ABSTRACT WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR SCHOOLS: A STUDY OF THE DETERMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AND RELIABILITY INDICES AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MICHIGAN NORMS By Gary F. Alkire Purposes of the Study The purposes of this study are three-fold: (l) to determine the ability of the What Do You Think About Your Schools to discriminate between the responses of elemen— tary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty within and between cost quartiles; (2) to estab— lish the instrument's reliability; and (3) to establish Michigan norms for the What Do You Think About Your Schools. Two major hypotheses are formulated to test the dis- criminating ability of the instrument within the four financial support quartiles and between the five batteries by each financial support quartile. The two major hypo— theses are: l. The What Do You Think About Your Schools instru— ment will discriminate between the attitudes of elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty on the basis of financial support quartiles of Michigan Gary F. Alkire school districts (K-12). Financial support quartile is defined in terms of size, effort, ability, and expendi- ture. 2. The What Do You Think About Your Schools instru- ment will discriminate between the responses of elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty within fourth, third, second, and first financial support quartiles of Michigan school districts (K-l2). To improve the precision of the instrument two additional studies were done: (1) a study of item reli— abilities, and (2) the establishment of norms for the total sample of school districts. These two studies established the stability of the instrument from test to test and provided a norm population against which users of the instrument could make comparisons. Sample and Design The sample was selected on the basis of a strati- fied random sample of Michigan school districts (K-lZ). The sample included two districts in the fourth quartile, two districts in the third quartile, four districts in the second quartile, and six districts in the first quartile. A one per cent sample of fourth quartile, a two per cent sample of third quartile, a five per cent sample of second quartile, and a ten per cent sample of first quar— tile were taken to determine the number of respondents for the respective districts. Useable data were collected Gary F. Alkire from 3,057 respondents representing 882 elementary pupils, 869 secondary students, 739 parents, A80 patrons, and 87 faculty members. Ten per cent of each battery was iden- tified with code numbers for re—testing within three weeks as a check on instrument reliability. Instrumentation and Data Collection Data for this study came from two sources: (1) the Michigan Education Association's Ranking of Michigan High School Districts by Selected Financial Data for 1966-67, and (2) the responses to the five batteries of the What Do You Think About Your Schools. The financial data on size, effort, ability, and expenditure were organized by quartiles and a composite quartile was derived from the four financial character— istics. This procedure equated the districts within each quartile. The measurement of attitudes was obtained through responses of elementary pupils, secondary students, par- ents, patrons, and faculty to the instrument, What Do You Think About Your Schools. This instrument is based on the assumption that attitudes of the school community can be measured with precision. Each battery varies in the number of items asked, but nineteen items are responded to by all groups. The total number of items for each battery is: (1) elementary pupils——37, (2) secondary students—- Gary F. Alkire AS, (3) parents——53, (A) patrons--3l, and (5) faculty-- 60. Each battery consists of six categories, dealing with some aspect of the school program. The six cate- gories are: (l) satisfaction with schools, (2) school program, (3) essential services desired, (A) school organ— ization and size, (5) school plant, and (6) community relations. The respondent indicates his choice to the item by checking a four—point value scale. The scores are dichotomized to indicate percentage of favorable and unfavorable response for each item. Each district in the sample was visited by the researcher. The instruments were distributed with the cooperation of administrators and teachers to sixth graders, twelfth graders, parents of sixth graders, patrons who were neighbors of sixth graders, and teachers. An analysis of the returns for each battery included: (1) elementary pupils—-96.7%, (2) secondary students-— 95.3%, (3) parents--8l%, (A) patrons-~52.6%, and faculty-- 100%. Method of Treatment and Analysis Testing the two hypotheses required the use of a statistical test for non—parametric data, since the responses were reported in percentage of favorable response. The following tests of significance were used: 1. The Chi Square (X2) was used to test the signi- ficance of difference between the percentage of favorable Gary F. Alkire response by item for fourth, third, second, and first financial support quartile districts within each battery. 2. The Chi Square (X2) was used to test the signi- ficance of difference between the percentage of favorable response by item for elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty within fourth, third, second, and first financial support quartile districts. Three other statistical procedures were undertaken to increase the precision of the instrument. 1. Item reliabilities were determined for the con- sistency of the first testing to the second testing for a ten per cent sample of the total sample using a Pearson product-moment correlation method. 2. Estimates of battery reliabilities were computed using a Spearman—Brown prophecy formula for estimating total battery reliability. 3. State norms were computed for the total sample of Michigan school districts by the application of the standard error of a percentage at the 95% confidence level. Major Findings The major findings of this study were: 1. The What Do You Think About Your Schools instru- ment does not discriminate between fourth, third, second, and first financial support quartile districts on the majority of items. The percentage of significant items Gary F. Alkire for each battery was: (1) elementary pupils-—32%, (2) secondary students--27%, (3) parents——25%, (A) patrons-- 13%, and (5) faculty-—10%. 2. The What Do You Think About Your Schools instru- ment did discriminate between elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty within each finan— cial support quartile. An analyses of the four quartiles indicate the following percentage of significant items: (1) fourth quartile—-6l%, (2) third quartile—-59%, (3) second quartile--72%, and (A) first quartile-~77%. 3. The What Do You Think About Your Schools instru- ment produced item reliability coefficients ranging from a high of .88 for facultys' response to "Teacher Gives Help" to a low correlation of -.19 for facultys' response to "Parent—Teacher Relations." 0f the total 229 items for the five batteries, only 27 were below .50. A. The What Do You Think About Your Schools instru- ment produced the following estimates of battery reli- abilities: (1) elementary pupils, .92; (2) secondary students, .95; (3) parents, .9A; (A) patrons, .8A; and (5) faculty, .94. 5. The What Do You Think About Your Schools instru- ment produced useable norms for the State of Michigan at a 95% confidence level. The standard error of a percen- tage was applied to each item providing a range of per- centages to which users of the instrument could make comparisons. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR SCHOOLS: A STUDY OF THE DETERMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AND RELIABILITY INDICES AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MICHIGAN NORMS By Gary F1 Alkire A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1968 DEDICATION To my loving wife and children Ingrid, David, and Heidi ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The major influence and inspiration for this study was given by the chairman of the writer's dostoral com- mittee, Dr. Herbert C. Rudman. Dr. Rudman has given unselfishly of his time to provide constant guidance to the writer and has instilled far higher aspirations in the writer than he thought possible. Acknowledgement is also given to the members of the writer's doctoral guidance committee. Dr. Donald Leu, Dr. Carl H. Gross, Dr. James B. McKee, and Dr. William Durr. The opportunity of working with Dr. Rudman and Dr. Leu on many departmental and private projects has given the writer a deeper understanding of the role of the university pro- fessor. A special acknowledgement is given to Dr. Carl Midjaas who was a constant companion and help for this study. Acknowledgement is also given to the superintendents, principals, and thousands of elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty in the State of Michigan who participated in this study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION. ACKNOWLEDG LIST OF TA LIST OF AP CHAPTER I. TH II. RE III. IN EMENTS BLES PENDICES E PROBLEM. Purposes of the Study. . . . . . . Significance of the Problem. Assumptions of this Study Delimitations of the Study Definition of Terms Hypotheses . . Research to Improve the Instrument, What Do You Think About Your Schools. Organization of the Thesis LATED LITERATURE National Interest in Educational Assessment. . Theoretical Models for Program Assessment. . Related Cost— —Quality Studies Instrumentation. . . . Summary STRUMENTATION AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY. Introduction. Instrumentation. Financial Data Classification of Districts on Cost Factors Selection of the Sample . Distribution and Collection of the Instrument . . . . Treatment of the Data. Statistical Methods iv Page ii iii vi viii \OCIJO\ l—’ 114 15 l7 l8 23 30 AU 62 Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS OF THE HYPOTHESES. . . . . . 85 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . 85 Hypothesis I. . . . . 86 Statistical Tests and Treatment . . 86 Results of the Statistical Treatment. . 87 Implication of the Statistical Treatment . . . . . . . . . . 94 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 96 Hypothesis II . . . . . 97 Statistical Tests and Treatment . . 97 Results of the Statistical Treatment. . 98 Implications of the Statistical Treatment . . . . . . . . . . 103 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 10A V. RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS AND NORMS FOR THE WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR SCHOOLS BATTERIES. *. . . . . . . . . . 105 Introduction. . . . . . . 105 Reliability Coefficients. . . . . . 105 Norms for the Five Batteries . . . . 116 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 118 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . 123 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 123 Major Findings . . . . . . . . . 128 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 130 Implications. . . . . . . . . . 133 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . 135 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Table 1. 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES A comparison of skills by battery for the Stanford Achievement Test. . Number of items within each battery by category. Item numbers for each battery by category. Classification of 507 Michigan school districts according to size, as of the school year, 1966-67. Classification of 507 Michigan school districts according to state equalized valuation per pupil, as of the school year 1966-67 Classification of 507 Michigan school districts according to expenditure per pupil, as of the school year 1966-67 Classification of 507 Michigan school districts according to mills levied for operation, as of the school year 1966—67 School districts with the same quartile rank on all four cost factors. Quartile range and number of school districts represented by the four cost—factors Quartile ranking and the number of school districts selected for this study Total school district population and number deemed necessary for this study. vi Page 51 68 70 73 73 7A 7A 75 76 78 80 Table Page 12. Total number of items significant at P > .05 by battery across quartile . . . . 88 13. The items for each quartile across batteries significant at P > .05. . . . . 99 1A. Number of respondents for the reliability study by battery and item . . . . . . . 106 15. The reliability coefficients of the instru— ment, What Do You Think About Your Schools by battery for each item . . . . . . . 107 16. Item reliabilities below .50 by battery . . 114 17. Estimates of battery reliability. . . . . 116 18. Sample districts attitudes about schools expressed in a range of percentage of favorable response at the .95 probability level. 119 vii Appendix A. LIST OF APPENDICES What Do You Think About Your Schools. Elementary Student Questionnaire Secondary Student Questionnaire Parent Questionnaire Patron Questionnaire Faculty Questionnaire. Elementary Pupils Results by Quartile with Number of Respondents, Total2Per— centage of Favorable Response, "X ", Degreescforeedom, and Significance at P > .05 Secondary Students Results by Quartile with Number of Respondents, TotalZPer— centage of Favorable Response, "X ", Degrees of Freedom, and Significance at P > .05 . Parents Results by Quartile with Number of Respondents, To a1 Percentage of Favorable Response, "X ", Degrees of Freedom, and Significance at P > .05. Patrons Results by Quartile with Number of Respondents, Total ercentage of Favorable Response, "X ", Degrees of Freedom, and Significance at P > .05. Faculty Results by Quartile with Number of Respondents, Total ercentage of Favorable Response, "X ", Degrees of Freedom, and Significance at P > .05. Fourth Quartile Results by Battery with Number of Respondents, To a1 Percentage of Favorable Response, "X ", Degrees of Freedom, and Significance at P > .05. viii Page 147 149 155 162 171 176 184 188 192 197 200 205 Appendix H. Third Quartile Results by Battery with Number of Respondents, To a1 Percentage of Favorable Response, "X ", Degrees of Freedom, and Significance at P > .05 Second Quartile Results by Battery with Number of Respondents, To a1 Percentage of Favorable Response, "X ", Degrees of Freedom, and Significance at P > .05. First Quartile Results by Battery with Number of Respondents, To a1 Percentage of Favorable Response, "X ", Degrees of Freedom, and Significance at P > .05. ix Page 210 215 220 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Purposes of the Study The purposes of this study are: (1) the determini- nation of the discriminating ability of the What Do You Think About Your Schools, an instrument used to measure the attitudes of elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty; (2) to establish the instrument's reliability; and (3) to establish norms for the instrument. Significance of the Problem The need for evaluation of the school curriculum has been a continuing problem. Progress is evident, but much remains to be investigated before an objective measure of curriculum can be accomplished. It is a fundamental assumption of this study that curriculum can be delineated and measured. The American people have made significant contributions in financing public edu- cation and are demanding to know what they are getting for their money. This, coupled with the concern educa- tionists and laymen have for the function of education in society, requires the development of accurate instru- mentation for assessment of educational program. The difficulties in measuring curriculum are hindered by inadequate definitions of curriculum, chang- ing educational patterns, variations in community char— acteristics, confusion over educational goals, and by social forces within our pluralistic society. The development of a theoretical model for the assessment of curriculum may establish a better basis for assessment and for deployment of limited resources. Dr. Herbert C. Rudmanl has conceptualized the school curriculum as consisting of four constituent elements: (1) educational program, (2) educational ser- vices, (3) organization of the school system, and (4) the values for education held by elementary pupils, secon- dary students, parents, faculty, and adults in the com— munity who do not have children in the public school system (patrons). The first three criteria lend themselves to sys- tematic description. The child's educational program consists of course offerings and laboratory experiences (i.e., Fine Arts, Home Economics, Physical Education, field trips, foreign language laboratories, science lHerbert C. Rudman, "The Curriculum" (unpublished report, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michi— gan, February 12, 1968), p. 1. laboratories, and the like). The educational services consist of administration, supervision of teachers, lunch programs, transportation, libraries, testing pro- grams, counseling and guidance, etc. The organization of the school district refers to the actual manner in which school functions are carried out at the classroom, building, and district levels. This has a profound influence on the effectiveness of educational programs and services within the school district. The remaining variable is the values held by the various members of the community. These values reflect the expectations and, therefore, the outcomes of the curriculum in many cases. It is this facet of curriculum assessment that has proved most troublesome for accurate measure- ment. The Educational Characteristics Criterion (ECC) was developed and tested by Rudman,2 Kraft,3 2Herbert C. Rudman and Stanley E. Hecker, "The Determination and Measurement of Factors Which Directly or Indirectly Affect Quality of an Educational Program" (unpublished proposal, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1961). 3Leonard E. Kraft, "The Perceptions Held by Pro- fessors of Education, Professors in Areas other than Education, and School Board Members on Ninety Factors Which May or May Not Affect the Quality of an Educa- tional Program" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michi— gan State University, 1962). Berg,Ll Mueller,5 Springer,6 and Pelton7. This instrument was used to measure educational quality. Educational quality was defined as those educational characteristics of school and community which are perceived effective in accomplishing the goals of public school education. The judgments of educational experts were found to agree on fifty-six characteristics which a good school program should contain. It was found that a significant corre- lation existed between quality education, as defined by experts, on the one hand and teachers and administrators on the other. When school districts were classified on high and low financial support quartiles, the Egg dis— criminated between districts on the basis of financial support with a high degree of reliability. A set of “Arthur D. Berg, "The Determination of the Dis- crimination and Reliability Indices of the Educational Characteristics Criterion with Implications Concerning Educational Cost-Quality Relationships" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962). 5Van Dyck Mueller, "A Study of the Relationship Between Teacher-Administrator Perceptions of Education Quality as Measured by the Educational Characteristics Criterion (ECC) and Selected Cost Factors" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964). 6Owen Springer, "A Study of the Relationships Between the Educational Characteristics Criterion (ECC), the Stanford Achievement Test, and Selected Cost Fac— tors" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964). 7Maurice D. Pelton, "A National Analysis of Edu- cational Quality as Measured by the Educational Charac— teristics Criterion (ECC), Achievement, and Selected Cost Factors" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966). norms based upon Egg responses were established for school districts in high and low financial support quartiles. This information provided an objective measure of the community attitudes variable as it related to total curriculum assessment. Future curriculum studies would have an objective base for comparison of school dis- trict educational programs. The major difference between the Egg and the What Do You Think About Your Schools is the factor of educa- tional quality. The Egg provides a quality measure based on the judgments of educational experts in rela- tionship to financial support quartiles. The purpose of this study is to base the attitudes of elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty on financial support quartiles to add another dimension to the assessment of the school program. The What Do You Think About Your Schools makes no assump- tion that the attitudes of the respondents are directly related to quality. Rather, the attitudes of the respon- dents can give a more complete picture of the total values held by the community. If these attitudes reflect a consistent discriminating ability--as measured in terms of financial support quartiles——a better assessment of the curriculum can be derived. Norms can be established for each financial support quartile by the application of statistical limits of probability for each school district assessed, and future applications of the batteries can have real meaning in terms of curriculum development. Assumptions of this Study This study assumes that the curriculum assessment model developed by Rudman is workable. There are many theoretical models for curriculum assessment, but Rudman's exhibits a more pragmatic approach in terms of actual behavior observed in the public schools. The school of perceptual psychology holds that individuals react to their environment as they perceive it. For purposes of this study, it is assumed that this theory is tenable, and that the attitudes of students, parents, patrons, and faculty will reflect the commun- ity's expectations of the educational program. It is assumed that the attitudes of students, parents, patrons, and faculty can be accurately expressed regarding areas of the school program about which they have knowledge and opinions. It is also assumed that these attitudes can be classified into the following cate— gories: (1) satisfaction with school, (2) school program, (3) essential services desired, (4) school organization and size, (5) school plant, and (6) community relations. The basis for assuming the relationship between the factors of size, effort, ability, and expenditure and quality of the educational program is derived from the results of research in the area of cost—quality relation- ships.8 From this research it is assumed that there may be a similar relationship between the attitudes of the school community and size, effort, ability, and expendi- ture. Size of a school district is defined as the average daily membership (ADM) in grades kindergarten through twelve in the State of Michigan. Effort is defined as the total operational millage levied based upon the final appraisal of real and personal property valuation of school districts in the State of Michigan. Ability is defined as the total value of real and personal property of the school district divided by the average daily mem— bership. Expenditure is defined as the amount of total dollars expended for elementary and secondary education in the school district divided by the average daily membership. This does not include expenditures for capital outlay and debt retirement. Financial Support Quartile is defined as a composite ranking by quartile of a school district according to size, ability, effort, and expenditure. The classification of Michigan school districts according to size, effort, ability, and expenditure into quartiles gives a concrete base for developing item norms For one example see, William S. Vincent, "Quality Control: A Rationale for Analysis of a School System," IAR Research Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 2 (January, 1961), pp. 1‘7. by school districts. The scores derived from the What Do You Think About Your Schools can be compared to a base population of school districts with similar financial support levels and a statement of statistical probability can be derived. If there is a wide divergence in dis— trict score from the norms established for a similar financial support district, statements of a diagnostic nature for that specific item can be made. A specific item will have meaning only when compared to districts of like financial support. The attitudes of elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty will give the total curriculum assessment model better data for judgments regarding the quality of the educa- tional program. Delimitations of the Study The parameters of this study are delimited by the following factors: 1. The major variables in this study are the individual's attitudes, as measured by the What Do You Think About Your Schools and the cost factors of size, effort, ability, and expenditure as derived from the Michigan Education Association's, Ranking of Michigan High School Districts by Selected Financial Data for 1966-67. 2. The study is limited to a sample of fourth, third, second, and first quartile school districts in the State of Michigan. No results are drawn from indi- vidual school districts. 3. The statistical analyses are limited to deter- mining: (l) the reliability of the What Do You Think About Your Schools, (2) the discrimination of items between elementary pupils, secondary student's parents, patrons, and faculty within quartiles, and (3) the dis- crimination of items between fourth, third, second, and first quartiles and each individual respondent group. 4. This study uses only selected financial cost factors and does not include all possible permutations of cost analyses. 5. The findings of a relationship between school- community attitudes and financial factors are viewed as associational and not causal. 6. The study assumes that the individual sampled will respond to the instrument with his true percep- tions in regard to the school—community situation. Definition of Terms Public schools.--The term, "public schools" refers to Michigan elementary and secondary schools in school districts which maintain grades kindergarten through twelfth. Any school which receives full support of its program from state or federal sources will be excluded. 10 School district.—-A school district is a legal entity created by the Michigan State Legislature for the purpose of operating and maintaining public education within the boundaries established by law. State equalized valuation.--State equalized valua- tion is the final appraisal by the Michigan Tax Commis- sion of the worth of real and personal property in the State of Michigan. Mill.--A mill is the value of a tenth of a cent or thousandth of a dollar. §i§3,--Size is the number of public school member— ship as computed on the fourth Friday following Labor Day of each year. All pupils, to be included must be at least five years old on December first. Financial ability.-—Financial ability is an expres- sion of the state equalized valuation (SEV) divided by the total number of resident pupils. This figure shows the dollar amount in local equalized valuation behind each resident child. Financial effort.--Financial effort is the number of mills levied on the state equalized valuation (SEV) for the purpose of operating the school district. Financial expenditure.—-Financial expenditure is the cost per pupil expended in operation of the school district exclusive of school board salaries, tuition expense, capital outlay, and transportation. 11 Financial support quartile.——A financial support quartile is a composite quartile ranking of a school district according to size, financial ability, financial effort, and financial expenditure. Curriculum assessment.--Curriculum assessment or educational program assessment is defined as the measure- ment of a theoretical model of curriculum that encompasses educational program, educational services, school organi- zation, and values held by the community toward the curri- culum of the school district. What Do You Think About Your Schools.--An instru- ment measuring attitudes of elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty concerning the educational program of the school district. Elementary pupil.--An elementary pupil is a student enrolled in grades kindergarten through six in the public schools of Michigan. For the purposes of this study, an elementary pupil is defined as a sixth grader. Secondary student.-—A secondary student is a stu- dent enrolled in grades seven through twelve in a public school of Michigan. For the purposes of this study, a secondary student is defined as a twelfth grader. Parents.-—Parents are defined as father, mother or legal guardian of pupils in the public schools of Michigan. 12 Patrons.--Patrons are defined as taxpayers in a school district of Michigan who do not have children in the public schools. Faculty.-—Administrators and teachers of a public school in Michigan whose positions provide instruction or supervision of pupils in the public schools are defined as faculty. Hypotheses General Hypothesis I The What Do You Think About Your Schools instru- ment will discriminate between the attitudes of elemen- tary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty on the basis of financial support quartile of Michigan school districts (K-l2). Support quartile is defined in terms of size, effort, ability, and expendi- ture. Operational HIa.—-The instrument will show ability to discriminate between fourth, third, second, and first financial support quartile districts on each item score according to elementary pupil responses. Operational HIb.-—The instrument will show ability to discriminate between fourth, third, second, and first financial support quartile districts on each item score according to secondary student responses. 13 Operational HIc.--The instrument will show ability to discriminate between fourth, third, second, and first financial support quartile districts on each item score according to parent responses. Operational HId.-—The instrument will show ability to discriminate between fourth, third, second, and first financial support quartile districts on each item score according to patron responses. Operational HIe.—-The instrument will show ability to discriminate between fourth, third, second, and first financial support quartile districts on each item score according to faculty responses. General Hypothesis II The What Do You Think About Your Schools instru- ment will show ability to discriminate between responses of elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty within fourth, third, second, and first financial support quartiles of Michigan school districts. Operational HIIa.-—The instrument will discriminate between responses of elementary pupils, secondary stu- dents, parents, patrons, and faculty on each item score for fourth financial support quartile districts. Operational HIIb.-—The instrument will discriminate between responses of elementary pupils, secondary 14 students, parents, patrons, and faculty on each item score for third financial support quartile districts. Operational HIIc.--The instrument will discriminate between responses of elementary pupils, secondary stu- dents, parents, patrons, and faculty on each item score for second financial support quartile districts. Operational HIId.-—The instrument will discriminate between responses of elementary pupils, secondary stu- dents, parents, patrons, and faculty on each item score for first financial support quartile districts. Research to Improve the Instrument, What Do You Think About Your Schools The need for improving the precision of the instru- ment required that two additional studies be done: (1) a study of reliability by item, and (2) the establishment of norms for the total sample of school districts. These two studies would establish the stability of the instru- ment from test to test and would provide norm popula- tions against which users of the instrument could make comparisons. The study of reliability provides a reliability coefficient for each item on the elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty test batteries. To accomplish this objective, scores on the first test of a sample of each battery were correlated 15 with scores for the same sample and test three weeks later. The establishment of norms for elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty were determined by total sample. The level of probability for the "true score" of the universe of respondents was estimated by computing the standard error of a percentage at the .95 level. This provides users of the What Do You Think About Your Schools a range of percentages of favor- able response for the sample population to which other scores can be compared with .95 confidence. Organization of the Thesis This chapter has stated the purposes of the study, importance of the problem, the assumptions upon which the study is based, the delimitations of the study, the definition of terms, the general and Operational hypo- theses, and the research to improve the precision of the instrument. Chapter II presents a review of related literature. This review includes theoretical models of curriculum assessment, development of various instrumentation for program assessment, and a report of significant studies relating to cost—quality relationships. Chapter III deals with the instrumentation and methodology of the study. A complete description of the instruments used to collect the data, method of sample l6 selection, classification of cost factors, research design, and proposed statistical treatment of the data are presented. Chapter IV presents the statistical tests and results of the data in relation to the hypotheses. Chapter V presents the statistical tests and results of the studies to improve the precision of the instrument. Chapter VI presents the conclusions, implications, summary and areas recommended for further research. CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE In the last fifty years many studies and surveys have been undertaken to assess school programs. The majority of these studies and surveys have come from two fields of endeavor: (1) school finance, and (2) curri- culum development. The first tends to have a broader outlook in describing and evaluating the total school program. The second emphasizes a narrower definition of school prOgram, primarily the outcomes of subject-matter taught in the schools. Finance and curriculum experts have not been able to agree on mutually acceptable defi- nitions and philosophical viewpoints, and therefore their models for evaluation differ. It is the purpose of this chapter to analyze and summarize the important models and research that has been done on program assessment. Three major areas will be discussed: (1) the major models for curriculum or educational program evaluation, (2) empirical studies of cost-quality relationships, and (3) instruments used to evaluate school programs. 17 18 National Interest in Educational Assessment The past decade has seen a ferment in American edu— cation. Much has been said and written on the strengths and weaknesses of our educational system. Seminars, con- ferences and legislative committees have investigated various aspects of the American schools in seeking improvement through new programs and evaluation. In a 1962 conference held by the United States Office of Edu- cation several statements were issued relating to educa- tion's role in society: (1) a nation's strength lies in the strength of all its people; (2) it is tested in the aspirations of its youth and the quality of its school- ing; (3) our democracy is no stronger than the moral and intellectual fiber of our people; (4) our country can be no richer than our teacher's minds and our children's opportunities; (5) since the quiet strength and latent power of education is less tangible than arms and mis- siles, it has been more difficult to realize; and (6) American education has become the testing ground for democracy.1 A statement by the Committee of Economic DevelOp- ment echoed the above statements when it said: lUnited States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Education for Freedom and World Understanding, Bulletin 0E100164(Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962), pp. 50-51. 19 A democracy lives or dies by the ability of its people to choose wisely. We need better schools to teach us how to understand the alternatives before us, and how to choose wisely among the real alternatives. 1 Much of the move to improve education has come through discussion of assessment programs. Rickover3 in 1962 proposed to a House Committee that a national test- ing program be established to determine the educational levels of youth graduating from schools. He based his arguments on the policies of foreign countries, which have national testing programs, leading to valid diplomas. Rickover's concern for the allegedly falling standards of education and the wasted resources committed to vast numbers of youth who never finish their education prompted him to submit this suggestion. As could be expected, the majority of American educators do not agree with this position. Stoddard exemplifies the majority opinion: Do we prefer what the Bonn government has set up--a system of examinations through which the decision to go to the university, or not to go is firmly made when a child is ten years old?-- (The result: only one out of twenty pupils make the grade.)4 2Ralph Lazarus, We Can Have Better Schools (New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1959), p. 4. 3Hyman G. Rickover, "Education for All Children" Hearing Before the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Eighty-Seventh Congress, 1962, p. 139. ”George Stoddard, "The Issues That Divide Us," School and Society, 86:237 (May 24, 1958). 2O McNeil suggested some of the reasons for opposition to program assessment by educators in general: 1. Educators are afraid the evidence will be col— lected only in respect to recall information and the competency of few skills. 2. Educators tend to be process-oriented. They believe teaching conditions are important and therefore make less effort to assess the learning that does occur from specific situations. 3. Educators distrust the way the results will be interpreted, knowing that a multitude of factors can be responsible for specific learnings. 4. There is the danger that favored practices and ideas may not prove to be valuable.5 Over the opposition, movement has been made toward a national assessment project. The Carnegie Corporation funded a project to construct instrumentation designed to assess education on a national basis. The major pur- poses of the project are: (l) to find the strengths and weaknesses of education on a regional basis for the whole nation, (2) to provide information to schools for research on educational problems, (3) to provide international 5John D. McNeil, Curriculum Administration (New York: The MacMillian Company, 1965), pp. 115-116. 21 comparisons, and (4) to increase interest in education throughout the United States.6 Typical of the criticism pointed at national assess- ment are the observations made by Hand: I am opposed to (l) a national testing pro- gram set up for purposes of comparing a school or schools in one district or region with those in other districts or regions, and (2) the way in which ECAPE is functioning. I am opposed to a national testing program set up for purposes of comparing schools chiefly because (a) it would set up new obstacles to realization of our goal of equality of educational opportunity, (b) it would be the nose under the tent which would be followed by a monstrous camel in the form of a centrally controlled curriculum, (c) it would stultify the curriculum, (d) it would stifle local innovation and experimentation in respect to the classroom, (e) it would result in unbear- able pressures on classroom teachers and school administrators, and (f) it would encourage cheat- ing on the part of students and teachers alike. I am opposed to the way ECAPE is functioning chiefly because it is violative of a cardinal principle of American democracy . . . namely, the principle of government by the consent of the governed. There is no doubt that the schools need to be assessed, but it is the manner of this assessment that differs from individual to individual. Vincent and Mac Gregor have reviewed various approaches to the assessment of schools: (1) Bestor uses the criterion of stability. This is to be expected, as Bestor is a 6John W. Gardner, "A National Assessment of Educa- tional Progress" (unpublished report, The Carnegie Corporation, April 23, 1965), p. 1. 7Harold 0. Hand, "The Camel's Nose," Phi Delta Kappan, 47:9,12 (September, 1965). 22 historian and concerned with the culture and traditions of the past; (2) 2011 is concerned with economy——the minimum of funds necessary to carry on a basic program is all that is required; (3) Rickover wants more central control of education; (4) Conant is concerned with the equality of opportunity and therefore has promoted foundation—type programs for schools; and (5) education- ists tend to judge schools by their adaptability. This means the currency of procedures and program utilized in meeting the needs of a changing society.8 The National School Boards Association and the American Association of School Administrators believe in evaluation and have established the following criteria: (1) evaluation should be based on stated objectives, (2) evaluation should be based on intimate and compre- hensive knowledge of the community, (3) evaluation should be continuous, (4) evaluation should be comprehensive, (5) evaluation should involve many people, (6) evaluation should be positive as well as negative, (7) evaluation should use many methods, (8) evaluation should be based on knowledges of students, (9) evaluation should require the administration and board to look at itself, (1) eval- uation should appraise staff policies, (11) evaluation is 8William Vincent and Archie Mac Gregor, 1959 Review of Fiscal Policy for Public Education in New York State - Public Tests of School Quality (New York: New York State Educational Conference Board, 1960), pp. 1—2. 23 based on the belief that people make a difference, and (12) evaluation should bring forth improvement.9 America is concerned about the quality of its schools. It is the means that differ. A quote from Dewey is as relevant today as it was in 1900 concerning the quality of education: What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon it destroys our democracy. Theoretical Models for Program Assessment The Sequential Simplex Model of Mort and Furno The Sequential Simplex Model is a statistical tool used to control gross differences among communities so that more subtle differences can be examined. The basic premise of this model is that the quality of a school can be viewed in concentric circles, with quality at the core. Around this core of quality is "The School" and its staff which have the most direct influence on quality. The next layer of the circle is the "School System Policy," which includes adequacy of salary, staffing 9American Association of School Administrators and National School Boards Association, Judging Schools with Wisdom (Washington, D. 0.: National Education Associa- tion, 1959), pp. 1-11. 10 John Dewey, The School and Society (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1900), p. 10. 24 ratios, and materials and supplies. The third layer is the "Educational Climate" which includes the socio- economic and financial factors of the community. The final layer is "Community Characteristics" represented by physical conditions, wealth, and socio-economic characteristics. Running through all these circles is the common core of quality.11 A school's overall quality can be determined by a "Quality Control Chart" which plots the school's position in relation to the four factors that influence total school quality. If the scores on various instruments depart significantly from the established norms, diag- nostic measures can be applied. The instrumentation used to measure these four factors has been derived from studies and surveys conducted by Mort and his associates over the past 30 years. These instruments are correlated with the Growing Edge which is the established criteria for quality in the Sequential Simplex Model. The major weaknesses of this model are: (l) the assumption that the Growing Edge is a good measure of quality. The Growing Edge is a measure of adaptability of innovative practices in schools, and therefore con— siderable doubt can be cast that this is a legitimate 11Paul R. Mort and Orlando F. Furno, Theory and Synthesis of a Sequential Simplex (New York: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1960), p. 15. 25 criterion for quality. Innovative practices are contin- uously changing. This has been particularly true in the last ten years when new programs and materials have flooded the educational market. A continuous up-dating of the instrument would be necessary to find out what is truly innovative in American education today; (2) the assumption that expenditure is an independent variable is also questionable. The research over the past years seems to indicate that expenditure is a dependent var- iable of school quality; and (3) the complex computations of correlations and multiple correlations makes the use of the model limited to persons with a high degree of statistical competency. Experimental Appraisals of Curriculum Patterns--Smith, Stanley, and Shores Smith, Stanley, and Shores (1950) represents a group of American educators, mainly curriculum special- ists, that View the evaluation of school program in a limited fashion. Their major work, Fundamentals of Curriculum Development defines what they mean by curriculum: A sequence of potential experiences if set up in the school for the purposes of disciplining children and youth in group ways of thinking and acting. This set of experiences are referred to as the curriculum. 128. Othanel Smith, William 0. Stanley, and J. Harlan Shores, Fundamentals of Curriculum Development (New York: The World Book Company, 1950), p. 4. 26 The important words in this definition are "in the school." This implies that youth acquire most of their learning in a school situation. Accepting this definition of curriculum, Smith, Stanley, and Shores outlined their model for curriculum evaluation: 1. The theory of the curriculum pattern must be stated clearly in order to be tested. 2. The social, psychological, educational, and physical conditions under which the curriculum pattern it to be tested must be clearly spelled out. 3. The anticipated results of the curriculum theory must be stated as hypotheses. 4. Data must be collected to ascertain whether or not the hypotheses derived from the curriculum theory were borne out by observed facts; for as these hypotheses are tested out, confirmed or invalidated by observation, the theory is affirmed or denied.13 Attention must be given to the attitudes, beliefs, and knowledges of all members of the community, but the validity of these factors cannot be established; there- fore the authors believe the evaluator must progress without this knowledge. After a summary of Six important curriculum studies, the authors gave their conclusions of curriculum evaluation: l31bid., p. 583. 27 . the six prominent studies reported here, falls considerably short of meeting desirable standards of research design. In general, neither the curriculum theories under test nor the hypotheses that should have been derived from these theories were made explicit. As a consequence, those who examined this research have real difficulty in knowing juiE what propositions were proved or disproved. In reviewing this theory of curriculum evaluation several criticisms seem to be in order: 1. The definition of curriculum is much too limited. Children learn from all aspects of their environment. The school is one factor, but it is hardly all-inclusive. 2. Smith, Stanley, and Shores assert that community values cannot be measured, but other research indicates that an attempt can be made at evaluation of other fac- tors influencing the schools, such as community values, finance, etc. 3. No measurable results are obtainable from this theory, therefore its value for comparisons or improve- ment is limited. 4. It leaves the reader feeling that nothing in the school program can be tested, because of the many variables, therefore evaluation of school program is a waste of time. 1”Ibid., p. 612. 28 School Program Assessment--Rudman The school program assessment model used in this study and developed by Rudman was discussed in Chapter I. To review briefly, the school program consists of four major elements which can be objectively assessed: (1) the educational program, (2) the educational services, (3) the organization of the school, and (4) community attitudes and values.15 The use of objective measures to assess the elements of school program gives a pragmatic application to this theory. Schools can compare themselves to ideal models, state and national norms. As of this time instruments have been developed and tested to evaluate educational program, educational services, and teachers' and adminis- trators' attitudes. This study hopes to add elementary pupils', secondary students', parents', patrons', and facultys' attitudes to the measurement of community values. The remaining factor of educational organization is still under study. Research is conflicting regarding the influence of school organization on total program quality. If measurable results for school organization can be obtained in the future, the total theory will be developed. 15Rudman, "The Curriculum," p. l. 29 Other Models for Curriculum Assessment Most of the recent models for curriculum assessment define curriculum in a limited way, similar to Smith, Stanley, and Shores. The distribution of federal funds has dramatically increased the activity to construct models for the assessment of specific programs, but nothing has been done to give a broad View to total pro- gram assessment. The major differences between models now developing seems to be the point of emphasis. Some of these models: (1) point to the importance of the teacher as a developer of curricula, (2) rely on the developer's intuition rather than his rational Skills, (3) emphasize subject-matter- content goals as opposed to intellectual-process—and- skill goals, (4) go beyond the stated goals, and (5) incor- porate plans for reassessing goals during and after the development phase.16 The movement is to define the problem in smaller units to which appropriate research techniques can be applied with success. Although this normally brings forth carefully drawn research studies there is some doubt whether the findings of these studies can be applied in the broad scope of school program assessment. 16Robert S. Stake, "Testing in the Evaluation of Curriculum Development," Review of Educational Research, Vol. 38, No. 1 (February, 1968), p. 78. 30 Summary 1. There is extreme interest on all levels of American education to develop a systematic method for evaluating school systems. 2. No one model has been able to control all the variables that influence educational quality. 3. The various models stress different variables, whether they be finance, program, or subject—matter. 4. The trend in assessment is toward fragmenta— tion of the school program to apply better controls for experimentation. 5. There is need for a comprehensive look at all segments of the school program to bring the various parts into a meaningful whole. Until this is accomplished little can be determined about the quality of schools at the local, state, or national levels. Related Cost—Quality Studies Early Cost-Quality Studies There has been intense interest in the area of cost- quality studies Since the early 1920's. Most of these studies follow the normative approach. They try to explain how schools differ at varying expenditure levels by placing a value statement on certain aspects of the school program. 31 One of the earliest studies with a normative frame- work was conducted by Ayres in 1920. He constructed a ten-item index to which he correlated state expenditures for the years 1896 through 1920. The leeex had five expenditure items and five non-expenditure items. Ayres nge£_includedz 1. Per cent of school population attending school daily. 2. Average days attended by each child of school age. 3. Average number of days the schools were kept open. 4. Per cent that high school attendance was of total attendance. 5. Per cent that boys were of girls in high school. 6. Average annual expenditure per child in school. 7. Average annual expenditure per child of school age. 8. Average annual expenditure per teacher employed. 9. Expenditure per pupil for purposes other than teacher's salaries. 10. Expenditure per teacher for salaries.17 Ayres found a correlation of .78 between the expenditure and non—expenditure items Of his leeex. Norton in 1926 tried to ascertain the ability of the forth—eight states to support education. He found that high-expenditure states were: (1) spending more per l7Leonard P. Ayres, An Index Number for State School Systems (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1920), p. 14. 32 pupils, (2) had better school plants, (3) had a longer school year, (4) had a higher preparation level for 18 teachers, and (5) had a lower illiteracy ratio. From these observations, Norton concluded that the level of education was higher in states spending more money on education. Ferrell used an instrument to measure educational efficiency in 249 Kentucky county districts in 1937. His gage; included: 1. Per cent average daily attendance was of the census. 2. Holding power as measured by the average sum of; (a) per cent eighth grade enrollment was of first grade enrollment. (b) per cent high school enrollment was of total public school enrollment. 3. Per cent of teachers employed who have had at least three years or more of teaching exper- ience. 4. Per cent of teachers employed who have had a given amount of preparation. 5. Per cent of teacher in relationship to pupils. 6. Per cent of dgys in the elementary school was of 200 days. 18John K. Norton, The Ability of States to Support Education (Washington, D. C.: National Education Asso- ciation, 1926). 19Thomas Ferrell, Relation Between Current Expen- ditgre and Certain Measures of Educational Efficieney in Kentucky County and Graded School Systems, Contribu- tions to Education No. 216 (Richmond, Kentucky: Eastern State Teachers College, 1937). 33 He found a correlation of .92 between quality, as measured by his leeex, and expenditure. Schools with high expendi- tures had better holding power, smaller classes, longer school years, and better prepared teachers. The weakness of these early studies is the rather obvious relationship of the criteria to expenditure. It is no wonder that high correlations were derived from items that are so directly related to the expenditure of the sampled school districts. Studies at Various Expenditure Levels Most of the significant studies of cost-quality relationships were undertaken by Mort and his associates from 1930 to 1960. These studies were primarily con- cerned with showing the public what they could expect from a certain level of expenditure. This also gave impetus to the concept of a foundation program for school finances. Later a relationship was found between scores on Mort's various instruments and the adaptability of innovation by school districts. Norms were developed for these instruments at various expenditure levels to Show exactly what could be expected from a given dollar investment. Studies of High Expenditure Levels In a study by Vincent (1945) of expenditure in the State of New York a Significant correlation was found 34 between expenditure and quality as defined by the Mort- Burke-Fisk Guide. The New York schools represented high expenditure schools in relation to national norms. Three samples were used: (1) 52 districts were visited by field workers who collected data on the 1091 item Guide, (2) 71 districts were mailed forms which contained data on 101 items, and (3) 216 districts were analyzed through State Department reports. From these samples a correlation with expenditure was found for 73% of the items on the Guide, 99% of the items in the mailed report, and 80% of the items on the State Department report. Vincent con— cluded that five trends could be associated with increased expenditure: (1) concern for the mastery of basic skills; (2) con- cern for the conditions of child growth; (3) atten— tion to needs of the individual; (4) lack of depen- dence of teachers upon patent devices; and (5) increase proportion of teachega who are resourceful, imaginative, and intelligent. Grace and Moe in the New York Regent's Inquiry of 1938 ranked 43 New York school districts on a five-point scale after visitation. Although no controls were applied to Size, cost of living, or population sparsity, the fol- lowing conclusions were reached: High educational efficiency is not achieved without high expenditure, but many districts have high cost and distinctly inferior returns. The group of schools with superior educational results 20William S. Vincent, Emerging Patterns of Public School Practices (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1945), p. 56. 35 spreads the greater expenditure over all the items of expense (except transportation) and also devotes a larger proportion of the entire budget to direct instruction. The best schools do not have an exceptionally small number of pupils per teacher, but pay a high average salary to the instructors. The best schools were all large, and permitted organizatiog of fairly large classes and a rich curriculum. 1 One of the most convincing studies with high expen- diture districts was done by Woollatt (1949). The study used 33 New York and New Jersey suburban communities in the high expenditure levels. Corrections were made for population sparsity, transportation, tuition expense, and differentials between high school and elementary costs. It was found that the Growing Edge did differentiate among expenditure levels as well as within high expenditure schools. The correlation to total score on the Growing Eege and expenditure was .59. Other Significant findings were: 1. High cost districts did a better job of teach— ing skills. 2. High cost districts did a better job of developing the child's problem solving ability. 3. High cost districts did a better job of build- ing good character. 4. There was no point of diminishing returns between expenditure level and quality scores as derived from the Growing Edge. 21A. G. Grace and G. A. Moe, State Aid and School Costs: Report of the Regent's Inquiry (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1938), pp. 324-329. 22Lorne H. Woollatt, The Cost—Quality Relationships on the Growing Edge (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1949). 36 Mort in analyzing all the cost-quality studies up to 1950 had this to say about Woollatt's study: In all the data collected over thirty years of interest in this subject, there is ngge that speaks more convincingly than these. Studies of Middle Expenditure Levels The Pennsylvania study (1935) of 36 communities used an instrument designed by Mort and Cornell which measured adaptability. The schools studied fell between the 40th and 80th percentile of the national expenditure range. Scores on the Guide for Self-Appraisal of School Systems had a positive correlation of .58 with current expenditure per weighted pupil.2u Additional correla— tions were run on the per cent of business and profes- sional workers (.59) and the general educational level (.56). It was determined that more than half the varia- tion in adaptability scores could be accounted for by expenditure level. Mort did a comprehensive study of Rhode Island Public Education in 1941. The Mort-Cornell Guide was given to 38 of the 39 districts in the state. A 23Paul R. Mort, "Cost-Quality Relationships in Edu- cation," in Problems and Issues in Public School Finance, ed. by R. L. Johns and E. L. Morphet (New York: National Conference of Professors of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952), p. 17. 21'Paul R. Mort and Frances G. Cornell, American Schools in Transition: How Our Schools Adapt Their Prac- tices to Changing Needs (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941), p. 178. 37 correlation of .66 was found between quality scores and expenditure. One of the important findings of this study was the realization that a large percentage of the items in the scale were not directly related to costs. Fifty- two of the 58 items dealing with classroom instruction were correlated with expenditure. One of the major con- clusions drawn by Mort was: When expenditure reaches the higher levels, where there is no longer concern with length of term, adequately trained and experienced teachers, and scores of other things that still concern all too many schools, expenditure shows up in bringing the day-to-day work of the schggl more fully into the life of each boy and girl. West Virginia was studied in 1945 by Strayer using the Mort-Cornell Guide as the instrument to measure quality. West Virginia represented the middle level of national expenditure, although the study involved all levels within the state. The conclusions of the Rhode Island study were confirmed in West Virginia. Positive correlations were found between expenditure and quality as measured by the Oglee. Again of the 58 curriculum items, only five showed no relationship with expenditure. Significantly this study again pointed out that there is 25Paul R. Mort, "Cost—Quality Relationships in Education," in Problems and Issues in Public School Finance, ed. by R. L. Johns and E. L. Morphet, p. 24. 38 something about a school, other than expenditure, that is related to quality.26 Two older studies (Ferrell, 1936 and Powell, 1933)27 of middle-expenditure states also showed positive rela- tionships between expenditure and their respective mea- sures of quality. Powell's study involved one-room schools in New York. It showed improvement in achieve- ment test scores with increase in expenditure levels. Studies of Low Expenditure Levels McLure in a 1947 study of Mississippi between the relationship of expenditure and quality found that quality scores were low for schools sampled. Mississippi ranks in the lowest levels of expenditure by states. Some of the major conclusions of McLure's study were: (1) most of the buildings were poorly designed for educational purposes, (2) there were few supplementary materials, (3) there were few teaching supplies and laboratory equip- ment, (4) the subjects were poorly taught, and (5) there were few activities for developing good citizenship. McLure concluded with: 26George D. Strayer, Director, A Report of a Survey of Public Education in the State of West VirginiaI(Charles— ton, West Virginia: State of West Virginia, Legislature Interm Committee, 1945). 27Paul R. Mort, "Cost-Quality Relationships in Edu- cation," in Problems and Issues in Public School Finance, ed. by R. L. Johns and E. L. Morphet, p. 32. 39 Perhaps most important of all next to expenditure level, there must be in the minds of the laymen and the educators2§he picture of what constitutes a good education. Mort's study of Maine in 1934, which is a low— expenditure state, found a positive correlation between expenditure and quality. The areas of evaluation were: (1) administrative services, (2) supervisory services, (3) services to atypical pupils, (4) course offerings, (5) school buildings, (6) instructional staff, (7) class- room procedures, and (8) home-school contacts.29 It is interesting to note that most of these areas are included in the What Do You Think About Your Schools. Other Studies of Cost-Quality Relationships Furno conducted a 1956 study of the hypothesis that the amount of expenditure per year was not as important as the sustained level of expenditure over a long period of time. He found that schools that were high- expenditure schools in 1921 tended to be high in 1945. A 28William P. McLure, Let Us Pay for the Kind of Eeucation We Need: Report of a State and Local Support of Mississippi's Schools (University of Mississippi: Bureau of Education Research, University of Mississippi, 1948), pp° 3’29- 29Paul R. Mort, Director, The Financing of the Pub- lic Schools of Maine (Augusta: Maine School Finance Commission, 1934). 40 positive correlation was found for school districts as measured in 1945 and 1955 with the Growing Edge.30 Griffis in a study of 44 Texas school systems in 1955 found a significant rise in program and services with an increase in expenditure levels. His study was done by direct observation of the sampled school systems in relation to 100 modern educational practices.31 Bothwell (1958) studied the effect of selective increases in small-expense items on the total quality of the school's program. In his sample of 71 districts across the country, Bothwell found that balancing of all items advanced quality education, while overemphasis on any one item can hinder quality.32 A study of the St. Louis area schools in 1957 by Hirsch applied the following Ipeex to measure quality: 1. Number of teachers per 100 pupils in average daily attendance. 2. Number of college hours per average teachers. 3. Average teacher's salary. 4. Percentage of teachers with more than ten years of experience. 3OOrlando F. Furno, "The Projection of School Qual- ity from Expenditure Level" (unpublished Ed.D. project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1956). 31James R. Griffis, Education Production at Three Cost Levels (Houston, Texas: Gulf School Research Develop- ment Association, 1955). 32Bruce K. Bothwell, Creative Expenditure for Qual- ity Education (New York: Associated Public School Systems, 1958). 41 5. Number of high school units. 6. Percentage of high school seniors entering college. 3 The schools were rated by a panel of experts on a five- point scale as to their quality. He found his Ipeex con- sistent with the opinions of educational experts and a positive correlation with expenditure. Studies done on the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) have shown a relationship between cost- factors and quality as perceived by educational experts. Berg3u in 1962 found the ECC discriminated positively between high and low financial support districts in a sampling of Michigan school districts. Mueller35 repli- cated Berg's study on a national sample in 1964 and sub- stantiated the findings of Berg in relationship to cost- factors. The results of these studies made possible the construction of norms on a state and national level for the comparison of school quality scores. Studies in Relationshipito Size, Effort, Ability, and Need Turck (1960) studied Michigan's school districts to see if there was a relationship between need, ability, and 33Werner Z. Hirsch, Analysis of Rising Costs of Pub- lic Education (Washington, D. C.: Joint Economic Commit- tee, 1959): p- 27- 3”Berg, op. cit. 35Mueller, op. cit. 42 effort. His conclusions were: (1) there is a relation- ship between need and ability, (2) the greater the mem- bership (need) the more likely the district is to increase effort, (3) there seems to be little relation- ship between effort and ability, and (4) other community characteristics have a great influence on the support levels of education.36 Krietlow (1961) made a twelve-year longitudinal study of the relationship of Size to the educational pro- gram. His study involved the differences in achievement and learning opportunities as compared to reorganized and non-reorganized districts. He concluded that students with the same intelligence showed higher achievement levels and had better learning opportunities in reorgan- ized districts than students from non-reorganized dis- tricts. Along with this finding, Krietlow suggested that the additional cost for this improved education was $12 per elementary pupil more than the non-reorganized dis- tricts were spending.37 A comprehensive study of 60 Wisconsin school districts by the Midwest Administrative Center using 36Merton Turck, Jr., "A Study of the Relationships Among the Factors of Financial Need, Effort, and Ability in 581 High School Districts in Michigan" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960). 37Burton W. Krietlow, School District Reorganiza- tion...Does It Make a Difference in Your Child's Educa- tion? (Madison: Agricultural Experiment Station, Uni- versity of Wisconsin, 1961). 43 trained observers to rate schools on the quality of their educational program found the highest number of "excellent" ratings were among: (1) districts with the largest num- ber of pupils, (2) districts with the largest valuation per pupil, and (3) districts that made the greatest tax effort.38 Vincent (1961) reports several studies indicating the various correlations of ability and effort. A sum- mary of his findings on ability, as measured in property valuation per pupil and disposable personal income, include: (1) the Metropolitan School Study Council of New York between 1940-1945 for all schools had a corre- lation of .77, (2) a nation-wide study by the Association of Public Schools in 1959-60 Showed a correlation of .34, and (3) a sample of Pennsylvania school districts in 1939 showed a correlation of .34.39 Vincent's summary of find- ings on the factor of effort, which is the amount of locally raised millage for school operation, include a correlation of .35 in 1940-45 for the Metropolitan School Study Council and a correlation of .48 for the same dis- tricts between 1950-1955.”0 38John Guy Fowlkes and George E. Watson, School Finance and Local Planning (Chicago: The Midwest Admin- istrative Center, 1957), pp. 74—85. 39William S. Vincent, "Quality Control: A Rationale for Analysis of a School System," IAR Research Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 2 (January, 1961), p. 7. uoIbid., p. 7. 44 Summary 1. All the studies reported show a positive rela- tionship between expenditure and quality. 2. The relationships between expenditure and quality holds for high, middle, and low expenditure districts. 3. The respective measure of quality makes little difference in relationship to expenditure. 4. A long-range view of expenditure is more impor- tant than the short range for influencing quality of the educational program. 5. Community characteristics have an influence, along with expenditure, on the quality of the school dis- trict. 6. Certain items of expenditure correlate better with quality than total current expenditures. 7. The factors of size, ability, effort, and expenditure have been found to be positively related to the quality of an educational program. Instrumentation The previous section reviewed the empirical studies which indicate a relationship between cost—factors and quality of the school program. The purpose of this sec— tion will be to investigate the instrumentation developed for evaluation of school districts based upon: (1) locally defined values, goals, and objectives, (2) national test- ing programs and achievement tests, (3) quantitative 45 assessment of school organization, (4) quality assessment based on expert's observations, (5) assessment based on economic output and adult adjustment, and (6) assessment of community attitudes. Introduction The need for program assessment has been well estab— lished. If educational programs are to become better, school districts need a periodic audit to find out what they are doing, and what can be done better. The two methods of determining the quality of a school program are evaluation based on process or product. Assessment by process approaches the question through the identifica- tion of factors which describe the educational setting of the school; what is taught, how it is taught, and other factors influencing the educational program. The quality of the process is thus used to describe the quality of the educational program. Assessment by product looks at the end result of the educational program. The use of achievement tests, grades, attitudes, and adjustment inventories give measurable results which can be used to make estimates of the school's quality. Mort summarized the research that has been done on assessment over the past forty years and concluded: (1) 64% of the studies 46 used process-type methods for evaluation, and (2) 36% used product-type measures for evaluation.Lll Instruments Based Upon Locally Defined Values, Goals, and Objectives A group of instruments used widely to evaluate the school program assumes that a school program Should be assessed in terms of the goals it has established. One of the major instruments for this type of evaluation is the Evaluative Criteria developed by the National Study of Secondary School Evaluation.“2 This instrument con- tains: (l) a guide for the statement of objectives and philosophy prior to the evaluation; (2) an analysis of school and community data; (3) a series of checklists to assess, (a) general principles underlying the program of the school, (b) curriculum development procedures, (0) course offerings, (d) outcomes of the program of studies, (e) special characteristics of the program of study, and (f) a general evaluation of course offerings on a five-point rating scale; and (6) a series of charts to present a picture of the overall evaluation. The total rating for the school is determined by the average score ulPaul R. Mort, Walter C. Reussen, and John W. Polly, Public School Finance (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960), p. 80. uZNational Study of Secondary School Evaluation, Evaluative Criteria (Washington, D. C.: The Study, 1960), pp. 3-4. m*—“ 47 for each category. The evaluation is to be completed by educationists and lay citizens with a follow-up evalua- tion by professional educators. A similar type of instrument for elementary schools was developed by the Southern Association of Secondary Schools.143 Evaluating the Elementary School: A Guide for Cooperative Study has five sections: (1) formulation of values and goals, (2) listing of functions, (3) school program, (4) resources, and (5) plans for improvement. No score for total evaluation is given, as the instrument is designed for improving the school program and a tool for planning curriculum change. Evaluating agencies, such as the University of Michigan Bureau of School Services and the North Central Association of College and Secondary Schools have devel- oped similar instruments for local and professional eval- uation of school districts. The criteria used for the Criteria for Accreditationuu and Policies, Regulations, and Criteria for the Approval of Secondary Schools“5 fall u3Southern Association of Secondary Schools, Eval- uating the Elementary School: A Guide for Cooperative Study (Atlanta: Commission on Research and Service, the Association, 1951). uuThe University of Michigan, Criteria for Accredi- tation (Ann Arbor: Bureau of School Services, The Univer- sity of Michigan, 1961), pp. 1-25. uSNorth Central Association of Colleges and Secon- dary Schools, Policies, Regulations, and Criteria for Approval of Secondary Schools (Chicago: The Association, 1961). 48 in these general classifications: (1) philosophy and objectives; (2) educational program; (3) organization, support, and control; (4) school staff; (5) library and instructional material and equipment; (6) administrative and supervisory services; (7) school plant; (8) length of school year; (9) graduation requirements, pupil load, and credits; and (10) evaluation, guidance, and testing. Observations and evaluations by educationists are given in summary form and local educators are encouraged to develop purposes and objectives to meet the local situa- tion. No numerical summary is reported for total quality of the district. Several instruments have been developed to stimulate interest in the school program by citizens. The National Education Association, How Good Are Your Schools?u6 is one example. It asks the study group to evaluate several parts of the school program: (1) the school program, (2) the elementary school program, (3) the junior high school program, (4) the senior high school program, (5) adult education, (6) competency and qualification of teachers, (7) materials for instruction, (8) buildings and equipment, (9) administration, (10) adequacy of finance, (11) board of education, and (12) citizen interest. u6National Education Association, How Good Are Your Schools? (Washington, D. C.: The Association, 1958), pp. 1-31. 49 Yardsticks for Public Schools by the National School Board Association”7 is another example of an instrument designed for citizens to evaluate their schools. The guide permits citizens to measure tangible factors that measure school quality to generate interest and concern on the part of local citizens. The citizens are asked to make judgments on the following areas: (1) goals of the school, (2) school program, (3) teachers and teaching, (4) buildings and equipment, (5) finances, (6) organiza- tion and administration, and (7) citizens action. The results of each area are combined to give a total assess- ment of the school district. Instruments Used to Measure Achievement The measurementof student output in amount of subject-matter learned has been the major concern of Several achievement tests. Achievement tests can pro— vide a partial estimate of competency for a school dis- trict in relationship to basic skills, appreciation of and interest in knwoledge, our cultural heritage, human relations, and citizenship. The 1964 edition of the Stanford Achievement Test is described by a reviewer in The Sixth Mental Measurement Yearbook as one of the best u7National School Board Association, Yardstick for Public Schools (Evanston, Illinois: The Association, 195973 50 achievement tests on the market today.“8 The Stanford consists of five batteries: (1) Primary I, (2) Primary II, (3) Intermediate I, (4) Intermediate II, and (5) Advanced. These batteries range in grade placement from 1.6 years to 9.6 years. The specific skills tested 49 are presented in Table 1. Total and sub-total scores can be derived for each battery. These scores can be interpreted as a partial measure of school program 50 and Pelton51 quality. Studies by Springer using the Stanford as a measure of achievement found a small but positive correlation between quality and achievement test scores. Two other highly regarded achievement tests that have been used as a partial measure of quality are the 52 Iowa Tests of Basic Skille for elementary pupils and the Iowa Tests of Educational Development_53 for high school students. The first test gives a total score of HBOScar Kristen Buros, ed., The Sixth Mental Meas- urement Yearbook (Highland Park, New Jersey? The Gryphon Press, 1966), pp. 123-124. ugTruman L. Kelley, et al., Stanford Achievement Test, Technical Supplement (New York: Harcourtj'Brace, and World Inc., 1966): p. 11. 50 Springer, op. cit. 51Pelton, Op. cit.' 52Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (Boston: Houghton- Mifflin Company, 19567. ' 53Iowa Tests of Educational Development (Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1955I. mocofiom moaospm Hmaoom monofiom Imoaospm Hoaoom mocofiom moaosem Hoaoom mQOHmeHHQQ< mCOHpMOHHQQ< mQOHmeHHoQ¢ caposnpfip< oapoEQpHm¢ oapoE£pfip< mpaoocoo mpamocoo mpaoocoo muaoocoo oamenuHs< oauosnpfip¢ caposnpap< ofipoenpam< owpoELpHp< coapmpsosoo coauMpSQEoo soapMQSQEoo CoprpSQEoo oflposcpfin< ofiposnpfip< oapmsnpfis< oHpoEQpas< ommswcmq owmzwcmq omoswsmq owmswcmq “m maaaxm oaflaxm oaflasm spasm otoz spasm otoz spasm osoz msaafioom msAHHoom msHHHoom msaafioom msafiaoom mpaoocoo moHUSpm Hwfioom w mocmfiom mamasnmoo> wcficmoz mcflomoz weacmoz msacmoz wcacmoz nowhwmhmm nommwmsmm cowpwmsmm namsmmsmm nompwmsmm mcflcmoz omoz wcficmoz U903 wcficmoz Upoz wsflomom who: poocm>o¢ HH opmfioospoch H opmfioossoch HH zhmsfihm H mmmefipm .pmoe psoEm>ofi£o< ULOMbcmum on» now unoppwn an maafixm mo COmHLMQEoo ¢II.H mqmhom sapwopm Hmpoe ocon u rrHs stopper zuflcsesoo Hcmwso Hmfipcommm Hoonom coapomwmfipmm mOHmowoumo .mpomoumO an mumppmn 30mm cfinpfiz mEOpH mo ponE:zul.m mqmIoHOs< oosHmom mOOH>Lom Hmecommm o :m mm :m Hm mpOOmosm mo mmocHsmom: m mm mm m om Hoorom Loo OOOOOZ Hocoz II mm mm mm mH CmHsmsoHH Eosm OHom II Hm mm Hm m ormome so; posse: eomHosm II om Hm om eH meooHosm so HooHsms II mH mm 0H 0H mOHOH>Hpo< smHzOHsszoImspxm CH umOLOch mopmoso Hoozom II mH mm pH mH moHpH>Hoo< LmHSOHLszoImspxm cmzocm II NH Hm NH :H xsozoeo: go pczoE< II SH om SH mH a: door on stos so ocsoea II mH mH mH NH moHoH>Heo< smHsoHtssOImsexH cH esmm II 3H mH 3H HH mmHosom so momso>Heooesm Emsmosa Hoocow : mH @H mH o OL3osm .MHOOLOm :H umOLOOCH m HH mH HH m mHoozom LOHB coHuomomemm **HH.HH.NH.HH m 0H .oH.m.m.w *OH.o.$.w w HHOmLO>mm Osmosoo mHoozom II s s H H oHHro cH emosoocH tosomog H m o o o Hoorom mo ozosm II mH NH MH OH mOHOzpm so osHm> II m m m m OHom wo>Ho smsomoe II o m m m OHHQU mzocx Losomoe II m m m m azoso mo pawn mHoom OCOOSpm II a H H H Hoogom oxHH mHOOLom csz coHpommmHumm osmosom HHosm cospwm pcopmm szsomm zsmocooom HsmucoEOHm .mpomome mo Humppmo gomo Low mpmofisc EOOHII.m mqmmm oumoEoo mHoozom: pom opoom ozo O>Hm on Omwmpo>m osm mEOOH omo29** :.%Hompo>mm osmosoo mHoocom: Loo OLOOm oco o>Hw Op Oommso>m ppm mEOOH Omoce* G\OIr—-‘l (\JMIM L.’\\O [\CD “J (\J ’\J (\J :m mm mm Hm om mH mH NH @H mH 3H mH NH mm :m mm mm mm Hm om or m: N: on em m: a: m: m: o: H: mm mm mm mm mm. :m mm ow mm mm mm om mm :m mm mm Hm om m: m: H: 0: mm mm mm mm mm :m mm mm Hm om 5m mm moHOH>Hpo< Hoocom CH mpcwsmm mo umOLOch coHumesomcH HOHCSEEOQIHoocom pcopmm so Lozomoe m.OHH£o zocx wome ommosocH oosoocom mOOH>som pom moxme mmoco>HpOomwm soosm Ooozososo>o Hoozom ONHm Ocm COHpmNHcmwso Hoocom mchHmLH LO>HLQ Hoonom Los55m moHpH>Hpo< HmHOom Emsmosm OLSOHOOHLm< coHpmosom pHso< coHpmozom HmHooom wcHomom HmflooEom OHCHHO :prom Hmpcoz COHHOOLLOQ commom oocmoHso psoEoomHm non COHpmcHwam Hmpooa new HmOHmzcm socsq pom 72 component added to the assessment of values within the community based on a similar criterion. The total number of high school districts in Mich- igan during the 1966-67 school year was 533. Of this number, complete financial data was available for 508. The City of Detroit was excluded from the sample to pro- vide a better statistical distribution of school districts for the state. The inclusion of Detroit in the sample would have made a normal distribution impossible because of its large size and state equalized valuation. The 507 school districts in the sample accounted for 94% of the total state membership if the City of Detroit was excluded. The 507 Michigan school districts used for this study were ranked on each of the four cost factors. This ranking was then quartiled to provide the necessary stra- tification of districts on the four cost factors. Table 4 shows the quartile distribution of Michigan school dis- tricts by size. The smallest district had only 98 pupils, while the largest enrolled 46,076. Table 5 indicates the amount of taxable real and personal property per pupil from the poorest district with $1,754 for each pupil to the richest district with $55,347 for each pupil. 73 TABLE 4.--Classification of 507 Michigan school districts according to size, as of the school year, 1966-67. Quartile No. of Districts Size 4 18 14,300 - 46,076 3 47 5,710 - 14.200 2 108 2,550 - 5,670 1 334 98 - 2,505 TABLE 5.—-Classification of 507 Michigan school districts according to state equalized valuation per pupil, as of the school year 1966-67. SEV per Pupil Quartile No. of Districts (dollars) I 63 17,779 - 55.347 3 10“ 12,992 - 17,762 2 138 9,951 - 12,990 l 202 1,754 - 9,943 Table 6 shows the dollar amount Spent on each child by the school district. The least spent was $324 per pupil, and the greatest amount was $955 per pupil. Table 7 shows the amount of effort the community expended for education as expressed in millage for Oper- ation. The minimum was 8.00 mills and the maximum was 33.50 mills. 74 TABLE 6.--Classification of 507 Michigan school districts according to expenditure per pupil, as of the school year 1966-67. Quartile NO. of Districts Expenditure (Dollars) 4 92 525 - 955 3 114 466 - 523 2 125 426 - 465 1 176 324 - 425 TABLE 7.—-Classification of 507 Michigan school districts according to mills levied for Operation, as of the school year 1966-67. Quartile No. Of Districts Mills Levied (Effort) 4 85 19.85 - 33.50 3 114 16.22 - 19.84 2 135 13.70 - 16.21 1 173 8.00 - 13.69 Classification of Districts on Cost Factors The school districts in the sample were assigned a quartile rank on each of the four cost factors from a possible distribution of 4-4-4—4 to l-l—l-l. This made it possible to pick the school districts that received the same quartile rank on each of the four cost CHAPTER III INSTRUMENTATION AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY Introduction This chapter will discuss the development of the What Do You Think About Your Schools, the specific bat- bery items, and the comparison of battery items between elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty. The classification of school districts by the financial characteristics of Size, effort, ability, and expenditure will be dealt with, as well as, the selection of the number of school districts and number of respondents in each school district for the sample. The method of distribution and collection of the instru- ment in the school districts will be explained. The final section of this chapter will deal with the statis— tical treatment of the data, the sorting procedure, and the specific statistics used to test the research hypo- theses. Instrumentation The What Do You Think About Your Schools was developed by Rudman over a ten-year period to analyze 65 66 community attitudes toward their school's educational program. The original items were developed by Harold Hand in connection with the Illinois Secondary Schools Curriculum Study in the late 1940's. These original items were further refined and expanded by Rudman through use in many community curriculum studies in the State of Michigan. These studies indicated scores on the batteries were in general agreement with the percep- 1,2,3,4 The need became tions of educational experts. apparent for an objective measure of scores obtained from the five batteries. In past studies, observers were only able to make general statements in terms of the percen- tage of favorable response for each specific item. The development of norms for each item based on pertinent financial characteristics would give the observers a solid base for measuring the attitudes of the respondents in relationship to similar school districts in the State 1Planning for Educational Renewal, Hamtramck, Michigan (East Lansing, Michigan: Educational Service Series Number 19, Educational Publication Services, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1966). 2Montrose in Transition (East Lansing, Michigan: Educational Service Series Number 21, Educational Pub- lication Service, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1967). 3South Haven Citizens Study Their Schools (South Haven, Michigan: South Haven Board of Education, 1967). (Mimeographed.) “An Analysis of Educational Facilities: Present and Future Needs (Goodrich, Michigan: Goodrich Board of EducatiOn, 1967). (Mimeographed.) 67 of Michigan. The major focus of this study is to estab— lish such norms based on financial characteristics, and to apply statistical tests to the specific items for purposes Of determining the reliability and descrimina- tion of the instrument. The instrument is made up of five batteries which measure the attitudes of elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty concerning six categories of the school program: (1) satisfaction with school, (2) school program, (3) essential services desired, (4) school organization and size, (5) school plant, and (6) community relations. The items for each battery are worded slightly differently to meet the read- ing level and comprehension of the group sampled. The respondents are only asked items for which they are qualified to have an opinion. An analysis of the reading level for the elementary battery indicated a 4.6 grade level of reading difficulty. The secondary form was written at a 7.1 level as computed by the Dale-Chall readability formula.5 Table 2 summarizes the actual number of items for each category in the batteries. The number of actual items for each respondent group varies from thirty-one to sixty, but there are nineteen items which are responded to by all groups. 5Edgar Dale and Jeanne S. Chall, "A Formula for Predicting Readability," Educational Research Bulletin, 28:35-54 (February, 1948). 68 om HH H m mH HH NH NHpHdOmm Hm w I I mH m : moospmm mm mH H H wH HH 0H mucosmm m: H H H mH HH mH mpomospm mumocooom mm H H H mH HH 0H mHHosm myopooEOHm Hoonom chHpmHom OOHpmN mOOH>pom smstHm Hmeoe oson I reHs stopomm mpHcsssoo Hsmwpo Hmecommm Hoonom COHpommmemm wOHHommumo .mnowoumo mp apoupmn zoom canHs wsouH mo HonESZII.m mqmIoHpsa OOLHmoQ mOOH>Lom Hmecommm m Hm mm Hm Hm moommosm so mnmcHsoom: m mm mm mm om Hoorom too omomcz smsoz II mm om mm aH cmHsmstH some oHom II Hm mm Hm @H ormsme no: bosom: eomHosm II om Hm a HH meoomosm do sooHas> II aH .m oH 0H mmHoH>Heo< smHsoHsESOIssoxa CH omOLOOCH mmpmosu Hoocom II mH mm pH mH moHoH>Hoo< smHsoHtssOImsexm smoocm II HH Hm NH :H rsozoso: no ocsosa II SH om SH mH o: ooox or rsoz so oesosa II mH oH mH mH moHOH>Hooa thsoHst36Imsoxm sH esmm II HH wH sH HH mmHosom so mmoco>HHooaom Emmwosm Hoogom : mH mH mH m Osgosm .mHoocom CH meLOoCH m HH mH HH @ mHoorom roHs coHoomemHomm *ssH.mH.mH.HH m OH .oH.m.m.w *oH.o.a.w w HHomso>mm sponsoo mHoocom II A s H is oHHrO cH omosoocH soromma H m o o o Hoozom mo psosm II mH SH MH oH moHOSOm Ho osHm> II m m m m QHoz wo>Ho sogomoe II o m m m OHHLU mzocx Locomoe II m m m m ososo mo pawn mHoom pcoozpm II s H H H Hoosom orHH mHoorom reHz coHeomenHomm pcoozpm HHozm cospmm pcosmm HpHsomm msmocooom Hpmucoeon .Hpowmpmo an mumppmp sumo sow msOOEs: EmpHII.m mqmHomso>mm OLmQEoo mHoogom: Low OLOOm mco O>Hw Op nowmsm>m mam mEOpH Omoze** :.mHomLo>mm osmoEoo mHoosom: pom osoom mco O>Hm Op oommpo>m mum mEOuH owoze* 71 II on em ms Nm mmHoH>Heo< Hoorom sH mocosmm so smotoocH Hm mm mm II II coHmeLomcH mpHCSEEOQIHoocom II mm mm II II pcosma so Locomoe m.oHH£o 30cm om mm II II II moxmg owmosocH mm mm Nm II II Oosoocom mOOH>som pom moxms II Hm mm II II mmoco>Hp06hmz soosm II mm N: mm mm Ooozososo>o Hoozom ONHm ocm COHpmNHcmwso Hoocom :m m: m: m: II mchHmsH sosHsQ mm a: m: H: :m Hoocom poEESm mm ms 3:. on mm moHeH>Hbo< HmHoom Hm m: m: mm II Emsmosm OLSOHSOHLm¢ cm on m: mm II coHpmozom pH5O< mH H: H: Nm mm COHpmosom HmHooom wH mm on em Hm mcHomom HmHOoEom NH mm mm mm om OHCHHQ anmom Hmpcmz oH Nm mm :m mm COHpOOHLOQ commom mH om Nm mm II oocmOHdu :H mm mm mm II ucosoomHm now MH mm mm Hm mm soHomcHemxm Hoodoo one HmonNso mH mm :m cm Nm noczq pom 72 component added to the assessment of values within the community based on a similar criterion. The total number of high school districts in Mich- igan during the 1966-67 school year was 533. Of this number, complete financial data was available for 508. The City of Detroit was excluded from the sample to pro— vide a better statistical distribution of school districts for the state. The inclusion of Detroit in the sample would have made a normal distribution impossible because of its large size and state equalized valuation. The 507 school districts in the sample accounted for 94% of the total state membership if the City of Detroit was excluded. The 507 Michigan school districts used for this study were ranked on each of the four cost factors. This ranking was then quartiled to provide the necessary stra- tification of districts on the four cost factors. Table 4 shows the quartile distribution of Michigan school dis- tricts by size. The smallest district had only 98 pupils, while the largest enrolled 46,076. Table 5 indicates the amount of taxable real and personal property per pupil from the poorest district with $1,754 for each pupil to the richest district with $55,347 for each pupil. 73 TABLE 4.--Classification of 507 Michigan school districts according to size, as of the school year, 1966—67. Quartile No. of Districts Size 4 18 14,300 - 46,076 3 47 5,710 - 14.200 2 108 2,550 — 5,670 l 334 98 - 2,505 TABLE 5.--Classification of 507 Michigan school districts according to state equalized valuation per pupil, as of the school year 1966-67. Quartile No. of Districts SEV Per Pupil (dollars) 4 63 173779 - 55:3“? 3 104 12,992 - 17,762 2 138 9,951 - 12,990 1 202 1,754 - 9,943 Table 6 shows the dollar amount spent on each child by the school district. The least spent was $324 per pupil, and the greatest amount was $955 per pupil. Table 7 shows the amount of effort the community expended for education as expressed in millage for oper— ation. The minimum was 8.00 mills and the maximum was 33.50 mills. 74 TABLE 6.——Classification of 507 Michigan school districts according to expenditure per pupil, as of the school year 1966-67. Quartile NO. of Districts Expenditure (Dollars) 4 92 525 - 955 3 114 466 - 523 2 125 426 — 465 1 176 324 — 425 TABLE 7.--C1assification of 507 Michigan school districts according to mills levied for operation, as of the school year 1966—67. Quartile No. of Districts Mills Levied (Effort) 4 85 19.85 - 33.50 3 114 16.22 — 19.84 2 135 13.70 - 16.21 1 173 8.00 - 13.69 Classification of Districts on Cost Factors The school districts in the sample were assigned a quartile rank on each of the four cost factors from a possible distribution of 4-4-4—4 to 1-1-1-1. This made it possible to pick the school districts that received the same quartile rank on each of the four cost 75 factors. Table 8 summarizes this distribution and points out the number of districts that received the same rank on size, ability, expenditure, and effort. TABLE 8.--Schoo1 districts with the same quartile rank on all four cost factors. Quartile Rank No. of Districts Size Ability Expenditure Effort 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 O It is Obvious from this distribution that addi- tional flexibility would be required in order to pick a suitable number of school districts for the sample. This was accomplished by adding the total quartile ranks and providing a range within these ranks for the selection of sample school districts. Thus if a district had cost quartile ranks of 4—4-4-4 it range would be 16. If the district ranks were 4-4-4-3 its range would be 15, and the like. This allowed a district to be included in the sample if the ranks were the same on three of the four cost factors. Table 9 shows all the possible quartile ranges if the school district drops or rises one rank. 76 Hm Im mI Hmeoe o mImImIm H mImIrIm H mImImIm H mImIMIm o mImImIm o mImImIm c mIMImIm mm HIHIHIH a mImImIm o sImImIm :wsIsIm m mIHIHIH m HImImIm o mI2IMIm :IzIMI: o HImIHIH m HIHImIm o mImeIm :ImIHH: s HIHImIH m mImIHIm m mIMImIH mIHIsI: o HIHIHIH m mImImIm o MImImIm zIzIzI: .omHm Ho .02 OHHpsmsg .OmHm mo .02 OHHosmsa .pmHm mo .02 mHHpsng .OmHQ mo .02 OHHpsmsa Hquv oMcmm OHHOLMSG HNImV omcmm OHHosmzu AHHImHV omcmm mHprmsa HmHImHV mmmmm mHHusmsa .mLOOOmm pmoO Loom Ono mo concomopoos mpOHLOwHO Hoocom mo LOLESC pom mmcmp OHHmezaII.m mqm<9 77 It also shows the number of districts available for the sample within that quartile range. This added degree of flexibility provided seventy-two possible school dis- tricts from which to draw the sample school districts. Selection of the Sample The selection of the sample depended on selecting an appropriate number of school districts on the four cost factors and an appropriate number of respondents within each school district. The total number of dis- tricts available for the sample was seventy-two. A minimum of two districts would be required for each quartile to make statistical comparisons. The fourth quartile included ten possible districts. It was decided to pick two districts for the sample because of the large number of respondents within these two districts. If a larger number of districts were selected, the number of respondents for second and first quartile districts would be beyond the workable limits of the researcher. The two districts to be selected represented twenty per cent of the total available, therefore approximately twenty per cent of each quartile was selected for the sample. Table 10 shows the total number of districts rated on the four cost-factors and the number deemed necessary for this study. 78 TABLE 10.--Quartile ranking and the number of school districts selected for this study. Total N. 10 6 22 34 Sample N. 2 2 4 6 A table of random numbers was used to select the districts in each quartile to represent the twenty per cent deemed necessary for this study. The fourteen school districts selected by random numbers were con- tacted by mail explaining the purposes of the study and asking their participation. Twelve districts gave their immediate consent, but two districts declined to parti- cipate in the study. Alternate school districts were drawn from the representative quartiles to obtain the required fourteen school districts. In order to pick the number of respondents neces- sary for each selected school district the universe of potential respondents was determined with the total num- ber of students in the district as the base. These popu- lation figures were rounded to the nearest tenth. The extreme variation in number of pupils from the fourth quartile to the first quartile required that a different percentage be applied to each quartile to derive a com— parable number of respondents. The percentages used 79 were: one per cent for the fourth quartile, two per cent for the third quartile, five per cent for the second quartile, and ten per cent for the first quartile. The application of these percentages to each quartile pro- vided for the distribution of 3,729 instruments in the State of Michigan. Table 11 is designed to Show the number of respon- dents drawn from each school district sampled. The table shows the coded number for each district, the quartile a district represents, the potential number of respondents, the specific number of batteries distributed, and the percentage used for each quartile to derive the required number of respondents. Distribution and Collection of the Instrument General Procedure Each participating district was visited by the researcher on a mutually arranged date. The researcher visited with the superintendent and building principals to explain the purposes of the study. On recommendation from the school administrators, schools were selected to represent the broadest socio-economic levels of the community. The principals selected sixth and twelfth grade teachers with whom the researcher could discuss the purposes of the study. The teachers were informed ‘- . ‘ 0L1 1y o ‘c k. _‘ k.‘ sary HQC‘ES ‘eemed r‘ \.L ani number 7‘, AA I I.) “('1 QI :0 . _) be ‘- ,H K..- g. Paren cub- k4 [31'1- ,_. Total Quar- Sample .1131? I? h, a a. ‘3 Iampl. (1 *1 (1) ampl Q I.) rollment a Sample ment roll ile A.) I ‘1 I’ I lI'N I Z I I If") L ) "I I _( —.I II.’ 4! . .3 I < D {.11 ' i; (1, 1f ' L ‘ 0 fl HIT .J.‘ Hf . -3 I; I_) ( 7) I _ (”I I l‘ L.) 0‘ n — ' LL I LT 52 :1‘ (x, 4",) If (If? x J .11‘ I . I G A ;r 0 , if ‘1 J I I I C: k.) C) C) ~P \ I ‘ ., p A h .1: (I -:I' —"f r4 (1; ’4‘ {x J x} 80 ‘1 I I \ LI“ LII I.I I?) I”) II I r) I rri r“1 r—1 .4 I *i I L) .' II I I I ' I f r H? I J .2 [“- r 1 r 1 k , :17 ’I II x I II I ID. I I (f) (g) r]: (J I3) I17 '1' . l -— IV.) —T 7 [‘ HI («I \L> {‘7- (\I I' I I. I r—1‘ 4 )1 ~~7 1 if 5 I, I i_> “II t I C) e , Cl C) I. I L.) ‘1" 71 r1 ("'7 7, II. If. I;. I’II' [~— [N f ‘ r i F‘i K I C) (I; It . - ‘I L“. C) i I ) (I I' I; IQI C) ‘. :5 I?“ ~, ’ C) (-1 IQI I. I I; u LIN I 1' (“.1 CD ' I f‘ I \I; 11‘". I - V“ {I ' i f» [‘~~ A '\ fl fl 'fl fl 'h‘xJ (f) ‘17 k 1 k I 'I. 1 HI i . '. CI C: C C) -I' l. . r—i r—1 ["1 f , A 7 g: If , [H l' 1 r—J. r—i . i I T I ‘ K.) KI.) CI (p \ C N I \:) IA} "—3 (j ‘ ; I j. u I; I 5'er I If" ("I I" (:1 (f? U“: I ' ' I I I . II I v.1“) I. I» ,' I- ("I («H t~ '\ A A A A IN I" J ' . I I" 'C’ I. _L 4') _ ll I _— ‘ 7’ I V 7 7' ‘ l. a. I' ‘ ‘1 I L r I r 3 ' *1 I IV) I _ ", I41 6 (.1 I: ' I \ I (1“. c. I‘ I“ I) r W ( ’I I I) [‘I UJ ("I ‘ I' (“I s I.I [— 7 .1 CI [H I» ON UN fl 0 '\ h (a (“I ‘. I I L” . L. (l ‘ 1' T J I." c. I C: L‘ x . C7 7 ID I’ I If“ Li' ‘ [a I‘ I r--‘ rI ’V“ I‘ . I! ("I L. k" I [ ( - r'fi r'—1 r 4 K7 1 (VI (1 (‘1 \“I Q q i I 7) " . , : l: k C) . ' "l I ' L I C: x ‘ f l C I _ L“) .1” ‘7 (k. ._:‘ 1‘ 1"“. -7 L. I I 7 LL - J [‘- [‘ ~ A A '9 ON I" ( . ('I \U I I I II I I“. I‘i U.‘ a! (3'7‘ (7" I $ 3 ( («‘1 (M (X! e" r—4 r" I 4"“ P4 hi (I .7) I, . _L I I‘ I H: I. J. [N I I“ . I NI ( I I . r 4 r‘1 r' 1 l' 1 II) hi b} D I"! r‘. \— “I“ “MI 7 r ‘px J J 7 r-i (v, D ("’I (L) l {N (NJ '31 .4. L'. (“1‘ (.1 *\ (,I 81 about the purposes, distribution, and collection of the instrument. Cooperation from teachers was good in all districts. All efforts were made to complete the study with as little disruption to class activities as possible. Elementary Pupils The sixth grade was chosen to represent the elemen- tary pupils because they are concluding their elementary education. The instrument was distributed and collected by the researcher or the classroom teacher in one thirty- minute period. Ten per cent of the number distributed was identified with code numbers to be re-tested within three weeks for a check on instrument reliability. The classroom teacher administered this second testing at her convenience. Secondary Students The twelfth grade was chosen to represent the secondary students because of their level of maturity and long association with the secondary schools of the dis— trict. The instrument was distributed by either the researcher or the classroom teacher in one thirty-minute period. Ten per cent of the number distributed was identified with code numbers to be re-tested within three weeks for a check on instrument reliability. The class- room teacher administered this second testing at her convenience. 82 'Parents Parents were contacted through the pupils sampled in the sixth grade. The sixth graders were asked to take the instrument home, have a parent fill it out, and return it to their respective classrooms. The pre- viously coded pupils, for re-testing, were instructed to take a second instrument home to be completed within three weeks as a check on instrument reliability. Patrons Patrons were contacted through the pupils sampled in the sixth grade. The sixth graders were asked to contact a neighbor with no children in the public schools. Patrons, after completion of the instrument, returned it to the sixth grader who took it to school for collection. The previously coded pupils, for re-testing, were instructed to take a second instrument to the same patron within a three-week period as a check on instrument reliability. Faculty The teachers in charge of the sampled sixth and twelfth grade classes were asked to complete the instru- ment along with those selected by the building principals to derive the required sample number. Ten per cent of the teachers were requested to repeat the instrument 83 within a three-week period as a check on instrument reliability. A month after the first visit, the researcher returned to the schools to collect the completed instru- ments. A check was made to see that the appropriate number had been collected and that instructions had been followed. Treatment of the Data The researcher sorted the instruments into six classifications: (1) elementary pupils, (2) secondary students, (3) parents, (u) patrons, (5) faculty, and (6) first and second testing of all groups for reliabil- ity. The instruments for reliability were coded to indicate first and second testing. The instruments were then sorted by school district to be punched on IBM cards. A print-out of the tabulations was requested to facilitate checking required sample numbers and the com- putations necessary for statistical tests. Statistical Methods The data recorded are clearly of a nominal nature (favorable-unfavorable) requiring the application of non-parametric procedures for the tests of significance. The significance testing answers the question of inde- pendence for the various groups sampled. The specific statistical tests used are: 8M 1. The Chi Square (X2) is used to test the signi- ficance of difference between the proportion of favorable response by item for fourth, third, second, and first support quartile districts within each battery. 2. The Chi Square (X2) is used to test the signi- ficance of difference between the proportion of favorable response by item of elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty within fourth, third, second, and first support quartile districts. 3. The estimate of item reliability is based on the consistency of the first testing to the second testing for a selected sample using a Pearson product-moment correlation method. H. State norms are computed for the total sample of school districts by the application of the standard error of a percentage at the 95% confidence level. 84 l. The Chi Square (X2) is used to test the signi- ficance of difference between the proportion of favorable response by item for fourth, third, second, and first support quartile districts within each battery. 2. The Chi Square (X2) is used to test the signi- ficance of difference between the proportion of favorable response by item of elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty within fourth, third, second, and first support quartile districts. 3. The estimate of item reliability is based on the consistency of the first testing to the second testing for a selected sample using a Pearson product-moment correlation method. 4. State norms are computed for the total sample of school districts by the application of the standard error of a percentage at the 95% confidence level. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE HYPOTHESES Introduction This chapter analyses the two research hypotheses of this study. Each section presents the results of the statistical treatment in summary form, the rejection or acceptance of the hypotheses, and the interpretation of the various tests used. Section one is the analysis of the What Do You Think About Your Schools ability to discriminate by battery between fourth, third, second, and first support quartile districts. Section two is the analysis of the instrument's ability to discriminate between elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty within each cost-quartile. The hypotheses are stated in the null form for each statistical test. The .05 level of significance is used to define the probability level. If the probability level is smaller the .05 then the data is considered contro- dictory to the hypotheses and a decision to reject the null hypotheses is made. Rejection of the null hypo- theses means the research hypotheses are accepted. 85 86 Hypothesis I The first general null hypothesis and five opera- tional null hypotheses are as follows: The What Do You Think About Your Schools instrument will not discriminate between the attitudes of elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty on the basis of financial support quartiles of Michigan school districts (K-l2). Support quartile is defined in terms of size, effort, ability, and expenditure. HIa: The instrument will not show ability to dis- criminate between fourth, third, second, and first finan- cial support quartile districts on each item score according to elementary pupil's responses. HIb: The instrument will not show ability to dis- criminate between fourth, third, second, and first finan- cial support quartile districts on each item score according to secondary student's responses. HIc: The instrument will not show ability to dis- criminate between fourth, third, second, and first finan- cial support quartile districts on each item score according to parent's responses. HId: The instrument will not show ability to dis- criminate between fourth, third, second, and first finan- cial support quartile districts on each item score according to patron's responses. HIe: The instrument will not show ability to dis- criminate between fourth, third, second, and first finan- cial support quartile districts on each item score according to faculty's responses. Statistical Tests and Treatment The Chi Square (X2) distribution was used to test the significance of the observed differences between the proportion of favorable response by quartile for each battery. The limits within which the hypotheses will be accepted or rejected is based on the 0.05 level of 87 2" significance (P > .05). The "X values which cut—off five per cent of the "X2" distribution provide the rela- tive measure of difference between the proportion of 2" will be numerically large favorable response. The "X when (l) the null hypothesis is not true, or (2) the null hypothesis is true but the difference between the pro— portion can be accounted for by the errors expected on the basis of the assumptions underlying the use of this experimental design. The null hypothesis will be accepted if the "X2" value does not reach the .05 level of significance. The region of rejection for the "X2" varies according to the "degree of freedom" (d.f.) for the specific hypothesis tested. Results of the Statistical Treatment In order to determine if the What Do You Think About Your Schools instrument would discriminate between finan- cial support quartiles the proportion of favorable response for each item was compared by battery. The first null hypothesis is: HIa: The instrument will not show ability to dis- criminate between fourth, third, second, and first finan- cial support quartile districts on each item score according to elementary pupil's responses. Table 12 presents the items that are significant at P > .05 for elementary pupils. Of the 37 items responded to by elementary pupils only 17 were significant at the P > .05 level. The total number significant (17) does .zpoppmn pmnp CH ooxmm no: mm: Eopfi on» momma :II: m cum .mHoonom upOQQSm swan can» pmcwfin wcfihoom maoonom whoodzm 30H npfiz mommOfiMHcmHm mmpMOfiocfi =*+= m .oocm0HMchfimlcoc mmpMQfioQH zmz: m .mocmOHchme mmpMOHUCfi =+= < 88 H m2 II II + II quEQHSUm + I: an m2 :1 mcfleafism mz a- I- *+ .1 Cohen mcfisemme + II II + II ESHSOHLLSO maoosom knwocoomm mz II II II II pCmEQHSUm mz II II II II wCHpafism mz I- I- I- I- ccmpm meflnomme m2 .II II. II II ESHSOHCHCHSU mHoonom mpmpcmEmHm II m2 m2 II + manmno>mm mmeEoo mHoocom mz II m2 *+ mz oaflao CH pmmhoch Locomme mz mz mz *+ mz Hoonom mo Uzohm mz In mz *+ *+ mmH©Spm mo msam> mz II m2 m2 + mamm wm>flm monomme mz II mz *+ + oafizo wzocm monomme mz In m2 *+ m2 . Qsopo mo whom mammm pamUSpm mz In mz *+ + Hoocom mxflq mHoonem nee: coepeecmeemm mesmespm manage szSOmm mcoppmm mpCmpmm zpmocoomm humpcmsofim EouH H.oHHpnm5U mmopom mpmppmn an mo. A m pm namedmficwam msmufi mo access Hmpoell.ma mqm¢e 89 m2 m2 m2 m2 + HMSmH>IOHUS< oopfimmm mmoa>hmm Hmfipcmmmm m2 m2 mz mz mz whommhsm mo mmmsfisommp mz mz *+ mz *+ Hoonom hoe ememmz smeoz mz I- mz *+ + emfihmphfiq ache efimm mz .. + + mz enmeme he: geese: eemnhsm + I- + + + whoewhsm no semehm> + u: mz *+ m2 mmfipfi>epoa hmH50fihhsoumhpxm SH pmohmch mopmoho Hoonom m2 .. *+ + m2 mmepfl>fipo< amazofipmsolmppxm nwzocm mz .. mz mz + xhoszOm co pesoea m2 1. + m2 mz a: heme on ego: mo pcsoea mz u- + m2 m2 mmepfi>epe< LmHSOHApsolmhpxm CH pmmm mz I- + m2 m2 mmHespm mo mmmcm>fipemoom Emhmopm Hoonom m2 m2 m2 *+ + meshes m.aooeom ca pmmhepsH mz m2 m2 *+ m2 maoonem nee: coeuemomepem mesmespm maeasm hpadomm mcompmm mucwnmm ammosoomm manpcmEmHm EmpH {All .4 UmSCHpQOOII.NH mqmfipm mz + m2 + *+ Hoonom seesaw m2 m2 *+ *+ mz mmfipfi>epe< Hmfioom *+ *+ *+ *+ In Ewpwo&m maanSOth¢ mz mz mz + I- mafiemesem ease< m2 + *+ mz mz schemesem Hmeemem mz mz mz + mz weeemmm Hefiemsmm mz mz m2 m2 mz OHeHHo spaemm fleece: m2 m2 m2 m2 mz coepomphoo nommam mz mz *+ *+ a- moceeesu m2 m2 m2 mz a- newsmemfim hoe mz mz *+ m2 *+ conemsHEexm fleeces use Hmeflmsnm *+ *+ e+ *+ *+ gonzo pom mz + + + + use m2 m2 + + mz ohms: mz mz mz mz + weeps efimfim mz m2 m2 *+ mz coepmesem Hmeemsnm haddomm msoppmm mucopwm mwwmmwwwm mamwwmmmam EmpH UmSCHpCOOIW.NH mqm¢B 91 mz II m2 m2 mz mmfipfi>apo< Hoonom Ga mpcmhmm no pmmpoch mz mz + II In coaumspomcH mpHQSEEoolaoonom mz II + II II pampmm no Locomoe m.oafino 30cm 11 mz + In In mmxme ommoWoQH mz mz mz II II omaoocom mmofi>amm cum mmxme mz I: mz In In mwmco>fipommmm «Em mz In mz II In mmocopmgcoo monommeapCmpmm + I: + In In wcoapmamm pmnomoEIpcmpmm m2 + + II In oonmfiaosm mmuscfiz mz mz mz In In pcmemomcH m< Hoonow mz mz mz .. .. seHc35500 2H mspmpm spasemm e+ mz mz I- .. encepmamm sneezeeOouaoocem mcowumamm mpH::EEoo mz .. + + + mmepafieemm wee humanesem epmsemea pcmHm Hooaom + II In In In mocmpmfimm< mhomw>homsm mz I: + + mz poozogopm>o Hoonom COHQmNHQmwmo Hoonom unadumm mcoppmm mucopmm zmpchSpm wafiozm EmpH hmozooom mpmpcmEmHm UmchpCOOII.NH mdm¢9 92 not indicate the true number that support the research hypothesis since "X2" is not sensitive to direction. Additional analysis is needed to see if high support districts received the highest scores in terms of favor- able response. This was done by observing the scores to see if they corresponded with expected cost-quartile, i.e. high support districts receiving the highest scores. Appendix B shows the total scores obtained, the "X2" derived, degrees of freedom, and shows whether the item is significant at P > .05. This analysis revealed that 5 of the 17 significant items are in the opposite direc- tion anticipated by the research hypothesis. In other words, low support districts scored higher than high support districts. The second null hypothesis is: HIb: The instrument will not show ability to dis- criminate between fourth, third, second, and first finan- cial support quartile districts on each item score according to secondary student's responses. Table 12 presents the items that are significant at P > .05 for secondary students. Of the U5 items responded to by secondary students 29 were significant. The 29 significant items include 17 items that are sig- nificant but indicate that low support districts scored higher than high support districts, thus these items do not support the research hypothesis. Appendix C shows the total scores obtained, the "X2" derived, degrees of 93 freedom, and shows whether the item is significant at P > .05 for secondary students. The third null hypothesis tested is: HIc: The instrument will not show ability to dis- criminate between fourth, third, second, and first finan- cial support quartile districts on each item score according to parent's responses. Table 12 presents the items that are significant at P > .05 for parents. The total number of items for parents is 56. Of the 56 items 22 are significant. The 22 sig- nificant items include 8 which indicate that low support districts scored higher than high support districts. Appendix D shows the total scores obtained, the "X2" derived, degrees of freedom, and shows whether the items are significant at P > .05 for parents. The fourth null hypothesis tested is: HId: The instrument will not show ability to dis- criminate between fourth, third, second, and first finan- cial support quartile districts on each item score according to patron's responses. Table 12 indicates the items that are significant at P > .05 for patrons. The total number of items for patrons is 31 of which 6 are significant. The 6 significant items include 2 which are significant but indicate that low support districts scored higher than high support dis- tricts. Appendix E shows the total scores by quartile, 2 the "X " derived, degrees of freedom, and shows whether the items are significant at P > .05 for patrons. 9A The fifth null hypothesis tested is: HIe: The instrument will not show ability to dis- criminate between fourth, third, second, and first finan- cial support quartile districts on each item score according to faculty's responses. Table 12 presents the items that are significant at P > .05 for faculty. The total number of items is 60. 9 of the 60 items are significant for faculty. The 9 significant items include 3 which are significant but indicate that low support districts scored higher than high support districts. These 3 items do not support the research hypothesis that high support districts should be more favorable in response to the items than low support districts. Appendix F shows the total scores obtained, the "X2" derived, degrees of freedom, and shows whether the items are significant at P > .05 for faculty. Implications of the Statistical Treatment The results of the statistical treatment clearly indicates that the What Do You Think About Your Schools instrument does not discriminate by financial support quartile on the majority of items. The research hypo- thesis that high support districts will score higher than low support districts is significant for 32% of the ele- mentary pupil's items, 27% of secondary student's items, 25% of parent's items, 13% of patron's items, and 10% of faculty's items. These percentages do not warrant the conclusion that the instrument will discriminate between 95 financial support quartiles. Elementary pupils, who have the lowest level of maturity and least amount of exper- ience with the school situation, have the highest percen- tage of significant responses to the specific items. The responses of faculty have the lowest percentage of signi- ficant items. The evidence indicates that faculty members from all four quartiles have similar attitudes toward the schools. This conclusion could be accounted for by the rather homogeneous socio-economic class and professional training of faculty members. Faculty members seem to be unaware of size and financial differences between school districts. An analysis of the six categories for the five batteries shows that the following percentages of items were significant: (1) "Satisfaction with School"--17% (2) "School Program"——28%, (3) "Essential Services Desired"--15%, (A) "School Organization and Size"--50%, (5) "School P1ant"--75%, and (6) "Community Relations"-- 22%. The categories with the highest percentage of sig- nificant items were (1) "School Organization and Size"-- 50%, and (2) "School Plant"-—75%. These two categories are the most concrete in nature for the five batteries and seem to point out that discrimination between financial support quartile is possible if specific items are used. The category "Essential Services Desired" has the lowest percentage of significant items indicating that 96 respondents at all levels of financial support View "Essen- tial Services Desired" in much the same fashion. Summary 1. The What Do You Think About Your Schools instru- ment does not discriminate between fourth, third, second, and first financial support quartile districts for the majority of items (Table 12). 2. The highest percentage of significant items (32%) are found in the elementary pupils's battery. The lowest percentage of significant items (10%) are found in the faculty's battery. 3. The categories with the highest percentage of items significant are "School Organization and Size" and "School Plant." These two categories have the smallest number of items, but are the most specific for the school situation. A. The results of these significance tests indicate that elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty have similar attitudes about their schools regardless of the amount of financial support given to their schools or the size of their district. 5. The development of norms based on financial sup- port quartiles would be meaningless, since there is no difference between the batteries on the basis of financial support. 97 "Hypothesis II The second general null hypothesis and four opera- tional null hypotheses are as follows: The What Do You Think About Your Schools instrument will not show ability to discriminate between the respon- ses of elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty within fourth, third, second, and first financial support quartiles of Michigan school districts. HIIa: The instrument will not discriminate between responses of elementary pupils, secondary students, par- ents, patrons, and faculty on each item score for fourth financial support quartile districts. HIIb: The instrument will not discriminate between responses of elementary pupils, secondary students, par- ents, patrons, and faculty on each item score for third financial support quartile districts. HIIc: The instrument will not discriminate between responses of elementary pupils, secondary students, par- ents, patrons, and faculty on each item score for second financial support quartile districts. HIId: The instrument will not discriminate between responses of elementary pupils, secondary students, par— ents, patrons, and faculty on each item score for first financial support quartile districts. Statistical Tests and Treatment The Chi Square (X2) distribution was used to test the significance of the observed difference between the proportion of favorable response by battery within each quartile. The limits within which the hypothesis will be accepted or rejected are based on the 0.05 level of significance (P > .05). The "X2 " will be numerically large when (l) the null hypothesis is not true, or (2) the null hypothesis is true but the difference between 98 the batteries can be accounted for by errors expected on the basis of the assumptions underlying the use of this experimental design. The null hypothesis will be accepted if the value of "X2" does not reach the .05 level of sig- nificance. The region of rejection for "X2" varies depend- ing upon the "degrees of freedom" (d.f.) for the specific hypothesis tested. Results of the Statistical Treatment In order to determine if the What Do You Think About Your Schools instrument would discriminate between elemen- tary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty within a given financial support quartile, the proportion of favorable response was compared for each item. The first null hypothesis is: HIIa: The instrument will not discriminate between responses of elementary pupils, secondary students, par- ents, patrons, and faculty on each item score for fourth financial support quartile districts. Table 13 presents the items that are significant at P > .05 for fourth quartile districts. Of the 54 items responded to by elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty for fourth quartile dis- tricts, 33 were significant at P > .05. This can be interpreted that 33 items of the responding batteries' percentage of favorable response were significantly dif- ferent from each other for fourth quartile school dis- tricts. Conversely, 21 items were not significant at 99 TABLE l3.——The items for each quartile across batteries significant at P > .05.1 Item QM Q3 Q2 Q1 Satisfaction with Schools Like School + + + + Student Feels Part of Group + + + + Teacher Knows Child + + + + Teacher Gives Help — + + - Value of Studies + + + + Proud of School + + + _ Teacher Interest in Child + + + + Schools Compare Favorably + + + + Satisfaction with Schools + + + + Interest in Schools Future + + + + School Program Effectiveness of Studies + + + + Part in Extra-Curricular Activities + + + + Amount of Work to Keep Up + + + + Amount of Homework — + + + Enough Extra—Curricular Activities + + + + School Creates Interest in Extra-Curricular Activities + + + + Variety of Subjects - + + + Subject Wanted not Taught + + + + Help from Librarian + + _ _ Money needed for School + + + + Usefulness of Subjects + + + + Essential Services Desired Audio-Visual _ _ _ + Physical Education + + _ _ Field Trips + _ + + Music + + + + Art + _ + + Hot Lunch + _ + + Physical and Dental Examination + + + + 1A "+" is significant at P > .05 and a "-" is not significant at P > .05. 100 TABLE l3.--Continued Item 0 l\) D [—1 Job Placement Guidance Speech Correction Mental Health Clinic Remedial Reading Special Education Adult Education Agriculture Program Social Activities Summer School Driver Training School Organization and Size School Overcrowded Supervisory Assistance School Plant Adequate Equipment and Facilities Community Relations School-Community Relations Faculty Status in Community School as Informant Minutes Published Parent—Teacher Relations Parent-Teacher Conferences PTA Effectiveness Taxes and Services Rendered Increase Taxes Know Child's Teacher or Parent School-Community Information Interest of Parents in School Activities I +-++-+I I + I +-++-+I I + +-+I +I +-++-+I + l+l+ +-++-I-++-+-++-+I I +I + I4—+-+ I + 101 P > .05. This means on 21 items the responding batteries' percentage of favorable response were statistically the same. Further interpretation would indicate that for the 21 non-significant items the score of one battery will be approximately the same as the other batteries for that’; specific item. Additional statistical information can be obtained in Appendix G which shows the number of respon- dents for each battery, the percentage of favorable response, the "X2" obtained, the degrees of freedom, and whether the item is significant at P > .05. The second null hypothesis tested is: HIIb: The instrument will not discriminate between responses of elementary pupils, secondary students, par- ents, patrons, and faculty on each item score for third financial support quartile districts. Table 13 indicates the items that are significant at P > .05 for third quartile school districts. The SA items include 32 items significant at P > .05 and 22 not significant at P > .05. The 32 significant items indi- cate that elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty responded to these items at differ- ent levels of favorable response. 22 of the items were responded to nearly the same, therefore the different batteries scores were similar. Appendix H presents the number for each respondent group, the percnetage of 2" favorable response, the "X obtained, the degrees of freedom, and whether the item is significant at P > .05. 102 The third null hypothesis tested is: HIIc: The instrument will not discriminate between responses of elementary pupils, secondary students, par- ents, patrons, and faculty on each item score for second financial support quartile districts. Table 13 presents the items that are significant at P > .05 for second quartile school districts. 39 of the 5“ items are significant at P > .05. 15 items are not significantly different at P > .05, and therefore indi- cate that these items are responded to with similar scores for elementary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty. Appendix I shows the number of respondents by battery, the percentage of favorable response, the "X2" derived, the degrees of freedom, and the significance of the item at P > .05. The fourth null hypothesis tested is: HIId: The instrument will not discriminate between responses of elementary pupils, secondary students, par- ents, patrons, and faculty on each item score for first financial support quartile districts. Table 13 points out the items that are significant at P > .05 for first quartile school districts. U2 of the 5A items are significant at P > .05. Only 12 items are not significant indicating a similar score for all respondent groups. Appendix J presents the number of respondents for each battery, the percnetage of favorable 2 response, the "X " derived, the degrees of freedom, and whether the item is significant at P > .05. 103 Implications of the Statistical Treatment The statistical treatment points out the instru- ment's ability to differentiate between responses of ele- mentary pupils, secondary students, parents, patrons, and faculty by quartiles for the majority of items. This indicates that the five batteries measure attitudes about schools from different view-points and the total compari- son across batteries is meaningful. An analysis of the four quartiles shows the following percentage of signifi— cant items: (1) fourth quartile--61%, (2) third quartile-- 59%, (3) second quartile--72%, and (A) first quartile--77%. It would seem that the low support districts have the greatest amount of discrimination by battery of the four quartiles tested. The categories have the following percentage of significant items: (1) "Satisfaction with Schools"-— 93%, (2) "School Program"--91%, (3) "Essential Services Desired"--65%, (A) "School Organization and Size"--50%, (5) "School Plant"--100%, and (6) "Community Relations"-- 29%. The only category with a small number of signifi- cant items is "Community Relations." An analysis of the category "Community Relations" indicates some of the possible reasons for the low number of significant items: (1) the category is responded to by adults (parents, patrons, and faculty) except for one item; (2) high finan- cial support districts (Q4 and Q3) failed to discriminate 103 as well as low financial support districts (Q2 and 01); and (3) the number of total respondents is smaller for parents, patrons, and faculty than for elementary pupils and secondary students, thus affecting the magnitude of the "X2" necessary for an item to be significant at P > .05. The category "School Organization and Size" has only two items. The item "Supervisory Assistance" is responded to by faculty only, therefore no significance test can be administered. These two categories, because of the number of items, produce a high percentage of significant items. Summary 1. The What Do You Think About Your Schools instru- ment does discriminate between elementary pupils, secon- dary students, parents, patrons, and faculty by quartiles. 2. Low support school districts discriminate on more items than high support school districts. 3. Of the six categories only "Community Relations" has a majority of non—significant items. This would indi- cate that adults view the items in a similar fashion. A. The continued use of elementary pupils, secon- dary students, parents, patrons, and faculty to measure school district attitudes seems justified. Each group supplies its own particular piece of information about the school assessment project. CHAPTER V RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS AND NORMS FOR THE WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR SCHOOLS BATTERIES Introduction This chapter will present the findings for reliabil- ity and norms for the What Do You Think About Your Schools batteries. Section one considers the research question dealing with the establishment of reliability coefficients for each battery by item. The statistical tests used to determine reliability will be presented along with com- plete tables of each reliability coefficient by battery and item. Section two presents the norms constructed from the sample school districts. The research question proposed will be followed with the results found for the school districts sampled. The statistical tests used to determine these norms are described. Reliability Coefficients This section presents results to the research ques- tion concerning the reliability of each battery of the instrument, What Do You Think About Your Schools. The method of determining reliability was a test-retest of the instrument to an identified sample of the total sample. 105 106 This would indicate the variation of attitudes over time or the failure of the instrument to measure the same responses over a period of time. The number of respondents identified for the reli- ability study was approximately ten per cent of the total number of questionnaires distributed in the districts. This ten per cent was identified with code numbers for completion of the same instrument after three weeks. Table 1A shows the number of total respondents and the number identified for the reliability study. TABLE 1A.--Number of respondents for the reliability study by battery and item. Sub-sample for Battery Total Sample N. Reliability N. Elementary Pupils 882 65 Secondary Students 869 73 Parents 739 56 Patrons A80 58 Faculty 87 33 A Pearson's product-moment coefficient was computed for each item by battery. This coefficient indicates the consistency of the instrument from test to retest. The higher the coefficient the better the item. Table 15 107 .ESHSOHALSO AHV .ucoeofisum sz ocm .mwcaoaflzn Amv .mmmpm wcfinomop Amv "pom mQOfipmHmhpoo wcfiwmpm>m an Um>fipoo ohm ** paw * II we. me. me. om. xposzOm mo pesoe< II mm. as. :0. mm. a: doom ou x903 mo unsoE< II mm. Hm. mm. as. mmeH>Hpo< LMHSOHLLSOImmpxm 2H pmmm II :5. ow. we. om. mmeespm Lo memem>epemcem EmMmOhm Hoonom mm. so. we. on. em. magnum .mHoogem cw pmmhmeeH mm. as. me. me. we. maooeem spas seepemomfipmm mm. mw. **om. *mw. no. handpo>mm mpmaeoo maoocom II pm. me. Ne. ms. eHAno me pmmpmch hmnemme mm. ms. mm. up. mu. Hoonom mo osopm II om. me. me. em. wheespm Lo msam> II mm. mm. an. :m. oaom mm>Ho pmsomoe II mm. mm. em. we. eaago mzoex genomes II me. mm. mm. ms. macho Lo phmm maomm pemespm II we. pm. we. om. Hooeem mxfiq mHoocom spas cofipemcmflpmm schnapm Heezm copuwm psopmm mpazomm monomm mmmocoomm zhmpcoEmHm .EmpH comm hog hymppmn hp mHOOSom Lsow esche geese 50% ea Sega .pceeehpmefl the no mpemHOALLmoo sefiaehmefimh wheII.mH mamae 108 em. mm. BA. mA. om. coepmesem Hmfieeem am. :A. om. mA. mm. wcfiowmm HmfiooEmm mm. 0A. mm. mm. mA. OHCHHQ spammm Housmz mm. mm. Hm. mA. we. coapommnoo commom we. an. m:. om. II mocmcfisw mA. He. mm. mm. II newsmemam hoe mm. mm. AA. HA. 0A. coapmcfiemxm Hmpcmo cam HmOHmmnm ow. Am. mm. mm. Am. nocsq pom ms. :0. m2. mA. 2A. ph¢ om. m5. mm. :5. no. cams: mm. em. 2:. NA. mm. mefihe efimfim wA. om. we. om. A2. eoflemosem HmeHmAzm on. A2. mm. Am. HA. adamfi>Ioaod< oopfimmm mmofi>pom Hmfipcmmmm mm. om. mm. mm. oz. muoonnsm mo mmocasmomb II em. mm. mm. AA. Hoosom poo ememmz Amcoz II Aw. mm. mA. em. cmfihmhhfiq seen eamm II mm. om. 0A. mm. pewsme he: seems; pomnnsm II A:. mm. em. :3. meeehhsm co Aemflhe> II mo. wA. Am. BA. mmfipfi>flpo< hmH50thsoImhpxm CH pmmpmch mmpmmpo Hoosom II we. we. 0A. He. mmflpe>epe< pmHSOprzoImppxm cwsocm hemespm mafiasm coppmm pampmm Apfisomm Ahmecoemm AhmpemEmHm honomm UmbflHbCOOII.mH mqm<9 109 II mm. Hm. II II mmecm>fipemeom «em II Aw. wA. II II mmocopmwcoo pmnomoelpcmpmm II we. mH.I II II mCOHpmHmm pmcomoBIpcmhmm mm. mm. mm. II II omanHnsm mopscHz Hm. mm. om. II II HGMELOMCH mm Hoonom mm. mm. SA. II II ABHzSEEOO cH mspepm ApHsemm am. HA. mm. II II mQOHpmHmm AHHCSEEOQIHoonom mcoHpmHom szCSEEoo II NA. NA. HA. mm. . moHpHHHomm cum pCmEQHSUm mumsoo©< pemHm Hoonem II 0A. II II mocmpmHmm< ALOmH>podzm II HA. mm. Am. Am. omoBopopo>o Hoonom oNHm paw COHpmNHQMMLo Hoonom mm. mm. om. no. II . mchHmLB Lo>HLQ mA. Am. AA. 0A. mo. Hoonom hmEEdm mm. mm. 0A. Hm. Hm. mmHuH>Hpo¢ HMHoom 0A. Hm. mm. :0. II sapwogm oHSHHSopr< mm. :m. mm. 00. II COHmeSUm HHSU< pcmespm Hflesm compmm poohmm mpHSomm honomm mpmocooom mpmpcoEon cmSCHpCOOII.mH mqmHpo< Hoonom CH mpcmpmm mo umopoch Nm. MA. mm. II II COHmemoAcH AHHQSEEOWWMWMMom II J. m . II II ho ponomme m.oHHno 30cm NA. 0A. II II II mmxme mmmomocH mH. mm. mm. II II oohoocom mooH>mwm cam mmxme so 5 a: coppmm pcommm ApHSOmm ammomowwm ApmwmeMHm monomm UdeHpCOOII.mH mqmdfi 111 presents the reliability coefficients for each battery by item. An analysis of Table 15 shows the items vary from a high correlation of .88 for facultys' response to Teacher Gives Help to a low correlation of -.19 for facultys' response to Parent-Teacher Relations. The high amount of variation for faculty is probably associated with the small number (33) of respondents to the test-retest situa- tion. The battery with the highest correlations is secondary students. The lowest correlation for secondary students is .50 for the item Guidance. The battery with the lowest correlations is patrons with item correlations of .25 for Satisfaction with Schools, .38 for Schools Compare Favorably, and .18 for Taxes and Services Rendered. The category with the lowest correlations for all batteries is Essential Services Desired. Fourteen of the items on the five batteries are below .50. All the items in categories School Organization and Size and School Plant are .66 or above, exhibiting the best reliability among the six categories. How high must the reliability coefficient be in order to be useful? Attitude testing has never shown the high reliabilities of more concrete measures, such as achievement tests. Partenl (1950) investigated the lMildred Parten, Surveys, Polls, and Samples (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 500. 112 consistency of attitudes from testing to retesting and reports that there was a 2A per cent (reliability coef- ficient of .50) shift in scores about family data, fac- tual personal data, and subjective personal opinions. Most of the shifts occurred with subjective personal opinions. A widely quoted source concerning practical reli- ability coefficients is Kelley (1927). Kelley arrives at the following as minimum correlations for several purposes: 1. 2. To evaluate level of group accomplishment--.50. To evaluate differences in level of group accomplishment in two or more performances-- .90. To evaluate level of individual accomplish- ment--.95. To evaluate differences in level of individual accomplishment in two or more performances-- .98.2 It must be noted that these values are arbitrary. How low a reliability one is willing to accept depends upon the practical values which are involved in a parti- cular case. If action is necessary and the only instru- ments available have a reliability of .50 or lower it is better than nothing and will produce useable results. 3 2Truman Kelley, Interpretation of Educational Mea— surement (New York: World Book Company, 1927). 3Robert L. Thorndike, "Reliability," in Educa— tional Measurement, ed. by E. F. Lindquist (Washington: American Council on Education, 1951), p. 609. 113 Since this study is concerned with evaluation of group accomplishment, in relation to attitudes, a reli- ability coefficient of .50 or higher would produce useful results. Table 16 lists the battery items that are below .50. Of the total 229 items only 27 are below .50 reli- ability. The category with the highest number of coef- ficients below .50 is Essential Services Desired with 13. This would indicate that responses to specific ser- vices vary more than any other category of the five batteries. Additional study should be undertaken to revise this section of the five batteries to make the questions clearer. The Spearman-Brown formula permits estimates of total battery reliability from an individual item. The formula for this estimate of battery reliability is: Eiiiiiiiity = (N. of items) (reliability of item) 1 + (N. of items) (reliability of item) Applying this formula to selected item reliability coef- ficients indicates that the five batteries range in total estimated reliability from .8A for patrons to .95 for secondary students. Table 17 indicates the estimates of battery reliability computed from the lowest positive item by battery as the bases of the estimate. These estimates of battery reliability indicate high reliability for the five batteries of the What Do You Think About Your Schools 11A mN. Nm. H:. H:. A:. :m. A:. m:. m:. :2. on. A:. :m. COHpomMLoo commam mocmoHsu pcmEmomHm now ph< meflte eHmHm :oHumosUm Hmonmnm HmSmH>IoHos< omLHme mm0H>me Hmecowmm Hoocom mom omoooz Ammo: mpomnnsm mo ApoHLm> mmeH>Hpom mmHSoHMLSOImprm CH pmmm Emmmopm Hoonom mHoonom anz COHpomMmemm AHnwmo>mm mamafioo mHoosom QHmm mo>Hw hozomme Hoonom mxHH mHoonem spflz cOHpoeLmemm mptmtSpm mHHesm mcoppmm mucohmm ABHSomm Ahmocooom ALmHCmEmHm EmpH .zhmpumn An om. BOHOQ mmeHHHQmHHmL EmpHII.mH mqmHpo¢ Hoonom SH mucopmm mo umopmch Umhmocmm mooH>mom paw mmxme mQOprHmm nonommEIpcmmmm mcoHpmHom mpchEEoo mchHmpB po>HpQ COHmesom pHSUH QOHpmosom HmHomdm wcHommm HwHowEmm mcompmm memUdpm mHHadm mucommm ApHdomm Ahwocoomm ALmHCmEmHm EmpH omschcooII.mH mqm II mAIMA mAImm HAImm mmIAm mmeH>Hpo< thsthtsoIetpxm CH ummhmpGH mmuwmho Hoocom II mmImm mmIoA mAIAo mmImm mmHeH>Hpe< pmHSoHLASOImmpxm cwsocm II AmImm NAIem mmImm omIez encamEOm Lo pesoe< II emImA :mImA mmImm mmImm a: meme on xtoz to pesoea II HmImA wmIem :AImw moImm thpH>Hpe< hfladoahkdotmfiuxm CH chmm II mmImm mmIHm meom omImm mtfiesem we mmmcm>fipemmom Emamopm Hoonom AmImm OOHImm wmImm mAIMA mmem manpsm .mHoonem cH pmmhmesH AmIHm HmIAm memm AAIHA mmImm mHoonem spflz cOHpomAmemm AmIHm memm eemAIeA *zAIOA mAImm AHhmto>em mtthoo mHooeem II wwImm mmIem oAIOA mmImA eHHeo ea emmttch gazette :mIom mmIHm mmIem AmIHm omImm Hoonem Lo cacti II mmImm mmImm AoIHw mmIzm wheezem to msHm> II AwIHm OOH mmImm omImm aHmm mm>He Legumes II HmIAw mmIHm omIeA HmIAw eHHno mzocm tmaomme II mmIHm mmIAm moImm AAIHA Quote he them mHmmm pctespm II mmIHm :mIom AAIHA AmImm Hoonem exfiq WHoosom gefiz :OHpemmmemm coppmm pcommm AHHSomm Awmwmewm Apmwwmmem hopomm .Ho>oH ApHHHownopQ mm. opp pm mmcoammp mHnmpo>mm mo mmmucoopoa Ho omcmm m CH ommmmndxo mHoonom ecu psonm woodeppm mHOprmHo mHQEmmII.mH mHmHtO NAIzm AAIHA NOIOA HOImA mmImm Hoozem tweesm NOIeA AOIHO mOIHO HOIAO OOImO mmHOH>HO O HOHoom mAImO OAIeO OJINH mAIAO II sapwotm OAOOHOOHHOO OAINO HOIAO mmIAA OOIHA II OOHpeosem OHOOH OOINO HAImO OOIOO OOIOO OAImA OOHpmostm HOHOmOm :OIOO zaIOO OOIAO eOIOA HOIOA wcHOOOm HOHOOEOm memA OOIOO OOImO OAImA :AIOO OHOHHO epHmmm Haunt: mOIHO OOIzm OOIAO NOIOO mOIAA OOHOOOAAOO gotten mOIAm OOINO OOH AOImO II OeseOHsO mAImO OOImO OAINA NOIOA II newsmOmHm BOO HOImA eAIOO NAIOO OmIom HAImO OOHOmeHemxm Hmpcmm paw HGOHmmzm OOImO AOIHO OOIzA meAA .mOIAA noesH pom HOImA OOINO OOIOO AAIHA OOIOA ph< OOINO OOIOO OOH AAIHA OOImO OHmsz OAIOO :OIOA HOIAO HOImA AOImO mOHtB OHmHm MOIAO mmIHO OOIOO OOIOO OOIOO OOHOmosOm HOOHOAOO mOIAA AOIHO OOH OOINO OOImO HesmH>IOHOs< .093”me m®0H>chm Hafipcmwmm AOIHO HOIOO mOIHO OOINO AOImO mpemnhsm Ho mhmsHOHmmO mAIAO OAINA NAIOO MOIOO AOIHO Hoogem too OmOmmz Amcoz II NOIHm mOIAm OOI:m MAIAO OOHLOHOHH SOLO OHmm eeOOspm HHOOE coppmm pampmm AHHSOmm Houomm Ahmocooom AhmpcmEmHm UmscHHGOOII.wH mHmHCmo ohm ** UCm * II mmImm MAIAm mmIom mmIHm mmeH>Hpo< HOOCom CH mpCmCmm mo pmmCmpCH HzImm NmIzz ozIzm II II COHmeComCH AuHCCEEOOIHoOCom II :zImm mmImN II II pCoCmm Co CoCome m.oHHCo BOCH omIom HmImm II II II mmxme mmmoCoCH HmImA mmIom mAImA II II omCmOCmm mmOH>Com OCm moxme II mmImN NmIoN II II mmoCm>Hpommmm CmQ3m II AzImm NAINA omI:m HmImN woozoCoCm>o HOOCom mNHm oCm CoHumNHCmmCo HOOCom BOOOOOm HHOOC COCumm pCmCmm ApHsomm ACmoCoomm ACmpCmEmHm Cowomm UmSCHpCOOII.wH mHm 3. ____ 4. ____ 35. 36. 37. 6 Elementary Student Questionnaire Do you think that your school is overcrowded? Very crowded Crowded Enough room Wasted space bWNF‘ o Does your school have as much playground and gymnasium equip- ment as you would like it to have? All we need 1. Enough 2. Could use more 3. Lacking 4. How much interest do your parents show in your school work and related activities? A great deal 1. Some 2. very little 3. None 4. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR SCHOOLS? (c) Herbert C. Rudman, 1967 This questionnaire represents one of several methods being used to analyze your school situation. Faculty members, parents of school children, other adults, high school students, and grade school students are being asked to complete similar questionnaires designed to measure the reaction of the community to its schools. YOUR ANSWERS WILL BE COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS. DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ANYWHERE ON THIS FORM. Please check the statement that comes closest to answering each question. After completing this form, please return it to a prOper collection point. Thank you so much for taking the time to complete this ques- tionnaire. ‘We need to know how you feel about your schools so that they can be made even better than they are today. 1. School District 2. Check one: Elementary Student 1. Secondary Student 2. Parent of Student Enrolled in Public School 3. Patron (No Chil- dren Enrolled in.Public School) 4. Faculty Member 5. 2 Secondary Student Questionnaire How well do you like school? Very well Quite well Very little Not at all boomed .0. Do you feel that you are "one of the group" in your school? Yes 1. Usually 2. Sometimes 3. No 4. Generally, how well do you think your teachers know you? Very well 1. Somewhat 2. Little 3. Not at all 4. Generally, do you feel that your teachers are interested in you as a person? Yes 1. Somewhat 2. Little 3. Not at all 4. Generally, do you feel that your teachers are willing to help you when you have a problem? Yes 1. Sometimes 2. Little 3. _____ No 4. How proud are you of your school? Very 1. Some 2. Little 3. None 4. 12. 13. 14. Secondary School Questionnaire Do you feel that your school compares favorably with other schools that you know about in: school? Very Favorably Favorably Curriculum 1. 2. Teaching staff 1. 2. Building 1. 2. Equipment 1. 2. How satisfied are you with your Very satisfied 1. Satisfied 2. Dissatisfied 3. Very dissatisfied 4. Slightly Favorably 3. Unfavorably 4. 4. 4. _____ 4. How interested are you in the future of your school? Very interested 1. Interested 2. Disinterested 3. Very disinterested 4. How much of what you are studying in school do you think will be valuable to you? Practically everything 1 Most 2 Half 3. Very little 4 How much do you think you are learning from your studies? A great deal Something A little Very little wao-I O. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 4 Secondary Student Questionnaire Is there a chance for you to attend as many of the school parties, plays, games and clubs as you would like to? Always 1. Most of the time 2. Once in a while 3. Never 4. How much work do you have to do to "keep up" in your school studies? Too much About right Not very much bump-0 0 None at all How much homework do you have? None at all 1. Little 2. About right 3. More than I can do 4. Does your school offer as many extra-curricular activities as you would like to see offered? All that are needed 1. Most that are needed 2 Few that are needed 3. None that are needed 4 Does the school create enough interest in extra-curricular activities? A great effort is made An effort is made . 1 2 Little effort is made 3. No effort is made 4 Does your school offer a wide enough choice of courses for you to take? Wide choice Enough choice Little choice No choice wat-d O 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Secondary Student Questionnaire Are there subjects that you would like to take that are not offered by your school? Many 1. Some 2 Few 3 4 They now have enough How much help do you get from the librarian when you go to the school library? All I need 1. Most of the help I need . 2. Some of the help I need 3. I never use the school library 4. How do you feel about the money you have to spend for extra- curricular activities such as ball games, proms, yearbooks, and clubs? Too much money About right Very little We don't have to pay 4. Lamp-0 0 How much of what you are studying do you think will be of use to you? No st About half Less than half Very little DUNH so Check the activities and services that you to a good school curriculum? Very Es- sential Audio-visual aids 1. _____ Physical education 1. _____ Field trips 1.._____ Music 1. Essential 2. feel are essential Not Es- sential 3. 3. 3. 3 Waste of Tim; .p b-D-L‘ 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Art Hot lunch Physical and dental exams Job placement Guidance Speech correction Mental health services Remedial reading Special education Adult education Agriculture pro- grams Social activities Summer school Driver training Very Es- sential. 1. 1. Is your school overcrowded? Very crowded Crowded Enough room Excess space Does your school have all of classroom equipment that you All we need Adequate Could use more Lacking 1 2 3 4. 2 3 4 Essential Secondary Student Questionnaire Not Es- Waste sential of Time 3. 4. 30 4o 3o 4. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 4. the playground, laboratory, and feel it ought to have? 1. 7 Secondary Student Questionnaire 45. How much interest do your parents show in your school work and related activities? A great deal Somewhat Very little None wat-I O. WHAT DO YOU THINKMABOUT YOUR SCHOOLS? (c) Herbert C. Rudman, 1967 This questionnaire represents one of several methods being used to analyze your school situation. Faculty members, parents of school children, other adults, high school students, and grade school students are being asked to complete similar questionnaires designed to measure the reaction of the community to its schools. YOUR ANSWERS WILL BE COMPLETELYlANONYMOUS, DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ANYWHERE ON THIS FORM. Please check the statement that comes closest to answering each question. After completing this form, please return it to a proper collection point. Thank you so much for taking the time to complete this ques- tionnaire. We need to know how you feel about your schools so that they can be made even better than they are today. 1. School District 2. Check one: Elementary Student 1. Secondary Student 2. Parent of Student Enrolled in Public School 3. Patron (No Chil- dren Enrolled in.Public School) 4. Faculty Member 5. 2 Parent Questionnaire NOTE: Please indicate the grade your child or children are attending. Elementary (Kindergarten to 6th grade) Secondary (7th to 12th grade) Both Elementary and Secondary How well do you think your children like school? Very well 1. Quite well 2. Very little 3. Not at all 4. Do you feel that your child is accepted by his classmates as "one of the group"? Yes Usually Sometimes No war-I I Do you feel that your child's teachers really know your child? Very well 1. Somewhat 2. Little 3. Not at all 4. To what extent do teachers show a personal interest in your child? Much 1. Somewhat 2. Little 3. __ Not at all 4. To what extent are teachers willing to help your child when he has a problem? Much Somewhat Little Not at all waH O. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 3 Parent Questionnaire How much pride do you have in your district's system of schools? Very much 1. Some 2. Little 3. None 4. Do you feel that the schools in your district compare favorably with other schools that you know about? Very favorably Favorably Slightly favorably {>me Unfavorably In general how satisfied are you with the school your child attends? Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied war-I 0 Very dissatisfied How interested are you in the future of the schools in your district? Very interested 1. Interested 2. Disinterested 3. Very disinterested 4. How much of what your child is learning in school is of value to him? Practically everything 1. _____ Most 2. _____ Half 3. ______ Very little 4. How much is your child getting from his or her studies? A great deal 1. Something 2. ______ A little 3. Very little 4. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 4 Parent Questionnaire Is there an opportunity for your child to attend as many of the school parties, plays, games and clubs as he or she would like to? Always 1. Most of the time 2. Occasionally 3. Never 4. How do you feel about the amount of work assigned to your children in order for them to "keep up" with their classwork? Too much 1. .About right 2. Not very much work 3. Too little 4. How'much homework does your child get assigned to him by the school? None at all 1. Little 2. Appropriate for class work 3. A great deal 4. Does the school offer as many plays, games, proms, and other activities as you would like to see offered? All that are necessary Most that are necessary 1 2 Few that are necessary 3 None that are necessary 4 child interested in after- 0 m (1' O a Does the school do enough to g school activities? All that is necessary 1. Most that is necessary 2. Little that is necessary 3. None that is necessary 4. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 5 Parent Questionnaire Does the school offer your child a wide enough variety of courses for him to take? Wide variety 1 Enough variety 2. 3 Little variety No variety 4. Are there courses that you would like your child to take that are not now being offered to them? Many 1. Some 2. Few 3. They have enough now 4. How much help does your child get from the librarian when he or she goes to the school library? All they need 1. Most of the help they need 2. Some of the help they need 3. They have no librarian 4. How do you feel about the money your children spend for such things as proms, yearbooks, textbook fees, ball games, and laboratory fees? Too much money 1 About right 2 Children could pay more 3 They pay no money 4. How much of what your child is studying in school will be of use to him after he leaves school? Most About half Less than half Very little wat—I .0. 6 Parents Questionnaire 25. Do you feel that the school your child attends is overcrowded? Very crowded 1. Crowded 2. Enough room 3. Excess space 4. 26. Does your child's school have all of the playground, classroom, and laboratory equipment that it needs to do an adequate job? All they need 1 Adequate 2 3 Could use more Lacking 4. 27. Do you feel that there is a good relationship between the schools and the community? Very good Good Could be improved wat-d .0. Poor Check the activities and services that you feel are essential to a good school curriculum: Very Es- Not Es- Waste sential Essential sential of Time 28. Audio-visual aids 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____’ 4. ____ 29. Physical education 1. _____ 2. _____. 3. _____ 4. ____ 30. Field trips 1. ______ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 31. Music 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 32. Art . 1. ______ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 33. Hot lunch program 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 34. Physical and dental emms 1.____ 2.____ 3.____ 4.___ 35. Job placement 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 36. Guidance 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 37. Speech correction 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. _____ 38. Mental health services 1. ______ 2. _____ 3. 4. \l Parent Questionnaire Very Es- Not Es- Waste sessial. Essential £223.22}. sLlias Remedial reading 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ Adult education 1. _____, 2. ______ 3. ____ 4..____ Special education 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____, 4. ____ Agriculture programs 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ Social activities 1. _____ 2. _____, 3. ____ 4. ____ Summer school 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. _____ 4. ____ Driver training 1. 2. 3. 4. What is your estimate of the social status of teachers in your community? Very good 1. Good 2. Could be improved 3. Very low status 4. Do you feel that the schools inform the community adequately about the school and the school program? Excellent 1. Good 2. Fair 3. Poor 4. Do you feel that the school board should publish the minutes of their meetings in the local papers? Always 1. Sometimes 2. Occasionally 3. Never 4. To what degree do you feel parent-teacher relationships are satisfactory? Very good 1. Good 2. Poor 3. Very poor 4. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 8 Parent Questionnaire To what degree do you feel parent-teacher conferences are desirable? Very desirable Desirable Some help Waste of time 3> «DUONH To what degree do you feel PT 's are effective? Very effective 1. Effective 2. Slightly effective 3 Waste of time 4. Do you feel that the school tax rate compares favorably with the level of services rendered by the schools? Very favorable 1. Favorable 2. Unfavorable 3. Way out of line 4. Would you be willing to pay more taxes for an improved educa- tional program in your community? A good deal more 1. Slightly more 2. No increase 3. Want a cut 4. Do you feel that there is adequate communication between parents, administration, and school board? Excellent Good Fair Poor bWNo—a Do you know your child's teacher as well as you would like to? Very well Well Little Not at all wau-a O 9 Parent Questionnaire 56. Do you feel that you show much interest in the school work and related activities of your children? A great deal- 1. Somewhat 2. Very little 3. None 4. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR SCHOOLS? (c) Herbert C. Rudman, 1967 This questionnaire represents one of several methods being used to analyze your school situation. Faculty members, parents of school children, other adults, high school students, and grade school students are being asked to complete similar questionnaires designed to measure the reaction of the community to its schools. YOUR.ANSWERS'WILL BE COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ANYWHERE ON THIS FORM. Please check the statement that comes closest to answering each question. After completing this form, please return it to a proper collection point. Thank you so much for taking the time to complete this 4068' tionnaire. We need to know how you feel about your schools so that they can be made even better than they are today. 1. School District 2. Check one: Elementary Student 1. Secondary Student 2. Parent of Student Enrolled in Public School 3. l Patron (No Chil- dren Enrolled in.Public School) 4. Faculty Member 5. 2 Patron Questionnaire How much pride do you have in your district's system of schools? very much 1. Some 2. Little 3. None 4. Do you feel that the schools in your district compare favor- ably with other schools that you know about? Very favorably 1. Favorably 2. Slightly favorably 3. Unfavorably 4. In general, how satisfied are you with the schools in your district? Very satisfied 1. Satisfied 2. Dissatisfied 3. Very dissatisfied 4. How interested are you in the future of the public schools in your district? Very interested 1. _____ Interested 2. _____, Disinterested 3. _____ Very disinterested 4.. Should children pay for such school activities as ball games, clubs, proms, laboratory fees and textbooks? All of the cost 1. _____ Some of the cost 2. Token payment 3. No charge 4. 3 Patron Questionnaire 6. As far as you can tell from.your contact with the students that have been educated in your school district, how much of what these students learn in school is of use to them after they leave school? Most 1. H_,_ About half 2. . Less than half 3. Very little 4. Check the activities and services that you feel are essentia to a good school curriculum: very Es- Not Es- waste sential. .PLsssatisl eeealsl of Time 7. .Audio-visual side 1. 2. 3. ____, 4. ____, 8. Physical education 1. _____ 2. _____, 3. ____, 4. ____ 9. Field trips 1. _____. 2. ______ 3. _____ 4. ____, 10. Music 1. _____ 2. __ 3. __ 4. .._..... 11. Art 1. __ 2. __ 3. __ 4. __ 12. Hot lunch programs 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 13. Physical and dental exams 1. _____. 2. _____, 3. ____, 4. ____ 14. Job placement 1. _____, 2. _____, 3. ____ 4. ____ 15. Guidance 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____, 4. ____ 16. Speech correction 1. _____, 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 17. Mental health clinic 1. _____, 2. _____, 3. ____, 4. ____ 18. Remedial reading 1. _____, 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 19. Special education 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____, 4. ____ 20. Adult education 1. __ 2. __ 3. __ 4. __ 21. Agriculture pro- grams 1. __ 2. __ 3. __ l, ........... 22. Social activities 1. __ 2. __ 3. __ 4. __ 23. Summer school 1. __ 2. __ 3. __ 4. __ 24. Driver training 1. ______ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 25. 27. 28. 29. 30. 4 Patron Questionnaire Do you feel that there is a good relationship between the schools and the community? Very good 1. , ”w Good 2. Could be improved 3. Poor 4. What is your estimate of the social status of teachers in your community? very good 1. Good 2. Could be improved 3. Very low 4. Do you feel that the schools inform the community adequately about the school and the school program? Excellent 1. Good 2. Fair 3. Poor 4. Do you feel that the school board should publish the minutes of their meetings in the local papers? Always 1. Sometimes 2. Occasionally 3. Never 4, Do you feel that the school tax rate compares favorably with the level of services rendered by the school? Very favorably 1. Favorably 2. Uhfavorably 3. way out of line 4. Would you be willing to pay more taxes for improved educational programs in your community? A good deal more 1. Slightly more 2. No increase 3. Want 8. wt 40 5 Patron Questionnaire 31. Do you feel that there is adequate communication between the community, the school administration, and the school board? Excellent 1. Good 2. Fair 3. Poor 4. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR SCHOOLS? (c) Herbert C. Rudman, 1967 This questionnaire represents one of several methods being used to analyze your school situation. Faculty members, parents of school children, other adults, high school students, and grade school students are being asked to complete similar questionnaires designed to measure the reaction of the community to its schools. YOUR ANSWERS WILL BE COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS DO NOT WRITE “W YOUR NAME ANYWHERE ON THIS FORM. Please check the statement that comes closest to answering each question. After completing this form, please return it to a proper collection point. Thank you so much for taking the time to complete this ques- tionnaire. We need to know how you feel about your schools. so that they can be made even better than they are today. 1. School District 2. Check one: Elementary Student 1. Secondary Student 2. Parent of Student Enrolled in Public School 3. Patron (No Chil- dren Enrolled in Public School) 4. Faculty Member 5. 2 Faculty Questionnaire How well do you think that your students like school? Very well 1. Quite well 2. Very little 3. Not at all 4. Do you feel that, in general, the students in your class accept each other as "one of the group"? Yes 1. Usually 2. Sometimes 3. No 4. In general, how well do you think you know your students? Very well 1. Somewhat 2. Little 3. Not at all 4. In general, to what extent do you show a personal interest in each of your students? Much 1. Somewhat 2. Little 3. _____ Not at all I 4. In general, to what extent are you willing to help students when they have problems? Much Somewhat Little Not at all waI-a HOW’mUCh pride do you have in your school system? Very much 1 . Some 2. Little 3. _____ None 4. ' . o -. .‘ ... v o u- .. . .. -.. Q ".. D a... ... .... .. .... <3. . so. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 3 Faculty Questionnaire Do you feel that the elementary schools in your district com- pare favorably with other schools that you know about? Very Slightly Eavogably Favorably Favorably Unfaggggbly Curriculum 1. 2. 3. 4. Teaching Staff 10 20 . 30 __ 4' ......_.. BUilding 10 2 e 3 e 4' ____ Equipment 1. 2. ____, 3. 4. ____ Do you feel that the secondary schools in your district compare favorably with other schools that you know about? Very Slightly Favorably Favorably Favorably Unfavorablz Curriculum 1. 2. 3. 4. Teaching staff 1. 2. 3. 4. Building 1. 2. 3. 4. Equipment 1. 2. 3. 4. In general, how satisfied are you with the schools in your district? Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied «L‘UNH How interested are you in the future of the schools in your district? Very interested Interested Disinterested Very disinterested wat—a O. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 4 Faculty Questionnaire How much of what your students are studying in school is of value to them? Practically everything 1. Most 2. Half 3. Very little 4, How much do you think your students are getting from their studies? A great deal 1. Something 2. A little 3. Very little 4. Is the opportunity made easily available for all students to attend as many of the school parties, plays, games and clubs as they would like to? Always 1. Most of the time 2. Occasionally 3. Never 4. How do you feel about the amount of work assigned to your stu- dents in order for them to "keep up" with their class work? Too much work 1. About right 2. Not very much work 3. Too little 4. How much homework do you assign to your students? None at all 1. Little 2. Appropriate for class work 3. A great deal 4. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 5 Faculty Questionnaire Does the school offer as many extra-curricular activities as you would like to see offered? All that are necessary Most that are necessary Few that are necessary wat-I I None that are necessary Does the school create enough interest in students to stimulate them to partake in extra-curricular activities? All that is necessary 1. Most that is necessary 2. Little that is necessary 3. None that is necessary 4. Does your school offer a great enough variety in the courses it offers its students? Wide variety 1 Enough variety 2. 3 Little variety No variety 4. Are there courses which should be offered your students that are not now being offered to them? Many 1. Some 2. Few 3. They now have enough 4. How much help do your students get from the librarian when they go to the school library? All they need 1. Most of the help they need 2. Some of the help they need 3. We have no library 4. 6 Faculty Questionnaire 27. How do you feel about the money children have to spend for extra-curricular activities and fees that are required for books, gym, laboratories, and the like? Too much money 1. About right 2. Student's could pay more 3. We don't levy these charges 4. 28. How much of what your students are studying will be of use to them after they leave school? Most 1. About half 2. Less than half 3. Very little 4. Check the activities and services that you feel are essential . -~to a good school curriculum: Very Es- Not Es- Waste sential Essential sential of Time 29...Audio-visual aids 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____, 4. ____ 302”"Physical education 1. ______ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____, 31.. Field trips 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 321”‘Music 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 33. Art 1. _______ 2. _______ 3. __ 4. __ H.34.’“Hot lunch program 1. _____ 2. ______ 3. _____ 4. ____ «35.. Physical and dental exams 1. _____ 2. _____ 3..____ 4. ____ ~.36.- Job placement 1. _____ 2. ______ 3. ____ 4. ____ 37. -Guidance . 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ ~> 38-”.Speech correction 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ -.39- ”Mental health . services 1. ______ 2. _____ 3. _____ 4. ____ .40. ’Remedial~reading 1. ______ 2. ______ 3. ____ ..____ .41...Special education 1. _____ 2. _____ 3. ____ 4. ____ 7 Faculty Questionnaire Very Es- Not Es- Waste sential Essential sential of Time Adult education 1. 2. 3. 4. Agriculture pro- grams 1. __ 2. __ 3. __ 4. __ Social activities 1. 2. 3. 4. Driver training 1. 2. 3. 4. Summer school 1. 2. 3. 4. Do you feel that the schools in your district are overcrowded? Very crowded 1. Crowded 2. _____ Enough room 3. Excess space 4. Does your school have all of the playground, classroom, labora- tory equipment it needs to enable you to do your best work? All we need 1. Adequate 2. Could use more 3. Lacking 4. Do you feel that you are getting enough supervisory assistance? Very much 1. Adequate 2. Little 3. None 4. Do you feel that there is a good relationship between the schools and the community? Very good Good Could be improved DWNH 0.. Poor 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 8 Faculty Questionnaire What is your estimate of the social status of teachers in your community? Very good 1. Good 2. Could be improved 3. Very low status 4. Do you feel that the schools inform the community adequately about the school and the school program? Excellent 1. Good 2. Fair 3. Poor 4. Do you feel that the school board should publish the minutes of their meetings in the local papers? Always l. , Sometimes 2. Occasionally 3. Never 4. To what degree do you feel parent-teacher relationships are satisfactory? Very good 1. Good 2. Poor 3. Very poor 4. To what degree do you feel parent-teacher conferences are desirable? Very desirable Desirable Some help waste of time bUNH e To what degree do you feel PTA's are effective? Very effective Effective Slightly effective waste of time DUN“ ee . - v-a-4-u‘. d s... I ”don cl-.. u 57. 58. 59. 60. 9 Faculty Questionnaire Do you feel that the school tax rate compares favorably with the level of services rendered? Very favorably 1. Favorably 2. Unfavorably 3. Way out of line 4. Do you know your students' parents as well as you would like to know them? Very well 1. Well 2. Little 3. Not at all 4. Do you feel that there is adequate communication between parents, administration, and school board? Excellent Good Fair waa—I Poor Do you feel parents show much interest in the school work and related activities of their children? A great deal Somewhat Very little None war-t O. APPENDIX B Elementary Pupils Results by Quartile with Number of Respondents, Total Percentage of Favorable Response, "X2", Degrees of Freedom, and Significance at P > .05 184 185 u m Haa.o m.ma m.me m.ws s.om sesame eoz omega: sooneem + m mnm.ma :.Hw w.mm m.mm m.mm mooowcsm mo zpofiem> I m mmo.m :.oe m.mm :.em m.mm mmaeasapoa amazofleosonmepxm ca pmmeoocH mopmooo Hoocom I m mwm.m :.>m m.mm :.Hm m.m: mmfiufi>apo¢ amazofioosoImopxm swoomm + m sea.aa m.ms z.ms :.Hm m.mm soogoEom eo unease I m mno.m m.om m.om m.:© u.mm a: moox on xnoz mo pesoem I m 335.0 m.me a.ee H.me m.me mmapasapoa amHSOfieESOIMprm ca poem I m was.» H.mm s.em m.mm H.0m mmaesem eo wmmemsaeomeem Emomoem Hoonom + m mea.oa H.mm m.am w.sm m.sm messes .maooeom ea emmsmpeH I m esm.a m.em m.sm m.sm m.mm maooeom new: eoapomemaemm + m wmm.ma 3.:n w.mm 0.50 m.:m macmeo>mm memQEoo mHoocom I m asa.s s.ms m.mm m.sm m.mm eaaeo ea emmemsea smeoame I m owm.m m.mw H.mw :.ww m.mm Hoonom mo USOhm *+ m mom.ma H.mw w.mm m.Hm m.mm mmfiUSpm mo mdam> + m :zm.m ©.Hm 0.0m m.mm m.:m QHom mo>fiw Locomme + m :Hw.mm m.mw m.mm m.mm H.Nm UHfico mBOCM hmnomme I m mom.m o.>w m.mw H.:> m.mm QSOAU mo pmmm mammm ucmwzpm + m mm:.w o.mm >.ww m.mw 3.0m Hoonom mxHA mHOOSOW npflz coflpomemfipmm mo. A .a.e we as as me as Essa H .oHHoLMSU mo mafimsa hemeoEon mo comfiemQEoo hoe xfiocoamm momEESmII.m mezmmm< 186 I m mom.m m.mm e.:m a.mm m.mm vasectososo Hooeom mufiw one coaumNHQmmeo Hoocom *+ m Ham.» e.mm e.mm m.mm w.ea Hooeom seesaw I m smo.m s.am s.em 3.0m o.mm mmapasapoa Hmaoom I m oom.o m.ms m.ss m.ms o.ms eoaemosem Hmaomam I m mma.m e.mm m.em m.ms H.ms meaeamm Hmaemsmm I m mam.e m.es :.Hs s.me m.me useaao apaamm assume I m mmo.o m.om m.om m.om m.ow eoaeomssoo commem *+ m mmH.HH a.os 0.0m m.ms em.mm eoaemeasmxm amoeba one Hmofimzcm *+ m www.ms a.mm e.mm 3.3m .a.em . rouse pom + m smm.ma m.ms e.ss o.mw o.sm use I m mam.m m.me s.me o.mm :.Hs same: + m mma.ma m.sm o.mm H.ew H.0m meats eHon I m asa.s m.mm e.mm 5.0m 3.:m coasaosem assesses + m Hme.ma s.am w.mw m.mm H.mm Haema>Ioae2< ooefimmm moOH>me Hmapcmmmm I m mom.m :.mm m.sm m.mm :.mm meomnnsm mo mmmeasemma_ *+ m sma.ea m.os o.me m.mm s.em Hooeom toe ememmz ameoz + m mms.m :.me m.ee m.me H.Hm emanasaaa song name mo. A .a.e me so me me so smeH UmSCHDCOOII.m xHszmm< 187 .mo. A m on oocmoHMchHmIcoc mnemoflocfi =l= HocEmm on» use .mpofiepmflo pLOQQSm cwfic ammo momma: wcflaoom mooahpmfio pooaeom 30H spas use .oocmo Ifimficmfim mopmofiocfi =*+= Hocsmm one .oocmOflmfiowfim mopmofiocfi =+= HocEmm one a m s .eemIIHa Asa sea .mamII a Ame .NHHII a Ame .mmHII 0 Ana "was meemeeoamos no sense: mesa I m How.a m.:m ©.mm N.mm o.mm mmeH>Hpo¢ Hoonom Ga mucoemm mo pmmemch whoapmamm thCSEEoo + m He:.:e e.mm H.mm m.mm H.mm moabaaaomm one psmemfisom mumsomo< scene Hooeom mo. A a .e.e a as me me so smSH UmSCHQCOOII.m xHszmm< APPENDIX C Secondary Students Results by Quartile with Number of Respondents, Total Perc ntage of Favorable Response, "X ", Degrees of Freedom, and Significance at P > .05 188 189 *+ m ooa.m3 m.em w.3s m.em m.mm mmaeasaeoe amazofleeSOImooxm , CH ommeoch mmummoo Hoocom + m omo.3m 3.3m m.ms m.ms s.sw mmasasaboe amazofiLLSOImooxm cwsocm I m oms.m m.mm m.3m e.m3 m.am ssozmsom co pesose I m ome.m m.mm m.3m m.m3 3.s3 as some 03 ago: no eesose I m mm3.e m.ms s.mm m.3e m.3s mmasasaeoa amazofieezolmmpxm CH poem I m smo.s m.mm w.3m m.es o.ms mmaesem eo mmmemsaeomecm Ememomw Hoocom *+ m smm.mm o.am a.es o.ms m.oe wheeze .maooeom ea pmmsmeeH *+ m m33.ma s.ms H.3s m.mm m.os maooeom has: consoaemapmm + m 3mo.m m.mm m.mm m.om m.os oemsaasam I m omm.m e.me o.me w.me m.es mcaeaasm *+ m sma.aa o.mm a.es m.me m.sa cemem weaeomme + m mam.ma e.me e.ao m.3e m.3w seasaassso _ macmeo>mm moodEoo maoocom *+ m H03.mm s.ms m.ms m.ae m.ae sense as smmsmeeH emeomme *+ m 3mm.om 3.mw H.mm m.ms m.es Hooeom eo esoea .+ m m3o.sa m.eo m.os 3.mm m.am mmaesem co meam> I m waw.m 3.mm m.am 3.wm 3.mm dame mmsau espouse *+ m mmm.om n.3m s.es H.me m.se eaaeo mecca emeomme *+ m 03m.am m.3s 3.mm o.mm H.mm ozone co some mamas semesem *+ m 03m.3H m.ms s.ms m.ms 3.He Hooeom been maooeom seas eoaeomcmapmm mo. m .c.e me as me me 3@ smeH .maapemso an mpeoosom homeroomm mo COmHemQEoo mom sausages zomEEsmII.o xHozmmmm 190 0+ 0 000.00 0.00 0.30 3.00 0.00 00000000 00>300 + 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 000000 000000 0+ 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0030000000 000000 0+ 0 003.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0000000 00000000000 + 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 00000 I 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 3000000 + 0 000.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.30 0000000 00000000 I 0 330.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000 000000 000002 I 0 330.0 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0000000000 000000 0+ 0 300.00 3.30 0.00 3.00 0.00 00000000 I 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 000 I 0 003.0 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.33 00000000000 Hoodoo new Hecammcm 0+ 0 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000 000 + 0 030.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 3.00 000 + 0 000.0 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00002 I 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000 00000 0+ 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 00000000 I 0 000.0 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000>I0000< Umhfimmm mm00>hmm Hmfiuflmwmm I 0 003.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 00 0000000000 I 0 000.0 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 000000 000 000002 00002 0+ 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 000000000 0000 0300 + 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 000000 002 000002 0000000 + 0 300.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 00000000 00 000000> 00. .0.0 00 00 00 00 30 s00H UmSCHuCOOII.O xHozmmm< 191 .mo. A m 00 monmo0MHnw00Inon one one .00000000o wooednm can none nonw0c wn0n000 00000000o .monmoHMHnw00 monso0on0 =0+: 000800 on» .oonmoHM0nw00 mmmeHon0 000 .000II00 A00 .000II00 A00 .000II30 A00 0000 00000000000 000000000 =I= 000000 phonenm 300 :00: one =+0 000000 000 .000II00 030 we nocEnn 0:90 I 0 000 0 3.30 0.00 0.00 3.00 0000000000 000000 n0 mpnonom mo pmmnman 0n000mamm mp0nnEEoo + m 000.00 m.mm o.mm 0.00 m.mm moHpHHHomm one unoEQHnom 0005o0o< unmam Hoonom + m oom.0m 0.0: m.wm m.mm H.w0 omo30honm>o Hoonom 000m one n000000nmwno Hoonom 00. A 0 .0.0 00 00 00 00 30 0000 omnnHQCOOII.o xHszmm< APPENDIX D Parents Results by Quartile with Number of Respondents, Total Percentage of Favorable Response, "X2", Degrees of Freedom, and Signi- ficance at P > .05 192 193 0+ 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000000 ne0no000301enpxm nwnonm I 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 00 000000 + 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 0000 00 0003 00 000000 + 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000000 hdeOHhhSOIMprm Cd 0.9mm + 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0000000 00 00000>000000m Eenmonm Hoonom I m m0m.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 000000 .0000000 00 00000000 I 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000 000: 000000000000 I m mom.m m.mm m.mm o.mw 0.0m zaneno>em mmeano maoonom I m mmm.m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000 00 00000000 0000000 I 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000 00 00000 I 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000 00 0000> I 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000 00000 0000000 I 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000 03000 0000000 I 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 m.mm 00000 00 0000 00000 0000000 I 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000 0000 0000000 0003 000000000000 00. .0.0 00 00 mo 00 00 0000 .000unesa mp mpnenen mo nom00eQEoo now x0on000e mneeezmll.o mezmmm¢ 1914 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000 00000000000 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 00000 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 0000000 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000 00000000 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000 000000 000000 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000000 000000 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 000 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000000 00000Q 000 00000000 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000 000 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000 00000 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 00000000 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000I00000 0000000 mmo0>0mm HMHpcmmmm 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 00 0000000000 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000 000 000002 00000 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 0000 0000 0 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000 002 000002 0000000 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 00 0000000 0 000.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000000 000300003010000m :0 pmmpmch 0000000 Hoocom 00 00 00 00 00 0000 UmchpCOOII.Q NHszmm< 195 + m mm>.ma H.mm w.mm 3.30 m.:~ mmxme mmmmpocH I m wm©.m H.mm m.mm N.mm 0.0m Umpmccmm mmoa>hmm Gum wmxme I m mam.a H.>: m.Hm 0.0m m.:: mmmcm>fipommmm ¢Bm I m mmo.m 3.05 o.w> o.mm m.:w mmocmummcoo pmnommBIpcmhmm + m m:o.m H.mm m.mw m.mw m.~m mcoaumamm mmnommBIucmpmm + m moa.mm m.m~ z.mm m.mm m.mn umnmfiansm mmpscfiz I m Hao.m m.mm z.mo m.mm m.:m pcmspomcH mm Hoonom I m omo.: o.m> ~.mm H.mw 3.0m szQSEEoo CH mauMUm mpHSQmm I m mHH.> m.wm m.aw m.mm H.Hm mcoapmamm mpHCSEEooIHoonom mCOHpmHmm zufiCSEEoo + m om:.am m.om 5.:m 2.0m m.>> mmHuHHHowm 6cm psmsafisvm mpmsvmv¢ unmam Hoocom + m mmm.m o.az m.mm m.mm m.mm Umczopopm>o Hoonom mNHm 6cm COHpmNchwpo Hoocom I m pmm.~ m.>m H.mm m.Hm 0.3m mcficfimpe gm>fipm I m mwm.m m.m~ m.- m.m~ m.mm Hoonom amassm *+ m maa.oa m.mm H.mm >.mw 2.5» mmeH>fipo< Hmfioom mo. .m.u mx H@ mg mg no EmpH vmscfipcooll.m xHozmmmd 196 .mo. A m pm mochHMficmeIcoc mnp cam ampOanmfiv pnoamzm smfin can» pmnwfin wcfimoom muoahumfiv omocmofimacwam mmpmoaccfi =*+= HonEmm mnp .moGMOHMcham mmpMOHUCH vcm .mfimunma Amv .hflauuma “NV “Haunao AHV "mpm mpcmccoammp mmmeHucH =I= dopamm pLOQQSm 30H spas pan :+: HODEhm $28 .oomuufio sz mo amass: mafia I m o:m.a m.mm m.mm :.mm m.mm mmeH>Hpo< Hoozom 2H mpcmnmm mo pmmpmch + m msm.mfl 5.5m m.m: m.om m.mm cofiumsmomcH muficsesoolaoonom + m mmo.:a o.Hm o.H: n.m: 3.30 pampmm yo pmcomme m.vafino 30cm mo. A m .m.u mx Ho mg mg no smpH UmschQOOII.Q NHszmm< APPENDIX E Patrons Results by Quartile with Number of Respondents, Total Percentage of Favorable Response, "X2", Degrees of Freedom, and Signi— ficance at P > .05 197 198 ”If... I Lilly I m mom.m m.:m m.mm :.mm 0.5m mcfiommm HmfiemEmm I m mam.o o.mm H.se m.mm m.mm oacfifio spammm Hmucmz I m amz.m 5.3m o.zm m.wm m.mm coupomppoo commam I m mmm.m m.am :.om :.mm 0.0m mocmofisu I m mmo.m 3.3» m.me e.ws w.em pcmamomfim nos I m mm=.: H.55 >.mw m.mm m.me soapmcflemxm Hmpcma ocm HmOHmznm *+ m Hmm.mm m.:m m.am m.om m.o> conga pom + m mme.:a H.>~ o.me m.em z.mm ppa + m Hos.Hm m.om :.me 0.3m m.mm afimsz I m mme.m e.me o.oe o.me H.mm mafipe efimflm I m moH.m m.mm m.Hm m.mm m.mm coapmoscm Hmofimmnm I m mm:.m o.Hm o.mm H.3m m.om Hmsmfi>I0Hos< mm0fi>hmm Hmfipcommm I m mma.m p.5w 5.0m m.am m.wm mpomhnsm no mmmcflsmmm: I m Hom.m m.a~ m.om m.me m.mo Hoonom you omommz smcoz sapwomm Hoonom I m mme.m e.mm m.:m m.mm m.mm mpzpsm .mHoonom 2H pmmmmpsH I m mmm.m o.mm m.om m.ow m.mm mfioonom can: coapommmflpmm I m 0mm.w w.mw KHzm w.©m N.mm handhoxfimm mthEOO mHOOSOW I m :mm.o ».mm e.mm 0.3m m.mm Hoonom mo ozogm mHoonom spas coapompmfipmm mo. .o.o mx Ha m3 mo :0 smpH .oHprmsv mo mcoppmo mo somfipmqeoo pom xfivcmqqm mhmEEsmII.m xHozmmm< .mo. A m um oquoamacmeIcoc mopMOHUCH =I: HonEmm on» new .mpofimpmfio uLOQQSm swan cusp hmnwac wcfipoom mpofippmfio pLOQQSm 30H Qua: pan .mocm0H%chHm mopmofivcfi =x+= HonEmm on» «mocmOHMchfim mmumoflvca =+= HooEzm one 199 .mmmIIHo A V . m . m . a . : cum OHHII G Amv NmII G Amv moII G AHV .mhm mpcmccoamoh mo gonad: mzea m ~:~.H 0.0: 0.2m m.o: m.mm monumemoocH muHGSEEooIHoonom m mam.m H.Hm m.mm N.mm m.ao mmxme mmmmpocH m :Hm.o e.me N.Hw 0.5e m.am eopmccmm m®0fi>h®m USN mmxmB m mmm.m o.mm o.m~ m.me m.oa emnmfifinsm mmpzsfiz m mam.H H.Hm m.m= m.mz m.Hm passpoocH mm Hoonom m mms.m :.mo :.a~ m.mo 0.35 spfic35500 cu mapmpm szSOmm m Hom.m m.mm 0.00 m.H: o.Hm m20fipmflmm spficsesooIHoonom macapmamm mpHCSEEoo m smm.: 2.3m m.mm q.mw m.am wcflcfimpe sm>finm m me=.m o.wm m.mm 3.3m H.ma Hoonom mmeesm m me.: m.mm m.mm m.mm o.ms mmfipfi>fipo< Hmfioom m moo.e: 3.3m :.me :.He 5.0: sapwomm waspH20Hsm< m :Ha.m o.mo z.mo z.me m.ms coapmosem pasu< m Hao.m m.mm m.mm m.mm m.mm coapmosom Hmfiomam mx Ha mg mg no ampH UmSCHpCOOII.m xHszmm< APPENDIX F Faculty Results by Quartile with Number of Respondents, Total Percentage of Favorable Response, "X ", Degrees of Freedom, and Signi- ficance at P > .05 200 201 m moa.m 0.0m m.mm m.Hm 0.00H mmeH>Hpo< CmasofiCCCOImCuxm CH pnmm m mam.m m.om H.mm o.ooa 0.00H mmHUCum mo mmmCm>apommwm sapwopm HOOCom m :ow.a m.mm m.mm o.ooa o.ooa mpspzm .mHOOCom CH pmmCmpCH m mmo.m 3.55 m.mm 0.0m m.mm mHOOCom Cu“: Coapommmfipmm m mpm.m o.ow o.mm m.es p.0w pcmsafisum m mmm.w e.wm m.ms 0.0m m.mm wcfieafism m moa.m u.mw >.mm m.mm 0.00H Cumum wCHCommB m zwm.m m.mo m.mm m.mw o.ooa ECHCoHCCCo . Hoocom mCMUCoomm m mmm.a m.:o H.2N 0.0m m.Hm pCmECHCUm m 1306 méo m.mm mfg ado wcfiggm m mm:.m m.om H.mw 0.0m o.ooa mmmpm mCHComme m www.w o.H> m.m> m.om 0.00H ECHCOHCCCQ mHoonom maanoEmHm manmno>mm mCmano mHoonom m :om.a m.mm o.om o.ooa o.ooa UHfiCo CH pmmCmuCH CmCommB M :5m.» n.5w o.ooa o.ooa o.ooH Hoonom mo psopm m wam.m m.mw m.mw m.om o.ooH mmfiospm ho mCHm> m ooo.o o.ooa o.OOH o.ooa o.ooH Camm mm>Hw CmComoe m mmm.~ n.wm o.ooa o.ooa o.ooH CHHCQ mBOCm CmCommB m mmo.m w.mm o.ooa o.ooa o.ooa ozone mo pCmm maomm pCmospm m mmm.a m.mm H.mm 0.00H m.~w HOOCom mxflq mHOOCom Cufiz CowpoCMmemm mo. .C.o mx Ho No me :0 ampH .mHHprCv an zpasomm mo COmHCMQEoo Com xHUCoCQm szEECmII.m xHszmm< 202 I m u:m.m m.mm w.mw 0.00H m.~m oHCHHo CpHmmm HmpCoz I m mwm.H 0.00H m.mm o.QOH 0.00H COHpooCCoo Commdm I m ooo.o 0.00H 0.00H o.ooH 0.00H moCmUHCu I m mmo.: m.:m m.Hm w.Hw m.~m pCmEmomHm now I m mom.m o.H> m.mw m.m> w.m: CoHmeHmem HapCmQ UCm HmOHmmCm *+ m 0mm.HH m.mm m.mm m.Hm 0.00 CoCCq pom I m :mm.o w.mm m.mm 0.00H 0.00H uC< I m ooo.o o.QOH o.OOH 0.00H o.QOH OHmCz I m mmm.m m.mw 0.00H m.om m.Hw mQHCB UHmHm I m mmm.m 0.00H m.om 0.00H m.mm COprospm HmOHmmCm I m 000.0 o.ooH o.ooH 0.00H OCOOH HmCmH>I0HUC¢ UoCHme mmoH>Cmm HmeCmmmm I m won.o m.mm H.mm o.ooH m.mm mpomnosm no mmmCHCmomD I m mou.H 3.55 H.mw m.mo m.Hm HOOCom Com Umpmmz mmCoz I m omn.o m.mm m.:w 0.00 m.mm CmHCMCCHq EOCM QHmm I m mwm.m o.H> :.m~ m.m: m.mm prsme poz CopCm3 pomhnsm + m www.mH :.w: :.H> 0.00 m.mm mpomnnsm mo NSoHCw> + m mmH.oH H.mm m.w> m.Hw o.QOH moHpH>Hpo< CmHCOHCCsoImCuxm CH pmmCopCH mmpmmCo HOOCom I m mmw.m o.Hw >.mm m.Hm m.nw mepH>Huo¢ CmHCoHCCCoIMCpxm CwCOCm I m 5mm.H F.0w H.:w m.Hw m.mm xCoszom mo pCsoE< I m mam.m m.:> m.mw c.00H o.mu a: doom on XCoz mo uCCoE< mo. .C.o mx Ha m0 mg no smpH umSCHuCOOII.m xHszmm< 203 I m HoH.H n.0m m.m> m.om m.Hm mmoCmCmMCoo CmComoBIpCmCmm + m mmm.OH 0.0» H.mm 0.0m o.OOH mCOHpmHmm CmComeIpCmCmm I m me.: H.wm m.~m m.Hm m.>m omCmHHosm mmpCCHz I m mo:.m m.m: m.mm m.mm m.>m pCmEComCH mm Hoosom I m nmm.o m.:> :.m~ m.mm o.m~ NSHCCEEoo CH mspmpm mpHCowm *+ m mHo.mH H.mm w.mm m.:m m.Hm mCOHpmHmm mpHCCEEooIHOOCom mCOHpmHmm huHCCEEoo I m www.m n.mm w.wm m.m: 0.0m meuHHHomm UCm pCoECHsum mpmsvmp< pCmHm HoOCom + m mmm.mH m.Hm m.om m.om m.Hw moCMpmHmm< KSomHPHmQCm I m nom.m m.mm o.mm N.m> m.ww voczomomo>o HOOCom oNHm UCm COHpmNHmeCo HOOCom I m mms.o H.Hm m.mm 9.0m m.mm wchHmCB Cm>HCo I m mow.m o.H> 0.3m 0.00H m.mm HOOCom Cmeszm I m m:>.o m.mm z.mm o.OOH w.mm mmeH>Hpo< HmHoom + m mam.Hm m.mm :.Hm m.m: m.mH sapwopm mpsz20HCw< I m mHm.m H.5w :.Hn >.mw m.>m COHpmoCUm uHCU< I m mm:.: 0.00 o.ooH o.OOH m.mm wCHUmmm HmHCoEom mo. .C.c mx Ho me me no smpH UmSCHpCOOII.m xHszmm< 204 .m0. A m pm ooCMOHMHCmeICOC mmmeHUCH =I= HooEmm me UCm «muOHCpmHC upoaadm CwHC CmCu CmaHC wCHCoom mCOHCpmHC pmoadzm 30H Csz @59 .moCMOHMHCme mmpMoHUCH :*+: Honemm me .moCmOHMHCmHm mmuMOHUCH :+: HOCEmm mCB . MIIHG A v . m . m . a . o : CCm mmII G Amy HHII G Amv ©HII a AHV .mmm muCoUCOQmmC mo CmpECC mCBH I m mmw.: m.mm m.~m :.Hw m.mm mmeH>Hpo< HooCom CH mpCmCmm mo pmmCmpCH m mos.w 0.0m H.Hm 0.0: m.m: soHpmeaomzH mpHC:EEOOIHoonom I m zom.H 0.0m m.mm :.mm m.m: pampmm Co CmComme m.©HHCo ROCK mmxme mmmmCoCH I m mo:.H 0.0H H.mm o.oH m.Hw empmecmm mm0H>pmm gem mmxme I m Ham.m H.:m m.mm 0.0m m.mm mmmcm>HpomCCm «em mo. A m LC.e mx Ha mg mg :3 smpH UmSCHpCOOII.m xHszmm< APPENDIX G Fourth Quartile Results by Battery with Number of Respondents, Total Percentage of Favorable Response, "X2", Degrees of Freedom, and Significance at P > .05 205 206 + m mmH.HH m.em II o.mm H.5m m.m: mmeH>Hpo< CmHCOHCCCOImexm CmCOCm I m :mm.o m.mo II H.3m m.Hm m.mm xposmEOC Co pcsoea + m www.mH o.m> II m.HH 3.5: H.mm a: ammx Op xcHOB .HO pQSOCE. + m Hom.mm o.OOH II m.:m m.HH m.mm mmeH>Hpo< .HMHSOHQIHSOlmcHuxm CH 99mm + m mmm.mm o.QOH II 0.00H o.mH H.mm mmHospm Co mmmcm>HpomCCm EmaOCm HOOCom + : :mm.m0H o.OOH m.mm o.OOH m.om m.:m waspzm .mfioonom CH ummhmuhH + : mum.mm m.mm m.mm m.Hm «.0H m.mm mHooaom anz COHpomCmemm + : mmo.mH m.mm «.mm :.zm m.=m m.:m memCo>mm mpmaeoo mHoonom + m MHH.mm o.OOH II H.mm o.mm m.mm UHHCQ CH pmmpmch Cmnomme + : moo.mm o.QOH m.mm m.mm m.ms m.mm Hoonom Co esopm + m mom.mm o.OOH II m.mm m.Hm m.~m mmHUSpm Co osHm> I m moo.m o.OOH II H.mm :.mm m.:m aHmm mm>Hw C¢Comme + m mom.e: c.00H II H.Hm m.~m H.mm cHHno mzocx Cmnomme + m :om.mm o.OOH II m.mm H.mm m.me asopo Co spam mHmmm pcmcspm + m www.mm m.em II m.em H.Hm 2.0m Hoonom oxHq mHoonom Csz coHpomCmemm pcmespm HHasm hump has» ICoomm ICmEmHm mo.Am .C.u x HpHSomm coppmm pcmCmm Em m CH H.%Coppmn an mHHpszv Cppzom mo ComHCmQEoo Com xHUCoCQm mCmEECmII.w xHozmmm< 207 + : m:o.mH m.mm m.mm m.mm o.mm o.mH sOHpmosom HmHomam + : amm.zm m.mm o.em H.5m H.3H H.mH wcHemmm HmHemEmm + : mam.mH m.Hw m.mm m.mm m.me m.mm OHCHHQ cuHmmm Hmpcmz + : m:m.om o.OOH m.wm m.:m H.3w m.om COHpomCCoo Commam I m mmm.m o.ooH 0.5m m.om m.Hm II mocmcHso I m :mm.: m.am m.em H.3m m.mH II pamEmomHm now + : m:m.:H m.m: m.m> m.mm m.z: m.mm COHpmcH5mxm HmpCoQ UCm HmOHmsz + 2 www.mH 0.00 m.o~ m.mo m.m~ H.3m Conga pom + : mmm.HH o.OOH :.mm o.mm :.Hm 0.5m pp< + : HHo.m: o.OOH m.mm m.mm H.HH :.HA QHmsz + : Hmo.mH m.Hm H.mm m.mw m.ow H.0m maHCe eHmHm + : omm.mH w.mm m.mm 3.3m m.mm 3.3m COprozum HmOHmsnm I : HNH.H o.ooH m.cm o.Hm o.mm H.mm HmsmH>I0Hos¢ Umhfimma m®0H>chm Hafipcmmmm + : Hmm.mm m.mm m.mm m.mm m.m~ z.mm mpomanm Co mmmcHsCmm: + : www.mm m.Hw m.mm H.0m m.om H.wm Hoonom Coo omommz ammo: + m mmH.om m.mm II H.mo m.»: H.Hw smHCanHq COCC aHmm + m m:m.p m.mm II e.mm 3.0m 3.0m pnmsme poz cmpcmz mpomHnsm I m mom.m w.mm II m.wm H.mH m.mm mpomnnsm Co zpmem> + m ozH.mm o.QOH II m.m~ m.mm m.mm mmeH>Hpo< .HmHSOHIHcHdOlwchxm CH pmmpmuCH mmummfio HOOEOW pcmospm HHazm mo. Am .h.© X mpHSomm Schumm pcmhmm AAIHMU hhmp SmpH m ICoomm ICmEmHm UwCCHpCOOII.o xHszmm< 208 I m mmo.H m.ww m.m~ m.mn II II memHHCCm mmpCCHz I m wmz.m m.~m o.Hm w.:o II II pCMECOMCH mm HooCom I m mom.m o.me m.:e :.mm II II spHc52200 CH mspmpm mpHComm I m wmm.m m.Hm m.Hm H.Hm II II mCOHpmHmm mpHCCEEOOIHOOCom mCoHumHmm mpHCCEEoo + m :mm.mm 0.0m II m.>> m.mm H.mm mmeHHHomm UCm pCmEQHsom mpmzvaC pCde HOOCom I 0 000.0 m.Hm II II II II oonpmHme mComH>CoQCm + m :m>.Hm m.mo II m.mm H.w> m.mm UmUSOCoCm>o HOOCom mNHm UCm COHpmNHCmmCo HOOCom I m mmm.m m.mm m.Hm m.Hm w.mm II mchHmCe Cm>HCo + : 0mm.Hw m.mm H.m> m.mm 5.:m m.m: HOOCom CmEECm I : moz.m m.mm w.mn :.>> H.mm o.mw mmeH>Huo< HmHoom I m mm>.m m.mH 5.0: o.>m m.m: II EmCMOCm mCCpHCOHCwC I m mom.H m.ww m.m~ o.mn o.m> II COHpmoCUm pHCC< pcmuspm HHazm mo.Am .C.U x szsomm Compmm quCwm mCmU szC EmpH m ICoomm ICmEmHm UmzCHpCOOII.c xHszmmd 209 .mo.Am um moCCOHMHCme ICOC mmpmoHCCH =I= HonEmm me UCm moCCOHMHCme mopCOHUCH =+= Honezm mCB .mHIImpHComm Amy va .meImCOCCMQ sz .HmIImpCoCmQ Hmv .zHHIImpCmUCpm mCmoCoomm Amv .NNHIImHHQCC mpmpCmEmHm AHV Comm mquUCOCmmC mo CmCECC one H + m mmm.oH w.mm II m.nm 3.5m 0.0m mmHuH>Hpo< HOOCom CH mpCmCmm no pmmhmpCH + m mMH.m m.mz II m.mm II II CoHmeCOMCH szCCEEooIHOOCom I H mH:.m m.m: II 3.3m II II quCmm Co CoCommB m.UHHCo 30C& I H HHm.o II m.>m m.z> II II mmxme mmmmCoCH I m :mo.m m.Hm m.Hm o.mm II II UmCmCCmm mo0H>Cmm CCm mmxme I H mmm.o m.mm II 0.2: II II mmem>Hpommmm m II II mCOHpmHmm CmCommBIpCoCmm pcmespm HHqsm mo.Am .m.© x mpHComm COCpmm pCmCmm zpmp mpmp EmpH m ICoomm ICmEmHm UmSCHpCOOII.U NHszmm< APPENDIX H Third Quartile Results by Battery with Number of Respondents, Total Percentage of Favorable Response, "X2", Degrees of Freedom, and Significance at P > .05 210 211 + m m:o.:m m.Hm II m.om m.m~ :.Hm mmeH>Hpo< CmHCoHCCsoImppxm CwCOCm + m Ham.mH m.Hm II N.HH m.m: :.Hm xposzOC Co pesoe< + m mmH.mz o.ooH II m.mw m.m: m.:m CD Comm on xCoz mo pCCoE< + m HHH.w m.Hw II H.HH m.:m H.mm mmeH>Hpo< CMHCoHCCsoImexm CH pawn + m mmH.om o.OOH II m.mm m.ms m.mm mmHospm Co mmmcm>HpomCCm sapwopm HOOCom + : mmm.m: 0.00H m.mm o.OOH o.m> m.:m waspsm .mHOOCom CH pmmCmpCH + : mmm.m: 0.00H m.wm c.00H o.m> w.:m mHoozom CpHB COHpommmHumm + z m:O.MH m.mm m.mw o.mm m.mw v.5m zHQMCo>mm mmmano mHOOCom + m mmm.om c.00H II o.mm m.Hm m.>m CHHCQ CH ummhmpCH C¢Codme + : mmm.wm 0.00H 0.:m N.:m m.m> :.nm Hoonom mo UCOLm + m m:o.m: m.om II o.Hm :.mm m.Hm mchspm Co msHm> + m m:m.mH o.OOH II m.mm :.ww m.~m aHmm mm>Hu CmCommB + m www.mm o.OOH II 0.2m H.mm m.mm UHHCO mzocx Cmnomme + m Hum.mm c.00H II o.mm o.mm H.:> @5096 mo spam mHmmm pcmuspm + m mmm.wH 0.00H II m.mm m.m> w.mm Hoonom mxHH mHOOCOm anz :OHpomCmemm unmvspm HHCsm mCmo mam» Icoomm ICmEQHm mo.Am .C.e x HpHsomm compmm pampmm Em m CH H.mCmpumn an mHHpCmsv CCHCp mo COmHCmQEOO Com prConm mCmEECmII.m xHszmm< 212 + : Hmm.mm o.OOH m.mm m.mm m.mm o.mH COHpmosnm HmHomam + : mp:.mm c.00H :.mm m.Hm m.om m.me mchmmm HmHemEmm + : mmm.mm o.OOH m.mm o.mm m.om p.00 OHCHHQ anmmm Hmpcmz + : mHm.mm c.00H m.mm m.mm H.0m m.om COHpomCCoo Commam I m oo:.H c.00H :.mm m.mm :.©m II mocmcHsm I m mem.e m.Hw H.me :.mm o.mm II pngmomHm now + : omm.:m H.NH m.mm m.:p H.2m m.mH COHpmcHemxm HmpCmQ pCm HmOHmmCm I : :Ho.m m.Hm m.om m.Hm o.mm 2.3m Conga pom I : mmm.m o.OOH m.~m H.0m m.:m o.mm age + : mm:.mm o.ooH 0.:m m.Hm o.mm o.wm OHmsz I : m:s.m m.om o.me w.mm m.Hm H.0m maHCB eHmHm + : Hmo.mm 0.00H m.mm H.0m m.HH H.0m cOHCmosum HmOHmszm I : oem.m o.OOH H.3w N.Hm m.mm m.mm HmsmH>IoHos< UmcHHmmm m®OH>chm Hafipcmmmm + : mmm.mH o.QOH m.ew :.mm H.mw m.mm mpomHnsm Co mmmcHsCmm: + m omm.mp o.mw m.me w.mm o.mm m.mm Hoonom COC emcmmz smcoz + m HHH.m 0.00 II m.mm H.mz m.m© cmemeHq EOCC qum + m mmm.mH m.m: II m.:: :.H~ m.m: pawsme poz ompcmz pomanm + m HHo.mm 0.0m II m.Hw :.mo m.mm muomnnsm Co HpmHCm> + m HHm.m m.Hm II m.oe m.mm :.mm mmeH>Hpo< hmHSOHchHSOlwchxm CH pmmchuCH mmpmwho Hoonom unmaspm HHasm mo.Am .m.p x szComm Coppmm pCmCmm szC mhmu EmpH N Icoomm lCmEmHm UmSCHpCOOII.m xHszmm< 213 I m HHw.o w.Hw m.mn m.mm II II UmCmHHoCm mopsCHz I m Hom.m m.mm m.m= m.mm II II pCMECOhCH mm Hoonom I m QHm.m o.mm m.mm H.mm II II szCCEEoo CH meMCm mpHComm I m :oo.m m.:m m.H: m.wm II II mCOHCMHmm NHpHCCEEooIHOOCom mCOHpmHom mpHCCEEoo + m mHz.mm m.m: II 3.0m o.mH m.mm moHpHHHomm UCm pCmEQHCUm mumsvoo< quHm HOOCom I 0 000.0 m.om II II II II moCmpmHmm< mComH>CmQCm + m wmo.o: w.mm II m.mm w.mo :.mm UmUBOCoCo>o HOOCom mNHm pCm CoHpmNHCmmCo HOOCom I m omm.m m.om :.mm H.mm 3.0m II mCHchCe Cm>HCm + : mww.wm o.ooH 3.3m m.mw H.mw m.mm HOOCom CmEECm I : m:m.: o.OOH m.mw >.mm m.om 2.0m mmeH>Hpo< HmHoom I m mHm.: m.m: :.HH m.HH H.mm II empmopm waspH30HCm< I m wom.m u.m> :.mw H.3N m.>w II COHpmoCUm pHsU< pamUSpm HHasm mo.Am .m.© x mpHComm COCpmm pCmCmm mhmo aha» EmpH m ICooow ICmEmHm UmCCHuCOOII.m NHszmm< 21“ mo. A m pm moCmonHCme ICOC moCMOHUCH =I= HonEmm me UCm ooCmonHCme mmeOHUCH =+= Hooszm mCB mmmcCoomm Amy .mHHIImHHQCQ mCmpCmEmHm AHV .HHIIspHsomC Amv .HoIImcoppma sz .HHHIImpCmCmC Amv .NHHIImpsmUSCm ”oCm mpCmpCogmmC mo CoCECC mCBH + m Hoo.mH w.Hm II z.wm m.>w >.mm mmeH>Hpo< HOOCom CH muCoCmm mo pmmCouCH I m owo.m 0.0: m.o: m.om II II CoHmeComCH mpHCCEEOOIHoonom I H mHo.o 3.0m II >.mz II II pCmCmm Co CmCommB m.oHHCo 30C& I H mmo.m II w.mm 2.30 II II mmxmB mmmmCoCH I m :Hm.H 0.0» m.~n m.mm II II omCmCCmm mm0H>Com UCm mmxme I H mmm.m 0.0m II 0.0m II II mwoCm>Huommmm .05 215 216 + m Hom.mm n.mw II 0.5m m.m~ 0.0m mmeH>Hpo< CmHCOHCCCOImexm CwCOCm + m mzo.mm H.3H II :.mo m.:m :.mz xnozmsom Co pcsoea + m mmm.H: m.mm II m.mm H.mm m.mw Q: ammx on xCoz mo uCCoE< + m mz>.>H m.mm II w.mw >.mm >.mm mmeH>Hpo¢ CmHCOHCCCoIMCpxm CH uhmm + m :©©.mm H.mm II 5.5m w.:m 5.0m mmHozpm mo mmmCm>Hpommmm Emwwopm Hoonom + : :Nm.>m 0.0m 0.3m m.mm b.05 m.wm mCCpCm .mHoonom CH pmmCmpCH + : mm©.:m m.mw m.om m.om H.:> m.>w mHoonom Csz COHpommmemm + 2 www.mm m.w> 5.3m m.mm >.Hm >.mo anmCo>mm oCmQEoo mHOOCom + m Hom.mm w.wm II w.mm m.m> m.mw UHHCQ CH pmmCmuCH CoComoB + : m:©.mH 0.00H m.mm 3.:m H.mm H.mw Hoonom wo unopm + m mmH.m> m.mm II 0.20 m.o> m.mm meUCpm mo mus> + m mmH.mH o.OOH II H.5m m.Hm o.mm QHmm mm>Hu Cmnomme + m 5:5.m: 0.00H II H.om u.ww m.mw oHHCo mSOCx CmCommB + m uwm.:OH o.QOH II m.:m :.mm m.mw QCOCU Ho phmm mHmmm quUSpm + m mwu.wm H.mm II m.:m w.mm m.mm HooCom mxHH mHoonom :pHs COHpomCmemm pcmcspm HHasm mo.Am .M.o x mpHsomm COCpmm quCmm szC szp EouH m ICoomm ICmEmHm H .szpme an mHHpCmCU CCooom mo COmHCmQEoo Com xHUCmCQm mCmEECmII.H xHozmmmC 217 + : mm:.mm m.mm m.mw m.mm m.Hw m.HH COHBmosum HmHomam + : :om.:m o.ooH m.mm m.:m H.0H m.:m mcHemmm HmHemEmm + : moo.mH H.ww H.HH m.mm w.m~ :.Hs OHCHHQ anmmm Hmpcmz + : mHm.m: 0.00 0.30 5.50 m.Hm 0.0m coHpomCCoo Commam I m mm:.m 0.00H 3.00 m.mm m.wm II mocmoHsu + m mw2.0H m.Hm m.mH :.m© m.om II pamEmomHm now + : mmm.o: m.me H.mw H.me H.3m m.mm COHmeHemxm HmpCoQ UCm HMUHmmCm + : mom.mm m.mo m.Hm m.Hm m.HH :.mm Conga pom + : mmm.wH w.mm o.m» m.mw m.og :.HH BC< + : mam.Hm o.ooH 3.0» H.mm m.mm 3.0m OHmsz + : ©0H.HH o.QOH 0.0H o.mw o.HH o.mm maHCe aHmHm I : Hmm.: o.©m m.Hm m.:m m.om m.mm COHpmosum HmOHmHgm I : mm:.oH o.OOH 0.0m H.Hm m.©w w.mm HmzmH>I0He5< mpoohosm HMHpCmmmm + : www.mm H.mm H.0m H.wm m.mm m.em mpomesm Co mmmcHSCmms + : mom.HOH H.mm m.om m.:m C.:Q o.m© Hoosom COC umemmz smcoz I m o:m.: m.:© II m.~m m.oo m.mm cmHCmeHq EOCC QHmm + m mam.HH :.me II m.mm m.Ho m.m: unmade poz amuse; mpomhpsm + m :m:.:mH :.HH II :.mm 0.0m m.mw mpommpsm Co HpmHCm> + m mH:.:H m.HH II m.Ha w.:e w.mw mmeH>Hpoa QmHSOHLLSOlmLpXm Cw pmmhmeH mmpwmko HOOQOW chcspm HHasm mo.Am .w.p x szsomm COCpmm pCmCmm mmmo hump EopH N IGOOQW lflmemfim UmchpCooII.H mezmmm< 218 I m mmm.m m.5w o.m5 :.mo II II memHHCCm mopCCHz + m 55m.©H m.mm m.m: :.mo II II pCmECOMCH mm HOOCom I m 5m:.m :.m5 2.55 5.mw II II 5BHCSEEOO CH mzpmpm 5pHsomm + m mHm.5 m.mw 0.0m m.H5 II II mcoHpmHmm HBHCSEEOQIHoonom wCOHpmHom mpHCCEEoo + m mmm.:: ©.mm II 5.:m o.mm H.mm mepHHHomm UCm quEQHCUm mpmsvmp< pCmHm HOOCom I 0 000.0 m.mw II II II II moCmpmHmm< mComH>CmQCm + m m5m.mHH o.mo II m.mm m.mw 2.3m ooUBOCoCm>o HOOCom COHpmNHCQMCO Hoonom + m omm.o m.mm w.mm :.mm m.:m II mCHCHmCB Cm>HCQ + : mmo.Hm 0.:w m.wo m.55 m.m5 o.mm HOOCom CmEECm I : wam.m 3.0a ©.mw H.0w m.oa 5.©w mmupfl>upo< Hmfloom + m 5:3.5m :.Hm :.m5 m.5m m.mm II smsmopa mbspHSOHCma I m mmm.m :.H5 :.m© ©.m5 5.m5 II CoHumospm BHCCC pcmespm HHasm mo.Am .m.p m muHComm COCpmm pCmCmm mCmU szp EopH m ICoomm ICmEmHm U®SCHpCOOII.H xHszmm¢ .00. A 0 pm moCmoHMHCme ICOC mmmeHUCH I: HOCEmm me UCw moCmonHCme mmCQOHUCH :+: H0985m mCB Z .0mIImpHComm A00 UCm nOHHIImCOCpmm A20 .0HmIImpCoCmQ Amv nm0mIImpCm©Cpm 219 szUCooom Amv .05mIImHHQCQ wapCoEon AHV ”mCm mpCmUCogmmC mo ConECC mCBH + m 000.00 0.50 II 0.00 0.05 0.00 mmeH>Hpo< HOOCom CH mpCmCmm mo pmmCmpCH I m 0Hm.2 5.H0 0.2m 0.m2 II II COHmeComCH mpHCCEEOOIHoozom I H 500.H 0.0m II o.H2 II II pCmCmm Co CoCommB m.UHHCo 30C& I H 50H.o II m.00 5.00 II II mmxme mmmmCoCH I m 22m.o 5.00 5.H0 0.m0 II II UmCmoCom mmoH>Cmm UCm mmxme + H m2m.0 0.0m II 0.H0 II II mmmCm>Huommmm <50 I H 000.0 0.05 II 0.05 II II mmoCoCmMCoo CoComoBIpCmCmm I m 052.0 2.00 H.m0 0.00 II II mCOHpmHmm CmComoBIpCmCmm pcmuspm HHasm 0o.A0 .m.0 m mpHComm COCpmm pCmCmm 5Cm0 hCmp EmuH ICoomm ICmEon UmSCHpCOOII.H XHszmm< APPENDIX J First Quartile Results by Battery with Number of Respondents, Total Percentage of Favorable Response, "X2", Degrees of Freedom, and Significance at P > .05 220 221 + m 5mm.5HH 0.H5 II 0.20 2.20 2.50 mmHuH>Hpo< CmHsoHCCCOImexm CwCoCm + m m50.0m 5.00 II H.00 0.00 0.02 2CozoEom mo pCCoE< + m 0H0.00 m.25 II m.m0 5.00 0.00 0: ammx on 2C03 mo pCCoE< + m 000.2H 0.00 II m.25 0.05 0.00 mmeH>Hpo< CmHCOHCCCQIprxm CH ppmm + m H00.5H 0.00 II 5.20 0.00 H.m0 moHUCpm mo mmem>Hpommmm EmumOCm HOOCom + 2 050.55 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.H0 H.m0 opspzm .mHOOCom CH pmmCmuCH + 2 020.2H 2.55 0.00 H.00 5.05 0.00 mHOOCom Csz COHpommmemm + 2 002.5H 0.H5 0.m0 m.00 m.00 2.25 zHCmCo>mm mCmQEoo mHOOCom + m H00.5H 0.00 II 0.00 5.05 5.05 UHHCo CH pmoCoCCH CmComoB I 2 0mm.0 H.50 5.m0 H.00 2.00 0.00 HOOCom mo 0:0C0 + m m20.00 0.00 II 0.00 0.00 H.00 mmHUCpm mo mCHHW> I m 0m0.5 0.00H II 0.00 2.00 0.H0 QHmm mm>H0 CoCommB + m m05.0 5.00 II 0.00 5.20 0.m0 UHHCU mSOCx CmCommB + m 022.H0 0.m0 II H.20 m.H5 H.55 030C0 mo pCmm mHmmm pCmnspm + m H0m.02 0.00 II 0.00 0.05 0.m0 HOOCom mxHH wHOOCom CCH3 COHpommepmm psmcspm HHasm 00.Am .m.0 x szsomm COCpmm pCmCmm 0Cm0 5C00 EmpH N ICOOme IcwEmflm H.5Cmpumn 09 oHHquCU meHm mo COmHCmQEoo Com xHUCoaam hmeECmII.0 xHszm0< 222 + 2 020.02 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.05 002000000 2020000 + 2 000.00 0 002 0.20 0.50 0.20 2.00 0020000 20200000 + 2 000.02 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.05 0.05 020220 002000 200002 + 2 000.00 0.002 5.20 0.00 2.00 0.00 0020000000 000000 + 0 000.02 0.002 0.20 0.50 2.20 II 00000200 I 2 020.2 2.05 0.20 2.25 2.05 0.05 000000020 000 + 2 200.00 0.25 2.55 0.05 0.00 5.05 00200020000 Hmquo 0C0 HmonmCm + 2 200.52 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 5.00 00002 000 + 2 022.20 0.00 2.55 0.00 5.05 0.05 000 + 2 205.05 0.002 0.00 0.00 2.05 0.00 02002 + 2 200.00 0.00 5.05 2.00 0.55 0.50 00200 02020 I 2 020.0 0.002 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 002000000 20020000 + 2 000.02 0.002 0.20 0.00 0.20 2.20 20002>I02002 Umhflwmfl w®OH>L®m Hmflpcmmmm + 2 000.50 0.00 5.50 0.20 2.00 2.00 00000000 00 0000200000 + 2 005.022 2.55 0.25 0.00 5.00 0.05 200000 000 000002 0000: I 0 000.0 5.00 II 0.20 0.00 2.00 002000022 0000 0200 + 0 022.00 0.25 II 0.22 5.00 0.02 000000 002 000003 0002000 + 0 005.002 2.02 II 0.00 5.00 2.20 00000000 00 000200> + 0 002.22 2.00 II 5.00 0.00 2.00 00202>200< L0H3000LSOImprm CH pmmhmpCH mmpmmho HOOQOW 0000000 22000 00.A0 .0.0 x 00H5000 COCpmm 0C0000 0000 0000 EmuH N ICOOGW lCmEmHm 000020000II.0 02020000 223 I 0 000.2 2.50 0.00 0.05 II II 000022000 0000022 + 0 520.0 0.02 2.20 0.00 II II 000800002 00 200000 + 0 052.02 0.25 2.00 0.05 II II 002000000 :2 mspmpm 0020000 + m m22.m2 2.0m m.mm 0.00 II II 000200200 002CSEEOQI2oo£om 00020020m 00205EEOQ + 0 500.00 5.00 II 0.00 0.00 5.00 0020222000 0C0 000E0230m mpmzvm©< 00020 2oozom + m m2w.22 0.mw II 0.22 0.02 m.0m 000300000>o 200000 002200200000 2oonom + 0 000.00 2.50 2.20 0.50 0.00 II 00202000 000200 + 2 m00.mm 0.25 0.00 m.m5 5.05 0.00 200000 000000 + 2 om2.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.20 5.20 00202>200< 202000 I 0 022.2 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.00 II 0000000 00002002000 + m 500.22 2.50 0.00 2.05 5.55 II 00200000m 0200< 0000000 22000 00.00 .0.0 2 0020000 000000 000000 0000 0000 8002 m Icoomm Iszm2m UmSC2uQOOII.h XHszmm< .mo. A m pm mocmOHchmHm Icon mmmeHccH :I: Honezm mgp 6cm mocmOHMHcmHm mmpmoHUcH :+: Honehm mze .oquzpazomm Amv new .mmmuumcoppma sz .oomIImpcmgmg Amv “ommIImpsm@3pm 22M zpmwcoomm Amv .mwmIImHHQSQ mumpcmEmHm AHV umpm mpcmucoammh go umpesc mQBH + m mam.m© m.>m .. m.wm 3.3w m.:m mmflpfl>flpo< Hoogom CH mpcmpmm mo pwmpmch I m Hmm.: 0.0m 0.0: 5.5m II II coHmeLowcH thcsEEooIHoosom + H MHw.: 0.0m II 0.Hm II II pampmm Lo pmnommB m.UHH£o 302x mmm.o II H.Hm H.mm II II mmxme mmmmhocH I m mmo.: 5.0w p.05 H.0m II II wmnmucmm mm0H>me Gem mmxme + H m:©.m H.2m II H.m: II II mmmcm>Hpommgm