II In? t :I. I : II IIII'IIIIII ‘II‘v ' I I‘M I'd ”II” III" I'M II IIII'II‘III I“ IfiIIIII, .2. LII II ,III. I I: ' I'M III“ III 1. III ”III" I I...“ In IIJIIUI WI \III‘ III . . .HIII' -. I: I'WIIII Ill III III! IIIII III III “II?“ IIIIIIWQ III-(gr: ' ' :III M" I II I“ HII’II IIIIIIII II IIIII IIIIIII 2' III IIIII II III III} II I H’dq-‘g- ‘— -5 o I ié I“ I H I I II 1'. II I I . I IIIIIIIIIII III! II MINI I I v I ’ f III I II II I I’IIIII‘IIEI’UIIII; I ’ ‘ I “I'm“ III III ' ”III/I ' ' III? W I III II ' I III HI" I IIIIHI.I III “WI IIIIIH IIJIIIIIIIIIIII IIII IIIII I V II III I!) I v .o.. _ M .m- IIIII IIIIHIHIJ I II III II III I II H'III III “INN II I III II III IIIIHII I III II In' I ’IIIII I'IW'I IJ. I ' I .‘ I. I... 'I'-;I "" 0 . c ‘ I It II III: MI I I I . . . .2 I I Il'l u . II... ' I I I '4: "III?- I '1’ 'Iu‘I I I III) «I. ‘W I. II III III {IIW'IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII I III IIIIIIIII III In I III, ,_ I ‘II I II' II III: IN MI m'IIII" "III, II I II "N" IIIs‘"vI III I iIIIIIII' III! III"! In MI I: ”u“ IIJ'KI I.” _ . I I I i IIIIWI‘H II’W IIJWI‘II' IIII‘II'IIII IIIHIIIIIIIII' A” If.” I "I W 'III M1 IIH I‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIJIIIIIIIIIIIM % IIIIm 'III W IIIII I L M” 'I'II“ MW Inn-M 3W 1W: 71";sz "'1‘ mix": mil’h' -5 mm LIBRARY This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF ADULT FUNCTIONAL COMPETENCY AMONG ENTERING FRESHMEN, JUNIORS, AND SENIORS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS IN THE PACIFIC REGION presented by DENNIS LEON BYBEE has been accepted towards fulfillment A . o of the requirements for Ph.D. deéreein Administration & H ; er Education :7 - 5/ will/l; Date ZA:/I7// 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ pFIR DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. A STUDY OF ADULT FUNCTIONAL COMPETENCY AMONG ENTERING FRESHMEN, JUNIORS, AND SENIORS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS IN THE PACIFIC REGION By Dennis Leon Bybee A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1979 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF ADULT FUNCTIONAL COMPETENCY AMONG ENTERING FRESHMEN, JUNIORS, AND SENIORS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS IN THE PACIFIC REGION By Dennis Leon Bybee The purpose of this study was to obtain, analyze, and evaluate data relevant to functional literacy among high school students of Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DODDS) in the Pacific Region. Functional literacy was studied in terms of the Adult Per- formance Level (APL) Project definition, which describes adult func- tional competency as having a set of skills and being able to apply them in the context of adult-life situations. Adult functional competency levels, as measured by performace on The High School APL Survey (HS-l), were determined for 1,049 enter- ing freshmen, 509 juniors, and 501 seniors among ll high schools man- aged by DODDS for dependents of United States government personnel stationed on military bases in Korea, Mainland Japan, Okinawa, and the Republic of the Philippines. Major findings on comparison and statistical analysis of dif- ferences in performance levels among the study groups as well as between junior or senior study groups and comparable national norm groups seem to support the following general conclusions: Dennis Leon Bybee l. Juniors and seniors among DODDS high schools in the Pacific Region ARE APPARENTLY AS ABLE AS THEIR COUNTERPARTS IN THE UNITED STATES to utilize abilities to identify facts and terms, read, write, compute, and solve problems characteristic of everyday adult-life situations both generally and according to the following five content areas: (a) Community Resources, (b) Occupational Knowledge, (c) Health, (d) Government & Law, and (e) Consumer Economics. 2. At the end of their school year, seniors among DODDS high schools in the Pacific Region ARE APPARENTLY BETTER PREPARED TO FUNCTION AS ADULTS IN EVERYDAY-LIFE SITUATIONS than are entering freshmen. 3. In their preparation for adult daily living: a. Entering freshmen, while not as well prepared as juniors or seniors, ARE APPARENTLY BETTER PREPARED THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED to handle tasks involving Problem Solving skills and to deal with topics in Health and Government & Law. b. Juniors, while not as well prepared as seniors, ARE APPARENTLY BETTER PREPARED THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED to handle tasks involving Problem Solving skills and in dealing with topics in Health. c. Seniors ARE APPARENTLY BETTER THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED in terms of tasks involving Reading, Computation, and Problem Solving skills and in regard to topics in the area of Health. d. NEITHER freshmen, juniors, or seniors ARE APPARENTLY AS HELL PREPARED AS THEY COULD BE to handle tasks involving Dennis Leon Bybee Identification of Facts and Terms or to deal with t0pics involving Occupational Knowledge. e. Juniors and seniors ARE APPARENTLY BETTER PREPARED GENERALLY THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED. 4. As many as l6 percent of the seniors attending DODDS- Pacific high schools may have BELOW AVERAGE PREPARATION to perform tasks associated with everyday adult-life situations; and, in terms of the adult performance level (APL) definition of adult functional competency, this group can be expected to function with minimal suc- cess in adult life. Assuming that schools, communities, parents, and educators may want to address the issue of adult functional competency development through schooling, there are several implications for program develop- ment that are suggested by this research. first, program development efforts among DODDS high schools in the Pacific should begin with the basic premise that current programs are adequate in many respects. Sgggng, it should be recognized that observed differences in {adLflt.functional competency levels among freshmen and seniors may g9; be in proportion to the emphasis these schools have placed on key requirements in the minimum curriculum. Third, remedial programs should be instituted for as many as 16 percent of DODDS-Pacific high school students. To my two sons, Richard Leon and Jeffrey Grant ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In its inception, conduct, and completion many fine people have contributed to this study. The writer gratefully acknowledges the leadership of Dr. Edward Killin, Director, DODDS-Pacific; Dr. Joseph Blackstead, former Deputy Director, DODDS-Pacific; and C. E. Redfield, former Chief, DODDS-Pacific Adult Education Division, in authorizing and funding this research. To Dr. Sheldon Cherney and Professor Russell Kleis, sincere appreciation for helpful suggestions, much faith, and thoughtful guidance in early stages of the project. To Harry Price, Richard Osner, Dr. Donald Ellis, Dr. Frank Vahovich, and Dr. Joseph Larkin, many thanks for their assistance in coordinating test administration and for generally facilitating data collection among schools in Japan, Korea, Okinawa, and the Republic of the Philippines. For guidance, understanding, and dedication, a special sense of professional gratitude is extended to the chairman, Dr. Howard Hickey, and to the following members of the committee who guided this research to completion: Dr. Richard Featherstone, Dr. Walter Scott, and Dr. Norman Bell. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ......................... 1'X LIST OF APPENDICES ....................... Xi Chapter I. THE PROBLEM ...................... l Introduction ..................... l Statement of the Problem ............... 4 Need for the Study .................. 5 Purpose of the Study ................. 7 Statement of Research Questions and Hypotheses . . . . 8 Theoretical Basis of the Study ............ 9 Limitations of the Study ............... ll Definition of Terms .................. 13 Overview ....................... l5 11. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................ 17 Introduction ..................... l7 Illiteracy Remediation ................ 18 History ....................... 18 Beyond Reading ................... 21 APL Project ..................... 23 General Theory .................. 26 Methodology .................... 26 Findings ..................... 28 APL Project Reviews ................. 28 APL Impact on ABE Programs ............. 30 Refinement/Marketing of APL Materials (ACT) ..... 3l Illiteracy Prevention ................. 32 Critics and Criticism ................ 32 Legal Challenges .................. 33 Present Forces and Public Policy .......... 34 Competency versus Capacity ............. 36 Competency-Based Education in Oregon ........ 37 iv Chapter Page Related Studies .................... 39 Current Education: A 9/12 Assessment ........ 39 The Study ..................... 39 Implications and Limitations ........... 41 Reading: An ll/lZ Assessment ............ 42 The Study ..................... 42 Implications and Limitations ........... 43 Mathematics: A 3,5,7,9 Assessment .......... 43 The Study ..................... 43 Implications and Limitations ........... 44 Other Studies .................... 44 Reading ...................... 44 High School Diploma Program (HSDP) ........ 45 Enduring Effects of Education ........... 45 Innovation and Change in DODDS .......... 45 Summary ........................ 46 Illiteracy Remediation ............... 46 Illiteracy Prevention ................ 48 Other Studies .................... 48 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY ................... 50 Introduction ..................... 50 Population of Interest ................ 50 DODDS Setting .................... Sl Curriculum ..................... 54 Study Groups .................... 54 Student Capabilities ................ 55 Language Arts/Mathematics Assessment, Grades 3 and 6, 1978 .................. 55 Language Arts Assessment at Grades 8 and ll, 1977-78 ..................... 57 College Entrance Examination Boards--l978 ..... 57 Instrumentation .................... 59 Test Construction .................. 59 Standardization ................... 6l Validity ..................... 6l Reliability .................... 61 Research Questions .................. 62 Testable Hypotheses .................. 65 Data-Collection Procedures .............. 68 Analysis ....................... 69 Basic Assumptions .................. 69 Analysis Model ................... 70 Summary ........................ 7l Chapter IV. FINDINGS ........................ Introduction ..................... Research Questions .................. Question 1: Overall Adult Functional Competency Levels ...................... Question l.l: Freshmen .............. Question 1.2: Juniors ............... Question l.3: Seniors ............... Question 2: Content, Skill Area, and General Adult Functional Competency Levels ........... Question 2.1: Content Areas ............ Question 2.2: Skill Areas ............. Question 2.3: General ............... Question 3: Similarities and Differences in Adult Functional Competency Levels Among 9,11, and 12th Grade Study Groups .............. Question 3.1: Strengths/Weaknesses ........ Question 3.2: Similarities ............ Question 3.3: Differences ............. Question 4: Distribution of Performance Scores . Question 4.1: Content Areas ............ Question 4.2: Skill Areas ............. Question 4.3: General ............... Significance .................... Hypotheses ...................... Hypothesis 1: Comparison of Junior Groups ...... H] Findings .................... Hypothesis 2: Comparison of Senior Groups ...... H2 Findings ............ . . ...... Hypothesis 3: Comparison of Freshman and Junior Study Groups ................... H3 Findings .................... Hypothesis 4: Comparison of Freshman and Senior Study Groups ................... H4 Findings .................... Hypothesis 5: Comparison of Junior and Senior Study Groups ................... H5 Findings .................... Summary of Findings .................. Overall Adult Functional Competency Levels of Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors ...... Content, Skill Area, and General Adult Functional Competency Levels Among Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors ............... Strengths and Weaknesses in Adult Functional Competency Levels Among Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors ............... Page 95 101 109 112 112 112 113 113 Chapter Page Distribution of Content, Skill Area, and General Adult Functional Competency Among Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors .......... 128 Differences in Content, Skill Area, and General Adult Functional Competency Levels Among Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors ...... 129 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................. 131 Introduction ..................... 131 Summary ........................ 131 Major Research Findings ................ 133 Overall Adult Functional Competency Levels of Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors ...... 133 Content, Skill Area, and General Adult Functional Competency Levels Among Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors ............... 133 Strengths and Weaknesses in Adult Functional Competency Levels Among Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors ............... 134 Distribution of Content, Skill Area, and General Adult Functional Competency Among Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors .......... 135 Differences in Content, Skill Area, and General Adult Functional Competency Levels Among Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors ...... 136 Conclusions ...................... 137 Discussion ...................... 139 Recommendations .................... 142 Suggestions for Future Studies ............ 143 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... 145 APPENDICES ........................... 150 vii Table .1 1 #000000 #OON LIST OF TABLES Content-By-Skills Matrix: Examples of Tasks ........ Listing of DODDS-Pacific High Schools, School Populations, and Population in the Study Groups ..... SAT Scores for Graduating DODDS Seniors, 1978 ....... Score Averages for the Separate Achievement Tests ..... Distribution of Items Across APL Matrix .......... Summary Statistics for Performance by Students on the High School APL Survey (HS-1), According to Grade . . . . Summary Statistics for Students on the High School APL Survey (HS-l), Reported as Percent of Total Possible Score (TPS), According to Grade ............. Summary of Rank Order (RK) and Differences From Expectancies in Relative Rank Ordering of Performance on APL Subscales (RKNG - RKSG) ....... Comparisons of Study Group (SG) APL Test Performance With APL Test Performance by Normative Groups (NG) Comparisons of APL Test Performance Among 9,11, and 12th Grade Study Groups (11 vs. 9, 12 vs. 9, 12 vs. 11) Comparisons of APL Test Performance Among 9,11, and 12th Grade Study Groups for Scale Scores Expressed as Percent of Total Possible Score on Each Scale (11 vs. 9, 12 vs. 9, 12 vs. 11) ............. viii Page 12 56 58 58 6O 74 76 90 114 116 118 Figure 2.1 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 LIST OF FIGURES APL Project Methodology ................. DODDS and DODDS-Pacific Organizational Chart for School Year 1977-78 .................. Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on Each Content or Skill Area and on the Total Survey ........... Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study and Norm Groups on the Content Area Scales .................. Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study and Norm Groups on the Skill Area Scales ................... Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study and Norm Groups on the Total Survey ...................... Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study and Norm Groups on Each Content or Skill Area and on the Total Survey ..... Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on the Community Resources Sub-scale .................. Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on the Occupational Knowledge Sub-scale .................. Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on the Health Sub-scale ....................... Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Grade Study Groups on the Government and Law Sub-scale ................... ix 77 80 81 86 87 96 98 99 Figure 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.18 4.20 Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on the Consumer Economics Sub-scale .................. Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on the Identification of Facts and Terms Sub-scale .............. Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on the Reading Sub-scale ....................... Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on the Writing Sub-scale ....................... Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on the Computation Sub-scale ....................... Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on the Problem Solving Sub-scale ....................... Comparison of APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on the Total Survey . . . Comparison of Differences in APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on Each Content Area Scale ................ Comparison of Differences in APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on Each Skill Area Scale ................. Comparison of Differences in APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on Total Survey ..................... Comparison of Differences in APL Test Performance by Ninth, Eleventh, and Twelfth-Grade Study Groups on Each Content or Skill Area and on the Total Survey . . . Page 102 103 104 106 107 108 110 119 120 121 122 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. APL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, AND DEFINITIONS OF THE APL SKILLS ...................... CD APL PROJECT FINDINGS .................. C. A SAMPLING OF FEDERAL ADULT BASIC EDUCATION APL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND FUNDING (OCT. 1976-SEPT. 1977) ................ D. MINIMAL COMPETENCY STANDARDS-~STATE ACTIVITY ...... E. COMPETENCY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS SALEM PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SALEM, OREGON .......... F. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATORS ..................... G. SUMMARY RESULTS OF THE DODDS LANGUAGE ARTS AND MATHEMATICS ASSESSMENT, GRADES 3 AND 6 (1978) ..... H. DODDS LANGUAGE ARTS ASSESSMENT RESULTS 1977-78 ..... I. FORM HS-1: ITEM CLASSIFICATION BY CONTENT AND SKILL . . . J. FORM HS-1: DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE STANDARDIZATION SAMPLE ................ K. APL TEST NORMATIVE GROUP SUMMARY STATISTICS BASED ON INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES FOR TOTAL SAMPLES ........ L. STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HIGH SCHOOL APL SURVEY HS-1 .................... M. PROGRAM DCHECK SOURCE DOCUMENTATION FOR VERIFICATION OF DATA PREPARATION AND SUMMARIES FROM COMPUTATION OF DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS BY SCHOOL .......... N. SOURCE DOCUMENTATION AND TABULATIONS OF GRADE LEVEL DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FROM INDIVIDUAL APL TEST PERFORMANCE DATA ................... xi Page 151 166 169 173 179 188 195 200 207 210 212 214 217 231 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction By January of 1977, "16 states had some kind of legal require- ment for competency-based education; by September of the same year 26 states were on the list" (Leeper, 1977, p. 1). If this trend con- tinues, it can be expected that most states will probably have some form of competency-based legislation. The problem of illiteracy is one which is basic to all countries, whether they are prosperous, emerging or under- developed. It is true that, in recent years, illiteracy fig- ures [in America] have shown steady improvement; but it is only during this past decade that the true burden of illit- eracy has been realized (Cook, 1977, p. ix). According to the United States Census Bureau, illiteracy in America has decreased steadily over the past 75 years. Census estimates of the number of illiterate adults in America dr0pped from 10.7 percent in 1900 to a low of 1 percent in 1969. The reduction of illiteracy may be due to increased emphasis on education and partly to the consistency of the definitions which were used in determining and reporting literacy statistics. In 1900 an illiterate adult was defined as anyone ten or older who could not read and write his native language. While life in America changed dramatically in the intervening years, there was little change in either the age or criterion used in reporting literacy statistics. 1 The 1969 Census survey counted as illiterate any person 14 or older who couldn't read and write a simple message in English or any other language (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1971). But is the ability to read and write a simple message in English or any other language an adequate criterion upon which to base an assessment of literacy in America? Many researchers of the 19705, in recognizing the "true burden of illiteracy," have suggested that it is not. It has not only been recognized that the Census definition is inadequate in terms of societal expectations of "Youth in Transition to Adulthood" (Timpane, 1976), but findings of the Adult Performance Level Project (Northcutt, 1975) also suggest that as much as 20 per- cent of the American adult population functions with difficulty in terms of their ability to use basic skills such as reading, writing, and computation in performing everyday living tasks. Actual estimates of the extent of adult illiteracy vary depending on the definition used. In attempting to identify adults who were not able to read ads, application forms, and directions common to everyday life, Lou Harris and Associates reported in 1972 that as much as 4 percent of the popu- lation suffers from serious deficiencies (Decrow, 1972). The Lou Harris and Adult Performance Level Project surveys taken together suggest a range of from 4 to 20 percent of adults in America who perform everyday living tasks with difficulty and could be described as functionally illiterate. Americans have traditionally recognized the illiteracy prob- lem during periods of great stress and have responded with solutions which emphasized either prevention and/or remediation. Early efforts focused on prevention in attempting to solve the adult illiteracy problem through more and more effective "schooling" of youth. Later efforts included remediation which attempted to identify and respond directly to the educational needs of illiterate adults. The process of recognizing illiteracy in America during periods of stress and of applying varying amounts of prevention and/or remedia- tion follows a fairly consistent pattern over the past 75 years (Cook, 1977). Two world wars, the Great Depression, the Korean con- flict, a "cold war," and the space race have been accompanied by equally dramatic changes in education. Local, state, and federal governments have enacted a great variety of 1egislation--everything from dollars to controls. Compulsory attendance to age 16 became universal as did the concept of equality of opportunity. There are even examples of obligatory remediation of illiteracy as a condition of either private employment or public support. Throughout this 75-year period, adult basic and secondary school educators have each addressed their respective remedial and preventive illiteracy functions and, although the logical evolution was necessarily different, each group of educators is presently extremely concerned with the same problem--i11iteracy. Adult educators on the one hand have moved away from remedia- tion by repetition of in-school experiences (failures), away from development of school grade level proficiency in basic skills such as reading and mathematics, and away from equivalency testing and equivalency certification. Adult basic educators, in recognizing that "literacy education offered, in isolation from economic and other social problems, was relatively ineffective" (Cook, 1977, p. v), have moved toward contextual basic skills development for adult functional competency. Meanwhile, secondary school educators went "through a cur- riculum reform era in the fifties, an innovation era in the sixties, and now find [themselves] in an accountability era" (Cawleti, 1977), moving "back-to-the-basics," and rapidly toward legislatively man- dated competency-based education with criterion-referenced testing and minimum competency certification for high school graduation. It is precisely in this context and with these motivating factors that this study of functional competency levels among DODDS high school students is being conducted. Statement of the Problem The Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DODDS) system- wide Curriculum Review Council first addressed the illiteracy issue at a meeting in Washington, D.C., in September of 1977. This council identified the following ten "Extremely Critical Issues Regarding Inclusion of Performance Testing as Part of Graduation Requirements:" 1. Which variety of competency approaches should be used? To what extent will students be granted early exit? Should remediation be required for or only offered students not meeting criteria? Who establishes competencies required and sets criteria? 5. Are competency requirements and criteria established DODDS- wide or will local options be permitted? 6. When should competency testing occur? 7. Will DODDS establish reciprocity agreements with various school-systems regarding competency requirements? What will the new graduation requirements look like? 9. Does DODDS have financial and human resources necessary for community orientation, teacher and administrator in-service training, curriculum development, and test development and scoring to effect the competency requirements proposed? 10. Can DODDS insure that the results of competency-based test- ing will be used for program improvement and not staff evaluation? (Furgensen, 1977). Of these ten issues, number 9 seems most critical since it questions the ultimate impact that competency-based education may have throughout the system. Answers to this issue are dependent on what type of competency approach is used (issue 1) and on what present performance levels are in relation to those that would be expected or required. In this regard, there are basically two approaches which can be taken--either independently or in combination. The first emphasizes specification of capacities; the alternative focuses on competencies (Spady, 1977). While much has been assumed about DODDS student capacities from performance data on traditional tests of academic progress (Cardinale, 1977), DODDS decision makers have virtually no informa- tion on student competency levels from which to develop appropriate policy and establish direction for school planning or curriculum development in regard to competency-based education. Need for the Study This study is being conducted in order to provide a signifi- cant data base of information on the adult functional competency levels of DODDS high school students. As schools in America are moving toward establishment of competency-based education programs, it can be anticipated that the DODDS system will voluntarily move or be legislatively required to move in this direction. It is therefore essential that DODDS policy makers have information, not only on student capacities, but also have information on student competen- cies from which to make decisions and establish policy in regard to competency-based education in the DODDS system. This study should be of value to schools in the United States since the study also provides comparative data for ninth-grade student performance on the High School APL Survey (HS-l) which are not presently available. For adult educators, this study of adult functional competency levels among DODDS students provides comparative data which may be useful in curriculum develOpment and in establishing equivalency criteria for adult basic education student performance. Griffith and Cervero (1976), in noting that "it [the Adult Performance Level Project] has been given more publicity than any other development in adult basic education in this century," also point out that little has been published in regard to the high school edition of American College Testing's Adult Performance Level Survey (HS-l), and that "until further information is published concerning the high school edition it will not be possible to assess either its valid- ity or any claim that there is a need for both [adult and high school] editions." The data generated by this study may also be useful to the adult education community in its evaluation of the high school alternative form of ACT's Adult Performance Level Survey (HS-l), as Griffith and Cervero suggest. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this research is to study functional literacy among secondary schools managed by DODDS in the Pacific Region. It attempts to determine, analyze, and evaluate competency levels among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors of this population in terms of the Adult Performance Level (APL) definition of functional competency. On examination of the descriptive information collected in this study, one should be able to: 1. Determine the extent to which entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in this population are able to utilize abilities to iden- tify facts and terms, read, write, compute, and solve problems char- acteristic of everyday-adult-life situations both generally and according to the following five categorical content areas: (a) Commu- nity Resources, (b) Occupational Knowledge, (c) Consumer Economics, (d) Health, and (e) Government and Law; 2. Identify adult functional competency content and skill area strengths and weaknesses among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors of this population: 3. Identify the number of high school students in this popu- lation who might require remedial instruction in adult functional competencies at any selected level of "minimal competency"; and 4. Make inferences as to the possible impact that establish- ment of competency-based education--which provides for or specifies adult functional competencies--would have on DODDS-Pacific high schools. Statement of Research Questions and Hypotheses As an essentially descriptive study the following questions are constructed to guide this research: 1. What are the overall adult functional competency levels of high school entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the p0pulation? 2. What are the content, skill area, and general adult func- tional competency levels of high school entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population? 3. What similarities and differences in content, skill area, or general adult functional competency exist between entering fresh- men, juniors, and seniors in the population? 4. What is the distribution of content, skill area, and general functional competency among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population? The following broadly stated hypotheses* are examined in this study: 1. There are no significant differences between adult func- tional competency levels of high school students in the population at the end of their junior year and adult functional competency levels among high school students at the end of their junior year of school in the United States. *These hypotheses are restated in testable form in Chapter III. 2. There are no significant differences between adult func- tional competency levels of high school seniors in the population and adult functional competency levels among high school seniors in the United States. 3. There are no significant differences between adult func- tional competency levels of students in the population upon entry into high school and adult functional competency levels of students in the population at the end of their junior year of high school. 4. There are no significant differences between adult func- tional competency levels of students in the population upon entry into high school and adult functional competency levels of high school seniors in the population at the end of their school year. 5. There are no significant differences between adult func- tional competency levels of students in the population at the end of their junior year of high school and adult functional competency levels of high school seniors in the population at the end of their school year. Theoretical Basis of the Study What is functional literacy? One often hears teachers and administrators say that high school graduates and students in adult education programs should have a minimum of it--whatever it is. Most secondary school and adult educators will probably or have already addressed themselves to this issue and come to some conclusions to this question that affect the kinds of things they do and h0pe for as educational outcomes. 10 Several years ago, David Harman (Northwest Regional Educa- tional Laboratory, 1976) conducted a study of literacy in the United States which concluded that approximately 50 million adults were illiterate. The results of his study, according to an account pub- lished in the Region XCHANGE, shocked the Office of Education and stimulated their funding of a National Assessment Project to: . . . [identify] those competencies which are functional to adult life, with the implication that these competencies would become the core objectives for adult basic education pro- grams (Northcutt, 1975). The national assessment became known as the Adult Performance Level (APL) Project and was conducted by the University of Texas at Austin under the direction of Dr. Norvell Northcutt, Professor of Educational Research, Division of Extension. After two years of study, researchers of the APL Project con- cluded that: . . . the APL Project has accomplished the following tasks: (a) devel- oped and validated a series of objectives which comprise adult functional competency, (b) conducted a series of national assess- ments of performance of adults with respect to those objectives, and (c) created, as a by-product of the research, a prototype test of adult functional competency (Northcutt, 1973). A general theory of adult functional competency emerged from the APL Project and was used as a basis for further study. This gen- eral theory assumes that adult functional competency is: A construct which is meaningful only in a specific societal context. . . . Two-dimensional (i.e. is both the possession of a set of skills, and their application to a set of knowledge areas). . . . A function of individual capabilities and societal expectations .. .. [and] As a concept is directly related to success in adult life (Northcutt, 1973). 11 The APL project's two-dimensional concept of adult functional competency was refined by the APL Department staff at American College Testing Corporation. ACT's refinement--which is used in this study as the criterion measure of adult functional competency--consists of five skills which must be applied in five separate content areas. Figure1.l illustrates the interrelationship of skills and content areas in this theoretical definition of adult functional competency.* "Reading a want ad," for example, can be used as a measure of reading skill and of ability to apply this skill in the occupational content area. This present research assumes that student performance on the criterion-referenced APL (HS-l) Survey is indicative of each student's adult functional competency level. Limitations of the Study The findings of this study are limited to and based upon a population defined as entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors of Department of Defense Dependents high schools in the Pacific region. Inasmuch as the p0pulation is characteristically unique in consisting almost exclusively of students who are dependents of military personnel stationed on U.S. government installations in the Pacific region, it is anticipated that the results may not be generalized beyond this group. However, as these schools are accredited by the North Central Association (NCA) of Schools and Colleges and provide a curriculum similar to that Of many high schools in the United States, it is *See Appendix A for a listing of APL content area goals/objec- tives and definitions of skills upon which the High School APL (HS-1) Survey is based. 12 .. .a ..e.m. .c0< "Aupu monV Am>c=m .a< poogom saw: "wuwsu m.cmm: .ucmeucmamo .a< .Emcmoca mcwummh mmmppou :mowcme< .mxmmu we mmFQmem ”xwgumE m—pwxmu%nnucmucounn.p.p mPDMh .30. m. cozoa 32.620020 «Eco. E2005 a .0 5.825 .0 Sn a :95 0.59.000 :. 8:3 5.; 0.9. .0. OZ.>40m :95 a 859.3 .500 m. .09: m. 2.05.000 0;. 50:03.00 9:089:00 a on 0. 22.3 (6.50:... 055.5200 50...: 9:0.000 .0 50...; 9:280 0. >3 0. .23 9:280 9:58.900 30:0..E: .0 0.32... 00300 2.8 .50 . 3558 05. 0cm... ZOC.<._.Dn:200 m 9:59:00 a 9:5an0 Zoo 2.. 9:05... 06:36 9:59:00 a 9:59:00 0:050:33 20.3332 56.0.00. u o. .aofimE .c.m.aE00 .20.. 8.9: 0. 02.5.53 8:0. 0 9:53 a actozmc< 5:50:00 0 9:5. .50... «.3 a 50 9:... H. 8:0. a 95:3 .3! 6:8 5.3.88.0 0509.0» 02.D00 mmEDmZOO ...:ZDs=200 l :23 hawks-00 "muczom 13 anticipated that the findings might be used for comparative purposes with other similar populations (e.g., DODDS high schools in Europe and the Atlantic regions or possibly with other NCA-accredited high schools). Definition of Terms Competency-Based Education ". . . is a performance-oriented set of processes that facilitate, measure, record, and certify the demonstration of explicitly stated and agreed upon learning outcomes that reflect functioning in life roles" (Keefe & Georgialles, 1978, p. 95). Adult Functional Compency, . . . has four attributes: (l) the term functional competency is meaningful only in a specific societal context; (2) func- tional competency is best described as application of skills to a set of general knowledge areas; (3) functional competency results from a combination of individual capabilities and soci- etal requirements; and (4) functional competency is directly related to success in adult life (Keefe & Georgialles, 1978, p. 5). Adult Functional Competency Levels are levels of competency as indicated by percent scores of performance on the High School APL Survey (HS—l) of adult functional competency. Adult Performance Level Content Areas are categorical sub- ggalg§_of the Adult Performance Level Test, which . . cover things in every day life that [adults] need to know about. These include: Community Resources--the services that supply recreation, information, community help, and transportation. Occupational Knowledge--finding, getting, working at, and keeping a job. , Consumer Economics--managing family or personal money and understanding good buying habits. 14 Health--the rules and habits that lead to good mental and physical health. Government and Law--the structure of the government, the functions of the legal system, and [a citizen's] rights and ggligations)under them (American College Testing Program, 6, p. 1 . Adult Performance Level Skill Areas are categorical subscales of the Adult Performance Level Test which . cover the use of numbers and written information in everyday life. These include: Identification of Facts and Terms--knowing the important words and ideasTIa person] use[s] in dealing with the content areas named above. Reading--being able to read such materials as ads, booklets, directions, contracts, and forms. Writin --knowing how to write such things as notes, letters, applications, and lists. Computation--being able to use numbers in daily situations, for example, those involving money, weights, measures, and calories. Problem Solvingr-knowing how to find solutions to practical problems (American College Testing Program, 1976, p. 11). Capacities . identifies the more discrete skills and capabilities that underlie a competency. When combined and utilized (often in complex ways in life-role contexts) these capacities serve as the enablers or building blocks on which competencies rest (Spady, 977 . Competency refers ". . . to the ability to perform successfully in the patterned activities which constitute adult life-roles" (Spady, 1977). Minimum Competency is the minimum level of criterion—referenced performance which is acceptable for purposes of certification in competency-based education programs. Illiteracy is the inability to "read and write a simple mes- sage in English or any other language" (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1971). 15 Functional Illiteracy is the inability to perform simple tasks characteristic of everyday life situations. It is characterized by: "(1) income at or below the poverty level, (2) an education of eight or less years, and by (3) unemployment or employment in occupations of low job status" (Northcutt, 1975, p. 5). Illiteracy Prevention is elementary- and secondary-level edu- cation and training designed to prevent illiteracy among adults through the education of youths. Illiteracy Remediation is elementary- and secondary-level education designed to develop literacy among persons generally 18 years or older. Ratings of adult functional competency levels are . . verbal descriptors of individual or class performance [on the High School APL Survey (HS- 1) test of adult func- tional competence]. . The ratings are derived from the following arbitrarily chosen segments of the distribution of norming data: Below Averagg:-lowest 15%, Average--middle 60%, Above Average--highest 25% (American College Testing Program, 1976, p. 8). Overview The balance of this work is organized and presented as follows: Related literature and research are reviewed in Chapter II. This review of literature addresses both illiteracy prevention and remediation. Related or analogous studies are included and works Specifically related to or using APL Project materials are discussed. 16 The setting, research methods, instrumentation, statistical hypotheses, and analysis process are described in Chapter III. Research data, analysis, and findings with respect to both research questions and hypotheses are presented in Chapter IV. The research summary and conclusions are given in Chapter V. Bibliographic references are included immediately following Chapter V, and more detailed information relating to t0pics discussed in Chapters Ithrough V are subsequently appended in order of their referenced appearance in the text. This research, then, is an attempt to discuss and explicate what is known about adult functional competency: what kindscn=knowiedge or skills are implicit in one's ability to perform tasks character- istic of everyday adult life situations, what levels of implicit competency are essential, and how competent are adults or high school students in America. These questions are central to the theoretical basis of this study and are therefore an appropriate starting point for the review of related literature and research, which follows in Chapter II. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Literature relevant to this research was reviewed and findings are selectively presented in this chapter. Basic information relating to literacy in America was collected from three primary reviews. [1555, from a review of the written record of illiteracy remediation, information is presented here to explicate what is known about literacy education efforts among adults. Sggggg, from a parallel review of literature dealing with illiteracy prevention, information is presented to summarize what has and is being done in the prepara- tion of high school students for everyday adult living. Ihjrg, litera- ture relevant or analogous to this study of adult functional compe- tency among secondary school students was more specifically reviewed and implications drawn for this or future studies in the area. In each of these reviews, available literature was initially screened from the ERIC data base of documents in education by computer, utilizing the system operated by the Michigan State University Library under contract with Bibliographic Retrieval Services. Searches were conducted using the following ERIC descriptors and identifiers: 17 18 Aggg_l, Adult Basic Education or Literacy Education (with) a. Daily Living Skills, or b. Basic Skills, or c. Survival Skills, or d. Life Coping Skills. Area 2. High Schools or Secondary Education or Graduation Requirements (with) a. Daily Living Skills, or b. Basic Skills, or c. Survival Skills, or d. Life C0ping Skills. Area 3. APL or Adult Performance Level or Adult Performance Level Project and Ngt_a Progrannnng Language. These preliminary computer-assisted ERIC searches yielded 27 citations in Area 1, 87 citations in Area 2, and 20 references related to the Adult Performance Level (APL) Project. Findings on review of these and other references are given below. Illiteracy Remediation History The history of literacy education in America since 1900, as reviewed by Wanda Cook (1976), has followed a fairly consistent pat- tern of recognition during periods of stress and of application of varying degrees of prevention and/or remediation. In the decade from 1910 to 1919, for example, the national concern with foreigners and the frightening number of illiterates or 19 near-illiterates (25 percent) discovered in the process of registra- tion for the draft (WWI) resulted in widespread local efforts to reduce illiteracy. At the national level, legislative action in 1917 aimed at illiteracy prevention resulted in a bill which restricted irnmnigrants on the basis of literacy. So great was the national con- <:eer~n with Americanization during this period that this bill became ‘Ieavv over President Wilson's veto. This pattern of national concern and intervention continued tzkit~ough the 19405 and into the 505 with WWII and the Korean Conflict ;)t~c>viding the major impetus for action in literacy education. Throughout modern history, literacy education in America Suffered from inadequate and inapprOpriate materials. According to Cook (1976), The market for adult materials during the fifties was little more than it had been during the previous decade. Often, teachers used materials designed for children and adapted them for adult classes. Success did not always follow (p. 75). During the 19605, Americans became acutely aware of the plight of native born functional illiterates and educators recognized that education, offered in isolation from economic and other social problems was relatively ineffective (Cook, 1976, p. v). In fact, the term "functional illiterate" begins to appear most prominently in the writings of the 19605. Berg, in 1960, and Fox, in 1964, both, for example, refer to the need to develop reading Programs which address the functional needs of adults. Also in the 19605, public interest in literacy education at the federal level was in educating adults to be functional members 20 of society. The concept of adult basic education and job training was firmly established in the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 with major amendments in 1965 and in the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Manpower Development and Training centers were established in many places across the country as a result of this federal interest in literacy education. Robert Vermeulen's study of student success at the Lincoln Skill Center in Kalamazoo, Michigan, in 1968 is interest— ing as he relates the functional orientation of these programs. Vermeulen's study concentrated on basic education and voca- tional skills development in the Lincoln Manpower Development and Training Center. On investigating the relationships between vocational proficiency and literacy skill levels as well as basic educational achievement and job success, he concluded that trainees with basic skill levels above the sixth grade were significantly more successful in the training program and that trainees showed gains in job status, gflaggg, and self-confidence. By the end of the 19605, traditional concepts of literacy Were expanding from grade-level reading proficiency to more compre- hensive definitions. The Adult Basic Education Act of 1966, which hacl provided opportunities for adults whose skill levels were below the eighth grade, was extended by the Adult Education Act of 1969 to Provide funding for the education of adults with less than a twelfth- Qrade education. 21 Beyond Reading The extension of literacy beyond reading can be seen in the Louisiana State Department of Education Curriculum Guide for Adult Education Teachers (Hammett, 1970). This guide specified that language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science skills were to be taught in seven content areas: (1) Family Life, (2) Citizen- ship, (3) Occupational Education, (4) Consumer Education, (5) Per- sonal Improvement, (6) Conservation, and (7) Leisure Time. Other practitioners in the 705 also dealt with specification of skills, other than reading, that they felt were important to adult daily living. The importance of problem solving as an adult living skill was described, with contextual examples of how it could be taught, in the Life Skills Course of the Saskatchewan NewStart program (Saskatchewan NewStart, 1972). In 1973 the Appalachian Adult Educa- tion Center compiled a list of the information needs of disadvantaged adults (Moorehead State Univ., 1973). Published under the title igife Coping Skills Categories and Sub-categories: Areas of the Infor- nnation Needs of Disadvantaged Adults, this list covered many categories Of’ life c0ping skill areas and included such t0pics as: (1) Human Relationships, (2) Career Planning, (3) Home Management, (4) Leisure, (55) Recreation, (6) Self-Understanding, (7) Religion, (8) Education, (9) Ethnic Studies, (10) Drug Abuse, (11) Health, (12) Legal Aid, and (13) Sexual Relationships. Report number ABE-l of the Office of Education (1967) spe- cificany identifies 16.3 million in 1960 and estimates that by 1970 22 the figure would be down to 12.5 million adults in America between the ages of 18 and 64 who are "educationally disadvantaged." Educa- tionally disadvantaged was defined as adults with less than an eighth-grade education. This survey report of the status of adult basic education programs did not include an estimate of, but did speculate that the number of persons who are "functionally inadequate" despite completion of the eighth grade would be quite large. It was becoming more apparent at the start of the 705 that a new definition and new methods of determining literacy were needed. Previous definitions and estimates of literacy in terms of the ability to read and write a simple message, grade-level completion, or of grade-level reading proficiency were discounted by most researchers. According to the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (1976), David Harmon concluded, in his study of the nation's conditions of literacy in the 605, that approximately 50 million adults in America 1were "illiterate" in terms of their ability to perform functional tasks 0f everyday life. Using a national sample based on the 1970 Census, Louis Harris (1971) conducted a study of the extent of functional reading difficul- tiees in America. This study assessed everyday reading ability in Such different areas as: (1) telephone dialing, (2) classified ads, (3) applications, (4) use of transportation, (5) medicine, and (55) citizenship. The Harris group concluded that 4 percent of the United States papulation 16 and older (about 5.6 million peOple) Suffer from serious deficiencies in terms of functional reading ability. 23 These estimates of illiteracy in America are shocking when compared to official Bureau of the Census figures. The United States Bureau of the Census, in 1969, found only 1.4 million people in America who were 14 and older and unable to "read and write a simple message either in English or any other language" (p. 5). Clearly, these official estimates of illiteracy in America needed to be revised. Illiteracy, which had been perceived by many as a problem that had been eradicated, once again became a national concern. APL Project National effort in the 70s was launched by James Allen (1969) when, as United States Commissioner of Education, he announced the "Right-to-Read" program in an address to the National Association of State Boards of Education. The aim of this program was to eradicate illiteracy (reduce to 1 percent) among adults in America by 1980. In October of 1971, the Division of Adult Education Programs of the United States Office of Education in Washington, D.C., issued ii Request for Proposal (RFP) which solicited proposals for a study arui development project intended to provide national direction in aCtht basic education. The intent, content, and scope of this project Can be seen from the following text, which is quoted here for infor- mation from the original RFP: In support of the National Right to Read Effort, the Divi- sion of Adult Education Programs has adopted the following defi- nition of adult literacy: The challenge is to foster through every means the ability to read, write, and compute with the func- tional competence needed for meeting the requ1re- ments of adult living. 24 The emphasis of this definition is in its final phrase, "requirements of adult living." These requirements must be determined by an analysis of adult living rather than by the common practice of attaching a grade equivalence to them. Existing grade equivalents cannot be effectively adapted to adult needs. This is not to say that school curricula do not prepare students for adult roles, but rather it says that the forms in which school curricula are derived, their detailed content and the way in which they are presented to school attendees are not applicable to adult learning frameworks. A system of adult education must derive its own specific aims and have its own adult based curricula, methodologies, and materials. This system is necessary because both the char- acteristics of adult learners and the frameworks within which they learn differ radically from those found in the formal school system. This definition of adult literacy must be elaborated into specific aims. The definition together with this elaboration will then become the objective of what historically has been called "Adult Basic Education." Aims expressed in the Adult Basic Education Act of 1966 as amended provide a broad framework of objectives, leaving much room for elaboration. The framework does, however, provide terms of reference. Specifically, ABE is to be occupation- oriented, provide tools for coping with adult responsibility and relate to adult reading, writing and computational skills, requisite for adult living. The Act delimits the scope of ABE by removing specific skill training from its purview. In expanding these aims, the following principles should be applied: 1. Objectives should be stated in terms of levels of com- petency to be attained; requirements, not grade school achievement levels; Levels should be expressed in terms of tasks; the country should be accomodated; Aims should involve a graduated scale commencing with a minimal level. 01-th Adult Performance Level The ultimate aim of ABE is to achieve an Adult Performance Level (APL) commensurate with the requirements of adult living. The APL has four knowledge and skill components: 1. Adult Reading Level (ARL) 2. Adult Writing Level (AWL) 3. Adult Computational Level (ACL) 4. General Knowledge Variables (GKV) Any adult person [age 16 and above] unable to perform at the These levels should derive from predetermined adult living In articulating the aims, regional differences throughout Ininimal level included in any one of these four is to be consid- ered in educational terms as functionally lacking. 25 Purpose of APL Project The APLs determined by this project together with the defi- nition of adult functional literacy will constitute the objec- tives of a system of adult basic education. They also will determine the target population of adult basic education in that they imply that any person, age 16 and above whose proficiency is less than that specified in the first APL, is a potential participant in adult basic education programs. Furthermore, all subsequent adult syllabuses and curricula will be based on the APL and will derive from it, not from school curricula. The products of this initial project and their primary uses will be: 1. Articulation of aims of adult basic education as they relate to individual and societal needs. This will provide State ABE programs and other fed- erally supported adult education efforts with an adult society-based set of aims for programs at all levels of ABE. 2. Determination of adult requisite levels of functioning and Adult Performance Level (APL) encompassing reading, writing, computation, and knowledge variables. For the first time systems of adult basic education throughout the country will be given clearly articu- lated and detailed terms of achievement supplanting the grade level achievements in current usage. 3. Determination of the tasks involved in APL. This will provide syllabus and curriculum planners and developers with clear terms of reference. These three products are essential to the development of an effective Nationwide Adult Right to Read Effort. They will pro- vide the basis of an [gig] system of adult education which will be implemented through a national conference and regional con- ferences thrusting State Directors of Adult Education into leadership roles involving business, industry, education, and volunteer and community service organizations in each state. This system will further permit coordination of the 32 different federal programs having basic education components for adults. These programs representing federal expenditures of several hun- dred million dollars must be coordinated if an effective nation- wide effort is to become reality (Reprinted in Northcutt, 1972). On evaluation of pr0posals pursuant to their RFP, the United States Office of Education awarded the study contract to a research t(Er-"1111 headed by Dr. Norvell Northcutt at the University of Texas at AUStin, Texas. The study, which became known as the Adult Performance LeVel (APL) Project, was funded for approximately‘Sl million under 26 Section 309 of the Adult Education Act of 1969. In summarizing the results of their two-year study, the Project team reported that: . . . the APL project has accomplished the following tasks: (a) developed and validated a series of objectives which com- prise adult functional competency, (b) conducted a series of national assessments of performance of adults with respect to those objectives, and (c) created, as a by-product of the research, a prototype test of adult functional competency (Northcutt, 1975). General theory.—-After this initial task had been accomplished, a general theory of Adult Functional Competency emerged and was used as a basis for further study. The general theory assumes that Adult Functional Competency is: . . . a construct which is meaningful only in a specific socie- tal context . . . two-dimensional (i.e., is both the possession of a set of skills, and their application to a set of knowledge areas) . . . a function of individual capabilities and societal expectations . . . [and] as a concept is directly related to success in adult life (Northcutt, 1975, p. 2). Methodology.--APL methodology, which was summarized diagram- matically in the team report (Northcutt, 1975, p. 3) and as reproduced here as Figure 2.1, covered (a) specification of competencies, (b) development of performance indicators, (c) field trial/review, arKI (d) national assessment, which resulted in (e) a determination of Ccnnpetencies for the sample within three levels--adu1ts who function With difficulty (APL 1), functional adults (APL 2), and proficient adults (APL 3). In an earlier report, the research team indicated that the Primary source of knowledge on minimum performance level cri- terion exists in (was obtained from) the experiences, accumu- lated data, and reports of professionals dealing with minimally performing adults (Northcutt, 1972, pp. 5-6). 27 .xmo_ouo:ams uuwnoca 4m<--...~ me:m.. m.m>w. aucmumasou Co :owum:_5cmpma xm>czm _m:o.»mz :ucmmmmm maow>mca HemEQoFm>mo one mummh :o_umqupomam m mcoumumwc. n :0. mace : 0—0.. mocmecoecmm auemumnsou mwpuwew H m..=e< umpmuaum -Lmucz 28 Development of performance indicators and criterion reference tests relied heavily on the National Assessment process. The APL staff reportedly (1) developed objectives and related test instru- nwents, (2) reviewed and revised the objectives and test items at a series of four regional conferences, and (3) conducted field testing in Texas (Northcutt, 1972). The national assessment phase of the project was conducted among 7,500 adult basic education students in 30 states and at 67 s “ites. As a control, testing was also conducted among students of seven high schools in Texas. Findings.--Since the sample data were nationally representa- t‘i ve, the APL Team estimated the proportion of the United States adult DOpulation which comprised each APL level. The percentages overall and according to several demographic variables are reproduced here from the Team's March 1975 summary report (Appendix 8). Several interesting Conclusions can be drawn from the findings; however, the most alarming r‘esult is that approximately one-fifth (20 percent) of all adults in the United States were estimated to be functioning with difficulty. AP\L Project Reviews According to Griffith and Cervero (1976), the APL Project has beEn perhaps the most widely publicized development in adult basic edlalczation in this century. The incredible publicity surrounding this pr‘Oject, and, in fact, generated by the APL Project report, is prob- ab‘bf due to many factors--severa1 of which are worthy of mention in th ‘5 3 review. 29 flippi, the study was not only funded by the Division of Adult Programs of the United States Office of Education; it also had the Office's regulatory commitment to implement curricula based on the adult performance criteria identified in the study (USOE/Division of Adult Education Programs, 1971). This commitment was reiterated in a speech by Terrel H. Bell (1975), then United States Commissioner of Education, when he stated, "I think we have a very useful project here that the education community has to examine with great seriousness and deliberation." And so they did, as the title of Edith Roth's (1976) article in American Education suggests: "A Ferment in Education." §egppg, the development of a conceptual framework or theory and objectives was systematic and involved many different inputs, including review of literature and research (Northcutt, 1972, Bibliog- raphy), survey of state and federal agencies and foundations, confer- ences, and a continuing series of semi-structured interviews with undereducated and underemployed adults. igipg, the methodology was logically consistent and the assess- ment phase was extensive. Over 7,500 adults were included in the national sampling. The sampling was reportedly representative of the United States population at large, and hence, useful in developing broad generalizations--some of which were highly controversial. The findings show, for example, a very high concentration of minorities and women in the lowest competency level. 30 Controversy surrounding the findings is not limited to the politics of literacy education in America. Several adult educators have openly challenged the validity of the APL Project findings. Griffith and Cervero (1976), in their review of the APL Proj- ect, have questioned the findings on several points. One of their most serious objections appears to be that the United States Office of Education's specifications of competencies were published in the RFP "in advance of the research they proposed to fund" to determine what competencies are needed in a definition of adult functional com- petency. These critics apparently have suggested that the resulting competencies may gpi_be those that are definitive of adult functional competency in America. (Note: Authors Griffith and Cervero have requested that their criticism of the APL Project be interpreted and quoted in the context of their effort to examine the APL Project rather than to cast aspersion upon it.) Nafziger (1976) raises a serious objection in questioning the validity or reliability of the findings since no effort was made to establish the reliability of the instrument used by the APL Team in the national assessment of Adult Performance Levels. APL Impact on ABE Programs Objections notwithstanding, the APL Project has had a tremen- dous impact on adult basic education programs in America. One of the first curriculum development efforts based on com- petencies identified by the APL Project was directed by Harry Frank at Auburn University (1975). This effort produced a series of five cur- riculum guides for use in adult basic education programs in Alabama. 31 Published under the auspices of the Department of Vocational and Adult Education as Career Education for Adults, there is one guide or module for each of the five APL content areas. APL goals and objectives were listed in each module together with suggested learning activities and instructional materials. Mocker and Spear (1976) conducted a study to identify approp- riate competencies that would be important in the training of adult basic education teachers to teach in APL-based programs. This study was a cross-validation of Mocker's earlier competency listings for adult basic education teachers. The original adult basic education teacher competencies list was revised as a result of this study. Participation in APL-oriented curriculum develOpment became widespread throughout the country by the mid-19705. A sampling of federally funded APL-based curriculum development projects is presented in Appendix C to illustrate the extent to which this APL movement had spread among adult basic education programs in four years after its preliminary announcement (1972) and in only one year after its summary report was published by the United States Office of Education in 1975. In this sampling, funding for APL-related projects in 34 states, and in the District of Columbia, was in excess of $3.8 million, with an average of $30,000 spent in each individual project. Refinement/Marketing of APL Materials (ACT) In March of 1975, the American College Testing Corporation (ACT) acquired the exclusive right to refine, adapt, publish, and dis- tribute APL materials. ACT rights extend into 1981, at which time the [,7 32 project materials revert to public domain. The ACT refinement ini- tially resulted in both adult and high school versions of the original APL Survey. These tests were standardized and published for general use in 1976. The High School APL Survey (HS-1), published by ACT, was used in this study of adult functional competency among entering fresh- men, juniors, and seniors of 00005 high schools in the Pacific Region. Illiteracy Prevention Americans have traditionally felt that an "ounce of prevention" was worth the proverbial "pound of cure." Certainly this idea is fun- damental to the growth and development of publicly supported schooling in the United States. However, this faith or hope for schooling as a means of ensuring a minimal level of national literacy, at least func- tional literacy, appears to be faltering. Critics and Criticism In recent years, criticism of the schools has become much more extensive and severe than ever before. Ornstein (1977), in discussing critics and criticism, has observed that ”Teachers and schools have always been criticized by educators and laypeople, but only recently the criticism has been more flagrant and hostile than before" (p. 21). Among the critics, educators are perhaps the most critical in their own attacks on the present system. The flavor of these "internal critics" can be appreciated on examination of their works. Authors such as Friedenburg, Goodman, Neill, Holt, Kozol, Kohl, Herndon, Illich, and Freire have presented everything from poignant anxiety with 33 present practice to outright demands for the elimination of schools altogether. Criticism of schools from parents and other adults in the com- munity has been expressed throughout the country in newspapers and magazines, at school board meetings, at the ballot box, and in the courts. Concern with what schools are accomplishing or failing to accomplish runs the gamut of public expectations. Expectations run from college preparation to moral development to development of simple everyday living skills. The fact that national Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores have declined between 8 and 5 percent over the ten- year period between 1965 and 1975 has been the subject of much public debate. Public concern with these and other measurable outcomes of education eventually developed into a growing national concern with the teaching of fundamental or basic skills. Legal Challenges In the 705, schools faced direct challenges at the ballot box and in the courts. An early court case in San Francisco (John Doe v. San Francisco Board of Education, 1973) charged the schools with gross negligence and fraud in awarding a high school diploma to Peter Doe. Peter was described as a boy of normal intelligence, who was graduated from high school although he could only read at the sixth-grade level, and who later learned to read with relative ease when given private tutoring. 34 The plaintiff's case was dismissed and dismissal upheld on appeal. The court's decision, which apparently supported the school, was, in fact, a severe indictment of the present system of schooling. In dismissing the case, the court ruled that, for the school to be held liable for fraud, the diploma had to have been represented as meaning something. In its finding, it stated that the high school diploma apparently does gpi stand for anything and to award it to incompetent students did not constitute fraud on the part of the school system. In 1972, the United States Supreme Court ruled--in the case of Yoder v. Wisconsin--that the schools could not enforce compulsory attendance among the Amish people since the Amish apparently become "self-reliant citizens" without attending schools. At the ballot box, citizens of Ca1ifornia—-in accepting Propo- sition 13--apparently rejected the notion that public services deserve unrestricted public support. It was anticipated--and was widely used as an argument against Proposition 13--that passage of the measure would severely affect schools throughout the state. Passage of the measure by overwhelming majority should, at least, be taken as an indi- cation of public dissatisfaction with public schooling. Present Forces and Public Policy Gordon Cawelti (1977), in summarizing present forces, has stated that: During the past several months, actions have been taken by 1egis- latures, state boards of education, and local school boards which mandate that certain minimum competencies be required before stu- dents are either passed on to the next grade or graduated from 35 high school. One also frequently hears these days such terms as "c0ping skills," "adult literacy," and "survival skills," and these terms relate to the same movement . . . the public quite clearly is saying that it wants more and better teaching of the basic skills of reading, mathematics and writing. All is not bleak, though, as according to Cawelti (1977), one . . potential benefit from the Competency Based Education (CBE) movement is that it may afford us for the first time in many years an opportunity to fundamentally re-examine the nature of general education for secondary students. The present instruc- tional program represents more what I called a "patchwork cur- riculum" among traditional separate subjects. While we have been through a curriculum reform era in the fifties, an innova- tion era in the sixties, and now find ourselves in an accounta- bility era, at no time during these movements have I seen a substantial effort to define the nature of general education-- that education which is "basic" and that all youngsters should rece1ve. In his discussion of key elements involved in policy planning for competency-based education, Brickell (1978) lists seven key ques- tions that must be addressed: What competencies will you require? How will you measure them? When will you measure them? How many minimums will you set? How high will you set the minimum? Will they be for schools or for students? What will you do about incompetents? \lO‘CflbWNd o o o o o o o Pipho's (1977) review of state actions in establishing mini- mum competency standards (Appendix 0) shows that states, in establish- ing public policy for competency-based education, have generally begun their efforts by requiring action by state and local boards of educa- tiorL. The legislative and state board actions typically address one or'rnore but not all of Brickell's questions, thus leaving much to be deverloped by state or local boards of education and by the schools themselves . 36 Competency versus Capacity School systems which must develop and implement a program of competency-based education very quickly find that Bickell's first question--What Competencies?--has essentially two answers. According to Bickell (1978), you can describe competencies in terms of "school skills" or in terms of "life skills." And, he illustrated the differ- ence by citing the following test questions for . a school skills test: If John has 70 marbles and gives José l3 marbles and gets 26 marbles from Slim and gives 38 marbles to Alice, how many marbles does John have left? . . a life skills test: Balance this checkbook by adding these deposit slips and subtracting those cancelled checks. Spady and Mitchell (1977) have also discussed these divergent options which must be addressed in establishing public policy with respect to competency-based education. In their discussion, they define the differences between school skills and life skills in terms of competencies and capacities. According to these authors, . the term competency refers exclusively to the ability to perform successfully in the patterned activities which constitute adult life. The term capacity identifies the more discrete skills and capabilities that underlie a com- petency. One problem, according to Spady and Mitchell, in competency- based education is that: Outcome expectations stated in capacity (school skill) terms rest on the assumption that students will be able to manage successfully both the integration of individual capacities and the transfer of those capacities to life-role situation. This assumption, which is fundamental to the "patchwork cur- ric:ulum" of many secondary schools in America, may not be a valid one. 37 The idea that students will be able to integrate skills and make transferals in real-life situations has apparently ppi_been true for all students. Competency-Based Education in Oregon Oregon State Department of Education (1973) was the first to adopt competency-based high school graduation requirements. As many states stand at the threshold, it seems appropriate here to conclude this review of illiteracy prevention with a summary of the Oregon experience. According to Nance (1977), Oregon now has three dimensions to its high school graduation requirements: (1) credits, (2) attendance, and (3) competencies. The first two dimensions were retained from previous requirements but were modified substantially. Attendance requirements were changed from four years of 9-12 schooling to fewer or more than four years in school or other appropriate educational settings. The credit requirement was expanded to include one credit each in Consumer and Career Education. The major difference in Oregon's new graduation requirements is that they now include a competency requirement. Beginning with the class of 1978, in order to graduate from high school, students in Oregon were to have been able to demonstrate competency. According to Nance, The following areas were (initially) specified by the State Board: read; listen; speak; write; analyze; compute; scien- tific and technological processes; healthy mind and body; life- long learner; citizen in the community, state and nation; citi- zen in interaction with the environment; citizen on the streets and highways; consumer of goods and services; function within an occupation or continue education leading to a career. 38 In 1976 this Board policy was refined to stipulate that dis- tricts would develop "astatement of desired student performance rep- resenting demonstrable ability to apply knowledge, understanding, and/ or skills assumed to contribute to success in life role functions" and that the requirement in all competency areas would become applicable to students in the class of 1981. Responsibility for competency development in Oregon was dele- gated to local districts. Typical content of local competency require- ments can be seen in the list of "Competency Performance Indicators" of the Salem Public Schools (Appendix E). This listing is clearly life- role oriented. Nance (1977) says that the State Board "intent was to provide a means to assure that Oregon's high school graduates would be able to cope adequately with the demands commonly faced in adulthood.” In reviewing the difficulties that Oregon experienced, several key points were mentioned: 1. Little had been done before that could be used as a basis for program development; 2. Long lists of isolated skills were initially specified instead of life competencies as intended by the State Board; 3. Districts learned to write competencies in terms of life- roles; 4. The process of competency development was difficult and took much longer than expected; and 39 5. Initial skills listings required too much teacher time in record keeping. In answering the question, "How Fares Competency Development in Oregon?" Nance concludes: We have made mistakes, we are correcting them, we have learned much, and we are still committed to the concept of establish- ing clearly and publicly expressed goals for education, and then providing the resources which will enable students to achieve those goals. This statement of conviction by someone who has been through the throes of competency-based education for several years should be encouraging to educators in America who are presently faced with responsibility for implementing public demands for competency—based education in their schools. Related Studies In this section of the review of literature, studies are selectively referenced which are related to the purpose, design, expectations, potential conclusions, and possible recommendations that might be made as a result of this present research. In most instances, the study is described, findings are reviewed, and implications and limitations are discussed. Qgrrent Education: A 9/12 Assessment The study.--The Division of Assessment and Evaluation of the Texas Education Agency (1976) conducted a study of basic skills, knowl- 1edge, and competencies in career education among 9th and 12th grade students in the Texas public schools. According to the staff report (Texas Education Agency, 1976), the purpose of the study was: 40 . to provide decision makers with information about stu- dent performance in career education that will assist cur- riculum planning and development efforts at the local, regional and state levels. Through a survey of students, parents, educators, and business leaders, the study identified 177 learner outcomes that Texans felt were important for l7-year-olds in the area of career education. After identifying "what should be," the research staff selected a representative sample of approximately 20,000 9th-grade and 6,600 12th-grade students and proceeded to determine "what actually exists." In order to conduct the assessment, researchers developed an evaluation instrument which was criterion referenced to the skills, attitudes, and knowledge that they had identified as being important. The resulting test, Career Education Measurement Series (CEMS), had 45 items, 9 categories, and 26 sub-categories. It was used in November and December of 1975 and the results of this testing were published with respect to each group's performance on the nine categories. In summary, their findings include the following: 1. Of the nine categories, freshmen and seniors scored pppye_expected levels (75 percent and 90 percent, respectively) in five of the areas and peipy_expectation in four of the areas. 2. Performance by seniors was higher than by freshmen in all nine categories. 3. Rank order of highest to lowest performance by category was the same for both groups. Students had least difficulty with items involving "Self-Investigation and Evaluation for Career Success" 41 and most difficulty in topics involving "Career and Occupational Information." Conclusions of the study were that: l. . . . Priority attention should be given to those categories in which less than 75 percent of the [seniors] displayed attainment. 2. Assessment data have indicated areas of strength and weakness in student performance . . . [and that] . . . school districts should examine existing career education programs in light of the assessment results; 3. . . . School districts should use the assessment instruments to gain more information; 4. . . . Efforts should be continued to infuse career education concepts into the entire instructional program. Implications and 1imitations.--The Texas study of career com- petencies among high school students has an analogous purpose and was conducted using methodology very similar to this present study. It therefore has several implications which are important to this research. fipgi, it should be expected that, at least in terms of Occupa- tional Knowledge, seniors will have higher levels of competency. Dif- ferences in performance between freshmen and seniors of at least 10 to 15 percent might be expected. Sepppg, since students did poorly on the "Career and Occupational Information" sub-category, it might also be expected that students will score lower on the "Identification of Facts and Terms" sub-scale of the High School APL Survey (HS-1) as a result of having inadequate career and occupational information. llflig, the methodology may not have given information about the career competency of seniors. Since the assessment was conducted in November and December, it could be argued that the assessment was essentially cunnducted among entering freshmen and "juniors." In order to avoid 42 this design limitation. ‘Uwa present research assessed the competencies of both juniors and seniors at the end of their school year. Reading: An 11/12 Assessment The study.--As a doctoral dissertation at Georgia State Uni- versity, William Hammond (1976) conducted "A Study of the Literacy Level of Atlanta Public High School 11th and 12th Grade Students." The purpose of this study was (1) to determine the number of 11th and 12th grade students who were functionally literate, marginally liter- ate, and illiterate; and (2) to determine what factors might be used to predict student literacy levels. The methodology employed was to administer the Reading Everyday Activities in Life Test (R/EAL) to randomly selected classes among the Atlanta public high schools. A total of 430 students were tested. Test results were analyzed using condescript and crosstabs programs of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version 5.01). The findings of this study among 11th and 12th grade students were that: (1) Taken together, the total percentages were 84 percent functionally literate, 14.8 percent marginally literate, and 1.2 per- cent illiterate; (2) Race was found to be the strongest predictor of student performance; other predictors were post-secondary educational plans, school location, and year in school; and (3) Sex and income were ppi_strong predictors of performance level. Hammond concluded that: There appears to be a significant portion (approximately 16%) of the Atlanta public high school 11th and 12th grade popula- tion that cannot successfully and independently perform basic reading and reading related tasks. 43 implications and limitations.--Hammond's study has at least three important implications for the present research. First, since year in school was found to be a strong predictor of student reading ability, it can be expected that seniors will have significantly higher reading competency that that of juniors. Second, the percentage of students who might have below-average reading proficiency might be in the neighborhood of 16 percent. Finally, as a major limitation, Hammond's study does not lend itself to any conclusions about the rela- tive reading abilities of either of the study groups beyond the recogni- tion that seniors do better. If, in fact, seniors did very much better than juniors, then the concluding recommendation for more emphasis on reading might ppi_be justified in the high schools of Atlanta. This present research has attempted to avoid potential limita- tion by separately testing and statistically evaluating the functional reading levels of juniors and seniors in the study. Mathematics: A 3,5,7,9 Assessment The study.--Charlene Behne (1976) conducted a study of mathe- matical literacy among selected groups of 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th grade students in the Minneapolis-St. Paul suburban area. The purpose of the study was to determine mathematical literacy of these students "in four areas: (1) basic skills, (2) algebra, (3) problem solving, and (4) inductive reasoning." Students in four classes of 3rd, 5th, 7th, and three 9th grade algebra classes were given the Brown-Arnold Math Placement Guide, which tested student abilities in each of the four areas. Descriptive 44 statistics were computed and group differences were tested, using a t-ratio (two-tailed), for significance at the 0.05 level. Essential findings of the study were: (1) "Differences between the grade levels in each of the four categories of mathematics literacy were significant at the 0.05 level"; (2) Higher grade levels made higher scores on the Math Placement Guide; and (3) "The per- centage of students meeting the achievement levels on the Math Place- ment Guide designated for their grade level in basic skills decreased steadily from grade three through grade nine." Implications and 1imitations.--From this study it could be expected that there may be significant differences in mathematical skills among students of DODDS high schools in the Pacific. Since Behne's study did not show any point at which student mathematical literacy did not increase, it might be interesting to see if this observation is also true at the high school level, where students are ppi_required to, but often do, take more than one year of mathematics. Other Studies Several other studies are reported here that are generally related to the t0pic and setting of this research. Reading.--Gadway and Wilson (1974) reported on a study of functional literacy among 17-year-olds conducted by the Education Commission of the States, as part of the National Assessment of Educa- tional Progress. The purpose of this study was to determine if ”the reading skills which are usually taught in the schools are adequate to functioning in everyday life." From an analysis of student performance 45 on test items by type, Gadway and Wilson reported that even superior readers did poorly on items involving interpretation of insurance policies, traffic tickets, and application forms. Furthermore, Gadway and Wilson also concluded that there is a need to further define func- tional reading. High School Diploma Program (HSDP).--Bauer (1977) reported on a comparative study of basic skills among high school graduating seniors and adult high school diploma students. Among other findings, Bauer reported that: There was no significant difference between the performance of the traditional high school seniors and the HSDP students in vocabulary, language arts and reading comprehension as measured on the Gates and ITED tests. Enduring_effects of education.--Hodgkinson (1977), in support of his contention that education does make a difference, points out that Hyman, Wright, and Reed conducted a study "of 80,000 adults between the ages of 25 and 72 that showed that the longer you stay in school the more you know--throughout your life;" and, furthermore, "that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who go to college do better in life than those from wealthy backgrounds who only com- plete high school." Innovation and change in DODDS.--Of the many studies that have been conducted in the Department of Defense Dependents Schools system, one conducted by Demos (1978) seems particularly applicable to the ultimate use that may be made of findings from this present research. Demos studied the factors which contributed to or discouraged innovation 46 and change among DODDS schools in Europe. The following selected conclusions and recommendations were reported: Selected Conclusions. (1) Teachers who receive the support of their principal do hold more positive perceptions toward innovation and change. (2) Teachers who take an active part in planning and development of the curriculum hold perceptions which are more favorable toward adopting innovation and change. (3) Teachers who teach required subjects tend to hold the same perceptions of innovation and change as do teachers of elective subjects. (4) Teachers who visit innovative programs do become more positive in their views about introducing innovations and changes. Selected Recommendations. (1) The principal should support and encourage all who will be involved in a projected change. (2) Teachers should be provided the opportunity to visit other schools to assist them in modifying their instructional program or to learn about innovation. (3) Schools making provisions to individualize instruction are urged to examine such innovation practices as: (a) emplo nt of paraprofessionals, (b) varia- tions in use of time, (c)m$ariable-sized grouping of students, and (d) team teaching. Summary This review of the literature has described the problem of illiteracy in America from two separate perspectives. Efforts of adult basic educators in the area of illiteracy remediation have been presented. Parallel efforts by elementary and secondary schools in the area of illiteracy prevention have also been described. Illiteracnyemediation In the area of illiteracy remediation, it has been stated that Americans have followed a fairly consistent pattern, in the twentieth century, of recognition during periods of stress and of application of varying degrees of remediation or prevention. Most efforts in the first half of the century were directed toward developing reading skills and tended to narrowly equate literacy 47 with reading ability or grade-level completion. This definition was gradually extended to include basic skills such as reading, writing, and computing; and grade-level equivalency definitions of literacy rose in stages from 6th, to 8th, to completion of the 12th grade by the mid-605. Refinement of operational definitions of literacy reached a zenith in the 60s as more researchers tended to be concerned with "functional literacy" and to define this in terms of contextual appli- cation of basic skills. Adult basic educators had concluded by the end of the 605 that "skills taught in isolation were relatively inef- fective," and that, in terms of being able to perform the tasks of everyday life, millions of Americans were "functionally illiterate." Much work in adult basic education in the 705 was related to or involved the results of the Adult Performance Level (APL) Project. This project, which was funded for approximately $1 million by the United States Office of Education, defined literacy in terms of adult functional competencies. These adult functional competencies were identified as part of a two-dimensional concept or theory of literacy which featured the application of a set of basic skills in context of everyday-life situations. Results of the APL Project were heatedly debated, widely accepted, and immediately implemented in adult basic education programs across the country. The speed with which this innovation was accepted lnay have been partly due to the unprecedented support it had from the Lhiited States Office of Education and partly because it represented a 48 concept of adult basic education which had been growing and which had crystallized in this Project's report. Illiteracy Prevention Illiteracy prevention has been discussed in terms of the growing concern that many people have expressed over the last several years that schools don't provide adolescents with the skills that they need to function as adults in America. Much of this criticism has been directed at the secondary school, but many of the resultant actions have also affected elemen- tary schools as well. The record shows that criticism fostered con- cern, which resulted in legislative and state board action in many states. In terms of policy, two approaches to specifying competencies were discussed. The first looks to "basic skills" such as reading, writing, and mathematics; the second attempts to specify competency in terms of everyday tasks or "life skills." Much information is avail- able in the literature about the former; little has been written about the latter. Other Studies Several selected studies were reported which related to the purpose, design, expectations, potential conclusions, and possible recommendations that might be made as a result of this present research. From this review it should be expected that (1) grade level vvill be directly related to adult functional competency levels of stu- dents; (2) on evaluation of student criterion-referenced test results, 49 a statistically significant difference should be found in math, read- ing, and career education; and that (3) results of the study should be helpful to decision makers in their planning for competency-based education programs. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The research design facilitates an assessment of adult func- tional competency levels among DODDS-Pacific high school entering freshmen, and juniors as well as seniors at the end of their respec- tive school years. The performance level of each of these study groups on a measure of adult functional competency was determined. Compari- sons were made among groups and between study groups and similar groups for which national norms of adult functional competency are available. The population of interest, instrumentation, statistical hypotheses, data collection, and analysis process are described in~ this chapter. Population of Interest The population of interest in this study includes entering freshmen, and juniors as well as seniors at the end of their respec- tive school years. The population is further defined as students in these three grades among DODDS-Pacific high schools during school years 1977-78 and 1978-79. Freshmen were included in the study in order to obtain a Ineasure of adult functional competency among students at the very beginning of their high school experience. Assessment of adult 50 51 functional competency among members of this study group was conducted at the beginning of the school year. Juniors were included in the study in order to obtain a measure of adult functional competency among students for whom compara- tive national norms are available and with whom additional comparisons of adult functional levels could be made. Assessment of adult func- tional competency levels among members of this study group was con- ducted in the Spring. Seniors were included in the study in order to obtain a measure of adult functional competency among students at the end of their high school experience. Assessment of adult functional compe- tency levels among members of this study group was conducted in the Spring. Sophomores were ppi_included in this study since comparable national norms are not available for this group and because no attempt was made in this study to progressively measure the development of adult functional competency over the four years of high school. No assessment of student adult functional competency was made at the end of either the freshman or sophomore year. DODDS Setting, The DODDS Overseas program as described in the system-wide educator recruitment brochure (DODDS, 1977-78) consists of Elementary and secondary schools [which] have been operated on U.S. military bases overseas since 1946, for the children of military and civilian personnel assigned overseas. The Depart- ment of Defense Dependents Schools Overseas provide educational opportunities comparable to those offered in the better school systems in the United States. This segment of American public 52 education consists of approximately 265 elementary, junior high, and high schools. The schools are located . . . around the world, with an enrollment of approximately 140,000 students and [are] staffed with approximately 7,500 educational personnel. The overseas school system is one of America's largest school systems; it is exceeded in enrollment by only a few other American school districts. Courses of study parallel those of the public schools in the United States, and standard approved textbooks are used. Stu- dents vary in background and heritage as widely as the regions within the United States from which they came. Frequent changes in home and school result in some adjustment problems, but the students usually adapt rapidly to their new environments. The general atmosphere in the overseas dependents schools is similar to that found in schools in the United States. Some of the elementary schools are small and the teacher must teach multiple grades. Many junior high schools have only four to eight staff members, and each educator may be required to teach two or more different subjects. Some of the larger elementary schools and all the junior high and high schools are accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The secondary teacher is required, generally, to teach in more than one field and should be pre- pared to conduct at least one extracurricular activity. There are a number of high schools with enrollments of less than 500 where classes are small, as is the staff. Staff members must be versatile, with the ability and willingness to teach in at least two fields (p. 1). [See Appendix F for A Description of DODDS Requirements for Employment of Educators.] DODDS Overseas schools are presently located in Antigua, British West Indies, the Azores, Bahamas, Bahrain Island, Belgium, Bermuda, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, England, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Newfoundland, Norway, Okinawa, Philippine Islands, Scotland, Spain, and Turkey. At the time of this study, DODDS managed schools in these countries organizationally through three regional offices. (See Figure 3.1.) DODDS-Pacific operated 40 schools for dependents in ilapan, Korea, Okinawa, the Philippines, and on Midway Island. 53 .me-uhm. Lam» .oogom to. “Lego .a:o.ea~.=amco u.c.oma-mooon new moooo--...m ma:m.. .ooeum . m.oo;um o. m.oo;um a m.oo;um ON ><3o.z - - mmz.aa...za 1 <2~o :3.:u~mm=u >~o kzoz zmm >Ho mufihmHQOA >~o guzzommma >Ho zouhmmmfim a mmzoazqs. mmzmcwo Lo >m m: .e_e=.¥ .eme m .. e e. ceeee .eemmem .eeeem meme .e .m meme e. mm em em emcee .eemee .eeeem .e< emmee meee mm ee .m m.m eeeee .eseN m: eseN Neee mm .m me. .me emcee ._=emm m: .eemm meee N. m e. em emcee .ceeee .eeeem .e< ceeee eeee N. .. m ~.-e eaecu zezum mzm e. :ewue_=eee .mmuwwowm mam: Foozem cmee=z muemczum e0 =o_uepzaoe Foogum .oozum zuzum ms» cm cowue_:eoe use .mcowuepzaoq Foogom .maaocm .mpoozom 5mm: owewueeumnooo co mcwpmwmuu._.m m_eeh 57 significantly above that of the comparative U.S. population. Results on writing skill sub-scales were at or above expectations as well as scores by comparable United States norm groups. Sixth grade math scores were above comparable United States norm group scores on all factors. Language Arts Assessment at Grades 8 and 11, 1977-78 (see Appendix H).--The assessment was conducted in the Spring of 1978 among several thousand pupils at grades 8 and 11 in sampled schools from the three DODDS geographic regions. Results from the tests which covered both composition and English indicate that: 1. In the area of Composition, DODDS students compare favor- ably with students who participated in the 1974 National Assessment of Educational Progress in writing; and 2. In the area of English, DODDS students were generally within the range of expectancy in language arts and higher than the average pupil score shown by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Weaknesses were noted for both grade levels in reading com- prehension. College Entrance Examination Boards--l978.--In 1978 a total of 2,299 DODDS seniors took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Scores reported for these students (see Tables 3.2 and 3.3) indicate that: 1. Average verbal scores were 445 and average math scores were 484. Both score averages were 16 points above the national average; 2. Males scored 39 points higher than females on the math test; and 58 3. With the exception of separate tests for physics, biology, and literature, DODDS student group averages were higher than the national average on all separate and sub-tests ("College Entrance Examination Board Score Reports," 1978). Table 3.2.--SAT scores for graduating DODDS seniors, 1978. Verbal Math Male Female Total Male Female Total Number 1,173 1,126 2,299 1,173 1,126 2,299 (Mean Average) 447 443 445 509 458 484 Standard Deviation 10.9 10.8 10.9 11.1 10.4 11.1 Source: "College Entrance Examination Board Score Reports for Students in the Department of Defense De endents Schools (DODDS), 1978" (Washington, D.C.: DODDS, 1978 . Table 3.3.--Score averages for the separate achievement tests. Subtest ( )* DODDS National English Composition (350) 514 512 Mathematics Level I (254) 551 541 Mathematics Level II (62) 681 665 American History (115) 509 496 German (71) 634 553 Chemistry (65) 596 577 Bio1ogy 52) 527 544 Spanish (33) 586 544 Literature (29) 520 521 Physics (29) 581 591 Source: "College Entrance Examination Board Score Reports for Students in the Department of Defense De endents Schools (DODDS), 1978" (Washington, D.C.: DODDS, 1978). *Represents the actual number of DODDS students electing to take a subtest. 59 Instrumentation The High School APL Survey Form HS-l was used in this study to assess functional competency levels among DODDS high school juniors, seniors, and entering freshmen in the Pacific region. The test was first published in 1976 and is criterion-referenced to objectives which were refined from those that were originally developed as performance indicators of adult functional competency by researchers at the Univer- sity of Texas at Austin, Texas (Northcutt, 1975). Test Construction The test itself is a 40-item paper and pencil, power test generally taking from one to one and one-half hours to administer. All items are multiple-choice questions with a reported Dale-Chall readability of from fifth to sixth grade level. There are eight items for each of the five content area sub-scales. On analysis the items are grouped into one of the five skill areas which they also measure (see Table 3.4). The items require examinees to use skills in the context of everyday living situations. Item mean difficulty is from 71.6 to 84.7. Item discrimination --reported as median point biserial correlation between item and part-- ranges from 0.40 to 0.56. Item classifications by context and skill areas are provided in Appendix I. The criterion-referenced nature of this examination can be seen in these tables which cross-reference items, content objec- tives, and skills. 60 .m .e ..eNeF .Fm< ”smFU eze.. Am>czm 4e< Foocom :mF: "mquo m.cmm= .pcmcheamo 4e< .Eecmoce mcFmeH mamFFoo :echmE< ”mucaom oe m m N m o FeFoF 3m: nee N F N N F N Fame:cm>ow N F N N N F :FFemz muFEocoum m N N F N F cmssmcou mauszocg N N N F N F choneezuuo mmoczommm N N F N N F FFFczseou Fepoh meF>Fom :oFueuzano mcFchz mcFuemm mscmF use meow; smFeece me ceFSechFScme. .chums 4e< mmocue memFF mo eoFuanFcuchuu.e.m mFamF 61 Standardization Test items were standardized by ACT among 4,449 high school students chosen to represent four geographic regions of the country and five community sizes. There were 2,167 eleventh-grade and 2,040 twelfth-grade students who took form C of the test in May of 1976. The demographic characteristics of this sampling are given in Appen- dix J. Test results for these normative groups are included in Appendix K, and will be referenced later in comparing these per- formance levels with those of comparable student groups in this study. Validity.--No empirical evidence is provided by the test manu- facturer for concurrent or predictive validity. The construct upon which the test is made is that of ”functional competency" with validity arguments based on the process and research of the Adult Performance Level Project. Empirical values are given for content validity by the test developers. Content validity is reported around 0.5 among the content and skill sub-scales with a range of 0.75-0.83 being given for part-total correlations. Reliability.--Two coefficients of reliability are provided by ACT test developers for eleventh and twelfth grade normative groups. The range of reliability estimates derived from KR-20, or split-half calculations (see Appendix L), is from 0.50-0.64 on the content scales land--with the exception of the computation sub-scale--from 0.42-0.57 (an skill scales for both eleventh and twelfth-grade groups. The Imeader will note that the reliability of the computation sub-scale is 62 reported at from 0.70-0.71 and that this is considerably higher than any of the other sub-scales. Reliability for the total survey is reported at from 0.85- 0.87 for both groups. No normative data are available for ninth-grade student performance on the test. Research Questions The following research questions are restated here, together with several inherent questions about which data were collected in this study: 1. What are the overall adult functional competency levels of high school entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the popu- lation? 1.1. What is the overall level of adult functional com- petency of high school entering freshmen in the p0pulation? 1.2. What is the overall level of adult functional com- petency of high school juniors in the population at the end of their school year? 1.3. What is the overall level of adult functional com- petency of high school seniors in the population at the end of their school year? 2. What are the content, skill area, and general adult functional competency levels of high school entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population? 63 2.1. What are the adult functional competency levels of high school entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the popula- tion in the following five content areas: 2.1.1 Community Resources, 2.1.2. Occupational Knowledge, 2.1.3. Health. 2.1.4. Government and Law, and 2.1.5. Consumer Economics? 2.2. What are the adult functional competency levels of high school entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the popula- tion in the following five skill areas: 2.2.1. Identification of Facts and Terms, 2.2.2. Reading, 2.2.3. Writing, 2.2.4. Computation, and 2.2.5. Problem Solving? 2.3. What are the general levels of adult functional competency among high school entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population? 3. What similarities and differences in content, skill area, or general adult functional competency exist between entering fresh- men, juniors, and seniors in the population? 3.1. What are the strengths and weaknesses in content, skill area, or general level of adult functional competency among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population? 64 3.2. What similarities are there in strengths and weak- nesses in content, skill area, or general level of adult func- tional competency among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population? 3.3. In what content, skill area, or general level of adult functional competency are there differences among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population? 4. What is the distribution of content, skill area, and general adult functional competency among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population? 4.1. What is the distribution of adult functional compe- tency among high school entering freshmen in the population and among junior and senior class students in the population at the end of their school year in the following content areas: 4.1.1. Community Resources, 4.1.2. Occupational Knowledge, 4.1.3. Health, 4.1.4. Government and Law, and 4.1.5. Consumer Economics? 4.2. What is the distribution of adult functional compe- tency among high school entering freshmen in the population and among junior and senior class students in the p0pulation at the end of their school year in the following skill areas: 4.2.1. Identification of Facts and Terms, 4.2.2. Reading, 4.2.3. Writing, 65 4.2.4. Computation, and 4.2.5. Problem Solving? 4.3. What is the distribution of the general level of adult functional competency among high school entering freshmen in the population and among junior and senior class students in the population at the end of their school year? Testable Hypotheses The five hypotheses of this research are restated here and symbolically represented in testable form. The implicit alternative hypotheses are also given below: 1. As measured by average test performance, there are no sig- nificant differences between adult functional competency levels of high school juniors in the population and adult functional competency levels among high school juniors in the United States. Symbolically: H]: M11(SG) = M12(NG) Legend: M11(SG) = Mean score of the eleventh-grade study group. M11(NG) = Mean score of the eleventh-grade norm group. Alternate. As measured by average test performance, there are significant differences between adult functional competency levels of high school juniors in the population and adult functional compe- tency levels among high school juniors in the United States. Symbolically: H13: M11(SG) # M11(NG) 66 2. As measured by average test performance, there are no significant differences between adult functional competency levels of high school seniors in the population and adult functional competency levels among high school seniors in the United States. Symbolically: H2: M12(SG) = M12(NG) Legend: M12(SG) = Mean score of the twelfth-grade study group. M12(NG) = Mean score of the twelfth-grade norm group. Alternate. As measured by average test performance, there are significant differences between adult functional competency levels of high school seniors in the population and adult functional competency levels among high school seniors in the United States. Symbolically: H23: ”12(59) f M12(NG) 3. As measured by average test performance, there are no sig- nificant differences between adult functional competency levels of students in thegpopulation uppn entry into high school and adult func- tional competency levels of students in the population at the end of their jppipp_year of high school. Symbolically: H3: M11(SG) = M9(SG) Legend: M11(SG) = Mean score of the eleventh-grade study group. M9(SG) = Mean score of the ninth-grade study group. Alternate. As measured by average test performance, there are significant differences between adult functional competency levels of 67 students in the p0pu1ation upon entry into high school and adult functional competency levels of students in the population at the end of their junior year of high school. Symbolically: H3a: M11(SG) f M9(SG) 4. As measured by average test performance, there are no sig- nificant differences between adult functional competency levels of students hithe population upon entry into high school and adult func- tional competency levels of high school seniors in the population at the end of their school year. Symbolically: H4: M12(SG) = M9(SG) Legend: M12(SG) = Mean score of the twelfth-grade study group. M9(SG) = Mean score of the ninth-grade study group. Alternate. As measured by average test performance, there are significant differences between adult functional competency levels of students in the population upon enigy into high school and adult func- tional competency levels of high school seniors in the population at the end of their school year. Symbolically: H4a: M12(SG) f ”9(80) 5. As measured by average test performance, there are no significant differences between adult functional competency levels of students in the population at the end of their jgpipp_year of high school and the adult functional competency levels of high school seniors in the population at the end of their school year. 68 Symbolically: H5: M12(SG) = M11(SG) Legend: M12(SG) = Mean score of the twelfth-grade study group. M11(SG) = Mean score of the eleventh-grade study group. Alternate. As measured by average test performance, there are significant differences between adult functional competency levels of students in the population at the end of their jppipp_year of high school and the adult functional competency levels of high school seniors in the population at the end of their school year. Symbolically: H5a: M12(SG) f Mll(SG) For each of these testable hypotheses, the comparison of average test performance as a measure of adult functional competency implies a comparison of overall mean scores as well as mean scores on a measure of each of the five content and skill areas included in the theoretical definition of adult functional competency used in this study. Data-Collection Procedures The High School APL Survey (HS-l) was administered to ninth- grade students in the population in September of school years 1977/78 and 1978/79. Most schools conducted the testing of ninth grade students in the Fall of 1977; two of the schools tested ninth- grade students in September of 1978. All eleventh-grade students were tested in May of 1978. All twelfth-grade students were tested in May of 1977. 69 Machine and hand-scored test performance data for each stu- dent were keypunched onto tabulating cards for storage and analysis. A computer program was written (see Appendix M) to assist in verify- ing the accuracy of the keypunched data and to compute school mean scores on the total survey and on each of the ten APL sub-scales. After the data were verified for accuracy, listings were prepared summarizing each school's APL test results. A second program was then written to read the entire data file and to compute APL performance data for each of the three study groups (see Appendix N). Descriptive statistics provided by this program include group frequency distributions, mean scores, and standard deviations for the total survey and for each of the ten APL sub- scales. Analysis This section describes the basic assumptions and analysis model used in the study. Basic Assumptions In conducting this study of adult functional competency among DODDS-Pacific high schools, it was assumed that: 1. Student scores on the High School APL Survey (HS-l) are 1a measure of their general level of adult functional competency; 2. The population studied will be generally representative crf the group that might be affected by high school competency-based policy in the near future; 7O 3. The performance of seniors on the High School APL Survey (HS-1) is indicative of where high school students in the population are in terms of adult functional competency at the end of their high school experience; 4. The performance of juniors on the High School APL Survey (HS-1) is indicative of where high school students in the population are in terms of adult functional competency at the end of their junior year of high school; and that 5. The performance of entering freshmen on the High School APL Survey (HS-1) is indicative of where high school students in the population are in terms of adult functional competency at the begin- ning of their high school experience. No assumptions are made in regard to the school's contribu- tion to adult functional competency levels in or among each study group. Analysis Model Descriptive statistics for performance by high school students in the population on the High School APL Survey (HS-l) were tabu- lated, graphically presented, and interpreted in terms of the pre- viously stated research questions. The t-test (two-tailed) was used to test the significance of differences between mean scores among the study groups. In view of the relatively low reliability of the Survey sub- scales, a significance level of 0.001 was chosen as the criterion for rejection of possible differences among mean scores on all but the 71 computation sub-scale. Reliability estimates for the computation sub-scale and for the total survey seem to justify rejection of possible differences on these scales at the 0.01 level of signifi- cance. Summary The fundamental design of the study has been presented in this chapter. The population was described as being characteristically unique in its location on U.S. military installations in foreign countries throughout the Pacific region. Although unique in its location, information has been presented here to indicate that the performance of members of the population on traditional measures of academic capability compare favorably with the population of students within the United States. It has been suggested that the curriculum offered and quali- fications of the professional staff are similar to that which is available to students of better schools in the United States. Reliability, validity, and normative data were presented for the High School APL Survey (HS-1), which was used to measure adult functional competency levels in this study. While the sub-scales are not extremely reliable, the content validity is excellent and the reliability of the total survey is acceptable. Research questions and hypotheses were further delineated, data collection was discussed, and the analysis process was prescribed. 72 For most differences in student group performance to be recognized, the level of significance must be at or above the 0.001 level. The findings of this study are presented and analyzed in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Introduction The purpose of this study was to obtain, analyze, and compare relevant data concerning adult functional competency among freshmen, juniors, and seniors of DODDS-Pacific high schools. In Chapter III, the instrument and procedures used in collect- ing data were described, research questions and hypotheses were restated in testable form, and the analysis model was discussed. In this chapter, research data are first presented in terms of the major research questions and then discussed in terms of the hypotheses. Research Questions Data collected for 1,049 freshmen, 509 juniors, and 501 seniors are reported here in regard to the following research questions: Question 1: Overall Adult Functional Competency Levels Question 1. What are the overall adUlt functional competency levels of high school entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population? Overall adult functional competency levels of students in the population, as measured by performance on the High School APL Survey, are summarized in Table 4.1. Mean scores with standard deviation for 73 74 Table 4.1.--Summary statistics for performance by students on the High School APL Survey (HS-1), according to grade. Number Grade 9 Grade 11 Grade 12 APL Scales of Items (N-1.049) (N-509) (N-501) Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean 5.0. Content Areas (40) Community Resources 8 6.3 .36 6.8 1.20 7.0 .26 Occupational Knowledge 8 4.8 .69 6.0 1.73 6.5 .56 Health 8 5.8 .42 6.4 1.32 6.6 .34 Government and Law 8 5.1 .79 5.8 1.57 6.2 .66 Consumer Economics 8 4.7 .60 5.7 1.60 6.1 .60 Skill Areas (40) Identification of Facts and Terms 6 3.5 .53 4.6 1.45 4.8 .35 Reading 9 6.4 .45 7.0 1.49 7.5 .51 Writing 8 6.2 .40 6.6 1.24 6.8 .31 Computation 9 4.8 .06 6.1 2.10 6.8 .05 Problem Solving 8 5.8 .51 6.4 1.40 6.6 .35 Total Survey 40 26.7 .96 30.8 5.84 32.5 .01 75 each grade level study group in each content and skill area as well as on the total survey are indicated in this table. Group mean scores and standard deviation are also reported as percent of total possible score (TPS) according to grade level in Table 4.2. Performance scores for each school are reported in Appendix M. The overall level of adult functional competency for each study group, as measured by performance on the High School APL Survey, is illustrated in Figure 4.1. Question 1.1. What is the overall level of adult functional competency of high school freshmen in the popu- lation? As measured by performance on the High School APL Survey, the overall adult functional competency of high school freshmen in the population ranges from a low of 53.33 percent on the Computational Skill sub-scale to a high of 78.75 percent on the Community Resources scale. Mean group performance on the Total Survey was 66.75 percent. While no norms of ninth-grade student performance on the High School APL Survey are available for qualitative comparison, a tenuous comparison of performance scores with eleventh-grade norms would indi- cate that freshmen study group adult functional competency levels could be rated as AVERAGE on most sub-scales with the exception of Occupa- tional Knowledge, Computation, and Total Survey scales, for which performance could be described as BELOW AVERAGE on comparison. (See Chapter I definitions of these qualitative ratings.) 76 mo.mF NN.FN oo.eF oo.FF om.eF NF.NN oe Fm>c=m FemeF NN.NF om.NN om.FF 00.0N NN.NF om.NF N mchFem emFeece NF.NN NN.NF mm.mN NF.FN 0N.NN mm.mm m eeFueueeeeu NN.NF oo.mN om.mF om.NN om.FF om.FF N meFch: NF.NF NN.NN 0m.NF NF.FN FF.NF FF.FF m meFeemN S. NN 8.8 FF.eN 8.2 3.8. 8.8 N 220.. 0:... 30.; Fe eeFueeFFFuemE Foe. memc< FFFNN oo.ON mN.NF oo.oN mN.FN oo.ON NF.Nm N mereceem cmeamcou NF.oN om.FF No.0F om.NF NN.NN NF.mN N zeS nee checc0>0w NF.NF om.NN om.0F 00.0N NF.FF om.NN N :FFem: om.mF mN.FN m0.FN oo.mF NF.FN 00.00 N mmeszecx FeeoFueazuoo NF.mF om.NN oo.mF oo.mN NN.NF NF.NF N mmeceemmm Fchaeeou Foe. eemc< 0cmmce0 Ne: F0 9: F0 N me me: F0 9: F0». me 9:. F0 N“: Foe. we & mm .o.m 0.50m :00: & mm .o.m wLoum :00: N no .o.m 9.00m :00: 9:0 0 . cmuyefl mmFeem Sc< .Femuz. .memuz. .mee .12. NF meecm FF meecm m meeco .meecm 00 meFucouue .FNeF. mcoum 0Femeoe F0000 F0 Femocme we umucoamc .FFlmz. xm>czm .e< Foozom :NF: 0:» :0 00:00:00 coF moFumFueum xceEE=muu.N.e 0anF 77 .00>:=0 F0000 0:0 :0 0:0 00cm FFF:0 :0 0:00:00 :000 :0 00:0:0 F0000 000:N-:0FF030 0:0 .:0:0>0F0 .:0:F: F0 00:05:0Fc00 000F .e< F0 :00F:0050011.F.0 0:0000 N— —— e >u>m=m mm4aom . zoom 3(4 3022 mum moan baton mhmzz eow :h40F0 .:0:F: an 00:05:0Fc00 000F 00¢ F0 :00Fc0aeou--. N. e 0:300; E0: 8 E: 009.0 330 350 525... me 00:80 2..ch1.1 80 m. 00:80 0 0st. a .05: 0:85 552 2:22.. .0 0:80 :5: 1.... 5500.. mm0ow :h40F0 .:0:F: a: 00:0EcoFc00 000F 00< F0 :00Fc0050011.m.0 0::mFm 80 Fe. 00:80 Le 0025. AD AhzuFm OF huuav mmzozu >o=hm ma09m Noam Futon NFFaz og:m page“ mg» no ucm amen Ppwxm co “cmucou gumm :o maaogm Eco: vcm xczpm wumgmugumpmzu ucm .gu:m>mpm .sucwc An mucmsgomgmn «map 4a< we :omwcmneou-u.m.e muzmwu 35m 65. zo :5: E :5 =5: :9: a _ -\+ 83% 3 3:5. mU .595 :55 355 52.25 “a $33 :5: I. .525 5.2. .2222: “5 ~88 25.: l- 558: 52.3 8.28. 5% :5; 33.9 5% 558 2:: i l ‘4 a 7 4 :8 28“.. :5 .55. ma SE :28 ~55 2E :32 £8 a :8 :55: 8o :8 _ bl p. b _ b p b _ p _ . 0 1mm l] J 1 1 1| 11 Tom a1 l l a I .I. .:.r4 plan A I1 II I: IJTI l 1 l L Ill. A“at... I 1m“ #VIIE Tl . l , I , .II. 11 1|. nu“ TL 11 "nun“ hu Tug “nu.4TIL TL TL ...uu I r. [ L LL [ '8. macaw mdmmmmcm 4mpm so» vmuconms xupzowmmwc come no vmmmn zucmpumaxm« N+ m N+ o N+ o 323 F33 N+ m N+ v N+ v m=w>Pom Empnoca T : o : o : 8 333.8... 0 N o N o N 8:23 N+ N T m T m N523. m- w a- n n- op msgmh ucm muumu mo :owpmumevucmuH F+ op o op F+ m mowsocoum evasmcou o m o m ~+ N 2m; new “cwscgm>ow N+ e N+ m N+ m supmmz N- N N- N N- N $8255. chowumgauuo o _ o P o _ moussommm Apvczssou qucmuumaxm Axmv k\Scmuumaxm Axmv exucmpumaxu Axmv xcmm seem emcee xcmm seem Congo xcmm Eoeu emcee mucmemwmwo xcmm mucmgmNNPo xcmm mucwemewmo xcmm mmpmum 4m< azogw mumgw guNF aaoco mumcw ;p__ azogm mange sum .Awmxm - wzxmv mmpmumnsm 4m< co mucmagowgma mo mcwgmugo xcme m>wumpmg cw mmwucmuuwaxw ace; mmucmgmemwu cum Axmv Lmvgo xcme No acmssam-.m.v m—nwp 91 Positive sub-scale differences in Table 4.3 indicate that the rank order of performance on the sub-scale was higher than expected for the study group and may be indicative of study group strengths. Negative differences indicate that performance by the study group was lower than expected and may be indicative of possible study group weaknesses. Differences less than plus or minus one in rank order were ignored in reporting possible strengths or weaknesses. Findings in regard to rank order of study group performance as compared to expectations of group performance, based solely on reported mean difficulty of the APL sub-scales, are as follows: Content Areas Area l. Scores on the Community Resources sub-scale were the highest for all three study groups and also ranked first accord- ing to eleventh and twelfth-grade norm group performances. Area 2. Rankings for the Occupational Knowledge sub-scale were 8th, 8th, and 7th, respectively, for the freshman, junior, and senior class study groups. Norm group performance rankings for the Occupational Knowledge sub-scale were, respectively, 6th and 4th for junior and senior class students. Area 3. Rank order on the Health_sub-scale was 3rd for freshmen and junior study groups and 4th for the senior study group. Junior and senior norm group rankings for this scale were, respec- tively, 5th and 6th. 92 Area 4. Government and Law, which ranked 9th in order of mean difficulty among the norm groups, ranked 7th among freshmen, and 9th among junior and senior study groups. Skill Areas Area l. The relative rankings of performance on the Identi- fication of Facts and Terms sub-scale were lOth, 7th, and 8th for freshman, junior, and senior study groups and 3rd for junior and senior norm groups. Area 2. The relative rankings of Reading sub-scale performance were 5th for freshmen and juniors and 3rd for the senior study group. Norm group performance was 4th and 5th for junior and senior class students, respectively. Area 3. Writing sub-scale rank order was 2nd for all groups. Area 4. Computation sub-scale rankings were llth for all study groups and, respectively, llth and 10th for the junior and senior class norm groups. Area 5. Problem Solving sub-scale performances ranked 4th with freshmen and juniors and 5th with the senior study group. Norm group performance rankings were 6th and 7th for junior and senior class students. General Adult Functional Competency Levels Comparisons of total survey rankings show that study group rankings were 6th and norm group rankings were 8th for all groups. 93 Summary of Findings for Question 3.1 A summary of findings for study group performance in compari- son to expectations suggests the following possible strengths and weaknesses among the study groups: Strengths. For freshmen, strengths were observed on Heglth, Problem Solving, and Government and Law sub-scales. For juniors, strengths were noted on the Health and Problem Solving sub-scales. For seniors, strengths were seen on Reading, Health, and Problem Solving sub-scales. Possible strengths were also noted for each study group in regard to group performance on the Total Survey. Weaknesses. For freshmen, weaknesses were observed on Identi- fication of Facts and Terms and Occupational Knowledge sub-scales. For juniors, weaknesses were noted on the Identification of Facts and Terms and Occupational Knowledge sub-scales. For seniors, weak- nesses were seen on the Identification of Facts and Terms and on the Occupational Knowledge sub-scales. Question 3.2. What Similarities are there in strengths and weaknesses in content, skill area, or general adult functional competency among freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population? Apparent similarities among freshman, junior, and senior class study groups on comparison of study group performance rankings with expectancies are as follows: Strengths. Performance on Health and Problem Solving sub- scales by each study group was higher than expected. Performance by n.—- ‘1- v 94 the freshman study group on the Government and Law sub—scale was higher than would have been expected for juniors. Performance by the twelfth-grade study group on the Reading sub-scale was higher than expected. Performance in each group on the Total Survey was higher than expected. Weaknesses. Performance by all study groups on the Igegtj: fication of Facts and Terms and Occupational Knowledge sub-scales was lower than expected. Question 3.3. In what content, skill area, or general level of adult functional competency are there dif- ferences among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population? Potential differences between study groups were only noted in regard to possible strengths in Government and Law among freshmen and Reading among senior class students. ,Question 4: Distribution of Performance Scores Question 4. What is the distribution of content, skill area, and general adult functional competency among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population? The distribution of adult functional competency as measured by performance on the High School APL Survey among the l,O49 entering freshmen, 509 juniors, and $01 seniors in the population is reported in Appendix N. 95 The frequency distribution of study group test performance on content and skill area sub-scales is reported in Tables l-3 of Appen- dix N. The frequency distribution of study group APL Test scores on content and skill area sub-scales is also reported as a percent of each group (percent frequency distribution) in Tables 4-6 of Appen- dix N. Percent frequency distributions of study group performance scores are graphically presented for categorical content and skill area sub-scales in Figures 4.6-4.l5. Frequency distribution of total survey scores for grades 9, ll, and 12 are reported in Tables 7-9 of Appendix N. Table 10 of Appendix N provides a summary of total survey performance scores for grades 9, ll, and 12. These frequency distribution data are graphic- ally represented in Figure 4.l6. Specific observations with respect to each content or skill area and total survey performance by each study group are given below as appropriate to each of the following three related questions. Question 4.l. What is the distribution of adult functional competency among high school entering freshmen in the population and among junior and senior class students in the population at the end of their school year in the following content areas? 4.l.l. Community Resources. The distribution of adult func- tional competency on this sub-scale among freshmen, juniors, and seniors can be seen from an examination of Figure 4.6. It should be 96 .mpmum-nam mmueaomwm xwpcaesoo msu co masogm xuzum mango-sumpmza use .su:m>mpm .su:_= an mucmsgomgmg amok 4¢< No compgmqsou-.m.¢ mezmvu u4h~z=zzcu zo museum hzwuzma oo— m.mm mm m.~m om m.~m mm m.~p o p p p — p O \\\\\\\\\anHHHHHHu x I.o— N— p a Tom u.om u.o¢ r.Om Np _— m x ma .0 anwwmg museum no zouhammmhm~a >uzu=ou¢u hzmuxum 97 noted from this graph of percent frequency distribution that freshman scores are lgwe£_than those of either the junior or senior class. It can also be observed that there are more seniors scoring higher than juniors on the Community Resources sub-scale. 4.l.2. Occupational Knowledge. The distribution of adult functional competency on this sub-scale among freshmen, juniors, and seniors can be seen from an examination of Figure 4.7. There is a general pattern of larger percentages of low scores among all three study groups on this sub-scale. Performance differences between freshman and junior or senior study groups appear more pronounced on this sub-scale than on other categorical content area sub-scales. Minor differences in junior and senior study group performance on the lower end of the scale are more apparent at higher performance levels. 4.l.3. Heglth, The distribution of adult functional compe- tency on this sub-scale among freshmen, juniors, and seniors is illustrated in Figure 4.8. Performance by the freshman study group is apparently quite lower than that of junior or senior groups. While somewhat higher, performance levels of seniors are not much higher than those of juniors on this sub-scale. 4.l.4. Government and Law. The distribution of adult func- tional competency on this content sub-scale is illustrated in Figure 4.9. Scores by each study group appear to be broadly distributed over the range of possible scores. Differences appear to be about equal among the three groups, with seniors scoring higher than juniors, who scored higher than freshmen on this sub-scale. 98 .mpoum-nzm umvmpzocx chowumqsuuo mg» co mnaogm xvzum mango-cuepmzu vcm .cu:m>mpm .zucvc an mucwscowcma amok 4a< we :cmwcmasou-.N.e mesmwm N. : N gum-Na 38:55. 282588 .6 $83. :35: x “.80 a 4 90— mm m.~o om - — p - .uom muscum no zonhamumhmmo >uzm:cm¢u hzmuzwa 1.0m x r.o¢ 99 .mPNUN-aam gu—mmz mzp :o mazocm zusum mumcm-guwpmzu can .su:m>mpm .gucwc ma mucmsgowema ummh 4a< mo comwcmasou-.w.e meamwm N. .p N SEN-Na :55: 6 38% Ewen: x a @ "azuams co, m.NN mN m.No om m.NN mN m.N_ o _ _ r _ _ _ T L. c O 1 OF .L 1 ON mugcum do zoNN=N_th_a S Nuzusouge pzuugua - on .\ - oe r om lOO .m.mom-n=m so; can acmE=Lo>ow ugu co masocm zuaum mumem-guw.mzu ucm .gucm>m.m .gu:.= an mucmsgoucmq paw» 4g< No comwgmasou-.m.¢ mesmNN N. .. N x” a .u SSN-Na =5 92 5.258.... .5 $58. 535.. "NEH: 8. QB NN N.No S N...” N N..N. N . . _ . . . . TlIlT __. N . G o O l o— O O h C 1- ON o 3.5% No - a 22.825... .NzNBNE .zNNNNN x u 8 .- 8 N e lOl 4.l.5. Consumer Economics. The distribution of adult func- tional competency on this sub-scale among freshmen, juniors, and seniors is illustrated in Figure 4.l0. Study group scores on this sub-scale are similar to the group scores on the Occupational Knowledge sub-scale. Scores are higher for higher grade-level groups; differ- ences between freshmen and juniors or seniors are more pronounced; and differences between junior and senior study groups become more apparent at higher performance levels. Question 4.2. What is the distribution of adult functional competency among high school entering freshmen in the population and among junior and senior class students in the population at the end of their school year in the following skill areas? 4.2.l. Identification of Facts and Terms. The distribution of adult functional competency on this skill area sub-scale is illus- trated in Figure 4.ll. A comparison indicates that freshman perfor- mances are lower than either junior or senior study groups and that the distribution of performance among juniors and seniors is Similar over the range of possible scores with senior study group scores slightly higher overall. 4.2.2. Reading. The distribution of adult functional compe- tency in regard to reading is illustrated in Figure 4.l2. The general trend is for higher grade-level students to score higher on this sub- scale. Differences between study groups appear about equal at lower levels of performance and become more pronounced at higher levels. 102 .m.mum-n=m Newsocoum .msamcou mgu co maaocm auaum mango-zuw.mzu van .;a=m>m.m .gu:.: an mucmagomema ummh 4a< we comwcmasou-u.o..e mgzmwm u4uzm=om¢m hzuumua 103 .m.muN-nzm msemp New muumu No :o.umu...u=mu. mg. co maaogm zuzum mumLm-cue.ozu new .cu:m>w.m .zucwc Na mucmsgomcoq “New Na< mo comwemasou-u....v mezmwu NNNNN-NNN NE”... a: fig: NN zNNENEENN. 2N NNNNNN .235: Nx. .9. My NN. 8.8 3.8 N... 8.8 8.2 N ".233 n p b h - - O 0 o T N. O xN. .. a N O B r NN « o NNNNNN NN ,, 0 22.82:; 55:86 .zNNNNN T NN x u N. [om .w.mum-N=m mcpnmmm mg» no mazogm anzpm mumsm-:»..mzu vcm .cpcm>m.m .cu:.c Na mucmELNNLmN umwh 4a< we commcmasou-.m..¢ meamwu 104 SEN-Na 2.85.. S NNNNNN .285: Nx. r. m NN. NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN ..... N — r h p b r p . O u 0 f.N. N. . o N H u -.NN NNNNNN NN 2N..NN.N.N.N . . .NNNNNNNN . . .NNNNNN c ..NN -.NN ..NN 105 4.2.3. Writing. The distribution of adult functional compe- tency on this sub-scale is illustrated in Figure 4.13. In general, scores by study groups were high on this scale, with relatively small differences between study groups appearing at average and higher levels of performance. The trend of higher performance by higher grade- level groups is also observed on this sub-scale. 4.2.4. Computation. The distribution of adult functional com- petency on this sub-scale is illustrated in Figure 4.l4. Larger num- bers of freshmen made lower scores on this scale than on any other sub-scale. Low scores were also made by juniors, whose overall per- formance was broadly distributed across the range of possible scores. At lower performance levels there were larger apparent differences in performance by freshmen in comparison to junior or senior groups than there were between the two upper-class study groups. Group differences appear similar at higher performance levels, with seniors scoring higher than juniors, who scored higher than freshmen. 4.2.5. Problem Solving. The distribution of adult functional competency on this sub-scale is illustrated in Figure 4.l5. The gen- eral trend of higher performance by higher grade-level groups is observed here with the exception that differences between performance by junior and senior groups--which were not large at the lower end of the scale--disappear at the higher end of the performance scale. 106 .m.muN-a=m m:.a.g3 mg» no masoga Nuaum muonm-ga».mzp new .gu:m>m—w .;.:.: Na muzmsgomgma ummp 4N< mo :om.emasou-.m..e mgzapm Sam-mam c2325 zo 358 #2353 N”. M A” co. méw ms m.~o om m§m mm m.~F o "Qua: r- - _ — p N— o 0 - NN NNNNNN NN o 2N..NN.N.N.N .NzNNNNNN .zNNNNN o T NN xrlllllll-Tuw \\ Ice l07 .m.mum-N=m NN.NNuamsoo mg» no masocu xvaum mumcm-xaw.mzu ucm .sucm>m.m .gu:.= Na mucmsgowema pump Na< No comwgmqsou-.¢..e mgamwu N— Z a 359.2% 22.25%59 20 3:03 .535... x G 0 Go. 3.8 3.: 3.8 omdm 3.3. mm.mm -.- 3.: o 52mg..— ) p L — - b b n _ — o O/ X\\\\\\\ l o— N— G x . r NN 35% no 26:35th 55:89. .53me I on l 9. r 8 108 cc. . .m.N6m-a:m a:.>.om Em.noga mg» :0 masocm xuzum mecca-cumpmzu new .;u=m>m.m .gu:_: an mucmsgomcwa paw» NN< No cemmemasou-.m..v me:m.u N_. p— o u4._om twang—N— zo mucoum hzmuzmm x E O mKw mm m.~e om me . mm m.N_. o "czmwug — p p p — lil- : o \n“ w L a v N. .. O N .- N. 0 I ON X mumoum no B Zomba—Emu: >uzmacm¢m hzuomum 0 l on 1. Ge r NN 109 Question 4.3. What is the distribution of the general level of adult functional competency among high school entering freshmen in the population and among junior and senior class students in the popula- tion at the end of their school year? The distribution of general levels of adult functional compe- tency among high school entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population, as measured by Total Survey performance on the High School APL Survey, is provided in Tables 7—9 of Appendix N. These tables include the total score, expressed as raw score and percent of total possible score (TPS); the frequency distribution of student scores, expressed both numerically and as percent of study group; and the percentile rank (PR) of each score. These data are summarized accord- ing to grade level within eight intervals in Table lO of Appendix N and are graphically illustrated in Figure 4.l6. Total Survey performance, as indicated in Figure 4.l6, for freshman, junior, and senior study groups is seen to follow the trend observed on other sub-scales where higher grade-level students tended to score higher. More pronounced differences are observed between freshmen and junior or senior groups than between the upper classes. Percentile rank data are presented in Tables 7-9 of Appendix N and can be used to determine the percentage of students in each study group who scored at or below any given score. The following rating scale comparisons between study groups and national norm groups are presented here as extracted from Tables 7-9 of Appendix N. llO »Nw>esm .Nuop mg» :o mnaogm NNNNN muNLm-NNN.N3N New .;u=m>m.m .5»:.: Na mo:mELo».mN ummh Na< mo commgmaeou-.o..e mg:m.u N. .. N :53 is. .5 .5 NNNNNN 3.5.5.. x a o "NNNNNN NN NN NN NN NN N. N. N N N P b h b b r p .l l. (ll-Tl T o x ,. : --T-Nu- 0 o o c j c— N. .. N w-om NNNNNN NN - o 2N..NN.N.N.N .NNNNNNNN .zNNNNN j on O 1 av - NN For the eleventh grade: lll Ratin 5 Score % of Study % of Norm % Difference Among _____fi_ ngge_ Group (SG) Group (NG) Groups (SG - NG) ABOVE AVERAGE 35-40 30.5 25 + 5.5 AVERAGE 27-34 49.5 60 -lO.5 BELOW AVERAGE 0'26 20.0 15 + 5,0 For the twelfth grade: Ratin 5 Score % of Study % of Norm % Difference Among _____E__ ngge_ Group (SG) Group (NG) Groups (SG - NG) ABOVE AVERAGE 36-40 34.3 25 + 9,3 AVERAGE 29-35 49.4 60 -lO.6 BELOW AVERAGE 0-28 l6.3 l5 + 1,3 It can be seen from these comparisons of general adult func- tional competency between study groups and comparable national norm groups that: l. A larger number of students in both junior and senior study groups scored in the ABOVE AVERAGE category than their counterparts in the national norm group; 2. [eweg students in the junior and senior study groups scored in the AVERAGE category than in the national norm groups; and that ll2 3. More students in the junior and senior study groups scored in the BELOW AVERAGE category than would have been antici- pated on the basis of performance by students in the national norm groups. Performance differences in regard to the comparison of study and norm groups on this general indicator of adult functional compe- tency are most noticeable at the ABOVE AVERAGE level for seniors and at the BELOW AVERAGE level for juniors. Significance Apparent similarities or differences that are reported here between study groups and among study and national norm groups were tested for significance and the findings of these tests are discussed in the next section of this chapter. Hypotheses Previously observed similarities and differences in adult func- tional competency levels among study groups and between junior or senior study and comparable norm groups were tested for significance and the findings of these tests are reported here according to the following five research hypotheses: Hypothesis l: Comparison of JunTbr Groups H]: As measured by mean scores of performance on the High School APL Survey, there are no significant differences between adult functional competency levels of high school ll3 juniors in the population and adult functional competency levels among high school juniors in the United States (H1: M = M ll(SG) ll(NG))' This hypothesis was tested on comparison of mean scores between eleventh-grade study and norm groups on each of the five content and Skill area sub-scales and on the total survey. Comparative data for these tests are summarized in Table 4.4. Differences in mean scores on the Computation and Total Survey were tested at the 0.0l level of significance. All other sub-scale differences were tested for signifi- cance at the 0.00l level. H1_findings.--The differences in mean scores on all scales were not statistically significant. Therefore, this null hypothesis fails to be rejected as no statistically significant differences were found between levels of adult functional competency among the study group of high school juniors and adult functional competency levels among high school juniors in the United States. Hypothesis 2: Comparison of Senior Groups H2: As measured by mean scores of performance on the High School APL Survey, there are no significant differences between adult functional competency levels of high school seniors in the population and adult functional competency levels among high school seniors in the United States (”2‘ M12(SG) ‘ Ml2(NG))° 114 .NN - Nz ..m>m. .o.o on» em oucuu.w.cm.m so» mm.~ N. u:.N> N.NNh .u:mu.u.cm.m .Nopuum xm>gam .Nuoh ucu NN.NNuzasou Lo; :o..ou.su Na tom: Na: .w>u. .o.o ugh .Nm.aum cage .0; .m>u. poo. ugu as Aumou cm..ou-ozuv mus—NN-u mo mFNNu soc» uucwsguuou mucuu.u.cm.m mo pu>mNG Nz NN.N NN.N N..N Nz NN.N NN.N ..N N. NN.NNN .NNN. Nz NN.N NN.N N.N N: N... NN.N ..N N NN.N.NN NN.NNLN ..N. N.N N..N N.N Nz NN.N ..N ..N N NN.NNNNNNNN N: .N.. NN.N ..N N: NN.. NN.N ..N N NN.N..N Nz NN.N NN.N N.N N: .N..- NN.N ..N- N NN.NNNN Nz Ne..- NN.N ..N- N: NN.N- NN.N N.N- N mega. NNN N.NNN .N NN.NNN....NNN. .NN. N...NN Nz NN.N NN.N N.N Nz NN.. NN.N ..N N NN.NNNNNN gosamcou Nz NN.. NN.N ..N Nz NN.N- NN.N N.N- N NNN Ne. causesa>ow Nz NN.N NN.N N.N Nz NN.. NN.N ..N N NN.NN: Nz NN.N NN.N N.N Nz NN.N NN.N N.N N NNNN.3NNN .Nco.uuaauuo Nz N..N NN.N N.N N: .N.. NN.N ..N N NNNLNNNNN Nu.==saou Acev mum-E ”Emu coo . szx-wmxv . o szx-umxv .N.N ...N .N A...N ....N .N.N N..N . ....N ....N a. I .4. T NNNNN N N Na»: NLNNN N N Nu»: wwwwpauo NN.NNN NN< N..N. .NN NNN. NN.NN 92.. .m> amp. ouosw ..mzv museum m>.aasgoc Na mucosgomcma amok am< 39.: mucgsgomgun amok Na< Aamv aaogm ausum No mcom.gonsou-.e.e o.ao» 115 This hypothesis was tested by comparison of mean scores between senior study and norm groups on each of the five content and skill area sub-scales and on the total survey. Comparative data for these tests are summarized in Table 4.5. Differences in mean scores on the Computation and Total Survey scales were tested at the 0.0l level of significance. All other sub-scale differences were tested at the 0.00l level of significance. H2 findings.--Differences in mean scores on all but the Compu- tation sub-scale were not found to be statistically significant. The difference in mean scores on the Computation sub-scale was statis- tically_significant at the 0.0l level. Therefore, this null hypothe- sis fails to be rejected for all but the Computational aspect of adult functional competency as no statistically significant differ- ences (except for differences in Computational skill) were found between levels of adult functional competency among high school seniors in the population and adult functional competency levels among high school seniors in the United States. This hypothesis is rejected in regard to the Computational aspect of adult functional competency and apparently there is a sta- tistically significant difference between the computational skill level among seniors in the population and the level of computational skill among high school seniors in the United States. High school seniors in the population may have highe§_levels of computational skill than their counterparts in the United States. 'll6 ..NNN. .N.N N.N .N NNNNN...NN.N EN. NN.N N. NN.NN N.N..... ..NNN. .NN N NN. N. NNNNN...NN.N to. NN.N N. «N... N..N... .NN.NNN xm>c=m .N.N. use co..au:aeou as. :o uucou...cm.m so. co..uu..u me new: up: .o>m. .o.o mg. .NN.NNN umoe Lo. .m>o. .oo.o an» .N ..Nm. vo..Nu-ox». Nu=.N>-u No N.NNN so.» vac.sgwuuc oucnu...=a.m mo .o>u.c .NNm .m.m N~.o ... ««¢m No... mn.o m.m «N.N .N.N. NN.N ..e cc au>g=m .N.N. mz .N.N No.o N.N Nym om.o. No.o m.o «Nm m... mo.c o.o m a:.>.em so.ao.N «.Nm NN.N N..N ..o «.Gm «a... ...o o.~ «Gcm em... ...c m.. N :o.uou:gsou mz NN.N No.o ~.o NNm m~.m .o.o o.o «Gm ~..m .N.N v.o w u:.u..3 N.N om.m NN.N m.o Ntm mmflm. mo.o ... NNm mm.~ mo.o w.o m ac.vou¢ mz NN.N -mo.o N.N «Nm .m.o. wo.o m.. «Nm om.m. mo.o ... 9 menu. can Nuuug ..o ..o.unu.:...uu. .NN. N....N Nym .N.N NN.N N.N ..N «..N. No.0 o.. .Nm NN.N. .o.o o.. m Nu.socoum soaamcou ¢Nm NN.N NN.N N.N «am .N.N. mo.o ... «cm ~..o. .N.N ..o m to. use u=o5=5o>cw m2 mm.~ mo.o N.N Nam on... .N.o m.o NNm NN.N oc.o N.N a :u.oo= «am «N.N o..o m.o .Nm em.m. NN.N ... «Nm em.~. NN.N N.. m umvm.xo:x .Nco.uanauuo mz NN.N no.0 N.N Nam oo.o. .N.N ..o c«m .N.N .o.o m.o m myocaomuz N..N:EEou Ace. muug< acuucou . .NN.N . . .NN.N . . .NN.N N..N .6 . . N..N mo .N.N . .N.N .o .N.N N.N.m - .N.N ugoum « m.m - acoum c m.m - ugoum as. . s... as. . s... as. . s... a”... N... .2... a. ..NN-N.z .NNmu..z. : .m> N— «095.5 ..NN-N.z .NNN..-Nz. a .N> N. nuance .NNmu..z .N.N..-Nz. N .N. .. NNNNNN .... .N> N. .N .N> N. .m .NN ..V maaogm ausum ouogu N.N. ves ....m macaw mucusgomeua emu. 4a< No meom.guasou-u.m.¢ «.NN. ll7 Hypothesis 3: Comparison of Freshman and Junior Study Groups H3: As measured by mean scores of performance on the High School APL Survey, there are no significant differences between adult functional competency levels of students in theppopulation upon entry into high school and adult functional competency levels of students in the popula— tion at the end of their junior year of high school (”3‘ Mll(SG) = M9(SG))' This hypothesis is tested on comparison of mean scores between freshman and junior study groups on each of the five content and skill area sub-scales and on the total survey. Comparative data for these tests are summarized in Table 4.5. Mean differences, expressed as percent of total possible score, are also reported for each sub- scale in Table 4.6. These percent differences are illustrated in Figures 4.l7-4.20. Differences in mean scores were tested for significance at the 0.01 level for Computation and Total Survey scales and at the 0.00l level for all other scores. H3,finding§.--Differences in mean scores between junior and freshman groups were found to be from 6.25 on Community Resources to l8.33 percent on Identification of Facts and Terms. An average over- all percent difference of 10.2 was found between freshman and junior study groups. These differences are statistically significant. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected for each sub-scale and for the total 118 .NNNNN...NN.N .N .N.N. .N.N NN. .N NNN.NNN.NN«« .NNNNN...=N.N .N .N.N. .NN.N 0.. .N NNN.NNN.NN« ««N NN.N ««N NN.N. ««N NN.N. NN NN.NNN .N.N. Nz NN.N «N NN N. «N NN.N N NN.N.NN NN.NNNN ««N N... ««N NN.NN ««N NN.N. N NN.NNNNNNNN Nz NN.N «N NN.N «N NN.N N NN.N.NN «N NN.N «N NN.N. «N NN.N N NN.NNNN Nz NN.N «N .N..N «N NN.N. N NNNN. NNN N.NN. .N NN.NNN....NNN. .NN. N...NN «N NN.N «N NN... «N NN.N. N NN.NNNNNN gussmcou «N NN.N «N N..N. «N N..N N 2N4 NNN newscso>ow Nz NN.N «N NN.N. «N NN.N N NN.NN: «N NN.N «N NN..N «N NN.N. N NNNN.NNNN .N:N.uon:uuc Nz NN.N «N N..N «N NN.N N NNNNNNNNN au.:afieou .oev Nuwg< acoucou ..NWN .N . ......-N..E ..NWN .N . .N -N.N. ..NWN .N . .N.N...N New N .N .N.N NNNN N .N ...N NNN: N .N N..N NNNN N N N. u NN.NNN NNN .. .N> N. NNNNNN a .N> N. vaugw m .N> .. vaoew .... .N> N. .m .N> N. «m .N> ..V o.NuN game go «LouN N.N.NNNN .Nuou No acougoa No quNuLqu chouN N.NNN so. NNNNLN Nuaum «NN.N N.N. uco ....N acosa mucosgoygua any» am< mo NcoN..Nnaou-.c.o «.NN. ll9 .N.NNN NNLN .cmucou scum :o Nazogm auauN mango -N.N.mz. NNN .g.=m>m.m «gu:.c Na mucusLNNNNN uNm. gm< c. Nmucmem...u mo NNN..NNsou-....e m.=m.m ..N-N..N. a N.N-N.M a NNNNNN ..N... .358 N.N-..N D 28.. 3.: ..sz. NNN . NZNN N .NNN N.NNNN NNN zzou .NzNNNN \ \N . , \ N HHHH \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ T N \ \ L \ L \ M \ \ b \ 1 N. N..NNN NNN.NNNN NN.N. NN .zNNNNN ll NN NNNNNN . , \ .5: NNNNN L z. 353:; U 1. ON .. NN lZO .N.NuN ngm ...xN NNNm co Nazoem ANNNN chLN -N.N.mzu cam .gucm>m.m .cuc.: Na NNNNELNNNNN .Nm. Na< :. Nmucmem...v mo :oN.LNNsou-.m..e «.NN.N ..N-N..N.- a Nx-N.m B NN.NNN 5.2 NN.NN N....... U ..NN " NNNN .NzNN N..N: 93.. .52 N..NNN. N \ , . \ \ \ Ill. “ Tm \\\x \\\x hum” \\\\1||- \\\\ R \ \ TN. NNNNN NNN.NNNN NN.N. \ N 53...: NN NNNNNN .5: .85 ll ..N. z. 353:; \ \ INN rNN lZl 25-1 20'- 15-4 A DIFFERENCE 1N /,/’ GROUP NEAN SCORES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL POSSIBLE SCORE ]O_. ///////// 5- % xll-9 x12—9 le-ll TOTAL SURVEY SCORES Figure 4.l9.--Comparison of differences in APL Test performance by ninth, eleventh, and twelfth-grade study groups on total survey. 122 .am>.=N .N.N. as. so NNN Nmem ...xN .o .cmpcou gumo :o Nazogm NNNNN mumem -N.N.ozu new .g.=m>m.m .;.:.: an mo:m§go.gma umm. Na< :. Nmucwgm...u .o com..mnsou-.ON.¢ m.=m.u ..N... @ N-N...g N..N—HH— "N..NNNN .N.NNN NN.NNN NNNN NN.NN NN.NNN NNNN .NN.NNN NN.N. . r . N ) . .NNN zNNN NNN 3N2. NNN NN.N .NNNN N..N: NNNN .NNN. NzNN N ..NN N..NNN NNN zzNN N..NNN NNN.NNNN .N.N. NN N. .zNNNNN N< NNNNNN zNNz NNNNN z. NNNNNNNN.N ..N ..N 123 survey as there are apparently statistically significant differences between adult functional competency levels among entering freshmen in the population and adult functional competency levels among juniors in the population at the end of their school year. In each case the competency level of juniors was found to be Higper_than that of entering freshmen. Hypothesis 4: Comparison of Freshman and Senior Study Groups H4: As measured by mean scores of performance on the High School APL Survey, there are no significant differences between adult functional competency levels of students in the population upon entry into high school and adult functional competency levels of high school seniors in the population at the end of their school year (”4‘ M12(SG) = M9(SG))' This hypothesis was tested by comparing mean scores between freshman and senior study groups in each of the five content and skill area sub-scales and on the total survey. Comparative data for these tests are summarized in Tables 4.5 and 4.6. Percent differences are illustrated in Figures 4.l7-4.20.‘ H4 findingS.--Mean scores differ from 7.5 on Writing to 22.22 percent on Computation, with an average mean score difference of l4.5 percent overall. These differences are statistically significant at the 0.01 level for the Computation sub-scale and for the Total Survey and at the 0.00l level for all other sub-scales. The null hypothesis 124 is rejected and the alternate hypothesis (H43) is accepted as there apparently are significant differences between adult functional com- petency levels among entering freshmen and seniors in the population at the end of their school year. In each instance, performance levels of the senior group were High [ than that of the entering freshmen. Hypothesis 5: Comparison of Junior and Senior Study_Groups H5: As measured by mean scores of performance on the High School APL Survey, there are no significant differences between adult functional competency levels of students in the population at the end of their jugjgr_year of high school and the adult functional competency levels of high school seniors in the population at the end of their school year (H5: Ml2(SG) = Mll(SG))’ This hypothesis was tested by comparing mean scores between junior and senior study groups on each of the five content and skill area sub-scales and on the total survey. Data produced for these comparisons are summarized in Tables 4.5 and 4.6. Percent differences in performance levels between junior and senior study groups are illustrated in Figures 4.17-4.20. Hgdfindings.--Differences in mean scores between senior and junior study groups vary from as little as 2.5 percent on several scales to a high of 7.78 percent on the Computation scale, with an overall average difference of 4.3 percent. Mean scores for seniors were higher than for juniors on all sub-scales. 125 Significant differences.--Statistically significant differ- ences in performance were found at the 0.001 level in respect to Occupational Knowledge, Government and Law, Consumer Economics, and Reading sub-scales; and at the 0.01 level on the Computation and Total Survey scales. The null hypothesis is rejected in regard to these content and skill areas of adult functional competency as measured by per- formance on the total survey. Apparently there are significant dif- ferences in the adult functional competency levels of juniors and seniors in the population in three content areas, two skill areas, and in general as indicated on the total survey. Other differences.--Nean score differences between junior and senior study groups were not found to be statistically significant at the 0.001 level in regard to Community Resources, Health, Identifi- cation of Facts and Terms, Writing, and Problem Solving. The null hypothesis is not rejected in regard to these two content and three skill areas of adult functional competency. Summary of Findings In this chapter, research data have been presented and analyzed in terms of the major research questions and hypotheses of the study. Within the limitations of the study, primary findings were: Overall Adult Functional Competency Levels of Enteridg Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors The overall trend of adult functional competency among enter- ing freshmen, juniors, and seniors as measured by performance on the 126 High School APL Survey was for higher levels of adult functional competency among seniors than among juniors than among freshmen. The overall rating of adult functional competency level among junior and senior study groups was AVERAGE in comparison to adult functional competency levels among comparable national norm groups. Content, Skill Area, and General Adult Functional Competendy Levels Among Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors Content, skill area, and general adult functional competency among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors were determined, are summarized in Tables 4.l-4.2, and are illustrated in Figures 4.2-4.5. When apparent differences between junior or senior study group performance and performance by comparable norm groups were tested for statistical significance (H1 and Hz), the only difference in adult functional competency levels that was found to be signifi- cant was between study and norm group performance by seniors on the Computation sub-scale. Seniors in the study group may have had higher levels of adult functional competency in regard to computational Skills than their comparable norm group in the United States. All other apparent differences between junior or senior study groups and comparable national norm groups were ggt_found to be sta- tistically significant. National norms for performance by entering freshmen were not available for comparison. 127 Strengths and Weaknesses in Adult Functional Competency Levels’Among Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors Possible strengths and weaknesses in adult functional compe— tency among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors were reported in terms of content, skill area, and general adult functional competency. Strengths and weaknesses were determined from an analysis of per- formance by study groups on the High School APL Survey in relation to expectations of performance based solely on the level of difficulty of content, skill area, and total survey scales. Strengths.--Performance on Heeltp_and Problem Solving sub- scales by each study group was higher than expected. Performance by the freshman study group on the Government and Law sub-scale was higher than would have been expected for juniors. Performance by seniors on the Reading subscale was higher than expected. Senior study group performance in regard to Computation was lower than per- formance by this group on other scales. Low performance on the Com- putation scale was as expected on analysis of scale difficulty; but, as mentioned earlier, seniors in the study group may have higher levels of computational Skill than their comparable norm group in the United States. Performance by each study group on the Total Survey was higher than expected. Weaknesses.--Performances by all study groups on the Identi- fication of Facts and Terms and Occupational Knowledge sub—scales were lower than expected. 128 Distribution of Content, Skill Area, and General Adult Functional Competeney Among Entering Freshmen,d Juniors, and Seniors The distribution of content, skill area, and general adult functional competency among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors, as measured by performance on the High School APL Survey, is summar- ized in Tables l-lO of Appendix N. These distributions of student performance scores are illustrated as percent of total possible per- formance in Figures 4.6-4.l6. Percentile rank data are presented in Tables 7-9 of Appendix N and can be used to determine the percentage of students in each study group who scored at or below any given score. A comparison of performance ratings for the general level of adult functional competency among junior and senior study groups shows: l. That 9.3 percent mp§e_seniors and 5.5 percent mg§e_juniors scored in the ABOVE AVERAGE range than comparable norm groups; 2. That l0.6 percent fege§_seniors and l0.5 percent fege§_ juniors scored in the AVERAGE range than comparable norm groups; and 3. That 1.3 percent mere seniors and 5.0 percent mg§e_juniors scored in the BELOW AVERAGE range than comparable norm groups in the United States. 129 Differences in Content, Skill Area, and General Adult Functional Competency Levels Amomngntering Freshmen, Juniors, and SenTOrs Differences in adult functional competency levels among high school entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population were determined, are summarized in Tables 4.5-4.6, and illustrated in Figures 4.17-4.20. Statistically significant differences were found in regard to all aspects of adult functional competency between the freshman study group and both upper-class study groups (H3 and H4). Scores by upper- class students were higher on all scales than scores by freshmen. Differences between freshman and junior study group adult functional competency levels were greatest in regard to Identification of Facts and Terms, Occupational Knowledge, and Computation Skills. Differences were least in regard to Writing, Community Resources, and Reading. Mean score differences were from a low of 5 percent to a high of 18.33 percent of total possible performance on each adult functional competency scale, with 10.2 percent as the average of sub- scale differences. Differences between freshman and senior study group adult functional competency levels were from 7.5 percent on Writing to 22.22 percent on Computation, with an average mean score difference of 14.5 percent overall. Mean score differences between freshman and senior study group adult functional competency levels were larger than the differences between freshman and junior study groups on all scales. 130 Differences in adult functional competency levels between junior and senior study groups were found to be statistically_signifi- cant (H5) only in regard to: Occupational Knowledge, Government and Law, Consumer Economics, Reading, Computation, and the Total Survey. Differences in adult functional competency levels between junior and senior study groups were mgt_found to be statistically significant in regard to: Community Resources, Health, Identification of Facts and Terms, Writing, and Problem Solvimg. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction In this chapter, essential elements of the study are summar- ized, findings are reviewed, conclusions are stated, implications are discussed, and recommendations are made. Suggestions for future studies are also included. Summary The purpose of this research has been to study functional literacy among students of secondary schools in the DODDS-Pacific Region. Functional literacy was studied in terms of a general theory of adult functional competency that emerged from the United States Office of Education funded APL Project (Northcutt, 1973). That project identified competencies that are functional (essential) to adult life. This research obtained, analyzed, and compared levels of functional competency among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors according to APL Project competencies as refined by the APL Department staff at American College Testing. Competencies were measured by student performance on the High School APL Survey (HS-1). The population that was studied can be described as char- acteristically unique in its location on U.S. military installations 131 132 in foreign countries throughout the Pacific region. Although unique in its location, information has been presented here to indicate that the performance by members of the population on traditional measures of academic capability compare favorably with the population of stu- dents within the United States. Reliability, validity, and normative data were reviewed for the High School APL Survey (HS-l), which was used to measure adult functional competency levels in this study. While sub-scales are not extremely reliable, the content validity is excellent and the reliability of the total survey (0.85-0.87) is acceptable. Data on adult functional competency levels were collected by administering the High School APL Survey (HS-l) to 1,049 freshmen, 509 juniors, and 501 senior students in the population. Ninth-grade students were tested in September of school years 1977/78 and 1978/79. Most schools conducted the testing of freshmen in the Fall of 1977; two of the schools tested freshmen students in September of 1978. All eleventh-grade students in the population were tested in May of 1978; all twelfth-grade students were tested in May of 1977. Machine and hand-scored test performance data for each stu- dent were keypunched onto tabulating cards for storage and analysis. Computer programs were written and used to verify the accuracy of the data preparation, to compute school mean scores, and to provide des- criptive statistics for test performance by each study group. Observed differences in adult functional competency levels, among the study groups and between junior or senior study groups 133 and comparable norm groups in the United States, were statistically tested for significance on evaluation of t-scores (two-tailed) for differences in group mean scores. For most differences in student group performance to be recognized, the level of significance had to be at or above the 0.001 level. Differences on the Computation sub- scale and on the Total Survey were recognized as being significant at the 0.01 level. Major Research Findings Research data were collected, analyzed, and evaluated in terms of the previously stated research questions and hypotheses. Within the limitations of the study, the major findings were: Overall Adult Functional Competency Levels of Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors The overall trend of adult functional competency among enter- ing freshmen, juniors, and seniors, as measured by performance on the High School APL Survey, was for higher levels of adult functional com- petency among seniors than among juniors than among freshmen. The overall rating of adult functional competency level among junior and senior study groups was AVERAGE in comparison to adult functional competency levels among comparable national norm groups. Content, Skill Area, and General Adult Functional Competency Levels Among Enterinngreshmen, Juniors, and Seniors Content, skill area, and general adult functional competency among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors were determined, 134 are summarized in Tables 4.1-4.2, and are illustrated in Figures 4.2-4.5. When apparent differences between junior or senior study group performance and performance by comparable norm groups were tested for statistical significance (H1 and Hz), the only difference in adult functional competency levels that was found to be significant was between study and norm group performance by seniors on the Computation sub-scale. Seniors in the study group may have had higher levels of adult functional competency in regard to computational skills than their comparable norm group in the United States. All other apparent differences between junior or senior study groups and comparable national norm groups were mge_found to be sta- tistically significant. National norms for performance by entering freshmen were not available for comparison. Strengths and Weaknesses in Adult Functional Competency Levels Among Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors Strengths and weaknesses, in terms of content, skill area, and general adult functional competency, were determined from an analysis of performance by study groups on the High School APL Survey (HS-1). Observed performance was compared to expectations of performance based solely on the level of difficulty of content, skill area, or total survey scales. Strengths.--Performance on HeeltH_and Problem Solving sub- scales by each study group was higher than expected. Performance by the freshman study group on the Government and Law sub-scale was 135 higher than would have been expected for juniors. Performance by seniors on the Reading sub-scale was higher than expected. Senior study group performance in regard to Computation was lower than per- formance by this group on other scales. Low performance on the Computation scale by seniors was as expected on analysis of scale difficulty; but, as mentioned earlier, seniors in the study group may have higher levels of computational skill than their comparable norm group in the United States. Performance by each study group on the Total Survey was higher than expected. Weaknesses.—-Performances by all study groups on the Identi- fication of Facts and Terms and Occupational Knowledge sub-scales were lower than expected. Distribution of Content, Skill Area, and General Adult Functional Competeney Among Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and Seniors The distribution of content, skill area, and general adult functional competency among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors, as measured by performance on the High School APL Survey, is summarized in Tables l-lO of Appendix N. These distributions of student perform- ance scores are illustrated as percent of total possible performance in Figures 4.6-4.l6. Percentile rank data are presented in Tables 7-9 of Appen- dix N and can be used to determine the percentage of students in each study group who scored at or below any given score. A comparison of performance ratings for the general level of adult functional competency among junior and senior study groups shows: 136 1. That 9.3 percent mdge_seniors and 5.5 percent mere juniors scored in the ABOVE AVERAGE range than comparable norm groups; 2. That 10.6 percent feue: seniors and 10.5 percent jeue[_ juniors scored in the AVERAGE range than comparable norm groups; and 3. That 1.3 percent mege_seniors and 5.0 percent meme juniors scored in the BELOW AVERAGE range than comparable norm groups in the United States. Differences in Content, Skill Area, and General Adult Functional Competency Levels Among Entering Freshmen, Juniors, and’Seniors Differences in adult functional competency levels among high school entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors in the population were determined, are summarized in Tables 4.5-4.6, and are illustrated in Figures 4.17-4.20. Statistically Significant differences were found in regard to all aspects of adult functional competency between the freshman study group and both upper-class study groups (H3 and H4). Scores by upper- class students were higher on all scales than scores by freshmen. Differences between freshman and junior study group adult functional competency levels were greatest in regard to Identification of Facts and Terms, Occupational Knowledge, and Computation skills. Differences were least in regard to Writing, Community Resources, and Reading. Mean score differences were from a low of 5 percent to a high of 18.33 percent of total possible performance on each adult 137 functional competency scale with 10.2 percent as the average of sub- scale differences. Differences between freshman and senior study group adult functional competency levels were from 7.5 percent on Writing to 22.22 percent on Computation, with an average mean score difference of 14.5 percent overall. Mean score differences between freshman and senior study group adult functional competency levels were larger than the differences between freshman and junior study groups on all scales. Differences in adult functional competency levels between junior and senior study groups were found to be statistically sige nificant (H5) only in regard to: Occupational Knowledge, Government and Law, Consumer Economics, Readiug, Computation, and the Total Survey. Differences in adult functional competency levels between junior and senior study groups were ugt_found to be statistically Significant in regard to: Community Resources, Health, Identifica- tion of Facts and Terms, Writing, and Problem Solving. Conclusions The purpose of this study was to determine levels of adult functional competency among entering freshmen, juniors, and seniors of DODDS high schools in the Pacific Region. The findings with respect to adult functional competency, as measured by performance on the High School APL Survey (HS-1), seem to support the following gen- eral conclusions about adult functional competency among these students: 138 l. Eleventh and twelfth-grade students among DODDS high schools in the Pacific Region ARE APPARENTLY AS ABLE AS THEIR COUN- TERPARTS IN THE UNITED STATES to utilize abilities to identify facts and terms, read, write, compute, and solve problems characteristic of everyday adult-life situations both generally and according to the following five content areas: (a) Community Resources, (b) Occupa- tional Knowledge, (c) Consumer Economics, (d) Health, and (e) Govern- ment and Law. 2. At the end of their school year, seniors among DODDS high schools in the Pacific Region ARE BETTER PREPARED TO FUNCTION AS ADULTS IN EVERYDAY LIFE SITUATIONS than are entering freshmen. 3. In their preparation for adult daily living and as measured by performance on the High School APL Survey (HS-l): a. Entering freshmen, while not as well prepared as juniors or seniors, ARE APPARENTLY BETTER PREPARED THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED to handle tasks involving Problem Solving skills and to deal with topics in Health, Government and Law. b. Juniors, while not as well prepared as seniors, ARE APPARENTLY BETTER PREPARED THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED to handle tasks involving Problem Solving skills and in dealing with topics in Heeltn, c. Seniors ARE APPARENTLY BETTER PREPARED THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED in terms of tasks involving Reading, Computa- tjgn, and Problem Solving skills and in regard to topics in the area of Health. 139 d. NEITHER freshmen, juniors, or seniors ARE APPARENTLY AS WELL PREPARED AS THEY COULD BE to handle tasks involving Identification of Facts and Terms or to deal with topics involv- ing Occupational Knowledge. e. Juniors and seniors ARE APPARENTLY BETTER PREPARED GENERALLY THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED. 4. As many as 16 percent of the seniors attending DODDS— Pacific high schools may have BELOW AVERAGE PREPARATION to perform tasks associated with everyday adult-life situations; and, in terms of the adult performance level (APL) definition of adult functional competency, this group can be expected to function with minimal success in adult life. Discussion Throughout this study, no effort has been made to address the obvious question of what, if any, effect the school has on adult functional competency levels among the students who were studied. The complexities of this question can be suggested on con- sideration of potential sources of student learning in regard to daily living skills. One certainly would not want to discount the role of parents, relatives, other siblings, and peers; nor would one want to rule out the possibility that businesses, community groups, churches, public libraries, and the media may have an important impact. Following this same line of thinking, it is reasonable to assume that the school must at least contribute to the development of adult func- tional competency among its students since much of what is done in 140 schools is intended for development of skills and competencies inher- ent in the APL definitions of functional competency. The findings of this research would seem to suggest that schools have an effect on adult functional competency levels among students since there was an observable direct relationship between level of adult functional competency and grade level in school. While no attempt has been made here to establish a causal relationship between schooling and development of adult functional competency among students, the findings of this research have definite implications for curriculum planning which attempts to address the issue of func- tional competency development through schooling. In exploring this idea of schooling for adult functional competency, one might ask whether the findings of this research are logically consistent with the kinds of things that are done in secon- dary schools and in particular among DODDS high schools in the Pacific Region. On examination it appears that, in the area of skills, these schools have emphasized reading, writing, and mathematics. In the content area, these schools have included coursework in social studies, science, career education, and more recently health as part of the minimum curriculum for graduation. (See "Curriculum," Chapter III.) In terms of minimum requirements, more emphasis is placed on English and social studies than on other skill or subject areas. The findings of this research with respect to adult func- tional competency levels among seniors at the end of their school experience when compared to adult functional competency levels among 141 entering freshmen Show higher levels among seniors on all factors of adult functional competency. Further comparing these groups, it is observed that differences among groups were over 10 percent gen- erally and specifically in regard to Occupational Knowledge, Consumer Economics, Government and Law, Computation, Identification of Facts and Terms, and Reading; but below 10 percent on all other scales. which included Health and Writing. Given these findings, it is not possible to state with any degree of certainty that schooling has or hasn't had an impact on adult functional competency levels among students. However, in sev- eral respects, differences larger than 10 percent were found among student adult functional competency levels in areas that are empha- sized in the minimum curriculum of these schools. Computational Skills, Government and Law, and Reading are good examples of this. Small differences in Writing skills among freshman and senior groups appear to be inconsistent with school emphasis on writing skill deveTOpment implied by the four-credit English requirement for graduation. The degree to which writing skills are actually empha- sized in these schools was not examined. Health, on the other hand, had DEE been widely taught until recently, and differences between freshman and senior group adult functional competency levels on the Health sub—scale were below 10 percent. For the most part, these observations of student adult func- tional competency levels are logically consistent with the school curriculum and this consistency suggests that there may be a positive relationship between schooling and development of adult functional 142 competency among students. Future research might investigate the origins of adult functional competency in order to establish a better perspective of the role of the secondary school in preparing students for adult daily living. Recommendations Assuming that schools, communities, parents, and educators may want to address the issue of adult functional competency develop- ment through schooling, there are several implications for program development that are suggested by this research. first, program planning should begin with the basic premise that the present curriculum among these DODDS-Pacific high schools is adequate in many respects. The groups of juniors and seniors, for which adult functional competency levels were determined, were as well prepared for adult daily living as their counterparts in the United States. Seepnd, it should be recognized that observed differences in adult functional competency levels among freshmen and seniors may not pe_in proportion to the emphasis these schools have placed on key requirements in the minimum curriculum. Priorities for, and contents of, existing programs should be reviewed, and, if necessary, revised based on this assessment of student needs in order to ensure maximum effectiveness of the minimum program. Third, remedial programs should be instituted for approxi— mately 16 percent of the student population among DODDS-Pacific high schools. This percentage of students was identified as having BELOW 143 AVERAGE levels of adult functional competency, and for these students-- without remedial programs--the APL definition of adult functional com- petency predicts minimal success in adult life. Suggestions for Future Studies Several questions were answered and many more are suggested by the findings of this study. Future work in this area might profitably: 1. Investigate the nature and specific needs of Below Average students who, at the end of their senior year in high school, were identified in this study as being ill prepared for adult daily living. The results of such a study would be of immediate interest to curriculum planners in their development of remedial programs for these students. 2. Study the school, community, peer, and/or parent impact on the development of student adult functional competencies. As mentioned earlier, this type of study might help establish a perspec- tive on the role of the school in developing adult functional compe- tency which would be useful to administrators in determining requisite actions and in establishing priorities. 3. Explore areas of adult functional competency that were identified as possible weaknesses in order to determine if these observed deficiencies have any effect on the post-high school adjust- ment of students to everyday living as adults in the United States. This information would aid decision makers in determining the scope of the problem, thereby establishing or obviating the need for action. 144 4. Attempt to verify the theoretical assumption that, for this or any group of students, the APL construct is a valid criterion measurement of success in adult life. Inasmuch as the APL definition of adult functional competency equates success in adult life with income, job status, and education, this suggested verification would be conducted as a follow-up study to this present research. As a follow-up study, the research would attempt to determine how closely performance on the High School APL Survey (HS-l) corresponds to objec- tive measures of the three success factors implicit in the APL defi- nition. Findings of such a study could result in a modification of the APL definition for and based on the specific needs of specific populations. 5. Investigate the relationship of adult functional compe- tency and traditional academic capability by comparing measures of both to determine the extent to which the development of traditional academic capability implies acquisition of adult functional competency. Results of this type of fundamental study could have multiple impli- cations for the process of literacy education in secondary schools. BIBLIOGRAPHY 145 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, James E., Jr. "The Right-to-Read Target for the 705." Address to the National Association of State Boards of Edu- cation, Los Angeles, California, September 23, 1969. American College Testing Program, APL Department. User's Guide: High School APL Survey, Iowa City: ACT, 1976. Bauer, Barry R. "A Comparison of the Performance of Adult High School Diploma Program Students With Graduating Seniors in Three Areas of Basic Skills Development." Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 145 085, 1977. Behne, Charlene Herberta. "A Study of the Mathematical Literacy of Selected Groups of Elementary and Junior High School Students." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1976. Bell, Terrel H. "IS Commitment Enough?" Speech to the 1975 Adult Education Association Annual Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah. Berg, P. C. "Illiteracy at the Crossroads." Adult Leadership 9 (June 1960): 47-48. Brickell, Henry M. "Seven Key Notes on Minimal Competency Testing." Educational Leadership 35 (April 1978): 551-57. Bureau of Occupational and Adult Education (DHEN/OE), Division of Adult Education. Adult Competency Education Profile. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977. Cardinale, Anthony. "Comparison of College Entrance Examination Results--DOD Dependents Schools vs. Nationwide." Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense Dependents Schools, 2 November 1977. Cawleti, Gordon. "The Competency-Based Movement and Curricular Changes." North Central Association of Schools and Colleges (NCA) Quarterly 52 (Fall 1977): 310-15. "College Entrance Examination Board Score Reports for Students in the Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DODDS), 1978." Washington, D.C.: DODDS, 1978. Cook, W. 0. Adult Literaey Education in the United States. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 1977. 146 147 Decrow, Roger, ed. "Adult Reading Abilities: Definitions and Measurements." Washington, D.C.: National Reading Center Foundation, 15 July 1972. Demos, John G. "Perceptions of Teachers in Selected High Schools in DODDSEUR Towards Innovation and Change." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1978. DODDS. "Overseas Employment Opportunities for Educators." Department of Defense Dependents Schools Announcement for 1977-78 School Year; Alexandria, Va.: DODDS, 1977. Fox, Esther. "Considerations in Constructing a Basic Reading Program for Functionally Illiterate Adults." Adult Leadership 13 (May 1964 : 7-8. Franks, Harry E. Career Education for Adults (A Five Part Series). Montgomery, Alabama: Alabama State Department of Education, Division of Adult Basic Education, Department of Vocational and Adult Education, Auburn University, 1975. Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: The SeaburyPress, 1970. Friedenburg, Edgar Z. The Vanishing Adolescent. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1959. Furgensen, Robert J. "Development of Student Competencies Within DODDS." Curriculum Review Council position paper. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense Dependents Schools, 8 September, 1977. Gadway, Charles, and Wilson, H. A. "Functional Literacy: Basic Reading Performance: An Assessment of In-School l7-Year-Olds in 1974. Technical Summary." Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States, 1975. Goodman, Paul. Compulsory His-education. New York: Horizon Press, 1964. Griffith, W. S., and Cervero, R. M. "The Adult Performance Level Program: A Serious and Deliberate Examination." National Association for Public Continuing and Adult Education/Adult Education Association Joint Convention, New York, New York, November 20, 1976. Hammett, Earl Lee. "Louisiana State Department of Education Curriculum Guide for Adult Education Teachers." Report # Bull. 1187. 1970. Hammond, William Thomas. "A Study of the Literacy Level of Atlanta Public High School llth and 12th Grade Students." Ph.D. dlS- sertation, Georgia State University, 1976. 148 Harris, Louis, and Associates, Inc. The 1971 National Reading Dif- ficulty_Index: A Study of Functional Reading Ability in the UTS.‘TOr the National ReadingTCEnter. New York, August 1971. Herndon, James. The Way It's Spozed to Be. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1968. Hodgkinson, Harold L. "Education Does Make a Difference!" Educational Leadership 35 (December 1977): 223. Holt, John. The Underachieving School. New York: Pitman Publishing Co., 1969. Illich, Ivan. Deschooling Society. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. Keefe, James W., and Georgialles, Constance J. "Competency-Based Education and the High School Diploma." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 62 (April 1978): 95. Kohl, Herbert. 36 Children. New York: New American Library, 1967. Kozol, Jonathan. Death at an Early Age: The Destruction of the Hearts and Minds of Negro Children in the Boston Public Schools. Boston, Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin PublTShing Co., 1967. Leeper, Robert R. "On the Cover." Educational Leadership 35 (November 1977): l. Mocker, Donald W., and Spear, George E. "A Study to Determine Com- petencies Needed by ABE/APL Teachers." Kansas City: Missouri University, Center for Resource Development in Adult Education, February 1976. Morehead State University (Kentucky), Appalachian Adult Education Center. Life Coping Skills Categories and Sub-categories: Areas of the Information Needs of Disadvantaged Adults. June 1973. Nafziger, Dean H., et al. Tests of Functional Adult Literacy: An Evaluation of Currently Available Instruments. Portland, Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1976. Nance, W. R. "How Fares Competency Development in Oregon?” Educational Leadership 35 (November 1977). Neill, A. S. Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing. New York: Hart Publishing Co., 1960. Northcutt, Norvell. "Adult Functional Competency: A Sunmary." Austin: University of Texas, March 1975. 149 "A Research and Development Project to Design a System and Supporting Materials, to Provide an Adult Performance Level (APL) in Four Major Sub-areas for Adult Basic Education." Austin: Texas Education Agency, Austin Division of Adult and Continuing Education; Texas University at Austin, Texas, Division of Extension, 1972. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. "Director's Notebook." Region XCHANGE (Portland, Oregon), January/February 1976, p. 1. Office of Education (DHEW/OE). "Adult Basic Education: Program Summary." Report Number ABE-l. March 1976. Oregon State Department of Education. "Oregon Graduation Requirements: Administrative Guidelines, Section 1." Salem, Oregon, 1973. Ornstein, Allan C. "Critics and Criticism of Education." The Education Forum 42 (November 1977). Pipho, Chris. "Minimal Competency Testing: A Look at State Standards." Educational Leadership_34 (April 1977): 516-20. Roth, Edith.) "A Ferment in Education." American Education 12 (May 1976 . Saskatchewan NewStart, Inc. Life Skills: A Course in Applied Problem Solving. 5th ed. Prince Albert, Canada, 1972. Spady, William G., and Mitchell, Douglass E. "Competency Based Education: Organizational Issues and Implications." Educational Researcher 6 (February 1977): 9-15. Texas Education Agency. "A Student Needs Assessment: Texas Career Education Measurement Series." Austin, Texas, September 1976. Timpane, Michael, et al. Youth Policy in Transition. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, June 1976. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Illiteracy in the United States: November 1969." Current Population Reports: Population Characteristics, Series P-20, No. 217. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971. Vermeulen, Robert. "A Study of a Selected Manpower Development Training Act Program for Training Adults." Ph.D. dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1968. APPENDICES 150 APPENDIX A APL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, AND DEFINITIONS OF THE APL SKILLS 151 PLEASE NOTE: Copyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are available for consultation, however, in the author's university library. These consist of pages: /27251-1/<95§’ 300 N. ZEEB RD. ANN ARBOR. MI 48106 13131 761 «1700 unmmms ntemational APPENDIX A APL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, AND DEFINITIONS OF THE APL SKILLS 1 . GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Content Area: Community Resources God: To understand how individuals use community resources, including transportation systems. to achieve a more satisfactory way of life. “or Oflecthen. mwmmmmmummmJnn meansthatheorsheshould ow: Objective: A. About the types of services offered by various facilities. both public and private. for recreation and entertainment. Examples: -What types of activities are available or allowed in public parks —Where to go to see a movie or play —What typu of museums or cultural activities are available in an area Obieclr've: B. How to schedule activities at or through the various facilities. Examples: —Reeding a theater schedule -Cailing for movie information -Checking the newspaper for ‘r.v. program —Subecribing to a series (concert. movie. sports. etc.) Objective: c. What types of equipment. or preparation. or previous experience might be required for participation in various activities. Examples: —Liceneee required for special recreational activities -Flenting equipment we as bowling balls. canoes. bicycles. rowboats —Necessity of auditions for some activities —Making reservations for some facilities “or Oflecthe: 2. Ihewmmwhenandhowteuelnformatlenelthismeansthatheoreheshouid now: Oblecfive: A. Which agencies or facilities (e.g., library. television. radio. newspaper. bulletin board) provide various types of information. Examples: —Where to go for information about mailing a package -Types of information provided by state university extension services —Getting weather reports —Making maximum use of radio Objective: 8. How to gain access to the various agencies. Examples: —Getting perrniseion to use facilities such as a bulletin board -Getting telephone information for a distant city —Filiing out an application for a library card -Using the card catalog Source: American College Testing Program, APL Department, User's Guide: High School APL Survey (HS-l) (Iowa City: ACT, 1976), pp. 43556. 152 153 Objective: C. The circumstances under which various types of information might be helpful. Examples: -—Need for information when buying a house —Need for information about poisons —Need for information when doing a home-repair job “or Objective”. mwwmmmmwmnbummmmammmmwm u now: Objective: A. Which agencies or departments provide various types of services. Examples; —Services offered by police -Services offered by fire d rtment -Servicss offered by post 0 ice —Services offered by Humane Society Objective: 8. How to apply for or gain access to various types of community services. Examples: —Where to write emergency numbers for easy access —Using a fire call/alarm box —Applying for welfare “or Oblectlvsu. 7A. mmrmxnowm toueetrsneporhaon systenteendeervleee.‘rhismeanethetheorshe s cu : Objective: A. Know how to determine the appropriate mode of transportation. Examples: —Factors such as cost. time. accessibility and convenience —Modse such as car, taxi. bus. train. plans. foot. bicycle Objective: 8. Know how to use transportation schedules. Examples: —Determining which bus to take to arrive at a certain time —Figuring out arrival times -Understanding the special exceptions noted on a schedule Objective: C. Know how to calculate fares and other costs of transportation. Examples: —Caiculating a plane fare —Figuring gas mileage —Using transfers to advantage Objective: D. Know how to use road. city. and special transportation maps. Examples: —Finding the nearest bus stop on a city bus map —-Caiculating distance using a road map —Determining a route (navigating) Objective: Objective: Objective: Objective: Objective: 154 E. Know how to make reservations and other travel arrangements. Examples: —Making hotel reservations by phone —8uying a commuter ticket -Using a travel agency —Understanding confirmations F. Know how to drive safely and legally. Examples: —Knowing rules of the road (passing. speeding. etc.) —Knowing how to drive in special weather conditions —Reading and understanding road signs G. Know how to apply for and obtain the various documents associated with travel. Examples; -License tests (written and behind-the-wheel) -Having valid re istration - -Usi license p tes —Nee ing a passport H. Understand how time zones and daylight saving time may affect travel plans. Examples: —How time zones affect long-distance phone calls when making reservations —How time zones affect travel plans —How daylight saving time affects work schedules of service workers in the travel industry I. Understand how modern transportation causes public problems. Examples: —Relation of cars to air pollution —Concept of carpooling —Traffic jams and parking problems —Advantages and disadvantages of mass transit Content Area: Occupational Knowledge Goal: To develop knowledge about occupations that will enable individuals to secure employment that fits their particular needs and interests. “or Objective: 1. Thelndlvldualshould undentendhoweducedon.hbnste.endexpedeneeafbclttwkhfiofunpbyment Objective: one can or should plusue. This means that he or she should know: A. Which educational and job experiences are required or recommended for specific occupational categories (or families) and how these requirements relate to the duties of the jobs in those categories. Examples —-What clerical jobs entail -—How much experience is required for technical jobs -Understanding why social service jobs require special training 155 Objective: 8. The minimum qualifications for specific jobs. Examples: —How much training it takes to be a secretary/stenographer —Whet skills are required for librarians -What legal job requirements are for bus drivers Objective: C. How vocational testing and counseling can help individuals identify job interests and abilities. Examples: --Where to go for vocational testing —What information the counselor needs to help the client —Undsrstanding the relationship between ability and interest Objective: 0. What factors outside the individual might affect his or her job cholc. or interests. Examples: —Need for certain types of hours -—Location of facilities relative to home -Job benefits such as pension. insurance. vacation Objective: E. How to read and assess job descriptions. Examples: —Match between interests and job description —Matcn between needs and job description “dot Objectlve: 2. The lndlvldml should know how to apply for a job. This means that he or she should: Objective: A. Know how to use various sources to identify job opportunities. Examples: :Emrencee between types of sources (newspapers. agencies. word-of-mouth) -Which to use in particular circumstances Objective: 8. Know how to inquire about or apply for a job. Examples: —Writing a letter of inquiry about a job —Asking for an application form —Calling to set up an appointment or interview Objective: c. Know how to fill out the various tonne associated with employment. Examples: —What information to put on an application form -What function a W4 form serves —A job evaluation form Objective: 0. Understand the compilation. construction. and importance of a-reeume or a description of previous jobs. Examples: —What to include in a resume —How an employer uses a job history —What information legally does not need to be reported —Need for neatnsss and accuracy 156 Objective: E. Understand the importance of job interviews and know how to act accordingly. Examples: -Appropriate dress -Prompthess —Need to anticipate obvious questions -Flelationship of interview to rest of hiring process W Oflecttveza. The Mid-l should knowhow to malntabialob. This means that he or she should: Objective: A. Know the standards of behavior for various types or employment. Examples: —Need to obey company rules about promptness. lunch hours. and so forth —How to deal with problems with other employees -Understanding the lnfluence of attitude Objective: 3. Understand how and why employers make decisions about promotion and dismissal. Examples: —Ftelationship between availabili of jobs and opportunities for promotion --Ditterence between lay.otfs a firi —Need for continuing education/growt Objective: 0. Know the legal restrictions that govern employers and employees. Examples: -—Fedsral regulations governing working conditions -Contrects -Labor unions and unionism Objective: 0. Understand the financial aspects of employment. Examples: -Computing salaries —Comparing benefits -Calculating hours to figure amount of overtime —Figuring out sick time Content Area: Consumer Economics Goal: To know how to manage a family economy and to demonstrate an understanding of sound purchasing practices. WOWI.Ihswmuowhowtophnhmlyermmalbudgsbfihismansthatheorsheshould now: Objective: A. What a budget is and how it should be used. Examples: -Advanta of making a budget -Logical ud t categories —Using a b to set realistic limits on spending 157 Objective: 8. How to determine individual needs and resources. Examples: —SOurcss of income (salary. interest) —Factors that determine need (family size. occupation) —Setting priorities: needs verso luxuries or extras Objective: C. How economic factors affect budgeting. Examples: —lnflation as a budget problem —Seasonal employment and its effect on predictable income —Using lists to prevent impulse shopping —lnternational trade IdorOblecttvetz TMMiduelshouHunanhnddmeeofmomy.muwyeuhm.sndmms. This means that he or she should: Objective: A. Know how and why income and sales taxes are collected. Examples: —Sales tax as regressive -Computing specific sales tax —Filling out a 1040 form Objective: 8. Understand the relationship among various denominations of money and among various weights and measures. Examples: —Converting paper money to coins —Figuring out the square yardage for carpeting -Cutting a recipe in half Objective: C. Know how to use various media of exchange. Examples: —Filling out a request for money order —Csshing a check -Using credit cards Objective: 0. Know the various types of banking services. Examples: —Opening a savings account —Balancing a check book -Requesting a loan —Trusts Objective: E. Know how to select. purchase. and maintain insurance policies. Examples: —Detennining insurance needs —Figuring out when insurance payments are due —Finding but insurance policy for particular needs Objective: F. Know how to figure costs and change. Examples: —Cost per unit price —Totaling a bill —Adding service charges —Figurlng change 158 “or Objective: s The individual should know how to apply the principles of consuner economics when buying. selling. or leasing poet or services. This means that he or she should: Objective: A. Know how to use catalogs. consumer guides. and other reference documents to select goods and servrces. Examples: -—Using a catalog to scrutinize available products -Using a consumer guide to find the best buy -Using advertisements to establish product capabilities Objective: 8. Understand the principles of comparison shopping and the relation of price to quality. Examples: —Understanding the concepts of brand name versus house brand —Effectively using size-cost comparisons —Knowing which is best store to buy specific products Objective: C. Know various packaging techniques and which are most cost-effective in terms of quality and storage. Examples: —Size of package as a storage factor —Shelt-life as a buying factor -Comparing fresh. frozen. canned. and prepackaged foods for cost and nutritional value Objective: 0. Know how to place orders. Examples: —Ordering in restaurants —Tipping —Placing mail or catalog orders Objective: E. Know where to go to purchase particular goods and services. Examples: -Types of stores (cooperatives. department. retail. wholesale) —What is available where - —Flental services Objective: F. Know the laws that have been pessed to protect consumers. Examples: —Listing of ingredients in particular order -Dating of particular types of consumer goods (prescriptions. dairy products) —Flammability regulations on drapes and cloth —-Exit regulations for public establishments “or OblectlveM. The individual should understand the economic factors involved in maintaining consuner goods. This means that he or she should: Objective: A. Know the basic procedures for the care and upkeep of personal possessions. Examples: -Reading a care label on clothing —Knowing how to clean stains on carpets -Understanding the relationship between care and durability 159 Objective: 8. Understand the relationship of price to the quality and the life of consumer goods. Examples: —Knowing that brand names usually cost more -Factors other than price that determine quality —Deciding when quality and durability should be sacrificed to price and ease of use Objective: C. Understand the principles of crime prevention. Examples. —How to protect a car against theft —How to list possessions for insurance purposes —What to do at the scene of a theft or break-in to help police solve it “def Objective: 8. The individual should undershnd martetlng techiequss and how dress affect the individual. oonsteners in general. and the economy. This means that he or she should: Objective: A. Know various modes and techniques of advertising. including inappropriate or illegal techniques. Examples: —Bait-and-switch techniques —Price-fixing —Appeals to emotions and peer pressure Objective: B. Know where to go for help in solving consumer complaints or problems. Examples: —Better Business Bureau —Complaint department or manager within store or industry —Boycotts Objective: C. Know the relationship among cost. availability. and need. Examples: —Regulating supply through tariffs —lnfluencing demand throu h advertising (e.g.. the Pet Rock phenomenon) —Adiusting price because 0 lower supply (e.g., sugar “shortage" in 1974) Objective: 0. Understand the implications of consumption in light of finite world resources. Examples: —Conservation of resources —Recycling of resources ~Interdependence of nations Content Area: Mental and Physical Health Goal: To understand the principles and practices that lead to good mental and physical health. Mqor Oblective: 1. The individual should know where. when. and why to seek nieilcsl new. This means that he or she should: Objective: A. Recognize obvious signs of illness and know which require professional attention. Examples: —Normai temperature versus fever —Briet versus persistent cough -Symptoms of contagious diseases 160 Objective: 8. Know the various types of medical facilities typically available in a community. Examples: —Public Health Service —Hospital emergency rooms -Private clinics —Mental health clinics —Ambulancea Objective: C. Know how and why to follow medical instructions. Examples: —Following dosage directions on a prescription label —Getting adequate exercise to restore health —Keeplng a person who is ill in bed Objective: D. Know how and why to communicate information about health problems to others. Examples: —Calling a «star to explain symptoms over the phone —Calling an employer to explain an absence —Filling out a Public Health Service form WOWmJ‘hslnrlvldualehouidknowwhetpersonelhsbitspremobgoodheeltlLThismeansthatheorshe should: Objective: A. Know the basic principles of health maintenance. Examples: -—Tha relation of cleanliness to health —The relation of a regular exercise program to health -Need for adequate sleep Objective: 8. Know the basic principles of nutrition. Examples: —Four basic food groups —-Special types of diets (low cholesterol. low salt. diabetic) -Meal planning Objective: C. Understand the relationship between drugs and health. Examples: —lmmunization programs —Side-effects of drugs (allergic reactions) —Over-the-counter versus prescription drugs —Alcohol -Nicotine flaior Objective”. The lndvidual should know how toappty principles ofheaithtoptennlngend ratings tarnlly.This means that he or she should: Objective: A. Understand the physical and psychological influences of pregnancy and the need for proper prenatal care. Examples: -How smoking affects a fetus -Normal-tenn pregnancy —Special dietary needs of a pregnant woman —Congenital detects 16] Objective: 8. Understand the importance of family planning and the effectiveness of various birth control methods. Examples: —Population growth as a worldwide phenomenon —Financial and social issues in family planning —Selecting appropriate birth control method Objective: C. Know basic child-rearing practices. Examples: -Stages of child development —-Need for discipline —Problems of child abuse Objective: 0. Understand the special health needs and concerns of adolescents. Examples: —Acne and skin problems -Emotional swings —Peer group influences -Sexual maturation Major Oblectivem. T'hs ir‘i‘dhldtnl mus knew how to deal wlth pobntlal haesra and accidents. This means that he or she s ou : Objective: A. Recognize potential hazards. Examples: —lmproper storage of flammables -Medicines and cleaning fluids in reach of children -—Frayed cords and other faulty equipment Objective: 8. Know where and when to apply basic safety measures. Examples: -Use of fire extinguishers —Fire escape procedures —What to do when caught in a severe storm Objective: C. Know when and how to apply first aid. Examples: —Shoclt treatment —Treatment of d bite or snake bite —lmmobilizing br en bones Objective: D. Know how and whom to ask for help in emergencies. Examples: -Heporting a fire —Bequesting an ambulance -Knowing where to get help if there is a street fight 162 Content Area: Government and Law Goal: To understand how the stnictures of government and the functions of the legal system delineate rights and obligations. Islet Obiectivefl. The indvldual should underetnd the stnictiim and meonfng of thstedsreigoverrenent. This means that he or she should know about the: Objective: A. Composition and operation of both homes of Congress. Examples: —i-fow senators and representatives are-allotted per state —Passage of a bill through House and Senate -Committee system Objective: 8. Composition and operation of the executive branch of government. Examples: -Functioning electoral college —Composition of the cabth -Presidentiai succession Objective: C. Relationships between and among the three branches of government. Examples: —Presidential veto power —Senate apgroval of treaties —Supreme ourt's ruling about constitutionality Objective: D. Relationships between and among the federal. state. and local government. Examples: —Revenue sharing -Overlapping jurisdictions —States' rig hts -l-lome rule Major Objectivem. The individual should understand the rettlonflw between lntlvidual chicane and the sebction and maintenance of government. This means that he or she should: Objective: A. Know about the electoral process and the individual’s role in it. Examples: —Voter registration —Ballotin —Types 0 elections Objective: B. Know about the Constitutional guarantees of individual right. Examples; —Due process —Habeas corpus —am of Rights Objective: C. Understand how the individual can try to influence her or his representatives. Examples: -Letter writin -Citizen's lob ies —Access to representatives' voting record -Referenda 163 Objective: 0. Know what kinds of demands the government may and does make on individuals. Examples: -—Jury duty -—Selactive Service —Required legal documents (e.g.. birth certificate) Major Objective: 3. The lndlvlraial should understand the relationship between lndvlduel clthere and the legal and penal systems. This means that he or she should know: Objective: A. The composition and operation of the judicial branch of government. Examples: —Presidantial appointment of federal judges —Appeal process -Court jurisdictions —Types of trials Objective: 8. Which acts society deems criminal. Examples: —Felonies -Misdemeanors —"White collar" versus "blue collar" crimes Objective: C. When and how to hire a lawyer or gain access to other forms of legal aid. Examples: -When a lawyer is needed -How to gain access to legal aid —How to use Small Claims Court Objective: 0. An individual's rights when arrested. held. tried. paroled. or pardoned. Examples: —Rights of accused (including procedures of arrest) —Warrants -Bail —Parole Major Objective: 4. Tits individual should understand the relationship between individual cabana and government services. This means that he or she should understand: Objective: A. How various kinds of taxes are collected. Examples: —-Types of taxes —Collection of taxes —Tax forms 164 Objective: 8. The relationship between taxes and social services. Examples: —Govemment needs money to operate -—Types of services provided by taxes —Taxing jurisdictions (restrictions on uses of tax funds) Objective: C. The reasons for social legislation. Examples: —Types of social legislation —Societal responsibility and economic interdependence -American ideals and concept of democracy Identification of Facts and Terms Reading Writing Computation Problem Solving 165 2. DEFINITIONS OF THE APL SKILLS items that focus on identification skills ask student to recall or recognize important facts and terms typically used in the five content areas defined by the APL. The emphasis here is on important. useful factual knowledge. not trite recall of trivia. items that focus on reading skills present a brief written stimulus chosen from a realistic document (sign. advertisement. announcement. leaflet) in the given content area. Students then answer questions that probe their understanding of the written material. in some cases. the written material directly contains the correct answer; in others. student must interpret what they have read or translate it into other words. items that focus on writing skills test neither mere panmanship nor complex composition skills. Rather. these items tap the kinds of writing skills that adults use in everyday livin —making lists. filling out forms. writing notes. and addressing envelopes. n the context of a machine-scored test. where there can be no real writing. these items ask students to demonstrate that they can recognize appropriately written materials. that they know where on a form certain information would be written. and that they know what types of information belong on certain tonne or documents. items that focus on computation skills require that students understand specific problems and manipulate simple numerical quantities time. money. weights. calories. numbers) to arrive at appropriate solutions. he items are not abstract computation but are always set in the context of real life situations (fuel reduction. mileage. taxes. diets). Hence. they represent real. not academic. computation skills. items that focus on problem solvin skills ask students to select appropriate solutions to the kinds of problems t ey face in everyday life-what agency or organization they should turn to for help in certain situations. how they can alleviate or eliminate certain problems. what procedures or tactics are appropriate for iven situations. All the problems are set in the contexts defined by the A L content areas; hence. they are rooted in reality. APPENDIX B APL PROJECT FINDINGS 166 APPENDIX B APL PROJECT FINDINGS 1. Summary Area APL Competency Leve1sa 1 2 3 Occupational Knowledge 19.1% 31.9% 49.0% Consumers Economics 29.4 33.0 37.6 Government and Law 25.8 26.2 48.0 Health 21.3 30.3 48.3 Community Resources 22.6 26.0 51.4 Reading 21.7 32.2 46.1 Problem Solving 28.0 23.4 48.5 Computation 32.9 26.3 40.8 Writing 16.4 25.5 58.1 Overall Competency 19.7 33.9 46.3 aLegend: APL 1 APL 2 APL 3 Adults Who Function With Difficulty Functional Adults Proficient Adu1ts 167 168 an an av .33 mm 2. en 5. .83 vn *3 av .BS 3 c” 3 S .32. n .33 an an S .32 an on 8mm an .8; can.“ a E a E .33 av 5 m— an .NLN 5N an .32 am no: 2 "a 2 : .5— m £39— 3:83:80 Eaton. uEchmoEoQ 2 9:30.86. .33 Escw 3:50 5.52 .2355 Z :33: min a E. m-.. n.« .522. — 22.3.5: 5 ..o..E=Z 33333:: coma—QEocb BEES”.— mESm 35:55.86 2.2.8..— 252 new 2.8 3-3 21:. an..." an.»— ou< e225.» 3. a. 2 $8 a x 2. a .38 8 S a S .3; 3 z. 3 a z a 5 n a z" 2 a. 8: 3 z" 2" 3. can 2 a a 3 2.. e. 8.: N en 3 c9: : 3. an 82" z a 8 we... N a : E a. E fine a £95.— 3:83:80 .25 oEacuzmémanw 3.3:. 223 3.35:”.— Resistin— mo_om._noto_o 52:5. vozimczaw $2.33: man—m :3. SE 8%: 2863-392» 8m.a»-cec.~.» ama.c»-¢c=.m» 23.3 3.53 2:35 3.55..— mEc EEO duo—EU duo—.8 eEom ago—Econ m: 2.x 2. We on?» a... 5:32.“.— 2.33» 2331 .N APPENDIX C A SAMPLING OF FEDERAL ADULT BASIC EDUCATION APL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND FUNDING (OCT. 1976-SEPT. 1977) 169 APPENDIX C A SAMPLING OF FEDERAL ADULT BASIC EDUCATION APL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND FUNDING (OCT. 1976-SEPT. 1977) State Products # of Projects Funding Alabama Alaska Arkansas California Dist. of Columbia Florida Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa APL Modules Videotapes APL Guide Directory of Services Curriculum Guides Needs Assessment Program Implementation Job Descriptions Curriculum Modules Curriculum Guides Inservice Training Curriculum Guides Cassette Tapes Inst. Materials APL Curriculum Metric Lrng. Pkg. Training Videotapes APL Curricula Student "Intake Model" Teacher Comp. List Test Procedures Teacher Guide Consumer Guide Audio—Tapes Correspondence Curriculum Cons. & Economic Curriculum Inst. Modules Counselor Guide APL I/II Curriculum Materials 170 13 $308,000 + $127,000 + $ 46,000 $304,000 Not Funded $119,000 $ 20,000 $176,000 $198,000 $ 4,000 171 # of . State Products Projects Funding Kansas Curriculum Guide 3 $ 47,000 Louisiana Pilot Project l $127,000 Maryland Curriculum Guides 1 $ 6,000 Tests Massachusetts Curriculum Guide 2 Not Specified Bibliography of Materials Michigan Curriculum Guides l $294,000 Tests Minnesota Curriculum Kits 1 $ 30,000 Mississippi ETV Materials 8 $ 88,000 Missouri APL Curriculum l $ll8,000 Montana External HS Diploma 2 $ 29,000 Based on APL Competencies Nebraska Curriculum Materials 3 $ 20,000 New Jersey Curriculum Units 6 $245,000 Testing Materials Assessment Model New York ESL Learning Modules 5 Not Specified Employability Skills Units North Dakota Curriculum Materials 2 $ 3l,000 State Clearinghouse Ohio Needs Assessment 2 $ 30,000 + Curriculum Materials Field Testing Oregon Comp.-Based Mtls. Dev. 7 $220,000 Inservice Training Pennsylvania Reading Materials 5 $400,000 Assessment of Lit. Levels Dev. of HS Diploma Model Health Curriculum Guide ESL Materials 172 # of State Products Projects Funding Rhode Island Learning Activity Package l Not Specified South Reading Materials 1 Not Funded Carolina Adult HS Diploma Program Tennessee APL Modules 2 $145,000 Texas Det'm HS Cr. for APL Test 14 $477,000 Performance APL Teacher Trng. Mtls. ABE Teacher Comp. Assess. Model Program CBAE Field Testing Utah Training Materials 3 $ 54,000 Curriculum Development Virginia APL Workshops l Not Specified Washington GED/APL Integration 4 $ 56,000 West Virginia APL Pilot 2 $ 22,500 Evaluation Program Wisconsin Bilingual Curriculum 3 $ 72,000 Career Curriculum Totals = 34 states + D.C. 124 $3,813,500 Abstracted from: Bureau of Occupational and Adult Education (DHEW/OE), Division of Adult Education, Adult Competency Educa- tion Profile (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 1C8, APPENDIX D MINIMAL COMPETENCY STANDARDS--STATE ACTIVITY 173 APPENDIX D MINIMAL COMPETENCY STANDARDS--STATE ACTIVITY State Activity Arizona State Department of Education Ruling--1975 Requirements-~Junior High School and High School: Beginning January l, 1976, school districts are required to have students receiv- ing the standard 8th-grade certificate able to read, write, and compute at the 6th-grade level. High school students must demonstrate an ability to read, write, and compute at the 9th-grade level before grad- uation. California Legislation--SB 1112-1972 SB 1243-1975 Requirements--High School: 16- and l7-year-olds may leave high school early if they pass the California High School Proficiency Tests setting minimum standards in reading and mathematics. Adults may also take the test and receive a high school diploma. Legislation--AB 3408-1976 Requirements--Junior High School and High School: This law requires districts to establish standards of proficiency in the basic skills. Students are to be tested once between grades seven and nine and twice between grades ten and eleven. Conferences and remedial work are required. No high school diploma may be issued after June 1980 unless a proficiency test has been passed. Colorado Legislation--SB 180-1975 Requirements--Junior High School and High School: The school districts that require proficiency tests for 12th grade graduation must give the proficiency tests as early as the 9th grade, report the scores to parents at least once each semester if the students fail the test, and provide remedial or tutorial services during the school day in the subject area in which a deficiency is noted. Delaware State Board of Education Ruling--1976 Requirements--The state department of education is to develop, by January 1977, a list of general competencies to be used as a prerequi- site for high school graduation. They are to select a test instrument, work on additional competency statements, and by July 1977 have a plan for competency based education for 9th grade to be used at the begin- ning of the 1977-78 school year. 174 175 State Activity Florida CSSB 340-1975 Requirements--High School: The law originally set up the "early out" test in FTorida allowing students over the age of 14 with parent approval and age 16 without parent approval to take an examination in order to leave high school early. Implementation of this law was delayed, and the age requirement was removed by 1976 legislation. The state department has made provision to use the American Council on Education's GED high school equivalency test for a trial period. Empha- sis is now on school districts working with community colleges in developing an educational plan for those students who demonstrate readiness for leaving school early. 0558 107-1976 Requirements--Elementary, Junior High School, and High School: This bill amends the Educational Accountability Act, provides that students must possess minimum skills necessary to function and survive in today's society. Students are to be tested in the basic skill areas in grades 3, 5, 8, and 11. Information is to be used to improve the state system of education by identifying needs and assessing how well districts and schools are meeting minimal standards. After July 1, 1977, pupil progression must be based on performance rather than social promotion. By the 1978/79 school year school districts must have a high school graduation program that will include the mas- tery of basic skills and the satisfactory performance in functional literacy in addition to the minimum number of credits required by the school board. Remediation programs and special differentiated diplo- mas for students with varying achievement levels must be provided. Georgia State Board of Education Ruling--l976 Requirements--Elementary: The state board of education mandated that all fourth-graders in the state take a criterion referenced read- ing test. The results of this test are being studied in order to establish cut-off scores for grade-to-grade promotion. High School: A one-year study is underway investigating the pos- sibility of changing high school graduation requirements so as to include minimal proficiency standards for life role skills, including specific recommendations for the students as the learner, the indi- vidual, the citizen, the consumer, and the producer. Maryland Legislation--HB 1433-1976 Requirements--Elementary: This law requires the state board of education to prescribe progressively advanced minimum reading levels for grades two through 12, and further provides that pupils may not enter grades three through eight until it has been determined that they have met the minimum level for the previous grade, with certain exceptions for special students. 176 State Activity Maryland State Department of Education-~1975 (cont'd) Requirements--Elementary, Junior High School, and High School: The state department of education has developed a Maryland basic mastery test for reading which is now being administered in grades six, nine, and twelve. This "survival reading test" (forms b and c, 9th and 12th grade level) is also being administered in the fall of each school year to grades seven and 11 as a part of the statewide accountability program. Michigan State Board of Education Ruling--l976 Requirements-—High School: The state board has proposed a 12th grade minimal competency test covering life goal skills in four areas: (a) personal, family, and money, (b) civic and social responsibili- ties, (c) aesthetic and humanistic, and (d) employment. Statewide hearings will be conducted on this test during the early part of 1977, with official state board action coming later in the year. Missouri State Board of Education-~1976 Requirements--Junior High School: The state department of educa- tion has been requested to develop a basic skills test to measure the application of basic skills in areas of reading, mathematics, and government/economics. Three forms of the test will be pilot tested in the spring of 1977 with 8th graders. All districts will be man- dated to give the test at the 8th grade by July 1, 1978. At this time the state board has not made high school graduation contingent upon successful completion of the test. Nebraska State Department of Education--l975 Requirements--Elementary, Junior High School, and High School: School districts are required to establish a minimal performance level in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Schools are to readminister the evaluation instrument until mastery has been demonstrated by all stu- dents. The state department of education has developed a test instru- ment which schools may use or they may develop their own assessment device. New Jersey Legislation--A. 1736-1976 Requirements--Elementary, Junior High School, and High School: The law mandates that the state set minimum reading and mathematics standards for local districts and that the local districts provide remedial work and interim goals for students to meet as they move toward these state standards. 177 State Activity New York Board of Regents Mandate—-1976 Requirements--High School: Beginning with the graduation class of June 1979, high school students must be able to pass a basic com- petency test in reading and mathematics. The Board of Regents has under consideration plans for incorporating additional testing areas for the graduation requirements effective June 1980. These addi- tional tests would include the areas of: (a) civics and citizenship, (b) practical science, including health and drug education, and (c) writing and language skills. Oregon State Board of Education Ruling-~1972 and 1976 Requirements--High School: Local school districts, by the end of 1978, must have established a program of high school courses lead- ing to graduation based on proficiency in the basic skill areas of reading, listening, analysis, speaking, writing, and computation. Between 1978 and 1981 school districts are to move from assessing these basic skill areas in three program areas to include the remain- der of the program areas required for high school graduation. Dis- tricts have the option of measuring competency in personal development, social responsibility, and career development or in program areas which replace these categories. Vermont Board of Education Ruling--l976 Requirements--High School: The Vermont Board of Education has adopted minimal competency standards for local districts to use in setting criteria for high school graduation. Virginia Legislation--HB 256-1976 Requirements--Elementary: The Virginia Standards of Quality Act requires that each school division give highest instructional priority to developing reading, communications, and mathematics skills of all students with particular attention to be given to primary grades (1-3) and the intermediate grades (4-6). By September 1978, the state board of education, in cooperation with local districts, shall establish Specific minimum statewide educational objectives and a uniform state- wide test in reading, communications, and mathematics skills. The test is to measure yearly progress for individual students. 178 State Activity Washington Legislation--SB 3026-1976 Requirements--Elementary and Junior High School: School districts are required, with community participation, to develop learning objec- tives for grades K-8 and measure for these objectives at least annually for all students. State funds are to be withheld from districts not meeting the standards. Legislation--HB 1345-1976 Requirements--Elementary and High School: This law requires all fourth grade students be given a standardized achievement test in read- ing, mathematics, and language arts, with the results to be used by districts and parents to compare their children's achievement level with other pupils in the district, the state, and nation. Also required is a sample test to be given to 8th and llth graders for the same purpose. APPENDIX E COMPETENCY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS SALEM PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SALEM, OREGON 179 APPENDIX E COMPETENCY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS SALEM PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SALEM, OREGON Each student shall demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to function in the following areas: 1.0 Personal Development--Each student shall demonstrate competencies necessary to 1 1 1 .1 .2 .3 Read 1.1.1 1.1.2 Listen 1.2.1 Read a 200 word newspaper article and answer questions. The student will select an article (approximately 200 words in length) from the front page of a recent Salem daily newspaper, read the article and within a fifteen minute period use the article to answer to the teach- er's satisfaction four out of five factual recall questions composed by the teacher. Read and state three conditions of'an apartment rental agreement. Given a standard written rental agreement for an apartment, the student will read the document and then select and accurately paraphrase a minimum of three conditions, responsibilities, and/or obligations which either party to the agreement must fulfill. Listen to a ZOO-200 word oral communication and recall five specific details. Given a 100-200 word oral communication, without further assistance the student will recall and cite (in written or oral form, at the student's option) at least five specific details dealing with a given topic or aspect of the subject dealt with in the com- munication. The teacher will select the communication and judge the adequacy of the stated details. Analyze (Satisfactory completion of 1.7.1 ang_2.6.l fulfills this competency.) 180 1.4 Speak 1 1 .5 .6 1.4.1 Write 1.5.1 181 summarize the important points of a discussion. After a discussion of at least five minutes with two or three fellow students, the student will explain to the teacher at least five points made in the discus- sion. The teacher will confirm the accuracy of the points by checking with the original group. write an appropriate, legible response to a job notice. Given a dictionary and the want ad section of a recent Salem daily newspaper, the student will select one job notice and write an appropriate response to the notice using standard English spelling and acceptable letter form, grammar and sentence structure which meet cri- teria established in currently-used Salem School Dis- trict secondary language arts and/or business education textbooks. The letter will be written in cursive or manuscript handwriting, at the option of the student, and will rank at least "Fair" on the Zaner-Bloser Evaluation Scales for Cursive or Manuscript Hand— writing. Compute 1.6.1 1.6.2 1.6.3 Cbmpute miles per gallon of’gasoline. Given three problems each showing the total gas con- sumption and miles traveled by a car, the student will compute the gasoline consumption to within one mile per gallon for each case. Determine simple interest rate. Given the price of an item and a whole number annual interest rate, the student will determine the simple interest rate charges for the first month within 2% accuracy. Measure a solid object in both metric and English measures. Given a rectangular solid and appropriate measuring devices, the student will determine its width, length, depth, volume, and weight in either metric and/or English measure to within 5% accuracy. One dimension must include both the metric and English measure. 182 1.6.4 Balance a checkbook. Given a simulated series of entries, the student will maintain a correct balance in a checkbook over ten withdrawals interspersed between three deposits. 1.6.5 Make correct monetary change. Given five simulated situations (not paper and pencil tests), the student will make the correct change involving dollars and cents, five consecutive times without the aid of a calculating device. l.7 Basic scientific and technological processes 1.7.1 Cite effects of’computer processing on everyday activities. The student will identify at least five specific ways in which the student has been affected by the computer. 2.0 Social responsibility--Each student shall demonstrate the compe- tencies required to function effectively and reSponsibly as 2.1* Citizen in the community, state, and nation 2.1.1 Describe services available through social and gov- ernment agencies. Given a listing of at least eight social and government agencies registered with the Oregon Secretary of State and/or listed in the Interact "Directory of Community Services," the student will explain, orally or in writing, two services offered by at least three of the agencies which are available to meet his/her needs as a citizen. Nhere prerequisite steps are required, the student will describe at least three steps to attain each of two services. Success will be measured against published information of each agency. *The State Department guidelines offered districts the_option to group "community, state, and nation as one or three categories." The Salem Public Schools established but one competency category. Satis- factory completion of 2.1 is equivalent to 2.l, 2.2, gflg_2.3 in those districts which chose to establish three categories. 2.4 2.5 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 183 Demonstrate knowledge of'voting process. The student will demonstrate a knowledge of the voting process by citing the requirements for registering to vote, by citing at least two additional sources of information on issues and/or candidates than is found in the voter's pamphlet, and by properly marking a sample ballot. Identify payroll deductions and spendable income. Given a simulated pay-check stub, the student will demonstrate an ability to distinguish between 5 to 7 payroll deductions and spendable income by identify- ing the various deductions; distinguish among the deductions as taxes, insurance plans, or charity by properly categorizing all listed deductions; and iden- tify take-home pay as spendable income. Complete simple tax forms. Given the necessary tax forms, and simulated w-z forms and expenses, the student will correctly complete the least complex state and federal income tax forms for either a single taxpayer or family, at the student's option. Citizen in interaction with the environment 2.4.1 2.4.2 Identify environmental problems. After developing a comprehensive list of common envi- ronmental problems confronting society, the student will identify at least five which are common to Ameri- can urban areas and five which are common to American rural areas. Identify helpful and harmful effects of garden and household chemicals. For each of five actual samples of common garden and household chemicals, the student will correctly explain the use, describe one helpful and one harmful effect, and describe one safe storage practice. Citizen on the streets and highways 2.5.1 Pass written Oregon Driver's Examination gr_cite proper highway conduct for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. The student will, without aid, demonstrate functional knowledge of pedestrian and vehicular safety in the use of public thoroughfares (highways, roads, streets) either by satisfactorily meeting the Department of 184 Motor Vehicles' standards on the written portion of the Oregon Driver's Examination or by identifying, in a method of the student's choiEe, at least five safe highway practices and/or responsibilities for each of the following: (a) pedestrians, (b) bicy— clists, and (c) motorists as described by the National Safety Council, the American Automobile Association, and/or their affiliates. 2.6 Consumer of goods and services 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 Plan monthly budgets. Given samples of low and average income levels, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor, and a simulated family situa- tion, the student will plan monthly budgets based on current wages and current prices for three consecu- tive months according to criteria outlined in Personal Finance Education Guide, Oregon Department of Educa- tion, l972, p. 16 and l7, so that expenses do not exceed income. Cite advantages and disadvantages of'various credit plans. Given a simulated credit buying situation, the student will explain at least two advantages and two disadvan- tages of two distinctly different credit plans accord- ing to criteria outlined in Personal Finance Education Guide, Oregon Department of Education, 1972, p. 30-45. Recognize factors which influence purchase of consumer goods. Given a case study found appropriate to both student and teacher, the student will demonstrate knowledge of the factors affecting consumer purchases by noting five personal factors, one societal factor, and two market- ing factors that influence purchasing decisions of con- sumers, which are consistent with the factors outlined in Personal Finance Education Guide, Oregon Department of Education, 1972, p. 48-77. 185 3.0 Career Deve10pment--Each student shall demonstrate competencies required to function effectively within a career cluster or broad range of occupations, such as in 3.1 Work habits 3.1.1 3.1.2 Demonstrate safe working practices. Given specific work assignments and necessary safety instruction, the student will demonstrate safe working practices in performing all assigned tasks when observed at least 15 times within a two-month period. Report grooming requirements. The student will report the dress and grooming require- ments of at least three local businesses for an occu- pation connected with satisfaction of either the 3.2.1 or the 3.3.1 competency indicator. 3.2 Positive attitudes (Satisfactory completion of 3.3.l fulfills this performance indicator.) 3.3 Interpersonal relationships 3.3.1 3.4 Career 3.4.1 Identify and provide alternative solutions to work setting interpersonal difficulties. Given at least three appropriate case studies involv- ing human interactions in a work setting, the student will identify at least one problem that prevented acceptable working relations between people in each case, and at least one alternative solution, according to criteria provided in any of the following refer— ences: Grady Kimbrell and Ben S. Vineyard, Succeeding in the World of Work, Bloomington, Ill.: McKnight and McKnight Publishing Company, 1970; Ellwood Chapman, Your Attitude 15 Showing, Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1964; Career Cluster Guides, Oregon State Department of Education, periodically distributed and revised; and/or David Johnson, Reaching Out:;lnterper- sonal Effectiveness and Self-Actualization, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Decisions Identify requirements and training for a chosen occu- pation. The student will identify at least one occupation con- sistent with his/her known interests, aptitudes, and values; and identify and list, in a method of the stu- dent's choice, the requirements and training needed for 186 entry into the identified occupation. The require- ments and training cited are to be consistent with information provided in Career Information System, Eugene, 0r.: University of Oregon, I974; Douglas McClane, ed., Mapping Your Education, Portland, Or.: Graphic Arts Center, l973; and/or Occupational Outlook Handbook, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. 3.5 Entry level competencies 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 Demonstrate minimum employability. The student will demonstrate minimum employability by achieving the minimal performance objectives for employment as identified in any one Salem School Dis- trict career cluster or special vocational education program; Q3_by holding one job or a series of jobs for one employer in which the employer verifies at least 100 hours of employment over a period of time not less than 9 weeks nor more than l8 weeks and that the student possesses certain basic occupatiofiST skills. Such verification shall be made on a district developed form or on an approved district cooperative work experience training plan. Prepare an application and engage in a simulated interview. Given a real or simulated setting, as determined appropriate by the instructor and student, the student will prepare an application form, a letter of appli- cation and a personal resumé (data sheet) for an interview. The student will then participate in an employment interview (real or simulated). Each product/activity must meet the standards outlined in Grady Kimbrell and Ben S. Vineyard, Succeeding in the World of Work, Bloomington, Ill.: McKnight and McKnight Publishing Company, l970. Outline steps to seek employment. Given a real or simulated setting found appropriate by both teacher and student, the student will list or role-play without the use of references, the steps to take when seeking employment, meeting criteria out- lined in Gerald Leadham, So Now You're on Your Own, Oregon Department of Education,i197l, Qg_by using similar criteria developed by the teacher and shared with the student prior to the test situation. 187 Success on each competency indicator is to be judged by criteria specified in each performance objective. Individuals who will cer- tify satisfactory completion of each indicator will be designated by the building principal, unless otherwise directly stipulated in the indicators. APPENDIX F DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATORS 188 APPENDIX F DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATORS READ THIS BROCHURE CAREFULLY AND FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS PRECISELY. YOU WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED IF YOU DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE POSITIONS) FOR WHICH YOU ARE APPLYING. OR IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION IN THE MATTER AND FORMAT REQUESTED. NO PROVISION EXISTS FOR WAIVER OF ANY REQUIREMENT I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS To be accepted for consideration the applicant must be available for processing in one of the fifty states. Puerto Rico. the Virgin Islands. or Guam and must possess ALL of the following: QUALIFICATION S STANDARDS A. PERSONAL l. United States citizenship. 2. Physical ability to perform the duties efficiently and without hazard to self or others; freedom from chronic conditions requiring medical care or medication. or special assignment consideration due to altitude. temperature. humidity. or other climatic conditions. Favorable physical characteristics. emotional stability. so- cially acceptable personal habits. loyalty to the United States, and ability to work successfully with students. parents. and school administrators in a military com- munity. 3. AVAILABLE FOR WORLDWIDE PLACEMENT. Applicants who are plan- ning to go overseas (including military and civilian dependents). or who already reside overseas. and as a result. are not available for placement on a world-wide basis. do not apply through this office. Applications may be filed with the civil- 3. ian personnel office upon arrival overseas at the United States military installations nearest your residence. 8. EDUCATION 1. Degree and Legal Standards. a. A baccalaureate tbgree from an institution accredited by a regional accrediting association. and shall meet the legal standards for teach- ers in the state in which employed. Graduates of nonaccredited institu- tions may have their undergraduate work validated by admittance to graduate standing and completion of a minimum of five semester hours of credit in a regionally ac- credited graduate coUege. b. Where a master‘s degree or graduate work is required. the work must have been taken in a regionally accredited institution. Work in a foreign university will be accepted only if the work is evaluated and is declared the equivalent of similar graduate work in an American insti- tution. The evaluation must also declare that the foreign university is an established and internationally recognized institution. c. A school nurse must have com- pleted a baccalaureate degree in nursing from a collegiate or univer- sity program in nursing accredited by the National League for Nursing. General Preparation. At least 40 semester hours of work in general education well distributed over such subject matter fields as English. History. Social Science. Mathematics. Fine Arts. Languages. Science. Philoso- phy. Religion, and Psychology. Professional Preparation. At least 18 semester hours of course work in the field of professional teacher educa- tion. All teachers shall have had student teaching or served an internship as part of an approved teacher education program in a higher institution accredited by one of the six regional accrediting associa~ tions. and shall have satisfactorily com- pleted course work in such areas as learning process. measurement. philoso- phy. psychology. social foundations. and curriculum totaling at least 18 semester hours. Source: DODDS, "Overseas Employment Opportunities for Educators," Department of Defense Dependents Schools Announcement for 1977-78 School Year (Alexandria, Va.: DODDS, l977), pp. 2-7. 189 190 (NOTE: Nurses. Psychologists, and So- cial Workers are excluded from this re- quirement. / 4. Certification. A valid certificate or credential issued by a state or state approved college or university. If the graduating institution or state does not issue special certificates or credentials for elementary art. elementary music. or elementary physical education, the applicant must have satisfactorily completed a major or minor as defined by the graduating institution in the subject field(s) for which applying. (NOTE: Vocational-Occupational Instructors may substitute appropriate education. training and practical experience as out- lined under category 323. Training In- structor (Vocational) below.) EXPERIENCE 1. Teachers must have not less than one year of successful full-time professional em- ployment as a teacher. counselor. Ii- brarian. or administrator in a K-12 educa tional institution during the past five years. Experience during the current school year will be tentatively accepted pending satisfactory completion, pro- vided employment is on a full-time basis. School nurses must have not less than one year of successful full-time professional employment as a school nurse or public health nurse during the past five years. 3. Training Instructors (Vocational) must have one year of experience in teaching or instruction in an adult education pro- gram, secondary school. college, or indus- trial establishment in the particular occu- pational-vocational or subject field(s) for which applying. 4. One year of the required experience for elementary school applicants must have been in the grade level or subject field for which applying within the last five years. 5. For junior and senior high school appli- cants one year of experience must have been in the subject field. however. it may be in either one of the two categories for which the applicant is applying. 6. Practice. student. and substitute teaching experience are not qualifying for this [J II. 100 101 I02 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 III experience. 7. Work experience gained immediately pri- or to military service, or while in the military service. that is judged as teaching experience as described. will be creditable toward the one year teaching experience requirement in the past five years for employment purposes. POSITION CATEGORIES AND SPE- ICAL REQUIREMENTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL POSITIONS (Kin- dergarten through grade 8) One year of the required experience in grades one through three or in grades four through six is qualifying for grades one through three or grades four through six respectively. Teachers selected for category lOl . 102. or 103 may be assigned to any of these categories or non- graded. Additionally, those selected in cate- gory 104. 105, or 106 may be assigned to any of these categories or nongraded. KINDERGARTEN. 9 semester hours of course work related to early childhood education. ELEMENTARY TEACHER, GRADE I. ELEMENTARY TEACHER. GRADE 2. ELEMENTARY TEACHER. GRADE 3. ELEMENTARY TEACHER, GRADE 4. ELEMENTARY TEACHER, GRADE 5. ELEMENTARY TEACHER, GRADE 6. ELEMENTARY TEACHER, GRADES 7 and 8. Experience at this level must include teaching in a nondepartmentalized situation or self- contained classroom. ELEMENTARY TEACHER, ART. 24 semester hours in art. ELEMENTARY TEACHER, MUSIC. 24 semes- ter hours in music. ELEMENTARY TEACHER. PHYSICAL EDU- CATION. 20 semester hours in physical educa- tion & health. ELEMENTARY LIBRARIAN. 18 semester hours in library science. Experience as a librari- an or teacher is qualifying. Training and/or experience in instructional materials center concepts is desired. TEACHER. AUDIO-VISUAL. hours in the audio-visual field. I 5 semester JUNIOR HIGH/MIDDLE SCHOOL POSITIONS 201 203 191 Junior High/Middle school teachers must be fully qualified to teach in two or more subject matter fields. (Nurses. Social Workers, Psychol- ogists. Special Education. Mathematics. Indus- trial Arts, Physical Science. Librarian. Music. Guidance Counselors, and Vocational Instruc- tors and Jr. ROTC Instructors are excluded from this requirement.) Unless you are fully qualified in at least two categories. i.e.. English/ Social Studies. Biological Science/Physical Education. etc.. your application will not be processed. (Experience in the same subject field but at a different level is NOT qualifying as a second category. i.e.. 20] Teacher. English/30] Teacher. English; 308 Teacher. Art/l08 Teach- er. Art.) Junior High School teachers are occasionally required to teach one or more subjects on the Senior High Level. TEACHER. ENGLISH. 24 semester hours in English including appropriate distribution of courses in literature and composition. 5 semes- ter hours in speech and/or journalism may be counted toward meeting this requirement. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. SPEECH. A major of 24 semester hours or more in speech and dramatic arts or a minimum of 8 semester hours in speech plus sufficient additional work in English to total at least 24 semester hours. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. JOURNALISM. A major in jour- nalism of 24 semester hours or more. or a minimum of 5 semester hours in journalism plus sufficient additional work in related fields to total at least 24 semester hours. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. MATHEMATICS. 20 semester hours of credit in mathematics. I semester hour may be allowed for each unit of high school mathematics. but not to exceed 2 hours. TEACHER. SOCIAL STUDIES. 24 semester hours in the field of social studies. appro- priately distributed in the subjects to which assigned. You must also qualifv in one other category. TEACHER. SCIENCE. 24 semester hours in the field of science appropriately distributed in the subjects to which the teacher is assigned. For teachers of biology. chemistry and physics. a minimum of 9 semester hours is required in the assigned subject. Except for teachers of 207 301 302 303 304 chemistry or physics, must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. HEALTH. 20 semester hours in the field of health including appropriate distribu- tion of courses in biological and behavior science. safety, drug education. ecology. public health services. and mental health. You must also qualify in one other category. SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL POSITIONS Senior High School teachers must be fully qualio fied to teach in two or more subject matter fields. I Nurses. Social Workers. Psychologists. Special Education. Mathematics. Industrial Arts. Train- ing Instructors, Physical Science. Librarian. Music. Guidance Counselors. and Vocational Instructors and Junior ROTC Insrructors are excluded from this requirement.) Unless you are fully qualified in at least two categories. i.e.. Art/English. Physical Educa- tion/Home Economics. ctc.. your application will not be processed. (Experience in the same subject field but at a different level is NOT qualifying as a second category. i.e.. 30] Teacher. English/20] Teach- er. English; 308 Teacher. Art/108 Teacher. Art.) Senior High School teachers are occasionally required to teach one or more subjects on the Junior High level. TEACHER. ENGLISH. 24 semester hours in English. including appropriate distribution of courses in literature and composition. 5 semes- ter hours in speech and/or journalism may be counted toward meeting this requirement. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. SPEECH. A major of 24 semester hours or more in speech and dramatic arts or a minimum of 8 semester hours in speech plus sufficient additional work in English to total at Ian 24 semester hours. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. JOURNALISM. A major in jour. nalism of 24 semester hours or more. or a minimum of 5 semester hours in journalism plus sufficient additional work in related fields to total at least 24 semester hours. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. MATHEMATICS. 20 semester hours of credit in mathematics. l semester hour may be allowed for each unit of high 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 192 school mathematics. but not to exceed 2 hours. TEACHER. SOCIAL STUDIES. 24 semester hours in the field of social studies. appropriate- ly distributed in the subjects to which assigned. You must also qualiflv in one other category. TEACHER. SCIENCE. 24 semester hours in the field of science appropriately distributed in the subjects to which the teacher is assigned. For teachers of biology. chemistry and physics. a minimum of 9 semester hours is required in the assigned subject. Except for teachers of chemistry or physics. must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. HEALTH. 20 semester hours in the field of health including appropriate distribu- tion of courses in biological and behavior science. safety. drug education, ecology. public health services. and mental health. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER, ART. 24 semester hours in art. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. BUSINESS. 24 semester hours in business with at least one college course in each high school subject to which assigned. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. HOME ECONOMICS. 24 semester hours in home economics. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER, MUSIC. 24 semester hours in music. A music teacher is normally required to teach both vocal and instrumental. TEACHER. PHYSICAL EDUCATION. 20 semester hours in physical education. You must also qualify in one other attegory. TEACHER. INDUSTRIAL ARTS. 20 semester hours in Industrial Arts including at least one course in each subject taught. (Some Industrial Arts positions require American Industries and IACP.) TEACHER. LATIN. 20 semester hours in Latin. 1 semester hour may be allowed for each unit of high school Latin. but not to exceed 2 hours. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. FRENCH. 20 semester hours in French. 1 semester hour may be allowed for each unit of high school French but not to exceed 2 hours. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. SPANISH. 20 semester hours in Spanish. 1 semester hour may be allowed for each unit of high school Spanish. but not to exceed 2 hours. You must also qualif y in one other category. TEACHER. GERMAN. 20 semester hours in German. 1 semester hour may be allowed for 318 319 320 321 322 323 each unit of high school German. but not to exceed 2 hours. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. READING. A major in reading of at least 24 semester hours. or a minimum of one course in reading plus sufficient additional work in English and/or related fields to total at least 24 semester hours. One year of the re- quired experience must have been teaching reading. You must also qualify in one other category. LIBRARIAN. 18 semester hours in library science. One year of the required experience must have been as a librarian. Training and/or experience in instructional materials center concepts is desired. TEACHER. LIBRARIAN. 18 semester hours in library science. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. DRIVER EDUCATION. A valid certificate for Driver Education issued by a state. You must also qualify in one other category. TEACHER. AUDIO-VISUAL. 12 semester hours in the audio-visual field. One of the required year’s experience must have been in audiovisual. You must also qualify in one other category. TRAINING INSTRUCTOR (VOCATIONAL). This includes but is not limited to such fields as cosmetology. auto mechanics. electronics. med- ical/dental assistant. and refrigeration and air conditioning. A valid teaching certificate for the field of specialization and a state license if one is required. NONCERTIFIED APPLICANTS: Applicants without a teaching certificate must have grad- uated from an accredited high school. A formal vocational training program in the specialty at or above the high school level must also be completed. In addition. noncertified applicants must have successful experience as an instructor in the field. or performed duties involving the supervision of fellow workers in the occupa- tion. or satisfactorily completed a program in the basic principles of instruction which includ- ed practice teaching. EXPERIENCE: Noncerti- fied applicants must have two and one-half years of experience at the journeyman level in the specialty for which applying. Study com- pleted above the high school level may be substituted at the rate of one year for nine months of experience if such study included six semester hours in a subject directly related 324 325 399 400 401 193 to the specialty for which applying. If you do not have an associate or higher degree in the particular specialty for which applying. you must have at least one qu year of practical experience. WORK-EXPERIENC E COORDINATOR. Min- imum of fifteen (15) semester hours in related fields such as social studies. business. gui- dance. vocational-occupational subjects. ca- reer education. home economics and at least 3 semester hours in career counseling and/or vocational/occupational counseling. One year of work experience in a career other than education is desirable. Experience as a coordi- nator of a work experience or similar program is desirable. TEACHER. COMPUTER SCIENCE. Must have a major in computer science of 24 semester hours or more. or a minimum of 9 semester hours in computer science with sufficient additional coursework to qualify as a teacher of mathematics. science. or business. Coursework must include pro- gramming in Basic. FORTRAN IV, or ANS COBOL. You must also qualify in one other category. JUNIOR ROTC INSTRUCTOR. All candi- dates must be retired military who are certi- fied to teach junior ROTC. Information on obtaining certification may be obtained by writing (Air Force): Junior ROTC Building 501. Maxwell AFB, Alabama 36112 or (Army): Commander. First ROTC Region, ATTN: ATOA-PA, Fort Bragg. North Carolina 28307. ALL CANDIDATES MUST HAVE ONE YEAR’S EXPERIENCE TEACHING JUNIOR ROTC. In addition. retired officers must possess a degree and either a teaching certificate or 12 hours in education courses. PUPIL PERSONNEL SERVICES COUNSELOR/COUNSELOR—TEACHER. 18 semester hours of graduate preparation in guidance and counseling for elementary and/ or high school levels. Three years experience is required. including one year of counseling at the grade levels assigned. Counselor—Teachers must also qualify in one other category. Drug Education orientation is also desired. GUIDANCE COUNSELOR. Master’s Degree in guidance or psychology. Five years of experience is required. including two years within the last five involving full-time counsel- 402 403 405 406 ing duties at the grade levels assigned. Drug Education orientation is also desired. DORMITORY COUNSELOR. 18 semester hours of preparation in guidance-counseling. psychology. recreation. or related fields. Drug education orientation is also desired. (Duties include the control of dormitory living of boys and girls. insuring that conditions are conducive to developing sound study habitc that skill in leisure time pursuits are stimt lated; and that a wholesome, homelike atmos- phere is maintained.) You must also qualify in one other category. SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST. Master’s Degree in Psychology. 24 semester hours of graduate preparation in related fields. One year of professionally related work within the past five years. NOTE: The 18 semester hours of course work in the field of professional teacher education as described under General Require- ments. subparagraph B3. Professional Prepara- tion. are not required for School Psychologist. SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER. Master’s Degree in social work. 24 semester hours of graduate preparation in related fields. One year of professional experience must be in secondary or elementary schools within the past five years. NOTE: The 18 semester hours of course work in the field of professional teacher education as described under General Require- ments. subparagraph B3. Professional Prepare tion, are not required for School Social Worker. TEACHER. MENTALLY RETARDED. 15 semester hours in special education including remedial methods and psychology of the retarded child and such courses as measure- ments. nature and needs of mentally retarded, speech and language development. arts and crafts for atypical children. and adapted physical education. One year of the required experience must have been teaching handi- capped children as appropriate. TEACHER, PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED. 15 semester hours in special education in- cluding remedial methods and such courses as nature of crippling. special health problems. methods and materials of teaching physically handicapped. and educational measurements. One year of the required experience must have been teaching handicapped children as appropriate. 407 408 409 4I0 4II 4l2 TEACHER. BLIND. I5 semester hours in special education including remedial methods and such coUrses as nature and needs of the blind. Braille and anatomy. physiology, hygiene of the eye. etc. One year of the required experience must have been teaching children with visual handicaps as appropriate. TEACHER. DEAF AND HARD OF HEAR- ING. l5 semester hours in special education including remedial methods and such courses as anatomy of the ear. speech mechanism. methods of auditory training. psychology of the handicapped child. child development. and educational measurements. One year of the required experience must have been teach- ing the deaf or hard of hearing. as appropriate. TEACHER REMEDIAL READING OR READING IMPROVEMENT. I5 semester hours in reading. including experience and training as a special teacher of reading. reme- dial and/or developmental. One year of the required experience must have been teaching remedial reading or reading improvement. as appropriate. TEACHER. SPEECH CORRECTION. I5 semester hours in speech. including training in the use of the audiometer and such courses as speech correction. speech science. therapy. pathology. phonetics. and clinical methods. One year of the required experience must have been in speech correction. as appro- priate. NURSE. BS degree in Nursing: current RN registration. School Nurse registration or equivalent college course. One year of experience must be in school nursing or public health. NOTE: The 18 semester hours of course work in tire field of professional teacher education as described under General Require- ments. subparagraph B3. Professional Pirepara tion. are not required for Nurses. LEARNING DISABILITIES. 24 semester hours in special education: a majority of these in learning disabilities including course work in such fields as education diagnosis. prescrip- tive teaching. behavior modification. develop- mental task analysis or related fields. One year of the required experience must have been teaching children with learning disabilities. as appropriate. ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS Vacancies in these categories are extremely limited. I94 500 60I 602 603 EDUCATION SPECIALIST (appropriate field such as: Foreign Languages. Pupil Personnel Services. Art. Testing). Master's degree many field provided the requirements of paragraph I.B.3. are fully met. In addition. five years of professional experience is required. two ot which must have been concerned with such tasks as developing curricula. evaluating in- structional material. advising teachers on specialized techniques. and conducting in-ser- vice training for teachers within the past five years. Experience as a Principal. Assistant Superintendent. or Superintendent may be substituted for the years not specified in the operational field. ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL. Master's degree with courses in administration. curriculum. supervision. guidance and related fields. Five years of appropriate professional experience in education as required. PRINCIPAL. 45 semester hours of graduate credits. including master‘s degree. Not less than 20 semester hours of graduate work shall have been inadministration and supervision. and course work in educational philosophy. psychology. supervision. curriculum. and ad. ministration. Five years of professional experi~ ence in education are required. at least one of which must have been in school administra- tion within the past five years. and may require more specialized experience depending on assignment. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOLS. SUPERINTEN- DENT. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT. AS- SISTANT SUPERINTENDENT. SUPERIN- TENDENT OF SCHOOLS (SCHOOL COMPLEX). At least 60 hours of graduate credit. inclusive of the Master's degree with not less than 30 semester hours of graduate credit in administration. supervision and re- Iated fields. Not less than seven years' experi- ence in the field ot‘education with a minimum of three years‘ experience within the last five years as an administrator or assistant adminis- trator of a sizeable school complex or school district including both elementary and second- ary schools. APPENDIX G SUMMARY RESULTS OF THE DODDS LANGUAGE ARTS AND MATHEMATICS ASSESSMENT, GRADES 3 AND 6 (I978) I95 Source: APPENDIX G SUMMARY RESULTS OF THE DODDS LANGUAGE ARTS AND MATHEMATICS ASSESSMENT, GRADES 3 AND 6 (I978) Tablet. Grade 3 ms Language Arts Spelling is a II t 83 l 63 Study Skills :3 OJ: 63 65 Reading Interpretation 31 q E: 66 91 Reading Comprehension E :1 a 91 Word Meaning/Structure Sound/Symbol Relationship l J l l l l l J l 010 2030405060708090100 Program DODDS Percent Expectancy - - ~1976-77 Rance - —1977-78 Summary ResuIts of the DODDS Language Arts and Mathematics Assessment, Grades 3 and 6 (1978) (Alexandria, Va.: DODDS, 1979). I96 I97 Table 2. Grade 3 Math Grade 3 61 Metric Geometry E7 50] II 7 44 , I | Non Metric Geometry I19 q I I ' 47 Measurement 67 I I Number Phrases E , El; ' _ 51 69 Fractions/MixedNumbers [3 ' : '54 - , 'I Number Theory [23 so] 54; I - 4747 56 ' I Division E7 I éfi Multiplication E5 3 52- i: Subtraction 64 75' I Addition [.3 ti “7 - 58 7 Numeration b1 I l l l J l 4 l l O 10 20 30 4O 50 60 70 80 DODDS Program Percent Expectancy ' ' "197577 Range -—1977-78 100 I98 Table 3. Grade 6. Grade 6 Lang “age Arts Writing Skills Sentence Patterns Usage Parts Of Speech Spelling Punctuation Capitalization Study Skills Reading Comprehension Word Meaning/Structure one... ‘1 b a: ". V ‘9 igl:I a, ‘4 .q 47 ‘4 £5 8 lg. -.- - ~i or l l L l l l J l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7O 80 90 Program Percent Expectancy ___?.9923§ Range m-Conus - -1977-78 I99 Tab|e4 Grade 6. ‘ Guides Math Graphs/Statistics Probability 28 45 55: 56 Integers 26 E 39 - “,__‘ Metric Geometry 22 a“ 3' 40 _ 54 . .- IIsa Non Metric Geometry 30 L 515 II '32 _ 57 2' 1 Measurement 31333 [9 q Ratio/Percent 30- 48 Decimal Fractions 65 Fractions/Mixed Numbers 36:41- Number Theory Division Multiplication Subtraction Addition ExProatram Dooos pec ancy _ _ _ Range 1976’” ..... “nus , - -1977-78 Percent APPENDIX H DODDS LANGUAGE ARTS ASSESSMENT RESULTS I977-78 200 Source: APPENDIX H DODDS LANGUAGE ARTS ASSESSMENT RESULTS I977-78 Table 1. EnorOountiorBdithandasvanthGradsEssays 00008 National Assessment Average Number or Sentences Par Essay -811. .13.". 10.72 14.40 Mechanics: Word Errors Spemng: DODDS Nahona: Assessment Word Choice: DODDS NaUOnm Assessment Capitalization: DCDDS Nat IOi'i'dl Assessment Mechanics: Sentence Errors Punctuation: DODDS Nahnnal Assessment Agreement: DODDS Nauonal Assessment DODDS Language Arts Va.: DODDS, I979). Avera Number oi Wong‘Per Essay _8_t_h_ 11th 159 0 225.6 128.5 137.2 Average Number of Errors Per Essay 331 1 1th 5.7 5.7 5.3 3.4 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.6 .92. L921 1.2 0.6 2.2 3.4 3 a) ' 1.0 0.8 1.0 0 6 Assessment Results 201 Avsra a Number of Errors or 100 Words 221 .tflh. 3.6 2.5 2 6 3.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 JEN- 13E. 0.5 0.3 2.1 2.4 3.2 ‘ 0.9 0.6 1 1 0.6 1977-78 (Alexandria, 202 Table 1. Error Count tor Eighth and Eleventh Grade Essays (Cont’d) Average Number of Average Number oi Errors Per Essay Errors Per 100 Words .821. no. on 1.1.11 Mechanics: Sentence Errors Run-on: DODDS t2 0.9 1.1 0.6 Natasha Assessment 1.0 0.6 1.1 C 6 Awkward: DODDS 2.6 3.9 2 4 2' 7 NahOnai Assessment 2.6 1.8 ' End Marks: DcDDS 0.4 0,4 0.4 0.3 Nauunal Assassin-ent ' ‘ 'Not avaiisuze The National Assessment scoring criteria did not include this data category Table 2. Range oi Pupil Pertorn‘rance (Percentages of students by performance level) Errors Per Spelling Usage Capitalization .199qu -—~—- 93;; 1 1th §t_h__ 1 1th 931 11th 0 or 1 error per 100 words 29.5 38.5 93.5 95.0 80.0 95.5 .2 or 3 errors per 100 words 28.0 35.0 6.0 5.0 14.5 3.5 4 or more errors per 100 words 42.5 14.0 .5 ' 4.5 1.0 203 Table 3. Grade 8 g Language Arts Results Capitatization I Punctuation Spelling J c Main idea | 7 .2 l .2 '52 Cause/Ettect I l s 2 1 ea 0 26 D 1 . 1 c etai -8 l - 5 Mann Idea : ’3 c 3 Sequence l | .. 2 l g o. 2% l 30 Detail 1 Vocabuiary . .. .. = National Assessment Scores 1 L l l l 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Average Percent Correct 204 Table 3. Grade 8 (Continued) . Language Arts Results i-o- --»-——_. ' , ! .t: 8‘ ‘6: a i :6 L'I’H a l ' 1 l , . l 132-3.3 59'“..e.‘.:;65 I Detait Sensation SEtTtPoCe Aflafy'SIS I Modstiers [ Pronouns l o ., , g Verbs I l n :3 , - J J l J L 40 50 60 70 80 90 Average Percent Correct 100 205 Table 4- Grade 11 Language Arts Results Paragraphlng Usage Detail Selection Topic Selection Tonic Sentence Sentence Ana!ysis Moditiers Pronouns Verbs 40 50 60 70 80 90 206 Table 4. (Continued) Grade 11 Language Arts Results Capitalization I Punctuation I l Spelling I s Main Idea I dig ’ 3 o . - l E5 Cause/Effect I a. $2 . I ‘ :8 Detail | I 5 idea I [I 7, l r: , 2 l ’ _ 2 Sequence I e e ~ 3 E :8 Detail I Vocabulary J - - — = National Assessment Scores 1 J J J i 40 50 60 7O 80 90 Average Percent Correct APPENDIX I FORM HS-T: ITEM CLASSIFICATION BY CONTENT AND SKILL 207 FORM HS-i: APPENDIX I ITEM CLASSIFICATION BY CONTENT AND SKILL . Form l-tSt: item Classification by Content Area Mala! item tgectlve . Content Area Number item Descriptors and elective Skill Community 1 envelope 38 w Resources 2 Social Security number application 38 W 3 cost 01 bowlin lesson 1A C 4 housing comp aint 3A PS 5 library use 2A PS 6 right of way 4F l 7 bus schedule 48 R 8 road map 40 R Occupational 9 help tinding job as sales clerk 2A PS Knowledge 10 job application 20 W 11 co-wortter relationships 3A PS 12 equal opportunity employer sign 3C R 13 overtime pay 30 C 14 open shop 3C i 15 job ads 10 R 16 employment agency tee 2A C Health 17 bleach antidote 40 R 18 first aid kit list 4C w 19 federal food and drug laws 20 l 20 diet lor pregnant woman 3A w 21 high-protein meal 28 PS 22 calories 20 C 23 prescription label 10 C 24 cigarette carcinogen content 2A R Government 25 availability of lawyers 30 PS and Law 26 taxes and services 48 l 27 majority needed to pass bill 1A C 28 nubile meetings 28 l 29 tter to congressman 20 w 30 lease 20 w 31 parole 30 C 32 rights after arrest (Miranda) 30 R Consumer 33 cereal by weight 38 R Economics 34 motorcycle owner’s manual 4A R 35 credit check 20 l 36 bait and switch 3F PS 37 sale rationale SC PS 38 household heat/oil consumption 50 C 39 income tax return 2A C 40 budget M W "This code identities the skill to which the item was written (ltldentilicatlon ol Facts and Terms. R-Reading, WeWritrng. CsComputetion. PS=Problem Solvmg). Source: American College Testing Program, APL Department, User's Guide: High Schooi APL Survey (HS-l) (Iowa City: ACI, I976), pp. 57-58. 208 209 2. Form H81: item Classification by skill item Skill Number Content Area identification 01 Facts 6 Community Resources and Terms (N=6) 14 Occupational Knowledge 19 Health 26 Government and Law 28 Government and Law . 35 Consumer Economics Reading (Mr-9) 7 Community Resources 8 Community Resources 12 Occupational Knowledge 15 Occupational Knowledge 17 Health 24 Health 32 Government and Law 33 Consumer Economics 34 Consumer Economics Writing (N=8) 1 Community Resources 2 Community Resources 10 Occupational Knowledge 18 Health 20 Health 29 Government and Law 30 Government and Law 40 Consumer Economics Computation (N=9) 3 Community Resources 13 Occupational Knowledge 16 Occupational Knowledge 22 Health 23 Health 27 Government and Law 31 Government and Law 38 Consumer Economics 39 Consumer Economics Problem Solving (Nr8) 4 Community Resources 5 Community Resources 9 Occupational Knowledge 11 Occupational Knowledge 21 Health 25 Government and Law 36 Consumer Economics 37 Consumer Economics APPENDIX J FORM HS-T: DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE STANDARDIZATION SAMPLE 210 APPENDIX J FORM HS-I: DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE STANDARDIZATION SAMPLE Grade 11 Grade 12 Sex Male 46.3" 47.3” (2105. 203s)“ Female 53.7 52.7 Age 16 or under 45.1 2.0 (2107. 2030) 17 50.1 45.4 18 4.4 49.5 19 0.4 3.0 20 or over 0.0 0.1 Ethnic Group American lndian 0.4 1.3 (2147. 2023) Black 12.0 12.0 Mexican American 3.4 3.4 Oriental 1 .0 0.9 Puerto Rican 1.0 0.4 White 80.1 79.8 Other 2.1 2.0 Educational Clerical 6.0 7.5 Program College Preparatory 42.6 47.4 (2147, 2029) General 36.8 33.9 Vocational/Technical 8.6 7.0 Other 6.0 4.2 Occupation Laborer 2.2 3.8 ot Head oi Service Worker 4.8 35 Household Machine Operator 7.4 7.3 (2114, 1905) Crattsman-Foreman 12.4 11.2 Sales Worker 8.7 8.4 Cierical/Otlice Worker 5.3 5.1 Manager/Office 10.2 11 .5 Farmer . 1.0 1.4 Professional/Technical Worker 14.1 16.3 Other 33.8 31.5 Family Less than $5,000 5.8 6.3 Annual 35.000.56.999 8.0 5.9 income $7 COO-$9.999 11.8 12.6 (1609. 1025) 510,000-514,999 24.8 24.6 315.000 or more 49.6 50.6 ‘Number ot responses in grades 11 and 12 respectively bPercentage of the number oi students responding Source: American College Testing Program, APL Department, User's Guigez High School APL Survey (HS-l) (Iowa City: ACT, i976), p. . 211 APPENDIX K APL TEST NORMATIVE GROUP SUMMARY STATISTICS BASED ON INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES FOR TOTAL SAMPLES 212 APPENDIX K APL TEST NORMATIVE GROUP SUMMARY STATISTICS BASED ON INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES FOR TOTAL SAMPLES N b Grade 11 Grade 12 um er N=2,167 N=2,040 APL Scales of Items ( ) ( ) Mean 5.0. Mean 5.0. Content Areas (40) Community Resources 8 6.7 1 3 6.8 1 3 Occupational Knowledge 8 6. 1.6 .5 1 Health 8 6. 1.5 4 l 5 Government and Law 8 6.0 l 6 6.1 l 5 Consumer Economics 8 5.6 1 7 5.9 1 7 Skills (40) Identification of Facts and Terms 6 4.8 1.3 4.9 1.3 Reading 9 7.1 1.5 7.3 1.5 Writing 8 6.5 1.4 6.7 1.4 Computation 9 6.0 2.2 6.5 2.1 Problem Solving 8 6.3 1 4 6.4 l 4 Total Survey 40 30.71 6.01 31.74 5.94 Source: American College Testing Program, APL Department, User's Guide: High School APL Survey (HS-11(Iowa City: ACT, 1976), pp. 22-23. 213 APPENDIX L STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HIGH SCHOOL APL SURVEY HS-T 214 APPENDIX L STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HIGH SCHOOL APL SURVEY HS-l 1 . Form H81: Statistical Character-bites Grade 11 (N=2,107) Reliabliy Number suns-re Error” Mean 6 ct items KR-2O Split-Hail' otMeaeurement Dillicuity Dlecrbnination Content Areas Community Resources 8 .51 .55 0.91 83.2 .49 Occupational Knowledge 8 .58 .62 1.04 77.4 .48 Health 8 54 .50 1.02 78.3 .51 Government and Law 8 .55 .57 1.07 74.6 .50 Consumer Economics 8 .55 .56 1.14 70.3 .51 Skills ldentitication 01 Facts and Terms 6 .55 .57 0.87 79.4 .56 Reading 9 .51 .53 1 .05 79.3 .47 Writing 8 .49 .50 1.00 81.5 .48 Computation 9 .70 .71 1 .20 67.2 .54 Problem Solving 8 .42 .44 1.07 78.1 .45 Total Survey 40 .85 .85 2.32 76.8 .42 aOdd versus even items. b8ased on KR-2D. cMedian pornt biserial correlation between item and part. Source: American College Testing Program, APL Department, User's Guide: High School APL Survey (HS-1)(Iowa City: ACT, 1976), pp. 38-39. 215 216 2, Form H81: Statistical Characteristics Grade 12 (N=2,040) Reliability __ Number . “IMO" 5"" b Mean 5 ol items KR-20 Split-Hall oi Measurement Dilticulty Discrimination Content Areas Community Resources 8 .51 .54 0.91 84.7 .51 Occupational Knowledge 8 .64 .64 0.96 81.0 .51 Health 8 .54 .53 0.95 80.3 .51 Government and Law 8 .54 .55 1.02 76.7 .49 Consumer Economics 8 .57 .62 1.11 74.0 .51 Skills identification of Facts and Terms 6 .57 . 3' 0.85 82.2 .56 Reading 9 .51 .51 1.05 80.6 .48 Writing 6 .54 .55 0.95 83.5 .51 Computation 9 .71 .71 1.13 71.6 .52 Problem Solving 8 .46 .50 1.03 80.3 .47 Total Survey 40 .86 .87 2.21 79.4 .40 aOcid versus even items. hBased on KR-20. cMedian paint biserial carroiation between item and part APPENDIX M PROGRAM DCHECK SOURCE DOCUMENTATION FOR VERIFICATION OF DATA PREPARATION AND SUMMARIES FROM COMPUTATION OF DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS BY SCHOOL 217 APPENDIX M PROGRAM DCHECK SOURCE DOCUMENTATION FOR VERIFICATION OF DATA PREPARATION AND SUMMARIES FROM COMPUTATION OF DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS BY SCHOOL UMIVAC OSII OASIC FORTRAN. VERSION 5.0 IHIS COMPILAIIOM DOME OM 79108126 AI 07.38 0001 0002 0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 0008 0009 0010 0011 0012 0013 0014 0015 0016 0017 0018 0019 0020 0021 0022 0023 0024 0025 0026 0027 0028 0029 0030 0031 0032 0033 0034 0035 003a 0037 0038 0039 0040 0041 0042 0043 0044 0045 0046 0047 0048 0049 Fifi“ IOU IU 600 20 25 200 300 29 30 PROGRAM DCHECK IMIS IS A PROGRAM IO CMECM IME VALIOII' Of IMPUI OAIA OM APL IESIS FOR 9.1]. AND 32 GRADE SIUOEMIS AMOMG 000 SCHOOLS IMROUGMOUI IME PACIFIC REGION. DIMENSION ILLISI.IINtSI.KILLlSI.MIIMISI.IIOLIZI.AILLISIeAIIMISI DIMENSION RAMEIbI IOUG=0 MSCR =0 «510:0 45:8 =1 00 I00 I3Ie5 K1LLt1i:0 MIIMII|=O COMIINUE DO 1000 I =I,SDOD REAOII.IODISCM.NAML.IGRO.ISCR.CIINIMI.M=I.SI.IILLIMI.M=I.SI FORMATtI4.2!.bAI,ZX.IZ.ZX.I2.ZI.SIII.III.SIIlgllll cautlqu IftISCH.EO.9999oANoelSIuoifleOI GO IO 2000 IFIISCH.E0.MSCHI 60 TO 200 IFSMSIUONEeOI 60 IO 00L URIIEII.ZOI ISCM.IGRD FORMAIIIHI.ZQA.ZIHAPL IESI RESOLIS FOR .I4.1M GRADE .IZII SI.I2MSI IUOLNI MAME .9I.21.5MGRAOE.SIeIIMIOIAL SCORE.ZI.IZA.IRMCORI[MI SCOR ZES.IOX.I2MSMILL SCORES! SSlgfiflCOMMng OCC .IMMEALIM .SMGOVI , QM 3COMS.SA.7MIDEMI .GMREAO .IMURIIE .SMCOMPI .RMPROO.IX.SMERRORI MRIIEISeZSI FORHMIISJIaSHRESQZMgRHI~°Ug.Mg5H‘ L.UgI‘g~H£C°~.30M95“50L'£'0H CO IOEII KSCH:ISCH CONII~UE “SI“:MSIUPI MSCR=ISCROI5CR IIOLIII :0 110L121:0 00 300 I:Ia5 IIOLIIIzIIOLIIIPIINIII MIINIII3MII~IIIPIINIII 110Lt2|=110Lt2191LLt11 MILLIIszlLLIIIPILLIII COMIINUE IFIIBUGeEReII MRIIEI3al9IIIOL FORHRIISMeZIZI [£30 IFIISCRONEeIIOLIIIIIE:I IPIISCMeNEeIIOLIZIIIE32 8811£t3.301 “MHEeIGRDaISCR.IIINIKIgI:IeSI.IIlLINI"=IgsDal: FORMATt2!.6A4.4x.12.113.12.102.2111.411.II.oX.I1.43.11.92.11.SI.31 III.6!I.II.3!.III 218 219 60 I0 I000 400 IRIIEIS.QDI MSCHeIBPO Rb FORMAIIIHI.ZSX.Z9HAPL SURVEY SUMMARY SIAIISIICSIZOIaRHFOR .IMe7H 5 IRAUE .12 IISX.IOHSIAIISIICSeZSIglIMIOIAL SCOREglfil, 2 IRHCOMIENI SCORE$.IGJ.IZHSMILL SCORES] 53R.MHCOHM.6M OCC .INHEA SLIM .OHBOVI .RHCOMS.SA.IHIDENI .OHREAO .IHUEIIE .IHCOMPI I IRIIEI39453 IS FORMAIIIHO.III3.QHPROBI SSA.3H9E5.2X.MNMNOU.OX.5HS LlflellgMHECONeS I2R,SHSOLVEI’I HRIIEISIMGI MSIU Mb FORMAIISI.ZSHMUMBER OF SIUDENIS IESIED eIII.IS/I URIIE(3.53IMSCR.IMIINIllgliIeSI.IMILLINI.M=I.SI $0 IORMAIISK.I3HSCHOOL IOIALS.231.I5.bl.5(II.ZI|.5X.SIIQ.SXIII ASCR:IFLORIIMSCRIIIIMSIUI DO SUD I2I95 AIIMIIIiIFLOAIIMIIMIIIII/IMSIUI AILLIIIIIFLOAIIMILLIIIIIIIKSIUI SOB COMIIMUE MRI If IJpODI ASL‘MIAITNIMI.“21.51.1AILLtlflgNtlgSi bU FORMAIIfilgIIHMEAN SCORES.ZOX.FQ.IeIR.SIF3eI.SXI.5!,5IFS.I.QRII 50 900 121.5 MILLIIIifl MIINIIIID 90$ CONIINUE KSIUZO IIOLIIIZU IIOLIZIZO MSCR30 00 I0 603 1000 CONTINUE 2000 CONIINUE SIOP END 221) -liit ~qazii.emaililmadi.lie.mi:iiaMmiil: ii n.m;- mva.a-e.eiiiw.e-: ~.a ~.~n mesoom.zxaxzem >uszan Sea :wiml i;m.m.ili~.a--iim.eiis:mnnl.li.liio.ni.-~.a: iw.niiiauwi.lw.w i- - .~.-.---:-i.il:.i-:i.:i .-- ..Aeaooa 22.: on. up. 6.8 oco men ona as» ”an em. .59 ..a. wee.n_ Gauze; so. 83.ne. w.zuo:.m so coaxaz -i.u:..ow to”: 3‘; u 333. am: no“; .azou b..¢a aaua .zuaa «zoo uses x.3¢a: ooe :tou : «bacon 45.xm museum .zupzou “zoom Sepep au~.m..e.a - :i - - -- is- - - l .i.. - --i-i . - . . -.- - . o bogus mass zoo au_.a_~e_w pacrzam eases» ass- 222 8.3 :wma-lliam~lii-w.~ iienmilil mmwz:iw.a:iea.oi:;wmeiiiwumiiliiliwmmwili-:-zl:---;:-i.i-.ii: -zwuaouw zsua. use pan A.¢ - we: . n- . - non .-Aan Non man nNs soo— ne<_op sacrum on . oucmwp ”czun:_m so aucxnz useem , zouu 3.4 a :52; «we : . . -- ---- , aces cacao wanna use“ pauou «zoo case 2.4.0: one race . mououn seas» mucous .20.:ou deco» aa—o» «ea—mucepm : is -;-i-sii:i,iiilili--iiiiiiiii-;:.e..:-:-:. :-i-:..---:. . -. -Na doezm.~ose «02 --. -r-.i. ii . «enema—«pm snares» suszam use . litmus lime» 4.... o; . m...i. -ianiiwtai£43.--.imnaiiioam-1183“. iiiiiizmumomm .53... non can, 8.. - we. . .- . . ssnv -oon so: 3mm a~e : . as». «been. noose» - - as . ou.mu_ mhzuo=_m no means: usaom zoom see a :82: «we -- . moaa cacao scum: cede czuo~ ”zoo .soe z.e¢ez use :zou museum aunxm mucous czupzou bacon 34—9. wo-n_..cm .iiil.-i-:----i.-ii,::i --.i..--- .lli i--- i ..-i .-:,;-i .d. ensue page so. ,aoaum.~¢.m >mexz=m poses» 424.. . -. 223 It . IIII .I.1.I. l t I l .I .ainrii .. II. nee flea 0.6 0.0 Net I. It. . I.IIIII.I I. y ..l I. I I. IIIIII .IIIIII 2:40» moat baton abuzz O¢uc mwcoua Janna bayou iIie I.|. nI r. I .I 1.. III ..e e.o. ~.e -.w.o-- m.o can nm— ntu 01— no iilt ..III. . II .IrIivliiI Iii ..I. iII t i... u>unm acct htxou what) Ocua bzucn muscun Janna ..4I.IrIili I.i v.4 Ii I t t . III .i iii.l. sIIII II..I.. .II I. III! 9.8 . e.c ..a 0.2 -. m.n on" as. can nod ee— us_o» acct patou u—uua 0(Uu b2uo~ muxOuw ddqtm o.m ~.m. 5.5 on am so zoo» 2.4 u need C’s: :.a¢uz museum pauuzcu w.m:-.a.o.i-w.m : can No“ o- it. 5.I«i I III., .. it town and a «209 paou 1~J¢41 mucoum bambacu I...I.IIIIIIII... III .IiuI. o.m. ~.e -a.a». ,-2uzoom zed: on so non weeps. season a. aa.a.. mazuu=.n so songs: :92: was uoo zzou aucun dcnop «Dunn—pdpn - . ~_ aaexe «use no; «oak»..e.m pcczcan pusxan as. I . il I. .. . I siIIIiI III II-I .. III titlt.e a.m ..a.ai u.o~ «bacon =34£23w buaunn 4&4 aie ~.m. :o.m ..n ..a w.a~.- . - . museum x¢.t ~n— mm. -. a“. we“ was As14z¢3m >.zaen ass 224 .i ~.« «.n o.o o.o «.n ous:l.«¢o:li~rm:l.mne-.:muwiiii:i-omm~ -iiliilzlameowo-aoor- - - . «n. «N i. A. e on - .o~: .-:: .o~ - on .c~. . «n o:— - - i , Weapon ooozo« - - - - - .---. . . .a - oo—«o. «ozoooow so costs: iiusoo« . . .zooo :«o o 3oz: «oz. 1... :.i- ooca oazoo oboe: oooc ozoon «zoo .soo goose: ooo :zoo --ii .-«ocoon 44~x« -- «oooo« ozoozoo . . . oooo« oooop .-:- «o~.««.¢.« -iilliilil. .......... iii- iii :iii;iiii;.:i2-is:iw:_oo«aosoo«o an. .:iizi...iilii:-- ..... . «oA—«H_<.« >aa:r:« >osa=« one i:wmoiliimuo_ 5:3 ~.e osmii:iliiimuwiiioc«wl.~.w.i2o.o.iiw-miiiilli~u~n ii---.momoo« goo: ..... - o. - o~ on o~ ; - ~. A. - m. AA ea - .- .oo .. .- :z. . «Johan ooozom - :- - -- « oo_«oo «ozoo=.« so moses; oooo« :. - -i. zooo :24 o 3oz: «oz - i - coca pazoo mono: oooa Azooo «zoo hooo 3.4.0: ooo :zoo -e - .,.-i. . . i - h «ocoo« 44~g« «ocoo« ozouzoo oooo« oopop «o~.«-¢.« ---.lli-il-:i 1.- --iiliilliiizli-i:.:i. i -. .i;:.::..:: ii-.- .l.-;--.wm.ooooo oo«o ooo .s «35:45 >353 535... one -i-----..ii.i.- .-i -. .- .. --iiiiiii--- .-i-.-i- l .. ..r 225 rIIsII I.IIiil iIIIIII I II .- l.ll.I I. I tI ll '1‘ 5.5 o.5 o.» . 5.~ 5.. n.5 ~.5i i..mi «.5 .:~.~.-i.l:io.~mti iii-iii- .ii.i.-- -woaoow;:.o: oo~ 5o. «5. .~.. o.~ ~o~ son ~on .5~ ~K. a... «5..o_ 5cozo« «. . . oo.«c_ «.zooo.« so amoroz -o>5o« . . zooo 3.5 o 55:. «o. _. ooo. ..zoo up... o.oo .zoo. «zoo .soo z.5.o: ooo xzoo . . . oozoo« 55..« «ooooo .zopzoo oooo« 5..o. «o..«.~._« --i l- .: a.: .- -i. .--..- - ~. 5o.zo .ooo so. --.. ; --. .. .i .l- - . ..l.liii-... . , . «332.; 2.25:5 :35... 5o. .ill--im.5 o.5 ~.5 now 5.. ..5 mm. 5nmilimu5 .-wmmiiizliiorom: ll meomm-m.om:- ..mi-.-5..:-i:o5. .. .oo -2 ..n.. e --«n. -.«n.. ~«. .5". - ..c anon «5..o. ooozo« - .- i - z- : . .5 . oo.«o_ «.zooo.« so moors: , --oo5o«.il . i .zooo 5.5 o aoz. «o. - . i. ; ooze .azoo o»... o.o. .zoo~ «zoo ..oo 2.5.oz ooo zzoo - - «oooo« 55~.« . «o.oo« ozopzoo omoo« 5._o. - «o«.««_..« - ill--- . i. :.:..l.::.;.. ;il-aii:l .- .-i w. oo.oo-.o«5.oo. -- . «o..«_...« >=.xz=« ou>o=« 55.. iii i.-:. ills...“ o.« 1.5. «...5-.ll.m..nii-ilii«...,.. i-.m..«li--w...«ilim.......il«..5 i.-~-..5.~ i «.mmmm«-m.wmli ~«5 - o«« . ~o5 .5~. «on oom ooo 5.5 o.« «~.. noon . «5..o. 5oozo« .-- - - ~.. . .ooo«o. «ozooo.« so ooozoz oooo« - zooo 3.5 o 5oz. «o. .. ooo. oozoo ooooa o.o¢ ozoo. «zoo ..oo 2.5.5: ooo :xoo .-..: - . «o.oo« 55~.« «oooo« .zo.zoo - oooo« 5..o. «o__«~_._« .-li. i i:::-i .ill .............. i.i .ll::i -i.: ii.: o no..o .o«5 so. .«o~.«w...«:oo.zzo« >o>oo« 5..--i.l::i - .-.- 226 i. ;io.m:iiim.5iiiimaul-i:w.m .::5mr..ii ; «.5 rio.5 : .m5i..w.5i ,«.. . : «.4. ., .. . . :.«o.on« z.o: 5. «s «o «o .« .5 55 o. _. no .«m «a..o. 5oo=o« ~_ Adana...» abzuoaun u... 1.05:2... 5>5o« zooo 5.5 o ooz. «o. ooo. ..zoo 5.... o... .zoo. «zoo ..oo z.5.5z ooo zzoo . «o.oo« 55..« «oooo« .zo.zoo .aoo« 3..o. «o..«._._« --- ii..- - - - -- . -. ~. «54.5 mama so. - an: «Luau» vmuxtzm >u>33m 4.; ii 0.... i .io.m..:-id.e.oil . lend. l.i-oet.-...l-iiit dew -Iinem.-.li.Meo-i .o..¢.-.-.u.o-.-i.. .-iNaun. ..lliilil .- - ii .iii... .- i. . wuaoum 24“: .o. o. ~55 ~o. - . o. o. oo. oo «o. .5. . «5..o» oooxo« «. .. oo.«o_ «.zooo.« so gonzo. oooo« . . zooo 3.5 o ooz. «o. ooo. oozoo 5...: o.o. .zoo~ «zoo .ooo 2.5.5: ooo zcoo «ozoo« 55..« - . ;- «o.oo« .zopzoo oa5o« 5..o~ «o._««..s« - - -.- -, - -;-. 1-----::- :iiii i .i-.; ..-.- ..;-i--..--. ...o. oo.=o «o«5 .o. . i - . JUnhm~—<—A >¢cxxaw buacam 44.4 -- - i- «.n:.:.m.miiiim.5----~.5-..:..w:i.--i--o.nl_-r.«.--..« :-w.w;-:~.o-.- .....«~.:-. -..-. i:.;.-:-.---:iiso.oo« 5.3: .~« 5o ««. o«_ so .9 oo. .«. .o. as. :55 . «5._o. ooo:o« ..N 9:»...— «nzwoapm .3 5.3.51... osoo« zooo ..5 o ooz. «8. men... pnxou Human o5>o=« .o. 227 -iii.mum.l;lmum:lllm.5 «.. ..« i~u5-1:r.5--:w.5--:w.mi:imumwii;iiio.mm . -.siil-.«ozoo«.w.ozi-. - ,..5. --;o«.-. 55.- oo. . «~. .. 5.. .««. . N5. 5«. ~o. ~s. «5..o_.5oozo« i- i .ii - - - .K .- . oo.«o_ «.zooo.« so zoozoz - oz5o« . . zoo. zoo o zozz «oz : . . -. -:. - «ooo- .azoo_.o.~zz o.uz .zuo. «zoo .ooo z.5.oz ooo zzoo .«ozoo« 55.z« mucoum pauptou oooo5 5..o.. Nu maczu Noon can i . -i:.-ii:liis :i: i:.- - 2: ii - -- -i.;--:wo~.«—.m.« >z.zro«.»ozz=«.oo.: ..ri.- - -.l l:. 8.. w.5 ~.5 «.mr:-lwnmi:llllllmaoi.zom5;l:wmm-iimnull:mxm:llliimomWsl. i:i.lllill-.l.:--i.«ozoo«.zoos. o5. _.. ««. no..- 5.. .. _.. on. «5. .5. ~«. . o.. «5..o. ooozo« - :--. -.-.i - «~ . o5_«o_ «.zoo:.« so moans: - - .oz5o« -. zooo z.5 o zozz «oz ooze oazoo oouzz o.oz .zooo «zoo .zoo 2.5.5: ooo :zoo . .«oooo« 55~z« - «ozoo« .zoozoo ozoo« 5..o. «o..«....« - .i-- iii- -i i--il.- -i i- - - l .-iii--- - . - -- .-i.:-.-- . . . ...oo.zo ~o55 ooo . i «o__«._..« >z.zzo« >o>z5« 5.. .iili.-iw.e 5.. ..5 ..w o.» omoilim.w o.w ..n and o.- «wzemw zwoz o5«; «5~ ~5n «on . ..~ . «.~ ooo «no ~o~ ~o« «5«_- «om—o. ooozo« ~« oo.«o_ «ozoo=.« so zoacoz - . ozoo«. zooo 5.5 o zozz «oz ooze oozoo o...z o.oz ozoo. «zoo ..oo 2.5.5: ooo :zoo .. - «ozoo« 55~z« «ozoo« ozopzoo -ozoo« 5..o. «o__«~_..« l-ii:- .-ill:------ii;_i--.--. i;; - .i..iiilil. o oo... ~o55 no. II .IIii i «o..«...m«!oz.zza«-oozz=« 55., :-.--i- ..-: s - - 228 2i....5.5 I: 5.5-:.-mum.Ix:mu.-:s;.uul.:|!:-:o.m .eo55-nzm.5 n-5r5---m.5 ----x 55.5 u-:-:u;.,-..-.--z:lu:-s:.5uooo5,a5un .55 - ... . 5.. .o. 5o5 o55 .55 - 555 ..5 55. «o5. ... 555.o. 5oozo5 - - oo. o5.55. 5.25o:.5 .o aunts: 5.5o5 zoo. :55 5 5oz: 55¢ . ooo. ..cou 5...: ooo. .zuo. 5zoo ..ow :.5o.: uuo axon 555oo5 55.55 5uooo5 .zu.zou .aou5 5¢.o. 5o..5..¢.5 -.- . ~. 5:515 5:55 so. a...- z z- i 3!: -..II --. - .-- . .....-i..lli!.|x-i--- -.I- .. - Ii :1... - - 533...... .3535 33...... 5.... ii-i...n.5...llao.._5 ......5.m-la-m.um. -1I-.....-l.--- 5..5t!.-.5.5.i.m5u5.1!o..m!--.o.5..!.i.|-o..o.~.- 55.355, .35.... 5.5 5 .55. 555 555 555 55' - n5. «.5 «o. .55.. . 5.5. 555.o. 5oozo5 . . no o5.55. 5.25oo.5 .o «55:55 ...555 zoo. :55 5 2oz: 55¢ - ooo. ..xoo 5...; oouc .zuo. 5zou ..o5 2.5.5: ooo :cou 5uoou5 55.55 5uuoo5 .35—zoo uuoo5 5o.o. 5o..5....5 - z ,- . ----- -:;--.|x--:x- :. .-.-- -- -:._ - a -:_-:::-..; ., . . .. nocao 5555 no. -- . . -- . - 5o..5....5 .aozxa5 .5.535 5.5 i.-- ...... 42.... .... -..... ... ... ...... .. ...... 1mm! ......i;. .55..--!-. - -3555. .....3..... on. 1 5.... ooo - 55o.. 555- . ... .oo .55 55. .5o. 55.: - 555.o. 5ooxo5 r , . - . - 55. - o5.55. 5.55oo.5 .o a5ozoz : 5..o5 . zoo. so. 5 3oz: 55¢ . ooo. ..xou u..ca o5u. .auo. 52cc ..oo 2.55.: uuo :zou .. - , .5uooo5 55.55 - 5uuoo5 .25.:ou - .; 5oou5 5..o. - - 5o..5..5.5 I ttia .If ill-l1 I}? 0 .-III‘ .-I‘y l'llllt...|.!x .20 I. .l 5 .. .550'. .II. II 5- ..l- .tl‘ul...‘ .fl'l r. O ua.¢m ‘°“ 3°“ I I- 1v... 1! . . A . .Al . 5u.mww.ou5-.aozco5 ...525 5.5 229 .yzw.5 ..5 5.511.-mmmsalumumzs;sui:swmw :.~55912w5m-u-muoasewrm:-n-ai-nuwnzlqulnil:-&- g. --::- :l.ww.555-t55w ...... .5..- 5...- 5o..- .55., ....5o. ...o. .... .... wo.. .... 5..5 -.,- ... , 5...o. 5oozu5 -- - I - . - .- . . - . ... -.o5.55. 5.z5oo.5 .o ¢55m=z -,.5.5o5 - ; .... zoo5 ..5 5 3oz. 55. - .. - . - ..-:,- ,2 no... ..coo 5...: o... .a5o. 5zo5 ..ou :.5.5: 55o :zou 55uo55 55..5 .- - 55¢o55 .25.zo5 5¢o55 ...o. -- . . 5...5..«.5 -- -- I I. ...:......:.:.n:... a: .--:---.!e;.-: ; .-;!n-|c.oug,g --.- ....-5o.¢5 .o.. ¢w5 -.--w--.:- .- - . 55..5....5 >¢¢zzn5 .5>¢:5 55. ..5 5.. ..5 5.5:» ..5 ... o.5 5.5 5.. ..5 ..5. esziwmmwww-rmwr;- .....- ...o.:: .5.. .5... .5. -- ..noo., ..... .... 5.o. .oon. .- : o5o5-.:.-;:; .1. ; :7: 55..o. 5.5:55 ---.- a -=. - - 5... .e -- - o5.55. 5.x5oo.5 no «5.252 . 5..o5.; ., . -- ¢o55 ..5 5 :52. 55¢ -. ooo. ..xoo 5...: o55¢ .z5o. 5ao5 ..o5 2.5.5: 55o xxoo - . .9 - . - -.... . -:zu- - 55¢o55 55.x5 . . 55¢o55 .25.xo5 -. 5ao55 5..o. . 55..5....5 - , I- -ul :5 ----n.|:-1|--..:za:-.n::--;.!:use-i.- . 5o4¢5 .5.. ¢o5 .z--:,:s;; -55..5....5;w¢.::o5x.5>¢:5.5¢«.I! 230 w». .mzm ..5 ownsns.mnnaau- -w.n.:§m55 ..m 5.5 -m55:z- .5... , .::,al.a.m5moww-.mmr- .55 . 5.. : 555 5...---555 .- 55. ... 5.5 55..- .5. - . 5.5.. - 55..5. 555.55 - - .5. - 55.55. 5.2555.5 55 ¢55xaz 5.555 2555 ..5 5 :52. 55. - 55.. ..:55,-5..¢: 5.5. ..255. -- 5255 ..55 2.5.5: 555 .255 55.555 55..5 - a. 55.555 .25.:55 5.555 5..o. 55..5....5 --n:.-v ;-:---|s:-:|:i. ;: .9..m..55..5-.555 .5.... - . ; .inla sia,;a:1a::- :-n:.r-:n. 55..5....5 .¢.:z=5 .5..55 5.. izllmuwzs:-5..- ..5 555 555a.z.u::-5.u.:aw551:-55m1155nwzlu.nm sizn;:o.5w-,- ...:g :155¢555 a... 5... on. .5... 55.. .55 .55 ..5. .... ..5 .5.. .5.5 55..o. 555555 ; - - - 55. 55.55. 5.2555.5 55 ..5.52 -5.555 , .555 5.5 5 .5.. 55¢ - 55¢. ...55 5...: 5.5¢ .255. 5.55 ..55 ..5.5: 555 .555 - 55.555 5...5 55¢555 .25.:55 5¢555 5..o. 55..5....5 -uie-,- .iu:--::a. :-..- -.-;zz ...... 2i- - a -.a-. .7.....:.. e 55.25 .555 .5.. .--a.:-:-- -55..w....5:...:z55 .5..55 5a.. APPENDIX N SOURCE DOCUMENTATION AND TABULATIONS OF GRADE LEVEL DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FROM INDIVIDUAL APL TEST PERFORMANCE DATA 231 APPENDIX N SOURCE DOCUMENTATION AND TABULATIONS OF GRADE LEVEL DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FROM INDIVIDUAL APL TEST PERFORMANCE DATA UNIVAC 05/3 BASIC FORTRAN. VERSION 0.0 THIS COHPILATION DONE ON 79105111 AT 11.51 0001 0002 0003 000“ 0005 0006 0007 0008 0009 0010 0011 0012 0013 001“ 0015 0016 0017 0018 0019 0020 0021 0022 0023 002“ 0025 0026 0027 0028 0029 0030 0031 0032 0033 003a 0035 0036 0337 0038 0039 OCQD DDQI DGAZ 00~3 00H“ DDQS 0086 CO“? ODQE C C C _ gingusgou sggycsn 100 101 10 600 I9 20 25 200 . L . .. .5 - .. a- .--.-. ...-...u—u— ....-. -_ -. II PARAN LST=3 _PRO$QAN_§ST§] tuxs IS a Pnoéhii to Fionuct’discaxptlvr stavxsrzcs roa APL TEST DATA roe 9.11.:un 12 saaoc sruocuts nuous ooo SCHOOLS THROUSHOUT THE PACIFIC acsxou. oxncusrou ILLCSI.ITN(S).KILLCSI.KITN(SI. Althsn.axtucsn oxnzusxou Iturcs.non.1LLr¢s.xon.xscnrtuna.u1u¢~1:.srtucs; SSCR=0.0 KSCR :0 KSTU:0 NGRD=9 KGRDfl no nog,3:g,s Kltutllro KILLtllzo s:1ucxn:o.o lethazo.o no 100 n:1.10 ILLF(I.KI=O co~t1uus no no: n:1.~1 ISCRFCND=D CONTINUE no 1000 1 :1,5000 ‘hcaotx,nu)13cu. ’ 'ISRD.isEhgoxfiu¢no.u:1;s:.thLnui.u:l.5: ronnattxn. 28x.12.2x.12.2x.s¢11.1xn.s¢1x.11u: CONTINUE 1stIscu.£o.9999.auo.usru.£o.o: so to 2000 lrtxsao.£o.xsaon so 10 200 Ircx§1u.~£.o: so 10 ~00 ualvtc3.i9l " roanAttlux.73x.2unoooos-Pac1rxc REGION ll quI£¢3.2or IGRD roRnAtconx.«2u0151918u110u or APL 15$! scours row Gala: .1211 IbSXoINHCONTENT SCORES.IOA.IZHSNILL SCORES/IZX.5NSCORE.9X.IHCONN. 6H OCC ,THHEALTH .OHGOVT . NH 3CONS.8X.THIDENT .SHREAD .THNRITE .bHCONPT .INPROBD NRITET3.251 FORNATtSbX.3HRES.2X.NNNNOI.8X.5HE LAflgllgflflECON,JNX.5NSOLVEI1 K6R0=IGRD CONTINUE THIS SECTION OF THE PROGRAM INCRENENTALLT SETS STUDENT NUMBER. TOTAL SURVEY SCORE, SUN OF VALUES SOUARED. AND INDIVIDUAL SCORE TOTALS. NSTU=NSTUOI KSCR:KSCROISCR SSCR=SSCROITELOATTISCR11tt21 232 0099 0050 0051 0052 0053 0059 0055 0056 0057 0055 0059 0060 0061 0562 0063 006“ 0065 0066 0067 0068 0069 0070 0071 0072 0073 0079 0075 0076 0077 0078 0079 0090 0081 0082 0083 008a 0085 0086 0087 0088 0089 0090 0C9] 0092 0095 009“ 0095 0096 0097 0098 0099 0100 0101 0102 0103 010a (“(56 O 301 M00 21 700 22 30 710 720 500 35 233 no 300 1:1,5 «Iratxnzulrucxloltucxn xxLchgzijLgxngLLtli _. -~ . , _ -.. tuls SUB-SECTION or THE Paosnan couuts rneoucucv oxsvnzaurlou on sua-sanss. 00 300 u:1,10 Ixzx-l 1r¢xvu¢1).£o.xxi ITNF(1.KD=ITNF(I.KI01 IF!ILL!I!.E0.IKIILLECIJNQ;ILLF¢I.NIOI coutxuur no 301 ~:1.~1 IfltN-l xrcxscn.£o.1uixscnrcnnzxscnrtutox xlutuazlu CONTINUE. so to 1000 contxuuc [HIS sccvxou PRINTS ratouzucxts IN THE TABLE uuosn uzaulus on. no 700 «:1.10 In : K-l URITE(3.2II IK.(ITNE¢11K1.I§1,5|.(ILLEII.K1.I=1.5) ronnattqsx.11.xox.s«x«.2xn.sx,s¢1~.3x)/) coutxuu: ruxs sacrlou uaxtzs A HEAOING AND PRINTS out IHE raeoucucv 01s!- nxau110~ run TOTAL suavcv scouts. BRIT! (3.19: 5R17E(3.22) ugnp ‘ > ‘ ronnattssx.s7urntoucucv oxsrnxauvxou or TOTAL suavzv scouts roe IERADE .IZIIb7X.IIHTOTAL SCORE 95X.9HEREOUENCYIII DO 710 NzlgNI URITET35301 KINTNIoISCRFINI FORHATIOBXgINgINXQINI CONTINUE . . THIS SECTION CALCULATES GROUP STATISTICS THIS SUB'SECTION CALCULATES THE AVG FOR EACH SCALE AND THE STD DEV FOR EACH SCALE. ASCR38FLOATIKSCR1IIIKSTUI SSCRzSORTICSSCRIKSTUI’IASCR.‘21I no son 1:1.5 _. _ AITNIIIIIFLOATIKITNIIIIIIIKSTUI AILL‘112TELOATCNILLTIIITICKSTUI THIS SUB'SECTION INCREHENTALLT CALCUALTES THE SUN OE SQUARES FOR SUB-SCALES DO 720 “31910 lKZK-l _ . IFCITNFIIgll.NE.DISITNIII=SITNIIIOIITNEII'IIRIIKRRZII IEIILLECI'KIoNEoCISILLTII:SILLI11*|ILLEII.K1‘(1K‘.211 CONTINUE THIS SUB-SECTION CALCULATES THE HEAN OF THE SUN OF SQUARES E STD DEV. sxvn¢1:=sqat¢¢sxtutIDIRSIub-(Axyucxi¢ozbn SILLCII:SORTICSILL(IIIKSTUI’TAILLIII¢.211 CONTINUE HRITECSgSSI FORHATI1H1928X.20HDODDS'PACIFIC REBION ’1 URITEI3.NDI NERD 0105 0136 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0110 0115 0116 0117 0118 0119 0120 0121 0122 0123 012“ 0125 0126 0127 0128 0129 0130 0131 0132 0133 013“ 0135 0156 0137 313? 0139 0180 3141 0142 0103 31““ 234 ND EORHA1‘1H .231.29HAPL SURVEV SUHHAR' S‘A'IS'ICS/260.0HF°R . 7H 5 IRADE .12 IISXpIDHSIA'ISTICszngAAHYO'AL SCORE.1~X, 2 JSHQON‘UU -iCQRESUlaX 11355.5.ILL §c°8£51 . 531151153911095" OCC 92HHE' NHI'E‘3.~11 “1 F0RHA'(1H§.1669 SHA SLYH .6H50V1 .NHCONS90X97HIDENI 'OHREAD .7HURI'E .THCDHP' 1 URIIE‘S'NSI “5 FORHAI11H0.'115.NHPRODI 53‘.3HRES.2‘.NHKNOH.DX.SHC LAN.1X.NHECON.3 1NX95HSOLVEII1 _ NHITE‘39061 “STU Nb FORHAICSx'ZSHNUHDER 0F S'UDENIS 'ESTED QIAX.ISI1 INI'E‘39501KSCN9(KIINCK10K21951.1N1LL‘N1gNzl'51 SD FORHA115X913HSCH00L 701ALS.Z3X¢IS'6‘.S13‘92X1'5X95‘INgSAI/I UR11E139601 ASCR9‘A11N1K1glzl.5.,(A1LLAH1QN:1'51 60 FORHA'CSX.11HHEAN SCORESLZOXQFNol'7‘,51F3.1’3K1950.5(F3olgN‘11 IRI'EC3.7D)SSCR,CSIINCK19K:1951.1SILLAH1,K:Io5. TU FDRHA'1/5X.18HSIANDAND DEVIA'10N919Npf‘oZ.7Xg5(F~-2.2XI.SXQS‘FNo 12'3X11 THIS SECVION IS 70 HE‘SE' ALL VARIABLES. DD 900 131,5 K177111730~ KILL‘I'ZD SITN1113000 SILL‘I1ZDoU DO 900 “31.10 IINFCIOH130 ILLF119K1ID. 900 CONTINUE KSYUIO KSCR=0 SSCR=0 DO 919 N21.“1 13CRF£N1=O 910 coutxuuc N5RD:IGRO 00 10 600 1000 CONVINUE 2000 CONYINUE 5109 [ND COMPILATION COHPLEIE 0 ERRORS 235 o mm c mm o o o o o o m cop mo mwp New 0 cc on mm me No? m NNN mmp omm mom o co “mp umN NNF #mm m mom mmp opm CNN cop MON map com pm— mmN m wnp mop Rep Nmp vmp mMN eNN mpN mMN pmp m For uwp an em mmN FMN mup opp ONN mm v om mm” wN FN «MN mmp mm we Nm— up m mp mm m_ m —mp Po mm m mm m N FF mm m N mm NN Nm w Nm m p e mp m m Fm e m e n m o ”mm. 358 3 :3 23¢ 22: mew 3&0“ 5 :3: 3me 5%” 28m mmgoum prxm mmgoum ucmucou .m mango so» mmgoum pmmh 4a< No cowpanwgumwoun.P anmh 236 O mm o NN o o o o o o a NNN em NNN NNN o no NN mm moN NNN N mmN em mNN NNN o NON mNN NmN NNN NNN N mNN mN mNN Na NNN NNN NNN eNN NNN ooN o No we we Ne NNN mm Nm Ne oN «N m mN ac NN mN Na mo Nm mm «c mN e NN Nm N m mm NN NN NN NN N m o 0N N m Nm NN NN N oN N N N ON 0 N NN o o N NN N N N m N N e o o o m o o ”Mm” Nasou mNNN3 camx NcmuN mew smuow suNmmz zwuw smmw «Loom mmgoum NNNxm mmgoum acmpcou . :. mvam LON. mwgoum Hmmh .._n_< ....o cowuanwsumwoll.m mpnwh 237 o NoN o NNN o o o o o o m ONN mNN NoN NmN o mm NNN NNN omN NNN N NNN om «NN oNN o NNN mmN NNN NNN QNN N oNN mm Nm om mmN ooN eoN moN Nm oN m m3 Ne NN NN NmN om mo Ne mm 6N m mN NN NN m NN N3 Nm NN om N e m NN m N we NN NN m N e N o «N N N NN NN m N m N N N N o o N o e N e o N m m m m oN m m m m m 0 “WWW Nasou mNNgz comm NcmuN mmww zmuow gNNmax zwum emww mgoum mmgoum NNNNm meoum #:wwcou .NP mUwLm LO$ mmLoum Hmmh AQ< mo cowuznvamwnll.m wPQMH .wNmumunzm New mNoum mNnNNNoa EasNxNz* 238 mmgoum Ppwxm mmgoum Ncmucou .. «NN.N .. *NN.N .. .. .. .. .. .. N *NN.N NN.N *NN.NN NN.NN .. *NN.N *NN.N *NN.N «NN.N NON.NN N NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN .. NN.N NN.NN NN.NN NN NN NN.NN N NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN *NN.N NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN N NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.N N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N 9 ”WWW NQEON NNNL3 NNNN Ncch mew zmuow NNNNNI 2mm“ sum” mgoum .m mango Now NmNouN amok Na< mo cowaanNNNNn aucmacmgm Ncmugmanu.e mNnmh .mNNuNunam Now mNoUN mNnNmmoa EzsNxNz« 239 .. NN.NN .. NN.NN .. .. .. .. .. .. N NN.NN N.NN NN.NN N.NN .. NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN N N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN .. N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN «N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N N.NN N.NN N.N N.N N.NN N.NN N.NN N.N N.NN N.N N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.NN N.NN N.NN N.N N.N N.N N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.NN N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N N.N N.N .. N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N .. .. .. N.N .. 0 “WWW Nasou «NNgz NNNN NcmuN mew zmuow NNNNNN zwuw sum” mgoum mmgoum NNNxm ngoum pcmucou .NN wumgm Now NmNoum NNmN Na< No :oNuanNNNNu Nucmzamgw ucmugmmuu.m mNaNN .mNNuN-N:N so» mgouN NNNNNNoq Easwxmz« 240 .. «N.NN .. NN.NN .. .. .. .. .. .. N NN.NN N.NN NN.NN N.NN .. NN.NN NN.NN NN.NN «N.NN NN.NN N N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN .. N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN NN.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.NN N.NN N.NN N.N N.NN N.N N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.NN N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N .. N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N N.N N.N .. .. N.N .. N.N N.N N.N .. N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N “Mm” NasoN NNNN3 NNNN NNNNN ”WWW zmuow NNNNNN 3mm“ sum” NNNUN NmNoum NNNxm ngoum pcmucou .NN mnmgm Now NmNouN NNwN N¢< No :oNuanNpNNu NucmzcmNN acmugmaun.m NNNNN 241 Tab1e 7.--Frequency distribution of tota1 survey scores for grade 9. Tota1 Score % of TPS Freq. Dist. % Freq. Dist. PR 0 0 1 0.10 0.10 1 2.5 1 0.10 0.20 2 5.0 0 .. 0.20 3 7.5 0 .. 0.20 4 10.0 0 .. 0.20 5 12.5 1 0.10 0.30 6 15.0 3 0.29 0.59 7 17.5 1 0.10 0.69 8 20.0 0 .. 0.69 9 22.5 2 0.19 0.88 10 25.0 4 0.39 1.27 11 27.5 3 0.29 1.56 12 30.0 5 0.48 2.04 13 32.5 8 0.76 2.80 14 35.0 9 0.86 3.66 15 37.5 11 1.05 4.71 16 40.0 10 0.95 5.66 17 42.5 14 1.33 6.99 18 45.0 16 1.53 8.52 19 47.5 23 2.19 10.71 20 50.0 30 2 86 13.57 21 52.5 47 4 48 18.05 22 55.0 44 4 19 22.24 23 57.5 59 5 62 27.81 24 60.0 56 5 34 33.20 25 62.5 57 5 43 38.63 26 65.0 60 5 72 44.35 27 67.5 81 7 72 52.07 28 70.0 70 6 67 58.79 29 72.5 76 7 24 65.98 30 75.0 80 7 62 73.00 31 77.5 55 5 24 78.84 32 80.0 57 5 43 84.27 33 82.5 52 4 96 89.23 34 85.0 32 3.05 92.28 35 87.5 21 2.00 94.28 36 90.0 33 3.15 97.43 37 92.5 12 1.14 98.57 38 95.0 5 0.48 99.05 39 97.5 8 0.76 99 81 40 100.0 2 0 19 100 00 Legend: TPS = tota1 possib1e score PR = percenti1e rank 242 Tab1e 8.--Frequency distribution of tota1 survey scores for grade 11. PR % Freq. Dist Freq. Dist. % of TPS Total Score 44688068222808421038305465110150 00000000000000112456699136049417439861680 1]]222344566789990 1 ......... 4 .22 .262400628689935575929609145 o 00 00111102011234546669588452] 000000000201]0136755314895028343 1| 1222233 5050505050505050505050505050505050505050 02570257025702570257025702570257025702570 111112222333344445555666677778888999 90 1 01234567890 234567890 1| 11111111112 1 1 ota1 possib1e score ercenti1e rank TPS = t PR = p Legend: 243 Tab1e 9.--Frequency distribution of tota1 survey scores for grade 12. PR % Freq. Dist. Freq. Dist. % of TPS Tota1 Score 00000000022248222446086228433771799755510 11111111111111.1111222233456789136930863577580 1]]123345678990 1 0 ........ 2 . .244 . .202488606690404620880069 1| 0 000 01001001111334688711082] 50000000010012200151294358805702 111123 5050505050505050505050505050505050505050 Uni—570257025702570257025702570257025702570 11]]12222335JGJ4444555566667777888899990 1 01234567890 ..1 ota1 possib1e score ercenti1e rank tp 244 NN.N N NN.N N NN.N N N -o NN.N N NN.N N NN.N NN NN-N NN.N N NN.N N NN.N NN NN-NN NN.N N NN.N NN NN.N NN NN-NN NN.N NN NN.N NN NN.NN NNN NN-NN NN.NN NN NN.NN NNN NN.NN NNN NN-NN NN.NN NNN NN.NN NNN NN.NN NNN NN-NN NN.NN NNN NN.NN NNN NN.NA NN NN-NN .NNNN .NNNN N .NNNN .NNNN .NNNN .NNNN N .NNNN .NNNN .NNNN .NNNN N .NNNN .NNNN NmtouN NNNanN NN NNNNN NNNanN NN NNNNN NNNN.Nuzv N NNNNN No NNNNN .NF Ucw ._._. am mwflmgm ...on mmLoum Nam>L3m quou .._n_< ....o cowvsnwLHme aucmUmLu—II.O— mFDMF "I711111111|7111111111