDIX B

ITEMS INCLUDED IN EACH SET OF VARIABLES
USED IN THE ANALYSIS

1. SCHOOL INPUT VARIABLES AND ITEMS

A- Social Composition of the Student Body

1-

Mean school socio-economic status based on Blishen rating of father's (or other
main breadwinner) occupation of students included in the study.

B- Other Inputs into the School

1-

Mean teachers' salary in the school.

Mean years of teaching experience of the teachers in the school.
Mean years of training of the teachers in the school.

Size of the student body.

Number of professional personnel per 100 students in the school.

Quantity of technological material available in the school (weighted for
sophistication).

11. SCHOOL SOCIAL STRUCTURE VARIABLES AND ITEMS

A- Opened Characteristics of the School and of the Classrooms

1-

Mean students' response to "In class, I can move about the room without
asking my teacher".

- Mean students' response to "I can talk to other students while I am working".

Mean students' response to "When I am working on something in class, the
other students are also working on the same thing".

Mean students' response to "In most of my classes, the teacher tells me what I
must work on; 1 have no choice".

Mean teachers' report of the extent to which students select own seats or are
assigned by teacher.

Mean teachers' report of the extent to which students are permitted to move
about the room without permission.

283

 

 

 

7-

8-

9-

284

Mean teachers' report of the extent to which students are all working on the
same lesson at the same time.

Mean teachers' report of the extent to which they are working with the class as a
whole.

Mean teachers' report of the frequency with which they meet with parents
individually outside of the regular prescribed meetings.

10- Principal's report of the extent to which students are allowed to move freely

about the school.

11- Principal's report of the frequency with which seats are changed in the

classrooms.

12- Principal's report of the extent to which students are allowed to express their

views in the school.

13- Principal's report of the extent to which students are all working on the same

subject at the same time.

Standardization of the Processes and of the Material Used in the School

1-

Principal's report of the extent to which the content is organized so that each
individual student has seen the same content as the others at the end of his stay
at the elementary level.

Principal's report of the extent to which the content is organized so that each
individual student sees the same content as the others at each grade level.

Principal's report of the extent to which the teachers are using the same books
or texts at each grade level.

Principal's report of the extent to which the books or texts must be seen by all
of the students during a school year.

Principal's report of the extent to which the teaching material used (other than
books or texts) is the same in every classroom.

Principal's report of the extent to which school-made assessment tests are used
in the school at each grade level and for each topic.

Principal's report of the extent to which school-made assessment tests used in
the school at each grade level are the same for all classes.

Principal's report of the extent to which evaluation methods other than school-
made assessment tests (teachers' judgment, self-evaluation, etc.) are present or
absent in the school.

 

285

C- Principal's Time Devoted to Parents and Teachers' Time Oriented Toward Formal

6-

Instruction
Percent of principal's time devoted to community and parents concern.

Number of meetings per month between the principal and individual parents to
discuss about their children.

Mean teachers' report of the percent of their time devoted to classroom or small
group instruction.

Mean teachers' report of the proportion of the time they do the talking compared
with the students.

Mean teachers' report of the extent to which students are encouraged to talk to
each other while working on assignments.

Mean students' response to "In class, the teacher stands in front and works with
all of the students at the same time".

Similarity of The Objectives Pursued in the School

1-

4-

Principal's report of the extent to which the teaching objectives are the same for
all teachers at the same grade level.

Principal's report of the extent to which the teaching objectives are the same for
all students at the same grade level.

Principal's report of the extent to which the teaching objectives are the same for
all students in the same class.

Mean teachers' report of the extent to which their teaching objectives are the
same for all or different for each student.

Practical Involvement of the Parents in the School

1-

Mean teachers' report of the frequency with which parents provide help
(monitoring or taxiing) when the classroom goes out .

- Mean teachers' report of the frequency with which parents provide help during

a workshop in the classroom.

Mean teachers' report of the frequency with which parents provide help for a
teaching activity.

Mean teachers' report of the frequency with which parents provide help with
slow learners.

Mean teachers' report of the frequency with which parents take responsibility
for a regular classroom activity oriented toward instruction.

‘ufi.f

 

1-7‘

 

286

E Differentiation of the Students in the School and in the classrooms

G-

1- Mean teachers' report of the extent of homogeneous grouping according to

ability when forming classes at the beginning of the year.

2- Mean teachers' report of the extent of grouping according to ability when doing

team work in the classroom.

3- Principal's report of the extent to which individualized teaching is common

practice in the school.

Centralization of the Decision-Making in the School

1- Mean teachers' report of the extent to which the principal alone (or following
the advice of the school board) or the teachers by themselves make the decision

on each of the following subjects:

a.

b.

Hiring new teachers.

Selecting teacher aides.

Selecting substitutes.

Determining the criteria for the evaluation of the teachers.
Selecting a process for the evaluation of the teachers.
Selecting a process for the evaluation of the students.
Deciding students' setting in the classroom.

Determining methods and techniques of teaching.
Modifying the schedule to allow for special activities.

Planifying the schedule for teachers workshops.

Selecting the subjects to be treated in the education related meetings.

Selecting the program to be pursued during each year.

. Deciding on the class list at the beginning of the year.

Selecting school books to be used.

Contacting parents in case of emergency.

. Contacting parents for minor problems.

Determining the objectives to be pursued during the year.

Setting school's policy over students discipline.

 

 

287

2- Principal's report of the extent to which he (alone or following the advice of the
school board) or the teachers by themselves make decision on each of the
following subjects:

a. Deciding on classroom's working plan.
b. Deciding on the teaching methods to be used in the classroom.
c. Selecting the teaching material to be used in the classrooms.
(1. Taking care of the evaluation of the teachers.
e. Determining the criteria for the evaluation of the teachers.
III. SCHOOL ACADEMIC CLIMATE VARIABLES AND ITEMS
A- Student Climate Variables

1- Students' future evaluations and expectations. Mean student response to the
following questions:

a. If you could go as far as you wanted in school, how far would you like to
go?

b. Sometimes, what one weuld like to see happen is not what one thinks will
happen. How far do you really think you will go in school?

c. According to you, if most students in this school could go as far as they
wanted in school, how how far would they go?

d. How far do you think your best friend believes you will go in school?

e. Think of the teaghe; yen like mgr. How far does he believe you will go in
school?

f. Does your teacher think you could attend university some day?

g. Remember that one needs at least three years of university to become a
teacher or a doctor. Would your teacher think you could do that?

h. How far do you think your parents believe you will go in school?
i. Do your parents believe you could attend university some day?

j. Remember that one needs at least three years of university to become a
teacher or a doctor. Do your parents think you could do that?

2- Students' sense of academic futility. Mean student response to the following
questions:

a. How many students in your school don't care if they get bad grades?

 

 

 

 

 

 

288

How many students in your school make fun of or tease students who get
real good grades?

How many students don't do as well as they could do in school because
they are afraid orher students won‘t like them as much?

. How many students don't do as well as they could do in school because

they are afraid mm won't like them as much?

People like me will not have much of a chance to do what we want to in
life.

People like me will never be successfirl in school even if we try.

In this school, students like me don't have any luck, nothing good ever
happens to them.

You have to be lucky to get good grades in this school.

It is useless to work hard in this school since the teachers are satisfied as
Ion g as you just pass.

In this school, it is impossible to know when we are doing good or when
we are doing bad.

In this school, we would learn much more things if the teachers would tell
us what to do.

3- Students' academic norms. Mean student response to the following questions:

8.

How many students in this school always try to get good grades on
weekly assignments?

How many students in this school work more than it is necessary to
succeed on weekly assignments?

How important is it for you to be a good student?

How important do most of the students in thisglass feel it is to do well in
school?

According to you, do most of the students in this sehggl feel it is
important to do well in school?

How many students in this glass feel it is fun to study?

g. Should the teachers not grade the work done in class, how many students

in this sghggl would work hard anyway?

4- Students' present evaluations and expectations for high school. Mean student
response to the following questions:

a.

I can do well in school when I work hard.

 

 

 

 

h.

289

Think of the W. Does he expect you to be a good
student, an average student or a poor student in this school?

Think of magnet. Does he think you can do school work better, the
same or poorer than other people your age?

Would your teacher say that you will graduate from high school with
grades which are better, the same or poorer than other high school
Students?

Compared to students from Other schools, will the students from this
school be successful in high school?

Do your parents say you can do school work better, the same or poorer
than your friends?

Do your parents say your grades will be better, the same or poorer than
orher students when you finish high school?

How good of a student would your parents like you to be in school?

5- Students' perception of teacher push and teacher norms. Mean student
response to the following questions:

a.

How many teachers in this school tell students to try to get better grades
than other students in the class?

Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many feel really sorry
when students get bad grades?

Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many ask too much
work from the students?

Do you often find teachers in this school which try to help students which
are not as successful as the others.

How important is it for the teachers in this school that the students learn
what is thought in class?

Think of the teachers you know in this school. Do you believe that they
care more or less than teachers in other schools about whether or not
students learn what is thought in class?

When most of the students in this class fail in an assignment, does your
teacher always try to help you understand or does he never?

. Think of the students in this school. Do they say that there are too many

rules which force them to work in this school?

 

 

 

290

B- Teacher Climate Variables

1- Teachers' future expectations for students. Mean teacher response to the
following questions:

a.

What percent of the students in W expect to complete high
school?

What percent of the students in W expect to complete high
school?

What percent of the students in mm expect to go to college?

. What percent of the students in Wis—(1.919! expect to go to college?

What percent of the students in this sehggl Q9 yeti expect to go to
university?

What percent of the students in ygut: glass d9 XQII expect to go to
university?

. What percent of the students in thjssehmjfieyeu think will be able to get

a masters degree if they want?

. What percent of the students in MESS—919.2911 think will be able to get

a masters degree if they want?

What percent of the students in this sehml gig ygu think the principal
expects to complete high school?

What percent of the students in this sehool g9 ygu think the principal
expects to go to college?

. What percent of the students in this sehggl gig ygtt think the principal

expects to obtain a university degree?

Completion of a eoflege degree is a realistic goal which you set for what
percentage of your students?

. Completion of a unt'vetsjty degree is a realistic goal which you set for

what percentage of your students?

How many of the parents of students in this sehogl d9 you think expect
their children to complete high school?

How many of the parents of students in this school at; you think expect
their children to go to university some day?

2- Teachers' present school evaluation. Mean teacher response to the following
questions:

a.

How would you rate the academic ability of the students in this school,
compared to Other elementary schools which you know?

 

 

 

 

291

. What percent of the students in missebml would you say are attracted by

the idea of studying for a long period of time?

How would you rate the academic ability of the students in 291.1: class,
compared to Other elementary schools which you know?

How do seething your principal rates the academic ability of the students
in mm, compared to other elementary schools which you know?

According to your judgment, what level of achievement can be expected

of the students in W?

On the average, what level of achievement can be expected of the students
in mum?

The parents of students in this school are deeply concerned that their
children receive a top quality education.

3- Teachers' determination with having students succeed. Mean teacher response
to the following questions:

a.

How Often do you stress to your students the necessity to go to school for
a long period of time in order to obtain better chances of success in the
future?

Do you encourage your students whose parents do not have much
economic resources to try to stay in school for a long period of time and
to go to university if possible?

Do you push your students whose academic ability looks deficient to try
to stay in school for a long period of time and to go to university if
possible?

It would be unfair for teachers in this school to insist on a higher level of
achievement from students than they now seem capable of achieving.

If I think a student is not able to do some school work, I try to push him
anyway.

How many teachers in thissellml encourage students to seek extra work
so that they get better grades?

4- Teachers' perception of students' commitment to success. Mean teacher
response to the following questions:

a.

b.

How many students in this sghggl do you feel try hard to improve on
previous work?

How many students in ngt glass do you feel try hard to improve on
previous work?

 

 

A—i

 

 

292

How many students in £1le291 do you feel will try hard to do better
school work than their best friends?

How many students in yget glass work hard to do better school work than
their classmates do?

How many Students in this sghml gig yet; feel are content to do less than
they can?

How many students in mules}: are content to do less than they can?

As far as you can say, how many students in this sehggl seek extra work
so that they get better grades?

How many students in W seek extra work so that they get better
grades?

5- Teachers' present evaluation of students and sense of fatalism. Mean teacher
response to the following questions:

8.

How many students in this sehml are capable of getting mostly A's and
BS or the equivalent?

How many students in your: glass are capable of getting mostly A's and
B's or the equivalent?

What percent of the students in LEW think the principal
consider capable of getting mostly A's and B's or the equivalent?

In this school, it is virtually impossible for a teacher to insure that all of
his/her students achieve at a high level.

The parents of students regard this school primarily as a "baby-sitting"
agency?

How many of the parents of students in this sehgol do you feel don't care
if their children obtain low grades?

C - Principal Climate Variables

l- Principal's expectations and perception of parents' expectations. Principal's
response to the following questions:

a.

What percent of the students in this school d9 you expect to complete high
school?

What percent of the students in this school do you expect to go to college?

What percent of the students in this school do you expect to go to
university and Obtain a degree there?

How many of the parents Of students in this school £11191! think expect
their children to complete high school?

 

 

293

How many of the parents of students in this school expect their children to
go to college?

How many of the parents of students in this school dgygtt think expect
their children to obtain a university degree some day?

2- Principal's present evaluation of the students and of the the school. Principal's
response to the following questions:

a.

How would you rate this school as far as the academic ability of the
students is concerned?

With regard to student achievement, how good a school do you think this
school gag objectively be?

On the average, what achievement level can be expected of the students in
this school?

How many of the students in this school are really capable of getting good

grades?

How would you personnaly rate the academic ability of the students in
this school compared to those in Other elementary schools that you know?

What percentage of the students in this school do you feel are capable of
learning to read conveniently by the end of the second grade?

In general, how do your students' parents feel about the achievement of
their children?

3- Principal's feelings of responsibility for success. Principal's response to the
following questions:

a.

How often do you suggest ways of improving student achievement to
your teachers?

How often do you meet with the teachers as a group to discuss concrete
ways of improving student achievement?

As a principal, which effect do you think you are having on students'
achievement?

It is the principal's responsibility to make sure that all students in his
school succeed at a high level.

No matter the students in a school, it is possible for a principal, with the
help of the teachers, to change a low achieving school into a high
achieving school.

 

 

294

4- Principal's perception of the interest of the parents with school matters.

Principal's response to the following questions:

a. The parents of our students regard this school primarily as a "baby-
sitting" agency.

b. The parents of students in this school are deeply concerned that their
children receive a top quality education.

c. How many of the parents of students in this school want feedback from
the principal or teachers on how their children are doing in school?

IV. OUTCOME VARIABLES AND ITEMS

A. Mean School Achievement.

1-

School mean of Ministere de l'Education's achievement tests in mathematics,
reading and writing passed to 6th graders (june 79).

13. Mean Student Self—Concept of Academic Ability: Mean student response to self-

1-

2-

concept of academic ability scale items as follows:

Think of your best friends. Do you think you can do school work better, the
same or poorer than them?

Think of the W. DO you think you can do school work
better, the sanre or poorer than them?

- When you get to high school, how good of a student will you be in comparison

with the Others students?

Do you think you could succeed at university?

- If you went to university, do you think you would be a very good student,

same as most or a bad student?

Someone who wants to be a doctor or a teacher must go to the university for at
least three years. Do you think you could do that?

- Forget about how your teachers mark your work. How good do you think

your own work at school is?

How good of a student do you think you are in this school?

 

 

APPENDIX C
CORRELATION MATRIX OF VARIABLES IN
HIGH AND LOW SES SCHOOLS

 

 

 

 

 

 

295

APPENDIX C, TABLE 1 ““

CORRELATION MATRIX OF MEAN SCHOOL INPUTS, SOCIAL STRUCTURE,
SOCIAL CLIMATE AND MEAN SCHOOL OUTCOMES IN 30 HIGH SOCIO-ECONOMIC
SCHOOLS AND 31 LOW SOClO—ECONOMIC SCHOOLS OF THE NORTHEASTERN
PART OF QUEBEC (HIGH SES, TOP. LOW SES, BOTTOM) “‘

 

 

Variables AC11”SCO SES 011 012 013 014 015 016 C01 351 SS2 $53 $54 SSS SS6
\lcan School Ach. ACH ~.17 .29 .18 .14 .01 .28 ~03 .12 .27 ~.16 .29 ~03 .3A‘~.30 ~07
Mean Self-Concept SCO ~.12 .26 ~27 ~22 ~02 .14 .28 ~01 ~07 .20 ~09 ~.§_Q %M .31 ~25
Mean 513$ SES 22 .14 ~06 ~28 .27 .15 ~08 0'9 .06 11 ~.19 ~08 ~35 .31 .24
Mean Tcach.Salary ()11 .14 .15 .31‘ .13 .11 .04 ~.10 ~.15 .12 09 ~07 .30 ~06 ~04 ~.13
Mean Teachiixp. ()12 .01 .21.3§.fl ~.18 ~27 ~02 ~24 .32 ~4_3 .15 .31 .20 ~.15 ~04
Mean Teach.Training ()13 ~04 .06 .16 .11 .09 .19 ~25 ~06 .33 12 ~.15 ~03 ~25 .16 .12
Student Body Size 014 .10 ~03 .39 ~03 ~05 .12 ~.19 .31.32 14 ~08 ~21 .16 ~08 .20
Ralronf murnnd 015 01 ~28 ~36 ~21 ~.31 ~07 ~._4_2 ~06 .08 ~13 04 ~.32 ~.19 .02 ~.11
Technokrgy 016 ~.18 ~.11 .26 ~07 ~07 .25 .11 ~.18 .31 ~04 3Q ~.17 ~.12 .13 ~.11
Comb.OtherInputs C01 02 .(X) .18 .11 .13 .63, .31 ~07 $1 .14 09 .09 ~13 .03 ~.13
()pcncd Sch.&Cll.u. $31 14 ~31 .09 ~.15 ~.31 .19 .25 .04 31 .08 ~12 ~.16 nfl 20.33
Sundardrutxm $52 17 .22 ~04 .15 .38 ~33 .00 ~29 ~25 ~04 an 21.32 ~.14 ~.31
l’.rrcnts& InstrTirnc SS3 03 ~06 03 .08 ~01 .14 .05 ~.17 .16 .08 .01 .04 .24 ~05 .15
Similantyol'Ob). SS4 .11 ~08 .17 .21 .18 .16 .31 .04 ~02 .31 ~30 26 .00 ~.12 ~01
l’arcntallnvolvmcn! SS5 04 ~07 .21 ~24 ~.17 ~24 .09 ~09 04 ~24 .32 ~31 .03 ~06 .13
12llul’CTCfluaUOflPTICL 556 15 ~.14 ~.16 ~59 ~11 ~20 ~01 .31 .05 ~30 .53 ~91 .09 ~09 .13

Centralization SS7 3Q ~.10 ~30 ~08 ~05 n31 ~29 .25 ~.16 ~24 ~.31 26 .06 ~02 ~02 .23
Comb. Soc. Struct. CSS 09 ~30 .12 ~.18 ~.19 ~.13 .31 ~05 .23 ~.01.§2 ~.32 .25 .11 .62 .61
Studenu'lixpect. SCI .06 3Q .32 .24 .31 ~06 .14 ~32 ~06 .10 ~01 .10 ~21 ~08 .25 ~03
Students' Futility SC2 .5!) ~32 ~01 ~.I7 ~25 ~01 .07 .06 ~.3_Q ~.22 .10 ~.18 ~03 .33 .21 .16
Students' Norms SC3 .12 .31 ~06 .19 .15 ~05 ~24 ~.10 ~30 ~.11 ~.16 .12 .08 ~20 ~.14 ~03
Students' lival. 3C4 -.01.QQ ~.13 .09 .15 .26 ~24 ~.11 ~.12 .01 ~.34 23 .12 ~08 ~27 ~30
S.1’erccpt.ol'l’ush SC5 .29 .29 ~01 ~21 ~27 .14 ~02 .09 ~.11 ~.15 ~.15 ~04 .19 ~02 ~07 .16
Teach. litpcctatrons TCI .27 .17 .24 .20 .25 ~.18 ~04 ~22 ~05 .00 .20 .07 .02 ~.17 .12 .07
Teach.SchnnIlival. TC2 .21 .16 06 ~03 ~09 ~28 ~06 .07 ~32 ~25 ~24 .06 ~29 .11 ~.11 .05
Teach. Determination TC3 ~07 .29 .01 ~.12 .05 ~.15 ~.18 ~01 01 ~.16 ~42 .23 .27 ~22 ~21 ~23
T.1’crcept.oIS.cII. TC4 04 ~04 ~01 ~.16 ~.14 ~25 ~.11 .02 ~27 ~33 .01 ~06 ~.11 .12 .09 ~05
Tcach.1ivnl.ol' Stud. TC5 ~.19 .05 ~24 .13 .04 ~.11 ~41 .30 ~28 ~.12 ~.10 ~03 ~26 ~21 ~23 ~06
1’nnc.& PuExpocL PCI .08 .05 .30 .02 ~.16 ~08 .06 ~02 ~09 ~.10 .05 ~.14 ~.15 .09 .26 .00
l’nnc. School Eval. PC2 .09 ~.11 ~20 ~07 ~.l5 ~07 ~.l9 .03 ~.§1 ~38 .02 ~09 ~.I2 .13 .07 .08
I’nnc. liecl.of Resp. PC3 01 08 ~.10 .00 ~.17 .05 ~22 .05 ~.11 ~25 .00 ~20 ~26 .05 ~01 .04
1’.1’crccpt.ofl’ar. PC4 ~02 29 ~02 ~20 ~25 ~22 .00 ~.12 ~.31 ~42 .00 ~.14 ~.31 ~08 .22 .19

Combclrmate CAC .17 .29 .08 .02 ~04 ~.20

0
59
o

~.05 ~33 ~32 ~.10 ~.03 ~.18 ~.04 .06 .02

 

‘ Underltgncd Correlations Significant at .05 level
“ Correlation coefficients for this variable are based on 28 schools in each Sub-sample
“‘ The high 315 sub-sample includes 30 schools and the low SES sub-sample includes 31 schools

0°“ Table continued on 0ch 088°

 

 

 

296

APPENDIX C, TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)

 

Variables SS7 CSS SCI SC2 SC3 5C4 SC5 TCl TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 PCI PC2 PC3 PC4 CAC

 

Mean SchooIAch. AC" .11 .03 .24 .64 .06 ~.10 .08 .19 .36 .03 ~03 ~.03 .48 .42 .23 .24 .33
MennSclf—Concept SCO ~.06 -.03 .36 .03 .36 .63 .32 .04 ~02 .00 ~.15 .02 .03 ~.12 ~.24 ~.11 .09

Man SES SFS ~43 38 . .44 ~30 ~24 ~.10 .16 .41 ~26 ~.21.48 .62 .22 ~29 01.63
Mean Teach.Salnry ()ll ~.13 .01 ~07 ~06 .12 .03 .21 .02 ~.13 ~.18 .32 .17 ~06 ~05 .22 .05 .06
Mean Teach. Iixp. ()12 .27 ~.11 ~.18 .07 .07 .10 .17 ~26 ~.I9 .10 .31 .20 ~33 ~.28 .33 .05 ~.10
Man Teach.Training ()13 ~29 .38 .13 ~27 ~02 ~07 .12 .34 .03 ~.13 ~06 .10 .20 .16 ~.19 ~30 .14
Student Body Sue 014 04 .10 .41 ~05 .03 .15 ~22 .11 .25 ~04 ~.11 ~27 .34 .14 .18 ~02 .21
Ratio of personnel ()15 ~01 ~32 .22 33 44 05.42 ~04 ~.17 .03 ~.11 ~03 ~.18 ~09 04 .28 .06

Technology one -.or 315 .06 $20 -212 .06 ..32 .17 -.04 .oo ~.18 ~.16 .09 .05 :13 .25 .oo
Comb.OtherInputs cor -.09 .12 .19 ~.10 .to .11 .16 .16 ..10 ..10 .08 .03 .09 -.or .25 .10 .14

 

 

Opened Sch. &C1.us. SSI ~64 .4142 ~03 ~.11 ~.13 07.46 .00 ~28 ~.17 28.31 ~08 ~.32 ~30 .16
Standardization 552 .43 .46 ~27 .09 -.18 .26 ~.l8 ~21 .01 .14 ~21 ~.43 ~20 ~09 .21 .10 ~24
Parent-t8: Instr. Time SS3 ~08 .29 ~24 ~04 ~.32 ~07 ~24 ~07 ~.13 .05 .07 .23 ~20 ~30 ~.10 .00 ~.19
Similarity of()b). SS4 .604 .08 ~34 23 ~02 ~06 ~29 ~.31 .22 .02 ~07 ~38 .12 .10 .43 .10 ~09
Parental Involvment SSS ~32 .32 .34 ~.15 ~.l3 ~09 ~.13 .42 ~08 ~26 ~30 .25 ~06 ~.l9 ~27 .09 .06
Differentiation I‘ract. SS6 ~06 .41 .10 ~05 ~31 ~33 -. .22 .07 .06 ~02 .23 .29 ~.10 ~26 ~22 .08
Centralization SS7 ~07 .33 ~06 .10 .26 ~05 ~.33 .05 11 .09 ~31 ~.12 .1133 .13 ~.11
Comb. Soc. Struct. CSS ~01 .15 .00 ~.42 ~.10 ~.31.31 .05 ~24 ~.43 .01 .17 ~26 ~27 ~.15 ~06
Students' Expect. SCI ~22 03.38 .20 .04 .19 .32 .36 ~.17 ~24 .30 .62 .05 ~.10 .12 .@
Students' Futility SC2 03 .22 ~26 .09 ~25 .14 27.43 -.18 ~04 20.31 .20 .11 21.32
Students' Norms SC3 .34 ~.15 .44 ~.16 .24 .13 ~29 .02 .09 23 ~08 ~.16 ~05 19 ~05 .09
Students' Eval. 5C4 .01-.32 ~.11 ~.14 .20 .33 ~38 ~.14 03 04 ~28 ~21 ~.16 04 ~08 ~24
S. Percept. of Push SC5 .11 ~.12 .15 .14 .28 .33 ~.I3 .00 .20 27 19 ~.19 .00 04 ~20 20
Touch. Expectations TC1 .13 27.31 ~05 .33 ~27 ~27 .34 ~43 ~20 .48 .31 .33 ~.10 .1668
Teach. School lival. TC2 .26 ~22 .31 .16 21 ~09 .19 .38 .07 .03 .22 .61 .38 03 .06 .13
TeachDetcrmrnatron TC3 .21 ~42 -.12 ~21 .13 .32 .23 ~.l4 03 19 ~18 ~.l8 ~07 ~08 ~25 ~.10
T. I’crccpt. of Se”. TC4 09 03 06.48 .19 ~20 .00 .4Q 32 18 43 ~.14 .13 12 .01 .22
Tcach.1ival.of Stud. TC5 .34 ~27 .16 ~.15 .48 ~.14 ~23 .44 43 07 .17 17 ~34 13 .36
Prmc. & Pariixpoct. PCI ~.19 05.42 .27 ~03 ~22 .15 .18 3Q ~.18 23 .10 3Q .08 21.13
Pnnc. School Iival. PCZ 04 04 09 .4Q .31 ~06 .12 .25 .30 ~.16 61 .3_Q .01 .08 .12 .63
l’rrnc. Feel. of Resp. PC3 .23 ~.10 .10 .36 .32 ~03 .13 .26 .31 .00 66.33 .09 13 .22 .11
P. Percept. of Par. PC4 ~04 ~05 .33 .24 .22 .06 .11 .19 .63 ~09 31 27.42 34.33 .26
Comb. climate CAC .19 ~09 .41 29.31 ~04 .15 .61 16 .11 12.62 .40, 68 .16 .68

 

 

APPENDIX D
SUPPLEMENTARY MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D, TABLE 1

297

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF MEAN SCHOOL
W ON MEAN SCHOOL CLIMATE IN 28 Him SCHOOLS OF

THE NORTHEASTERN PART OF QUEBEC

 

 

Si gnif- Multiple R2 Simple

Variables icance R R2 Change R
Student Climate 2.

Sense of Academic Futility .000 .63936 .40878 .639
Teacher Climate 2,

Present School Evaluation .026 .71912 .51714 .10836 .560
Teacher Climate 5,

Present Eval. of S. & Fatalism .170 .74456 .55437 .03723 ~.028
Principal Climate 4,

Percept.of Parents' Int. w/Sch. .138 .77186 .59577 .04141 .241
Principal Climate 2,

Present Eval. of Stud. &School .286 .78524 .61661 .02084 .419
Student Climate 5,

Percept. of T. Push & Norms .316 .79682 .63492 .01831 .082
Teacher Climate 3,

Determ. w/Having S.Succeed .571 .80056 .64089 .00597 .035
Student Climate 4,

Present Eval. & Expect. for H. S. .573 .80436 .64699 .00610 -.095
Student Climate 1,

Future Eval. & Expectations .760 .80552 .64887 .00187 .238
Principal Climate I,

Expect. & Percept. of Parents' .678 .80779 .65252 .00366 .482
Teacher Climate 1,

Future Expectations for students .822 .80849 .65365 .00113 .191
Student Climate 3,

Academic Norms .818 .80927 .65491 .00126 .060
Teacher Climate 4,

Percept. of S. Comm.to Success .901 .80951 .65531 .00040 ~.029

 

. -l
rl“ . if

 

 

One climate variable, Principal Climate 3, was omitted because the F-level was insufficient

for computation

 

298

APPENDIX D, TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF MULTTPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF MEAN SCHOOL
W ON MEAN SCHOOL CLIMATE IN 28 m SCHOOLS OF THE
NORTHEASTERN PART OF QUEBEC

 

 

Signif- Multiple R2 Simple

Variables icance R R2 Change R
Student Climate 2,

Sense of Academic Futility .033 .40400 .16322 .404
Teacher Climate 1,

Future Expectations for students .085 .50857 .25864 .09542 .270
Teacher Climate 4,

Percept. of S. Comm.to Success .072 .59489 .35390 .09526 .041
Student Climate 5.

Percept. of T. Push & Norms .146 .64177 .41187 .05797 .286
Teacher Climate 3,

Determ. w/Having S.Succeed .316 .66235 .43871 .02684 ~.066
Teacher Climate 2,

Present School Evaluation .517 .67087 .45006 .01135 .206
Principal Climate I,

Expect. & Percept. of Parents' .364 .68764 .47285 .02279 .083
Principal Climate 3,

Feelings of Resp. for Success .276 .71101 .50554 .03269 .008
Student Climate 1,

Future Eval. & Expectations .612 .71607 .51276 .00722 .062
Principal Climate 4,

Percept.of Parents' Int. w/Sch. .622 .72102 .51987 .00711 ~.023
Teacher Climate 5.

Present Eval. of S. & Fatalism .753 .72313 .52292 .00305 ~.193
Student Climate 3,

Academic Norms .614 .72885 .53122 00830 .118
Principal Climate 2,

Present Eval. of Stud. &School .641 .73396 .53870 .00748 .091
Student Climate 4,

Present Eval. & Expect. for H. S. .901 .73435 .53926 .00057 ~.010

 

 

 

APPENDIX D, TABLE 3

299

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF MEAN SCHOOL SELE-
CQ‘ECEEI ON MEAN SCHOOL CLIMATE IN 30 HIQH SES SCHOOLS OF THE
NORTHEASTERN PART OF QUEBEC

 

 

Si gnif- Multiple R2 Simple

Variables icance R R2 Change R
Student Climate 4,

Present Eval. & Expect. for H. S. .000 .65396 .42766 .654
Student Climate 1,

Future Eval. & Expectations .000 .84461 .71337 .28571 .563
Principal Climate I,

Expect. & Percept. of Parents' .030 .87260 .76143 .04805 .030
Principal Climate 3,

Feelings of Resp. for Success .072 .88936 .79096 .02953 ~.237
Principal Climate 2,

Present Eval. of Stud. &School .336 .89389 .79904 00809 ~.123
Teacher Climate 5,

Present Eval. of S. & Fatalism .450 .89670 .80407 .00503 .016
Principal Climate 4,

Percept.of Parents' Int. w/Sch. .635 .89784 .80611 .00204 ~.105
Teacher Climate 2,

Present School Evaluation .638 .89899 .80819 .00208 ~.016
Student Climate 2,

Sense of Academic Futility .616 .90036 .81065 .00246 .032
Teacher Climate 3,

Determ. w/Havin g S.Succeed .612 .90181 .81326 .00261 .003
Teacher Climate 1,

Future Expectations for students .580 .90360 .81650 .00324 .044
Student Climate 3,

Academic Norms .753 .90421 .81760 .00110 .304
Student Climate 5,

Percept. of T. Push & Norms .786 .90469 .81847 .00087 .394
Teacher Climate 4,

Percept. of S. Comm.to Success .854 .90493 .81889 .00042 ~.146

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D, TABLE 4

300

SUMMARY OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF MEAN SCHOOL SELF-

CQECEEI ON MEAN SCHOOL CLHVIATE IN 31 LQW SES SCHOOLS OF THE
NORTHEASTERN PART OF QUEBEC

 

 

Si gnif- Multiple R2 Simple

Variables icance R R2 Change R
Student Climate 4,

Present Eval. & Expect. for H. S. .000 .60446 .36538 .604
Student Climate 1,

Future Eval. & Expectations .000 .86922 .75555 .39018 .557
Student Climate 2,

Sense of Academic Futility .158 .87937 .77328 .01773 ~.385
Principal Climate 2,

Present Eval. of Stud. &School .056 .89645 .80363 .03034 .111
Teacher Climate 1,

Future Expectations for students .306 .90102 .81183 .00821 .172
Teacher Climate 5,

Present Eval. of S. & Fatalism .338 .90502 .81905 .00722 .047
Teacher Climate 4,

Percept. of S. Comm.to Success .441 .907 61 .82376 .00470 ~.O43
Student Climate 3,

Academic Norms .384 .91096 .82986 .00610 .510
Principal Climate I,

Expect. & Percept. of Parents' .516 .91286 .83332 .00346 .053
Teacher Climate 3,

Determ. w/Having S.Succeed .622 .91399 .83538 .00206 .287
Principal Climate 3,

Feelings of Resp. for Success .675 .91484 .83693 .00155 .079
Student Climate 5,

Percept. of T. Push & Norms .785 .91522 .83763 .00069 .291
Teacher Climate 2,

Present School Evaluation .921 .91527 .83772 .00010 .163
Principal Climate 4,

Percept.of Parents' Int. w/Sch. .902 .91536 .83788 .00016 .286

 

 

 

APPENDIX D, TABLE 5

301

SUMMARY OF STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF MEAN
SCHOOL W ON SCHOOL SOCIAL SYSTEM VARIABLES IN 56
SCHOOLS OF THE NORTHEASTERN PART OF QUEBEC

 

 

Signif- Multiple R2 Simple

Step Variable Entered icance R R2 Change R

1 Stud. Academic Futility SC2 .000 .58849 .34632 .588
2 Standardization 832 .024 .63776 .40674 .06042 .233
3 Teachers' School Eval. TC2 .026 .67887 .46087 .05413 .410
4 Teachers Salary 01] .022 .71693 .51398 .05312 .179
5 Technology OI6 .052 .74149 .54981 .03583 .132
6 Centralization SS7 .120 .75607 .57164 .02183 .087
7 Princ. Feel. of Resp. PC3 .067 .77521 .60094 .02930 -.048
8 Teach. Eval. of Students TC5 .138 .78701 .61939 .01845 -.101
9 Teach. Future Expect. TC 1 .094 .80131 .64209 .02270 .350
10 Similarity of Objectives SS4 .225 .80855 .65375 .01166 .224
l 1 Parent Involvment SS5 .134 .81924 .67115 .01740 -.049
12 Princ. Eval of St. & Sch. PC2 .338 .82352 .67818 .00704 .296
13 Stud. Academic Norms SC3 .408 .82672 .68346 .00528 -.082
14 Differentiation of Stud. SS6 .367 .83052 .68976 .00630 -.010
15 Opened Characteristics 881 .427 .83347 .69468 .00491 -.083
16 Teach. Percept. of Stud. TC4 .541 .83524 .69763 .00295 .006
I7 Stud. Eval. & Expect. 8C4 .545 .83700 .70057 .00295 -.057
18 Social Compostion SES .714 .83766 .70168 .00110 .433
19 Stud. Perc. of T. Norms SC5 .762 .83812 .70244 .00077 .039
20 Years of Training 013 .736 .83870 .70343 .00098 -.033
21 Time Devoted SS3 .805 .83903 .70397 .00054 .051
22 Teach. Determination TC3 .767 .83950 .70477 .00080 —.085
23 Size of Stud. Body 014 .767 .83999 .70559 .00082 .295
24 Stud. Future Expect. SC 1 .913 .84006 .70570 .00011 .322

 

 

 

APPENDIX D, TABLE 6

302

SUMMARY OF STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF MEAN
SCHOOL SELF-QQN S§EEI ON SCHOOL SOCIAL SYSTEM VARIABLES IN 61
SCHOOLS OF THE NORTHEASTERN PART OF QUEBEC

 

 

Si gnif- Multiple R2 Simple

Step Variable Entered icance R R2 Change R

1 Stud. Eval. & Expect. SC4 .000 .59719 .35719 .598
2 Stud. Future Expect. SC 1 .000 .84734 .71799 .36080 .561
3 Princ. Feel. of Resp. PC3 .010 .86551 .74910 .03111 .141
4 Standardization 012 .014 .88034 .77500 .02590 .062
5 Time Devoted SS3 .096 .88666 .78616 .01116 -.173
6 Stud. Academic Futility SC2 .159 .89104 .79395 .00779 -.114
7 Technology 016 .1 16 .89635 .80345 .00950 .022
8 Teach. Future Expect. TCl .121 .90135 .81244 .00899 .195
9 Teachers Salary Oil .197 .90471 .81850 .00607 .001
10 Similarity of Objectives SS4 .335 .90657 .82188 .00337 -.239
l 1 Stud. Academic Norms SC3 .401 .90799 .82444 .00257 .274
12 Princ. Feel. of Resp. PC3 .444 .90917 .82660 .00215 -.095
13 Teach. Percept. of Stud. TC4 .392 .91066 .82931 .00271 -.071
14 Teachers' School Eval. TC2 .524 .91 150 .83082 .00152 .115
15 Teach. Determination TC3 .499 .91244 .83256 .00173 .122
16 Social Compostion SES .504 .91338 .83426 .00171 .275
17 Parent Involvment SSS .583 .91402 .83543 .00117 .172
18 Opened Characteristics $81 .580 .91468 .83664 .0012] -.074
19 Years of Training 013 .628 .91520 .83759 .00095 .021
20 Stud. Perc. of T. Norms SC5 .575 .91590 .83887 .00129 .251
21 Teach. Eval. of Students TC5 .642 .91639 .83977 .00090 .038
22 Ratio of Personnel 015 .472 .91759 .84196 .00219 -. 165
22 Princ. Eval of St. & Sch. PC2 .670 .91801 .84275 .00078 .056
23 Parents' Interest PC4 .833 .91812 .84295 .00020 .224
25 Centralization SS7 .855 .91820 .84310 .00015 -.138
26 Standardization 882 .893 .91825 .84318 .00008 .085
27 Differentiation of Stud. SS6 .895 .91830 .84327 .00008 -.208

 

 

 

”‘ilillilllillililillES