H) I (5‘1 fl» LIBRARY ‘ Michigan Stm University ‘ ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TEACHER- ADMINISTRATOR PERCEPTIONS OF EDUCATIONAL QUALITY AS MEASURED BY THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION, (Egg) AND SELECTED COST FACTORS by Van Dyck Mueller Purpose of the Study This study was an attempt to formulate a quality-measurement procedure based on the perceptions held by those individuals, teachers and administrators, most closely associated with the formal edu- cational process. The purpose of the study was three-fold: (l) to determine and analyze the perceptions held by teachers and adminis- trators relating to specific characteristics of educational programs as measured by the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), (Z) to COmpare teacher-administrator quality perceptions with certain selected educational cost factors, and (3) to determine the extent to which the perceptions measured in a national study were similar to those measured by Berglin his study of Michigan teachers and adminis- trators. Proc edure and Design The measurements Of teacher and administrator perceptions of educational quality were secured by means of responses to the Eggfional Characteristics Criterion, (ECC). This instrument was Van Dyck Muelle r based on the assumption that educational quality resides more in the mind of the observer than in the inherent structure of the edu- cational program. The use of this instrument was further predicated on the assumption that educational quality is determined by a judg- ment about certain educational characteristics, both school and com- munity, which are perceived as effective in accomplishing the purposes of American public school education. Data for the compari- son of teacher-administrator quality perceptions came from responses to fifty-six scored educational characteristics. Each of the individual educational characteristics was assigned to one of the seven following categories in order to provide a vehicle for understanding the effects of and inter-relationships between the various school and community variables: (1) Student‘s level of knowledge and attitudes, (2.) Community attitudes, (3) Curriculum, (4) Use of Facilities, (5) SociO-cultural composition of community, (6) Administration and supervision, and (7) The teacher and teaching methods. The analysis leading to the comparison Of teacher and adminis- trator perceptions of educational quality associated with variations in educational cost factors required data from different school systems within each quartile Of financial support and from school systems in different states. The criteria governing the selection of the sample were as follows: (1) an adequate and proportionate number Of teacher and administrator respondents within the first and fourth quartiles of the distribution of financial support factors of size (membership), ability (property valuation per pupil), effort (mills for operation), and expenditure per pupil for current operation, and (2) several school districts within each cost quartile representative of a sufficiently large miniber of the states. Seven U, S. public school districts in the fourth Van Dyck Mueller or high financial support quartile and eighteen U. S. public school districts in the first or low financial support quartile were selected randomly to represent the extremes in cost factors stratified on the basis of size, effort, ability, and expenditure per pupil. Useable datawem acquired from 1223 teacher respondents and 92 administrator respondents from the seven districts within the high financial quartile and from 1081 teacher respondents and 82 administrator respondents representing the eighteen districts in the low financial support quartile. The five major hypotheses, developed and tested were stated as follows: I. The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show ability to discriminate between the first or low financial support quartile and the fourth or high financial support quartile of United States public school districts (K- 12) which are classified on the educational cost factors of size, effort, ability, and expenditure. II. The Educational Characteristics Criterion will Show no ability to discriminate between the responses of teachers and administrators within the low financial support quartile, within the individual large school districts, and within individual small school districts. III. The Educational Characteristics Criterion will Show high reliability within the high financial support quartile and within the low financial support quartile. IV. The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show high reliability within individual large and small school dis- triets. V. The individual educational characteristic scores in the Educational Characteristics Criterion will have adequate positive discrimination power with respect to the total quality score and to their related category scores. Van Dyck Mueller The "t" test was used to determine the discrimination with regard to the first two hypotheses. The Hoyt analysis of variance technique was used to estimate reliability from the consistency of individual performance to test the third and fourth sets of hypotheses. The point biserial correlation coefficient was used to determine the positive discrimination power of the individual educational character- istics with respect to total score and their related category scores. In addition to this test of the fifth hypothesis, product-moment co- efficients of correlation were computed to provide exploratory data involving relationships between category variables. Major Findings and Conclusions The following assessment of the findings was reached: 1. The Educational Characteristics Criterion can discriminate positively between United States school districts having high financial support and those United States school districts having low financial support. The total quality scores, each of seven category scores, and forty-one individual educational characteristics scores Of teacher respondents indicate a positive relationship between level of financial support and educational quality. Total quality scores, three category scores, and eighteen individual characteristic scores Of administrator respondents indicate that educational quality is present in a significantly higher degree in school district with high financial support than in those school districts with low financial support. 2. The Educational Characteristic Criterion discrimination indicates Significant disagreement between teachers and asministrators concerning educational quality within the high financial support quartile and within the low financial support quartile. This unexpected finding Van Dyck Muelle r is supported by significant differences between the total quality scores, six Category scores, and eighteen individual educational characteristic scores of teachers and administrators in high quartile districts. Teachers and administrators in low quartile districts differ signifi- cantly in total quality scores, six category scores, and twenty-four individual educational characteristic scores. Total quality scores, seven category scores, and thirteen individual educational character- istic scores of teachers and administrators within both financial support quartiles indicate the tendency for administrators to overvalue edu- cational quality in relatiOn to teacher value level. 3. The reliability of Educational Characteristics Criterion total scores ranges from .89 to .91 according to teacher or administrator respondents within high and low financial support quartiles. The reli- ability Of category scores according to administrator or teacher respondents within high and low support districts exceeds . 56 except for categories I and V. Reliability measurements within individual large and small districts indicate wide variations. In a sampling sense, the number of administrator respondents involved in the analysis of indi- vidual large or small districts is too small to draw certain conclusions. Although the relatively short category tests are not sufficiently homo- geneous for individual interpretation, the total test scores, based on 56 items appears highly homogeneous. 4. Item analyses tests indicate that all but four of the individual characteristic scores in the Educational Characteristics Criterion had adequate positive discrimination (p < . 01) with respect to total score and related category score. In general, the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (EC—C), shows promise as a research tool, not only in the type of study outlined Van Dyck Mu elle r here, but in other types of studies which view the perception of edu- cational quality as a critical point, needing practicable description. The evidence of this study is considered favorable enough to justify the revision and development of a more complete instrument Of this nature including other dimensions of classroom and community Characteristics. The finding of significant areas of disagreement between responses of teachers and administrators within each financial support quartile should be of importance to those concerned with the development of unified professional goals, expectations, and standards fo r all educato r s . 1Arthur D. Berg, "The Determination of the Discrimination and Reliability IndiceS of the Educational Characteristics Criterion With Implications Concerning Educational Cost-Quality Relationships, " Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1962. A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TEACHER- ADMINISTRATOR PERCEPTIONS OF EDUCATIONAL QUALITY AS MEASURED BY THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION, (ECC) AND SELECTED COST FACTORS BY Van Dyck Mueller A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1964 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals actively shared in developing this study. First and foremost the writer is indebted to the Chairman of his doctoral committee, Dr. Herbert C. Rudman. Dr, Rudman has been of immense assistance, both in the conception and in the preparation of the study. His painstaking attention to every phase of its develop- ment, as well as his creative approach to the solution of technical problems, have been constant sources of satisfaction to the writer. Special acknowledgment is also given to the other members Of the writer's doctoral quidance committee who contributed many insightful suggestions for improvement which have added substantially to the value of the study: Dr. Charles A. Blackman, Dr. James B. McKee, and Dr. William H. Roe. The writer has had the opportunity of working closely with Dr. Roe and Dr. Rudman in a variety of departmental duties while at Michigan State University. This associ- ation has provided valuable experiences, both personally and pro— fessionally. The writer acknowledges with thanks the advice and assistance of Mr. David Fitch and Mr. Paul Sassman concerning data processing and programming. Special acknowledgment is also given to the superintendents of schools, administrators, and teachers in the twenty-five participat- ing United States public school districts. This study is dedicated to my wife, Mildred and to my daughters, Vanessa, Kerry, and Edith. Without their patience and understanding it could not have been written. 't 'r \‘r U: ' Ir ' \‘r 'v s" ' 'I ’I ‘a >9 >.\ "x r.\ )5 3“ )5 ’I‘ =l‘ I" >6 5" )9 :P ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I. THE PROBLEM O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O 1 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Importance Of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . Z Assumptions Upon Which This Study is Based . 4 Scope and Delimitation of the Study. . . . . . . 7 Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Hypotheses O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O . 10 Organization of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . 15 II. RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Theoretical Statements and Constructs . . . . 17 Instrumentation O O O O O O C O O C O O O O C I O 32 Related Empirical and Theoretical Studies . . 48 summary 0 O O O O O O O C C . O O C O O 0 O O O 66 III. PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 0 o 0 O O I O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I 68 Plan for Securing Cost—Quality Factors and NecessaryData.............. 68 Development of the Instrument and Plan for Its Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Determination of Categories Within the Instrument................. 73 Selection of Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Classification of School Districts on the Basis ofCostFactors.............. 78 Selection of the Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Mailing Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 TreatmentoftheData............. 84 Statistical Methodology and Research Design . 84 Summary....................- 86 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER Page IV. ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESIS DATA-~DISCRIMI- NATION BETWEEN FINANCIAL QUARTILES 8-7 Summary of Hypothesis I Results . . . . . . . 88 Statistical Tests and Treatments . . . . . . . 91 Results and Evaluation of Statistical Treat- ments 0 C O O O O O C O O O O 0" .. O I O O O 93 V. ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESIS II DATA-~DISCRIMI- ‘ NATION BETWEEN TEACHER-ADMINIS— TRATOR PERCEPTIONS OF QUALITY WITH- IN FINANCIAL QUARTILES. . . . . . . . . . 112 Summary of Hypothesis II Results Concerning High and Low Financial Support School Districts.................. 113 Summary Of Tests of Hypothesis II Concern- ing Individual Large and Small School Districts................. 119 Statistical Tests and Treatments . . . . . . . 122 Results and Evaluation of Statistical Treat- ments................... 122 VI. ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESES III, IV, AND V DATA--RELIABILITY AND ITEM ANALYSIS TESTS O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 141 Summary of Hypotheses III and IV Results Concerning Tests of Reliability . . . . . 144 Summary Of Hypothesis V Results Concern- ing Item Discrimination Ability and Power................... 145 Statistical Tests and TreatmentS--Hypothe- sisIII................... 147 Results and Evaluation Of Statistical Treat- ment-~Hypothesis III . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Statistical Tests and TreatmentS--Hypothe- Sis IV I O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 153 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER Page Results and Evaluation of Statistical Treat- ment--Hypothesis IV . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Statistical Tests and Treatments--Hypothe- sisV........ ............ 157 Results and Evaluation Of Statistical Treat- ment—~Hypothesis V . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 VII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS I O I O O C O O O C O O O O 169 Summary.....................169 Major Findings ......... . . . . . . 174 Conclusions...................178 Implications...................182 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 185 BIBLIOGRAPHY 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 192 APPENDICES O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O C 201 LIST OF TA BLES TA BLE 1. Classification of 130 School Districts According to Ability (Property Valuation Per Pupil). . . . . . . . . . Classification Of 130 School Districts According to Size (Average Daily Membership) . . . . . . . . . . . . Classification of 130 School Districts According to Effort (Mills Levied for Operation) . . . . . . . . . . Classification of 130 School Districts According to Expenditure per Pupil for Current Operation . . , . . Comparative Financial Factors for Seven Combined High Support Districts and Eighteen Combined Low SupportDistrictS............... ..... Summary of Relationships between Educational Quality and Financial Support as Indicated by Frequency of Discrimination and Non-Discrimination Of Individual Educational Characteristics within Categories Accord- ing to Teacher and Administrator Responses in Michigan and United States Samples. . . . . - . . . . . Differences in Total Mean Scores of Respondents from High Financial Support Districts and Low Financial SupportDistricts..................... Differences in Category Mean Scores of Respondents from High Financial Support Districts and Low Finan- ciaISupportDistricts . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . Individual Educational Characteristics Which Are Present in a Significantly Higher Degree in High Financial Support Districts than in Low Financial Sup- port Districts According tO Both Teacher and Adminis- tratorResponses..................... vi Page 79 79 79 79 83 92 94 96 97 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Page Individual Educational Characteristics Which Are Present in a Significantly Higher Degree in Low Financial Support Districts than in High Financial Support Districts According to Both Teacher and Administrators...................... Individual Educational Characteristics Which Accord- ing to Teacher Responses Are Present in a Signifi— cantly Higher Degree in High Financial Support Dis- tricts than in Low Financial Support Districts and According to Administrator Responses are Not Signifi- cantly Different in Relation to District Type . . . . . . Individual Educational Characteristics Which Accord- ing to Teacher Responses Are Present in a Signifi- cantly Higher Degree in Low Financial Support Districts than in High Financial Support Districts and According to Administrator Responses Are Not Signifi- cantly Different in High Financial Support Districts than in Low Financial Support Districts. . . . . . . . . Individual Educational Characteristics Which Accord- ing to Administrator Responses is Present in a Signifi- cantly Higher Degree in Low Financial Support Districts than in High Financial Support Districts and According to Teacher Responses is not Significantly Different According to District Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Individual Educational Characteristics Which Are Not Significantly Different in High Financial Support Dis- tricts and in Low Financial Support Districts Accord- ing to Both Teachers and Administrators . . . . . . . . Relationships Between Financial Support Level and Dif- ferences in Educational Quality As Measured by Indi- vidual Educational Characteristic Mean Scores, Cate— gory Mean Scores, and Total Scores for Respondents in Michigan and United States Samples of Teachers and Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 100 101 104 105 106 109 LIST OF TABLES -5 Continued TA BL3E Page 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Relationships of Teacher and Administrator Per- ceptions of Quality Within High and Low Financial Support Districts in Michigan and United States Samples.......................... 115 Summary of Relationships between Teacher and Administrator Perceptions of Quality Within Individual High and Low Financial Support Districts in Michigan andUnitedStates Samples. . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . 118 Summary of Relationhips between Teacher and Adminis- trator Quality Perceptions within Individual Large and Small School Districts in Michigan and United States Samples ......................... 121 Differences between the Total Mean Scores Of Teachers and Administrators According to High and Low Financial Support School Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Differences between Category Mean Scores Of Teachers and Administrators According to High and Low Edu- cational Financial Support Districts. . . . . . . . . . . 125 Individual Educational Characteristics on which Con- sensus Exists between Teachers and Administrators Within High'Financial Support Districts and Within Low Financial Support Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-7 Individual Educational Characteristics Which are Over- valued by Administrators in High Financial Support Districts and on Which Consensus Exists Between Teachers and Administrators in Low Financial Sup- portDistricts‘....................... 130 Individual Educational Characteristics Which Are Undervalued (Part I) or Overvalued (Part II) by Admin- istrators in Low Financial Support Districts and on Which Consensus Exists Between Teachers and Admin- istrators in High Financial Support Districts, , , , , , 131 viii LIST OF TABLES — Continued TABLE 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Individual Educational Characteristics Which are Undervalued (Part I) or Overvalued (Part II) by Administrators in Low Financial Support Districts and in High Financial Support Districts . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Total Mean Scores of Teachers and Administrators Within Districts No. 2, No. 15’ and No. 23. O I O O O O O} O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Differences Between Category Mean Scores of Teachers and Administrators Within Districts NO. 2, No. 15, and NO. 23 O O I O O O O O O O O O I O I . C O O Reliability and Sensitivity Significance Level of Edu- cational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), Total Scores of Teachers and of Administrators Within the High Financial Quartile of Districts and Within the Low Financial Quartile of Districts. . . . . . . -. . Reliability and Sensitivity Significance Level of Edu- cational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), Category Sabres of Teachers and of Administrators within the High Financial Support Quartile of Districts and With- in, the Low Financial Support Quartile Of Districts . . . Reliability and Sensitivity Significance Level of Edu- cational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), Total Scores of Teachers and Of Administrators within an Individual Large School District and Within Two Indi- vidual Small School Districts . . . . . . . . . . , . . . Reliability and Sensitivity Significance Level of Edu- catiOnal Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) Category Scores of Teachers and of Administrators Within a Page 134 137 139 150 152 155 Individual Large School District (Part I) and Within Two Individual Small School Districts (Part II) . . . . . . . ix 156 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE . Page 31. Comparison of Point Biserial Coefficients of (1) Cer- relation of E__I_C_C Educational Characteristic Scores with Respective Category Score, and (2) Correlation of £952 Educational Characteristic Scores with Total Score between Respondents in Michigan and United StatesSamples...................... 159 32. Relationships Between Michigan and United States Median Correlation Coefficients for Educational Characteristic to Related Category Score and to Total QualityScore....................... 163 33. Intercorrelation Coefficients for Total Scores and Related Category Scores According to Teacher Responses from High and Low Educational Financial SupportQuartiles..................... 165 34. Intercorrelation Coefficients for Total Scores and Related Category Scores According to Administrator Responses from High and Low Educational Financial SupportQuartiles.....................166 35. Intercorrelation Coefficients for the Total Score and SevenCategoryScores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167 LIST OF A PPENDIC ES APPENDIX Page A Letter of Invitation Sent to Superintendents . . . . . 202 B Preliminary Data Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 C Educational Chagacteristics Criterion, (ECC) . . }. 207 D Instructions for Responding to the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC). . . . . . . . . . 212 E Superintendents' Supplemental Informatioanorm. . 214 F General Instructions for Administration and Mail- ing of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) 216 G Letter of Instructions Sent to Superintendents of Participating Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 H Differences Between Total Mean Scores and Between Category Mean Scores of Teachers and of Adminis- trators from High Financial Support Quartile and from Low Financial Support Quartile . . . . . . . . 221 I Differences Between Individual Educational Char- acteristic Mean Scores of Teachers and of Administrators from High Financial Support Quartile and from Low Financial Support Quartile . 223 J Differences Between Total Mean Scores and Between Category Mean Scores of Teachers and Administrators Within High Financial Support Quartile and of Teachers and Administrators With- in Low Financial Support Quartile . . . . . . . . . 231 xi LIST OF APPENDICES- Continued APPENDIX K Differences between Individual Educational Characteristic Mean Scores of Teachers and Administrators Within High Financial Support Quartile and of Teachers and Administrators Within Low Financial Support Quartile. . . . . . . . Differences Between Total Mean Scores and Be- tween Category Mean Scores of Teachers and Administrators Within District No. 2 (High Financial Support Quartile) and Within Districts NO. 15 and No. 23 (Low Financial Support Quartile) . . . . . . Analysis Of Variance Reliability Tests for Total Scores and Category Scores of Teachers and of Administrators in High Financial Support Districts . Analysis of Variance Reliability Tests for Total Scores and Category Scores Of Teachers and of Administrators in Low Financial Support Districts . Analysis of Variance Reliability Tests for Total Scores and Category Scores of Teachers and of Administrators in District NO. 2 (High Financial SupportQuartile)................... Analysis of Variance Reliability Tests for Total Score and Category Scores of Teachers and of Administrators in District No. 15 (Low Financial SupportQuartile)................... Analysis of Variance Reliability Tests for Total Scores and Category Scores of Teachers and of Administrators in District NO. 23 (Low Financial SupportQuartile)................... xii Page 233 241 244 249 254 259 264 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Statement of the Problem Educational quality, since it concerns the most complex and intricate social enterprise known, has never been reduced to a clear, basic formula understandable to laymen and educators. A major dif- ficulty associated with attempts to measure the quality of educational programs is to reach agreement on quality factors and then to develop instrumentation which measures these with some precision. The American public has been inclined, at different periods, to judge edu- cational quality by such varied criteria as literacy, subject-matter skills, vocational skills, income in later life, economic level of a State, health, juvenile delinquency rate, and national scientific progress. Although there seems to be general agreement concerning the measure- ment of educational quantity and about the need for quality education, what is meant by "quality education" is subject to argument based on diverse sets of values and purposes. There is a need for the development and testing of quality— related factors of educational programs based on the values and goals of society so that some specific, precise definition may be obtained of quality in education or that we might more readily approach this end. Most of'the conflict over what schools are or are not doing and over what constitutes quality education is imbedded in the value system of both proponent and critic. Since it is important to know what people believe "quality" to be and since the concept Of quality is a relative one which probably exists more in the mind of the individual than it does in a particular program, the perceptions held by those individuals most closely associated with the formal educational process are important factors in formulating a quality-measurement process. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is three-fold: 1. To determine and analyze the perceptions held by teachers and administrators relating to specific characteristics of educational programs as measured by the Educational Characteristic S Criterion, (ECC) . 2. To compare the perceptions held by teachers and adminis- trators with certain selected educational cost factors. 3. To determine the extent to which the perceptions measured ' in this national study are similar to those measured by Bergl in his research with Michigan teachers and adminis- trators. This study will replicate in all respects but sample population the design, methodology and instrumen— tation utilized in the Michigan study. Importance of the Study Many studies have examined the effect Of expenditures on edu- cation, and have attempted to estimate the quality of school programs. The available factual evidence and conclusions Of over forty years of research overwhelmingly suggests that the better schools do spend 1Arthur D. Berg, "The Determination of the Discrimination and Reliability Indices of the Educational Characteristics Criterion With Implications Concerning Educational Cost-Quality Relationships, " Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1962. more money per pupil than do the poorer schools. The relationship between expenditure and quality is a positive, although imperfect relationship. It appears that many factors, both cost-related and non-cost-related affect the quality of educational programs. However, since the most powerful of all of the factors which influence the quality of the schools is the level of financial support, further investigations into the effects of non-cost related items such as the perceptions held by selected individuals regarding quality, must be correlated with the cost or expenditure factors. The problem of the cost-quality relationship in education in- volves the issue Of defining quality education. Most people want to increase the, quality Of education in the United States, but disagree on what quality education is and how it may be achieved. To achieve quality in education we must not only want it, but we must know what we mean by quality and identify the means by which it may be achieved. It appears that the concept of quality is a relative one that re- sides more in the mind Of the observer than it does in the actual struc- ture of the school program. If quality is in part a function of the perception Of the observer and of the values he holds, the key to defini- tion and measurement of quality resides in the perceptions and value orientations of those making judgments about quality in educational programs. Two groups intimately concerned with the learning process, and therefore in a position to influence quality education positively or negatively through their perceptions of quality and their value orien- tations, are school administrators and teachers. The measurement and analysis of the perceptions of teachers and administrators through a wide sampling of both non-cost and cost related factors in the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (E_IC_C_S), will make available a basic research tool to study further the vital question of quality education. The development of an adequate measure of quality as perceived by laymen and educators will take the problem of excellence out Of the sphere Of mere opinion and place it positively in the realm of sound, quality educational practice. As quality-related factors are identified in education, better tools can be provided for curriculum planning, program administration, staffing and community relations programs. The national application, testing, and analysis Of the Educational Charaqteristics Criterion, (ECC), will meet the pressing need for a comprehensive, but practical device to appraise the quality of an edu— cational program in any given school district in the United States from a new and different point of reference; the perceptions of those personnel most closely associated with the classroom operation of the school pro— gram and able to affect program improvement. Assumptions Ihaon Which This Study Is Based There are almost as many definitions of educational quality in the literature as there are educational authorities. One definition of quality education puts great emphasis upon high level education and pays particular emphasis to difficult and advanced work. Another concept Of quality education would put the major emphasis on doing whatever the school needed to do, with emphasis on doing this very well. Quality is perceived differently by each individual because of personal value orientations, goals and past experiences. American schools tend to reflect the values of the dominant groups in the communities which they serve. For this reason values may vary from one school community to another. In earlier decades the homogeneous social origin and training of most teachers and administrators tended to reduce this range of variation. In current years however, there has been an in- crease ‘in the heterogeniety of social backgrounds of educators. Havighurst reports on a number of recent studies which indicate that "teachers are coming to represent more of a cross-section of the American population, this has its effects upon school-community relations. "2 The personal aspect of quality perceptions and the heterogeniety of American society cause difficulty in establishing a definition of educational quality acceptable to all educators and laymen. A For purposes of this study the educational Characteristics of school districts that are used as a definition of quality are those for which there has been established a consensus among educational specialists. It is assumed that teachers and administrators are able to relate accurately their perceptions of the educational characteris- tics of their school district. It is also assumed that the educational characteristics and quality factors in the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (EEC), may be assigned to the following seven categories: (1) use of facilities, (2) students' level Of knowledge and attitudes, (3) socio-cultural composition of the community, (4) administration and supervision, (5) curriculum, (6) the teacher and teaching methods, and (7) community attitudes. It is assumed that school district cost factors of size, effort, ability, and expenditure per pupil are important factors correlated highly with educational quality. _S__i_z_<_3_of a school district is defined as the average daily public school membership (ADM), in grades kinder- garten through twelve or from grades one through twelve in those cases where kindergarten is not included in the educational program. It is assumed that size is an important factor affecting educational quality. A small school district tends to provide an educational 2Robert J. Havighurst and Bernice L. Neugarten, Society and Education (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1957), p. 374. program of lesser scope than a large district. The cost per pupil in the smaller district also tends to be inflated considerably as a result of small pupil—teacher ratios. m is a measure of local taxation and is defined in this study as the Operational millage levied on the final appraisal of real and personal property valuation of the school district. Ability or wealth is defined as the total final real and personal property valuation of the district expressed in dollars divided by the average daily membership, ADM. Expenditure per mil reflects the actual per pupil costs for current operation. Current expenditure per pupil includes amounts expended for ele- mentary and secondary day schools divided by average daily member- ship. Current operating expenditures do not include payment for capital outlay and school debt retirement service. The basis for the assumptions regarding the relationship Of educational quality to cost-related factors of size, effort, ability, and per pupil expenditure are found in the cumulative results of previous research.3 Hypotheses and definitions used and data/and conclusions com- piled and analyzed in previous studies by Berg"I and Kraft5 as related to the non-cost and cost-related factors in the Educational Character- istics Criterion, (ECC), are assumed to be precise and accurate within their stated limits. 3William S. Vincent, "Quality Control: A Rationale for Analysis of a School System, " IAR Research Bulletin, Vol. I, NO. 2 (January, 1961), pp. 1-7. 4Arthur D. Berg, _1_o_c_. gl_t. 5Leonard E. Kraft, "The Perceptions Held by Professors of Education; Professors in Areas Other than Education, and School Board Members on Ninety Factors Which May or May Not Affect the Quality of An Educational .Program, " Unpublished Ed. D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1962. It is further assumed that the sampling techniques used by the Test Division of Harcourt, Brace and World, Incorporated, to standardize the 1964 revision of the Stanford Achievement Test derive a representative randomly selected population of school districts in the United States. The population used in the 1964 Stanford Achieve- ment Test standardization program was drawn from two hundred sixty- 6 seven school districts, located in all fifty states. The Scope and Delimitation of the Study This study is delimited as follows: 1. The major variables of the study are derived from individual perceptions Of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), edu- cational quality factors by teachers and administrators in American public school systems, and from the following cost related factors fur- nished by school district superintendents: property valuation per pupil (ability), millage for current expenditures (effort), current expenditure per pupil, and average daily membership (ADM), K-12 or 1-12 as adjusted (size). 2. The statistical analyses of this study are concerned with test- ing the reliability and validity of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), and determining the significance of the correlations and inter-relationships between individual quality item scores, cate- gory scores, total quality scores, and selected factors Of educational cost. 3. This study is limited to data from the high and low financial support quartiles Of the national sample of public school districts. 6The samples used in this study were drawn from those school districts which took part in the standardization program of the Stanford Achievement Te st (1964 edition). NO conclusions are drawn in regard to the second and third financial support quartiles. 4. This study treats selected educational cost factors of size, effort, ability, and expenditure per pupil as a single composite financial factor and the selected educational quality factors as con— tained in the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC). The cost and quality factors treated are not intended to be inclusive. 5. The conclusions of this study regarding the relationships between the cost-quality variables are not interpreted to indicate a causal relationship, but merely to indicate a direct association. Definition of Te rm 5 Public schools. The term public schools as used in this study refers to the publically supported and controlled elementary and secondary schools in selected American school districts which main— tain grades K-12 or 1-12. School district. A school district is a quasi-legal municipal corporation created by the State for the purpose Of operating and main- taining public schools having grades K-12 or 1-12, and whose boundar- ies are not necessarily related to those of other local units of government. 9 School district type. School district type is defined as the representative characteristics common to groups of individual school districts which are classified as either highest or lowest quartile according to each of the four factors of educational cost; namely, Size, ability, effort and expenditure per pupil. State equalized valuation. The final appraisal of the worth of real and personal property as established for tax purposes by the separate states. Mill. The value Of a tenth of a cent or a thousandth of a dollar. , Size. The average daily public school membership expressed in the number of children of a school district from K-12 or 1-12 as adjusted. Financial ability. The state equalized valuation expressed in dollars of a school district divided by the average daily resident membership (size). AveraLe daihr membership, ADM. The aggregate days member- ship for the school district divided by the number of days school was in session. Financial effort. The tax rate expressed in mills levied in a public school district for purposes of current operation of the school district. Current expenditures. The total of all expenditures for Opera- tion made during a given period of time except for capital outlay and debt service. Current expenditure per pupil. The cost per pupil computed by dividing the total current Operating expense by the average daily membership. Educational qualipy. Those educational characteristics of a school district, both school and community, which are perceived by educational authorities as being effective in accomplishing the purposes of American public education. The characteristics are defined by the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), for purposes Of this study. Total quality score. The sum of the weighted item responses to the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC). 10 Category quality score. The sum of the weighted item responses Of the educational characteristics included in each of the following cate- gories of educational quality: (1) use of facilities, (2) students' level of knowledge, (3) sociO-economic composition of community, (4) adminis- tration and supervision, (5) curriculum, (6) the teacher and teaching methods, and (7) community attitudes. . Educational characteristic score or item quality score. The weighted response to one educational characteristic or one item of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC). Teachers. Persons employed to instruct pupils or students in grades K-12 or 1-12 as adjusted, in a situation where the pupils or students are in the presence of each other. The term is not applied to principals, supervisors or other administrative personnel in this study. Administrators. The administrative personnel of a school district or school to whom have been delegated the responsibilities for the general regulation, direction, supervision, and coordination of the affairs of the school district or school. Superintendents, principals, and supervisors are represented by this term in the study. Hypothe s e s General Hypothesis I The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show ability to discriminate between the first or low financial support quartile and fourth or high financial support quartile of United States public school districts (K-12) which are Classified on the educational cost factors Of size, effort, ability, and expenditure. Operational Hla There will be a significant difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in the total mean scores according to teacher responses. 11 Operational Hlb There will be a significant difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in the total mean scores according to administrator responses. Operational H2a There will be a Significant difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each category mean score based upon teacher responses. Operational H2b There will be a significant difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each category mean score based upon administrator responses. Operational H3a There will be a significant difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based upon teacher responses. Operational H3b There will be a significant difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based upon administrator responses. General Hypothesis II The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show no ability to discriminate between the responses of teachers and administrators within the high financial support quartile, within the low financial support quartile, within the individual large school districts, and within individual small school districts. Operational H4a Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between total mean scores of teachers and administrators. 12 Operational H4b Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each category mean score of teachers and administrators. Operational H4c Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each educational character- istic mean score of teachers and administrators. Ope rational H5a Within individual large and small school districts there is no difference between total mean scores of teachers and administrators. Operational H5b Within individual large and small school districts there is no difference between each category mean score Of teachers and adminis- trators. General Hypothesis III The Educational Characteristics Criterion will Show high reli- ability within the high financial support quartile and within the low financial support quartile. Operational H6a There will be a high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and the total scores of teacher respondents in the high financial support quartile of districts. Operational H6b There will be a high consistency in individual educational Characteristic scores and the total scores of administrator respondents in the high financial support quartile of districts. Operational H6c There will be a high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and the total scores Of teacher respondents in the low financial support quartile Of districcs. 13 Operational H6d There will be a high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and the total scores Of administrator respondents in the low financial support quartile of districts. Operational H7a There will be a high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and the related category scores of teacher respondents in the high financial support quartile of districts. Operational H7b There will be a high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and the related category scores of administrator respondents in the high financial support quartile Of districts. Operational H7C There will be a high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and related category scores of teacher respondents in the low financial support quartile of districts. Operational H7d Thererwill be a high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and related category scores of administrator respondents in the low financial support quartile of districts. Gene ral Hypothe sis IV The Educational Characteristics Criterion will Show high reli- ability within individual large and small school districts. Operational H8a There will be high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and the total scores of teacher respondents in large districts. Operational H8b There will be high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and the total scores of administrator respondents in large districts. 14 Operational H8c There will be high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and the total scores of teacher respondents in small districts. Operational H8d _ There will be high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and the total scores of administrator respondents in small districts. Operational H9a There will be high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and related category scores Of teacher respondents in large districts. Ope rational H9 b There will be high consistency in individual educational Characteristic scores and related category scores of administrator respondents in large districts. Ope rational H9 c There will be a high consistency in individual educational Characteristic scores and related category scores Of teacher respondents in small districts. Operational H9d There will be a high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and related category scores of administrator respondents in small districts. General Hypothe sis V The individual educational characteristic scores in the Educational Characteristics Criterion will have adequate positive discrimination power with respect to the total quality score and to their related category scores. Mn. 0. ‘ .,. . 1': ‘. 'r , r I ., .._ ~. . .. ‘e .‘ . .._ 15 Ope rational H10 The correlation coefficient for the relation of individual educational characteristic scores to total score differs significantly from zero. Operational H1 1 The correlation coefficient for the relation of each educational characteristic score to its respective category score differs signifi- cantly from zero. Organization of the Thesis This chapter has presented a statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the importance of the study, the assumptions upon which the study is based, the general and operational hypotheses, the scope and limitations of the study, and definitions of terms. In Chapter II, a review of related literature is presented. The review includes theoretical statements and constructs concerning educational quality, instrumentation used in studies of educational quality, and reports of significant empirical studies of educational quality related to cost and non-cost factors. In Chapter III, the procedure and methodology of the study are presented. The detailed description includes the source of the data, the quality criterion, financial or cost factors, sample selection, research design, and proposed statistical treatment. In Chapters IV, V and VI the analysis of the data is reported. In Chapter VII, the summary, conclusions, implications and recommendations for further research are presented.- CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATU RE Considerable evidence has been accumulated over a period of years concerning the fields Of school finance and school quality. Some of this evidence has been developed through research studies; some has been based on carefully evaluated experience. There are many areas of school quality research where decisions must neces- sarily be based on theoretical and philosophical concepts and values growing out of one's philosophy. The great differences of opinion ‘ and most marked controversies are found in the areas where the decisions must be based chiefly on personal value concepts and per- ceptions growing out of varying points-of-view concerning social organization and the role Of education in a democracy. The succeeding sections of this chapter are devoted to a summary and analysis of the available evidence concerning the defini- tions of educational quality and their relation to educational cost factors classified under three categories: (1) theoretical statements and constructs about educational needs, values, and quality, (2) instruments used to evaluate the quality of educational programs, and (3) related empirical and theoretical studies. Consideration has been given to the different views of laymen and educators. Since both sentimental and realistic attitudes toward education are voiced in the great clamor for quality education the diverse views present the breadth and complexity of the current problem of: (1) defining and evaluating educational quality and (2) determining its relationship to financial suppo rt va riable s . 16 17 Theoretical Statements and Constructs The National Interest in Education From the earliest days of the American Republic education has been considered vital to the welfare of the people and the nation. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 stated this concept: Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the heppiness of mankind, schools and the means Of education shall forever be encouraged.1 Although controversy over education has been a continuing feature of the American public scene, at no time has there been serious challenge to the proposition that education must be provided. The great debates have dealt with the kinds of education to be provided, for whom, and by whom. The importance of education to the national life may be seen in this penetrating statement from the Educational Policies Commission: Universal opportunity for public education is America's re- sponse to a moral principle; that every person should have opportunity to develop his full potential. The interests of the nation--its political effectiveness, prosperity, and security-- today lend new urgency to that moral principle.2 The Nation's Strenjth Throughout the middle years of the twentieth century the American educational system, a distinctive feature of our democratic life, has reeled under the impact of an unprecedented combination of forces, being put to test by the simultaneous strains and pressures of 1Kenneth H. Hanson, Public Education in American Society (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1956), p. 38. zEducational Policies Commission, "National Policy and the Financing of the Public Schools" (Washington, D. C.: National Edu- cation Association, 1959). P. 7. 18 the postwar population boom, the explosive increase in knowledge, and the urgent demands for a vast new supply Of highly trained man- power. Lippman was deeply concerned with the critical problems facing education when he stated: We are entering upon an era which will test to the utmost the capacity of our democracy to cope with the gravest problems of modern times . . . . We are entering upon this difficult and dangerous period with what I believe we must call a growing deficit in the quantity and the quality Of American education . . . . We have to make a breakthrough to a radically higher and broader conception of what is needed and of what can be done. Our edu— cational effort today . . . is still in approximately the same position as was the military effort of this country before Pearl Harbor.3 The report of the Conference on the Ideals Of American Freedom and the International Dimensions Of Education sponsored by the United States Office Of Education issued several statements having to do with tests of strength of our nation. These included: (1) A nation's strength lies in the strength of all its peOple; (2) It is tested in the aspirations of its youth and the quality of its schooling; (3) Our democracy is no stronger than the moral and intellectual fiber of our people; (4) Our country can be no richer than our teachers' minds and our children's opportunities; (5) Since the quiet strength and latent power of education is less tangible than arms or missiles, it has been more difficult to realize; and (6) American education has become the testing g round for democ racy. 4 3Walter Lippman, Education for Leadership: Citizens and Their Schools (New York: National Citizens' Commission for the Public Schools, 1954), pp. 24-25. 4'U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Education for Freedom and World Understandiri, Bulletin OE—10016 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962), pp. 50-51. 19 During the past decade the American people have been shocked into recognizing a connection between the quality Of educational programs and the nation's security. The need for scientists, engineers, and technicians, the inadequate knowledge of many men drafted into military service, and the high draft rejections for illiteracy have been documented in many studies. However, the need for quality educational programs and better schools is evident for reasons deeper than the important considerations mentioned thus far. The Committee for Economic Development de- veloped the singular issue in the following brief statement: A democracy lives or dies by the ability of its people to choose wisely. We need better schools to teach us how to under- stand the alternatives before us, and how to choose wisely among the real alternatives.S Education FO r All Access to educational opportunity in most societies of the past has been a privilege rather than a right. It was inevitable that it should become a right in America, dedicated to the principle that "all men are created equal. " This phrase has little meaning unless inter- preted to mean equal Opportunity for all. The President's Committee for the White House Conference concluded: An important . . . reason for the growing importance of edu- cation is the plain fact that the schools have become the chief instrument for keeping this nation the fabled land Of Opportunity it started out to be . The order given by the American people to the schools is grand in its simplicity; in addition to intellectual achievement, fostering morality, happiness, and useful ability, the talent 5Ralph Lazarus, We Can Have Better Schools (New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1959), p. 4. 20 of each child is to be sought out and developed to the fullest. Schools of that kind have never been provided for more than a small fraction of mankind. 6 Penalties of Educational Inequality The National Committee for the Support of PUblic Schools points up the shocking fact that the United States, with equal oppor- tunity as one of its ideals, has failed to provide quality educational opportunity for all children. The lack of schooling and poor school- ing are associated with such social problems as: (1) low earning capacity, (2) large pupil drop-out rates and subsequent unemployment, (3) rejection from military service, and (4) dependence upon public relief in its various forms.7 A project sponsored by President Eisenhower when he was president of Columbia University pointed out that we were "squander- ing our human resource capital. " This waste resulted from "the failure of our society to invest adequately in the development of its people, particularly its young people during their formative years. "8 This study and others in the series made since World War I have pointed out some of the inconsistencies between democratic concepts and practices related to the provision of educational opportunities. Johns and MOrphet state some of the reasons for the differences between concepts and practices as: (l) unresolved conflicts Of opinion 6Committee for the White House Conference on Education, A Report to the President (Washington, D. C.: Superintendent of Docu- ments, Government Printing Office, 1956), p. 4. 7John K. Norton, ed. , Changing Demands on Education and Their Fiscal Implications (Washington, D. C.: National Committee for Support of the Public Schools, 1963), pp. 45-51. 8EII Ginzberg, Human Resources: The Wealth of the Nation (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1958). p. 53. 21 regarding the place and role of public education, (2) reliance upon outmoded forms Of taxation for school support, (3) inequities in local ability, (4) Obsolete and antiquated school district structure, (5) tendency to continue the status quo, regardless of desirability, and (6) ineffective leadership.9 Quality and Variations in School Support Conant has recently dramatized inequality in educational oppor- tunity from another dimension. He has pointed out the shocking dif- ferences in educational opportunity in different school districts within great metropolitan areas. He concludes: "The contrasts in the money spent per pupil in wealthy suburban schools and in slum schools Of the large cities challenges the concept of equality of Opportunity in American public education. "10 The conditions in our rural areas and in city slums are related. A recent report Of the Educational Policies Commission points out that large scale migration fails to improve the Situation of the dis- advantaged. The report summarizes the situation thus: Millions of disadvantaged Americans are congregated today in congested sections of the large cities and in the rural areas. It is valid to ask what America means to these millions of people. Certainly it has not been for them a land of equal opportunity. The schools present the best hope for overcoming their cultural handicap. This has been demonstrated repeatedly wherever the efforts of skillful educators and the support of an understanding community have combined to make schools the mighty instruments which only schools can be. If the public fully backs its schools-- 9R. L. Johns and E. L. Morphet, Financingthe Public Schools (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960), pp. 8-11. 10James B. Conant, Slums and Suburbs: A Commentary on Schools in Metropolitan Areas (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961), pp. 145-46. 22 and only if it doeS--the time may come when no American is culturally disadvantaged. u A study conducted by Norton and Lawler almost two decades ago revealed the full range of expenditures per pupil of school dis- tricts in the United States. It showed that the highest supported school districts were spending 60 times as much per pupil as those with lowest per pupil expenditures. 12 Per pupil average expenditure in 1962 for current expenses ranged from over $500 in three states (New York, New Jersey, and Illinois) tO under $250 in three states (South Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi). These figures are state averages; they do not reveal the full extent of unequal financial support of public schools within states. Approximately as many children in each state get a better or less well-financed schooling than these averages indicate. 13 The Financial Needs Of Quality Programs A number of responsible lay and professional groups have estimated the financial support necessary for the public schools to meet the rising demands for higher quality programs. In 1954, the Finance Committee Of the National Citizens Com- mission for the Public Schools noted the need for “an unremitting effort llEducational Policies Commission, Education and the Dis- advantaged American (Washington, D. C.: National Education Associ- ation, 1962), p. 38. lZJohn K. Norton and Eugene S. Lawler, Unfinished Business in American Education (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association and American Council on Education, 1946), p. 4. 13National Education Association, Research Division, Ranking of the States, 1962, Research Report 1962-R1 (Washington, D. C.: The Association, 1962), p. 32. 23 to meet the growing deficit in equipment, in school buildings, and in teachers . " H The Committee for the White House Conference reported in 1956 as follows: We recommend that a new look be taken at the entire question of how much money this society Should spend on education. In view of the recommendations of this Committee concerning the objectives Of education, teachers and buildings, it seems obvious that within the next decade the dollars spent on education in this Nation should be approximately doubled. Such an increase in expenditure would be an accurate reflection of the importance Of quality education in this society . . . . Good schools are admittedly expensive, but not nearly so expensive in the long run 15 as poor ones. The special committee dealing with the financing of education at the White House Conference emphasized "the American people want and need not only more schools, but better schools. To meet these needs we must Spend more money. "16 A 1958 estimate of the future costs of quality education was made under the auspices Of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. They con- cluded: Even allowing for considerably greater efficiency in the use Of educational funds, it is likely that ten years hence our schools and colleges will require at least double their present level of financial support to handle our growing student population . All of the problems Of the schools lead us back sooner or later to one basic problem-—financing. l7 14National Citizens Commission for the Public Schools, Public Education Finance Committee. Financig Public Education in the Decade Ahead (New York: the Commission, 1954), Foreword. 15Committee for the White House Conference, 3p. 9%. , pp. 6-7. 16113101., p. 51. l7Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The Pursuit of Excellence: Education and the Future of America. Panel Report V Of the Special Studies Project (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and CO. , 1958), p. 34. 24 Another study under the auspices of the Committee for Economic Development comes to this conclusion: The public schools have not, thus far, been engulfed by the wave of school—age children. The resources going into public education have, in fact, been increasing somewhat faster than enrollments, although clearly less than is necessary to meet widespread desire for excellence.18 The conclusions of the Committee for Economic Development were not accepted by all members. William Benton, in dissent, stated that the recommendations in the report did not match the national emergency.19 Numerous other statements have given considered views con- cerning future responsibilities and needs of quality education. One such statement was made by Walter Lippman in 1954. He asked: "Can it be denied that the educational effort is adequate? I do not mean that we are doing a little too late. I mean that we are doing much too little. "2° The Rockefeller Report referred to earlier reached this general conclusion concerning what it would take to achieve excellence in education: It will not be enough to meet the problem grudgingly or with a little more money. The Nation's need for good education is immediate, and good education is expensive. That is a fact which the American people have never been quite prepared to face . . An educational system grudgingly and tardily patched to meet the needs of the moment will be perpetually out Of date. We must build for the future in education as daringly and aggressively as 18Committee for Economic Development, Research and Policy Committee, Paying for Better Schools (New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1959), p. 14. 19Ibid., p. 6. 3°Walter Lippman, 22. c_i_t., p. 24. '- t:- -. w. a.‘ I .1. \ ' ‘ I . v ' \ 25 we have built other aspects of our national life in the past.“ A recent conference of bipartisan community leaders con- cluded: Substantial increases in expenditures for public schools will be required if economic and other returns from investments in human capital are to be maximized. While money is not every- thing in providing quality schooling, it is something. Quality schools almost universally are high-expenditure schools. The problem is one of making additional funds count most in buying the quality of schooling demanded by the type of society and economy to which we aspire.“ Criticism of Emphasis on Cost-Quality Relationship Freeman, after extensive studies in school finance, concluded that (1) methods should be adopted for a fuller and more effective utilization of teachers and school facilities, (2) schools should stress and concentrate on subject-matter teaching and eliminate frills, (3) television, films, and other technological methods of saving man- power should be adopted, and (4) the quality of school education will be lifted but school funds need not rise much beyond the growth rate Of national income.23 Regarding public support Of education, Freeman says: The American people have loyally and faithfully supported their schools. The record of steeply increasing school revenues is nothing short Of spectacular and makes no persuasive case for holding insufficient funds responsible for shortcoming in the product of our public school system.“ 21Rockefeller Brothers Fund, pp. Ei_t., p. 33. z‘ZJohn K. Norton, ed. , Changing Demands on Education, 2B 6.19. p. 33- 23Roger L. Freeman, School Needs in the Decades Ahead, Vol. 1: Financing the Public Schools (Washington, D.C.: The Institute for Social Science Research, 1958), pp. 1-27. “Ibid. , Foreword. ._- a u-.. .. l h -. v . ‘. _, , ..‘h‘» " A. ‘ l " .— 26 Freeman further proposes that the choice in setting future policies does not necessarily lie between high-priced good schools and low-priced bad schools. The alternative suggested is between well-organized schools which stress academic achievement and can be operated at a moderate cost, and "life-adjustment" type schools which cost more and give less.‘25 Clark subscribes to the basic relationship between cost and quality and indicates that to some extent higher quality education can be bought and is a good investment.“ Regarding quality education he summarizes as follows: Any American community can get a great increase in the quality of its schools with the resources it now uses by introduc- ing methods and techniques that have been successful in other communities. Furthermore, any community can get a further rise in quality if it uses more of its resources for education . . . For greater additional increases in quality are possible with more drastic changes in organization and technology. Cost is a factor in quality, but other things are more important.27 How Should Schools Be Judged? All public institutions in a democracy benefit from continuing reassessment. The schools are no exception. Educational policy in the United States is public policy. It is probable that most of the argu- ments about what schools are doing or not doing, or what constitutes quality education, is firmly embedded in the value system of the various proponents and critics. Vincent and MacGregor analyzed these dif- ferences in terms of the ”yardsticks" used by the various evaluators: zslbid” pp. 26-27. 26Harold F. Clark, Cost and Quality in Public Education, Vol. 5: The Economics and Politics of Public Education (Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1963), pp. 50-51. 27Ibid., p. 52. 27 (1) People like Bestor use a yardstick based on the criterion of stability. This is logical since Be stor is a historian concerned with traditions and culture handed down from the past. (2) 2011, on the other hand, promotes a criterion of economy. Whatever type of edu- cational job is done should be accomplished with the barest minimum of funds. (3) Rickover seems to be totally concerned with a criterion of liberty versus license. He is in favor Of taking educational de- cision making out of the hands of local boards and individual students. (4) Conant is more concerned with the criterion of equality of Oppor- tunity. The promotion of minimum foundation type programs to provide every individual with his chance is common in this philosophy. Finally (5) professional students of education tend to be most sensitive to the criterion of adaptability or betterment. Their judgments of schools are usually in terms Of up-tO—dateness of procedure, respon- siveness to the demands of changing society, betterment of program over the year s . 28 Value S and Evaluation Melby makes a plea for giving education a higher place on our scale of values. He concludes: The first thing we need to do is to give education a new place in our society. Education suffers today because it does not have enough money but if suffers even more because of its place in society, because instead of being a central concern in our way of life it is an ancillary endeavor . . . . As a people we shall never secure the educational power we need unless we can give education so high a place in our society that it becomes a matter of central concern rather than of secondary attention.29 “William Vincent and Archie Mac Gregor, 1959 Review of Fiscal Policy for Public Education In New York State - Public Tests of School Quality (New York: New York State Educational Conference Board, 1960), pp. 1-2. 29Ernest O. Melby, Education for Renewed Faith in Freedom (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1959), pp. 68-69. 28 The National School Boards Association and the American Association Of School Administrators firmly believe that there are identifiable criteria of excellence which should undergird any evalu- ation of the school program. These criteria are set forth as follows: (1) evaluation Should be based on stated Objectives, (2) evaluation should be based on intimate and comprehensive knowl- edge of the community, (3) evaluation Should be a continuous activity, (4) evaluation should be comprehensive, (5) evaluation should be a cooperative process involving many people, (6) evaluation should identify strengths as well as deficiencies, (7) evaluation Should involve many measuring instruments, (8) evaluation should be based on knowl- edge of Children and youth, (9) evaluation requires a school board to look at itself, (10) evaluation should appraise existing practices affecting the staff, (11) evaluation is based on the belief that what people think makes a difference, and (12) evaluation should culminate in self-improvement.30 From the cooperative efforts of these organizations a survey of evaluative procedures in twenty-eight selected school districts was made. A panorama of approaches to evaluation is presented in the l fourteen publications entitled Quest for Quality.3 The author concluded: The goals that are established and the qualitative standards that are chosen for judging progress toward goals both are related to the values held in the school and the community . Goals may be defined in a variety of ways . . . . Evaluation is determining how well you are doing whatever you claim to be doing.32 30American Association of School Administrators and National School Boards Association, Judging Schools with Wisdom (Washington, D. C.: The Association, 1959), pp. 1-11, 31American Association Of School Administrators and National School Boards Association, Quest for Quality (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1960). ”£031.. "Keys to Quality, .. Booklet 14, pp, 3-6, c ...,, why ....-... >.‘-‘ w. u'.. “o . . \ In»... ‘ --.,. R u- ‘4- .‘s. ,a l- ., _ ““ ... V.. _ i _‘ "-1-... y. I- . g P <.._ . ‘-. 'p ‘5.- T“ ‘55 | 0 IO.“ "N...“ \A‘I .. . -.J A.‘ ‘. .N. w c. '4.— ‘ 29 Emphasis on Quality Education Henry H. Hill in discussing quality education, present and future, emphasized these perceptions of educational quality: (1) Education in the past was for a few peOple, (2) Education at the present is designed for most of the people, (3) Quality education for the present should mean excellence in every field Of endeavor for all pupils who attend schools, (4) All pupils will not be taking the same subjects; neither will they be achieving at the same rate; but the goal of excellence should be the common factor, (5) Those who advocate only classical education as quality education believe in a restrictive, scholarly kind of effort, attainable never in the history of man by more than two or thess per cent Of the people, (6) What happens to the remaining ninety—seven per cent is a matter Of concern to all thinking citizens.33 Chase in analyzing the future of public education summarizes his comments on excellence in education or quality education as follows: I am convinced that although weariness and disillusionment may set in when we discover that we cannot bring excellence into being by decree, the forces that demand quality in education are so strong that unless we are going to give way to defeat, the emphasis on quality has to continue. 4 Callahan also considers the relationship of educational quality to organizational patterns and to financial support in saying: It is true some kinds of teaching and learning can be carried out in large lecture classes or through television, but other vital ”Henry H. Hill, "Quality Education - Present and Future, " Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service (Lexington, Ky.: College of Education, University of Kentucky, March, 1959). PP. 5-14. 34'Francis S. Chase, "The Next 50 Years in Public Education, " Problems and Opportunities in Financing Education (Washington, D. C.: Committee on Tax Education and School Finance, National Education Association, 1959), p. 12. 30 aspects of the education of free men cannot. Until every child has part of his work in small classes or seminars with fine teachers who have a reasonable teaching load, we will not really have given the American high school, or democracy for that ' matter, a fair trial. To do this, America will need to break with its traditional practice, strengthened so much in the age of efficiency, of asking how our schools can be operated most economically and begin asking instead what steps need to be taken to provide an excellent education for all our children. We must face the fact that there is no cheap, easy way to educate a human being and that a free society cannot endure without edu- cated men.35 John Dewey's concern with the societal need for quality edu- cation could as easily have been voiced in 1960 as it was in 1900. Dewey's philosophical view held that: What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon it destroys our democracy. 36 Summa ry 1. The controversy over the role Of education in our society has assumed major importance in recent years because of events which have led to its consideration as an instrument of national strength and survival in a world of growing complexity. 2. It is clear that if we are about to make wise decisions on educational policy, we must find some way to combine the knowledge Of the professional with the wishes of the citizen and the needs of the society. The shocking fact is apparent that while the United States 35Raymond E. Callahan, Education and the Cult of Efficiency (Chicago, 111.: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 264. 3"John Dewey, The School and Sociepy (Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1900), p. 19. -~t.- I». ~ In...- .__ I... Be». ‘ ‘n... “v. 31 stands for equality of Opportunity, it permits gross inequalities in educational opportunity, 3. A number of professional and lay committees have esti- mated what it would cost to finance quality educational programs in all communities in the United States. They agree that there must be a substantial inc reasevin school expenditures to achieve this end. Their estimates are that approximately a doubling of present expendi- tures for public schools will be needed during the 1960's. There is agreement and concern for the current wide variations in the quality of schools that are in considerable degree a result of enormous and indefensible differences in the financial support of schools in differ- ent regions and localities. Attention is being focused on states and communities with low levels of financial ability which are the sources of millions of disadvantaged citizens. 4. There appears to be agreement that adequate support of quality public school programs will require decisive action on the part of many Citizens. Leadership—-lay and professional—-is essential in developing the nation's sense of values, the outcomes the people look for in education, and the willingness of the people to support quality school programs. 5. Considerable attention has been given to the identification of criteria that may be used in evaluating and judging schools. There appears to be great differences of Opinion regarding what the schools shall be and do. Concern with the classification of specific judg- ments of school quality is being identified in terms of what members Of the public think. 6. There appear to be few differences of Opinion regarding cost-quality relationships. There is great concern that the fiscal obstacles that now block the road to adequate financial support for public education be removed. Considerable agreement is found in the II'W" a In (I) 4. ,"co ,.. . -g ,-;_ u... . ....-. - .. a u....-¢o In»... ' v 'II Atr- . A ~ not. . --. h _ 1‘ A. -, a"‘pb‘ .T'“... ‘L' 32 premise that the rewards of decisive and intelligent action in provid- ing excellent schools everywhere in the United States would be sub- stantial and the penalties Of failure in this regard would be severe. Instrumentation The preceding section has shown that in no period of our history have educators, lay citizens, government Officials, and almost all other groups, been as concerned as they are at the present time with the quality of education in public schools. The concern for quality has become, some speakers have declared, an issue of national policy. One educator has warned: "We run the grave risk . . . that the term 'quality, ' as applied to teaching and learning, will become merely another educational catch-word. ”37 1 %oduction Improving the quality of educational programs has been a con- til'luing need which has Challenged the public school almost since its founding. The evaluative instruments reviewed in this section are C ho sen to indicate varied approaches to the problem of devising instru- tr; entation to accurately measure the multiple facets of school quality a‘171<1 the forces operating upon them. The methods and procedures used in quality evaluation deter- Ih ine the type of measurement and assessment instruments to be used. p1‘eavious systematic studies of school quality have been based on evalu- 3“tion of either process or product. Evaluation of process is approached i . . . 11 Various ways. The Items used range from short lists of external fa‘91:.ors such as length of school term and holding power to appraisal \_ 1‘1037Arthur W. Foshay, ”The Search for Quality in Education, " \ace Mann— Lincoln Institute Interim pReport (New York: Teachers' Qt)llege, Columbia University, 1959),. 33 of the over-all design and operation of the program with lists of items descriptive Of what is taught and how it is taught. From such measures the quality of the product is estimated from the quality of the process. From tests of school achievement, grades, attitude, and adjustment inventories the quality of the product is estimated directly from the excellence of its measurable facets. In a summary of important edu- cational quality research covering over forty years, Mort found that sixty-four per cent of the studies used process-type quality measure- ments, twenty per cent used tests of achievement or product type quality determinates, and the remaining sixteen per cent used social and economic characteristics of the adult population in longitudinal Studies.38 The quality measurement instruments reviewed for this study are contained within three general classifications: (1) instruments used in evaluations organized about local or regionally defined goals, Values, and Objectives, (2) appraisements designed for use in evaluat— 1ng varied school programs and organizational patterns, and (3) measures us ed in empirical studies concerning the effects of public school edu- Q ation on aspects of adult life such as level of economic development and output and extent of public expectancy. Evaluation of Quality Based Upon Locally Defined Values, Goals, and Objectives An extensively utilized type of evaluation involves the basic 1:) rinciple that a school program should be evaluated in terms of its 3 Stablished goals and the extent to which it meets the needs of children in the process. A significant example of this type of evaluative \ 38PaulR. Mort, WalterC. Reusser, JohnW. Polley, Pu_b___lic \hool Finance (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1960), p. 80. . "v“V'V' i a... .. an. . . .. .- \; " . ....~' vol-.45.- nus-~- .-....o. A 'I... u. u“- n. .u. ”"~‘ I an“, . . . nun... in." '-~-.- . -. An.;'_' -.....,. ""I- A ...r..;, .._ \ ..., . i‘“ ~.- .l: .- ..._ :75 :- . h: 9.. ‘ {II-a N-eg-‘v ’ (I ~ 2.. ~. . . I...» a. M5 34 instrument is the Evaluative Criteria of the National Study of Secondary School Evaluation.39 The contents Of this instrument are: (1) a guide for the statement of philosophy and Objectives to be accomplished prior to the evaluation; (2) compilation of school and community factual data; (3) extensive series of checklists (twenty- seven) giving criteria for analyzing and appraising (a) general principles underlying the program of the school, (b) curriculum development procedures, (C) program of studies, including extent and nature of offerings, (d) general outcomes Of the program Of studies, (e) special characteristics of the program Of studies, and (f) general evaluation of the program of studies with five—point rating scales of the check- lists that are used; (4) charts for statistical and graphical summary of evaluations. The rating of the total school program is based upon the average of ratings for each category. A self— evaluation is recom— mended to be completed first by professional educators and lay citizens fOIIOwed by a visiting evaluating committee of professional educators. Another example of an evaluative instrument dependent upon locally defined Objectives is Evaluating the Elementag School: A Guide for Coqperative Study which includes five parts: (1) Formu- lation of values and goals, (2) Listing of functions, (3) School program, (4) Resources, and (5) Plans for improvement."’0 Sections A and B of the guide provide a means of examining the existing values of the total educational program and related practices. Sections C and D serve a. 3 guides for studying and planning the means of improvement of the s . . . Q 11001 ro ram and use of resources. There Is no uantItative or 8 q \ 39 . C National Study of Secondary School Evaluation, Evaluative ITiteria (Washington, D. C.: The Study, 1960), pp. 3-4. 1'2 4”Southern Association of Secondary Schools, Evaluating the wentary School: A Guide for Cooperative Study (Atlanta: Com- 1 S sion on Research and Service, the Association, 1951). n... .I'.‘ ‘J :‘F 1 R. u‘,‘ rag I :“ A l . '~- .3. w... a; An -~., ‘ u -A l“ v- thy. T. . “ :. ‘1‘ ,1 'V C“- ‘»l“ 7 v.\ t. “‘.I "_‘. l n ..L . u u 35 qualitative rating of existing practices as included in the Evaluative Criteria. Section E concerns the planning of cooperative and coordi- nated programs of action toward school improvement. . Similar types of evaluative instruments based on locally defined goals are widely used by state and regional accrediting agencies. Typical of this type of guide or bench mark are the Criteria for Accreditation,‘l University of Michigan and the Policies, Rgulations, and Criteria for the Approval of Secondary Schools,” formulated by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. The criteria are instruments for continual self-evaluation by local professional and lay citizens as well as guides for visitation teams. Both instruments include the following general categories: (1) philosophy and objectives, (2) the educational program, (3) organization, support and control, (4) the school staff, (5) the library and instructional materials and equipment, (6) administrative and supervisory services, (7) school plant, (8) the school year, day, and week, (9) requirements for graduation, pupil-load and credit, and (10) evaluation, guidance and testing. Schools accredited by these agencies are encouraged to develop objectives and purposes to meet the specialized needs of their pupils and communities with broad educational programs and students' ac 1:ivities appropriate to local goals and Objectives. Observations and evaluations are completed in written summary form; no numerical ratings are used. The National Education Association booklet, "How Good Are Y our Schools?" provides a guide for evaluation by parent-teacher \\ “The University of Michigan, Criteria for Accreditation ( 1% 111:1 Arbor: Bureau of School Services, the University Of Michigan, 6 l )9 pp. 1'25. P “North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, (slicies, Regplations, and Criteria for Approval of Secondary Schools icago: The Association, 1961), v-v-H «nun». . “- IIIH1 l r I'l‘ ll ' . . t q 36 groups, citizens' committees or other lay groups. The booklet is designed to stimulate concern and study of the following major ele- ments of an effective school system: (1) the school program as a whole, (2) the elementary school program, (3) the junior high school, (4) the senior high school, (5) education for older youth and adults, (6) competency and qualification of teachers, (7) materials of instruc- tion, (8) buildings and equipment, (9) administrative and supervisory staff, (10) adequacy of finance, (11) board of education, (12) citizen interest."’3 Specific questions referring to all educational levels are asked in each section to stimulate interest and study. The National School Boards Association pamphlet, Erg- sticks for Public Schools,44 is designed as a citizens' introduction to the study of educational quality. Accompanying the booklet is a "Self-Quiz on School Quality, " a series of 80 statements given in seven general areas, designed to provide an overall view of the public school and its quality. The rater is asked to make preliminary judgments on how well the schools are prepared to carry out its functions in the following areas: (1) the goals of the school, (2.) the school program, (3) teachers and teaching, (4) school buildings and equipment, (5) finances, (6) organization and administration, and (7) citizen action. The identification of additional areas in which more detailed and careful study may be needed is emphasized. This guide to quality evaluation 1 8 designed to permit citizens to measure the tangible factors that c“'Qilrtnstribute to better schools and is illustrative of increased citizen lnt erest and involvement in the development of goals and policies for public education. \ (W 4'3National Education Association, How Good Are Your Schools? ashington, D. C.: The Association, 1958), pp, 1-31. S “National School Boards Association, Yardsticks for Public W(Evanston, Illinois: The Association, 1959). 37 Evaluation of Quality Based Upon Normative - Type Measurement Achievement Tests as Quality Indices The quality of a school system is measured by its impact upon pupils; whether the potential is high, average, or low. For example, competency in the basic skills, appreciation of and interests in knowl— edge, knowledge of and interest in our cultural heritage, vocational and educational awareness and planning, human relations, and citizen- ship values reflect the competency of the school. Achievement tests such as the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills‘5 for use in elementary and junior high school levels, and the Iowa Tests iEducational Development"6 at the high school level provide a partial estimate of quality of any system. The first instrument includes eleven subtests. A composite score is provided as a general index of pupil performance. There are also separate scores for five major tests in the battery: vocabulary, reading comprehension, language Skills, work- study skills, and arithmetic skills. In all, fifteen dif- fe rent achievement scores are provided by this test. The second instrument provides a composite score for general performance and s eIE>arate scores on the following nine subtests: (1) understanding of ba- Sic social concepts, (2) background in natural science, (3) correct- he 8 s and appropriateness of expression, (4) ability to do quantitative 1:"llilaking, (5) ability to interpret reading materials in social studies, (6 ) ability to interpret reading materials in the natural sciences, \ (2 ”Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Qmpany, 1956). “Iowa Tests of Educational Development (Chicago: Science Re Search Associates, 1958). nit. I) ‘Pr‘I -- .x....l ".2“ ’r no.3... -\ ”v an». a.“ ~- 1..., w l t. *‘Ic-s! II— . en ‘Ir-u. . . u; I p. a”. u u . ‘N. 38 (7) ability to interpret library materials, (8) general vocabulary, and (9) uses of sources of information. These two measures of quality in school systems were used by the New York State Education Depart- ment to study the relation of scores of tests to level of school expendi- ture. The findings of the 1954 Cooperative Study of Educational Programs in New York State Public Elementary Schools" and the Quality Measurement Project48 are summarized later in this chapter. Bloom and Statler“9 of the University of Chicago in 1957 reported an extensive study concerned with factors associated with educational achievement as measured by standard Tests of General Educational Development. Many sub—test scores are provided in (1) English composition, (2) the social studies, (3) the natural sciences, (4) literature, and (5) mathematics. According to Bloom and Statler, "These tests were designed to measure as directly as possible the attainment of some of the ultimate objectives of the entire program of general education. "50 An analysis of the findings of this study and Other research utilizing pupil achievement scores as measures of quality are dealt with subsequently in this chapter. Quality Measured by Administrative Eid- Structural Setting Criteria Some research studies have defined school quality in such terms a. 3 type and number of teachers employed, adequacy of materials and \ S "New York State Educational Conference Board, What Good Q\110013 Do for Children (Albany: the Board, 1954). E “William D. Firman e_t a_l. , Procedures in School Dually wuation: A Second Report of the Quality Measurement Project A lbany: New York State Education Department, 1961). 8 ”Benjamin S. Bloom and Charles R. Statler, "Changes in the 1. ta~1:es on the Tests of General Educational Development from 1943 to 55, " School Review 65: 204-21 (Summer, 1957). 5°Ibid., p. 205. p-r‘ Oxb- .9,- ._~ - yo. u v v \ facilities, 39 and length of school term or amount of schooling provided. Leonard Ayres is generally credited with making the initial scientific inquiry into educational quality. In his Index which follows, Ayres used ten items, five of which had to do with the financial setting and five of which had to do with tangible characteristics of the school program: 0 O O QQQ@WU§WNH . 10. Per cent of school population attending school daily. Average days attended by each child of school age. Average number of days schools were kept open. Per cent that high school attendance was of total attendance. Per cent that boys were of girls in high schools. Average annual expenditure per child attending. Average annual expenditure per child of school age. Average annual expenditure per teacher employed. Expenditure per pupil for purposes other than teachers' salaries. Expenditure per teacher for salaries. The intercorrelation between the two sets of factors was found to be . 78.51 Another study utilizing measures of educational efficiency as quality criteria was reported in 1936. D. T. Ferrell found a strong relationship between quality and expenditure when quality was defined by his Six Item Index: W 1. Per cent average daily attendance is of the census. 2. 3o \ Holding power as measured by the average of the sum of (a) per cent eighth grade enrollment is of first grade enrollment, and (b) per cent high school enrollment is of the total public school enrollment. Per cent of teachers employed who have a given amount of preparation. ( 51Leonard P. Ayres, An Index Number for State School Systems : Iew York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1920), 4O 4. Per cent of teachers employed who have had at least three years or more of teaching experience. 5. Per cent the number of teachers is of the number of pupils. 6. Per cent the number of days in the elementary school term is of 200 days.“ Mort reported two studies concerned largely with the relation- ship of school costs to teaching personnel and other school facilities. In 1933 a study in New Jersey53 and another in 1934 in Maine, 5‘ the main areas of concern in an evaluative scale included: (1) administra- tive services, (2) supervisory services, (3) services to typical children, (4) school buildings, (5) instructional staff, (6) classroom procedures, (7) course offerings, and (8) home-school contacts. Hirch used as a measure of educational quality an index com- prised of six basic factors: 1. The number of teachers per 100 pupils in average daily attendance. 2. The number of college hours of education of the average teacher. 3. The average teacher's salary 4. The per cent of teachers with more than 10 years of experience. 5. The number of high school credit units offered. 6. The per cent of high school seniors entering college.55 52Doctor Thomas Ferrell, Relation Between Current Expendi- t‘~1\res and Certain Measures of Educational Efficiency in Kentucky bnty and Graded School Systems, George Peabody College for eachers, Contributions to Education No. 216 (Richmond, Kentucky: a. stern State Teachers College, 1937). 53Paul R. Mort, director, Reconstruction of the Systems of Eugblic Support in the State of New Jersey, Report of the Governor's 1 Q1"1ool Survey Commission, Vol. II. (Trenton: The Commission, 9 3 3). Q 5"Paul R. Mort, director, The Financirg of the Public Schools W(Augusta: Maine School Finance Commission, 1934), E ”Werner Z- Hirsch, Analysis of Rising Costs of Public dVlacation (Washington: Joint Economic Committee, 1959), 22..-: .v 41 In a publication several years ago, the Educational Polic1es Commission proposed a formula by which any community might estimate current needs for quality schools: In a school district of adequate size the minimum annual per pupil current expenditure needed today to provide a good edu- cational program is about twelve per cent of the salary necessary to employ a qualified beginning teacher in that district};6 Quality As Emphasis on Fundamental Objectives; and Sound Procedures A third type of instrumentation designed to assess educational quality seeks to go beyond quantitative data on personnel fac111t1es or test scores as measures of quality. This type of study assumes that to test the inner essence of educational quality it is necessary to go into a school system and carefully observe what is gomg on the re, The concepts of quality measurement contained in the prev1ously di 8 cussed instruments are frequently included in 121113 level of measure- Many of the instruments developed in this area are the result ment. They of the work of Mort and his associates at Columbia Univer51ty a. re basically an attempt to measure the quality of the product from the quality of the process. Mort and Cornell developed their Guide for the Self-Appraisal This evaluative device, popularly known \ihool Systems57 in 1937. a s the "Lag Book" rendered a score for what was defined as the t: a d~aptability" of the school system. This theory proposes that the Sp 1% ed with which a district or even an individual teacher takes on new \ 5"Educational Policies Commission, An Essay on Quality in Du NR Education (Washington: National Education Assomation 1959) ‘ 24-25. A ’ 57Paul R. Mort and Frances G. Cornell, Guide for Self- waisal of School Systems (New York: Bureau of Publication, Q3~Qhers' College, Columbia University, 1937). n...” a , u~U.U-‘ n . ..,. .u,. urucs- ' . I II 'B" .y‘ .v... nq y. p a on. in... _ 0A3.“ . ‘IVACI . ”a '9' D-‘ b v: F‘ "it 'u» on :‘A: ‘ Ivy ‘EI; .' ‘~~o" ‘A -» _ Q N ~L. .,‘ k.‘ “- '6 . u,‘ ‘~.,Q .. . 1. .1!‘ 42 acceptable educational ideas is the be st indication of educational quality. This instrument provides a checklist of 183 items purported to represent improvements in educational practice that had occurred during this century. Fifty-eight of the 183 items dealt with class- room instruction, another 86 dealt with educational leadership, and the remainder with physical faCilities and business management. The instrument sought to determine which communities had more speedily taken on improved practices. The degree to which they had done this was taken as an indication of their adaptability. Another observational instrument of greater range but of less Objective character was developed in 1942. A Guide for the Analysis ind Description of Public School Services, 58 referred to as the "Blue Book, " contained 1091 items reflecting practices felt to be quality dete rminants. The original Mort-Burke-Fisk instrument provided for Cla S sification of the data into 15 divisions related to purpose. Vincent repo rted that 73 per cent of the items in the guide correlated with expenditure.” The testing and analysis of these instruments laid the basis fo r the deveIOpment of The Growing Eggs“? as a measure of adapt- ability. Each item in the instrument is a description of a specific 8:: ho ()1 practice. The high school form consists of 85 items; the \ 58Paul R. Mort, Arvid J. Burke, and Robert S. Fisk, A Guide 1'0 Ne Analysis and Description of Public School Services (New York: 8 titute of Educational Research, Teachers' College, Columbia U - nlversity, 1942.). OI). 59New York State Educational Conference Board, What Education money Buys (Albany, New.York: The Board, 1943). 6°Pau1 R. Mort, William S. Vincent, and Clarence A. Newell, 'I‘h Wrowing Edge: An Instrument for Measuring the Adaptability of WI Systems (New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, TQ QIhers College, Columbia University, 1946). 43 elementary form contains 64 items. The specific practices included in this instrument are organized around four major facets of edu- cational purpose: (1) the teaching of skills in a real or realistic fashion and the teaching of a wide range of skills, (2.) the teaching of areas of knowledge realistically, (3) the discovery and development of special aptitudes of individuals through test and tryout, and (4) the development of gross behavior patterns, like citizenship, character, The instrument may be applied as a self-evaluation Tests of reliability made by the split- and thinking . guide or by outside observers. halves technique yielded a coefficient of reliability of . 88 for the high school form and .89 for the elementary form. An indication of the val idity of the instrument is revealed by an inter-correlation of . 68 between the two forms. Mort and his associates have studied hundreds of factors in the effort to determine just what it is that makes for quality schools. The relationship of these factors to quality and their relation to each Othe 1' have been subjected to a great variety of checks and counter- Chec Its in hundreds of studies carried on over the years. The com- 131 ete review of these studies is contained in the three volume text, Wnistration for Adaptability, 61 Cornell, Lindvall, and Saupe developed and tested an instrument c all ed the Student Perception Inventory.“ The measuring instrument is - . . d1 :rected at descriptive measurement of the school institution, not 1211 e 1 earner or the product of the educative process. It attempts to \ (N 61Donald Ross, Editor, Administration for Adaptability CQEW York: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, I1fl.':nbia University, 1958), 750 pp. “Frances G. Cornell, Carl M. Lindvall, and Joe L. Saupe, A 1:1 1% EbiploratoryMeasurement of Individualities of School and Class- rlls (Urbana, Illinois: Bureau of Educational Research, College Of Education, University of Illinois, 1953). ~;;, .ea.—- .0. a- prob ";VV‘ “L“. if ‘5 . e. on is u u. . . . vac ll! v...‘ k._ ‘- gm '1‘ W ."h 44 measure differences in classrooms as a means of characterizing dif- ferences of school systems. The Inventory is administered to the students of a classroom. The content of the test is comprised of 40 items which are scored and ten items which purports to divert the teacher and student from the real purpose of the test. The content of the items is divided into four parts: (1) Differentiation, (2) Social Organization, (3) Pupil Initiative, and (4) content. The validity of the two test forms produces a product-moment correlation of . 85. An estimate of equivalence reliability of the classroom mean scores is shown as . 94 according to the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula. Measurement of Quality Based on Economic Output, Public Expectancy, and Adult Life In the late 1930's Thorndike carried on a study seeking to trace the relative causal effects of education and other factors of socio- economic concern. Thorndike's G Index63 or goodness index, was made up of five health items, seven educational items, two recreational items, eight economic and social items, five "creative comfort" items and nine other miscellaneous items. In his analysis Thorndike compared the social and educational scene measured by his index with the social and educational conditions of 1900. As measures of edu- cational characteristics of 1900, five items chosen from the Ayres Index 6‘ were used. The average correlation of the five educational items from 1900 with the 1930 G score was .41. The measurement of public understanding and expectancy of 6"’Edward L. Thorndike, Education as Cause and as Symptom (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1939). “Ayres. 9£~ E- 45 education were the purposes for the development of What Should Our Schools Do? 65 by Mort and others. The instrument was composed of one hundred statements designed to measure the sentiment and feel- ings of parents toward newer ideas and practices in education. The Time Scale was developed as a measure to be used in assessing community expectancy of schools in terms of their capacity to adapt to new social needs and forces. Twenty-two adaptations were selected to constitute a good sample of the educational inventions and practices which were in the process of diffusion throughout the American educational system. The twenty-two items are identified in terms of their presence and date of introduction and are scordd by means of an index. The reliability coefficient (split-half) for a re- vised thirty-three item Time Scale is .84.“ Measures of public understanding have been obtained largely through the use of structured polls. Under the auspices of the Metropolitan School Study Council two polls were developed by W. Donald Walling to reflect professional concern for adaptability.67 Walling's Poll Number One contrasts educational procedures typical of the year 1900 with education more descriptive of schools of 1950. The poll contains ten items in each category and gives the respondent an opportunity to pick and choose at will among the 20 characteristics. 65Paul R. Mort, Frances G. Cornell, and Norman Hinton, What Should Our Schools D07: A Poll of Public Opinion on the School Program (New York: Bureau of Publication, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1938). “Paul R. Mort and Truman Pierce, A Time Scale for Measur- ing the AdaptabilitLof School Systems (New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1947). 6"W. Donald Walling, A StudLof Public Opinion About Schools (New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952.). 0" In pg. out ... "In. . ‘ikg. . ;-.. '5“. :u. -».,. 2'. ..'l x . ! at "'-A4 H‘s. 46 Walling's Poll Number Two is likewise a measure whose criterion is adaptability. It contains 16 statements about what schools can do. These range from reducing the auto accident rate to achieving world peace. The respondent indicates whether he thinks the schools can do much, little, or nothing in connection with each objective. Mort‘s Sequential Simplex of Factors A highly organized and integrated empirical model of the behavior of local schools, called the sequential simplex, has been developed over the years by Mort and his associates.68 The model focuses on explaining the quality of the educational product in local school systems defined by the number of, and speed of adoption of, certain educational practices. The factors that influence adaptations are grouped into five categories of varying directness in impact on the auality of education: (1) legal structure and administration, (2) status measures of school and community, (3) educational climate, (4) school system policy, and (5) the individual school. This model does provide some insights into the interrelationship of changing educational goals, and the spending necessary to achieve them. The factors explaining school spending and even the amount spent are used in the sequential simplex as independent variables that help explain the quality of education. In this study school cost factors including expenditure is the dependent variable to be explained by the perceptions of other factors. Mort's framework, therefore, is not appropriate in this study. 68Paul R. Mort and Orlando F. Furno, Theory and Synthesis offa Sequential Simplex (New York: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1960). 47 Summa ry 1. Some measures of school quality have been designed to measure factors of educational quality in such terms as type and number of teachers employed, adequacy of materials and facilities, and amount of schooling provided. These instruments are based on the premise that better educational results are obtained when enough resources are diverted into salaries, equipment and facilities. This type of evaluative instrumentation apparently has some value. Its weakness is the assumption that enough staff, more facilities, and more time in school result in better educational returns. This may be true, but is not proved by the kind of evidence measured, for the actual educational results are not determined. 2. Achievement test scores are used to measure educational quality by another group of investigators. The assumption here is that the ability to score high on tests is quality in education. Recent research has emphasized that test results may not reflect ability to apply knowledge and skills later in life and that tests measure but a small part of what a pupil should learn in school. In addition test results may reflect many factors other than education--intelligence, health, cultural experiences, socio-economic background of parents, and emotional stability. 3. The complex factors involved in designing evaluative instru- ments to assess quality are in part caused by the fact that the school is only one environmental factor shaping educational performance. The influences of other cultural factors cannot be denied. The defi- nition and measurement of educational quality are in the beginning stages of development. Further research is needed in all aspects of instrument design to determine validity and reliability. e.‘ w- ‘c-u we 48 4. The outcomes of quality educational programs cannot be finally assessed at any one time by measurement, observation, or judgment. The valuation placed on any given outcome of education is in the end justified only by history. Related Empirical and Theoretical Studies The empirical and theoretical studies of educational quality have been investigated and considered in conformity with three cate- gories: (1) relationships between educational quality and expenditure level; (2) relationships between educational quality and other-cost factors; and (3) relationships between quality educational programs and non-cost factors. In the mid-twenties Columbia University began its leadership role in educational quality research. Under the direction and sponsor- ship of Paul R. Mort there have been many attempts to measure the quality of education and to relate it to cost. These studies contribute significantly to the research which is available and several of the more pertinent types of studies are reviewed in this section. Level of Expenditure and Educational Quality Expenditure Level and Achievement Test Results Several studies have sought to relate expenditure level with results on standard tests of achievement. One of these studies was reported by Powell” in 1933. He gave tests of school achievement to matched groups of children in both low and high expenditure one— teacher schools in New York State. Powell found that the pupils in 69Orrin E. Powell, Educational Returns at Varying Expendi- tire'Levels (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1933), soup... ~“b- "3 ‘1 ‘ .05). The region of rejection for the null hypotheses is defined by the two tails of the confidence limits, (.025 , .975). Where very strong rejections of null hypotheses occur, higher probability levels for rejecting the null hypotheses are given, for example: p < .001 or p < .01. 92 .336 Hmofimflmum Hmcofifippm HOH H cum 3 mooflcaommmw sewN : .Auom: Hops: coumoflpcw ma muoumfimfiflgpm .Ho mponowou yogic o» mswcuooom mEm 1:033“: Hmfiocmcfllfifigw modem 05 o>m£ £033 moflmwuouomumao HmcoflmUSpo 9: mo Inocoswouw can. .auommdm Hmwocmcfl mo commons 63?? 32.25 mo :oflmfiUOmmm wamoflwcmfimuco: moumofipcfl m2 .uuommflm Hmwosmcfl cm“: :62? knufimfiv 33 can psommdm Hmfiocmcfl 33 5.3? 339.5 3mg mo GOSNCOmmm meadows“: .. .auommdm Hmfiocmcfl 33 Si? c3233. 33 .upommdm Hmwocmcfl cm“: 5.3, c3395 AmE mo. aOSNCOmmm moumoficafi + $03 N N 26 o N M: Na N H6 666 3 N 6 66 S m 26 A63 "28286.6 o o 2 o H m 6 o 2 6 2 m o a 62 o N 2 3:666:66sz ISUNOH. USN HMflUdOH. OSH. "HT? 266 N62 266 662 266 N66 5666366656 cam coflmuumdfiap/w HH> N N 6 a a 6 N N 6 6 N 6 N N s N N e : 3 3868660 66 no: -fimomEoO Hmufifidonofloom u> o o a o o a o o a o o a o o H o o a :6 62366.6 No 66: c: o o m a o H o o m 6 o a o o m a o 6 E 833230 a: o a N N a 6 N a N 6 a 6 .o a S N a a :3 666332. 3858860 6: o o 6 N o N N o 6 6 o N o o 6 N o 6 A66 66636:... 6:6 6666 #30va mo #964 93355 "H mz - + m2 - + m2 - + mz - + m2 - + mz - + damage“: moumum pofiGD Gmmfioflz moNSw ecu—ED GmmEoflz museum con—ED mfiofi mo .02 630m muoumhmfifigcmw muogomoh cam >uowoumO 2.6163543 museum cofisD cam cmmfiofiz E momcommop noumaummfigpm can scheme“ 06. mcflpuouom mownommumU 53$? moflmfloaodgmgo Hmsoflmncdco 3533ch Ho aofimfinfinomflpncoc cam coflmfigflomflp mo twosodvonm >3 @3639: mm «nommdm dmwocmcfl pcm 33.9.5 3120360360 Cook/“on mmEmcoUmHon mo chumggm .6 2an 93 Summaries of the results of the statistical treatments are pre- sented in tabular form in the following sections. Additional data is included in the appendices and referred to as needed in the analysis of the test results. The determination of whether an observed difference in total, category, and individual characteristic mean scores between respondents from high and low financial support districts is of such magnitude that it cannot be attributed to chance factors or sampling variation is the major interest. Additional examination and analysis is concerned, however, with whether individual educational characteristics are posi- tively or negatively related to a particular level of financial support. Results and Evaluation of Statistical Treatment Total Quality Sc 0 re s In order to determine if the Educational Characteristics Criterion could provide information which would allow discrimination between high and low financial support quartiles, the total mean scores appearing in Table 7 were compared by means of the "t" test. On the basis of the significant differences in total mean scores shown in Table 7 we reject the null hypotheses: Hla: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in the total mean scores according to teacher responses. Hlb: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in the total mean scores according to administrator responses. and accept the research hypotheses that the Educational Characteristics Criteriog, (ECC) will discriminate positively between the first or low financial support quartile and the fourth or high financial support quartile and the fourth or high financial support quartile according to 94 responses of both teachers and administrators. This discrimination represents a significant relationship between educational quality and educational financial support as defined in this study. Table 7. Differences in total mean scores of respondents from high financial support districts and low financial support districts.z P Score Teachers Administrators Total High Low High Low ‘ 153.095 144.408 159.000 152.232 S (p<.001) S(p<.02) S indicates a level of significance between mean scores at a minimum of P< .05. P<‘ .001 and p < . 02 represent higher levels of significance than mini- mum required. Categpry Scores Table 8 presents the results of the comparison of each category mean score between high and low financial support quartiles of school districts. . On the basis of the significant differences in category mean scores we reject the null hypothesis: H2a: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each category mean score based upon teacher responses. and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ESE) will discriminate between the district types according to teacher responses. A significant positive relationship between edu- cational quality as measured by category mean scores and financial support is indicated since significant differences in category mean scores appear for teacher respondents from different district types. zSee Appendix H for additional statistical data. 95 Additional analysis of the data in Table 8 leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis: H2b: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each category mean score based upon administrator responses. for category IV: ("Use of Facilities"), category V: (”Socio-cultural Composition of Community"), and category VI: ("Administration and Supervision") and the acceptance of the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) will discriminate positively between district types according to administrator responses to these categories. On the basis of no significant differences in category mean scores we accept the null hypothesis H2b for category I: ("Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes"), category II: ("Community Attitudes"), category 111: ("Curriculum"), and category VII: ("The Teacher and Teaching Methods"). The lack of positive discrimination between administrator responses according to district type for these four categories indicates the lack of a significant positive relationship between educational quality and financial support factors. The impli- cations of the failure of administrator responses to substantiate the hypothesis of a difference between each category mean score by dis- trict type is discussed in Chapter VII. Individual Educational Characteristic Scores Appearing in Table 9 are eighteen individual educational characteristics which are present in a significantly higher degree in high financial support districts than in low financial support districts according to both teacher and administrator responses. On the basis of the significant difference in individual educational characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypotheses: 96 Table 8. Differences in category mean scores of respondents from high financial support districts and low financial support 3 . districts. ========—“ __= S r Teachers Administrators °° ° g High Low High Low Category. I: Student's Level of Knowl- 16. 32 15. 56 17. 47 16. 87 edge and Attitudes S (p < . 001) NS (p > .05) Category 11: Community Attitudes 28. 54 26. 92 29. 76 28. 27 S(p<.001) NS(p>.05) Category III: Curriculum 16.07 15.06 16.57 16.22 S(p<.001) NS(p>.05) Category IV: 2.90 2.39 3.18 2.63 Use of Facilities S (p < .001) S (p < .001) Category V: Socio—Cultural Compo- 27.58 26.15 27.99 26.67 sition of community S (p < . 001) S (p < . 02) Category VI: Administration and 16.55 15.52 17.46 16.43 Supervision S (p < .001) S (p < .05) Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching 45. 09 42. 81 46. 58 45.15 Methods S (p < .001) NS (p > , 05) S indicates statistically significant difference between category scores at a minimum of p < . 05. NS indicates a non- significant statistical difference between category mean scores. 3See Appendix H for additional statistical data. 97 H3a: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based upon teacher responses. H3b: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score according to administrator responses. for the eighteen individual items listed in Table 9 and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (@5193) will discriminate between high and low financial support dis- tricts according to both teacher and administrator responses. The results substantiate the hypothesis for these eighteen items that dif- ferences in individual characteristic scores may be revealed by respondents from different district types. Table 9. Individual educational characteristics which are present in a significantly higher degree in high financial support dis- tricts than in low financial support districts according to both teacher and administrator responses.4 Item No. Educational Characteristic Categgry I: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes 8 Students show a positive attitude toward scholastic work. 16 Students are knowledgeable about the educational and social opportunities available to them. Category 11: Community Attitudes 21 Parents and patrons (those residents of a school district without school-age children) are highly knowledgeable about education. 39 The community exhibits a great concern for the development of aesthetic and artistic interests. Continued 4See Appendix I for additional statistical data. 98 Table 9 - Continued W Item No. Educational Characteristic Category 11: Community Attitudes - continued 40 A two-way communication channel readily exists between the home and the school. 53 A high value is placed on education by parents and patrons (those residents of a school district with- out school-age children) of the community. Category III: Curriculum 15 A great variety of instructional techniques are presently used in the classroom. wCategory IV: Use of Facilities 32 The physical facilities of the school system (build- ings and equipment) are completely adequate. Cawtegpry V: Socio-cultural Composition of the Community 34 Cultural experiences are readily available in the community. 41 A high percentage of high school students own personal cars. 42 A high percentage of homes own television sets. 48 This community is composed of people who are pre- dominantly Jewish. v—r Category VI: Administration and Supervision 27 Citizens are highly organized to discuss school problems. 7_. Categoryle: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 7 Evidence exists of instructional and/or curricular experimentation. 12 All teachers are certified to teach at the grade level or subject they are now teaching. Continued 99 Table 9 - Continued Item No. Educational Characteristic f—w cw Catggory VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods - continued 14 A great variety of instructional techniques are presently used in the classrooms. 18 Teachers often avail themselves of professional help. 20 Availability to students of materials that reflect all shades of political and sociological points of view. The Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), provides a discrimination between district types according to both teacher and administrator responses for each of the three educational character— istics listed in Table 10. The discrimination however, indicates a significant negative relationship since the mean scores for respondents in low financial support districts significantly exceed the mean scores for respondents in the high financial support'quartile. On the basis of the significant differences in individual characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypotheses: H3a: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based on teacher responses. H3b: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based on administrator responses. for each of the three educational characteristics listed in Table lO'and accept the research hypotheses that these individual items will dis- criminate negatively between district types in terms of educational quality and educational support. The three characteristics appear to be typical of rural-oriented smaller communities and are not closely associated with factors tending to influence financial support of school districts. 100 Table 10. Individual educational characteristics which are present in a significantly higher degree in low financial support dis- tricts than in high financial support districts according to both teachers and administrators.5 Item No. Educational Characteristic _vr Categpry II: CommunitLAttitudes 45 The parents of this community expect their children to perform their share of family chores. Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of Community 46 This community is composed of people who are predominantly Protestant. c_r Categgry VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 24 High degree of teacher participation in social and political activities of the community. The remaining analysis is devoted to individual educational characteristics which vary in their relationship to educational financial support according to respondent type. On the basis of significant differences in item mean scores for each of the items listed in Table 11, we reject the null hypothesis: H3a: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristics mean score based on teacher responses. and on the strength of non-significant difference in item mean scores we accept the null hypothesis: H3b: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based on administrator responses. ssee Appendix I for additional statistical data. 101 for each of the individual educational characteristics appearing in Table 11. Administrator responses will not discriminate between district types while teacher responses discriminate at a significantly positive level. Table 11. Individual educational characteristics which according to teacher responses are present in a significantly higher de- gree in high financial support districts than in low financial support districts and according to administrator responses are not significantly different in relation to district type.6 Item No. Categgry I: 51 54 Educational Characteristic Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes Pupils consider an academic grade of at least a "B" to be the norm for academic achievement. Parents and patrons in the community consider an academic grade at least "B" to be the norm for academic achievement. Categgry II: Community Attitudes 28 36 55 The perceptions of parents and patrons concerning the purposes of education are consistent and clear. A high percentage of the electorate in the community vote in school elections. Parents condone or encourage early dating for their children. Category III: Curriculum 4 17 Teachers perceive a coherent and coordinated structure to the educational program. A structure has been developed that permits con- tinual curriculum development. A complete comprehensive testing program includ- ing intelligence testing and achievement testing is available in the schools. Continued 6See Appendix I for additional statistical data. 102 Table 11 - Continued Item No. Educational Characteristic Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of Community 47 49 50 This community is composed of people who are pre- dominantly Catholic. The population of this community is equally divided between Protestants and Catholics. One or two ethnic groups comprise the largest number of residents in the community. fiV—v—j w Category VI: Administration and Supervision 10 22 26 35 Professional staff of the school system are involved in in-service education. Lay members of the community are highly involved in the planning of educational goals with the school staff. Regulations governing personnel policies are highly explicit and detailed. Teachers' judgments are almost always used in the determination of educational policies. Categgry VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 1 2 11 19 Teachers have an intimate knowledge of children. Teaching practices reflect concern for individual differences. Teaching practices reflect a knowledge of individual differences. Teachers thoroughly understand the information gathered on students and use this information to make sound educational decisions. Complete freedom is granted to students to investi- gate any local, state, national, or international issue. Continued 103 Table 11 - Continued ‘7 Item No. Educational Characteristic Catsgory VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods - continued 31 There exists a high level of cooperation among teachers on the staff. 33 The community and its residents are used for instructional purposes. 43 A great deal of homework is assigned to students. Through the examination of differences between responses of teachers and administrators within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts significant differences are found. In terms of the findings, these differences between teacher and adminis- trator responses to individual educational characteristics which occur regardless of district type, will be subjected to a complete analysis of possible determinants following the discussion and evaluation of Hypotheses II, Chapter V. On the basis of the significant differences in individual edu- cational characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypothesis: H3a: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based on teacher responses. for the two individual items reported in Table 12, and based on the non-significant difference in individual educational characteristic mean scores we accept the null hypothesis: H3b: There is no significant difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based on adminis- trator responses. 104 for the educational characreristics listed in Table 12. The results substantiate the research hypothesis that the Educational Character- istics Criterion, (ECC) will discriminate between district types according to teacher responses. The discrimination according to teacher responses indicates the relationship between educational quality and financial support is negative. The administrator responses show no positive or negative discrimination between district types. Table 12. Individual educational characteristics which according to teacher responses are present in a significantly higher degree in low financial support districts than in high financial support districts and according to administrator responses are not significantly different in high financial support districts than in low financial support districts.7 Item No. Educational Characteristic Eateggry V: Socio-cultural Composition of Communily T 25 The social status of teachers is very high in this community. gategory VI:V Administration and Supervision 13 Teachers have complete freedom to teach what they consider to be important. The results of discrimination level and direction on the two items in Table 12 which according to teacher respondents are present to a greater degree in low financial support districts than in high financial support districts are probably related in a positive manner more to the size of the school district and community than to the other cost factors. The rationale for this assumption is based upon the 7See Appendix I for additional statistical data. 105 greater freedom and flexibility reflected in the procedures in many small school districts and communities. On the basis of the non-significant difference in individual item mean. scores we accept the null hypothesis: H3a: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based on teacher responses. for the one educational characteristic presented in Table 13, and on the basis of significant difference in the item mean score we reject the null hypothesis: H3b: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based on administrator responses. for the one educational characteristic presented in Table 13. The re- search hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (EEQ) will discriminate between district types is rejected according to teacher responses and accepted according to administrator responses. However, the discrimination according to administrator responses indicates a negative relationship between quality and financial support since the individual educational characteristic is present in a signifi- cantly higher degree in low financial support districts. Table 13. Individual educational characteristic which, according to administrator responses is present in a significantly higher degree in low financial support districts than in high financial support districts and according to teacher responses is not significantly different according to district type.8 W "— Item No. Educational Characteristic yCafitegory V: Socio—cultural Composition of Community 38 This is a highly stable community which does not have too many people leaving. 8See Appendix I for additional statistical data. 106 According to teacher responses there is no significant difference in the community stability. Administrator respondents feel that the highly stable community is more likely to contain the low educational financial support district than the high financial support school district. On the basis of the non-significant differences in individual edu- cational characteristic mean scores we accept the null hypotheses: H3a: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based on teacher responses. H3b: There is no difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based on administrator responses. for each of the nine educational characteristics presented in Table 14 and reject the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) will discriminate between high and low financial sup- port school districts according to both teacher and administrator responses. The data shows no significant relationship between edu- cational quality as measured by these items and financial support. Table 14. Individual educational characteristics which are not signifi- cantly different in high financial support districts and low financial support districts according to both teachers and administrators.9 Item No. Educational Characteristic *7 Category I: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes 9 Students evidence accurate knowledge of self. 52 The professional staff of the schools in the com- munity consider an academic grade of at least "B" to be the norm for academic achievement. Continued 9See Appendix I for additional statistical data. 107 Table 14 - Continued r—Y Item No. Educational Characteristic Category 11: Community Attitudes 29 The local newspaper has shown a high interest in local school affairs. 30 There is no lag between the values taught in the school and what is practiced in the community. 37 There are outstanding community leaders in this community who exhibit great interest in school affairs. Categgry III: Curriculum 5 Consensus exists among the staff concerning the goals of the educational program. gCatggory V: Socio-cultural Composition of the Community 44 A high degree of ethnic, racial, and religious homogeniety exists among the local population. Category VI: Administration and Supervision 23 Regulations governing student conduct are highly explicit and detailed. 56 School program is accredited by the state and/by regional accrediting agencies. Individual Educational Characteristic Score Relationships and Summarj l. A strong positive relationship between educational quality, as measured by teacher and administrator perceptions, and educational financial support is indivated by teacher responses to forty-one of the fifty-six individual educational characteristics (Table 11). Adminis- trator responses to eighteen of these characteristics indicate the 108 same relationship between high quality and high support and between low quality and low support (Table 9). 2. High educational quality is significantly associated with low financial support and low educational quality with high financial support according to both teacher and administrator responses to three indi- vidual educational characteristics (Table 10). Teacher responses to two additional characteristics indicating a significant negative relation- ship between educational quality and financial support are found in Table 12. According to administrator responses one additional edu- cational characteristic is present in a significantly higher degree in low financial support districts than in high financial support districts (Table 13). 3. The summaries in Table l and Table 15 indicate consider- able difference between teacher and administrator perceptions of educational quality and educational financial support. Strong positive relationships are found in a greater degree in teacher responses than in administrator responses. 4. A summary of the relationships between individual educational characteristics and educational financial support presented in this study is compared with corresponding findings from the 1962 Michigan study (Table l and 15). Agreement is present in forty individual edu- cational characteristics which according to teacher responses are present in a higher degree in high financial support districts than in low financial support districts. Administrator responses to sixteen individual characteristics show a positive relationship between edu- cational quality and financial support according to both studies. Identical negative relationships between quality and financial support are found in teacher responses to three individual educational characteristics and administrator responses to two educational cha racte ristic s . 109 Table 15. Relationships between financial support level and differences in educational quality as measured by individual educational characteristic mean scores, category mean scores, and total scores for respondents in Michigan and United States samples of teachers and administrators. 1° Category and Teachers Administrators Item No. y y United States Michigag United States Michigan Category I: Student's Level of Knowledge + + NS + and Attitudes 8 + + + + 9 NS + NS + 16 + + + + 51 + + Ns + 52 NS + NS NS 54 + + NS NS Category II: Community Attitudes: + + NS 1- 21 + + + + 28 + + NS + 29 NS + NS + 30 NS + NS 1- 36 + + NS NS 37 NS + NS + 39 + + + + 40‘ + + + + 45 - - - - 53 - + + + + 55 + + NS NS W Category III: Curriculum + + NS + 4 + + NS + 5 NS + NS + 6 + + NS + 15 + + + + 17 + + NS + Continued .1. .U In. 110 Table 15 - Continued m .e , {cc—W 7 Category and Teachers Administrators Itemjo. W United States Michigan United States Michigan Category IV: Use of Facilities (32) + + + + Category V: Socio—cultural Composition of Community + + + + 25 - + NS + 34 + + + + 38 NS NS - NS 41 + + + + 42 + + + + 44 NS - NS - 46 — - - - 47 + + NS + 43 + + + NS 49 + + NS + 50 + NS NS NS Category VI: Administration and Supe rvision + + + + 10 + + NS + 22 + + NS + 23 NS NS NS NS 26 + + NS + Z7 + + + + 35 + + NS + 56 NS + NS + Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods + + NS + 1 + + NS + 2 + + NS + 3 + + NS + 7 + + + + 11 + + NS + 12 + + + + 13 - - NS NS 14 + + + + Continued 111 Table 15 - Continued Category and Teachers Administrators Item No. United States Michigan United States Michigan Category VII: (continued) The Teacher and Teaching Methods + + NS + 18 + + + + 19 + + NS NS 20 + + + NS 24 - + - + 31 + + NS NS 33 + + NS + 43 + + NS + Total Score + + + + Key: + indicates association of high quality with high financial support, low quality with low financial support. - indicates association of high quality with low financial support and low quality with high financial support. NS indicates non- significant association of quality with degree of financial support. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESIS II DATA--DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN TEACHER-ADMINISTRATOR PERCEPTIONS OF QUALITY WITHIN FINANCIAL QUARTILES This chapter is the analysis of the ability of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), to discriminate between the per- ceptions of teachers and of administrators within the high financial support quartile of school districts, within the low financial support quartile of school districts, and within selected individual large and small school districts. The statements comprising the analysis follow the outline presented in the preceding chapter. The second general null hypothesis and five operational null hypotheses are stated as follows: The Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) will show no ability to discriminate between the responses of teachers and administrators within the high financial support quartile, within the low financial support quartile, within individual large school districts, and within individual small school districts. H4a: Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between total mean scores of teachers and administrators. H4b: Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each category mean score of teachers and administrators. H4c: Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each educational characteristic mean score of teachers and adminis- trators. 112 113 H5a: Within individual large and small school districts there is no difference between total mean scores of teachers and administrators. H5b: Within individual large and small school districts there is no difference between each category mean score of teachers and administrators. Summary of Hypothesis II Results Concerning High and Low Financial Support School Districts 1. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) discrimination between total mean scores of teachers and administrators within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts indicates that there are significant differences between teachers and administrators within each district type concerning the level of edu- cational quality of the district (Table 19). 2. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) discrimination between category mean scores of teachers and administrators within each district type indicates that there is disagreement between teacher and administrator perceptions of educational quality regardless of district type for each category except category V: ("Socio-cultural Composition of Community"). Table 20 graphically presents this data. 3. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) discrimination between category mean scores of teachers and administrators within high financial support districts and within low financial support dis- tricts indicates that administrators are overvaluing all seven categories of educational characteristics within each district type (Table 16). 4. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) non-discrimi- nation findings indicate that according to the individual educational characteristic mean scores of teachers and administrators within each district type there is agreement in regard to educational quality repre- sented in each of the twenty~eight educational characteristics in Table 21. 114 5. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) discrimination measures indicate that according to each of four individual educational characteristics appearing in Table 22, administrators in high financial support districts are overvaluing educational quality. Non-discrimi- nation between individual educational characteristic mean scores with- in low quartile districts indicates consensus between teachers and administrators as to the educational quality measured by these four characteristics. 6. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) discrimination between individual educational characteristic mean scores of teachers and administrators within low financial support districts indicate that administrators are undervaluing educational quality as represented by one educational characteristic (Table 23, Part I) and overvaluing edu- cational quality as represented by nine educational characteristics (Table 23, Part II). Consensus exists between teacher and adminis- trator perceptions of quality as measured by these ten characteristics within the high financial support districts. 7. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) provides a significant measure of discrimination between individual educational characteristic mean scores of teachers and administrators within either high financial support districts or low financial support districts for each of the fourteen quality characteristics listed in Table 24. The discrimination findings indicate that administrators, regardless of district type, are undervaluing the educational characteristic in Part I, Table 24 and overvaluing the thirteen educational quality characteristics in Part II of Table 24. 8. Summaries of the findings concerning relationships between teacher and administrator perceptions of educational quality according to district type are compared with the findings of the 1962 Michigan study in Tables 16 and 17. Findings in both studies show a tendency for 115 administrators to overvalue educational quality according to total mean scores and all category mean scores. Agreement in the results of each study is present in regard to the non-discrimination present in mean scores of category V: ("Socio-cultural Composition of Com- munity") and the significant discrimination present in Category VII: ("The Teacher and Teaching Methods"). Similar results are found in administrator-teacher perceptions of quality as measured by thirty- four individual educational characteristics within high financial support districts and thirty-five individual educational characteristics within low financial support districts. However the overall results in the Michigan study indicate a general level of consensus between adminis- trator and teacher perceptions of educational quality while the overall findings in this study indicate significantly different perceptions of educational quality are held by teachers and administrators. Table 16. Relationships of teacher and administrator perceptions of quality within high and low financial support districts in Michigan and United States samples. fir Category and High Financial Low Financial Item No. Support Districts Support Districts United States Michigan United States Michigan m Category I: Student's Level of Knowl- + NS + NS edge and Attitudes 8 + + + + 9 + + + + 16 + + + + 51 NS NS + NS 52 NS NS NS NS 54 NS NS + + Continued 116 Table 16 - Continued Category and High Financial Low Financial Item No. Support Districts Support Districts United States Michigan United States Michigan Category II: Community Attitudes + NS + NS 21 + NS NS NS 28 NS NS NS NS 29 + - NS + 30 NS NS NS NS 36 NS - NS NS 37 + NS + NS 39 NS - NS NS 40 + N5 + + 45 NS - NS NS 53 NS NS NS + 55 - NS - - ——_—— Category III: Curriculum + N8 + NS 4 NS NS NS NS 5 NS NS + - NS 6 NS NS + N5 15 + + + NS 17 NS NS + + Category IV: Use of Facilities (32) + + + N8 Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of Community NS NS NS NS 25 + NS NS NS 34 NS NS NS NS 38 NS NS NS NS 41 NS NS NS NS 42 NS NS NS NS 44 NS - NS NS 46 NS - NS NS 47 NS NS NS - 48 NS - - - 49 NS NS NS - 50 NS - NS NS Continued 117 Table 16 - Continued m Category and High Financial Low Financial Item No. Support Districts Support Districts Bnited States Michigan United States Michigan Category VI: Administration and Supervision + - + N5 10 NS NS NS NS 22 NS NS NS NS 23 NS NS N5 + 26 NS NS + NS 27 NS + NS - 35 + + + + 56 NS a NS a Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods + + + + 1 NS + NS + 2 NS NS NS NS 3 NS NS NS NS 7 + NS + + 11 NS NS NS NS 12 + a + a 13 NS NS NS NS 14 + NS + NS 18 + + NS NS 19 ’ + NS + + 20 + + + -|- 24 NS NS NS - 31 NS NS + NS 33 NS NS + NS 43 NS + + NS Total Score + NS + NS aData not available from Michigan study. Key: + indicates significant difference between administrator and teacher perception with administrator overvaluing or teacher undervaluing quality scores. - indicates significant difference between administrator and teacher quality perception with teacher overvaluing or administrator under- valuing quality scores. NS indicates no significant difference between teacher and adminis- trator quality pe rc eption. 118 : .zuom: hoped coumuwccfi ma Ho>oH uuommSm Hdwoddfim :35 .No 33 nogfio o» msfipuooom 939.552»; Hedumvonom NONMNumMGMEUMnNogomoN 686m 65 2rd: £023 mofimwuouomugo Hmcofimodpo 063 m0 >0Geddonm 0AM. .Goflmoouom 15395 nobmuumdcfigcm pom assume» Goes/$5. coconewfip unwoflfldmwm on moumoficaw mZ .ouoom 133335 m53~>uo>o accuse» .No msg#93693 nopmflmwficopm fits :ofiaoonoa assume» cam soumuumflfiefiom cook/Hen mucouowfic unmowficmwm mmumofipom .. .ouoom 53.9.5 msg#95093 muosomou no, mcwbamcfiocro mpofiNh—mafiapm 563 con—mousse assumes new noumuumwfigpm cook/poo. 698.3336 unmofificmfim 63.6065 + Rom 6N a 6 NN a N2 6N 6 62 NN N NN N N 22 NN a 2 A666 "6806... 136.6 6 o N 6 o N 6 2 6 6 o N S o 6 6 6 633666562 65566.6 USN H®£UNQH 03H. "HH> N o a N o 2 N 2 N 6. o N 6 o N , 6 o 2 5585895 pom oofimuumwdwcfio< HH> :3 N 2 o 6 o o N N o 2 H o 6 6 o S o 2 3865560 66 663a -OQEOU Hmudugouowoow "> o o o o o 2 . 2 o o o o A o o a o o a :cmoséomm No 665 c: N o o. 2 o a 6 o H 2 o 6 6 o a 6 o H 368336.150 "a :3 6 o o 6 a N N 2 N N H N 6 6 o 6 a 6 6663366. 6358560 E N o N a o N N o 6 a o N N o N N o N A66 36333. cam omcofispoovm m0 #954 63:06.26 3 mZu+mZ-+.mZ-+mZu+mZu+mZu+ cmtmsoflz 633m con—ED smwwnodz 633m. USED smflflowz 63me USED 6&0: mo Auom muowuumwm whommfiw muowhumwfl «sawmfiw .02 was cahoon—du 306qu 33 26686566 swam £63566 museum coeds—D use cmmwnouz 5 33.36% «nommsm denounce». 33 com cm“: 126? caps: £1363 tau—385mg mo mcofimoouom noumhamwcflacm cam Hegemou cook/Non mmwgmcoflmfioh mo twnmggm {L 3nt 119 Summary of Tests of Hypothesis II Concerning Individual Large and Small School Districts 1. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) non-discrimi- nation between teacher and administrator total quality scores within one large school district and within one small school district indicates that significant agreement exists between teachers and administrators within each district concerning the level of educational quality in the respective district schools. ECC discrimination between total mean scores of teachers and administrators in the other small district indi- cates significant difference or disagreement between teacher and administrator perceptions of educational quality (Table 25). 2. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) non-discrimi- nation between category mean scores of teachers and administrators within one large district of the high financial support quartile indicates agreement between teacher and administrator perceptions of educational quality as measured by categories I: ("Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes"), 11: ("Community Attitudes“), VI: ("Administration and Supervision"), and VII: ("The Teacher and Teaching Methods"). Discrimination between teacher and administrator category scores within this district is indicated by the significant differences in their perceptions of education quality in categories 111: (“Curriculum"), IV: ("Use of Facilities”), and V: (”Socio-cultural Composition of Commun- ity"). ‘ Table 26 reports the summary of these relationships. 3. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) non-discrimi- nation between category mean scores of teachers and administrators within two small school districts representing the low financial support quartile of districts shows agreement between teacher and adminis- trator perceptions of educational quality for all seven categories in District No'. 23 and administrator-teacher agreement for categories I: ("Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes"), III: (“Curriculum”), IV: ("Use of Facilities"), and VI: ("Administration and Supervision") 120 for District No. 15. Significant disagreement or discrimination between teacher and administrator quality perceptions of categories II: ("Community Attitudes"), V: ("Socio-cultural Composition of Com- munity"), and VII: ("The Teacher and Teaching Methods") is noted for District No. 15. 4. The findings indicate a lack of systematic agreement between the individual large school district scores and the high financial support quartile results and between the two small school district findings and the low financial support quartile results. The relationships between teacher and administrator perceptions of educational quality within individual large and small school districts appear to differ from their respective financial quartiles according to the unique and special values and expectations within individual school districts and communities (Tables 20 and 26). 5. The systematically positive agreement between teacher and administrator perceptions of educational quality within individual large and small school districts in the 1962 Michigan study are not verified fully by the findings of this study. Table 18 summarizes the compara- tive relationships of teacher and administrator category mean scores of individual large and small school districts. Comparable results are found in categories I: ("Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes"), III: ("Curriculum"), IV: (”Use of Facilities"), and VI: ("Administration and Supervision“) for small school districts within the low financial support quartile and categories I: ("Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes") and 11: (”Community Attitudes”) for the large school district within the high financial support quartile. With the exception of one small district, the results for total quality scores of teachers and administrators substantiate the difference in over-all findings of this study as compared to the 1962 study of Michigan teachers and adminis- trators. The differences in over-all results and findings were initially indicated in the analysis of Tables 16 and 17. 121 £32.95 EcofimodUo mo mcofimoohoa noumnNmENEUd Ucm. Honomou GoeBqu oocouowflU EmoflEmfim on moumoflUcH mZ .onoom 5:235 933.9(8ch assumes. .No mcEEEocro Noam: umEfiEUm 5E cofldmonom uofiomou Ucm NoemfimEEuUm cook/Non oocouowDU EmoflEmE moumofiUfi + $0M m2 m2 m2 + + m2 . neuoom Hen—0H. m2 m2 6.2 + + 6.2 6.66562 65:08.6 Use Hegemofi 03H. ND> mz 62 m2 62 + 62 18225225 Use 6203.26355wa uH> 62 62 m2 + 6.2 + 3865860 No .838 nomEoo HmudpEouoEom n> m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 + meflflwomh mo omD ">H m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 + EEUENSO "HD m2 m2 m2 + m2 m2 6.06.3326. KCLEHEEOO "D 62 62 mz 62 m2 62 6663366. 666 omeoasoam «0 H964 m.EoU3m "H :N .67: 2: 67: AN .67: $2 .626 : .67: AN .626 ommEoflz GmeodZ moumum USED museum USED ammEoflz meadow USED in 0mm muoEumMQ Hoosom :6ch 33:33 HOOAUm aned .N «NO .moEEmm museum USED Usm GmmEoflz E maoEumNU Hoogom :mEm Use owned ESUEMUGN cEfiB mcoflmoouem 3:95 uoumtmEMEUm Use noxowou coca/En mmEmcoflmHou mo >umEEm .3 3an 122 Statistical Tests and Treatments The "t" test statistic was used to determine the significance of the observed differences between the mean scores of teachers and administrators. The statistical objectives dictated the .05 level of significance for rejection or acceptance of the null hypotheses. The null hypotheses will be accepted if the "t" value exceed the chosen significance level (13> . 05), indicating agreement of perception between teachers and administrators. The null hypotheses will be accepted if the "t" statistic is not greater than the significance level indicating non-agreement or difference in the perceptions of teachers and admini st rato r s . The full statistical tests and techniques described and used in analyzing Hypothesis 1, Chapter IV, are used to fulfill the objectives of the analysis of Hypothesis II. A comparison is made of the levels of agreement and disagreement between teacher and administrator per- ceptions of educational quality according to the levels of financial support. The objectives of these tests and treatments require specify- ing the extent of agreement between teacher and administrator responses in both low and high financial support districts and the additional effects of financial support levels on the relationships between teacher and administrator perceptions of educational quality. Results and Evaluation of Statistical Treatment Total Scores Within High and Low Financial Support Districts In order to determine if the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) could provide information concerning the unanimity of teacher and administrator perceptions of quality within low and high 123 financial support quartiles, the total mean scores appearing in Table 19 were compared by means of the "t" test. On the basis of statistically significant differences in total mean scores we reject the null hypothesis: H4a: Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between total mean scores of teachers and administrators. and reject the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) will not discriminate positively between the responses of teachers and administrators. Table 19. Differences between the total mean scores of teachers and administrators according to high and low educational financial support school districts.1 High Financial Low Financial Score Support Districts Support Districts Teachers Administrators Teachers Administrators Total 153.095 159.000 144.408 152.231 S(P< .005) S(P< .001) S indicates a level of significance between mean scores at a minimum of P < . 05. P < .005 and P < . 001 represent higher levels of significance than the minimum required. The positive discrimination between teacher and administrator responses concerning educational quality indicates that there is signifi- cant disagreement between teachers and administrators concerning total educational quality within both high and low educational financial support districts. 1See Appendix J for additional statistical data. 124 Category Scores Within High and Low Financial Support Districts Table 20 presents the results of the comparison of each cate- gory mean score of teacher and administrator responses according to district type. On the basis of the significant differences in category mean scores we reject the null hypothesis: H4b: Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each category mean score of teachers and administrators. for each category except category V: ("Socio-cultural Composition of Community") and reject the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) will not discriminate between teacher and administrator responses within high or low financial support districts. On the basis of non—discrimination between teachers and administrators for category V: ("Socio-cultural composition of com- munity") we accept the null hypothesis H4b and the research hypothesis which indicates an expected agreement between teacher and adminis- trator responses according to district type. The significant level of discrimination between the responses of teachers and administrators in six of the seven categories indicates that there is a difference in their perceptions of the effects of the various influences upon educational quality within both high and low financial support school districts. The level of category mean scores described in Table 20 also indicate that administrators in both district types are overvaluing the educational quality in relation to the views of teachers within the same district types. It is also possible to interpret this effect as an undervaluing of educational quality by teachers as opposed to the responses of administrators to the identical measures of quality. Theiuniformly higher category mean scores of administrators is present regardless of district type indicating independence from the financial support factors. 125 Table 20. Differences between category mean scores of teachers and administrators according to high and low educational financial support districts.z High Financial Low Financial Score Support Districts Support Districts Teache r Administrator 5 Teache r Administrators Category I: Student's Level of Knowledge 16. 32 17.47 and Attitudes S(P < . 001) Category 11: Community 28. 54 29. 76 Attitudes S(P< . 05) Category III: Curriculum 16. O7 16. 57 S(;P< . 05) Category IV: Use of 2. 90 3. 18 Facilities S(P< . 01) Category V: Socio—cultural Composition of 25. 58 27. 99 Community NS(P> . 05) Category VI: Administration 16. 55 17.46 and Supervision S(P < . 02) Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching 45. 09 46. 58 Methods S(P < , 02) 15.56 16.87 S(P< .001) 26.92 28.27 S(P< .05) 15.06 16.22 S(P< .05) 2.39 2.63 S(P< .02) 26.15 26.67 NS(P> .05) 15.16 16.43 S(P< .005) 42.81 45.15 S(P < .001) S indicates statistically significant difference between category mean scores at a minimum of P < . 05 with higher levels indicated. NS indicates a non-significant statistical difference between category mean scores. zSee Appendix J for additional statistical data. 126 . The non-discrimination present in category V: ("Socio- cultural Composition of Community") signifies consensus between teacher and administrator perceptions of educational quality related to the characteristics concerning community and environmental factors. It could be assumed that teacher and administrator expecta- tions regarding the relationships between educational quality and socio- cultural factors are similar in school districts of both high and low financial support quartiles. Individual Educational Characteristic Scores Within ngi1 and Low Financial Support Districts Based on an item by item analysis of individual educational characteristic mean scores to determine non-significant differences between teacher and administrator responses we accept the null hypothesis: H4c: Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each educational characteristic mean score of teachers and adminis- trators. for the twenty—eight individual educational characteristics appearing in Table 21 and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) will not discriminate between teacher and administrator perceptions of educational quality within high and low financial support districts. The results of the non-discrimination of these individual items substantiate the findings that category V: ("Socio-cultural Composition of Community") provides the highest degree of consensus between administrator and teacher perception of educational quality. On the basis of the significant differences in individual educational Characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypothesis: 127 Table 21. Individual educational characteristics on which consensus exists between teachers and administrators within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts.3 Item No. Educational Characteristic Category I: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes 52 The professional staff of the schools in the community consider an academic grade of at least "B" to be the norm for academic achievement. Mr Category II: Community Attitudes 28 The perceptions of parents and patrons concerning the purposes of education are consistent and clear. 30 There is no lag between the values taught in the school and what is practiced in the community. 36 A high percentage of the electorate in the community vote in school elections. 39 The community exhibits a great concern for the development of aesthetic and artistic interests. 45 The parents in this community expect their children to perform their share of family chores. 53 A high value is placed on education by the parents and patrons (those residents of a school district without school-age children) of the community. CategorLIII: Curriculum 4 Teachers perceive a coherent and coordinated struc- ture to the educational program. Catfigory V: Socio-cultural Composition of Community 34 Cultural experiences are readily available in the community. 38 This is a highly stable community which does not have too many people leaving. Continued 3See Appendix K for additional statistical data. 128 Table 21 - Continued Item No. Educational Characteristic ‘r Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of Community (cont'd) 41 42 44 46 47 49 50 A high percentage of high school students own personal cars. A high percentage of homes own television sets. A high degree of ethnic, racial, and religious homo- geniety exists among the local population. This community is composed of people who are pre- dominantly Protestant. This community is composed of people who are pre- dominantly Catholic. The population of this community is equally divided between Protestants and Catholics. One or two ethnic groups comprise the largest number of residents in the community. Category VI: Administration and Supervision 10 22 23 27 56 Professional staff of the school system are involved in in-service education. Lay members of the community are highly involved in the planning of educational goals with the school staff. Regulations governing student conduct are highly explicit and detailed. Citizens are highly organized to discuss school problems. School program is accredited by the state and/or regional accrediting agencies.a Continued 3 . . . . . Teacher scores were obta1ned from adm1nistrator information sheet. 129 Table 21 - Continued m Item No. i Educational Characteristic Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 1 Teachers have intimate knowledge of children. 2 Teaching practices reflect concern for individual differences. 3 Teaching practices reflect a knowledge of individual differences. 11 Teachers thoroughly understand the information gathered on students and use this information to make sound educational decisions. 13 Teachers have complete freedom to teach what they consider to be important. 24 High degree of teacher participation in social and political of the community. H4c: Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each educational characteristic mean score of teachers and adminis- trators. for the high financial support quartile districts and accept the null hypothesis for the low financial support districts for the four individual characteristics reported in Table 22. The research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) will not discriminate between administrator and teacher responses is rejected for the high financial support quartile and accepted for the low financial support quartile districts. The significant discrimination or differences in perceptions in the high financial support districts indicate that adminis- trators are overvaluing the four characteristics listed in Table 22, in. relation" to item mean scores of teacher respondents for the same characteristic s . 130 Table 22. Individual educational characteristics which are overvalued by administrators in high financial support districts and on which consensus exists between teachers and administrators in low financial support districts.4 Item No. Educational Characteristic Categpry 11: Community Attitudes 21 Parents and patrons (those residents of a school dis- trict without school-age children) are highly knowledge- able about education. 29 The local newspaper has shown a high interest in local school affairs. Cgtegory V: Socio-cultural Composition of Community 25 The social status of teachers is very high in this community. Catpgory VII: The Teacher and TeachingMethods 18 Teachers often avail themselves of professional help. _r_* The findings indicate that administrators of high financial sup- port districts view the social status of teachers and the extent to which teachers seek professional help somewhat differently than the teachers. It is also apparent that teacher values and standards relating to the extent of knowledge about education shown by lay members of the com— munity are somewhat higher than administrator values and standards. The overvaluing by administrators of the characteristic representing interest in school affairs by the newspaper could logically be attributed in part by the kind and type of news coverage and interest shown. ‘See Appendix K for additional statistical data. 131 Based on the significant difference in individual educational characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypothesis: H4c: Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each educational characteristic mean score of teachers and adminis- trators. for the low financial support districts and accept the null hypothesis for the high financial support districts for the ten individual items appearing in Table 23. The research hypothesis stating that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) will not discriminate significantly between teachers and administrators is rejected for the low quartile districts and accepted for the high financial support districts. Administrators in the low financial quartile undervalue the single characteristic in the first part of Table 23 and overvalue the nine educational characteristics reported in the second part of Table 23. Table 23. Individual educational characteristics which are undervalued (Part I) or overvalued (Part 2) by administrators in low financial support districts and on which consensus exists between teachers and administrators in high financial support districts.5 *7 Item No. Educational Characteristic Part 1 - Undervalues by Administrators in Low Financial Support Districts Category V: Community Attitudes 48 This community is composed of people who are pre- dominantly Jewish. Part 2 - Overvalued by Administrators in Low Financial Support Districts Categpry I: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes 51 Pupils consider an academic grade of at least "B" to be the norm for academic achievement. Continued sSee Appendix K for additional statistical data. 132 Table 23 - Continued Item No. Educational Characteristic Categoryl: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes (cont'd) 54 Parents and patrons in the community consider an academic grade of at least "B" to be the norm for academic achievement. f Catggory III: Curriculum 5 Consensus exists among the staff concerning the goals of the educational program. 6 A structure has been developed that permits con— tinual curriculum experimentation. 17 A complete comprehensive testing program includ— ing intelligence and achievement testing is available in the schools. ' Categor_y_ Vl: Administration and Supervision 26 Regulations governing personnel policies are highly explicit and detailed. Category VII: The Teacher and TeachirfiMethods 31 There exists a high level of cooperation among teachers of the staff. 33 The community and its residents are used for instructional purposes. 43 A great deal of homework is assigned to students. An analysis of the results reported in Table 23 indicates that administrators of low financial quartile districts understate the pro- portion of Jewish population in their communities. The findings also show that administrators in low quartile districts overvalued the nine individual educational characteristics in Part 2 of Table 23. The absence of administrator overvaluing in Category 11: ("Community 133 Attitudes") and Category V: ("Socio-cultural Composition of Community") is evident. It appears that teachers and administrators perceive the characteristics concerning socio-economic-cultural aspects of their communities in similar ways. The nine characteristics which are overvalued by low quartile administrators deal with values and expecta- tions which largely can be classified as part of the internal structure of the school program. These significant differences in perceptions of educational quality by teachers and administrators in the low financial support districts could be attributed to (1) basic differences in edu- cational values, standards and expectations, and (2) lack of ineffective- ness of communications between teaching and administrative personnel. The Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) provides a measure of discrimination between teachers and administrators within either high financial support or low financial support districts for each of the fourteen individual educational characteristics listed in Table 24. The discrimination indicates an undervaluing of the single educational characteristic in Part 1 since the teacher item mean score significantly exceeds the administrator mean score for the same item. The remain- ing thirteen individual characteristics are overvalued by administrators in both high and low quartile districts according to their relationship to teacher mean scores. On the basis of the significant differences in individual characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypothesis: H4c: Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each educational characteristic mean score of teachers and adminis- trators. and reject the research hypothesis of non-discrimination between teacher and administrator responses with school districts of high and low financial support for the individual items reported in Table 24. 134 Table 24. Individual educational characteristics which are undervalued (Part 1) or overvalued (Part 2) by administrators in low financial support districts and in high financial support districts.6 * *7 Item No. Educatiopal Characteristic Part 1: Undervalued by Administrators Categry II: Community Attitudes 55 Parents condone or encourage early dating for their children. Part 2: Overvalued by Administrators Category I: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes 8 Students show a positive attitude toward scholastic work. 9 Students evidence accurate knowledge of self. 16 Students are knowledgeable about the educational and social opportunities available to them. Category 11: Community Attitudes 37 There are outstanding community leaders in this com- munity who exhibit great interest in school affairs. 40 A two-way communication channel readily exists between the home and the school. Catggory III: Curriculum 15 A great variety of instructional techniques are presently used in the classroom. Category IV: Use of Facilities 32 The physical facilities of the school system (buildings and equipment) are completely adequate. Category VI: Administration and Supervision 35 Teachers' judgments are almost always used in the determination of educational policies. Continued 6See Appendix K for additional statistical data. 135 Table 24 - Continued m f Item No. Educational Characteristic Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 7 Evidence exists of instructional and/or curricular experimentation. 12 All teachers are certified to teach at the grade level or subject they are now teaching. 14 A great variety of instructional techniques are presently used in the classrooms. 19 Complete freedom is granted to students to investi- gate any local, state, national or international issue. 20 Availability to students of materials that reflect all shades of political and sociological points of view. The overvaluing or undervaluing of the individual educational quality characteristics listed in Table 24 can be assumed to occur independently of district type. Administrators, according to their per- ceptions, tend to overvalue quality in relation to perceptions of teachers since thirteen of the individual items listed are overvalued while only a single item is undervalues. The findings with regard to administrator overvaluing of quality determinants reveal the presence of overvaluing to be associated with educational characteristics which normally occur in the classroom situation. An imperfect but discernable pattern emerges from the characteristics appearing in Table 24. Administrators, regardless of district type, tend to overvalue the quality characteristics generally measured by intimate knowledge of students and of activities conducted by the teacher within classrooms. This tendency is particularly evident in the contract between administrator-teacher responses to the three items in Category I: (“Student's Knowledge and Attitudes"); the 136 Category III item relating to instructional techniques in use; and the five characteristics in Category VII: . ("The Teacher and Teaching Methods"). These educational characteristics are all closely related to the level of classroom instruction. The significant differences in quality perception of these items may be assumed to reflect either a difference in values and expectations between teachers and adminis- trators or an indication of inadequacy of administrator information concerning those quality characteristics which are associated most closely with individual students and individual classroom activities. Administrators regardless of district financial support level also overvalue the adequacy of school facilities and the extent of the use of teacher judgments in educational policy making. Assuming ade- quate information concerning these characteristics, the reasons for administrator overvaluing could be influenced by the presence of dif- ferent expectations, standards, or values than those held by teachers. Teacher norms and expectations concerning these quality determinants are apparently higher than the administrator norms for the same educational cha racte ri stic s . Results of Total Score Tests Within Large and Small Districts In order to determine if the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (1229) could provide information concerning the differences between teacher and administrator perceptions of quality within a large school district exemplifying the characteristics of the high financial support quartile and within two small school districts conforming to the characteristics of the low financial support quartile, total quality mean scores and category mean scores were compared statistically. Data for testing Hypothesis II in the method described was pro— vided by the random selection of one high financial quartile district and two low financial quartile districts. District No. 2 was selected as 137 characteristic of a large school district (207 teacher respondents, 23 administrator respondents). District No. 15 (71 teacher respond- ents, 5 administrator respondents) and District No. 23 (61 teacher respondents and 4 administrator respondents) were chosen as characteristic of small school districts within the low financial support quartile. Based on statistically non-significant difference in total mean scores reported in Table 25, we accept the null hypothesis: H5a: Within individual large and small school districts there is no difference between total mean scores of teachers and administrators. for District No. 2 and District No. 23 and reject the null hypothesis for District No. 15. The research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) will not discriminate between per- ceptions of teachers and administrators is accepted for Districts No. 2 and 23 and rejected for District No. 15. Table 25. Differences between the total mean scores of teachers and administrators within Districts No. 2, No. 15, and No. 23.7 District No. Statistical Signifi- and Size Teachers Administrators cance of Difference No. 2 (Large 165.951 171.565 NS (P > .05) No. 15 (Small 137. 323 155.600 S (P < . 001) No. 23 (Small) 139.032 159. 500 NS (P > .05) The non-significant difference or agreement between the per- ceptions of teachers and administrators as measured by total quality 7See Appendix L for additional statistical data. 138 mean scores within District No. 2 representative of the high financial support quartile and District No. 23 representing the low financial support quartile are in disagreement with the results derived from the entire low and high financial quartiles. The finding for each of the full financial support quartiles indicated a significant difference between teacher and administrator perceptions of quality based on total mean scores. The test of Hypothesis II for District No. 15 indicates signifi- cant difference or disagreement between teacher and administrator per- ceptions of quality based on total mean score. This finding is in agree- ment with the results of the tests of the total mean score for the entire low financial support quartile. The effects of various special influ— ences within individual school districts are apparently responsible for differences from the perceptual relationships established for the entire low and high financial support quartiles. Results of Category Score Tests Within Large and Small Districts Based on non- significant differences in category mean scores reported in Table 26 we accept the null hypothesis: H5b: Within individual large and small school districts there is no difference between each category mean score of teachers and administrators. for all category scores listed for District No. 23 (small); and for categories I, II, VI, and VII in District No. 15 (small). The research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) will not discriminate between teacher and administrator perceptions of quality is accepted for all category scores of District No. 23; category Table 26. Differences between category mean scores of teachers and administrators within Districts No. 2, No. 15, and No. 23.8 District No. 2 District No. 15 District No. 23 Score Teach. Admin. Teach. Admin. Teach. Admin. Category I: Student's Level of 18.80 19.48 14.87 16.80 15.41 18.25 Knowledge and Attitudes NS NS NS Category 11: Community 32.15 33.09 25.65 28.80 25.23 31.25 Attitudes NS S(P < . 05) NS Category III: Curriculum 16.43 17.22 14.79 15.80 14.72 16.00 S(P < , 05) NS NS Category IV: Use of Facilities 3.05 3.65 2.03 2.40 2.56 3.00 S(P < . 001) NS NS Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of 30.60 31.61 24.86 28.60 24.28 27.00 Community S(P < , 05) S(P < . 001) NS Category VI: Administration 18.56 18.74 14.82 15.20 14.89 17.25 and Supervision NS NS NS Category VII: The Teacher and 46.36 47.78 40.31 48.00 41.95 46.75 Teaching Methods NS S(P < . 001) NS The statistical significance level is P > . 05 except where indicated. 8See Appendix L for additional statistical data. I, II, VI, VII scores for District No. 2; and category I, III, IV, and VI scores for District No. 15. The null hypothesis and the research hypothesis are rejected for category 111, IV, and V scores for District No. 2 and for Category II, V, and VII scores for District No. 15. The findings of the tests on the individual large school district support the findings for the high financial support quartile districts (Table 20) only for categories 111: ("Curriculum") and IV: ("Use of Facilities"). The perceptions of teachers and administrators concern- ing measures of educational quality indicated by these two categories differ significantly. The results of small district tests with the exception of category V: (”Socio-cultural Composition of Community") for District No. 23 and Categories 11: ("Community Attitudes") and VII: ("The Teacher and Teaching Methods”) for District No. 15 do not sup- port the discrimination findings for the low financial support quartile districts (Table 20). The variable patterns found in the overall analysis of relationships between teacher and administrator perceptions of educational quality indicate apparent differences in teacher- administrator values and expectations within each financial quartile of districts. The analysis indicates that teachers and administrators in both high and low financial support districts and in both large and small districts within quartiles tend to differ significantly in perceptions of educational quality in areas except category V: ("Socio-Cultural Compo- sition of Community”). The most significant differences between per- ceptions of teachers and administrators occur in areas associated with regular school services, those services in particular which take place within the classroom learning situation. CHAPTER VI ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESES III, IV AND V DATA-—RELIABILITY AND ITEM ANALYSIS TESTS The analysis of data presented in this chapter contains the analysis of the reliability of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), within the high financial support quartile, within the low financial support quartile, and within individual large and small school districts. This chapter is also concerned with an analysis of the discrimination power and ability of the individual item scores in the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), with respect to total quality scores and to related category scores. In addition, inter-relationships between categories are presented and discussed. The decision rules outlined in Chapter IV are also used as guides in summarizing the results of the statistical tests presented here. The third major null hypothesis and eight operational sub- hypotheses are stated as follows: The Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) will not Show high reliability within the high financial support quartile of dis- tricts and within the low financial support quartile of districts. H6a: There will not be a high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and the total scores of teacher respondents in the high financial support quartile of districts. H6b: There will not be a high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and the total scores of adminis- trator respondents in the high financial support quartile of districts. ' 141 142 H6c: There will not be a high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and the total scores of teacher respondents in the low financial support quartile of districts. H6d: There will not be a high consistency in individual edu— cational characteristic scores and the total scores of adminis- trator respondents in the low financial support quartile of districts. H7a: There will not be a high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and the related category scores of teacher respondents in the high financial quartile of districts. H7b: There will not be a high consistency in individual characteristic scores and the related category scores of adminis- trator respondents in the high financial support quartile of districts. H7c: There will not be a high consistency in individual characteristic scores and the related category scores of teachers and administrator respondents in the low financial quartile of districts. H7d: There will not be a high consistency in individual characteristic scores and the related category scores of adminis- trator respondents in the low financial support quartile of districts. Additional tests of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) reliability are outlined in Hypothesis IV. The fourth major null hypothesis and eight operational hypotheses are stated as follows: The Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), will not show high reliability within individual large and small school districts. H8a: There will not be a high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristics scores and the total scores of teacher respondents in large districts. H8b: There will not be a high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristics scores and the total scores of adminis- trator respondents in large districts. 143 H8c: There will not be a high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and the total scores of teacher respondents in small districts. H8d: There will not be a high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and the total scores of adminis- trator respondents in small districts. H9a: There will not be high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and related category scores of teacher re- spondents in large districts. H9b: There will not be high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and related category scores of administrator respondents in large districts. H9c: There will not be a high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and related category scores of administrator respondents in small districts. The fifth and final major hypothesis is stated in the null form as follows: The individual educational characteristic scores in the Educational Characteristics Criterion will not have adequate positive discrimination power with respect to the total quality score and to their related category scores. Two sub-hypotheses, or ope rational hypotheses, are utilized to provide precise disclosure of the discrimination ability and power of the individual educational characteristics that comprise the body of the instrument. The sub-hypotheses are stated in the following manner: H10: The correlation coefficient for the relation of individual educational characteristic scores to total score differs signifi- cantly from zero. H11. The correlation coefficient for the relation of each educational characteristic score to its perspective category score differs significantly from zero. 144 Summary of Hypotheses Ill and IV Results Concerning Tests of Reliability 1 1. Using the reliability coefficient of .71 to 1. 00 as a definition of high reliability it was determined that teacher and administrator respondents within individual large and small school districts have highly reliable total quality scores. With the exception of adminis- trator total scores within one of the two small school districts, the reliability coefficients exceed . 86 with a sensitivity significance level of .017 or lower (Tables 27, 28, 29, 30). 2. Teacher respondents in the individual large school district had operationally useful reliability scores for categories II (Community Attitudes), VI (Administration and Supervision), and VII (The Teacher and Teaching Methods (Tables 29 and 30). 3. Administrator respondents in the individual large school district had usable reliability scores for categories 11 (Community Attitudes), VI (Administration and Supervision), and VII (The Teacher and Teaching Methods) (Tables 29 and 30). 4. Teacher respondents in two individual small school districts showed usable reliability levels for scores of Categories II (Community Attitudes), III (Curriculum), and VII (The Teacher and Teaching Methods) (Tables 29 and 30). 5. Reliability test results for administrator respondents in two individual small school districts showed usable reliability levels in categories 11 (Community Attitudes), and III (Curriculum). 6. Fifty percent of the category scores for teacher and adminis- trator respondents within individual large and small school districts have reliability and sensitivity levels which may be considered operationally us eful. 145 7. Category I (Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes) and Category V (Socio—cultural Composition of Community) have particularly low reliability levels according to each respondent and district type. This result is consistent with the findings reported in tests of Hypothesis III which described reliability levels within quartiles of districts. 8. The finding of relatively low reliability for Category V (Socio-cultural Composition of Community) is consistent with the findings reported in the Michigan study. Summary of Hypothesis V Results Concerning Item Discrimination Ability and Power 1. Using the point biserial coefficients of correlation as the statistical measure of discrimination ability and power of the individual educational characteristics scores related to total quality score it was determined that all but four of the individual items in the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) have adequate positive discrimination power and ability. Items No. 46, Category V (”This community is composed of people who are predominantly Protestant"); No. 47, Category V ("This community is composed of people who are predomi- nantly Catholic”); No. 55, Category II (”Parents condone or encourage early dating for their children“): and No. 49, Category V (”The popu- lation of this community is equally divided between Protestants and Catholics") do not have significant discrimination power and ability (Table 31). 2. Educational characteristic No. 46, Category V (”This com- munity is composed of people who are predominantly Protestant") was found to be the only item lacking adequate discrimination power with respect to the related category score. 146 3. Median correlation coefficients for each category of edu- cational characteristics and for total quality scores were found to have significant discrimination ability and power. The lowest overall discrimination level was found in Catebory V ("Socio-cultural Compo- sition of Community") for both relationship between item score and category score and item score to total quality score (Table 32). 4. During the course of this study it became evident that the category scores were related in some positive manner. It seemed that even though the perceptions of category items by teacher and adminis- trators varied in such a manner that the respective categories were functionally independent, it was more probable that the factors which caused the perceptions to vary on one category of items would also be effective in causing the scores on other categories to move in corres- ponding directions. Product-moment coefficients of correlations indicated significant interrelationship between the seven categories of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) (Tables 33, 34 and 35). In general the most highly interrelated categories were: (1). Category 11 (Community Attitudes) with Category V (Socio-cultural Composition of Community); (2) Category II (Community Attitudes) with Category VI (Administration and Supervision); (3) Category 11 (Community Attitudes) with Category VII (The Teacher and Teaching Methods); (4) Category III (Curriculum) with Category VII (The Teacher and Teach- ing Methods); and (5) Category VI (Administration and Supervision) with Category VII (The Teacher and Teaching Methods). 5. Tables 31 and 32 show the comparison of the level of dis— crimination power and ability of individual characteristics with respect to total quality score and related category score for this study and for the 1962 Michigan study. Conclusions concerning the similarities in results between the two studies will be described and presented in Chapter VII. 147 Statistical Tests and Treatments-~Hypothesis III The method used for the estimation of reliability of the several dimensions of the test items by use of an analysis of variance tech- nique was derived by Hoyt.1 In the analysis of this technique the total variation in test scores is divided into two parts: one part is a function of differences between the means of teachers or administrators; the other part is a function of the pooled variation within individuals (teachers or administrators). The difference between test scores de- pends in part upon the difference in item effects and in part upon uncon- trolled or residual sources of variance. Hence the pooled within- person variance may be divided into two parts: one part which depends upon differences in test item means, and a second part which consists of residual or error variation. A schematic representation of the partition of total variance between item mean scores is as follows: Total Variation / \ Between People Within-Individual Variation Variation Between—Item Residual of Variation Error Variation Reliability is estimated from the function: variance of between people scores minus error variance divided by variance between scores of people. In other words, if there was an exceedingly high error of measurement, it would enter into the residual or error variance and the experimental design or individual educational characteristic would not be efficient or sensitive enough to discriminate among the 1C. S. Hoyt, “Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of Vari— ance," Psychometrika, Vol. 6 (1941), pp. 153-160. 148 financial quartiles of school districts or among the teachers and administrators within these districts. Two statistical methods of analyzing the experimental results were used--the F test and Jackson's V test of sensitivity.2 The F statistic is computed by use of the ratio of the mean square of the individual to the residual or error mean square. If the F value exceeds the critical value of F > F .99 with degrees of freedom individuals minus one and test items minus one the hypothesis is rejected, and it is concluded that the two mean squares differ significantly. The rejection of F indicates that the effect of the item variation is significant and the item measures with an accuracy sufficient to distinguish between the school districts or individuals tested. The V statistic measures the relative accuracy or sensitivity of the test by determining the rela- tion between the size of the residual or error variance and the size of the differences between the individuals tested. V is computed by divid- ing the standard deviation of the distribution of true test scores (mean square of individuals minus error mean square) by the error mean square. The sensitivity and reliability coefficient are related in the follow- ing manne r: rtt V equals W If V is small, then the errors of measurement will be large in comparison with differences between individuals tested, and the score obtained by an individual on a test may be determined largely by these random errors of measurement. For a particular value of V, the probability is determined from the normal curve table. If V equals 2. 56, the normal curve for a two-tailed test indicates that the probability 2Robert W. B. Jackson, “Reliability of Mental Tests, " British Journal of Psychology, Vol. XXIX (1939), pp. 267-287. 149 of making an error as great or greater than one standard deviation of the true score is .0105 or only once in a hundred times. In the analyses which follow reliability is considered high within the limits . 71 to l. 00 with a sensitivity level of . 11 or less. In the preceding development it is assumed that the magnitude of the residual or error of measurement is uncorrelated with the true score. It is further assumed that changes in the true score are systematic and constant for all individuals, whereas the error of measurement is assumed to vary. Results and Evaluation of Statistical Treatment--Hypothesis 111 Total Score Reliability Within Quartiles Table 27 presents the reliability test results for total quality scores of teachers and of administrators within the high financial sup- port quartile and within the low financial support quartile. On the basis of the analysis presented we reject the null hypothesis: H6: There will not be a high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and the total scores of (a) teacher respondents in the high financial support quartile of districts, (b) administrator respondents in the high financial support quar- tile of districts, (0) teacher respondents in the low financial sup- port quartile of districts, and (d) administrator respondents of the low financial support quartile of districts. and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), shows high reliability in school districts with the high financial support quartile of districts and within the low financial support quartile of districts. On the basis of the data in Table 27 it appears that relatively high total score reliabilities may be obtained by the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), for teacher and administrator respondents regardless of level of financial support. 150 Table 27. Reliability and sensitivity significance level of Educational Characteristics Criterion, (E_C_C), total scores of teachers and of administrators within the high financial quartile of districts and within the low financial quartile of districts.3 Score Teachers Administrators rtt p rtt p High Financial Support Quartile Total .907 .002 .894 .005 Low Financial Support Quartile Total .913 .002 .911 .002 Category Score Reliability Within Quartiles Based on the reliability test findings reported in Table 28 we reject the null hypothesis: H7: There will not be a high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and the related category scores of (a) teacher respondents in the high financial quartile of districts, (b) administrator respondents in the high financial quar- tile of districts, (c) teacher respondents in the low financial quartile of districts, and (d) administrator respondents in the low financial quartile of districts, and for category 11 (Community Attitudes) and Category VII (The Teacher and Teaching Methods). and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (£29), shows high reliability within the high and low financial support quartiles of districts according to categories 11 and VII. Based on the reliability test results shown in Table 28 we accept the null hypothesis: H7: There will not be high consistency in the individual edu- cational characteristic scores and the related category scores of 3See Appendices M and N for additional statistical data. 151 (a) teacher respondents in the high financial quartile of districts, (b) administrator respondents in the high financial quartile of districts, (c) teacher respondents in the low financial quartile of districts, and (d) administrator respondents in the low financial quartile of districts, according to Category 1: ("Students Level of Knowledge and Attitudes"), Category III: ("Curriculum"), Cate- gory V: ("SoCio-cultural Composition of Community"), and Cate— gory VI: ("Administration and Supervision”). and reject the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), shows high reliability within the high and low financial support quartiles of districts according to Categories 1, 111, V, and VII. The results of the analysis of variance reliability tests described for total scores and category scores were derived from twenty-four possible category tests, six testable categories for two respondent types within two financial quartiles of districts. Eight of the twenty- four tests indicated high category reliability. Eight other category tests showed reliabilities closely approaching the lower limit of high reliability as defined (. 71). These additional eight category tests indi- cate reliability coefficients (rt t) in excess of . 56 with sensitivity signifi- cance levels of .21 or less. On the basis of these data, it appears that relatively high reliabilities may be obtained by the use of the Educational Characteristic Criterion, (ECC), category scores within the limits of the sixteen tests analyzed above. Particularly unreliable is the measure of Category I: ("Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes") and Category V: ("Socio-cultural Composition of the Community") which are the only categories which in some manner do not exceed a coefficient of . 50. These least reliable measures should be taken into account in the conclusions and findings regarding the other hypotheses in this study. .mump HmoSmSmpm desoflwppm no“ Z pad 2 meowpsomaxw some Spawn :mmEoflZ GM 5593 02m knfidnmflou 301mm 152 we . es . S . we . 2 . 2.. mo . 2.. 39:22 msEomoH use nmnomofi "3.? 2. E. 2. me . 2. so . f . 3 . 3225096 UGQ Gofiumhummcmgfiv< HH> on . «5.. Z . m2. . S. em. 3 . mm. 3828600 so .83; -omEoO amusfisnvuowoom u> Avfinfimmom umvu OGlIEmw: vfiwflwmv WOMHMHMUNM HO OmD ">H S. 3. 2. am. 3. mm. 3. 5.. 6:33:50 a: we. 2. so. 2. . mo . f . S . E. . $2.33. 3828800 ”2 mm . Z . mm. 3 . $1 om . mm . 2.. $333... was $838M HO HO>®1H mLCOUSHm "H a as e 3.. e 3s e rs mugmuumdfiefiéa whoaomvfi msgmnumficwgpmx mumnomofi 33.230 whommdm Hmfiusmfih 304 33.1220 “sommsm Hmwosmcwm nmm eduowuumwp mo ofiuumdw uhOnESm Hmdunmsfl 33 of :33»? van 333mg mo 33.235 20995 Hmwosmcfl fiwE of 58:3 magnum—manages mo paw mnogomou mo mouoom unnowoumo AOOHV £03330 mofimfiueuomnmgu Hmcofimosfiom mo doc/3 cosmoflficmflm Inst/Samson paw bflwnmflom .mm 3an 153 Statistical Tests and Treatments--Hypothesis IV The statistical tests used for the estimation of reliability of the several dimensions of test items are identical to the test statistics which estimate reliability for Hypothesis 111. Two statistical methods of analyzing the data for the test variables were used. The F statistic is used to determine the ability of the instrument to significantly discriminate between the total quality scores and category scores of individual teachers and administrators. The statistical significance of the coefficient of reliability, rtt, is indicated by the level of signifi- cance of Jackson's V test of sensitivity. A significantly large V score indicates the errors of measurement between the perceptions of the individual respondents to the instrument. Results and Evaluation of Statistical Treatment-- Hypothesis IV Total Score Reliability Within Individual Large and Small Districts Table 29 presents the reliability and sensitivity results for total quality scores of teachers and of administrators within the indi- vidual large school districts and within the two individual small school districts. On the basis of the analysis presented we reject the null hypothesis: H8: There will not be a high consistency in the individual educational characteristic scores and total scores of (a) teacher respondents in large districts, (b) administrator respondents in large districts, (c) teacher respondents in small districts, and (d) administrator respondents in small district No. 23. and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), shows high reliability within an individual large school district and within one of two individual small school districts. 154 Based on the data listed in Table 29 we accept the null hypothe- sis H8d for administrators of small school district No. 15 and reject the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion shows high reliability within this individual small school district. An evaluation of the results described in Table 29 indicate that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (E_C_C), has very high total quality reliability and sensitivity except for administrators in one of the two small school districts tested. The small number of administrator respondents in the small school districts could account for the significant variations in reliability within this district type. Categgry Score Reliability Within Individual Large and Small School Districts Based upon the reliability test results presented in Table 30 we reject the null hypothesis: H9: There will not be high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and related category scores according to the following respondent types: (a) Teacher respondents in large school districts for cate- fory score VII (The Teacher and Teaching Methods). (b) Administrator respondents in large school districts for category score II (Community Attitudes). (c) Teacher respondents in both individual small school districts for category score VII (The Teacher and Teaching Methods). ((1) Administrator respondents in both individual small school districts for category scores II (Community Attitudes) and III (Curriculum). and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), will show high reliability for teachers and for administrators within individual large and small school districts. 155 .330 Hmofimfimpm 30032000 MOM 0 pam .nm .0 mooflpsomaea 00mm Sooo. owe. moo. 3w. 2%. cos. moo. .20. So. memo. moo. coo. m fl.“ Q 3H a 3H a 3h a 3h a 3H Hmuo ,H Quzv :ouzv Suzy :Tzv Ammnzv :omnzv mHOHMHumflfiapxx mumgommh. whoumnumdficfiu‘ofl mumxume whoamnumflfiefiolm wnoflomefi ouoo an .07: 8520 mean a: .on 32:30 2.35 a. .07: SEES omsmq m , nepofluumwp Hoogom Seam $335.23: 03» Git“? paw ”—2.330 Hoogom smug $363305 cm :30?» muoamuumwsprm no can whoaomou mo menoom H30» AUUMS dozen—CU mowumwnvuomumzu Hmsofimnvfipnm mo Hoe/0.. monsoflwcwwm >fi>fi£mcmm paw rhuflfimflom .mm 2an 2300 HmoHHmHumum HmGoHuHHoHum .HOH O was .Q .0 mmoHHostQ< memo Spawn GmmHHHoHHZ GH 230:0 001m >HHHHanHoH Inhomeumo 304m 156 AMN .07: «UHHumHQ HHmEm EH .on 8580 :36 AN .073 HUHHHmHQ owned Hooo. :0. mo. on. mm. mwm. 0H . Hg. 3 . no. oo. on. 300532 mHHHHHommoH. Hose .HoHHomoB 09H. ”HH> moooo. is. MN. mm. mm. ewe. wH . no. 2 . mo. 3 . mo. HHonH>H0QHHm Hose :3» umHumHsHEHo< HH> oo. moo. oo. moo . oo. «oo. mm . a? . S. «3. S . m2. . schsEEoo Ho coHuHmchHHoO HmsauHsouoHoow H> AmHnHmmoa 0mm» oHHuuHHHoHH onsHmv meHHHHHomQ 0 web H>H No. be. S . mm. 00. ms. 2 . 00. mm. om. mm. mm. EHHHHHUHHHHHU "HHH Hoooo. mo. 3. mo. oo. ow. 0H. «.0. NH. 2.. 3. so. "ocean—Hones >HHHHHHEE00 H: 00 . moo . Hum . mum . oo . oo . om . S . mm . we. . hm . we . mmngfi< A . Home Humps #30ch 0 H964 mzcepdum "H Q ”5H Q 3H Q Huh Q 3H Q Huh Q 3H mnonHHchH80< mHoHHomoH maoumuamHsHEp< muogomoB mHoHMHHmHGH§< muogomoB .02 can muoum >H0w300 .0600?“me HooHHom HHmHHHm Hodge/HUGH 03H GHHHHHB 05m 03.3me Hoosom 0923 3323ch cm. sHHtHB mHOHmHumHGHEpm H0 0cm mnoflommu H0 mouoom >Homeumo Some soHuooHHU moHHmHsouomHmoHO HmsoHHmosHomH H0 H0>0H cosmoHHchHm >HH>HHHmHH0m pad HSHHHQHHHHYQ .om 0308 157 The results of the analysis of variance reliability testsdescribed for category scores of teacher and administrator respondents within individual large and small school districts indicate considerable variability in the reliability and sensitivity level. An evaluation of the thirty-six possible category tests showed that according to respondent type, nine categories had high reliability (.71 or greater). Nine other category tests showed reliabilities closely approaching the lower limit of high reliability. These additional category tests indicate reliability in excess of .56 with sensitivity levels of . 21 or less. Statistical Tests and Treatments—-Hyp0thesis V ‘ The point biserial correlation method was used to obtain a co- efficient of correlation to test the discrimination power and ability of individual educational characteristics. The point biserial coefficient of correlation, rpb is obtained by computing the product-moment co- efficient of correlation as a measure of strength and direction of relationship between a continuous variable and a dichotomous variable. An analysis of the distribution of the total scores of 2478 teachers and administrators indicated that the distribution of respondent scores was continuous and normal. A discrete or truly dichotomous variable was given for each educational characteristic according to the following assignment: High group of scores-~score 3 and 4; low group score--l and 2. The total score distribution was divided at the median (N = 1239). The product-moment coefficient of correlation between educational characteristic scores (dichotomized variable) and total scores (normally distributed variable) and between each educational characteristic and its respective category score was computed and the outcome subjected to tests of significance. 158 The significance of the point biserial correlation coefficient, rpb, as a deviation from zero was tested by using the "t" test in the following form: rnh N - 2 2 J 1 rpb t= D.F.=N-20r1239-2 Rejection of the null hypothesis for this statistical test, H:rpb = 0 indicates that the relationship between the paired variables provides adequate positive discrimination ability and power. The two- tailed table was used to determine level of significance. The minimum coefficient of correlation for 1237 degrees of freedom to be significant at p = .01 was .076. The minimum level for significance at p = .001 was computed as . 097. Results and Evaluation of Statistical Treatment--Hypothesis V An examination of the tests of significance resulting from the point biserial coefficients of correlation performed for the fifty-six educational characteristics with respect to total score showed that fifty-one of the educational characteristics have adequate positive discrimination ability and power. The point biserial coefficients of correlation are summarized in Table 31. Based on the analysis in Table 31 we repeat the null hypothesis: H10: The correlation coefficient for the relation of individual educational characteristic score to total quality score does not differ significantly from zero. for all educational characteristics except No. 55, Category II ("Parents condone or encourage early dating for their children"), No. 46, Category V (“This community is composed of people who are predomi- nantly Protestant“), No. 47, Category V (”This community is composed 159 Table 31. Comparison of point biserial coefficients of (1) Correlation of E_C_C_J educational characteristic scores with respective category score and (2) correlation of ECG educational characteristic scores with total score between respondents in Michigan and United States samples. ‘ NO' Item to Category Item to Total R . ( evised_E_C£) United States Michigan United States Michigan Category I: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes 8 .56 .57 .49 .55 9 .52 .57 .44 .53 16 .56 .50 .53 .50 51 .77 .66 .40 .41 52 .69 .60 .33 .30 54 .74 .68 .41 .48 Category II: Community Attitudes 21 .67 .65 .59 .62 28 .69 .64 .63 .62 29 .54 .54 .45 .52 3o .59 .59 .52 .54 36 .59 .50 .49 .43 37 .67 .60 .57 .55 39 .69 .68 .61 .64 4o .65 .63 .62 .62 45 .27 .04a .21 .05a 53 .59 .60 .50 .52 55 .12 .22 .07a .15 Catego ry III: Curriculum 4 .71 .58 .51 .46 5 .72 .59 .50 .45 6 .76 .64 .55 .53 15 .63 .60 .53 .61 17 .37 .50 .39 .50 Category IV: Use of Facilities 32 -- -- .46 . 51 Continued 160 Table 31 - Continued No. Item to Category Item to Total (Revised ECC) United States Michigan United States Michigan Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of Community 25 .39 .40 .48 .40 34 .53 .53 .53 .64 38 .50 .38 .39 .16 41 .46 .45 .28 .44 42 .31 .14 .27 .14 44 .54 .34 .35 .20 46 .07a .10 .02a .08 47 .15 .32 .02a .20 48 .37 .30 .25 .20 49 .17 .40 .04a .24 50 .47 .43 .22 .17 Category VI: Administration and Supervision 10 .54 .60 .43 .54 22 .66 .64 .56 .57 23 .63 .49 .47 .37 26 .64 .62 .48 .52 27 .69 .66 .55 .60 35 .43 .43 .56 .48 56 1,00 .20 1.00 .21 Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 1 .48 .37 .39 .30 2 .58 .50 .45 .40 3 .58 .44 .44 .38 7 .55 .58 .48 .54 11 .63 .57 .55 .54 12 .46 .32 .38 .13 13 .37 .05a .25 .04a 14 .62 .50 .51 .45 18 .61 .60 .53 .55 19 .54 .42 .44 .34 20 .52 .53 .47 .47 24 .49 .48 .44 .47 31 .55 .40 .49 .34 33 .54 .58 .56 .60 43 .24 .55 .29 .31 a . . . . . . Correlations not Significantly pOSitive at p < . 01 161 of people who are predominantly Catholic"), and No. 49, Category V ("The population of this community is equally divided between Protestants and Catholics") and accept the research hypothesis that the educational characteristics have significant positive discrimi- nation power and ability with respect to total score. The null hypothe- sis is accepted for item No. 55, No. 46, No. 47 and No. 49. These characteristics do not have significant positive discrimination power and ability at p < . 01. Further analysis of the correlations in Table 31 indicated that fifty-five educational characteristics have adequate positive disc rimi- nation power and ability with respect to the related category quality score. Based on this analysis we reject the null hypothesis: H11: The correlation coefficient for the relation of each educational characteristic score to its respective category score does not differ significantly from zero. for all educational characteristics except No. 46, category V ("This community is composed of people who are predominantly Protestant") and accept the operational or research hypothesis that that each edu- cational characteristic has significant positive discrimination power and ability with respect to its related category quality score. Analysis of the Relative Discrimination Power of the Categories of Scores A median point biserial correlation coefficient was computed for each of the categories of educational characteristics based upon the array of correlation coefficients as determined from the relation of item scores and their related category scores. Table 32 summarizes the relationships of individual characteristics with approximate median correlation values. Category IV, use of facilities, had only one characteristic and therefore no correlation was appropriate. All six of the categories were found to have significant discrimination power 162 and ability. The low overall discrimination power of Category V ("Socio-cultural composition of community") is consistent with fact that the only, individual characteristic not possessing significantly positive discrimination ability and power (Item No. 46) is an element of this category. The median correlation coefficient of . 625 for the six category medians exceeds the . 001 significance level for 1237 degrees of freedom and indicates an overall significantly positive relationship between each educational characteristic score to its respective category score. A median point biserial correlation coefficient is also shown in Table 32 for each of the categories of educational characteristics based upon the distribution of correlation coefficients derived from the relations of item scores within each category to the total quality score. While all seven categories were found to have significant discrimination ability and power at the . 01 level of significance, Category V again had the lowest overall discrimination power and ability. It has been previously shown that three of the individual characteristics related to category V did not possess significant positive discrimination power and ability. Additional Anaiyses Concerning Relationships Among Total Quality Score and the Seven Related Category Scores In order to investigate the relationships among the seven related category scores and the total quality score, product-moment corre- lation coefficients were computed for the various sources and dimensions in this study. First, the sixty-four intercorrelations among the cate- gory and total score were computed among the sets of means for teachers in the low financial support quartile. The minimum coefficient of correlation for N - 2 degrees of freedom at the .01 level of signifi- cance for teachers in quartile 1 (low) is .079; for teachers in quartile 4 163 Table 32. Relationships between Michigan and United States median correlation coefficients for educational characteristic to related category score and to total quality score. Median Score Median Score Category Item to Category Item to Total United States Michigan United States Michigan Category I: Student's Level and Attitudes .625 . 585 .425 .49 Category 11: Community Attitudes . 620 . 60 . 550 . 54 Category III: Curriculum .610 . 59 . 510 .50 Category IV: Use of Facilities -- -— .460 .51 Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of Community . 390 . 38 . 270 . 20 Category VI: Administration and Supervision .640 .62 . 550 .52 Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods . 540 . 50 . 450 . 45 Total Score .625 .59 .460 .50 All c orrelations of significanc e . are significantly positive at the p < . 01 level 164 (high), .076. These intercorrelations are reported in Table 33. All of the comparable correlations are significant at the p < . 01 level. It is seen that the most highly interrelated categories are: (1) Cate- gory II ("Community Attitudes") with Category V ("Socio-cultural Composition of the Community”), (2) Category 11 ("Community Attitudes") with Category VI ("Administration and Supervision"), Category III ("Curriculum") with Category VII ("The Teacher and Teaching Methods"), and Category VI (”Administration and Supervision") with Category VII ("The Teacher and Teaching Methods"). Table 34 presents the intercorrelations of the category mean score and total quality mean scores for administrators in the high financial support quartile and in the low financial support quartile. The minimum coefficient of correlation for N - 2 degrees of freedom at the . 01 level of significance for administrators in the low financial quartile is . 286 and . 267 for administrators in the high financial quartile. An analysis of the comparable correlations indicated insig- nificant relationships exist between categories I-IV, IV-VI, and IV-VII according to mean scores of low financial quartile administrators and between‘ categories I-VI, I-VII, III-IV, IV-V, IV—VI, and IV-VII for administrators in high financial support districts. The most highly inter-related categories are identical to those observed for teachers with the addition of a significantly high interrelationship indicated be- tween category I (”Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes") and Category II (”Community Attitudes”) for administrator mean scores in the low financial quartile. The final investigation into the relationships among the category scores and total score was done using the mean scores resulting from the total sample of administrators and teachers representing high financial support quartile districts and low financial support quartile districts. The results of this computation of product-moment 165 Table 33. Intercorrelation coefficientsa for total scores and related category scores according to teacher responses from high (top rows) and low (bottom rows) educational financial sup- port quartiles. Category Total I II III IV V VI VII Score Category I: Student's Level of Knowledge and 1.00 .54 .32 .27 .45 .45 .40 .66 Attitudes 1.00 .49 . 39 .21 . 36 .44 .48 .65 Category 11: Community 1.00 .45 .33 .61 .69 .58 .85 Attitudes 1.00 .51 .35 .59 .64 .62 .86 Category III: Curriculum 1.00 .35 .31 .52 .69 .69 1.00 .30 .29 .58 .74 .75 Category IV Use of Facilities 1.00 .26 .29 .34 .44 OO .25 .23 .32 .41 Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of 1.00 . 52 .45 .72 Community 1.00 . 39 .40 .65 Category VI: Administration and 1. 00 . 64 . 82 Supervision 1.00 .68 .80 Category VII: The Teacher and l. 00 . 84 Teaching Methods 1. 00 . 88 Total Score 1. 00 l. 00 a . . . Product-moment correlation coeffiCients. The level of significance for N-2 degrees of freedom at p < . 01 is . 079 for low quartile districts and . 076 for districts in the high financial support quartile. 166 Table 34. Intercorrelation coefficientsa for total scores and related category scores according to administrator responses from high (top rows) and low (bottom rows) educational financial support quartiles. Category Total I II III IV V VI VII Category I: Student's Level b b of Knowledge 1.00 .42 .29 .33 .49 .21 .24 .56 and Attitudes 1.00 .64 .40 . 21b .44 .47 . 44 .70 Category II Community 1. 00 . 49 . 38 . 66 . 56 . 59 . 86 Attitudes 1.00 .55 .37 .63 .58 .66 .89 Category III: Curriculum 1.00 .24 .28 .50 .73 .71 1.00 .34 .51 .59 .69 .76 Category IV: Use of Facilities 1. 00 . 24b . 07: . 26.: . 39 1.00 .35 .28 .28 .43 Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of 1.00 .42 .38 .73 Community 1. 00 . 47 . 52 . 75 Category VI: Administration and 1. 00 . 59 . 73 Supervision l. 00 . 56 . 76 Category VII: The Teacher and l. 00 . 83 Teaching Methods 1. 00 . 84 Total Score 1. 00 ' ' " ' l. 00 a . . . Product-moment correlation coeffiCient Coefficients of correlation not significantly positive at p < . 01. The level of significance for N-2 degrees of freedom at p < .01 is . 286 for low quartile districts and . 271 for high quartile districts. 167 Table 35. Intercorrelation coefficientsa for the total score and Seven category scores (N= 2478). Category T 1 1 11 111 IV v VI VII ”a Category I: Student's Level of Knowledge . and Attitudes 1.00 .53 .37 .27 .43 .45 .45 .66 Category II: Community Attitudes 1.00 .49 .37 .62 .67 .61 .86 Category III: Curriculum 1.00 .36 .33 .56 .72 .73 Category IV: Use of Facilities 1.00 .29 .29 .36 .46 Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of Community 1. 00 . 48 . 44 . 70 Category VI: Administration and Supervision ' 1.00 .66 .81 Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 1. 00 . 86 Total Score 1. 00 a . . . Product-moment correlation coeffiCients. The level of significance for N-2 degrees of freedom at p < .01 is . 058. 168 coefficients of correlation for N - 2 degrees of freedom at the .01 significance level is . 058. All of the comparable correlations are significant at the accepted level. The most high interrelated cate- gory mean scores are : (1) Category II (”Community Attitudes") with Category V ("Socio-cultural Composition of Community"), Category II ("Community Attitudes") with Category VI (”Administration and Supervision"), Category II ("Community Attitudes") with Category VII ("The Teachers and Teaching Methods"), Category III ("Curriculum") with Category VII ("The Teacher and Teaching Methods"), and Category VI ("Administration and Supervision") with Category VII ("The Teacher and Teaching Methods"). CHA PT ER VII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This last chapter is reserved for a brief summary of the study's purpose, procedures, limitations, major findings and con- clusions. Implications of the study and recommendations specifically associated with the data presented are also included. Summary Purposes and Mmr Hypotheses This study is an attempt to formulate a quality-measurement proceSs based on the perceptions held by those individuals, teachers and administrators, most closely associated with the formal educational process. This study is designed to analyze and compare the perceptions held by teachers and administrators relating to specific character- istics of educational programs as measured by the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC). The purposes of this study also in- clude the determination of relationships between teacher-administrator quality perceptions and certain selected educational cost factors. Fulfillment of the objectives of this study also requires specific com- parisons of the results of this study with the findings in the 1962 Michigan study. Five major hypotheses were formulated concerning the per- ceptions by teachers and administrators of the fifty-six educational characteristics comprising the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC). The major hypotheses are: 169 170 l. The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show ability to discriminate between the first or low financial support quartile and fourth or high financial support quartile of United States public school districts (K- 12) which are classified on the educational cost factors of size, effort, ability and expenditure. 2. The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show no ability to discriminate between the responses of teachers and adminis- trators within the high financial support quartile, within the low financial support quartile, within the individual large school districts, and within individual small school districts. 3. The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show high reliability within the high financial support quartile and within the low financial support quartile. 4. The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show high reliability within individual large and small school districts. 5. The individual educational characteristics scores in the Educational Characteristics Criterion will have adequate positive dis- crimination power with respect to the total quality score and to their related category scores. Sample and Design A statistical analysis leading to the comparison of teacher and administrator perceptions of educational quality associated with vari- ations in educational cost factors requires data from different systems within each quartile of financial support and from systems in different states. To be useful for such an analysis the sample in this study provided (1) an adequate and proportionate number of respondents, both teacher and administrator, in school districts within the first and fourth financial quartiles of the distribution of financial support factors of size, ability, effort and expenditure; and (2) several school districts 171 within each cost quartile representative of a sufficiently large number of states. Seven school districts in the fourth or high financial sup— port quartile and eighteen districts in the first or low financial sup- port quartile were selected randomly to represent the extremes in cost factors stratified on the basis of size, effort, ability and expendi- ture. Useable data were acquired from the completed instruments of 1223 teacher respondents and 92 administrator respondents from the seven school districts within the fourth or high financial quartile of districts and from 1081 teacher respondents and 82 administrator respondents representing the eighteen districts in the first or low financial quartile of districts. Instrumentation and Data Collection Data for the variables used in this study came primarily from three sources. First, data on the cost factors of size, effort, ability and expenditure and information concerning the number of teachers and administrators were provided by a Preliminary Data Sheet returned by one hundred thirty superintendents of schools, representing school districts in forty-four states. This data was received in response to a letter of invitation sent in August, 1963 to the superintendents of the two-hundred and fifty public school systems participating in the 1964 Stanford Achievement Test standardization program. The second source of data was the Supplemental Information Forr_n_ sent to school superintendents. This included information about the geographical location of the school system, type of organizational pattern followed in the school district, the type of population center and p0pulation residing within its boundaries, and the approximate average pupil-teacher ratio for elementary and secondary levels. Finally, the measurement of teacher and administrator per- ceptions of educational quality utilized in this study was secured by 172 means of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC). This instrument is based on the assumption that quality of an educational program resides more in the perceptions of the observer than in the inherent structure of the educational program itself. The use of this instrument is further predicated on the assumption that educational quality is determined by a judgment about certain educational character- istics of a school district, both school and community, which are per- ceived as effective in accomplishing the purposes of American Public school education. Data for the comparison of teacher and adminis- trator educational quality perceptions came from fifty-six scored educational characteristics. Responses are made by marking an "x" over the number which represents the degree to which each educational characteristic is perceived to be present in a given situation, 6. g. , "Most Characteristic" - 4; ”Somewhat Characteristic" - 3; "Slightly Characteristic" - 3; and ”Least Characteristic" - 1. Teachers and building principals are directed to relate their perceptions to their building experience. Central administrators and supervisors are directed to relate their perceptions of educational characteristic state- ments to the school system in total. The educational characteristic scores are obtained by the sum of the weighted responses to each characteristic. Each of the fifty-six scored educational characteristics is assigned to one of seven categories in order to provide a means of understanding the effects of the inter-relationships between the various school and community factors associated with educational quality. The seven categories are (l) Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes; (2) Community Attitudes; (3) Curriculum; (4) Use of Facilities; (5) Socio-cultural Composition of Community; (6) Administrationand Supervision; and (7) The Teacher and Teaching Methods. The score for each category is obtained by the sum of the individual educational characteristic scores included in each respective category. The total 173 educational quality score is derived from the sum of the fifty-six scored educational characteristics. In October, 1963 the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (E29), was mailed to the superintendents of the seven districts in the high financial quartile and of the eighteen districts in the low financial quartile. General and specific instructions for administration were furnished each superintendent and individual instruction sheets were enclosed with each respondent's instrument and envelope. The instruc- tions specified the necessity for securing individual rather than group perceptions of the individual educational quality characteristics. To guarantee uninhibited responses the teachers and administrators were assured that all information would be treated confidentially and anonymously. Completed responses were received from all the twenty- five participating districts within a month. Method of Treatment and Analysis Fulfilling the objectives of this study required the determination of the significance of the difference between the mean scores of the respondent types within quartiles and within individual large and small school districts and the effect of high and low financial support on the perceptions of educational quality according to respondent type. The "t" test was used to determine the discrimination power and ability of the instrument with regard to the first two hypotheses. The Hoyt analysis of variance technique was used to estimate the reliability of the instrument. The level of reliability was computed from the consistency of individual performances upon test items for use in testing the third and fourth sets. of hypotheses. The third statistical step involved the use of the point biserial correlation coefficient to determine the positive discrimination power of the individual educational characteristic scores with respect to total 174 quality score and their related category scores. In addition to this test of the fifth hypothesis, product-moment coefficients of correlation were computed to provide exploratory data involving the relationships between category variables. Statistical treatments of the data were conducted through the use of the facilities of the Computer Laboratory, Michigan State Uni- versity. The data were scored and coded for IBM tabulation. Statistical tests of reliability and the item analyses were programmed for process- ing on the CDC 3600 high—speed computer. Scope and Delimitations of the Study 1. The study is delimited to individual perceptions of educational quality factors by teacher and administrator respondents and selected educational financial factors from the high and low financial support quartiles of the national sample of public school districts. 2. The study treats selected educational cost factors of size, effort, ability, and expenditure per pupil as a single composite financial factor and the selected educational quality factors as contained in the Educational Characteristic Criterion, (ECC). The cost and quality factors are not intended to be inclusive. 3. The conclusions and implications of this study regarding the relationships between the cost-quality veriables are not interpreted to indicate a causal relationship, but merely to indicate a direct a s soc iation. Major Finding s 1. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), discrimination findings indicate that according to the total educational quality scores, all seven category scores, and forty-one individual educational 175 characteristic scores of teachers respondents (see Tables 6 and 15), educational quality is present in significantly greater degree in United States school districts having high financial support than in United States school districts with low financial support. 2. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), discrimination indicates that according to total educational quality scores, three category scores (IV: "Use of Facilities, " V: "Socio-cultural Compo- sition of Community, " and VI: "Administration and Supervision"), and eighteen individual educational characteristic scores of administrator respondents (see Tables 6 and 15), educational quality is present in a significantly higher degree in United States school districts having high financial support than in United States school districts with low financial support. 3. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), discrimination results indicate a significant negative relationship concerning educational quality and educational financial support according to teacher and administrator responses to three individual educational characteristics (Item No. 45: "The parents of this community expect children to per- form their share of family chores, " N0. 46: "This community is com- posed of people who are predominantly Protestant, " and No. 24: "High degree of teacher participation in social and political activities of the community. " 4. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), non-discrimi- nation is present in nine individual educational characteristics accord- ing to scores of either teachers or administrators (see Table 14). These scores indicate no significant difference exists in educational quality between high and low financial support districts. 5. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), discrimi- nation between total quality mean scores and between six of the seven category mean scores of teachers and administrators within high 176 financial support districts and within low financial support districts (see Tables 16 and 17) indicates that significant differences exist be- tween teacher and administrator perceptions of total educational quality and educational quality in all categories except category V: ("Socio-cultural Composition of Community"). 6. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), discrimi- nation between total quality mean scores (Table 19), all seven cate- gory mean scores (Table 20), and thirteen individual educational characteristic mean scores (Table 24) of teachers and administrators within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts indicates that administrators are overvaluing educational quality. Discrimination findings also indicate that administrators in high financial support districts overvalue four additional individual educational characteristics (Table 22) while administrators in low financial support districts overvalue nine additional individual edu- cational characteristics and undervalue a single individual educational characteristic (Table 23). 7. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) non-discrimi— nation findings indicate that according to the individual educational characteristic mean scores of teachers and administrators within each district type there is agreement in regard to educational quality repre- sented in each of twenty-eight individual characteristics (see Table 21). 8. Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), discrimi- nation and non-discrimination findings indicate that according to total quality scores and the seven category scores of teachers and adminis- trators within an individual large school district and within two small school districts there is no systematic agreement between teacher per- ceptions and administrator perceptions concerning quality of educational programs. The results of tests within individual large and small school 177 districts and the findings for the respective high and low financial support quartiles are not in general accord (see Tables 25 and 26). 9. The reliability of Educational Characteristics Criterion, (Egg), total scores based on consistency and sensitivity of individual performance on test items ranges from . 89 to . 91 according to teacher and administrator respondents within high and low financial support quartiles. The reliability of related category scores exceeds . 56, categories I and V excepted, according to teachers and adminis- trators within high and low financial support quartiles (Tables 27 and 28). 10. The reliability tests of Educational Characteristics Criterion, (Egg), total score of teachers and of administrators within one individual large school district and within two individual small school districts indicate that high reliabilities may be obtained by this measurement technique for all respondent types except administrators in one of the two small districts (rtt = .49). The reliability range of the other total scores is from .86 to . 98 with sensitivity significance levels from .00001 to .017. The separate category score reliability level within large and small districts indicates great variations accord- ing to district and respondent type. Relatively high reliabilities are found in categories II ("Community Attitudes"); VI (Administration and Supervision); and VII ("The Teacher and Teaching Methods"). The least reliable categories are I: ("Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes") and V: ("Socio-cultural Composition of Community"). These findings are illustrated in Tables 29 and 30. 11. The item analyses tests indicate that all but four of the individual educational characteristic scores (Items No. 55: "Parents condone or encourage early dating for their children, " No. 46: "This community is composed of people who are predominantly Protestant, " No. 47: "This community is composed of people who are predominantly 178 Catholic, " and No. 49: "The population of this community is equally divided between Protestant and Catholic"), correlated positively with total quality scores and have adequate positive discrimination power and ability in excess of the minimum coefficient of . 097 required at the .001 significance level for 1237 degrees of freedom. Only one item (No, 46: "This community is composed of people who are pre- dominantly Protestant") was found to be lacking adequate discrimi- nation power with respect to the related category score (see Table 31). 12. The lowest overall discrimination level was found in the educational characteristics comprising category V: ("Socio-cultural Composition of Community") for relationships between individual item score and category score as well as item score to total quality score correlation (Table 32). 13. Product-moment coefficients of correlation indicate signifi- cant positive inter-relationships between the seven categories of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC). The most significantly interrelated category mean scores are: (1) "Community Attitudes" with "Socio-cultural Composition of Community, " (2) "Community Attitudes" with "Administration and Supervision, " (3) "Community Attitudes" with "The Teacher and Teaching Methods, " (4) "Curriculum with "The Teacher and Teaching Methods, " and (5) "Administration and Supervision" with "The Teacher and Teaching Methods. " These relationships are presented in Tables 33, 34, and 35. Conclusions The findings of the empirical study of relationships between teacher-administrator perceptions of educational quality as measured by the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), and selected cost factors can be evaluated from several viewpoints. A major concern of 179 the analysis was to test a quality-measurement process which assumed that the perceptions of teachers and administrators were based on a pattern of similar values, expectations and standards. A second concern of this study was the investigation of the relation— ships between teacher-administrator perceptions of educational quality and certain selected educational cost factors. A third aspect of the study distinguished the level of reliability and consistency of responses within the high and low financial quartile districts and within individual large and small school districts. A final element involved the use of an item analysis to determine the adequacy of the discrimination power and ability of individual educational characteristics scores with respect to related category score and total score. These four aspects of the empirical study are, of course, interrelated. Each aspect will be evaluated in terms of significant interrelationships and in terms of previous research with the same instrumentation. Relationships Between Teacher and Administrator Perceptions of Educational Quality 1. The dominant theme of the results is the disagreement be- tween responses of teachers and administrators within the high financial support quartile and within the low financial support quartile as por- trayed by the total quality scores, six of the seven category scores, and fourteen individual educational characteristic scores. These dif- ferences between administrator and teacher perceptions of educational quality show that among both high and low financial quartile districts, administrators overvalue all seven categories of educational character- istics in relation to teachers' valuing of these same categories. 2. There is agreement between teacher and administrator perceptions of quality within the high financial support quartile and within the low financial support quartile for Category V: ("Socio- cultural Composition of Community") and in regard to educational 180 quality represented by twenty-eight individual educational character- istics. 3. Although the hypotheses that underlie the overall model of teacher-administrator quality perception relationships are supported by the statistical analysis of a majority of individual educational characteristics, the overall analysis does not support the thesis that certificated public school personnel having a similar professional frame of reference in terms of education and training hold similar values and expectations regarding perceptions of educational quality. This conclusion is contrary to previous conclusions based on a study of Michigan school districts. Relationships Between Teacher—Administrator Perceptions of Educational Quality and Certain Selected Educational Cost Factors 4. The results of the analysis provides confirmation of the expected positive relationship between educational quality and financial support for education. Total quality scores of both teachers and administrators confirm the cost-quality relationship established in previous research. 5. The results indicate that according to scores of each of the seven categories and 41 individual educational characteristics, teachers perceive educational quality to be present to a significantly higher degree in high financial support districts than in districts having low financial support. Administrator perceptions of educational quality as measured by the seven categories, provide only partial confirmation of the expected cost-quality relationship. The perceptions of adminis- trators indicate a significant discrimination between cost quality for only three categories and eighteen individual educational character- istics. 181 6. The individual educational characteristics in Category 11: ("Community Attitudes") and Category V: ("Socio-cultural Composition of Community") as a whole do not have great discrimination power. The comparison between teacher-administrator quality perceptions in high and low financial support districts reveals similarities in the quality scores of these two sets of educational quality variables. Reliability of Teacher-Administrator Responses Within HiLh and Low Financial Quartile Districts and Within Individual Large and Small Districts 7. On the basis of reliability test findings, it appears that rela- tively high reliabilities may be obtained from Educational Character- istics Criterion, (ECC), total quality scores based on consistency of individual teacher-administrator performance on test items. Reliability coefficients range from .89 t0 . 91 according to responses by teachers or administrators within high or low support quartiles exceeds . 56 except for Categories 1: ("Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes") and V: ("Socio-cultural Composition of Community"). It is possible that the measurement scheme for these two categories involve considerably more subjective judgment than is required for the other categories. Reliability tests within individual large and small school districts tend to indicate considerable variation by re- spondent and district type. These tests findings tend to confirm the particular unreliability of categories I and V and further support the total score reliability findings of within quartile tests. The reliabili- ties tend to be affected by small sample size in individual low quartile districts and the relatively short number of items in several cate- gories. The total quality score reliability and sensitivity tests based on 56 items appears to be encouragingly homogeneous according to each respondent and district type. 182 Adegiacy of Discrimination Power of Individual Educational Characteristics 8. Fifty—two of the fifty-six individual educational character- istics support the hypothesis of adequate positive discrimination power (P < .01) with respect to total score and related category score. However, low overall discrimination level in Category V ("Socio- cultural Composition of Community") casts doubt on the effectiveness of the discrimination power and ability of this category of educational quality variables. Implications The findings indicate significant differences between teacher and administrator perceptions concerning what constitutes a quality edu- cational program. Three of the explanations for this finding are given in the three initial implications which follow. 1. It might be assumed that the differences between the social and institutional roles of teachers and administrators promote conflict between their professional purposes, values and expectations and the purposes, values and expectations which society and the institution places on the respective positions. In a perfect state of affairs one could expect congruence between professional and institutional expecta— tions and values. The heterogeneity implied by the results of this study is present even though evidence exists concerning the supposedly homo- genized character of teachers and administrators--their common origins, their uniform belief system and their loyalty to profesSional goals. It would seem that the principal instruments in the homogenizing process, the teachers colleges, university departments of education, and pro- fessional associations, are ineffective in overcoming the divergence of perceptions of teachers and administrators concerning educational quality. An alternate explanation for this phenomena is presented in the impli- cations which follow. 183 2. The findings of this study disclose particularly significant differences in the way teachers and administrators perceive educational quality factors regarding those characteristics closely associated with teacher-pupil relationships and the classroom learning situation. It appears that the level on which teachers and administrators communi- cate and receive communications is inadequate to provide accurate and sufficient information on which to base perceptions. It would also seem that two—way communication channels are often not operative and many schools in both high and low financial quartiles have perfected only the downward movement of information. Since administrators in either high or low quality school districts overvalue of desirable educational outcomes in student attitudes, adequacy of classroom materials and procedures, and other classroom based activities, it would appear that administrators may not receive adequate information through existing communications channels to develop consensus with teachers' per- ceptions of these outcomes. From the data available it could be assumed that administrators in either high or low quality school dis- tricts are not significantly enough concerned with instructional and curricular processes to develop means of adequate personal contact with students and teachers. 3. One could also assume that the tendency for administrators in both high and low financial support districts to overvalue educational quality in relation to teacher perception is the result of a high degree of personal identification by administrators with their school districts. The extent of projection of “self" into the rating of school district quality could affect the objectivity of the perceptions. It appears that ability of the teacher to closely identify with the learner and with the classroom situation causes a generally lower perception of educational quality. It is implied that the degree of personal identifi- cation which the school district as an institution is a significant factor in shaping perceptions of educational excellence. 184 4. The great diversity in population in the United States results in disparities in both scope and quality of education. It appears that the modification of attitudes toward schools should be emphasized as a major component in strategies for increasing educational quality. Since the findings indicate that a highly favorable community attitude toward education is found in conjunction with educational quality in high financial support school districts it seems reasonable to assume that in- creased effort toward a broadened base of understanding and the resultant change of value patterns in low quality school districts will further increase the excellence of education through improved fiscal responsi- bility and more objective and systematic goals and aims for curricular improvement to meet local and national needs. In terms of improved support for education even partial improvements in public attitudes is needed in addition to foreseeable changes in the sphere of power relation- ships and political arrangements. 5. Since the findings indicate that high educational quality is present in a significantly higher degree in United States school districts having high financial support, one could assume that action should be taken in school districts having low quality and low financial support to improve the financial support cost factors of wealth, effort, size, and expenditure per pupil for operation. Reform is necessary in the area of school district reorganization to assist school districts in overcoming some of the problems of equitable property tax administration, in- etuities in local ability and effort to support quality educational programs, and problems of inefficiency due to inadequate student population. School district reorganization can minimize the number of school sys- tems without suitable tax and pupil base and maximize the number of administrative units which are physically capable of operating quality school programs . 185 6. It is implied that the presence of relatively high reliability of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (13223), total scores indicates a significant level of total score homogeniety for individual teacher—administrator perceptions according to respondent type and district type. It is further implied that category scores I: ("Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes") and V: ("Socio-cultural Composition of Community") are not sufficiently homogeneous for interpretation concerning teacher-administrator quality perception relationships and for other interpretations concerning cost-quality relationships. There appears to be relatively high correlation of individual educational characteristics to total quality score and their respective category scores within individual districts particularly where the number of respondents is large. Item-test and item-category reliabilities imply a general agreement as to what constitutes educational quality in public school districts . Recommendations Educatignal Quality and School District Organizational Patterns 1. It is recommended that school district reorganization in the United States be implemented to provide for school districts of adequate wealth and population. Every school district in the United States ought to be large enough to provide quality basic educational opportunity at reasonable cost. The ultimate test of every school district's adequacy should lie in its ability to maintain a program suf- ficient in scope and quality to meet the educational needs of its clientele. A school district able to attract and retain competent teachers, employ capable administrators and supervisory personnel in sufficient number, offer an educational program that enables students to become worthy 186 members of society, satisfy the wide variety of student interests and abilities, provide adequate buildings and instructional materials, and maintain effective relations with the community is a quality school district and should be the goal of every board of education in the United States. 2. The interdependence of the various sections of the United States requires certain general standards of quality and accomplish- ment in all educational pr0grams. It is recommended that the United States Office of Education continue to exercise a positive leadership role in improving the quality of American education. This national interest can be successful in strengthening state and local educational institutions: (1) by sharing technical knowledge, (2) by discussing values which should be the goals of all school systems, and (3) by bringing to the knowledge of all, the interrelations of communities which for better or worse are mutually dependent on each other. ‘ The Communications Process and Development of Favorable Community Attitudes 3. Reorganized districts invariably emerge larger both in area and in population . The individual citizen's opportunity to influence educational policy and program is reduced, and the board of education's capacity to interpret the educational program to the community and to energize public support is often handicapped. If communities are dis- parate with respect to their expectations of schools, their ability to support them, and their social values and mores, cleavages and power struggles often result. Therefore, it is recommended that boards of education and all educators recognize the challenge which exists and utilize their ingenuity for devising new approaches to communicating with the public . 187 4. It is recommended that teachers, administrators and boards of education re-examine some of the traditional assumptions about community support and participation in educational affairs. New lines of communication are needed to cause fundamental change in attitudes, values, and perspectives of a large segment of the population which has little awareness of, or concern for, the significance or the potentialities of the educational system, either for society as a whole or for their own children. It is further recommended that such new and additional efforts be directed less to the short-range problems of the moment, and more toward the cultivation of appreciative attitudes among all population segments of the crucial role of education in our society. Relationship Between Teacher and Administrator Perceptions of Educational Quality 5. It is recommended that two-way communication between teachers and administrators in both high and low quality districts be stimulated through development of new techniques and increased interest and understanding of the needs. Customary forms of communi- cation have failed to produce results since there is a significant lack of congruence in teacher-administrator perceptions of many educational quality characteristics. It is recommended that administration and supervision be viewed as supportive, stimulating, and suggestive rather than commanding, coercive, and controlling. An enlightened and realistic point of View with respect to character and intensity of admin- istrative control and supervision should encourage teacher participation in communication to administrators concerning the quality of the instructional program. This communication can lead to administrator enlightenment and understanding, which in turn, can result in positive evaluations of and support for a better quality educational program. 188 The development of a consensus between teachers and administrators as a result of frequent and accurate communication would tend to result in the development of similar educational expectations, goals and perceptions irrespective of the difference in their professional roles. The Organization and Dissemination of the Results of Cost-Quality Research 6. A significant problem in research on educational finance and quality is that of the dissemination of the results. Much of what is known in public school finance is unused in making decisions concerning support and scope of educational programs. It is recommended that a means be found of systematizing and organizing the vast numbers of studies that have been completed. It is suggested that the American Educational Research Association or some other suitable organization act as a clearing house for current and past research. The possibility exists of developing a coordinate indexing library retrieval system for school co st—quality data. Improving the Adequacy of Educational Finance Data 7. It is recommended that all educational data, and particularly financial information be uniformly defined and collected. Increased attention should be given to comparability of educational terms and definitions. Automatic data processing systems enable educational finance and related information to be stored in "data banks, " retrieved and analyzed at high speeds. Educational finance data should meet the criteria of accuracy, timeliness, comparability, and comprehensive- ness. 189 Training Programs for Teachers and Administrators 8. It is recommended that institutions and professional organi- zations concerned with the preparation and training of teachers and administrators initiate efforts to study and research the individual, professional, social, and institutional roles of teachers and adminis- trators. Adequate knowledge of the effect of the teacher or adminis- trators role on values, expectations and goals is needed. Consensus of the perceptions of teachers and administrators concerning educational quality might lead to improved functional staff relations and more important, to significant improvements in educational programs. Revision, Continued Development and Use of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) 9. It is recommended that a revision of items having a relatively low correlation with total scores and/or category scores be made. The individual educational characteristics within Category V: ("Socio- cultural Composition of Community") should be revised or replaced with data factually verifiable by means of census records or other written records. 10. It is recommended that those individual educational characteristics and categories showing a significant difference between teacher and administrator perceptions of quality should be studied further to identify the bases for the lack of agreement. 11. It is recommended that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (E_EQ) be tested with members of boards of education, parents and patrons, identifiable community decision-makers or molders of opinion, and with students, in order to determine their perceptions of educational quality and to compare their responses with the responses of the teachers and administrators in the school district. 190 12. It is recommended that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (Egg) be tested with teacher and administrator respondents from each of the four quartiles of Michigan public school districts based on the relationship of the specific items of educational expendi- ture to specific measures of educational need. 13. It is recommended that the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (E_C_C) be tested with teacher and administrator respondents from the second and third financial support quartiles of United States public school districts determined on the basis of educational cost factors of wealth, membership size, effort, and expenditure per pupil. 14. It is recommended that further study of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), should include an investigation of the stability of the measures derived from the instrument to determine the extent of periodic fluctuations in administrator or teacher per- ceptions of the practices which characterize their school district. 15. It is recommended that the relationships between Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC) scores and achievement test scores or product-typemeasurements be studied. The individual educational characteristics and related categories which are related to a measur— able end-product, scholastic achievement, should be identified. The use of various homogeneous groupings by subclassifying students may help to clarify the effects of subtle variables of a socio-economic and cultural nature. 16. It is recommended that a follow-up check be made on the proportion of individual educational characteristics which have been identified as non-cost related and which affect the excellence of education. Further study of the ability of these items to discriminate between school districts that are characterized as high and low on cost bases would provide the low financial support district as well as the 191 high financial support district an opportunity to bring increases in quality educational output. These increases in effective patterns of organization, attitudes, values, and procedures (basically non-cost items) could effectively supplement improvements in financial support and provide alternative means to improve educational quality in school districts .where'. improved'financial- cost bases are not available. BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of School Administrators and National School Boards Association. Judging Schools With Wisdom. Washing- ton: The Associations, 1959. . Quest for Quality. Washington: National Education Association, 1960. Ayer, Frederick L. "An Analysis of Controllable Community Factors Related to Quality of Education. " Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1950. Ayres, Leonard P. An Index Number for State School Systems. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1920. Barr, W. Monfort. American Public School Finance. New York: American Book Company, 1960. Berg, Arthur D. "The Determination of the Discrimination and Reliability Indices of the Educational Characteristics Criterion With Implications Concerning Educational Cost- Quality Relationships." Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1962. Bloom, Benjamin S. and Charles R. Statler. "Changes in the States on the Tests of General Educational Development from 1943 to 1955." School Review, LXV (Summer, 1957), 204-21. Bothwell, Bruce K. Creative Expenditures for Quality Education. New York: Associated Public School Systems, 1958. Brickell, Henry M. An Analysis of Certain Non-Instructional Staff Expenditures. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1953. Buley, Hilton C. "Personal Characteristics and Staff Patterns Associated with the Quality of Education. " Unpublished Ed. D. project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1947. Callahan, Raymond E. Education and the Cult of Efficiency. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962. 192 193 Chase, Francis 5. "The Next 50 Years in Public Education, " Problems and Opportunities in Financing Education. Washington: Committee on Tax Education and School Finance, National Education Association, 1959. Clark, Harold F. Cpst and QualitLin Public Education, Vol. V: The Economics and Politics of Public Education. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1963. Committee for Economic Development, Research and Policy Committee. 'Payinggor Better Schools. New York: Committee for Economic Development, 19 5 9 . Committee for the White House Conference on Education. A Report to the President. Washington: U. 5. Government Printing Office, 1956. Conant, James Bryant. Slums and Sugburbs: A Commentary on Schools in Metropolitan Areas. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1961. 5 Cornell, Francis G., Carl M. Lindvall, and Joe L. Saupe. _Ap Exploratory Measurement of Individualities of Schools and Classrooms. Urbana: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Illinois, 1953. Dewey, John. The School and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1900. Educational Policies Commission. An Essay on Quality in Public Education. Washington: National Education Association, 1959. , Education and the Disadvantaged American. Washington: National Education Association, 1962. . National Policy and the Financing of the Public Schools. Washington: National Education Association, 1959. Ferrell, Doctor Thomas. Relation Between Current Expenditures and Certain Measures of Educational Efficiency in Kentucky County and Graded SchodT Systems. Richmond, Kentucky: Eastern State Teachers College, 1937. 194 Firman, William D. , e__t a}. Procedures in School Quality Evaluation: AfiSecond Report of the Quality Measurement Project. Albany: New York State Education Department, 1961. Foshay, Arthur W. "The Search for Quality in Education, " Horace Mann-Lincoln Institute Interim Report. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1959. Fowles, John Guy, and George E. Watson. School Finance and Local Planning. Chicago: The Midwest Administration Center, 1957. Freeman, Roger L. School Needs in the Decades Ahead, Vol. I: Financingthe Public Schools. Washington: The Institute for Social Science Research, 1958. Furno, Orlando F. "The Projection of School Quality from Expenditure Level." Unpublished Ed. D. project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1956. Ginsberg, Eli. Human Resources: The Wealth of the Nation. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1958. Grace, A. G. , and (G. A. Moe. State Aid and School Costs: Report of the Regfnts' Inquipy. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co. , 1938. Griffis, James T. Educational Production at Three Cost Levels. Houston: Gulf School Research Development Association, 1955. Grimm, Lester R. Our Children's Ojiportunities in Relation to School Costs. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Education Association, 1938. Grogan, Robert 5. "Determination of Staff Characteristics That Should Be Assessed in Future Studies. " Unpublished Ed. D. project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1961. Hald, A. Statistical Tables and Formulas. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1952. Hall, Harold D. "Relationship of Selected Characteristics of Organi- zation to Practice in School Systems: An Exploratory Measure of the Extent and Diffusion of Administrative Procedures and Staffing Practices and Their Relationships to Selected Character- istics of School Systems. " Unpublished Ed. D. project, University of Illinois, 1956. 195 Havighurst, Robert J. and Bernice L. Neugarten. Society and Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1957. Hill, Henry H. "Quality Education-Present and Future, " Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service. Lexington, Kentucky: College of Education, University of Kentucky, March, 1959. Hirsch, Werner Z. Analysis of Rising Costs of Public Education. Washington: Joint Economic Committee, 1959. Hoyt, C. J. "Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of Variance, " Psychometrika. Vol. VI, (1941), 153-60. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1956. Iowa Tests of Educational Development. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1958. Jackson, Robert W. B. "Reliability of Mental Tests, " British Journal of Psychology: Vol. XXIX, (1939), 267-87. James, H. Thomas. School Revenue Systems in Five States. Stanford: School of Education, Stanford University, 1961. Johns, R. L. and E. L. Horphet. Financing the Public Schools. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960. Johns, R. L. and E. L. Morphet (eds.). Problems and Issues in Public School Finance. New York: National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1949. Johnson, Palmer O. Statistical Methods in Research. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc. , 1949. Kraft, Leonard E. “The Perceptions Held by Professors of Education, Professors in Areas Other than Education, and School Board Members on Ninety Factors Which May or May Not Affect Quality of an Educational Program. " Unpublished Ed. D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1962. Kreitlow, Burton W. School District Reorganization . . . Does it Make A Difference in Your Child's Education? Madison: Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Wisconsin, 1961. 196 Kumpf, Carl H. The Adaptable School. New York: The Macmillan CO. , 19520 Lazarus, Ralph. We Can Have Better Schools. New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1959. Lippman, Walter. Education for Leadership: Citizens and Their Schools. New York: National Citizens' Commission for the Public Schools, 1954. McGovern, Earl. A Study of Opinion About Schools. New York: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1956. McLure, William P. Let Us Pay For The Kind of Education We Need: Report of a Study of State and Local Support of Mississippi's Schools. University, Mississippi: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Mississippi, 1948. Melby, Ernest 0. Education for Renewed Faith in Freedom. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1959. Miner, Jerry. Social and Economic Factors in Spending for Public Education, Vol. XI: The Economics and Politics of Public Education. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1963. Mort, Paul R. (director). The Financing of the Public Schools of Maine. Augusta: Maine School Finance Commission, 1934. . Reconstruction of the System of Public Support in the State of New Jersey, Vol. 11: Report of the Governor's Survey Commission. Trenton: The Commission, 1933. , Arvid J. Burke, and Robert S. Fisk. A Guide for the Analysis and Description of Public School Services. New York: Institute of Educational Research, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1942. , and Francis G. Cornell. American Schools in Transition: 53w Our Schools Adapt Their Practices to Changing Needs. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941. , and Francis G. Cornell. Guide for Self-Appraisal of School Systems. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1937. 197 Mort, Paul R. , Francis G. Cornell, and Norman Hinton. What Should Our Schools Do?: A Pool of Public Opinion on the School Program. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1938. , and Orlando F. Furno. Theory and Synthesis of a Sequential Simplex. New York: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1960. , and Truman Pierce. A Time Scale for Measuring the Adaptability of School Systems. New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1947. , Walter C. Reusser, and John W. Polley. Public School Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1960. , William 5. Vincent, and Clarence A. Newell. The Growipg Edgp: An Instrument for Measuring Adaptability of School Systems. New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1946. National Citizens Commission for the Public Schools, Public Edu- cation Finance Committee. Financirg Public Education in the Dyecade Ahead. New York: The Commission, 1954. National Education Association. How Good Are Your Schools? Washington: The Association, 1958. ,. Research Division. Ranking of the States, 1962. Research Report 1962-R1. Washington: The Association, 1962. National School Boards Association. Yardsticks for Public Schools. Evanston, Illinois: The Association, 1959. National Study of Secondary School Evaluation. Evaluative Criteria. Washington: The Study, 1960. New York State Educational Conference Board. What Education Our Money Buys. Albany: The Board, 1943. . What Good Schools Do For Children. Albany: The Board, 1954. 198 North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Policies, Rggulations, and Criteria for Approval of Secondary Schools. Chicago: The Association, 1961. Norton, John K. The Ability of States to Support Education. Washington: National Education Association, 1926. (ed.) Changing Demands on Education and Their Fiscal Implications. Washington: National Committee for Support of the Public Schools, 1963. , and Eugene S. Lawler. Unfinished Business in American Education. Washington: National Education Association and American Council on Education, 1946. Ostrander, Chester B. "A Study of Characteristics of New York State Central Schools Classified on the Basis of Enrollment Size. " Unpublished Ed. D. project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1961. Pierce, Truman M. Controllable Community Characteristics Related to the Quality of Education. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1947. Powell, Orrin E. Educational Returns at Varying Expenditure Levels. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1933. Rhee, Jeung. "An Analysis of Selected Aspects of the Public School Finance System in Michigan. " Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The Pursuit of Excellence: Education and the Future of AmeriEa. Panel Report V of the Special Studies Project. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1958. Rosenstengel, W. E. and J. N. Eastmond. School Finance. New Jersey: Ronald Press, 1957. Ross, Donald (ed.). Administration for Adaptability. New York: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958. 199 Rudman, Herbert C. "The Relationship Between the Financial Report of Education and Quality of Educational Program as Expressed by Certain Related Variables. " Unpublished Report, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1961. Shapiro, Sherman. "Some Socio-economic Determinants of Expendi- tures for Education, " Comparative Education Review. (October, 1962). Smith, Stanley V. "Quality of Education Related to Certain Social and Administrative Characteristics of Well-Financed Rural School Districts." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1954. Southern Association of Secondary Schools. Evaluating the Elementary School: A Guide for Cooperative Study. Atlanta: Commission on Research and Service, The Association, 1951. Strayer, George D. (director). A Report of a Survey of Public Edu- cation in the State of West Virginia. Charleston: Legislative Interim Committee, State of West Virginia, 1945. Swanson, Austin D. "An Analysis of Factors Related to School System Quality in the Associated Public School Systems. " Unpublished Ed. D. project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1960. The University of Michigan. Criteria for Accreditation. Ann Arbor: Bureau of School Services, The University of Michigan, 1961. Thorndike, Edward L. Education as Cause and as Symptom. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1939. Turck, Merton J. , Jr. . "A Study of the Relationship Among the Factors of Financial Need, Effort, and Ability in 581 High School Districts in Michigan. " Unpublished Ed. D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1960. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Education for Freedom and World Understandig. Bulletin OE-10016. Washington: U. 5. Government Printing Office, 1962. Vincent, William 5. "Quality Control: A Rationale for Analysis of a School System, " I.A.R. Research Bulletin. Vol. I, No. 2 (January, 1961), 1-7. 200 Vincent, William S. and Archie MacGregor. 1959 Review of Fiscal Policy for Public Education in New York State - Public Tests of School Quality. New York: New York Educational Confer- ence Board, 1960. Walling, W. Donald. A StudyofyPublic Opinion About Schools. New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952. Winer, J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1962. Wollatt, Lorne H. The Cost-Quality Relationship on the Growing Edgy. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1949. APPENDICES 201 APPENDIX A LETTER OF INVITATION SENT TO SUPERINTENDENTS 202 203 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY smumsmo COLLEGE OF EDUCATION August 28, 1963 Dear Superintendent: The College of Education, Michigan State University is conducting several national studies concerned with the identification and measurement of quality in an educational program. Several studies concerned with the measurement of quality have already been completed, one of which included every school district in the State of Michigan. Preliminary tests of the reliability, validity, and disc rimi- native powers of the measuring instrument have been completed. The problem to be investigated in this study is a two-fold one: (1) to test a preliminary national form of an instrument which we hope can measure the quality of educational programs as related by perceptions of teachers and administrators; and (2) to compare the perceptions of these individuals with certain selected cost factors; i. e. total school membership (size), state equalised assessed valuation per pupil (ability), operation millage (effort), and expenditure per pupil. A selected sample of school districts, drawn from all 50 states, has been chosen to participate in the initial phase of this study. After the financial data from all school districts in the sample has been ordered and the number of districts in each cost quartile is determined a second sample will be drawn. The administrative and teaching staffs of these districts will be invited to p rticipate in the study by responding to the instrument under investigation. Previous use of the questionnaire has shown that it can be completed in approximately thirty minutes. I hope, sincerely, that you will contribute to this study. Please complete the enclosed fact sheet to indicate your willingness to participate in this attempt to meet the need for a comprehensive but practical device to appraise the quality of an educational program in any given school district in the United States. In order to begin this study promptly we would like to have your response and data sheet by September 7, 1963. The questionnaire for administrative and teaching staff participants for the second phase of the study will be 204 Page 2 mailed to selected districts in early October in order to avoid conflict with the beginning of the school year. It is not the intent of our study to compare individual districts by name. All information furnished by you will be held in confidence and utilized only as a part of a group analysis and ordering of districts. Your willingness to help us in this study will be sincerely appreciated. . Should you have any questions concerning our research please do not hesitate to write us. Co rdially your s , Herbert C. Rudman Professor of Education HCRzkk Eng: Data Sheet Return Envelope A PPENDIX B PRELIMINA RY DA TA SHEET 205 206 PRELIMINARY DATA SHEET MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY NAME OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ADDRESS (TOWN, STATE) 1963-64 Number of Teachers Number of Administrators (Superintendents, Principals, and Supervisors) COST DATA (1962-63 School Year): 1. Size: Average Daily Membership, ADM, Grades K-lZ, or 1-12 2. Ability: State Equalized Assessed Property Valuation Per Pupil (Final Appraisal Of All Property Divided by ADM) 3. Effort: Tax Rate in Mills for Current Operation of School District 4. Current Operating Expenditure Per Pupil (Total Expenditures Excluding Capital Outlay And Debt Service Divided by ADM) PLEASE RETURN TO: Dr. Herbert C. Rudman Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan APPENDIX C EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION, (ECC) 207 208 EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION Herbert C. Rudman Michigan State University 10. ll. 13. 11+. 15. Factor Teachers have intimate knowledge of children. Teaching practices reflect concern for individual differences. Teaching practices reflect a knowledge of individual differences Teachers perceive a coherent and coor- dinated structure to the educational program. Concensus exists among the staff con- cerning the goals of the educational program. A structure has been developed that permits continual curriculum improvement. Evidence exists of instructional and/or curricular experimentation. Students show a positive attitude toward scholastic work. Students evidence accurate knowledge of self. Professional staff of the school system are involved in in-service education. Teachers thoroughly understand the infor- mation gathered on students and use this information to make sound educational decisions. All teachers are certified to teach at the grade level or subject they are now teaching. Teachers have complete freedom to teach what they consider to be important. A.great variety of instructional tech- niques are presently used in the class- rooms. A great variety of instructional mater- ials are presently used in the class- rooms. Most Somewhat Slightly Least Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Li 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 Li 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 Li 3 2 1 (4 3 2 1 ii 3 2 1 h 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 209 Factor 05 Somewhat Slightly Least ‘ Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Students are knowledgeable about the educational and social opportunities available to them. A complete comprehensive testing program including intelligence and achievement testing is available in the schools. Teachers often avail themselves of professional help. Complete freedom is granted to students to investigate any local, state, national or international issue. Availability to students of materials that reflect all shades of political and sociological points of view. Parents and patrons (those residents of a school district without school- age children) are highly knowledgeable about education. Lay members of the community are highly involved in the planning of educational goals with the school staff. Regulations governing student conduct are highly explicit and detailed. High degree of teacher participation in social and political activities of the community. The social status of teachers is very high in this community. Regulations governing personnel policies are highly explicit and detailed. Citizens are highly organized to discuss school problems. The perceptions of parents and patrons concerning the purposes of education are consistent and clear. The local newspaper has shown a high interest in local school affairs. There is no lag between the values taught in the school and what is prac- ticed in the community. There exists a high level of cooperation among the teachers of the staff. A 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 h 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 h 3 2 1 u 3 2 l u 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 u 3 2 l u 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 219 32. 33. 3h. 35. 36. 37- 38. 39- Mo. hl. 42. 1+3. au. #5. #6. A7. 48. Factor The physical facilities of the school system (buildings and equipment) are completely adequate. The community and its residents are used for instructional purposes. Cultural experiences are readily available in the community. Teachers' judgments are almost always used in the determination of education- al policies. A high percentage of the electorate in the community vote in school elections. There are outstanding community leaders in this community who exhibit great interest in school affairs. This is a highly stable community which does not have too many peOple leaving. The community exhibits a great concern for the development of aesthetic and artistic interests. A two-way communication channel readily exists between the home and the school. A high percentage of high school students own personal cars. A high percentage of homes own television sets. A great deal of homework is assigned to students. A high degree of ethnic, racial and religious homogeneity exists among the local population. The parents in this community expect their children to perform their share of family chores.. This community is composed of peOple who are predominantly Protestant. This community is composed of people who are predominantly Catholic. This community is composed of peOple who are predominantly Jewish. Most Somewhat Slightly Least Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic 1i 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 ii 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 Li 3 2 1 l—I» 3 2 1 1i 3 2 1 Li 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 l—i 3 2 1 ’4- 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 u 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 211 Factor Most Somewhat Slightly Least Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic #9. 50. 51. 52. 53. 51+. 55- The population of this community is equally divided between Protestants and Catholics. One or two ethnic groups comprise the largest number of residents in the community. Pupils consider an academic grade of at least "B" to be the norm for academic achievement. The professional staff of the schools in the community consider an academic grade of at least "B" to be the norm for academic achievement. A high value is placed on education by the parents and patrons (those residents of a school district without school-age children) of the community. Parents and patrons in the community consider an academic grade of at least "B” to be the norm for academic achieve- ment. Parents condone or encourage early dating for their children. l-i 3 2 1 b. 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 1r 3 2 1 1+ 3 2 1 Li 3 2 1 APPENDIX D INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION, (ECC) 212 213 INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION Your participation as a reSpondent to the Educational Characteristics Cri— terion (Egg) within the national sample of c00perating school districts is greatly appreciated. This is a phase of a comprehensive research project which is being conducted by the College of Education, Michigan State Uni- versity. It is important that your responses to the Egg represent your own individual perceptions, therefore it is recommended that you complete the Egg without prior discussion with other faculty members, preferably in private and quiet surroundings. All information will be treated confidentially and anonymously. Approximate reSpondent time is thirty minutes, however there is no time limit. Use pencil and mark with firm pressure gfl_the number representing the charac- teristic that you perceive. Relate the statements to your experience as follows: (a) Teachers and Building Principals: Relate the statements to your building experience. (b) Central Administrators and Supervisors: Relate the statements to your school system. Example of marking one item: Somewhat Slightly Least actor Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic 1. Teachers have intimate know- ledge of children. )4 3 X 1 (Note: The "x" ON the ”2" will indicate that your perception of the statement is that it is "slightly characteristic" of your building situation (if you are a teacher or building principal); or that it is "slightly characteristic" of your school system (if you are a central administrator or supervisor). Upon completion of your reSponses to all ECC items, place the ECC in the envelOpe and SEAL the envelope flap. Do not put your name or other markings on the ECC envelope. Return the envelope with enclosed ggg_to your building principal or to the collection point prescribed by the principal or the superintendent. It is highly desired that you complete the ECC at your very earliest Opportunity and return it within 2h hours, and if delayed, within #8 hours. APPENDIX E SUPERINTENDENTS' SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FORM 214 215 (To be completed by the Superintendent) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FORM EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION Herbert C. Rudman Michigan State University 1. School District 2. State 3. Type of Organization Pattern Followed in School District (Please check the most appropriate organizational pattern). a. 6 - 3 - 3 c. 6 - 6 e. 6 - 2 - 4 b. 8 - 4 d. 5 - 3 - 4 . f. Other 4. Approximate average pupil-teacher ratio ... ELEMENTARY (Please check apprOpriate response). a. 50-1 d. 35-1 g. 20-1 b. 45-1 , e. 30-1 h. Less than ‘—"' 20-1 c. 40-1 f. 25-l 5. Approximate average pupil-teacher ratio ... SECONDARY (Please check appropriate response). a. 50-1 d. 35-1 3. 20-1 b. 45-1 e. 30-1 h. Less than 20-1 c. 40-1 f. 25-1 6. Type of Papulation Center a. Rural b. City 1. less than 2500 2. 2500 - 4999 3. 5000 - 9999 4. 10,000 - 24,999 5. 25,000 - 999,999 6. 100,000 and over 7- Is your school program accredited by the state and/or regional accrediting agencies? Yes No APPENDIX F GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION AND MAILING OF THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION, (ECC) 216 217 TO: Superintendents of COOperating School Districts in the Quality Research Project. FROM: Dr. Herbert C. Rudman, Project Director, College of Education, Michigan State University. SUBJECT: General Instructions for Administration and Mailing of the Educational Characteristicg Criterion (ECC). I. CONTENTS OF THE PACKAGE OF MATERIALS A. env010pes, each containing one copy of the ECG and an instruction sheet for teacher res ondents, with two extra capies. B. env010pes, stamped "ADMINISTRATOR", each containing one copy of the ggg, also stamped "ADMINISTRATOR", and an instruction sheet for administrative respondents (Superintendents, Principals, Supervisors), with one extra copy. C. One business enve10pe containing: 1. Return postage (educational materials classification) from the Superintendent's office to Michigan State University. 2. "Educational Materials" sticker for the return package. 3. Address sticker for returning test materials to Dr. Herbert C. Rudman, College of Education, Michigan State University. D. One Supplementary Information Form to be dimpleted by the Superintendent. II. DISTRIBUTION A. Please contact each principal to notify him of the participation of your school district in this research project which is concerned with the identification and measurement of quality in an educational program. B. Please give the principals instruction sheets, the ECG, and enveloPes for each teacher he supervises (unless this can more easily be accomplished through your central office). C. Give the principals and other administrator and supervisor respondents their instruction sheets, the ECG, and env010pes (marked "ADMINISTRATOR"). D. The Superintendent is requested to fill out the §ppplementary Information Form in addition to responding to the ECC using materials marked “ADMINISTRATOR". III. IV. 218 In case there is only one administrator, a Superintendent who also acts as Principal, it is desired that one "ADMINISTRATOR" Egg be given to the faculty individual who assists the Superintendent administratively more than any other faculty member. This individual would not fill out a teacher respondent Egg_but would fill out only the "ADMINISTRATOR" Egg. COLLECTION A. B. C. It is requested that the collection point of the Egg env010pes be clearly specified to all respondents. If the "Principal", "Principal's Secretary”, etc. are assigned the duty of collection, the respondents should be notified as to place and time of collection. All env010pes, used or unused, with the enclosed ECC's should be collected and checked against the total sent (see I. A. and 3., CONTENTS). Do not retain ggg's for absent teachers. All forms should be returned to your office within 48 hours at the latest. It is haped that the 48 hour limit will result in better individual perceptions that may be less influenced by group discussion. MAILING A. The return package should include all the enveIOpes and the ggpplementary Information Form completed by the Superintendent. There should be one package bound with cover paper, card, and tape if necessary. Postage and stickers are in the business enve10pe. The Supplementary Information Form should be placed in an enveIOpe on top of the Egg enveIOpes inside the package. Postage has been calculated at the "Educational Materials" rate. If reimbursement for additional postage is required, please contact Dr. Herbert C. Rudman, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. I wish to express my appreciation to you, your staff, and your teachers for the cooperation you have given in this project. An abstract of the results will be sent to you upon completion of the project. Herbert C. Rudman Project Director APPENDIX G LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS SENT TO SUPERINTENDENTS OF PARTICIPATING SCHOOL DISTRICTS 219 220 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST unsme COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ' October 10, 1963 Dear Superintendent: Your willingness to participate in the national quality measurement study sponsored by the College of Education, Michigan State University, is sincerely appreciated. The enthusiastic and prompt response from school districts throughout the United States has made it possible to proceed im- mediately with the second phase of the project. Educational Characteristics Criterion (ECC) questionnaires, instruction sheets and supplies, are being mailed to you under separate cover. Sufficient copies of the ECC are being sent to each selected district to per- mit every member of the teaching and administrative staff to participate. It is not the intent of our study to identify or to compare responses within or between individual school districts. All data will be kept confidential and utilized only in a group analysis of districts similar in size and financial characteristics. A copy of both the Supplemental Information Sheet for Sgperintendents and the General Instructioanheet for administering the ECC are enclosed for your iBormation. Additional copies of each of these forms are included with the package containing the questionnaires. Your cooperation in the second and final phase of our investigation is ap— - 7 preciated. I hope that the administrators and teachers in your school system will find the experience of responding to the ECC an interesting and profitable professional one. _— Should you have any questions or comments concerning the general instructions, the ECG or the recommended procedures for gathering responses, please con- tact me immediately. Best wishes to you and your staff for a successful and rewarding school year. Cordially yours, Herbert C. Rudman Profe s so r of Education HCR:cs Enclosures: (2) Supplemental Data Sheet, General Instruction Sheet APPENDIX H DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TOTAL MEAN SCORES AND BETWEEN CATEGORY MEAN SCORES OF TEACHERS AND OF ADMINIS- TRATORS FROM HIGH FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE AND FROM LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE 221 art—.4... ...43 ...... ._— ins—..-.,qw..qv .....,.n~....... —.....J:..:...ixfi )).v.~ ~.~a.-.fi ~u.~.. .....~..L 1.:WU sL..I;~«-—.fiu -w~5§-~§-t~N «Kn-_wa. ~fi~sui~s\ e..- cuauq. as a in. v... I -. uuu t...- ..v as... uuoiiv—./h .A. new..\i~‘e...v an r... (I‘.:.§ ‘11... ..;v.a. :15 ne-..~‘< §uohn.\, -.~.~(a§-U.\\ It. 1' e.~1i,hr§\\-D\\ 63.8wa and 30>”; nenmwm 40?": cosmoflwamwm mo .o one. am museums.“ and moaned—oat»: 33d 23. 222 saooue. mo. A a cam»; MS mmod SS6 3: .3. 33.3 < Sufism So . v a 32. .w 83. im .e So .m seem .3 memo .me a AmEafi m3 moogoogfloflomoh. one .330de 2;. "HC/ inummoumu Sufism mo . v a eased m2 mama SN .m 32...: 33.: < Serum :5. v a 334. SS 03.... 2a .m $3.3 8mm .3 a Angofi S doflmgnomdm pom ooflmuumwoflflnpxw HH> >uow3m0 Berta No . v a 53s 2; Sm .m E... .m 2:93 some .3 s Sufism So . v a 2S .0 8m... 2}. .m £9... moms .3 ES .5 a. 353“ AS 33.95500 05 mo doafimomaou Hansogoiowoom u> >nod3m0 Berta :5. v a 23 .e m: New. :3. SEC $2 .m < 898m So . v a Es... .2 8mm woo. So; Toma Zoos a AER: S mom—«dosh mo omD ">H fromoumu saunas. mo. A a $5.2 m2 wmmd e2 .N 33.1.: 33.3 < sacrum So . v m mowed 83 www .N :3 .N :3 .2 38 .3 a Ange”: my gadownufiu "H: whomouau Sousa. mo. A a «some; m: Slim moms Noemém 83.3 < Sorta :5. v a :54. 8mm Ems mama $3.8. $3.3 a Ange“: :v moodufifiw 3255800 u: inhomoumu E33 3. Am omm .2 m: 2%.... Rod . 3.3;: 33.: < Humane So . v a 85s 83 Sea EN .m 33 .2 2mm x: a Ange“: 8 omfladgoavu mo doc/01H deapgm "H >quouaO possum .8 . v m Moms 2; 2.... .2 em... .2 NMN .mm; coo 4.2 < Sari So. v a Rm. .2 83 $92 ~34: weir: mg .82 a $53“ 03 ouoom H.308 A m A m or a e ..m .o .o .m .o .m m m aaoao .mm H Z Hoganumfidwefioaa Jon n Z negoaoh "amends—O 304 “mm H Z u0uauumfldflgo< .mNNA u Z sonoaoh "33.330 swam disused upoddsm Hmwodmfih Bod 503 com oduumsd uuoamdm addocmomh £33 59$ msouanumufigosq. mo pom muonoaeh mo monoom smog >now3a0 evasion pom monoom oaoz H.808 moosfion mvoconomfim APPENDIX I DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTIC MEAN SCORES OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS FROM HIGH FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE AND FROM LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE 223 224 00003000 000000000 000 0H0>0Z 00033 .H0>0H 00000030m00 mo .0 000 00 000000.00 0.00 0000000m>£ 5.00 00H. $0.80 So. v 0 omo .o o: ooo. moo. Soto Sod 0 S $0.30 So. v 0 SSS mono ooo. ooo. oo.».m $0.0 H ..00300000 00090 03mmwv0a300x 30MB 0.00 000330 $040000"... 000033 «00.3020 000.000 0 00 00003000 00003 000.50m 000 00000.99. 0003034.‘ 30005500 "3 >00m0000 .008... oo. A 0 SN.“ 2.; poo. So. ooo.~ Sod 0 E. 30.80 So. v 0 Sfio 83 3o . ooo. mood ooo.~ 0. . ..u0050>0£00 00500000 000 5000 05 00. 00 ..m: 0003 00 00 00000 00500000 00 0030000 50005500 05 00 000.50% 000 000000nm: 00000< mo. Am mum. m: 0N0. mmw. mowé pmwd mm mm 00000< mo. A Q 000. momm 000. 000. mooé 2.00. .H. 100520300 00500000 00m 5000 05 00, 8. ..m: 0003 00 00 000mm 00500000 00 0030000 .3505500 000 00 300000 05 00 3000 00000000000 00H... E0000. mo. A m >20. N: 000. 0N0. 30...... 2050 < Em .8000 So. v 0 oo.... .m 8.8 ooo . oi. . Soto. o...» .0 0. . ..00050>0200 00500000 000 5000 05 on 00 ..m: 0003 00 00 00% 00500000 00 0030000 mdmaz 30.80 . No. v 0 S: m: moo. moo. mood. o: .m < o0 80.30 So. v 0 Sato 8mm oi . 3.... ooo.~ So .N 0. ..505 00 030 ud0>0 00300300000 #00000 000 0000300000 000 0000.0 030030015000.— 000 00000009. .38... oo. A m ooh; MS omo. So. omod Sod 0 o 3000< mo. A nu mam.” momm 02.. Non. ~0N.N End .H. ..300 00 0M00H300M 00000000 0000030 0000039. «003% dc. Vnm good m: Ame. . :0. Sad com...” < 0 80.30 So. v 0 Nooo mono o2. . o2. ooo.~ .300 0. .3003 03003000 000300 003300 03300.“ 0 3000 00000009. 0000fi3< 000 0M00~300M m0 H0>0A 0.000040% 3 N00MM00 o0 0 0. ..m .0 0 .0 .0 m .0 .0 0x 0x A320 :80 .N0 0 Z 000000000050< J02 0 Z 0000009. - "020.0000 .304 “no N Z 000000000050< .MNNZ u Z 000.0008 "330000 swam 0.20.0000 000000m #0000000h 304 503 000 0200000 000095 #0000000h 033 500..“ 0000000000050< mo 000 00000008 00 00000m 0002 0300000000000 #000300de #003305 0002500. 000000033” 225 00003000 .00000ww0m|000 0H0>0F00m0m 400/00 00000300m00 mo .0 000 30 000000.00 000 0000030n§0 :00 00H. 80.30 So. v 0 ouoa o: E. o3. hood No.0 .0 4 o... 0830 So . v 0 oom .o0 momm So . 03.. ooo .N 02 .N 0. 0 :000000 >383 00 00000 00003 00000000 03 0000300 00003 300900 3000000000 0003 00 030000m0 00H... 80.30 So. v 0 So; 20 2;. now. 0S5 oo~.o 0 o... 30.30 So. v 0 oom .2 83 2.0 . So . :o.N 03.0 0. ..000000 003 000 00000 003 0002300' 030300430000 0000000 00303008380903-0053 <.. 3.000% Zoo. VnH 036 m: 000. 000. mwfid m00.m < om 300.3% Zoo. V m 000-00 momm 3.0. mmo. Hmod 03.0 .H :030000300 030300 000 03003000 00 0300000000000 000 000 0000000 00000 0 030000000 300000000 00H... .0300 oo. A 0 ‘ oSm. m: 2.0. 00o. Eo.~ oood < ...m «@0004 mo. A nu ommv. momm 0N0. 0mm. oz..~ 023m. .H. :000030 000000 00 30000300 3000w00000x0 003 0300050000 0003 00 0000000 030000000000 $000030300 000 0000B: a000< mo. A m mmh. m: 5.0.. wow. 2%."... >000 «0 on 30000 So. v 0 ..oo ... 83 So . 03. 05 .N $.00 0. :00030000 000000 00 30> M3005000000 000 00 0300030000 000 00 WW0000000W 0m00 <: .0800 oo. A0 oS. m: 30. moo. $00 20.0 .4. on .083. oo . A 0 oowv. moon 000 . ooo . omm .0 omm .N 0. :5000000000 003 00 0000300001000 3003 000 000000 000 00 00w003 00000.» 003 000.2300 W00 00 00 00009.: £0004 mo. Ana mom; momm 000.0 000. wm®.~ 0000 H. ..000030 000000 00000 00 «0000000 0&0 0 03000 000 00m0M0300 H0000 00H... 8030 So. v 0 03.0 mom... on. . o3. . ofi .N om... .N 0. ..00000 000 3003000000 000 00300000 mo 0000m00m 00ufl000000000 000030m 000 00000& 00 0003000000 00H... 000030000 0000333< 3000000000 0: W00Mm00 o0. 0 0 .0 .0 0 .0 .0 0 .0 .0 0x 0x 0:80 So: 82.980 - 0 052000.. vvdcflcou 6953?: 0.2m mama: nozmfim 40>“: vucmoflflcmfim mo .o 9? pm wouomflmz mum mvmorflomkwfl :5: 0:8 226 Hooflom :5. v m SN .w m: mam. Sm. vmod v2 .m < mm Begum :5. v m wmm .2 8mm mom . So; and STN H . :oumdvovm kfiopofim quo and ficogmmsco vcm mwcgdsnv Emumhm Hoogom 93 mo moflwdomm QUEER 9:... moan—Swank mo omD ”>H Nuowwumo 30:8,» 8. A m 3N . m: 93. Nmm . 03$ o2. .m < 2 “8.51m 25. v m £31m 83 com. com . Si». 935 H :mHoozom on» cw oanmfim>m m“ madame» aco§o>3£um flaw oocowrmdgcwwgvgug ENQOHQ wcfimou ozmcvsvumaou 303800 <= Begum S. v m mSa m: c2. :5. 31m mit». < 3 32.3“ So. v m moifi 83 c5. 3;. mooé 2mg H :Eooummmfio 05 Excom: bucmmoum mum modwflfiuou Hmcofloshmcw mo zuvwnm.) amouw .3... “oo.“; .3. A m flaw. m: N3. . 2m. NS .m mm .m < o Sohom :5. v m m2 .0 88 N2. 3m. N2; , 32 .m B :Gofimuavgwuofixo 5530355 3.95300 min: on “ma: UvmoHo>ov «803 mm: ougosnum <= uaooo< mo. A nm cod .. m: mwb. coe. on: .m hoax” < m uncou< mo. A m . ohbc. momm ohm. bwm. omod omo.~ H :Emuwoum Hmcoflmudvo 9: mo mfiwxonm onpwcwcuoocou imam osuflcogm mamflfi mdmcvaOU: «Quou< mo. Ann >3. m: mar. . emo. “mo.m hood < w. Luuohum 8. v m mum .N 82. _ m8. . mow. ommd $3 .N H ..EduMMum chofimosvv 05 o» muduuauum woumcfluuooo wad uqoumgoo .m 0300qu 93:339.: gguwuudo a: Naomwumu 33: mo. A m NS .H m: 30. cop. 3m .N 2% .~ < mm “venom Moo. Vnm >2 .5. menu wow. mmw. 20$. ohm .N H. . :cuuvdao .305 new wcflmv rude UMMusoocu no ocovcou mucouMnH: «oomom mo. V nu omo.~ m: ehw. «3m. mmm.m my: ..m < mm 803m :8. v A 23d 8mm 3». Now . mood 28 .m H :gcvegoo 0:..— mo AcouEEu menfioosom “508:? «3.33“. Hoonum a mo mucogmou owes”; mach—mm cam mucoumm 05 >3 £330va do Uvomam m“ 0.39, 3W3 4: Avoficficouv movdufiuxw >fic35500 u: >quoumD oTH na .H. ..m .Q 1H.Q.m $.Q .m AM EX $50.10 Eon—H 823200 - H xazmmm< 227 00503000 600.0065 00.0 mH0>0H 00:93 40>0H 00000¢00w0m mo .0 000 um 00003.00 000 m0monuom>£ .30: 00H. laoouoa mo. A nu owe; m: owmo. mod .0 mme omoJ < moo. $0.30 So. v 0 «om.» 8mm omo . moo . moo; m: .0 0. 200203000 000 mucmumgounm 0003000, @0330 52.0100 3 030058800 005 m0 coflumgmom 0A9: $0.30 So. v 0 9:1. 2; ooo. mom; ooo; omoé < 3 $0.30 So . v 0 NS. .3 momm moo . SN .0 3o; 3o .0 0. ..nm030h >3000050000m 000 0:3 0300a m0 00000800 3 030058800 038: 3003» m0. Ana moi; m: :0. 0mm. 0mm; Nah; < ow .3980 So. v 0 ooo.m 8mm ooo. woo. moo; woo; 0. 20:05.00 ham—00020000000 000 033 0Hmm0m mo 00000500 00 wfiadggou mEH: $0.30 So. v 0 wooo W: o: J So .0 oi .m NmoJ < 3. 80.30 ooo . vim 3mg: momo moo .0 moo; :55 mod .N 0. ..0000m0000mynmficcov0um 000 003 03000 HO 000000000 00 3.08500 03H... 00000< mo. Ana omo. m: who; coo; omhé. Sued < To. 0083. mo. A 0 o3; moon ooo. moo; mood wood 0. ..cofimfismom H.003 00.3 macaw 33x0 >00E0w0§0£ 05009000 000 400000 .3530 m0 0&00 0w“: «a: 30.80 S. v 0 $5M m: o3. mom . .03.... Soo < 3 $0.30 So. v 0 moog. Moon 36 . to. moo .m oooa 0. :0000 00305.30» 030 0080: m0 $000000 0% gm“: <: $0.30 So. v 0 oomo MS moo. ooo. Sud wood < 3 000fi0m goo. V nH oomdd momm mow. Homo. mwfié hoo.m ,H :0000 ~000m00m 030 000003.... #000000 swE mo 0M300000§dm£ 5. 30.30 So. v 0 Sim m: ooo. So. 5: mooé 4 on 00034 mo. A 0 own. 83 moo. moo. omod ooo.~ 0. uwmqlgmg 0HQO0%>008 00» 0>d£ 000 0000 £033 wicsggoo 03.30 >Efi 0 m“ 03H... 60.30 So. v 0 «.35 o: oo. omo. 03d omoé < 3 “8.30 So. v 0 2%.: 83 So. woo. v: .N Sod 0. 30005800 0:“ 5 0303050 >260?“ 000 00000000950 13330: Eouu< mo. A m 02 .0 MS 25. moo. Qoé oood < mm 30.30 8o. v 0 ooo.m mono ooo. moo. Goo Swim 0. 30.58500 03» am am} >00> 3 00000000» mo 005.30 #00000 00.9.: 300095000 0:0 no 0030009000 H0000H50n0000m u> >00w0000 om 0 0. .0 .0 0 .0 .m m .0 .w 0m 0x 96.6 £30 33:80 - 0 000200: 228 00003000 000000000 000 mH0>0H 000mg.“ .H0>0H 0000003030 m0 .0 000 00 0000.30 000 0000000900 :00 00H. 0000040 m0. A m 0 m: 0 0 000.0 000.0 40 cm E390 mo. A 0 o momm o o ooo .0 ooo .0 0. :000000m0 m030000 000 H0000w00 00\000 00000 05 ha 0000000000 00 800w00m 3000M: 00890 mo. A 0 .20.. 02 ot. moo. ooo.~ 08.0 .0 mm 80.30 So. v0 30.: noon oS. ooo. $0.0 Sod 0. :000030m 0000300000 00 0030000000000 000 00 0000 m>0300 0000000 000 000000m00jm0000008: $0.80 So. v 0 flog m: Sp. moo. moo; £00 < S $0.30 So. v 0 mmog No3 to. moo. ooo .N mom .0 0. :0000300nH 000000 0000000 00 00000030 030m?“ 000 0000300: 3330 mo. A 0 Foo; 30 $0. 3.0. 30.0 ooo.~. < on 30.0.00 So. v 0 20 .o momm So. moo. mood Sod 0. :0020000 000 0003000043000 000 000020m 00000000300000>0m 0003000J0m: 00000< mo. A AM wow. m: 000. N00. 0N0.N 0000 < mm ”.0830 mo . A 0 of . momm ooo . mvo . £1. .0 moo .m 0 :0030000 000 00020000 00% 00.0 000000 0000000 M00000>Wwfl00000~|flm3~= 00000< m0. A nH mom; m: mmw. 0&0. 3:0 0Nm.~ < mm 80.80 So . v 0 .35 .o .83 oow. moo . ooo .N mum .N 0. $0000 000000 000 0003 000mm. 0000300000 w§00000m 05 00 00.30000 $3 000 5000000000 0:» 00 00090008 >04: 0033. mo. A n0 oom .0 m: ooo. ooo. 20.0 oS.m < 3 30.30 So. v 0 0.2.5 momm omo. uooo. 03.0 mood 0. :000000000 000>00mu00 00 00>00>00 000 00000? 000000 000 00 0000.0 00000000000nmz 00000>00m0m 000 00300000000004 uH> N00MM000 00000< m0. Am 000. 20 mt; 000.0 N000 N00.~ < 0m 000m0m 000.Vnm 0m0.m momm mwoJ 02.0 000?“. 02.0 .H :3000000000 000 00 000000000 00 0090000 000M000 05 000000000 0W000W 000000 030 00 000: 5000030000 0300000000 003 00 0030009000 0000:00u0000m u> N00w000 o0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .m 0 .0 .m 0m 0x 0:80 830 - 00003000 .. H XHQZMQnm/w 6353550 634365 mum 30>»; nogmfim .353 oudmuflficmwm mo .o 05 mm wouoohmn ohm mmmonuongs :5: ugh. Sufism S. v m ~34 MS to. m2. . mead. Ema < 2 303m :5. v m 5&5 83 3w. :5. 25m wwod H :mwoa HmcowmmoHOgm mo mmzomgofi 25rd coumo mnvsomoH: you?“ Ho. VnH vood m: mwc. hmo. SNJ 035 < 3 393m :5. vm $92 .83 mum. :5 S65 Sma H :Eoonmmmfiu 05 5 @092 kaficuwmmum mum mmsgcaumu #9833535 mo 33.3; 3on <2 3884‘. we. A m EN; 2; 3;. «mm. 03.». 92 .m < 2 393m :5. vm mfié 83 m3. :5. Sax” ~25, a :ucmuuomcfi on, Ca vamcou ~35 was? :38“ on 80935 033880 o>m£ mumgommhz “8.3m mo. v m 9: .N m: :3: wow. mooa wmwa < 2 Begum :5. v m Sim 83 mew. 30. mm». .m 936 a :wcfiuwou 30G mum >2: Humwfidm #0 H922 gamma: aw gummy op vvafihou mum mumfiummu :4). HQQUUAV mo. AnH ONm.H MFA EFF. MNN. FOP.N oww.N <1 HA 898m So. v m 33% 8mm 3m. mi. mid Bad 9 w :mcoflmfiumv 3:330de 950m 312: 3 cofimfiuofl: 2 35 mm: van 32353 no vmuofimd cofimfiuofi: 05 vcmumuowcs xfiswdouofi mumaumoB: 30.3% moo. v m 3%.». m5 3c. “.12.. $o.~ voma < p 30.3% 8o. v m 25.: 8mm :3. 3m. oid $1M H :cofimucogfomxo umHsoCHSU uo>ucm #9333535 mo mumCB ooqovgm: «move/w mo. A nm mow. m: #3.. owe. cmod :13 < m «umflom So. A nm om¢.o momm wmv. $2.. prod a: .m ,H. :mvocmpvmflv 35339: mo owcmfikrocx .m “coach moufiumym wcflfiummh: «@0004 mo. Ann Ham; m: ”mo. ooo. mwo.m wmmé < N 303m :5. vm :06. 8mm Sp. o3. one; ANNA e :mmocouomflv 3533?: new :uoocoo 30G»; mooflomqucfiomoh: 38: mo . A m 2: 4 m: «.3. a: . «85 $1M < H 3&3“ :5. v m 35¢ 83 ¢§ . $3. wom.~ 26 .m H :Couvfino mo omvoHBocx @3535 03m: muozomorw: 35532 chomoB van penumvfi .33. ":> >uom3m0 A m cm mm ,H. ..m .0 .Q .m .9 .m AM EN @5910 So: voscflcou u H XHQZHanm< 230 .Uvumogfi mum £95.“ nonmfim 42,3 cosmoflwcmflm mo .0 9: am wouoommn mum 352309»: San mam. ammou< mo. Ana Maw. m: «VNQ. :w. pmoé wwwd < May 898m 8. v m 21...“. 3mm «2.. mm». 234 m:.~ H :mucmvam o» Umcwwmmm ma xHOBmaos mo Hmov unwind <2 Evoo< mo. A nH Now. 2; 0:. Nmm. omm.m m®N.N < mm 308m 8o. v m 2: .0 8...” 2w . 3m. $1M $m .N a :mmmomudm Hmaoflosh—mg new vows and mucvvwmoh mfi Ucw knfiadgfihou 23.: £890. 8. Am ~24 m: 3:... 21.. «$5 2: < 3. 398m mo . v m of .N 83 mg . wt. . SN .m 3% .m a . . :mfimum 05 mo mpvaumou umcoEm Gofimnomooo mo H9:: fin m mumfis mugs... Begum So. v m 39... m: 3w. new. mwmd a: .N 4. S Begum So.vm moi: 83 .2». com. omm.~ 33 .H. ..KGESEEOU 2t mo mofiflrfium Hmuflflom wad HMMUOm cw Gofimmwoflumm .330me m0 omnmmv M33: 603m :5. v m 254. m: :m . om”. m$.~ w: .m < om 808m :5. v m 2.0.0 83 wow . o3. 03d omw.~ a :33.» mo madam awofiwola -3090. wcm Hmofiflogmo movmnm Sm “ovum.” umzu mdmwuvume mo mucowgm 3 Nuflfimfim>86 .83 v3. 21.. omod m2 .m H :363 1303950?“ no Jmaofimc .oumum .Hmoofificm oummummzafi o» magenfium op Ugcwum 3 52503 303880: Avvsnficoov mvofioz wcfigomoh. tam uwgomoh. oFH u:> NMomBmU T m cm nH B ..m .Q A .Q .m .Q .m AM EN 95.10 50: 322.68 - H x52??? APPENDIX J DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TOTAL MEAN SCORES AND BETWEEN CATEGORY MEAN SCORES OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS WITHIN HIGH FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE AND OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS WITHIN LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE Z31 ‘ - 232 .wvumuflufi ohm mHo>oH .3an3 40>“: 02333de me .o 05 um wouuvfiou and momospoan :5: 2:. ouuflom So. v m 3:5 3: Ammo .m 2.35 52: .2. oooofi. 33 30.32 No. v m 52.5. 32 235 $35 33.2. 2.8.2. 22m Amgofi m3 mvoaumg waEumvH Unm hvaommh. 09H. "HH> Layowvumnu 320m moo. v m :35 No: 255 5.2.5 3212 $2 .2 33 80.532 mo. v m 2.35 32 53.5 2.2% 5 $21: mom... .2 swam $50”: S Gowmguvmsm 6cm :oflmuumflfigofl NH> whomvumO 383» mo. A m 22.5 .2 No: omom 5 £3 5 ooooow S2 .3 Bod Emu; mo. A m oomo; 32 SS5 335 322$. ooom .5 if Amado: :V NfiGSEEOO 05 mo :ofifimomEoO Hmudfidouowuom u> >nowoom0 898m No. v m 225 .N No: omoo. goo. $35 2% .N 33 30.532 8. v m 2.35 32 :3. 2o; :2 5 $35 :23 3.33% 3 mmgdumh mo omD ">H >uomoum0 30.532 8o . v m oomvé No: o3 .N ooo .N 2.3 .2 53o .2 33 80.5mm mo. v m S: 5 22 $2 5 235 $3.2 $8.2 ammo $80”: my 53:03.30 "H: Laugwomo ouonom mo. v m 9.2 5 S: 51.5 o? .m moomém 2:23 33 “8.50m mo. v m moo... 5. 32 22:. ~35 83.3 33.5... :23 Amgofi A: movdfiufiw ~$ESEEOO n: NaomoamO 30.532 So. v m 2.35 No: 335 :85 33.2 2.3.2 304 80.5mm 8o. vm 2:55 22 :35. $.35 2.2%: 23.2 if 388$ 8 owvoHBOGM mo H954 mzaovsum "H >Hommum0 80.522 So. v m $.35 N22 oo~2 $22 . 2352 2.3.2: 33 893m moo. v m 3: 5 32 3mm .2 22.5: ooo.o2 $352 :23 Among“ 03 ououm H308 om m u. .m .9 nowoum0 cook/own, cam mououm amoz H.308 cook/own mmucvnmmfia APPENDIX K DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTIC MEAN SCORES OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS WITHIN HIGH FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE AND OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS WITHIN LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE 233 l‘ vodaflcou 60050223 cum 39$: .3:me 40.33 mocmowficwfim mo .0 9.3 «m venuomvu mum momoguongfi 3.9a mAH. 234 I] - 383. mo. A m ooo. 5m: 2&2 So... 255 «52 5 .33 25 80.73 S. v m 2.5.5 22 5mm. moo. 5S5 :55 no.5 2:033:60 «503m ofinmowvofigocx hgwws mum 30.3330 wwmufioonom 30:33 Hoguumfiw Hooaum .m mo macmvwmmu mmosuv mdonumm dam mucmumm: mmvdfiufiw LCESEEOO "Z >powoum0 893m mo. v m 5m5 5 5m: omo. 55o. mmo5 3m 5 33 5m 3835 mo . A m oo25 . E 2 wow . mom . 8o 5 omo 5 $5 , uc030>3£um owgmvmnvm new Enos 33 on 0» 2m: “mam: um mo 35pm ofigmvmnvm Gm powfimcoo kwficflaaoo 93 a: machumm USN mucmumnm 383. mo. A m 822 no: So . ooo . mmo5 moo 5 33 5m 3335. mo. A m «2.2 32 mmo. go. 985 ~35 ~2me acmao>3£om ngovmom no“ 880C 9.3 on— o» :m: «mama 3.... mo 33mm. uwgmvmom cm nwgmcoo xficdflngou v5 5 maoonom on: mo 33m Hmcowmmmuoum 93. “8.53 So. v m Sm5 No: ooo. mmo. 2o5 mom5 33 2m 383. mo. A m 2mm . 32 omo . oi. . 535 $4. 5 “RE “Goavxrowaom owngmom hem Enos 0:... mo. 3 :m: ammofi um. mo mvmumwufiemovmum Gm uuvwmcoo mmmdnw. 30.53 mo. v m 25 5. 5m: 53. 21.. mmo5 235 33-. 2 80.5.3 8. v m So5 32 moo. 5:. o25 2&5 swam 39.3 o... ”Emawdxwm mmswguhommo HNMUOm UCN HNGOMHNUSUU OS“ uSOfld UHQNOMUOHBOGM 0nd muGOUHfl—m 82mm 5o. vm $55 No: omo. m2. $.55 $55 33 o 823 So. vm «moé 22 mom. 52.. 225 255 gm“: Sum mo “$315an vumuduum 00:33.55 mucvvam 9.83m Hoo.v.m 255 3: 2mm. oi. 535 mmm5 33 o to?“ So.v m .325 32 :m . o2. mo55 Iwmo5 nmwm VHHOB UwudeOfimUm UHNBOH UUSuMHH—m O>wufim0nm m BOfim mufivflgm mvvafifio‘ wad owUmHz/ocm mo Z964 mLsowdam "H huonumO om m .H. .h .9 <3 .w .3. .Q .m 0: n0:w:m 40>“: 00:003330 mo 6 0:» »0 60»00fl0.» 000 0000509»: :50 0:8 ”.033 mo. A m moo . 5o: 5? . Em . gm 5 omm 5 33 3 3003 mo. A A $3. 32 8:. . o2. . 52 5 2: 5 :93 :m0u0:0 >fl§0m mo 0.55:0, 30:» EH0wu0m 0» :0u6fi:0 30:» »00NX0 >»»GSEEO0 3:» 5 300.33 0:5: $0.73 So. v m ooo .5 5o: moo. Mom. 535 :o5 33 oo 30.333 moo. v m 1: 5 32 no». 55w. 855 mg 5 swam _Loo:om 0:» 6:0 030: 0:» £00.30: 30:08 >2600h 35:0:0 00300855300 >02???» 4: E33 mo. A m 35; $3 $3. 55. 52 5 :85 33 om 383 mo. A 0 “So; 32 ooo. 55o. 535 $55 :55 :m»m0u0»a: 03330 600 6:0 030:»000 mo m»G0EQ0:0>06 0:» 00m Gu00000 »00uflm m»::»:x0 wficsagoo 0:,H: 80.30 mo. v 0 So 5 5o: Em. omo. m35 35.5 33 35 83.3 mo. v m o2 5 32 woo. woo. omo5 $.35 :30 - . .1033? 30:00 a» »m0.~0»:» »00uw»»:fi:x0 0:3 >»»G55800 03:» a» 0:06.00: >»ESE§00 wcw6am»m»do 0H0 0.8:8: woo 3804 mo. A m on: .3 5o: :3 . So. mom 5 oz 5 33 om 2 383 mo. A m 33. $2 vow. mg. $55 $55 if ..mcow»00:0 30:00 a» 0»0> Nficfigfioo 0:» a: 0»0u0»00:0 0:» m0 0mm»:00n0lml:w»: <3 E000< mo. A nu at”: No: mow. www. Hmvé mmm.~ 304 on 338.5 mo. Am $8. 32 So. So. 255 $55 nwfi ywnséoo 0:» 0» 60030.98: 0: »m:.3 600 30:00 0:» a» »:m50» 00960», 0:» G003»0:fl§ 0: m» 0.30:8: Eouo< mo. A 0 $5.: No: ooo . ooo.H ooo5 $55 33 S. 30.30 S. v0 335 32 ME. ooo. o25 ooo5 Ami :mhwwmwmm HOOSUm HNUOH GM ummhvuflm Swag: .m GBOSm mmfi Mommamgwfl .m‘mUOH warn—...: E82 mo. Am So; 32 who. ooo. 855 $55 :55 .1030 600 »G0»m»m:00 0:0 00300560 :0 m0momus1n~ 0:» m3~800000 000553 6:0 m»c0:0m m0 m00»»m:00p0m 0:8: A605:»»GOUV 006.3355 >»d§§§00 HZ >u®W0»0U H oz 0 H .m .0 <0 .m H .0 .m 8. o8; 3:6 Sad swam :oudemovm 3334 :800 end ficmfimfisvo cam mwcfluddnv Evumxm Hoonom 0:» mo mmfiflwomm 339:3 «EH... wmfififlomh mo mmD “>H knuowmumu Spam :5. v m Sod $2 36. com. 35m >36 33 S 88$ mo. A m 2mm. 32 Nmm. com. 335 23.». if :mHoonom $5 a: wfimdmzw mfi wafimmfi “Gog nm>ofi£ow vcm vucvwflfimucw mcwvsfiufi Emuwoum wcfimou m>flmcm£oh9floo vumfimgou <= 303m moo. v m mm: .m S: o:. 03. o: .m wood 33 2 80.8% No. vm Swd 32 So. 31.. atim Ema nmfi ...dcoonmmgo 05 5 wow: Nfiucomoum mum mvsgcnuou fimcoflozhumcw mo >529» 3on <= poowmm Moo. v nm om¢.m No: N33 Nmo. HmN.m Nmo.N 30A 0 £83. mo. A m won; 32 3w. 2%. Swim of .m 35 cofimucvfifipmmxo 83:03.36 Hmdcflcou 32¢th “may vomofizrov ammo, mmn updfifiuum <= Samoa mo. v m 3o .N 3: mm» . o3. 81m £0 .N 33 m 383‘ mo. A m ooo .H 32 0ko . Sm . 39m omo .N swam :Emuwoud Hmcofimgfiv 0:“ mo mfimow mfiflmficumuaoo wwmum one “Goad 3.0.38 mdmcmmaoU: £83» mo. Am 2;; No: wE. mm». Sad omwd 33 w Eooo< mo. A m mum. 32 03. mom. S¢.~ 03d 35 :EmumOum Hmcoflmudvv 05 3 musuuduum woumcfluuooo vcm «Cmumzou .m m>wooummmuv£ummfiz gaduwuusu A: >uowoum0 803m mo. v m Elma. 3: $3. . 3m. Emd Soé 33 mm “Show :5. v m Bag 22 03. N3. $9M ogd Ami :Cohwfifio pwvfi new wcfimfi >753 mmmndoucm .Ho ocovcoo macohmm”: 383 mo. A m mmm; 3: 2w. Sm. mmwd wood 33 mm 38ko mo. Am NS; 22 3%. Now. 23 :05 :33 {032.5500 93 mo Acouvdxo mmmJoogom “505;? “033% Hoosum a mo macvvfimon vmoat mcouamm vcm 3:0th 05 >3 aofimodvm co vvumfim m“ 03:; £3: .3. AUBESGOUV mmwgfifiw windegonu u: Nmyumo Umdcflcoo .. M XHQZmHnmnH< Z37 vascflcou 693332: and mack/3 hvnwwm Ami: vocmuwficmfim mo .0 93 um wouomfimu ohm mmmofiuogn :3: 3:. amouo< mo. A nH owe. No: owmv. mmo. mwmé New; 301... . E394. mo. A m 8m. 32 N8; So . 02.; mm; .3 if 3 :mofiofimu van mpcmumououna “~003qu “govt/flu fiasco m“ gcfiggou 35 mo noflmfidmom 0:9: 303m :5. v m Sm .m S: ooo. m5 . ooo; 3o 4 33 3 383‘ mo. A m 3;. 32 EN; EN; $9M ~29; nwfi .3333. .Ducmcfigovmpnflmum 9+3. mfimomm mo UmmomEou ma MHESEEOU mEH: Raou< mo. Am woo; mo: :9. omo. 0mm; mun; 304 5‘ 38: mo. A m ooo; 32 98. wow. N3; mg; 33m :ofiofimu mficmcwgowoum mum. 0:3 maoom mo Ummomgou m“ 3358980 mEH: 383w mo. Am 53. S: 9: .H moo; 3:5 305 33 3 £83. mo. Am 2:; 32 So; So; mmod mid ABE :ucmumouounm KASGmcflEovmpWoum 0&3 maomm mo vmmomaou ma wficdgaoo mEH: «@0004 mo. Ana «All; Ne: NFC; wwo. cmhé m¢mtm 304 «AV E83. mo. Am 3.3. $2 ooo; moo; $9M woma awn; :Goflmgmom Hmuofi v5 waoEm mumflxo Kafiocowogoa mdowmfimu wad Hmflomh .oflcfim mo 0»:on fiwE <= Eooo< 1 mo. A m m2 . we: omv. 3m. om>.m $58 303 3 38:“ mo. A A $04 32 SN . :3. 236 coma gmfim :mwmm ”58333 550 mmgog mo vmmucnuuuom gm“: <= E83» mo. A m SN. No: 23. moo. S~.~ m2 .m 33 3 383 mo. Am 32., 32 05. So. $9M Sod nwfi :mpdu Enempom :30 mucvwam Hoonom smE mo ommfiuoopom gm“: 4: uQvUwa mo. A m OM¢.. NQHH Emmy. vamv. FOF.N wm©.N 301H mm E83 8. A m 05... 22 m3 . o; . mood 93 .N swam :mcgmofi @300.“ zcme oou okmg uoc mwov :03? 33.95800 033m >33: m ma mEH: Evoo< mo. Ana nmoé me: How. 92.. vad mn~.m 304 «um $83,» mo. A m cm»; 32 0mm. $0. omw.~ Sod :33 {3335980 05 s“ 333395 NZUMoM mum mmoamfivmxm 3.3530: pmvuoa‘ mo. Anw mmHJ No: mmw. mam. vad Hmné 304 mm 80.3mm mo. Va 25; 32 3». 23. 8: 3m.~. firm : “358800 was» a“ aw“: mm; ma mumfiomvp mo 9.53m HmMUOm 9.3.: KSEDEEOU 05 mo coflGomEoU fimnDfiSUuofiuom u> haowvumo om m H ..m d < . H d .m 8 .N 33 Evouka mo. A Am owmé 3: www. moo. emaim mmmtw awfim um :mEmHnoum Hoonum mmsUmfiv ou wouficmwho >1.me mum 98330: Spam mo. v m Sod 8: 2%. 3o. mowd NSJ 33 383.» mo. A m E. 32 2%. m3 . god So .N $5 3. ..demuvfi flaw $0298 >133 0.2m mowuflom amazemuom wGEumgow mcofimfidmmm: 383 mo. A m 1:: 8: NEW. 35. £3 .N 2:. .N 33 383 mo. A m 3.3. 32 NS. 33. 03:“. mmpd firm 3 :Uofimuov vcm 3.0293 >133: ohm “03300 “Govgm Waite/ow mcoflmfidwmm: 333‘ me . A m mum .3 mg: 3 mmw . oww . $1M ooo .N 33 E83. mo. A m :o; 22 So. 2; . ommé SN .N :33 MN :mmmum Hoonom was at? mfimow Hmcofimgfim mo mcacflm “it c“ 69,3023 “Sam“: and kwficghaou 2.3 m0 mhmflgoe xmd: E83 mo. A m ooo. 3: com. omo. :wd Ed 33 amooxw mo. A nm com; 32 93.3 uvmo. oHo.m mww.m Amfim OH :aofiwosvm oughvmucw 3 ©0302: ohm Eoumwm Hoogom on”. yo 3de Hmcofimmomoum: Gofimguvmdm tam aofimuumwcwemumw uH> Huowofimu 333 mo. Am com; 3: 2;; So; Nopd w$.~ 33 383 mm. A m $8. 32 fl: 4 H: 4 mood mo: swam om :mficahaoo 05 5 mwsogmmh mo 909,835 ”Emmy“: ox“ vmwumgoo mmsoum 3530 025 go ocO: Avwscflcoov 33538800 05 mo cofifimomccou amusfidonofiuom u> >Howwpm0 on m e .m .Q <3 .m a d .m “: ouamuflflcmfim mod 03» um Umuoofloh ohm. memosuonfinn is: 0:8 893m mo. vm So; S: 2;. ““3. Sim 933 33 S Buflom mo. v m 1% .N 32 23 . 2:. . m3 .M Q: .m :33 :mfimmw Hgofiumfihoufim HO .Hmcofimc 633 .183 Nam oumwfimmkwg 3 mucocspm op vmacmuw m“ Eovvoum vumflmflgoo: E83. mo. A m one; 3: 2.0. 3w. Nooa $5M 33 3 893m 8. vm wood 3.: map. :5. Eng wmod awn; :QHQS HNGmemOMOHQ HO mO>H0mE®£u Hundxrd GOumO mhvflodvnfiz 803m mo. v m mo¢.~ 3: 33. MS. EMA 20.». 33 3 308m mo.vm $~.~ $2 ‘ So. 32.. 03.», Ema swam :mEooummmHu on“ 5 R55 xficmmmum ohm mmdwficgumu fimcofiodpumcfi “18393 ammpm <2 383 mo. A m mmmm. 3: $4. . wmw . owm .m 3N .m 33 383 mo. Am $2. 32 «mm. :5. omim 27m. $5 2 ..HCNHHOQEM Ofl Ow .HvUHmGOU MOSH umflg £Uw®u Ow EOUQQRH QHQHQEOU ®>d£ mHQSUdOn—w: 898m So. v m mama. No: :3 . mow . mooa wmm .m 33 toflom :5. v m 35¢ 32 wow. 03. mmm.m mmoa swam 2 ..WCMSUNOH BOG Ohm. >®£u uuvhfldm .HO Hex/0.— QUNHW vfiu um SUMO”. Cu Umfiwwuhvu 0km mhvfiommu— .3463. £83 mo. A m 2.3. 3: FE . mow. Sim mi .N 33 383 mo. A m 3%. 32 ‘ ME. m3. 233 :03 if 2 ..mcofimwuvfi HNCOMHNUDUO UGDOm Oxme OH GOfi—NSHOHGM m3» mm: Ucm 335me so wmhmfimm coflmghofi: 05 vcmumuoccs 8395.85. muoxommE: Spam 8. vm god 3: «8. 8». $54.. 03:“. 33 3 893m mo. v m God 32 NE . 3%. 3T». 3; .m 33m :COwwmuCMEMHOQXO MNHSUMHHSU HONUCM HNCOwHUDHHme MO wumwxv OUCOUt/MH: 383 mo. A m $3. $2 $3. $3. 98.». :55. 33 £83 mo. A A $3. 22 $3. EN... 3: .m 31m swam N ..mvocvhvmwflfl Hmflmuwxrfimufiw MOM CH®UCOU HUOHHOH mGwaUmHQ MCMQUGQH: 583 mo. A m 2:: 3: ooo. v? . 30$ mama. 33 383 mo. Am «om; 32 oi. as. 33.». owox‘. $5 3 ..thfifiwfiu HO 0mmu®~>>0§ OHNEMHGw 0>m£ mhvfiomohfiz mUOSwvz MGMQUNOH USN Hmflomvnfi wflH "HH> Knhowmwmnv om m e .m d < d .m a d .m »: mucmuflficmfim mo .0 93 aw Umuoohmu mum mmmmfluonb»: 23G 09H €33. $3. $2 $3. $5 30$ 33:“. 33 m 383 $3. 32 23. v: . 3.1m at .m gm“: :mvoSmhmwwfiU HNSUHKLUSM HO OwUQHBOSM N HUQHHQH mMUfiHUNHnM WSfiSUNOH: 8.93m SH 4. $2 $0. 2:. . Sod wS .N 33 2. £83 3m; :2 2w. mm» . 2&3 m: .N Ami :mpSoUSum OH UmSmHmmN mun MHOBOEOS m0 HNUU “Nohw <2 3&3 mmm.~ $3 $3. 2w. oomd £14 33 mm 383 «E. 32 NS . mww. 3N4 in .N firm ..mmmomhdhm HNSOfipUSHumSw MO...” UQmS MHN muSOmevh my.“ USN >HwSSSHSHOU QflH... 898m 85m 3: 3.... www. $9M 3N3 33 S 383 3%. 22 2;. wt. Qwa £101... :33 :wwNum vi“ MO mHNSUNQH NS“ WSOEN SONSHNHOMOOU HO H®>®H flwwfl N mwmfixo OHQQH... 383 $3. 3: 0mm. 20. mwmd 03$ 33 3 E83 $2 . 22 gm . com. S A .N .5 .N awn; {$838500 9: mo mvflgflum awoflflom Nam HNSUOm cw Godummfiofihmm 33333 HO mmpwflov swam: 80.3mm Sim 3: 2w. wow. .805. $33 33 cm 30.3mm womé 32 om». 03. m: .m ommd $5 23013 mo 350m Hmofimoa IOSUOw USN HNUfipflHOnH m0 vaNfim .:N HUGHHQH vNfiu mHNMH muNSH MO mH—SQUSu—m OH MpMHMQNHfiNNCQa: AUNSSBSOUV mUOfluvwawfloNvB USN HQQUNOH. NSF "HH> khhowUH—NU cm H .m .9 <5 .m .3. .Q .m «x ex 96.5 So: 3 wmscficoo .. M XHQZMAHAH< APPENDIX L DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TOTAL MEAN SCORES AND BETWEEN CATEGORY MEAN SCORES OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS WITHIN DISTRICT NO. 2 (HIGH FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE), AND WITHIN DISTRICTS NO. 15 AND NO. 23 (LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE) 241 6022300 .woumoflxfi 0.3m 39.32 nugmfim 4933 wucmuflficwwm mo .o mg... um $303.0.“ ohm momoguogx Sac 2:. 242 333. mo. A m wmm; 3 $3M Ema 08.5 ENJN 3 803m :5. v m 31¢ 2. 0:: 1:3 25.3 $.me m: 833 mo. v m «83.. omm S; .N 253 25.; $90... N 380”: :v ISSCSEEOO vat mo coflwmomEoO Hahsfidosofiuom u> xnowoumU amouo< mo. Anm ONO; we SN. :34 ooo.m nmmN MN 383 mo. A m coco. 2. 3%. flow. 03d wmoa 2 303m So. v m 08$ 9% $3. Zoo. N35. 305 N 35$ 3 mmfizflomh mo omD ”>H whowmme 383. mo . A m «2.. we NB .m fwd 08.2 3.3 .3 mm ammou< mo. A Q :6 . mu >3 .N omo .m oow.mS wwn .SL ma poommm mo. v Q wooN oNN omoé viiN :N.: meéz N AmEmfi mv 935303.330 ”H: >howmum0 ago/w mo. Am 3?; we Qmé Moog. omNJm www.mm . mm 8&3 mo. v m mmwd m3 253 $0.“. 8de 5.0.3 2 amou< mo. A m :03 ONN o: .6 Smm .w owe .mm on: .Nm N AmEmfi :v mmvdfiufiw 52395800 "E ICONS—MO 38“}. mo . A m 3N; E com .3. ooo .N omm .2 2:12 mm Emoo< mo . A Q www .S mm NA: .N CNN oowg: mané m: amouxw mo. Am 023 ONN ommN mz..N @212 Sowda N 388.: 3 oonHk/ocvm mo S954 mzcovgm ”H xuomfimu unvoo< mo. A nH CONS we www.mm 0N©.: oom.®mH Nmo.©mS MN 893m So. vm 2:6 mp 306 36.2 25.9.: MNMSQ m3 38:. mo. Am 03; OS. v2.2 23:: $93: 30.9: N $80”: 03 opoum 130R. 03 mm H. ..m .0 <.Q.m HAHN uomvum0 coma/won, cam. mmuoum adv: 1308 :50?qu moucouowfifl 243 63.36:“ and 38K: posmflm 492m; vocmuflflcmfim mo .0 0:... am wouuoflou ohm mommfiuoakwa 25G wSH. E80... mo. A m Co. .8 «$4. 9% .o 02. .3. $5.2. mm “8.9.x :5. v m 3...... mp 3.8.... 3...... 08.3. 03.2. 2 383. mo. A m 02.; SN :2 .m Em...“ $52. 3mg... N 388.“ m3 mwonumz mchmoH vcm pmgummfi 83. u:> \fowoumo 383.. me. A m 3;. 8 Sfim Sm; omm .2 3?: MN 383.. mo. A m :3. m» $9M. 3w...” ASN.2 Sm... 2 ...88... mo. A m $3. SN ~35 >2 .m 03.3 3...? N $80”: S :oflmguomdm flaw cofimbmdfigfifiw uH> xnommumu om m H .md <.Q.m Edd mm ,m fin mouwdmm moymflaw .rm .Q “533.23,. cmmz mo gm mo vuudom vdpumsO uhoamsm Hmfiucmcfih swam CH whoumuumficfiefiu/w mo tam mpmfiummH mo Ammvdfifikw mam mmwwfiéoé mo H854 mLGmUBmV mupoom H >Howoum0 MOM mummh Lnfidnmfimm mocmfinm> mo mfimzmamw th . oowN moom uoaum «SN om“; mm mgofi mood om.N Ho. v 3.5 Kym. mm.m $3. a mMOHMHHmNGHEUAG. so nzv 28938.88... mNo . coca. oHNwo nonum 0 NS coon: mm mEva Noo.o 2.». Ho. v mg: woo. mud ome NNNH muonoméh. AMNNH n 75 9830.38 AH > nH rm 3» mohmdwm mmumdwm ..m .Q cofimflhmkz 532 m0 Sam mo ouudom 33.330 whommdm Hmwocmcwh 33$ a“ muoumpumficfigm}. mo wad mumfiowmfi mo mohoom H308 pew mumoH .fflfimflom mocmflm> mo 3939:». wmfiaflco U mom . 0 .mg wen Renam— o .om flow w mgmfl NmN. we; Ho. V mod Hmm. mo; m.mo Ho mpoumfi—mficfigv‘fi muoumnumficflhv‘fl wwm . omwm wwwv Monam .N¢N 050 v manna: mom. ma J Ho. v mm.m mom. Tm; om“: NNNH mumfioméh. mumflomvk nm 1 > m m up.“ mmnmdmm mvumfiwm Rm .0 nofimflm> Gmoz mo gm «0 condom 246 333990 uhoamdm Hmfiocmgh fiwfim a: mucumHu umflcdbgw mo cam muogomvrw mo Agaduiasuv mououm H: >homoum0 no.“ mumorfi >fidnmfiom oucmfihm> mo mfimzmam mmm. .mom Sm Honum mmé N .No 3 memfi. owo. oh; #0. V 0N4V Non. mm.N .NHN Ho whoumfimflaflcfiu‘fl mpofimhumefigvdw wmo. own: QNNNH MOMHH «iwm wwm OH mgopH mno. 3w; Ho. V ové mm». :..~ owmm NNNH mumflumoh mhmnomwB nH > mm .m Sp mmpmfidm mmhmswm ....H .0 Goflmfihmxz 582 HO 83m mo mohdom 2.3.“ M50 anomasm Hmfiocmcfm fimfim 5 macadaumflcfigvx‘. mo mam whogommh mo Ammvsfifi‘oq 3¢SEEOUV mayoum S >nowmam0 HOW mpmofi Kffifimflom mucmflm> mo mwmjmcxw vvdcflcou 03‘. m4: meg. wmé Ho.v ow.N 2%. mm; Nmoe .ONH MHZ. wmé Ho.v and. Nvo. on; .Hhm 0J0 .oma omov whh omHN owm Ho NmmN. NNNH gonna mam: muoumnumwfiav‘c‘ mu Cum." am 23566., Hoyum mchfiH mpmgomofi g 33H mad whommdm Hmflucmcflh £33 a: mnoumuumflcfivfiu/w mo Una mumgumofi 247 m0 Acoflmgummdm mam coflmpumflcflEU/i mmuoum H> >uom3m0 “Om mpmwrw Knfidfldflmm mocmfihm> mo £93929 Hma . emu Sm Hounm 0.0m com 2 mam”: 2N. ma; Ho. v wmd mcm. mvm. wém a muoumuumfigggw muofimfimwcfiggfl o2 . omoH ONNNH nonum .mmN. 0mm“. 3 mavfi 2m. 2 .H Ho. v SIN Nmm. wvm. mmv NNNH mnogummfi mpmgomoh am > m .m .3 moumdww moumflum .rm .0 coflmzmxw .H 982 mo 8.9m mo oundom 339250 uuommdm Hmflocdfih fimflm cw muoumtmdfigvdfl mo Ucm whoflumofi mo aficdegou 05 mo coflflmoagou Hmpsfizuuowuomv monoum > >powwum0 .HOH mumoh >fifl£mflom vocmim> mo 393.92% Z48 omm . NZ. 3.: hounm vém Nvm 3 mcsmfi o: . mm; Ho. v Zim con. om; m: 3 myopmtmflgsgw mHOHNHHmflfiwEU< th . oowo mod: “0.3m .mwm oaom 3 menu: :0. am; Ho. v Riv con. «Jim comm NNNH mpmnummfi mhvfiumwk AM > hm h 3 mwhmdwm mmhgwm ..m .Q Cofiumflhmxx Cmmz mo 93m Ho vupdom 33.3me upommsm 33:9»me nwfim CH. mpoumbmflcflgvmw mo can muonummrw mo Amvofimz mchmmB vcm uoaumoH mgr: mwgoum HH> >pommum0 new mummrfi bflflnmflmm mocmwum> mo mfimzmcxw APPENDIX N ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RELIABILITY TESTS FOR TOTAL SCORES AND CATEGORY SCORES OF TEACHERS AND OF ADMINISTRATORS IN LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT DISTRICTS Z49 250 “5.95.300 Nmm . .mmm m3V hephm m .2 .... .vc m mgofl mum. wmm. mZHo..A NH .H A: . Ame. m.om Hm mucumuumficfififié my 8m.” am “589% Kym . .ommm oowm hounm N .om 63 m mama owm. oww. Ho.v Np; Sw. No; .2: oon mumnomoh. mpmgomofi Q > Q Q 3.“ mohmfiwm mmumsvm .Q .Q cofiwfiudx/ 582 m0 85m mo voudom 33.330 whommdm Hmfiucmfih 304 5 muoumhumficfigvxw mo 95 mpmfiommh. mo Ammvg‘flfiw cam. mmwmfifiog mo H951— mLcuvBmv mvuoum H >uom3m0 New Shop... ififimfiom mocmfium> mo mfimbmaxw 0mm. .38 mm: 82m 8.3 02; mm 2&5 wood Sim S. v T: So. 3;.“ 33 S 28mh£fi8v< Amw u Zv mpgmnumficflav/w 0N0 . oomom covam pounm oo.m>m oonH mm mEouH mood vN.m Ho. V m.: Mao. N~.h coon. owoa mumsommrfi :2: u E 32685 Q > Q Q fl mmugmm mvpmsdm .Q .Q coflmfihmkr smog mo gm mo condom 633930 whommdm Hmfiosmcflh >204 E muoumpumflcfiawdfl mo 25 muonommH we mopoum 130R. new mummrfi ESBmSoM mosmim> mo mfimkfimgqq wuficficoo vwv. .53 vmm nouum m .mm M .mo v mgofi «w . wm .H Ho . v . ooo . mm .H v .oo Hm muoumuumflnflgvxw mnoumbmfihfigfi :0 . owom omm¢ houum .03 m3. «V was: 2:. :4 Ho. v mom. om; on“: owofi mhmnomofi myvzumdh. Q > Q fin mvumfivw moundwm .Q .Q cofimim> vaz mo gm mo ooudom 251 whoumhpmflcfiEU/w mo mam mumsummffi mo AQSHSUCHDDV HHH >uommum0 33.530 whommdm HmfiucmcfiQ 304 a“ new mummrfi 335m20m mocmfium> mo mfimfimcxw 05m. flow 2w .HOMHH 00.0 o .oo 2 maofi owo. on; Ho. V New. ovd v2 Hm muoumuumaflgv’w mpofifiumficwflfifiw five. omoo ooon “Chum .mw 0mm 2 mam: 000. N»; Ho. v 21.. mm.m .omnm cwoa muogommrfi mhvflumvfl Q > Q fin mwymswm magmaflwm .Q .Q cofimimxr smog mo 55m mo condom mfiuu mSO whommdm amflucmcfm >204 E muopmhumewefiu‘q‘ Cam mposomorfi Ho Amwfidfifimw KCEDEEOUW mmpoom S >how®um0 p0m mume. >fidnwfiwm oucmfinm> mo 2,9392% 60.95300 omm . .th oww nounm v.2 ~13. c 28: NA: . Tm; Ho. V w>.~ 31w. 3‘; .m: Hm muofigumwcwfiv‘fi muoumuumficwgv‘fi wmo . ovohv owwo HOHHM .NNH New 0 mac: me . cm; #0. v www. wvo. :4 00:: owofi #03338 mquUMoH Q > Q Q 3.“ mmumsvm mohmddm .Q .Q cofimflumxr 582 m0 93m wo oohdom .mfiuhmsd Hmfiucmcfih 304 a“ mpowmfimficwgdu mo flaw mHmAUMmH mo Acowmgpmmsm USN 20323332593 mvHoUm H> >uommpm0 MOM mumoH \fflfimfimm oucmzm> mo 393234 252 22 . m .wm 2m 32m 2.3 o .Nww S was: 03. 3%. S. v $4 Cw. E. 0.8. 3 38332582 mHOpMHumflcfiEwa v2 . 3K 82: 8.2m .mom .ooom OH mam: o8. ooo. S. v 3: Ext NE. .SN 33 22389 thflUNUH nH > 0H ...H Huh mvhmd‘mum mwhmjmum .rW om COQHNQHNNV ENG: MO gm MO OUHUOW .wfiupmsd HmflocmcHQ BOJ 5 whoumppmflcflavaq. mo Ucm mumaommrfl mo TAREDEEOO 05 mo coflfimomgou Qmpdfiauuofloomv mmpoom > \fHommfimU Mom 3me >w£.fin_mfimm mocmflym> wo warms/w 253 How. nmm Tm: pOMpM N .om mwm a; maofi one. on; Hod V Owlw mom. oo.N >3 Aw mpoymuumMGMEU/N whoumu umdfigwéw :0. osmo ONHmH houpm .oHN owmm «l 2:qu woo. mm; Lo. v mm.v own. EUN ooow owofi mgwgommwrw maogummH Q > Q Q 3p mmiddvm mwpmsvm .Q .Q cofimApmx/ ado: mo 85m mo oopsom 1.52.2320 uuoamsm HmflucmcfiQ 304 Cfl mpoumbmdfiav‘ofi mo Ucm whozommuQ. mo Amvofitmz mchmwrfl USN pmzumoh 97$ mopoum S> >uom3m0 MOM mpmmfi \fflfimflvm mocmflpmxr mo mains/w APPENDIX O ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RELIABILITY TESTS FOR TOTAL SCORES AND CATEGORY SCORES OF TEACHERS AND OF ADMINISTRATORS IN DISTRICT NO. 2 (HIGH FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE) 254 255 60.95300 mwN. H.Hm oHH hounm NH .N 0.3 m mam”: wbm. mmw. mZ Ho. A 2.; HNHV. wwv. 0.3 mm muoumuuchH5©< muoumuuchHEv< how. 03V omoH .3an N .00 owm m mgouH wcw. www. Ho. v . 00.H va. 0N0. omH cow maogpmmfi mpofiumoh Q > Q Q 3h mmuNfldw mmnwdvm .Q .Q coHumHum> 532 HO gm Ho oohdom AvHfihmDO whommdm HmHucmcHQ AmHHHV m .02 uuHhumHQ CH whoumauchH§U< Ho HEN mumaumoH Ho $3353?» wad omUmHBOCVH Ho H934 mLCmUBmV mouoom H >uommum0 uoH mummHL >HHHEMHH0~H oucmew> Ho mHmQHmc/w «.Nw. mHm oHNH HOHHMH 0.: mwo mm mEmSH 0H0. om.m Ho. v mN90 New. 005 0.00 mm. mpoumhumHGHEHfiw Hmm n 73 mpopmfichHEHuxw 00¢. 03% 0mm: ponpm m .m0 omHm mm mccqu moo. HH .m Ho. v 06H A30. 0o.m omoH com mpmfiumvfi Com u 7: 305me Q > Q Q 3H moydswm mmpmsdm .Q .Q fiofimfinwxx cam: Ho 83m Ho mopdom $2?me upeanHDm HmHocmcHQ SwHHIHv N .02 pufiHumHnH CH myopmpuchHEHu/w Ho Ham $33005 Ho mmpoum HmporH~ .20H 3me >HHH3mHHm/Q mocmemkz Ho mHm>Hmc< 0033300 03a. “v.0m mm nonhm 0o.0 N .«N v maouH 0mN. mow. mZ Ho. A $0; N0m. 02... N.0H NN muoumuuchHEHé mu cumuuchHEBfl «m0. 00m wNw honhmH N .HVN w .00 H.» mEmuH 0NN. mo.H Ho. v 0o.N MNm. Nm0. 00H 0ON mhwvHumoH. mg Q > Q Q 3p mmpgdm mmpddwm .Q .Q GoHumHum> cmmHZ Ho gm Ho ouudom 256 330.250 whomadm HmHocmcHQ fimHIv N .02 uoHuumHnH CH mHOHMHumHCHEU’w Ho 0cm mpmnuwmh. Ho HESHSUHMHSOV mmkoum HHH >Howoum0 .HOH mumop... >025“:va oucmHHm> Ho mHm>Hmc< mvm . ONH ONN HouumH m0.N v.0N 0H mEmHH wHH . 0m.H Ho. V m¢.m won. hm; HHH» NN muoumhumHQHE©< muopmuuchHEwa 00m . OMNH o0ON nonumH o.wH 00H 3 mEBH 2:. m0; Ho. v 00.». N00. mm; 00m 00N wnonomvh mymflumoh Q > Q Q flu mmnmsdm mvasvm .Q .Q :oflmemxr 532 HO gm Ho condom Ill L AoHSpmfiG upoanHDm HmHocmcHQ SwHHHV N .02 uqumHQ CH muoumhua Hucm 9550me Ho Ammvsfifi< 001588000 mmuoom HH Quowmumu uoH mpmmrH. 00:33va mucmzm> ,HCHbew Ho £3251 257 00:03:00 00m. 00.0 00H. 00; Ho.v 00.N 000. no; 000. 0.0N 0mH. 0m.H Ho.v 00N Hm0. mm.H 0.00 m.0m m.mN O00 NOH mHm NmH NN 0MNH 00N you HQ 080: my 000.“ um thaw/w 00 000.30 HGHEH0< .8an 0E0: 000:0008 g 3200de tommsm H0H0000HQ anTHv N .02 uoHuuwHQ 0H muoumhudeHEUmx H0 000 mn0£0008 H0 H00H0H>H0mdm H000 cofimuuchHEwHfi 000000 H> 03000000 00H 300B >HHH30HH0MH 0003.23, H0 0301314. 000 . 0 .00 o0ON nouhm 0HN o0HN oH 0803 00N . No0 . 02 Ho . A H0 .H 00¢ . 00H . 0N .m NN muoumuuchHn—uv‘fi 0000930235010. 000 . oHH o0ON HOHMQ .00H o00H 0H 050: mwN. 0.00. Ho. V 0H..H wa. 00H. H.mm 00N mn0£000fi 000:0008 Q > Q Q 3h 00.30500 0000.900 .Q .Q CoHumHu0> 0002 H0 930 H0 000500 $200050 whommsm HmHocmcHQ £03.: N .02 uquumHQ 0H mpoumpumHGHEfi< H0 000 00000008 H0 TUESEEOU 05 H0 GOSHmonHEoO 303.390.0009 000000 > 00000000 00H 300B KSHHEQHBH 0000332 00 06300.4. 258 00m . NNH 0cm 0000m m .2 000 00 00003 000 . N04 Ho. v 0o.m 000. 00.0 0.00 MN 0000000000080< 00 00000000000000 000.. 0000 0000 0000M 0 .00 002 00 0000”: m0o. 00.0 do. v 00.0 >00. 00 .N Nm0 000 00000008 00000008 nm > m h 30 0000500 0000.000 ..m .Q 00000000> 000002 00 00000 00 000.000 30000050 0000050 000000000 003.3 N .02 0000000Q 00 00000000035000 00 000 00000008 00 300502 00000008 0000 0000008 0080 :> 00000000 000 00008 03250300 0000000> 00 00.03000. A PPENDIX P ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RELIABILITY TESTS FOR TOTAL SCORES AND CATEGORY SCORES OF TEACHERS AND OF ADMINISTRATORS IN DOSTRICT NO. 15 (LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE) 259 005000000 260 000 . 00 .m cm 0000nm 00 .0 00 .0 0 000000 250002 30 . 2 .0 0 28230553. 00 000000 0005.30 000. .03. omm 00000 0 .00 0 .00 0. 00000: 000.. 000. 02 Ho. A 00.0 000. :0. 0.00 00 00000008 00000008 nm > nm :0 30 0000500 00000000 ..m .Q 00000000> 0002 no 0050 00 000500 00200050 0000050 000000000.“ 3013 00 62.00000me :0 00300000005000 00 000 00000008 00 0000500030 000 0000030050 00 00.204 0.0000300 H 00000000 000 00008 0000000300 0000000> 00 0000000000 00m . 0 .00 000 0000M 0m .0 000 mm 0500 00m. 000. 02 Ho. A 00.0 000. 00.0. 00.0 0 00300000500004 3 u 20 00000000000000.0000 M00 . 0000 000m 0000M 0 .00 0000 mm 0000000 000. ~05 00.v 0.: 00. 00.0 N00 00 00000008 :0. n 20. 220980. nm > m .m 30 00NMW00 0000500 rm 0 coafimzfifl 0A 00 0050 . . 0o 00 0500 000000050 009.550 0000000000 / 000000000 :0 0.0000000000000000 00 0000 00000008 00 000000 00008 000 00008 0000000300 000000000 3040 m0 0> mo 00.030mfl 261 00050000qu 000 . 000.0V 00 00000.0 00.0 0 .00 0 0000000 000. 00.0 070 00. A 00.0 000. 00 .0 00.0» 0» 00000000000800< 00 00000000000000< 000 . 0000 000 0000M 0.00 m .00 0 0000000 000. am; 0o.v 00.0 000. 00.0 .000 00 00000008 00000008 m > m h 000 0000501W 0000500 .rA .00 000000000> 000002 .00 00050 00 000500 000000050 0000000000 000000000000 301: m0 .02 0000000000 :0 0000000005030. 00 00000 00000008 00 0005050000500 000 00000000 000 00008 000000.300M 00000000.? 00 0000000000 000 . m .00 00V 0000m 00.0 0.00 00 0000000 mmo. 00.0 00., v 00 3v 000. 00.0 00 .0 0. 00000000000000.0000fl 00 0000 00 00000004 000 . 00m 000 000000 mm .0 m .00 00 0000000 000 . mm .0 00. v 00 .0 000.. 00.0 0000 00 00000008 00000008 n0 > m .m 000 000 0500 0000500 ..m .Q 000000000? 00002 00 00050 00 0000000 000000050 000000050 0000000070 3013 m0 .02 000000000 00 00000000000803.» 00 00000 00000008 00 0000500000» 0000500000000 000000 00 00000000 000 00008 0000000000m 00000000> 00 000000000. v0 «53:0 0 com . hm .o vN Nahum om .N .m J; o mam: ovm. mow. mZ Ho . A 3»; www. hmu. mo.m w muoumuumwfigvax my 3.93m 2354 31m . NNN 02» H0th m .3 mw 0 mafia”: mz. mm; Ho. v Twin. Hue. mvé OS on muosomvh. mumAUMoH Am > m .m fin moumfidm moumswm .rm .Q GOSNCMS smug mo 5.9m mo ouudom 3:”:me whommdm Hmwucmcwh 3015 2 .oZ unwuumwn— a“ mucumuumfidwg/w mo 93 maufiodofi 2 mo Aaowmgummdm vcm :ofiumtmwdmfivi mouoom H> .PuommumU new mumoh 5.3%}:va mocmwuw> mo mwm>fimd< 6 Z vw .m o¢ nouum n 31‘ . 0“ mac 3 ozummoz o>flmmoz 5mm . “V muouwuumwguflv’w my 3.2 an wdwav< Opp . amm o2. nouum .va .o-¢ OH was”: o¢~. omo. do. V cm; 03‘. mpN. NJ; or muvnomoh muonodoh. nm > nm .m 3H moumfidm mounddm .h .Q :oflmwhmxr smog mo gm mo condom Amfiuumé whommdw Hmwocmcfiw 301: ma .oZ auguumwfl a“ muoumpumfifieméa mo wad muvgumoh. mo 33:55800 05‘ mo cofifimomEoU amusfiduuofiuomv mmuoom > >uowofim0 u0w mumvh knfidnmfiom vuamwum> mo mamrmcxw 263 own . h .2 cm panama Sin 9? 3 was: man . 03,. m2 3. A mm 4 EN. :3. mm; ¢ Ecumbflfifig an 3.2 am “589% hum . com cmm Monum— N .mN mmm h: @500: wwo. 50; Ho. v 23m mmv. mud mm~ ow muoaodoh muosodoh nu > m h 3H mougvm moumddm ....H .Q coflmwum> 382 m0 gm mo ouufiow 733.230 anommsm fimfiucmfih 3015 ma .oZ Hovflmfim cw mugmhmwcwafiu’w mo 98 muonumoh mo $60532 chomoB can uoaomvfi mars mouoow HH> >uow3m0 HOM mumvB knfidflmfimm 0092.3”? mo maimed» A PPEN DIX Q ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RELIABILITY TESTS OF TOTAL SCORES AND CATEGORY SCORES OF TEACHERS AND OF ADMINISTRATORS IN DISTRICT NO. 23 (LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE) Z64 vQSGSGoO mmh. m.: ma nonum ha: . mww . m “.3:qu 923$va 0mm . he .H m mnOSMHum MGMEU< muoumhumwcwggw mum . om: 00m pounm on .m m .3 m mEqu NMN. we; Ho.v >o.~ mam. CM; 0.2. so 933339. . my «#338 nm > nH h flu mougwm moundvm ..m .Q cowumwum> smog mo gm mo condom 265 Avfiuuga anomadm Hmfiucdfih 3013 MN .02 3335 5 muoumuumwggvmw mo wad muonomoh mo Amovdfifi< cad omvvfisoafi no H964 «4ch359 mouoom H huomofimo new mumoh xuwfiQMSoM oocmwum> mo mwm>adc< wow. hum mod yogum ah." m .mo mm @833 2500 . oo .n Ho . V o .Om owo . v .om N .H e m mucuduumwfinuvxw a. u E 238:3?2 mvNo. owom ocmm nouum o.- 3‘: mm 3:03 woo. 3...“. do. v Ami - cam. vm.m mmm 0o mnogumufi so u E 23.039 m > m um um mougfim moumswm ..m .Q Gowumwumkr 532 m0 gm mo ooh—om Aoduumdo tommsm Hwfioc‘mcrm 3013 mm .02 “3.330 5 muoumuumwfigv‘m mo tam mumsomoh. mo mmpoom H308 ho“ mumoh. Ififlwnmfiom mocmfium> mo mflmzmclw uvsafldou mwo. on .w NH nouum mmv. 2. .H w manofi who . mm .H 94 Ho . A ma. .w 3k. . 59 .m om .a m mucumuumM§§U< muoumuum “583‘ Hmo. .wml o¢m nouum 1mg m .00 w mEouH «A: . ONJ Ho..v 3.3m. wwm. Am... 0.00 o0 muoaumvfi a nu > m h . flu mougmm moumswm ..m .0 aofidfiudkr snug mo 55m .. mo ouudom 266 moduumsd uuomnmsm dmwocmdrm 3013 mm .02 «Shaman cm mucumuumwawfivaw we find muonumofi mo AggumnuaUv H: >uom3m0 new munch. 533.33% vocdwud> mo 393.92g. v: . MN .m on nouum 3% . “$4. .3 mgofi ~oooo. . no.0 do. .v 0...? who . «EC. m.m~ m mucuwuamwcw5v< mu 3.2 3 «55¢. 13 . 8... go Sta 5‘ .m h .vm A: @503 m2. on; S.v mm.~ 3e. 2: m: 3 2233B muvaudoh nm > m .m flu mound—Gm moumdvm ..m .Q :oflmwumxr 332 mo 93m mo ouudom vfiuuwsd Shoamdm Hmwocmdwm 301: mm .02 «0333“ 5 mucumuumwfiglw mo 98 mangomorw mo Gavan—33‘ BEdEEOOV monoum Z >uomoum0 yew mumoh EEBmSoM oucmim> mo mwmrmfix «guanine U me . hva m: nounm moo . 21m o mac: 0ocoo . woé do . V ed; 20. w¢.¢ $.2 m muoumbmwgfivaw mnoumuumfidwgwlw NNN. . com com nounm mm .0 0.3V o mam“: mam. :4 Ho.v ¢N.N #mm. mm; 0.00 co muonomoh mumaomofi nm > nu rm fin mmumdam moumdwm ..m .Q £033.23, smog mo 8.9m mo moufiom Z67 Aoduuma tommdm Hmwucmcwh 3015, mm .02 uuiumwfl am mucumhumawgaw mo 28 muofifioh mo Acowmguumam tam cowumuumwgfivxwv mvuoum H> >uom3m0 new mumoh. 523.33% oocmwum> mo mwngmw O00 . 0 .0m 6m uouufl o .3 com S was: ozummuz Sm . mo 4 m ficfihflfifig mu Oumuummdwfivdw wmo . mwm ooo nouum .00N 000m OH wanna «3332 2 ~ . p :2 8 32339 m3 am > nu rm 3.“ $0.”wa mohdddm .rm «AH QOmummhm> . smog mo 95m mo ooudow 7:3“me uuommdm Hmfiusmcfih 3013 MN .02 uofiuumwfl GM mucumuumdfiamfiw mo van munfiumofl mo 39358500 m5 m0 coflfimomflso Emuafidonofioomv monoum > >uomoum0 Hem mpmoH ISSBNSom oucmflnm> Ho 3939:. Z68 “3*. v.: Nay uouufl av; , N. .om «A macaw Hooo. m0.m Ho. V 0.3 . 3.0. hwé o.o~ m mucumuumwcfigv< mucumuumwfifivlw NNc. NNm o¢w nouum a .NN 00m a; mEouH wwo. c0; #0. V 004.. $2.. mm.~ mmd co muosumofi muonomofi nu > nu .m fin muugwm moudsdm ....H .Q coflmwud> 532 m0 8.9m mo condom lull 3:24.50 uuommdm Hmwocmafim 301: mm .02 uofiuumwfl GM muouwuumdfigfi‘q. mo van whogumoh. mo Amvofiumg wGEommH tam ymsomofi 9&5 mvuoom HH> >hom®um0 new mummB >fid£m2vm vocmmhm> mo mwm>~mc< “0"“ USE ONLY. EW - N 57 \3'z33f’f3t33 ’ MICHIGAN sTm'E UNIV. LIBRARIES mWI“UHWIWIWWIIWWINI‘WIW 31293101150088