A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES OF
TEACHERS IN TITLE I AND NON-TITLE I
DEPIIESSED AREA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

TOWARD PUPIL-TEACHER RELATIONS
AS MEASURED BY THE MINNESOTA
TEACHER ATTITUDE INVENTORY

Thesis for the Degree of Ed ., D.
MICHIGAN, STATE UNIVERSITY
CHARLES FRANK SMITH, JR.
1969

I'm-m!

   
   
 

’ an «r «5- 3".) ’3 .r‘.. .‘
Its-mi a? a“! .'~. as A;

Q

I” '~ ,_ «T‘ . ..
Am, I:3A:I Ami:

IJEiVEIEIQf

  

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDE OF TEACHERS
TOWARD PUPIL:TEACHER RELATIONS
IN TITLE I AND NON—TITLE I DEPRESSED AREA ELEMENTARY

SCHOOLS AS MEASURED BY THE MINNESOTA

TEACHER ATTI'HJBE INVENTORY
presente 13

Charles F. Smith, Jr.

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Education

 

Date June 7) 1969

0-169

gar-"v "3": “a.

, amomc av
' NOAH & SONS'
L BOOK BINDERY INC.

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES OF TEACHERS IN TITLE I
AND NON-TITLE I DEPRESSED AREA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
TOWARD PUPIL-TEACHER RELATIONS AS MEASURED BY
THE MINNESOTA TEACHER ATTITUDE INVENTORY

by

Charles Frank Smith, Jr.

The central purpose of this study was to determine after
one year's operation of a Title I program how the attitudes
of fourth, fifth, and sixth grade teachers in eight schools
participating in the program compared with the attitudes of
teachers of the same grades in five depressed area schools
not participating. In addition to the central purpose,
answers to some related questions were sought.

The 103 subjects in the study were teachers of reading,
arithmetic, homeroom subjects, or self-contained classroom
subjects in grades four, five and six in thirteen similar
schools. Eight of the thirteen schools were selected to
participate in a Federal compensatory education program
under Title I. In Phase I of the study the Minnesota Teacher
Attitude Inventory (MTAI) was administered and the resulting
scores were tested for significance of difference between the

mean score of teachers from the eight schools selected to

Charles Frank Smith, Jr

participate in Title I and the mean score of teachers in

the five schools not selected to participate. Phase II was

(1) to test for significance of difference between the mean
attitude scores of the teachers from the eight Title I

schools and the five non-Title I schools one year after the
operation of the Title I program began and (2) to seek

answers to related questions regarding personal demographic

data about the teachers, working conditions of the teachers,

and characteristics of the students they taught as the questions
related to the teachers' MTAI scores.

There were no significant gains in teacher attitude scores
following one year's participation in Title I. However, find-
ings of this investigation support the following conclusions:

(1) The initial MTAI mean scores of Title I and non-
Title I teachers were not significantly different.

(2) The MTAI mean scores of both Title I and non-

Title I teachers were generally below the norm measurement
for teachers of similar training and experience.

(3) White teachers regardless of whether they were
teaching in Title I or non-Title I schools had a signifi-
cantly more positive MTAI mean score than black teachers.

(4) Title I teachers with a master's degree or more
and non-Title I teachers with less than a master's degree
had similarly higher mean scores than their counterparts
with similar teaching assignments, the results being a
significant interaction of professional training and

teaching assignment.

Charles Frank Smith,

(5) Teachers with more than two years of teaching experi-
ence had a higher MTAI mean score than teachers with two or
less years of teaching experience.

(6) Teachers who had taught with the system for more
than two years had a higher MTAI mean score than teachers who
had taught with the system for two or less years.

(7) Teachers who had taught in the building for more
than two years had a higher MTAI mean score than teachers who
had taught in the building for two or less years.

(8) Teachers of reading and teachers of arithmetic each
had a significantly higher MTAI mean score than teachers of
homeroom subjects and teachers of self-contained classroom
subjects.

(9) Title I children did not demonstrate academic achieve~
ment gains as reflected by their SRA mean achievement scores
even though they had been exposed to reading teachers and/or
arithmetic teachers of significantly higher MTAI scores.
Consequently, this study did not reveal that teachers with
more positive MTAI scores were more effective teachers in
terms of SRA pupil achievement scores.

(10) Teachers thirty years old and under did not have
an MTAI mean score which was significantly different from
that of teachers over thirty years old.

(11) The teaching staffs of school buildings with 50 per

cent or more black teachers had lower MTAI mean scores than

.1

Charles Frank Smith, J

the teaching staffs of school buildings with less than 50 per
cent black teachers.

(12) The SRA achievement scores of the students taught
by Title I and non-Title I teachers tended to drOp from one
year to the next.

(13) The percentage of black teachers was greater in
schools where the children are more poverty-stricken.

Based upon the significant findings of this study, the
above conclusions, the related literature reviewed in this
study, and the considered judgment of the author the following
recommendations are made:

(1) If a school system must hire teachers who are less
competent than its best teachers, such teachers should not
be concentrated in inner-city schools.

(2) Directors of personnel must be held personally ac-
countable for the immediate development and implementation
of a scheme designed to make teaching assignments based on
a teacher's competencies to meet pupil needs instead of based
on a teacher's race.

(3) Directors of personnel must be required to schedule
personal interviews for each interested teaching candidate
with at least two principals before a building assignment is
made thereby avoiding pressure on the principal to hire the

particular teacher sent to him.

Charles Frank Smith, 4

(4) School systems and universities must collaborate
as equal partners in the training of teachers for inner-city
schools; eventually, school systems must hire only teachers
specifically trained for teaching in the inner city to teach
in inner-city schools.

(5) Immediately school systems must increase the number
of blacks who are in central office decision-making positions
to reflect the sharp increase of black children in the public
schools and to prevent the school systems from subverting the
quality of education provided for black children.

(6) The personnel departments of school systems must
establish some accurate comprehensive means of comparing why
some teachers teach in inner—city schools longer than two
years and others teach in inner-city schools two or less years.

(7) School systems must assume the responsibility of pro-
viding an on-going program which has as its prime objective
the improvement of the attitudes of its black and white
teachers toward inner—city children and toward pupil-teacher
relations.

(8) A major component of a compensatory education program
must be devoted to teacher inservice, not only inservice de-
voted to how to use new teaching materials and equipment but
inservice devoted to helping teachers develOp more positive

attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations.

Charles Frank Smith,

(9) Inner-city school systems must take it upon themselves
to provide a new kind of rigorous on-going inservice program
for all their teachers and administrators. These inservice
programs should be geared to the problems of the inner city,
and they might very well follow the model of a sensitivy group.
Participation in sensitivity groups should be mandatory for all
administrators and highly recommended to all teachers of dis-
advantaged.

(10) There is an immediate need for the deve10pment of a
standardized instrument which will more accurately measure the
attitudes of black and white depressed area teachers.

(11) Studies must be conducted to determine the compara-
tive effectiveness of teachers who teach in inner-city
schools more than two years.

(12) New status roles in the hierarchy of inner-city
teaching must be found so that inner-city teachers can have
roles and positions of status respected by all teachers within
the system.

(13) There is a need for this study to be replicated on
a larger sample of teachers and school buildings.

There are many questions yet to be resolved pertaining
to compensatory education, such as the following: (1) What
are the basic and essential components of a comprehensive
compensatory education program for the disadvantaged?

(2) Are the gains we expect in academic achievement measurable?

If so, when and how do we measure them?

I

Charles Frank Smith,

Further research is needed to answer such specific
questions as: (1) Why did the black teachers have such low
scores? (2) Is the MTAI "race-proof"? (3) What influence,
if any, does the black experience have upon a black teacher
as he relates to black children in a depressed area school?
(4) Is a less positive attitude score indicative of a less
effective teacher? (5) How significant is a teacher's nega-
tive or positive attitude score if the attitude the score

reflects is not perceived by the class?

A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES OF TEACHERS IN TITLE I
AND NON-TITLE I DEPRESSED AREA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
TOWARD PUPIL-TEACHER RELATIONS AS MEASURED BY

THE MINNESOTA TEACHER ATTITUDE INVENTORY

BY

Charles Frank Smith, Jr.

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
College of Education

1969

 

 

TEJCopyright by

CHARLES FRANK SMITH, JR.

1970

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study came into fruition with the consideration

and cooperation of many individuals. To these people the

writer is profoundly grateful.

He wishes to acknowledge the members of his Guidance
Committee for their assistance and his major advisor, Dr.

Donald Leu, for his wise counsel and patience throughout

the course of the study. To Dr. Leu the writer extends his

deepest thanks. The writer is also grateful to Mr. William

B. Hawley for his interest and assistance in the development
of the thesis. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. William
V. Hicks for his comments on certain aspects of the study
and to Dr. James B. McKee of the Sociology Department.

Invaluable help on the statistical design and the
computer programming of the study was given by Mrs. Natalie
Sproull, Mr. Thomas Edwards, and Mr. David Wright.

The author is indebted to the school administrators
and staff of the Flint Public School System whose assistance
made this study possible.

Finally, the writer is greatly indebted to his wife,
Lois, and their two children, Carolyn and Charles III,
for their love, understanding, encouragement, and assistance

during the writing of this thesis and throughout the course

of the doctoral program.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

LIST OF
LIST OF

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

TABLES

FIGURES

THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Problem
Statement of the Objective
Questions to Be Explored
A General Theoretical Orientation to
Teacher Attitudes and the Learner
Assumptions Underlying the Study
Significance of the Study
Federal Title I Program
Selection of Schools
Components of the Program .
Delimitations of the Study . . .
Definition of Terms ... .
Overview of the Thesis

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction .
The Teacher and His Attitudes Toward

His Job and the Students He Teaches.
Facilities and Curriculum Practices

The Disadvantaged Student
The General Nature of Compensatory

Education Programs

The Federal Elementary and Secondary Educa-

tion Act of 1965, Public Law 89-10
Summary . . . . . . . . . .

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Introduction . . . . . .

Purpose of the Study . . . .

Method of Investigation
Sample . .

iii

Page
ii
vi

viii

21
27
28

31

34
35

38

38
38
41
42

 

IV.

Table of Contents -- continued

 

Selection of Teachers for Phase I
Selection of Teachers for Phase II
Characteristics of the Sample

The Instrument .
Analysis Procedures
Statistical Procedures . .
Administration of the Instrument

Summary

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Introduction . . . .
Phase I of the Study
Phase II of the Study
A Comparison of
MTAI scores . . . . . . . . . . .
Question A: Does the personal demo-
graphic data of Title I ard non-
Title I teachers relate to their
attitudes toward pupil-teacher

Title I and non-Title I

relations? . . . . . .
Sub—question Azl (sex)
Sub-question A:2 (race) .
Sub-question A:3 (age) . . . . .
Sub-question A:4 (marital status)
Sub—question A:S (professional

training) . .

Sub-question A:6, A:7, and A:8
(years of teaching experience).
Summary of Question A . . . . .

Question B: Do selected working condi-
tions of Title I and non-Title I
teachers relate to their attitudes
toward pupil-teacher relations as
measured by the MTAI? . . . . . .

Sub—question B:1 (grade taught)
Sub—question B:2 (subject taught)
Sub—question B:3 (size of student
enrollment in building) .
Sub-question B:4 (percentage of
black teachers on the staffs)

Summary of Question B

iv

Page

43
44
44
45
47
48
50
51

52

52.

54
56

57

59
59
62
64
66

68

71
77

79
80
81

83

86
89

 

Table of Contents -- continued

Chapter

Question C: Do selected characteristics
of the students in Title I and non-
Title I schools relate to attitudes
of teachers toward pupil-teacher re-
lations as measured by the MTAI? . .

Sub- -question C: 1 (percentage of
black students enrolled) .

Sub- -question C: 2 (level of student
academic achievement) .

Sub question C. 3 (degree of student
poverty) . . . . . . . .

Summary of Question C

Summary of Chapter IV

v. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .

Summary
Conclusions

Recommendations .
Implications for Future Research

APPENDICES
Appendix A

Appendix B
Appendix C

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page

90

90

92

98
100
101
107
107
112
114
122
124
125
153
158

169

Table
4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.8

‘4.9

4.10

LIST OF TABLES

Standardized mean raw scores and standard
deviations of five groups of experienced
elementary school teachers for the MTAI,

Form A . . . .
Individual MTAI raw scores of the Phase I

sample of teachers . . . . . . . . . .
value of the Phase I

Statistical data and "t”
sample of teachers

Mean difference between the scores of Title I

and non-Title I teachers

Two-way analysis of variance of the relation-
ship between teaching assignment and sex
to MTAI scores of teacher attitudes toward

pupil-teacher relations .

Two—way analysis of variance of the relation-
ship between teaching assignment and race
to MTAI scores of teacher attitudes toward

pupil-teacher relations . . . .

Two-way analysis of variance of the relation—
ship between teaching assignment and age to
MTAI scores of teacher attitudes toward

pupil-teacher relations . . . .

Two—way analysis of variance of the relation-
ship between teaching assignment and mari-
tal status to MTAI scores of teacher
attitudes toward pupil—teacher relations

Two-way analysis of variance of the relation—
ship between teaching assignment and
professional training to MTAI scores of
teacher attitudes toward pupil-teacher

relations . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Two-way analysis of variance Showing the
relationship between teaching assignment
and total years of teaching experience
to MTAI scores of teacher attitudes toward

pupil-teacher relations . . . .

vi

Page

54

55

56

58

61

63

66

68

70

75

Table
4.11

List of Tables -— continued
Page

Two-way analysis of variance showing the
relationship between teaching assignment

and years of teaching experience with the
system to MTAI scores of teacher attitudes 75

toward pupil-teacher relations

Two—way analysis of variance showing the
relationship between teaching assignment and
years of teaching experience in the present
building to MTAI scores of teacher attitudes
toward pupil-teacher relations . . . . . . . . 76

One-way analysis of variance of the relation-
ship between the classroom subjects Title I
teachers taught and their MTAI scores . . . 83

Total student enrollment and the MTAI mean
scores of teachers in the study by building . 85

The percentage of black teachers on the staff
by school and the MTAI mean score of teachers 87

in the study by school . . . . .

MTAI mean scores by schools with a 50 per cent
or more black staff and schools with less
than a 50 per cent black staff . . . . . . 88

The number and percentage of black students
and the MTAI mean scores of teachers in the 92

study by building

Fifth grade SRA grade-equivalent and percentile
scores for schools designated Title I and not
designated Title I . . . . . . . . . . 94

Sixth grade SRA grade-equivalent and percentile
scores for schools designated Title I and not 9
l I O I l O 0 5

designated Title I

Sixth grade SRA grade-equivalent and percentile
scores for Title I and non-Title I schools . . 97

Student achievement level and the MTAI mean
scores of teachers in the study by building . 98

List of Tables —- continued

 

Table Page

4.22 The percentage of poverty-stricken families
in the school attendance area and the MTAI

mean score for each school . . . . . . . . . 99
4.23 Summary of the two-way analysis of variance
for the sub-questions of Question A . . . . 102

viii

Figure

4.1

4.

4.

4.

4.

2

.3

4

.5

6

.7

O 8

9

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

MTAI mean scores of Title I and non-Title I
female and male teachers

MTAI mean scores of Title I and non-Title I
black and white teachers . .

MTAI mean scores of Title I and non-Title I
teachers thirty years old and under and
over thirty years old

MTAI mean scores of Title I and non-Title I
single and married teachers . . . . . . . .

MTAI mean scores of Title I and non-Title 1
teachers holding less than a master's
degree and a master's degree or more

MTAI mean scores of Title I and non-Title I
teachers with a total of two or less
years of teaching experience and more than
two years . . . . . . . . . .

The number of Title I and non—Title 1 teachers
instructing at each grade level

MTAI mean scores of Title I teachers of
reading, arithmetic, homeroom subjects,
and self-contained classroom subjects

A summary of the 2 by 2 contingency tables

containing the MTAI mean scores for the
sub-questions of Question A . .

ix

60

62

65'

67

69

73

80

, 104

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A. Title I Program 125
B. Characteristics of the Sample . . . . . . 153
C. The Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Problem

Recent deve10pments in the education of depressed area
children have prompted educators; agencies of local, state,
and federal government; and foundations to provide compensa-
tory education programs within the structure of the regular
public day school. As a result of these programs, increased
numbers of depressed area children are benefiting from com-
pensatory education. These programs range in nature and
scOpe from over 13,000 Head Start programs located in over
2,500 communities serving more than a half million children,
to a massive school-community project attacking a variety of
problems in Boston under the single direction of Action for
Boston Community DeveIOpment (ABCD). The attitudes of the
classroom teachers of regular as well as compensatory pro-
grams, in which depressed area children are placed, provide
a vital consideration which has not been eXplored to any
degree. Therefore, it is imperative to answer the question:
Is it possible for any educational program to be successful
unless, first and foremost, the teacher likes and respects

his students? The success of any compensatory education

program may well depend upon how the teachers feel toward

the disadvantaged child.

The problems under consideration in this investigation

are:

1. To determine how the attitudes of a sample of
teachers from eight depressed area schools
scheduled to participate in a federalTitle I
program compare with the attitudes of a sample
of teachers from five depressed area schools
not scheduled to participate.

2. To determine after one year's operation of the
Title I program how the attitudes of fourth,
fifth, and sixth grade teachers in eight schools
participating in the program compare with the
attitudes of teachers of the same grades in five
depressed area schools not participating in the
program.

Statement of the Objective

The objective of this study is to ascertain whether there
exists a relationship between the attitudes of two selected
groups of teachers, one group from Title I schools and the
other from schools not participating in Title I. (The
latter schools Shall be referred to as "non-Title I" Schools
in this study.) The teachers are assigned to teach reading,
arithmetic, homeroom subjects, or self-contained classroom
subjects in grades four, five, and six. The specific atti-
tude being analyzed is that of the teacher toward pupil-
teacher relations. The teachers are selected from thirteen
elementary schools located in the ghetto of a midwestern
urban community. One group consists of teachers in the eight

schools participating in a federally funded elementary

 

compensatory education program, Title I of Public Law 89—10.
The other group consists of teachers from five similar
schools which are not participants in the federally funded
program.

The attitudes of the teachers are measured by use of
the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory1 which is described
in detail in Chapter Three.

The central question to be explored in this study is:

After one year's participation in a Title

I compensatory education program, do fourth,

fifth, and sixth grade teachers of reading,

arithmetic, homeroom subjects, or self-contained

classroom subjects tend to have a more positive

attitude toward pupil-teacher relations than a

comparable group of teachers who have not parti—
cipated in a Title I compensatory education

program?

Questions to Be Explored

In addition to the central question of this study,
related questions are explored individually with reference
to the MTAI scores of the teachers.2 The related questions
are categorized into groups pertaining to personal demo-
graphic data about the teachers, to selected working con-
ditions, and to selected characteristics of the students.

1. Demographic Data about the Teachers

Does the sex, race, age, marital status,
professional training, or teaching

 

. 1In this thesis the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory
15 referred to as the MTAI.

2The questions related to the central question of the
study are itemized in Chapter 111, page 39-41.

experience of the teacher relate to
the attitudes of Title I and non-Title
I teachers toward pupil—teacher relations?

2. Selected Working_Conditions

 

Does the grade taught, subject taught,
building enrollment, or percentage of
black teachers in the building relate to
the attitudes of Title I and non-Title I
teachers toward pupil-teacher relations?

3. Selected Characteristics of the Students

 

Does the percentage of black students in
the student body, the level of academic
achievement of the students, or the de-
gree of poverty of the students relate to
the attitudes of Title I and non-Title I

teachers toward pupil-teacher relations?

A General Theoretical Orientation to
Teacher Attitudes and the Learner

To relate the importance of teacher attitudes toward
pupil-teacher relations to pupil achievement, it is
necessary to look at what is done when a teacher assists
a student to learn.

Suppose a learner does not have a certain fact, under-
standing, or skill prior to his contact with the teacher.
Following the influence of the teacher the learner does
know. The question then is: What happens in the process
while the learner is going from not knowing to a point of
knowing?

It is not within the purpose of this study to debate
such philosophical questions as the following: Does the

teacher give the knowledge to the student, or does the

student have the knowledge but need the teacher to help him
order it? It is necessary, however, to view the process of
learning in light of the influence that the attitudes of
the teacher toward pupil-teacher relations have upon the
student during the teaching-learning session.

The teacher uses structures of language (grammar and
rhetoric) which are known to the student to point out some
principles of the new learning. The students follow the
teacher's teaching from the known principles to those to be
learned. Francis C. Wade, 8. J., deve10ps this idea in his
article, "Causality in the Classroom." " . . . the art of
the teacher consists precisely in presenting these known
data in such a way that . . . the desired "3
principles become present in the mind of the learner.

In teaching, the teacher uses signs of his own know-
ledge which include language andgestures. The learner
receives and perceives these signs as representative of
the teacher's knowledge. If the teacher has low expecta-
tions of his learner's abilities, he will select those Signs
which he believes appropriate. If he has negative feelings
toward his students, he will tend to select signs and gestures

which reflect his feelings. In summary, signs signify things

and objects. However, the selection of these signs is

3Francis C. Wade, 8. J., "Causality in the Classroom,"
in Modern Schoolman, ed. by George P. Klubertanz, S. J.
(Ann ArEor: Cushing-Mallory, Inc., August, 1955), XXVIII,
p. 144.

 

influenced by the teacher's attitude toward his learner.

If, when presenting his signs, the teacher is con-
fronted with puzzled faces, blank stares, or discipline
problems, he and his students are not in accord. The good
teacher then alters his signs until accord is achieved. If
the teacher does not alter his signs, the student perceives
that the teacher does not really care whether he learns, or
that the teacher is unprepared or inadequate for the teach-
ing task, or that the student himself is not smart enough.

The student's initial motivation to follow the signs
of the teacher is contingent upon his perceiving that the
teacher likes and respects him, and has confidence in his
ability to learn. This acceptance by the teacher fulfills
a need in the student, and he reciprocates by demonstrating
to the teacher that he likes and respects the teacher. His
means of demonstration is an attempt to learn. When he does
learn, the learning itself is rewarding and becomes a moti-
vation to continue to learn. Success in learning becomes a
more significant motivational factor than the initial one of
pleasing the teacher.

If the teacher's attitudes are negative, or perceived
by the student to be negative, the initial motivational steps
in learning are thwarted. The disadvantaged child is then
handicapped as he proceeds through the grades, deficient in
his mastery of the signals (language) of the teacher and
deprived of the initial motivational stimulus of the teacher.

Performance of disadvantaged children in school becomes

progressively worse till, in most cases, they drop out.

Wade summarizes the interaction between teacher and
student in the learning process when he refers to the signs
the teacher uses. ”With an object present to his mind, the
student acts to form his own taught knowledge; and the teach-

er, through his [selected] signs as logical instruments, is

the specificative cause of the student's taught knowledge.”4

Wade concludes that if a teacher does not have trust
and respect for his students he is not teaching, but rather
indoctrinating. For it is mutual trust and respect which
unite the mind of the teacher and the taught on a common
meeting ground. On the absence of this common meeting
ground Wade comments:

Without such meeting ground teacher and taught
do not meet as minds; there is no ground for the
student's assent. What is left the student is

a pseudoground; that is, the teacher said so.
Such a student, assenting on the word of the
teacher, is indoctrinated, not taught. True, he
gets something; but he gets it by hearing and
holds it by memory and becomes a skilled repeat-
er instead of a knowing man. His teacher, on
the other hand, cut off from first principles
[mutual trust and respect between teacher and
students], must go on indoctrinating, whether
he wants to or not, for there is no escape.

Let him try to escape by being 'objective' and
by professedly refusing to take sides. Still
he does have Opinions and these must color his
teaching; he, after all, like other teachers,
can only teach what he knows. The student,
meanwhile, who is told he is getting uncolored
truth, does not even suspect that he is lapping
up, without reason, opinions that demand reasons.
Thus, the unprincipled teacher, running from

41bid., p. 145.

open indoctrination, stumbles into the more
VICIous trap of masked . . . indoctrination.
What would save Him and his teaching and his

students' mind ii appeal to the first prin-
CIples of being.

Assumptions Underlying the Study

The following are assumptions underlying this study:

1.

The reliability and validity of the MTAI is
assumed. (The instrument is described in
detail in Chapter III.)

Attitudes and opinions obtained by use of the
research instrument were accurate at the time
the information was obtained.

It is valuable to know whether there are sig—
nificant correlations between the attitudes
of Title I and non-Title I depressed area
teachers.

It is valuable to know whether after teaching
one year in a compensatory education program
the attitudes of teachers are comparatively
more positive.

It is valuable to know whether a teacher's sex,
race, age, marital status, professional train—
ing, and teaching experience are related to

the attitudes he has toward pupil-teacher
relations.

It is valuable to know whether the grade taught,
subject taught, building enrollment, and per—
centage of black teachers in the building relate
to teacher attitudes toward pupil-teacher rela-

tions.

It is valuable to know whether the percentage
of black students in the student body, the level
of academic achievement of the students, and
the degree of poverty of the students relate to
teacher attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations.

 

5

Ibid., p. 146.

Significance of the Study

The difficult task of educating the peeple from our
urban depressed areas is yet to be successfully tackled by
educators, industry, or government. There are deve10pmental
programs, remedial programs, and compensatory programs which
have been incorporated either into the formal educational
plans of most urban public school systems or established
outside their framework. In Spite of the special programs
the educational output from ghetto schools is generally dis—
graceful. The children are performing poorly, and in fact
only 40 per cent graduate from high school. It is common
knowledge that opportunities for drop-outs of any color are
severely limited, but even some graduates of black ghetto
high schools have difficulty reading and computing well
enough to get or hold a Simple job. For those ghetto learn-
ers who happen to be black the problem is compounded by
racism on the part of many whites and considerable class
consciousness on the part of many middle and upper class
blacks.

Recently the most bitter attacks on the process of
education in ghetto areas are being directed at those who
teach in ghetto school buildings. The teachers and adminis-
trators have been " . . . accused of being uninterested in
the children, of stereotyping them as academic failures,
0f being ineffective in doing the job they are . "6

hired to do, and of having, almost universally, a less than

—1

6
Marjorie B. Smiley and Harry L. Miller, Policy Issues
in Urban Education (New York. The Free Press, 1968) p, lIT

 

-10-

positive attitude toward the children.

The attacks on the depressed schools by both laymen
and educators tend to focus on the teacher and can be
divided into three categories; namely, they pertain to in—
structional styles, the training and selection of teachers,
and pupil-teacher rapport.

Criticism of instructional styles ranges from the limit-
ing factors of obsolete building facilities to the exclusive
use of middle class oriented textbooks and teaching aids.
Most educators and lay persons tend to agree that textbooks
and teaching aids should characterize and symbolize a society
with which depressed area children can identify. There seems
to be no agreement, however, on the details of how, when,
where, and how much the curriculum should pertray the urban
depressed areas.

Attacks upon the training and selection of teachers for
depressed areas are general but without agreement on ap-
proaches to improve the processes. The training of teachers
for depressed area schools by colleges and universities varies
from a blitzkrieg bus tour through a depressed area to a
more intensive commitment on the part of the university. The
most committed universities offer such courses of study as an
undergraduate or graduate specialization in teaching the dis-
advantaged. Usually the course of study consists of class
work in addition to a number of hours of observation per week

in a depressed area school and neighborhood.

-11-

The major criticisms directed at the quality of pupilv
teacher rapport have centered around the impersonal attitudes
of teachers toward their disadvantaged students. There seem
to be two basic arguments relating to the cause of the im-
personal attitudes, or poor pupil—teacher rapport, in dis-
advantaged schools. Some maintain, as does Robert D. Strom,7
that poor pupil-teacher rapport is caused mainly by the
teacher's insensitivity to aspects of his own behavior which
damage the self-concept of his students.

In deference to the problems confronting teachers with
poor pupil-teacher rapport some writers and teachers " .
contend that until class size is reduced in low income
schools, teacher-pupil rapport will remain impersonal and

8 To the need

cannot be expected to improve appreciably."
for reduced class size may be added the needs for more teach-
ing aids, supplies, and equipment; additional salary; teacher
aides; school involvement in social programs; and inservice
workshops.

If the cause of poor pupil-teacher rapport is not mainly
teacher insensitivity but poor working conditions, it seems
reasonable to think that if the conditions related to class

size, teaching aids, salary, and auxiliary services are

changed, the impersonal attitudes of teachers should change.

 

7Robert D. Strom, "Teacher Aspiration and Attitude," in
The Inner-City: Teacher Behaviors, ed. by Robert D. Strom
(Coldfifius, Ohio: Charles Ei—MerTIll Books, Inc., 1966), p. 34.

8

 

Ibid.

 

-12-

There should be a change, therefore, in the impersonal atti-
tudes of teachers toward pupil-teacher relations among
teachers who participated in a Title I program of the Federal
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Although the
Title I program in this study was designed Specifically to raise the
reading and arithmetic achievement levels of children, it
provided for assistance in the areas mentioned above as
important in altering the impersonality of teacher behavior
towards students. It provided for (a) reduced class Size
in all fourth, fifth, and sixth grade reading and arithmetic
lessons, (b) a substantial supply of teaching aids, supplies,
and pieces of equipment, (c) teacher salary in kind by re-
lieving teachers of much of their clerical work and assigning
it to teacher aides, (d) a school social worker for each
participating building, and (e) an instructional Specialist
who provided daily inservice assistance.

It will be a goal of this Study to see whether the
attitudes of teachers toward pupil-teacher relations are

changed following the implementation of Title I.

Federal Title I Program9
The purpose of the Title I program is to raise the read-
ing and arithmetic achievement levels of fourth, fifth,and

sixth grade disadvantaged youngsters in participating schools.

 

. 9For the complete text of the Title I pr0posal of the
Flint Public Schools see Appendix A.

-13-

Selection of Schools
The schools in this program were selected according to
the guidelines for Title I of the Federal Elementary and

Secondary Education Act of 1965. The criteria were two:

1. The percentage of families with annual incomes
of less than $2,000.

2. The percentage of children who are educationally
disadvantaged as indicated by low achievement.

Components of the Program

 

Seven components of the program were designed to relate
with and to extend the services of a number of existing
educational programs in the Flint Public Schools.

1. Improving Reading in the Early Elementary Years

(1-3)
The major emphasis of this component of the
program is to provide a significant increase in
the daily instructional time in reading for
early elementary children.
To implement the program team teachers were
provided over and above the usual number of
regular classroom teachers in the approximate
ratio of one team teacher Ix) every three early
elementary teachers.10

2. Improving Reading and Arithmetic in the Later

Elementary Grades (4-6)

10This component of the program was only partially im-
plemented; therefore, the early elementary teachers were not

included in this study.

-14-

The major emphasis of this component of the
program is to provide developmental reading and
arithmetic instruction daily for all upper grade
children in a classroom setting where the pupil—
teacher ratio does not exceed.twelve to one.

To implement the program two reading and two
arithmetic teachers were provided for each group
of six regular classroom teachers of upper ele-
mentary grades in the Title I schools.

Each reading and arithmetic teacher has a class-
room of his own. He teaches six periods of reading
or arithmetic per day to a class of aboutten
students.

Providing Instructional Leadership via the Services
of Reading and Arithmetic Specialists

A Reading Specialist and an Arithmetic Special-
ist are available to provide consultation services
to the Title I reading and arithmetic teachers.
Providing Instructional Leadership via the Services
of an Instructional Specialist

An Instructional Specialist is provided for each
of the participating schools. The services of the
Instructional Specialist are available to all

teachers in the building.

Providing Social Adjustment Service via the School

Social Worker

A school Social Worker is provided for each of

-15-

the participating schools to help children adapt
to school by working with children, teachers, and
parents.
6. Providing Clerical Aides to Help Teachers
A Clerical Aide is provided for each selected
school to free teachers of non-instructional
activities.
7. Implementing an Inservice Program via Service of
an Inservice Specialist
The Inservice Specialist plans specific pro-
grams for the participating schools to develop,
interpret, and promote a better understanding of
the social forces which influence the lives of
the disadvantaged child.
In order to implement the above programs, additional
physical facilities, instructional materials, and equipment

were needed.11

Additional physical facilities were needed
to provide teaching stations for the upper elementary read-
ing and arithmetic teachers. The needed facilities con-
sisted of eighteen one-room mobile unit classrooms installed
on the eight school sites of the participating schools. Re-
assignment of early elementary self-contained classes from

buildings to mobile units made classroom Space available

in the main buildings for reading and arithmetic teachers.

 

__4—

A complete list of the kinds of instructional materials
purchased and the number and location of mobile units and
redesigned classrooms is in Appendix A.

 

-16..

Each of the eighteen classrooms in the main buildings
of the participating schools was redesigned to make three
sound-proof rooms; two rooms were for reading or arithmetic

classrooms, and one room was for an instructional laboratory.

Delimitations of the Study

One of the major limitations of this study lies in the
sample of teachers. Although all the fourth, fifth, and
sixth grade teachers of reading, arithmetic, homeroom sub-
jects, and self-contained classroom subjects in the thirteen
schools were tested one year following the testing of the
representative sample, fourteen (40 per cent) of the teachers
in the initial sample had either resigned or transferred
within the year. Therefore, generalizations from this study

Should be made with caution.

Definition of Terms
1. Disadvantaged, depressed, ghetto. These three ad-
jectives are used interchangeably in the study.
They are used to refer to persons and areas which
are characterized by the following:

High degree of transiency

Very low rate of economic productivity
Inadequate communicative Skills

High drOp-out rate from school

High rate of failure in school

High prOportion of dilapidated housing

Large number of welfare recipients

Poor health habits

Low level of educational attainment among adults
High crime rate

One might well question using ”ghetto” inter—

changeably with ”disadvantaged” and "depressed”

 

-17-

because “ghetto" describes a geographical area
where there is a concentration of a racial or
national group, whereas "disadvantaged” and ”de—
pressed“ describe the socioeconomic status of a
group or area. However, since the thirteen
schools in this study are located in the black
ghetto which is also the depressed area with the
highest concentration of disadvantaged persons,
using these terms interchangeably is justified.
Furthermore, more than 77 per cent of the black
students in this school district live in the
ghetto area. (See Appendix B.)

2. Compensatory education. Compensatory education is
a program designed to make up for these social,
economic, and educational factors which place
students among the disadvantaged. The goals are
much more sweeping than pure remediation, and they
cannot be substituted by a regular developmental
program. (Remediation is designed to correct
Specific problems. DeveIOpmental programs are de-
signed for everyone within the basic educational

program.)

Overview of the Thesis
In Chapter II the literature related to this study is

reviewed. In addition to a report on the search for

 

-18-

previous research relevant to the purpose of this study,
other research which has a bearing on the study is reported.
The design of the study is described in Chapter III.
It includes background on the setting of the study.
Chapter IV contains an analysis of the results of the
study.
The summary, conclusions, recommendations, and impli-

cations for further research are presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

In order to grasp the significance of the attitudes of
the ghetto teacher toward his pupils and his teaching it is
necessary to investigate the teacher himself. How does the
teacher in a depressed area School compare to the teacher
in a non-depressed area? What are his feelings about his
teaching? What are his attitudes toward his students? Who
are the disadvantaged students he teaches? In what kinds of
compensatory education programs has he participated to im-
prove the academic success of his disadvantaged students?

Answers to these questions about the ghetto teacher lie
within knowledge we have about the child himself. Given the
social class of the student, the income of his family, the
educational level of his parents, and the color of his skin,
one can quite accurately guess what kind of school he attends,

the quality of education he is receiving, the kinds of teach—

ers to whom he is likely to be exposed, and how successful

he is apt to be academically.1

‘

 

1Patricia Cayo Sexton, Education and Income, Inequalities
g£0pportunity_in Our Public Schools (New York: The Viking
Press, Inc., 1961).

-19-

-20-

An investigation of such sources as the Journal of

Educational Research, the Education Index, The Handbook of

 

 

 

Research 2n Teaching, the Phi Delta Kappan,and the Disserta-

 

 

 

tion Abstracts of University Microfilms, Incorporated, did

 

not indicate that a previous research probe in which the
attitudes of two Similar groups of ghetto teachers were
assessed after one group had participated in a compensatory
education program has ever been conducted. Essentially
the studies in this area have dealt with one group rather
than a control and an experimental group. Robert E.
Herriott and Nancy Hoyt St. John have reported the results
of such a one—dimensional study2 as has Kenneth Clark.
Clark described the Banneker Project in St. Louis and re-
ported that changes were made in ” . . . the attitude and
perspective of teachers which influenced the way in which
the Students were taught and learned. . . .” even though
there had been no other drastic changes in school programs.3
Although before and after studies comparing two groups
of teachers only one of which participated in a compensa-
tory program have not been done, hardly anyone would deny the
significance of the attitudes of the teacher in the ultimate
success of any educational program. Matthew J. Pillard

underscores this pivotal role of the teacher:

‘

ZRobert E. Herriott and Nancy Hoyt St. John, Social
Class and the Urban School (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1966).

3Kenneth B. Clark, Dark Ghetto (New York: Harper and
Row, Publishers, 1965), p. 144.

 

-21-

The most crucial element on which success of
educational programs ultimately depends is the
school Staff, the individuals who do the job.
Even the most clearly articulated goals and the
most carefully delineated programs are not self-
actuating. These may be deveIOped in large part
by the community and its educational leaders, but
their implementation depends upon the work of
teachers. Thus classroom teachers and their asso-
ciates who daily face the challenge of guiding the
young toward a better life become the center of
attention in urban schools.

Therefore, it is essential to consider the attitudes of
teachers -- those who will plan, implement, and evaluate

our educational programs.

The Teacher and His Attitudes Toward His Job
and the Students He Teaches
It is generally accepted that students benefit more
from exposure to teachers with strong educational backgrounds

than they do from teachers with weak academic backgrounds.

6 8 9

Studies by Becker,5 Herriott, Sexton,7 Ravitz, and Clark,

 

4Matthew J. Pillard, "Teachers for Urban Schools," in
Education in Urban Society, ed. by B. J. Chandler, Lindley
J. StiIes, 353 John I1 Kitsuse (New York: Dodd, Mead and
Company, 1966), p. 194.

5Howard S. Becker, "Schools and Systems of Stratification,"
in Education, EconomyLand Society, ed. by A. H. Halsey,
Jean FTCud, andTC. ArnoldiAnderson (Glencoe, 111.: The Free
Press, 1961), pp. 93-104.

 

 

6Herriott and St. John, Op. cit.
7Sexton, o . cit.

8Mel Ravitz, "The Role of the School in the Urban Set-
ting," in Education in Depressed Areas, ed. by A. Harry
Passow (New—Yerk: TEacherTS ColIege,TCOlumbia University,
1963), pp. 6-23.

 

gClark, pp. cit., pp. 133-39.

-22..

found that the teachers of the disadvantaged generally have
poorer academic backgrounds, they are less satisfied, and
they have less desirable attitudes toward their students
than teachers of middle class children. To compound the
problem prospects for better teachers seem dim considering

a study by James S. Coleman who found that teachers in
training who have the characteristics which might benefit

ghetto children tend to prefer to teach in middle class

schools.10

Robert E. Herriott studied the influence that the
socioeconomic status of the student body had upon the atti-
tudes of teachers and principals in 500 Schools in forty-one large
cities. The study was designed to determine to what extent
the social class composition of the pupils in urban schools
was associated with characteristics of the staff of these
schools. His findings indicate that elementary teachers in
ghetto schools are far less satisfied with their work and
assignment than are their fellow teachers who are assigned
to middle class or ”silk stocking" schools. He states,
"Teachers in schools of lowest SES [socioeconomic status]
are, of all teachers, the least satisfied with various

H11

aspects of their teaching situation. Not only are they

10James S. Coleman, Equality of Educational Opportunity

(Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government PrintIfig Office, 1966),
pp. 25-27.

11Herriott and St. John, op. cit., p. 206.

-23-

dissatisfied but nearly half of them "want out." "Moreover,
42 per cent of the teachers in these schools, as compared

with 18 per cent in schools of highest SES, aspire to a

school 'in a better neighborhood."'12

Herriott found that the greatest source of teacher dis-

satisfaction in ghetto areas is with the substandard academic

13

performance of students although these same teachers re-

ported that they are satisfied with the state of teaching as

14

a profession. In view of these findings one would suspect

that most of these teachers see the ghetto assignments as an
undesirable but necessary initiation into the teaching pro-
fession. Herriott gives support to this supposition when

he states that ghetto teachers are usually younger, less
experienced, newer to the school system, the recipients of

less salary in each age bracket than teachers in higher

socioeconomic areas,15 and they are relatively eager for

new assignments.l6

David Gottlieb in a recent study, "Teaching and Students:

17

The Views of Negro and White Teachers," found that a

12Ibid.

 

13Ibid., p. 90.
14

 

Ibid., p. 69.

15Ibid., p. 206.

16Ibid., p. 69.

17David Gottlieb, "Teaching and Students: The Views
of Negro and White Teachers,” in Educating the Disadvantaged
Learner, Part III, ed. by Staten WI Wébster (San FTanciSco:

Cfiandler PuBlisfiing Company, 1966), pp. 437*46.

-24-

teacher's race tends to influence the kind of dissatis-
faction he finds with his job. His study deals with the
attitudes of ninety black and white elementary school teachers
toward black and white pupils from low income families in

a midwestern urban community.

Gottlieb found that teacher dissatisfactions can be
grouped into two categories, one pertaining to working con—
ditions and the other pertaining to the pupil. In the
category of working conditions he included such causes for
dissatisfaction as old age of the school buildings; large
or overcrowded class sizes; inadequate and insufficient
amounts of teaching supplies, equipment, and materials; and
a lack of auxiliary professional and non-professional ser-
vices. In the category of dissatisfaction with pupils he
includes the usual characteristics of the disadvantaged
child such as inadequacies in the child's socioeconomic
status; his disruptive, impudent behavior and lack of
discipline; and his inability to perform well academically.

Among his findings Gottlieb reported that black teach-
ers complained chiefly about working conditions while white
teachers emphasized the students' lack of academic ability
and lack of discipline (though there were whites who com-
plained about working conditions and, conversely, blacks
who complained about Students). He concluded that, not only
do the teachers indicate the areas of their dissatisfaction,

but their dissatisfactions tend to be affected by race.

 

 

-25..

The items mentioned by white teachers tend
to fall within the category we have designated
as 'clientele' factors [students] whereas the
items expressed by Negro teachers are more likely
to fit within the 'institutional' grouping [work-
ing conditions]. The two items most frequently
mentioned by white teachers are 'lack of parental
interest' and 'student behavior or discipline
problems.‘ Although some Negro teachers do ex-
press concern over these same problems, they tend
to place greater emphasis on factors such as 'lack 8
of proper equipment' and 'overcrowded conditions.’

Gottlieb speculates that because black teachers are able to
identify more closely with black children they might search
for facts external to the child to eXplain the many problems

19 This speculation has been corrobo—

21

that arise in school.
rated by E. Frazier20 and Arnold M. Rose.
James 8. Coleman directed an extensive survey of over
half a million students in three thousand schools for the
United States Office of Education. In his report, Equality

of Educational Opportunity, Coleman found that teachers of

 

the disadvantaged differ in a number of ways from their

colleagues teaching in schools located in middle or upper

class areas.

The most striking difference Coleman points out is that

18Gottlieb, op. cit., pp. 443-44.

191bid., p. 444.

 

20E. Frazier, The Negro in the USA (New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1949).

21Arnold M. Rose, ed., Race Prejudice and Discrimination
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1951).

-26-

black teachers teach black children and white teachers teach
white children. There are exceptions to the other differ-
ences between teachers of the disadvantaged and advantaged,
but this is the most generally true and gross difference.

For the nation as a whole, the average Negro
elementary student attends a school in which
65 percent of the faculty are Negro and the
average white elementary student attends a
school in which 97 percent of the faculty
are white 22

Coleman did not find, as might be SUpposed, a relation-
ship existing between the race of the student and the amount
of training his teacher had although he did find that black
ghetto children are more likely to have teachers of lower
verbal facility than children of middle or upper class schools.
"The average Negro pupil is likely, . . . to be taught by
teachers who score less well on a Short 30—item verbal facility

"23

test Although black students have teachers of lesser

verbal ability, they are more likely to have teachers of great-

. 2
er experience. 4 Moreover, race does not seem to be a factor

in one's commitment to teaching or to a particular school

25

system. Coleman reported that the teacher of black children

has Slightly larger class enrollment than does the average

teacher of white children.26

 

22Coleman, Op. cit., p. 126.

231bid., p. 130.

24Ibid., p. 136.

25Ibid., p. 151.

261bid., p. 163.

 

-27..

Facilities and Curriculum Practices

Coleman reported in Equality of Educational Opportunity

 

that a number of school characteristics and curriculum practices
do not have any appreciable effect upon the achievement of
students when selected personal background characteristics
are held constant.

The following list Of school characteristics and curri-
culum practices accounts for a very small percentage of the
variation in achievement Of a group of sixth and ninth grade

black and white students from which Coleman reached this

. 2
conclu51on. 7

Volumes per student in school library

Science laboratory facilities (9 and 12 only)

Number of extra curricular activities (9 and 12 only)
Presence of accelerated curriculum

Comprehensiveness of curriculum (9 and 12 only)
Strictness in promotion of slow learners (6 only)

Use of grouping or tracking (9 and 12 only)

School size

Number of guidance counselors (9 and 12 only)
Urbanism of school's location

He noted that in general there is a variation in school
characteristics and curriculum practices among all 12 grades,
but in the elementary grades there is a low variation with

respect to facilities.

In addition Coleman found that contrary to popular belief,

28

pupil-teacher ratio and the number of specialized rooms in

the building do not Show any perceptible relationship to

achievement.29

 

27Ihid., pp. 220-75.

28Ibid., p. 312.

291bid., pp. 313-15.

 

-28-

Although such a study was not designed to investigate
the qualitative value of the variables, these findings are
not very encouraging when one realizes that nearly all of
the federally funded compensatory education programs have
chosen to rectify inequities in the above-mentioned vari-
ables as a means for bridging the educational gap of the
culturally deprived child.

Coleman concluded that the attributes of school facili—
ties and curriculum practices account for far less variation
in achievement of minority group children than do the attri-
butes of other students and Slightly less than the attri-

butes of staff.30

Therefore, one has to conclude from
Coleman's study that the composition of student population
in the school environment makes the most difference in a
student's intellectual development.

Considering together these two facts -- that federally
funded compensatory programs seem to focus upon improvement
in areas Coleman has found less highly significant to stu-
dent achievement (school facilities and curriculum practices)
and the fact that attributes Of staff are more significant -—

gives added impetus to the desirability of studying teacher

attitudes.

The Disadvantaged Student
"The disadvantaged" refers to a group having a number

of common characteristics such as low income; low educational

 

30Ibid., p. 302.

 

-29-

achievement; low social status; tenuous employment, under—
employment, or unemployment; absence of participation in the
power structure of the community; health problems; and practi-
cally no opportunity for improvement. The racial and ethnic
composition Of the disadvantaged group tends to reflect a
minority group -- Afro-American, Puerto Rican, Mexican
American, American Indian, and mountain or Southern rural
white —- although some disadvantaged persons may belong to
the racial and ethnic groups composing the majority society
of the United States. Most disadvantaged persons are con—
centrated in an urban ghetto inhabited predominantly by one
racial or ethnic group.

Social, economic, educational, and residential isolation
has fostered and perpetuated an alien culture for the disad—
vantaged. Children of the disadvantaged come to schools
which are established, maintained, and operated by and for
the dominant culture. But what is (or appears to be) appro-
priate for the dominant culture is not necessarily appropri-
ate for the minority. In fact, compulsory public education
in the United States is seriously indicted by the dispro—
portionately high rate Of scholastic retardation among
disadvantaged children.

Disadvantaged children exhibit the following character-
istics in school:

Lack of response to conventional classroom approaches

Inadequate performance in communication skills

Low achievement in reading and arithmetic

Socially unacceptable behavior
Indifference to responsibility

 

-30-

Non-purposeful activity

Physical defects and poor health habits
Over—age for grade

Poor attendance

High rate of failure

High drOp—out rate

Low aspiration level

Although disadvantaged children Show a normal range of
scholastic aptitude, they do not achieve in school at a normal
rate of progress. Thus one Speaks of "scholastic retarda-
tion.” "Experts" have laid the blame for the disadvantaged
child's scholastic retardation from one extreme to the other.
Some cite the nature of the home background. Others blame
the student for not trying, for being undisciplined, and for
not having the needed intellect. Still others blame the in—
ept teachers and unsympathetic school administrators.

One supporter of the latter point of view is Kenneth
Clark who believes the attitudes of teachers are more to
blame for the disadvantaged child's lack of academic progress
than any other factor. He asks educators to search themselves
by considering, among other questions, the following:

To what extent do they [contemporary social

deprivation theories] offer acceptable and

desired alibis for the educational default:

the fact that these children, by and large,

do not learn because they are not being

taught effectively and they are not being

taught because those who are charged with

the responsibility of teaching them do not

believe that they can learn, do not expect

that they can learn, and do not act toward
them in ways which help them to learn.

 

31Clark, op. cip., p. 131.

-31-

The General Nature of Compensatory Education
Programs

Compensatory education programs for the disadvantaged
were virtually unknown prior to 1960. Most of the programs
have been designed and implemented under an uncontrolled
experimental basis, mainly concerned with the total effect
of a multiphase program on a target pOpulation.

Most of the programs are designed to meet observed

needs which, however, are not necessarily based on actual

needs. "For all their variety of means, the programs have
generally suffered from one fundamental difficulty -- they
32

are based on sentiment rather than on fact."
Compensatory is the title that has beengiven to pro—
grams designed for the disadvantaged. There is no doubt
that the programs are designed to compensate for the deprived
student's inadequate background. With few exceptions the
aims or objectives of these programs are "to raise achieve-
ment level, to improve a student's self—concept, and to
broaden the student's horizon."
One might say facetiously that most of the prOgrams
represent an educator's move to transform disadvantaged

children into middle class children so that our present

32Edmund W. Gordon and Doxey A. Wilkerson, Compensatory
Education for the Disadvantaged (New York: College Entrance
ExamifiatIOn Board, 1966), p. 158.

 

-32-

means of teaching might be more effective. There is no
question as to the ineffectiveness of our present methods
of teaching the disadvantaged, but the question is: Is it
best to change the child to meet the teaching methods and
the curriculum, or to change the teaching methods and the
curriculum to meet the child's needs?

This point has been commented on by Gordon.

. . the unexpressed purpose of most compensa-

tory programs is to make disadvantaged children

as much as possible like the kinds of children

with whom the school has been successful, and

our standard of educational success is how well

they approximate middle-class children in school

performance. It is not at all clear that the

concept of compensatory education is the one

which will most approggiately meet the problems

of the disadvantaged.

Gordon goes on to say that what is needed is a search
for the kinds of educational experiences which are more ap-
propriate for disadvantaged children. The search for more
appropriate educational experiences for disadvantaged students
in the past has concentrated more on the student than on curri-
culum, teaching methods, and staff. On this point Gordon says
educators have been "unwilling to abandon what we think we
have learned about teaching through our years of educating,
with some success, the children of the middle- and upper-
classes, we have tried adding and multiplying our existing
techniques to arrive at a formula for success with less

34

privileged children." He feels educators have not said

to the deprived child, "We will take you as you are, and

ourselves assume the burden of finding educational techniques

—_
——

33Ibid., p. 159.

z4Thirl

-33-

appropriate to your needs."35

One cannot take lightly the growing acknowledgement of
the fact that teaching the disadvantaged is a Specialized
task. Getting the needed specialist is no easy task, and
one cannot rely upon a graduate course or a two-week in-
service workshop to produce staff who are qualified to pro-
vide a satisfactory level of instruction in disadvantaged

schools.

The fact remains that most teachers do not want to teach

36,37

in disadvantaged schools, and that we have difficulty in

identifying teachers who are successful in teaching the dis—
advantaged. Koenigsberg studied teachers who had been
identified by their administrators as successful in teaching
the disadvantaged, but she was unable to substantiate the
teacher expertise with any objective evidence.38
It is known that to be a successful teacher of the dis—
advantaged one must have a positive attitude toward his
students. Strom eXpresses this idea in his statement that
when the teacher ignores the value of the child as an indi-

9

. . . 3 .
Vidual no motivation can be transferred. Until compensa-

tory education prOgrams for the disadvantaged devote a

significant portion of their efforts toward the development

 

35161a.

Becker, op. cit.

Clark, op. cit.
38Gordon, Op. cip., p. 165.

39Strom, op. cit., p. 35.

 

36
37

-34-

of more positive attitudes on the part of staff toward the
disadvantaged, it is doubtful these programs will live up

to expectations.

The Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, Public Law 89-10

The passage of the Federal Elementary and Secondary
Education Act40 in 1965 dramatized unmistakably the intention
of the federal government to Share in the responsibility for
both public and private education at the local level.-

The traditional fear of local districts that federal
funds mean federal control, lost its significance in the
face of the pressing need to provide a more adequate educa-
tional program. The government made available over one
billion dollars to initiate new prOgrams, conduct research,
and foster experiments in the area of education, mainly for
deprived children who had heretofore not been receiving an
adequate education.

Of the five title programs in the ESEA package, Title I,
a program for the disadvantaged, is the portion which is re-
lated to this study.

The purpose of Title I is to meet the educational needs
of disadvantaged children which the local school district is
not fulfilling with its regular school programs. It supports

programs to deveIOp curriculum, to expand supplementary

40In this section of the study the Federal Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is referred to as ESEA.

-35-

services, to strengthen the local educational program, and
to provide remedial instruction. The local school adminis-
trators have the responsibility for identifying those
children, pre-school through grade 12, who are economically
deprived and educationally deprived.

The first-year survey of the programs funded reveals
that the emphasis (63 per cent) is being placed on the de-
prived elementary school child. It also shows that 92 per
cent of the children served are in public schools while
6 per cent are in non-public schools. The remaining-2
per cent are in pre—school programs.41

In addition to the financial benefits that a system re-
ceives from federal aid there is usually an effect on teacher

42’43 Generally staff members from all

morale and attitudes.
schools ask to participate in the ESEA pr0grams. Most who
participate are caught up in the excitement of the under—

taking and many times experience greater job satisfaction

and demonstrate more efficient performance.

Summary

It appears from the literature reviewed in this chapter

 

 

 

 

that:

41Howard S. Rowland and Richard L. Wing, Federal Aid for
Sphoolsy 1967-1968 Guide (New York: Macmillan Company, 1967),
p. 22.

421bid., p. 3.

43

Clark, Op. cit., p. 143.

 

-36-

The most crucial element upon which the success of
a compensatory education program depends is the
school staff.

Teachers of the disadvantaged generally have poorer
academic backgrounds, less satisfaction in their
work, and less desirable attitudes toward their
students than teachers of middle class children.

The major causes for job dissatisfaction among teach-
ers of the disadvantaged are substandard academic
performance of students and inadequate working con-
ditions. Race tends to influence the perceived
cause of dissatisfaction.

School facilities and curriculum practices are less
highly Significant to student achievement than are
the attributes of staff and the other children at-
tending the school.

It is believed by some that the attitudes of teach-
ers are more to blame for the disadvantaged child's
lack of academic progress than any other factor.

Most compensatory education programs are designed to
meet observed needs which, however, are not necessarily
needs based on facts.

Most educators have relied unwittingly upon education-
al techniques inapprOpriate to the needs of the
disadvantaged. They have tried to change the disad-
vantaged child to meet the middle class curriculum

instead of changing curriculum and techniques of

teaching.

-37-

The fear that accepting federal aid means federal
control has lessened, and the federal government
has dramatized unmistakably its intentions to Share
in the responsibility for both public and private
education at the local level.

The literature explored in this chapter provides a frame—

work for discussing the findings of this investigation,

according to the design of the study explained in the next

chapter.

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Introduction

This chapter contains a delineation of the methodology

and procedures used to carry out the study. The teacher

population involved in the study is described along with

the method used to select it. The Minnesota Teacher Atti-

tude Inventoryl is outlined along with the procedure employed

to administer it. Finally, the statistical analyses used in

the study are explained. These are the Student's “t” Test,

the 2 by 2 contingency table, and Fisher's analysis of

variance.2

Purpose of the Study
The general purposes of the investigation are (l) to
determine how the attitudes of a cross section of teachers

from eight Title I depressed area schools compare to those

_

. In this thesis the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory
ls referred to as the MTAI.

George A. Ferguson, Statistical Analysis in Psychology
%g§9§ducatipp (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,

-38-

-39-

of a similar cross section of teachers from five non-Title I
depressed area schools and (2) to determine how the attitudes
of the teachers in the eight Title I schools compare to those
of the teachers in the five non-Title I schools at the end

of one year's operation of the Title I compensatory education
program. The resolution of the second general purpose is
sought through two avenues, i.e., comparing Title I and
non-Title I MTAI mean scores and analyzing the answers to

the following questions about teacher attitudes toward pupil-

teacher relations as measured by the MTAI:
Question_A

 

Do the personal demographic data about Title I
and non-Title I teachers relate to their atti-
tudes toward pupil-teacher relations as measured
by the MTAI?

Sub-question Azl

Does the sex of Title I and non-Title I
teachers relate to their MTAI scores?

Sub-question A:2

Does the race of Title I and non-Title I
teachers relate to their MTAI scores?

Sub-question A:3

Does the age of Title I and non-Title I
teachers relate to their MTAI scores?

Sub-question A:4

Does the marital status of Title I and
non-Title I teachers relate to their

MTAI scores?

Sub-qpestion A:5

Does the professional training of Title I
and non-Title I teachers relate to their

MTAI scores?
Sub-question A:6

Do the total years of teaching experience
of Title I and non-Title I teachers relate,

to their MTAI scores?

 

-40-

Sub-qpestion A:7

 

Do the total years of teaching experi-
ence with the present school system
of Title I and non-Title I teachers
relate to their MTAI scores?

Sub-question A:8

 

Do the total years of teaching eXperi-
ence in the present building of Title
I and non-Title I teachers relate to
their MTAI scores?

Question B

 

Do selected working conditions of Title I and
non-Title 1 teachers relate to their attitudes
toward pupil-teacher relations as measured by
the MTAI?

Sub-question B-l

 

Does the grade taught by Title I and
non—Title I teachers relate to their
MTAI scores?

Sub-question B:2

 

Does the subject taught bv Title 1
teachers relate to their MTAI scores?

Sub:question B:3

 

Does the size of the student enrollment
in the building relate to MTAI scores
of Title I and non-Title I teachers?

Sub-question B:4

 

Does the percentage of black teachers
on the staff of Title I and non-Title
I schools relate to teacher attitudes
toward pupil-teacher relations as
measured by the MTAI?

Question C

 

Do selected characteristics of the students in
Title I and non-Title I schools relate to
attitudes of teachers toward pupil-teacher
relations as measured by the MTAI?

-41-

Sub—qpestion Czl

 

Does the percentage of black students
enrolled in the school building relate
to the attitude scores of Title I and
non-Title I teachers as measured by
the MTAI?

Sph-question C:2

 

Does the level of student academic
achievement relate to attitude scores
of Title I and non-Title 1 teachers
as measured by the MTAI?

Sub-question C:3

 

Does the degree of student poverty
relate to the attitudes of teachers
toward pupil-teacher relations as
measured by the MTAI?

In seeking answers to these questions and in order to
collect data in keeping with the above-stated purpose, it is
the intent of this study, firstly, to compare the attitudes
Of designated Title I teachers to those of teachers not
designated to participate in Title I prior to the implementa—
tion of the Title I compensatory education program. Secondly,
it is the intent of the study to compare the attitudes of

the Title I and non-Title I teachers after the Title I pro-

gram had been in operation one year.

Methods of Investigation
All research conducted in this study was with the co—
Operation of the Research Department, Flint Board of Educa-
tion, Flint, Michigan.
The thirteen schools in this study were selected because

they previously had been identified by the school system as

-42-

the hard core of poverty, cultural disadvantage, and under-
achievement. The thirteen schools are in the inner city and
contain the overwhelming majority of black pupils enrolled
in elementary schools. The schools represent the hard core

of scholastic underachievement.

Sample

Before describing the characteristics of the 103 teachers
in this study, who are from the thirteen most severely disadvantaged
schools in the system, it is apprOpriate to account for the
selection of the teachers who were included in the first and
second phases of the study. Prior to the implementation of
the study it was suspected that the unusually high rate of
teacher mobility in the thirteen schools would definitely
have an adverse effect upon any attempts to conduct a pre-
post-test study. Therefore it was decided to conduct the
study in two phases.

Phase one of the study was a test for significance of
the difference between mean scores of two groups of teachers
from the thirteen schools attended by the most severely dis-
advantaged group of children in the city: (a) the fourth,
fifth, and sixth grade teachers of reading, arithmetic,
homeroom subjects, and self-contained classroom subjects in
the eight schools which had been selected to participate in
a Title I compensatory education program and (b) the fourth,
fifth, and sixth grade teachers of reading, arithmetic, home-

room subjects, and self-contained classroom subjects in the

-43-

the five schools which had not been selected to participate
in Title 1.

Phase two of the study was to test for significance of
the difference between mean scores of the teachers from the
eight Title I schools and the five nonsTitle I schools one

year after the operation of the Title I program.

Selection of Teachers for Phase I

 

In the selection of the teachers to be included in the
first phase of the study (those tested prior to the imple-
mentation of Title I), a random sample of teachers was
desired. However, due to the high mobility rate of teachers
in these inner-city schools, a representative sample of
teachers was selected. In order to achieve a truly repre-
sentative sample the Director of Research for the Flint
Board of Education and the author decided that the Director
of Research, the Director of Elementary Education, and the
principals of the thirteen schools would select the teachers.

In order to get a truly representative sample the fol-
lowing criteria were used:

1. Teachers from grades four, five, and six. These
grades were selected because the arithmetic and
reading phase of the Title I program would affect
these teachers.

2. Sex of the Teacher. An effort to get a balance
of male and female teachers was made although
the number of males in these schools is small.

3. Race of the Teacher. An effort to get a balance
of black and white teachers from each building

was considered important. The result was a near
balance of 28 white and 26 black teachers.

-44-

4. Principal's Recommendation. This was important
because the support of the administrators and
teachers was needed in order to accomplish this
study.

5. Experience of the Teacher. It was considered im—
portant to have a balance in years of teaching
experience. It was difficult to have a con-
sistent balance in this criterion because of the
high mobility rate of teachers in the inner-city
schools. It would have been ideal to have an
equal number of first year teachers, teachers
in the two-four year category, teachers in the
five-nine year category, and so on. It was im-
possible to achieve this ideal balance.

6. Training of the Teacher. It was considered im-
portant to have a balance in the preparation of
teachers. It was impossible to achieve this
balance in grades four, five, and six in these
thirteen schools.

Selection of Teachers for Phase II

 

In the selection of the teachers to be included in the
second phase of the study (those tested following one year's
Operation of Title I), all fourth, fifth, and sixth grade
teachers of either reading, arithmetic, homeroom subjects,
or self-contained classroom subjects in the eight Title I

schools and the five non-Title I schools were chosen.

Characteristics of the Sample

 

The setting of this study was Flint, Michigan, an in-
dustrial city with a population of approximately 200,000
persons, There are forty-four elementary schools in addition
to eight junior high and four high schools in the citv.

The school system employs 2,002 school teachers, 1,632
white and 370 black, to teach 46,451 students. Although the

student body is approximately 33 per cent black, the black

-45_

teachers represent only 18 per cent of the total teaching
staff, and 75 per cent of them are teaching on the elementary
level. (See Appendix B.) Of the 103 teachers in the study
43 are male and 60 are female, while 48 are black and 54 are
white.

It should be noted that the criteria for selection of
Title I and non-Title I schools were not attitudes of teach—
ers but rather the degree of poverty and low level of
achievement of the students enrolled at a particular school.
Furthermore, the thirteen schools selected had been identified
by the public school system as disadvantaged schools two

years before.

The Instrument

The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI) was
selected because it is a well-known instrument for measuring
teacher attitudes. (See Appendix C.) It is designed to
measure those attitudes of a teacher which will predict how
well he will get along with pupils. The assumption is
made that desirable teacher attitudes are necessary if
meaningful pupil-teacher relationships are to develop and
that desirable pupil-teacher relationships are prerequisite
to worthwhile learning within the classroom.

In the construction of the items for the instrument,

five areas of attitudes were sampled. The five are the

following:3

 

‘

3Walter W. Cook, Carroll H. Leeds, and Robert Callis,
Miggesota Teacher Attitude Inventornganual (New York: The
PSYchological Corporation, 1951), p. 10.

-46-

Moral status of children in the Opinion of adults,
ESpecially as concerns their adherence to adult-
imposed standards, moral or otherwise. Example:
'Children should be seen and not heard.’

 

2. Discipline and problems of conduct in the classroom

 

and elsewhere, and methods employed in dealing with
such problems. Example: 'Pupils found writing
notes should be severely punished.‘

Principles of child development and behavior re—
lated to ability, aEhIEvement, learnIng, motivation,
and personality development. Example: 'The boast-
ful child is usually overconfident of his ability.’

Principles of education related to philosophy,
curficulum, and adminIStration. Example: 'Pupils
should be required to do more studying at home.’

Personal reactions of the teacher, his likes and
dTSIikes, sources OITirritafion, etc. Example:
'Without children life would be dull.’

The MTAI assumes that a teacher scoring at the high end

of the scale will be able to maintain a harmonious classroom

situation. The manual says:

It is assumed that a teacher ranking at

the high end of the scale should be able to
maintain a state of harmonious relations with
his pupils, characterized by mutual affection
and sympathetic understanding. The pupils
should like the teacher and enjoy school work.
The teacher should like the children and enjoy
teaching. Situations requiring disciplinary
action Should rarely occur. The teacher and
pupils should work together in a social atmosphere
of cooperative endeavor, of intense interest in
the work of the day, and with a feeling of
security growing from a permissive atmOSphere of
freedom to think, act and speak one's mind with
mutual respect for the feelings, rights, and

abilities of others.

On the other hand a teacher scoring at the Opposite

extreme,

the low end of the scale, is not expected to be

 

4

Ibid., p. 3.

 

-47-

able to maintain a harmonious classroom situation.

At the other extreme of the scale is the
teacher who attempts to dominate the classroom.
He may be successful and rule with an iron hand,
creating an atmosphere of tension, fear and sub—
mission; or he may be unsuccessful and become
nervous, fearful and distraught in a classroom
characterized by frustration, restlessness, in-
attention, lack of respect, and numerous discip-
linary problems. In either case both teacher
and pupils dislike school work; there is a
feeling of mutual distrust and hostility. Both
teacher and pupils attempt to hide their inade-
quacies from each other. Ridicule, sarcasm, and
sharp tempered remarks are common. The teacher
tends to think in terms of his status, the
correctness of the position he takes on class—
room matters, and the subject matter to be
covered rather than in terms of what the pupil

needs, feels, knows, and can do.

In reference to the instrument and its reliability it

is concluded:

Investigations carried on by the authors
over the past ten years indicate that the atti-
tudes of teachers toward children and school work
can be measured with high reliability, and that
they are significantly correlated with the teacher-
pupil relations found in the teacher's classroom.
The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory has
emerged from these researches. It is designed to
measure those attitudes of a teacher which pre-
dict how well he will get along with pupils in
interpersonal relationships and indirectly how
well satigfied he will be with teaching as a

vocation.

Analysis Procedures
The data used in the analysis involved information from

a Personal History Data Sheet (see Appendix C) and the MTAI

score for each teacher. The relationship of the MTAI score

 

51bid.

 

61bid.

-43-

and each variable from the Personal History Data Sheet was
analyzed separately.

The statistical tools used in the analysis of the data
in the study were the Student's "t" Test, the 2 by 2 con-
tingency table, and Fisher's analysis of variance (one-way
and two-way). The statistics were used to test the deviation
of the sample mean from the universal mean and also to test
the Significance of difference between the mean scores of the
Title I and non-Title I teachers.

For each appropriate category and group an analysis of
variance was performed at the Computer Center of the Harvard
University Graduate School of Education with programs designed
for the 7094 IBM computer. The programs used were The Multi-

variate Analysis of Variance and The Multiple Discriminant

Analysis by Kenneth J. Jones.

Statistical Procedures

To determine what relationship, if any, exists between
the MTAI scores of both the Title I and non-Title I teachers
and the questions under study, it was necessary to categorize
the personal demographic data about the teachers according
to sex, race, age, marital status, professional training,
and teaching experience; the working conditions according
to grade taught, subject taught, building enrollment, and
percentage of black teachers in the building; and the
characteristics of the students according to percentage of black

students in the student body, academic achievement, and de—

gree of poverty.

-49-

A. Demographic Data about the Teachers

Azl Sex
1. female
2. male
A:2 Race
1. black
2. white
A:3 Age
1. 20-30
2. 31 and over

single

A:4 Marital Status
1.
2. married

B. Selected Working Conditiong

B:l Grade Taught

l. fourth

2. fifth

3. Sixth

4. fourth, fifth,
and sixth
fifth and Sixth
fourth and fifth

00'!

Subject Taught

1. reading

2. arithmetic

3. homeroom

4. self-contained
classroom

A:

5

Years of Training

1. less than master's
degree

2. master's degree or
more

A:6 Years of Teaching

B:

B:

3

4

[—1

Experience
1. two or less
2. more than two

Building Enrollment
300-399
400-499
500-599
600-699
700-799
800-899
900-999
l,000-1,099
1,100-1,199
l,200-l,299

O‘DCDVONUWQLNNI—l

Percentage of Black
Teachers in the Building

1. 0-19%
2. 20-39%
3. 40-59%
4. 60-79%
5. 80-99%

C. Selected Characteristics of the Students

C:l Percentage of Black Students Enrolled in the

Building

1. 0—19%
2. 20-39%
3. 40-59%
4. 60-79%
5. 80-99%

-50-

C:2 Level of Academic Achievement (approximate
percentage of children achieving in the lowest
quartile on the basis of systemwide achievement

records)

1. 30-34%
2. 35-39%
3. 40-44%
4. 45-49%
5. 50-54%
6. 55-59%

C:3 Degree of Poverty (approximate number of
families living in the school district which

have annual incomes of less than $2,000)

1. 8-9% 5. 16-17%
2. 10-11% 6. 18-19%
3. 12-13% 7. 20-21%
4. 14-15% 8. 22-23%

Administration of the Instrument

Each teacher selected for the study was contacted
through his principal by the Research Division of the Flint
Public School System and asked if he would kindly take part
in a study being made pertaining to the Title I program.
To assure the teachers that no outside time would be asked
of them, they were informed that they would be released
from classroom duties for the period of time necessary to
complete the instrument. Each was told that his classroom
would be manned by a substitute teacher during the time he
was completing the instrument and that it would be necessary
for him to have a forty-five-minute to one-hour lesson pre-
pared for his substitute.

Before the instrument was distributed, the teachers
were told not to identify themselves by name on either the
Personal History Data Sheet or the MTAI answer sheet. A

numbered Personal History Data Sheet was attached to a

-51-
correspondingly numbered MTAI answer sheet. The Personal
History Data Sheet collected personal demographic data.
Administration of the MTAI followed the directions stated
in the MTAI Manual. Following the administration of the

instrument the answer sheets were hand scored.

Summary

This chapter has contained a delineation of the method-

ology and procedure used to carry out the study. The

teacher population involved in the study was described
along with the method used to select it. The Minnesota

Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI), the instrument used in

the study, was outlined. The statistical analysis involv-

ing the Student's "t” Test, the 2 by 2 contingency table,
and Fisher's analysis of variance contained in the study
was explained.,

The problem has been defined, related research has
been reviewed, and the procedures for collecting and

analyzing the data have been described. The next step is

to analyze the data. This is carried out in Chapter IV

and V.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Introduction

This study has a twofold purpose: (1) to determine how
the attitudes of a cross section of teachers from eight
schools designated to participate in the Title I program
compare to those of a Similar cross section of teachers
from five schools not designated to participate in Title I
and (2) to determine how the attitudes of teachers in eight
Title I schools compare to those of teachers in five non-
Title I schools at the end of one year's operation of Title I.

The implementation of the study was divided into two

phases: one before the Title I program began and the other

following a year of its operation. The first phase of the

study was to determine how the Minnesota Teacher Attitude
Inventory (MTAI) scores of a sample of fourth, fifth, and
Sixth grade teachers from eight depressed area schools
scheduled to participate in the Title I program compare with
those of a similar sample of teachers from five schools not
scheduled to participate. The second phase was to determine

how the(MTAI)scores of fourth, fifth, and sixth grade

-52-

-53-

teachers participating in Title I compare with the scores
of teachers of the same grades not in Title I. The Phase II
investigation was pursued by the use of two operations, 1.
comparing Title I and non-Title I MTAI mean scores and
analyzing the answers to three categories of questions.
The categories of questions were related to the following
information about the teacher: personal demographic data,
selected working conditions, and selected characteristics
of his students.

The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI)is the

instrument used in the study. Raw scores on the MTAI range

from a "plus 150" to a "minus 150." Initially it was quite
awkward to compute positive and negative raw scores together;
therefore, to eliminate the negative scores and to facili-
tate the computation it was decided to add a constant of

100 to each raw score. Adding the constant 100 to all MTAI

raw scores has no effect on the Significance of the statis-
tics. It should be noted that sample mean scores reported in
this chapter carry the constant 100 which was added to all
raw scores; but, if comparisons are made to the norm mean
scores, the constant 100 is automatically dropped from the
sample mean.

A higher MTAI score can be interpreted to mean more
positive attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations while,

on the other hand, a lower MTAI score can be interpreted

to mean less positive attitudes toward pupil-teacher

relations.

 

-54-

In Table 4.1 mean raw scores and standard deviations
of the five standardized norm groups of experienced elemen—
tary school teachers established for the MTAI are presented.
For the purpose of this study the standardized mean
used is the one in Table 4.1 for elementary teachers who
teach in school systems with 21 or more teachers and who

have four years of training, a mean raw score of 55.1, and

a standard deviation of 36.7.

TABLE 4.l—- Standardized mean raw scores and standard
deviations of five groups of experienced
elementary school teachers for the MTAI,

 

 

 

 

Form A.
Systems with Fewer Systems with More
Rural than 21 Teachers than 21 Teachers
Teachers
2 Years 4 Years 2 Years 4 Years
Training Training Training Training
N 332.0 118.0 102.0 249.0 247.0
Mean (X) 29.7 29.2 37.0 40.1 55.1
Standard de-
viation (SD) 38.1 38.6 39.4 37.2 36.7

 

Phase I of the Study
Phase I of the study is to determine how the attitudes
of teachers in eight schools designated to participate in a
Title I program compare to those of teachers in five similar
schools not designated to participate in the Title I program.
Presented in Table 4.2 are the individual raw scores

on the MTAI derived from testing the selected groups of

-55-

teachers from schools designated to participate in the

Title I program and teachers from schools not designated to

participate.

TABLE 4.2-- Individual MTAI raw scores of the Phase 1
sample of teachers

 

Teacher Raw Scores

Teacher Raw Score

:5:

Designated Title I

 

155 124 190 85
156 142 191 113
163 124 192 115
165 111 178 172
166 56 198 102
168 143 195 87
169 94 196 153
170 116 197 176
171 146 184 177
173 139 185 115
188 103 186 115
189 142 187 112

 

 

 

X (Mean) = 122.08

 

N = 24
Not Designated Title I
177 124 161 144
174 171 179 145
175 125 180 87
158 167 181 141
159 159 183 116
160 78

 

 

 

X (Mean) = 132.72
N = 11

-56-

To determine whether or not the mean scores of the two
groups of teachers were significantly different the "t" test
for significance of difference between means was performed.
An analysis of this operation is presented in Table 4.3.

TABLE 4.3-— Statistical data and "t" value<xf the Phase I
sample of teachers

 

 

 

Designated Not Designated
Title I Title I
N 24 11
Mean 122.08 132.72
Standard deviation 28.86 29.00
"t" ratio .98

 

From the data in Table 4.3 the unbiased estimate of

the pooled variance was computed. For 33 degrees of free-

dom a "t" value equal to 2.036 is required for significance

at the .05 level of confidence. The observed "t" value of

.98 in Table 4.3 is below the significance level; there-

fore, the statistics can be interpreted to mean the two

groups were from the same universe.

Phase II of the Study
In Phase II of the study attitudes of Title I teachers
toward pupil-teacher relations are compared with attitudes
of non-Title I teachers toward pupil-teacher relations as

measured by the MTAI one year after the Title I program

-57-

began. The first operation will involve comparing the MTAI
mean score of Title I teachers with the MTAI mean Score of
non-Title I teachers. The second operation will involve
analyzing the answers to the following three categories of
questions (Questions A, B, and C):

Question A

 

Do the personal demographic data (sex, race,
age, marital status, professional training,
and teaching experience) of Title I and non-
Title I teachers relate to their attitudes
toward pupil-teacher relations?

Question_B

 

Do selected working conditions (grade taught,
subject taught, size of student enrollment,

and percentage of black teachers on the staff)
of Title I and non-Title I teachers relate to
their attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations?

Question C

 

Do selected characteristics of the students
(percentage of black students, level of academic
achievement, and degree of poverty)in Title I
and non-Title I schools relate to the attitudes
of teachers toward pupil-teacher relations?

A Comparison of Title I and Non-Title I MTAI Scores

 

The analysis of data in Phase I of the study failed to
indicate that the teachers in the Title I schools were from
a population different from that of the teachers in the
non—Title I schools prior to the implementation of the Title
I program. A Similar analysis was performed on the MTAI
scores of teachers in Phase II.

A "t" test for significance of the difference between

independent means was applied to the scores of the Title I

-58-

and non-Title I teachers in Phase II of the study, and the
results are reported in Table 4.4. An inspection of Table
4.4 reveals that the "t" value of -.85 of the difference
between the means is not significant because for 86 degrees
of freedom a "t" value equal to 1.948 is required for signi-

ficance at the .05 level.

TABLE 4.4-- Mean difference between the scores of Title I
and non-Title I teachers

 

 

 

Title Iv Non-Title I
N 60 28
Mean 131.52 138.86
Standard deviation 37.50 36.55
”t” ratio -.852

 

The Title I teachers had a mean score of 31.52 and the
non-Title I a mean score of 38.86 both of which were low
compared to the standardized norm of 55.1 with a standard
deviation of 36.7. In fact, 53 per cent of the Title I and
39 per cent of the non-Title I teachers scored in the bottom
quartile. There were eight Title I and three non-Title I
scores at the fifth percentile or lower. In the top quartile
there were four Title I and three non-Title I scores, and
the highest scores for both Title I and non-Title I were at
the 95th percentile.

In conclusion, after a year's participation in the

Title I program, the teachers in Title I schools continued

-59-

to have attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations which were

not significantly different from the attitudes of teachers

in non-Title I schools.

Question A

 

Do the personal demographic data (sex, race, age,
marital status, professional training, and teaching experi-
ence) of Title I and non-Title I teachers relate to their
attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations?

The answer to Question A is a compilation of the answers
to eight sub-questions which deal with Specific character-
istics of the teachers, 1. e., sex, race, age, marital
status, professional training, and teaching experience.

The statistical data to be analyzed for each sub-question
are presented in a fourfold 2 by 2 contingency table and
also in an analysis of variance table. However, where there
were eight or fewer subjects in a cell, it was decided that
there was an insufficient number of subjects to investigate
the problem statistically. Nevertheless, such a problem

is investigated in a descriptive manner.

Sub-question Azl Does the sex of Title I and non-Title

 

I teachers relate to their MTAI scores?

The variables Studied in Sub-question Azl were (a)
teaching assignment (Title I or non-Title I) and (b) sex
of each teacher. The variables were studied in relation-

ship to MTAI scores of teacher attitudes toward pupil—

teacher relations.

-60-

Presented in Figure 4.1 are the alternatives for Sub-

question Azl with the number of subjects and mean score for

each cell.

 

 

 

 

Sex

Teaching ‘T ,
Assignment Female Male

N = 34 N = 26
Title I

Y = 129.9 Y = 133.6

:19 N=9

Non-Title I

Y = 137.5 Y = 141.8

 

 

Figure 4.1-- MTAI mean scores 0f Title I and non-Title I
female and male teachers.

An inspection of Figure 4.1 reveals that Title I
female and male teachers had lower MTAI mean scores than
either non-Title 1 females or males. The Title 1 males
had a slightly higher mean score than the Title I females;
similarly, the non-Title I males had a slightly higher mean
score than non-Title I females. The non-Title I males had
the highest MTAI mean score of any of the cells.

One must be cautious about seeing too many implica-
tions in the information presented in Figure 4.1 because
0f the small number of subjects in the non-Title I male
cell.

In search for statistical answers to Sub-question Azl

a two-way analysis of variance was used to ascertain whether

-61-

or not there existed a relationship among the variables of
a teacher's sex, his participation in Title I, and his Score

on the MTAI. The statistical results of the procedure are

presented in Table 4.5.

TABLE 4.5-- Two-way analysis of variance of the relation-
ship between teaching assignment and sex to
MTAI scores of teacher attitudes toward pupil-
teacher relations.

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
Variation Squares Freedom Squares F Ratio*
Teaching

assignment 1,140.9 1 1,140.9 0.789
Sex 201.5 1 201.5 0.139
Interaction 1.6 l 1.6 0.001
Within cell 12l,479.4 84 1,446.2

 

*In order for F to be Significant at the .05 level,

the ratio must eqfial or exceed 3.96.
For 1 and 84 degrees of freedom, an F ratio of 3.96

is required for significance at the .05 level of confidence.
The observed F ratios in Table 4.5 are well below this;
therefore, the Statistical results neither indicated a sig-
nificant difference in the MTAI scores due to teaching
assignment with respect to sex, nor sex with respect to
teaching assignment, nor a significant interaction of

teaching assignment and sex with respect to scores received

on the MTAI.

-62-

Sub-question ALE Does the race of Title I and non-
Title I teachers relate to their MTAI scores?

The variables studied in Sub-question A:2 were (a)
teaching assignment (Title I or non-Title I) and (b) race
of each teacher. The variables were studied in relation-
ship to MTAI scores of teacher attitudes toward pupil-
teacher relations..

In Figure 4.2 the alternatives for Sub-question A:2
with the number of subjects and MTAI mean score for each

cell are presented.

 

 

 

 

Race

Teaching
Assignment

Black White

N = 32 N = 28
Title I _

Y = 122.5 X = 141.9

N = 13 N = 15
Non-Title I

Y = 131.6 Y = 145.1

 

Figure 4.2-- MTAI mean scores of 'Title I and non-Title I
black and white teachers.

An inspection of Figure 4.2 reveals that black and
white Title I teachers had slightly lower MTAI mean scores
than their racial counterparts in non-Title I schools.
White teachers had higher mean scores than black teachers,
and white non-Title I teachers had a mean score 22.6

Points higher than black Title I teachers.

-63-

One would hesitate to draw any rash conclusions, but
the data seem to indicate that the MTAI mean scores for
white teachers were similar whether they taught in the
Title I program or not. Black teachers who did not teach
in the Title I program had a higher MTAI mean score than
black teachers who did teach in Title I.

A two-way analysis of variance was used to ascertain
whether or not there existed a relationship among the vari-
ables of teaching assignment, race, and MTAI scores. The
results of the analysis are presented in Table 4.6.

TABLE 4.6-- Two-way analysis of variance of the relation-
ship between teaching assignment and race to

MTAI scores of teacher attitudes toward pupil-
teacher relations.

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean .
Variation Squares Freedom Squares F Ratio*
Teaching

assignment 714.6 1 714.6 0.522
Race 7,036.6 l 7,036.6 5.144**
Interaction 163.7 1 163.7 0.120
Within cell ll4,908.4 84 1,368.0

 

*In order for F to be significant at the .05 level, the
ratio must equal or—exceed 3.96. F ratios which are Signi-
ficant at this level are indicated-by **.

-64-

For 1 and 84 degrees of freedom an F ratio of 3.96 is
required for significance at the .05 level of confidence.
An inspection of Table 4.6 reveals that the F ratio of race '
was 5.144 and significant at the .05 level of confidence.
From the data in the table the following observations were
made: (a) The Statistical results failed to indicate a
significant difference in MTAI scores due to teaching assign-
ment with respect to race. (b) The statistical results did
indicate a significant difference between white and black
teachers in MTAI scores. White teachers scored Significant-
ly higher than black teachers regardless of teaching assign-
ment. Furthermore, the data in Figure 4.2 reveal that
black teachers in Title I had the lowest score among the
four groups of teachers. (c) The statistical results failed
to indicate a significant interaction of teaching assignment

and race with respect to scores received on the MTAI.

Sub-question A:3 Does the age of Title I and non-Title I

 

teachers relate to their MTAI scores?

The variables studied in Sub-question A:3 were (a) teach-
ing assignment (Title I or non-Title I) and (b) two age
categories of teachers (thirty and under; over thirty). The
variables were studied in relationship to MTAI scores of
teacher attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations.

In Figure 4.3 the alternatives for Sub-question A:3

With the number of subjects and MTAI mean score for each

cell are presented.

-65-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age

Teaching —- «——
Assignment Thirty Years Old Over Thirty

and Under Years Old

N = 24 N = 36
Title I

Y = 130.0 Y = 132.6

N=15 N=13
Non-Title I

Y = 145.4 Y = 131.3

 

Figure 4.3-- MTAI mean scores of Title I and non-Title I
teachers thirty years old and under and over
thirty years old.

An inspection of Figure 4.3 reveals that teachers in
three of the cells had similar MTAI mean scores, i.e.,
Title I teachers thirty years old and under, and Title I
and non-Title I teachers over thirty years old. Non-Title
I teachers thirty years old and under had a higher MTAI
mean score than the teachers in the other cells; from the
data presented in Figure 4.3 one might speculate that they
had a higher MTAI mean score than other teachers because
of their youth and enthusiasm, but this speculation is
repudiated by Title I teachers in the same age bracket
having the lowest mean score of the four groups.

A two-way analysis of variance was used to ascertain
whether or not there existed a relationship among the
variables of teaching assignment, age, and MTAI scores.

The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4.7.

-66-

TABLE 4.7-- Two-way analysis of variance of the relation-
ship between teaching assignment and age to
MTAI scores of teacher attitudes toward pupil-
teacher relations.

 

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean

Variation Squares Freedom Squares F Ratio*
ngggggfient 908.4 1 908.4 0.634
Age 293.0 1 293.0 0.205
Interaction 1,307.5 l 1,307.5 0.913
Within cell 120,314.5 84 1,432.3

 

*In order for F to be significant at the .05 level,
the ratio must equaT or exceed 3.96.

For 1 and 84 degrees of freedom an F ratio of 3.96 is
required for Significance at the .05 level of confidence. An
inspection of Table 4.7 reveals that the F ratios fall well
below the needed level for significance; therefore, the statis-
tical results neither indicated a Significant difference in
the MTAI scores due to teaching assignment with reSpect to
age, nor age with respect to teaching assignment, nor a
significant interaction of teaching assignment and age with

respect to MTAI scores.

Sub-question A:4 Does the marital status of Title I and

 

non-Title I teachers relate to their MTAI scores?
The variables studied in Sub-question A:4 were (a) teach-

ing assignment (Title I or non-Title I) and (b) marital status.

-67-

They were studied in relationship to MTAI scores of teacher
attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations.
Presented in Figure 4.4 are the alternatives for Sub-

question A:4 with the number of subjects and MTAI mean score

for each cell.

 

Marital Status

 

 

 

 

Teaching
Assignment C—_
Single Married
N = 17 N = 43
Title I
Y = 136.1 Y = 129.7
N = 8 N = 20
Non-Title I _
Y = 148.6 X = 135.0

 

Figure 4.4-- MTAI mean scores of”Title I and non-Title I
single and married teachers.

An inspection of Figure 4.4 reveals that single Title I
teachers and married non-Title I teachers each had a similar
MTAI mean score which was slightly larger than that of
married Title I teachers. Single non-Title I teachers had
the highest MTAI mean score, but the small number of subjects
in the cell limited speculation about what the mean score
might imply.

A two-way analysis of variance was used to ascertain
Whether there existed a relationship among the variables of
The

teaching assignment, marital status, and MTAI score.

results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4.8.

TABLE 4.8-- Two-way analysis of variance of the relation-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
Variation Squares Freedom Squares F Ratio*
Teaching

assignment 1,022.9 l 1,022.9 0.715
Marital

status 1,354.4 l 1,354.4 0.946
Interaction 209.4 1 209.4 0.146
Within cell 120,236.7 84 1,431.4

 

*In order for F to be significant at the .05 level, the
ratio must equal or exceed 3.96.

For 1 and 84 degrees of freedom an F ratio of 3.96 is
required for significance at the .05 level of confidence.
An inspection of Table 4.8 reveals that the F ratios are
well below the significance level; therefore, the statisti-
cal results indicated neither a Significant difference in
the MTAI scores due to teaching assignment with respect to
marital status, nor marital status with respect to teaching
assignment, nor a significant interaction of teaching assign-

ment and marital status with respect to MTAI scores.

Sub-question A:5 Does the professional training of

 

Title I and non-Title I teachers relate to their MTAI scores?
The variables studied in Sub-question A:5 were

(a) teaching assignment (Title I or non-Title I) and

(b) two categories of professional training of teachers
(less than a master's degree; master's degree or more).
The variables were studied in relationship to MTAI scores
of teacher attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations.
Presented in Figure 4.5 are the alternatives for Sub-
question A:5 with the number of subjects and MTAI mean

score for each cell.

 

Professional Training

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teaching __y
Assignment
Less than a Master's
Master's Degree or
Degree blore
N = 34 N = 26
Title I
Y = 123.6 Y = 141.9
N = 18 N = 10
Non—Title I _
Y = 146.9 Y = 124.4

...——-

Figure 4.5-- MTAI mean scores of Title I and non-Title I
teachers holding less than a master's degree
and a master's degree or more.

An inspection of Figure 4.5 reveals that Title I
teachers with a master's degree or more had a higher MTAI
mean score than either Title I teachers with less than a
master's degree or non-Title I teachers with a master's or
more. Non-Title 1 teachers with less than a master's de-
gree had a similar but slightly higher score than the more
trained Title I teachers.

A two-way analysis of variance was used to ascertain

whether there existed a relationship among the variables of
teaching assignment, professional training, and MTAI score.

The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4.9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean

Variation Squares Freedom Squares I: Ratio*
Teaching

assignment 1,153.7 l 1,153.7 0.853
Professional

training 625.1 1 625.1 0.462
Interaction 7,469.8 1 7,469.8 5.525**
Within cell ll3,574.6 84 1,352.1

 

*In order for F to be significant at the .05 level, the
ratio must equal or-exceed 3.96. F ratios which are signi-
ficant at this level are indicated by **.

In Table 4.9 the observed F ratio of teaching assign-
ment is .853 and professional training is .462. Both ratios
fall below that of 3.96 which is required for significance
with l and 84 degrees of freedom at the .05 level of con-
fidence. However, the F ratio of 5.525 for the interaction
0f teaching assignment and professional training is signifi-
cant at the .05 level.

An inspection of Figure 4.5 reveals the nature of the
interaction of teaching assignment and professional train-

ing. Title I teachers holding at least a master's degree

-71-

had a mean score of 141.9 compared to the lower mean score

of 123.6 for those Title I teachers holding less than a
master's degree. For non-Title I teachers an opposite dis-‘
tribution of high-low MTAI scores was the case. The non-
Title I teachers holding less than a master's degree had a
mean score of 146.9 which was higher than that of 124.4 earned
by the non-Title I teachers.

A comparison of Figure 4.3 (age) and Figure 4.5 (pro-
fessional training) reveals that the number of subjects in
the non-Title I cell 30 years old and under was highly
similar to the number of subjects in the non-Title I with
less than a master's degree. Furthermore, the two cells
compared probably contained a high percentage of the same
people. These facts lead one to suspect that the MTAI mean
score in the cell of non-Title I teachers with less than a
master's degree reflected an age difference rather than a
degree Status and, consequently, did not give an accurate
view of the relationship of professional training and MTAI

score .

Sub-questions Azpi_A:7i and A:8 Sub-questions A:6
through A:8 deal with the years of teaching experience of
the subjects.

Sub-question A:6

 

Do the total years of teaching experience
of Title I and non-Title I teachers relate

to their MTAI scores?

Sub-qpestion A:7

 

Do the total years of teaching experience
with the present school system of Title I

-72-

and non-Title I teachers relate to their
MTAI scores?

Sub-question Ai§

 

Do the total years of teaching experience
in the present building of Title I and
non-Title I teachers relate to their

MTAI scores?

Sub-questions A:6, A:7, and A:8 are explored as a unit
because they are very closely related and yet each one
represents a specific question. One 2 by 2 contingency
table of the total years of teaching experience is presented
instead of a separate one for each category of teaching ex-
perience because the data for each is so Similar. However,
a two-way analysis of variance is presented for each category.

The variables studied in Sub-questions A:6, A:7, and
A:8 were (a) teaching assignment (Title I or non-Title I)
and (b) years of teaching experience (total, with system,
and in present building). The variables were studied in
relationship to MTAI scores of teacher attitudes tOward
pupil-teacher relations.

In Figure 4.6 the alternatives for Sub-question A:6

With the number of subjects and MTAI mean score in each cell

are presented.

-73-

 

 

 

 

 

Total Years of Teaching Experience

 

 

 

 

Teaching
Assignment
Two or Less Years More than Two Years
of Teaching Experience of Teaching Experience
N = 20 N = 40
Title I
Y = 116.0 Y = 139.3
N=8 N=20
Non-Title I _
X = 128.6 Y = 143.0

 

Figure 4.6-- MTAI mean scores of Title I and non-Title I
teachers with a total of two or less years of
teaching experience and more than two years.

An inspection of Figure 4.6 reveals that regardless of
teaching assignment teachers with more than two years of
teaching experience have higher MTAI mean scores than teach-
ers with less experience. Title 1 teachers with more years
of teaching experience had a mean score of 139.3 which was
23.3 points higher than the 116.0 mean score of Title 1
teachers with fewer years of experience. The mean scores
0f the non-Title I teachers followed a similar pattern with
the more experienced teachers having a mean score of 143.0
while the less experienced ones had a score of 128.6. The
BXperienced non-Title 1 teachers had a substantially higher
MTAI mean score than the less experienced Title 1 teachers

and a slightly higher one than the experienced Title I

teachers.

-74-

From the information in Figure 4.6 there seemed to be
a relationship between the variables of having more than
two years of teaching experience, not participating in
Title I, and having a higher MTAI score. .And yet one must
be cautious about inferring anything regarding the im-
portance or lack of importance of participation in the
Title I program because of the few number of subjects in
the cell of non-Title I teachers with two or less years
of experience.

To ascertain whether or not there existed a statisti-
cally Significant relationship among the variables of
teaching experience, teaching assignment, and MTAI scores
a two-way analysis of variance was performed.

A teacher's experience was classified into three cate-
gories: (a) total years of teaching experience, (b) total
years of teaching experience with the school system, and
(c) total years of teaching experience in the present
building. In Tables 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12 the statistical

findings for each of the above categories are presented,

respectively.

-75-

TABLE 4.10-- Two-way analysis of variance showing the re-
lationship between teaching assignment and
total years of teaching experience to MTAI
scores of teacher attitudes toward pupil-
teacher relations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean

Variation Squares Freedom Squares F Ratio*
Teaching

assignment 770.5 1 770.5 0.571

Total years
of teaching

experience 8,333.4 l 8,333.4 6.173**
Interaction 320.4 1 320.4 0.237
Within cell 113,399.0 84 1,350.0

 

*In order for F to be significant at the .05 level, the
ratio must equal or exceed 3.96. F ratios which are signifi-
cant at this level are indicated by **.

TABLE 4.ll-- Two-way analysis of variance Showing the re-
lationship between teaching assignment and
years of teaching experience with the system
to MTAI scores of teacher attitudes toward
pupil-teacher relations.

 

‘

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean .
Variation Squares Freedom Squares F Ratio*
Teaching

assignment 1,548.4 1 1,548.4 1.190
Years of

teaching ex-
perience with

the system 8,719.5 1 8,719.5 6.698**
Interaction 3,208.8 l 3,208.8 2.465
Within cell 109,346.7 84 1,301-7

 

*

*In order for F to be Significant at the .05 level, the
ratio must equal or_Exceed 3.96. F ratios which are Signifi-
cant at this level are indicated by **.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
Variation Squares Freedom Squares F Ratio*
Teaching

assignment 1,124.0 l 1,124.0 0.892
Teaching

experience

in present

building ll,785.6 l ll,785.6 9.356**
Interaction 4,098.1 l 4,098.1 3.253
Within cell 105,815.6 84 1,259.7

 

*In order for F to be significant at the .05 level, the
ratio must equal or—exceed 3.96. F ratios which are Signi-
ficant at this level are indicated—by **.

An F ratio of 3.96 is required for significance at the
.05 level of confidence with l and 84 degrees of freedom.

An inspection of Tables 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12 reveals that
the F ratios of .571, 1.190, and .892, respectively, for
teaching assignment with respect to teaching experience are
not Significant at the .05 level of confidence.

However, the F ratio of 6.173 for total years of teach-
ing experience with respect to teaching assignment, the F
ratio of 6.698 for the total years of teaching experience
with the system with respect to teaching assignment, and
the F ratio of 9.356 for the years of teaching experience

in the present building are all significant at the .05

-77-

level of confidence. One could conclude from the data pre-
sented that more experienced teachers had more positive
attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations than less experi-
enced teachers. Furthermore, the data presented in Tables
4.11 and 4.12 indicate that teachers who remained with the
system tended to remain in the same building.

The F ratios for interaction (.237, 2.465, and 3.253
in Tables 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12, respectively) did not in-
dicate a significant interaction of teaching assignment and
teaching experience.

The statistics did indicate that the variable of years
of teaching experience was Significant at the .05 level of
confidence relative to the MTAI scores of Title I and non-
Title I teachers. An F ratio of 3.96 is required for l
and 84 degrees of freedom to be significant at the .05
level of confidence. The F ratios of 6.173, 6.698, and
9.356 were reported for total years of teaching experience,
years of experience with the system, and years of experience

in the building, respectively.

Summary of Question A The above data in Sub-questions

 

Azl through A:8 pertaining to sex, race, age, marital
status, professional training, and teaching experience were
presented as a preliminary step to answering Question A.

Question A

 

Do the personal demographic data of Title I
and non-Title I teachers relate to their
attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations as
measured by the MTAI?

-78-

The statistical results in Questions A:l through A:8
failed to indicate a Significant difference in MTAI scores
due to teaching assignment in Title I or non-Title I with
respect to the personal demographic data of teachers, i.e.,
sex, race, age, marital status, professional training, and
teaching experience.

The statistical results for Question A:2 did indicate
a Significant difference at the .05 level of confidence in
race between the MTAI scores of black and white teachers.
An F ratio of 3.96 is necessary for l and 84 degrees of
freedom to be significant at the .05 level of confidence.
The F ratio of race was 5.144 and indicated that white
teachers scored significantly higher than black teachers
regardless of teaching assignment. The data in Figure 4.2
reveal that black Title I teachers had the lowest MTAI
score of the four groups of teachers.

The Statistics neither indicated a significant difference
in the MTAI due to sex, age, marital status, professional
training, nor teaching experience due to teaching assignment.

The statistical results did indicate a significant
difference in MTAI scores due to the interaction of pro-
fessional training and teaching assignment. An F ratio of
3.96 is necessary for l and 84 degrees of freedom to be
significant at the .05 level of confidence. The F ratio
of the interaction of professional training and teaching
assignment was 5.525 and significant at the .05 level of

confidence. The data indicated that Title 1 participants

-79-

with master's degrees and non-participants without master's
degrees were significantly different from Title I parti-
cipants without master's degrees and non-participants with
master's degrees.

The statistical results did not indicate a significant
difference in MTAI scores due to the interaction of program
participation and sex, race, age, marital status, or teach-
ing experience. (A summary of the average age, training,
and experience of all elementary teachers in the system

can be found in Appendix B.)

Question B

 

Do selected working conditions of Title I and non-
Title I teachers (grade taught, subject taught, Size of the
student enrollment of the building, and percentage of black
teachers with whom teachers work) relate to their attitudes
toward pupil-teacher relations as measured by the MTAI?

The answer to Question B is a compilation of answers
to four sub-questions which deal with the working conditions
under which the teacher instructs. The statistical data
analyzed for each sub-question are presented in a 2 by 2
contingency table and/or an analysis of variance table.
Where there were eight or fewer subjects in a category or
a cell of the contingency table, it was decided that the
number of subjects was insufficient to investigate the

problem Statistically; however, the problem was investigated

in a descriptive manner.

-80-

Sub-question le Does the grade taught by Title I and
non-Title I teachers relate to their MTAI scores?

The variables studied in Sub-question B:1 were
(a) teaching assignment (Title I or non-Title I) and
(b) grade taught (4th, 5th, 6th, 4th through 6th, 5th and
6th, or 4th and 5th). The variables were studied in rela-
tionship to MTAI scores of teacher attitudes toward pupil-
teacher relations. It Should be noted that teachers who
teach all three grades are teachers of reading and arithmetic;
therefore, interpretation of the MTAI mean score of teach-
ers of grades 4 through 6 will be discussed when Sub-
question B:2, dealing with teaching area, is presented.

In Figure 4.7 are presented the alternatives for Sub-

question B:l with the number of subjects and MTAI mean

score for each cell.

 

 

Teaching 4th 5th 6th 4-6th 5-6th 4-5th
Assignment Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade
N=18 N=7 N=9 N=23 N=l N=2

Title I

Yéll7.3 Y=96.7 Y-138.1 Y=150.3 Y=163 Y=118

 

N=1l N=2 N=8 ' N=3 N=2 N=2

Non-Title I _ _ _ _ _
Y=l44.6 X=168 x=122.4 x=144.3 X=160 x=114.5

_‘

Figure 4.7-- The number of Title I and non-Title I teachers
instructing at each grade level.

-81-

An inspection of Figure 4.7 reveals that there was a
wide variety of grades taught by the eighty-eight teachers
in the second phase of the study, and consequently there
were eight cells with eight or fewer subjects per cell.
Therefore, the data in Figure 4.7 did not seem to lend
themselves to reliable statistical analysis. However, the
mean scores of the 5th grade teachers merit attention even
though there were only two non-Title I 5th grade teachers.
When two groups of scores are almost two standard devia-

tions apart, they warrant further investigation.

Sub-question B:2 Does the subject taught by Title I

 

teachers relate to their MTAI scores?

The variables Studied in Sub—question B:2 were the
subjects taught by Title I teachers; namely, the variables
were reading, arithmetic, homeroom subjects, and self-
contained classroom subjects. They were investigated in
relationship to MTAI scores of teacher attitudes toward
pupil-teacher relations.

Presented in Figure 4.8 are the alternatives for Sub-

question B:2 with the MTAI mean score and number of

Title I teachers in each cell.

-82-

 

Teaching Area

 

Self-contained

 

. . Homeroom Classroom
Reading Arithmetic Subjects Subjects
N=l3 N=l3 N=12 N=22
Y=152.2 Y=147.0 Y=124.8 Y=113.8

 

Figure 4.8-- MTAI mean scores of Title I teachers of reading,
arithmetic, homeroom subjects, and self-contained

classroom subjects.

An inspection of Figure 4.8 reveals that teachers of

reading and arithmetic had much higher MTAI mean scores than

teachers of homeroom and self-contained classroom subjects.

Teachers of reading had the highest MTAI mean score of all

the teachers while teachers of self-contained classroom sub-

jects had the lowest mean score.

To ascertain whether or not there existed a Significant

relationship between the classroom subjects a teacher in-

structed and his MTAI score, a one-way analysis of variance

was performed. The resulting statistics are presented in

Table 4.13.

-83-

TABLE 4.13-- One-way analysis of variance of the relation-
ship between the classroom subjects Title I
teachers taught and their MTAI scores.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Degrees of
Source of Variation Squares Freedom F Ratio*
Between subjects taught 5,360.1 3 4.39**
Within subjects taught 1,219.8 56

 

 

 

*In order for F to be significant at the .05 level,
the ratio must equal or exceed 2.78. F ratios which are
significant at this level are indicated by **.

An F ratio of 2.78 is necessary for 3 and 56 degrees of
freedom before Significance at the .05 level of confidence
can be concluded. An inspection of Table 4.13 reveals that
the F ratio of 4.3 was significant at the .05 level of con-
fidence. From the results in Figure 4.8 and Table 4.13 it
can be said that both Title I teachers of reading and aritn-
metic had significantly higher MTAI scores than. both teachers
0f self-contained and homeroom subjects although teachers of

reading and teachers of arithmetic did not have significantly

different MTAI scores from each other.

§yb-guestion B:3 Does the Size of the student enrollment

 

in the building relate to MTAI scores of Title I and non-
Title I teachers?

The variables under consideration in Sub-question B:3
Were (a) teaching assignment (Title I or non-Title I) and
The

(b) total student enrollment in each school building.

variables were studied in relationship to MTAI scores of

-84-

teacher attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations.

In Table 4.14 the total student enrollment and the
MTAI mean scores of teachers by building are presented.

An inspection of the information in Table 4.14 reveals
that the student enrollment in the Title I schools ranged
from 423 to 645 (with the exception of school #2 which had
a student enrollment of 1,295) while the student enrollment
in the non-Title I schools ranged from 321 to 1,100. It
is obvious from the table that the number of teachers in
the second phase of the study from each building was less
than eight except for four Title I and non-Title I build-
ings. Therefore, any analysis about MTAI scores and
student enrollment made from the data presented in the
table must be descriptive and consequently more speculative

than statistical.

-85-

TABLE 4.14-- Total student enrollment and the MTAI mean
scores of teachers in the study by building.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Teachers in the Study
Student
School Enrollment Number MTAI Mean
Title I
l 531 3 175.0
2 1,295 18 126.4
3 558 10 145.9
4 498 7 124.4
5 423 6 137.7
6 554 4 125.8
7 501 3 144.3
8 645 9 110.6
Non-Title I
9 1,100 6 126.0
10 321 4 122-8
11 848 5 131 8
12 1,087 9 155-7
13 454 4 145.3

 

The MTAI mean scores of teachers from the non-Title I
schools ranged from 122.8 to 155.7 which is slightly less
of a range than the scores of teachers from the Title I
schools which ranged from 124.4 to 175.0 except for the
110.6 mean of school #8.

From the data presented in Table 4.14 there did not
aPPear to be any relationship between the size of the
student enrollment in the building and the MTAI scores of

the teachers from that particular building.

-86-

Sub-question Bpi Does the percentage of black teachers
on the staffs of Title I and non-Title I schools relate to
teacher attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations as measured
by the MTAI?

The variables under consideration in Sub-question B:4
were (a) teaching aSSignment (Title I or non-Title I) and
(b) percentage of black teachers comprising the staff. The
variables were studied in relationship to MTAI scores of
teacher attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations by building.

In Table 4.15 the total number and percentage of black
teachers assigned to each school and the MTAI mean score
of teachers in the second phase of the Study by school are
presented.

An inspection of Table 4.15 reveals that the percentage
of black teachers on the staffs of Title I Schools ranged
from 13 to 73 per cent while in the non-Title I schools it
ranged from 40 to 67 per cent. The small Size of the sample
from each building limited the statistical and descriptive
methods by which the data could be analyzed. From the data
presented in Table 4.15 no relationship appeared to exist
between the percentage of black teaching staff in a build-

ing and the MTAI mean score for the building.

 

-87-

TABLE 4.15-- The percentage of black teachers on the staff
by school and the MTAI mean score of teachers
in the study by school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Number and Teachers
Percentage of in the
Black Teachers Study
School on the Staff
N MTAI
N Percentage Mean
Title I
1 11 35 3 175.0
2 34 63 18 126.4
3 13 46 10 145.9
4 19 73 7 124.4
5 3 13 6 137.7
6 21 72 4 125.8
7 15 63 3 144.3
g 13 53 9 110.6
Non-Title I
9 22 S6 6 126.0

 

However, if the Title I and non-Title I schools are
grouped into two categories, one in which black teachers
compose less than 50 per cent of the building staff and
the other in which black teachers compose 50 per cent or
more of the staff irrespective of teaching assignment,
some interesting observations can be made. Table 4.16

presents such data.

TABLE 4.16-- MTAI mean scores b

 

-88-

y schools with a 50 per cent

or more black staff and schools with less than
a 50 per cent blaCk staff.

 

 

 

‘

 

 

Percentage of

 

 

*—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Schools Black Teachers MTAI Mean of Teachers
on the Staff in the Study
50% or More
Title I
2 63 126.4
4 73 124.4
6 72 125.8
7 63 144.3
8 53 110.6
Non-Title
9 56 126.0
10 67 122.8
Total 7
Less than 50%
Title I
1 35 175.0
3 46 145.9
5 13 137.7
N -T't1
on 1 If 38 131.8
12 49 155.7
13 40 145.3
Total 6

From an inspection of Table 4.16 one might

schools with teaching staffs composed of 50 per

infer that

cent or more

blacks had lower average mean scores than schools with staffs

composed of less than 50 per cent blacks.

-89-

Fifty-one of the 88 teachers in the second phase of
the study taught in schools which had staffs composed of
50 per cent or more black teachers; 32 of the 51 teachers
were black teachers. The disproportionate number of blacks
in schools with lower mean scores coincides with the find-
ing in Question A, i.e., that blacks had lower mean scores

than whites.

Summary of Question B The above data in Sub-questions

 

B:1 through B:4 pertaining to the working conditions of
teachers were presented as a preliminary to answering
Question B.

Question B

 

Do selected working conditions of Title I
and non—Title I teachers relate to their

attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations

as measured by the MTAI? '

The statistical results in Questions B:1 through B:4
failed to indicate a significant difference in MTAI scores
due to teaching assignment with respect to grade taught,
subject taught, total student enrollment, and percentage
of black teachers on the building staff.

The statistical results did indicate a significant
difference at the .05 level of confidence in MTAI scores
due to the subject taught (reading, arithmetic, homeroom
subjects, or self-contained classroom subjects). An 5
ratio of 2.78 is necessary for 3 and 56 degrees of freedom

for significance at the .05 level of confidence. The statis-

tics indicated that both Title I teachers of reading and

-90-

arithmetic had higher MTAI scores than Title I teachers of
self-contained classroom and homeroom subjects. One can
speculate that teachers of specific subject areas had
higher scores because they were working in the area of
their specialty and had smaller sized classes (12 to 15
children per class contrasted with 29 to 32 in self-
contained classroom and homeroom subjects).

The statistics did not indicate any significance with
respect to the size of the student body in the building or
the percentage of black teachers with whom a teacher works.
(A summary of the number of students and teachers by race

for all schools in the system can be found in Appendix B.)

Question C

 

Do selected characteristics of the students (percentage
of black students in the student body, level of academic
achievement, and degree of poverty) in Title I and non-

Title I schools relate to attitudes of teachers
toward pupil-teacher relations as measured by
the MTAI?

The answer to Question C is a compilation of the answers
to three sub-questions which deal with certain characteristics
of the students taught. The statistical data pertaining to

these questions are analyzed in a descriptive manner.

Sub-question C:1 Does the percentage of black students
enrolled in the school building relate to the attitude
scores of Title I and non-Title I teachers as measured by

.the MTAI?

-91-

The variables under consideration in Sub-question C:l
were (a) teaching assignment (Title I or non-Title I) and
(b) percentage of black students in the student body. The
variables were studied in relationship to MTAI scores of
teacher attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations.

In Table 4.17 the number and percentage of black
students enrolled in each building and the MTAI mean score
of the teachers who participated in the study in each build-
ing are presented.

An inspection of the information in Table 4.17 reveals
that black students comprised 92 to 99 per cent of the
student body in all Title I schools except school #5 where
they comprised 26 per cent of the total enrollment. In the
non-Title I schools they comprised 97 per cent of the student
body except in schools #9 and #13 where they were 86 and 41
per cent, respectively. The limited number of MTAI scores
available for each Title I and non-Title I building (except
#2 and #3) restricted the interpretation one could make about
how the percentage of black students enrolled in a building
related to teacher attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations
as measured by the MTAI. However, no relationship seemed
indicated by the data in Table 4.17.

Nevertheless, the 13 schools in this study enrolled 77
per cent of the 10,144 black students in the 43 elementary
schools in the system. By contrast there were 13 elementary
schools in the system with no black enrollment and 22 schools
with less than a five per cent black enrollment. (See

. Appendix B.)

-92-

TABLE 4.17-- The number and percentage of black students
and the MTAI mean scores of teachers in the
study by building

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Enrollment F—
Teachers
in the Study
School Black Students
Total
N Percen- N MTAI
I tage Mean
I
Title I
1 531 521 98 3 175.0
2 1,295 1,236 95 18 126.4
3 558 515 92 10 145.9
4 498 469 94 7 124.4
5 423 109 26 6 137.7
6 554 550 99 .4 125.8
7 501 494 99 3 144.3
8 645 636 99 9 110.6
Non-Title I
9 1,100 944 86 6 126.0
10 321 311 97 4 122.8
11 848 821 97 5 131.8
12 1,087 1,058 97 9 155.7
13 454 185 41 4 145.3
Sub-Question C:2 Does the level of student academic

 

achievement relate to attitude scores of Title I and non»
Title I teachers as measured by the MTAI?
The variables under consideration in Sub—question C:2

were (a) teaching assignment (Title I or non-Title I) and

(b) SRA (Science Research Associates) achievement scores of
fifth and sixth grade students. The variables were studied
in relationship to MTAI scores of teacher attitudes toward
pupil-teacher relations.

In Tables 4.18, 4.19, and 4.20 the SRA composite raw
score range, average grade equivalent, and percentile scores
of fifth and sixth graders in the Title I and non-Title I
schools are presented.

In Table 4.18 the achievement scores of the fifth grade
classes in the 13 schools prior to the implementation of
Title I are presented. The average grade equivalent score
for each school was below the national norm of 5.1. (The
tests were administered during the first month of the fifth
year.) Four of the Title I schools had an achievement score
which was at least 1.2 of a grade below the national norm.
Title I school #8 had an average grade equivalent score
which was .4 of a grade higher than the other schools in
the study and .5 of a grade below the national norm. All
of the schools in the study except school #8 had achievement
scores which ranged in the lower (13-20) percentile group
of the national norm. The fifth grade classes reported in
Table 4.18 are the sixth grade classes reported in Table

4.20 one year later.

-94-

TABLE 4.18—- Fifth grade SRA grade-equivalent and percentile

scores*for schools designated Title I and not
designated Title I

 

 

Average
Fifth Grade Grade- Raw
School Enrollment Equivalent Percentile Score Range

 

Designated Title I

 

 

 

1 62 4.2 20 146-149
2 134 3.9 15 134-137
3 61 3.8 13 130-133
4 62 3.9 15 134—137
5 50 4,1 17 138-145
6 54 3.8 13 130-133
7 64 4.2 20 146-149
8 68 4.6 33 166-173
Not Designated Title I
9 127 4.1 17 138-145
10 32 4.1 17 138-145
11 143 4.1 17 138-145
12 127 4.2 20 146-149
13 51 4.2 20 146-149

 

*The scores correspond to the composite raw score range
of the Blue Level SRA Achievement Series Multilevel Test, Form c,
In Table 4.19 the achievement scores of the sixth grade
classes in the 13 schools prior to the implementation of the
Title I program are presented. An inspection of the table
reveals that classes were achieving from 1.8 grades to .9

of a grade below the national norm of 6.1.

 

-95-

TABLE 4.19-- Sixth grade SRA grade-equivalent and
percentile scores* for schools designated
Title I and not designated Title I

 

 

Average
Sixth Grade Grade- Raw
School Enrollment Equivalent Percentile Score Range

 

Designated Title I

 

 

 

1 60 4.4 11 154-161
2 142 4.5 12 162-165
3 55 4.5 12 162-165
4 47 4.3 09 150-153
5 49 4.5 12 162-165
6 53 4.4 11 154-161
7 59 5.1 23 190-193
8 71 4.7 16 174-177
Not Designated Title I
9 130 4.7 16 174-177
10 31 4.3 09 150-153
11 99 5.1 23 190-193
12 127 4.8 19 178-185
13 48 5.2 25 194-201

 

*The scores correspond to the composite raw score range
of the Blue Level SRA Achievement Series Multilevel Test, Form C.
In comparing Tables 4.18 and 4.19 it is obvious that the
designated Title 1 sixth graders were not a grade ahead of
the fifth graders. The sixth graders in school #7 were, at
most, .9 of a grade ahead of the fifth graders, while the
sixth graders in school #8 were only .1 of a grade ahead of
the fifth graders. In two non-Title I schools, #11 and #13,
the sixth grade classes were achieving one grade level above

the fifth grade classes.

-96-

A comparison of the percentile ranking of the schools
indicated that except for school #8 the fifth graders were
in the 13-20 percentile group of the national norm, but seven
of the sixth grade classes were scoring below the 13th per-
centile.

In Table 4.20 the achievement scores for the sixth
graders in Title I and non-Title I schools one year follow—
ing the Operation of the Title I program are presented.

An inspection of the table reveals that the average
grade equivalents of the sixth grade classes were as much
as 1.8 grades below the national norm of 6.1. A comparison
of the national percentile ranking of the fifth graders prior
to the implementation of Title I (Table 4.18) and their sixth
grade ranking (Table 4.20) indicated that, except for school
#8, all the fifth grade classes were scoring in the 13-20
percentile group of the national norm but five of the sixth
grade classes were scoring below the 13th percentile. This
low percentile rank of sixth grade classes following the
implementation of the Title I program is comparable to the
low percentile rank of the sixth grade classes which were
tested prior to the Title I program (Table 4.19).

The variables of student achievement and MTAI scores

of teachers are presented in Table 4.21.

-97-

TABLE 4.20-- Sixth grade SRA grade-equivalent and

percentile scores* for Title I and
non-Title I schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average
Sixth Grade Grade- Raw
School Enrollment Equivalent Percentile Score Range
Title I
l 59 4.7 16 174-177
2 141 4.5 12 162-165
3 52 4.4 11 154-161
4 66 4.3 09 150-153
5 47 4.9 21 186-189
6 66 4.3 09 150-153
7 59 4.8 19 178-185
8 70 5.4 31 210-213
Non-Title I
9 144 4.5 12 162-165
10 39 4.8 19 178-185
11 120 4.7 16 174-177
12 120 4.9 21 186-189
13 49 4.7 16 174-177

 

*The scores correspond to the composite raw score range
of the Blue Level SRA Achievement Series Multilevel Test, Form C.
An inspection of Table 4.21 reveals that the achievement
gains of the Title I students and non-Title I students ranged
from .4 of a grade to .8 of a grade with an average annual
gain of .6. The small number of teachers in each building
in the study, except for buildings #2 and #3, limited the
interpretation one could make about how the MTAI scores of
teachers related to the level of pupil achievement. However,

from the very low MTAI mean that the teachers in school #8

~98-

had and the gain in achievement made by the fifth graders,

one might suspect that having a low score was related to

higher achievement.

TABLE 4.21-- Student achievement level and the MTAI mean
scores of teachers in the study by building

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTAI Student Achievement Level
School
Pre-Title I Title I A
Number Mean 5th 6th Pvt
Graders Graders ‘aln
Title I
l 3 175.0 4.2 4.7 5
2 18 126.4 3.9 4.5 6
3 10 145.9 3.8 4.4 6
4 7 124.4 3.9 4.3 4
5 6 137.7 4.1 4.9 8
6 4 125.8 3.8 4.3 5
7 3 144.3 4.2 4.8 6
8 9 110.6 4.6 5.4 8
Non-Title I
9 6 126.0 4.1 4.5 4
10 4 122.8 4.1 4.8 7
ll 5 131.8 4.1 4.7 6
12 9 155.7 4.2 4.9 7
l3 4 145.3 4.2 4.7 S
Sub-question C:3 Does the degree of student poverty relate

to the attitudes of teachers toward pupil-teacher relations

as measured by the MTAI?
The variables under consideration in Sub-question C:3

were (a) percentage of families in the school attendance area

-99-

earning less than $2,000 annual income and (b) MTAI mean
scores of teachers by building.

In Table 4.22 the percentage of poverty-stricken fami-
lies in the school attendance area and the MTAI mean score

for each school are presented.

TABLE 4.22-- The percentage of poverty-stricken families
1n the school attendance area and the MTAI
mean score for each school

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approximate Percentage Teacher
of Families with
School Less than $2,000
Annual Income* N MTAI Mean
Title I
1 13.4 3 175.0
2 14.1 18 126.4
3 21.9 10 - 145.9
4 18.0 7 124.4
5 14.1 6 137.7
6 16.9 4 125.8
7 20.9 3 144.3
8 13.4 9 110.6
Non-Title I
9 8.6 6 126.0
10 20.9 4 122-g
11 8.2 5 131-
12 8.4 9 155 7
13 9.6 4 145-3

 

5‘Reported in the 1960 U.Sf Census Report.

An inspection of Table 4.22 reveals that the Title I
schools were located in neighborhoods where 13 to 22 per

cent of the families reported an annual income of less than

~100-

$2,000 per year according to the 1960 census. On the other
hand, the non-Title I schools (except school #10) were
located in neighborhoods where 8 to 10 per cent of the
families reported an annual income of less than $2,000. An
obvious distinction between Title I and non-Title I schools
is that the children attending Title I schools came from
poorer homes than children attending non-Title I schools
(except for school #10).

The reliability of any reported relationship between
the degree of neighborhood poverty and the MTAI scores of
teachers was weakened because in some school buildings the
MTAI mean was calculated on such a small number of teachers.
Therefore, in Table 4.22 no observable relationship among
program participation, degree of poverty, and the MTAI mean

was found.

Summary of Question C The above data in Sub-questions Czl
through C:4 pertaining to selected characteristics of the
students were presented as a preliminary to answering

Question C.
Question_§

Do selected characteristics of the students
in Title I and non-Title I schools relate

to attitudes of teachers toward pupil-teacher
relations as measured by the MTAI?

The analysis of the data presented in Questions C:1

through C:4 failed to indicate a significant difference in

MTAI mean scores due to teaching assignment with respect to

either the percentage of black teachers on the staff of the

-101-

building, the level of poverty of the students, or the level

of academic achievement of the students.

Summary of Chapter IV

The purpose of this study was to ascertain how the atti-
tudes of teachers in Title I and non-Title I schools compared.
The data were reported and analyzed according to the design
of the study.

The analysis of scores in Phase I of the study did not
indicate significantly different MTAI scores between the two
groups of teachers, those from schools designated to partici-
pate in Title I and those from schools not designated to
participate.

In Phase II of the study an analysis did not indicate
significantly different scores between Title I and non-

Title I teachers on the MTAI administered one year after the
Title I program began. The analysis did reveal that the MTAI
mean scores of both Title I teachers (31.5) and non-Title I
teachers (38.9) were below the MTAI standardized mean of 55.1.
Also in Phase II of the study three basic questions (A, B,
and C) were investigated by first seeking answers to related
sub-questions. The statistical results for the sub-questions
Of Question A, regarding the relationship between personal

demographic data and teacher attitudes, are presented in

Table 4.23 and Figure 4.9.

-102-

TABLE 4.23-- Summary of the two-way analysis of variance
for the sub-questions of Question A

E Ratio* of the Source of Variation

 

 

Sub-
question Teaching Variable with Interaction
Assignment Respect to of Teaching
with Respect Teaching Assignment
to Variable Assignment and Variable
A: (sex) 0.789 0.139 0.001
A: (race) 0.522 5.144** 0.120
A: (age) 0.634 0.205 0.913
A: (marital
status) 0.714 0.946 0.146
A: (professional **
training) 0.853 0.462 5.525
A: (total
experience) 0.571 6.173** 0.237
A: (s stem
eiperience) 1.190 6.698** 2.465
A: (buildin
experiegce) 0.892 9.356** 3.253

 

ficant at this level are

*In order for F to be significant at the
ratio must equal or exceed 3.96.

.05 level, the

F ratios which are signi-
indicated—by **.

-103-

An inspection of Table 4.23 reveals the following about

each sub-question:

A:l.

A:4.

Sex was not significant to the MTAI scores of
Title I and/or non-Title I teachers.

Race was significant with an F ratio of 5.144
which was above the required F ratio of 3.96 for
l and 84 degrees of freedom to be significant at
the .05 level of confidence. From the statistics
in Table 4.5 one can conclude that black teachers
had a much lower mean score than white teachers.
Therefore, black teachers had a less positive
attitude toward pupil-teacher relations than
white teachers.

Age was not significant to the MTAI scores of
Title I and/or non-Title I teachers.

Marital status was not significant to the MTAI
scores of Title I and/or non-Title I teachers.

Professional training and teaching assignment
had a significant interaction. The F ratio of
the interaction was 5.525 which was above the
required F ratio of 3.96 for 1 and 84 degrees

of freedom. Title I teachers with a master's
degree or more and non-Title I teachers with
less than a master's degree had similarly higher
mean scores than their counterparts with similar

teaching assignments.

Years of teaching experience (total, within the
system, and in the building) was $1gn1f1cant.
More experienced teachers had more p651t1ve
attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations than
less experienced teachers.

Although significance was revealed with respect to the

variables of race and years of teaching experience; and the

variable of interaction between professional training and

teaching assignment; teaching assignment was not significant

to MTAI scores for either Title I or non-Title I teachers.

-104-

 

Teaching Assignment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions
and Title I ‘ Non-Title 1
Alternatives*
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4
N=34 N=26 N=19 N=9
Sub-question Azl __ __ ._
(female--male) x=129.0 X=133.6 x=137.0 '§=141.8
1,3 2,4
(4)** (3) (2) (l)
N=32 N=28 N=13 N=15
Sub-question A:2 __ __ __ ‘_
(black--white) X=122.5 X=l4l.9 X=13l.6 X=145.l
1,3 2,4
(4) (2) (3) (l)
N=24 N=36 N=15 N=13
Sub-question A:3 __ __ _- ._
(younger--older) X=130.0 X=132.6 X=l45.4 X=l3l.3
1,3 2,4
(4) (2) (l) (3)
N=l7 N=43 N=8 N=20
Sub-question A:4 __ __ __ __
(single--married) X=136.1 X=129.7 X=148.6 X=l35.0
1,3 2,4
(2) (4) (l) (3)
N=34 N=26 N=18 N=10
Sub-question Az5 __ __ _. .—
(less training-- X=123.6 x=141.9 X=l46.9 x=124.4
more training)
1,3 2,4 (4) (2) (l) (3)
N=20 N=40 N=8 N=20
Sub-question A:6 _. __ -' -—
(less experience-- X=116-3 X=139.3 X=128°6 X=l43-0
more experience)
1,3 2,4 (4) (2) (3) (1)

 

Figure 4.9-- A summary of the 2 by 2 contingency tables containing the
MTAI mean scores for the sub-questions of Question A.

*The numbers under the alternatives correspond to the Title I or
non-Title I cell in which the data is presented.

1 to 4

**The numbers in parentheses represent the rank order from t.
es ion

(high to low) of the mean scores for the alternatives of each qu
by cell.

-105-

An inspection of Figure 4.9 reveals the following

about each sub-question:

A:1. Non-Title I males had the highest MTAI mean score

of the four alternatives of sex by teaching
assignment while Title I females had the lowest
score.

Non-Title I whites had the highest MTAI mean
score of the four alternatives of race by teach-
ing assignment while Title I blacks had the
lowest score.

Non-Title I younger teachers had the highest
MTAI mean score of the four alternatives of age
by teaching assignment while Title I younger
teachers had the lowest score.

. Non-Title I single teachers had the highest MTAI

mean score of the four alternatives of marital
status by teaching assignment while Title I
married teachers had the lowest score.

Non-Title I less trained teachers had the highest
MTAI mean score of the four alternatives of pro-
fessional training by teaching assignment while
the Title I less trained teachers had the lowest

score .

Non-Title I more experienced teachers had the
highest MTAI mean score of the four alternatives
of teaching experience by teaching assignment
while the Title I more experienced teachers had

the lowest score.

From the statistical results of the data in Question A

the profile of a teacher with more positive attitudes would

be a non-Title I young, single, white, male teacher who had

less than a master's degree and more than two years of

teaching experience. The teacher with less positive atti-

tudes would be a Title 1, young, married, black, female

teacher who had less than a master's degree and less than

two years of teaching experience.

-106-

The statistical results of the sub-questions of Question
B regarding selected working conditions and teacher attitudes
revealed that teachers of reading and teachers of arithmetic
had significantly higher MTAI mean scores than teachers of
homeroom subjects and teachers of self-contained classroom
subjects. Otherwise the grade taught, the size of the
student enrollment, and the percentage of black teachers on
the staff was not significant to the attitudes of teachers.

Statistical results of the sub-questions of Question C
regarding selected characteristics of the students reveal
that neither the percentage of black students enrolled in
the student body, nor the level of student academic achieve-
ment, nor the degree of student poverty were related to
teacher attitudes as measured by the MTAI.

Chapter Five will include a summary of the study
followed by conclusions, recommendations, and implications

for future research.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,

AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Summary

The purposes of the investigation in this study were
the following:

1. To determine how the attitudes of a cross section
of teachers from eight Title I depressed area
schools compared to those of a similar cross
section of teachers from five non-Title I de-
pressed area schools.

2. To determine how the attitudes of the teachers
in the eight Title I schools compared to those
of the teachers in the five non-Title I schools
at the end of one year's Operation of the Title I
compensatory education program.

The resolution of the first purpose was sought by com-
Paring the MTAI mean score of the teachers designated Title I
With the MTAI mean score of the teachers not designated
Title I.

The resolution of the second purpose was sought through
two operations, i.e., comparing Title I and non-Title I MTAI
mean scores and analyzing the answers to the following

questions about teacher attitudes toward pupil-teacher

relations as measured by the MTAI:

-107-

-108-

1. Do the personal demographic data (sex, race,
age, marital status, professional training,
and teaching experience) of Title I and non-
Title I teachers relate to their attitudes
toward pupil-teacher relations?

2. Do selected working conditions (grade taught,

subject taught, size of student enrollment,

and percentage of black teachers on the staff)
of Title I and non-Title I teachers relate to
their attitudes toward pupil-teacher relations?

3. Do selected characteristics of the students

(percentage of black students, level of aca-
demic achievement, and degree of poverty) in
Title I and non-Title I schools relate to the
attitudes of teachers toward pupil-teacher
relations?

The literature reviewed in Chapter II failed to reveal
any studies which were identical to this study, but it did
reveal studies which were relevant. Specifically, the
literature revealed a consensus that the most crucial element
upon which the success of a compensatory education program
depends is the school staff; furthermore, it revealed that
some authorities believe poor attitudes of teachers are
more to blame for the lack of academic progress of disad-
vantaged children than any other factor.

This study involved 103 fourth, fifth, and sixth grade
teachers from the thirteen most severely disadvantaged
schools in a midwestern industrial community. The instru-
ments used were the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory
(MTAI) and a Personal History Data Sheet. The MTAI was
designed to measure the attitudes of teachers toward pupil-
teacher relations by sampling five areas of attitudes. The

five areas were moral status, discipline, principles of

child development and behavior, principles of education, and

~109-

personal reactions of the teacher. The Personal History Data
Sheet was designed to collect data pertaining to a teacher's
personal demographic data, his working conditions, and
characteristics of the students he teaches.

The study was conducted in two phases. In Phase I a
comparison was made between the MTAI scores of teacher atti-
tudes toward pupil-teacher relations of a sample of teachers
from eight schools designated to participate in a Title I
program; and those MTAI scores of a sample of teachers from
five similar schools not designated to participate in Title I.

The analysis of the data collected in the first phase
of the study failed to demonstrate any significant difference
between the MTAI mean score of teachers in schools designated
to participate in Title I and the MTAI mean score of teachers
not designated to participate. The "t" ratio of the two mean
scores was .98 which was below the ratio of 2.036 which was
needed for significance at the .05 level of confidence for
33 degrees of freedom. The analysis of the data revealed
that the MTAI scores of teachers in schools designated to
participate in Title I and the MTAI scores of teachers in
schools not designated to participate in Title I were from
the same universe.

In Phase II of the study which was conducted one year
following the implementation of the Title I compensatory
education program a comparison was made between the MTAI

scores of the attitudes of the Title I teachers toward

~110-

pupil-teacher relations; and those MTAI scores of the non-
Title I teachers. The attitudes were compared in relation
to teaching assignment (Title I or non-Title I) and the
variables of personal demographic data, selected working
conditions, and selected characteristics of the students.

The analysis of the MTAI scores collected in the
second phase of the study failed to demonstrate any signif-
icant difference between the mean score of Title I teachers
and the mean score of non-Title I teachers. The Title I
teachers had a MTAI mean score of 31.52 and the non-Title 1
teachers had a MTAI mean score of 38.86. The "t" ratio of
the two mean scores was -.852 which was below the needed
ratio of 1.948 for significance at the .05 level of con-
fidence for 86 degrees of freedom. The results of the
analysis were interpreted to mean that after one year's
participation in the Title I program the teachers in Title I
schools continued to have attitudes toward pupil-teacher
relations which were not significantly different from the
attitudes of teachers in non-Title I schools.

An analysis of the MTAI scores in relation to teaching
assignment (Title I or non-Title I) and the variables of
personal demographic data, selected working conditions, and
selected characteristics of the students did reveal six
significant differences in MTAI mean scores of the fifteen
variables (sex, race, age, marital status, professional
training, total years of teaching experience, years of

teaching experience with the system, years of teaching

~111-

experience in the building, grade taught, subject taught,
building enrollment, percentage of black students, percentage
of black teachers, degree of poverty of students, and level
of academic achievement of students).

The analysis revealed a significant difference in MTAI
scores for six variables: (1) race, (2) professional training,
(3) total years of teaching experience, (4) years of teaching
experience with the system, (5) years of teaching experience
in the building, and (6) subject taught.

1. Race was significant at the .05 level of confidence
with an F ratio of 5.14 which was above the required
F ratio of 3.96 for l and 84 degrees of freedom.
White teachers had more positive attitude scores
than black teachers.

2. Professional training and teaching assignment had a
significant interaction with an F ratio of 5.53 which
was above the required F ratio of 3.96 for l and 84
degrees of freedom. Title I teachers with a master's
degree or more and non-Title I teachers with less than
a master's degree had similarly higher mean scores than
their counterparts with similar teaching assignments.

3. Total years of teaching experience was significant
at the .05 level of confidence with an F ratio of
6.17 which was above the required F ratio of 3.96
for l and 84 degrees of freedom. Teachers with more
than two years of teaching experience had more
positive attitude scores than teachers with less
than two years of teaching experience.

4. Years of teaching experience with the present school
system was significant at the .05 level of confidence
with an F ratio of 6.70 which was above the required
F ratio of 3.96 for l and 84 degrees of freedom.
Teachers with two or more years of teaching experience
with the system had more positive attitude scores than
teachers with less than two years of teaching experi-
ence with the system.

5. Years of teaching eXperience in the present building
was significant at the .05 level of confidence with
an F ratio of 9.36 which was above the required F
ratio of 3.96 for l and 84 degrees of freedom. Teachers
with more than two years of teaching experience in the

 

-112-

present building had more positive attitude scores

than teachers with less than two years teaching
experience in the present building.

Teaching of reading and teaching of arithmetic was
significant at the .05 level of confidence with an F
ratio of 4.39 which was above the required F ratio _
of 2.78 for 3 and 56 degrees of freedom. Teachers
of reading and teachers of arithmetic had more posi-
tive attitude scores than teachers of homeroom sub-
jects and teachers ofself-contained classroom sub-
jects.

Conclusions

The research findings of this investigation support the

following conclusions which are applicable to the teachers

who took part in this study and may also be applicable to

teachers of the disadvantaged in general.

1.

The initial MTAI mean scores of Title I and non-
Title I teachers were not significantly different.

The MTAI mean scores of the Title I and non-Title I
teachers measured following a year's participation
in the program were not significantly different.

The MTAI mean scores of both Title I and non-Title I
teachers were generally below the norm measurement
for teachers of similar training and experience.

White teachers regardless of whether they were teaching
in Title I or non-Title I schools had a significantly
more positive MTAI mean score than black teachers.

Title I teachers with a master's degree or more and
non-Title I teachers with less than a master's degree
had similarly higher mean scores than their counter-
parts with similar teaching assignments, the results
being a significant interaction of professional
training and teaching assignment.

Teachers with more than two years of teaching ex-
perience had a higher MTAI mean score than teachers
with two or less years of teaching experience.

Teachers who had taught with the system for more
than two years had a higher MTAI mean score than
teachers who had taught with the system for two

or less years.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

 

-113-

Teachers who had taught in the building for more
than two years had a higher MTAI mean score than
teachers who had taught in the building for two

or less years.

Teachers of reading and teachers of arithmetic
each had a significantly higher MTAI mean score
than teachers of homeroom subjects and teachers
of self-contained classroom subjects.

Title I children did not demonstrate academic
achievement gains as reflected by their SRA mean
achievement scores even though they had been
exposed to reading teachers and/or arithmetic
teachers of significantly higher MTAI scores.
Consequently, this study did not reveal that
teachers with more positive MTAI scores were
more effective teachers in terms of SRA pupil
achievement scores.

Title I teachers had a slightly lower mean
attitude score than non-Title I teachers.

Teachers thirty years old and under did not have
an MTAI mean score which was significantly

different from that of teachers over thirty years
old.

Teachers who remained with the system tended to
remain in the same building.

The teaching staffs of school buildings with 50
per cent or more black teachers had lower MTAI
mean scores than the teaching staffs of school

buildings with less than 50 per cent black
teachers.

The SRA achievement scores of the students taught
by Title I and non-Title I teachers tended to drop
from one year to the next.

The percentage of black teachers was greater in

schools where the children are more poverty-
stricken.

-114-

Recommendations

Recommendations in this section are based upon studies
in the field of education of the disadvantaged, related
literature, the findings of this study, and the considered
judgment of the author.

It is assumed that the objectives and goals of any com-
munity operating a public school system are to provide quality
education and equal educational opportunities for all children
in its charge. If one agrees with this assumption and accepts

1 that "The most crucial element on which

Pillard's contention
success of educational programs ultimately depends is the
school staff . . . ," one must conclude that a school system
cannot hOpe to attain its goals until it has made available
to the children in its charge the best teachers it can hire
and/or retrain. Among other things the teachers must be
competent; they must have the tools with which to work; and
they must have positive attitudes toward themselves, their
students, and puPil-teacher relations. If the MTAI scores

of the inner-city teachers in this study are typical of the
scores of the teachers in other inner-city schools, then one
could conclude that inner-city schools are not getting a fair
share of their system's more competent teachers (i.e., teachers

with more positive attitudes). Therefore, one could make the

following recommendations2 to directors of personnel:

 

1Pillard, gp. cit.

2There will be a total of 16 recommendations in this study.

~115-

Recommendations

 

Establish an effective system for recruiting and

assigning competent teachers to inner-city schools

so that:

1. if the system must hire teachers who are less
competent, they not be concentrated in inner-
city schools.

2. teaching positions in inner-city schools are
not the last positions in the system to be filled.

3. school systems and universities collaborate as
equal partners in the training of teachers for
inner-city schools and so that eventually school
systems hire only teachers specifically trained
for teaching in the inner city.

In order that the elementary school principal be account-
able for the teaching results in his building it is essential
that he have an accountable decision-making role in determining
who will make up his staff. Therefore, it is recommended that:

Recommendation

 

4. directors of personnel schedule personal
interviews for each interested candidate with
at least two principals before a building
assignment is made thereby avoiding pressure
on the principal to hire the particular

teacher sent to him.

-116-

There is a critical need for the development of an in-
strument to measure teacher attitudes which reflects no bias
against black teachers because the instrument takes into account
the black experience. The black teachers in this study had
less positive attitude scores which measured attitudes toward
pupil-teacher relations than white teachers even though the
student body they taught was 88 per cent black. The less-than-
positive attitudes of black teachers may be attributed to a
number of factors among which are the following: (1) There
seems to be a practice of assigning black teachers either to
teach black children or to teach in depressed areas where the
level of pupil achievement is the lowest in town. (2) Black
teachers probably were more critical of the inventory instru-
ment because they saw it as an instrument designed and standard-
ized by whites and reflective of the attitudes of whites.

(3) Black teachers, because they are products of school settings
which were disadvantaged to a similar or worse degree, are more
pessimistic about the whole school setting than white teachers.
(4) Black teachers, part of an American subculture, probably
used a different scale for measuring their attitudes than white
teachers. For example, one of the MTAI questions posed was,
"Success is more motivating than failure." Most white teachers,
even those teaching in disadvantaged areas, would answer "Yes."
Black teachers, on the other hand, from personal experience
would tend to answer "No.” (5) It is possible that black
teachers were more realistic in their answers than white

teachers.

-117-

The foregoing has not been an attempt to rationalize

away the less-than-positive attitudes of black teachers;

rather, it has attempted to put the statistical results in

perspective. Now recommendations are in order:

Recommendations

 

5.

There is an immediate need for the development of
a standardized instrument which will more accurately
measure the attitudes of black and white depressed
area teachers.

There is a need for this study to be replicated

on a larger sample of teachers and school buildings.
Directors of personnel must be held personally ac-
countable for the immediate development and imple-
mentation of a scheme designed to make teaching
assignments based on a teacher's competencies to
meet pupil needs instead of based on a teacher's
race.

School systems must assume the reSponsibility of
providing an on-going program which has as its
prime objective the improvement of the attitudes

of its black and white teachers toward inner-city
children and toward pupil-teacher relations.
Immediately school systems must increase the number
of blacks who are in central office decision-making
positions to reflect the sharp increase of black
children in the public schools and to prevent the
school systems from subverting the quality of

education provided for black children.

-118-

Contrary to common belief, teachers with two or less
years of teaching experience did not have more positive atti-
tude scores toward pupil-teacher relations than teachers with
more than two years of experience. Usually, new teachers are
thought to be more enthusiastic and optimistic about the
potentialities of their students and, therefore, possessed
of more positive attitudes toward them than teachers with
more years of experience. However, the above statistical
result leads to speculation attempting to eXplain the less
positive attitude scores of the teachers with little experi-
ence. 'This group of beginning teachers contained, no doubt,

a disprOportionate percentage of young teachers whose atti-
tudes might reflect less interest in their students because

they are often (1) undecided about whether they want to remain
in teaching, (2) more mobile and unsettled about where they

will live and work, (3) less experienced with and less knowledge-
able and understanding of children and the learning process, and
(4) assigned to schools in disadvantaged areas and "putting in
time" until they are re-assigned to the suburbs.

The findings in this study indicated that teachers who
had taught in inner-city schools for more than two years tended
to remain in the school building to which they were originally
assigned. Furthermore, these teachers had significantly higher
MTAI scores than teachers who had taught two or less years
either in the building, in the system, or in total years.

There was no information available pertaining to why some

w --‘QP'—"'_-'- ‘3'"
,_ _ .__.__
_. -.»- gnu-ur- -

-119-

teachers in this study remained beyond two years and others
left before two years. To meet the demand for information
pertaining to why some teachers of the disadvantaged stay
and why some leave the following recommendations are made:

Recommendations

 

10. The personnel departments of school systems must
establish some accurate comprehensive means of
comparing why some teachers teach in inner-city
schools longer than two years and others teach
in inner-city schools two or less years.

11. Studies must be conducted to determine the com-
parative effectiveness of teachers who teach in
inner-city schools more than two years.

The Title I program was designed to improve the reading
and arithmetic achievement levels of fourth, fifth, and sixth
grade disadvantaged youngsters in the Title I schools. The
prOgram had seven components which were designed to function
together in an effort to accomplish the objective of the
program.

After one year's operation of the program there had been
no significant changes in the reading and arithmetic achieve-
ment levels of the children in the Title I schools; in fact,
their SRA achievement scores tended to drOp from the previous
year which is common among children from low income families.

An inspection of the Operational budget of the Title I
program reveals the financial priorities which were placed

upon the seven components of the program. Of the seven

~120—

components the one dealing with inservice was receiving the

least amount of financial assistance. In view of the com-

parison of the MTAI measure of Title I and non-Title I

teachers with the standardized norm, it seems apparent that

much more effort and a higher priority must be given new

and different inservice programs which are designed to improve

a teacher's attitudes through an introspective exploration of

himself and his relationship to his students.

Recommendations

 

12.

13.

14.

A major component of a compensatory education pro-
gram must be devoted to teacher inservice, not only
inservice devoted to how to use new teaching
materials and equipment but inservice devoted to
helping teachers develop more positive attitudes
toward pupil-teacher relations.

The Federal guidelines pertaining to compensatory
education programs must require school systems to
design inservice programs which include sensitivity
training as a major component.

Inner-city school Systems must take it upon them-
selves to provide a new kind of rigorous on-going
inservice program for all their teachers and
administrators. These inservice programs should

be geared to the problems of the inner city, and
they might very well follow the model of a
sensitivity group. Participation in sensitivity

groups should be mandatory for all administrators

-121-

and highly recommended to all teachers of dis-
advantaged.

The two groups Of Title I teachers who had significantly
higher MTAI mean scores were reading teachers and arithmetic
teachers. One would suspect that two factors definitely con-
tributed to their significantly higher MTAI mean scores,

i.e., having a specific job to do and having a job of prestige
and status in an inner-city school. The designation of Title I
Reading Teacher or Title I Arithmetic Teachers was something
one could be proud to use. Also, Title I Reading and Title I
Arithmetic Teachers had new roles in the hierarchy of the
inner-city schools. Each teacher so designated had his own
room with hundreds of teaching aids which he could call his
own. Furthermore, each teacher met with six groups of children
per day, and the size of no group exceeded fifteen students.

In light of these findings and observations it is recommended
that:

Recommendations

 

15. in the opinion of the writer, urban school systems
move in a direction in which fourth, fifth, and
sixth grade inner-city teachers be responsible for
teaching no more than one or two specific subjects
in which they have high competence. The practice
of assigning teachers to teach homeroom subjects
and self-contained classroom subjects should be
phased into a team teaching arrangement in which

teachers will pool their expertise.

~122-

16. new status roles in the hierarchy of inner-city
teaching must be found so that inner-city teachers
can have roles and positions of status respected

by all teachers within the system.

Implications for Future Research

Emerging from this study are conclusions, recommenda-
tions, and a number of unanswered questions. The unanswered
questions presented in this section suggest a direction for
research in an area of increased concern and activity.

There are many questions yet to be resolved pertaining
to compensatory education, such as the following: (1) At
which grade should a compensatory education program start?
(2) What are the basic and essential components of a compre-
hensive compensatory education program for the disadvantaged?
(3) Are the gains we expect in academic achievement measur-
able? If so, when and how do we measure them?

Further research is needed to answer such specific
questions as: (1) Why did the black teachers have such low
scores? (2) Is the MTAI "race-proof"? (3) How valid are
the answers of black teachers to the MTAI questions in this
new era of black awareness? (4) What influence, if any,
does the black experience have upon a black teacher as he

relates to black children in a depressed area school?

-123-

(5) How do the attitude scores of white depressed area
teachers compare with those of other white teachers teach-
ing in the system? (6) Do the attitude scores of teachers
with more than two years of experience change or remain the
same? (7) Is a less positive attitude score indicative of

a less effective teacher? (8) How significant is a teacher's
negative or positive attitude score if the attitude the score
reflects is not perceived by the class? (9) How does a
teacher's MTAI score relate to his attitudes toward pupil-
teacher relations measured by an interview technique?

(10) If this study were replicated on a larger sample of

teachers and school buildings, would the results be the same?

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

FLINT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
Public Law 89-10
Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965

Title I Proposal

FLINT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

Public Law 89-10

Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965

I. Purpose and Background of the Proposal

II. Program

Title I Proposal

A. Public Schools

1.

Improving Reading in the Early Elementary
Years (1-3)

Improving Reading and Arithmetic in the Later
Elementary Grades (4-6)

Providing Instructional Leadership via Services
of Reading and Arithmetic Specialists

Correlating Reading and Arithmetic Instruction
with the Total Instructional Program in Each
School via Services of Instructional Specialists

Facilitating the Learning Process in Reading
and Arithmetic by Providing Social Adjustment
Services via the School Social Worker

Making Optimum Use of Instructional Time by
Assistance of Clerical Aides to Help Teachers

Implementing an Inservice Program via Services
of the Inservice Specialist

Implementing the Research Program via Services
of a Research Specialist

B. Non-Public Schools3

1.

2.

Providing Services for Non-Public Schools

Providing Instructional and Testing Materials

 

3 Although the original proposal included both public
and non-public schools, this thesis involved only
the public schools.

-126-

III.

IV.

VI.
VII.

VIII.

-127-

Instructional Materials and Equipment

Physical Facilities
Program Coordination

Research and Design and Evaluation

Budget
Appendix

A. Selection of Schools According to Guidelines for

Title I of Elementary and Secondary Act

List of All Schools, Elementary and Secondary,
from Greatest to Least Need in Family Economic
Deprivation and Low Pupil Achievement

 

-128-

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSAL

 

Purpose

The main purpose of this prOposal is to raise achievement
levels in reading and arithmetic among children attending
elementary schools where a high proportion of the pupils
are from economically deprived home environments and
have low achievement records.

Introduction and Background Information

 

We believe elementary education must be concerned with the '11
whole child; i.e., his physical, mental, social, and
emotional aspects. The child's intellectual development
cannot proceed in isolation from growth in other charac-
teristics. Therefore, the program of the school should
include instruction and services sufficient to meet as
many needs as possible that are preconditions to and
concomitants of learning.

2;: 2a. “Fl-e- 9:1“:
.-

.1.

We believe learning occurs continuously in and out of
school. For maximum benefit to the child, the efforts
of home, school, and other agencies need to be united
and consistent. To this end, a close relationship must
exist between the school staff and other persons con-
cerned with the education of the child.

The realization of our purpose to improve the level of
achievement will not occur merely through intensified
instruction in reading and arithmetic alone. The whole
child must be considered as well as the "pre-conditions"
to improved achievement. Therefore, we have designed

six components to the program to accomplish our purpose.
The program is concerned with (1) reading, (2) arithmetic,
(3) instructional Specialist services, (4) school social
worker services, (5) clerical assistance for teachers,

and (6) inservice education for the total staff.

The main emphasis of this program is directed towards
reading and arithmetic in grades 1-6. Since formal read-
ing is not presently taught in prekindergarten or kinder-
garten, these groups have not been included in the arith-
metic and reading portion of the program. Furthermore,
secondary schools have not been included because a pro-
gram of this depth and scOpe would require more

financial effort than is presently available under this
grant.

This program will relate to and extend the services of
a number of presently existing education programs in
the Flint Community School system, such as the reading
clinic and the library stations.

-129-

Before describing the program, some general Observa—
tions about the nature of the area for which it was

designed will provide background information. This

area is characterized by having the highest concen-

tration of in-migration of low-income and culturally
disadvantaged families of the city.

A number of children living in this area suffer from
sensory, emotional, physiological, economic, Cultural,
and social disadvantages. One of the major socio-
psychological disadvantages which many of these ex-
perience is a lack of skill in oral communication and
problem solving. Another handicap they suffer is the
lack of books, pictures, magazines, newspapers,
puzzles, and games. For most elementary children liv-
ing in this area, language is a major part of the
problem which affects their success in school.

tr: -_-; .mH “‘

It has long been known that ability and interest in
reading are necessary to scholastic success. Many of
the aptitude and intelligence tests are so designed
that reading and vocabulary count very heavily, and
they are considered valid as predictors of academic
success.

The school records of the children in the target area
indicate that the majority of these children are handi—
capped from the outset of their school careers by lack
of exposure to reading materials, "average" verbal
articulation, and to adults who read at home. As a
result, these pupils fall progressively farther behind
their peers as they move into the upper elementary
grades and junior high school. These disadvantages are
compounded by the fact that a large number of teachers
who are trying to help these learners have not been ade-
quately prepared to meet their needs.

Numbers of children from these communities give evidence
of:

Indifference to responsibility
Non-purposeful activities

Poor health habits

Inadequate communication skills
Little mastery of reading skills
A pattern of failure

O‘U‘l-bLNNl-d

In school, some of these children have experienced:

-130-

Low achievement rates

Low intelligence test scores

High failure rates

Poor attendance

High incidence of behavioral difficulties
High drop-out rates

Physical and/or mental handicaps

\lO\U1-I>LNNH
o I o o o o o

The term "target area" has been used to describe the
school attendance districts eligible for the program
according to the guidelines established for Title I

of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

(Public Law 89-10). This is described on page 19 of
the appendix.

Schools in the Program

There are nine public and two non—public elementary
schools located within the boundaries of this area.
These schools and their student enrollment are:

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENROLLMENT
Special

Public Schools Kindergarten 1-6 Education Z;8 Total
Clark 69 430 12 - 511
Dort 168 1,003 30 - 1,201
Doyle 82 455 15 - 552
Fairviewi 62 236 12 - 310
Lincoln 60 343 0 - 403
Kennedy 80 434 13 - 527
Parkland 77 410 17 - 504
Roosevelt 52 380 14 - 446
Stewart 110 560 14 - 684

Sub Total "760' 4:751' 127' _—7—' STTKB
Non-Public
Sacred Heart 38 221 - 66 325
St. Michael 44 287 - 108 439

Sub-Total -—g7 s'g‘g— ‘T m '7 64

Grand Total 342 4,759 127 174 5,902

The secondary schools were not included in the Title I
package since we have other projects and programs for
them which are in effect at the present time.

Q

. 3 Although Fairview is located in the target area, it
w111 not part1c1pate in the Title I Program because it is

presently being considered for involvement in a specially
funded prOgram.

 

II.

-131-

1. Under the Vocational Act of 1963, the secondary
schools have 120 students on a work-study program
with a grant of $42,000 for the 1965-66 school year.
This program provides from $45 to $60 per month to
needy students so that they may remain in school.

2. Through the Mott Foundation, a Personalized Curric-
ulum Program has been developed in the junior and
senior high schools. This program is designed to
provide an individualized approach to educational
experiences for the drop-out or potential drOp-out.
Pupil-teacher ratio has been lowered to 15 to l for
these pupils. Two special counselors have been
placed in each of the senior high schools. One
counsels with these pupils on social, emotional, and
educational problems. The other coordinates work
experience. There are approximately thirty (30) of
these pupils in each of our junior high schools and
120 in each of the senior high schools. A very large
percentage of these young people come from low-income
families.

PROGRAM

Reading Program Rationale

 

The entire academic curriculum of the school is built on
the expectation that the child can read. Not only is the
ability to read a necessity in each of the subject areas
as a key to the content, but the ability to read and
understand instructions and explanations is essential
throughout the child's school experience.

The widespread occurrence of reading deficiencies cannot
begin to be met by having limited remedial reading with
individual or small groups of students. A more practical
and educationally desirable approach is to help classroom
teachers devote more individual time to all students in

a developmental reading program. The proposed program
will allow for this increased instructional time in
developmental reading.

Mathematics Program Rationale

 

A sound mathematics education is accepted as essential

for all of our children. Our mathematics education hinges
on the form or type of instruction available to our
students.

-132-

Classes in mathematics must and can be organized with
instruction planned to meet each student at all times

at his level of achievement. When a larger portion of
the students in class have deficiencies in mathematics,
it is essential that pupil-teacher ratio be reduced to
prov1de more individual instruction. Enrichment of the
student's experience with practical, concrete, and
colorful materials is important to stimulate motivation.

An individualized developmental mathematics prOgram such

as we propose will afford maximum achievement to each
student. The program will (1) supply adequate supplementary
materials to completely individualize student instruction
and work experiences, (2) supply enrichment materials to
reawaken and sustain the student's interest in mathematics,
(3) supply additional teachers to increase individual in-
struction.

A. Public Schools

 

1. Improving Reading in the Early Elementary Years (1-3)

Major emphasis on basic reading skills will char-
acterize the program in the early elementary years.

As currently organized in the selected schools,

as in all other Flint elementary schools, each

early elementary classroom teacher includes in his
daily schedule approximately one hour of instruc-
tion in reading in the morning and a second hour in
the afternoon. Since reading is taught in three to
four small groups, each small group has approx1mately
15 to 20 minutes per session during which time the
children in the group have direct access to the
teacher in terms of instruction, superv1s1on, and
guidance in acquiring basic reading skills, The re-
mainder of the reading period is spent in independent

study.

The major goal of this part of the program will be
to provide a significant increase 1n instructional
time in reading for early elementary children in

the selected schools.

Team teachers will be provided over and above the
usual number of regular classroom teachers on the

approximate ratio of one team teacher for every
three early elementary teachers._

39 weeks

 

a 23 early elementary reading teachers,

 

-133-

These additional early elementary team teachers
will have full-time teaching assignments. They
Will be assigned by the principal to work in team
teaching activities with at least one early
elementary teacher. The objective will be to
double the instructional time in reading, parti-
cularly for low-achieving children, through in-
creased opportunities for small-group instruction.

It is hypothesized that providing each child with-
a Significantly greater period of direct instruc-
tion in reading and more direct access to a reading
teacher on an individual basis will bring about
major improvement in pupil reading achievement.
This hypothesis can be tested objectively by means
of standardized achievement tests.

 

2. Improving Reading and Arithmetic in the Later
Elementagy Grades (4-6)

 

 

Major emphasis on reading and arithmetic will
characterize the program in the later elementary
grades.

As currently organized in the selected target
schools, as well as in other Flint elementary
schools, later elementary children receive ap-
proximately 40 minutes of reading instruction
and 40 minutes of arithmetic instruction during
each school day. As is true in most later ele-
mentary grades in any school system, in Flint
schools there tends to be a wider range of levels
of achievement at the later elementary level
than in the early elementary years. For this
reason, the regular classroom teacher of reading
and/or arithmetic has major problems in meeting
the individual educational needs of pupils in
these subject areas.

This program will have as its major goal provid-
ing a means of more nearly meeting the 1nd1v1dual
instructional needs of pupils in reading and
arithmetic as follows:

a. Two reading teachers and two arithmetic teach-
ers will be provided for each 51x classrooms
of later elementary children in each of the

selected target schools.i

 

a 430 1/2 later elementary reading and arithmetic
— teachers, 39 weeks

—134-

b. One classroom will be partitioned and re-
modeled in order to provide for efficient
teaching by each pair of reading teachers.
The same will be true for each pair of arith-
metic teachers. Each classroom will be
suitably equipped with special reading or
arithmetic materials-

c. During each school day, the six regular later
elementary classroom teachers will teach '
their reading and their arithmetic instruc-
tion classes at different times during the F
morning or afternoon. Then in a given class- t
room, during the daily reading period, the 1
number of teachers responsible for reading
instruction will be augmented to three --
the regular classroom teacher and the two
reading teachers. Children will be assigned
for developmental reading instruction in
small groups, depending upon their indivi-
dual needs. While 10 to 15 children remain
with the regular teacher, 7-10 children will
be deployed to each of the two reading teach-
ers. It is anticipated that low-achieving
children will generally be assigned to the
smaller reading groups. Children will be
deployed in the same manner to the regular
teacher and the two arithmetic teachers
during each daily arithmetic instruction
period.

The preceding manner of providing for in-
struction in reading and arithmetic will
greatly increase the daily individual in-
structional time in these basic subject
areas for all later elementary children.

It is hypothesized that this increased in-
structional time will have a beneficial
effect on pupil achievement levels in read-
ing and arithmetic. This hypothesis can be
tested by means of standardized achievement
tests.

Providing Instructional Leadership via the Services
of Reading and Arithmetic Specialists

 

 

A Reading Specialist and an Arithmetic Specialist
will be provided to facilitate development of
effective reading and arithmetic programs in the
target schools. They will be assigned to the
Instructional Services Department and will work
under the guidance of the staff consultants for
reading and arithemetic who have systemwide re-
sponsibility in their respective subjects.

-135-

Directing their attention exclusively to the
target schools, the Reading and Arithmetic
Specialists will assiSt the staff consultants
in providing technical information, curriculum
interpretation, and inservice education.§

CorrelatingfiReading and Arithmetic Instruction
with the Total InstructiOnal Program in EaEh
School via Services of Instructional Specialists.

 

 

 

Along with continuous efforts to upgrade instruc-
tion in all subject areas, special attention will
be given to reinforcing the intensified instruc-
tion in reading and arithmetic in all other
classes, when and where appropriate. An Instruc-
tional Specialist will be assigned to each of the M

selected schools, with responsibility for:9

a. Coordinating effective communication among
teachers regarding instructional activities,
and joint planning for instructional improve-

b. Providing assistance to teachers in relation
to adaptation of instructional techniques,
introduction of new teaching methods, and
modification in curriculum to provide for

c. Encouraging teachers to provide a variety of
compensatory educational experiences and
assisting in their planning and execution.

d. Providing leadership, under the direction of

the principal, for meaningful follow-up in
each school of the inservice education pro-

Facilitating the Learnigg Process in Reading and

 

 

 

 

Success in the learning process includes many
factors besides actual classroom instruction.
Some of these are the child's home background,

 

(To work on a shared basis with non-public schools)

4.
ment.
pupil educational needs.
gram for teachers.
5.
Arithmetic by Providin Social Adjustment
SerVices via the Schoo 'SOcial Worker
3 1 Reading SpeEialist, 40 weeks
1 Arithmetic Specialist, 40 weeks
13.

8 Instructional Specialists, 40 weeks
(Two of above to work part time in non-public schools)

-136-

the cultural environment in which he develons,
his attitude, his relationship with his peers
and adults, and his self-image and feeling of
personal worth.

All teachers have the responsibility of knowing
the children with whom they work, of giving
understanding, and developing empathy. However,
some children present problems that require the
services of trained personnel who have the time
and freedom from a regular assigned class load
to work toward adequate solutions.

The school social worker, who is an integral

part of the educational system, is professionally
trained to provide help to the child, the parent,
the teacher, and other school personnel with
problems that center in the school experience

and the child's adaptation to it. The problems
may focus on the child's personality and be-
havior, on school adjustment, or on unfavorable
home conditions that limit successful academic
and social performance.

School social workers will be assigned to schools
to provide case work services, work with children
and parents, and complement the efforts of the
classroom teacher towar _improved responses in
the learning situation._

Making Optimum Use of Instructional Time by
Assistance of Clerical Aides to Help TeaEhers

 

 

One of the limiting factors in public school
education is the amount of time which classroom

teachers must give to non-instructional activities.

In order to free instructors to devote their
energies toward actual teaching and working with
pupils, a clerical aide will be provided for each
of the selected schools, and gill be assigned to

The main contribution of the clerical aide will
be the preparation, under the teacher's direction,
of individualized curriculum materials in reading
and arithmetic. The aide will also provide im-
portant non-instructional services for teachers,

 

(l of above to work full time in non-public schools)

6.
the Instructional Specialist._
such as:
g 9 SchOol Social WOrkers, 39 weeks
'3

l9 Clerical Aides, 39 weeks (11 of these to work
in non-public schools)

g.

-137-

 

Ordering and scheduling instructional
materials both within the building and from
the central facility

Preparing duplicated materials

Posting information on school record forms

Assisting, as appropriate, with arrangements
for field trips

Assisting in the scoring of tests

Obtaining library collections

it“ M‘W.‘ _ . I

Assisting in non-instructional activities in
the classroom

Implementing an Inservice Proqram via Services

of an Inservice Specialisti

 

Not enough teachers have been trained to work with
children who are known as "economically and cul-
turally deprived." Recent research has revealed
that much special knowledge is required for teach-
ers to be successful and do an adequate job in the
teaching of such children. Because teacher train-
ing is inadequate for these areas, it becomes the
responsibility of the school district to continue
the education of the teachers through an inservice
program.

Certain types of inservice activities have proven
to be most useful and helpful to teachers. It is
our intent to:

a.

Provide for teachers to attend professional
workshops and conferences

Provide services of people who can interpret
research findings and suggest ways to alter
instructional practices to make use of the
findings

Provide for staff workshops to help teachers
clarify purposes and goals and choose in-
structional materials appropriate for accom-
plishing stated purposes and goals

 

g l/2_Inservice SpeEialist, 40 weEks, to work on
shared basis with non-public schools

-138-

d. Provide for the availability of current
magazines, books, and/or other reading
material '

e. Provide Speakers who can help teachers better
understand the children in the areas of con-
cern

f. Develop definite methods of helping children
to improve their self-images and feelings of
worth in a class atmOSphere where they can
experience success.

In general, the inservice education program planned
specifically for the target area schools should
develop, interpret, and promote a better under-
standing of the social and educational forces which
influence the lives of the children in depressed
areas.

Implementing the Research Prggram via Services
of_a Research SpeEialist

 

One of the important aspects of the program will
be the acquisition of knowledge concerning the
effects of the project as it is implemented in
the eight selected elementary schools. The
research phase of the program will attempt to
measure these effects.

Questions which will be of primary concern to
those engaged in the program research will be:

a. Will increased instructional time in reading
and arithmetic measurably affect pupil achieve-
ment in these subject areas?

b. To what extent will increased school social
work services improve pupil adjustment to
the school setting and achievement in the
basic Skills subjects of reading and arith-
metic?

In order to implement the research aspect of the
program, a half-time research specialist will be
employed. His primary responsibility will be to
work in the selected schools in the administration
of achievement tests and research instruments and
in data gathering. He will also work with the

two non-public schools involved in the program

in order to gather appropriate achievement data

in reading and arithmetic for educationally dis-
advantaged children enrolled in these schools.

 

 

 

-139—

He will work cooperatively with the Research and
Testing Services Department of the Flint Public
Schools in data analysis and in dissemination

of research findings.3

B. Non-Public Schools

 

1. Providing Services for Non-Public Schools

 

This program is offered to non-public schools
located in the target area as outlined in
Title 1.

Through the years, public and non-public schools
in Flint have shared in many services, including
use of items from the Instructional Materials
Center, library resources, diagnostic services,
Speech correction, and health services. In plan-
ning the program for Title I, conferences were
held with representatives of the non-public and
Flint Community Schools with the following agree-
ments being reached:

 

a. Develop a cooperative prOposal rather than
separate programs

b. Concentrate on the elementary schools (1-6
for public schools; 1-8 for non-public)

c. Emphasize the areas of reading and arithmetic
d. Share services as follows:

1) and 2) Improving Reading in the Early
Elementary Years and Reading and
Arithmetic in the Later Elementary
Grades

Any elementary child living within
the boundaries set by Flint Board

of Education action for the local
school may be enrolled in that school
to benefit from the special program
for improvement in reading and arith-
metic. '

3) Providing Instructional Leadership
via the Reading and Arithmetic
Specialists

 

3 ‘1/2 Résearch Specialist,_40 weeks

-140-

One reading and one arithmetic

Specialist will be available to
work with teachers of these two
subjects in non-public schools

on a shared basis.

4) Correlating Reading and Arith-
metic Instruction with the Total
Instructional Program in Each
School via Instructional
Specialists

Two instructional specialists will
be available for consultation and
inservice education to non-public
schools on a part-time basis.

'F 1.1.3143

5) Facilitating the Learning Process
in Reading and Arithmetic by
Providing Social Adjustment Ser-
vices via the School Social Worker

One school social worker will be
provided to work in non-public
schools.

6) Making Optimum Use of Instructional
Time by Assistance of Clerical Aides
to Help Teachers

Eleven clerical aides will be
available to help teachers in non-
public schools.

7) Implementing an Inservice Program

Non-public school personnel may
participate in the inservice pro-
grams provided to the public
schools.

Providing Instructional and Testing Materials
Instructional materials and equipment will be

loaned on the same basis per building as pro-.
vided to public schools.

 

III.

IV.

—141-

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

A necessary element of this project consists of the
materials and equipment which will be used by teachers
in the daily task of teaching the children. The follow-
ing basic guidelines will be followed with regard to

the purchase and use of teaching materials and equipment:

A.

Emphasis will be placed on printed materials and
aids in addition to the basic and supplementary

texts now in use.

Fresh and different approaches will be used to
stimulate learning.

A variety of teaching methods will characterize each
class; e.g., each child following the procedure to

which he responds best.

The tools of teaching in each classroom will be
varied and sufficient to allow prompt and appro-
priate change of activities on an individual

basis.

A high degree of exploration of different materials
and techniques will be encouraged.

PHYSICAL FACILITIES

To carry out the preceding proposals, it is necessary to
provide:

A.

Eighteen Mobile Units

These are one-room classrooms to be installed on 8
school sites adjacent to the buildings, as follows:

Clark 2 Kennedy 2
Dort 4 Parkland 2
Doyle 2 Roosevelt 2
Lincoln 2 Stewart 2

Early elementary children, in a self-contained organi-
zation, will be assigned to these units, thus

freeing classroom space in the main building for.
lower class load in later elementary grades.

Eighteen Redesigned Rooms

Eighteen classrooms in the following schools will be
redesigned:

:1...‘

‘_i;:: _

~142-

Clark 2 Kennedy 2
Bart 4 Parkland 2
Doyle 2 Roosevelt 2
Lincoln 2 Stewart 2

Each of the above designated classrooms will be
divided into three sound-proof sections to house
small groups of children for instruction in reading

and arithmetic.

v. PROGRAM COORDINATION .7

The Title I program will be operated within the existing
framework of the Flint Community Schools under the super- 1
vision of the Associate Superintendent of the K-12 Division. g,
The responsibility for planning and implementing this pro- '
gram will be charged to the Office of Elementary Education.

An elementary consultant, assigned to the Director of
Elementary Education, will carry out the details of opera-
tion, working in an advisory capacity and cooperatively
with principals, staff members, non-public school repre-

sentatives, and lay persons.

A secretary for the consultant will be added to assume the
additional clerical duties.§

VI. RESEARCH DESIGN AND EVALUATION

Evaluation of the program will be concerned primarily with
pupil achievement in reading and arithmetic.

The present systemwide standardized achievement testing
program at the elementary level of the Flint Public Schools
includes administration of appropriate Science Research
Associates Multilevel Achievement Tests at the close of

the third year and at the beginning of the sixth grade.
These tests include objective measures in reading and in
arithmetic, which are reported in grade equivalent scores

and percentile scores.

In order to make it possible to dovetail the Title I Pro-
gram evaluation with the on-going Flint school achieve—
ment testing program, the SRA Multilevel tests will be
used in the fourth, fifth, and Sixth grades of the '
selected schools. Sections of the tests related to
reading and arithmetic will be administered at the be-
ginning and end of the school year for each grade in
each of the Flint schools involved in the program.

 

3 1 Consultant, 48 weeks
1 Secretary, 48 weeks

~143-

At the early elementary level, appropriate reading tests
will be selected and administered on a pre- and post—

test basis.

Each year for the duration of the project, test data
will be gathered for all grades 1-6 children in the
program schools. Data processing services will be
employed to analyze this data. Particular attention
will be given to gains made by the portion of children
in these schools, who are educationally disadvantaged.

In addition to the above general studies, Special case
studies will be made of a random sample of educationally
disadvantaged children who have major contacts with the

school social worker.

During the past two years, the Research Services Depart-
ment of the Flint Public Schools has been conducting

a research study concerning the self-concept, motiva-
tion for learning, personal need structure, and school
adjustment of a sample of children who will be in the
Title I Program. This study will be continued and re-
lated to the findings concerning achievement in reading

and arithmetic.

Finally, teacher Observations of the educationally dis-

advantaged children in their classrooms will be solicited

through instruments to be devised by the Research Ser-
vices Department. These findings will be incorporated
in the total evaluation of the program.

.4 .1

~‘.- 1:24. .1~-.

"it ‘_

-144-

VII. BUDGETL BALANCE OF 1965-66 ACADEMIC YEAR

 

Item 10--Project Budget-~Non-Construction

100

200

300

600

1100

1220C

Item (as listed on Application Form) Salaries Other

Administration $ 21,776 $ 705

1 Consultant for Program
Coordination, 1 Secretary,
1 Reading Specialist, 1
Arith. Specialist, 1/2 In-
service Specialist, 1/2
Research Specialist.
Other=Car Allowance

Instruction 196,675 120
8 Bldg. Instructional Special-

ists; 53 1/2 teachers, with

approximately 40 percent

employed immediately upon pro-

gram approval; balance phased

in during remainder of school

year. Other=Car Allowance for

2 Instructional Specialists.

Attendance Service 30,400
19 Clerical Aides-—8 for

Public Schools, 11 for Non-

Public Schools

Operation Plant 2,800 1,200
Mobile units added to provide
necessary classroom space.

Community Services 27,500 900
9 School Social Workers--8 for

Public Schools, 1 for Non-Public

Schools. Estimate of Employment:
Approximately 30% employed upon

program approval; balance employed
throughout remainder of academic

year, as staff becomes available.

Other=Car Allowance.

Minor Remodeling* 48,600
Remodeling of 18 classrooms to

make stations needed for small-

group instruction for later

elementary program.

Total

$22,481

196,795

30,400

4,000

28,400

48,600

 

*Classroom remodeling willwbe in compliance with’MiEhigan

State Building Code.

4.;

-145-

Budget continued

1230 Initial or Additional Equipment
53 teachers' desks 5 chairs--
$6,095. Curriculum materials
and equipment--$119,342.

Other

Inservice Education=$4,000.
Research materials 8 data
processing--$4,000.

TOTAL Item 10, Project Budget

Salaries Other Total

125,437 125,437

8,000 8,000

$279,151 184,962 464,113

 

FACILITIES Amount Total

Item l6-B--Proposed Facilities
1210C Site Preparation & Improvements $40,000 $40,000
Purchase, bldg. demolition, 8
grading of 4 lots-~2 each ad-
jacent to school sites at
Kennedy School and Doyle School.
These school facilities are
inner-city schools located
near downtown area with extreme-
ly limited site and completely
inadequate playground area.

1220B Erection of New Structures.* 216,000 216,000
Purchase, installation &
furnishing of 18 mobile units
to be used primarily by edu-
cationally disadvantaged pupils
in early elementary phase of
the program. Furnishings con-
sist of children's desks &
chairs, classroom tables,
necessary added storage cabi-
nets. Needed teacher desks
and chairs included in Item
10-1230.

 

TOTAL Item l6B-Facilities 256,000 256,000

*Erection of mobile units will be in compliance with Michigan
State Building Code.

-l46-

 

 

 

TOTAL ALL PROGRAM COSTS AMOUNT

Item lO---Project Cost--Non Construction $464,113

Item l6B--Facilities 256,000
$720,113

TOTAL ALL PROGRAM COSTS

 

l.

Clarification of Budget Item l6B-1220B--Purchase of 18
Mobile Units

a. Mobile Units are required to enable the Flint Com-
munity Schools to put the Title I Program into opera-
tion. Enrollment at all eight target elementary
schools is already at building capacity. Four of
these schools now have mobile unit installations for

our current program.

Our Title I Program was deliberately designed to re-
quire a minimum of additional classroom space, be-
cause of the problem of already crowded conditions.
(For example, because of limited classroom space,
team teaching and provision for several small-group
instructional activities in one room became the
major aSpect of the program design, rather than
measurable reduction in pupil-teacher ratio. With-
out the addition of the 18 mobile units, the Flint
Schools could not carry out the program.

The possibility of rental of Space in churches,
vacant stores, and other facilities in the target
area was explored and rejected. Many such facili-
ties do not qualify, or qualify only minimally,
under the Michigan Fire Code. In addition, such
facilities as are available in the area are re-
garded as being undesirable settings for a full-
time grades l—6 instructional program for the
duration of the 3-year project.

b. Purchase, rather than rental, of the mobile units
from the 1965-66 budget is essential to put the
program into effect on a sound financial basis
for a 3-year period.

In order to plan adequately for the program, it was
necessary to examine the cost of the program for

2.

~147-

the 1966-67 and 1967-68 school years as well as for
the balance of the 1965-66 academic year. When the
program is fully implemented in September 1966, it
is estimated that staff costs alone will take 93.9
ercent of the anticipated monies available
($720,000) and that this percentage will increase
to an estimated 97 percent in 1967-68. This would
make it impossible to plan for rental fees in the
1966-67 and 1967-68 academic years. Careful plan—
ning, therefore, dictated the need for purchase of
mobile units from the 1965-66 budget.

Clarification of Item l6B-1210C--Acquisition of Property
Adjacent to Two School Sites

Acquisition of four lots is essential to provide
classrooms for the program at Doyle and Kennedy
Elementary Schools, both of which are inner-city
schools located near the downtown area. They are
overcrowded and have extremely limited sites.

There is no way that classrooms needed for the
program can be provided for the educationally dis-
advantaged children in these schools without the
addition of more land. Acquisition of prOperty in
these areas necessitates purchase of houses, which
can be obtained for a relatively moderate cost.
Demolition and site grading will proceed immediately
upon project approval and after purchase of property.

Mobile units for the operation of the program will
be installed on these Sites, and, as stated on page
17, these units, as well as all other units, will
be used by educationally disadvantaged pupils in
the early elementary phase of the program.

VIII. APPENDIX

(Appendix to Title I prOposal)

-"‘*"‘*:—.r, _

!L

A. SELECTION OF SCHOOLS ACCORDING TO GUIDELINES FOR TITLE I
OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT

1.

Criteria for Selection of Schools

The two criteria used for identifying the target
schools were as follows: L

a.

b.

The percent of families with incomes of less
than $2,000

The percent of children who are educationally
disadvantaged as indicated by low achievement

Procedure Used in the Selection of Schools

a.

The 1960 United States Census Report for Flint,
Michigan, was used to obtain data on families
with less than $2,000 income. The percent of
families with less than $2,000 income was calcu-
lated for each of the 41 census tract areas in
the City of Flint. Then the census tract areas
were related to the school attendance areas in
order to determine the a proximate percent of
families with less than $2,000 income for each
individual school. This is reported in column 1
of the List of Schools on the following two
pages. Schools are ranked from highest to lowest
percent of low income families.

Results of the 1965 system-wide achievement test-
ing program were used to obtain data on achieve-
ment levels by individual schools. Local system
percentile norms were used to calculate the scores
which are within the lowest quartile in terms of
achievement. Next, individual building reports
of scores were used to determine the percent of
children in each school who are achieveing in

the lowest quartile on the basis of system-wide
achievement records. These percents are reported
in the List of Schools on pages 20 and 21.
Schools are ranked from highest to lowest percent
of pupils achieving in the lowest quartile.

To determine greatest to least need on the basis
of both criteria, the schools were regrouped on
the basis of an average of the rank orders re-
ported in columns 1 and 2 of the List of Schools.

-149-

 

-150-

This average of ranks for each school is re-
ported in column 3 on pages 20 and 21. The
eight elementary schools which rank lowest in
column 3 constitute the list of target schools
for the Title I Program. It has already been
indicated in the footnote on page 5 why Fairview
Elementary School is not included in this pro-
gram even though it ranks among the lowest.
Also, on this same page is a reference to the

reason why secondary schools are not a part of
the proposed program.

In the case of the non—public schools, one
(St. Michael's Parochial School) is physically
located within the target area and has a com-
paratively high proportion of pupils living

in this area. Although the second non-public
school (Sacred Heart Parochial School) is
physically located somewhat to the north of
the target area, a relatively high proportion
of their student body lives within the area.
Grades K-8 are designated as being a part of
the Title I Program in these non-public schools
because they designate their elementary grades

as including grades 7 and 8 as well as grades
K—6.

.—.uJ.—p—r<n.— ¥~NU ZAvv—n—

>Vu<A~W~OUv~ a”

A~7RIV

\fV— Ix.

III..\.- 4.1 I]!

-.Zu.-¢.n~.~...~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MMHMW .EmHm :omfio>0um «N NN
.EOHm vHoamumo .EmHm .
. . . MN 3000 O .
mmomw BMHN $12504 NN MM. fiwflm .HOflGDh. HMHUUHSE mimw ¢.w .EGHM GHHHNE m..MN
mN.m stm Hmuucoo HN om :mHm HOHCSH ucmmum m.NN W.w .amHm hupcau m.MN
o. H .amam 980 ON 0 .emam compass m.om e.m .amam mazes m.a~
omH oBEUHm: mowH NM camflm mflmwmaom moON wow 0 cemiflm >m3mg moHN
o.wH .EeHm eomuewomm m.mH mm .EmHm sec m.wH H.m amHm eouamnm: oN
mm.NH .EOHm domumHm NH .SOHm meaHMoz m.mH m.m anm euonuuoz mH
mN RH stm .uh no u . mm .EmHm umXHmz .EmHm xmo wH
. a pass m mH m . AH m.m Ema
mN NH .Eon mHmmeom m.mH M BOHM uHm>mmoom 0H o.OH .m HOHMUH domumam NH
o.NH :me euocuuoz «H HM m stm eumcuuoz mH N.OH .MmHm Hmnucoo 0H
m mH anm HOHd3fi somumem m n H: HOHGDH domumem «H «.0H . Hm fiomumHm mH
NINA. .50 > H mm .EmHm HHHUHQZ m. . EMHM mHmwmfiom «A
_ o.sH . Hm 8309 NH mm .EmHm eHow we .NH m 0H swam seesaw Hamsoa mH
1 . SMHM HUMAN?» HH Haw . m U m NH MTHH Imwlmm HOHGSH. .HNHUU
Nu mN HH anm HOchw HHOSOH OH Nq EOHm somHOMHOh HH n.HH .BOHm umxmmm NH
_ mmnm .aeHm uHm>omoom m we swam pumwm uumwwum mum H.NH .eoam somem>0um MM
o.m .EmHm uHmSQum m we . .EmH fiGHWo OH m m «.MH .EmHm uum30um m.w
c-n .ame.eHoucHa e on .aeHm mama m.n H.eH .amHm eHooeHa m.e
mn.q .EOHm vameHmm m «m .8@ HM xumHo c H.¢H .EOHm upon m.o
m.m .EOHm 3mH>uHmm m mm mm 30H>mem m.e o.mH .EOHm >an¢mm e
o.m .88 s we amHm mHsoo m m.o~ .EmHm uam>mmoom .
Hm u com N mm .EOHm m memo m N
o.~ .emHm mHsoa H 4mm .5 e m N m.o~ .emam sma>uamm m.N
,1; . mHm upon H Nm.HN .EOHm OHMOQ
11w H
m cHxamm N
o mmmumP lmd o IIIIIIII Illllllllllllll .llllllll lllllllllllllll
11m 4 H s m we mamz xcmm unmouom Hoonom mo mamz xemm unmouom Hoozom mo mamz Ream
N mam H measHou Amauoz OHHuaoouom Amsmcoo oomHv osoon
. H OOQNm cmsu mmoq
:H mxcmm mo owmum>¢ Emumzm Hoonom so pmmmmv OHHuumao nuHB mmHHHamm mo ucoonom Oumaonumm<
umm3OH onu :H wcH>OHno<
m mumEonwmm<

 

92¢ Amamzmu oomH

HmMHfimmw 20mm

cmvaHso mo undone

Amaqammm Emmy Hzmzm>
v one<>H
.»m<ezoomm nz<

MHEU< mmev Hzm

mmmm UHZOzoum wHH
wm<82m2mqm

 
 

zm>
24m 2H amm
.maoomOm no

mHmU< HHmDm 30H
2 Hm<mH OH
< m0 HmHH .m

 

I
.w. 5 I .
lilhtlullfi .4 1|.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o. .
O.NM WMWNMGMMMWWMM mm m .EmHm comumwc< em q.H
. o .8
mN.om .EmHm HHmezoum m amHm HHHpumz mm N.N . mHm nomumee< em
m. . Nm 0 .EmHm usoum . EOHm BOHHmmwcoq mm
me Eme uauumnuamz nuHoz m Hm N.N .
. . Am. 0 .Em . EmHm OUHOHm Nm
mN we .Em % m Hm HHmc3oum m Hm w.N . .
. Hm DH m om N .50Hm mweaea . aeNm oweNNooo Hm
mn.ne .EmHm SONHmNNeoq as. n . . so m.ms m.m .Emam spasm 0.84
mN.Ne .EmHm mupmam we m .ememssmou m.me m.m .50Hm HHHuomz o.mq
mN.mq .Eme mwGHEEDU nq m .80 meEnHmm n.5q m.m .EmHm HHmc30pm o.mq
mm.qq .Eme cmammum we NH .Ww mwwm M.mq ©.m .SmHm GNEMOEEHN no
mN.¢¢ .eOHm wmom uOucomumu me NH .EOHm xuwm wu>am o.mw N.m .EOHm udowosuHoz m.mq
mN.Hq .BmHm Xumm OH>H0 «q NH .EmHm wood Hmmcmwumu o.mq N.m .EOHM >0HGHMOE m.mq
.D.Hn. .EOHm wwmeoou mu MH .8 . U . m.m .EmHm monom m.mq
N mm Hm >mnom m He NH .EmHm BOHHomwcoq m.Nq H. .
mN.mm .EeNm Samoan m.Ne mN .90 m seems we as s amNm assumes Ne
. . H H: 3 m.q .EOHm mwGHEBDu He
mN mm amNm Neoe 08 SN .90 we as
o.wm .eOHm cmEumEEHN . Hm uuom . N.¢ .EOHm uamuda oq
m.om .EmHm uuowm mm NH EmHm comcm>mum m.mm m.q .BmHm 3000 mm
m.mm .EOH couwc mm mm NH .BmHm usmudn m mm m.m stm .Hh dmawmaSHN m.nm
. w .w c H; .3 NM NH. :NHE..MH BOHHomwcoa mm m.m .EOHm Jumm OH>HU m.nm
_ O.mm M HI. W NEHMMEHN mm OH .EmHm %0£Om O.mm m.m fiwfim .HH mmaflom om
Mu mN.sm e am am aoaNeN eon mm SN swam .uH smNeHzoz o.mm o.e .emNm eamauueo mm
11 o.qm EOHM uouuom m.mm mH .EmHm zuvesu o.mm o.n ame cpoumOBSuuoz em
. o «m ENHm .NH smHeNMuz m.mm oN emNm .ue easemeeNN m.Nm m.N swam .HH smNchoz . mm
o.Nm .EmHm mecHMoz m.Hm ON :mHm Cumumoznusom m.Nm w.n :me .uh soHHOHNGOH m.Hm
o.Nm .emHm soon n.4n AN .amHm,0meHHeoo Hm m.~. swan Howesn Semmum m.Nm
m.Hm anm HOHCDN mmEHom om mN .EmHm smaumaaHN o.aN $.N coudesmmz om
m.mN swam eumomezsuuoz SN MN .EmNm eouNmNm: o.sN o.w .EQNN uuoum oHNN
mN.mN .emNm seesaw NN MN swam sausage o.SN o.w .smNm season o.mN
o.NN swam Noaesm seescm NN SN swam posses mmaNom NN o.w .aeNm seoo o NN
o.mN anm cumumOSSunom 0N NN ENH: cuoumm3£uuoz o.mN H.m anm auoumoznudom 0N
m.QN .EOHm couHoumm mN NNN .EOHm mHsoA o.mN NN.w .EOHm commemmmh mN
Ill 1111111! 11111111111111: 1111111: 111111111111!!!
Imwcchmm N mmdsom we osmz xcmm unmopmm Hoonom mo mamz seem unmouom Hoonom mo oemz xcmm
LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Amememo oeaHv oeoueH oOONm awesommmw

mo mwmum><

 

:H mxcmm mo mmmum>¢

LIIIlIIllllllllllilllilltlllii
N cam H maESHoo

  

AmEuoz OHHuaummmm

aoumxm Hoonom co pommmv OHH
qumso umm3OH mnu a
coupHHnu mo unmouom o

H meN>mHeo<
umEonumm<

sows mmaNNeem

   

M O uflmUMQnH mumaflun

APPENDIX B

 

The Number of Students and Teachers by Race

APPENDIX B-l

for All Elementary Schools During

the Second Phase of the Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m m U) U) U) m
+4 In +4 H H i-a
H = .8 98 18 48 38
8 3% +40 0'6 00 «3'6 (130
e -~= “8 98 28 88 88
a £3 £9 mm me em we
Title I Schools
1 10 20 521 11 531 31
2 59 20 1,236 34 1,295 54
3 43 15 515 13 558 28
4 29 7 469 19 498 26
5 314 21 109 3 423 24
6 4 8 550 21 554 29
7 7 9 494 15 501 24
8 9 16 636 18 645 34
Non-Title I Schools
9 156 17 d—944 22 1,100 39
10 10 7 311 14 321 21
11 27 25 821 15 848 40
12 29 22 1,058 21 1,087 43
13 269 15 185 10 454 25
All Other Schools
14 828 28 0 1 828 29
15 359 12 1 2 360 14
16 823 30 5 2 828 32
17 630 25 0 1 630 26
18 551 31 341 0 892 31
19 521 16 0 2 521 18
20 582 24 15 1 597 25
21 538 44 39 0 577 44
22 530 20 s 3 535 23
23 951 29 1 1 952 30

-154-

 

-lSS-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B-l -- continued

U) U) U) U) :1) Cl)

H H H $4
'3 88 8.8 .95 .1233 HE S
0 HT) HU UT) DU (6"!) '31:)
8 :23 :58 88 88 88 “8
U) 3U) 3E—1 mm not—4 [-803 [SE—4

All Other Schools--continued
24 228 16 816 23 1,044 39
25 976 34 125 2 1,101 36
26 985 29 2 2 987 31
27 535 22 2 1 537 23
28 400 15 0 1 400 16
29 561 21 0 0 561 21
30 323 10 0 0 323 10
31 721 26 0 0 721 26
32 687 26 0 1 687 27
33 373 17 124 2 497 19
34 894 44 498 5 1,392 49
35 1,018 37 0 2 1,018 39
36 442 21 151 3 593 24
37 707 22 0 1 707 23
38 663 26 0 0 663 26
39 490 19 5 2 495 21
40 182 14 164 3 346 17
41 708 23 1 0 709 23
42 283 12 0 0 283 12
43 535 19 0 1 535 20

 

 

APPENDIX B-Z

The Average Age, Training, and Teaching Experience
of Teachers in All Elementary Schools
During the First Phase of the Study

 

 

School Total Average Average Years Average Years
Teachers Age of Training of Experience

 

Title I Schools

 

 

 

 

 

1 22 36 4.2 8
2 45 31 3.9 5
3 23 33 3.8 5
4 19 29 4.2 4
5 18 39 4.2 10
6 18 32 4.2 6
7 18 35 4.3 8
8 27 38 4.5 9

Non-Title I Schools
9 35 32 4.2 7

10 14 37 4.3 7

11 33 44 4.4 12

12 38 36 4.2 8

13 17 38 4.0 9

All Other Schools

14 26 33 4.1 7

15 10 37 4.2 7

16 23 46 4-3 16

17 20 46 4.1 14

18 28 40 4-2 11

19 17 46 4.3 16

20 22 46 4.4 14

21 13 43 4.2 14

22 -- -- ' ‘

23 32 41 4.4 11

-156-

 

filly?

-157-

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B-2 -- continued
School Total Average Average Years Average Years
Teachers Age of Training of Experience
All Other Schools -- contirued
24 28 38 3.9 9
25 33 35 4.1 7
26 30 43 4.2 14
27 30 34 4.1 8
28 -- -- ' - 7‘
29 15 53 4.2 25
30 11 53 4.7 23
31 25 38 4.2 9
32 23 40 4.2 11
33 19 48 4.4 17
34 43 40 3.9 13
35 34 39 4.3 11
36 18 42 4.2 12
37 21 42 4.5 15
38 16 37 4.0 8
39 14 37 4.1 8
4O 13 43 4.4 10
41 22 44 4.0 13
42 17 50 4.3 20
43 18 40 4.2 11
44 9 43 4.3 10

 

 

 

' \\

APPENDIX C

 

Teacher's Number

School

 

PERSONAL HISTORY DATA SHEET

Instructions:

The Personal History Data Sheet is designed to accompany
the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. It consists of
eight questions. Check only one answer for each question,
the answer which most accurately applies to you. Fill in
apprOpriate numbers for all three blanks in Question 6.

You will note that there is an identification number
on this page which corresponds to the number on your MTAI
answer sheet. Do not write your name on either page.

 

1. Sex: female ______ male _____
2. Race: black ______ white

3. Marital Status: single _____ married

4. Age: thirty or under ______over thirty

5. Professional Training:

Less than a bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree

Bachelor's degree pIus, but less than a master's

Master's degree or more

6. Teaching Experience:

a. Total years not including practice teach1ng or
internship

b. Total years with this system

c. Total years in this building

7. Grade(s) 1eve1(s) being taught:

4th

5th ‘ .

6th 1 5
4th and Sth""
4th and 6th

4th, 5th, and 6th
5th and 6th" "

-159-

 

-l60-'

8. Subject(s) being taught:

reading
arithmetlc
homeroom
self-contained classroom

 

 

DO NOT OPEN UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO

 

MINNESOTA TEACHER ATTITUDE
INVENTORY

 

Form A
WALTER W. COOK CARROLL H. LEEDS ROBERT CALLIS
University of Minnesota Furman University University of Missouri
DIRECTIONS

This inventory consists of 150 statements designed to sample Opinions
about teacher-pupil relations. There is considerable disagreement as to what
these relations should he; therefore, there are no right or wrong answers.
What is wanted is your own individual feeling about the statements. Read
each statement and decide how YOU feel about it. Then mark your answer
on the space provided on the answer sheet. Do not make any marks on
this booklet.

 

SA A U D SD
If you strongly agree, blacken space under ”SA” ...................................................... :: .. .. ::
5A A U 0 50

If you agree, blacken space under "A" ..........................................................................

$1 0
If you are undecided or uncertain, blacken space under "U” .................................... 53 55 | 55
SA A U D 50
If on ' “ " ........................ . ............ $3 55
y disagree, blacken space under D ................................ SA A U 50

122:: U -

If YOU Strongly disagree, blacken space under "SD” .. ..................................................

 

 

Think in terms of the general situation rather than specific ones. There
is no time limit, but work as rapidly as you can. PLEASE RESPOND

TO EVERY ITEM.

The inventory contained in this booklet has been designed for use with answer forms
published or authorized by The Psychological Corporation. If other answer forms are used,
The Psychological Corporation takes no responsibility for the meaningfulness of scores.

Copyright 1951 by The Psychological Corporation.

All rights reserved. N 0 part of this inventory may be reproduced in
any form of printing or by any Other means, electronic or mechanical,
including, but net limited to, phOtocopying, audiovisual recprding and
transmission, and portrayal or duplication in any information storage
and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Pa...“ in U'S'A- The Psychological Corporation. 304 East 458: street. New York. N. Y. 10017 6644378

 

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

SA—Strongly agree
A—Agree

Most children are obedient.

Pupils who “act smart” probably have too
high an opinion of themselves.

Minor disciplinary situations should sometimcs
be turned into jokes.

Shyness is preferable to boldness.
Teaching never gets monotonous.

Most pupils don’t appreciate what a teacher
does for them.

If the teacher laughs with the pupils in amus-
ing classroom situations, the class tends to get
out of control.

A child’s companionships can be too carefully
supervised.

A child should be encouraged to keep his likes
and dislikes to himself.

It sometimes does a child good to be criticized
in the presence of other pupils.

Unquestioning obedience in a child is not
desirable.

Pupils should be required to do more studying
at home.

The first lesson a child needs to learn is to
obey the teacher without hesitation.

c\l’aoung people are difficult to understand these
ya.

There is too great an emphasis upon “keeping
order” in the classroom.

U—Undecided

or uncertain

16.

17.

18.

19.

21.

25.

26.

27.

28.

30.

D—Disagree
SD—Strongly disagree

A pupil’s failure is seldom the fault of the
teacher.

There are times when a teacher cannot be
blamed for losing patience with a pupil.

A teacher should never discuss sex problems
with the pupils.

Pupils have it too easy in the modern school.

A teacher should not be expected to burden
himself with a pupil’s problems.

Pupils expect too much help from the teacher
in getting their lessons.

A teacher should not be expected to sacrifice
an evening of recreation in order to visit a
child’s home.

Most pupils do not make an adequate effort
to prepare their lessons.

Too many children nowadays are allowed to
have their own way.

Children’s wants are just as important as those
of an adult.

The teacher is usually to blame when pupils
fail to follow directions.

A child should be taught to obey an adult
without question.

The boastful child is usually over-confident of
his ability.

Children have a natural tendency to be unruly.

A teacher cannot place much faith in the state-
ments of pupils.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

31”.

 

31.

32.

33.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

41.

42.

43.

45.

SA—Strongl y agree
A—Agree

Some children ask too many questions.

A pupil should not be required to stand when
reciting.

The teacher should not be expected to man-

age a child if the latter’s parents are unable
to do so.

A teacher should never acknowledge his ig-
norance of a topic in the presence of his pupils.

Discipline in the modern school is not as strict
as it should be.

Most pupils lack productive imagination.
Standards of work should vary with the pupil.

The. majority of children take their responsi-
bilities seriously.

To maintain good discipline in the classroom
a teacher needs to be “hard-boiled.”

Success is more motivating than failure.

Imaginative tales d

ema d .
ment as lying, n the same Punish-

Every pupil in the sixth

sixth grade reading abilitygrade should have

A good motivating device is th ' '
ari f . , . e critical com-
Sup i812.“ o a pupil s work With that of other

It is better for a child to b

“boy or girl crazy.” e bashful than to be

Course grades

punishment, should never be lowered as

U—Undecided

or uncertain

48.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

55.

59.

57.

58.

59.

80.

D—Disagree
SD—Strongly disagree.

fl

More “old-fashioned whippings” are needed ‘

today.
The child must learn that “teacher knows best”

Increased freedom in the classroom creates
confusion.

A teacher should not be expected to be syn
pathetic toward truants.

Teachers should exercise more authority over
their pupils than they do.

Discipline problems are the teacher’s greatest
worry.

The low achiever probably is not working hard
enough and applying himself.

There is too much emphasis on grading.

Most children lack common courtesy toward
adults.

Aggressive children are the greatest problems

At times it is necessary that the whoilseglé“
sufl'er when the teacher is unable to
the culprit.

.11 their
Many teachers are not severe enough‘

dealings with pupils.
Children “should be seen and not heard-

t a M
A teacher should always have at leas
failures.

. - - ems than
It is easier to correct disenpline Pmbl

it is to prevent them.

E
GO on TO THE NEXT FAG

 

Tl:

 

62.

F'qf
' .‘ 85
O

67.

. 68.

A
.m-" "f

. 69.

......

6"?

,,,,,

Sfi—itrongly agree U—Undecided D—Disagree
— gree or uncertain SD—Strongly disagree
81. Children are usually too sociable in the class- 76. There is too much leniency today in the hand-
room. ling of children.
Most pupils are resourceful when left on 77. Difficult disciplinary problems are seldom the
their own. fault of the teacher.
_ 78. The whims and im ulsive desires of h'ld
63. Too much no - p . c ’ ten
rooms these d233,)” goes on m many class are usually worthy of attention.
79. Children usually have a hard time followin
64. The school is often to blame in cases of truancy. instructions. g
Children are too carefree. 80. Children nowadays are allowed too much free-
dom in school.
66. Pupils who fail to prepare their lessons daily -
should be kept after school to make this prep- 81° gllsg‘l’iélglren should start to read by the age
aration. '
Pupils who are foreigners usually make the 82. Universal promotion of pupils lowers achieve-
teacher’s task more unpleasant. ment standards.
Most children would like to use good English. 83. Children are unable to reason adequately.
. . . . . 84. A teacher should not tolerate use of slang
As3igning additional school work is often an - - ~
effective means of punishment. expressrons by his pupils.
. 85. The child who misbehaves should be made to
70. Dishonesty as found in cheating is probably feel guilty and ashamed of himself.
one of the most serious of moral offenses.
88. If a child wants to speak or to leave his seat
71. Children should be allowed more freedom in during the class period, he should always get
their execution of learning activities. per ““5510“ from the teac er.
- . ’ t t h more
72: Pupils must learn to respect teachers if for no 87' 3231;811:331 22:11:59“ eac ers any
other reason than that they are teachers. y '
. 88. Throwin of chalk and erasers should always
73. Children need not always understand the rea— demand gevere punishment.
sons for social conduct.
89. Teachers who are liked best probably have a
74‘ PuPilS usually are “0t qualified to 3919“ their better understanding of their pupils.
Own topics for themes and reports.
90. Most pupils try to make things easier for the
75. No child should rebel against authority. teacher.

GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE

 

91.

92.

94.

95.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

SA—Stron g1 y agree
A—Agree

Most teachers do not give sufficient explana-
tion in their teaching.

There are too many activities lacking in acad-
emic respectability that are being introduced

into the curriculum of the modern school.

Children should be given more freedom in the
classroom than they usually get.

Most pupils are unnecessarily thoughtless rel-
ative to the teacher’s wishes.

Children should not expect talking privileges
when adults wish to speak.

Pupils are usually slow to “catch on” to new
material.

Teachers are responsible for knowing the
home conditions of every one of their pupils.

Pupils can be very boring at times.

Children have

about sex. no “Sine“ asking Questions

Children must be told exac

how to do it. fly what t° d° and

Most pupils are considerate of their teachers.

Whispering should not be tolerated.

Shy pupils es eciall .
stand when refining,y should be reqmred to

Teachers should co °
duct more seriously magma. °f ‘0‘"

A teacher should :1
own management, we" leave the class to its

U—Undecided

or uncertain

D—Disagree
SD—Strongly disagree

fi

106. A teacher should not be expected to do more
work than he is paid for.

107. There is nothing that can be more irritating
than some pupils.

108. “Lack of application” is probably one of the
most frequent causes for failure.

109. Young people nowadays are too frivolous

110. As a rule teachers are too lenient with their
pupils.

111. Slow pupils certainly try one’s patience.

112. Grading is of value because of the competition
element.

113. Pupils like to annoy the teacher.
114. Children usually will not think for themselves

115. Classroom rules and regulations must be con-
sidered inviolable.

116. Most pupils have too easy a time Of it and (1°
not learn to do real work.

117. Children are so likeable that their shortcom-
ings can usually be overlooked.

111d
118. A pupil found writing obscene notes 511°
be severely punished.

119. A teacher seldom finds children really 93°"
able.

ch00]
120. There is usually one best way 1:0de 9
work which all pupils “hand f0 0 i

8
GO ON TO THE NEXT ”G

 

' I.
‘\.
. s: Elia.-
' _

l3. —

Le iii—'5

0""

1." ‘r
w

SA—Strongly agree
A—Agree

U—Undecided

or uncertain

D—Disagree
SD—Strongly disagree

 

121.

-‘ 122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

" 127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132.

h" 133.

134.

135.

It isn’t practicable to base school work upon
children’s interests.

It is difficult to understand why some chil-
dren want to come to school so early in the
morning before opening time.

Children that cannot meet the school stand-
ards should be drOpped.

Children are usually too inquisitive.

It is sometimes necessary to break promises
made to children.

Children today are given too much freedom.

One should be able to get along with almost
any child.

Children are not mature enough to make their
own decisions.

A child who bites his nails needs to be shamed.

Children will think for themselves if permit-
ted.

There is no excuse for the extreme sensitivity
of some children.

Children just cannot be trusted.

Children should be given reasons for the re-
strictions placed upon them.

Most pupils are not interested in learning-

It is usually the uninteresting and difficult
subjects that will do the pupil the most good.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

A pupil should always be fully aware of what
is expected of him.

There is too much intermingling of the sexes
in extra-curricular activities.

The child who stutters should be given the
Opportunity to recite oftener.

The teacher should disregard the complaints
of the child who constantly talks about imag-
inary illnesses.

Teachers probably over-emphasize the ser-
iousness of such pupil behavior as the writing
of obscene notes.

Teachers should not expect pupils to like
them.

Children act more civilized than do many
adults.

Aggressive children require the most atten-
tion.

Teachers can be in the wrong as well as
pupils.

Young people today are just as good as those
of the past generation.

Keeping discipline is not the problem that
many teachers claim it to be.

A pupil has the right to disagree openly with
his teachers.

Most pupil misbehavior is done to annoy the
teacher.

One should not expect pupils to enjoy school.

In u i1 appraisal efi‘ort .should not be dis-
tingiiiighed from scholarship.

lull;

v. a

'N 1921

BIBLIOGRAPHY

fl...—
) Ce ‘

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Best, John W. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-H511, Inc., 1959. um

Bloom, Benjamin 8., Allison Davis, and Robert Hess. Com-
pensatory Education for Cultural Deprivation. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and—Winston, Inc., 1965.

r...»..._; .
a .
I

Chandler, B. J., Lindley J. Stiles, and John I. Kitsuse
(eds.). Education in Urban Society. New York: Dodd,
Mead G Company, 1966.

Clark, Kenneth B. Dark Ghetto, Dilemmas of Social Power.
New York: Harper 8 ROW, Publishers, 1963.

Clark, Kenneth B. Prejudice and Your Child. 2d ed. Boston:
Beacon Press, 1963.

Coleman, James S. and others. Equality_of Educational Op-
ortunit . A publication of the National Center for

Educatlonal Statistics. Washington: U. 8. Government
Printing Office, 1966.

Ferguson, George A. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and
Education. New YErki McGraw-Hill BookfiCompany, Inc.,

1959.

 

Fullagar, William A., Hal G. Lewis, and Carroll F. Cumbee.

Readin s for Educational Psychology, New York:
Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1956.

Goodlad, John I., Renata Von Stoephasius, and M. Frances
Klein. The Changing School Curriculum. New York: The

Fund for the Advancement OT’Education, 1966.

Goodlad, John I. and Robert H. Anderson. The Nongradgd
Elementary School. Revised Edition. New York: Harcourt,

Brace 5 World, Inc., 1963.

 

-170-

-171-

Gordon, Edmund W. and Doxey A. Wilkerson. Compensatory

Education for the Disadvantaged; Programs and Practices:

PFeEcHOOI through College. New York? College Entrance
Examination Board, 1966.

Halsey, A. H., Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson (eds.).
Education, Economy, and Society, A Reader in the
Shciologygof_Education. New York: The Free Press of
Glencoe, l96l77

 

Haring, Norris G., George G. Stern, and William M. Cruick-
shank. Attitudes of Educators Toward Exceptional
Children. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press,ll958.

Kerber, August and Barbara Bommarito (eds.). The Schools
and the Urban Crisis, A Book of Readings. New Yorh?
Holt, Rinehhrt and—Wihston,—l96STR

Kvaraceus, William C. and Others. Negro Self-Concept,
Implications for School and Citizenship. New York:

McGraw-Hill B06? Company, 1965.

Lieberman, Myron. The Future of Public Education. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1960.

Melby, Ernest O. The Teacher and Learning. New York: The
Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963.

Passow, A. Harry (ed.). Education in Depressed Areas.
New York: Teachers College Press, 1963.

Rose, Arnold M. (ed.). Race Prejudice and Discrimination.
New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, 1951.

Rowland, Howard S. and Richard L. Wing. Federal Aid for
Schools, 1967-1968 Guide; The Complete Hindbooklfér
the Local School-District. New York: The Macmillan

Company, 1967.

Sexton, Patricia Cayo. Education and Income, Inggualities
in Our Public Schools. New York: The Viking Press,

I961.

 

Smiley, Marjorie B. and Harry L. Miller (eds.). Polic
Issues in Urbag Education. New York: The Free Press,

l968.

Strom, Robert D. (ed.). The Inner-Citnglassroom: Teacher
BehaviOrs. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc.,
1966.

 

’ 9...”

“spam I
i

-172-

Trubowitz, Sidney. A Handbook for Teaching in the Ghetto
School. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1968.

Webster, Staten W. (ed.). Knowing the Disadvantaged, Part I
of The Disadvantaged Learner. San FranCTEco: Chandler
deiidhing Company, 1966.

. Understanding the Educational Problems of the
DisadVantagedd'LearnerAL Part II of_The Disadvantaged
Learner. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company,

1966.

 

Educating the Disadvantaged Learner) Part III
of The Disadvantaged Learner. San Francisco: Chandler
Pdhlishing Company, T966.

 

Youth in the Ghetto, A Study of the Consequences of Power-
lessness and a Blueprint for Change. NewlYork:’Hdrl§m

Youth Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. (HARYOU), 1964.

Articles

Amidon, Edmund and Anita Simon. "Teacher-Pupil Interaction,"
Review of Educational Research, XXXV (April, 1965),

 

 

pp. l30-39.

Anderson, Lester W. "Teacher Morale and Student Achievement,"
Journal of Educational Research, XLVI (May, 1953), pp.
693-96.

Bettelheim, Bruno. "Teaching the Disadvantaged," NEA Journal,

 

LIV (September, 1965), pp. 8-12.

Boynton, Paul L. "An Analysis of the Responses of Women
Teachers on 3 Personality Inventory," Peabody Journal
of Education (July, 1942), pp. 13—8.

 

Brookover, Wilbur B., Shailer Thomas, and Ann Paterson.
"Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement,"
Sociology of Education, XXXVII, no. 3 (Spring, 1964),
pp. 271-78.

Caliguri, Joseph and Daniel U. Levine. "Relationships Between
Teachers' Views on Education and Their Socio-Economic
Attitudes,"'The Journal of Experimental Education, XXXV

(Summer, 1967), pp. 42-4.

Callis, Robert. "The Efficiency of the Minnesota Teacher
Attitude Inventory for Predicting Interpersonal Relations
in the Classroom," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVII

(November 2, 1953), pp. 82—5.

. ‘.-‘.°~ '- one. -".

~173-

Caplan, Nathan S. and Jeffery M. Paige. "A Study of Ghetto
Rioters,” Scientific American, CCXIX (August, 1968),
pp. 12, 15-2l.

 

Chase, Francis 8. "Factors for Satisfaction in Teaching,”
Phi Delta Kappan, XXXIII (November, 1951), pp. 127—34..

 

Clark, Elmer J. "The Relationship Between the Personality
Traits of Elementary School Teachers and Their Evalu—
ation of Objectionable Pupil Behavior," Journal of
Educational Research, LXV (September, 195l), pp. 61-6.

 

Cogan, Morris L. "Theory and Design of a Study of Teacher-
Pupil Interaction," Harvard Educational Review, XXVI
(Fall, 1956), pp. 315741.

Cook, Walter W., Cyril J. Hoyt and Alf Eikaas. "Studies
of Predictive Validity of the Minnesota Teacher Atti-
tude Inventory,” The Journal of Teacher Education,
VII (June, 1956), pp. 167-72.

Downie, N. M. and C. R. Bell. "The Minnesota Teacher Atti-
tude Inventory as an Aid in the Selection of Teachers,”
Journal of Educational Research, XLVI (May, 1953),
pp. 699-704.

Durflinger, Glenn W. "Recruitment and Selection of
Prospective Elementary and Secondary School Teachers,“
Review of Educational Research, XXXIII (October, 1963),
pp. 355-68.

Edwards, T. Bentley. "Teacher Attitudes and Cultural
Differentiation,” The Journal of Experimental Education,
XXXV (Winter, 1966):'pp. 80—92.

Gordon, Edmund W. ”Characteristics of Socially Disadvantaged
Children," Review of Educational Research, XXXV
(September, 1965), ppld377—88.

Hampton, Nellie Delight. "An Analysis of Supervisory Ratings
of Elementary Teachers Graduated from Iowa State Teachers

College," Journal of Experimental Education, XX (December,

1951), pp. T79-2l5.

-174-

Hinrichs, John R. and Louis A. Mischkind. "Empirical and
Theoretical Limitations of the Two-Factor Hypothesis
of Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology,
LI (April, 1967), pp. 191-200.

 

Jencks, Christopher. "Slums and Schools--I," The New
Republipy_CXLVlI (September 10, 1962), pp. 19-22.

 

Leeds, Carroll H. "A Second Validity Study of the Minnesota.
Teacher Attitude Inventory," The Elementary School
Journal, LII (March, 1952), pp. 398-105.

 

McClusky, Howard Y. and Floyd J. Strayer. "Reaction of
Teachers to the Teaching Situation -- A Study of Job
Satisfaction," The School Review, XLVIII (October, 1940),
pp. 612-23.

 

Martindale, Frank Edward. "Situational Factors in Teacher
Placement and Success," Journal of Experimental Educa-
tion, XX (December, 19517: pp. 121-77.

 

Neale, Daniel C. and John M. Proshek, "School-Related Atti-
tudes of Culturally Disadvantaged Elementary School
Children," Journal of Educational Psychology, LVIII
(1967), pp. 238-41.

 

Ofchus, Leon T. and William J. Gnagey. ”Factors Related to
the Shift of Professional Attitudes of Students in
Teacher Education," Journal of Educational Psychology,
LIV (1963), pp. 149-53)

 

Rich, John Martin. "How Social Class Values Affect Teacher-
Pupil Relations," The Journal of Educational Sociology,
A Magazine of Theory_and—Practide, XXXIII (May, 1960),
pp. 355-59.

 

 

Rocchio, Patrick D. and Nolan C. Kearney. "Using an Atti-
tude Inventory in Selecting Teachers," The Elementary
School Journal, LVI (October, 1955), pp. 76-8.

 

 

Rousseve, Ronald J. "Teachers of Culturally Disadvantaged
American Youth," qurnal of Negro Education, XXXII
(Spring, 1963), pp. 114-21.

 

Ryans, David G. "Assessment of Teacher Behavior and In-
struction," Review of Educational Research, XXXIII
(October, 1963), pp. 415-41.

 

Scates, Douglas. "With the Researchers," The Journal of
Teacher Education, VII (September, 1956), pp. 274779.

 

 

-17S-

Wade, Francis C., S.J. "Causality in the Classroom," in
Modern Schoolman. Edited by George P. Klubertanz, S.J.
Ahn Afhor: Cushing-Mallory, Inc. XXVIII (August, 1955),
pp. 138-46.

 

Washburne, Carleton and Louis M. Heil. "What Characteristics
of Teachers Affect Children's Growth?" The School
Review, LXIX (Winter, 1960), pp. 420-28.

 

Wilkerson, Doxey A. "Programs and Practices in Compensatory
Education for Disadvantaged Children," Review of Educa-
tional Research, XXXV (December, 1965), pp. 426-40.

 

 

w

Reports

if- ’m*- ' '_ _r

The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. Report
of the National Advisogy Commission on Civil Disorders.
Ndw Ydrki Bantam BOOks, l968.

 

National Council of Teachers of English. Language Programs
for the Disadvantaged. Report of the NCTE Task Force
on Teaching English to the Disadvantaged. Champaign:
By the National Council of Teachers of English, 1965.

 

 

Wilson, Alan B., Arthur R. Jensen, and David L. Elliott.
Education of Disadvantaged Children in California. A
Report to the California State Committee on Public
Education. Berkeley: University of California, December,
1966. (Mimeographed.)

 

Other Sources

Becker, Howard 8. "Schools and Systems of Stratification,"
Reprinted from Howard 8. Becker, "Schools and Systems
of Social Status," Ph lon, V01. XVI (1955), No. 2,
with the permission 0% the author and the editor.

Curtin, Thomas J. ”Educating the Disadvantaged." An address
by the Deputy Commissioner of Education, Massachusetts
Department of Education, presented at the Elementary
Education 34th Annual Conference, University of
Massachusetts, March 31, 1964.

Educational Policies Commission. The Central Purpose of
American Education. Washington, D. C.: National Educa—
tion Association, 1961.

 

 

Fantini, Mario D. and Gerald Winstein. "Taking Advantage of
the Disadvantaged," a Ford Foundation Reprint from The
Record Teachers College, Columbia University, LXIX

(Novemher, 1967).

-l76-

Herzberg, Frederick, Bernard Mausner, Richard O. Petersonk,
and Dora F. Capwell. Job Attitudes: Review of Research

and Opiniop. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of
P1tts urgh, 1957.

Howell, John. "Comprehensive Examination on Profeciency [sic.]
in Sociology, A Definition of the Term 'Cultural
Deprivation'Written in the Sociological Context. ” East

Lansing: Michigan State University.

Mackintosh, Helen K., Lillian Gore, and Gertrude M. Lewis.
"Educating Disadvantaged Children in the Primary Years."
Disadvantaged Children Series No. 2. The Office of
Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,

1965.

I” y;r‘i..‘a.:.d.- q
‘r

Mackintosh, Helen K., Lillian Gore, and Gertrude M. Lewis.
"Educating Disadvantaged Children in the Middle Grades.”
Disadvantaged Children Series No. 3. The Office of
Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education,and
Welfare. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing
Office, 1965.

Passow, A. Harry and David L. Elliott. "The Nature and
Needs of the Educationally Disadvantaged.” A chapter
prepared for inclusion in one part of the Sixty-Sixth
Yearbook for the National Society for the Study of
Education, to be published in 1967. (Mimeographed.)

"Relevant Teaching Behavior for Educationally Disadvantaged
Students.” A summer workshop for Teachers, Workshop
in Education 881, sponsored by the Flint Board of
Education, Title I Program (ESEA), BTU Program, and
Michigan State University, Summer, 1967.

   
 

4
-