. u . 6 . A . ARV d .fl A. 3 r5. 9 a .3 e .1. .C a» . u -7. u 3 S n v w M .c NV 2- . nu Cu [1‘ ,av- Mae 0» ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION, (ECC), mm— T , '"73EEECTED GUST FACTORS by Owen Springer Purpose, Procedure, and Design This study was undertaken to determine the relation- ship between administrator and teacher perceptions of characteristics of quality education, student achieve- ment and selected cost factors. The major purpose of the study was to determine the ability of the Educational Characteristics Criterion to predict school achievement independent of selected cost factors. Sixteen Michigan public school systems which had fused the Stanford Achievement Test in the Sixth grade in 1962—63 volunteered to participate in the study. Ad- ministrators and teachers of the schools that participated were asked to complete a fifty—five item instrument, the Educational Characteristics Criterion. Respondents indicated on a four point scale the degree to which their school was characteristic of each statement of quality. Stanford Achievement Test scores for the appro- priate grade and year were submitted by each school Owen Springer system and the COSt data (size, expenditure per pupil, millage, and state equalized valuation) were obtained from a report of the Michigan Department of Public In- struction. The Egg is based on the assumption that educational quality resides more in the mind of the observer than in the structure of the educational program and that thoSe persons most closely associated with educational programs (administrators and teachers) perceive and react to school and community characteristics which contribute to quality education. Each of the fifty-five statements was assigned to one of the following seven categories: (I) Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes, (II) Community Attitudes, (III) Curriculum (IV) Use of Facili— ties, (V) Socio-cultural Composition of the Community, (VI) Administration and Supervision, and (VII) The Teacher and Teaching Methods. The three General Hypotheses tested were: I. There is a pOsitive relationship between administrator and teacher perceptions of characteristics of quality education as measured by the Educational Characteristics Criterion. II. There are positive relationships among the administrator and teacher perceptions of characteristics of quality education as measured by the Educational Characteristics Criterion, studefit aEhievement, and cost factors. I‘.““ vow.‘ tub I L 09;: ' V P'A‘h‘n ’v i v“ .fiu ».. a: .e a: h .. 1. AV O~ L RU \iv ..s .,- Owen Springer III. There is a positive relationship between administrator and teacher perceptions of characteristics of quality education as measured by the Educational Characteristics Criterion and student achievement Independ- entfofICOst factors. The design permitted the seventy administrator and the 726 teacher scores on.the Egg to be compared sepa- rately or combined on a Total Quality Score and on a Category Quality Score for each of the seven categories.~ These scores were then compared with schoolmean achieve- ment scores and with school size, expenditure per pupil, millage, and state equalized valuation data. Product moment correlations were computed to deter- mine the relationships in General Hypotheses I and II. The partial correlation technique was used for General Hypothesis III. A one-tailed test significant at the .10 level was used to determine the significance of the correlations. Major Findings and Conclusions The high positive correlations between administrator and teacher responses on each of the seven Category Quality Scores indicate that administrators and teachers perceive in the same way those characteristics which have been identified as contributing to quality educa— tion. Thus, a combined Total Quality Score may be used to measure educational quality. However, there is a Owen Springer greater Chance that the respondent groups differ in their perceptions of quality education for those char- acteristics related to Socio-cultural Composition of the Community, Administration and Supervision, and The Teacher and Teaching Methods. There appears to be no statistical difference between the correlation of Egg scores and school achievement when the cost factors of Size, expenditure per pupil, millage, and state equalized valuation are partialled out. The Egg may be able to predict school achievement free of the influence of these combined cost factors. The correlation between administrator responses and school achievement was higher than the correlation'bee tween teacher responses and school achievement. Admini- strator perceptions as measured by the Egg may be better predictors of school achievement. This may be due to a different frame of reference and a larger scope of the educational community with which administrators identify. Those characteristics of quality education related to Curriculum, Administration and Supervision, and The Teacher and Teaching Methods indicated the highest cor- relations with achievement independent of the cost factors. These characteristics relate to the admini- strator—teacher-student behaviOr and Should contribute Syn UV ,fif‘ln1 K, ‘1" a V‘."~.‘ t4‘n/ 1A n\b Owen Springer) to instruction and classroom activities. Administrator perceptions of these characteristics had a higher correlation with school achievement than did teacher perceptions. This exploratory study indicated the potential of the Egg to predict school quality as validated by school achievement. By using the partial correlation technique the freedom of the Eg§_from the effects of cost factors when predicting'school achievement has been shown. A larger, more inclusive study which could differentiate between the perceptions of elementary and secondary teachers is recommended. Further development of the Egg using other reference groups for the popu- lation and other criteria for measuring quality has been suggested. A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION, (ECC), THE STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, AND SELECTED COST FACTORS by .‘L'! “ OwengSpringer A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 1964 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many persons have given encouragement and suggestions during the development of this project and during the writer's period of study at Michigan State University. The associations he has had with faculty, staff and graduate students have contributed to the experiences which made this project possible. Recognition must be given to the administrators and teachers of the schools which participated in the study for their cooperation in completing the Educational Characteristics Criterion and supplying other data. Dr. Herbert C. Rudman has served as chairman of the writer's doctoral committee and has directed this study. His continued encouragement and support has been of great personal strength and his counsel and guidance during the program have proved to be very wise. His advice and recommendations during this project have been most helpful. Other members of the committee who have assisted and suggested improvements have been Dr. John X. Jamrich, Dr. Richard Featherstone, Dr. JOe Saupe, and Dr. John Useem. They have been most helpful in supplying assistance and direction in clearing problems related to statistical and writing Skills. ii PC 3 v .. w. J. pal. nv 9V 0-. 90 cooper l. a 90 ed Dr. van Mueller's help in preparing materials to be used in our similar studies has been appreciated. Mrs. Linda Oostmeyer has been most helpful and efficient in typing all copy and Mr. Orville Barr provided program- ming assistance for the computations. To my wife, June, and daughter, Lori Sue, I wish to give credit for their understanding, patience, and cooperation. Without their encouragement and motivation a goal we agreed to undertake would not have been reached. iii :mr‘V" " r _ 1 fitting! ii .' 1.1 II III \?~ I. \ ¢UV QI ,7 U u TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... ............................... 11 LIST OF TABLES.. ................................. Vi LIST OF APPENDICES ............................... Vii Chapter I THE PROBLEM... ............................. 1 Rationale of the Study..... ............... . 14 Statement of the Problem ................... 16 Hypotheses to be Tested .................... 18 Importance of the Study. .......... . ..... 18 Scope and Limitations of the Study. ... 19 Assumptions of the Study ................... 20 Definition of Terms ........................ 20 Organization of Remainder of the Thesis ................................... 22 II RELATED LITERATURE... ..... .... ............. 24 Philosophical Statements of Quality ........ 25 Related Cost—Quality Empirical Studies ..... BO Related Cost-Quality-Achievement Studies... 36 Summary.. .............. . ................... 41 III INSTRUMENTATION AND METHODOLOGY OF THE ST[JDY00.0000 ..... 0.....0.0..00 ............. 42 Instrumentation ............................ 42 Selection and DescriptiOn of the Sample ................................. 52 Mailing and Administrative Procedures ...... 59 Treatment of the Data ...................... 61 Procedures Involved in ConversiOn of Data ..... . ............................... 62 . Hypotheses ................................. 54 iv N ‘IBLIOG B Chapter Page Research Design and StatistiCal Meth0d01ogy. 0 O O 0 O . . O O O Q 0 O O I . O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 67 SWEWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00000.00.00. 69 Iv ANALYSIS OF DATA......................... 71 General Hypothesis I..................... 72 General Hypothesis II..... ........... .... 7 General Hypothesis III......... ........ .. 8 Summary.................................. 95 'v CONCIDSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOM- NIENDATIONSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.0...O. 98 The StUdyoooooooooo0000...... .......... 00 98 Conclusions..... ...... . ..... . ............ lOl Implications................... ..... ..... 108 . Recommendations ...... ......... ........... 114 Summary................... .......... ..... 117 BIBLIOGRAPHY00..00.OIOOOO0O0......0.000.000.0000 120 APPENDICE..0.O00OO0.OOOOQOO......O0....000..0.O 125 ..r L ..3 HI. (ICL 0 1.. (ICnl) rLTLCuTI rtIQc Wu :J CTBG 6 FKQB 7‘ I Q» E .-~« 0 8 P80 0/ LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Classification of 554 Michigan School Districts and the School Systems in this Study According to Size (Membership). ....... . 54 2. Classification of 554 Michigan School Districts and the School Systems in this Study According to Financial Ability ((State Equalized valuation)... ............... 54 3. Classification of 554 Michigan School ' Districts and the School Systems in this Study According to Expenditure per Pupil ................ ......... ............... 56 4. Classification of 554 Michigan School Districts and the School Systems in this Study According to Millage........ ........... 56 5. Number and Percent of Responses. ....... ...... 57 6. Correlations between Administrator and Teacher Category Quality Scores (CQS) and Total Quality Scores (TQS)... ...... ...... 74 7. Correlations between ECC Scores and School Mean Achievement....... ....... . ....... 78 8. Intercorrelations between ECC Total Quality Scores (TQS), School Mean.AEEievement, Size, Expenditure per Pupil, Millage, and State Equalized valuation.......................... 82 9. Partial Correlations between ECC Scores and School Mean Achievement Independent of cost FactorS....O......OOOOOOOOO... ....... 89 vi .1 0 g“ ord‘ not, V55 .. LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A EducatiOnal CharacteristiCs Criterion, ............................... ....... 126 B Instructions for Responding to the Educational Characteristics Criterion, 151 (E002 o ........ o ....... o 00000000000 o oooooooo C Educational Characteristics Criterion, egories and the Factors in Ea c5 Category........ ...... .......... ...... 135 D 'Letter Sent to Superintendents Inviting Participation in the Study................. 139 Summary of the Proposal............... ..... 142 Form for Superintendent's Response to Educational Characteristics Criterion, nquiry. ..... ......... ..... . ..... .... 145 G General Instructions for Administering and Mailing the Educational CharacteristiCs Criterion, (ECC)........ ............ . ..... . 147 H Supplementary Information Form............. 151 Letter to Superintendents of Schools Selected to Participate in the Study ...... . 154 J Intercorrelations of Administrator, Teacher, and Combined Category Quality scores... ..... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00000 O 156 K Characteristics of Participating Schools... 158 vii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Since WOrld war II, education has been challenged by a rapidly increasing population and an increase in knowledge which surpasses any previous historical era. Advances in technology and production as well as con- flicts in ideologies have placed additional demands upon the American educational system. Interest in international developments, cultural differences, and political changes have caused Americans to expect more and better educational programs. The importance of education, the many forces which affect educational decision making, and the emphasis upon quality education have been summarized by the Committee on Education Beyond the High School.1 These challenges, advances, and interests have caused a change in educational emphasis from quantity to quality. It has been said that quality will be the 1The President's Committee on Education Beyond the ' High School, Second Report tg_the President, (washington, D.C.: Superintendent o cumefits, Government Printing Office, 1957), p. l. "frontle: he or She In c indicates cf our ti of educat ME futur sions. q ”GSDOHSIC CC ' £11 '3' V‘On, “If ( h thC “yPihcriE xOn’ 195C 2 "frontier in education" for the next twenty years where quantity has been the concern for the last hundred years? Education has been concerned with who, how many, and how much; the new emphasis may well be on the kind of pro- grams, outcomes, and processes used in educating the students. Concern for what happens to each child while he or she is in school is a part of the new emphasis. In discussing the improvement of education, Clabaugh indicates that more and better education is an "imperative of our time."3 The importance of improving the quality of education for today's students rests in the fact that the future depends upon their abilities and their deci- sions. The values that today's students develop and the responsibilities that they assume in.making personal and community decisions will determine the opportunities that others will have available to them. Consequently, those decisions which communities are making about schools and educational programs will have long range effects upon society. 2William G. Carr, "How Good Are YCur Schools?" (washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1958), p. 52. 3R. E. Clabaugh, "Improving Quality in Public Educa- tion," Quality Schools for All Illinois Children, (Springfield, Illinois: Illinois School Board Associa- tion, 1959), p. 3. \JJ QualitygDefined Quality can be defined as an attribute or a character— istic of a thing or as a specific identity--that element that makes something what it is. It may also be used to identify the general nature, over-all basis, or category of elements involved in a description.» A quality could be considered a rating, ranking, or scale as used when comparing degrees of excellence. Quality can be termed the most excellent or superior rating as when one discusses the best one as having the quality}1L Regard- less of which form of the definition of quality that one chooses to use when referring to quality of education or quality schools, the complex environment in which educa- tion is placed must be considered. Forces within the school have means and goals at their disposal for influ- encing educational decisions as do those forces outside the school. The impact of the home, church, radio, television, and other elements of our culture on educa— tional performance cannot be forgotten. The native ability, Scholastic aptitude, and values of the school enrollment and the school community are important forces 4Webster's New world Dictionagé of the American La a e (Cleveland: The or Pu lIShIng COmpany, Iggglj—g—p. ’1189. what 3 SC? COHCI’ID’JLE and the ct People do People {1133* 4 and factors affecting quality. The degree to which these forces interact determines what a school is and what a school staff does. These many and varied factors contribute to a school's quality over a period of time and the change in their importance and impact on one another at a particular time gives the school its particular quality.5 Smith states that the "sum total of these forces, large and small, measured and yet to be measured, gives a school its particular quality of "6 education ggality‘a§_a_Function.9f_Perception Combs and Snygg discuss perceptual theory and how 7 According to Combs and Snygg, people react to stimuli. people do not behave according to the facts as other people may View them but according to the facts as they, '- 5National Education Association, "Better Schools Cost More," National Education Association Research Bulletin, (washington, D.C.: National Education Associa- tion), VOlume 57, Number 2, p. 41, Apri1,1959. 6StanleyV. Smith, "Quality of Education Related to Certain Social and Administrative Characteristics of well— Financed Rural School Idstricts" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New 'York, 1954 , cited by Paul R. Mort, walter C. Reusser, John W. Po ley, Public School Finance, (New YOrk: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1960), p. 104. 7Arthur w; Combs and Donald Snygg, Individual Es- havior: A Perce tual Approach tg_Behavior, (New Yerk: Harper and' ow, , revised), p. 17. :553581‘36 imindue fie? Se 0 - o Tub-T 513 part- lfl WOlCD mat com; I: this I: personal 968111313 8 . m‘lcated 5 themselves, see them. Behavior is a function of an individual's perception of an event and not the event, ,p§§_§§, For any individual, his behavior results from his particular perceptions of himself and of the world in which he lives. The meanings, values, and experiences that comprise his background determine his perceptions. In this manner quality may be perceived in different ways by different persons: what a person or community values will affect his or its concept of quality. What people look for a school to do and how well they think the school is functioning toward their design for it will determine to a great degree the feelings that they have about education in their Community. How people view their community and schoolis impor- tant. That citizens have an interest in schools, make personal judgments concerning education, and in effect evaluate schools by their own personal criteria is indicated by Firman8 and the N.E.A.9 Parents and the public at large express themselves in general conversa- tion or in planned school committees concerning their '8William‘D. Firman, "Procedures in School Quality Evaluation," A Second Report of the Quality Measurement Project, First Draft, (New York: The University of the State of New Ybrk, Division of Research, 1961), p. l (Mimeographed.) . 9National Education Association, "How Good Are YOur Schools?" op, cit., p. 4 e cit“ detic the qualf 5”” V L.‘ ‘ U pecial s “\U dings ranc ing f ea ~P NED”: ppens t W Uh 5‘. 1 cu school tt 3‘“ {J ‘ 6 feelings about the schools. These informal evaluations play an important part in determining community behav- ior towards schools and their needs. Comparisons of schools are made on the basis of many criteria. For some Citizens the athletic, music, dramatic, or other Special activity may determine the best school. For some the academic honors, scholarships, or general academic reputation of a school may determine for them the quality school. Others may be interested in the variety of curricular offerings, the experience of the administrative and teaching staff, or the guidance or special services offered. For some the physical plant, buildings, maintenance, library facilities, the general appearance, or athletic facilities may determine the school they select as having quality. The power of mass communications media in intentionally or unintentionally helping form these opinions cannot be overlooked. Students evaluate schools as a result of their experiences in them. They like or dislike, approve or disapprove, agree or disagree as determined by what happens to them in the course of their school experi- ences. The success or failure that students experience in school activities and programs formulates a set of perceptions upon which they draw in forming their opinions ccrzmittee studies 1 1 Y‘- ‘n h v rue-S\/.a .e‘ M Q“ .538 Lee 0 way of us 7 and expressing them to others. Their behavior will depend upon these opinions and values. Formal evaluations of schools are made by profes- sional personnel, school boards, and lay advisory committees or combinations of these groups. Expert studies in which professional educators outside the local community make evaluations and recommendations are not uncommon. Local studies involving local school personnel and representative lay groups are quite common. The use of experts with local committees and groups is a way of using local involvement and impartial profession- als as resource persons. These formal evaluations may utilize local objectives, general checklists, question- naires, statistical data, prepared guide questions for discussion techniques, and other devices for structuring their studies. Studies may be complete evaluations or stress some particular aspect of education as curriculum, finance, building needs, maintenance, personnel, policies and regulations, or special services. ‘Within these formal and informal evaluations people express their opinions, beliefs, attitudes, and values in terms of what education has been, is, or ought to be for them. Quality of education is what people perceive their schools as doing or what they believe the schools should be doing. That side in View 0 if educat cf the va education responsib istratOrs irportant the eyes for a Sch iStrict Educators their COn to make d. PFCSQpibe‘ 8 The Committee for Economic Development indicates a belief that the American people value education and can be brought to value the'improvement of education.10 That education actually is valued might be challenged in view of low financial support in some areas and voter apathy in school elections. The implication that if education is not now valued it can be made a part of the value system of the public is important. If education is to be valued it would appear that those responsible for education in a community—-teachers, admin- istrators, and school board members-~must play an important part in developing a priority for education in the eyes of the public. By placing the responsibility for a school program in the hands of the local school district the concept of local control is valued. When educators, parents, and citizens make educational matters their concern.by maintaining and exercising their right to make decisions on the character of education as prescribed by lay and recognized administrative pro- cedures we have evidence of local initiative, close 10Committee for Economic DevelOpment, Paying For Better Public Schools, (New YOrk: Committee for Economic DevelOpment, 1959), p. 10. t-Ctular C Raztiny C uvu U 9 popular control, and local right to determine the 12 destiny of the schools.ll’ The Measurement 93 Quality Is it possible for those who are in positions which determine the policies that govern and determine a school's destiny to ascertain the values, beliefs, attitudes, or perceptions of various groups? Can educational values and attitudes be measured? Thurstone indicates that human values are essentially subjective and that in measuring social, moral, and aesthetic values, the problem is to determine a subjective measuring device}:5 When people are asked to make a judgment and compare one thing to another some process is involved which permits a discrimination to be made by each person in terms of his perception of what differences exist. The better item has a quality about it which distinguishes it from a poorer item--at least in the perception of the respondent. One criticism of measuring opinions is that we are not sure that the opinion expressed is a true opinion but 1TPaul R. Mort, waiter C. Reusser, and John N; Polley, Public School Finance, (New Ybrk: McGraw-Hill Book Com— pany, 1960), p. 24. 6 12Committee for Economic Development, pp. cit., p. 11, 5 -57. 13L. L. Thurstone, The Measurement of values, Chicago: University of CEIEago Press, 1959), pp. 182-194. a Scai atloz The ”.8 of j A . q ‘- ‘ a part atter ~te COP? *tat a S asures ig'r’mS of preSSI 8: 4 do: '3 10 may be tempered by what one anticipates or expects is the correct or desired response. It Should be noted that a Similar criticism could be levied against measures of overt actions Since these responses may be in terms of anticipated or expected behavior. In measuring either opinion or overt behavior it Should be recognized that the measurement at least indicates an attitude that the respondent is trying to make people believe he has. In measuring opinions, values, or attitudes the best results occur when there is a minimum of pressure on the respondent in relation to the attitude to be measured. It is important that those who are responding to the items feel free to express their true feeling and that any Circumstances which might keep them from reSponding freely should be kept to a minimum. In support of the use of scales Thurstone states that, "AS a matter of fact we get along quite well with the concept of a scale in describing traits even so qualitative as education, social and economic status, or beauty."14 The "Parent Attitude Toward Education Scale” is a type of instrument which purports to provide an estimate of a parent's support for Schools and of how important 15 education is to him. This instrument contains forty 14Ibid., p. 218. 15Gene R. Medinnus, "The Development of a Parent Attitude Toward Education Scale," Journal of Educational Research, 56: 100- 105 ,October, 196. 71? ' r "?fi- . D u‘J. C~lgLJ 1 Ar” T? StPVI5-J see: to could us ’izatever Variety Cbjectiv 11 statements which relate to educational values. Each statement is rated by the respondent as whether he would strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the item. This instrument would seem to have a diagnostic purpose since administrators could use parental responses in evaluating local school policies. It was indicated earlier that people evaluate schools by using various criteria, goals, or outcomes as they perceive the function of the school. There are those who support the need for stressing intellectual per- formance and achievement as a criterion of quality.16’17’18 Whatever objectives or goals a school may possess and the variety of activities it may utilize in meeting these objectives, intellectual behavior in all educational fields can be a legitimate function of the school. Clark specifically indicates that one characteristic of quality education is a certain amount of knowledge—— "content and skills or abilities learned."19 That school achievement has been recognized as one criterion 16Clabaugh, _p, cit., p. 4. 17Harold F. Clark, "Cost and Quality in Public Education " (Syracuse, New YOrk: Syracuse University Press, 1963), p. 2. ° 18Committee for EConomic Development, pp, cit., p.10. 19Clark, 9p, cit., p. 2. 52500 of rant V. V 'oted *3 rm *2- .L’IVP v 1“ . \‘ .wlfit r H C ‘5 '.. ~ the: 12 of school quality is indicated by the studies which have used achievement tests as a measurement of academic objectives. (These are cited in Chapter II.) Firman20 and Goodman21 indicate that the quality of a school is measured by the impact the school has on its pupils. This impact includes competency in the basic skills, appreciation of and interest in knowledge, knowledge of our cultural heritage, and citizenship and human relations values. That competency in the basic skills is an im- portant objective of schools is evidenced by the emphasis placed upon them, the time and materials devoted to them, and their importance in our culture. Measuring these basic skills in order to obtain an index of quality for a school is one purpose of achieve— ment tests. Standardized tests should not be expected to measure and provide evidence on how well teachers have taught all those things they have tried to teach. They have their value in the validity and reliability of their construction and the care with which they are pre- pared. "A well-constructed standardized achievement 20Firman,;p. cit., p. 2 21Samuel M. Goodman, "The Assessment of Quality," (Albany, New Yerk: The University of the State of New York, 1959), p. 7. 15 / test provides an independent, broadly based definition of desirable goals of achievement in all schools."22 Scores provided by the tests provide normative infor- mation and scales against which individual school system averages may be compared. The complexity of the input to achievement results must be remembered when analyzing them. Differences in school staff, material resources, educational objectives, and students encourage diversity in achievement results. ‘Differences in school achievement scores can, in part, be attributed 23 The fact that to the values of the school district. each school district is unique and composed of children with varied abilities and backgrounds and that school personnel and course content vary combine to provide diverse results in testing. The problem of improving the quality of educational opportunity in a given school system becomes one of assessing the values, attitudes, and perceptions that the community possesses about education. Since‘ behavior is a function of perception, measuring the community perceptions should provide us with a picture "Standardized Achievement Tests-- National Elementary Principal, 41: 22Robert L. Ebel Uses and Limitations, 51, September, 1961. 23"School Quality workbook Handbook," (New York: The University of the State of New YOrk, Division of Research, January, 1965), p. 5. h "1: relative observer 14 of community behavior. Developing an instrument which will measure perceptions of a community and which has a relationship with accepted measures of educational quality is important to evaluating the qualityof a local school in terms of local objectives and values. Rationale of the Study ”It would appear that the concept of quality is a relative one that resides more in the mind of the observer than it does in the actual structure of the curriculum. If quality is a function of the percep- tion of the observer and the values he holds, the key to the definition and measurement of quality resides in the perceptions and value orientation of those making judgments about quality in educational programs."24 This . 25 261 . 27 position is supported by Firman, Thurstone, Medinnus 24Herbert C. Rudman and Stanley E. Hecker, "The Determination and Measurement of Factors Which Directly or Indirectly Affect the Quality of an.Educationa1 Program." Application to the Commissioner of Educa- tion, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and welfare for Funds to Sup ort Research Under the Provisions of Public Law 551, 85rd Congress, November 29, 1961 (Mimeographed). 2SFirman, loc. cit. 26Thurstone, loc. cit. 27Medinnus, loc. cit. 15 and Combs and Snygg.28 Bills29 and Combs30 discuss perception and values as they apply in this context. Administrators and teachers are directly involved in implementing educational programs. Therefore, it seems important to determine their perceptions of those characteristics which affect school quality and thus affect educational programs. Previous cost-quality studies have indicated a relationship between cost and many quality factors including achievement. Achievement tests have been recognized by Ebel31 and Goodman32 as measurements of goals of education. The partial correlation technique has been used in this exploratory study in order to control the various cost factors. In this way the relationship of the Educational Characteristics Criterion (ECG) and achievement independent of cost factors could be determined. The Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), is an instrument which is designed to measure the 28Combs and Snygg, loc. cit. 29Robert E. Bills, About People and Teaching, Bulle- tin of the Bureau of School Services, (Lexington, Kentucky: College of Education, University of Kentucky, December, .1955): VClume 28, Number 2, pp. l—l9. 30Arthur W} Combs, "Personality Theory and Its Implications for Curriculum Development," LearningMore About Learning, (washington, D.C.: Association fer SuperVISIon.and Curriculum.DevelOpment, 1959), pp. 5—12. 31Ebel, loc. cit. 32Goodman, loc. cit. .1 «WU to ho? FILL Peach L T osla AC .0 ed and be 16 perceptions that various populations have concerning certain characteristics of quality education. Previous studies which have used the Egg have indicated its ability to discriminate among various populations and to hold a high relationship with cost factors as criteria of quality education. Therefore, relationships between the perceptions of administrators and teachers concerning characteristics of quality education, achievement test scores, and certain cost factors Should exist. Statement of the Problem Studies of the relationship of cost and quality in education have provided a variety of criteria for judging the quality of a school. An analysis of these studies has shown that whatever definition of quality has been used the expenditure of more money usually produces more of the quality. Agreement has not been reached as to what factors contribute to quality educa- tion. The American public evaluates schools and school programs according to values and purposes which vary from school community to school community. In order that a definition of "quality in education" may be obtained that will include factors which are based on the values and beliefs of the public which supports education and 17 those persons who are directly involved in operating the schools, the Educational Characteristics Criterion has been develOped. The validity and reliability of the Egg have been indicated in studies which have used financial data as criteria of quality and administrators and teachers as respondents.33”34 A Significant outcome of education is what the students learn. Achievement tests are used to measure academic achievement and have been used as criteria in measuring school quality. This study was undertaken in order to test the validity of the Egg as a predictor of school achievement. The major concern of this study is the ability of the ECC to predict school achievement independent of the cost factors of size, expenditure per pupil, millage, and state equalized valuation. Specifically, are the per— ceptions that administrators and teachers have of selected characteristics of quality education related to the academic achievement of students? 33Arthur D. Berg, "The Determination of the Dis— crimination and Reliability Indices of the Educational Characteristics Criterion with Implications Concerning Educational coat—Quality Relationships"(unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962). 34“Van Mueller, "A Study of the Relationships Between Teacher-Administrator Perceptions of Educational Quality as Measured by the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), and Selected Cost Factors,“ (unpublishedIDoctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964). :v v. .. _ .n . Y. ..-. L . .I. In... 7.. o; .w . PL .11. ..r . v. +.. r . r; .r... .14 inn... F S e E T To C —~IJ. E T To 0 “ab 0L 8 T at C who “1; ma 3 W t Du ,Tu W. WI. W . hi {L T C. at e 9 .e n 11 n i "3 wt. f. I. .. . 11w. wee ..L e a nu P. «mu ..C .L . must 0.. g kg the 18 Hypotheses to be Tested The three General Hypotheses to be tested are stated in research form. Subhypotheses will be developed in Chapter III and tested and analyzed in Chapter IV. General Hypothesis I There i§_a_positive relationship between adminis— Erator and teacher perceptions of characteristics of quality educatIon as measured—by the Educational CHaracteristics CrItePIOn. General Hypothesis I; There are positive relationships among the adminis- trator and téaCher perceptions of characférIStIcs of quality education as measured—b tEe Educational CfiaracterIStics CritePIOn, StudenflachIevement, and cost factors. General Hypothesis III There is a ppsitive relationship between adminis- trator—End teaCher perceptions of CharacterIStlcs of guality_education as measured—b the Educational CHaractePIstlcs CPitePIon and studgnt achievement independent pf_cost factors. Importance of the Study This exploratory study hopes to add a second dimension (achievement) to the criteria of quality upon which the Egg can'be validated. In determining the ability of the Egg to predict achievement as well as the various cost factors, the development of an instrument which may be used to evaluate school quality by assess- ing the perceptions of administrators and teachers may .ranpw-p ..VVL‘V“‘V }gpP.WD LVUV~“V «“9" 1' *" qgu-- U C v W. 8 fly 19 become a reality. Further studies using other pOpula- tions and criteria of quality could provide a more comprehensive instrument. The instrument might then become a means of determining the perceptions that various power groups have of the characteristics of quality education. This would help those who make educational decisions assess the degree to which a local school system meets local goals. If it can.be determined that the Egg-achievement— cost relationships are sufficient to predict educational quality, the problems of determining adequate cost figures and achievement test scores could be eliminated in assessing schOOl quality. The Egg might ,become a diagnostic instrument for assessing the perceptions that peOple have concerning items related to quality education. Scope and Limitations of the Study 1) The small sample and the distribution of the sample place limits on the interpretation of the results. 2) The study is limited to determining educational quality in relationship to school achievement. 5) The study is limited to the degree that respond— ents report their honest and individual perceptions. 4) The reliability and validity of the Stanford Achievement Test have been established and the results - A CEPELC 2., 20 obtained in this study are limited insofar as they pertain to this achievement test and the accuracy of the participating schools in scoring and reporting their data. Assumptions of the Study 1) The financial data supplied in the "Selected Data for Michigan's 554 K-12 School Districts” for 1961-62 (State of Michigan DPI Report) was compiled accurately and in a consistent manner. 2) Educational quality is a relative concept and may be defined as the perceptions and values that peOple have about their schools. 5) Participants in this study responded with their honest and independent rather than group or paired perceptions. Definition of Terms AS used in this study, the following terms are defined as: 1) School system. The term school system refers to those Michigan public schools which maintain an educational program consisting of either grades K-12 or 1-12 0 2) Educational quality. Those educational characteristics of a school system, both school and com- munity, which have been perceived by educational A J E \1 E) S P ...3 v1u educatio r-“ 'IIOWI 9. - \l c n 0 ‘III‘ '\L e a u uwr mfiq ...... r t .. L 1 r.\ JII .114 e no .\I Au 0 n J. 7 e co ,. t D. .1 .Te ..Q lo. ab as C O S l ..L .n . oi DC L‘i]~t:Lj~ES 4 Ow in 21 authorities as being effective in accomplishing the purposes of American public education determine educa- tional quality. The characteristics are defined by the Egg for purposes of this study. 5) School Achievement Score. The term School Achievement Score (SAS) refers to the mean score of students tested in the sixth grade for a particular school system as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. 4) Total Quality Score. Total Quality Score (TQS) is the sum of the weighted item responses on an individ- ual's ECC. 5) CategorngualityScore Category Quality Score (CQS) is the sum of the weighted item responses of the educational characteristics included in each of the following categories of educational quality: Student's level of Knowledge and Attitudes, Curriculum, Adminis- tration and Supervision, Use of Facilities, Socio- cultural Composition of the Community, Teacher and Teaching Methods, and Community Attitudes. 6) Teacher. A teacher is the certificated employee assigned to a classroom or group of students for instructional purposes. 7) Administrator. An administrator is the certi- ficated employee assigned to supervise or administer a group of teachers or a building or to perform a specific administrative service or function. CIT) ) is the tC of child: 9) state eq‘.‘ divided ‘t 10) rate in n This literatu: dew-111733 iHeluded tent of 1 the Stud; a83141113131c ti IOU Of I 22 8) §i§§_pf school. The Size of a school system is the total school membership in terms of the number of children enrolled in grades K-12 for 1961-62. 9) Financial abilipy. Financial ability is the state equalized valuation (SEV) of a school system divided by the school system membership. 10) Financial effort. Financial effort is the tax rate in mills levied in a school system for "current operating expenditures." These expenditures include such items as teachers' salaries, tuition, transporta- tion, repairs, and supplies but do not include items of capital outlay or debt retirement. ll) Expenditure per pupil. Expenditure per pupil is the cost of educating one child as determined by dividing the total current operating expenses by the total school system membership. Organization of Remainder of the Thesis This chapter has presented the general problem and literature related to the area of school evaluation, definitions of quality, and perception theory. Also included have been the rationale of the study, the state- ment of the problem, and the purpose and importance of the study. The SCOpe and limitations of the study, the assumptions upon which the study is based and the defini— tion of terms used in the study completed the chapter. no. rd n U L} L I" if the O apter I A V (1;. u. . 23 Chapter II will review the literature of cost- quality studies and indicate the related cost-quality- achievement studies. Chapter III will be devoted to an analysis of the instruments used in this study and of the studies which have used the Educational Characteris- tics Criterion, (ECC). The selection and description of 'the sample, the procedures used in collecting the data, and the treatment of the data as well as the statement of the operational hypotheses will be included in Chapter III. Chapter IV will analyze the data to test the statisti- cal hypotheses. Chapter V will summarize the data, make conclusions from the study, and offer recommendations and implications for education. CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE The literature in the area of cost-quality studies in public education indicates the complexity of the problems of measurement and the variety of definitions of quality. The purpose of this chapter is to indicate the problems encountered in conducting cost-quality studies, to indicate the change in emphasis from unit- cost analysis to a cost-quality analysis, and to cite those studies which have contributed to the development of definitions of quality. Of particular importance are those studies which have identified school achievement as a definition of quality. A review of the literature indicates that a number of studies have analyzed the various factors which con- tribute to school achievement. Previous studies which have used the Educational Characteristics Criterion as an instrument to measure perceptions of quality have indicated its reliability in discriminating between the responses of groups of peOple and in predicting the cost relationships of a school system. No research was found which attempted to determine the quality of an 24 25 educational program by determining the perceptions that certificated personnel held about their school system and relating these to school achievement. PhilOSOphical Statements of Quality "There are almost as many definitions of quality in education as there are persons discussing the pro- 25 blem."’ This indicates the problem of defining or classifying quality that has confronted those involved in educational cost-quality studies. Vincent summarizes the many definitions used in these studies and by the American public into nine criteria.36 He indicates that those who judge schools in terms of the social respect- ability or position of the families of the students use a criterion of exclusiveness whereas those who emphasize the selectivity of the students on their mental ability employ a criterion of the elite. Similar to these is the criterion of seclusion which views the school as an educational institution for getting away from the world 35Clark, _p. cit., p. 2. ’6William S. Vincent, "Criteria of Quality," Institute of Administrative Research Bulletin, Volume 2, NumBer 5, (New Ybrk: Teachers Cbllege, Columbia Univer- sity), pp. l-4, April, 1962. 26 or a place for the different to get away from the ordinary. Those who look to the schools to pass on the traditions of the culture through a curriculum pre- scribed for this purpose use a criterion of tradition or stability. The criterion of equality supports the position of those who believe that no one should be disadvantaged for handicaps over which he has no control and the concept of the right of all persons to educational opportunities. Vincent describes schools meeting this criterion as being comprehensive in curricular and cultural Opportunities. The simplicity criterion is used by those who view schools in terms of simple facilities and goals of an academic nature and not assuming other functions of society; they look upon the curriculum as compartmentalized and the building as a cell structure. Those who view the school in terms of the economy criterion are concerned with the amount of money Spent on education. Those who view schools in terms of becoming better than they are or of moving forward use the criterion of adaptability. Fostering innovation and change in education is of importance in this concept. The criterion of democracy stresses the manner in which the educational system of a community is governed. The complexity of these criteria and their import- ance in formulating policy and decisions about schools harmful . school C it is to and prov In PCYIE "3 ' 4:. Asnnlstratic 0 ‘. a criteriorl o. ltnent oonol ... it 1 factors by the s leaSures If that eventual aooeptat Overlooi erg ‘hc Citizefj 27 is summarized by Vincent: A few clear channels through which the public may influence the schools are sufficient to make the whole enterprise most sensitive to public opinion.... In fact, almost any community group... can and do disturb the school and its program in various ways both beneficial and harmful.... It would be possible to judge a school district on the basis of how responsive it is to a public that influences its policy and provides its support./ In reviewing the studies which the Institute of Administrative Research has undertaken which used the criterion of adaptability as a measure of quality, Vincent concludes by saying that: ... it is likely that a more complete view of the factors that should receive primary consideration by the school administrator Should depend upon measures related to more than one criterion.... If that (a battery of quality measures) is what eventuates... certainly those criteria most acceptable 1% public thinking should not be overlooked./ The importance of the public image of schools is indicated in "Improving Quality in Public Education." In a democracy, the schools will not rise above the level of aspiration which the people have for them. Neither will they become better simply by our wishing they were. It is essential that there be a continuous and critical evaluation by citizens generally of the means by which the quality of public education can.be improved.39 \‘I R H‘ 9‘ "C3 [\3 Ibid., p. 4. 9Clabaugh, pp, cit., p. 5. \JJ \JJ \JJ (1) 28 Clark indicates that school quality varies greatly among different communities and that these differences are due largely to factors in the community which include socio-economic conditions and parental values and educational background}0 Yet, in communities with seemingly similar characteristics differences in educa- tional quality will appear. He concludes that there are a large number of factors that cause differences in 1 quality of education.AL These factors combine to form the definition of quality as indicated by Firman: The quality of any product or process is a relative description of its effectiveness in meeting specifically defined objectives. The more diverse these become, or the more complex the process or product becomes, the more difficult it is to describe the quality within the framework of an over-all or global classification system. In other words, the quality of a school musfigbe described in terms of the quality of its parts. These parts or characteristics of quality have been listed by the Educational Policies Commission as being the O . Clark, pp. cit., p. 51. 41LIbid., p. 32. 42William D. Firman, "Which Schools Are Better?" National Education Association Research Bulletin, (washin ton, D. CT: National Education Association), Volume El, Number 5, p. 84, October, 1965. / 29 elementary and secondary curriculum, teaching procedures, guidance activities, size and characteristics of the staff as well as their recruitment and retention, and school board and administrator relationships and func- A; tions. The Commission stresses individualized instruction and the importance of growth and improvement. as well as the need for financial support for a quality program. In order to acquire a quality program the Commission holds that the system Should develop written policies, employ a variety of professional personnel, maintain good communication between the school and community, and provide satisfactory salaries and public recognition for good work. The effect of the home environment is also mentioned as a factor contributing to a quality program. The present study and the develOpment of the Educational Characteristics Criterion is supported by the Commission's conclusion: The quality of an educational enterprise is largely determined in each locality. High quality in a school depends directly on the character of the community at large and on the abilities and attitudes l*3National Educational Policies Commission, An Essa on alit ip Public Education '(Washington3—D.C.: NaronEI uca on Association,Il959), pp. 6-25. 50 of the parents, the school board, the administrator, and the school staff. The attitudes as well as the decisions of local officials reflect the views of local citizens. Thus, the taproot of quality in a school is a vigorous public commit- ment to education based on an understanding of what Egucation can do and what good Schools are like. Related Cost-Quality Empirical Studies Early efforts to relate educational costs with educational outcomes were made on the basis of unit costs and accounting theory. The problem of standard- izing and defining costs and the categorizing of items for which funds were expended soon'became apparent. AS educational programs become more complex the problems become more acute. Because of the accounting procedures that were used it was not always possible to find the costs which were related to administration, instruction, maintenance, capital improvements, and other categories. Differences in pupil accounting procedures did not provide for equal analysis of enrollment data. It should be remembered that many of these problems still exist today. In 1920, Ayers pioneered a cost-quality concept which recognized the difficulty of measuring quality and of controlling the variables of home, church, and 41+Ibid., p. 26. 51 community values and differences in educational ability. He reported a high degree of correspondence between the level of expenditure and per cent of school-age population attending school, length of the school term, average days attended by children of school age, and high school attendance as a per cent of total attend— ance.45 Norton, in 1926, reported that in the states in which more money was spent per pupil teachers were paid more, more money was expended on non—salary items, and the school plant was superior. Pupils attended school a greater number of days per year, more pupils went on to high school and the teachers were better prepared in these states.46 Ferrell, in 1956, used expenditure per pupil as a measure of cost and related it to items of daily attendance, holding power, preparation and experience of teachers, pupil—teacher ratio, and the length of the __._v_ 45Leonard P. Ayers, An Index Number for State School S stems, (New YOrk: Depanment of Education, RusseII age oundation, 1920), as cited in National Education Association, ”Better Schools Cost More," National Educa- tion Association Research Bulletin, (washington, D. C.: NafionalIEducation‘Association)Vblume 57, Number 2, p. 41, April, 1959. 46National Education Association, ”Better Schools Cost More," 9p. cit., p. 41. 52 school term. The correlation for the six items in county schools was .92 and for independent schools .7147 Mort and Cornell developed "A Guide for Self- Appraisal of School Systems" in 1957. In a study of educational expenditure per elementary classroom and quality as measured by the instrument in thirty—Six Pennsylvania school systems a Pearson correlation of .59 was found. This instrument was similar to Tpp. Growing Edge which later was designed for use in adaptability studies.48 In their study of the Penn- sylvania schools, Mort and Cornell "found what they called 'public expectancy' was more closely related to the criterion of school quality which they were using at the time than any other single factor except net 49 current expenditure? 47Doctor T. Ferrell, "Relation Between Current Expenditures and Certain Measures of Educational Effici- ency in.Kentucky County and Graded School Systems,” Contributions to Education, Number 216, (Nashville, Tennessee: George Peabody College for Teachers, 1956), as cited in R. L. Johns and E. L. Morphet,Prob1ems and Issues in Public School Finance, (New Yerk: ,Teachers CoIIege:_Columbia‘UnIVersity, 1952), p. 51., 48Paul R. Mort and Francis G. Cornell, A Guide for Self Appraisal of School Systems, (New York:_Bureau of PuEIications, TEECECrS College, Columbia University, 1957) as Cited in Ibid., p. 25. 49‘Vincent,9_p. cit., p. 1. 33 In 1948 McClure investigated the cost-quality relationships in one hundred schools using a revision of the Mort-Cornell pplpp. Schools were divided into three expenditure categories and two hundred practices which were felt to be important for good educational programs were studied. He concluded that schools that spent little money usually had unattractive buildings which were not suited for work, had few supplementary books, and had limited supplies and equipment for teaching. The McClure study showed that the schools in the low expenditure group taught the three R'S poorly and did not use activities for developing citizenship.50 WOolatt'S study in 1949 of thirty—three New YOrk and New Jersey school systems of a high expenditure classification (above the national average) used HEB. 51 Growing Edge as a quality measure. The Growing Edge was designed to indicate the characteristics that schools in high expenditure SONilliam P. McClure, Let Us Pa for the Kind of Education we Need, A Report—dT'd_S u ymdf'SIate and—I Local SuppUPt of Mississippi Schools, University Bureau of Educational Research, University of Mississippi, 1948, as cited in R. L. Johns and E.L. Morphet,_pp._p1t., p. 55. 51Lorne M. WOolatt, A Cost Qualit Relationship pp the GrowingEd e, MetrOpolitan SchooI SIudy Council Research Studies #4, (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1949), as cited in Ibid., p. 15-17. 34 classifications possessed as opposed to schools in low expenditure classifications. It measures quality with emphasis on the adaptability of a School system to respond to what are considered better teaching methods and school Operations procedures. It includes categories of skills, knowledge, special abilities, and behavior patterns. WOolatt accounted for sparsity, transporta- tion, differences in elementary and secondary costs and tuition costs in his study. Since two states were involved he recognized regional differences between the states and cost of living differences. A correlation of .59 was found between expenditure level and the combined scores (four categories) of The GrowingEdge. In referring to the cost-quality studies of the thirty years from 1920—1950, Mort concludes that They seem to indicate that after fifty years of readjustment to the revolutionary discoveries in psychology made at the turn of the century we see emerging an education of great potential and we see that one important accompgpiment of such strong education is expenditure. The Educational Conference Board Study p£_New York State by Vincent in 1942-45 involved the use of field workers, questionnaires, and Department of Public Instruc- 53 tion reports. The Mort-Cornell guide was used as a 52Johns and Morphet, pp. cit., p. 55. 53Ibid., p. 17-20. 35 basis for phrasing the data to be collected. Vincent concluded that there are .00 five basic trends associated with increased expenditure. These are: 1 concern for the mastery of basic skills 2 concern for the conditions of child growth 5 attention to the needs of the individual 4 lack of dependence of teachers upon patent devices, and 5) increase of proportion of teachers who are resourceffll, imaginative, and intelligent.) A study by the New Jersey School Survey Commission in 1952-55 to Show what might be expected of schools at various expenditure levels used a Checklist to indicate school practices.55 Mort summarizes the results by saying that: 1) School districts which spend more tend to buy 2) more of the sorts of things which are at the time considered good by educators in general; and, Schools which Spend more get a higher quality from administrators, supervisors, and classroom services as gauged by the best thinking of the time as to what is effective behavior for administrators, supervisors, classroom teachers, and other persons providing school services, even when no relationship is apparent between the pattern 0% behavior and the amount of money Spent.5 54 Loc. cit. 55Ibid., p. 20-21. 56 Loc. cit. fl“ 56 Furno, using Metropolitan School Study Council data, was concerned with the time lag between changes in expenditure policies and their effect on school quality.57 He found that maximum effect occurred in about seven years and some effect could be measured after twenty- five years. Related Cost-Quality-Achievement Studies Achievement of pupils has been used as a measure of quality in several studies. In 1955 Powell studied seventy one-teacher schools in one New Yerk county. He matched children by mental ability in low and high expenditure schools and found that after five years of schooling the pupils in high expenditure schools were on the average 1.44 years advanced over those in the low 58 expenditure schools. 57Orlando F. Furno, "The Projection of School Quality from Expenditure Level,’ (unpublished Ibctoral project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1956), as cited in Paul R. Mort, walter C. Reusser, and John W. Polley, Public School Finance, (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Comp- any, 1960), p. 85. 58Orrin E. Powell, Educational Returns of Var i Expenditure Levels, (New York: Bureau of PubIICafions, Tdadhers COllege, Columbia University, 1955), as cited in National Education Association, pp. p13,, p. 42. A.“ , fl I'AT‘IY‘A V2,.--d {1 5-5 -v .- 0 “‘Il"l *~ ‘ f 6—4: 4,0; elk/wt r-x __4 - ~_A ”1...:r1' .‘ _ ..4,-¢. a 1 ‘Lcn +77 9U\-. I‘VKT“. ”P?” re .'\‘ .— v. “a H a f‘f‘vr HLU\, .. ‘ 4 ll stature fi‘h ‘sL '} WGPS 57 In 1958, Grimm selected twenty-four schools in Illinois. Eight schools were in each of the high, middle, and low expenditure categories. He found that the scores of pupils on language, reading, and arith- metic achievement tests improved with the cost level. He found that the high expenditure schools offered more and better physical and health education, and more 0 -a extracurricular activities, smaller c.9sses, more (3‘ 1 opportunities in music, more books and etter libraries, better trained teachers, more specialists, and better . . 9 bu11d1ngs.5’ Bloom and Statler in 1955 studied factors related to educational achievement as measured by the General Educational LeVelopment Tests in English composition, literature, social studies, natural sciences, and mathematics. Comparisons of their results were made with a study completed by Lindquist in 1945. They con— cluded that the differences among the states on the GED tests were as great in 1955 as in 1945. The differences were highly related to differences in financial support 59Lesoer R. Grimm, Our Children's Opportunities in Relation pp_School Costs, (Springfield, Illinois: '"_ Department of Research, Illinois Education Ass ciation, 1958), as cited in National Education Association, pp.“p}p,, p. 42. 58 and in the level of formal education of the adult population. Those states in which students did better in 1955 than in 1945 were states which Showed increases in financial support and in the level of education of the adult population. Burke directed an extensive study in 1954 of the New Yerk State Public Elementary Schools.61 The Iowa Test pf_BaSic Skills was administered and compared with educational program offerings. The median cost per pupil for those schools "doing most” on programs was $520. The median cost for "satisfactory" schools was $272. and for schools "doing least" was $255. The report indicates that While there is a definite correlation between average costs and average test results and program, costs vary within all groups. These variations result from differences in programs within the groups, size of district, type of community.... District size, community type, and cost in that order best explain mastery of essential Skills. Conversely, type of ro ram appears to be most affected by costs, wltH' istrict size and 6 community type having a smaller influence. 2 60Benjamin S. Bloom and Charles R. Statler, "Changes in the States on the Tests of General Educational DevelOp- ment from 1945 to 1955," Tpp School Review, VOlume LXV, Number 2, Summer, 1957, pp. 204-22I._ 61Arvid J. Burke, "What do Good Schools do For Child- ren?" A Report of a Cooperative Study of Educational Programs in New'York State Public Elementary Schools, Albany, New YOrk: New YOrk State Educational Conference Board, 1954). 6239131., p. 10. 39 Burke suggests that in interpreting cost—quality data it should be remembered that native ability, cultural background, and other pupil characteristics can affect the mastery ranking of a school. He notes that the educational standards of a community and the attitude it shows towards schools and teachers can "impede or encourage" maximum performance of their teachers.63 The report provides specific objectives to be found in schools of high, average, and low quality (achievement) on the following general objectives: good health, good citizenship, good home life, ability to think, ability to get along with others, personal adjustment and develOpment-of individual abilities and talents. In the first report on the Quality Measurement Project conducted by the New York State Education Depart- ment, Goodman acknowledges that achievement tests are a partial estimate of the quality of a system.64 He indicates that a better than chance prediction for a school system's achievement can.be made by using either socio-economic indices or I.Q., singly, or both in combin- ation, as the predictors.65 In discussing the reasons 631bid., p. 10. 64Samuel M. Goodman, "The Assessment of Quality," Albany, New YOrk: The University of the State of New York, 1959), p. 7. 55Ib1d., p. 27. 40 for over-achievement and under—achievement of school systems he holds that community expectation, staff orientation, pupil aspiration, and what the schools do with and for pupils in the process of education must be the roots of the differences. The over-achievement of the districts in the more favored socio-economic settings must be attributed to something in tgg dynamics of the community- school situation. In discussing the relationship between school expendi— ture and achievement expectancy, the report indicates a product moment correlation of .51 (at grade 7) when socio-economic factors are included and .51 when the socio-economic factors are partialled out. These consistently positive correlations document an abiding relationship between system expenditure and system effectiveness--or quality--in achieving the skills outcomes. The size of the correlations suggests that the educational benefits of addi— tional funds are not automatic. However, they leave no doubt that better outcomes are related to addétional expenditure, judiciously adminis— tered. 7 Contrary to the findings of most cost-quality studies, the study conducted by the Connecticut Citizens for the Public Schools "found significantly less relation- ship between quality (achievement tests) and expenditure .68 level as measured... 66Loo. cit. 67Ibid., pp. 27-28. 68Paul R. Mort, et. al., 2E. cit., p. 82. r1 .IT‘ a 1 41 Summary The review of the literature related to cost-quality studies and especially to studies which defined quality in terms of achievement has indicated the variety of definitions of quality in education. The emphasis upon local objectives and the many forces which directly or indirectly affect educational input and outcome points to the need for evaluating school systems in terms of local goals and values. The use of checklists, question- naires, teams of observers, and lay advisory groups have led to many approaches of local evaluation. The various studies cited and the work of Mort and Burke in assess- ing the problems in cost-quality studies show the diffi- culty of measuring both cost and quality. From.the literature it seems that there is a factual basis for dealing with the relationship between quality in education and cost and that the relationships are quite involved. Whatever definitions have been used for quality, higher-quality is obtained in schools which spend more for their schools. High—quality education is seldom found in low-expenditure schools yet more money does not automatically make for better schools. we need to be able to ascertain cost-related and non-cost- related factors contributing to quality education. CHAPTER III INSTRUMENTATION AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY This study is designed to determine and analyze the perceptions of administrators and teachers which relate to the factors of quality in education as measured by the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (Egg). The design permits the analysis of these percep- tions in relationship to achievement of schools as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. The re- lationship of certain cost factors to achievement and to the Egg responses is also included in the design. This chapter describes the instruments used to obtain the data, the nature of the sample and its selection, and the statistical procedures used in testing the hypotheses. Instrumentation Educational Characteristics Criterion The Educational Characteristics Criterion,(ECC), was developed by Herbert C. Rudman as a result of a two-phase study conducted in the College of Education, Michigan State University. He first asked selected faculty members to identify those factors which con- 42 43 tributed to the quality of education. After an extensive analysis of the items which were submitted by the faculty, curriculum specialists were asked to respond to items factored out of approximately four hundred items. These items represented those elements which either directly or indirectly affected quality of an educational program. From an analysis of the results of this second phase of the study, Rudman developed the .399. The fifty-five items which comprised the Egg were distributed among seven categories: (I) Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes, (II) Community Atti- tudes, (III) Curriculum, (IV) Use of Facilities, (V) Socio-cultural Composition of the Community, (VI) Ad- ministration and Supervision, and (VII) The Teacher and Teaching Methods. These categories have been retained in the revision of the instrument. The items which are identified with each category can be found in Appendix C. Kraft duplicated the second phase of the Rudman study to determine the differences in the perceptions of professors of education, professors in areas other than education, and school board members concerning the factors which contributed to the quality of 44 He concluded that there appears to be a 69 education. relationship between the group of which an individual is a part and his perception of the quality factors. ‘Kraft identified each group of respondents with the categories that it held most relevant in determining quality education. The three groups seemed to be in ' agreement that Category VII. (The Teacher and Teaching Methods) affected the quality of an educational program. Category V. (Socio-cultural Composition of the Community) was perceived by the three groups as being least impor- tant in affecting quality education.70 In a later study, Berg administered the Egg to teachers and administrators in Michigan school systems that were defined as high financial support and low financial support districts.71 His financial data included school size, millage, expenditure per pupil, and state equalized valuation. Berg concluded that: 69Leonard E. Kraft, "The Perceptions Held by Pro- fessors of Education, Professors in Areas Other Than Education, and School Board Members on Ninety Factors Which May or May Not Affect the Quality of an Educa- tional Program,‘ (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962). 70Ibid., p. 95. 71Berg, gp. cit. 45 The Educational Characteristics Criterion is an excelIefit measure of educational quality in public school districts. This instrument... can discriminate between Michigan public school districts having high financial support and those having low financial support with high reliabil- ity in terms of consistency of individual responses. 2 He based this conclusion on the analysis that total scores, the seven category scores and forty-one of the fifty-six individual item scores showed a positive relationship between educational quality and financial support as indicated by teachers or administrators. Within high financial support and low financial support districts Berg found agreement between teachers and administrators on total scores and the majority of category scores. He reported total score reliabilities of .89 to .95 for teachers or administrators in the high or low support districts. Each of the fifty—six characteristics of the Egg had point biserial co- efficients "significantly positive at the level of P‘<.Ol except number 52 and number 19.73 These two items were: "The parents in this community expect their children to perfOrm their share of family chores" and "Teachers have complete freedom to teach what they consider important." 72Ib1d., p. 209. 73;pid., p. 195. 46 An analysis of the relationship of each of the seven categories and the items in each category showed correlation coefficients of .58 to .62. The relation- ship of the items in each category to total score showed median correlations for the seven categories of.2O to .54. In each analysis, category V. (Socio-cultural Composition of the Community) had the lowest category reliability and discrimination power.74 .Berg recommended that the Egg should be tested with administrator and teacher respondents from the second and third quartile financial support schools in Michigan and that "the relationship of E§Q_scores to educational out- put ... such as achievement gains be investigated."75 He indicated that: "The individual educational characteris- tics and categories of educational characteristics which are present in high degree in conjunction with high achievement gains should be identified as being desirable? Mueller replicated Berg's Michigan study of the relationShip of the ECC scores and cost factors on a national sample.77 Contrary to Berg's conclusions, 741bid., pp. 194-197. 75Ibid., pp. 248—249. 76Loo. cit. 77 Mueller, 92. cit. 47 Mueller found that teachers and administrators did not agree on their perceptions of educational quality. Administrators placed a higher value on all seven categories of educational characteristics than did teachers. He found that the Total Quality Scores of both administrators and teachers confirmed the findings of previous research that there is a cost-quality relationship. It was found that on each of the seven category scores and on forty—one of the individual Egg characteristics teachers perceived educational quality to be present significantly higher in high financial support districts than in low financial support districts. In analyzing Total Quality Scores based on administrator or teacher responses Mueller's study showed reliability coefficients to range from .89 to .91 except for categories I and V ("Students Level of Knowledge and Attitudes" and "Socio—cultural Composition of the Community"). Fifty-two of the fifty-six indivi- dual characteristics indicated positive discriminative power (P <.01) in relation to total score and category score. He reported that category V ("Socio—cultural Composition of the Community") possessed low discrimina- tion levels.78 One of Mueller's recommendations for 78Ibid., pp. 179—182. 48 further study was that the relationships between Egg scores and achievement test scores should be studied.79 Those individual characteristics and those categories which relate to such measures as scholastic achievement should be identified for further study in assessing the quality of a school's educational program. Stanford Achievement Test In reviewing the Stanford Achievement Test (1955 edition), Gage describes it as a "useful, plodding, dependable workhorse" that can serve most school systems well in.measuring pupil achievement.80 He notes that the reliabilities of the fifty-two sub—tests range from .66 (arithmetic reasoning) to .96 (paragraph meaning) and that forty-three of the sub-tests have coefficients above .85. The median coefficient is .88. In summarizing these correlations Gage states, "It certainly looks in any case as if reliability is high enough in most grade levels in most sub-tests to insure that the tests sample adequately the domain of pupil achievement which they do sample. 79Ibid., p. 190. 80Oscar Krisen Buros (ed.), The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook, (Highland Park, N. J.: The Gryphon Press, 1959), pp. 75-80. 81Ibid., p. 78. 49 Gage indicates a concern that the 1955 edition of the Stanford Achievement Test does not contain imaginative innovations in its format and construction. He comments that it deals with "miscellaneous knowledge rather than problem solving skills, critical under— standings, and applications of learning.82 These criticisms lead to his conclusion that this edition (1955) does not permit the test to take its "rightful share of the leadership role to which decades of use in American schools have made it heir.83 His implication that the Stanford has been a leader in achievement testing and his conclusions based on the sub-test correlations of the 1955 edition are important. The reliability coefficients to which Gage referred are evaluated by Noll as being "quite satisfactory?81+ Since these coefficients are restricted to a range of one grade Noll concludes that he would expect the reliability of the batteries as a whole to be higher. These within- grade reliabilities are important because the tests are 821bid., p. 80. 83Loc. cit. 84Victor H. Noll, Introduction to Educational Measurement, (Boston: HougEton-Mifflifi?C6mpany,1957), p.’lb2. 50 used widely to differentiate among pupils within a given grade. In evaluating the validity of the batter- ies, he refers to the test manual which indicates that a major goal in the construction of the test was that the content should be in harmony with the present objec- tives of schools and would measure what is_actually taught in them. In this regard, the content of the test items was chosen on the basis of word counts, analysis of textbooks and courses of study, and in con- sultation with experts in the areas tested. His general conclusion is that the Stanford Achievement Test has been a leader in the field for thirty years and "is still probably one of the best-known and most widely used n85 survey batteries in existence. The test manual for the Stanford Achievement Test, Intermediate and Advanced Complete Batteries, indicates that the tests are "designed to measure the important knowledges, skills, and understandings commonly accepted as desirable outcomes of the major branches of the "86 elementary curriculum. The authors acknowledge that 85Ibid., p. 157. 86Truman L. Kelly, Richard Madden, Eric F. Gardner, Lewis M. Terman, and Giles M. Ruch, "Stanford Achievement Test, Directions for Administering, (Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York: Wbrld BEEk Company, 1955), p. l. 51 the test does not measure all aspects of pupil growth as they relate to attitudes or group behavior; neither do they claim for the test an ability to diagnose specific learning problems. They do claim that it measures general mastery of the several subjects taught 'in schools. The manual indicates split-half reliability coefficients (Spearman—Brown formula) for the sixth grade (used in this study) ranging from .818 (Language) as the lowest and .892 (Study Skills) as the second lowest to .955 (Spelling) as highest. The median coeffi— cient is .900.87 The manual provides details of the 88 standardization and construction of the test. Financial Data The financial data (size, expenditure per pupil, millage,and state equalized valuation) was obtained from a mimeographed report of the Michigan Department of PublicInstruction.89 It is assumed that these data were reported and compiled accurately and consistently. Information concerning the pattern of school district 87Ibid., p. 18. 88Ibid., p. 22-25. 89Michigan‘Departmenhof Public Instruction "Selected ‘Data for Michigan's 554 Kr12 School Districts for 1961- 62." (Mimeographed). 52 organization, elementary and secondary pupil-teacher ratios and type of population center was obtained from a questionnaire completed by the superintendent of each participating school. This questionnaire is referred to as the Supplementary_Information Form.90 Selection and Description of the Sample After selecting the Stanford Achievement Test as the instrument to use in measuring pupil achievement (a criterion of quality) Harcourt, Brace and Wbrld, Inc., publishers of the test, were asked to submit a list of Michigan school systems who ordered the test in 1962. From this list eighty-seven public school systems in Michigan were selected. These eighty-seven school sys- tems (excluding the city of Detroit) were sent a summary of the proposed study91 and were asked to participate in the cost-quality project.92 Twenty-nine school systems indicated a willingness to participate. An analysis of the grades tested in these twenty- nine school systems indicated that the sixth-grade was 90 Appendix H. 91Appendix E. 92Appendix D. 53 the unit most commonly tested. From these twenty-nine school systems, sixteen were selected to participate 95 in the study. ’ The sixteen participating school sys- tems are located in fifteen counties in Michigan. Six of the school systems are in the upper peninsula and represent six distinct geographic areas. Of the other school systems two are in the upper third of the state, one in the southwest sector, one in the extreme eastern portion, two in the central area, and four in the south central area. Table l classifies the 554 Michigan school districts and the school systems in this study according to the factor of size (membership). In terms of membership, two schools in the sample are in the fourth (top) quartile of Michigan schools, six in the third quartile, three in the second, and five in the first (lowest) quartile. On the state-equalized valuation factor (Table 2) four school systems are found in the top quartile, eight in the third quartile, and only two in each of the second and“firstquartiles. On this factor three-fourths 93In order to maintain the confidence of the parti- cipating schools, the identity of the schools and the coding related to their data is not presented here but remains with the project director,'Dr. Herbert C. Rudman, Professor of Education, Michigan State University. 54 TABLE 1. Classification of 554 Michigan School Districts and the School Systems in this Study According to Size (Membership) Quartile Range of Michigan Schools Number in This Sample Quartile 4 2,475 - 288,115 2 Quartile 5 1,255 - 2,472 6 Quartile 2 675 - 1,247 5 Quartile l 64 - 667 5 TABLE 2. Classification of 554 Michigan.School Districts and the School Systems in this Study According to Financial Ability (State-Equalized valuation) Quartile Range of Michigan Schools Number in This Sample Quartile 4 14,129 — 55,619 4 Quartile 5 10,8gg - 14,090 8 Quartile 2 7,9 - 10,8 2 2 Quartile 1 1,155 - 7,9 5 2 55 of the sample represents the fourth and third quartiles while those school systems in the lower half of the state-equalized valuation rankings represent one-fourth of the sample. A similar finding of the factor of expenditure per pupil must be considered in Table 5. Eleven school systems are in the upper half of the rankings and only five are in the lower half. The second quartile is not represented. When total millage is considered, twelve school systems in the sample fall in the fourth and third quartiles of the total Michigan scale as shown in Table 4. Six school systems are in each of these two quartiles. One system is in the second quartile and three are in the first (lowest) quartile. It is acknowledged that the Sample does not represent a normal distribution and is positively skewed when state equalized evaluation, expenditure per pupil, and millage are considered. It does, however, represent the voluntary response of the school systems who were willing to participate and supply the necessary Stanford Achievement Test data. Table 5 shows the number of teacher, administrator, and combined teacher—administrator responses from each school system. In eleven of the sixteen systems all of the administrators responded. Four of the systems 56 TABLE 5. Classification of 554 Michigan School Districts and the School;Systems in this Study AccOrding to Expenditure Per,Pupil. Quartile Range of Michigan Schools Number in this Sample Quartile 4 560.40 - 650.57 5 Quartile 5 518.25 — 560.25 6 Quartile 2 294.55 - 518.22 0 Quartile 1 258.40 — 294.11 5 TABLE 4. Classification of 554 Michigan School Districts and the School Systems in this Study AccOrding to Millage. Quartile Range of Michigan Schools Number in this Sample Quartile 4 14.25 - 50.00 6 Quartile 5 11.50 - 14.25 6 Quartile 2' 9.00 - 11.50 1 Quartile l 7.00 - 9.00 5 57 m.om was n.0m ow :.ms wms maua H.Hs em o.ooa m ©.mw em ma w.ms mm o.ooa m H.He :m ma a.sa mas m.om on m.sa mms an m.me me o.©oa m :.:e em NH H.me HoH ©.M@ :.me am ma s.ww Hm m.mm m o.rm mm as 3.: m 0.00H a m.sm M OH m.© m o.ooa m m.mm mm m m.so as a.oc m m.mo an m m.:© m s.©w m m.K© e s o.ooH Hm o.ooa m o.ooa ma 0 m.am Hm o.ooH m m.om ma m M.ms mm 0.00H s m.me am : s.mw mm o.ooa m m.sw mm m o.ooa m: o.ooa M o.ooa ow m m.m© :: o.ooa m ©.Hm ms H HwaucopOQ Hwapcmpom_ Hwapcopoa go pcco mom 909852 mo peso mom acpapz mo pace mom 969852 Hoosow homeommom cochEoo homeommom mounmpmacHS©¢. mmmcogmom penance mcmcoamom mo pdoo mom out nonssz .m mam atomoemo mm.m w.:a wonflpeoo ea. mm. Cowma>soasm :m.m 0.:H sosomoe mam Cowmms mamas so.m H.ma aoemsbmacsses H> .so memo mm.m s.mm conflnsoo mm. mm. hpflmsssoo Ho.w s.mm penance mo Cowpflmoasoo m©.M :.©m poemspmflnflsw< HmppwHSoIOHoom > mmomopmo so. m.m noanEoo em. s.m aceocoe am. as. moseaawwma no one am. w.m nopmapmflcflsp< H msommpmo NO.M ®.fia U®CHQEOO MO.M ©.aa LogomoB :w. he. EDHSOHLsDQ ms.m m.ma sobmsuaacaees HHH atomaemo S©.m H.em nodwnsoo mm. as. mocfipwppd m©.m ®.©m absence IlkaHdSfinop mm.: M.mm cpmppmfldflsp< HH mnemopmo mm. mm. consensus MM.M @.ma conflnsoo Gem omcmasonm mo mm.m ©.ma Lozomoe Ho>mglm.unoufipm mo.m m.©H sopmspmflcwfip< H haemopm m N. ...no mac no moaoom sonomoe oocflnsoo new nae one mosoom Lounge pcdflpsoo nocspom nmflmws©< noosmom Anaev moaoom enhance asses mes «meow momoom mpflamsd haemouso sozpuua pit LesuaBmezesmd doospou mnowpmamapoo 75 (Administration and SuperVision), and Category VII (The Teacher and Teaching Methods) in the same way. Correlations between administrator and teacher scores on these categories are .58, .55 and .40 respectively. It may be that administrators and teachers make value judgments concernin- the characteristics of quality education from different fields for those categories showing lower correlations and have a common perceptual field for those categories with higher cor- relations. Both respondent groups may use the larger community as a basis for making decisions about student academic and personal attitudes, community attitudes about education, organization for curriculum improvement, the system's testing program, educational goals, and the adequacy of the school plant. These may be areas that are included in the school public relations program or stressed by commercial news media and be of general interest to all. In the areas of social and cultural activities in the community, religious composition of the community, school policies, involvement in decision making, the teacher's knowledge about pupils and their individual differences, and teaching techniques and procedures the perceptual envircrmmnu may be different for administra- tors than for teachers. Because of the emphasis upon 76 the classroom and the teacher's personal involvement in these activities she may become more personally identi- fied with her own immediate circumstances and needs whereas the administrator perceives these activities in terms of a larger group of teachers (the school building or the school district). The correlations between administrator and teacher Combined Category Quality Scores and each of the seven categories range from .61 to .96 and are significant. This would indicate that when administrator and teacher scores are combined in a school system their Total Quality Score would have a strong relationship with each Category Quality Score. It should be noted that teachers' scores comprise approximately ninety per cent of the Combined CQS and TQS. Summary It may be concluded that teachers and administrators do perceive those characteristics of quality education as measured by the Educational Characteristics Criterion, EOO, categories in the same way. Therefore, administra- tor and teacher scores may be combined to provide a Combined Total Quality Score for a school system. It should be remembered that such a score heavily reflects teacher perceptions. There is less chance that 77 administrators and teachers view those characteristics which relate to administration and supervision, composition of the community, and teachers and their methods of instruction in the same way. General Hypothesis II General Hypothesis I; There are positive relationships among admini- strator and teacher perceptions of character- istics of quality education as measured py the Educational Characteristics Criterion, student achievement; and cost factors. Table 7 indicates the relationships between school mean achievement and the EOO scores of administrators, teachers, and their combined EOO scores. The correlation between the Combined TQS and school achievement (.51) is not significant and causes acceptance of the statistical hypothesis that there is not a positive correlation be- tween Combined TQS and achievement. However, the corre- lation approaches significance which indicates that care should be taken in interpreting the conclusion that the Combined TQS does not predict achievement. The positive correlation between teacher TQS and school achievement (L25) is not significant but would indicate a trend that teachers' perceptions of those characteristics of quality as measured by the ECC are higher in those schools with 78 Use sowwsHchHEmd osoom somomce oncomIHOH ma.oHsHE©< .HosoH 0H. one on eccoanncmsmm mm.Hmms.maH Hm om.Hm mm.HsH mm. om.mm mm.mm cmm. choom Hence mm.o o.m 6:. 06.8 s.ma Hm. em.m s.ms mam. accents masseuse s new so one o B HH> no oteo mm.m e.aH mm. am.m m.sH mm. ao.m H.©H cHo. ooaassscnam new COHMMLHmHGHEUH H> hsomopmo mm.m s.mm Ho. Ho.s s.mm mo. m©.m s.om mm. aescnssoo one mo COHpHmoa neoo HpaspHSO OHoom > whowopmo so. m.m Hm. so. s.m mm. em. s.m eo. moHoHmece no on >H .so memo mo.m m.aH mm. mo.m m.sH mH. ms.m m.mH cmm. essaoassso HHH so memo se.m .H.sm mm. me.m m.mm mm. mm.e m.mm hoe. acenesupalsuucdssoo HH anomopmo mm.m m.mH em. mm.m m.mH mm. mo.m m.©H mm. hoeseaeem was oweonocm @O H®>®lenpflmm3mm H 90 mpwo m x a m N a m x a . . one oaoow vocHQEoo penance . . new . . . one pcoso>oH£o< Cmmz monoom Dom rccstc; me OHpmHospoo .s mamme 79 high achievement levels. The high positive correlations l 6 ) O indi- between administrator TQS and achievement (.55 cates that administrators' perceptions of school quality relate significantly with achievement test scores. Ad- ministrators' perceptions of the degree to which charac— teristics of quality as measured by EOO Total Quality Score are better predictors of achievement than are those of teachers or of administrators and teachers combined. Since Table 6 indicated that administrator scores and teacher scores could be combined into a Total Quality Score and Table 7 indicates that there are differences in the relationship of their perceptions with school achievement, a comparison of Category Quality Scores follows. Table 7 shows that the correlations between administrator CQS and achievement are higher than teacher CQS and achievement for each category except Use of Facilities (Category IV). It would seem that teachers in high achieving school systems believe their facilities are adequate whereas those in lower achieving school systems are more likely to feel that their build- ings and plant are not adequate. Administrator percep- tions about the adequacy of the physical facilities of their school systems vary in both high and low achieving schools. 106Significant at the .025 level. 80 Possible differences between the attitudes of teachers, the administrative organization, the inter- personal relationships, and the methods of teaching may cause different responses particularly in those areas of Administration and Supervision (Category VI) and The Teacher and Teaching Methods (Category VII). It would seem that elementary teachers who are more closely associated with the activities of the elementary school would perceive more accurately those activities which have contributed to the elementary achievement being measured. It should be noted that possibly a larger number of elementary principals contributed to the administrator scores and are more closely related to the elementary schools from which the achievement scores were obtained. Too, the perceptions of administrators should reflect a broader reference field and a more comprehensive view of the educational experiences con— tributing to achievement than do individual teachers. The larger number of teachers contributing to the Combined CQS and TQS is indicated in the nearness of the correlations of teacher scores and combined scores on each category and the total score. The very low relation— ship between Combined TQS and Category v (Socio—cultural Composition of the Community) indicates that the percep- tions that certificated personnel have of the religious, 81 ethnic, and cultural composition of their communities do not relate with or predict achievement. It would seem to be particularly true of teachers' perceptions in these areas since the correlation between teacher CQS for Category V and achievement is -.05. However, it should be noted that administrators' scores show a nearly significant .55 relationship with the factors indicated in Category V. The correlations between administrator CQS and achievement are significant or approach significance for each category except for Category V (Use of Facili- ties). High positive relationships between administrator CQS and Administration and Supervision (.61) and The )107 would indicate that Teacher and Teaching Methods (.59 administrators' beliefs and judgments concerning their teachers' recognition of individual differences of pupils, the variety of teaching techniques teachers use, the cooperation among teachers, the involvement of the com- munity in instruction and in school planning, and the development of policies are good predictors of school achievement. Table 8 indicates the relationships between.EOO Total Quality Scores, school achievement, size, expendi— ture per pupil, and millage. The data shows there is a 107Correlations greater than .57 are significant at .01. 82 significant relationship between the size of a school system and the degree to which its administrators and teachers perceive it as possessing characteristics of quality. Large schools are perceived by their certifi- cated personnel to possess characteristics of quality of education; small schools are perceived by their adminis- trators and teachers to have fewer characteristics of quality as measured by the EOO. TABLE 8. Intercorrelations between ECC Total Quality Scores (TQS), School Mean.AEhievement, Size, Expenditure per Pupil, Millage, and State Equalized valuation School Size Ekpend- State Achieve~ iture Millage Equalized ment per .Valuation Pupil Administrator a a TQS .55 .50 .07 .004 .15 Teacher TQS .25 55a .15 —.06 .55a Combined TQS .51 56a .17 -.02 578- School a a Achievement —.02 .54 .58 .06 Size -.57b -.47b -.26 Expenditure per Pupil .85a .66a Millage .28 aCorrelation significantly positive at p (.10 bCorrelation significantly negative at p.(.10 85 In this exploratory study the correlation between school achievement and size (—.02) indicates that there is not a significant relationship between these two variables. High achievement as well as low achievement was found in both large and small school systems. How- ever, Appendix K indicates that all of the school systems represented in this study are above the national average at the grade level tested. Therefore, high achievement is represented in all of the schools. Too, it should be remembered that the school systems in this sample do not represent a normal distribution on the basis of expenditure per pupil but are schools in the higher expenditure per pupil quartiles of the state of Michigan. An analysis of the data of the participating schools shows that those schools that had achievement scores above the median for this sample were those that provided financial support for education by means of higher expenditures per pupil, millage, and/or state equalized valuation regardless of the size of the system. Those schools with lower achievement scores tended to be those with lower financial support regard- less of size. 108 However, further analysis of data not used in the correlational statistics but which was supplied by 108See Appendix K. 84 the superintendents of the participating schools showed that those schools with higher achievement scores had smaller pupil-teacher ratios for elementary classrooms (25—1) than did those schools with lower achievement (29-1). The lower pupil-teacher ratios were associated with rural and rural-village communities whereas larger pupil-teacher ratios were associated with communities having populations in excess of 5,000.109 The high positive correlation between expenditure per pupil and the variables millage (.85) and state equalized valuation (.66) and the significant correlation between school achievement and the variables expenditures per pupil (.54) and millage (.58) indicate that the higher the expenditure per pupil the higher is the mill- age rate and the state equalized valuation. This would be anticipated since the expenditure per pupil is a function of millage and assessed valuation. If the state equalized valuation is low a higher millage rate is necessary to provide sufficient funds for school purposes. The correlation between school achievement and state equalized valuation (.06) shows that schools with ability to support educational programs through high smimaequalized valuation may or may not have high 109See Appendix K. 85 achievement levels. The relationship of millage to state equalized evaluation could account for this. The significant negative correlations between size and expenditure per pupil (—.57) and millage (—.47) and the negative correlation between size and state equalized valuation (—.26) would indicate an inverse relationship between size and these cost variables. This would be anticipated since size is a measure of enrollment and thus provides a larger denominator upon which to base expenditures per pupil. It would seem that one of the primary reasons for this inverse relation- ship is that teachers' salaries which comprise a large percentage of a school's expenditure for education may be divided among a larger school enrollment. Larger pupil-teacher ratios are possible since the number of students enrolled may be used to fill classrooms; teachers need not be hired to meet less than maximum enrollments. Smaller school systems would be in a position to hire a teacher to teach a class for which the maximum potential enrollment might be quite small. Too, fixed charges and costs of auxiliary services diminish as reflected in expenditure per pupil as the size of the school increases. A positive correlation between achievement and expenditure per pupil (.54) and between achievement and 86 IO )1 indicates that these variables are millage (.58 associated with achievement. They indicate, as might be expected, that the higher the expenditure per pupil, the higher the school achievement may be expected to be. The more money that is expended per pupil for education should be reflected in more and better educa- tion; money is obtained and expended to improve educational quality and it is expected that it should be shown in some measure of achievement. However, it is possible that costs of auxiliary services, non- instructional items, maintenance, and related activi- ties are included in expenditure per pupil computations yet may not contribute materially to increasing achievement levels. This may be particularly true in urban areas where these costs may be larger in compari- son to the same costs in rural or rural—village communities. 110Correlations between the Associated Public School Time Scale and two groups of community factors were .55 and i503 personal income, .54; expenditure per pupil, .48; and small item expense, .51. Pierce found correlations between the Growi Edge and state equalized va uations to be .50. Vincent reports correlations between the Growing Edge and millage to be .48 and between the instru- ment and size to be .45. In view of these correlations for these recognized instruments, the stated correlations for the Egg would seem to be acceptable. 87 An analysis of the use of funds should provide a measure by which instructional costs per se can be assessed. Summary It may be concluded that the Combined Total Quality Score of the EOO approaches a significant relationship with achievement. Administrator Category Quality Scores have higher correlations with achievement than do teacher CQS and would more accurately predict school achievement. Lower teacher CQS and TQS contribute heavily to the Combined TQS. This study shows that there is no relationship between achievement and size; the effect of millage, state equalized valuation, and expenditure per pupil in providing funds for educational purposes regardless of the size of the school system seemed to account for this chance relationship. The significant relationships between expenditure per pupil and state equalized valuation and between school achievement and the expenditure per pupil and millage variables show the effect of effort and ability upon school achievement. The significant negative relation- ship between size and expenditure per pupil and millage appears logical since large school systems are able to spread their expenditures over a larger denominator (enrollment). 88 For this study it is concluded that EOO Total Quality Score may be used to predict school achievement and that there is a significant relationship between school achievement and expenditure per pupil and millage. General Hypothesis III General Hypothesis III There is a positive relationship between adminittrhtor and teacher perceptions 9: characteristics of quality_education as measured py_the Educational CharacteriEtics Ctiterion and student achievementiindepend— ept_p£_cost factors. In order to determine the correlation between EOO scores and achievement scores independent of the various factors of cost (size, expenditure per pupil, millage, and state equalized valuation) partial corre— lations were computed and are shown in Table 9. The correlation between administrator and teacher Combined Total Quality Score and school achievement independent of all four cost_factors (.29) is not significant. The statistical hypothesis that there is not a positive relationship between.EOO Total Quality Score and school achievement independent of the four cost factors is accepted. The effect of the predominance of teachers' scores on the Combined Total Quality Score has been discussed in the analysis of general hypothesis II. Some possible causes for the low correlations between 89 mm. mm. ch. Ho. mo. NW Hmr ms. :0. mm. mH. mm. \\0 MM mm. mm. mm. pm. we. s.s peoEo>ono< m N mm.m sm.m so.k mm.m HO. m©.m mm. mm. mm. mo.w wo.k ms.m LflLfl (\Imw CDNWU OKOK) MMM :1“ O\Lf\l“‘\ (I) s.sH (UN 0 0 LOKOKO PROM—1 (IDO\O\ N—d‘m :t‘N \OLflLfl ONKON m:- (\J(\J(\l \OLfl r—lr—ir—l C\JC\IC\| r-ir—lr-l >4 omoom pdoecoomom eocaosoo socomoe nonmmpchHEc< eocaosoo essence mommmpmHCHE©< ecoHQSoo essence HousmpchHsc< usheto penance mousspmHeHEc< cocHQEoo Locomoe poemmpchHEU< eocHQEoo nosomoe poemmpchHEU< ozone pcoecoomom COHmH>noQSm one COHmmmpchMEUM H>fiwmw memo thcoEEoo mo COHpHmoa neoo HemowHoouOHoom >vaomopmo mosuHwacm o cap >H so memo ESHSOHnsoo HHH mmowopmo oeopprthmHnoEEop HH no opmo monoppr< can owconocm mo Ho>mHlmnmc6©5mm H o opmo mHOpomm pmoo mo unoccoaoan pech>cho< not: Hoocom out mcsoom Dom ecospoo.m:0HpsHonnoo Hmenmm .m mHm. o came a m _M pcoso>oHso< onoom pneumoomom. moomc pcoceoamom cooeHuCOD u: mpOpomm pmoo Ho unmUCorocH pCmEo>oHLo< new: Hoocom new momoom 00m nomSHoQ meoHpmHommoo Hmemmm .m MHmoHco< coscheoo In weepomm pmoo mo QCcUConeeH pCoEo>oHco< cmmz Hoosom ccm momoom 00m Coozpoc mCOHpmHoLnoo HmHume .0 mHmdB 92 \ .os. .neoH Mme. .eerH “an. .meaH oH.v o cosmoseaomaa so mHosoq .HosoH oH. one so eccosesomamc am. can. am. can. mm. mm. em. mm. om. Mm. cam. cam. mam. see. man. Hi. mic ”Mo M o l: o as” We” .8.” rm” .cmn mam m5 mHm skw mam .H .H ..H ..H .H >mm ommHHHE HHQSm .me oNHm mLOpomm pmoo 950% HH< . . . Mo pdocnoooccH psoso>oHco< coochdoo nu weepomm pmoo no peoccoooecH pcch>oHco< use: Hoocow can mosoom com cmozpop mCOHpmHossoo Hmenmm .m MHmol achievement free of the influence of the combined fliedzors of size, expenditure per pupil, millage, and Stmaize equalized valuation. One noticeable exception is that for Category III (Curriculum) the administrator 116References to differences between correlations WkKEFL cost factors are made independent are surface Obser~ VaJSiIDns and have not been determined statistically by a 'tesyt ci’significant differences. 106 0QS, teacher COS, and Combined CQS relationships with achievement increase when cost factors are. made inde- pendent. Table 9 shows that when either size, millage, of expenditure per pupil is made independent the relationship between either administrator, teacher, or combined CCfi for Category III, achievement increases. Size also appears to affect the relationships between teacher CQS for Category V (Socio-cultural Composition of the Community) and for administrator CQS for Cate- gory VI (Administration and Supervision). ll) Administrator perceptions of quality relate higher with achievement than do teacher perceptions except for Category IV (Use of Facilities) whether the cost factors are independent or not; a slightly higher correlation is reported for teacher COS for Category I (Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes)- The differences between the two respondent groups for the seven categories range from .03 (Category I) to .38 (Category VI, Administration and Supervision) and .39 (Category VII, the Teacher and Teaching Methods). Administrator perceptions of the characteristics of quality education are better predictors of school a»Cl'lieverr1ent than are teacher perceptions. 12) What seems important in assessing school quality as measured by achievement are the kinds of activities indicated in Categories III, VI, and VII 107 (Curriculum, Administration and Supervision, and The Teacher and Teaching Methods). These categories have the highest correlations with achievement independent of cost factors. These areas are directly associated with the administrator-teacher-student behavior which should contribute to instructional and classroom act- ivities. The categories contain items measuring teachers' attitudes about their students and their individual differences, teaching methods, instructional materials, teacher cooperation, and teacher and public participation in decision making concerning curriculum and school policies. 13) Kraft's study showed that professors of education, professors in fields other than education, and school board members perceived those characteristics of quality measured by Category VII (The Teacher and Teaching Methods) as being the most important in contri— buting to quality education. The present study shows that Administrator CQS, Teacher CQS, or their Combined CQS for this category correlate significantly with achieve- ment. The Combined CQS correlation with achievement for this category is the highest correlation reported between a Combined CQS and achievement. This would indi— cate that the items in Category VII have a high relation- ship with achievement and supports Kraft's findings. 108 Implications 1) It has been shown that the correlations between administrator CQS for Categories III, VI, and VII (Curriculum, Administration and Supervision, and The Teacher and Teaching Methods) and achievement are higher than the correlations between teacher's CQS on these same categories. It may be that the perceptual field from which the two respondent groups view their activi- ties is different for these areas. Both groups may respond to the community and other environmental characteristics in terms of a total or common environ- ment. Communication media could effect the perceptions that teachers and administrators have about their com— Inunity and their environment by providing a common :reference area for the two groups. However, when the (characteristics being measured are more personal or care more closely viewed by the respondents their per- czeptual fields change. It is implied that teachers nnay perceive behavior in terms of their own activities CIP the behavior of their class or even the behavior of 61 small part of their class; administrators should be Ireeacting to a broader field including many teachers, niexny pupils, and the entire school program and thus 17631mort a consensus of behavior. This implies that be- <3éillse of his position the administrator should be more 109 perceptive of the activities of the entire school and his staff. 2) The use of expenditure per pupil as a measure of educational expenditure must be treated with caution. DifferenCes in reporting data may contribute to errors of analysis and large expenditures for auxiliary ser— vices or non—instructional purposes may give the appearance of providing a large expenditure per pupil but not contributing to the educational activities of any or all of the students, particularly in those activities which would be expected to improve achieve- ment levels. Effects of inflation when longitudinal studies are undertaken and differences in the costs for providing the same services in different geographic areas should be considered in cost-quality studies. Since the availability and the expenditure of funds is related with achievement, those schools with lower expenditures per pupil should be encouraged to increase their expenditures for instructional services and expect increased achieVement as a result. The data provided in Appendix K implies that urban area schools, even though expending larger sums per pupil for educa- tion, may need to provide larger sums than the average in order to provide equal or increased achievement with schools expending the same amount in a rural or rural- village community. This may be due to higher auxiliary llO costs, higher maintenance costs, and the need to pay higher salaries than the smaller communities because of possible higher cost of living factors in larger communities. Increased costs without improvement in service would not be expected to contribute to achieve— ment. Since achievement in this study was determined at the sixth grade level, consideration of class size at the elementary level indicated that higher achievement tended to be associated with smaller pupil-teacher ratios. 3) Those categories which may not have a direct relationship with the administrator-teacher-student relationship in school learning situations relate least to school achievement. Perceptions of students' know— ledge and attitudes, community attitudes, facility utilization, and socio-cultural aspects of a community apparently do not relate with achievement. This may be because the perceptions are not consistent with the measurable characteristics which may affect achievement or because these characteristics may not be reflected in school planning, curricular offerings, administrator- teacher—student relationships, or instructional tech- niques or methods. 4) During this study and in discussion with those who have undertaken studies involving the Egg some of the items appear to confuse the scoring of the 399. If students own cars and contribute to the Socio—cultural lll Composition of the Community category, would research support that these students also would contribute to higher achievement in high school? Does a high score for the item "early dating" (number 55) contribute to achievement? Do the items concerning the religious and cultural groups in the community tend to balance one another? Does a high score for one of the items relat- ing to the community being predominantly Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish (items 46, 47, and 48) in Category V (Socio-cultural Composition of the Community) imply a lower score for the other two? It is implied that a study of the items and their category assignment might clarify these problems. If an item can contribute to more than one category it would seem that scoring procedures could be developed to allow the item to contribute more fully to the measurement of quality education. 5) Category IV (Use of Facilities) contains one item ("The physical facilities of the school system --buildings and equipment--are completely adequate"). The teacher CQS relationship for this category with achievement (.32) indicates that their responses more nearly reflect the level of achievement than do admini- strators' scores (.04). This is the only category on which the teacher CQS correlation with achievement is higher than administrator CQS. The data also indicate 112 that the mean score for teachers on this category is 2.4 and the administrator mean score is 2.7. Analysis of the original data indicates that of the sixteen par- ticipating school systems only four of them show a school system mean score on the ECC to be higher for teachers than administrators. This may imply that administrators have informa- tion concerning future enrollment and building needs and see them as being met whereas teachers perceive crowded or less desirable facilities for teaching pur- poses than do administrators. Teachers may be better judges of the adequacy of instructional facilities than administrators whereas administrators may respond in terms of more than the classroom and be including evaluations or perceptions which include space and equipment for non-achievement related activities. Teachers may need teaching spaces or visualize different types of facilities and view their current circumstances as being less desirable. One conclusion could be that regardless of how teachers perceive the buildings and equipment that they have available to them, they still function in such a way that school achievement (learning) takes place. This could mean that a study of the relationship of school plant and achievement is appropriate in order to determine what facilities (buildings and equipment) ll3 contribute to school achievement and what facilities contribute to other school objectives or goals. 'It is possible that teachers have perceived "equipment" to mean supplies and feel that they have not been supplied these items; administrators may be viewing equipment in terms of heavier goods and feel that within the limits (of budgeted amounts the school system has done well. It appears that this category could be designed to be more specific in order to determine, "What is the rela- tionship of building and equipment adequacy to achieve- ment?" . 6) The heavy weighting of the Combined Total Quality Score with teacher responses in effect provides a Teacher Quality Score. Since administrators and teachers perceive quality in the same way (this study) a large number of teacher respondents would seem unneces- sary. For the purposes of economy of time and energy a smaller random or random stratified sample of teachers might contribute as much to measurement of quality as including all teachers in a school system. 7) The correlation between Teacher Total Quality Score and state equalized valuation is .35. Although this is not a significant correlation it might imply that teachers may be influenced by the material evidence of a community in perceiving the existence of quality education. Are appearances of ability to support ll4 education influencing teachers (and perhaps the public) into believing they have a quality community and a quality school? Recommendations In view of the conclusions and implications which have been discussed, the following recommendations are offered: 1) Although this study is based upon a small and positively skewed sample, it indicates the potential of the Educational Characteristics Criterion to predict school quality as validated by school achievement. Free- dom of the §99_from the effects of cost factors when measuring achievement has been shown. A similar study based upon a more representative sample should be under- taken to further determine the ability of the Egg to measure achievement and to verify or refute the inde- pendence of the 399 from the combined effects of size, expenditure per pupil, millage, and state equalized valuation. 2) A study should be undertaken to determine if the Egg can determine differences in the perceptions of elementary and secondary teachers and administrators. This study could be part of an ECC-achievement—cost study. 115 3) Categories III, VI, and VII (Curriculum, Administration and Supervision, and The Teacher and Teaching Methods) because of their high correlation with achievement should be analyzed in the further development of the Egg, Items that could add more specificity to the category in terms of teacher—student. classroom activities would seem desirable. This would permit this category to be more diagnostic or analytical in terms of the behavior which could be interpreted in terms of contributing to achievement. 4) A longitudinal study could be undertaken to determine the effects of treatments on the change of behavior and change in achievement levels. Such a study should allow for the time element between the change of behavior (treatment) and its effect upon achievement. One should not expect measures of achievement to reflect immediately the changes in behavior or treatment. 5) A study to determine the effect of psychologi- cal distance on the perceptions of administrators and teachers might provide information important in assessing the cause of differences in perceptions and the concur- rent behavior differences. 6) A study of the relationships between achieve- ment, class size, type of community and its values, and expenditure per pupil (defined in terms of instructional 116 costs) could be made a part of an §§g_study. The implication of the effect of class size on achievement and the non—instructional related costs in expenditure per pupil accounting make this study desirable. 7) An analysis of the construction of items in the Egg_and the assignment of items to categories should be undertaken to make the scoring and statistical analy- sis of category scores more meaningful. Mueller's 117 and Appendix J of this study indicate the high study intercorrelations of the various categories. 8) This study has defined educational quality in terms of school achievement scores with administra- tors and teachers as respondent groups. The Egg should- be validated with other measures of quality with admin- istrators and teachers as respondents or using other reference groups as respondents. Other measures of quality might include holding power, types of curricular offerings, adequacy of school plant, measures of local goals other than achievement, success of graduates after leaving school (at work or in college), or evaluations of the school program by experts or other measurements of quality. Other respondent groups might include school board members, parent-teacher groups, non-certificated 117Mueller, pp. cit., pp. 164468. ll7 employees, civic or fraternal groups, representatives of business, labor leaders, major occupational groups in the community (agriculture, industry, small plants), and minority groups. 9) Future studies involving teacher and administra- tor perceptions should use a teacher mean score for the school system and an administrator mean score for the school system for the combined scores. This should be done in order to avoid weighting the combined scores with predominantly teacher scores. 10) A study should be undertaken to determine the effect that I.Q. has on the prediction of school achievement by the §§§° The relationships between I.Q. and school achevement and between I.Q. and socio- economic conditions in the community should be considered. Summary 1) Teachers and administrators perceive charac- teristics of quality of education as measured by the Egg in similar ways. Their scores may be combined into a Total Quality Score for measuring quality. There is a greater chance that they do not perceive the areas of administrator-teacher-student relationships or instruc- tional or curricular areas in the same way. These areas are most closely related to achievement. 118 2) Not all correlations are significant but the trend to positive correlations and the high correlations between some scores and those categories most closely» associated with administration, instructional practices, and interpersonal relations of administrators, teachers, and students indicates the potential of the 399 as a measure of school quality as measured by school achieve— ment. 3) There is no significant relationship between achievement and size indicated in this exploratory study. The sample of this study reflects high finan-~ cial and high achieving schools and thus may account for this slight relationship. The effects of expendi- ture per pupil, millage, and state equalized valuation upon large and small schools shows the relationship of achievement to these three cost factors. '4) Administrator perceptions of the character- istics of quality of education as measured by adminis- trator Total Quality Score and Category Quality Scores are better predictors of school achievement (or achieve— ment independent of cost factors) than teacher scores or combined scores. 5) The Egg may be used to predict achievement independent of cost factors. However, this study shows that the combined effect of the four cost factors frees? ll9 the 399 from a cost bias when used to measure school achievement. . 6) Cost-quality studies should consider the interrelationships of size, expenditure per pupil, millage, and state equalized valuation in assessing quality since one factor may contribute but may be affected positively or negatively by other cost factors. 7) Further studies of quality of education using the Educational Characteristics Criterion should be made using various criteria of quality and various reference groups as respondents. In terms of achieve- ment studies consideration should be made of possible differences in elementary and secondary teachers' per- ceptions as a result of different perceptual fields. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ayers, Leonard P. An Index NUmber for State School Systems. New YOrk: Department or Education, Russell Sage Foundation, l920. Berg, Arthur D. "The Determination of the Inscrimina- tion and Reliability Indices of the Educational Characteristics Criterion with Implicatidns Gon- cerning—Educational Cost-Quality Relationships." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962. Bills, Robert E. "About People and Teaching," Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service, XXVIII, No. 2 (December, 1955). Lexington, Ky.: College of Education, University of Kentucky. . "Believing and Behaving: Perception and Learn- ing," Learning More About Learning. washington, D. C.: Association for Shpervision andICurriculum Develop- ment." Bloom, Benjamin S. and Statler, Charles R. "Changes in the States on the Tests of General Educational revelopment from 1943 to 1955." The School Review, va (Summer, 1957), 204—221. Burke, Arvid J. Financing Public Schools in the United ,States. NeWFYork: Harper and Brothers, 1957: . "What Do Good Schools Do For Children?" A 'Report of a Cooperative Study of Educational Programs in New Yerk State Public Elementary Schools. Albany, N. Y.: New YOrk State Educational Conference Board, 1954. 120 121 Euros, Oscar Krisen (ed.). The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon Press, 1959. Clabaugh, R. E. "Improving Quality in Public Education," anlity Schools for Illinois Children. Springfield, 11 .: Illinois Association of School Boards, 1959. 3-lO. Clark, Harold F. "Cost and Quality in Public Education." Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1963. Combs, Arthur w; "Personality Theory and Its Implications for Curriculum Development," Learninngore About Learning. washington, D.C.: iAssociation for Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment, 1959. , and Snygg, Donald. Individual Behavior: A Perceptual A roach to Behavior. New York: Harper andRow,l9 . ev1s_d} Committee for Economic Development. Paying For Better Schools. New YOrk: Committee for conomic Develop- menE, I959. Connecticut Citizens for the Public Schools. "A Study of Factors Related to Academic Achievement in the Public Schools." Hartford, Connecticut: The Committee, June, 1957. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. NewFYork: Rinehart7& Co., Inc., I960. Ferrell, Doctor T. Relation Between Current Expenditures and Certain Measures of EducationaI Effidiency in Kbntucky County and Graded School—Systems. Cont-fibu-g tions; to Education, No. 216: Nashville, Tennessee: George Peabody College for Teachers, 1936. Firman, William D. "Procedures in School Quality Evalua- tion." A Second Report of the Quality Measurement Project, First Draft. Albany, N.Y.: The University of the State of New YOrk, Division of Research, l96l. (Mimeographed). . "Which Schools are Better?" National Education Association Research Bulletin, XLI (October, I963), 83-89 0 122 Furno Orlando F. "The Projection of School Quality from Expenditure Level." Unpublished Doctor of Education project, Teachers College, Columbia University, l956. Goodman, Samuel M. "The Assessment of School Quality." First Report of Quality Measurement Project. Albany, N.Y.: The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department, March, 1959. Grimm, Lester R. Our Children's 0 ortunities in Rela- tion to Schooi‘Ubsts. Spring¥ieid, IIIinoiS: DEparfment of Research, Illinois Education Associa— tion, 1938. Harris, Chester W} (ed.) Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 3rd. ed. New Ybrk: The—Macmillan Cdmpany, 1966} Johns, R. L., and Morphet, E. L. (eds.) Problems and Issues in Public School Finance. New York: Nationai—Conference of Professors of Educational Administration, 1952. Johns, R. L. and Morphet, E. L. Financing the Public Schools. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- IIaII, I960. pp. 12-160 Kelley, Truman L., Madden, Richard, Gardner, Eric F. and Rudman, Herbert C. Stanford Achievement Test. New YOrk: Harcourt, Brace and WCPld, Inc., . Kelley, Truman L., Madden, Richard, Gardner, Eric F., Terman, Lewis M. and Ruch, Giles M. Stanford Achievement Test. Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York: world Book Company, 1953. 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 the Quality of an Educational Program.’ Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962. McClure, William P. LEE Us Pa for th§_Kind 9f_Educa— tion we Need: Report—o a Stid 9£_State and Local Su ort of MiSSlSSlppiTS SCBOOIS. University, Mississippi: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Mississippi, 1948. 123 Medinnus, Gene R. "The Development of a Parent Attitude Toward Education Scale,” Journal of Educational Research, 56: 100-103, October, 1962. Michigan Department of Public Instruction. "Selected Data for Michigan's 534 K-12 School Districts for l96l—62." Lansing, Michigan: Department of Public Instruction. (Ndmeographed.) Mort, Paul R. and Cornell, Francis G. A Guide for Self- Apgraisal 9f_School Systems. New thk: Bureau of Pu ca ons, Teachers 0 ege, Columbia University, 1937. ., Reusser, walter C., Polley, John w. Public School Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Mueller, Van. "A Study of the Relationships Between Teacher-Administrator Perceptions of Educational Quality as Measured by the Educational Character- istics Criterion. (Egg),and selected Cost Factors." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964. National Education Association. "How Good Are YCur Schools?" Council 22 Instruction Leaflet, 1958. . Research Division. "Better Schools Cost More," Research Bulletin. XXXVII (April, 1959), 41-44. National Educational Policies Commission. Angssa .22 guality In Public Education. washington, . .: a onal-EducatiEn Association, 1959. Noll, Victor H. Introduction.t9_Educational Measurement. Boston: Houghton4Mifflin Company, l957. Powell, Orrin.E. Educational Returns at Var i Expendi- ture Levels. New Ybrk: Bureau of—Pu ca ions, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1933. Ross, Donald (ed.). Administration for Adaptability. New YOrk: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958. 124 Rudman, Herbert C., and Hecker, Stanley E. "The Determination and Measurement of Factors Which Directly or Indirectly Affect the Quality of an Educational Program." Application to the Com- missioner of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and welfare for Funds to Support Research Under the Provisions of Public Law 531, 83rd Con- ress, Michigan State University, November 29, 1961. Mimeographed.) "School Quality werkbook Handbook." Albany, N.Y.: The University of the State of New York, Division of Research, January, 1963. Smith, Stanley V. "Quality of Education Related to Certain Social and Administrative Characteristics of well—Financed Rural School Districts." Unpub- lished Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1954. The President's Committee On Education Beyond the High School. Second Report to the President. washington, D.C.: Superintendent'of—Documefits, Government Printing Office, l957. Thurstone, L. L. The Measurement of values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I959. Vincent, William S. "Criteria of Quality," Institute g§_Administrative Research Bulletin. New York} Teachers College, Columbia University, Vol. 2, No. 3, April, 1962. webster's New world Dictionar of the American La a e. Cdeveland: ‘The WorId Puhlihhing Company, I962. WOolatt, Lorne H. The Cost- alit Relationship on the Growing Edge. New York: eac ers Cbllege, Chlumhia University, 1949. AP PENDI CBS 125 APPENDIX A EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION, (ECC) 126 EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION Herbert C. Rudman Michigan State University 10. ll. 13. 1A. 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 A 3 2 l A 3 2 1 A 3 2 l A 3 2 l A 3 2 1 A 3 2 l A 3 2 l A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 A 3 2 l A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 A 3 2 l A 3 2 l Factor ost Somewhat Slightly Least Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic 16. 17. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2A. 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. 128 A 3 2 l A 3 2 l A 3 2 l A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 A 3 2 l A 3 2 l A 3 2 1 A 3 2 l A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 A 3 2 l A 3 2 l A 3 2 l A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 32. 33. 3A. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39- A0. A1. A2. 43. AA. 45. A6. A7. A8. 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. 12E) ost Somewhat Slightly Least Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic A 3 2 l A 3 2 l A 3 2 l A 3 2 l A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 A 3 2 l A 3 2 l A 3 2 l A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 A 3 2 l A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 Factor Mos Somewhat Slightly Least Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 5A. 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. A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 A 3 2 l A 3 2 1 A 3 2 1 A 3 2 l A 3 2 l APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION, (ECC) 131 1r 1. 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 ECC 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 ON 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 05 Factor Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic 1. Teachers have intimate know- ledge of children. 4 3 )< 1 (Nate: 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. enveIOpe and SEAL the envel0pe flap. Do not put your name or other markings on the ECC enveIOpe. Return the enveIOpe with enclosed Egg_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 2A hours, and if delayed, within 48 hours. APPENDIX C EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION, (ECC), CATEGORIES AND THE FACTORS IN EACH CATEGORY 13A The seven categories of the Educational Character- istics Criterion are listed below. Those items which have been identified with each category are indicated with the number of the item in the ECC used in this study. Category I. Student's Level of Knowledge and 8. 9. 16. 51. 52. Category 21. 28. Attitudes. Students show a positive attitude toward scholastic work. Students evidence accurate knowledge of self. Students are knowledgeable about the educational and social Opportunities available to them. 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. II. Community Attitudes. Parents and patrons (those residents of a school district without school-age children) are highly knowledgeable about education. The perceptions of parents and patrons con- cerning 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 practiced in the community. A high percentage of the electorate in the community vote in school elections. 40. 45. 55. Category 15. 17. Category 32. / 135 There are outstanding community leaders in this community who exhibit great interest in school affairs. 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. The parents in this community expect their children to perform their share of family chores. 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 condone or encourage early dating for their children. III. Curriculum. Teachers perceive a coherent and coordinated structure to the educational program. Concensus exists among the staff concerning the goals of the educational program. A structure has been developed that permits continual curriculum improvement. A great variety of instructional materials are presently used in the classrooms. A complete comprehensive testing program including intelligence and achievement test- ing is available in the schools. IV. Use of Facilities. The physical facilities of the school system (buildings and equipment) are com- pletely adequate. 136 / Category V. Socio-cultural Composition of the 25. 41. 42. AA. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Category 10. 22. Community. The social status of teachers is very high in this community. Cultural experiences are readily available in the community. This is a highly stable community which does not have too many peOple leaving. 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 homogeneity exists among the local pOpulation. 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. 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 commun- ity. VI. Administration and Supervision. 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. 26. Category 1. 11. 12. 14. 18. 19. 20. 137 Regulations governing personnel policies are highly explicit and detailed. Citizens are highly organized to discuss school problems. Teachers' judgments are almost always used in the determination of educational policies.. VII. The Teacher and Teaching Methods Teachers have intimate knowledge of child— ren. Teaching practices reflect concern for individual differences. Teaching practices reflect a knowledge of individual differences. Evidence exists of instructional and/Or curricular experimentation. 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 teach- ing. Teachers have complete freedom to teach what they consider to be important. A great variety of instructional techniques are presently used in the classrooms. Teachers often avail themselves of profes- sional 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 socio— logical points of view. hr»- AC 73/ 73/ 138 High degree of teacher participation in social and political activities of the community. There exists a high level of cooperation among the teachers of the staff. The community and its residents are used for instructional purposes. A great deal of homework is assigned to students. APPENDIX D LETTER SENT TO SUPERINTENDENTS INVITING PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY 139 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing College of Education I have been conducting, over the past three years, several national and state—wide studies which are concerned with identifying and measuring quality in educational programs. I need your help in continuing to carry out these projects since the only way to determine quality is to come to you who are involved in the daily Operation of the public school program. I know how busy you and your staff are; I know how additional projects eat into your time; how- ever, I hope that in Spite of this you will consent to participate in a study of the perceptions that teachers and administrators have of their school and the school community. I have tried to keep the details of partici- pation at a minimum so that you will not become too in- volved in time-consuming activities. The Educational Characteristics Criterion, (Egg), has been developed to measure the perceptions that people have of their educational program. The Egg is a printed questionnaire containing fifty-five items and takes about thirty minutes for each person to complete. The study in which I hope you will agree to participate will invest- igate the relationships of the perceptions of school administrators and teachers, as measured by the Educational Characteristics Criterion, and school achievement, as measured’by the Stanford Achievement Test. ~YOur partici— pation would invOlve two steps. Ste one involves the distribution of the ECC to each adminiStrator and teacher in your system. _EECh person completes the ECC independently and at a time he chooses. Details for coIIECting and returning the completed ECC'S as well as materials and reimbursement for mailing hiIl be provided by me. 140 nr V‘. ...,— 0 AWF‘I Vi __ . r ‘ _ Q tit-'0 .VL..v-‘A-t-‘ ‘0 CL ‘- A much no Qt Cs 0.. L VA d Ac Ge S iri. Cu L J ,- . s d co.-. 7 ho Ly.- OTIS. 5“" a... PM dub. ‘ .08 R v ‘- En 141 Step two involves supplying me with COpies of your sum- mary Shhets of the Stanford Achievement Test for selected grades which you tested in 1961-62 or‘l962463. Informa- tion will be coded as soon as it is received and will remain confidential. At no time will comparisions Between schoOIs he made in any identifiable manner. It is not the intent of the study to compare achievement by schools; it is intended to determine if the ECC can indicate the level of achievement of a school syStEm if such factors as expenditure per pupil, state equalized valuation of the district, school membership (Size), and millage are held constant. If the achievement test summary sheets are not available, student profiles will be accepted. These will permit me to compute an average score for each grade tested. These materials will be returned to ygg. Details for submitting this informatiOn and reimhhrsement of mailing expenses will be provided by me. I feel that this research may provide a new concept in measuring the quality of an educational program in terms of assessing values and perceptions of local school per- sonnel. It is hOped that an analysis of the ECC would assist school systems in improving their educhtibnal pro- grams. I am enclosing an outline of the study and a copy of the ECC. So that we may begin the study promptly, I would like to have your response by April 1, 1964. Decisions concern- ing systems selected for the sample must be made so that adginistration of the 399 can be made about April 10, 19 i. I sincerely hope that you will join with me in this pro- ject and anticipate your early favorable response. Cordially yours, Herbert C. Rudman Professor of Education HCchs Enclosure: Educational Characteristics Criterion Summary of the researhh proposal .Response to ECC inquiry APPENDIX E SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL 142 E. no u 3 .3 VJ S . -n AC ....-. ...A )+0 .1 O l/ ”.1." 1L 3 . C Du Av 54 .n. arid LC .n h a. a; «3 nu a: A v "H. \u. . U. 3 e .mg :3 ”wt win m e a .... av W...” in n. e U Fly AQU ~\U ”IV «\C ~Y.i.r. Isl- nlJ cu . 1 t1 . “W“ N U AIL if. m1 : 2 DL- _ to Aviu "nth Nb fivio Li.» av .fl-.. 01‘ .n‘ p o t 1.. C Yr. Pd¢ .Fs. De .70 ..4 Ale r,b.~LrL NU.D.U C do E d J Q,» E .. N av 0. 2r .. pl.“ .5. J I. .L a: PG .14-. ...L a C r. (I. e . A e U 50 V .. a 5 ll I\.~ Y... .n u in... A... a J . .. n. v Y1 QC ed d bl .iL C T a .11 hi 6 Ce Ga n3 hip ...! Q C . rt . «~u H.. n y «D +1.. «L Mod .1 .r. e H...” H 1% ORV ihlV Av S 01 .24 at 3: no at O l. .1 Ce ML nfiu L1,. :L «I; t J hid $ N FA“ QV fuu P. k ..G at n1 +4 33 n1 3 4 Ob fisv .HM fi\U .Lu 0-H \hhk Summary of a PrOposal To Study the Relationships of the Educational Characteristics Criterion and Stanford Achievementhiest Scores Rationale, Purposes, and Instrumentation gf_the Study: Many research projects have been conducted which Show the relationship of cost to the quality of education. Quality of education has been defined and assessed in various ways. The Educational Characteristics Criterion, (ECC), used in this study has been developed with the i555 that people hold opinions or values about their What people think schools and the community it serves. or believe is real to them; in turn, they behave accord- ing to what is real or valued by them. Therefore, a school system has quality or lacks it according to how peOple view their schools. The Egg contains fifty—five statements which have been identified as contributing to quality education. The measurement of the degree to which persons in a school system think the school system possesses or does not possess these factors is its measure of quality. Previous studies involving the IECC have shown it to be highly reliable and able to discriminate among various groups of peOple. This study intends to show the relationship of the jperceptions of teachers and administrators, as measured lay the ECC, and school achievement--one measure of cluality::5s measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. (Dther studies will relate other groups to different czrdteria of quality to determine the general ability of ‘tflne Egg to measure the values and perceptions of persons :iJnfluencing decisions about education and the various calciteria of quality. If the ECC can be developed in iskjis fashion as an instrument—fhr analyzing what people tskiink of their schools it can be used as an instrument isco improve the school program. The fifty-five statements in the ECC fall into Several categories. Scores are obtain'éd—on each of leieee categories as well as a Total Score. FOr each =3icz‘bool district a mean score will be assigned to each Clartegory and to the Total Score. A grade achievement =3iczore will be assigned on the basis of achievement test data supplied by each district. Expenditure per pupil, $31Sate equalized valuation, size (membership), and mill— Elgge of each school district will be determined from data Eafirailable in a report from the Michigan Department of IPliblic Instruction. 143 Sync; v.1 -al Sher fi.v 1AA Schools selected for the sample will be sent: a.) An envelope containing an Egg_and instruc- tions for completing it for each teacher and for each administrator in the system. COpies of the ECC for administrators will be stamped ADMINISTRATOR. b.) Supplies and postage for returning the completed ECC's. c.) A School DiStrict Information Sheet for reporting certain schoolncommunity data. Envelopes containing ECC's are to be distributed to staff members in each patticipating school in such manner as the superintendent may prescribe. ECC'S are to be completed and sealed in the envelope by_the respondent within 24 hours. It takes about thirty minutes to complete the ECC. When all ECC'S have been returned to the central COIlection point—they will be mailed to the project director. Each school system will be asked to submit Stanford Achievement Test summary sheets or student profiIes for speCific grades in order that a grade mean score may be established for purposes of analysis. These scores will be used ONLY to relate ECC scores. Identifying compari- sons with other schoolsflwill NOT be made. These materials will be returned to each school system and reimbursement for postage will be made. When the materials are received by the project director, a code number will be assigned to all materials :related to that system. The key to this code will :reside ONLY with the project director. Insuring the (Donfidences of responses is important. Data will be launched on IBM cards for storage purposes and computations 13erformed by Michigan State University computer equipment sand personnel. Abstracts of the study will be made available to 'tflnose participating schools which indicate that they Ciessire results of the study. C}Esnera1 Hypotheses t2_b§_2§stedz I.) There is a correlation between certificated mgloyees' perceptions of quality education ?E C), achievement test scores, and cost factors. II.) The ECC can reliably predict achievement test leveISIwhen cost factors are controlled. III.) The ECC will show ability to discriminate.be- gygg orse responses of teachers and admlnl- IV.) Individual educational characteristics scores wlll correlate wlth Total Scores of respondents. APPENDIX F FORM FOR SUPERINTENDENT'S RESPONSE TO @UCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION, (ECC), INQUIRY RESPONSE TO ECC INQUIRY Superintendent: School District: Correct Mailing Address: we will participate in this study . we will not participate in this study Number of teachers in the school system (K—12) . Number of administrators (superintendent, principals, supervisors) in the school system (K—l2) . Stanford Achievement Test data available for: (circle grades) Grades 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 1961—62 Grades 1,2,3,A,5,6,7,8 1962-65 . ‘we desire results made available to us . Comments : ESigned: 146 APPENDIX G GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING AND MAILING THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION, (Ecc) 147 TO: Superintendent 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 Characteristics Criterion (ECC). I. CONTENTS OF THE PACKAGE OF MATERIALS A. envelopes, each containing one copy of ——_ the ECC and an instruction sheet for teacher respondents, with two extra copies. B. envelopes, stamped ”ADMINISTRATOR," each containing one copy of the ECC, also stamped "ADMINISTRATOR,” and—an instruction sheet for administrative respondents (Superintendents, PrinCi- pals, Supervisors), with one extra copy. C. One business envelope containing: 1) ”Educational Materials" sticker for the return package 2) Address sticker for returning test materials to Dr. Herbert C. Rudman, College of Education, Michigan State University. D. One Supplementary Information Form to be completed 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. 148 III. 1A9 Please give the principals instruction sheets, the Egg, and envelopes for each teacher he supervises (unless this can more easily be accomplished through your central office). Give the principals and other administrator and supervisor respondents their instruc— tion sheets, the Egg, and envelopes (marked ”ADMINISTRATOR"). The Superintendent is requested to fill out the Supplementary Information Form in addition to respondihg to thé ECC using materials marked ”ADMINISTRATOR." In case there is only one administrator, a Superintendent who acts as Principal, it is desired that one "ADMINISTRATOR" ECC be given to the faculty individual whh assists the Superintendent administra— tively more than any other faculty member. This individual would not fill out a teacher respondent ECC but would fill out only the "ADMINISTRATOR" Egg. COLLECTION A. It is requested that the collection point of the ECC envelopes be clearly specified to all EESpondents. 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 envelopes, used or unused, with the enclosed ECC'S should be collected and checked against the total sent (see I.A. and B., CONTENTS). Do not retain ECC'S for absent teachers. All forms shouIdIbe returned to your office within 48 hours at the latest. It is hoped that the 48 hour limit will result in better individual perceptions that may be less influenced by group discussion. 150 IV. MAILING A. The return package should include all the envelopes and the Supplementary Information Form completed by the Superintendent. There should be one ‘package bound with cover paper, cord, and tape if necessary. Postage and stickers are in the business envelope. The Su lementar Information Form shouId he piaced inside the package. B. Postage has been calculated at the ”Educational Materials" rate. If reim— bursement 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 H SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FORM 151 (To be completed by the Superintendent) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FORM EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION \JJ Herbert C. Rudman Michigan State University School District 2. State Type of Organization Pattern Followed in School District (Please check the most appropriate organi- zational Pattern). a. 6-3-3 c. 6-6 b. 8-4 d. 5-3—4___ e. 6—2-4 f. Other Approximate average pupil-teacher ratio...ELEMENTARY (Please check appropriate response). a. 50-1 d. 35—1 b. 45-1 e. 30—1 0. 40-1 f. 25-1 g. 20-1 h. Less than 20-1 Approximate average pupil—teacher ratio...SECONDARY (Please check appropriate response). a. SO-l d. 35-1 b. 45-1 e. 30-1 C. 40—1 f. 25-1 Type of Population Center a. Rural b. City 1. less than 2500 2; 2500 - 4999 152 g. 20-1 h. Iess than ‘““" 20-1 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 I LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS SELECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY 15AL Ins 8 m nd 6 ...l. +Iu .1 kn. new. .n. S 3 ml +0 C K m C .3 +0 CD Wu. LL S I EQU A: .1 mummmm+l c +0 U ...r. v15 3 C 111 VI -\ U 1’, 0 Your test April 15, 1964 Inside Address LBar Mr. Thank you for consenting to participate in the study of the relationships of the Educational Characteristics Criterion and the Stanford Achievement Test. The materials indicated on the enchsed form are being mailed today under separate cover. Enclosed are stamps for returning the ECC materials and Stanford Achievement Test materials. Sfiould this estimate be insufficient I will reimburse you accord- ingly. YOu may recall that step two of the study requires Stanford Achievement Test data. would you please supply me with either the grade summary sheets (preferred) ‘9: the student profile sheets for the SIXTH GRADE for i962—63? Your Stanford Achievement Test data will be returned to you and will be treated cofiTidentially. Your cooperation in returning the ECC materials and your test data by May lst will be appreciated. Sincerely, Herbert C. Rudman Professor of Education 155 I‘JTER APPENDIX J INTERCORRELATIONS OF ADMINISTRATOR, TEACHER, AND COMBINED CATEGORY QUALITY SCORES 156 INTERCORRELATIONS OF ADMINISTRATOR, TEACHER, AND COMBINED CATEGORY QUALITY SCORES WITH EACH CATEGORY Administrator Scores Categories I II” III IV' V VI ‘VII Total I 1.00 .35 .35 .12 .15 .49 .49 .56 II 1.00 .56 .54 .68 . 5 .65 .87 III 1.00 .55 .45 . 2 .65 .79 IV 1.00 .20 .37 .26 .48 V 1.00 .63 .48 .70 VI 1.00 .85 .94 VII 1.00 .88 Total 1.00 Teacher Scores Categories I II III IV' V VI VII Total I 1.00 .84 .76 .42 .65 .83 .91 .91 II 1.00 .69 .62 .84 .84 .84 .95 III 1.00 .54 .54 .86 .88 .87 IV' 1.00 .41 .45 .55 .60 V 1.00 .70 .61 .80 VI _ 1.00 .87 .93 VII ' 1.00 .95 Total 1.00 Combined Scores Categories I II III IV V 'VI VII Total I 1.00 .82 .69 .38 .61 .83 .90 .89 II 1.00 .66 .65 .83 .85 .87 .9 III 1.00 .56 .51 .85 .8 .8 IV 1.00 .41 .47 .5 .61 V 1.00 .70 .61 .78 VI 1.00 .88 .94 VII 1.00 .96 Total 1.00 157 APPENDIX K CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS 158 APPENDIX K Characteristics of Participating Schoolsa School Type of Elem. Enroll. Secondary State Code Community per Teacher Enroll. Equalized ,per Teacher Valuationd 1 City 25 25 $13,700 (3) 15 Rural—Village 20 20 7,200 (1) 7 Rural -20 —20 14,600 (3) 13 Rural-Village 25 25 12,300 (3) 14 City 30 30 13,200 (3) 6 Rural-Village 30 20 11,000 (3) 9 Rural-Village 25 -20 37,300 (4) 2 Rural-Village 30 30 9,700 (2) 10b Rural -20 —20 14,500 (4) 16 Rural-Village 30 25 10,100 (2) 4 City 30 25 13,900 (3) 11 City ‘ 25 25 11,000 (3) 12 City 30 30 13,900 (3) 3 Rural 30 25 12,200 (3) 5 Rural-Village 30 25 7,000 (1) 8 City 30 25 15,100 (4) aSchools are ranked by level of achievement. Finan- cial data has been rounded off to protect the identity of the participating schools. bThe only school without North Central or University of Michigan certificates of recognition. CMedian achievement. dNumerals in parentheses indicate the quartile of the Michigan pOpulation within which the school ranks on this factor. 159 APPENDIX K -- Continued Characteristics of Participating Schoolsa Sized Expendituae Millaged School Mean per Pupil Achievement 1400 (3) 350 (3) $12.00 (3) 8.6 1600 (3) 335 (3) 17.00 (4) 8.3 200 (1) 505 (4) 18.50 (4) 8.1 1950 (3) 420 (4) 18.00 (4) 8.1 2700 (4) 340 (3) 12.50 (3) 8.1 500 (1) 285 (1) 8.00 (1) 8.0 350 (1) 535 (4) 17.50 (4) 7.7 1400 (3) 285 (1) 9.50 (2) 7.6C 100 (1) 475 (4) 23.00 (4) 7.6C 800 (2) 350 (3) 12.00 (3) 7.6C 1900 (3) 320 (3) 14.00 (4) 7.4 2500 (3) 335 (3) 12.00 (3) 7.4 3000 (4) 290 (1) 8.00 (1) 7.4 1000 (2) 275 (1) 8.00 (1) 7.2 500 (1) 285 (1) 11.50 (3) 7.2 1000 (2) 370 (4) 13.00 (3) 6.9 3Schools are ranked by level of achievement. Finan- cial data has been r0unded_0ff to protect the identity of the participating schools. bThe only school without North Central or University of Michigan certificates of recognition. CMedian achievement. dNumerals in parentheses indicate the quartile of the Michigan population within which the school ranks on this factor. 160 "1111111111114115