ATTITUDES OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND STUDENTS TOWARD STUDENT VOICE IN DECISION MAKING Thesis for the Degree of Ph: D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LANI ACHOR FGRD 19H , LIBRARY Mic'r-igan Stare Utiivcrsit)’ I r I This is to certify that the thesis entitled ATTITUDES OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND STUDENTS TOWARD STUDENT VOICE IN DECISION MAKING presented by Lani Achor Ford has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Edugati 9n Date A ril 2 l9 ABSTRACT ATTITUDES OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND STUDENTS TOWARD STUDENT VOICE IN DECISION MAKING BY Lani Achor Ford Purpose It was the purpose of this study to find out how much voice high school students and teachers thought stu- dents should have in making decisions involving school activities. In addition, the study was to determine whether the expectations1 of teachers for student voice in decision making were the same as the expectations held by students, whether the expectations of students were accurately perceived by teachers, and whether the expec- tations of teachers were accurately perceived by students. Procedure Data Collection and Analysis The population for the study consisted of teachers and students in public high schools within a fifty-mile radius of East Lansing, Michigan. Only schools with grades nine through twelve were included in the population. Lani Achor Ford Two hundred and sixty-eight students and eighty-eight teachers from four high schools made up the sample. Two questionnaires, one for students and one for teachers, were developed to provide the data for the study. The questionnaires dealt with current and poten- tial issues on the extent of student involvement in high school decision making. Teachers and students in the sample completed these questionnaires during the spring of 1970. The raw data from the questionnaires were coded and key punched on unit record cards for statistical analysis. The mean for the student sample and the mean for the teacher sample were computed for each of the questionnaire items and for the six categories of items. Also calculated were mean rank orders, differences between means, and the frequency and percentage distributions of reSponses for individual items. Findings 1. For several school activities, students indi- cated they should be given as much voice in decision making as teachers and the principal. 2. Teachers thought student involvement in school decision making should be less than that of teachers and the principal for almost all activities. 3. For most school activities, teachers did not think students should have as much voice in decision Lani Achor Ford making as students thought they should have. The differ- ence between teachers' and students' expectations was greatest for decisions involving personal appearance, leaving school during the noon hour, free time to be given to students, and courses to be offered by the school. 4. Teachers were inaccurate in most of their pro- jections2 of the expectations held by students. They tended to overestimate the student involvement in decision making desired by students. Female teachers projected greater student involvement desired by students than did male teachers. 5. Students were more accurate in their projec- tions of teachers' expectations than teachers were in their projections of students' expectations. Students underestimated more often than they overestimated the student involvement in decision making desired by teachers. lExpectation refers to an opinion of what should be. 2Projection is defined as a prediction of the views of another person or persons. ATTITUDES OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND STUDENTS TOWARD STUDENT VOICE IN DECISION MAKING BY Lani Achor Ford A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum I971 r, Copyright by LANI ACHOR FORD 1971 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During the course of the doctoral program, I have received guidance from many individuals to whom I am deeply indebted. I am sincerely grateful to Dr. J. Geoffrey Moore, Chairman of my Guidance Committee, and to Dr. Dale Alam, Dr. James McKee, and Dr. Stanley Wronski who served as committee members. To Dr. Willard Warrington, Chairman of the Depart- ment of Evaluative Services, I am greatly indebted for his assistance in designing the study, developing the questionnaires, analyzing the data, and guiding the study through its completion. His generous allocation of time and information is greatly appreciated. A special note of appreciation is extended to the teachers and students who were participants in the pilot study and in the final study. Without their cooperation, this investigation would not have been possible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . Viii LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . iX CHAPTER I. THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . I Introduction to the Problem . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . 4 Need for the Study . . . . . . . 5 Delimitations and Limitations . . . . 6 Delimitations . . . . . . . . 6 Limitations . . . . . . . . . 7 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . 7 Organization of the Study . . . . . 9 II. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH . . . . . . 10 The Measurement of Attitudes . . . . 10 Students' Attitudes Toward Education. . 12 Teachers"and Students' Perceptions . . 16 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 18 III. THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . 19 The Questionnaires . . . . . l9 Selection of the Participating Schools . 24 Selection of the Participants . . . . 25 Collection of the Data . . . . . . 28 Selection of the Sample . . . . . . 31 Description of the Sample . . . . . 32 Methods of Analyzing the Data from the Sample . . . . . . . . . . 36 iii IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . Expectations of Students . . . An Overview . . . . . . Extra- Curricular Activities . Rules and Restrictions . . . Discipline . . . . . Curriculum . . . . . Selection of New Staff Members Classroom . . . . . Expectations of Teachers . . . An Overview . . . . . . . Extra-Curricular Activities . Rules and Restrictions . . . Discipline . . . . . . . Curriculum . . . Selection of New Staff Members Classroom . . . . . . Projections of Students . . . . An Overview . . . . . . . Extra-Curricular Activities . Rules and Restrictions . . . Discipline . . . . . . . Curriculum . . ' . Selection of New Staff Members Classroom . . . . . . Projections of Teachers . . . . An Overview . . . . . . . Extra-Curricular Activities . Rules and Restrictions . . . Discipline . . . . . . . Curriculum . . . Selection of New Staff Members Classroom . . . . . Students' and Teachers' Expectations Compared . . . . . . . . An Overview . . . . . . . Extra-Curricular Activities . Rules and Restrictions . . . Discipline . . . . . . . Curriculum . . Selection of New Staff Members Classroom . . Students' Projections and Teachers' Expectations Compared . . . . An Overview . . . . . . Extra-Curricular Activities . Rules and Restrictions . . . iv Page 37 39 39 46 47 48 49 49 49 50 50 56 57 59 59 6O 60 61 61 67 67 69 7O 70 71 71 71 77 78 8O 81 81 82 82 82 90 91 93 93 94 94 95 95 103 104 Teachers? Discipline . . . Curriculum . . Selection of New Staff Members Classroom . . An Overview . . . . Extra-Curricular Activities Rules and Restrictions Discipline . . . . Curriculum . . Selection of New Staff Members Classroom . . . . V. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES Summary of Major Findings Students' Teachers' Students' Teachers' Students' Compared . . . . Students' Expectations Compared Teachers' Expectations Compared Expectations Expectations Projections Projections Implications . . . . Apparent Trends . . Need for Students to Participate in Decision Making . and Teachers' Projections and Students' Expectations Compared . Expectations Projections and Teachers' Projections and Students' Guidelines for Student Participation. Suggestions for Additional Research Page 105 106 107 107 108 108 114 117 119 119 120 120 121 121 124 125 126 128 129 130 132 133 133 136 136 138 140 146 Summary of the Questionnaires Summary of the Questionnaires Composition of Composition of LIST OF TABLES Page Data Collection: Students' . . . . . . . . 30 Data Collection: Teachers' 0 O O O I O O O O O 31 the Student Sample . . . . 33 the Teacher Sample . . . . 35 Students' Expectations: Frequency Distri- bution of Responses, Mean, and Mean Rank Order for Each Questionniare Item . . . . 40 Students' Expectations: Questionnaire Items with a Mean of 2.0 or Greater . . . 45 Teachers' Expectations: Frequency Distri- bution of Responses, Mean, and Mean Rank Order for Each Questionnaire Item . . . . 51 Teachers' Expectations: Questionnaire Items with a Mean of Less than 1.0 . . . 56 Students' Projections: Frequency Distri- bution of Responses, Mean, and Mean Rank Order for Each Questionnaire Item . . . . 62 Teachers' Projections: Frequency Distri- bution of Responses, Mean, and Mean Rank Order for Each Questionnaire Item . . . . 73 Students' and Teachers' Expectations Compared: Frequency and Percentage of Responses, Means, Mean Difference, Rank Order for Each Item . . . . . . . . 84 Students' Projections and Teachers' Expec- tations Compared: Frequency and Percentage of Responses, Means, Mean Difference, and Rank Order for Each Item . . . . . . . 96 vi Table Page Teachers' Projections and Students' Expec- tations Compared: Frequency and Percentage of Responses, Means, Mean Difference, and Rank Order for Each Item . . . . . . . 109 Comparisons Made of Students' and Teachers' Expectations and Projections: Means and Mean Differences . . . . . . . . . 122 Comparisons Made of Students' and Teachers' Expectations and Projections: Chi Square Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . 158 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page Mean Scores for the Expectations of Teachers and Students . . . . . . . 89 Mean Scores for Students' Projections and Teachers' Expectations . . . . . . . 101 Mean Scores for Teachers' Projections and Students' Expectations . . . . . . . 115 viii APPENDIX A B LIST OF APPENDICES Page QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS . . . . . 147 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS . . . . . 152 COMPARISONS MADE OF STUDENTS' AND TEACHERS' EXPECTATIONS AND PROJECTIONS: CHI SQUARE TEST RESULTS . . . . . . 157 ix CHAPTER I THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Introduction to the Problem The student unrest and active protest so prevalent on college campuses in the 1960's is rapidly spreading to our nation's high schools. This could prove to be one of the more significant developments of the 1970's because it has the potential of bringing about significant changes in American secondary schools. Many educators are convinced that the unrest and increased activism among members of the younger generation are largely the result of frustrations with the Indochina War. The war, they feel, has led students to distrust existing institutions and adult authority. More than half of the nation's high schools have experienced some form of active protest. Many of the student complaints have centered around rules and regula- tions considered by students to be petty. Dress and hair requirements have been the most common complaint. Other issues raised by students have been race relations, the peace movement, smoking restrictions, the cafeteria, assembly programs, selection of club speakers, censorship of student newspapers, the underground press, and the scheduling of school sports and social events. There have also been numerous protests about teaching quality, free- dom to select teachers, class scheduling, curriculum, homework, grades, and examinations.1 The more militant students are ignoring formal communications channels for protest in favor of more direct methods such as public protest and political pres- sure. So far these new methods have met with varying degrees of success. Faculty and administrators, finding themselves in a new and uncomfortable position, often feel they have been left with only two choices--either to com- promise or give in completely to student demands. Educators who View student activism as a healthy development are listening more intently than ever to what young people have to say. Adolsecents are being treated as young adults in the hope that they will act that way. In schools across the nation, innovative programs are being initiated to give students more responsibility for their own affairs. In a special report on student unrest published by the National School Public Relations Association, examples were given of constructive ways in which teen- agers are becoming involved: 1J. Lloyd Trump and Jane Hunt, "The Nature and Extent of Student Activism," The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 53, No. 337 (May, 1969), PP. 153-156. Committees of faculty and students at a Hyattsville, Md. [sic], high school have been organized for decision making, including curriculum design and disciplinary regulations. In Great Neck, N.Y., teenage representatives serve on the school district's curriculum development council. Students at Berkeley (Calif.) High School, serving as members of the screening committee, help choose the school's princi— pal. In a New York school, after defeat of a tax increase referendum, students had a voice in deter— mining budget reductions. . . . In Orange County, Calif., student task forces are asked to recommend what should be done before, during, and following each type of protest or disruption. Students are also assisting in designing programs to make the curriculum more relevant. In a Hamilton, Massachusetts, high school, for example, students recommend topics for "mini courses" and help in the planning of these courses.3 Students at a school in Palo Alto, California, are able on certain days to choose from a large selection of activities those in which they wish to participate; many of the activities are initiated by students. At Freedom Annex, a student-run accredited high school in Washington, D.C., attendance is voluntary. Stu- dents select the teachers to be hired and determine the curriculum. Discipline problems are said to be few; those 2Beatrice M. Gudridge, High School Student Unrest (Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relations Association, 1969), p. 17. 3Robert R. Hayward, "Maximum Results from Mini- Courses," Today's Education, Vol. 58, No. 6 (September, 1969), PP. 55-57. 4Peter Palches, "Idea Forum: An Experiment in Non Structure," The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 51, No. 323 (Decem- ber, 1967), pp. 12-13. that do arise are taken care of by students. Reports indicate the school has been a great success in motivating students to learn and to accept responsibility.5 Because the successes of experimental programs such as Freedom Annex are more often reported in educa- tional periodicals than are their failures, it is diffi- cult to assess the total picture of student participation. The trend, however, is clear. Students are demanding increased involvement in school affairs and many educators are initiating programs which will give students this increased responsibility. Statement of the Problem This study is directed toward answering the follow- ing questions: 1. What are the expectations of high school stu- dents for student voice in decision making? 2. What are the expectations of high school teachers for student voice in decision making? 3. Do high school teachers and students hold the same expectations for student voice in decision making? 4. Are the expectations of high school teachers for student voice in decision making accurately perceived by students? 5"High Schools: Letting the Students Run Things," Time, Vol. 92, No. 25, December 20, 1968, pp. 47-48. 5. Are the expectations of high school students for student voice in decision making accurately perceived by teachers? Need for the Study This study deals with a current issue in the nation's high schools: student voice in decision making. Many of the changes sought by student activists and by educators experimenting with new programs have centered, either directly or indirectly, around this issue. Outspoken groups and individuals have let the public know the kinds of changes they would like to see made in the schools. Little, however, is known about the feelings of most teachers and students regarding these proposed changes. Does the "silent" majority share the same views as the vocal minority? This question needs to be answered. Students are said to want more voice in school matters which concern them. But just how much is more? Do students want more voice than teachers and adminis- trators? An equal voice? Or less voice? Because of the increased activism and the dramatic changes being made in the role of the student, educators now more than ever need to know and understand the expec- tations of students. This knowledge can help teachers and administrators to correct misconceptions, avoid mis- understandings, and meet students' needs. The success of programs for increased student participation are to a large extent dependent upon faculty expectations for the student role. It is important then that educators also know the expectations of their peers. Unfortunately, research on what the student role should be is practically nonexistent.6 This study, by providing information on the expectations of teachers and students for student voice in decision making, will help to correct the situation. Delimitations and Limitations Delimitations The following are delimitations of the study: 1. The participants in the study consisted of teachers and students in grades 9 through 12 from four high schools within a 50 mile radius of East Lansing, Michigan. 2. This is not a study of existing decision making roles nor of the anticipated changes for such roles. The present study deals only with normative atti- tudes towards such roles; that is, with what individuals feel should be the students' role in decision making. 6Orville G. Brim, Jr., Sociology and the Field gf Education (Philadelphia: William F. Fell Company, 1958), p. 56. Limitations The limitations of the study include: 1. Attitude measurement is an indirect process. Responses to questionnaire items are easily influenced by uncontrolled circumstances; thus, the data reflect only estimates of the participants' "true" feelings. 2. In three of the schools, student participants were selected from a random sample of certain required courses instead of from the entire student body. 3. Participants who were poor readers may have experienced difficulty in understanding the questionnaire items. 4. Generalizations in the wording of the question- naires presented a few problems. For example, some stu- dents expressed difficulty in thinking of teachers collec- tively instead of individually when answering questions in Section B, Classroom, of the questionnaires. They felt their answers would differ depending on the teacher. Definition of Terms Attitude.--An individual's inclinations and feel- ings, prejudice or bias, preconceived notions, ideas, fears, threats, and convictions about any specific topic. Consensus.-—The amount of similarity or agreement among or between individuals. __ 7L. L. Thurstone and E. J. Chave, The Measurement 9f Attitude (Chicago: The University of ChiCago Press, 1929I) pp. 6-7. Expectation.--An evaluative standard applied to an occupant of a particular position. (Note: This defi- nition for expectation is normative, i.e., concerned with what should be.)8 Mean.--The arithmetic average. Opinion.--An expressed attitude.9 Participant.--A person, either a teacher or stu- dent, who has been selected to complete a questionnaire. Position.--The location of a person, or a class of people, within a system of social relationships. Projection.--A prediction of the views of another person or other persons. Role.--A function assumed by, or delegated to, a person. School size classification.--In this study there are four participating schools, each representing a size classification. The size classifications are the same as those used by the Michigan High School Athletic Associa- tion for interscholastic competition. The classes of schools are: 1. Class A school: A school with 1200 students or more at the beginning of the academic year. 8Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W. McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendant's Role (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958), p. 58. 9 Thurstone and Chave, op. cit., p. 7. 2. Class B school: A school with 550 to 1199 students at the beginning of the academic year. 3. Class C school: A school with 300 to 549 students at the beginning of the academic year. 4. Class D school: A school with less than 300 students at the beginning of the academic year. Organization of the Study The remainder of the study is organized into four chapters. Chapter II. Review of Related Research.--In this chapter a review is given of the pertinent related research. Chapter III. The Method of Investigation.--The questionnaires, collection of the data, the sample, and the methods of data analysis are discussed in Chapter III. Chapter IV. Analysis of the Data.--The data in Chapter IV are presented in seven sections: expectations of students; expectations of teachers; projections of students; projections of teachers; students' and teachers' expectations compared; students' projections and teachers' expectations compared; teachers' projections and students' expectations compared. Chapter V. Conclusions.--In Chapter V a summary of the study is given, conclusions are drawn, and sugges- tions are made for additional research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH Chapter II includes a discussion of previous studies which relate to the present study. The data reported in this chapter are grouped under these headings: The Measurement of Attitudes, Students' Attitudes Toward Education, Teachers' and Students' Perceptions, and Summary. The Measurement of Attitudes In educational institutions, especially high schools and colleges, there are large numbers of literate individuals capable and willing to fill out forms. It is not surprising, then, that students and school personnel are frequently used as subjects by researchers attempting to measure attitudes. According to L. L. Thurstone and E. J. Chave, authorities in the field of attitude measurement, opinions are the means used for measuring attitudes. They have defined an opinion as a verbal expression of an attitude. As Thurstone and Chave explain, If a man said that we made a mistake in entering the war against Germany, that statement would be called 10 11 his opinion. . . . Our interpretation of such an expressed opinion would be that the man's attitude is pro-German.l The measurement of attitudes has been based upon verbal report and interpreted observation, both of which are indirect methods and likely to be biased. The most frequently used instrument for collecting data has been the questionnaire. Information on attitudes has also been secured from interviews, ratings, projective tests, and personal documents.2 Validity has been a constant problem for research- ers attempting to estimate underlying attitudes. The Opinions given by individuals are not always an accurate indication of their "true" feelings. Actions have also given a distorted picture of attitudes. For example, the housewife who buys hamburger instead of steak may prefer steak, an attitude, but buys hamburger because it costs less. The housewife's interest in saving money outweighs her preference for steak. Another problem has been that little is known about the relationship between what the individual says is his attitude and his actual behavior.3 Caution, therefore, lThurstone and Chave, op. cit., p. 7. 2Eric A. Allen, "Attitudes of Children and Adoles- cents in School," Educational Research, Vol. 3, No. l CNovember, 1960), pp. 68, 73. 31bid., p. 67. 12 must be exercised in making inferential statements about actual behavior based upon expressed opinions. Attitudes are said to be implicit responses which serve to motivate behavior. Because they are learned, rather than innate, attitudes are subject to change. Most attitudes, however, have been found to be relatively stable and enduring.4 When measuring attitudes, researchers must operate under certain assumptions. These assumptions include: "that attitudes are measurable, that they vary along a linear continuum, and that measurable attitudes are common to the group, that they are held by many people."5 Students' Attitudes Toward Education Attitude studies conducted in the past twenty-five years have indicated that most students like school.6 In 4Marvin E. Shaw and Jack M. Wright, Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967), pp. 9-10. 5H. H. Remmers, Introduction to Opinion and Atti- tude Measurement (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954), p. 7. 6H. H. Remmers, N. L. Gage, and Ben Shimberg, "Youth Looks at Schools and Jobs," Report No. 18, Purdue Opinion Poll for Young People (Lafayette, Indiana: Division of Educational Reference, Purdue University, April, 1948), pp. 1-2; R. E. Horton and H. H. Remmers, "Youth Views Current Issues in Education," Report No. 37, Purdue Opinion Poll for Young People (Lafayette, Indiana: Division of Educational Reference, Purdue University, December, 1953), p. 3. 13 a recent poll by Louis Harris, eighty-one per cent of the students sampled rated their school as good to excellent.7 It has long been assumed by many educators that student satisfaction with school is to some extent depen- dent upon intellectual ability and scholastic achievement. However, according to the findings of a study completed by Jackson and Getzels in 1959, this assumption does not always hold true. In this particular study, it was found that psychological factors such as social adjustment, and not scholastic variables, were linked to differences between "satisfied" and "dissatisfied" pupils.8 Students in general have not been completely satisfied with the way schools are run. Research has shown that adolescents would like to have more voice in arranging assemblies, making rules for student conduct, 7Louis Harris, "The Life Poll: What People Think About Their High Schools," Life, Vol. 66, No. 19, May 16, 1969, p. 30. The Harris poll was conducted for Life in an effort to discover how Americans felt about their high schools. Two-thousand five-hundred carefully selected students, parents, teachers, and administrators partici- pated in the study. 8Philip W. Jackson and Jacob W. Getzels, "Psycho- logical Health and Classroom Functioning: A Study of Dissatisfaction with Schools Among Adolescents," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 50, No. 6 (December, 1959), pp. 297-300. The sample for Jackson and Getzel's study was atypical: 531 students enrolled in a private school. 14 and deciding the curriculum.9 Many teenagers feel stu- dents should be allowed to discipline fellow students, publish a school newspaper without faculty censorship, collect student ratings of teachers, decide how classes will be conducted, and determine grades. Thirty years ago high school seniors in Nebraska felt changes in educational practice should be made at a slow pace, a sharp contrast to the beliefs of many of today's young activists. The students of the late thir- ties also felt school facilities should be used only for school work. Some of their more liberal views were that discussion of controversial issues should be part of the school curriculum; student interest rather than compulsion should motivate learning; and as changes take place in 9James E. House, Jr., "A Study of Innovative Youth Involvement Activities in Selected Secondary Schools in Wayne County, Michigan" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1969), pp. 133, 136; George Gallup, "Second Annual Survey of the Public's Attitude Toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 52, No. 2 (October, 1970), p. 102. 10Remmers, Gage, and Shimberg, op. cit., pp. 2, 18; Horton and Remmers, op. cit., pp. 3-5; Harris, op. cit., pp. 24-25. The information given in the two reports by Remmers is from an intensive fifteen year survey of the views of American youth. Thousands of teenagers throughout the nation took part in the study. An excellent summary of the results is given in The Ameri- can Teenager by Remmers and D. H. Radler. 15 society, appropriate changes should be made in the schools.11 Even though students have said that they would like to have control of what happens to them in school, research has indicated that a majority feel there should be certain limitations such as passing marks required of students who wish to participate in extra-curricular 12 activities. Attitudes toward existing extra-class activities have been shown to differ according to size of school, the more favorable attitudes being expressed by students in the smaller schools.13 The findings of an investigation in six New Jersey and Pennsylvania high schools indicated students perfer the democratic to the laissez-faire and autocratic 14 methods of teaching. In criticizing traditional 11Paul W. Harnly, "Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward Education," The School Review, Vol. 47, No. 7 (September, 1939), pp. 507-508. Ten per cent of the high school seniors in Nebraska participated in the Harnly study. Data for the study were taken from questionnaires completed by the seniors. 12House, op. cit., p. 165; Harold Brinegar, "Pupil Attitudes Toward Extra-Class Activities," The School Review, Vol. 63, No. 8 (November, 1955), PP. 433-434. l3Brinegar, op. cit., pp. 436-437. The sample in the Brinegar study consisted of nearly 10,000 high school students enrolled in 37 Indiana schools. 14Ronald C. Doll, "High School Pupils' Attitudes Toward Teaching Procedures," The School Review, Vol. 55, No. 4 (April, 1947), pp. 224—226. Questionnaires completed by 1,237 teenagers provided the data for Doll's study. The definitions of the three teaching methods used in the study were the researcher's own. 16 methods, students have expressed a desire to be taught, not told.15 Economic and social status were shown in another study to have no bearing on student attitudes toward teacher authority in the classroom. The more amenable attitudes toward classroom regulations and teacher- enforced discipline were exhibited by girls, as compared to boys, and by seniors, as compared to underclassmen. The study also concluded that the more intelligent the student, the more he is likely to accept the authority of the classroom teacher.16 Teachers' and Students' Perceptions Research has shown that students are sometimes inaccurate in their perceptions of teachers' attitudes. In a study conducted in the early 1950's, students were shown to be in error on some of their projections for teachers' likes and dislikes about student behavior. Students correctly predicted what teachers liked about interpersonal behaviors of students and individual stu- dent behavior, but were inaccurate in their predictions for student personality and preparation of assignments. ls;pgg., p. 227; Harris, op. cit., pp. 24-25. l6"Pupil Acceptance of Teacher Authority," School and Society, Vol. 90, No. 2211 (Summer, 1962), pp. 249- 250. This particular investigation, conducted by Francis Powers, used approximately 1,100 students from public and parochial schools in the Boston area as participants. 17 A significant difference also existed between teachers' dislikes of student personality and students' projections of these dislikes.l7 Teachers have likewise experienced difficulty in making accurate projections. Teachers in a Pennsylvania study, for example, incorrectly predicted student response to a questionnaire designed to measure anti-democratic potential.18 Results of yet another study indicate that teachers who are effective in their interpersonal rela- tions with students tend to be more accurate than other teachers in their perceptions of students' attitudes toward school. Teachers who were disliked by students scored poorly in their estimates of student opinion; the converse, however, did not always hold true.19 l7Jerome M. Seidman and Leda B. Knapp, "Teacher Likes and Dislikes of Student Behavior and Student Perceptions of These Attitudes," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 47, No. 2 (October, 1953), pp. 144-147. Seventeen teachers and 113 junior and senior students from a parochial school in Maine participated in the study. 18Jack R. Frymier, "Teachers' Estimates of Adolescents' Responses to F—Scale Items," The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 55, No. 8 (May, 1962), pp. 354-357. Participants in the investigation were 536 high school students and 83 high school teachers from southeastern Pennsylvania. 19N. L. Gage and George Suci, "Social Perception and Teacher-Pupil Relationships," The Journal of Educa- Eional Psychology, Vol. 42 (1951), pp. 148-151. Twenty teachers and 200 students of a high school took part 1n the investigation. 18 Summary The data used in attitude research has consisted largely of opinions, the expressed attitudes of indivi- duals. Opinions have served only as estimates of under- lying attitudes; they have not always represented "true" feelings. Attitude studies have indicated that most high school students like school. Where dissatisfaction with school has occurred, it appeared to be linked to psycho- logical factors rather than to scholastic variables. Teenagers have been shown to favor a more active role for students in running the schools. A majority of students felt students should have more voice than they presently have in arranging assemblies, making school rules, and determining the curriculum. Students have said they want to be taught, not told. Research has indicated that students prefer the democratic to the laissez-faire or autocratic methods of teaching. The most amenable attitudes toward teacher authority have been expressed by girls and by senior students. Both teachers and students have experienced dif— ficulty in accurately predicting each other's attitudes. Teachers who are disliked by students have been shown to be especially poor estimators of student opinion. CHAPTER III THE METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Questionnaires Two questionnaires, one for students1 and one for teachers,2 were developed to provide the data for the study. The questionnaires dealt with current and poten- tial issues on the extent of student involvement in high school decision making. The following steps were taken in developing the two questionnaires. First, an extensive review was made of related literature and research for questionnaire items. Second, tentative questionnaires were written and given to fellow doctoral students for evaluation. Third, modi- fications were made and the students' questionnaire was given to a small number of high school students for suggested improvements. Fourth, in order to lower the reading level of the students' questionnaire, assistance was solicited from Dr. Byron Van Roekel, a reading special- ist at Michigan State University. Additional assistance in the wording of the questionnaires was received from 1Appendix A, Questionnaire for Students. 2Appendix B, Questionnaire for Teachers. 19 20 members of the Department of Evaluative Services at Michigan State University. Fifth, a pilot study involving approximately 10 teachers and 120 students was conducted in the Lansing, Michigan, area. The Questionnaire for Students and the Question— naire for Teachers were similar in structure and content. Each consisted of three parts. In the first two parts, participants indicated their expectations (Part I) and projections (Part II) for student voice in decision making. Parts I and II were further divided into sections: Section A, Whole School, and Section B, Classroom. In Section A there were 18 items; Section B contained 6. In Part I of the two questionnaires, participants were to give their opinions on how much say3 students should have in various school activities. In Section A, Whole School, the participants selected one of five responses for each item. The five responses were: (a) Students should have complete say, (b) Students should have more say than teachers and the principal, (c) Students should have as much say as teachers and the principal, (d) Students should have less say than teachers and the' principal, (e) Students should have no say. Participants were asked in Section B, Classroom, to indicate the amount of voice they thought students ¥ 3"Say" was used instead of "voice" because it was felt that students were more familiar with the colloquial "Say. I: 21 should have in the classroom. The responses for Section B were similar to those for Section A. They were: (a) Stu- dents should have complete say, (b) Students should have more say than the teacher, (c) Students should have as much say as the teacher, (d) Students should have less say than the teacher, (e) Students should have no say. The items in Part II were the same as those in Part I except that students were asked to predict the response of most teachers to the items in Part I and teachers were to predict the responses of most students. The responses participants selected from were the same as those used in Part I. The questionnaire items in Parts I and II were categorized on the basis of content similarity. The cate- gories were extra-curricular activities, rules and restric- tions, discipline, curriculum, selection of new staff members, and the classroom. Items included in the categories of Section A were as follows:5 Extra-Curricular Activities 1. (1) What will and will not be printed in the school newspaper. 2. (2) Which clubs will be offered by the school. 4These categories were used in the data analysis; they were not indicated on the questionnaires. 5The number in parentheses indicates the number of the item on the questionnaire. 22 3. (3) The number of assemblies to be held during the school year. 4. (4) The content of assembly programs. 5. (5) The number of dances to be held during the school year. Rules and Restrictions 1. (6) The grades students must have in order to run for school or class offices. 2. (7) What will be the school rules for personal appearance (dress, length of hair for boys, and so on). 3. (8) What will be the school rules for the use of hall passes. 4. (9) What will be the school rules for smoking. 5. (10) Which notices and pictures may be dis- played in the halls. 6. (13) Whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour. 7. (14) Amount of "free" time given to students during the school day. Discipline l. (11) Whether students are innocent or guilty of breaking school rules. 2. (12) What to do about students who have been found guilty of breaking school rules. 23 Curriculum 1. (15) Books to be ordered for the school library. 2. (16) The courses to be offered by the school. Selection of New Staff Members 1. (17) New teachers to be hired by the school. 2. (18) A new principal to be hired by the school. The six items in Section B of Parts I and II of the questionnaires made up one category, Classroom. The items were: Classroom 1. (1) What will be covered in a course. 2. (2) What the homework in a course will be. 3. (3) The books to be used in a course. 4. (4) Classroom rules. 5. (5) What to do about students who break classroom rules. 6. (6) What is "failing" work in a course. In Part III of the two questionnaires, partici- pants were asked for information about themselves. Stu- dents were asked to indicate their sex; age; grade level; whether they were more active, as active, or less active than most students in extra-curricular activities; and the grades they received in high school. 24 Teachers were asked in Part III to give their sex; number of years taught at their present school; number of years taught at the elementary, junior high, high school, and college levels; highest degree completed; degree, if any, presently working toward; and the grade level of most of their students. In addition, teachers were to indicate the category which best described the scholastic ability of most of their students: above average, above average and average, average, average and below average, below average. Selection of the Participating Schools The population for the study consisted of teachers and students in the public high schools located within a 50 mile radius of East Lansing, Michigan. The high schools were limited to schools which included grades nine through twelve. Schools were classified on the basis of size. The classifications were: Class A, 1200 students or more; Class B, 550 to 1199 students; Class C, 300 to 549 stu- dents; Class D, less than 300 students.6 From each 6These are the size classifications used by the Michigan High School Athletic Association for interscho- lastic competition. They are based on school size at the beginning of the academic year. 25 classification, one school was randomly selected7 to take part in the study. The principals of three of the four schools selected agreed to have their teachers and students par- ticipate in the study; one did not, the principal of the Class A school. The Class A school originally selected was replaced by a second school from the same size classi- fication. The principal of the second school was agree- able to having the study conducted in his school. Selection of the Participants In the four participating schools,8 there were 2662 students and 121 teachers. Students outnumbered teachers 22 to 1. Because of the large number of students, it was felt that the data should be collected only from a random sample of the students in each school. Fifteen per cent of the students was the percentage originally selected for the student sample. This percentage was thought to be 7In the selection process, a number was assigned to each school. The schools selected to participate in the study were those whose numbers matched the numbers taken from a table of random numbers. Unless otherwise indicated, this process was used in the study whenever a random sample was required. 8All four schools were located in communities which had only one high school. The largest town, the location of the Class A school, had a population of 6745. School B was situated in a bedroom community for Lansing, Michigan. Schools C and D were located in rural areas. Almost all the teachers and students in the four schools were Caucasian. 26 large enough to give an accurate representation, yet small enough to be manageable. It would have been desirable to have students in the sample leave their regularly scheduled classes at a prearranged time to meet at a designated place to complete the questionnaires. Unfortunately, the principals in Schools A, B, and C9 would not permit their students to leave their classrooms. This made the use of a random sample of the student body unfeasible. Therefore, other arrangement for the selection of student participants had to be made for the three schools. The principals in Schools A and B agreed to having students in randomly selected sections of required courses complete the questionnaire during a part of their class period. Only one required course for each of the grade levels, nine through twelve, was to be used. 10 The tracking of students in Schools A and B was also taken into account in the selection process. Where tracks existed, classes were randomly selected from each track.11 9School A refers to the Class A school partici- pating in the study; School B refers to the Class B school; and so on. loTracking refers to students grouped into classes according to scholastic ability. 11Students in the special education classes for retarded children were not included in the study. 27 In order to minimize the inconvenience to teachers, it was decided that all students in the selected classes would be asked to complete a questionnaire. Students whose grade level differed from the rest of the class (sophomores repeating freshman English, for example) were not to be included in the study. The selection process in School C was similar to the process used in Schools A and B. Instead of required courses, randomly selected homerooms for each of the four grade levels were used.12 The principal in School D agreed to the use of a random sample of 15 per cent of the students in each grade. A list of the students in each grade was obtained and from this list participants were selected by random number. Plans were made to have more student question- naires completed than were actually used in the data analysis. This was necessary because of the decision to poll entire classes, the tracking of students, and the possibility of absentees and incomplete questionnaires. The goal was to obtain useable questionnaires from a representative sample of the student body; specifically, from 8 to 15 per cent of the students in each grade in each school. 12Students in School C were assigned to homerooms according to the alphabetical order of last names. 28 Since the number of teachers in the participating schools was small in comparison to the number of students, it was decided to ask all teachers to participate in the study. This was acceptable to the principals of the four schools. The teachers in School A were to meet after school to fill out their questionnaires; teachers in School D were to meet before school. In Schools B and C, teachers were to complete their questionnaires during their confer- ence period. Collection of the Data The data was collected during the last two weeks of April and the first week of May, 1970. Student parti- cipants in Schools A, B, and C remained in their class— rooms to complete the questionnaires. In School D, stu- dents met in the school cafeteria. A representative of the study was present in all cases to distribute and collect questionnaires and to answer students' questions. Most students were able to complete the question- naire within 10 to 15 minutes. A few took as long as 25 minutes. As was anticipated, some of the students were absent the day the data was collected. When possible, a follow-up was made of these absentees. An effort was made to secure completed question- naires from all teachers in the participating schools. 29 Those teachers who did not attend the scheduled meetings received a copy of the questionnaire in their school mailboxes with instructions for completing and returning it. The returned questionnaires were examined for completeness. Questionnaires with one and only one response for at least 90 per cent of the items were con- sidered useable. The results of the data collection are summarized in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. In School A, student participants numbered 199. In School B there were 215; in School C, 105; and in School D, 38. Altogether there were 557 student participants in the four schools. Forty-one (7 per cent) were absent when the data was collected and were not reached in any of the follow-ups. Five—hundred and twelve of the students (92 per cent) completed useable questionnaires. Four students (1 per cent) returned questionnaires which were unuseable. As indicated in Table 3.2, there were 46 teacher participants from School A, 36 from School B, 22 from School C and 17 from School D--for a total of 121. One- hundred and five of the teachers (87 per cent) returned completed questionnaires; all were useable. Sixteen of the teachers (13 per cent) failed to return their ques- tionnaires. 30 .OOOH mo HHmm ocu CH ucmEHHoucm no woman mH Hoonom sumo mo coHDMOHMHmmMHo mNHm one .OOOH .OcHumm How mum mmHDOHm ucmEHHoucm* OON O NHO HO Omm NOON , mHmuoe NN O mm m mm OHN mHmuoe O O O O O OO NH O O O O O OO HH O O O H OH OO OH O O O O N OH HO O mmMHo MO H OOH O OOH ONO mHmuoe O O HN N MN Om NH O H NN N ON Om HH NH O mN O ON OHH OH 0 OH O NO O Nm ONH O mmmHU mm N mOH ON OHN HOO mHmuoe RH 0 mm m mm NRH NH . HN H mm O OO OON HH mN O OO m Om ONN OH m ON H OO O mm mmN O mmmHU OHH H OOH OH OOH OOHH mHmpoe ON O HO O OO OON NH ON O NO O OO MON HH mm O OO O NO ONO OH 4 OO H NO H Om OOm O mmmHU mHmmHmcfi mHhmomscD mHnmmmD CH com: ucombd mucmmHOHuumm «uQmEHHoucm ocmuu Hoonom m o u H m c a o H u m o s 0 mmHHMCCOHummsO .mucmcsum .coHuomHHou mumo on» No OHMEESOIIH.M MHmfie 31 TABLE 3.2--Summary of the Data Collection, Teachers' Questionnaires Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s Teachers School * Unuse- Not Used in Employed Useable able Returned Analysis Class A 46 38 0 8 38 Class B 36 33 0 3 29 Class C 22 20 0 2 14 Class D l7 l4 0 3 7 Totals 121 105 0 16 88 *Includes part-time teachers. Selection of the Sample As previously mentioned, more questionnaires were completed than were intended for use in the data analysis. This was necessary because of absentees, incomplete ques- tionnaires, the tracking of students in some of the schools, and the decision to poll all students in the selected classes. The questionnaires of ten per cent of the students from each of the grade levels of each of the four schools were selected by random number to be used in the data analysis.13 Where tracks were involved, the sampling was stratified; thus, 10 per cent of the students in each of the tracks were included in the sample. l3Ten per cent was the lowest percentage of use- able questionnaires obtained from any of the tracks of students. 32 A percentage of the student sample was used in determining the number of teachers from a school included in the teacher sample.l4 School A with 38 useable teachers' questionnaires had the smallest percentage, 33 per cent of a student sample of 116. Therefore, it was decided to have the teacher sample for each school number 33 per cent of the student sample. Description of the Sample The composition of the student sample is described in Table 3.3. Two-hundred and sixty-eight students were included in the sample. One-hundred and sixteen (43 per cent) were from School A, 87 (33 per cent) from School B, 43 (16 per cent) from School C, and 22 (8 per cent) from School D. Male students outnumbered female students. There were 143 males and 125 females. The percentage of students in a grade level decreased as the grade level increased. Nearly thirty per cent of the students were in grade nine. This com— pares with twenty per cent for grade twelve. A majority of the students (57 per cent) con- sidered themselves to be as active as most students in 14A percentage of the teachers employed within a school was not used in selecting the teacher sample because the teacher-student ratio was not the same for all schools. 33 TABLE 3.3--Composition of the Student Sample Per Per NO' Cent NO' Cent School Attended Grade Level A 116 43.3 9 79 29.5 B 87 32.5 10 74 27.6 C 43 16.0 11 61 22.8 .D 22 8.2 12 54 20.1 Total 268 100.0 Total 268 100.0 Sex Grades Earned Male 143 53.4 Mostly A's 17 6.4 Female 125 46.6 Mostly B's 43 16.0 some A's Total 268 100.0 Mostly B's 71 26.5 Extra-Curricular some C's Activities Mostly C's 73 27.2 More active some B's than others 42 15'7 Mostly C's 40 14.9 ' I As act1ve as 153 57.1 some D s as others , Mostly D's l7 6 4 Less active some C's than other 73 27.2 ' students Mostly D's 7 2.6 and below Total 268 100.0 Total 268 100.0 34 extra-curricular activities. Almost twice as many stu- dents indicated they were less active (27 per cent) than more active (16 per cent) in extra-curricular activities. Just over half of the students (54 per cent) said the grades they earned had been mostly B's and C's. The remaining students were almost evenly divided between those with higher grades and those with lower grades. Table 3.4 gives a description of the teacher sample. Altogether, eighty-eight teachers were included in the sample. Thirty-eight (43 per cent) were from School A, 29 (33 per cent) from School B, l4 (16 per cent) from School C, and 7 (8 per cent) from School D. There were thirteen per cent more male teachers than female teachers. For most teachers (74 per cent) the highest degree completed was the bachelor's degree. Over half the teachers (59 per cent) had taught five or less years at the high school level. Fifteen per cent had been teaching longer than 12 years. More than twice as many teachers indicated most of their students were ninth graders (39 per cent) than indi- cated most of their students were twelfth graders (15 per cent). About one-fourth of the teachers said they taught mainly tenth graders; one-fifth said eleventh graders. Only a small percentage of the teachers (13 per cent) taught primarily above average or below average students. Two—thirds of the teachers indicated that the TABLE 3.4--Composition 35 of the Teacher Sample Per Per NO' Cent NO’ Cent School where Highest Degree Employed Obtained A 38 43.2 Bachelor's* 65 73.9 B 29 33.0 Master's 23 26.1 C 14 15.9 Total 88 100.0 D 7 7.9 Grade Level of Most Students Total 88 100.0 9 34 38.6 Sex 10 23 26.1 Male 50 56.8 ll 18 20.5 Female 38 43.2 12 13 14.8 Total 88 100.0 Total 88 100.0 Years Taught at . High School Sghglast1g Level A 1 1tygo ————— Most Students 1—2 34 38‘6 Above average 9 10.2 3-5 18 20°5 Above average and average 23 26'1 6-12 23 26.1 13 or more 13 14.8 Average 37 42°1 Total 88 100.0 Average and 17 19.3 below average Below average 2 2.3 Total 88 100.0 *Two teachers were within a year of completing their bachelor's degrees. 36 scholastic ability of most of their students was either average or above average and average. Methods of Analyzing the Data from the Sample Raw data taken from the questionnaires in the sample were coded and key punched onto unit record (IBM) cards. The processing of all data was completed on a 3600 Control Data Computer. The mean for the student sample and the mean for the teacher sample were computed for each of the question- naire items and for each of the categories of items. Also calculated was the frequency and percentage distribution of responses for each item. Means, mean rank orders, and the response distributions were used in explaining and comparing the extent of student involvement indicated for students' expectations, for teachers' expectations, for students' projections, and for teachers' projections. Differences between item means were calculated and used to compare students' expectations with teachers' expectations, students' projections with teachers' expec- tations, and teachers' projections with students' expec- tations.15 Direction was indicated by plus and minus signs. 15In addition, the chi square statistic was used to test for differences in the frequency distributions of responses between students' expectations and teachers' expectations, between students' projections and teachers' expectations, and between teachers' projections and stu- tents' expectations. The findings are given in Appendix C. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Questionnaires completed by 88 high school teachers and 268 students provided the data for the analysis. A summary of the data collection is provided in Table 3.1, page 30, and in Table 3.2, page 31. The questionnaires were divided into three parts. In Part I, participants indicated their expectations for student voice in decision making. In Part II, students gave their projections for teachers' expectations and teachers reported their projections for students' expecta- tions. Participants gave information about themselves in Part III. The teachers' and students' responses to statements in Parts I and II of the questionnaires were assigned numerical values for statistical analysis. "Students should have complete say," was assigned a value of 4; "Students should have more say than the teacher/teachers and the principal," 3; "Students should have as much say as the teacher/teachers and the principal," 2; "Students 37 38 should have less say than the teacher/teachers and the principal," 1; "Students should have no say," 0.1 The data are presented in this chapter under seven headings. The first four are: Expectations of Students, Expectations of Teachers, Projections of Stu- dents, and Projections of Teachers. In each of these divisions, an overview of the findings is presented first. Mean scores are used to establish the relative position of student involvement indicated for the six categories of items: extra-curricular activities, rules and restric- tions, discipline, curriculum, selection of new staff members, and the classroom. The overview is followed by a brief description of the survey results within each category. Category titles are used as subheadings. The amount of student involvement desired or projected is indicated by the per- centage distributions of the responses for individual items. The remaining three headings in this chapter are: Students'énxiTeachers' Expectations Compared, Students' Projections and Teachers' Expectations compared, and Teachers' Projections and Students' Expectations Compared. -In these divisions, comparisons are made based on the lThese scale values are arbitrary. They were assigned for the purpose of statistical analysis. 39 findings for students' and teachers' expectations and pro- jections. The subheadings are the same as those used in the first four divisions. An overview with emphasis on item mean differences and their rank order is presented first. The overview is followed by a description for each category of the major or unusual differences in the percentage distributions of students' and teachers' responses for individual items. Expectations of Students An Overview In Part I of the students' questionnaire, students indicated their expectations for student voice in decision making. Part I consisted of 24 items which have been grouped into six categories. The overall mean for each category as given in Table 4.1 is an indication of the degree of involvement students felt they should have in decision making. Accord- ing to students, their greatest voice should be in making decisions regarding the curriculum, category mean 2.5. Next were extra-curricular activities with a mean of 2.3 and rules and restrictions, mean 2.0.3 In these three 2 . . . . . . The Six categories are extra-curr1cu1ar act1v1t1es, Iuales and restrictions, discipline, curriculum, selection (Df new staff members, and the classroom. 33.0 is the value assigned to students should have fluore say than the teacher/teachers and the principal; 2.0, as much say . 40 mumom Hooaom m.mN 0.0m N.mm H.O 0.0 m can OGHHSU ch£ on O.N O.N mO OOH OO HH N m CH mmocmo wo Honssz one .O m.O m.mm m.OO m.om O.m m mmamnmona O H.N RH OO ONH Om A m NHQEmmmm mo ncmpcoo the .O mumom Hoosom map m.H m.m o.sO o.Om O.R a OcHHsO OHm: mg on mmHHn N u O.OH H.Om O.HO O.HH o.m m «Hooaom map Nn Omummmo 0.0 O.N Om On NHH HO O m on HHH3 szHo LUHQB .N O.N n OpommmmBOC Hoozom cmoz HHmum>o 0.0H N.mm 0.00 H.O 0.0 m msu CH cochum ma mmHDH>Huo¢ O O.N OO OO ONH HH H m Doc HHHB paw HHH3 DOSE .H umHsoHuusolmqum ”Ochoozo\OchHow© cH o>m£ mDCOOSHm pHsonm Omm £038 302 ”mpcowspm Op DcoEomem .O .mmm on m>mn OHSOSm mucocsum “H .HmmHocHHQ OLD cam mnogomwu cusp ham mmmH m>mn cHsonm mpcop9pm “N .HMQHUQHHQ map paw mumnomou mm mam £058 mm o>m£ cHsonm mucopsum um .HMQHOQHHQ may cam mumzommp conp Nam muoE m>m£ pHsonm mucocsum “O .wmm ODOHQEOU m>mn cHsonm mpcmcopm ”mmmmmmw Hoonom oHocz "fl coHpoom HOV Amv ANV AHO éHO m\m xcmm Honfisz 2mm: 2mm: ouoom 50mm mom EouH EwuH maommumo ommncooumm cam hocmsqoum EouH ouHmccoHummso 30mm How Hocuo xcmm cmoz paw .cmoz .momcommmm mo coHuanupmHo mocmswmum ”mcoHpmuoomxm .muchSDmllH.O mqmde 41 HN OH O.N O.H O.mH Om m.OO OOH H.O OH 0.0 MN m.O NH O.Nm OO o.O ON 0.0H Om 0.0H OO 0.0H mO 0.0 HN m.O OH o.ON mO H.OH mm N.NO OHH O.Hm mO 0.0m OOH m.HN Om O.mm OO N.ON MO N.Om OO H.ON Om H.O OH m.HN Om m.ON HO H.Om NOH 0.0H ON m.ON OO 0.0 ON m.O NH O.mm OO m.mH HO O.NH mm III-4Q: £1404 FLAG-a EuO-a OOop Hoonow onu OGHHSU mucoUSDO on co>HO oEHp =oonw: mo unsoeo one Ouson coon onu OCHHSO Hoonom o>moH ou poBoHHm on HHH3 mpcocsum nonponz OmHHon onn CH pomoHQmHU on hoe moHSD IUHQ Ono mooHuoc nOHnB Omonoam How moHSH Hoonom onu on HHH3 Honz Omommom HHon Mo on: onu How moHsH Hoonom onu on HHHB non: moocouoommo HMCOmHom How moHsu Hoozom may on HHH3 “an: Nmoonmo mmoHo no Hoonom HON can on Hocuo CH o>on umsE mucoodum mocohm one .OH .MH .OH m H VHCMNH HHMHGNVO O.N n cmoz HHouo>o mcpwuoHuumom cam moHsm 42 O H Mcmm HHMHQNVO m.o H H.O 0.0 O.mH O.NN N.Nm m NHoonom onu On OoCHn :moz HHmuo>o ON O o OH OH HO OO OOH c on on HmcHochc 3oz O OH mmmmmwm O.H O.m H.OH H.ON o.Om a NHoonom may On OwcHn ccmum 3mz ON O.o O O NO OO NOH c on on muonomou 3oz .NH Ho :oHpoonm H H O.OH O.Hm 0.0m O.HH N.N c NHoosom mgp On xcmm HHmcm>o m O.N OO OO OOH NO O c Omcocco on on momcsoo .OH O.N u . cmoz HHoHo>O N.HH O.ON H.OO O.OH N.N a oNcmanH Hoonom mgn m.© O.N ow mo mOH mm o .m HON COHOUHO OD O.H mvHOOm .mH EDHHHUHHHHHU OmoHCH Hoonom OCH snooun mo ODHHCO UCCOO N.m O.N N.OO H.ON 0.0N c cmon o>mn ens mucoO O n 0.0H O.H OH HN OO OO OO O Isum psono 0c on Dona .NH ncom HHoco>O . O.H u omoHsH Hoonom OConoHn H.O O.OH O.om O.NN O.OH a no NHHHsO Ho ucmo cmmz HHmcm>o O.NH O.H OH ON OOH mm ON m noccH mum mucowsnm OH .HH ocHHcHomHO HOV HOV ANV HHV HOV c\c xcom HonECz cmoz cooz ouoom nomm How EoHH EouH mcomouou oOoucooHom oco mocoswoum 1v .poSCHuCOUIIH.O mHmde 43 OH HH OH NN OH O.H O.H 0.0 NH 0.0 HN m.O OH H.O m.O ON o.O ON H.OH Om 0.0H ON 0.0 OH m.O ON N.Om HO 0.00 mNH o.OO OOH O.Nm OO o.ON OO 0.0m OOH 0.0m MO O.MN OO O.HN OO N.mm OO o.OO OHH 0.0m OO O.HN Om O.MH Om o.O ON 0.0H mm O.NN OO H.OH mm &.m Ram fi4m ham ham fi4fl momcsoo m CH Ono: =mcHHHmH= mH page OmoHCH EOOH ImmmHo nooun on3 oncop Icum usono on on Dong NmGHDH EOOHmmMHU mowcsoo m CH womb on on mnoom won HHH3 omucoo o CH ncozoEon onu nonz OomHCoo m CH coHo>oo on HHHB Dona .O .O .O O O u ncom HHoHo>O .N O.H H cooz HHmuo>o .H EooummmHU uOConE\OCHmoono\OCHcHooc CH o>on mucocspm cHConm how nose 30m "mucocsum on DcoEououm .O .mmm oc o>mn chonm mucoccum Imucopsum onu Cmnu woo oCoE o>on chonm mucocsum NH O EooummoHU "m CoHuoom .Honooou onu con“ Omm mmoH o>on cHsonm “N.Honooou on» mo woo nose mo o>on pHsonm mucopsnm um .Honooop .O .mmm ouonEoo o>mn cHsonm mucocopm "OCHCoom 44 areas, students felt they should have as much or more say than teachers and the principal in making decisions. For the remaining three categories, most students favored the greater voice for teachers and the principal rather than for students. Greatest student participation was indicated for disciplining students (mean 1.6), closely followed by activities in the classroom (mean 1.5). Least student involvement was indicated for the selection of new staff members (mean 0.9).4 Interestingly, for all six of the categories, students felt their voice should count to some degree in the making of school decisions. Also included in Table 4.1 are the mean and mean rank for each of the 24 questionnaire items. Ten of the items (42 per cent) had a mean score greater than 2.0, the value assigned to students should have as much say as the teacher or the teachers and the principal. These items were from the extra-curricular activities, rules and restrictions, and curriculum categories; they are listed in Table 4.2 Only two items had a mean score of less than 1.0, the value assigned to students should have less say than the teacher or the teachers and the principal. Both items dealt with the selection of new staff members. 42.0 is the value assigned to students should have as much say as the teacher/teachers and the principal; 1.0, less say; 0.0, no say. 45 TABLE 4.2--Students' Expectations: Questionnaire Items with a Mean of 2.0 or Greater* Item N ler Item Mean Section A: Whole School 13 Whether students will be allowed to 2.9 leave school during the noon hour. 5 Number of dances to be held during the 2.8 school year. 7 School rules for personal appearance. 2.8 1 What will and will not be printed in 2.6 the school newspaper. 16 Courses to be offered by the school. 2.5 15 Books to be ordered for the school 2.4 library. 2 Which clubs will be offered by the 2.4 school. 4 Content of assembly programs. 2.1 14 Amount of "free" time given to students 2.0 during the school day. ' 10 Which notices and pictures may be dis- 2.0 played in the halls. Section B: Classroom None *Scoring: Students should have complete say, 4; more say than the teacher/teachers and the principal, 3; as much say as the teacher/ teachers and the principal, 2. 46 There was not much consensus among students on individual items of the questionnaire. This may be explained in part by the random response patterns of par- ticipants who had difficulty reading the questionnaire. However, based on the results of the pilot study and close examination of the questionnaires used in the study, it may be assumed that these poor reader respondents were few in number. Extra-Curricular Activities As indicated in Table 4.1, most students thought they should have at least as much say as teachers and the principal in making decisions regarding extra-curricular activities.5 Greatest student involvement was indicated for the decision on the number of dances to be held during the school year. A majority (62 per cent) felt students should have more say than teachers and the principal or complete say in making this decision. Almost all students (96 per cent) thought students should have at least as much say as teachers and the prin- cipal in deciding what will and will not be printed in the school newspaper; 86 per cent felt this way about which Clubs will be offered by the school; and 77 per cent for the content of assembly programs. An even smaller per- centage (58 per cent) thought students should have at g 5Table 4.1, page 40. 47 least an equal voice in determining the number of assem- blies to be held during the school year. Rules and Restrictions Students felt they should have their greatest voice for rules and restrictions in deciding whether stu- dents will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour and in determining school rules for personal appearance. For both decisions, approximately sixty per cent favored more say than teachers and the principal or complete say for students. Students indicated their participation should be least in determining the rules for smoking and the rules for the use of hall passes. A majority, 62 per cent for rules on smoking and 53 per cent for rules on hall passes, favored less voice for students than for teachers and the principal or no student voice at all. For all other items in the rules and restrictions category, a majority of the students indicated there should be at least an equal voice for students. Fifty- eight per cent were of this opinion for deciding the grades students must have in order to run for school or Class offices; 74 per cent for notices and pictures to be displayed in the halls; and 70 per cent for the amount of "free" time given to students during the school day. 6Table 4.1, page 41. 48 The opinions for rules and restrictions varied for some items according to the school attended. For example, 59 per cent of the students in School A, as com- pared to 18 per cent for School D, said students should have complete say in deciding whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour.7 Nearly one-fifth of the students in School A (18 per cent) thought students should have complete say in deciding the amount of "free" time given to students during the school day; none of the students in School D agreed. Discipline Two-thirds of the students felt students should have at least as much say as teachers and the principal in determining whether students are innocent or guilty of breaking school rules.8 Forty-nine per cent favored equal ~ or greater student voice for the decision on what to do about students who have been found guilty of breaking school rules. 7Existing conditions in the schools may have been a factor which influenced student response. Students in School A were permitted to leave the school grounds during the noon hour. They may have viewed the open lunch period as a right rather than a privilege. On the other hand, students in School D were not allowed to leave school at noon. As a result, these students may have been less likely than the students in School A to regard the open lunch hour as one of their rights. 8Table 4.1, page 42. 49 Curriculum Most students felt they should have at least an equal voice with teachers and the principal in making curriculum decisions.9 A substantial minority, 43 per cent for the decision on which books will be ordered for the school library and 47 per cent for the courses to be offered by the school, thought students should have greater voice. Selection of New Staff Members The selection of new staff members was considered by most students to be the responsibility of the school personnel, not students.lo Over half of the students indicated students should have no say at all in the selec- tion of new teachers and a new principal to be hired by the school. Classroom More than three-fourths of the students felt stu- dents should have some say in the making of classroom decisions.11 For all items in this category, the two most popular responses were students should have less say than the teacher and students should have as much say as the teacher. Greatest student involvement was indicated for 9Table 4.1, page 42. lOTable 4.1, page 42. 11Table 4.1, page 43. 50 making classroom rules; least for deciding what the home- work in a course will be. Students in School D seemed to think there should be less student involvement in classroom decision making than did students in the three other schools. This was particularly true for the decision on what to do about students who break classroom rules. Fifty-nine per cent of the students in School D favored less say or no say at all for students as compared to 44 per cent for School C, 35 per cent for School A and 31 per cent for School B. Students who were very active in extra-curricular activities felt students should have less say in making classroom rules than did students who were not as active. Fifty-five per cent of the more active students favored a lesser voice for students; only 23 per cent of the students who stated they were as active as most students and 33 per cent of those who said they were less active shared the same opinion. Expectations of Teachers An Overview Teachers indicated their expectations for student voice in decision making in Part I of the Questionnaire for Teachers. Part I consisted of 24 items which have Ioeen.grouped into six categories. Table 4.3 gives the mean for each of the categories and.its rank order. The categories are underlined so that they may be easily identified. l 5 mumoh Hoonom on» M.N momH mon wowN H.H m mCHHSU UHQQ mg 0# N O.H N OH OO ON H m moocop Ho Ho C one .O H.H o.O o.OO O.Hm H.H m OmEmHOoum OHC O O.H H O HO ON H m IEommm mo acoucoo one .O . . . . . muooh Hoonom onp OCHHCU O O.H ooo emm NHMO Oomm ONN m OHme mg on mmHHn (Eommo mo HonECC one .m H u o O.m 0.0N O.mO 0.0H 0.0 m OHoonom onu On couowmo xcmm HHmu >0 H N.N m ON OO OH o m on HHH3 mnCHo n0Hn3 .N O.H u muomommsoc Hoonom cooz HHoCo>o men eH OmneHce ma mmHHH>Heo< uoc HHH3 cco HHHB Hon: .H COHCOHCCCUImupxm H.H o.OH 0.00 N.Om 0.0 m O O.H H OH HO HO o m ”OCHmoon0\OCHUHoo© CH o>mn mucopspm cHConm wow nose Son "muonomoe on ucoEonnm .O .Oom 0C o>mn pHCono mucoccum “H .HomHoCHHQ onu ccm mnonomou cmnH how mmoH o>on cHConm mncocsum “N .HomHOCHHQ onu cco muonooon mm Omm nose mm o>wn chonm mucocsum um .HomHoCHHQ onu cco muonooon conp Omm oCOE o>mn cHsonm mpcoccuw NO .mmm onoHQEoo o>mn cHsonm mucocspm ”OCHHoom Hoonom oHonz ”C coHuoom xeem tee: lee Ame 1N1 CHI lee a\e amec emgesz cmoz ocoom noom Com EouH oOoucoouom cco Oocosvoum OCOOopmo EouH ouHoCCoHumoso nomm H0O uocuo ncom cmoz ccm .Cooz .momcommom mo CoHuanCuch mucosvoum "mCOHuouoomxm .mConoooenlm.O MHmCe 52 OH OH OH 0.0 O.H N.OH OH N.OH OH O.mm ON O.HH OH 0.00 OO 0.00 NO O.NO OO o.OO OO 0.00 OO 0.0m ON O.NO OO H.Om om 0.0m mm 0.0N ON O.mN HN 0.00 OO H.ON MN O Ommc Hoonom onp OCHHCU mDCoc Ispm ou co>HO oEHu =oocm= mo uccoao one mucon COOC onu OCHHCU Hoonom o>moH OH UoBOHHo on HHH3 mucocspm Honnonz OmHHmO men eH OmOch ImHU on Owe moCCHOHm cco mooHuoc n0Hn3 OOCHnoEm Cow moHCH Hoonom onu on HHH3 Hana mmommom HHmn Mo on: onu Cow moHCH Hoonom onu on HHHB umnz moocouoommo HoCOOCom COM moHCH Hoonom onu on HHH3 Honz OmoOHmmo mmmHo Co Hoonom How can on Hocuo CH o>mn umCE mucocsum mocmum one .OH .OH .OH V H VACMWH HHMmewO N.H H Gmmz HHMHmKVO mCoHuoHuumom cco moHcm 53 W" . . . . . OHoonom xcom HHoHo>O . O O O O O O O OH O OO O on» On coHHn on . ON N O O O O OH OO m on HomHoCHHm 3oC O .OH O O u coo: HHoCo>o 0.0 o.O 0.0 o.ON O.HO m mHoonom onu On coCHn muonEo: wmoum ON 0.0 O O O NN OO O on on muonooou 3oz .OH 3oz mo CoHpooHom o.O 0.0 0.00 O.NO 0.0 m OHoonom on» On N n O O.H O O OO OO O m couowwo on on momcsoo .OH xcom HHoco>O . . . . . OOCOCQHH ewe O.Hmwm> . H H O N O OO O OO O N m Hoonom onu COO : HH 0 O O H H N OO OO N m cococuo on on mnoom .OH ECHCOHCCCO OmoHCH Hoonom OConoCn H.H 0.0 H.OO 0.00 0.0H c No \SHHCO cccow O.HH O.H H O OO OO OH O coon o>on on3 mucoc O n loom Doono on on Dong .NH xcom HHoHo>O O.H u . . . . a . NmmHsc Hoosom Oememce . . O O O O O HO O Ou H O O OO OHHHCO Ho ucoo coo: HHoHo>o O HH O H O O ON OO O m IOCCH ouo mucoccum OH .HH oCHHmHoch HOV COO 1N1 AHV Hoe O\c 95s xcom coo: EouH Ho 2 OHOOouoU coo: oHoom noom COO EouH oOoucooCom cco mocoovoum .coCCHuCOUIIO.O mHmme 54 O.HN 0.0 OH N.H OH H.H OH 0.0 ON 0.0 OH H.H H.H o.O 0.00 O.NO m H O OO OO m Oomusoo o CH xuo3 =OcHHHmc= mH ems: NWOHDH EOOHmmMHU H.O N.NN 0.0m m.ON O Hmong one mnemw O ON OO OH m Isum usono on on Don: O.N H.ON 0.00 0.0H m N ON OO OH m OmoHCH EOOHmmoHU o.O N.OH 0.00 H.ON c Nomusoo o O OH OO ON m CH com: on on mxoom o.O 0.0H 0.00 H.ON m Non HHH3 omucoo o O O OO ON m CH xuozoEon onu uonz 0.0 0.0H 0.00 0.0 m Oomucoo o CH O OH OO O m coco>oo on HHHB Donz .e .O .O m m u xcom HHoCo>O N O.H u coo: HHoHo>o .H EoonmmoHU uOConE\Ochoono\OCHcHooc CH o>on mncoocum chonm wow nose 30$ "mucocsum on ucoEououm .O .Oom oc o>on cHConm mucoccum “H .Conooou onu Con» wow mmoH o>on chonm mucoccum onn conu mom oHoE o>on cHConm mucoccum “O .Oom oponEoo o>on chonm oncoccum umchoom “N .Honooou on» mo Oom nose mo o>on chonm mucoccum EoonmmoHu "m coHnoom NO .Honooou 55 Teachers felt student participation in decision making should be greatest in the area of extra-curricular activities and least in the selection of new staff mem— bers. The means for these categories indicate that teachers in general favored an almost equal voice for students in extra-curricular activities (mean 1.8) and opposed nearly all student involvement in the selection of new school personnel (mean 0.3). Teachers felt student participation for the four other categories should be greatest in curriculum (mean 1.5), followed by discipline (mean 1.3), rules and restrictions (mean 1.2), and class- 12 It is interesting to note that none room (mean 1.0). of the six overall mean scores for categories exceeded 2.0, the value assigned to students should have as much say as the teacher or the teachers and the principal. Also included in Table 4.3 are the mean and mean rank for each of the 24 questionnaire items. Only one item, clubs to be offered by the school, had a mean score greater than 2.0, the value assigned to students should have as much say as the teacher or the teachers and the principal. The mean for one-third of the items was less than 1.0, the value assigned to students should have less say than the teacher or the teachers and the principal. These 122.0 is the value assigned to students should have as much say as the teacher/teachers and the principal; 1.0, less say; 0.0, no say. 56 items were from the rules and restrictions, selection of new staff members, and classroom categories. They are listed in Table 4.4. TABLE 4.4--Teachers' Expectations: Questionnaire Items with a Mean of Less than 1.0* Item N ler Item Mean Section A: Whole School 18 New principal to be hired by the school. 0.2 17 New teachers to be hired by the school. 0.3 9 School rules for smoking. 0.6 8 School rules for use of hall passes. 0.9 14 Amount of "free" time given to students 0.9 during the school day. Section B: Classroom 6 What is "failing" work in a course. 0.6 2 What the homework in a course will be. 0.8 3 Books to be used in a course. 0.9 *Scoring: Students should have less say than the teacher/teachers and the principal, 1; students should have no say, 0. Extra-Curricular Activities As indicated in Table 4.3, the most popular response given by teachers for four of the five items in the extra-curricular activities category was that students 57 should have an equal voice with teachers and the princi- pal.13 Equal or greater say for students was the response given by 65 per cent of the teachers for deciding what will and will not be printed in the school newspaper, by 85 per cent for which clubs will be offered by the school, by 67 per cent for the content of assembly programs, and by 71 per cent for the number of dances to be held during the school year. More than half of the teachers (57 per cent) felt students should have less say than teachers and the prin- cipal in deciding the number of assemblies to be held during the school year. Thirty—five per cent of the teachers thought students should have an equal voice in making this decision. Rules and Restrictions For five of the seven activities described in the rules and restrictions category, the opinion of most teachers was that students should have no say or less say than teachers and the principal.14 Eighty-nine per cent of the teachers felt this way about students deciding what will be the school rules for the use of hall passes, 88 per cent for rules on smoking, 60 per cent for notices and pictures to be displayed in the halls, 74 per cent 13Table 4.3, page 51. 14Table 4.3, page 52. 58 for whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour, and 81 per cent for the amount of "free" time given to students. Least student involve- ment was indicated for determining school rules for smoking; fifty-seven per cent of the teachers favored no student voice at all. Most teachers, on the other hand, favored an equal or greater voice for students in determining the grades students must have in order to run for school or class office and in deciding what will be the school rules for personal appearance. Fifty-seven per cent of all the teachers held this opinion for determining grades to be required of students planning to run for school or class office and 63 per cent for rules on personal appear- ance. Male and female teachers were not in agreement on what should be the extent of student involvement in deciding the rules for personal appearance. Half of the male teachers felt students should have less say than teachers and the principal in making this decision; only one-fifth of the female teachers were of the same opinion. Two-thirds of the teachers with students of above average scholastic ability thought students should have no say in deciding whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour. No student voice was the expectation of only 17 per cent of the teachers with students of average and below average scholastic ability. 59 Discipline Most teachers felt students should have less say than teachers and the principal or no say at all in dis- ciplining students.15 Sixty—three per cent of the teachers favored less or no say for students in deciding if students are innocent or guilty of breaking school rules; 58 per cent felt the same way about deciding what to do about students who have been found guilty of break- ing school rules. However, the seven teachers repre- senting School D thought students should have at least an equal voice in making these two decisions. All of the teachers who taught mainly freshmen felt students should have some say in deciding what to do about students who have been found guilty of breaking school rules. However, quite a few teachers, 22 per cent of those who taught mainly sophomores and mainly juniors and 46 per cent of the senior teachers, felt students should have no say at all in making this decision. Curriculum About half of the teachers felt students should have less say than teachers and the principal in select- ing books for the school library and in determining which courses will be offered by the school.16 An equal voice 15Table 4.3, page 53. 16Table 4.3, page 53. 60 for students was favored by a sizeable minority of the teachers, 44 per cent for the decision on selecting books and 38 per cent for selecting courses. Selection of New Staff Members More than seventy per cent of the teachers felt students should have no say in the selection of new staff members.17 None of the teachers indicated students should have more say than teachers and the principal or complete say. Classroom For all six items in the classroom category, two- thirds or more of the teachers said students should have less say than the teacher or no say at all.18 Least stu- dent involvement was indicated for determining what is "failing" work in a course; more than half of the teachers thought students should have no say at all in making this decision. There was a great deal of consensus among teachers with mainly eleventh grade students on the decision of what to do about students who break classroom rules; 89 per cent favored less say for students than for the teacher. Consensus among tenth grade teachers, in com- parison, was very poor. Thirty—nine per cent of the tenth 17Table 4.3, page 53. 18Table 4.3, page 54. 61 grade teachers said students should have no say in making this decision; 30 per cent, less say; 17 per cent, an equal say; 9 per cent, more say; and 4 per cent, complete say. Projections of Students An Overview In Part II of the students' questionnaire, stu- dents were asked for their projections on how they thought most teachers felt about student voice in decision making for various school activities. The questions in Part II were the same as those in Part I except that they began, "How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have . . ." Students were instructed when answer- ing questions to think of all the teachers in their school rather than of specific teachers. The 24 items in Part II have been grouped into the following six categories: extra-curricular activities, rules and restrictions, discipline, curriculum, selection of new staff members, and the classroom. The mean and rank order of the students' projections for each category are given in Table 4.5. Students thought that teachers felt student involvement in decision making should be greatest in the areas of extra-curricular activities and curriculum and least in the selection of new staff members. The means for these categories indicate that students projected 62 muooh Hoonom on» H.O H.OH O.mm O.HO O.OH O Oeacso oHon on on O.N O.H OH NO OO OO ON a mooeoe Ho Honest one .m O.m H.H N.mm O.NO H.OH o NoEoHOoue NHH O O.H O OH OO HOH om e -Eoooo Ho oeooeoo one .O meoom Hoonom on» OCHHCU e m e O O OH H.OO O.mN e OHoe on on ooHHn OH N.H OH OH HO HNH OO O -Eoomo Ho Hones: one .m O.H n Cm. MH®> o.O O.OH o.OO O.HO H.O O NHooeoo one On oocoeeo H O HH 0 O.N O.H O OO OHH OO OH O on HHH3 maaHo eoHOz .N O.H u muomommzoc Hoonom coo: HHoHo>O H.O H.OH O.NO O.mm O.H e ogo OH OooeHHe on ooHHH>Hoo< O.N O.H HH NO OHH OO m e ooe HHH3 Ono HHH3 pone .H coHsoHccao-ocoxc ”Ochoono\OCHcHooc CH o>on chonm mucocccm Hoow muonooou umoE xCHnu 50% 0c mom nocE 30m ”mucoccum on ucoEoDoum .O .mom oc o>on pHConm mucocsnm NH .HomHoCHHm onD cco muonooou conp mom mmoH o>on chonm mpcocopm “N .HomHoCHHQ onn cco muonooop mo Oom nocE mo o>on chonm mucocoum NO .HoQHoCHHm onu cco muonooou conu Oow oHOE o>on chonm oncocsum NO .Oom opoHQEoo o>on cHoonm oncocspm "mchoom Hoonom oHonB ”4 coHuoom HOV HOV ANV HHO HOV m\m xcom coo: EoDH Confisz coo: ouoom noom COO EoHH oOoucooHom cco mococvoum OHOOouoU EoDH oHHoccoHumoCO noom How Hoceo ncom coo: cco .Coo: .momcommom mo CoHuanuumHo mococcoum "mcoHnooOoum .mucoccumnlm.O mnmem oEep =ooem= mo pccoEo oce meson cooc ocu oceesc Hoocom o>ooa on ©o3oHao on HHHB mucowcum nonwocz OOHHoc ono OH ooOoHO Imeo on :oE moecuoem oco moveuoc coecz mmcexOEm MOM moHcH Hoocom ocu on HHHB poaz Omommom HHoc mo omc ocu Hem moficn Hoocom ocu on HHHB non: moocoeoommo HocOmHom How moasu Hoocom ocn on HHH3 uocz mmooemmo mmoao no Hoocom MOM csn on Hoono ca o>oc umcE mucoosum moooum oce .vH .MH .OH m H xgmm HHNHQN/O N.H H “mm: HHMHmKVO chOuoeuumom Uco moasm 64 maoocom o n xcom Haouo>o x O0 O0 O. OO Oi a g H OH HMQHOCHHQ 3®C 4Q .mH Gmmz HHMH$>O O.O O.H H.O O.OH O.HO O OHoonoo ozo On ooOHO OOoOEoz OOOOO ON O.O O O OH NO NOH O on oo ouosoooo 3oz .OH 3oz Oo coHoooHoO O O O O O O mOH H O O O O O OO N OO O OH O OHoogoo ozo OO O O.H O ON HOH HO NO O ooOoOOo on oo ooocsoo .OH xcom HHoco>o mkaMHQHH CM®2$1~MW$>O O.O O.HH O.OO O.ON O.OH O Hoogoo ogo OoO HH O O.H OH NO OOH NO OO O ooOoOOo on oo oxoom .OH esHooOOOoo mmoacu Hoocom mcfl Ixooun mo muaflcm UcDOM m.¢ I O.H O.O O.OH O.ON O.OO O coon o>os 0:3 mocoo OOOO HHomo>o OH O.O O O OO OO OOH O loom ozono oo 0» poo: .NH . O.O n nmofisu Hoocom mcflxooun O.O 0.0 O.ON N.OO O.OO O O0 OOHOOO Oo ocoo coo: HHOOo>o O.OH O.O O OH OO OO HOH O -oOOO oOo mocoosoo OH .HH ocOHOOOOHO AOO AOO ONO AHO AOV O\O xcom Hones: Gmwz Emmz whoom Somm MOM EmfiH EwwH \wHOOwHMU omoucoouom wco wococvoum .woccflpcoollm.v mqmde 65 Hm om NH m.o H.v Ha mucowcum Hoom muocooow umOS xcflcu :0: CU mom £056 30: H.OH m.mm h.mm m hm an ooa m b.mH 5.5m m.mm m cm Hoa moa m h.mm h.Hm N.mm m mm mm mm m m.hH H.mm N.mm m mv NOH moa m m.m H.mm m.m¢ m mm vm MMH m h.ma N.Nw m.am m om MHH «m m momucoo o ca OOog =OOHHHOO= mH poo: mmoasu Eooummoao xoonn ocB mucoc Icum ucono ow ou pocz NmmHDH EOOHmmMHU momncoo o ce wows on Op mxoom won HHOB omucoo o cw xuozoeoc ocu posz momecoo o ce UoHo>oo on HHOB coca nmcflxo8\mcflmooco\mcflofloo© ca o>oc cacocm m.O n xcom HHoHo>O m.o n coo: HHoHo>O .H Eooummoau "mucowcpm Op ucoEoeoum .o .mom oc o>oc UHcocm mucoosom OH .uocooou ocu coca mom mood o>oc oHcocw mucoocum ON .Oocooou ocu mo :om coca mo o>oc cacocm mucoocum Om cocu how one: o>oc nacocm mpcoosum O .Hocooou ocu v .>om opoHQEoo o>oc wacocm mucoosum "mceuoom Eooummoau "m coOuoom 66 considerable but not equal voice for students in decisions involving extra-curricular activities and the curriculum, both with a mean of 1.6, and hardly any student participa- tion in the selection of new school personnel (mean 0.4).19 The means for students' projections in the three other categories were rules and restrictions, 1.2; disci- pline, 0.9; and classroom, 0.9. Interestingly, none of the means for the six categories exceeded 2.0, the value assigned to students should have as much say as the teacher or the teachers and the principal. Evidently, students thought teachers felt decisions in all categories should be primarily an administrative and faculty respon- sibility rather than a student responsibility. Also included in Table 4.5 are the mean and mean rank of the students' projections for each item. None of the 24 item means exceeded 2.0, the value given to stu- dents should have as much say as the teacher or the teachers and the principal. The mean scores for ten of the students' projec- tions (42 per cent)were less than 1.0, the value assigned to students should have less say than the teacher or the teachers and the principal. These items were from the rules and restrictions, discipline, selection of new staff members, and classroom categories. 192.0 is the value assigned to students should have as much say as the teacher/teachers and the principal; 1.0, less say; 0.0, no say. 67 There was very little consensus among students in their projections for individual items. This was especially true for their projections for the decision on whether students will be allowed to leave the school grounds during the noon hour. Extra-Curricular Activities As indicated in Table 4.5, most students thought teachers favored an equal say or less say for students than for teachers and the principal in making decisions 20 The projection involving extra-curricular activities. of 78 per cent of the students was for equal or less say for students in deciding what will and will not be printed in the school newspaper. Equal or less voice was the projection of 75 per cent of the students for the decision on which clubs will be offered by the school, of 64 per cent for the number of assemblies to be held, of 71 per cent for the content of assembly programs, and of 67 per cent for the number of dances to be held. Rules and Restrictions For all but one of the seven items in the rules and restrictions category, the projection of a majority of the students was that students should have less say than teachers and the principal or no say at all.21 20Table 4.5, page 62. 21Table 4.5, page 63. 68 Seventy per cent of the students were of this opinion for the decision on the grades students must have in order to run for school or class office, 56 per cent for what will be the school rules for personal appearance, 79 per cent for what will be the school rules for the use of hall passes, 89 per cent for what will be the school rules for smoking, 53 per cent for which notices and pictures may be displayed in the halls, and 72 per cent for the amount of "free" time given to students during the school day. A majority of the students thought teachers favored at least an equal voice for students in deciding whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour. However, the students were not in agree- ment on their projections. Twenty-one per cent of the students thought teachers favored no say for students; 26 per cent, less say for students than for teachers and the principal; 26 per cent, an equal say; 13 per cent, more say; and 15 per cent, complete say for students. Students differed according to school attended in their projections for the decision on whether students will be permitted to leave the school during the noon hour. Eighty-two per cent of the students in School A thought teachers felt students should have at least an equal voice in making this decision. Only 23 per cent 69 of the students in School B, 42 per cent in School C, and 50 per cent in School D shared the same projection.22 There were also a few exceptions to the general pattern of response of less say or no say at all for students. The projections of a majority of the sophomores and the seniors was for at least equal student voice in deciding what will be the school rules for personal appearance. For several of the items, students with mainly D's and some C grades thought teachers favored greater student involvement than did students with higher grades earned. Discipline The projection for most students on disciplining students was that teachers favored no say or less say for students than for teachers and the principal.23 Seventy- four per cent of the students projected less or no student involvement for deciding whether students are guilty or innocent of breaking school rules; 77 per cent for decid- ing what to do about students who have been found guilty of breaking school rules. Greatest student involvement in disciplining students was projected by underclassmen and by students 22There was also a difference in students' expec- tations according to school attended for this item. See page 48. 23Table 4.5, page 64. 70 with low grade averages.24 The percentage of freshmen who projected equal or greater say for students on both items was more than twice that for juniors and for seniors. The greater voice for students was the projec- tion of 65 per cent of the students with mainly D's and some C grades for deciding whether students are innocent or guilty of breaking school rules. In constrast, only 6 per cent of the students with mainly A grades were of the same opinion. Curriculum The projection of about two-thirds of the students was that students should have an equal voice or less voice than teachers and the principal in deciding which books will be ordered for the school library and in determining the courses to be offered by the school.25 For both items, nearly one—fifth of the students projected no say at all for students. Selection of New Staff Members Approximately three-fourths of the students thought teachers favored no say at all for students in the selec- tion of new teachers and a new principal to be hired by 26 the school. Less than ten per cent of the students 24Students with mainly D grades and below were an exception. 25Table 4.5, page 64. 26 Table 4.5, page 64. 71 thought teachers believed students should have at least an equal voice in the selection of new staff members. Classroom The projection of most students on classroom activities was that students should have less say than the teacher or no say at all.27 Seventy—four per cent of the students were of this opinion for what will be covered in a course, 85 per cent for what the homework in a course will be, 77 per cent for the books to be used in a course, 65 per cent for classroom rules, 77 per cent for what to do about students who break classroom rules, and 86 per cent for what is "failing" work in a course. For all items in the classroom category, greater involvement was projected by ninth and tenth graders than by eleventh and twelfth graders. Students with D's and some C grades projected greater student involvement than did students with higher grades earned. Projections of Teachers An Overview Teachers were asked in Part II of their question- naire for their projections on how they thought most students felt about student voice for various school decisions. The questions in Part II were the same as those in Part I except for the addition of "How much say 27Table 4.5, page 65. 72 ciC) you think most students feel . . ." to the beginning c>ff each question. Teachers were instructed to think in t:eurms of the total student population of the school, not jtasst of students in their classes. The 24 items in Part II have been grouped into tinea same six categories as in Part I. The category means earufl their rank orders are given in Table 4.6. Teachers felt students wanted their greatest :irrvolvement in making decisions concerned with extra- <311rricular activities (mean 2.6) and rules and restric- t:ix:ns (mean 2.4). Next came curriculum with a mean of 2.0.28 The category with least student involvement .iIICiicated was the selection of new staff members. A Rhagjority of the teachers thought students favored a liassser say for students than for teachers and the prin- CEiEDal (mean 1.1).29 Most teachers gave less say or an equal say for Stindents as their projection for the items in the class- r‘DCDni category (mean 1.6). The same was true for the Category on discipline (mean 1-9) - \ }1 283.0 is the value assigned to students should 2aVe more say than the teacher/teachers and the principal; ‘ 0 . as much say. 11 292.0 is the value assigned to students should ave as much say as the teacher/teachers and the principal; , less say. 73 meooh Hoonom one . o.mN O.NO O.mm m.v 0.0 m oceesc neon on 0e N m N NN Om mN v o m moocop mo nonficc one .m O.NH O.HO N.OO O.NH O.O O OoEouOoOO OHn m.o O.N Ha mN mm OH o m IEommo mo ecoecoo one .O . . . . . meooh Hoonom one mceecc O O.N OOO OOMO OHWO OOMH OOO m oHon on on OoHHn IEommo mo eonEcc one .m H u co o o N.OH 0.00 O.ON O.O 0.0 O OHoonoo one On ooOoOOo n O HH O >6 m m.N we HO ON m o m on HHHB mncao noenz .N m.N n . . . . . meomomm3oc Hoonom coo: Heoeo>o . m om w mm 0 mm m m o o A one ce ooeceem on moeee>eeo¢ O O N we mm mm o o O eoc Hafiz oco HHHB eon: .H eoecoeechIoeexm ”mcemoono\mcepeoo© ce o>on oeconm mecoocem Hoow mecocoem emoE xcene so: on mom nocE 30m "meonoooe 0e ecoEoeoem .o neon oc o>on oeconm mecoocem OH .Homeoceem one cco meonoooe cone :om mmoa o>on ceconm mecopcem ON .Homeoceem one oco meonoooe mo mom nooE mo o>on oeconm mecoocem Om .Homeoceem one cco meonoooe cone how oHOE o>on oeconm mecocsem “v ~mom oeonEoo o>on oeconm mecoccem "mceeoom Hoonom oeonz "m coHeoow AOV AOV Ame AH: non O\O xcom coo: eonfisz xeomoeou coo: oeoom noom How EoeH omoecooeom cco mococvoem coo: Uco .coo: .momcommom wo coHesneeemeo mococwoem EoeH oeeoccoeemoco no om Hem eooeo Mcom ucheeoomoem .meonoooeulm.O mqmde 74 m.ma HH O.N H.0N MN «.HH OH v.HH 0H O.HH 0H N.mv mm m v.mm Nm m.Hm wN N.mm Hm m.mH 5H m.MN HN N.mm Hm N.mm Hm v.mN mN v.mN mN N.mm Hm v.0m Nm o.mm Om m.va ma O.NO hm m.ON ma o.m m.mH OH m.MN HN m.MN HN meow Hoonom one mceecp mecoo usem 0e co>em oEee =ooee= mo eccoso one meson cooc one mceecc Hoonom o>ooe 0e ooonHo on Hafiz mecocoem eoneonz OHHon one nH ooOOHO Imep on :oE moeceoem oco mooeeoc noenz mmceonm HOe mofice Hoonom one on HHHB eon: mmommom Oeon e0 own one now moace Hoonom one on Hae3 eon: moocoeoommo HocOmeom Hoe moece Hoonom one on Hafiz eon: mmooemmo mmoao e0 Hoonom How cse 0e eooeo ce o>on emsE mecoocem mocoem one .OH .MH .OH N H Mcmm HHMHQN/O w.N H Gmmz HHMHGN/O chHeoeeemom cco woes: 75 O H xcmm HHMH®>O m.N 0.0 m.mH m.Om H.Om O mHoonom one an coeHn H.H u m MN H H N o OH mm om O on 0e HoOHocHeO 3oc d mH coo: HHoeo>o O.N o.m 0.0N 0.0m m.Hm O OHoonom one On coeHn meonEo: eeoem m.MN H.H N O OH mm mN O on 0e meonoooe 3oz .OH 3o: e0 coHeooHom . . . . . . m n . . H H m mN O mm O OH O O O oHoonom one NOn xcom HHoeo>o m MH 0 N H HN OO OH O O coeoeeo on 0e momecoo .OH . . . . . OOOOOnHH noo O Nowo> . . O m O NN M NO O OH O O O Hoonom one How : HH 0 m MH 0 N m ON OO OH O O ooeoceo on oe mxoom .mH EchoHeeco OmoHoe Hoonom mconoen O.O N.OH O.OO O.HN O.HH O O0 OeHHOO onsoe O u O OH O H m OH 0O OH OH O coon o>on on3 mecoo xcom HHoeo>o Idem eoono on 0e eon: .NH . . . . . OmoHce Hoonom mcHnooen coo O.Howo> . . O m m mN O OO m OH o O O OO meHHcm e0 ecoo : HH 0 m mH o N m HN 0O OH O O :occH oeo mecoocem OH .HH ocHHmHoch OOO OOO ONO AHO OOO O\O xcom coo: EoeH eonEcz meomoeoo coo: oeoom noom How EoeH omoecooeoO cco mococwon .ooccHecouulm.O memee 76 o.H m.H o.H O.wN mN N.MO mm m.mO HO m.Om mm O.NO Om m.oO HO m.mO 0O N.mm Hm N.mm Hm N.MO mm o.mm mN o.OO mm m.ON mH (CI-«O4 lit-«04 NGmHDOO m H.H.“ MHOB =OnHHHoO= mH eon; mmoHcH EooemmoHo nooen on3 mecoo Idem econo on 0e eon: OmoHce EooemmoHU Oomecoo o cH come on oe mxoom Oon HHHB omecoo o cH OHOBoEon one eon: Oomecoo o cH poeo>oo on HHHB eon: umconE\mchoono\mchHooo cH o>on cHoonm o>on pHconm mecoccew mecoccem Hooe mecocsem ewOE xcHne so: on how nUDE 30m .O .O .O .O m HI: xcom HHoeo>O N O.H u coo: HHoeo>O .H EooemmoHU "meonoooe 0e ecoEoeoem .o ~Oom oc .eonoooe one cone Oom mmoH o>on UHconm mecoccem N .eonoooe one mo mom nose mo o>on chonm mecoocem Om cone Oom oOOE o>on oHconm mecocoem u EooemmoHU Om coHeoom .eonoooe one O .Oom oeoHOEoo o>on pHconm wecocsem "mcHeoom 77 Also included in Table 4.6 are the means and mean ranks of the teachers' projections for each of the 24 items. Fifteen of the item means (63 per cent) were greater than or equal to 2.0, the value assigned to stu- dents should have as much say as the teacher or the teachers and the principal. None of the mean scores for individual items was less than 1.0, the value assigned to students should have less say then the teacher or the teachers and the prin- cipal. The lowest mean score, 1.1, was for selecting new teachers and a new principal to be hired by the school. Extra-Curricular Activities As indicated in Table 4.6, the projection of about three-fourths of the teachers on all five items in the extra-curricular activities category was for an equal say or more say for students than for teachers and the prin- <:ipal. Seventy-three per cent of the teachers projected eequal or more say for students in deciding what will and vvill not be printed in the school newspaper, 76 per cent for which clubs will be offered by the school, 78 per (Zenat for the number of assemblies to be held during the sChool year, 75 per cent for the content of assembly pro- EJIEams, and 70 per cent for the number of dances to be hEild during the school year. 30Table 4.6, page 73. 78 Teachers with mainly senior students and with 13 or more years of teaching experience projected less stu- dent involvement for deciding on the number of assemblies to be held during the school year than did their col- leagues. Forty-six per cent of the senior teachers and 39 per cent of those with 13 or more years of teaching experience gave less say for students as their projection. Female teachers projected greater student involve- ment in extra-curricular activities than did male teachers. The percentage of female teachers giving a response of complete say for students was at least 13 per cent greater than the percentage for male teachers on all items in the extra-curricular activities category, except for the decision on what will and will not be printed in the school newspaper. .Rules and Restrictions For all activities described in the rules and arestrictions category, most teachers felt students favored ait.least an equal voice for students.31 Eighty-four per czemwt of the teachers gave at least an equal student voice €353 their projection for determining the grades students rullst have in order to run for school or class office, 5’33 per cent for what will be the school rules for personal appearance; 74 per cent for what will be the school rules 31Table 4.6, page 74. 79 for the use of hall passes, 67 per cent for what will be the school rules on smoking, 82 per cent for which notices and pictures may be displayed in the halls, 86 per cent for whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour, and 75 per cent for the amount of "free" time given to students during the school day. Greatest student involvement was projected for deciding what will be the school rules for personal appearance. A substantial minority of the teachers (43 per cent) thought students wanted complete say in making this decision. Fifteen per cent of the teachers of mainly seniors thought students felt they should have complete say in determining the school rules for personal appearance. In contrast, 50 per cent of the freshmen teachers, 39 per cent of the sophomore teachers, and 56 per cent of the junior teachers projected complete say for students in Inaking this decision. There was very little consensus among teachers vvith 13 or more years of teaching experience. For example, (:11 rules for the use of hall passes, no say at all for £31:udents was the projection of 15 per cent of this group; ileass say, 23 per cent; equal say, 15 per cent; more say, 3233 per cent; and complete say for students, 23 per cent. Female teachers thought students felt they should hei‘ve considerable more voice in decision making than was 80 indicated by male teachers. Complete say for students was a much more popular response with female teachers than it was with male teachers. Discipline The two most frequently given responses for the teachers' projections on discipline were equal say and more say for students than for teachers and the princi- pal.32 Sixty-nine per cent of the teachers gave the projection of equal or more say for students in deter- mining whether students are innocent or guilty of break— ing school rules; 64 per cent gave this projection for the decision on what to do about students who have been found guilty of breaking school rules. There was not much consensus among teachers with 13 or more years of teaching experience in their projec- tions for discipline decisions. For deciding whether students are guilty of breaking school rules, for example, the projection for 15 per cent of this group was no say at all for students; for less say, 15 per cent; for equal say, 23 per cent; for more say, 31 per cent; and for com— plete say for students, 15 per cent. The projections of male teachers were for less student participation in decision making than were the projections of female teachers. Thirty-eight per cent 32Table 4.6, page 75. 81 of the males as compared to 13 per cent of the females felt students desired a lesser say than teachers and the principal in determining whether students are guilty of breaking school rules. For deciding what to do about students who have been found guilty of breaking school rules, 46 per cent of the males and only 16 per cent of the female teachers gave a lesser voice for students as their projection. Curriculum Slightly more than half the teachers thought students wanted an equal say in selecting books for the library and in selecting the courses to be offered by the school.33 One-fourth of the teachers felt that students favored the greater voice. Over three times the percentage of female teachers (42 per cent) as compared to male teachers (12 per cent) thought students wanted the greater voice in selecting the courses to be offered by the school. Selection of New Staff Members About 70 per cent of the teachers projected that students wanted no say or less say for students than for teachers and the principal in selecting the new teachers 33Table 4.6, page 75. 82 and a principal to be hired by the school.34 Equal say was the projection of one-fifth of the teachers. Classroom The projection of most teachers was that students should have an equal say or less say than the teacher in making classroom decisions.35 This was the projection for 88 per cent of the teachers on deciding what will be covered in a course, 75 per cent on what will be the homework, 81 per cent on the books to be used, 82 per cent on classroom rules, 78 per cent on what to do about stu- dents who break classroom rules, and 74 per cent on what is "failing" work in a course. Greatest student involve- ment was indicated for classroom rules; least for what is "failing" work in a course. Students' and Teachers’ Expectations Compared An Overview In Part I of the questionnaires, teachers and stu- dents were asked for their expectations on how much say students should have in making school decisions. The 24 items in Part I dealt with decisions involving extra- curricular activities, rules and restrictions, discipline, curriculum, the selection of new staff members, and the classroom. “A 34Table 4.6, page 75. 35Table 4.6, page 76. 83 The mean for students' expectations exceeded the mean for teachers' expectations on all items, indicating students favored greater student involvement in decision making than did teachers. Table 4.7 gives the means for students' and teachers' expectations, their difference, and the rank order of the difference for each item. A visual representation of the difference between item means is provided in Figure 4.1, page 89. The greatest difference between expectation means was for deciding whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour. The mean was 2.9 for students' expectations and 1.1 for teachers' expectations, a difference of 1.8 on a 5-point scale. It would appear from these two means that students in general favored more say for students than for teachers and the principal in making this decision; whereas, teachers favored less say for students than for teachers and the principal. Actually, many of the responses given for this item were from the two extremes, no say and complete say. Twenty- four per cent of the teachers thought students should have no say at all while 40 per cent of the students thought they should have complete say. The difference between means for students and teachers was 1.0 or greater for three other expectations. Students and teachers disagreed on what should be the extent of student involvement in deciding the amount of 84 0.0 O.m N.mm m.mm m.N O O.H o m Hm om N O e Oeoom Hoonom one OcHeoo . . . . . oHon on oe moHHn O H O O o OO o Om O O O . . NN N.+ O.H O ON ONH HO HN O O -Ooooo eo eonOOO one O 0.0 0.0N 0.00 0.0H 0.0 O e N.N m ON OO OH O O OHoonom one On coeomeo 0.0H H.ON O.HO O.HH 0.0 O o H3 m 0 0O . NN N.+ O.N OO OO NHH HO O O O n HH. nOH n .n: N H.H o.OH 0.00 N.OO 0.0 O e O.H H OH HO Hm o O OeoOoOmBoc Hoonom O.OH N.OO O.OO H.O O.O O one OH oonHeO on oc H3 co H3 o . O O.+ O.N OO OO ONH HH H O O e HH. o HH. e n3 H moHeH>Heom eoHDOHechIoeexm ”oconE\Ochoono \OchHooc cH o>on mecoccem cHoonm Oom nosE 30m ”meonoooe cco mecoocem oe ecoEoeoem .o .Oom oc o>on oHconm mecopoem OH OHoOHocHeO one cco meonoooe\eonoooe one cone Oom mmoH o>on chonm mecopcem ON OHoOHocHHO one cco meonoooe\eonoooe one mo Oom nocE mo o>on pHconm mecopcem Om .HoOHocHeO one cco meonoooe\eonoooe one cone Oom oeoe o>on chonm mecoocem “O OOom oeoHOEoo o>on chonm mecoccem ”mcHeoom eoceo mmocw coo AOV Amy “NV AHV on O\O e\m So .02 xcom I cww:a : oeoom noom How eH EoeH oOoecooeoO Uco Oococwon EoeH noom Hoe Hoceo xcom cco .moocoeoewHQ coo: .mcoo: OmochOmoO O0 oOoecooeoO cco Oococvon ”coeoOEoo mcoHeoeooOxm .meonoooe Uco .mecoosemauO.O mqmde 85 m.MH NN ON o.H+ o.O m.O NH O.m m.Nm Om O.m o.O ON H.H m.w OH H.H 0.0 HN H.H m.m OH m.m o.ON mO O.m H.MH mm O.mH OH O.mm MOH 0.0 O.MN Om o.mm ON O.om mMH O.HH OH m.HN 0.0m OO N.ON MO 0.00 NO N.mm OO m.Nm mO N.NM Om o.Om Hm m.mO ONH O.mm OO m.HN Om 0.0M ON m.wN HO m.N© mm H.mm NOH H.Om om 0.0H ON m.Om mm m.ON OO 0.0N mN H.O HH O.Hm mN 0.0N mm m.mm om m.mm wO H.©N MN m.mH FAIL END-I [1404 [1404 OO E1434 £1404 £1404 OO C1434 Cum FAQ-4 IMO-t 13.494 OmHHon one cH coOoHOme on OoE mouse IUHO cco moOHeoc noan .OH OOcHnoEm Hoe moHce Hoonom one on HHH3 eonz OmommoO HHon e0 own one How moHce Hoonom one on HHH3 eon: OoocoeooOOo Hoc0meoO How moHcH Hoonom one on HHH3 eon: Oooneo mmoHo eo Hoonom How can oe eooeo cH o>on emcE mecoccem mocon one .o mcoHeOHeemoO cco moHcO OeooO Hoonom one OcHecc UHon on oe moocop mo nonficc one OmEonon OHn sEommo mo ecoecoo one .m .O 86 H.H O.N O.OO O.OO O.N O e O.H H N OO OO N O O O eoenHH Hoonom one N.OH O.ON O.OO 0.0H N.N O eo oeo eO o o O oo . O.O O.+ O.N OO OO OOH OO O O O O o o n e n O OH EDHSOHHOSU H.H 0.0 H.OO O.OO O.OH O e OOoHoe HoonoO OOHnooen O.H H O om Om OH O O0 OeHHcO occoO . . . . . Cmmn ®>m£ 053 m#fiwU N O O O N OO H ON O ON O ID 50 . ON H.+ O.H OH HN OO OO OO O O eO e no oo oe eon: NH O.O O.O O.HO O.OO H.O O e m.H o m ON OO O O OmoHce Hoonom Oconoen . . . . . O0 OeHHsm mo ecoo O O O OH O OO O NN O OH O . IOCCH m m C . O.OH O.+ O.H OH ON OOH OO ON O O . e Oe ooon OH HH OOOOOHOOOO O.O H.H N.OH O.NO O.ON O e O.O O H OH OO ON O NOoo HoonoO one OOHOOO O.OH O.OH N.NO H.ON 0.0 O O OenwmmwO WW ”mmwmoomWw .OH O.N H.H+ O.N OO OO OHH OO ON O = = O.O O.O N.OH O.OO O.ON O e OOOon OooO H.H O O OH OO HN O one OOHeOo HoonoO O.OO O.OH O.HO H.O O.O O o>ooH oe ooonHo on m H3 mflflm Dflm Hm #m . H O.H+ O.N OOH OO OO OH O O HH o n n3 OH Oooeo OooOo OOO OOO ONO OHO OOO O\O e\O .oz Ieomwao coo: EoeH xcmm CMOX wHOUW £06m MOM EweH oOoecoOHoO Uco Oococwon .UoscHeCOUIIO.O mqmée 87 0.0 0.0 mH o.O M.O mN mm 0.0H mH O.NM M.OH OH 0.0M OOH O.M 0.0H NO 0.0M MM 0.0M MOH 0.0m om N.MM Om O.MO Om 0.00 mHH O.MO mO 0.0M mO o.OH mH O.NN 0O o.mN NN H.ON 0O m.Nm OO O.HH NM H.ON MN 0.0H mm H.ON MN O.NN Om 0.0 H.MH mM 0.00 0O N.Nm OOH O.HO MO o.Mm NOH [um END; [140-1 [1404 [1494 (CI-ID: [14m Inna Cum FAQ; E1404 lit-«Q: m Oomeooo o cH mom: on oe mnoom .m Oon HHH3 omecoo o cH neozoEon one eon: .N Oomecoo o cH coeo>oo on HHHB eonz .H EooemmoHU NHoonoO one On ooeHn on oe HoOHocHeO 3oc O .OH NHoonoO one On ooeHn on oe meonoooe 3oz .OH meonEo: Owoem 3oz mo coHeooHom B NHoonoo one On poeomwo on 0e momhsou .OH 88 .wnoHeoeoomxo .muonoooe How nooE one none mmoH moB mCOHeoeoomxo .menowzem Hoe nooE one moHMHanm anm manE d .mnoHe noeoomxo .meonoooe Hoe nooE one none Hoeooem moz mnOHeoeoomxo .menoUDem How nooE one moeooH©:H anm msHm < .noHeooeHU moeoUHUnH Hoeofidn nooo manoooem cmHm one« 0.0 H.H o.o o.mm m.mm o a o.O o n n om on m m.o m.m N.Om n.om m.em o mooesoo o ne H03 and Ho ma o . m m.+ o.e Ne mm no mo em o m n = .e. e: . e n3 o H.H >.m e.m~ 0.0m m.om o a m.n e m ON on me o moonse gooeooono nooen on3 menoU m.n o.m o.mo o.m~ o.me o I5 m .30 O O . m.oe m.+ e.e nm «N mmn «o om m m e e no o e eonz m 0.0 m.m e.om n.mm o.me o a H.H o N mm mo on m m.o H.MH o.om o.nm o.m o . . m mo 5H Eooemmo U o o.+ m.e he mm omn mm om n o e e o eooeo -mwmmwn coo: nev Amy ANV any non o\o B\o aoee .oz xnom . oeoom noom How . EoeH nooz omoenooeom Unm monoswoem .wosneenoonuh.v mqmne 89 menovnem can muonoooe mo EooummoHo va muonEoz memem 3oz mo noHeooHom Amy EaHsoHHHDU Avv mnoHeoeoomxm one How moeoom nooZIIH.¢ mmome onenoeooea Ame onceeoeeeoom ono omega Amy moeeH>Heo< HMHSUHHHDUImeexm AHV u mecoosem I I I I I I n muonomoa mHonEsz EoeH oHHonnoHemoso non Amy any any Amy new omvmm H_mH>H_mHmH_NHHH_va mmhmm vm NH all. x e . \ I / x V, I e / \o\ .l/ \ / \l / \\\ /\ \ / AIH /I e .\ e /I. \\.III. / I I. \ , xx, x / /\ .\\ x \ /\ / \ .IN /\ .fm SHEEN 90 "free" time given to students during the school day. Most students felt they should have at least as much voice as teachers and the principal (mean 2.0); teachers thought students should have less say than teachers and the prin- cipal (mean 1.1). Over half of the teachers favored less say for students than for teachers and the principal or no say at all for students in selecting the courses to be offered by the school (mean 1.4). On the other hand, over 85 per cent of the students felt they should be given at least an equal voice in making this decision (mean 2.5). A considerable difference in expectations also existed for the decision on what will be the school rules for personal appearance. Over half of the students favored more say for students than for teachers and the principal or complete say for students (mean 2.8); only 13 per cent of the teachers were of the same opinion (mean 1.8). For the remaining twenty items, the difference between expectation means ranged from a low of 0.1 to a high of 0.9. In all six categories of items, there was at least one item with a mean difference of 0.6 or greater. Extra-Curricular Activities As indicated in Table 4.7, the difference between students' and teachers' expectations for extra-curricular 91 activities was greatest for the decisions on what will and will not be printed in the school newspaper and for the number of dances to be held during the school year.36 Nearly half of the students (49 per cent) thought students should have complete say or more say than teachers and the principal in deciding what will and will not be printed in the school newspaper; only 18 per cent of the teachers were of the same opinion. More than three times the percentage of students (62 per cent) as teachers (18 per cent) felt students should have the greater voice in determining the number of dances to be held during the school year. Differences for the three other items in the extra-curricular activities category were relatively small. Rules and Restrictions In the rules and restrictions category, the dif— ference between students' and teachers' expectations was most apparent for the decision on whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour.37 Nearly three-fourths of the teachers but only one-tenth of the students favored no say at all for students or less say for students than for teachers and the principal. 36Table 4.7, pages 84 and 85. 37Table 4.7, pages 85 and 86. 92 Forty per cent of the students thought students should have complete say in making this decision. Eighty-one per cent of the teachers, as compared to 30 per cent of the students, felt students should have less say or no say at all in deciding the amount of "free" time given to students during the school day. For deter- mining what will be the school rules for personal appear- ance, 60 per cent of the students and only 13 per cent of the teachers thought students should have the greater voice. For the decision on which notices and pictures may be displayed in the halls, almost three times the percentage of teachers (56 per cent) than of students (21 per cent) favored less say for students than for teachers and the principal. For determining what will be the rules for the use of hall passes, nearly twice the percentage of teachers (63 per cent) than of students (38 per cent) indicated less say for students. The trend was much the same for rules on smoking; 57 per cent of the teachers as compared to 36 per cent of the students thought students should have no say in making this decision. The difference between students' and teachers' expectations for the decision on the grades students must have in order to run for school or class office was only slight in comparison to those for other items in the category. 93 Discipline Fifty-three per cent of the teachers as compared to 22 per cent of the students thought students should have less say than teachers and the principal in deter- mining whether students are innocent or guilty of breaking school rules.38 Half of the students and about one-third of the teachers favored an equal voice for students. There was very little difference between students' and teachers' expectations for the decision on what to do about students who have been found guilty of breaking school rules. Curriculum Fifty-two per cent of the teachers thought stu- dents should have less say than teachers and the principal or no say at all in selecting the books to be ordered for the school library.39 Only 17 per cent of the students were of the same Opinion. The pattern was much the same for selecting the courses to be offered by the school. Fifty-eight per cent of the teachers and 14 per cent of the students felt students should have less say than teachers and the prin- cipal or no say at all. 38Table 4.7, page 86. 39Table 4.7, pages 86 and 87. 94 Selection of New Staff Members A majority of both teachers and students felt that students should not be included in the screening and selection of new staff members.40 Seventy-two per cent of the teachers and 53 per cent of the students said stu— dents should have no say in selecting the teachers to be hired by the school. The percentages for no student voice on choosing a new principal were 80 per cent for teachers and 52 per cent for students. Classroom Nearly three-fourths of the teachers (74 per cent) thought students should have less say than the teacher in deciding what will be covered in a course.41 Thirty-five per cent of the students were of the same opinion. Over twice the percentage of teachers (72 per cent) as compared to students (31 per cent) thought students should have less say than the teacher or no say at all in determining classroom rules. Seventy—one per cent of the teachers and 37 per cent of the students felt students should have less say or no say at all in deciding what to do about students who break classroom rules. For deter- mining the homework for a course, a majority of students (66 per cent) and teachers (90 per cent) felt 4OTabie 4.7, page 87. 41Table 4.7, pages 87 and 88. 95 students should have less say than the teacher or no say at all. For books to be used in a course, nearly half of the students (47 per cent) thought students should have at least an equal voice; only 17 per cent of the teachers agreed. Forty-four per cent of the students and just 9 per cent of the teachers favored at least an equal voice for students in deciding what will be con- sidered "failing" work in a course. Students' Projections and Teachers' Expectations Compared An Overview One of the purposes of the study was to determine whether the expectations of most high school teachers for student voice in decision making were accurately perceived by students. This was accomplished by comparing the expectations indicated by teachers in Part I of their questionnaire with students' projections for these expec- tations as given in Part II of the students' questionnaire. The comparisons involved 24 items. Table 4.8 gives the difference between mean scores on individual items for students' projections and teachers' expectations. A visual representation of these differ- ences is provided in Figure 4.2, page 101. For seven of the items (29 per cent) the mean for students' projections exceeded the mean for teachers' expectations. That is, 6 9 o.O h.m N.mm m.mm m.N nH v.H o m Hm om N m B m muoom Hoonom one neeso neon on oe ooaen e.m e.o o.an e.ma a.m~ a Isoooo o no a o . a N.. ~.e on on em ewe mo m m e nae n9 m a.m a.m~ «.mm m.ae 0.0 a e N.N m mm ea me o m a . . . . . mHoonom one Q poeommo m a.- o.e 0mm aewe comm mawm new m m on nee; onaeo noenz .m H.H e.ee o.oa N.mm 0.0 a e m.H H mH Hg Hm o m meomommzon Hoonom e.a e.me a.ma a.mm a.e a one ne ooeneem on m.em o o.n en ma mne mm m m m eon eee3 one neez eon: e moHeH>Heom uoHsoeuesu ouexm umanoE\mnHmoon0\mnHoHoop nH o>on menopsem oHsonm how nODE 302 "mnonoooe Oe enoEoeoem umanoE\mnHmoon0\mnH©Hoo© nH o>on pHsonm menoosem Hoom muonoooe emoE nane so» on Now nUDE 30: "menopsem oe enoEoeoem .o .mom on o>on oHsonm menopsem “H .HoQHonHeQ one ono meonoooe\uonoooe one none how mmoH o>on pHsonm menoosem “N .Homeoneem one Uno muonoooe\eonoooe one mo mom nose mo o>on UHsonm menopsem um .HoQHonHum one can meonomoe\eonoooe one none mom ouoE o>on oHoonm menopsem “v .Nom oeonEoo o>on UHsonm menoosem "mneuoom gooeo .ooao lac Ame lac Ans nos o\a e\o .oz IHoMMHQ nooz EoeH xnom nooz ouoom noom Mom EoeH omoenoouom ono Nonosvoum EoeH noom MOM eooeo nnom pno .moonouomMHo nooz .mnmoz .momnommom we omoenoouom paw Nonosvomm "ponoQEOO mnoHeoeoomxm .meonomoa ono mnoHeoofloem .menoosemIIm.v mnmne 97 «H vH m.h vH m.H m.H m.H ¢.H h.m m.v MH ¢.mH vH h.mH Nv o.m e H.b mH o.mm mN H.MM em v.HH OH 0.0 0.0m vw H.mN we e.hv Nv m.NN Hm m.Nm ow m.mm mm o.mm Hm N.mm mm h.mm mv m.mm 50H 5.0m 5N H.MN No m.Nw mm m.em OOH H.vm om v.mm mOH m.hm mm m.ov mOH v.mN mN m.Hm vm m.Hm mN 5.5m HOH m.mm om h.mw 05H H.0N mN m.Hv NHH v.m N.NH mv e.m m.mN me H.H h.mH om {LID-I [LID-I fi-IDI ELIQI fi-IDI tum [LII-14 Inf-LI Ill-404 tun. CI-IOI Cr-IDI EI-IQI E1494 moeeon one ne posoea Ime on hoe woeseOHm Unm mooeeon noenz mmonOEm e0“ moHse Hoonom one on HHHB eon: moommom HHon mo om: one MOM moHse Hoonom one on HHH3 eon: moonoeoommo Honoweom Hoe moHse Hoonom one on HHH3 eonz mooeeeo mmoHo e0 Hoonom How can oe eooeo ne o>on emDE menoosem moooem one .OH .o mnOHeoeeemom pno moHnm memo» Hoonom one oneesp neon on 0e moonoo mo Monasn one mmfioemoem eHn IEommm mo enoenoo one .m .q H.H m.~ m.aa 0.0m m.m o e m.H H N mm vv N m meeoeneH . . . . Hoonoo one now a a a an m on a om m.ee o mm 00 . an e.+ o.e me mm ace me ea n m o n on n oe onoom me EsHsoeeeso H.H m.o H.em m.ov o.ee m e mmoese Hoonoo mnexoonn m.e e o em om me n no meeesm onnoe . . . . noon o>on onz meson a e a m m an o em o.ee a Lem SOMO O m . m.m m.- o.O m a ea an mme n o e e n o e e n2 an 0.0 e.m m.em a.mm e.e o e m.e o m mm ee m n mooeae econoo onenooen mo heHasm e0 enoo 0.0 e.m a.m~ m.om e.em n . IOCC O.H.mwcwsw . m a.- a.e e on em ea Hoe n m e e p e en en 8 oneHmHomHQ 9 O.O H.H N.ee m.mm a.mm o e a.o o e on we mm n axon noonoo one onenan . . . . . mecoosem 0e no>am oEHe e a e a a an m em H mm o . . OOH O O m . an n.+ O.H en en mm can so n m a e. e enn no ne an m.a e.m N.me 0.0m a.mm a e meson noon H.H o m we we Hm m one mneeso Hoonoo o.ae a.me e.mm e.mm m.om a o>ooe oe ooBOHHo on m H3 meno new no eo . n e.+ m.e am om me am mm m an o n n: me nopeo Imwwmwa noon nae Ame Ame nee on m\n B\m noeH .oz ncom . oeoom noom How EoeH nooz ommenooeom onm monoowoem .CoSGHenOUIIm.v mHm on w.hh MON o.He mm o.Hh NmH CI-ID-I EI-IQI Cum Fun: $1494 [1494 B404 F1404 CHI-II [LID-I E1491 EI-IO-I m momesoo m CH com: on 0e mnoom .M won HHH3 omesoo m CH neozoeon one eonB .N momesoo o ne ooeo>oo on HHHB eonz .H EooemmoHU mHoonom one we erHn on 0e Homeoneem 3o: n .MH mHoonom one an poeen on oe meonoooe 3oz .hH meonEoz wwoem 3oz mo COeeooHom B m meoonoo one an poeowmo on 0e momezoo .mH 100 .mCOeeoeoomxo .meonoooe eow nooE one none mmoH moz mnoHeoomoem .menoosem eoe noon one moeooeonH nmem msnea n .mnoeeoeoomxo .meonoooe now nmoE one poooooxo mnoHeoomer .menoosem Hoe nmoE one moeooeonH Hmeofidn one mnHooooem anm msHQ 4* o.O H.H o.m o.MM M.Nm m B o.O o e e am we n o.~ H.H n.ee m.em e.am n moonnoo o ne neoz . one do we o . mo“ O 000 Nu m N.N HR. owufi om m = .H. Mn. - g £3 m H.H e.m e.mm o.Om m.om n e N.n e m em ea me n nooese noonoooeo nooen on3 menop n.o a.m e.me e.em o.am o .5 o so 8 o o o . m.e m.- a.o m a om nee men n m e e n n e e n2 m 0.0 m.~ n.o~ e.mm a.me n e H.H e m mm ea an n m.e a.a n.em e.nm «.mm o .oo an nooeooo . m.em o H.H a me en mm me n m o e no a noono .oono lac Ame nae nee nee n\n e\o .oz nnom Ieoweeo coo: oeoom noom How EoeH EoeH nmoz ommenooeom pno monosvoem .UoDCHeGOUIIm.v mqmde 101 mnoeemeoomxm .meonomoe can mnoeeoonoem .menocsem now moeoom nmozIIN.v mmoon nooeooneo nos oneeoeooen Ame meonEoz emoem 3oz mo noeeooHom Amy , mnoHeoeHemom ono moHam ANV Enesoeeeso new ooeee>eeo< eoesoenenonoeexm nee meonasz EoeH oewmnnoeemoso Amy Ame Ace Amy Amy “Hy m.m¢ MNH MHBH mHmHNH HH_v.H MHOHm who—mv M L h .LN J..—I _ _ 1 J i I I Ir 4)- 1b. suesw 102 on these items students projected greater student involve- ment than was indicated by teachers. For all but one of the seven items, the difference between means was small, only 0.1 on a 5-point scale. The exception, the decision on whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour, had a mean difference of 0.7. For eleven of the items (46 per cent) the mean for students' projections was less than the mean for teachers' projections. On these items, students projected less voice for students in decision making than was actu- ally desired by teachers. The mean differences ranged from a low of 0.1 to a high of 0.5. There was no difference between means for students' projections and teachers' expectations on six of the items (25 per cent). Four of these items dealt with activities in the classroom. The greatest difference between teachers' expec- tations and students' projections (0.7) was for the decision on whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour. Seventy-four per cent of the teachers thought students should have the lesser say in making this decision (mean 1.1). A majority of the students (54 per cent) thought teachers favored at least an equal voice for students (mean 1.8). 103 Extra-Curricular Activities For four of the five items in the extra-curricular activities category, the expectations of teachers for stu- dent voice in decision making exceeded the projections made by students.43 The one exception was the decision on what will and will not be printed in the school newspaper; there was no difference between the mean scores for teachers' expectations and students' projections on this item. For determining which clubs will be offered by the school, eighty-five per cent of the teachers favored at least an equal voice for students. Sixty-two per cent of the students indicated they thought most teachers were of this opinion. Only two per cent of the teachers thought students should have no say in deciding the number of assemblies to be held during the school year. Yet, the projection for one-fourth of the students was that most teachers favored no student voice. Ninety-two per cent of the teachers felt students should have either less say than teachers and the principal or equal say in making this decision; this was the projection of 64 per cent of the students. For deciding the content of assembly programs, two-thirds of the teachers felt students should have at 43Table 4.8, pages 96 and 97. 104 least as much say as teachers and the principal. However, a majority of the students (56 per cent) thought teachers favored a lesser voice for students. A majority of the teachers (52 per cent) thought students should have as much say as teachers and the principal in determining the number of dances to be held during the school year. Equal voice was the projection of 37 per cent of the students. Rules and Restrictions Students underestimated the student involvement desired by teachers for the decisions on the grades stu- dents must have in order to run for school or class office and for the school rules for personal appearance.44 Fifty- seven per cent of the teachers thought students should have at least an equal voice in determining the grades required of student officers; this was the projection of only thirty per cent of the students. For rules on personal appearance, half of the teachers favored as much say for students as for teachers and the principal; equal voice for students was the projection of 29 per cent of the students. Students thought teachers favored greater student involvement than they actually did in deciding whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon 44Table 4.8, pages 97 and 98. 105 hour. A lesser voice for students was the expectation of 74 per cent of the teachers and the projection of 46 per cent of the students. For deciding what will be the school rules for the use of hall passes, there was no difference between mean scores for teachers' expectations and students' projections. However, there were definite differences in the frequency distributions of the responses. No say at all for students was the expectation of 26 per cent of the teachers and the projection of 42 per cent of the students. The expectation for 63 per cent of the teachers and the projection for 37 per cent of the students was for less say for students than for teachers and the principal. The differences between teachers' expectations and students' projections were only slight for decisions on what will be the school rules for smoking, which notices and pictures may be displayed in the halls, and the amount of "free" time given to students during the school day. Discipline Students underestimated the student participation favored by teachers in making discipline decisions.45 A substantial minority of the students (38 per cent) thought 45Table 4.8, page 98. 106 teachers did not want students to have any say in decid- ing whether students are innocent or guilty of breaking school rules. Only 9 per cent of the teachers actually indicated they thought students should not have a voice in making this decision. Half of the students thought teachers favored no say at all for students in determining what to do about students who have been found guilty of breaking school rules. Seventeen per cent of the teachers gave no say for students as their expectation. Curriculum The difference between the means for teachers' expectations and students' projections was only 0.1 for both curriculum items.46 For selecting books to be ordered for the school library, 98 per cent of the teachers thought students should have at least some voice. Yet, the projection for 18 per cent of the students was for no student voice. Ninety-four per cent of the teachers favored at least some voice for students in selecting the courses to be offered by the school. Nearly one-fifth of the students (19 per cent) thought most teachers did not ‘want students to have any voice at all in making this decision. 46Table 4.8, pages 98 and 99. 107 Selection of New Staff Members Students fairly accurately predicted teachers' expectations for the selection of new staff members.47 Classroom Although there was no difference in the mean scores for teachers' expectations and students' projec- tions on the decision of what will be covered in a course, there was a difference in the frequency distributions of the responses.48 The expectation of nearly three-fourths of the teachers (74 per cent) was that students should have less say than the teacher. A minority of the stu- dents (42 per cent) correctly estimated the opinion of the teacher majority. Twice the percentage of students (50 per cent) as teachers (26 per cent) gave the response of no say at all for students in deciding what the homework in a course will be. Sixty—four per cent of the teachers favored less say for students than for the teacher; 35 per cent of the students gave less say for students as their projection. There was no difference between mean scores for teachers' expectations and students' projections for classroom rules. However, one-third of the students thought most teachers favored no say for students when 47Table 4.8, page 99. 48Tabie 4.8, pages 99 and 100. 108 actually just 16 per cent of the teachers were of this opinion. Students underestimated the student participation desired by teachers in deciding what to do about students who break classroom rules. Almost twice the percentage of students (40 per cent) as teachers (21 per cent) gave a response of no say at all for students. Differences between teachers' expectations and students' projections for deciding what is "failing" work in a course and for selecting the books to be used in a course were only slight in comparison to the differences for other items in the classroom category. Teachers' Projections and Students' Expectations Compared An Overview A comparison was made of the expectations of stu- dents as indicated in Part I of their questionnaire with the teachers' projections for these expectations as given in Part II of the teachers' questionnaire. The purpose was to determine whether the expectations of most high school students for student participation in decision making were accurately perceived by teachers. The com- parison was made for 24 questionnaire items. Table 4.9 gives the item means for teachers' pro- jections and students' expectations, their differences, and the rank orders of the differences. A visual a.e m.o o.ee e.am o.e a o.e m mm ome em em n m a memo» eoonoo one . . . . . neenp neon on 0e ooeen m e.+ m.~ emm oowm meme meme eoo m e unoooo no nonnsn one .m o.ee e.m~ o.ea o.ee o.m n v.~ am we Nee em m n o a NHOOSOw 0£# Q thmwwo m.oe o.oa m.am e.m 0.0 a . . e on eee3 onseo noenz m m.m s.+ o N we ea om m o n e.oe N.mm m.os e.a s.e n o.~ me am ame ee e n m anoaomozon eoonoo m.em m.am o.mm m.o 0.0 n one ne poeneem on 03 H3 Gm H3 6 . m.e~ e.+ e.m we mm mm o o n e e ee. 8 ee. e n: e moeeH>Heo¢ eoHdOHeedUIoeexm 9 m umanoE\mnHmoono\mnHUHoo© nH o>on menopsem pHsonm wow nOSE 30m "menopsem oe enoEoeoem umanoE\mnHmoon0\mnH©Hoo© nH o>on pHsonm menopsem Hooe menopsem emoE anne :0» on how no:E 30m ”meonoooe 0e enoEoeoem .o .eom on o>mn pHsonm menopsem “H .HomHonHem one pno meonoooe\eonoooe one none mom mmoH o>on oHsonm menoosem “N .HomeonHednonenfibomeonoooe\eonoooe one on wow nUSE mo o>on UHsonm menopsem “M .HomHonHem one pno meonoooe\eonoooe one none mom oeoE o>on stonm menopsem “v ammo oeoHQEoo o>mn UHsonm menoosem “mneeoom eobeo «oono Ave AMV ANV AHV nov m\m e\m .02 no IHOwMHQ cooz w 0 EoeH o n m nooz e um noom How E eH omoenooeom ono monoswoem EoeH noom Hoe eooeo nnom ono .moocoeoeeen nooz nmnooz .momnommom e0 ommenooeom ono monoswoem ”ooeomaoo mnoHemeoomxm .menoosem one mnoHeoofloem .meonoooeIIm.v mqmme 110 MH MH O.N H.h MH «.HH oH M.M MN «.HH OH m.w NH v.HH 0H M.NM BM N.Mv MM o.m VN M.M m.MN MM o.MN NN M.M NH M.NH HH M.MH mv N.MM HM M.h HN M.mH 5H M.M 5H m.MN HN o.MN me N.MM HM H.MH MM N.MM HM v.MM MOH O.Nv BM m.MN «M M.HM MN v.0m MMH N.MM HM M.HN mm «.mm NM M.MM om M.MM vM N.NN Mb M.vH MH N.MM em O.Nv 5M N.MM MM v.MN MN M.Mv vNH N.Mv MM M.HN hm M.MH VH m.MN He M.MN HN H.MM NOH m.MN HN M.OH MN M.M m.MN mm H.m H.v HH m.v v m.ON mm M.NH HH m.v NH M.N M.MM mm H.m M.MH rem [HQ-4 ELICu £1404 E1404 E1404 E1404 END-I FI-ID-I [HQ-d IMO-I ELIQI Fun-I BIO: mmeeon one ne nonoea ImHo on woe woeseon Uno moOHeon nOHnB mmanOEm HOe moHse Hoonom one on HHH3 eon: mmommom HHon.mo own one How moHse Hoonom one on eee3 eons moonoeoommo Honomeom How moHse Hoonom one on HHH3 eonz moOHewo mmmHo e0 Hoonom eoe nse oe eooeo CH o>on emza menoosem moooem one .oH .M mnoHeoHeemom pno moHsm memo» Hoonom one sneeze neon on oe moonoo mo eonEsn one meoemoem mHn IEommo mo enoenoo one .m .v lll ~.ee «.mm 5.0a o.ae N.N a a.m we we aee am e n m osnonnee . . . . . Hoonom one How a m e mm m m m M.M v.I O.N M 0N MM meHH eMM m e nonopeo on De mnoom .MH EsHsoHeesu N.m o.e N.om e.om o.sm o m mooene eoonoo onenoonn a.e ae em no on so n no seeesm onnoe v.m N.MH m.mv ®.HN V.HH m weme m>mn 033 meflwmu m.o a.+ o.e m oe ea ae ee n e Iseo enono on oe eons .me e.o H.Oe «.Om O.NN a.oe n m m.e we mm mme am we n mooese eoonoo onenooen a.m m.mm m.ma m.ae o.o o no seeesm no enoo ee N.+ O.N m em ea ee e n s Ionne one menooseo ee .ee oanmHomHQ s.me o.ae N.Na e.om e.a n m O.N om am mee am om n axon eoonom one sneeze . . . . . menoosem 0e no>Hm oEHe me m.+ M.N mace ammm smmm mama mea m e aooeea no ennono one .ae M.ov m.eH e.HM H.h o.M m m meson noon M.N MOH Mv MM mH M m one mnHe5© Hoonom . . . . . o>ooH 0e noBOHHo on me m.- o.m emmm mmwm ammm one emm m e eee3 menopseo eoneonz .me «oono new Ame ems nee on m\n H\m . eoneo leowmeo nooz EoeH oz xnom noon oeoom noom now EoeH omoenooeom ono mocosvoem .nosneenOUIIa.e nemne 112 M.HN eH MH M.H H.M h.M OH M.N v.MH we H.H H v.0H MN h.M M.M MH M.NH HH M.M MN N.OH M.M M.HM MM M.MN HN M.NM NM M.hM MM o.MN hm O.Nv 5M M.MM MOH M.Mv Hv M.MH Hv M.MH NH n.MH Nv M.ON MH v.MM MOH M.MM he N.MM MM N.Mv MM o.vv MHH M.MM MN v.MM MM M.ov MM M.NN OM M.NM MM H.MN on M.hM MM M.HH NM M.MH vH M.MH MM M.NH HH O.NN MM H.M H.MH MM M.N N.NM ovH H.MM 0M M.MM NvH M.HM MN EI-IQ-I ELIOI [LOO-l E1494 [14m Luna [HQ-d ELIQI [HI-14 E1404 lit-IQ: ELIQI m momedoo o e CH mom: on 0e mnoom .M m won HHH3 omesoo o e CH nHOBoEon one eonz .N m momesoo m CH e ooeo>oo on HHHB eon: .H EooemmoHO m MHoonom one en poeHn e on oe HomHoCHem 3oC n .MH MHoonom one en poeHn e on oe meonoooe 3oz .eH meonEoz emoem 3oz mo CoHeooHom m meoonoo one en e poeowmo on 0e momesoo .MH 113 How CooE one moeMOHUCH CMHm mCCHE m mCoHeoonoem .meonoooe How CooE one moeooHpCH HoeoECC one MCHpooer CMHm mCHQ Ce .mCOHeoeoomxo .meCoUCem MOM CooE one Cone mmoH mos mCOHeoofloem .meonoooe .wCoHeoeoomxo .meCopCem Hoe Coon one woooooxo m.s m.m N.om H.8m N.eN o a.e Ne mN em ma em n m N.N s.m a.mN m.ma o.ON a Nomenoo o ne neoz MCe em . He N.- N.e N m mN es me n e a .e. e: we eon: o m.e O.N a.ma a.NN a.me o e.e eN «N mNe so om n o Nooesn nooeoooeo a.m o.m N.Na N.mm N.Oe o nooen ons oenon lsm SONG O m . m.eN e.- o.e m H mm em a n e e e n o e e n2 m m.o e.me 0.0m o.eN o.a o m a.e ee mm eme om aN n N.N o.me o.os N.mm N.N o .oo an nooeooo . m.eN e.- m.e N Ne ea em N n e a e eo e oOCo Avv AMV ANV AHV on m\m e\m . eooeo « oz xCom. Iewmwwo Coos oeoom nomm How EoeH EoeH omoeCooeom oCo MOCoCMoem .ooCCHeCOUIIM.v memde 114 representation of these mean differences is provided in Figure 4.3, page 115. For 17 of the items (71 per cent) the projection of teachers was for greater student involvement than was the expectation of students. On all items in the extra- curricular activities, discipline, and selection of new staff members categories and for all but one item in the rules and restrictions category, teachers overestimated the participation in decision making desired by students. The greatest overestimates were for decisions on the number of assemblies to be held, school rules for the use of hall passes, and school rules for smoking. For these three items, the difference between means was 0.7 on a 5-point scale. For the seven remaining items (29 per cent), the mean for teachers' projections was less than the mean for students' expectations. On these items, teachers under- estimated the participation desired by students. Under- estimates were given for the two items in the curriculum category, for 4 of the 6 items in the classroom category and for l of the 7 items in the rules and restrictions category. The difference between means ranged from a high of 0.5 to a low of 0.1. Extra-Curricular Activities For all items in the extra—curricular activities category, the projections of teachers exceeded the 115 mCoHeeeoomxm .meCoosem CCo mCOHeoomoem .meonoooe How moeoom CoozIIM.v mmstm EooemmeHU Ame meonEoz weeem 3oz mo CoHeooHom AMV ECHCoHeeCU evv u meCoUCem meonfidz EoeH oHHoCCoHemoCO Amy Ame nee nmv ANV oneeneooee Ame onoeeoeeeoom ene ooenm nNV moHeH>Heo¢ eoHCOHeHCUImeexm AHV meonomoe em em Ne_ee ee_eeme_Neee_semeeea we omen e < 1 4 j 4- 0%“ u—+ nr—qr Jp—J- u 0 w a Li Fe u’IJ- ” w :.I I e I \ z . . \ //. \ / \.\ /l\\ \ / o \I/ /||l. / \/ 5.” / x l .I .\ \ \\/ / \ / \ /\ / / / /\ / \XI /\ o m Lwfi sueew 116 expectations of students.49 This was especially true for the decision on the number of assemblies to be held during the school year. The projection of a sizeable minority of the teachers (38 per cent) was for the greater say for students in making this decision. Only 11 per cent of the students actually thought they should have the greater voice. Nearly two-thirds of the teachers (65 per cent) projected either more say for students than for teachers and the principal or complete say for students in decid- ing which clubs will be offered by the school. However, a majority of the students (53 per cent) thought students should have either an equal say or less say than teachers and the principal in making this decision. The expectation of two-thirds of the students was for either less say or an equal say for students in determining the content of assembly programs. Forty-four per cent of the teachers thought students wanted more say than teachers and the principal or complete say. Differences in response patterns between students' expectations and teachers' projections were insignificant for decisions on what will and will not be printed in the school neWSpaper and the number of dances to be held during the school year. 49Table 4.9, pages 109 and 110. 117 Rules and Restrictions The mean for teachers' projections exceeded the mean for students' expectations on all but one of the items in the rules and restrictions category.50 The greatest difference (0.7) was for school rules for the use of hall passes and for rules on smoking. A majority of the students (53 per cent) felt students should have the lesser voice in deciding the school rules for hall passes. However, most teachers (74 per cent)thought students favored at least an equal voice for students. For rules on smoking, the expectation of 62 per cent of the students was that students should have the lesser voice. Again, the teacher majority (67 per cent) thought students wanted at least an equal voice in making this decision. More than three-fourths of the students felt they should have less say than teachers and the principal or an equal say in deciding the grades students must have in order to run for school or class office. Only about one- fifth of the students thought they should have the greater say. However, the projection of a sizeable percentage of the teachers (42 per cent) was for the greater voice for students. 50Table 4.9, pages 110 and 111. 118 For the decision on which notices and pictures may be displayed in the halls, the expectation of 76 per cent of the students was for equal say for students or a lesser say than for teachers and the principal. Nearly half of the teachers (47 per cent) thought students favored the greater voice. Teachers also overestimated the participation desired by students for deciding the amount of "free" time given to students during the school day. Sixty-two per cent of the students thought they should have less say or an equal say in making this decision. Quite a few teachers (47 per cent) gave more say for students than for teachers and the principal or complete say for students as their projection. For the decision on whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour, teachers underestimated the participation desired by students. Forty per cent of the students thought they should have complete say in making this decision; complete say for students was the projection of 26 per cent of the teachers. The expectation of 18 per cent of the students and the projection of 32 per cent of the teachers was for more say for students than for teachers and the principal. The differences between students' expectations and teachers' projections for school rules on personal 119 appearance were slight in comparison to the other items in the rules and restrictions category. Discipline Teachers overestimated the involvement students wanted to have in making decisions dealing with disci— pline problems.51 For deciding whether students are innocent or guilty of breaking school rules, the expec- tation of most students (87 per cent) was for a lesser say or an equal say for students. Yet, the projection of 27 per cent of the teachers was for more say or com- plete say for students. Just over half the students thought they should have a lesser voice than teachers and the principal in deciding what to do about students who have been found guilty of breaking school rules. Forty-six per cent of the teachers projected an equal say for students; twenty- two per cent thought students favored the greater voice. Curriculum For courses to be offered by the school, 47 per cent of the students thought students should have the greater voice. Only one-fourth of the teachers gave as their projection a greater voice for students.52 51Table 4.9, page 111. 52Table 4.9, pages 111 and 112. 120 Differences in the pattern of response for stu- dents' expectations and teachers' projections were slight for the decision on the books to be ordered for the school library. Selection of New Staff Members The frequency distribution of responses for teachers' projections and students' expectations differed only slightly for the two items in the selection of new staff members category.53 Classroom The greatest difference between students' expec- tations and teachers' projections in the classroom cate- gory was for deciding what will be the homework in a course.54 Teachers overestimated the participation desired by students in making this decision. Approxi- mately two-thirds of the students thought they should have the lesser voice. A majority of the teachers (58 per cent) thought students favored at least an equal voice. For all other items in the category, the differ- ences were slight between students' expectations and teachers' projections of these expectations. ¥ 53Table 4.9, page 112. 54Table 4.9, pages 112 and 113. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS This chapter begins with a summary of the present study's findings. The summary is followed by a discussion of the implications of the findings. Suggestions for addi— tional research are made at the conclusion of the chapter. Summary of Major Findings Table 5.1 is used to summarize the major findings of the present study. Included in the table are the item means for students' expectations,l teachers' expectations, students' projections2 and teachers' projections. Com- parisons made of these item means are also contained in Table 5.1. For convenience and ease in reading, symbols have been used in Table 5.1 to denote the expectations and projections. SB represents the students' expectations for student voice in decision making; TE’ the teachers' expectations. SP is used to denote the students' projec— tions of the expectations of teachers; TP’ the teachers' projections of the expectations of students. lExpectation refers to an opinion of what should be. 2Projection is defined as a prediction of the views of another person or persons. 121 122 .aeo Hoonom one MCHuso menooneo M.+ H.+ v.HI O.H+ M.HI H.H+ M.N o.H M.o o.n oe Co>HM oEHe gooey: uo eCCoen .vH . . . meson Coon one MCHuCo o>eoH 0e M I e + M HI H.H+ M.I M.H+ M.N M.H H.H M.N ooaoHHe on HHH3 oenooaeo uoneonz .MH . . .oeeen one ne eoseenoee on v + H + o.HI M.+ M.I m.+ v.N M.H v.H O.N hes nouCeUHm oCe oooHeon noHn3 .OH .MCHxOSm Mow e.+ H.I v.HI m.+ M.HI eu+ o.N M.o o.O M.H moHCe Hoonoo one on HHH3 eenz .M .mommea HHen no one one new e.+ o M.HI o.+ M.HI m.+ N.N M.o M.o M.H moHCe Hoonoo one on HHH3 een: .M .ooneueomae HeCOmuom no“ M.+ n.I M.HI M.H+ M.HI O.H+ H.M M.H M.H M.N moHCu Hoonoo one on HHHB eenz .h .ooHueo mmeHo eo Hoonom eOw Can oe uooeo M.+ M.I h.I e.+ N.HI N.+ M.N H.H M.H M.H CH o>en emCE menoosem mooeuM one .M mnoHeUHuemom one moHCm .eeoa Hoonom one MnHeCo H.+ H.I o.HI o.H+ H.H: M.+ M.N M.H M.H M.N . oHon on oe mooneo e0 Hones: one .m m.+ v.I o.I e.+ O.HI M.+ ¢.~ v.H M.H H.N .mEeeMoem NHnEomme wo enoenoo one .e .ueox Hoonom one MCHeCo oHon N.+ N.I M.I v.+ H.HI N.+ M.N N.H v.H M.H on oe moHHnEoome mo eonECC one .M .Hoonom o.+ v.I e.I e.+ e.eI N.+ e.N o.e N.N v.N one en eononeo on eeez onseo noenz .N .uomemmson Hoonom one CH e.+ o a.I e.+ a.I m.+ H.N e.e e.e e.N eoenenn on eon eee3 ene eeez eenz .e MOHUH>HUU¢ HQHDUHHHDUIMH¢XM .o .xem on o>en oHConm menoosem “H .HedHonenQ one one muonoeoe\eonoeoe one nene xem mmoH o>en oHCono menoosem “N .HeQHoCHeQ one one meonoeoe\eonoeoe one we wen nose we o>en oHsonm menoosem “M .HemHonHeQ one one meonoeoe\eonoeoe one nene xem onE o>en oHsonm menoosem "v .xem oeoHQEoo o>en oHConm menoosem "mnHeoom no I as we I no on I we no I no on I no me I mm an am we no muonoeoe menoosem mnoHeoofloeC mcoHeeeoonm .oz 80 MCOMuowfiOHQ UH gmUH mo heeesoon meonueoe menoozem mnoHeoohoeC mnoHeeeoomxm on o o C o n o m u H a moonouowuHC neoz one mneoz "mnoHeoofloum one mCoHeeeoomxm .muonoeoe one .meCooCew uo ooez CowHeeQEOOIIH.M mnmne 1223 .meonoeoe oHo Cene eCoEo>Ho>CH enoosem mmoH oono>ee menoosem .osne .oCe mCoHeeeoono .meonoeoe ecu neoE one Cene mmoH me3 mnoHeeeoono .menoosem How CeoE one eene oeeUHoCH oHCOB me I mm new CMHm mCCHE n .meonoeoe oHo Cene meCoosem ecu eCoEo>Ho>CH eoeeoeM ooeo>ew oeCooCem .mH eene emCoHeeeoono .meonoeoe now CeoE one ooooooxo mCOHeeeoono .menoosem new neon one eene oeeoHoCH oHsoz me I mm new CMHm msem e .oHaEexo eon .CoHeoouHo moeeoHoCH HeeoECC noeo MCHooooem CMHm oneo e.I M.+ N.H w.o o.O v.H .omusoo e CH neo3 :MCHHHewe oH eon: .w .moHse Eooummeeo neoun e.I M.+ M.H M.o N.H e.e on3 menoosem esone 0o 0e eenz .M e.I M.+ M.H H.H H.H M.H .moHCe Economeeu .v M.I w.+ v.H M.o M.o M.H .omesoo e CH oom: on 0e mxoon one .M .on HHH3 O.HI v.+ e.H e.o M.o N.H omnsoo e CH xeososon one een: .N M.I v.+ M.H H.H H.H M.H .omeaoo e CH ooeo>oo on HHH3 eenz .H HMMMMMMflw .Hoonom one en M.I e.+ H.H M.o N.o M.o ooeHn on oe HeQHUCHum 3o: n .MH .Hoonom one e.I M.+ H.H v.0 M.o M.o xn ooan on oe meonoeoe 3oz .eH mnonEoz meeem 3oz mo noHeuoHow .Hoonom one O.H+ m.I H.H+ O.N M.H v.H M.N en ooeoweo on De momesoo one .MH .xeeunHH Hoonom v.I M.+ O.N M.H M.H v.N one new ooeooeo on 0e mxoom .MH ECHCUHeeCU .moHCu Hoonom MCeroen e0 >eHHCM oC50e Coon o>en O.HI H.+ M.H m.o M.H v.H on3 menoosem esone oo 0e eenz .NH .moese Hoonom MCeroen e0 eeHHCM H.HI M.+ O.N M.o M.H M.H no enooonnH one menoosem eoneonz .HH oneemeooee 124 As previously mentioned, students' and teachers' responses were assigned numerical values for statistical analysis. "Students should have complete say," was assigned a value of 4; "Students should have more say than the teacher/teachers and the principal," 3; "Students should have as much say as the teacher/teachers and the principal," 2; "Students should have less say than the teacher/teachers and the principal," l; and "Students should have no say," 0. Students' Expectations As indicated by the item means for students' expec- tations in the SE column of Table 5.1, students felt they should be given an active role in making school decisions which affect them. However, they felt that the extent of student participation should vary, depending upon the activity involved. Thus students indicated that they should have a greater voice than teachers and the princi- pal in deciding whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour (mean 2.9) but should have practically no voice at all in the selection of new teachers to be hired by the school (mean 0.8). At least an equal voice for students was the expectation of most students for decisions concerned with 125 the curriculum and extra-curricular activities.3 In matters dealing with discipline and the classroom, stu- dents were divided between an equal voice for students and less voice for students than for the teacher or the teachers and the principal. Least student involvement was indicated for the selection of new staff members; half of the students felt students should not take part in this activity. The results for decisions on rules and restric- tions were mixed. A student majority thought students should have the greater say in determining the rules for personal appearance and in deciding whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour. For determining the rules for smoking and the use of hall passes, however, a student majority felt students should have the lesser voice. Teachers' Expectations For most school activities, teachers indicated a willingness to have students share in the decision making process. However, it was felt by teachers that student involvement should be less than that of teachers and the principal. The item means for teachers' expectations are given in Table 5.1 under the column headed TE' 3Curriculum and extra-curricular activities are two of the six categories of items. The other four are rules and restrictions, discipline, selection of new staff members, and the classroom. 126 Teachers felt student voice in decision making -/ should be greatest in the area of extra—curricular activi- ties. An equal voice for students was the most popular response given by teachers in the extra-curricular activi- ties category, closely followed by the response of less say for students than for teachers and the principal. For curriculum and discipline decisions, teachers were divided between equal say and a lesser say for students, with slightly greater number of teachers preferring the latter. A lesser voice for students was definitely the choice of teachers for student decision making in the classroom. Not surprisingly, teachers generally opposed any student involvement in the selection of new staff members. As was true for students, the findings for the expectations of teachers on rules and restrictions were mixed. They ranged from practically no student voice for determining smoking rules (mean 0.6) to equal or less student voice for deciding on the rules for per- sonal appearance (mean 1.8). Students' Projections As indicated by the means for students' projec- tions4 in column SP of Table 5.1, students thought teachers favored less involvement for students in school 4Projection is defined as a prediction of the view of another person or persons. 127 decision making than for teachers and the principal. The individual items with the greatest amount of student participation projected by students were the decisions on what will be printed in the school newspaper, which clubs will be offered by the school, the number of dances to be held, and whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour--all with a mean of 1.8.5 The projections given most often by students on these four items were an equal say for students and leSs say for students than for teachers and the principal. Three of the items were from the extra-curricular activities category. For the six categories of items, students pro- jected greatest student involvement for extra-curricular activities and the curriculum. The two most popular student projections for these two categories were an equal say for students and less say for students than for teachers and the principal. Projections of no say and less say for students were common in the discipline and classroom categories. Projections in the rules and restrictions category ranged from a student majority predicting teachers favored an equal or greater voice for students in deciding whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon 52.0 is the value assigned to students should have as much say as the teacher/teachers and the principal; 1.0, less say. 128 hour (mean 1.8) to a student majority predicting teachers favored no say at all for students in determining school rules for smoking (mean 0.5). The category with least student involvement projected by students was the selec- tion of new staff members; three-fourths of the students thought teachers favored no say at all for students. Students' projections differed according to school grade level and grades earned for a few of the items. Teachers' Projections The projections of teachers on individual items varied, depending upon the particular activity involved. Teachers' projections of the expectations of students ranged from a greater say for students than for teachers and the principal in deciding what will be the school rules for personal appearance (mean 3.1) to a lesser say for students in the selection of new teachers to be hired by the school (mean 1.1). The item means for teachers' projections are given in the TP column of Table 5.1. Teachers felt students wanted their greatest voice in making decisions concerned with extra-curricular activities. The projections most often given by teachers for items in the extra-curricular activities category were an equal say and a greater say for students than for teachers and the principal. These projections were also popular for items in the rules and restrictions and the curriculum categories. 129 For classroom decisions, most teachers projected less say or an equal say for students. The same was true for decisions on discipline. Least student involvement was projected by teachers for the selection of new staff members. Most teachers thought students favored a lesser say for stu- dents than for teachers and the principal. Responses differed for male and female teachers. For almost all items, females predicted greater student involvement desired by students than did males. There was very little consensus among teachers with 13 or more years of teaching experience. Students and Teachers' Expectations Compared Students and teachers were definitely not in agree- ment in their expectations of what should be the extent of student participation in decision making. For all items, students favored greater student involvement in decision making than did teachers. This is indicated by the plus sign preceding the mean differences between stu- dents' expectations and teachers' expectations in the SE - TE column of Table 5.1. The mean difference between students' expectations and teachers' expectations was greatest for decisions on the rules for personal appearance, the amount of "free" time given to students, whether students will be permitted 130 to leave school during the noon hour, and the courses to be offered by the school. For these items, the difference between means was 1.0 or greater on a 5-point scale. It appears that these activities may already be or are likely to become crucial issues in the school. In fact, in recent months there has been considerable publicity on student dissatisfaction with the rules for personal appear- ance and with the courses offered by the schools.6 The amount of disagreement between expectations was about the same for all categories of items except for the one on disciplining students.7 The responses of teachers and students were more nearly the same on disci- pline decisions than they were for any of the other cate- gories of items. There was greater consensus among teachers than among students in their expectations for student voice in decision making. Students' Projections and Teachers' Expectations Compared As indicated in the SP - TE column of Table 5.1, students inaccurately predicted most of the expectations of teachers. They overestimated as well as underestimated —~ 6Black students, for example, have been demanding that more black-oriented courses be included in the curri- culum. 7The five other categories of items were extra- curricular activities, rules and restrictions, curriculum, the selection of new staff members, and the classroom. 131 the student voice in decision making desired by teachers. Overestimates by students of teachers' expectations are indicated in the SP - TE column by a plus sign before the mean difference between students' projections and teachers' expectations; a minus sign indicates an underestimate. Students overestimated the student involvement desired by teachers for decisions on the curriculum and the selection of new staff members. That is, for these E two categories of items the student involvement in r decision making projected by students was greater than the student involvement actually desired by teachers. Underestimates of the student participation favored by teachers were given by students for items in the extra-curricular activities, discipline, and class- room categories. The mean differences for items in the rules and restrictions category were about evenly divided between overestimates and underestimates. For any one item, the greatest difference between means for students' projections and teachers' expectations was for deciding whether students will be permitted to leave the school during the noon hour (mean difference 0.7). More than four-fifths of the teachers thought students should have less say than the teachers and the principal or no say at all in making this decision. Yet, the projection of over half of the students was that teachers favored at least an equal voice for students in making this decision. 132 Teachers' Projections and Students' Expectations Compared Teachers tended to overestimate the student involvement in decision making desired by students; that is, the projections for most teachers were for greater student involvement than were the expectations for most students. These overestimates by teachers are indicated by a plus sign in the TP - SE column of Table 5.1. Teachers overestimated the involvement students wanted in making decisions concerned with extra-curricular activities, rules and restrictions, discipline, and the selection of new staff members. The overestimates were greatest for deciding on the number of assemblies to be held during the school year, the school rules for hall passes, and the school rules for smoking. The difference on these three items between the means for students' expec- tations and teachers' projections was 0.7 on a 5-point scale. For curriculum decisions, teachers underestimated the participation desired by students. Underestimates were also given for most of the classroom items. It appears from these results that teachers really do not know how much voice students would like to have in making decisions for various school activities. Teachers seem to be overestimating the participation in decision making desired by students for most school activities. A communications gap between teachers and students does exist. J, 133 Implications This study deals with a current and very important issue in the nation's schools: student voice in decision making. Many of the changes sought by student activists and by educators experimenting with new programs have centered, either directly or indirectly, around this issue. Apparent Trends As indicated in the first chapter, the present study was limited to a survey of the opinions of students and teachers in high schools within 50 miles of East Lansing, Michigan. To obtain a sampling of national opinion, this study would need to be expanded to include representative students and teachers from the various races, religions, and social classes living throughout the nation. However, even with this limitation of scope for the present study, it seems to me that some of the trends apparent in the findings are important and should be brought to the reader's attention. In fact, it is likely that these trends would be repeated in varying degrees of intensity if a national survey should be con- ducted in the near future. The findings of the present study indicate that “/ students want to participate in school decision making. The extent of student involvement desired is greater than what presently exists in most schools, but not nearly as 134 much as many student activists and educational reformers would have us believe. Teachers and students are definitely not in agree- ment on student involvement in decision making. Teachers in the present study indicated students should have some voice in school matters which concern them, but thought this voice should be limited. Rarely, according to teachers, should students be given an equal or greater voice than teachers and the principal. We know that students are dissatisfied with exist- ing conditions. For most school activities, students would like to have as much voice in decision making as teachers and the principal. What is not known is the strength of this discontent. Indications are that open conflict could result between students and teachers on the issue of student participation in decision making. Whether student confrontation will take place in a parti- cular school will probably depend to a large extent on the strength of student dissatisfaction within that school. A definite communications gap exists between teachers and students. In the present study, teachers tended to overestimate the involvement desired by stu- dents in making decisions. In fact, for several deci- sions teachers were not even close in their predictions of student opinion. This should serve as a warning to 135 principals and others in responsible positions: Do not rely on teachers for information on student opinion. It appears that students are more aware of teachers' opinions than teachers are of students' opinions. Most of the student predictions of teachers' expectations were fairly close to, though not quite, accurate. Student opinion did lack consensus. A collective student opinion for most issues was non existent. Instead, there was more than one student Opinion on any one issue. Thus, any action or inaction on the part of school per- sonnel would probably disappoint some segment of the student population. Consensus among teachers in the study was much better than it was for students. However, for one group of teachers, those with 13 or more years of teaching experience, considerable division of opinion did exist, especially for the projections they made. Therefore, caution should be exercised in making generalizations about teachers with several years of teaching experience. The sex of the teacher did make a difference, especially for the projections. Male teachers consis- tently projected less student involvement in decision making than did their female counterparts. This resis- tance of male teachers to student participation in deci- sion making may carry over to the high school principal- ship, a position usually filled by males with prior teaching experience. 136 The findings of this study suggest several areas of possible conflict between teachers and students.8 It is not surprising, then, that the nation's high schools have been faced with student unrest. What is surprising is that more student unrest has not come to the surface. Need for Students tojParticipate in Decision Making It is only natural that students should want a voice in school matters which concern them. This is part of human nature; everyone desires to have some control over what goes on in his daily life. Often students feel that what they have to say is valuable. Students want adults to share this feeling too. It is understandable then that students are easily dis- illusioned, and sometimes rebellious, when educators fail, or give the appearance of failing, to listen to them. Consideration of student opinion in decision making can act as a motivational factor for learning. Students can have a more positive attitude toward school and school activities if they feel they are meaningfully involved in making decisions which affect them. Guidelines for Student Participation If change is inevitable, an effort should be made to guide it. For the schools, this means establishing 8Who would expect these findings to come from rural settings where everyone knows everyone else? A brief description of the communities where the data were collected is given on page 25. 137 guidelines for the involvement of students in decision making. Because each school is unique, schools should develop their own guidelines to fit their own particular situations. These guidelines should be expressed in writing and they should be understood and acceptable to the faculty, administration, and the student body. Changes should result because a majority of stu- dents, teachers, and administrators favor them or are willing to adopt them on a trial basis. Unfortunately, practical experience has shown it is not always possible to get these three groups to agree. Therefore, educators need to be ready with educationally sound explanations to justify any action taken which meets with student opposition. Students need to realize that their participation in decision making also imposes responsibilities upon them. When students make suggestions for change, they should be prepared to present logical arguments for their proposals. Also, when possible, students should be held accountable for the decisions which they are permitted to make. As this study has shown, students and teachers do not always accurately perceive each other's expectations. Provisions, therefore, should be made by school personnel for sampling opinion when important issues arise. 138 An effort should be made on the part of both educators and students to understand one another's point- of-view. The lines of communication should always be kept open. Suggestions for Additional Research Continual research needs to be conducted which will indicate the current attitudes of teachers and stu- dents and reflect on patterns of change. The present study was limited in its scope. Research needs to be expanded to cover a larger geographi- cal area and a greater distribution of social and economic classes of people. In addition, since this study only reflects the opinions of teachers and students, it would be useful to learn how administrators, counselors, student teachers, and parents feel about the same issues. The findings of the present study indicate that teachers are unwilling to give students an equal voice in decision making. The reasons for this attitude might be the subject of additional study. Male and female teachers were shown to differ in their opinions. It would be interesting to know why. Perhaps they also differ on other important issues. I have often wondered whether teachers and stu- dents are intensively concerned about student involvement in decision making. Additional research might provide an answer . 139 The findings of the present study are based on data collected in rural communities.9 The results may not be the same for teachers and students who live in the inner city or in the suburbs of a large city. Investigations should be made of the actual extent of student participation in decision making in the nation's schools. Which programs for increased student involvement have been successful? Which have not? Why? In what respects do the attitudes of teachers and students in the more authoritarian schools differ from those in the more permissive schools? These are but a few of the questions which should be answered. 9See page 25 for a description of the communities in which the participating schools were located. ‘H‘K- (I . ' 1.1.“. .-’- | BIBLIOGRAPHY 140 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Brim, Orville 6., Jr. Sociology and the Field of Educa- tion. Philadelphia: William F. Fell Company, 1958. Downie, N. M., and Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper and Row, 1959. Goode, William J., and Hatt, Paul K. Methods in Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1952. Gross, Neal; Mason, Ward 8.; and McEachern, Alexander W. Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superintendent's Role. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958. Gudridge, Beatrice M. High School Student Unrest. Washington, D.C.: NatiEnal School Public Rela- tions Association, 1969. Jenkins, David H., and Lippitt, Ronald. Interpersonal Perceptions of Teachers, Students, and Parents. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1951. Kilzer, Louis R.; Stephenson, Harold H.; and Nordberg, H. Orville. Allied Activities in the Secondagy School. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956. Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966. Remmers, H. H. Introduction to Opinion and Attitude Measurement. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. , and Radler, D. H. The American Teenager. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1957. Shaw, Marvin E., and Wright, Jack M. Sgales for the Measurement of Attitudes. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc., 1967. 141 142 Siegel, Sidney. Nogparametric Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956. Thurstone, L. L., and Chave, E. J. The Measurement of of Attitude. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929. Periodicals Allen, Eric A. "Attitudes of Children and Adolescents in School." Educational Research, Vol. 3, No. l (November, 1960), 65-80. Bailey, John A., and Robertson, Rosemarie V. "Students' and Teachers' Perceptions of Student Problems." Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2 (October, 1964), 171-173. Brammer, Lawrence M. ”The Coming Revolt of High School Students." Bulletin of the National Association of Secondagy School Principals, Vol. 52, No. 329 (September, 1968), 13-21. Brinegar, Harold. "Pupil Attitudes Toward Extra-Class Activities." The School Review, Vol. 63, No. 8 (November, 1955), 432-437. "What Does the High School Pupil Like Best About His School?" The Clearing House, Vol. 33, No. 2 (October, 1958), 77-79. Cohodes, Aaron. "Colleges Give High Schools a Cram Course in Dissent." Nation's Schools, Vol. 83, No. 5 (May, 1969), 34. Divoky, Diane. "The Way It's Going to Be." Saturday Review, Vol. 52, No. 7, February 15, 1969, 83-84, 89, 101-102. Doll, Ronald C. "High School Pupils' Attitudes Toward Teaching Procedures." The School Review, Vol. 55, No. 4 (April, 1947), 222-227. Erickson, Ralph J. "Decision Making in Student Activities. The High School Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1 (October, 1963), 22-29. . "Student Management of Secondary School Clubs." Education, Vol. 84, No. 4 (December, 1963), 242-246. 143 Frymier, Jack R. "Teachers' Estimates of Adolescents' Responses to F-Scale Items." The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 55, No. 8 (May, 1962), 353-357. Gage, N. L., and Suci, George. "Social Perception and Teacher-Pupil Relationships." The Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 42 (1951), 144-152. Gallup, George. ”Second Annual Survey of the Public's Attitude Toward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 52, No. 2 (October, 1970), 97-112. Goldman, Samuel. ”The Real and Ideal Image of the High School Graduate." The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 57, No. 9 (May-June, 1964), 498-500. Gudridge, Beatrice M. "Is Student Protest Spreading to the High School?" Today's Education, Vol. 57, No. 7 (October, 1968), 30-32. Harnly, Paul W. "Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward Education." The School Review, Vol. 47, No. 7 (September, 1939), 501-509. Harris, Louis. "The Life Poll: What People Think About Their High Schools." Life, Vol. 66, No. 9, May 16, 1969, 22-33. Hayward, Robert R. "Maximum Results from Mini-Courses." Today's Education, Vol. 58, No. 6 (September, 1969), 55-57. "High Schools: Letting the Students Run Things." Time, Vol. 92, No. 25, December 20, 1968, 47-48. Hollister, Charles A; Nolte, Chester M.; and McGhehey, M. A. "Journal Special: The Rights of Children." American School Board Journal, Vol. 156, No. 12 (June, 1969), 8-16. House, James E. "Can the Student Participate in His Own Destiny?" Educational Leadership, Vol. 27, No. 5 (February, 1970), 442-445. Jackson, Philip W., and Getzels, Jacob W. "Psychological Health and Classroom Functioning: A Study of Dissatisfication with Schools Among Adolescents." Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 50, No. 6 (December, 1959), 295-300. 144 Jacobs, James N. "Student Views on Controversial Issues." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 53, No. 335 (March, 1969), 20-33. Jacobson, Paul B. "Research Shows 12 Changes in 50 Years of Secondary Education." Nation's Schools, Vol. 49, No. 1 (January, 1952), 38-41. McGowan, William N. "About Student Unrest." Journal of Secondary Education, Vol. 43, No. 6 (October, 1968), 255-259. Palches, Peter. "Idea Forum: An Experiment in Non Structure." The Bulletin of the National Associ- ation of Secondary School Principals, V01. 51, No. 323 (December, 1967), 12-21. "Pupil Acceptance of Teacher Authority." School and Society, Vol. 90, No. 2211 (Summer, 1962), 249-250. Seidman, Jerome M., and Knapp, Leda B. "Teacher Likes and Dislikes of Student Behavior and Student Per- ceptions of These Attitudes." Journal of Educa- tional Research, Vol. 47, No. 2 (October, 1953), 143-149. Siegel, Laurence; Coon, Herbert L.; Pepinsky, Harold B.; and Rubin, Stanley. "Expressed Standards of Behavior of High School Students, Teachers and Parents." Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 34, No. 5 (January, 1956), 261-267. "Student Activism Steers Away from SDS and Toward Educa- tional Reform.” Nation's Schools, Vol. 84, No. 1 (July, 1969), 39-42. "Student Unrest in High Schools." School and Society, Vol. 98, No. 2323 (February, 1970), 75-76. "Teacher Opinion Poll: Student Dress and Grooming." Today's Education, Vol. 58, No. 5 (May, 1969), 63. "Teacher Opinion Poll: Student Unrest." Today's Educa- tion, Vol. 58, No. 6 (September, 1969), 87. Thomson, Scott D. "A Perspective on Activism." Journal of Secondagy Education, Vol. 44, No. 6 (October, 1969), 252-259. 145 Trump, J. Lloyd, and Hunt, Jane. "The Nature and Extent of Student Activism." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Princi- pals, Vol. 53, No. 337 (May, 1969), 150-158. "What High School Activists Are Doing." Nation's Schools, Vol. 83, No. 3 (March, 1969), 61-66. "What the Courts Are Saying About Student Rights." NBA Research Bulletin, Vol. 47, No. 3 (October, 1969), 86-89. "What's Wrong with the High Schools?" Newsweek, Vol. 75, No. 7 February, 16, 1970, 65-69. Unpublished Material House, James E. "A Study of Innovative Youth Involvement Activities in Selected Secondary Schools in Wayne County, Michigan." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1969. Horton, R. E., and Remmers, H. H. "Youth Views Current Issues in Education." Report No. 37, Purdue Opinion Poll for Young People. Lafayette, Indiana: Division of Educational Reference, Purdue Univer- sity, December, 1953. ' Remmers, H. H.; Drucker, A. J.; and Kirk, R. B. "Youth Looks Toward the Future in Education." Report No. 29, Purdue Opinion Poll for Young People. Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, May, 1951. Remmers, H. H.; Gage, N. L.; and Shimberg, Ben. "Youth Looks at Schools and Jobs." Report No. 18, Purdue Opinion Poll for Young People. Lafayette, Indiana: Division of Educational Reference, Purdue University, April, 1948. APPENDICES 146 Ill. Ill APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS 147 Student Voice in Decision Making Questionnaire for Students In the last few years, there has been student unrest in the nation’s high schools. Some student groups have Isked that students become more involved in the school. These student groups feel student opinion should be ought and considered in decision making. They want students to have more say in such things as making school 111-83 and planning courses. The purpose of this study is to find out how most teachers and students feel about student voice in making .chool decisions. You will be asked for your opinions on a variety of situations. Some of these situations may Iot apply to your school, but we would like your opinion on them anyway. ’art I )IRECTIONS: In Part I we are interested in your ideas about how much say students should have in the whole school and in the classroom. We are not interested in what you think other students think. We are only interested in what you think. When answering questions, think of all the teachers in this school rather than specific teachers. There are no right or wrong answers to the questions asked. Choose the answer which you agree with most. Write the letter of your answer on the line to the left of the question. Section A: Whole School {ere are the answers to choose from: rue-ens» STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE SAY. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE MORE SAY THAN TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE AS MUCH SAY AS TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE LESS SAY THAN TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE NO SAY. temember, there are no right and wrong answers. Choose the answer which you agree with most. Example: b How much say should students have in deciding what the school colors will be? The student answering this question thinks students should have more say than teachers and the principal in deciding what the school colors will be. Therefore, he writes b on the line to the left of the question. How much say should students have in deciding what will and will not be printed in the school newspaper? How much say should students have in deciding which clubs will be offered by the school? How much say should students have in deciding the number of assemblies to be held during the school year? How much say should students have in deciding the content of assembly programs? How much say should students have in deciding the number of dances to be held during the school year? How much say should students have in deciding the grades students must have in order to run for school or class offices? How much say should students have in deciding what will be the school rules for personal appearance (dress, length of hair for boys, and so on)? r’r'" Here are the answers to Choose from: roe-ova _ 8. _ 9. _10. _ 13. _. 14. _ 15. __ 16. __ 17. _ 18. 11. _ 12. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE SAY. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE MORE SAY THAN TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE AS MUCH SAY AS TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE LESS SAY THAN TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE NO SAY. How much say should students have in deciding what will be the school rules for the use of hall passes? How much say should students have in deciding what will be the school rules for smoking? How much say should students have in deciding which notices and pictures may be displayed in the halls? How much say should students have in deciding if students are innocent or guilty of breaking school rules? How much say should students have in deciding what to do about students who have been found guilty of breaking school rules? How much say should students have in deciding whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour? How much say should students have in deciding the amount of “free" time (time when students do not have to be in class) given to students during the school day? How much say should students have in choosing books to be ordered for the school library? How much say should students have in deciding the courses to be offered by the school? How much say should students have in choosing new teachers to be hired by the school? How much say should students have in choosing a new principal to be hired by the school? If there are some important activities which have not been mentioned in the questions you have just answered. please list them below. Section B: Classroom Here are the answers to choose from: 9999‘s» STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE SAY. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE MORE SAY THAN THE TEACHER. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE AS MUCH SAY AS THE TEACHER. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE LESS SAY THAN THE TEACHER. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE NO SAY. Remember, there are no right and wrong answers. Choose the answer which you agree with most. ___6. 9‘993‘32“ \ How much say should students have in deciding what will be covered in a course? How much say should students have in deciding what the homework in a course will be? How much say should students have in choosing the books to be used in a course? How much say should students have in making classroom rules? How much say should students have in deciding what to do about students who break classroom rules? How much say should students have in deciding what is “failing” work in a course? If there are some important activities which have not been mentioned in the questions you have just answered. please list them below. Part II DIRECTIONS: The questions asked in Part II are the same as those asked in Part I. This time, however, we want to get your ideas about how you think most teachers feel. When answering questions, think of all the teachers in this school rather than specific teachers. Write the letter of your answer on the line to the left of the question. Section A: Whole School Here are the answers to choose from: {DP-'9?!” STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE SAY. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE MORE SAY THAN TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE AS MUCH SAY AS TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE LESS SAY THAN TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE N O SAY. _ 10. _ 11. _12. _. 13. _ 14. _ 15. _. 16. _ 17. __ 18. Example: c How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding what the school colors will be? The student answering this question thinks most teachers feel students should have as much say as teachers and the principal in deciding what the school colors will be. How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding what will and will not be printed in the school newspaper? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding which clubs will be offered by the school? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in- deciding the number of assemblies to be held during the school year? How much say you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding the content of assembly pro- grams? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding the number of dances to be held during the school year? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding the grades students must have in order to run for school or class offices? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding what will be the school rules for personal appearance (dress, length of hair for boys, and so on)? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding what will be the school rules for the use of hall passes? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding what will be the school rules for smoking? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding which notices and pictures may be displayed in the halls? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding if students are innocent or guilty of breaking school rules? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding what to do about students who have been found guilty of breaking school rules? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding the amount of “free” time (time when students do not have to be in class) given to students during the school day? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in choosing books to be ordered for the school library? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding the courses to be offered by the school? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in choosing new teachers to be hired by the school? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in choosing anew principal to be hired by the school? ___l , Section B: Classroom Here are the answers to choose from: @999"? _2. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE SAY. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE MORE SAY THAN THE TEACHER. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE AS MUCH SAY AS THE TEACHER. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE LESS SAY THAN THE TEACHER. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE NO SAY. How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding what will be covered in a course? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding what the homework in a course will be? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in choosing the books to be used in a course? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in making classroom rules? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding what to do about students who break classroom rules? How much say do you think most teachers feel students should have in deciding what is “failing” work in a course? Part III DIRECTIONS: In Part III we would like to get some information about you. The reason we do this is so we will know something about the students who are taking part in this study. Our purpose is not to try to find out who you are. Place a check mark (\/) on the line next to each of your answers. Example: Where do you live? _LWithin the city limits. Outside the city limits. The student answering this question lives within the city limits. Therefore, he places a check on the line next to the words “within the city limits.” 1. Sex: 5. What kind of grades have you received in high school? (Choose one answer) Male _ __ Mostly A’s Female __ Mostly B’s, some A’s 2. Age: (Give number of years.) __ Mostly 3.5, some C’s 3. Grade: __ Mostly C’s, some B’s _ 9th —— Mostly C’s, some D’s 10th — Mostly D’s, some C’s .__11th —— Mostly D’s and below _12th 4. How active are you in extra curricular activities? (clubs, sports, plays, student newspaper. and so on) More active than most students As active as most students Less active than most students APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS l52 Student Voice in Decision Making Questionnaire for Teachers In the last few years, there has been student unrest in the nation’s high schools. Some student groups have asked that students become more involved in the school. These student groups feel student opinion should be sought and considered in decision making. They want students to have more say in such things as making school rules and planning courses. The purpose of this study is to find out how most teachers and students feel about student voice in making school decisions. You will be asked for your opinions on a variety of situations. Some of these situations may not apply to your school, but we would like your opinion on them anyway. Because students will be answering many of the same questions asked of you, it has been necessary to keep the reading level of this questionnaire at a fairly low level. Part I DIRECTIONS: In Part I we are interested in your ideas about how much say students should have in the whole school and in the classroom. We are not interested in what you think other teachers think. We are only interested in what you think. When answering questions, think in terms of the total student population in this school, not just the students you have in your classes. There are no right or wrong answers to the questions asked. Choose the answer which you agree with most. Write the letter of your answer on the line to the left of the question. Section A: Whole School Here are the answers to choose from: STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE SAY. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE MORE SAY THAN TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE AS MUCH SAY AS TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE LESS SAY THAN TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE NO SAY. sheep's” Remember, there are no right and wrong answers. Choose the answer which you agree with most. Example: b How much say should students have in deciding what the school colors will be? The teacher answering this question thinks students should have more say than teachers and the principal in deciding what the school colors will be. Therefore, he writes b on the line to the left of the question. _ 1. How much say should students have in deciding what will and will not be printed in the school newspaper? __ 2. How much say should students have in deciding which clubs will be offered by the school? __ 3. How much say should students have in deciding the number of assemblies to be held during the school year? __ 4. How much say should students have in deciding the content of assembly programs? __ 5. How much say should students have in deciding the number of dances to be held during the school year? __ 6. How much say should students have in deciding the grades students must have in order to run for school or class offices? _ 7. How much say should students have in deciding what will be the school rules for personal appearance (dress, length of hair for boys. and so on)? Here are the answers to choose from: sue-99's __ 9. ._ 10. __ 11. _. 12. __ 13. _ 14. _ 15. _ 16. _ 17. _ 18. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE SAY. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE MORE SAY THAN TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE AS MUCH SAY AS TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE LESS SAY THAN TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE N O SAY. How much say should students have in deciding what will be the school rules for the use of hall passes? How much say should students have in deciding what will be the school rules for smoking? How much say should students have in deciding which notices and pictures may be displayed in the halls? How much say should students have in deciding if students are innocent or guilty of breaking school rules? How much say should students have in deciding what to do about students who have been found guilty of breaking school rules? How much say should students have in deciding whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour? How much say should students have in deciding the amount of “free" time (time when students do not have to be in class) given to students during the school day? How much say should students have in choosing books to be ordered for the school library? How much say should students have in deciding the courses to be offered by the school? How much say should students have in choosing new teachers to be hired by the school? How much say should students have in choosing a new principal to be hired by the school? If there are some important activities which have not been mentioned in the questions you have just answered. please list them below. Section B: Classroom Here are the answers to choose from: was?!” STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE SAY. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE MORE SAY THAN THE TEACHER. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE AS MUCH SAY AS THE TEACHER. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE LESS SAY THAN THE TEACHER. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE NO SAY. Remember, there are no right and wrong answers. Choose the answer which you agree with most. _6. 9‘99”!" How much say should students have in deciding what will be covered in a course? How much say should students have in deciding what the homework in a course will be? How much say should students have in choosing the books to be used in a course? How much say should students have in making classroom rules? How much say should students have in deciding what to do about students who break classroom rules? How much say should students have in deciding what is “failing” work in a course? If there are some important activities which have not been mentioned in the questions you have just answered. please list them below. Part II DIRECTIONS: The questions asked in Part II are the same as those asked in Part I. This time, however, we want to get your ideas about how you think most students feel. When answering questions, think in terms of the total student population of this school, not just the students you have in your classes. Write the letter of your answer on the line to the left of the question. Section A: Whole School Here are the answers to choose from: STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE SAY. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE MORE SAY THAN TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE AS MUCH SAY AS TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE LESS SAY THAN TEACHERS AND THE PRINCIPAL. e. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE N O SAY. ease Example: c How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding what the school colors will be? The teacher answering this question thinks most students feel students should have as much say as teachers and the principal in deciding what the school colors will be. _ 1. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding what will and will not be printed in the school newspaper? _ 2. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding which clubs will be offered by the school? — 3. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding the number of assemblies to be held during the school year? _ 4. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding the content of assembly pro- grams? __ 5. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding the number of dances to be held during the school year? _ 6. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding the grades students must have in order to run for school or class offices? __ 7. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding what will be the school rules for personal appearance (dress, length of hair for boys, and so on)? _ 8. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding what will be the school rules for the use of hall passes? __ 9. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding what will be the school rules for smoking? __ 10. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding which notices and pictures may be displayed in the halls? _11. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding if students are innocent or guilty of breaking school rules? _12. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding what to do about students who have been found guilty of breaking school rules? _ 13. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding whether students will be allowed to leave school during the noon hour? _14. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding the amount of “free” time (time when students do not have to be in class) given to students during the school day? __ 15. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in choosing books to be ordered for the school library? _16. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding the courses to be offered by the school? — 17. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in choosing new teachers to be hired by the school? —— 18. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in choosing a new principal to be hired by the school? Section B: Classroom Here are the answers to choose from: a. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE SAY. b. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE MORE SAY THAN THE TEACHER. c. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE AS MUCH SAY AS THE TEACHER. d. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE LESS SAY THAN THE TEACHER. e. STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE NO SAY. 1. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding what will be covered in a course? 2. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding what the homework in a course will be? How much say do you think most students feel students should have in choosing the books to be used in a course? How much say do you think most students feel students should have in making classroom rules? How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding what to do about students who break classroom rules? 6. How much say do you think most students feel students should have in deciding what is “failing" work in a course? Part III In Part III we would like to obtain some information about you. The reason we do this is so we will know something about the teachers who are taking part in this study. Our purpose is not to try to find out who you are. 1. 2. Sex: _ Male _Female _How many years have you taught at this school? (Count this year as one year of teaching.) _How many years have you taught at the high school level? How many years have you taught at the: —— College level _Junior high level _ Elementary level Highest degree you have obtained: _Bachelors _ Masters _ Education Specialist _Doctors Are you presently working on a degree? _Yes _No If yes, which one? _What grade (9, 10. 11, 12) are most of your students in? __.. Which catagory best describes the scholastic ability of most of your students? _ Above average __ Above average and average __ Average __ Average and below average _ Below average APPENDIX C COMPARISONS MADE OF STUDENTS' AND TEACHERS' EXPECTATIONS AND PROJECTIONS: CHI SQUARE TEST RESULTS 157 158 .ooflwmo wmwfio .HO HOOSOm HON CDH on noouo CH o>mn umafi Ho. e.Hm Ho. m.om mo. N.NH mocoesum mmemnm one .e maofluofluumom can moasm .umom Hoonom one measse cams on on .m.a v.H Ho. H.va Ho. m.Hh mmocmo mo Hmnfisc one .m .meHmOHQ wan mo. n.m Ho. v.wm Ho. w.ha IEommm mo pcmuaoo wSB .q .HdOh Hoonom 03p mafinso was: on on moflan Ho. m.ov Ho. m.om Ho. n.wH rammmm mo Meagan oza .m .Hoonom man an oouowwo Ho. H.va Ho. m.om mo. N.NH on HHNB szHo Quasz .m .Hommmmzoa Hoosom any CH Umucflum on .m.c h.m .m.a m.m *Ho. m.m> Doc HHHB was HHH3 yoga .H moflpfl>flpo¢ HMHSOHHHSUIMHuxm Ho>oq x Ho>oq x Ho>oq x .aNm N .asm N .aNm N mcoHumuoomxm Emu .oz mCOHDMDoonm .mpaowsam mcoflumoommxm .muwnomoa . H EouH .mcoHDomnoum _mnozomoe .mCOHpomnonm .mpaoosum .mnosomoa w . . .mocoesom muadmmm umoB mumsvm ago chofluoofloum can mQOHumuoonm .muozomoe one .mpcoosum mo mom: mCOmHHmmEooila.U mqmmn 0:3 muaoo isum uaonm Op On pong .moasn Hoocom mcflxmoun mo muaflzm Ho uaoooacfl one mucoosum uonuonz .NH .HH ocHHmHomflQ .mmo Hoosom opp mafluso muaoooom ou ao>flm oEHu =ooum= mo ua5084 .uao: coo: ozu mafluso Hoonom o>moa ow ooBOHHm on Haas muaoospm Honpogz .maamn one :N emanaa Imflo on woe moHDDOHQ use moOHuo: QUHAB .mcHxOEm mom moaau Hoonom onu on Hafiz umnz .mommmm Ham: mo om: osu How moaau Hoonom onu on HHH3 pong .ooamnmommm HoQOmHoQ MOM moasn Hoocom oau on HHHS papa .vH .mH .OH 160 mo. N.HH Ho. m.mH Ho. H.om .moHau EooummmHo .v .omusoo a na .m.n e.e mo. m.ma Ho. o.mm now: on on mxoon one .m .on HHH3 ownsoo m Ho. m.ma Ho. m.mm Ho. «.ON CA xuozoEon onn nmnz .m .omnsoo a CH mo. H.HH Ho. o.mm Ho. «.Nv oomo>oo on HHHB umnz .H 3 .Hoonom onn an oonfln mo. m.HH .m.n H.m Ho. e.mm on on Hmmflonflnm son a .ma .Hoonom one so eoNNn Ho. m.ma .m.n H.e Ho. m.wa on on muononon 3oz .eH glows wwmnm 3oz mo noflpooaom .Hoonom onu en oonomwo Ho. m.om Ho. m.am Ho. H.mm on on momusoo one .ma .huwmnfla Hoonom onn MOM Ho. o.va Ho. v.Hm Ho. m.mo oouoouo on on mnoom .mH ESHSONMHSU Ho>oq x Ho>oq x Ho>oq x .mvem N .DHW N .mflm N .o mnoflnmuoomxm .munoosum mnOHnmnoomwm .muonoooe mnmwwmwmwmxw EouH Eon” .mnoeuoomonm .mnonomoe Nmnofluoomoum .mpnoooum ”menopaum .oosnflnn00|la.u mqmne 161 Inoncmnm no Ho>on mo. .m.ma .oonmoHMHanm mo Ho>oa Ho. onu um am.m we oonmo onn no Eoooonw mo mooumoo v mom onDWm Hno mo osHm> one« mo. Ho. Ho. .mmHSOO .m SH M.HO3 e.ma =mcnanma= ma owns .0 .moasu Eooummmao xmoun on? monoosnm o.Hm udonm 0U ou umnS .m nIcurcaN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES , lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 31293103171785