MSU LIBRARIES m ‘9 RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. BEHAVIOR RATINGS AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE OF BLACK, CAUCASIAN, AND HISPANIC ELEMENTARY MALE STUDENTS BY Juan Rojelio Olivarez A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1985 .— ABSTRACT BEHAVIOR RATINGS AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE OF BLACK, CAUCASIAN, AND HISPANIC ELEMENTARY MALE STUDENTS BY Juan Rojelio Olivarez The major purpose of this investigation was to determine if there were differences between Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic children in how they perceive themselves and others Within the ecological contexts of home, school, and peer group. The stratified random sample consisted of forty three Black, eighty nine Caucasian, and twenty seven Hispanic fifth and sixth grade male students from the Grand Rapids Public Schools, a West Michigan urban school district. The Behavior Rating Profile (Brown and Hammill, 1983) was used to measure students' and parents' perceptions. Demographic information on families was provided through a developed family information form. The cumulative file at school provided additional demographic information and documented teachers' comments. Statistical significance as well as descriptive conclusions were used to answer the four basic research questions guiding the study: Juan Rojelio Olivarez 1. Is racial/ethnic group membership related to how students perceive themselves and significant others in the home, school, and peer group environments? Significant differences were not found, however, the Caucasian group had more positive perceptions in all three environments as compared to the other two groups. 2. Do students with low SES differ from students with middle to high SES in their perceptions within the home, school, and peer group? Statistical analysis did not indicate a significant difference in the home and school environments, however, a difference was detected within the peer group environment. This revealed that the middle to high SES students in all three groups had more positive perceptions of their peers as compared to the low SES students. 3. Are children's perceptions within the school context related to their performance in school? For the Black and Hispanic students no significant relationship with reading and math achievement was apparent, however, the Caucasian group did indicate a relationship in both areas. Other descriptive conclusions are discussed which shed additional information in the area of school performance. 4. Are parental perceptions of their child's behavior congruent with the child's self perceptions within the home environment? Only the Caucasian group had a significant relationship between parent and child perceptions. DEDICATION This accomplishment is dedicated to my parents, Alfinio, Sr., and Anita Olivarez, who instilled in their children the value of education and hard work. ' ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my doctoral committee for their advice, assistance, time and patience throughout my graduate work. To Dr. Linda Nelson, committee chairperson, I extend special thanks for her encouragement and confidence during all the years in the program. To Dr. Lilian Phenice, director of this research, I express gratitude for her expertise while guiding this study. A To Dr. Eileen Earhart, who is now at Florida State University, I express appreciation for staying on my committee regardless of distance. Her extra time and work because of this is deeply appreciated. To Dr. Eugene Pernell, cognate committee member, I express appreciation for the time and energy needed to meet my time lines. Appreciation is extended to the consultants at the Office of Research Consultation and the Office of Program Applications at Michigan State University who helped in the statistical sections. The Grand Rapids Public Schools are also given thanks for their cooperation and assistance in using the data from families and children for this study. I wish to acknowledge my family and friends for their assistance and support. This study could not have been iii completed without human resources as well as emotional support. To my sons, Elias and Samuel, I express my affection for their understanding and patience while they waited for my time. Lastly, and most deeply, very special thanks to my wife, Mary, for her patience, encouragement and love which were most necessary for the completion of this study. I also express sincere appreciation for her assistance in all phases of the research, especially in meeting deadlines. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 'List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Introduction . . . . . . . Problem and Need for Study . . . . . Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operational Definitions . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Review of Literature . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Orientation . . . . . . Ecological Perspective . . . . . . . Adaptive Behavior Perspective . . . Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perception and Adaptation to Ecological Context Adaptation to School . . . . . . . . Self Perception and School Performance summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . .'. Research Procedures . . . . . . . . . .viii xi 10 10 12 13 13 13 13 14 15 18 19 20 25 31 34 34 34 Description of Instruments . . . Behavior Rating Profile . . . . Data Collection from Cumulative Data Collection from Families . Research Setting . . . . ... . Sampling Procedures . . . . . . Sample Description . . . . . . Data Collection Procedures . . . Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Research Findings . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . Additional Information . . . . Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 7a . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 7b . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 8a . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 8b . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 9a . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 9b . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 10 . . . . . . . . . . vi 34 34 39 39 40 41 42 52 53 54 54 56 56 56 58 59 61 61 64 65 66 67 68 70 70 72 72 Iypothesis ll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . Additional Information on School Performance Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Summary, Discussion, Recommendations and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objective 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Future Research . . . . . Implications for Practical Use . . . . . . Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. B. F. School Lunch Eligibility Form . . . . . . . . Cumulative File Information Form . . . . . . Family Information Form . . . . . . . . . . . Item Frequency Percentages for BRP HOME Scale Item Frequency Percentages for BRP SCHOOL Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Item Frequency Percentages for BRP PEER Scale Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 74 75 76 79 80 8O 80 80 81 84 84 84 85 88 89 9O 92 92 95 96 98 100 102 104 Table \lO‘UI 10 ll 12 13 14 15 LIST OF TABLES Racial/Ethnic Breakdown of Sample . . . . . Socioeconomic Status Breakdown of Sample . . Grade Breakdown of Sample . . . . . . . . . . Mean Grade Scores of the 1985 California Achievement Test in Reading and Math for Fifth ans Sixth Grade Students . . . . . . . Breakdown of Teacher Effort Ratings . . . . . Mean Absences for Sample from 1980-1985 . . . Percentages of Retentions . . . . . . . . . . Number of Families with One or Two Parents at Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Number of Children in Families . . . . Educational Level of Mothers by Racial/Ethnic Group C O I O O O O C O O O I O O O O O O O 0 Educational Level of Fathers by Racial/Ethnic Group 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Employment Status of Mothers by Racial/Ethnic Group 0 O D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Employment Status of Fathers by Racial/Ethnic Group I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 Analysis of Variance of the BRP HOME Scale for Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . . . . BRP HOME Mean Scores for Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 43 44 44 45 46 ' 46 47 48 48 49 50 51 52 57 57 l6 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Analysis of Variance of BRP SCHOOL Scale for Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BRP SCHOOL Mean Scores for Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of BRP PEER Scale for Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . BRP PEER Mean Scores for Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . . . . . . Results of Student's t-test for scores on the BRP HOME Scale of Socioeconomic Status Groups . . . . . . . . . BRP HOME mean Scores by SES of Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . Results of Student's t-test for Scores on the BRP SCHOOL Scale of Socioeconomic Status Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BRP School Mean Scores by SES of Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of BRP PEER Scale for Low SES and Middle to High SES Groups . . . . . . BRP PEER Mean Scores by SES of Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . . . . . . Pearson Correlations of the BRP SCHOOL Scale Score with the California Achievement Test Reading and Math Scores of Black Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . . . . Person Correlations of the BRP SCHOOL Scale Score with the California Achievement Test Reading and Math Scores of the Caucasian Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . Pearson Correlation of the BRP SCHOOL Scale Score with the California Achievement Test Reading and Math Scores of the Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . ix 58 59 60 61 63 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 71 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Pearson Correlation of the BRP Student HOME Scale Score with BRP Parent Scale Score of Black Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pearson Correlation of the BRP Student HOME Scale Score with the BRP Parent Scale Score of Caucasian Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pearson Correlatoin of the BRP Student HOME Scale Score on the BRP Parent Scale Score of Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Scores for BRP Parent Scale and BRP Student HOME Scale of Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . . . BRP SCHOOL Mean Scores by Number of Retentions for Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . . . . . . BRP SCHOOL Mean Scores by Yes or No Behavior Problem Record for Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students BRP SCHOOL Mean Scores by Teachers' Effort Ratings for Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students . . . . Summary of Hypotheses Tested . . . . . . 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 82 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Procedures Used for Analysis of Data . . . 2 Profile Comparison of Mean Scores of Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Sample . . . . . . xi 53 62 Chapter 1 Introduction Problem and Need for Study In the United States where education for all children is a goal, adaptability to school continues to be an issue partly because particular groups of children have not been successful within the educational system. Often the groups identified as not being successful have been children from minority and/or low income families. Since the 19605 researchers have attempted to understand the problem by focusing their attention on different dimensions of possible factors. Some have pointed their concern toward the school for failing to meet the needs of a diverse group (Scapinello, 1977; Frieze and Snyder, 1980; Morgan, 1980; Ysseldyke and Algozzine, 1982). Others have pointed to variables in the home such as income, parents' attitudes toward education, and family background (Grace, 1979; Lindholm, Touliatos and Rich, 1977; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Frazier, 1939; Felner, 1978). Research literature has identified home and school variables contributing to school adaptability. For this reason programs such as Headstart, magnet schools, and bilingual education have been developed to combat the problem. However, even with these efforts well established, children ' from minority and/or low income families continue to exhibit higher drop out rates, lower achievement scores and over representation in alternative and special education programs. Interest in adaptability to school has surfaced in the educational field, under the term of "adaptive behavior," through legal battles. The result of this litigation has given support to the position taken by some authorities such as Mercer (1973, 1978), Ysseldyke and Regan (1980) and Laten and Katz (1975). They advocate the position that students behave quite differently in different environments. This difference is important to consider when students are not able to conform to behavioral or academic expectations of the school. This focus on the concept of "adaptive behavior" is mandated under the provisions of Public Law 94-142. Within its content, this law requires school personnel to investigate contrasting behaviors in different environments such as the home, school, and community before certain handicapping certifications are attached to children having behavioral or academic problems in school. The intent of this provision is to guarantee that any handicap label on a student is not solely attributed to cultural, environmental, or economic factors. Adaptive behvior in education has been predominantly studied using the medical model (Doll, 1953; Gesell and Amatruda, 1941) which evolved from studying the mentally impaired. In the early 19605, Heber (1961) and others influenced the medical perspective to include some sociological concepts (i.e. social deviance). By the end of the decade Leland and his colleagues (1968) began moving further away from the medical model and identified adaptive behavior as related to environmental demands, treating social expectations as the independent variable and adaptive behavior as the dependent variable. They pointed out that different environments have different expectations for performance and that modifying the environment may make the child more adaptive (Mercer, 1978). Thus, the social-ecological perspective has become a relevant approach for identifying problems in adjustment and for conceptualizing adaptive behavior of children. This perspective calls attention to the social environments and relies on perception in its process. These perceptions within an ecological context can be an important source of information about the way social environments affect adaptation. In looking at the stated problem through the perception of ecological contexts, it is suggested by Swick and Taylor (1982) that perceptions of ecological contexts need to be examined to determine the relationship of those perceptions with school performance of children. In their development of a conceptual framework, they postulate that the perceived relevance is an important part of how various ecological factors affect the performance of children. Furthermore, they believe that the information obtained from this approach can be used by professionals to meet students' needs. External perceptions of children by parents, teachers, and other professionals have been widely used in studying school performance. Little, however, has been studied using internal perceptions from the child. How children perceive themselves within their ecological contexts of home and school could provide increasing understanding about differential school adaptation among a diverse group of students. These self-perceptions have been identified as being basic ingredients in student success or failure (Goffman, 1959; Felice, 1975). Combs (1949, 1976) and Combs and Snygg (1959) through their development of perceptual psychology, have extensively studied behavior from the point of view of the behaver. They postulate that every person is embedded in an environmental context which provides a perceptual field and determines how each person perceives self in that environment. In examining behavior from this point of view, Purkey (1970) has documented that children who perceive school positively perform more successfully than those who have a negative view of this part of the environment. For this reason there is strong support for the need to study adaptiveness from the child's point of view (Combs and Somper 1963; Lambert, 1979). The importance of the impact of a person's self-perceptions of behavior and functioning is only beginning to be discovered. It is, for example, known that many problems which persons take to a counseling situation are primarily problems brought about by unfortunate perceptions of self (Combs, 1976). A person who has a self-perception as a good student, perhaps due to positive experiences in school will see the chances for success in school quite differently from a person who has a self-perception as a poor student, perhaps as a result of negative experiences in school. Thus, the way students see themselves at a particular moment may be a result of cumulative experiences within that environmental context. Perceptions are not easily changed. Once a person locks in on a perception of what can and cannot be done, it is difficult to change that image, expecially if the perception has time to root itself into a firmly established belief (Hamachek, 1971). Carlton and Moore (1966, 1968), Lamy (1965), and Zimmerman and Allebrand (1965) have contributed research on the development of reading skills which support this. Children who see themselves as non-readers will approach reading expecting to do badly, and a circular effect of expectation and experience is established. The child's self-perception as a "poor reader" causes avoidance of reading and thus eliminates the very experience which might improve reading abilities (Combs, 1976). The selective and circular nature of self-perceptions has been studied to some extent in the social sciences. Merton (1948) made extensive mention of the concept in sociological analysis. His use of the term "self-fulfilling prophecy" served to capture the dynamics of the phenomenon. Goldstein (1962), Rosenthal (1966), Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), Rosenthal and Rosnow (1969) and others have contributed experimental evidence on this matter. How a student perceives self is ultimately influenced by what has been experienced. Thus, given the time required in school, the perceived self as able or unable, adequate or inadequte is learned by performance outcomes (Hamachek, 1971) in that environment. Socially imposed expectations are the basis for these outcomes. Teachers who evaluate students' performance of these expectations are usually identified as the significant others in this school environment. One of the areas which has been found to be lacking in the research literature on adaptive behavior is input from students on self-perceived behaviors within different ecological contexts and what influence it might have on schOol performance. Reported research has documented perceptions of self or perception of the school environment and has found that positive and negative perceptions in both areas are associated with school performance. Very little, however, has been done comparing perceived self behaviors acrosss several environments at the same point in time. Still less has been studied comparing the perceptions of different racial and ethnic groups (Lindholm, 1978). It is the hypothesis of this investigator that one's self— perception within an environment determines the behavioral responses exhibited. School performance, behaviorally and/or academically, is only one of the outcomes of this self- perception. Furthermore, it is essential to distinguish differences among social/ethnic groups so educators may be better able to understand the impact of the school on a diverse population. Consequently understanding the differentiation of school adaptation is important, however, it is only one of the contexts that gives the researcher clues for self-perception that lead to adaptive behavior. The major purpose of this investigation is to determine if there are differences between Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic children in how they perceive themselves and others within the ecological contexts of home, school, and peer group. It is expected that this will shed some light on how these perceptions relate to school performance. Furthermore reciprocal perceptions will be investigated through parental ratings of their child and the child's perception of self within the home context. Objectives The objective of this research is to answer basic questions regarding children's perceptions of themselves and others in the home, school, and peer environments. It is also intended to find the relationship between those perceptions, parental perceptions, and actual school performance. Answers to the following questions will be sought: 1. Is racial/ethnic group membership related to what students identify as self perceptions in the home, school and peer group environment? 2. Do students with low SES differ from students with middle to high SES in their self-perceptions within home, school and peer group environment? I 3. Are children's perceptions within the school context related to their self-performance in school? 4. Are parental perceptions of their child's behavior congruent with the child's self-perception within the home environment? Hypotheses For the purposes of this study the following hypotheses will be tested. The Behavior Rating Profile (Brown and Hammill, 1983) was used and the hypotheses were written with specific mention to certain components of the instrument. 1. There is no significant difference among ratings on the HOME scale between Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic male students. 2. There is no significant difference among ratings on the SCHOOL scale between Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic male students. 3. There is no significant difference among ratings on the PEER scale between Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic male students. 4. There is no significant difference between students with low SES and students with middle to high SES in their perceptions of the home environment. 5. There is no significant difference between students with low SES and students with middle to high SES in their perceptions of the school environment. 6. There is no significant difference between students with low SES and students with middle to high SES in their perceptions of the peer environment. 7. There is no significant relationship between Black student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and achievement scores. 7a. Reading Achievement 7b. Math Achievement 8. There is no significant relationship between Caucasian student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and achievement scores. 8a. Reading Achievement 8b. Math Achievement 9. There is no significant relationship between Hispanic student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and achievement scores. 9a. Reading Achievement 9b. Math Achievement 10. There is no significant difference between Black parent's rating of their child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. 11. There is no significant difference between Caucasian parent‘s rating of their child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. 12. There is no significant difference between Hispanic parent's rating of their child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. 10 Assumptions The following assumptions underlie this study: 1. Fifth and sixth grade male students are at an appropriate age level for responding to true and false questions. 2. Fifth and sixth grade male students are capable of interpreting their own self-perceptions in home, school, and peer group contexts. 3. The Behavior Rating Profile is an appropriate instrument for collecting behavior ratings on the home, school, and peer group environments from fifth and sixth grade male students. 4. The Behavior Rating Scale is an appropriate instrument for collecting information from parents on their perceptions of their child in the home environment. 5. Reading and math achievement scores are appropriate information for assessing adaptive behavior in the context of school. Operational Definitions Adaptive Behavior The ability to perceive different environments and respond apprOpriately to them. Appropriate is defined by group expectations. At school, this is evaluated by reading and math achievement scores and subjective evaluations documented in cumulative records. 11 At home, this is evaluated through parental perceptions of their child's behavior. Perception Images developed from experience and information over time. Positive or negative perceptions of self in different environments will be measured through the Behavior Rating Profile. Socioeconomic Status The socioeconomic status will be determined by qualifying standards used by the Department of Education to determine if students are eligible for free or reduced lunch at school (see Appendix A). Ecological Context Refers to the circumstances surrounding particular environmental units. Home This will be evaluated through the Behavior Rating Profile based on questions pertaining to self rated behaviors in situations within the home. School . This will be evaluated through the Behavior Rating Profile based on questions pertaining to self rated behaviors in situations within the school. 12 Peer This will be evaluated through the Bahvior Rating Profile based on questions pertaining to self rated behaviors in situations within the peer group. School Performance How a student performs in school both academically and behaviorally according to California Achievement Test scores and records from the student's cumulative file. Summary In this introductory chapter the problem, importance of the problem, and the purpose of this present study were presented. In Chapter 2 the theoretical orientation is presented as well as a review of research literature related to perception and behavior adaptation. In Chapter 3 the methodology which includes a description of theinstrumentation is discussed. The analysis and discussion of the data and results are presented in Chapter 4. Summary, conclusions, recommendations for future research, and implications are presented in Chapter 5. Chapter 2 Review of Literature Introduction Attempting to broaden the scope of information on the long standing question as to why some children adapt to the' school/educational environment and others do not necessitates an understanding of self perceptions within various environmental contexts. This framework proposes that an individual's experiences, interactions, and interpretations affect behavioral responses and ability to adapt to or cope with the school environment, but that the self-perceptions within different environmental contexts also have some bearing on adaptive behavior. The literature relevant to this study is reviewed under two major categories: theoretical orientation from both ecological and adaptive behavior perspectives, and perception and adaptation to school. Theoretical Orientation Three theoretical perspectives gave direction to the present study. The first is that of an ecological orientation which focuses attention on the reciprocal interaction of individuals with their environments. The second is that of adaptive behavior which emphasizes the ability of an individual to perform successfully within different environments. The third perspective is that of perception l3 14 which refers to the process by which people select, organize and interpret sensory stimulation into a meaningful and coherent picture of the environment (Hamachek, 1971). Ecological Perspective. Attached to the ecological perspective is the concept of the ecosystem. This refers to the living organism, its environments and the interaction between the two. One obviously influences the other (Bubolz, Eicher and Sontag, 1979). In taking this View, the present study is looking at the primary environments, the home, school, and peer group, and investigating the perceived interaction of individuals within these environments. The importance of this perspective is its concern with the wholeness of interaction and interdependence of individuals with their environments. The structure, function, and process of this complex organization determine the degree to which the individual is adaptive when encountering new, different, and conflicting environments. An underlying assumption of this persepctive is that the interaction between the individual and the environment makes adaptation possible. This is referred to as feedback of information and is received in the form of perceptions. This process allows the modification of developed positive or negative meanings to images. Thus, this modification is interpreted as establishing equilibrium or a better fit between the environment and the individual. Effectively using this perspective could have positive implications for educational institutions. Assessing the feedback of 15 perceptions which a child has formed about the school, home, and peer group environments could increase understanding of adaptive behaviors in various contexts. While supporting the notion that perceptions of ecological context play an important part in students' school performance, Swick and Taylor (1982) posed some questions when they developed a conceptual framework for assessing perceptions of ecological contexts. Three of these questions relate to this present study: (a) Are children's perceptions of their ecological contexts related to the way they fucntion in their roles? (b) Are children's perceptions of their ecological contexts related to their performance in school? (c) What are the inter-relationships between these perceptual views of children? For example, do children's perception of their family affect the way they function in school and in the home? Answers to these questions could provide guidelines for educators for the development of new supportive endeavors for children, parents, and schools. Adaptive behavior perspective. The theoretical construct of adaptive behavior used in this investigation is that of a social-ecological perspective (Carlson, 1976; Cassel, 1976; Mercer, 1978). This concept of adaptive behavior refers to the individuals' adaptation to the numerous social systems in which the individual is participating. These highly complex sets of interlocking social systems form the social structure of the environments into which the child is placed. It emphasizes the 16 individual's ability to perceive and respond apprOpriately, according to established norms, to these different environments. Mercer (1978), an advocate of this adaptive behavior perspective, indicated that an individual responds differently to different circumstances. Swick and Taylor (1982) indicated that the difference is in the perceived relevance. This relevance is actually seen in a reciprocal manner by the self and by the significant others who are enforcing the norms in the environment. The norms established by the different environments focus on the aspect of adaptive behavior which addresses social responsibility. This refers to the ability to accept responSibility as a member of a community group and to carry out appropriate behaviors in terms of these group expectations. This will be reflected in levels of conformity, social adjustment, and emotional maturity (Leland, Nikira, Foster, Shellhaas, and Kagin, 1968). Mercer (1973) addressed this issue by describing school age expectations in terms of fulfilling certain roles. During this period a child must learn to comprehend a social structure containing roles such as teacher, parent, and student. The child must learn the expectations of each of these roles. In order to be adaptive, the child must meet the ever increasing demands of the teacher at school and perform more and more complex family roles at home. 17 Role performance that conforms to the expectations of others in the system is considered "normal" or exhibiting adaptive behavior. "Deviant" or unadaptive behavior is behavior that varies greatly from the expectations of the group. Criteria for adaptive behavior as described by Kuhn's (1975) decision making model illustrates the systematic process that individuals experience in becoming adaptive. In using this model, one can single out where the breakdown in adaptation is occurring. Inthe first stage, input of information fromtfluaenvironment reaches the "detector" which receives and identifies the stimulus. During this process the individual must be able to distinguish between stimuli if it is to respond appropriately to different environments or situations. The next function of the model is referred to as the "selector." Here the individual is to select one response rather than another. The individual depends on previous learning to be able to select the appropriate response. Once this response is mentally selected, the individual must carry out the response behaviorally, which is referred to as the "effector" function. Following Kuhn's model leads to the understanding of the information processing system which attempts to make the individual adaptive. It is, therefore, concluded that in order for an individual to adapt to the environment the individual must first perceive the stimuli. It would follow that in this initial step, a positive or negative image will 18 influence the choices individuals select from in order to act within the environment. Perception then becomes an important concept in understanding why some individuals adapt to certain environments and others do not. The final process which Kuhn identified in this model is the feedback of information after the actions take place. This feedback is the function which identifies for the individual whether modification needs to be made in order for future selections to be more adaptive within an environment. Perception. The theme underlying this study grows from a point of reference which has been called the "phenomenological" or "perceptual" approach. It is a point of view which seeks to understand individuals in terms of how they veiw themselves. It looks at human beings through the eyes of the person doing the behaving. In doing so one can understand what goes on inside a person in terms of how needs, feelings, values, and unique ways of perceiving influence the individual in functioning. Bronfenbrenner (1979) has defined development as a lasting change in the way in which a person perceives and deals with the environment. These developmental changes take place concurrently in two domains, those of perception and action. Bronfenbrenner postulates that what matters for behavior and development is the environment as it is perceived rather than as it may exist in "objective" reality. Consequently, the way in which an individual perceives or regards a situation is directly related to behavior. l9 Interpretation actually constitutes one of the first steps and is a continuing phase of adaptation to a situation. Beginning with sensory impressions, perceptions of particular situations are formed which become the basis for action. It is an awareness of interpretation of a situation which is the stimuli to which the individual responds. The individual may maintain or modify the interpretation in light of the actual experience. It involves a selective element because not all aspects of the situation come under the perceiver's scrutiny. Perception calls for an association of meanings with sensory stimuli. Perception, therefore, refers txa the process by which one selects, organizes, and interprets sensory stimulation into a meaningful and coherent picture of the environment in which one is in (Hamachek, 1971). Thus, self perception within ecological contexts and the part it plays in adaptive behavior among different groups of children were the initial focus in this present study. The direction of inquiry taken was not an attempt to confirm or substantiate any specific theories concerning perception, but it was rather an open-ended inquiry into the implications and significance of perceptions within various environments among different groups of children. Perception and Adaptation to Ecological Context Utilizing the theoretical components established in the previous section, it would be reasonable to conclude that perception and adaptation to ecological context are related. 20 This relationship has been investigated in several ways. Most research has attempted to measure perception of self under the category of self-concept or self-esteem. Self— Perception within an ecological context such as the school environment has also been researched, however, to a lesser degree. Research literature utilizing both perspectives to study how individuals differ in adaption is scant. In attempting to formalize the perspective needed for this study, it is important to review related literature which pertains to student adaptation to the school environment and perceptions of self as related to school performance. Adaptation to school. When a child enters the school environment, he/she is expected to adjust to this new environment rather than the school adjusting to the child. The child is expected to learn to live in a new environment and compete for the rewards of obedience and scholarship. Rewards and punishments are rendered to mold the child to meet the expectations of this environment (Purkey, 1978). This is believed to have its ramifications. In 1974-75 the Pennsylvania Department of Education reported a dramatic slippage in positive feelings toward school between kindergarten and grade six: 64.4 percent of kindergarten children expressed positive feelings about school tasks, however, by grade six, the figure had dropped to 12.8 percent (Cormany, 1975). The question of why children express less positive feelings the longer they stay in school is very important in understanding adaptability to school. AM.» u». n\U ’7‘ 21 Researchers have attempted to understand this problem by focusing their attention on different dimensions of possible factors. Those who have pointed their concern toward the school for failing to meet the needs of a diverse group have addressed variables such as integration, teacher attitudes, and curriculum (Scapinello, 1977; Frieze and Snyder, 1980; Morgan, 1980; Ysseldyke and Algozzine, 1982). Others who have investigated the home have addressed variables such as income, parents' attitudes toward education, and home background (Frazier, 1939; Lindholm, Touliatos and Rich, 1977; Felner, 1978; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Grace, 1979). Leland and his colleagues (1968) identified adaptive behavior as related to environmental demands. They point out that different environments have different expectations for performance and that modifying the environment may make the child more adaptive (Mercer, 1978). This social-ecological perspective calls attention to the social environments and relies on perception in its process. This perception of the expectations within an environment and how an individual responds to them can be an important source of information about adaptation. Swick and Taylor (1982) have suggested that these perceptions within ecological contexts need to be examined to determine the relationships among those perceptions and school performance of children. Differential perceptions of students would seem to be an area about which much research would be found. However, this is not the case. The nearest related research found which 22 dealt with perceving "self" within an environment was on tOpics such as self-concept and self-esteem which have received extensive research, expecially investigating their effects on behavior and achievement in school. Weinberg (1983) and Ornstein (1982) have reviewed teh conditions of public educatin for minorities since the civil rights movements of the 19605. Though they accept the improvement of integration and access, they point out that minorities, especially those who are disadavantaged, still lag behind in successful adaptation to the school environment. Ysseldyke and Algozzine (1982) have also expressed their concern over the mission of schools and their failure to teach significant numbers of students. This factor has consistently pushed these students to the sidelines and has influenced their perceptions about themselves and their school environment (Campbell, L.P., 1981; Ghory and Sinclair, 1978; Goodwin, 1977). The implication here is that the perceived and interpreted experiences of events have influence on how students adapt to their educational environment. Purkey (1978) and Ogbu (1978) have used this concept in developing and promoting effective schools. The limited research that has been conducted in this area has primarily been done using adolescent students in high schools. Ghory and Sinclair (1978) collected data from 1,692 students in 31 alternative school environments from six eastern states. Using a Beta press model, which is defined as the participant's own interpretations of the 23 environmental events or conditions perceived, students were identified as marginal or average learners. The results indicated that Black students were found more likely to be marginal in their perceptions and in actual school outcomes. This was also true of lower class students and males. This is to say that the perceptions of those students toward their school environment were more negative which was reflected in their ability to adapt to the traditional school environment. Aptekar (1981) found that Hispanic students' perceptions of the school were influenced more by their experiences with teachers than by the sociological factors they brought to school with them. Haro (1977), using an ethnographic technique to study Hispanic students with extensive absences and low academic achievement, indicated that student- informants reacted negatively toward the formal sub-system of school, including the teacher, because they found little in the sociocultural characteristics of the institution that related to them. Perceptions of school among Black students have been investigated by Goodwin (1977). In his study using 587 students from the Detroit area, he found that race, gender, and race-gender group membership had differential impact on the perceptions of school experiences. This is to say that group membership influenced how positively or negatively a student perceived the school environment. Other investigators which used minority student samples (Espinosa, 1977; Haro, 1977; Sweeting, 1978; Bickel, 1980; 24 Aptekar, 1981; Trotter, 1981; and Thompson-Roundtree and Woodruff, 1981) have used special groups identified as dropouts, trouble students, or low achievers. ' Studies were not found comparing groups using a random population to determine if differential perceptions of home and school exist among students. Support for investigating perceptions of several ecological contexts by students at the same point in time has been promoted by Whitmore (1974), Scapinello (1977), Ogbu (1978), Purkey (1979), Marjoribanks (1981) and Swick and Taylor (1982). Marjoribanks (1981) used 250 twelve-year-old Australian children to examine relationships between children's subjective school outcomes and measures of their family and school environments. One hundred twenty girls and one hundred thirty boys and their parents were selected to participate. A home interview provided information from the student concerning school environment and subjective school outcomes. Path analysis results indicated that children's perceptions of their school environment had moderate to strong links with school outcomes. However, the researcher recommended that future research be conducted using parallel schedules to assess children's perceptions of both home and school environments. Although most research studies reviewed did not use the instrumentation employed in this present investigation, they did shed some light on how particular students perceived their school environment. These perceptions have 25 implications in studying the adaptation of students to the ecological context of school. Self-perception and school performance. External perceptions of children using parents, teachers, and other professionals have been widely used in studying adaptation to school. Little, however, has been studied using internal perceptions from children. How children perceive themselves within their ecological context of school could increase understanding about differential school adaptation among groups of students. Self perceptions have been identified as being basic to student success or failure (Goffman, 1959; Felice, 1975). Combs (1949, 1976) and Combs and Snygg (1959), through their development of perceptual psychology, have extensively studied behavior from the point of view of the behaver. In examining behavior from this point of view, Purkey (1978) has documented that children who perceived school positively performed more successfully than those who had a negative view of this part of the environment. For this reason there is strong support for the need to study adaptiveness from the child's point of view (Combs and Somper, 1963; Lambert, 1979). For the purpose of this study the investigator has focused on the concept of "phenomenal self" or "perceived self" as developed by Combs and Snygg (1959) and Combs (1976). This perspective incorporates a broader conceptual framework than simply looking at how an individual sees self 26 in totality of concepts and images. It looks at how the individual sees self in particular situations. These self perceptions within different settings can assist in determining if particular environments influence the adaptation of children to school. According to Mead (1934, 1938) the self is a socially formed self which grows in a social setting where there is social communication. Mead suggested that a person can have as many selves as there are numbers of social groups in which the person participates. A person may have a family self that reflects the values and attitudes expressed by the family, a school self which represents the expectations and attitudes expressed by the teachers and fellow students, and many other selves. Snygg and Combs (1976) have researched this idea and postulate that an individual behaves in a manner consistent with the "perceptual field." This refers to the personal meanings which exist for the individual at any given instant in time. Behavior, then, represents the externally observable manifestation of what is going on inside a person. To attempt an understanding of a person, we must examine the internal or personal frame of reference to establish an understanding of why a person functions and behaves in a particular way (Combs and Snygg, 1976). People do not behave according to the facts as others see them. They behave according to the-fEEEE as thgy see them. What governs behavior from t e point of view of the individual himself are his unique perceptions 27 of himself and the world in which he lives, the meanings things have for him. (Combs & Snygg, p. 17). One could conclude that in any given environment perceptions of individuals within that situation may differ. In a study by Adelman, Taylor, Fuller, and Nelson (1979), a look was taken at self-disclosure to determine if self perceptions differed compared to other's judgements. Students from 6 to 18 years of age who had been referred to a clinic because of school problems responded to questions related to their performance, attitudes, and behavior. Their parents and teachers responded to similar questions. The researchers reported findings from a subsetof seven school-related questions dealing with (a) general performance in doing schoolwork, (b) effort in working at school, (c) liking to learn at school, (d) performance in reading, (e) performance in math, (f) behavior at school, and (9) getting along with others the same age at school. Each item was rated on a six-point scale labeled (1) very poor, (2) poor, (3) fair, (4) good, (5) very good, (6) excellent. Other measures which were utilized were the California Achievement Test and teacher-assigned grades which were marked in the students' school records. Results of this study indicated that students consistently viewed their problems as less severe than their parents' views, and teachers rated the students even more severely than the parents. 28 In another study, Vidoni, Fleming, and Mintz (1983) found that perceptions among teachers, other professionals and 'children correlated. They used a sample of 504 fifth and eighth grade students in four different states. They administered Wickman's (1928) rating scale to teachers and mental health professionals and to the children. The data were analyzed using Spearman rank order correlation. Behavioral ratings of teachers and mental health professionals correlated at .54. The children and teachers correlated at .81. All of these correlations were significant at p .05 level. Their conclusions indicated that data collected from teachers and mental health professionals correlated because many of the mental health professionals had been teachers and thus carried the same attitudes as the existing teachers. The very high agreement as to the seriousness of behavior problems shown by children and their teachers was concluded to be attributed to the proximity and familiarity of effects. In a study which looked at parent and teacher agreement about Black and White emotionally disturbed children, Kaufman, Swan and Wood (180) found that there was more agreement in teachers' perceptions with White children's parents than with Black children's parents. The sample totaled 194 emotionally disturbed children ranging in age from 3.2 to 13.0 years. The sample was comprised of 129 Whites and 65 Blacks representing a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds. The instrument used in this study was the Referral Form Checklist (RFCL: WOod, 1972, 1975). This 54 item instrument contains 29 problems of children in the areas of behavior, communication, socialization, and academics. Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W) and chi-square test of association were used to analyze the data. The result of this study indicated that disagreement between teachers and black parents was greater than between teachers and white parents. The implication noted here is that the perceptions of individuals may be bound to their race and/or socioeconomic group. There are cross cultural studies which support the hypothesis that perception of individuals can be affected by the cultural auxl environmental context. For example, Segall, Campbell, and Herskovits (l966)reported significant differences across cultures in perceiving geometric or Optical illusions. Furthermore the same event may be perceived with varying degrees cmf differentiation in different cultures (Combs & Snygg, 1976). For example, snow is described by a single word by some people, hoWever, the Eskimos have several words to designate varying conditions and properties (Whorf, 1940) of snow. Smiliarily, an African tribe whose economy is based on cattle has 17 words referring to different conditions of a cow (Merker, 1904). The way a person learns to differentiate people and events will differ from culture to culture. Even defining the "self" may vary among culture. Because the individualie:continuously sensitive to significant others and the meanings derived and developed for events, one can never be free from the effect of culture on self 3O perceptions (Combs & Snygg, 1976). Thus a person perceives and behaves in terms of values, customs, and traditions which may distinguish self from others. For example, Indian, Mexican, Black, and Anglo children differ in their perception of the age when they should assume certain responsibilities (Zunich, 1971). Self-perceptions, as Goffman (1959) and others have documented, are basic ingredients in student success or failure. Most reported studies which have examined these relationships of success in school have measured self-esteem or self concept with school achievement. Reseachers have found significant correlations ranging from moderate, r=.30 to .45, (Brookover, 1964; Coopersmith, 1959, 1967; Trowbridge, 1970) to low, rw<.25, (Kunce, Getsinger, & Miller, 1972; Nelson, 1970). Some studies have failed to find any significant relationship (Butcher, 1967; Williams, 1973). Studies by Caplin (1966) and Godfrey (1970) of Black students found that those who reported positive self concepts had higher academic achievement scores. Caplin's conclusion was that the influence of the self had no racial boundaries since any student who had low self-esteem seldom succeeded in school. Mangano and Towne (1970) examined the relationship of self concept and academic achievement scores of Puerto Rican migrant students. The results of this study also supported the correlation between the perception of self and academic achievement among this particular group. 31 Summary This chapter began with the presentation and development of the theoretical orientation upon which the present investigation was based. This included a description of three theoretical perspectives. The first is that of an ecological orientation which focused on the reciprocal interaction of individuals with their environments. The concept of the ecosystem attached to this perspective calls attention to the importance of the interaction between the individual and the primary environments of the home, school and peer group. The second theoretical perspective was that of adaptive behavior which emphasized the ability of an individual to perform successfully within these different environments. The construct reviewed was that of a social-ecological perspective. This called attention to the numerous social systems in which the individual is participating and the different roles which must be performed. The distinction and ability in: perceive each role that the individual must perform provides the adaptive fit betweenthe person and each environment. Kuhn's (1975) decision making model was presented to describe the systematic functions which occur within the individual to make that successful fit. The third and final perspective was that of perception which called attention to the importance and primary purpose of perception and the adaptation of individuals. The "phenomenological" approach which seeks to understand individuals in terms of how they view themselves in particular situations and 32 settings was described. These self perceptions within ecological contexts among different groups of children provided the focus for this present investigation. . Using these theoretical components, the next section in this chapter provided a review of research which was felt to be nearest in relationship to the present study. Research literature using perceptions of self and separate ecological contexts was scant. For this reason the related literature pertained to students' adaptation to the school environment and perceptions of self as related to school performance. The successful or unsuccessful adaptation to school has been found to be associated with factors from the home as well as from within the school environment, however, the unsuccessful adaptationknrsome students continues to be investigated. These unsuccessful students are usually from minority or low socio-economic status groups. Ysseldyke (1982), Mercer (1978), Weinberg (1983), Ornstein (1982) and others have provided research which support this condition. Combs and Snygg (1976), Ghory and Sinclair (1978),_ Marjoribanks (1981) and others provided research on the effects of perceptions within ecological contexts. Reported research has documented perceptions of self or perceptions of the school environment and has found that positive and negative perceptions in both areas are associated with school performance. Very little, however, has been done comparing percevied self behaviors across several environments at the same point in time. Still less 33 has been studied comparing the perceptions of different racial and ethnic groups. This review of literature has provided the impetus for this present investigation. Chapter 3 Methodology Research Procedures The research procedurescnfthis study will be discussed under the following headings: Description of Instruments, Research Setting, Sampling Procedure, Sample Description, Data Collection Procedures, Design, Data Analysis and Summary. Description of Instruments The Student Form of the Behavior Rating Profile (BRP) by Brown and Hammill (1983) was used as the assessment instrument for the measurement of children's perceptions of their behaviors within three different ecological contexts. The Parent Form of the BRP was used to collect information on the parents' perception of the child. The student's cumulative file was reviewed to gather demographic, academic, and behavioral information. A copy of this form will be found in Appendix B. In addition, a brief family information form was deve10ped to gather additional information from the home. This data gathering form is presented in Appendix C. Behavior Rating Profile. The BRP is an indirect measure of behavior designed for students who range in age from 6-6 through 18-6 years and/or who are in grades one through twelve. It contains six independent components: five checklists and one sociogram. The Student Rating Scales 34 35 are to be completed by the student, The Home Scale to be completed by the parents, and the School Scale to be completed by the teacher(s). Since the six segments are independent measures, each may be used alone or in any combination. The particular parts which an examiner chooses to use will depend upon the purposes for which the evaluation is being undertaken (Brown & Hammill, 1983). The authors of this instrument consider the BRP an ecological/behavioral assessment device in that it allows an examination cfif children's perceptions of their behaviors in a variety of settings, as well as the perception of significant adults in those environments. For the purpose of this dissertation, the Student Rating Scale and the Parent Rating Scale were analyzed. On the Student Scale, questions about home, school, and peers are presented. Each area contains 20 items, which are written as negative statements as in most behavior rating scales. They are all intermingled in the 60-item instrument. The items on the "Home" scale relate to behaviors or situations which take place in the home. Examples of these items are: 1. My parents "bug" me a lot. 33. I have lots of nightmares and bad dreams. 47. I often break rules set by my parents. The "School" scale contains items relating to school and classroom behaviors or situations. Examples of these items are: 36 16. I am not interested in school work. 45. I am dissatisfied with my progress in school. 59. The things I learn in school are not as important or helpful as the things I learn outside of school. The "Peer" scale reflects behaviors involving interpersonal skills and relationships. Examples of these items are: 7. Other students don't like to play or work with me. 32. It is hard for me to make new friends. 60. Some people think I am dumb. The students are asked to respond to each item as "true" if they believe the item is a good description of themselves or their environment or "false" if the item is not a good description. The "false" responses for each separate scale (Home, School, and Peer) are totaled. The sums become raw scores. Tables are provided for converting these into Standard Scores and their Percentile Ranks. These conversion tables are provided on the back of the student booklet. The Standard Scores are then plotted on a profile sheet. The Parent Rating Scale can be completed by either the mother or the father or by both parents. They are asked to classify each of 30 items as "very much like my child," "like my child," or "not at all like my child." Examples of items on this scale are: 2. Doesn't follow rules set by parents. 10. Is shy; clings to parents. 29. Demands excessive parental attention. 37 Total number of responses in each of the four categories are computed and multiplied by a number assigned to each category for weighting. The sum of marks under the category of "very much like my child" is multiplied by 0, "like my child" is multiplied by 1, "not much like my child" is multiplied by 2, and "not at all like my child" is multiplied by 3. All of the products are then summed to obtain a raw score which is then converted to a Standard Score or a Percentile Rank by using a table. Standard Scores for each of the BRP components are computed on a distribution where the mean has been set at 10 and the standard deviation at 3. Scores below 7 or above 13 differ significantly from the norm (one standard deviation). The BRP scales were standardized on a large, unselected sample of 1,966 students and 1,232 parents. Participants lived in 15 states, including: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. According to Spivak and Swift (1973) behavior checklists tend to have low to moderate reliability and they lack evidence of validity. Furthermore, few checklists have been normed on a reasonably large population with a distribution that approximates such national characteristics as sex, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. The BRP has been prepared specifically to avoid these major weaknesses that usually accompany rating scales. Its 38 purpose is to provide an ecological evaluation of students' behaviors that is well standardized, highly reliable, experimentally validated, and norm-referenced. It is an ecological/behavioral assessment device and, as such, it permits students' behaviors to be examined in a variety of settings and from several pertinent points of view. Internal consistency of the BRP was studied using Coefficient Alpha (Veldman, 1967; Cronback, 1951). This statistic is derived by the Kuder—Richardson formula Number 20. The Alpha technique was applied to 204 parent rating scales and 200 self-rating scales. These scales were drawn randomly from the standardized data. The resulting reliability coefficients reported in the manual for the grade levels used in this present study were considered high ranging from .74 to .91. Standard error of measurement, which reflects the consistency of test performance, is usually small when tests have high reliability. This is the case of the BRP scales. In the manual "Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests and Manual, the American Psychological Association" (APA, 1974) the authors state that research authors should provide evidence of at least three types of validity in their test manuals. _The BRP reports content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity in their manual. In summary, the investigations completed so far on the BRP's validity are most encouraging. The authors of the BRP hope that other investigators continue to study the validity of the scales. 39 The BRP has also been studied for both reliability and validity with emotionally imparied and learning disabled students. This information has added to the strength of the instrument in diagnostic applicability. A Spanish language version of the BRP, the Perfil de Evaluacion del Comportamiento (PEC) (Brown and Hammill, 1983) was designed for Spanish speaking participants. The PEC was standardized on a pOpulation of 1,207 students and 83 parents residing in various states of Mexico. Mexican norms are provided in the PFC manual and should be used only if they are applicable. These norms were not used in the present study. Data collection from cumulative files. Each student's cumulative file was reviewed to obtain demographic information such as days absent per school year from 1980-1985, number of schools attended since kindergarten, and number of retentions since kindergarten. Academic information was recorded by using the results of the Spring 1985 California Achievement Test and subjective effort ratings documented by teachers. Behavioral information collected from the file included the evaluation of behavioral notations made by teachers. This information was collected by the Resource Room Teachers within each building. A copy of this data collection form is located in Appendix B. Data collection from families. This form was develOped to gather additional information from the home. It asked three basic questions regarding the home status of one or 40 two parents at home, employment status, and educational status. The form was sent to the home and filled out by the parent(s). A copy of this form is located in Appendix C. Research setting. As in most urban school districts, the Grand Rapids Public Schools are experiencing an increased number of behavior and academic referrals among youths resulting in placement of students in special or alternative educational programs. Grand Rapids is the second largest city in Michigan located on the western side of the lower peninsula. According to the 1980 census the city's population was 181,843. Racial and ethnic composition includes Caucasians, 80 percent; Blacks, 16 percent; Hispanics, 3 percent; and others (American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, Asian, Pacific Islanders), 1 percent. The Grand Rapids Public School System is comprised of forty elementary schools, six middle schools, and four high schools. The total school population in the district is 25,000. Elementary schools are equally dispersed throughout the city in all socioeconomic neighborhood strata. Being a large urban school district, the enrollment is representative of its diverse racial, ethnic, and economic population. To assure that careful evaluations are being conducted cu) students having problems the district is establishing strict guidelines to follow when child study teams evaluate Students referred for either academic or behavior difficulties. in! the evaluation policy guidelines a stipulated requirement iS the investigation of behaviors of these students in 41 different settings and from different perspectives. The Behavior Rating Profile (Brown and Hammill, 1983) has been identified as the required instrument for collecting such information. Because the authors of this instrument encourage the development of local norms, the district approved a pilot study to be conducted by the Special Education Department. Three factors were considered in ’ establishing the population that would be studied: (a) a . high referral rate at the upper elementary level, (b) a 1"! high referral rate among boys, and (c) a high referral rate among minorities. The school district planned to use the analysis of the data collected to contribute to the usefulness of this required assessment tool. Further analysis of the data in this dissertation will contribute understanding of the groups represented for making recommendations for long range effective school planning within this school district. Sampling procedures. The sample selected was taken from the 1,600 fifth and sixth grade male population enrolled within forty elementary schools. The selection process was done in a stratified random sample procedure to assure representation from Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic populations. The procedure was established to select the sample from the population about which the school district was most concerned. The Office of Evaluation and the Data Center of the Grand Rapids Public Schools produced fifth and sixth grade general education class lists from which the sample was 42 selected. Names were separated by racial/ethnic group. All Hispanic males were selected because of the small numbers. In the Black and Caucasian categories, every tenth student was selected. A total of thirteen students from each school was selected. Twenty students were eliminated because of recent moves out of the school district. The end result was 500 names representing students from all elementary schools. Parents of the selected students were sent a packet of information explaining the intent and procedure of the study. Parents also received a consent form to sign if they wanted to participate, a form asking questions about their perceptions of their child, a family information questionnaire, and a self addressed stamped envelope for the return of the information. One hundred sixty five parents returned the information. Six packets of information were not included because the consent form was missing or the family moved before student assessment took place in June 1985. Sample description. One hundred fifty nine male fifth and sixth grade students were included in the sample. Table 1 indicates the breakdown of this population by racial/ethnic groups. There were forty three Black students representing 10 percent of the total school Black male fifth and sixth grade population. The Black males represented 27 percent of the sample population used in the study. Eighty nine Caucasian students represented 10 percent of the Caucasian male populationixxthe fifth and sixth grades. This represented 56 percent of the total sample population. The 43 Hispanic sample included twenty seven students which represented 30 percent of the Hispanic male population in the fifth and sixth grades. This group represents 17 percent of the sample pOpulation used in this study. Table l. Racial/Ethnic Breakdown of Sample Sample GRPS Population Group N % % Black 43 27 10 Caucasian 89 56 10 Hispanic 27 17 30 Total 159 . 100 The socioeconomic status (SES) of the participants was determined by qualifying guidelines for the Department of Education School Lunch Program. Qualification is based on income and the number of dependent children in the household. Using these guidelines, low SES representation included those students who where eligible for free or reduced lunch. Students who were ineligible for free or reduced lunch were considered to represent middle to high SES classification. Table 2 indicates the breakdown between low and middle to high SES representation of the Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic groups in the sample. 44 Table 2. Socioeconomic Status Breakdown of Sample Black Caucasian Hispanic Leve 1 N % N % N % Low 28 65.1 22 24.7 17 63.0 Middle to High 15 34.9 67 75.3 10 37.0 Totals 43 100 89 100 27 100 Two grade levels were used in the study to insure a sufficient number of students from which to select a stratified sample. The Hispanic population in particular needed both grade levels to produce an adequate number of possible participants. Table 3 indicates that 91 students in the total sample were in the fifth grade while 68 were in the sixth grade. Table 3. Grade Breakdown of Sample 5th 91 57.2 6th 68 42.8 45 Descriptive information from the cumulative files was collected on all of the students. This information will be used as comparative data among the groups. Table 4 provides‘ the mean scores taken from the Spring 1985 California Achievement Test. In both the reading and math categories, Caucasian students received the highest scores, Hispanic students received the next highest followed by Black students. Table 4. Mean Grade Scores of the Achievement Test in Reading and Math for Fifth and Sixth Grade Students Group Reading Arithmetic Black 6.0 5.7 Caucasian 7.8 7.4 Hispanic 6.2 6.6 Effort ratings on students are indicated by teachers to provide an indication of how each student is perceived with repsect to the effort put forth in school. These subjective ratings are marked in the students cumulative files and were calculated by group in Table 5. This comparison indicates that the highest ratings for all groups was "satisfactory." It also indicates that the Hispanic group had the highest proportionate number of students who were rated "poor" in their effort and Blacks the lowest proportionate number rated "excellent." 46 Table 5. Breakdown of Teacher Effort Ratings Group Excellent Satisfactory Poor Black 4.8 85.7 9.5 Caucasian 15.9 70.5 13.6 Hispanic 11.5 73.1 15.4 The average days absent from school by the sample group for the past five years were calculated by each group. The information provided in Table 6 shows a decrease in Black and Caucasian absences through the years indicated but, an increase in the Hispanic student absences. Table 6. Mean Absences for Sample from 1980-85 Year Black Caucasian Hispanic 1980-31 9.7 10.7 9.4 1981-82 7.1 8.1 8.5 1982-83 6.8 7.9 7.6 1983~a4 7.3 7.9 11.0 198 4~85 8.8 8.5 10.4 \ Retention refers to the repetition of a grade because of IE ~ ' a1lure. Table 7 indicates that 28.2 percent of the Black is ifth and sixth grade sample were retained once and 2.6 47 percent were retained twice. Within the Caucasian group 15.1 percent were retained one time and 2.3 percent retained two times. The Hispanic sample which had been retained one time represented 27 percent of that group and 11.5 percent were retained two times. Caucasian students were retained less than either of the other two groups and the Hispanic students had more retentions than the Black or Caucasian ' students. m Table 7. Percentage of Retentions ! number of retentions Group 0 l 2 Black 69.2 28.2 2.6 Caucasian 82.6 15.1 2.3 Hispanic 61.5 27.0 11.5 Information about the families was provided by the Parents on a questionnaire. Some questions were not. answered and . therefore, coded as missing. Table 8 indicates the “finnzkmer of students in each group category with one or two p at ents at home. Although some participants did not respond to this question, this information indicates that approximately 50 Percent of the Black sample population came from one pa“Tent homes, while the other 50 percent came from two LL} 48 parent homes. The Caucasian sample was represented by 32 percent from one parent homes and 63 percent from homes where both parents were living at home. Within the Hispanic group, 20 percent came from one parent homes while 80 percent came from two parent homes. Table 8. Number of Families with One or Two Parents at Home parents at home Group 1 2 Black ' 20 23 Caucasian 21 66 Hispanic 5 20 The average family size shown in Table 9 indicates that Hispanic families had the largest number of children with 3.4 per family. The Caucasian and Black Families had 2.7 children on the average per family. Table 9. Mean Number of Children in Families Group , Mean Black 2.7 Caucasian 2.7 Hispanic 3.4 49 The educational level of mothers who provided this information is shown in Table 10. Of the 44 Black parents participating, 43 responded. Within this group 25.6 percent had less than a high school diploma. High school graduates represented 30.2 percent of the group and 44.2 percent had a college education. Of the 89 Caucasian parent participants only 55 provided this information. These parents indicated that 11.6 percent had less than a high school diploma while 52.3 percent graduated from high school. College experience was represented by 36.1 percent of the mothers. Twenty three of the 27 Hispanic mothers responsded to this question. Of these participants 52.1 percent had less than a high school diploma. High school graduates were represented by 21.7 percent and some college experience also accounted for 21.7 percent of the group. Table 10. Educational Level of Mothers by Racial/Ethnic Group Black Caucasian Hispanic Highest Achievement N % N % N % 4.8th grade 3 7.0 0 0 4 17.4 8 grades 3 7.0 3 3.5 l 4.3 1-3 years of high school 5 11.6 7 8.1 7 30.4 High school diploma 13 30.2 14 52.3 5 21.7 1-3 years of college 13 30.2 19 22.1 5 21.7 Bachelors degree 1 2.3 5 5.8 0 0 Post bachelor 0 0 3 3.5 0 0 Masters degree 2 4.7 3 3.5 0 0 Post masters 2 4.7 l 1.2 0 0 Ph.D or Ed.D l 2.3 0 0 0 0 Other professional degree 0 0 0 0 l 4.3 50 The educational level of fathers is shown in Table 11. Information on 31 of the Black fathers revealed that 32.3 percent had less than a high school diploma. High school graduates represented 22.6 percent of the group and 45.1 percent had a college education. Among the 76 Caucasian fathers 14.6 percent had less than a high school diploma while 34.2 percent graduated from high school. College experience was indicated by 47.3 percent of the fathers. Information on 19 Hispanic fathers' educational level indicates that 52.7 percent of the fathers had less than a high school diploma. High school graduates were represented by 26.3 percent and some college experience accounted for 21.1 percent of the group. Table 11. Educational Level of Fathers by Racial/Ethnic Group Black Caucasian Hispanic Highest Achievement N % N % N % < 8th grade 2 6.5 l 1.5 5 26.3 8 years of school 1 3.2 2 2.6 l 5.3 1-3 years of high school 7 22.6 8 10.5 4 21.1 High school diploma 7 22.6 26 34.2 5 26.3 1-3 years of college 8 25.8 21 27.6 3 15.8 Bachelors degree 4 12.9 10 13.2 0 0 Masters degree 1 3.2 1 1.3 l 5.3 Post Masters 1 3.2 2 2.6 0 0 Ph.D. or Ed.D. O 0 2 2.6 0 0 Other professional degree 0 0 3 3.9 0 0 51 Employment information of mothers is shown in Table 12. One Black mother, three Caucasian mothers, and three Hispanic mothers did not respond to this question. Among the rest of the group the figures indicate that more Black mothers are employed than either the Cuacasian or Hispanic mothers. Caucasian and Hispanic mothers reported themselves 43.0 and 33.3 percent repectively as homemakers in contrast to 14.0 percent of the Black mothers. This category was selected with the understanding that "homemaker" was an employment status by choice. The unemployed category for the Black mothers represented 11.6 percent of that group while Caucasian mothers reported 4.7 percent unemployed. The Hispanic mothers unemployment rate was 8.3 percent within that sample group population. Table 12. Employment Status of Mothers by Racial/Ethnic Group Black Caucasian Hispanic N % N % N % Homemaker 6 14.0 37 43.0 8 33.3 Part time 4 9.3 19 22.1 1 4.2 Full time 28 65.1 26 30.2 13 54.2 Unemployed 5 11.6 4 4.7 2 8.3 52 Fathers' employment information that could be obtained is provided in Table 13. The data indicate that more Caucasian fathers are employed followed by Black fathers. Hispanic fathers have a higher unemployment rate in proportion to the Black and Caucasian representation. One father indicated being a homemaker by choice. Table 13. Employment Status of Fathers by Racial/Ethnic Group Black Caucasian Hispanic N % N % N % Homemaker 0 0 0 0 1 5.3 Part time 1 3.3 l 1.4 2 10.5 Full time 24 80.0 69 93.2 10 52.6 Unemployed 5 16.7 4 5.4 6 31.6 Data Collection Procedures The Resource Room Teachers within the Grand Rapids Public Schools orally administered the questions to groups of three to five students in June 1985. The test directions explain that the Student Scale may be administered individually or in a group. Reading the questions to the students maximized the reliability of responses by eliminating the confounding variables of reading ability and comprehension. This latter variable was controlled by allowing the student to ask for 53 meanings of unknown words or phrases, a practice which is permissible in its standardization. The students marked their own responses CH1 a form provided for them. The BRP Parent Form and the Family Information questionnaire were sent home with the student and a self- addressed, stamped envelope was provided for their return. Cumulative files were reviewed by the Resource Room Teachers to provide the information and data needed on each student. Design This investigation analyzed self-rated behaviors among Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic students in their home, school, and peer group environments. Differences and relationships were studied between groups. Further analysis was made with child perceptions and actual school performance documented in cumulative files. Parent perceptions and child perceptions were compared for congruence. Figure 1 indicates the procedures for analysis that were utilized for each of the hypotheses guiding this study. Objective Hypothesis Procedure for Analysis 1 1 Analysis of Variance l 2 Analysis of Variance l 3 Analysis of Variance 2 4 Student's t-test 2 5 Student's t-test 2 6 Student's t-test 3 7a & 7b Pearson Correlation 3 8a & 8b Pearson Correlation 3 9a & 9b Pearson Correlation 4 '10, 11 s 12 Pearson Correlation Figure 1. Procedure Used for Analysis of Data 54 Data Analysis The data obtained from the instruments used on all subjects were coded, key punched on computer cards, and verified with the aid of staff members in the Office of Research Consultants (ORC) at Michigan State University. The computer program used for analyzing the data was the Northwestern University Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) with the assistance of the Applications Programming Office at the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory. The statistical procedures used in this study included the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for comparing the means of the three groups, Student's t-tests for comparing SES and mean scores for each group, and Pearson Correlations for finding relationships between school mean scores and achievement and finding relationships between parent and child perceptions. The alpha level of significance was set at .05 for decisions about rejection of the null hypothesis. Summary The population for this study was 159 fifth and sixth grade male students selected in a stratified random sample technique controlling for representation from Black, Caucasian and Hispanic groups. The students were representative of the forty elementary schools of the Grand Rapids Public Schools which are located in all socioeconomic neighborhood stratas. All children were asked to respond to the Student Form of the Behavior Rating Profile by Brown and Hammill (1983) which asks questions about themselves within the Home, School, and Peer group environments. 55 A Parent Form of the Behavior Rating Profile was sent to parents to gather information on their perceptions of their child at home. A Family Information Form was also filled out by parents to gather specific demographic information about the family. In addition, data were gathered from the students' cumulative files to obtain the California Achievement Test Scores from the Spring of 1985 assessment and other demographic and teacher evaluative information. The data from the three groups were analyzed to compare differences in student perceptions of themselves within the various ecological settings. The comparisons by racial/ethnic 'and SES group membership were made to determine if particular groups of children view certain environments more positively or negatively than other groups. Comparisons were also made to determine if school performance was related to any of these perceptions. Data from parents were analyzed to determine if their perceptions were congruent with their child's perceptions. ~Demographic information from home and school was also included in analyzing how the different groups of students perceived themselves within the school environment in particular. Chapter 4 Research Findings This chapter presents the results of the statistical analysis in relation to each of the hypotheses; additional data are also reported. Each hypothesis is stated separately in the null and alternative form and followed by the analysis. Hypothesis 1 HO: Null Hypothesis There is no significant difference among ratings on the HOME scale between Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic male students. HI: Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant difference among ratings on the HOME scale between Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic male students. The statistical analysis used to test the difference between scores on the HOME measure of the three groups was the analysis of variance (ANOVA). The F statistic was calculated at F=2.4l which was not significant at p.(.05. Thus the null hypothesis, Hypothesis 1, was not rejected. Therefore there is no significant difference between Black, Caucasian and Hispanic student ratingscx1the HOME measure. The results of the analysis of variance for this hypothesis can be found in Table 14. 56 57 Table 14. Analysis of Variance of the BRP HOME Scale for Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students 'Variable Source SS DF MS F HOME Between 33.09 2 . 16.55 2.41 Within 1071.64 156 6.87 Total 1104.73 158 *significant alpha .05 Though a statistically significant difference did not exist when means for the three groups were analyzed, the Black and Hispanic groups indicated lower scores than their Caucasian counterparts. Table 15 indicated that the Caucasian mean score was at 10.6 while both the Black and Hispanic groups resulted in mean scores of 9.7. Closer analysis of item responses can be found in Appendix D where a breakdown of frequency percentages is calculated. Table 15. BRP HOME Mean Scores for Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students Group HOME Black 9.7 Caucasian 10.6 Hispanic 9.7 Hypothesis 2 HO: Null Hypothesis There is no significant difference among ratings on the SCHOOL scale between Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic male students. HI: Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant difference among ratings on the SCHOOL scale between Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic male students. The statistical procedure used to test the difference between scores on the SCHOOL measure of the three groups was the analysis of variance (ANOVA). The F statistic was calculated at F=l.27 which was not significant at p.(.05. Thus, the null hypothesis, Hypothesis 2, was not rejected. Therefore there is no significant difference between Black, Caucasian and Hispanic student ratings on the SCHOOL measure. In Table 16 the results of the data analysis are shown. Table 16. Analysis of Variance of BRP SCHOOL Scale for Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students Variable Source SS DF MS F SCHOOL Between 21.71 2 10.85 1.27 Within 1331.29 156 8.53 Total 1352.99 158 *significant alpha .05 59 When means for the three groups were analyzed, the Black and Hispanic groups had lower scores than the Caucasian groups even though the differences were not statistically significant. Table 17 indicates that the Caucasian group mean score calculated at 10.3, the Black group mean score at 9.7 and the Hispanic group at 9.4. Appendix E gives a closer analysis of item responses per group. Table 17. BRP SCHOOL Mean Scores for Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students Group SCHOOL Black 9.7 Caucasian 10.3 Hispanic 9.4 Hypothesis 3 . HO: Null Hypothesis There is no significant difference among ratings on the PEER scale between Blacks, Caucasian, and Hispanic male students. HI: Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant difference among ratings on the PEER scale between Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic male students. 60 The statistical procedure used to test the difference txstween scores on the PEER measure of the three groups was ‘the analysis of variance (ANOVA). The F statistic was calculated at F=.7l which was not significant at p 4.05. Tflnis, the null hypothesis, Hypothesis 3, was not rejected. This indicates that there is no significant difference between lBlack, Caucasian and Hispanic student ratings on the PEER lneasure. The results of the analysis of variance for this ‘hypothesis can be found in Table 18. Table 18. Analysis of Variance of BRP PEER Scale for Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students Variable Source SS DF MS F PEER Between 14.47 2 7.25 .71 Within 1587.33 156 10.18 Total 1601.82 158 *significant alpha .05 Table 19 indicates that the mean scores for all three groups are relatively close. The Caucasian group was slightly higher with a 10.9 followed by a 10.4 for the Black group and 10.1 by the Hispanic group. Closer analysis of item responses can be found in Appendix F where a breakdown of frequency percentages is calculated. 61 Table 19. BRP PEER Mean Scores for Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students Group PEER Black 10.4 Caucasian 10.9 Hispanic 10.1 Additional information. Figure 2 illustrates the BRP Student Rating Scales Profile for the three sample groups. Hypotheses 1-3 did not indicate statistically significant differences among the Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic groups, however, the profile of mean scores indicates that the Caucasian group had more positive perceptions within all three ecological contexts. Hypothesis 4 HO: Null Hypothesis There is no significant difference between students with low SES and students with middle to high SES on their perceptions of the HOME environment. HI: Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant difference between students with low SES and students with middle to high SES on their perceptions of the HOME environment. 62 Behavior Rating Profile Student Rating Scales HOME SCHOOL PEER scaled scaled scores scores 11 ’,” 11 10 ~--_..// 10 _f..._.~ ~ ~ ’.——" . 9 9 8 8 Black group ------ Caucasian group ------ Hispanic group Figure 2. Profile Comparison of Mean Scores of Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Sample. The Student's t-test for differences on the HOME Scale showed that the mean score for the low SES group was 9.8 and for the middle to high SES group the mean was 10.5. The difference was not significant at p (.05. Table 20 indicates the results of the t-test. There was no significant difference on scores for low and middle to high SES group on the HOME Scale, therefore, the null hypothesis, Hypothesis 4, was not rejected. 63 Unable 20. Results of Student t—test for Scores on the BRP HOME Scale of Socioeconomic Status Groups Pooled Variance Estimate Standard t 2-tailed Variable N Mean Deviation value Prob Low SES 64 9.8 2.6 -1.76 .08 Middle to High SES 92 10.5 2.6 * Significant at .05 Though significance was not indicated, a closer look ext mean scores for each of the racial/ethnic groups on Table 21 indicates that the low SES Caucasian and Hispanic «groups had less positive perceptions than those in the :middle to high SES group. The Black low SES group had slightly more positive perceptions among the low SES group over the middle to high SES group. Table 21. BRP HOME Mean Scores by SES of Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students Level Black Caucasian Hispanic Low SES 9.8 10.0 9.3 Middle to High 5E5 9.4 10.8 10.4 64 Hypothesis 5 HO: Null Hyppthesis There is no significant difference between students with low SES and students with middle to high SES on the perceptions of the SCHOOL environment. HI: Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant difference between students with low SES and students with middle to high SES on the perceptions of the SCHOOL environment. The Student's t-test for differences on the SCHOOL Scale showed that the mean score for the low SES group was 9.9 and for the middle to high SES group was 10.1. The difference was not significant at p.<.05. Table 22 indicates the results of the t-test. There was no significant difference on scores for the low SES and middle to high SES groups on the SCHOOL Scale, therefore, the null hypothesis, Hypothesis 5, was not rejected. Table 22. Results of Student t-test for Scores on the BRP SCHOOL Scale of Socioeconomic Status Groups Pooled Variance Estimate Standard t 2-tailed Variable N Mean Deviation value Prob Low SES 64 9.9 2.9 - -.52 .61 Middle to High SES 92 10.1 2.9 65 Though significance was not indicated by the Students t-test a closer look at mean scores for each of the racial/ ethnic groups on Table 23 indicates that the low SES Black and Hispanic groups indicate more positive perceptions than the middle to high SES groups. The Caucasian group showed the Opposite as the middle to high SES group indicated slightly more positive perceptions than the low SES group. Table 23. BRP SCHOOL Mean Scores by SES of Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students Level Black Caucasian Hispanic Low SES 9.9 9.7 9.9 Middle to High SES 9.3 10.4 9.2 Hypothesis 6 HO: Null Hypothesis There is no significant difference between students with low SES and students with middle to high SES on their perceptions of the PEER environment. HI: Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant difference between students with low SES and students with middle to high SES on their perceptions of the PEER environment. 66 The Student's t-test for differences on the PEER Scale showed that the mean score for the low SES group was 9.8 and for the middle to high SES group was 11.1. The difference was significant at p.¢.05, therefore, the null hypothesis, Hypothesis 6, was rejected. Table 24 indicates the results of the t-test. This indicates that the middle to high SES group had significantly more positive perceptions of themselves within their PEER group environment. Table 25 shows a closer look at the breakdown of mean scores by racial/ethnic groups. All three racial/ethnic groups indicate having higher mean scores among the middle to high SES group. Table 24. Results of Student t-test for Scores on the BRP PEER Scale of Socioeconomic Status Groups Pooled Variance Estimate Standard t 2-tai1ed Variable N Mean Deviation value prob. Low SES 64 9.8 2.9 -2.4 .02* Middle to High SES 92 11.1 3.3 *Significant alpha .05 Hypothesis 7a HO: Null Hypothesis 4 There is no significant relationship between Black student ratings on the SCHOOL Scale and reading achievement scores. 67 Table 25. BRP PEER Mean Scores by SES of Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students Level Black Caucasian Hispanic Low SES ' 10.2 9.9 9.3 Middle to High SES 10.7 11.2 11.4 HI: Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant relationship between Black student ratings on the SCHOOL Scale and reading achievement scores. The Pearson product-moment correlation was utilized to determine if there is a significant relationship between the SCHOOL scale score and reading achievement scores among Black students. Table 26 indicates the r value for the correlation. The coefficient is not significant at p.;.05. This would indicate that within this group, there is no relationship between the SCHOOL ratings and actual reading achievement scores. Thus the hypothesis, Hypothesis 7a, is not rejected. Hypothesis 7b HO: Null Hypothesis There is no significant relationship between Black student ratings on the SCHOOL Scale and Math Achievement scores. 68 Table 26. Pearson Correlations of the BRP School Scale Score with the California Achievement Test Reading and Math Score of Black Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students Reading Math r r BRP SCHOOL Score .14 -.09 *Significant alpha .05 HI: Alternative Hypothesis. There is a significant relationship between Black student ratings on the SCHOOL Scale and Math Achievement scores. The Pearson product—moment correlation was utilized to determine if there is a significant relationship between the SCHOOL Scale scores and math achievement scores among Black students. Table 26 indicates the r value for the correlation. The coefficient is not significant at p‘<.05. This indicates that within the Black group there is no relationship between the SCHOOL Scores and actual math achievement scores. Thus, the null hypothesis, Hypothesis 7b, is not rejected. Hypothesis 8a HO: Null Hypothesis There is no significant relationship between 69 Black student ratings on the SCHOOL Scale and Math Achievement scores. HI: 'Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant relationship between Black student ratings on the SCHOOL Scale and Math Achievement scores. The Pearson product-moment correlation was used to determine if there is a significant relationship between the SCHOOL Scale and reading achievement scores among the Caucasian students. The r value is indicated in Table 27. The coefficient is significant at pg .05 indicating that imithin this group there is a relationship between the SCHOOL ratings and reading achievement scores. Thus this Ihypothesis, Hypothesis 8a, is rejected. Table 27. Pearson Correlations of the BRP SCHOOL Scale Score with the California Achievement Test Reading and Math Scores of Caucasian Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Scores Reading Math r r BRP SCHOOL Score .27* .21* * Significant alpha .05 70 Although a significant relationship is apparent, the 1: value is so low that one could not assume that a high SCHOOL rating would predict high reading achievement scores. Hypothesis 8b HO: Null Hypothesis There is no significant relationship between, Caucasian student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and math achievement scores. HI: Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant relationship between Caucasian student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and math achievement scores. The Pearson product-moment correlation was used to determine if there is a significant relationship between the SCHOOL scale and math achievement scores among the Caucasian students. The r value is indicated in Table 27. The coefficient is significant at p 4 .05 indicating that within this group there is a relationship between the SCHOOL ratings and math achievement scores. Thus this hypothesis, Hypothesis 8b, is rejected. Although a significant relationship is apparent, the r value is considered low which means that one could not assume that a high SCHOOL rating would predict high math achievement scores. Hypothesis 9a HO: Null Hypothesis There is no significant relationship between 71 Hispanic student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and reading achievement scores. HI: Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant relationship between Hispanic student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and reading achievement scores. The Pearson product moment correlation was utilized to determine if there is a significant relationship between the SCHOOL scale and reading achievement scores among the Hispanic students. Table 28 indicates the r values. The coefficient is not significant at p.¢.05. This indicates that within this group, there is no relationship between the school ratings and reading achievement scores. Thus this hypothesis, Hypothesis 9a, is not rejected. Table 28. Pearson Correlations of the BRP SCHOOL Scale Score with the California Achievement Test Reading and Math Scores of Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Scores Reading Math r r BRP SCHOOL Score .06 -.05 ‘ * Significant alpha .os 72 Hypothesis 9b HO: Null Hypothesis There is no significant relationship between Hispanic student ratings on the SCHOOL Scale and math achievement scores. HI: Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant relationship between Hispanic student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and math achievement scores. The Pearson product-moment correlation was utilized to determine if there is a signficant relationship between the SCHOOL scale and math achievement scores among the Hispanic students. Table 28 indicates the r values. This coefficient is not significant at p.(.05. This indicates that within this group, there is no relationship between the SCHOOL ratings and math achievement scores. Thus this hypothesis, Hypothesis 9b, is not rejected. Hypothesis 10a HO: Null Hypothesis There is no significant relationship between Black parent's rating of the child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. HI: Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant relationship between Black parent's rating of the child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. 73 The Pearson product-moment correlation was utilized to determine if there is a significant relationship between parents' rating of their child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. The r value was calculated at .17 which is indicated on Table 29. This was not significant at p= .05. Thus this hypothesis, Hypothesis 10a, was not rejected. Table 29. Pearson Correlation of the BRP Student HOME Scale Score with the BRP Parent Scale Score of Black Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students BRP Parent Score 1'." BRP Student HOME Score .17 Significant alpha .05 Hypothesis ll HO: Null Hypothesis There is no significant relationship between Caucasian parent's rating of the child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. HI: Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant relationship between Caucasian parent's rating of the child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. 74 The Pearson product-moment correlation was utilized to determine if there is a significant relationship between parent's rating of the child and their child's rating of themselves on the HOME scale. The r value was calculated at .39 (Table 30) which was significant at p= .05. Thus the null hypothesis, Hypothesis 11, is rejected. This indicates that there is a relationship between the parent's rating of their child and child's rating of self perceptions at home. However, the r value indicates that there is a low correlation. Table 30. Pearson Correlation of the BRP Student HOME Scale Score with the BRP Parent Scale Score of Black Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students BRP Parent Score r BRP Student HOME Score .39* Significant alpha .05 Hypothesis 12 HO: Null Hyppthesis There is no significant relationship between Hispanic parent's rating of the child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. 75 HI: Alternative Hypothesis There is a significant relationship between Hispanic parent's rating of the child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. The Pearson product-moment correlation was utilized to determine if there is a significant relationship between parent's rating of their child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. The r value was calculated at -.01 which is indicated on Table 31. This was not significant at p= .05. Thus this hypothesis, Hypothesis 12, was not Irejected. Table 31. Pearson Correlation of the BRP Student HOME Scale Score with the BRP Parent Scale Score of Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students BRP Parent Score r BRP Student HOME Score -.01 * Significant alpha .05 Additional information. Table 32 provides the means for the BRP Parent Scale and the BRP Student HOME Scale for Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic groups. In all three groups the students rated themselves more positively at home than their parents. Caucasian parents rated their children 76 slightly more positively than Black and Hispanic parents with the latter group rating their child the lowest. Table 32. Comparison cflf Mean Scores for BRP Parent Scale and BRP Student HOME Scale of Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students Parent Scale Student HOME Scale Group mean mean Black 8.7 9.7 Caucasian 8.8 10.6 Hispanic 8.0 9.7 Additional Information on School Performance To provide a more complete picture of the students, further analysis of the BRP SCHOOL mean scores by racial/ ethnic group is presented while using variables related to school performance obtained from the cumulative file. The BRP SCHOOL mean score for each of the racial/ethnic groups decreased as the number of grade retentions increased. Table 33 indicates that Black and Hispanic students who were never retained had relatively the same mean scores as those students who were retained one time. However, the Caucasian group mean score dropped nearly one standard deviation (SD=3) between the mean of the no retention group and the mean of the group retained one time. Furthermore, 77 Caucasian students had the most positive SCHOOL mean score among the no retention group, however, they had the least positive score in the one and two time retention groups. It is, therefore, concluded from this information that though grade retention reduces the mean scores in all three groups, the Caucasian group was the most influenced by this variable. Table 33. BRP SCHOOL Mean Scores by Number of Retention for Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students Retentions Black Caucasian Hispanic 1 9.9 10.8 9.7 2 10.0 8.5 9.9 3 9.0 8.0 8.3 The BRP SCHOOL mean scores were calculated by each racial/ethnic group to compare students who had a behavior problem noted in the cumulative file and those who did not. Table 34 indicates that the means of all three groups were lower among students who were identified as having behavior difficulties. The Black and Hispanic group scores were slightly below the Caucasian group score in both categories. It is, therefore, concluded that students who have a record of behavioral problems see themselves less positively 78 in school than those who do not. Furthermore, the Black and Hispanic students see themselves less positively than the Caucasian students within both categories. Table 34. BRP SCHOOL Mean Scores by Yes or No Behavior Problem Record for Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students Behavior Problem Record Black Caucasian Hispanic Yes 9.1 9.3 8.9 No 9.7 10.3 9.8 The BRP SCHOOL mean scores were calculated by each racial/ethnic group to compare students who were rated in effort at school as "excellent," satisfactory" or "poor" by teachers' notations in the cumulative file. Table 35 indicates that the means of all three groups were lower as the rating drOpped. Black students who were rated "excellent" had the highest mean score. However, the score drops close to one standard deviation (SD=3) at the next categories rated "satisfactory" or "poor." caucasian students appear to drop more consistently as the rating drOps. These results would indicate that teachers' ratings of effort and students perceptions of themselves at school are congruent. 79 Table 35. BRP SCHOOL Mean Scores by Teachers' Effort Ratings for Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic Fifth and Sixth Grade Male Students Rating Black Caucasian Hispanic Excellent 12.0 11.8 11.0 Satisfactory 9.4 10.2 9.4 Poor 9.0 9.0 8.2 Summary The purpose of this chapter was to present the results of this investigation. Ten hypotheses were studied. Hypotheses 1-3 were tested using analysis of variance, Hypotheses 4-6 were tested using the Student's t-test and Hypotheses 7-12 were tested using Pearson product moment correlations. Additional information was also provided using mean socres. The next, and final chapter summarizes the results of the investigation along with discussion, implications and recommendations for future research. Chapter 5 Summary, Discussion, Recommendations, and Implications Summary Purpose. The.major purpose of this investigation was to determine if there are differences in how particular groups of children perceive themselves and significant others within the ecological context of home, school, and peer group. Adaptability to school through the comparison of these perceptions and school performance variables was analyzed. Furthermore, home variables and congruence of perceptions between parents and children were also studied. Answers to the following basic questions were sought: 1. Is racial/ethnic group membership related to how students perceive themselves and significant others in the home, school, and peer group environments? 2. Do students with low SES differ from students with middle to high SES in their perceptions within the home, school, and peer group envirOnments? 3. Are children's perceptions within the school context related to their performance in school? 4. Are parental perceptions of their child's behavior congruent with the child's self perception ‘vithin the home environment? 80 81 Methodology. The sample for this study consisted of 43 Black, 89 Caucasian and 27 Hispanic fifth and sixth grade male students from the Grand Rapids Public Schools and their parents. The sample was selected using a stratified random sampling technique to insure representation from the three largest racial/ethnic groups represented in the schools. Low and middle to high socioeconomic status groups were also represented in the sample. The data which were analyzed came from the Student Scale of the Behavior Rating Profile (Brown and Hammill, 1983) which measured children's perceptions of their behaviors within three different ecological contexts (home, school, and peer group). The Parent Scale of the Behavior Rating Profile was used to collect informationcnithe parents' perception of their child. The student's cumulative file was reviewed to gather demographic, academic, and behavioral information. In addition, a brief family information form was used to gather information from the home. The statistical procedures used to test the hypotheses guiding this study included the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Student's t-test, and Pearson Correlation. The alpha level of significance was set at .05 for decisions about rejection of the null hypothesis. Table 36 was constructed to present an overview of the results of testing these hypotheses. 82 Table 36. Summary of Hypotheses Tested Hypotheses Null Hypothesis was: Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference among ratings on the HOME scale between Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic students. Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference among ratings on the SCHOOL scale between Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic students. Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference among ratings on the PEER scale between Black, Caucasian, and Hispanic students. Hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference between students with low SES and students with middle to high SES in their perceptions of the HOME environment. Hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference between students with low SES and students with middle to high SES in their perceptions of the SCHOOL environment. Hypothesis 6: There is no significant difference between students with low SES and students with middle to high SES in their perceptions of the PEER environment. Hypothesis 7a: There is no significant relationship between Black student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and reading achievement scores. Hypothesis 7b: There is no significant relationship between Black student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and math achievement scores. Not Not Not Not Not Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Not Not Rejected Rejected 83 Table 36 (cont'd.) Hypothesis 8a: There is no significant relationship between Caucasian student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and reading achievement scores. Rejected Hypothesis 8b: There is no signficiant relationship between Caucasian student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and math achievement scores. Rejected Hypothesis 9a: There is no significant relationship between Hispanic student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and reading achievement scores. Not Rejected Hypothesis 9b: There is no significant relationship between Hispanic student ratings on the SCHOOL scale and math achievement scores. Not Rejected Hypothesis 10: There is no significant difference between Black parent's rating of their child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. Hypothesis 11: There is no significant difference between Caucasian parent's rating of their child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. Rejected Hypothesis 12: There is no significant difference between Hispanic parent's rating of their child and the child's rating on the HOME scale. Not Rejected 84 Discussion The conclusions based upon the information obtained as described earlier are presented below organized by the questions asked in the objectives. Statistical significance as well as descriptive conclusions will be used to answer the questions. Objective 1. Is racial/ethnic group membership related to how students perceive themsleves and significant others in the home, school, and peer group environment? Hypotheses 1-3 dealt specifically with Black, Caucasian and Hispanic group perceptions in all three environments and no significant differences were noted. Although no significant differences were found among the groups a closer look at the specific means of the home, school, and peer group environments as well as mean differences among item responses in each category showed a trend. Consistently, the Caucasian group had higher (or more positive) scores in all three environments. Black and Hispanic students scores showed more similarity in their perceptions in all three environmental contexts. Black students had slightly more positive scores than Hispanic students in school and peer group. Home was ranked equally by the two groups. Objective 2. Do students with low SES differ from students with middle to high SES in their perceptions within the home, school, and peer group? 85 Hypothesis 4-6 dealt separately with each environment using all three racial/ethnic groups. The results of the statistical analysis did not indicate differences in» the home or school environments among groups. However, a significant difference was apparent within the peer group environment. A closer look at the mean scores reveals that middle to high SES students in all three groups rated peer group perceptions higher than low SES students. Among the Black and Hispanic groups low SES students rated school more positive than the middle to high SES group. Two possible factors may have accounted for this. The first supports Soares and Soares (1970) and others who have hypothesized that children from low SES perceive the school environment as a positive experience because it may be the only stable thing in their lives or because they may receive their only hot meal in school. Another reason for this outcome may have been due to the difference in the size of the SES representation. Caucasian students were represented by a larger number of middle to high SES students while the Black and Hispanic students were represented by a larger number of low SES students. Objective 3. Are children's perceptions within the school context related to their performance in school? Hypotheses 7-9 dealt with achievement in reading and math and ratings on the SCHOOL Scale for each of the 86 racial/ethnic groups. In addition, mean scores using other school related variables are investigated to assist in examining this question in more detail. For the Black and Hispanic students, perceptions of themselves within the school setting did not show significant relationships with the California Achievement reading or math scores. Data from the Caucasian group indicated a relationship with both reading and math achievement scores, therefore, the Caucasian fifth and sixth grade male students' perceptions of self within the school environment was related to achievement. However, data obtained from fifth and sixth grade Black and Hispanic male students did not show a relationship between self perception and school achievement. A confounding variable here may be the difference in size of SES representation of Caucasian versus Black and Hispanic students. SCHOOL mean scores for all three racial/ethnic groups were also calculated for three other variables associated with school performance. Looking at the variables of grade retention and self perception, the results indicated that as the number of grade retentions increased the self perceptions of these students in this environment decreased. This trend was noted for all three groups. However the Caucasian students had the highest scores when no grade retentions were experienced but the lowest self perception scores when one or two retentions were experienced. A possible explanation for this phenomenon 87 is that retention is more negatively perceived by Caucasian than by Black or Hispanic fifth and sixth grade males. Students in all three groups who had been previously identified as having a behavioral problem by teachers , administrators, and counselors had less positive perceptions of themselves in the school environment than those not identified with behavioral problems. Again a trend was noted: Caucasian students with behavioral problems had slightly more positive self perceptions than the Black and Hispanic students with behavioral problems. Marks in students' cumulative files were used to assess if a relationship existed between teachers' perceptions of the student's efforts and the student's self perception in the school environment. It was found that teachers' effort ratings of students appeared to reflect the direction taken by the self perception mean scores in all three groups. Students receiving "excellent" ratings by teachers scored the highest mean scores while students receiving "poor" ratings scored the lowest mean scores. It appeared that self perceptions in this environment were reflected to some degree by how teachers perceived the students' effort in school. This supports other findings (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968; Purkey, 1970, 1978) that teachers may have a tremendous impact on students' perceptions of self. A closer look at item responses revealed that the Hispanic group had the largest percentage of students who 88 were dissatisfied with their progress in school. Half of the students sampled indicated day dreaming a lot in school, having difficulty sitting still in class, and not being able to concentrate in class. This dissatisfaction may be a contributing factor in the Hispanic adaptability to the school environment. The reading and math achievement scores as well as rankings on the Behavior Rating Profile may be a reflection of this dissatisfaction within the school environmental context. Objective 4. Are parental perceptions of their child's behavior congruent with the child's self perceptions within the home environment? Hypotheses 10-12 revealed that only the Caucasian group had a statistically significant relationship between parent and child perceptions. These data indicate that Caucasian parents and children may have more realistic expectation of each other's perceptions than Black and Hispanic students and parents. By conducting an item analysis it is revealed that a larger percentage of Black and Hispanic students felt their parents expected too much from them. Black and Hispanic students also felt more constrained at home by not having enough freedom. It is possible that these results are reflective of the acculturation difference between Black and Hispanic parents and their children. 89 Implications for Future Research The need for further research was expressed in the review of literature. Little research has been done in the area of separating self perceptions by environmental context. More research is also needediiistudying adaptive behavior. This study is only a small contribution to the research base of these areas. As a result of this study, the investigator recommends further research emphasizing replications with variations: 1. Replication of the present study by measuring the same students and parents upon entering high school. Such a longitudinal study will add to the data base in determining if self perceptions within various environments remain stable. It may also be beneficial in determining if predictive information which could be derived for students needing alternative programs later in school or those drOpping out of school. 2. Replication of the study but starting with first grade and continuing to study the same population in two or three year intervals would permit gathering of longitudinal data for the same purpose described in recommendation #1. 3. Replication of the same study using an interview procedure along with the Behavior Rating Profile. This could add more descriptive detail on why certain perceptions are held by students. 90 4. Replication of the same study adding the Teacher Scale to the analysis, especially to identify such variables as expectations, specific observable behaviors, and congruence with parents' perceptions. 5. Replication of the same study while adding a more traditional instrument of adaptive behavior to find additional capabilities in using the Behavior Rating Profile in a more integrative approach for assessing adaptive behavior as mandated in PL 94-142. 6. A further study of the instrument itself. A close look at item analysis would be beneficial as well as analysis of the variance of self perceptions between environments. 3 7. Comparing information from the BRP with other school districts in Michigan as well as in other states would be of interest for looking at regional differences. The results of this study could be useful to educators interested in the adaptability of all children to the school/educational system. Perceptions, as has been expressed in the review of literature, are an important factor in how one performs in a variety of settings. The perceptions developed are thought to be formed through experiences and interactions with others in those settings. This makes it very important to study feedback provided by students as to what students are perceiving within their total environment. Clues as to how self perception are influencing performance should be an important process 91 in the evaluation of student growth and development. Educating a diverse population makes it even more important for educators to distinguish similarities and differences among groups for effective school programs and teacher inservice planning. Information obtained from studies such as this can contribute to the development of more innovative and effective curriculum. The descriptive relationship found between ratings and such variables as grade retentions, behavior problem notations, effort judgments by teachers, and achievement scores indicate that there are linkages between outcomes in school performance and self perceptions. A continued effort should be made to find these linkages when students are being evaluated by child study teams in order to make apprOpriate recommendations for remediation and modification in adaptability. The Behavior Rating Profile itself appears to be very promising according to the results indicated by this investigation. It is beneficial to note that Black, Hispanic and low SES membership produced lower mean scores than the other groups. Those professionals using the Behavior Rating Profile should keep this in mind when making interpretations on particular students. It is suggested that a more wholistic approach be used when making comparisons of adaptability between environments. Checklists are useful, however, as this study indicates, many questions can not be answered solely by the responses on a rating scale. APPENDICES APPENDIX A School Lunch Eligibility Form 92 GRAND RAPIDS PUBLIC SCHOOLS i 43 SOSTV‘.':CK N E GRAND RAPIDS. MICHIGAN 49503-32535. August 1985 Dear Parent or Guardian: the Grand Rapids Public Schools serves nutritious meals every school day. Students may buy lunch for 85 cents. (Children from families whose income falls within the levels :shown on the scale below are eligible for either free meals or reduced price meals at 40 cents. FAMILY SIZE INCOME Yearly Monthly 1 9,713 810 2 13,043 - 1,087 3 16,373 1,365 4 19,703 1,642 5 23,033 1,920 6 26,363 2,197 7 29,693 2,475 8 33,023 2,752 Each additional family member +3,330 +278 To apply for free or reduced price meals, please fill out the attached application as soon as possible, sign it and return it to the school. Please answer all questions on the form. An application which does not contain the following informa- tion cannot be processed by the school. 1. The total household income AND the amount and source of income received by each household member (such as wages, child support, etc.) 0_R your food stamp case number if your household is on food stamps; 2. names of all household members; 3- social security numbers of all household members 21 years of age or older or the word ”NONE” for any adult household member who does not'have a social security number; and 4- the signature of an adult household member. VERIFICATION: The information on the applications may be :Erified by the school or other officials at any time during e School year. (over) 93 REPORTING CHANGES: If your child is approved for meal benefits, you must tell the school when your household income increases by more than $50 per month ($600 per year) or when your household size decreases. REAPPLICATION: You may apply for benefits at any time during the school year. If you are not now eligible but have a decrease in household income, become unemployed or have an increase in household size, fill out an application at that time. FOSTER CHILDREN: If you have foster children living with you, they may be eligible for these benefits regardless of your household's income. If you wish to apply for these benefits for them, please contact the school and they will help you complete the application. NONDISCRIMINATION: Children who receive free or reduced price meal benefits are treated the same as children who pay for their meals. In the Operation of child feeding programs, no child will be discriminated against because of race, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap. If you believe you have been discriminated against, write immediately to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250. FAIR HEARING: If you do not agree with the school's decision on your application or the result Of verification, you may wish to discuss it with the school. You also have the right to a fair hearing. This can be done by calling or writing Patrick Sandro, Grand Rapids Public Schools, 143 Bostwick NE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 (456-4758). CONFIDENTIALITY: The information you provide will be treated confidentially and will be used only for eligibility determinations and verification of data. HELP WITH APPLICATION: If you have any questions or need help in filling out the application form, please contact your local school. You will be notified when the application is approved or denied. Sincerely, 7%.de Patrick Sandro Associate Superintendent Operational Support Services PS/sz APPLICATION FOR FREE AND REDUCED PRICE SCHOOL MEALS plv for tree or reduced price meats for your ChIIC. parents must carefully complete. sign. and return this application to the scnooi If you need heir. nis forrr. please call your local scriool .- 0: Grand Scnool. Grade LIS' Name Pin! Name I i — 4 D STAMP HOUSEHOLDS If your household is now receiving food INCOME: List ALL income received Iast month on the same line with the as. YOU may give your food stamp case number and skip the Income person who received it. List each amount of Income under the com tions on this form You still must iist aII household members and title. You must list the gross income BEFORE aII deductions for taxes, Social Security Numbers. social security. etc. " W '°°‘ W N m N m W M 00' SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. Print the Social Security Number of stereo case munber Is each adult age 21 or older. it an adult does not have a Social Security 08 ‘— 2 Number. print “None" next to their name. SE HOLD MEMBERS: List the names and ages of everyone living in 5 household Include yourself and the child listed above. 3 fi- smut mat / LIST ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS Istai Elms Seoai Security Whofoyment‘ warfare IAFOCi All Other ........... met” 22:...“ mm the... at. .22.. LAST FIRST AGE WEBER m ALL Jabs lat-rm: Osreiits AIM Last lam s s s s t 8 s s s s t s s t s t x s s t s s s t a t s s s s s t t s s t s t t s s t 3 S 8 S 5 8 8 ; NAME AND ADDRESS 7 I y 6 —>rmi iiaisaititii sum sonar : m SIGNATURE; I understand that all of the above information is true and correct and that all income is reported. I understand that this information is being given for the ' w No receipt of federal funds: that schooI officiais may verily the information on the application. and that deliberate misrepresentation of the intormation may subiect I“ W me to proucution under applicabie State and Federal laws. eTetsphone Tam-pinu- xsiiiuimd—rMnaWF-ww 1'.- STER CHILDREN: In certain cases foster children are eiigibie for free or reduced price meals regardless of your household income. These children considered to be a household of one. If your child is a foster chiid as described in category A or 8 below. place a check in the proper box ) A. The welfare agency or court is legally responsible for the child and the foster home is. in fact. an extension of the welfare agency or court. I B. The child is a resident of a licensed “Group Foster“ home or a residential institution. Iy the foster child's spending money is counted as income on this application. Spending money is: money received in hand for the personal use of the id from a welfare agency. the child's family. a trust account. earnings from regular employment. and so on. Do not include money from occasional or Mime jobs like paper routes and babysitting. this/her spending money per month 8 00 have any questions or if you have a foster child who does not fit under category A or B. as described above. please contact the school m mmmm-mmnm . C WRMMMW Wufltfl-fimmbmmmwuuwwwmmawmm mgrt'mmggmflfiomoxm C MJIIOIWW uwmruumunimnmmmws Mdmmmmman ”a 0W “was“ mummmumemyuwmnmmmo- mmmwmmawm “Mum‘s-mamumwmmhumm mflmfludismmtsdwmofmm CMWWW www.mmummmuuwncmunmm rim W I I mam [3 WWUMW We“ savanna-gamma Mun-lumbalmwm “MWmmmum ¥ FOR SCHOOL USE ONLY — DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE Total Househoid Size: __ Totai Income: 8 0 Monthly 0 Annual on D Food Stamp Househoid Eiigibiiity Determination: CI Approved Free D Approved Reduced Price D Denied Reason for Denial: D Income Too High CI Incompiete Application 0 Other (Reason) Date Notice Sent: Signature of Determining Official: Date: 0: “Feed cm. write-mm Diem Duane Draw Deana-u ..2i:::.:.__ “9......“ ”Mr ...... .... hommmIO— W' DWDM 0w hssenFer om CW cm Second m Ci whiten Doom 0 “‘5 ”Nice Sent :2 time: of D Coast-re Cam 0 W 0 °"' Dility :ATPCardissusd :mm ”mm” menthfy (not ID card wie —— Sigiiahirc of Wtfyino Ofliual DIR expiration date) APPENDIX B Cumulative File Information Form CUMULATIVE FILE INFORMATION 0 1. 2. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Representative group: ___Black __ Caucasian __ Hispanic Birthdate: Grade: Qualifies for free lunch Qualifies for reduced lunch Does not qualify for free or reduced lunch Lays Absent: 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 Number of schools attended since kindergarten 1985(Spring)Reading Scores (California Achievement Test) 1985(Spring)nath Scores (California Achievement Test) Number of grade retentions sinde kindergarten ' Special Education Certified: Yes No If yes: Certification: Services being received} Year of initial certification: Any other comments: Was this child ever referred for Special Education die to behavior or academic problems and found ineligible? Yes No Specify: Health Information: List any problems noted: Behavior Records (describe on back) Evaluation of report card “effort" scores: APPENDIX C Family Information Form 96 IPAlUIfl'INPORMATION Q l. Home Status: a. B one parent at home C] two parents at heme b. Number of family members living at home (do not count parent(s)) 2. Employment Status: Mother Father Homemaker (by choice) Part-time employed Full-time employed DUDE) Unemployed 3. Educational Status: Less than 8 grades of elementary school 8 grades of elementary school l-3 years of high school Completed high school a received a diploma or passed high school equivalency exam l-3 years of college. business school. or technical training College graduate. bachelor's degree Post bachelor's course work Master's degree Post master's course work Ph.D., Ed.D. DDUDUU El DUDE) DUDE] DDDUDU Cl DUDE] Other professional degree (such as ”one. DeOe' JeDep DeDeSe)‘ pleaae specify . 1. W Condicién del hogar: a. a solamente un padre en la casa U dos padres en la casa b. Numero de personas viviendo en la case (no cuente los padres) 2. Condicion de empleo: 3. hadre D E] El CI Condicién de educacién: UDDDUUUDDDU Padre El CI [:1 CI UDDDDUUDDDD en la casa (por su desec) empleado - 40 horas o mas por semana empleado - Nenos de 40 horas por semana falta de emplec menos de 8 shoe de escuela primaria 8 afios de escuela primaria 1-3 afios de escuela secundaria graduado de escuela secundaria l-3 afios de universidad graduado de universidad estudics despues de bachelor masteria(N.A.) estudios despues de masteria Ph.D.. Ed.D. otras licencias: APPENDIX D Item Frequency Percentages for BRP HOME Scale HOME: 1. ll. 12. 15. 17. 18. 98 item frequency percentages: My parents ”bug" me alot. I don’t have enough freedom at home. My parents treat me like a baby. I think about running away from home. I have some friends that I don’t invite over to my house. I argue alot with my family. My family doesn’t do many things together, like going places or playing games. When my parents don’t let me do what I want, I get real quiet and don’t talk. My parents don’t spend enough time with me. My parents say that I am awkward and clumsy. emow amom emom HEOW emow emow emow amow emow 850w TRUE 3%. 24. 26. 34. 18. 29. 24. 29. 11. 34. 14. 19: 62. 7c. 66. 67. 20. 37. 37. 32. 37. 25. 32'. ea. 33: 41. 3D. 13. 11. 17. 11. 10. 1D. Hme mHmN mwmm mOmN qQHm mama mHmm meQ mmsm thN LhQQ thH HUNN 01(0in mom» swam mama Namm quH 20. 33. 35. 39. 47. 48. 49. 51. 57. 58. 99 My parents don’t approve of some of my friends. I have lots of nightmares and bad dreams. My parents expect too much of me. My parents won’t let me spend the night away from home. I often break rules set by my parents. I never get my way at home. I am shy around my parents’ friends. At home I’m always trying to get out of my chores. I don’t listen when my parents are talking to me. When at home, I spend too much time daydreaming. HD3063 amour t-JCBOEI #3330!!! r-JCEOUI 830w ~3me #3230!” hit-COG! r-JCBOIIJ TRUE 0) Q heanace .hre