THE DETERMINATION OF THE DISCRIMINATION AND RELIABILITY; INDICES OF THE EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS CONCERNING auuecmomu. CQSLQUALIWE i 539;; 3; ~ RELATDNW’W .. I 1‘ _ f5 f MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 15mg.- {In Mg'a'bkb " Arthur D Berg I If: 7 I: 1962 .‘>_i:fifNM : w" if}? F333! 2“ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\I\\\\\I\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 3 1293 10342 5447 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE DETERMINATION OF THE DISCRIMINATION AND RELIABILITY INDICES OF THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION WITH IMPLICATIONS CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL COST-DUAL ITY RELATIONSHIPS presented by Arthur D. Berg has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Education degree in ALSksXe \_\ 2 x t Major professor Date February 25, I963 0—169 LIBRARY Michigan State University F I I II ." ABSTRACT THE DETERMINATION OF THE DISCRIMINATION AND RELIABILITY INDICES OF THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION WITH IMPLICATIONS CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL COST-QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS by Arthur D. Berg The purpose of this study is to determine the discrim- ination and reliability indices of the Educational Charac- teristics Criterion and to make implications concerning the relationships between educational cost and quality. The Educational Characteristics Criterion is an instru- ment designed to measure the quality of an educational pro- gram and is based upon the assumption that educational quality may be defined as those educational characteristics of a school district which are perceived by educational specialistsam being effective in accomplishing the purposes of American public school education. In the version of the instrument used, fifty—six educational characteristics were assigned to the seven following categories: (1) student”s Arthur D. Berg level of knowledge and attitudes, (2) community atti- tudes, (3) curriculum, (4) use of facilities, (5) socio— cultural composition of the community, (6) administration and supervision, and (7) the teacher and teaching methods. The literature and research findings concerning the inter-relationships between educational cost factors and educational quality were reviewed, and it was decided to test the discrimination of the instrument on the basis of expected differences in educational quality according to degree of financial support as well as expected agreement between teachers and administrators concerning the degree of educational quality which is present in their school districts. A sample of 871 teacher respondents and 82 administrator respondents was selected from two Michigan public school districts in the fourth quartile (exclusive of Detroit) of each cost factor of school membership, size, ability (state equalized valuation per pupil), effort (mills for operation), and expenditure per pupil for cur— rent operation. A sample of 1,091 teacher respondents and 106 administrator respondents was selected from thirty-nine Michigan public school districts in the first quartile (ex— clusive of Detroit) of each of these cost factors. Arthur D. Berg Five general hypotheses were developed and tested: I The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show ability to discriminate between the first or low financial support quartile and fourth or high finan— cial support quartile of Michigan public school dis- tricts (K—12) which are classified on the educa— tional cost factors of size, effort, ability, and expenditure. II The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show no ability to discriminate between the responses of teachers and administrators within the high finan— cial support quartile, within the low financial support quartile, within individual large school districts, and within individual small school districts. III The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show high reliability within the high financial support quartile and within the low financial support quartile. IV The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show high reliability within individual large and small school districts. V The individual educational characteristic scores in the Educational Characteristics Criterion will have adequate positive discrimination power with respect to the total quality score and to their related category scores. The "t" test was used to determine the discrimination. The Hoyt analysis of variance method was used to estimate reliability from the consistency of individual performance upon the test items. The point biserial correlation coeffi- cient was used to determine the positive discrimination power of the individual educational characteristics with Arthur D. Berg respect to the total score and to their related category scores. The following conclusions were reached: 1. The Educational Characteristics Criterion is an excellent measure of quality in public school districts and it can diacriminate pOSitively between districts having high financial support and those having low financial sup— port. The principal findings indicate that according to total scores, each of seven category scores, and forty-one of fifty-six individual educational characteristic scores of either teachers'or administratorsn educational quality is present in significantly higher degree in high financial support districts than in low financial support districts. 2. The Educational Characteristics Criterion non- discrimination indicates agreement between teachers and administrators concerning educational quality within the high financial support quartile and within the low financial support quartile which is expected from certified public school personnel having a similar professional frame of reference in terms of training and expectations, and this conclusion is supported by total scores, the majority of category scores, and twenty-four of fifty-six individual educational characteristic scores. Significant discrimination Arthur D. Berg on other scores indicates a tendency for administrators to over—value or under—value certain educational charac- teristics in relation to teachers" valuing of these char- acteristics, and this occurrence varies according to the high or low financial support quartile. 3. The reliability of Educational Characteristic Criterion total scores ranges from 0.89 to 0.95 according to teachers or administrators within high or low support quartiles. The reliability of category scores is 0.61 and above, category V excepted, according to teachers or administrators within high or low support quartiles. Reli- ability tests within individual large and small districts indicate wide variations and the need for an adequate num— ber of respondents. The total scores of teachers (at least ten per district) had a reliability of 0.90 to 0.93 in small and large districts, and several category scores appeared to have adequate reliabilities. Only in large districts which had a considerable number of administrator respondents did the scores of administrators have high reliability (category V excepted), total score reliability kming 0.91 and category score reliability being from 0.68 to 0.83. Arthur D. Berg 4. Each of the fifty—six individual educational char— acteristic scores except two had adequate positive discrim— ination (p < .01) with respect to the total score and its related category score. The principal implications of the results of this study concern (1) the need to use all possible means of increasing the financial support of education in order to raise the degree of educational quality in public school districts and (2) the need to correct the overvaluing and undervaluing tendencies of administrators in relation to teachers' valuing by developing better communication fac— ilities which will increase the likelihood of generating congruent expectations about education among the profes— sional school staff and between the professional school staff and the parents and patrons of the school district. Twenty—four recommendations were made concerning (1) development of educational quality by means of adequate financial support, (2) development of favorable community attitudes, (3) development of administratornteacher empathy by communication, (4) administrative evaluation of stu~ dent's level of knowledge and attitudes, (5) suggested action for colleges of education, and (6) development and use of the Educational Characteristics Criterion. THE DETERMINATION OF THE DISCRIMINATION AND RELIABILITY INDICES OF THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION WITH IMPLICATIONS CONCERNING EDUCATIONAL COST-QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS BY Arthur D) Berg A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1962 é: Q 576% E‘a'y’l? Lift: 3" ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his gratitude to those persons whose guidance and contributions helped to make this dissertation possible. He is particularly appreciative of the continuous encouragement, technical advice, sugges- tions, and helpful criticisms given to him by the chairman of his doctoral committee, Dr. Herbert C. Rudman. The writer wishes to gratefully acknowledge the valu- able suggestions and criticisms given to him by the members of his doctoral committee: Dr. Stanley E. Hecker, Dr. Troy L. Stearns, Dr. William R. Sur, and Dr. Fred J. Vescolani. He is appreciative of the contributions of Dr. David R. Krathwohl and Dr. John J. Patterson regarding the statis- tical phases of the study. The writer wishes to thank Dr. Leonard E. Kraft for his assistance, encouragement, and cooperation during their period of association as doctoral candidates on related research studies under the guidance of Dr. Herbert C. Rudman. The writer appreciates the technical advice and coop- eration of Mrs. Norma Ray, Data Processing Research Depart— ment, and the assistance of the staff members of the General iii Library and the College of Education Research Library, Michigan State University. The writer is grateful for the cooperation of the administrators, supervisors, and teachers in the partici- pating Michigan public school districts who furnished a total sample of 2,150 respondents for this research study. The writer wishes to express his appreciation to his wife, Faith Berg, for her assistance in the data tabulation and manuscript preparation and for her patience and encouragement. To his mother, the writer wishes to express his sin— cere gratitude for the steadfast faith and spiritual sup- port which she has given to him throughout his educational endeavors leading to an undergraduate and two graduate degrees at the University of Michigan and the Doctorate of Philosophy degree at Michigan State University. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Chapter I. THE PROBLEM Purpose of the Study 1 Importance of the Study 1 Rationale 4 Hypotheses 7 Scope and Delimitations of the Study 13 Definition of Terms 14 Organization of Remainder of the Thesis 18 II. RELATED LITERATURE Philosophical Statements 20 Instrumentation 36 Related Empirical Studies 50 Summary 65 III. PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY Plan for Securing Factors and Necessary Data 67 Development of the Instrument and Plan for Its Administration 68 Determination of Categories within the Instrument 71 Classification of School Districts on the Basis of Cost Factors 76 Selection of the Sample 80 Chapter Page Mailing Procedures 82 Treatment of the Data 83 Statistical Methods 84 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction 86 Analysis of the Educational Characteristics Criterion Discrimination Ability between High and Low Financial Support Quartiles of Michigan Public School Districts 87 Analysis of the Educational Characteristics Criterion Discrimination Ability between Perceptions of Teachers and Administrators within High and Low Financial Support Quartiles and within Individual Large and Small School Districts 122 Analysis of the Educational Characteristics Criterion Reliability within High and Low Financial-Support Quartiles of Districts 170 Analysis of the Educational Characteristics Criterion Reliability within Individual Large and Small Districts 178 Analysis of the Educational Characteristics Criterion Item Discrimination 189 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary - 198 Major Findings 204 Conclusions 209 Implications 212 Recommendations 233 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 vi Table LIST OF TABLES Page Classification by Quartiles of Michigan Public School Districts According to Ability . 77 Classification by Quartiles of Michigan Public School Districts According to Size . . 78 Classification by Quartiles of Michigan Public School Districts According to Effort . 78 Classification by Quartiles of Michigan Public School Districts According to Expenditure per Pupil . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Differences in Total Mean Scores of Respondents from High Financial Support Districts and Low Financial Support Districts. 92 Differences in Category Mean Scores of Respondents from High Financial Support Districts and Low Financial Support Districts. 93 Individual Educational Characteristics Which Are Present in a Significantly Higher Degree in High Financial Support Districts than in Low Financial Support Districts According to Teachers or Administrators . . . . . . . . . . 97 Individual Educational Characteristics Which Are Present in a Significantly Higher Degree in Low Financial Support Districts than in High Financial Support Districts According to Teachers or Administrators . . . . . . . . . . 103 Individual Educational Characteristics Which According to Teacher Responses Are Present in a Significantly Higher Degree in High Finan- cial Support Districts than in Low Financial Support Districts and According to Adminis- trator Responses Are Net Significantly Different in High Financial Support Districts than in Low Financial Support Districts . . . 105 vii Table Page 10. Individual Educational Characteristic Which According to Teacher Responses Is Present in a Significantly Higher Degree in Low Financial Support Districts than in High Financial Sup— port Districts and According to Administrator Responses Is Not Significantly Different in High Financial Support Districts than in Low Financial Support Districts . . . . . . . . . . 112 11. Individual Educational Characteristics Which Are th Significantly Different in High Financial Support Districts and Low Financial Support Districts According to Teachers or Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 12. Summary of Relationships between Educational Quality and Educational Financial Support as Indicated by Frequencies of Individual Educa— tional Characteristics within Their Categories According to Teacher Responses and Administra- tor Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 13. Differences between the Total Mean Scores of Teachers and Administrators According to High and Low Educational Financial Support Districts. 126 14. Differences between Category Mean Scores of Teachers and Administrators According to High and Low Educational Financial Support Districts. 127 15. Individual Educational Characteristics Which Are Valued Similarly by Teachers and Adminis— trators within High Financial Support Districts and within Low Financial Support Districts . . . 133 16. Individual Educational Characteristics Which Are Undervalued (Part 1) or Overvalued (Part 2) by Administrators in High Financial Support Districts and Are Valued Similarly by Teachers and Administrators in Low Financial Support Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 viii Table l7. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. Page Individual Educational Characteristics Which Are Undervalued (Part 1) or Overvalued (Part 2) by Administrators in Low Financial Support Districts and Are Valued Similarly by Teachers and Administrators in High Financial Support Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Individual Educational Characteristics Which Are Undervalued (Part 1) or Overvalued (Part 2) by Administrators in Low Financial Support Districts and in High Financial Support Districts .p. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Individual Educational Characteristics Which Are Undervalued by Administrators in High Financial Support Districts and Overvalued by Administrators in Low Financial Support Districts (Part 1) and Are Overvalued by Administrators in High Financial Support Districts and Undervalued by Administrators in Low Financial Support Districts (Part 2) . . . . 155 Differences between the Total Mean Scores of Teachers and Administrators within Districts No. 1, No. 10, andNo. 37 163 Differences between the Category Mean Scores of Teachers and Administrators within Districts No. 1, No. 10, and No. 37 . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Reliability and Sensitivity Significance Level of Educational Characteristics Criterion Total Scores of Teachers and of Administrators within High Financial Support Quartile of Districts and within the Low Financial Support Quartile of Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 ix Table Page 23. Reliability and Sensitivity Significance Level of Educational Characteristics Criterion Cate— gory Scores of Teachers and of Administrators within High Financial Support Quartile of Districts and within Low Financial Support Quartile of Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 24. Reliability and Sensitivity Significance Level of Educational Characteristics Criterion Total Scores of Teachers and of Administrators within a Large Individual District and within Two Small Individual Districts . . . . . . . . . . . 181 25. Reliability and Sensitivity Significance Level of Educational Characteristics Criterion Cate- gory Scores of Teachers and of Administrators within a Large Individual District and within Two Small Individual Districts . . . . . . . . . 184 26. Point Biserial Correlation Coefficients of (1) Educational Characteristics Criterion Educational Characteristic Scores with Respec— tive Category Score, and (2) Educational Characteristics Criterion Educational Charac- teristic Scores with Total Score . . . . . . . . 193 27. Educational Characteristics Which Appear in Higher Degree in High Quality Districts than in Low Quality Districts and Are Valued in the Same Degree by Teachers and Administrators of High Quality Districts and NOt in the Same Degree by Teachers and Administrators in Low Quality Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 28. Educational Characteristics Which Are Valued in the Same Degree by Teachers and by Administra- tors in Low Quality Districts and Are Valued in Different Degree by Teachers and by Administra- tors in High Quality Districts . . . . . . . . . 229 Figure 1. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Quartile Distribution of School Districts According to Four Cost Factors . . . . . xi 6 Page 79 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A Educational Characteristics Criterion . . . . 256 B Letter Sent to Superintendents . . . . . . . . 266 C Administration Instructions for the Eduga— tional Characteristics Criterion . . . . . . . 268 D Respondent Instructions for the Educational Characteristics Criterion . . . . . . . . . . 272 E Differences between Total Mean Scores and Between Category Mean Scores of Teachers and of Administrators from High Financial Support Quartile and from Low Financial Support Quartile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 F Differences between Individual Educational Characteristic Mean Scores of Teachers and of Administrators from High Financial Support Quartile and from Low Financial Support Quartile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 G Differences between Total Mean Scores and Between Category Mean Scores of Teachers and Administrators within High Financial Support Quartile and of Teachers and Administrators within Low Financial Support Quartile . . . . 299 H Differences between Individual Educational Characteristic Mean Scores of Teachers and Administrators within High Financial Support Quartile and of Teachers and Administrators within Low Financial Support Quartile . . . . 303 I Differences between Total Mean Scores and between Category Mean Scores of Teachers and Administrators within Districts No. 1, No. 10, and No. 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 xii Appendix Page J Analysis of Variance Reliability Tests for Total Scores and Category Scores of Teachers and of Administrators in High and in Low Financial Support Quartiles . . . . . . . . . 326 K Analysis of Variance Reliability Tests for Total Scores and Category Scores of Teachers and of Administrators in District No. 1 (High Financial Support Quartile) . . . . . . . . . 341 L Analysis of Variance Reliability Tests for Total Scores and Category Scores of Teachers and of Administrators in District No. 10 (Low Financial Support Quartile) . . . . . . . . . 349 M Analysis of Variance Reliability Tests for Total Scores and Category Scores of Teachers and of Administrators in District No. 37 (Low Financial Support Quartile) . . . . . . . . . 357 xiii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Purpose 9: the Study The purpose of this study is to determine the discrim- ination and reliability indices of the Educational Characm teristics Criterion, an instrument designed to measure the quality of an educational prOgram. Importance g£_the Study The application, testing, and analysis of a proposed evaluation instrument will serve to meet a need for a com- prehensive but practical device to appraise the quality of an educational program in a given school district. The conclusions of approximately twenty-five years of research show that major quality related factors of expenditure, school practices, and community characteristics account for approximately twonthirds of the variance of the difference in educational quality which is defined by the concept of adaptability or responsiveness to innovations of good edu« cational practice by school districts. More research needs to be done toward the identification of both nonncostm related and cost-related educational quality factors using (quality measures which are based upon criteria other than adaptability and are reflective of the judgments of educan tional specialists. It is expected that conclusions from this kind of research will provide the basis for intelli- gent decisions by school administrators toward effective and efficient educational processes. There are two main stimulating forces underlying this study: (1) the tremendous concern of professional educa- tors and lay citizens with the function of education in our society, and (2) the acute need for better means of evalu- ation with supporting instrumentation in order to accum rately assess the effectiveness of the educational effort in school districts. The intensified concern of the gen- eral public with education appears to have come as a result of new and baffling life problems associated with the dynamic forces of (1) great population expansion, (2) technological growth, (3) discovery of new forms of energy, I4) the exten~ sion of knowledge, (5) the rise of new nations, and (6) international rivalry of ideologies. It is necessary that higher levels of understanding and skill be attained by our present public school students in order that they may make wise decisions now and in the complex life that they will experience as adult citizens. There are many difficulties associated with the task of defining and measuring the degree of educational quality. It is evident that (l) adequate definition of educational quality has not been very successful in the past, (2) cone cepts of educational quality are always changing, and (3) the probability of consensus as to educational quality is low. The difficulty of securing consensus is all the more apparent when one considers that there are many forces which strongly influence educational quality such as (1) legislation by government, (2) legal structure, (3) tradim tional values, and (4) public opinion. The demands of the present situation include the cone sideration of both quantity and quality of education. Some basic questions which are being raised by the public are: (1) What are the defensible limits of public education?, (2) How much should the public schools cost?, and (3) Who shall pay for public education and how? The cost of needed programs just to maintain the present quality of education will be extremely high in terms of present financial effort and almost prohibitive in terms of possible improved edum cational quality based upon present assumptions of the positive relationship between expenditure and quality. However, it is expected that if the financial load can be equitably levied, the total national economy can support even an enriched quality educational program. In summary, the development of an adequate measure of educational quality and its testing to identify relation= ships between desirable educational characteristics and educational cost factors will take both the problem of excellence in education and the problem of the determina- tion of optimum educational quality—quantity relationships out of the arena of forensics and place it squarely in the realm of good educational practice. In so doing, it will systematically establish a better basis for intelligent decisions in education. Rationale Educational quality may be defined as those educational characteristics of a school district, both school and comm munity, which are perceived by educational authorities as being effective in accomplishing the purposes of American public school education. Quality is perceived differently by each individual because of goals, values, and experiences. Because of the lack of commonality in the effect of these influential factors on individual perception, there is difficulty in establishing a generally acceptable defini- tion of educational quality among educators and laymen. For the purposes of this study the educational character: istics of school districts that are used as a definition of quality are those for which there have been established a significantly high agreement among specialists in educam tional programs. It is assumed that certificated personnel may perceive accurately the educational characteristics of their school district. Agreement regarding educational quality is expected from certificated school personnel who have a generally similar frame of reference in terms of training and professional expectations. It is also assumed that the educational characteristics may be assigned to the following categories: (1) use of facilities, (2) stum dent's level of knowledge and attitudes, (33 socio~ cultural composition of the community, (4) administration and supervision, (5) curriculum, (6) the teacher and teaching methods, and (7) community attitudes. School district cost factors may be categorized as to size, effort, ability, and expenditure per pupil. .Size of school district is defined as the total number of public school pupils enrolled in grades from kindergarten through the twelfth grade. It is assumed that size is an important factor affecting educational quality, A small school dis- trict tends to provide an educational program of a narrower scope than a large districto There is usually a smaller number of specialists on the teaching and nonmteaching staff of a small school district which reduces the degree of educational quality that may be possible in a large school district° Effort is a measure of local taxation and is defined in this study as the operational millage levied on the state equalized valuation of the school districto It is assumed that effort correlates highly with educational qualityo Ability or wealth, which may be viewed as potential expenditure, also is assumed to core relate positively with quality° It is defined as the total state equalized valuation of property per pupil being educated within the school districto Expenditure per pupil reflects to a great degree the acttal per pupil costs of educating a pupil after he arrives at school, in Michigan, under provisions of law, per pupil costs for t I l y, - U n u a « , tuition purposes are computed by leldlng the “Total 1The State of Michigan, Section 14 of Public Act 312 (School Aid Act), 19570 ‘-‘-’_‘.-~— Current Operation” expense exclusive of ”Board Salaries” (Code 311 of the Michigan Department of Public Instruction Annual Statistical and Financial Report, 1960), “Tuition Expense" (Code 326), and ”Transportation Expense” (Codes 361-1 and 361—2) by the total public school membership on the fourth Friday following Labor Day of each year,2 Expenditure per pupil is assumed to be related to educa— tional quality° The basis for the assumptions regarding the relation— ship of educational quality to factors of size, effort, ability, and expenditure are based on the collected find- . . . 3 ings in this area of researcho Hypotheses General Hypothesis 3 The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show ability to discriminate between the first or low financial support quartile and fourth or high financial support quar- tile of Michigan public school districts (K—lZ) which are classified on the educational cost factors of size, effort, ability, and expenditure, 2The State of Michigan, Section 12 of Public Act 312 (School Aid Act), 1957, amended by Public Act 267, 19590 3William S, Vincent, ”Quality Control: A Rationale for Analysis of a School System,“ IAR Research Bulletin, Volo I No.2 (January, 1961), pp.1-7, Operational Hypothesis Hla There will be a significant difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in the total mean scores according to teacher responses. Operational Hypothesis Hlb There will be a significant difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in the total mean scores according to administra— tor responses. Operational Hypothesis H2a There will be a significant difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each category mean score based upon teacher responses. Operational HypotheSis H2b There will be a significant difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each category mean score based upon administra- tor responses. Operational Hypothesis H3a There will be a significant difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based upon teacher responses. Operational Hypothesis H3b There will be a significant difference between the high financial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score based upon administrator responses. General Hypothesis ;l_ The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show no ability to discriminate between the responses of teachers and administrators within the high financial support quartile, within the low financial support quartile, within individual large school districts, and within individual small school districts. Operational Hypothesis H4a Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between total mean scores of teachers and administrators. Operational Hypothesis H4b Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each category mean score of teachers and administrators. Operational Hypothesis H4c Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each educational characteristic mean score of teachers and administrators. Operational Hypothesis H5a Within individual large and small school districts there is no difference between total mean scores of teachers and administrators. Operational Hypothesis H5b Within individual large and small school districts there is no difference between each category mean score of teachers and administrators. 10 General Hypothesis III The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show high reliability within the high financial support quartile of districts and within the low financial support quartile of districts. Operational Hypothesis H6a There will be high consistency in individual edu— cational characteristic scores and the total scores of teacher respondents in the high financial support quartile of districts. Operational Hypothesis H6b There will be high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and the total scores of administrator respondents in the high financial support quartile of districts. Operational Hypothesis H6c There will be high consistency in individual edu— cational characteristic scores and the total scores of teacher respondents in the low financial support quartile of districts. Operational Hypothesis H6d There will be high consistency in individual edu— cational characteristic scores and the total scores of administrator respondents in the low financial support quartile of districts. Operational Hypothesis H7a There will be high consistency in individual edu— cational characteristic scores and the related category scores of teacher respondents in the high financial support quartile of districts. 11 Operational Hypothesis H7b There will be high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and the related category scores of administrator respondents in the high financial support quartile of districts. Operational Hypothesis H7c There will be high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and related category scores of teacher respondents in the low financial support quartile of districts. Operational Hypothesis H7d There will be high consistency in individual edu— cational characteristic scores and related category scores of administrator respondents in the low financial support quartile of districts. General Hypothesis ;y_ The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show high reliability within individual large and small school districts. Operational Hypothesis H8a There will be high consistency in individual edu— cational characteristic scores and the total scores of teacher respondents in large districts. Operational Hypothesis H8b There will be high consistency in individual edu— cational characteristic scores and the total scores of administrator respondents in large districts. Operational Hypothesis H8c There will be high consistency in individual edu— cational characteristic scores and the total scores of teacher respondents in small districts. 12 Operational Hypothesis H8d There will be high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and the total scores of administrator respondents in small districts. Operational Hypothesis H9a There will be high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and related category scores of teacher respondents in large districts. Operational Hypothesis H9b There will be high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and related category scores of administrator respondents in large districts. Operational Hypothesis H9c There will be high consistency in individual edu— cational characteristic scores and related category scores of teacher respondents in small districts. Operational Hypothesis H9d There will be high consistency in individual edu- cational characteristic scores and related category scores of administrator respondents in small districts. General Hypothesis 1 The individual educational characteristic scores of the Educational Characteristics Criterion will have adequate positive discrimination power with respect to the total quality score and to their related category quality scores. Operational Hypothesis HlO The correlation coefficient for the relation of individual educational characteristic scores to total score differs significantly from zero. 13 Operational Hypothesis Hll The correlation coefficient for the relation of each educational characteristic score to its respective category score differs significantly from zero. Th§_Scope ang_Delimitations 9f the_Study This study is delimited in the following ways: 1. The major data of this study were derived from the Annual Statistical and Financial Reports to the Michigan Department of Public Instruction for 1960, computations of per pupil costs by the Department, computations by the Michigan Education Association Research Division from offi- cial reports, and responses to the Educational Character- istics Criterion by Michigan certificated school personnel. 2. The analyses of this study concern the determination of reliability and discrimination indices of the instrument, the determination of relationships between individual edu— cational characteristic scores, category quality scores, total quality scores and certain educational cost factors as well as the determination of differences in the relative perceptions of quality by teachers and administrative per— sonnel. The study is limited to data from the high and low 14 educational financial support quartiles of school districts which are classified on the basis of four educational cost factors. 3. This study treats the selected financial factors and educational quality factors and thus does not intend to be comprehensive. 4. The conclusions of the study regarding the relation— ships of educational quality factors and educational cost or financial support factors are to be interpreted in the sense that the relationships are associational and not causal. Definition 9f_Terms Public schools. Public schoolsfl as used in this studyg refer to the Michigan public elementary and secondary schools in school districts which maintain grades of kinder- garten through twelfth grade. Those schools which are fully subsidized from federal or state funds. and whose programs are under federal or state supervision are excluded. School district. A school district is a quasi— municipal corporation created by the Michigan state legis— lature for the purpose of operating and maintaining public schools having grades of kindergarten through twelfth 15 grade, and whose boundaries are not necessarily related to those of other local units of government. School district type. School district type is defined as the representative characteristics common to groups of individual school districts having kindergarten through twelfth grades which are classified as either highest or lowest quartile of all Michigan public school districts, exclusive of the City of Detroit, according to each of the four factors of educational cost, namely, size, ability, effort, and expenditure per pupil. High and low financial support districts are used as synonymous terms. Public school finance system. The revenue and dis~ bursement system utilized by the state to support its ele- mentary and secondary schools. State aid 9£_school support. The distribution of the money collected by the state on a state—wide basis to local school districts in accordance with a statutory formula. State equalized valuation. The final appraisal of the worth of the real and personal property as established for tax purposes by the Michigan Tax Commission. ,Mill, A mill is the value of a tenth of a cent or thousandth of a dollar. l6 §i§§, The total public school membership expressed in the number of children of a high school district from kinder— garten through the twelfth grade. All pupils to be counted in membership shall be at least five years of age on Decem- ber first, and under twenty years of age on September first of the school year, and the full-time membership count is the number of pupils enrolled in regular daily attendance on the fourth Friday following Labor day of each year.4 The term n§§g_is used interchangeably with size in the review of related literature. Financial ability. The state equalized valuation (SEV) expressed in dollars of a school district divided by the total resident membership including resident pupils attending any public school is defined as financial ability. The figure used is actually the number of dollars of state equalized valuation behind each resident pupil member. Financial effort. The tax rate expressed in mills levied in a public school district for the purposes of cur— rent operation of the school district. The term may also have varying meanings as specified in the review of related literature. 4The State of Michigan, Section 12 of Public Act 312 (School Aid Act), 1957, amended by Public Act 267, 1959. 17 Financial expenditure. The cost per pupil computed by dividing the total current operation expense exclusive of school board salaries, tuition expense, and transportation expense (Codes 311, 326, 361-1, and 361-2 of the Michigan Department of Public Instruction Annual Statistical and Financial Report, 1960) by the total public school member- ship (as defined under Size). This term may also have other meanings as specified in the review of related literature. Educational quality. Those educational characteris— tics of a school district, both school and community, which are perceived by educational authorities as being effective in accomplishing the purposes of American public school education. The characteristics are specifically defined in the Educational Characteristics Criterion for purposes of this study. Total quality score. The sum of the weighted item responses to the Educational Characteristics Criterion. Category quality score. The sum of the weighted item responses of the educational characteristics included in each of the following categories of educational quality: (1) use of facilities, (2) student"s level of knowledge, “Ll—*5. ..___._————’ '- 18 B) socio—cultural composition of community, (4) adminis— tration and supervision, (5) curriculum, (6) the teacher and teaching methods, and (7) community attitudes. The listing of the educational characteristics which are inclu— ded in each category is presented in Chapter III. Educational characteristic score 9r_it§m_guality gggrg. The weighted response to one educational character— istic or one item of the Educational Characteristics Criterion. Organization 9f_the Remainder 9f_th§_Thesis In Chapter II the review of related literature is presented. The review includes philosophical statements about educational quality, instrumentation used in studies of educational quality, and descriptions of significant empirical studies of educational quality and its relation— ship to financial, school, and community factors. In Chapter III the procedure and methodology of the Study are presented in which there is a detailed description Of the Quality criterion, cost factors, sample, design of the Study, and proposed analysis. In Chapter IV the analysis of the data is presented. 19 In Chapter V the conclusions, their implications, and recommendations for further research are reported. CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE The literature concerning the definition of educational quality and its relation to educational cost factors has been reviewed under three categories: (1) philosophical statements about educational quality, (2) instruments used to measure educational quality, and (3) related empirical studies. An effort has been made to give consideration to differing views of educational authorities in order to present the broad scope and complexity of the problem of evaluating educational quality and the determination of its relationship to financial support. Philosophical Statements Th§_Nature 9: Evaluation The importance of the prevailing philosophy concerning educational quality in local school districts and of the implementation of the principle of decentralization or local control may be viewed in the evaluation criteria dev- eloped by a national study group: The study has developed a proved way of recognizing that schools which are quite different may be equally 20 "I' 21 good. This involves the basic principle that a school should be evaluated in terms of what it is striving to accomplish (its philosophy and objectives) and in terms of the extent to which it is meeting the needs of the students who are enrolled or for whom it is responsible. Evaluation is a process of making value-judgments on the basis of pertinent information about significant aspects of the educational program. The changing perceptions of the role of the school has influenced evaluation. The school has increasingly served as a vital force in citizens" efforts to improve life within the community rather than just dispense knowledge, skills, and abilities within a formal academic curriculum. The values and wishes of the local community have been increasingly considered in the determination of local school programs. Burton and Brueckner have defined the area of modern evaluation as including: (1) scope and quality of goals, purposes, and functions of the total educational program, (2) progress toward these goals in terms of growth, and (3) appraisal of . . . . 2 all elements of the total teaching-learning Situation. 1National Study of Secondary School Evaluation, Eval- uative Criteria (Washington: The Study, 1960), pp. 3-4. 2W. H. Burton and L. J. Brueckner, Supervision: A Social Process (New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts, Inc., 1955). pp. 206. -JL._‘______.-——-FU' 22 Philosophical View Related 39 Democracy Johns and Morphet have identified some concepts which they believe are generally related to democratic ideas regarding equal educational opportunity held by the major- ity of the nation°s citizens. These include: (1) provi- sion for educational opportunity and support through the junior college level, (2) provision for educational oppor— tunity to meet individual needs as well as societal needs, (3) financial support of education based upon the ability of the individual citizen, and (4} use of national resources to provide educational opportunities regardless of the state or community in which citizens 1ive.i Inconsistency between Democratic Philosophy and Practices Johns and Morphet have pointed out some inconsisten- cies between democratic concepts and practices related to the provision of educational opportunities and financial support such as: (l) wasted human resources evident in the large pupil drop-out rate, (2) the tremendous variation in scope and quality of educational opportunity in the nation, 3R. L. Johns and E. L. Morphet, Financing the Public Schools (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: PrenticenHall, Inc., 1960}, pp. 4-70 23 and (3) lack of individual citizen support according to financial ability.4 Some of the reasons for the differences between cone cepts and practices are: (l) unresolved conflicts of opinion regarding the place and role of public education, (2) reliance upon property taxes as the chief source of revenue of school support, (3) inequities in local abil- ity, (4) obsolete and antiquated district structure, (5) tendency to continue existing practices regardless of their justification or desirability, and (6) ineffective leader— ship or inefficient management.5 A study of all the forty—eight states over a decade ago showed wide variation in practices and provisions made by states for education and sharp differences were noted in educational services and practices in all aspects of school administration and operation.6 The study showed similarities in general purposes and attempts to assure . . . 7 . adequate educational opportunities. The major structural 41bid., pp. 7—8. Sibid., pp. 8—ll. 6The Council of State Governments, Francis S. Chase, Direactor, Th§_Forty—Eiqht State School Systems: A Study 2: izhe Organization, Administration, and Einancing of Public Elernentary and Secondary Education (Chicago: The Council, 19453), pp. 5—6. 7Ibid., pp. 6-7. 24 defects in educational organization and administration were identified as being: (1) constitutional and statutory provi- sions which raise barriers to capable educational leader— ship, (2) unsatisfactory local administrative units, and . . . 8 (3) methods of distributing state school funds. Need for Clarification pf_the Concept pf_Egual Educational Opportunity. In the light of the preceding studies it is evident that the national ideological concept of equality of educa— tional opportunity regarding the scope and quality of edu— cational services has not been adequately implemented. The concept has been subjected to varying interpretations as pointed out by Burke: Equality of educational opportunity is used to ration— alize school finance programs. It often is implied or asserted that finance p§£_§§_will result in attainment of this ideal. Although finance, if accompanied by other essential steps, can make possible improved school programs, by itself it will not produce equality of educational opportunity. Indeed, equality of edu- cational opportunity is not attainable in a single school system. It is not even desirable in a decentral— ized school system. What is desirable is a rising standard of educational service, not equality of service. \_\‘_\ 8Ibid., pp. 8-9. 9Arvid J. Burke, Financing Public Schools ip the United States (Revised edition, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), P. 561. 25 The concept of equal educational opportunity is one that is not readily understood by the general public which tends to think of it in terms of quantity or scope of serv- ices. A clarifying view which points out the fact that the same educational experiences do not insure equal oppor— tunity is made by Moehlman: Equalization of educational opportunity does not mean a leveling process but exactly the reverse. It act— ually demands a differentiated program adjusted to individual capacities. A satisfactory educational plan for the child of sound body or mind, or both. The exceptionally gifted child in like manner requires a specially enriched program for his greatest possi— ble growth.lO Reconsideration pf_phg_Principle pf Decentralization gpg_Local Control In recent years there has been an increasing number of educators who have advocated a move toward increased centralized control of educational programs and finance. The effect of contemporary national and international events as well as public impatience with the tremendous lag between educational research findings and school practices have stimulated this view. Kochnower has pointed out the effect of the fragmentation of authority inherent in the present 10 Johns and Morphet, pp, 923., pp. 7—8. 26 relationship between the state and the local school dis— trict as being a reason for the lag between goals and prac— tices as well as sluggish evaluative procedures. The research findings of Mort and Cornell provide evi- dence for the presence of educational lag according to the following statement: . . .we see that it is not unusual for a period of fifty years to elapse between the realization of need and the invention and first practical introduction of an acceptable way of meeting it.12 Burke has pointed out the tendencies toward centrali— zation of educational Control in connection with equaliza— tion programs between state and local school districts and he has stressed its possible detrimental effects upon edu— cational improvement, adequate level of support, and indie vidualization of local district prOgrams. He states that "centrally directed improvements are slow—moving at best and hardly lead to a balanced improvement of the whole 13 school program." He recommends a finance program which llWilliam Kochnower, "The Case for Centralization," Phi Delta Kappan, XV (January, 1961), pp. 393-394. 12Paul R. Mort and Francis G. Cornell, American Schools ip_Transition (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, l94l), p. 405. l3Burke, pp, cit., p. 586. 27 will take into consideration nine major differences between school districts in the areas of values, needs, community differences, attitudes, and financial factors and he empha- sizes that the objective of central finance is not the removal of inequalities in educational opportunities which must be handled on the local decentralized level.l4 Criticism pf Present Educational Quality Freeman, after extensive studies in school finance, stated the thesis that more money may well be needed to improve teachers0 salaries and to reduce the classroom shortage, but that much could also be done to get more solid and real educational progress from existing personnel, equip- ment, and buildings if we were willing to face up to some of the cold, hard facts of our public education program quality. He feels that there is surprisingly little evidence that present quality of public school education is proportion- ate to the number of dollars spent.15 Regarding public support of education he says: l4Burke, pp, cit., p. 559. 15U. S. Congressional Record, 86th Congress, lst Session, 1959, CV, Part 4, p. 5355. 28 The American people have loyally and faithfully sup- ported their public schools. The record makes no per— suasive case for holding insufficient funds responsi- ble for shortcomings in the educational product.l6 Freeman makes a plea for individualization of public school programs in respect to the according of honor and recognition to those students who excel in their studies and in respect to payment of teachers“ salaries on a merit basis. He feels that factors such as these will be of the greatest importance irrespective of the factor of financial 17 support. The National Education Association has made a rebuttal . 18 . . . l9 . of Freeman‘s Views, speCifically of his book. It is emphasized that he is overly concerned with financial cost of education as related to other governmental costs rather than with cost as related to the essential needs of American . . . . . 20 soc1ety liVing as a free nation and haVing a free economy. The National Education Association takes issue with Free- man's citation of the Soviet Union°s educational methods as 16M“ p. 5356. l7Ibic_i_., p. 5358. 8National Education Assoc1ation, ”A Few Comments on School Needs ip_the Decades Ahead," Special Memo, July,1958. 19Roger L. Freeman, School Needs ip_the Decades Ahead, Vol. I: Financing the Public Schools (Washington: The Insti- tute for Social Science Research, 1958). O 2 NBA, pp, cit., p. l. 29 well as his use of certain statistics in providing a basis for his conclusions. Eurich also considers the relationship of educational quality and quantity to financial support and states the basic contemporary issue in this area in saying: Will we try to solve our education problems by appro— priating more money to do more of the same things in the same ways we have been doing them in the past in our schools and colleges, or will we try to find more effective, more efficient, and more economic procedures?22 Conceptions pf_Desired Educational Quality Molnar makes a plea for greater intellectualism in the public school educational programs and states the three basic premises for the restoration of learning as being: (1) the need for the school to be an artificial and dis— tinct society, (2) the need for the employment of the Socratic method of inquiry in order to test concepts and precepts, and (3) the need to study our Western cultural 2 heritage. 3 21NEA, pp, cit., p. 1. 22Alvin C. Eurich, "Money Isn”t Everything,“ in gppcial Issues ip_Education, ed. Henry Ehlers and Gordon C. Lee{New York: Henry Holt and Company,1959), pp. 246—249. 23Thomas Molnar, The Future p: Education (New York: ‘. Fleet Publishing Corporation,1961), pp. 149, 152, 157. 3O Bertocci attempts to answer the question which is so popular at the present time-—ypgp pg education for quality? He believes that our perplexities about education and school- ing stem from underlying assumptions about excellence, espec- ially the reliance upon security emphasized in the philo— sophical thinking of Plato, Aristotle, and thinkers in the Judeo-Christian tradition.24 Bertocci would steer away from this type of security toward an insecurity which promotes individual creativity that is truly realistic to man°s nature and running counter to the conforming tendencies of the modern age.25 Melby makes a plea for a new strategy in the form of a really great education where changes must be major ones which stress values rather than just factual knowledge.26 He states the frightening alternatives which confront man— kind in the thermonuclear age and raises the question as to whether we are equal to the demands of creating a new educa- tional program. 24Peter A. Bertocci, Education and the Vision p§_§xgpl- lence (Boston: Boston University Press, 1960), p. 22. 25 Ibid., p. 26. 6Ernest O. Melby, The Education pf_Free Mpg, Horace Mann Lecture (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1955), p. 12. 31 Di Carlo has described an educational model which would include the three requisites of (l) a philosophy, (2) an attitude, and (3) a method of problem solving: Educational Quality a§_Viewed by the Educational Policies Commission.28 The Educational Policies Commission representing the National Education Association and the American Association of School Administrators has issued a statement which holds that quality of education must be considered as the perform— ance of the school district in the light of the present situation and in terms of its emerging changes as well as in terms of the relation of ideal circumstances to existent possibilities in actual circumstances: The principles of universality and diversity are upheld, The necessity for maintaining a minimum financial level of support to insure the possibilities of high quality of education is stressed: It is emphasized that there be a vigorous public commit- ment to education in each locality which is based on under— standing of what education can do and what good schools are 27Louis Molfi Carlo, Our Educational Dilemma, J. Richard Street Lecture (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1959), p. 12. 28 National Education Association, Quality in_Education, A Report of the Educational Policies Commission (Washington: National Education Association, 1959): “w "’ fi‘ —- —\-.—.__—fl-——_‘ 32 like since local school district effort largely determines educational quality. Definition 9§_Educational Quality Based upon Recent Studieszg Trump and Baynha proposed guides for better schools based upon the recent experimental studies since 1956 in nearly one hundred junior and senior high schools across the United States directed by a commission which was established to seek solutions to the nation-wide shortage of teachers and improvement of educational quality. The authors pointed out the following three reasons for their considerable doubt as to the readiness of the modern public school to train youth for the future which will demand unprecedented many- sided solutions by citizens to national and international problems: (1) inflexibility of traditional practices, (2) reliance on improvement of education by refinement rather than by redefinition, and (3) limited interpretation of the concept of universal education. The Commission has stated the needs in all of the component parts of the school based upon research findings. Students need study skills, 29J. Lloyd Trump and Dorsey Baynha, Focus 9E_Change: Guide t9_Better Schools (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1961), p. 4. 33 individual responsibility, inquiring mind, discussion skills, satisfaction in learning, and talent for effectual human relations. The Report of the White House Conference on Education in 1956 described areas of consensus of the meeting and their priority of need: The development of the intellectual powers of young people, each to the limit of his capacity, is the first responsibility of the schools. Beyond this basic task, all kinds of instruction are not equally important for all children, and their importance var- ies from community to community. A primary responsi— bility of any local school authority is to establish priorities of significance among basic general educa- tion, specialized education of all kinds, and extra- curricular activities.30 Downey categorized the elements of the task of education which were expressed in the views of approximately twenty- seven outstanding authorities. On a logical basis he estab— lished the following mutually-exclusive dimensions: A. Intellectual Dimensions 1. Possession of Knowledge: A fund of information. Concepts. 2. Communication of Knowledge: Skill to acquire, transmit. 3. Creation of Knowledge: Discrimination and imagination. 4. Desire for Knowledge: A love for learning. 30The Committee for the White House Conference on Education, A_Report t9_the President (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1956). p. 11. 34 B. Social Dimensions 5. Man to 6. Man to 7. Man to 8. Man to Man: Cooperation in day-to-day relations. State: Civic rights and duties. Country: Loyalty to one's own country. World: Interrelationships of peoples. C. Personal Dimensions 9. Physical: Bodily health and development. 10. Emotional: Mental health and stability. 11. Ethical: Moral integrity. l2. Aesthetics: Cultural and leisure pursuits. D. Productive Dimensions 13. Vocation-Selective: Information and guidance. 14. Vocation—Preparative: Training and placement. 15. Home and Family: Housekeeping, do—it-yourself, family. 16. Consumer: Personal buying, selling and investment.31 Summary 1. The controversy over the role of education in soci- ety which is probably as old as education itself has assumed major importance in recent years because of events which have led to its consideration as an instrument of national survival as well as an instrument of social purpose. 2. There is a considerable gap between the expressed philosophical views which implement the concerning education and the practices educational programs based on these philosophies. Lofty, emphatic statements of democratic 1Lawrence W. Downey, The Task 9f_Public Education: The Perceptions 9f_People (Chicago: Midwest Administration Cen- . ter, The University of Chicago, 1960), po 24. K 35 ideology appear simultaneously with wide variations in educational scope and quality as well as educational opportunity. 3. There appears to be a strong desire to modify the present system of controls between the state and local school districts as well as to consider federal educational support. The present reconsideration of the educational facets within the national democratic philosophy point up the apparent opposition of the principles of equal educa— tional opportunity and decentralization of controls. Differences in educational opportunity appear to be inevi- table in decentralized state school systems but valuable in that there is freedom for willing school systems to initi- ate experiments and new practices toward the eventual improvement of all school systems. 4. There appear to be greater differences of opinion regarding cost—quality relationships than regarding cost- quantity relationships. Many persons appear to agree that increasing the quality is likely to add somewhat to the cost, but few appear to agree that increasing the cost would add to the quality. There is great concern with possible future increases that will be needed in the finan- cial support of education on the basis that these financial 36 increases will be proportionate to the continuing rise in enrollment. This concern appears to be even greater when consideration is given to the possible additional increases in future financial support which are calculated upon the assumption that school quality as well as general scope and level of services is positively related to expenditure. 5. Considerable attention has been given to the identification of the dimensions of educational tasks which may provide an aid to the clarification and resolution of educational issues which frequently arise from differences in educational philosophy. The problem of the definition of educational quality and its improvement is inseparably connected to the problem of the clarification of educa— tional philosophy. Instrumentation The literature related to the instrumentation of edu— cational quality research is reviewed within three cate— gories: (1) measures used in evaluations based upon locally- defined objectives, (2) measures used in normative evalua— tions of many school districts, and (3) measures used in research concerning the effects of public school education on various aspects of adult life. 37 Introduction Definitions gf_Measurement and Evaluation The terms measurement and evaluation identify differ— ences in point of view in gathering data about the attain- ment of a pupil or the quality of a school. Measurement is applied to the use of precise objective methods that yield quantitative data which can be expressed in standard units thus making direct comparisons with standards and norms possible. It may be defined as "the process of assigning symbols to dimensions of phenomena in order to characterize the status of a phenomenon as precisely as possible."32 Evaluation is a process of making qualitative determinations. It may be defined as "the assignment of symbols to phenom- ena in order to characterize the worth or value of a phenom- enon, usually with reference to some social, cultural, or scientific standard."33 An evaluative standard is any— thing that is used as a basis for judging value or desira- bility. Sometimes a purpose is a standard. Evaluative 2James M. Bradfield and H. Stewart Moredock, Measure— ment and Evaluation in_Education (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1957), pp. 193—194. 33Ibid., p. 2. ”-4... . __ \f— 38 standards may be set by arbitrary conceptions or custom, and the ultimate source is the value complex of our American culture with immediate sources in the various fields of philosophy, psychology, sociology, history, and other social sciences. Many standards are particular to local communi- ties and schools. It is essential that any evaluative sym— bol such as those based upon rank or classification be rela- ted to unambiguous axiappropriate statements about the qual- ity gradations which they represent. Two Approaches t2_Evaluation—- Product and Process The evaluation of the educational product in terms of educational objectives or pupil growth and development is very limited because of the lack of objective measure— ments of the type suitable for normative treatment. School grades, attitude and adjustment inventories have limited value for comparative purposes because of critical varia— tions in methods of application and interpretation. In an attempt to circumvent the barriers of insufficient or incom- parable data, process evaluation has been used to study school quality relationships. This approach is concerned with the appraisal of all elements of the total teaching- learning situation that contribute to effective and 39 economical learning such as the organization and adminis— tration of the school, curriculum, teaching—learning proc- ess, instructional materials, equipment, facilities, com- munity life, and school—community relations. Quality of the educational product may be estimated from the quality of the educational process with the limitation that the latter is one step more remote than the testing of pupils during or shortly following the educational experience and two steps away from the ultimate criterion of educational quality which is effective living as an adult. In a sum- mary of important research concerning educational quality over a period of approximately forty years, it was found that sixty-four per cent of the studies used process—type quality indications such as length of school term, holding power, and long lists of descriptive items about curricula and methods; twenty per cent of the studies used achievement tests or product—type quality indications; and sixteen per cent of the studies used indications of the long—time effects of education, cultural, or economic productivity all of which might be classed as a type of product quality 34 . evaluation. One of the important tasks of present—day 34 ‘ Paul R. Mort, Walter C. Reusser, John W. Polley, Public School Finance (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,l960), p. 80. 40 education is to find the factors which influence the educa— tional product. The identification, measurement, and rela- ting of these critical factors or dimensions to educational objectiveszhithe form of measurable and comparable units will provide the means to enhance the growth of the individe ual pupil and the school. Evaluation of Quality Based Upon Locally Defined Objectives A widely used type of evaluation involves the basic principle that a school should be evaluated in terms of what it is striving to accomplish and the extent to which it meets the needs of pupils. An outstanding example of this type of evaluative instrument is the Evaluative Criteria of the National Study of Secondary School Evaluation.35 The contents of this instrument are: (l) a guide for the statement of philosophy and objectives to be accomplished prior to the evaluation; (2) compilation of school and community factual data; (3) extensive series of checklists (27) giving criteria for analyzing and appraising (a) gen— eral principles underlying the program of the school, (b) 35 National Study of Secondary School Evaluation, Eval— uative Criteria (Washington: The Study, 1960), pp. 3-4. I l . l l 3 l n 41 curriculum-development procedures, (c) program of studies, including extent and nature of offerings, (d) general out- comes of the program of studies, (e) special characteristics of the program of studies, and (f) general evaluation of the program of studies with five-point rating scales of the checklists that are defined; (4) charts for statistical and graphic summary of evaluations. The rating of the total school program is based upon the average of ratings for each category. A self—evaluation is recommended to be done first by professional and lay citizens followed by a visiting committee of professional educators. Another example of an evaluative instrument based upon locally-defined objectives is Evaluating the Elementary School: A_Guide for Cogperative Study which is in five parts: (1) Formulation of values and goals, (2) Listing of functions, (3) School program, (4) Resources, and (5) Plans for improvement.36 Sections A and B of the guide provide a means of examining the existing values of the total educational program and related practices. Sections C and D serve as guides for studying and planning the 36Southern Association of Secondary Schools, Evalu— ating the Elementary School: A Guide for Cooperative Study (Atlanta: Commission on Research and Service, The Associa- tion, 1951). 42 means of improvement of the school program and use of resources. There is no quantitative or qualitative rating of existing practices as included in the Evaluative Criteria. Section E concerns the planning of cooperative and coor- dinated programs of action toward school improvement. Quality Measures Providing Normative— Type Evaluation Instruments Designed tg_Measure Individual Growth During School Years Achievement tests such as the Iowa Test gf_Basic . 37 . 38 Skills and Iowa Tests 9£_Educational Development attempt to determine how much a person has learned from some educational experience. The first instrument is designed for grades three through nine, and the second instrument is designed for grades nine through thirteen. Many subtest scores are prOVided by each instrument. A recent study included administration of these tests to approximately 70,000 pupils in grades five, eight, and eleven in nearly 100 school 37Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1956). 3BIowa Tests 9§_Educational Development (Chicago: Sci— ence Research Associates, 1958). 43 systems.39 The pupil achievement growth or gains was deter— mined by subtracting the 1957-58 subtests results from those of the 1958—59 school year. It was found that the average resulting gain of 1.13 grades based on tested grades placed the research project schools about a third of a grade above the national average. It was also found that a sig— nificant relationship existed between mean gains and socio— economic level and community type in the 4th—5th and 10th— 11th grade subtests but not in the 7th—8th grade subtests. There are limitations to the use of achievement gains as determined by achievement tests such as: (l) gains must be viewed in relation to the status score and the question—— do poor achieving schools or pupils raise their scores easier than high achieving schools or pupils?; (2) input factors as socio-economic background must be taken into account; (3) possible inadequacy of test for excellent pupils; (4) loss of able students to private or parochial school which gives a false impression of the excellence of these schools; and (5) effect of drop—outs on average school achievement scores and on scores of lower ability group. 39 , , , , William D. Firman §t_al, Procedures in_School Quality Evaluation, A Second Report of the Quality Measurement Proj- ect (New York: State Education Dept., 1961 [mimeo], Chapter 4). 44 Instruments Designed tg Measure School Qualities Promoting Individual Growth Th§_Growing Egggéo is an example of an instrument of this type, and it is based upon the concept of adaptability or the capacity of a school district to adapt to new pur— poses and practices which are considered worthwhile.41 The assumption is made that adaptability is an important aspect of educational quality. The specific practices included in Th§_Growing Egg§_are organized around four major areas of educational purpose: (1) teaching of basic skills, (2) teaching of the areas of knowledge, (3) discovery and devel— opment of special aptitudes of individuals through test and tryout, and (4) development of gross behavior patterns as citizenship, character, and thinking. Each item of the instrument is a description of a specific school practice, the high school form consisting of eighty—five items and the elementary form of sixty—four items. There is a provision for the substitution of practices on an equivalent or better basis, and practices may be scored positively if there is 40P. R. Mort, W. S. Vincent, and C. A. Newell, The Growing Edge (New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1945). 41Mort and Cornell, American Schools in_Transition, gp. cit., p. 405. 45 evidence that they have existed although not necessarily directly observed during the rating period. The school sys— tem score is obtained by taking the average of all the indi- vidual item scores. Evaluators are required, one to a set of two pupils per 75 or 100 eleventh grade pupils. Fifth grade pupils in the elementary school are evaluated. Reli— ability coefficients (split-half) are 0.88 and 0.89 for high school and elementary forms respectively. Rough meas— ures of validity exist in (l) intercorrelation of 0.68 between forms, and (2) correlations of 0.51 and 0.58 between another measure of adaptability, The Time Scale (described below) and high school and elementary forms. The Time Scale is an instrument based upon the concept that an index of school system adaptability can be obtained by finding out at what stage of the diffusion of a given adaptation a community introduced it in their school system. Communities are classified as pioneers, early followers, late followers, or laggards according to their degree of adaptability. To apply this instrument each of twenty-two practices are checked for their presence and approximate date Paul R. Mort and Truman Pierce, A Time Scale for Meas— uring the Adaptability gf_School Systems (New York: Metro- politan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1947). I—x-..___——- 46 of introduction and are then scored by means of a table. Standard score equivalents are available and a comparison can be made of a community°s position relative to communi- ties in the top fifth of school expenditure in the United States as represented by schools in the Metropolitan School Study Council. A revised edition contains thirty-three items. The Time Scale provides a less complete appraisal than The Growing Edge but has the advantage of being applicable without the visitation of field workers. The reliability coefficient (split—half) is 0.84. Instruments Designed tg_Measure Scope gf_Educational Opportunity A_Guide for the Self—Appraisal gf_School Systems provides a checklist of 183 specific adaptations which were selected from twenty—three major statements formed as the result of a survey of some seven hundred primary and second- ary sources dealing with social and economic forces and their . . . . 43 . .. . implications for education. Weightings for the various sections of the instrument were based upon the judgments of American educators, and they range from five to thirteen 43Paul R. Mort and Francis G. Cornell, A_Guide for Self— Appraisal gf_School Systems (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1937). 47 points with the total possible points being 1003. There are four major divisions (Classroom Instruction, Special Services for Individual Pupils, Educational Leadership, and Physical Facilities and Business Management) each of which is subdivided into two sections (Curriculum, Pupil Activity) which are further subdivided to form a total of twenty— three subsections and are scored as major adaptation groups from 130 to 730 points. Scores may be compared with norms. The instrument may be used by professional staffs of school systems or visiting evaluators. The guide makes no direct reference to the formulation of the values underlying the total educational program or to the appraisal of the educa— tional product. Mort has rated several of the instruments and devices used in research by him and his colleagues as to their effectiveness. Measures g§_Administrative Arrange— ments and Legal Structure Ferrell used a six item index called an efficiency index for a study of its relation to expenditure using data from 1935. Items such as attendance, holding power, teacher 44Paul R. Mort, "Cost—Quality Relationships in Educa- tion," Problems and Issues in_Public School Finance, ed. R. L. Johns and E. L. Morphet (New York: National Conference of Professors of Education, Teachers College, Columbia Univer- sity, 1952), p. 16. 48 preparation and experience, teacher—pupil ratio, and length . 45 of school term were included. Thaden used as a measure of educational opportunity certain items of administrative arrangement, structure, and external factors such as accreditation, presence of citi- zen's council and adult education programs, valuation, enrollment, percentage of non—resident pupils, and training of teachers. Measures of Quality Used in Schooling— Adult Life Studies In a study of the relative causal effects of education and other factors on social life, Thorndike used indexes made up from items used by Ayres and Bagley in previous studies. The Ayres index which includes all items used in these three studies is as follows: 1. Per cent of school population attending school daily. 2. Average days attended by each child of school age. 45D. T. Ferrell, Relation Between Current Expenditures and Certain Measures 9;.Educational Efficiency in_Kentucky County and Graded School Systems, Contributions to Education No. 126 (Nashville: George Peabody College for Teachers,l936). 46J. F. Thaden, Egualizinngducational Opportunity Through_Community School Districts, Special Bulletin 410, January, 1957 (East Lansing: Agricultural Experiment Sta— tion, Dept of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State University). 49 3. Average number of days schools were kept open. Per cent that high school attendance was of total attendance. Per cent that boys were of girls in high schools. Average annual expenditure per child attending. Average annual expenditure per child of school age. Average annual expenditure per teacher employed. Expenditure per pupil for purposes other than teacher“s salaries. 10. Expenditure per teacher for salaries.47 p KOCD\IO\U‘I This index appears to be similar to the previously mentioned measures of administrative arrangements. Summary 1. The most effective measures of educational quality of the normative type have been those designed to measure factors of educational process rather than product on the assumption that they contain educational items which are reflective of the aspects of the school program that contri— bute to the benefit of individuals and society in post- school life. 2. Achievement tests have had a limited value for com- parative purposes because of the critical variation of methods of application and interpretation and because of the scarcity of information concerning pupil growth and its relation to teaching methods. Recent research suggests 47 tom (New York: The MacMillan Company: 1939), p. 8. —— 50 that factors other than grade level and area of learning cause frequency distributions of mean schievement gains of school systems to assume asymmetrical forms. 3. One of the chief problems in the measurement of educational quality and its evaluation is the determination of the degree as well as the description of the educational characteristic or factor. This inadequacy detrimentally affects the accurate measurement of process factors, indi- vidually and in clusters, which may be related to quality. 4. The ultimate end of good instrumentation is the identification and measurement of educational input and out- put so that controls can be established in the teaching and administrative processes in order to achieve the maximiza- tion of efficiency in educational effort toward the ulti— mate criterion of educational quality——individua1 and societal well—being in life. Related Empirical Studies The empirical studies of educational quality have been reviewed according to (1) cost—quality relationships, (2) community—quality relationships, and (3) school staff— quality relationships. A major portion of the review is concerned with the research conclusions of Paul R. Mort and 51 his colleagues who have investigated over three hundred educational quality-related factors during the past forty years. Other recent research pertinent to this study and primarily concerned with educational cost factors in Michigan is included here. Cost—Quality Relationships Using Expenditure as Cost Factor Upper Part gf_Expenditure Scale According to Mort, the data of Woollatt“s is among the most convincing of all studies of expenditure—quality rela— . . 48 . . . . tionship. In a study of high expenditure school districts in New York and New Jersey suburban communities, Woollatt found a significant positive relationship between each of the four factors of The Growing Edge instrument and expend— iture, and between combined factors and expenditure; the , , 4 latter correlation being 0.59. 9 Upper Half gf_Expenditure Scale Vincent found significant correlations between expend- iture and school quality using three samples of New York 48Mort, Reusser, Polley, gp, cit., p. 17. 9Lorne H. Woollatt, The Cost—Quality Relationship gg the Growing Edge (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teach— ers College, Columbia University, 1949). "'_ ‘M-- .1....__,,__ ___‘ ,_, __._.____.. - _ , , 52 state school systems having high, middle, and low expendi- ture schools all of which were in the upper half of the national school expenditure scale.50 Vincent used the Mort—Burke—Fisk §pigg consisting of 1091 items as well as mailed reports to collect data. Upper Middle P§£p_g§_ph§_Expenditure Scale The Pennsylvania study of 1935 by Mort and Cornell showed that the expenditure factor was operating in all but one of the eight adaptations studied as shown by the rela— tively high positive correlation of 0.587.51 Data was col- lected by means of the Mort—Cornell §pig§_which was applied to thirty-six Pennsylvania communities. Applying the §pig§_to thirty—eight Rhode Island school districts in 1941, Mort determined a correlation of 0.66 between the quality scores and expenditure and also found that a large percentage of items in the scale were not directly traceable to costs, especially the fifty—eight . , , 2 items dealing With actual behaVior in school.5 50William S. Vincent, Emerging Patterns g: Public School Practice (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1945), p. 50. 51 Mort and Cornell, American Schools ip_Transition, gp. cit., p. 178, 490. 52Mort, Problems and Issues ig Public School Finance, pp. 23—25. 53 Middle Part g£_the Expenditure Scale In a study of the West Virginia schools in 1945, George Strayer confirmed the findings of Mort°s previous studies that expenditure and quality are positively related.53 Con- sistent relationships were stronger on the curriculum items of the Mort—Cornell Guide than any other group. In 1936 Ferrell found a positive relationship between current expenditure and an educational efficiency index of six items, the correlation being 0.92 (county systems) and 54 0.77 (graded school systems). Low Part g£_the Expenditure Scale McClure applied an adaptation of the Mort—Cornell Guide to a sample of Mississippi schools and found that 67 of 153 items showed consistent expenditure—quality relation— . . . . 55 ship and only 13 items showed no relationship. Forty—one practices showed no improvement until the high expenditure group was reached, and this phenomenon is explained in the "plateau hypothesis" that certain desirable practices do 53Ibid., pp. 27—29. 54Ibid. pp. 30-31. 55Ibidu pp. 33—34. 54 not materialize in schools until a certain climate of expenditure is reached. Cumulative Effect gf_Expenditure Level gp_School Quali§y_ Furno used expenditure and quality data from two clusters of Metropolitan School Study Council school systems to determine that expenditure as averaged over a period of years is more predictive of school quality than is expendi- ture for any one year. His quality measurement was made with The Growing Edge which was applied in 1945 and 1955.56 The Relationship_gf_Expenditure and gg_Educationa1 Development Test In 1955 Bloom studied the results of the United States Armed Forces Institute Test g: General Educational Develop~ ment in relation to several factors among which was the financial support for both formal education (of schools) and . . . . . . . 7 informal educational faCilities (of the public library).5 He found that in comparing the sixteen states which were highest on GED tests with the sixteen states which were 56Orlando F. Furno, "The Projection of School Quality from Expenditure Level," Ed.D. prOject (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1956). 57B. 8. Bloom, "The 1955 Normative Study of the Tests of General Educational Development," The School Review, XIV: (March, 1956), 99- 110—124. 55 lowest that sixty—nine per cent of the high states spend more money per pupil than the national average while only twenty-five per cent of the low states reach this level of financial support for public education. The adult level of education and extent to which young people make use of edu— cational facilities were also related to educational quality. Relationship of Quality and Other Cost Factors Ability This factor is a measure of local tax wealth and since the local property tax is typically the basis of local sup— port for education, the amount of true property value per ability pupil unit is chosen as the measure of local ability to support education. Ability may be viewed as potential expenditure and is highly correlated to wealth but not to effort.58 A summary of the correlations between ability and various criteria of school quality is as follows: (1) Subur— ban school districts of the Metropolitan School Study 58W. S. Vincent, ”Quality Control: A Rationale for Anal— ysis of a School System,” IAR Research Bulletin, Vol. 1, Uanuary, 1961), p. 4. 56 Council, 1940—45, elementary schools——O.6l; secondary schools—-O.32; all schools——O.77; (2) Nation—wide hetero- geneous group of school districts in the Associated Public School Systems, 1959—60——0.34 (ability was based upon dis— posable personal income per capita); (3) Sample of Penn— sylvania school districts, 1936-—0.34.59 Effort This factor is a measure of local taxation and is the . . . . 60 amount raised locally per expenditure pupil unit. In the numerous studies associated with Institute of Administrative Research the following correlations have been established between effort and school quality: (1) Suburban school dis— tricts of the Metropolitan School Study Council, 1940—45-— O.35; (2) Same districts, 1950—55——O.48.61 Inter—relationships gf_Need, Effort, and Ability Turck studied the inter—relationships between measures of need, effort, and ability in 581 Michigan public high school districts having kindergarten through twelfth grade programs in 1957—58 and concluded that (1) there is 591bid., p. 7. 60Ibid., p. 4. 61Ibid., p. 7. 57 undoubtedly a relationship between size of membership (need) and ability (taxable wealth), (2) there is a tend— ency for a school district as it increases in size of membership to expend more effort (tax rate) for the support of its program, (3) there appears to be no consistent rela— tionship between the ability of a high school district and its effort, (4) the three variables studied are by them— selves inadequate predictors of the adequacy of a state support program, and (5) the effect of sociological factors and various community characteristics may account for the results of the analysis of the variables used in the study.62 Rhee identified the general relationships between selected financial and educational factors and each of the three variables of financial need (membership size), abil— ity, and effort, using 1959—60 data from 520 of the Michigan public school districts having kindergarten through twelfth 63 . . . . . _ , grade programs. Significant statistical tests indicated 62Merton J. Turck, Jr., "A Study of the Relationships Among the Factors of Financial Need, Effort, and Ability in 581 High School Districts in Michigan," Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960. 63 . Jeung Rhee, "An AnalySis of Selected Aspects of the Public School Finance System in Michigan,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. 58 that the most significant variable of the differences in each of the five selected financial factors and five edu— cational factors was either need or ability. Effort was not deemed a significant variable. Rhee concluded that in terms of the ideal of equal educational opportunity, the present Michigan State Aid Formula is inadequate and that more effective measures of school district reorganization and more positive ways of adjusting the disparity in finan— cial ability are necessary. Summary 1. There is a positive continuous relationship between favorable school characteristics and all parts of the expenditure range. 2. In schools having comparatively high expenditure levels there are many practices which do not cost more to have including higher quality administrative and teaching practices. 3. Expenditure level has proved to be the factor hav- ing the most consistently high relationship to school quality of any single measure that yet has been identified. The most significant studies show a direct positive rela— tionship between the teaching of skills, teaching of areas 59 of knowledge, discovery of aptitudes, and development of gross behavior patterns with expenditure level. 4. Expenditure level as averaged over a period of years is more predictive of school quality than is expendi- ture for any one year. 5. Ability in terms of wealth and also effort in terms of taxation are both related positively to expenditure but not significantly to each other. Ability and effort com— bined do not have higher correlations with expenditure than as single factors. 6. There is considerable validity in the cost—quality studies in that regardless of the several quality criteria used, the positive relationship between cost and quality remains. There is considerable stability also in the rela- tionship which has held over a long period of years. Community Characteristics- Quality Relationships Pierce studied forty—eight communities of the Metropol— itan School Study Council by means of data from twenty-four measures and showed that community characteristics combined 60 with certain measures could account for as much as 64 per cent of the variance in a measure of school quality.64 He categorized his measures as (1) community good will toward education, (2) conditioners of the expression of good will and understanding of education, and (3) community under— standing of what schools can do. Ayer made a factor analysis of the Pierce data and identified five factors the most important of which were wealth and cultural characteristics.65 Either of these two factors appeared about as important as the remaining three factors which were size, density, and management of commun— ity affairs. The Institute of Administrative Research has estab— lished two different community factors to predict a quality criterion through multiple correlation as well as two com- munity measures to indicate attitudes toward up—to-dateness of school prOgrams and measure the relation of community . 66 groups to the school and its staff. 64Truman M. Pierce, Controllable Community Character— istics Related §p_Quality gf_Education, Study No. 1 (New York: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, Col- umbia University, 1947). 65Frederick L. Ayer, ”An Analysis of Controllable Com- munity Factors Related to Quality of Education," Ph.D. thesis (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1950). 66William S. Vincent,IAR Research Bulletin, Vol. 1, (January, 1961), p. 3. 61 Community Size and Quality Swanson”s study of Associated Public School systems in 1955 showed that there is a strong positive relationship between population and school quality from 1,000 to 28,000 population and the strength of this relationship tapers off until at 67,000 population a further increase in population is not likely to be accompanied with any increase in school quality.67 The study utilized The Time Scale, a quality criterion which has a bias favoring large school systems. An hypothesized regression was calculated which established the optimum conditions for promoting school quality as be- ing in communities of 20,000 to 50,000 population. . 68 69 . . . . . Smith and Ostrander in studies of Size—quality relationships concluded that the chief harm caused by small enrollments was felt in high schools. 67Austin D. Swanson, "An Analysis of Factors Related to School System Quality in the Associated Public School Sys- tems," Ed.D. project (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1960), Chap. 5. 68Stanley V. Smith, "Quality of Education Related to Certain Social and Administrative Characteristics of Well- Financed Rural School Districts: A Study of Central Schools of New York State," Ph.D. dissertation (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1954). 69Chester B. Ostrander, "A Study of Characteristics of New York State Central Schools Classified on the Basis of Enrollment Size,” Ed.D. project (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1961). 1h.“ .. 62 Mort and Cornell point out however that size alone is not the determining factor in favoring adaptability or qual- ity but the presence of desirable cultural elements within the district which is more probable in relatively large . . 7 districts. Relation gf_Community School Districts §g_Educational Opportunity Thaden studied the variation in educational opportuni— ties as defined by administrative, structural, and other factors in 534 Michigan school districts having kindergarten through twelfth grade programs in 1956, the characteristics of the population centers within which the high schools were located, and the inter—relationships between the dis— tricts, composite trade—service, and town—country communi— ties.71 He concluded that educational opportunities are more universal in community school districts than in partial- community and non—community (non—homogeneous) school districts. 7OMort and Cornell, American Schools ip Transition, pp. cit., p. 138. 71Thaden, pp, cit. 63 School Staff Characteristics- Quality Relationships The Institute of Administrative Research has made an overall analysis of thirty—nine school staff factors that have been measured by a total of ninety—four indexes over the past twenty—six years. Grogan summarized and analyzed data from the major investigations in this area and cate- gorized the staff factors as being: (1) personal status, (2) professional status, (3) professional behavior, and (4) professional attitude.72 He named sound predictors as being origin of staff, foreign and domestic travel, literary interests, amount of training, breadth of training, and professional interest. In a study of Illinois school districts Hall found significant relationships between the extent of diffusion of administrative procedures and school program quality and between expenditure level per weighted pupil and quality. Certain administrative practices were found more frequently in systems with enriChed programs than in systems with limited programs. 72Robert S. Grogan, "Determination of Staff Charac- teristics That Should Be Assessed in Future Studies,” Ed.D. project (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1961). 73Harold D. Hall, ”Relationships of Selected Charac— teristics of Organization to Practices in School Systems: 64 Mort°s Sequential Simplex of Factors Mort has presented a theory in which a large con— stellation of factors representing school and community forces are treated by families of factors in a series of sequential steps in order to discover inter—relationships affecting school quality.74 In this theory the school is Considered part of a larger organism, the community, which has characteristics which strongly predispose it to be a slow, average, or rapid adaptor to new educational practices. Hypotheses concerning the sequential relationships of meas— ures within panels and groups of factors are made. Factor groups include legal structure and administration,status measures of school and community, or facets of community directly affecting school quality and panels include com; munity, educational climate, school system.policy, and the individual school. This theory emphasizes the generalization An Exploratory Measure of the Extent of Diffusion of Adminis— trative Procedures and Staffing Practices of Their Relation- ships t0(Selected Characteristics of School Systems,” Unpub- lished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1956. 74Paul R. Mort, ”School and Community Relationships to School Quality," Teachers College Record, LV (January, 1954), pp. 201-214. 65 derived from nearly three decades of research that no single factor alone can account for school system quality and many small influences in various combinations appear to be responsible. Summary 1. The positive relationship of various community char— acteristics and various school staff characteristics to edu- cational cost factors appear to be strong. 2. Both community and school staff factors are concom— itant with various cost factors in their relationship to educational quality which is defined by criteria based on the Concept of adaptability. Chapter Summary 1. It would appear that the major policy decisions regarding educational quality and its relationship to cost factors should be made by reasonably well educated people if good public schools are to be had. 2. Community understanding and good will are essential and are inter—related to financial support and quality. Professional leadership must draw upon all available research sources to establish and maintain community relations toward this end. 66 3. Ample financial support appears to be justified in order to assure adequate schools in which to train our children for their place in an increasingly complex adult world. 4. The findings of research clearly point to the importance of the identification of non-cost—related school quality factors as well as cost—related quality factors. Both curriculum improvement and financial support of the schools might proceed more expeditiously with this knowledge. 5. Educational quality research deserves a first priority in the task lists of educators. The implication of this type of research is that controls may then be estab— lished at local and state levels toward the improvement of educational quality. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY The present study is based on a design that makes pos- sible the determination of the discrimination and reliabil- ity indices of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, an instrument designed to measure school and community edu- cational characteristics within a public school district. Plan for Securing Factors and Necessary Data Educational Quality Factors The factors of educational quality were secured by means of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, an instrument developed initially by Dr. Herbert C. Rudman of Michigan State University. Educational gggp Factors The factors of size (school membership), effort, ability, and expenditure were obtained from data derived from the Annual Statistical and Financial Reports to the Michigan Department of Public Instruction for 1960, compu- tations of per pupil costs by the Department,and computations 67 68 by the Midhigan Education Division from official reports. Recent data on school district pupil membership size and faculty size from the Michigan Education Directory of 1961— 62 was used. Data for Discrimination and Reliabilipy Indices The perceptions of the sample of teachers and adminis— trators, individually and combined regarding individual, categorical, and total educational characteristics furnished the necessary data to determine the discrimination and reli- ability indices. Development gf_the Instrument and Plan for Its Administration The Instrument The Educational Characteristics Criterion was developed initially by Dr. Herbert C. Rudman of Michigan State Univer- sity.1 It is based upon the assumption that educational quality may be defined as those educational characteristics of a school district, both school and community, which are perceived as effective in accomplishing the purposes of American public school education. The judgments of 1Appendix A. 69 educational specialists on the Michigan State University faculty were secured regarding an initial list of several hundred educational characteristics. On the basis of a sig- nificantly high level of agreement among the specialists, ninety educational characteristics were selected for an experimental version of the instrument which was used in a national study. A revised version of the instrument con- sisting of sixty-two educational characteristics selected on the basis of the highest levels of agreement was used in this study. Fifty—six educational characteristics were utilized in providing scores. The instrument is a pencil—and—paper type suitable for individual response and can be completed in a half-hour. Responses are made by marking an ”X" over the number which represents the degree to which each educational character- istic is present in a given situation, e.g., "Most charac— eristic"-—4; "Somewhat characteristic“—-3; "Slightly char— acteristic"——2; ”Least characteristic"—-l. The teacher or administrator respondent is directed to relate the educa- tional characteristic to their building experience. Central office administrators or supervisors are directed to relate the item educational characteristic statements to the school system in general. 70 The educational characteristics scores are obtained by the sum of the weighted response to each characteristic. The category scores are obtained by the sum of the educa— tional characteristic scores included in each of seven cate— gories. The total score is obtained by the sum of the fifty-six educational characteristic scores. Plan for Administration gf_ppg Instrument The required number of instruments, each enclosed in a separate envelope, was sent to the Superintendents of the sample school districts who had accepted the letter invita— tion to participate in the study.2 Instruments were then distributed to teachers and building administrators by the Superintendent. General instructions for distribution and administration were sent to the Superintendent3 and instruc- tions for individual respondents were enclosed in each instrument envelope.4 The necessity for securing individual perceptions of teacher and administrative respondents was stressed and implemented by requesting an early completion 2See Appendix B for letter invitation. 3 . Appendix C. 4Appendix D. 71 and return of completed instruments in order to avoid possi- ble interaction or discussion tending to modify perceptions of respondents. The importance of preserving anonymity tow— ard this end and toward promoting an unhibited response was also stressed. It was requested that the Superintendent supply the factual data required on four non-categorized and unscored items (3, 4, 5, 6) and two categorized and scored items (18, 28) in order that the most accurate data be obtained. Determination pf_Categories Within the Instrument Each of the fifty—six scored educational characteris- tjrxa was assigned to one of seven of the following categor— ies on a logical basis in order to provide a means of under- standing the effect of and inter-relationship between various school and community forces associated with educa- tional quality. The list of categories and their respec— tive item statements follows: Category I, Student°s Level g: Knowledge and Attitudes 14. Students show a positive attitude toward scholastic work. 15. Students evidence accurate knowledge of self. 72 Students are knowledgeable about the educational and social opportunities available to them. Pupils consider an academic grade of at least ”B" to be the norm for academic achievement. The professional staff of the schools in the community consider an academic grade of at least ”B” to be the norm for academic achievement. Parents and patrons in the community consider an aca— demic grade of at least ”B" to be the norm for academic achievement. Category _I. Community Attitudes 27. Parents and patrons (those residents of a school dis— trict without school-age children) are highly knowl— edgeable about education. The perceptions of parents and patrons concerning the purposes of education are consistent and clear. The local newspaper has shown a high interest in local school affairs. There is no lag between the values taught in the school and what is practiced in the community. A high percentage of the electorate in the community vote in school elections. There are outstanding community leaders in this com— munity who exhibit great interest in school affairs. The community exhibits a great concern for the devel— opment of aesthetic and artistic interests. A two-way communication channel readily exists between the home and school. The parents in this community expect their children to perform their share of family chores. 73 60. A high value is placed on education by the parents and patrons (those residents of a school district without school—age children) of the community. 62. Parents condone or encourage early dating for their children. Category III. Curriculum 10. Teachers perceive a coherent and coordinated structure to the educational program. 11. Consensus exists among the staff concerning the goals of the educational program. 12. A structure has been developed that permits continual curriculum improvement. 21. A great variety of instructional materials are presently used in the classrooms. 23. A complete comprehensive testing program including intelligence and achievement testing is available in the schools. Category IX. Use _£ Facilities 39. The physical facilities of the school system (buildings and equipment) are completely adequate. Category y. Socio—cultural Composition 9: the Community 32. The social status of teachers is very high in this community. 41. Cultural experiences are readily available in the community. 45. This is a highly stable community which does not have too many people leaving. 48. 49. 51. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 74 A high percentage of high school students own personal cars. A high percentage of homes own television sets. A high degree of ethnic, racial, and religious homo- geneity exists among the local population. This community is composed of people who are predomi— nantly Protestant. This community is composed of people who are predomi- nantly Catholic. This community is composed of people who are predomi- nantly Jewish. . The population of this community is equally divided between Protestants and Catholics. One or two ethnic groups comprise the largest number of residents in the community. Category 2;. Administration and Supervision. 16. 28. 29. 30. 33. 34. Professional staff of the school system are involved in in—service education. School program is accredited by the state and regional accrediting agencies. Lay members of the community are highly involved in the planning of educational goals with the school staff. Regulations governing student conduct are highly explicit and detailed. Regulations governing personnel policies are highly explicit and detailed. Citizens are highly organized to discuss school problems. 42. 75 Teachers" judgments are almost always used in the determination of educational policies. Category VII. The Teacher and Teaching Methods 7. 8. 13. 17. 18. 19. 20. 24. 25. 26. 31. 38. Teachers have intimate knowledge of children. Teaching practices reflect concern for individual differences. Teaching practices reflect a knowledge of individual differences. Evidence exists of instructional and/or curricular experimentation. Teachers thoroughly understand the information gathered on students and use this information to make sound educational decisions. All teachers are certified to teach at the grade level or subject they are now teaching. Teachers have complete freedom to teach what they con- sider to be important. ‘ A great variety of instructional techniques are presently used in the classrooms. Teachers often avail themselves of professional help. Complete freedom is granted to students to investigate any local, state, national, or international issue. Availability to students of materials that reflect all shades of political and sociological points of View. High degree of teacher participation in social and poli~ tical activities of the community. There exists a high level of cooperation among the teachers of the staff. 76 40. The community and its residents are used for instruc— tional purposes. 50. A great deal of homework is assigned to students. Non—categorized and Unscored Items. Item 1. School district. Item 2. County. Item 3. Type of organization pattern followed in school district: a. 6—3-3, b. 8—4, c. 6—6, d. 5—3-4, e. 6—2—4, f. other. Item 4. Approximate average pupil—teacher ratio——e1ementary: a. 50—1, b. 45—1, c. 40—1, d. 35—1, e. 30-1, f. 25-1, g. 20—1, h. less than 20-1. Item 5. Approximate average pupil—teacher ratio—~secondary: a. through g., similar to item 4. Item 6. Type of population center: a. Rural, b. City--l. less than 2500, 2. 2500— 4999, 3. 5000—9999, 4. 10,000-24,999, 5. 25,000— 1,000,000 and over. Classification of School Districts on In the light of the conclusions of previous research regarding the interrelationships of educational cost factors, it was decided to consider them as a group. In order to emphasize the effects of combined cost factors or total financial support in a feasible research plan, the Michigan school districts having kindergarten through twelfth grade 77 programs in 1959—60, exclusive of Detroit, were classified by quartiles on each cost factor of size (school membership), ability, effort, and expenditure per pupil. Since ability or the number of dollars of state equalized valuation behind each resident pupil may be viewed as potential expenditure and is the foundation of all educational cost data, it was decided to identify all districts within the first and fourth quartile of ability as to their respective quartile classi- fication on size, effort, and expenditure per pupil. TABLE l.—-Classification by quartiles of Michigan school districts according to ability (state equalized valuation per pupil) . . . SEV per Pupil Quartile No. of Districts (Dollars) Quartile l 220 1,963 - 7,899 Quartile 2 181 7,955 _ 11,964 Quartile 3 79 11,973 m 15 918 Quartile 4 53 16,276 - 49,739 78 TABLE 2.“Classification by quartiles of Michigan school districts according to size (pupils in membership) Quartile No. of Districts Membership (Pupils) Quartile 1 358 55 - 1,621 Quartile 2 43 1,621 - 2,139 Quartile 3 115 2,165 - 11,081 Quartile 4 17 11,464 — 37,935 TABLE 3.--Classification by quartiles of Michigan school districts according to effort (mills for operation) Quartile No. of Districts Millage Quartile 1 238 7.00 1 9.60 Quartile 2 163 9.65 - 13.50 Quartile 3 40 13.50 — 14.90 Quartile 4 92 14.90 - 28.71 TABLE 4.--Classification by quartiles of Michigan school districts according to expenditure per pupil for current operation Quartile No. of Districts Expenditure (Dollars) Quartile l 273 201.44 w 270.58 Quartile 2 128 270.90 — 309.48 Quartile 3 74 310.06 - 358.03 Quartile 4 58 358.41 - 585 35 The quartile distribution of school districts according to the four cost factors is displayed in Figure 1. .. ._.._..... <.- . Number of Districts 360 340 320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 6O 4O 20 79 FIGURE 1 Quartile Distribution of School Districts According to Four Cost Factors (533 MiChigan School Districts) Cost Factor Code S - size Ab - ability Ef - effort Ex — expenditure Ab s Ef (Ex Ab s Ef Ex Quartile l Quartile 2 Ab S Ef EX Ab S Ef EX Quartile 3 Quartile 4 'Ifiw- ~—»~ - ~ ' ‘: " 8O Classification g§_Districts pp_the Four Cost Factors The cost factor data showed the sixty—seven of the 220 districts in the first quartile of the wealth distribution were also in the first quartile of the size, effort, and expenditure distribution. This is 30 per cent of the dis— tricts in the first quartile based upon the wealth factor and 12.5 per cent of the total number of districts. There was only one of the fifty-three districts in the fourth quartile of the wealth distribution which was also in the fourth quartile of the size, effort, and expenditure dis— tributions, representing 1.8 per cent of the quartile or 0.18 per cent of the total number of districts. In order to provide an adequate sample of districts and respondents within districts a classification was made of districts which were in fourth quartiles of ability, size, and expenditure factors and third quartile of the effort factor. There were two districts of the 53 districts in the fourth quartile of wealth distribution assigned to this clasSification. Selection 9: the Sample The method of selecting the sample depended primarily upon the necessity of providing an adequate number of ~t~- =u--' .- 1 81 respondents, both teachersammiadministrators, in school districts within the first and fourth quartiles of the dis- tributions of cost factors, and secondarily upon the desir- ability of providing more than one district within each quartile. Fourth g£_HighFinancial Support Quartile g£_Districts The one district which was in the fourth quartile on all cost factors was selected. One of the two districts which was in the fourth quartiles of ability, size, and expenditure but in the third quartile of effort (and within 0.5 mills of the fourth quartile of effort) was selected. The projected number of respondents for the fourth quar- tile districts designated as ”high financial support quar- tiles of districts” was 1551 teachers and 110 administra— tors, based upon 100 per cent sampling of both districts. Upon request from one district for a 50 per cent sampling of teachers this projection was changed to 1057 teachers and 110 administrators. Usable data was obtained from the completed instruments of 871 teacher respondents and 82 administrator respondents from two districts within the fourth or high financial support quartile of districts. 82 First Quartile pp Low Financial Support Quartile gf_Districts Thirty-nine of the 67 districts in the first quartile of wealth distribution which were also in the first quar- tile of the size, effort, and expenditure distributions were selected randomly in order to provide a sufficient num- ber of teacher and administrator respondents to match the number in the high financial support quartile. This sample is referred to as ”low financial support quartile of dis- tricts." The projected total number of respondents based upon 100 per cent sampling was 1313 teachers and 116 admin- istrators. Usable data was obtained from the completed instruments of 1091 teacher respondents and 106 administra- tor respondents from the 39 districts within the first or low financial quartile of districts. Mailing Procedures On January 30, 1962 a letter was sent to the Superin- tendents of the school districts in the sample inviting their cooperation to participate in the research study. Included in the letter was a request for the most recent information concerning the number of teachers and adminis- trators within the district and provision for indicating a 83 desire for a copy of the abstract of the research findings. Upon receipt of the unanimous affirmative replies from the Superintendents of the districts in the sample, the packages of instruments were mailed to the low financial support dis— tricts and transported by the writer to the high financial support districts. Each instrument was enclosed with accom— panying instructions in an envelope which was to be sealed and returned upon completion of the instrument. Treatment gf_ph§_2gpg Each of the returned instruments was marked with a district number upon its removal from an envelope in order to insure its identification at all times. All the returned instruments were checked for completeness and incompleted instruments were discarded. The supplementary information form of the Superintendent of each school district was marked with instructions to gang punch items 3, 4, 5, 6, 18, and 28 on all teacher and administrator respondent IBM cards from the district according to the Superintendent“s instru— ment. Item 28 was scored according to the following plan: North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools accreditation——4 points; University of Michigan accredita— tion——3 points; Department of Public Instruction approval 84 as a twelve grade tuition school-—2 points; no accredita— tion or approva1--1 point. The IBM code sheet utilized all eighty columns, and provision was made for category scores, total scores, type of respondent, district number, and all other necessary data from the instruments. A printed IBM record of tabulations from card data was ordered to facilitate the computations necessary for statistical tests. Statistical Methods 1. The "t” test for the significance of the difference between the mean scores of the respondent types is used to determine the discrimination of the instrument. 2. The estimation of reliability of the instrument based upon item to total score consistency and item to cate— gory score consistency within high and low financial support quartiles of districts is made by the Hoyt analysis of vari— ance method. 3. The estimation of reliability of the instrument based upon item to total score consistency and item to cate— gory score consistency within individual districts is made by the Hoyt analysis of variance method. 85 4. The point biserial correlation coefficient is used to determine the positive discrimination power of the indi— vidual educational characteristic scores with respect to total score and related category scores of the instrument. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction In this chapter the five major hypotheses are analyzed. In each section the results of the statistical treatment of the data in summary form, the rejection or acceptance of the hypothesis” and the interpretation of the test are described. The first section is the analysis of the Edu- cational Characteristics Criterion discrimination ability between the high and low financial support quartiles of Michigan public school districts. The second section is concerned with the ability of the Educational Characteris- tics Criterion to discriminate between the perceptions of teachers and administrators within high support and within low support districts. The third and fourth sections report the results of reliability tests. The fifth section con— tains the analysis of the internal consistency of the Egg— cational Characteristics Criterion item scores. The hypotheses are stated in null form for the statis- tical tests. A significant statistical indication deter— ndnes the acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis. If a Ilull hypothesis is rejected, the research hypothesis 86 i'rtw¥--- ‘ ‘ 87 in positive form is accepted. If the null hypothesis is accepted, the research hypothesis in positive form is rejected. Analysis of the Educational Characteristics Criterion Discrimination Ability Between th§_High ang_ggw_Financial Support Quartiles gf_Michiqan Public School Districts The first major null hypothesis is as follows: The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show no ability to discriminate between the first or low finan- cial support quartile and fourth or high financial support quartile of Michigan public school districts (K—12) which are classified on the educational cost factors of size, effort, ability, and expenditure. This hypothesis is operationally stated in null form in three sections, each having two subsections: Hla: There is no difference between the high finan- cial support districts and low financial support districts in the total mean scores according to teacher responses. Hlb: There is no difference between the high finan- cial support districts and low financial support districts in the total mean scores according to administrator responses. H2a: There is no difference between the high finan- cial support districts and low financial support districts in each category mean score according to teacher responses. H2b: There is no difference between the high finan— cial support districts and low financial support districts in each category mean score according to administrator responses. 88 H3a: There is no difference between the high finan- cial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score according to teacher responses. H3b: There is no difference between the high finan- cial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score according to administrator responses. Statistical Procedure The "t" test was used to determine the presence of a significant difference between the mean scores of high financial support districts and low financial support dis- tricts according to teachers and according to administrators. The level of significance or chance of rejecting the null hypothesis if true was chosen at 0.05 which may be inter— preted that only five in one hundred times would an obtained difference between mean scores be expected to occur as the result of chance. The values of ”t" used are those which cut off twenty—five thousandths of the area on each end of the probability distribution resulting in what is termed a two» sided "t" test. The confidence limits of the population mean (or limits within which the true mean may be expected to fall) can be determined by the multiplication of the "t” value and the estimated standard error of the differ- ence between the two sample means, and the confidence limits 89 extend from the obtained difference of the mean scores plus and minus the result of the multiplication of the above values. The null hypothesis will be accepted only if the "t" value obtained exceeds the significance level of 0.05 which is indicated P > .05. In order to show very high significance levels of obtained ”t” values, which indi- cate strong rejections of null hypotheses, the probability will be expressed as in the following example: P < .001, meaning that the probability is less than once in a thou— sand times that a difference between mean scores smaller or larger than that observed would occur as the result of chance. Where not shown in the tables, the statistical data upon which the table is based is presented in the appendices as indicated. In order to clarify the analysis tables are used which indicate the abstracted results of the numerous statistical tests of the hypotheses. Some practical implications of the results are included in this analysis chapter. A more extensive presentation of impli— cations is made in Chapter V. The testing of the first hypothesis is concerned pri- marily with whether or not there will be any difference 90 between the mean scores of high and low financial support school districts according to teachers and according to administrators and with the determination of the signifi— cance of the obtained difference. On the basis of previous research findings presented in the review of related litera- ture it is expected that high scores will be made by high financial support districts which are significantly dif— ferent from low scores made by low financial support dis- tricts. Furthermore, the testing of the first hypothesis is likely to reveal some non—significant differences between mean scores of high and low support districts thus indica— ting that there is no significant positive or negative rela- tionship between educational quality and level of financial support. The examination of the ”t” value and the relative value of the mean scores obtained for high and low support districts thus provides a measure of the Educational Char— acteristics Criterion discrimination power according to total, category, and individual educational characteristic scores of teachers or of administrators as well as a useful means of identifying educational quality factors that are positively related to level of financial support, negatively related, or neither positively nor negatively related to level of financial support. 91 Results Total Scores On the basis of the significant difference in total mean scores as indicated in Table 5 we reject the null hypotheses: Hla: There is no difference between the high finan- cial support districts and low financial support districts in the total mean scores according to teacher responses. Hlb: There is no difference between the high finan— cial support districts and low financial support districts in the total mean scores according to administrator responses. and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will discriminate between the district types according to teacher responses and according to administrator responses. This discrimination indicates that there is a significant positive relationship between educational quality and educational financial support since there is a significant difference between the total mean scores of teacher respondents or between the total mean scores of administrator respondents from high financial support districts and low financial support districts in conjunction with the higher total mean score of the high financial support districts. 92 TABLE 5.--Differences in total mean scores of respondents from high financial support districts and low financial support districtsl Score Teachers Administrators Total High Low High Low 171.54 145.09 173.43 148.51 s (P < .001) s (P < .001) l . . . See Appendix E for statistical data. S indicates a statistical significant difference be— tween mean scores at a minimum P < .05. P < .001 indicates that the obtained difference of mean scores would occur less than once in one thousand times as a result of chance, a much higher significance level than minimum required P < .05. Category Scores On the basis of the significant difference in total mean scores as indicated in Table 6 we reject the null hypotheses: H2a: There is no difference between the high finan- cial support districts and low financial support districts in each category mean score according to teacher responses. H2b: There is no difference between the high finan- cial support districts and low financial support districts in each category mean score according to administrator responses. and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will discriminate between the 93 district types according to teacher responses and according to administrator responses. This discrimination indicates that there is a significant positive relationship between educational quality and educational financial support since there is a significant difference between the category mean scores of teacher respondents or between the category mean scores of administrator respondents from high financial support districts and low financial support districts in conjunction with the higher category mean score of the high financial support districts. TABLE 6.——Differences in category mean scores of respondents from high financial support districts and low financial support districts2 Teachers Administrators score High Low High Low Category I: Student's Level of 17.68 15.29 18.15 15.70 Knowledge and ' Attitudes Category II: Community Attitudes 32.22 26.27 31.39 26.87 Category III: Curriculum 17.52 14.25 17.86 14.84 Category IV: Use of Facilities 3.36 2.43 3.57 2.54 2See Appendix E for statistical data. 94 TABLE 6-—Continued Teachers Administrators Score High Low High Low Category V: SOClO'Cultural 29.43 25.95 28.73 25.70 Composition of the Community Category VI: Administration 22.13 17.39 23.10 17.89 and Supervision Category VII: The Teacher and 50.59 44.93 49.16 43.45 Teaching Methods The difference between the mean scores of each category is statistically significant and P < .001. The significant positive relationship between educa— tional quality and educational financial support which is indicated by the results of the analysis of total scores and each category score indicates that school districts which have strong financial support have higher educational qual— ity than school districts which have weak financial support. The various category scores also suggest that the school product in terms of desirable outcomes as student's level of knowledge and attitudes will have high quality if there is high financial support of the school program. This suggestion . 7 . _ —_....___——._ P 95 is also applicable to the nature of the school in terms of curriculum, use of facilities, administration and super— vision, and the teacher and teaching methods. The signi— ficant positive relationship between the socio—cultural composition of the community and high educational financial support suggests that socio—cultural composition of the community may determine the degree of financial support. There is also strong evidence that the favorable community attitudes will raise the degree of educational financial support. Individual Educational Characteristic Scores On the basis of the significant difference in individual educational characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypotheses: H3a: There is no difference between the high finan— cial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean store according to teacher responses. H3b: There is no difference between the high finan— cial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score according to administrator responses. for each of the forty—one educational characteristics listed in Table 7 and accept the research hypothesis that the Edu~ cational Characteristics Criterion will discriminate between 96 the district types according to teacher responses and ac— cording to administrator responses. This discrimination indicates that there is a significant positive relationship between educational quality and educational financial sup— port since there is a significant difference between the individual educational characteristic mean scores of teach- er respondents or between the individual educational char- acteristic mean scores of administrator respondents in high financial support districts and in low financial support districts in conjunction with the higher individual educa- tional characteristic mean score of the high financial support districts. It is evident that the degree of quality in each of forty—one educational characteristics of a total of fifty-six educational characteristics in the Educational Characteristics Criterion depends upon the degree of financial support of education. The findings with regard to the total score are thus supported by seventywthree per cent of the individual educational characteristics. The findings with regard to each category score are also supported by a majority of individual educational characteristics within each category. 97 TABLE 7.——Individual educational characteristics which are present in a significantly higher degree in high financial support districts than in low financial support districts according to teachers or administrators3 Item No. Educational Characteristic Category I: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes 14 Students show a positive attitude toward scholas- tic work. 15 Students evidence accurate knowledge of self. 22 Students are knowledgeable about the educational and social opportunities available to them. 58 Pupils consider an academic grade of at least ”B” to be the norm for academic achievement. Category II: Community Attitudes 27 Parents and patrons (those residents of a school district without school—age children) are highly knowledgeable about education. 35 The perceptions of parents and patrons concerning the purposes of education are consistent and clear. 36 The local newspaper has shown a high interest in local school affairs. 37 There is no lag between the values taught in the school and what is practiced in the community. 44 There are outstanding community leaders in this community who exhibit great interest in school affairs. 3See Appendix F for statistical data. 98 TABLE 7——Continued Item No. Educational Characteristics 46 The community exhibits a great concern for the development of aesthetic and artistic interests. 47 A two-way communication channel readily exists between the home and school. 60 A high value is placed on education by the parents and patrons (those residents of a school district without school—age children) of the community. Category III: Curriculum 10 Teachers perceive a coherent and coordinated structure to the educational program. 11 Consensus exists among the staff concerning the goals of the educational program. 12 A structure has been developed that permits con- tinual curriculum improvement. 21 A great variety of instructional materials are presently used in the classrooms. 23 A complete comprehensive testing program includ— ing intelligence and achievement testing is available in the schools. Category IV: Use of Facilities 39 The physical facilities of the school system (buildings and equipment) are completely adequate. 99 TABLE 7——Continued Item No. Educational Characteristics Category V: Socio—cultural Composition of the Community 32 The social status of teachers is very high in this community. 41 Cultural experiences are readily available in the community. 48 A high percentage of high school students own personal cars. 49 A high percentage of homes own television sets. 54 This community is composed of people who are predominantly Catholic. 56 The population of this community is equally di— vided between Protestants and Catholics. Category VI: Administration and Supervision 16 Professional staff of the school system are involved in in—service education. 28 School program is accredited by the state and regional accrediting agencies. 29 Lay members of the community are highly involved in the planning of educational goals with the school staff. 33 Regulations governing personnel policies are highly explicit and detailed. 34 Citizens are highly organized to discuss school problems. 100 TABLE 7——Continued Item No. Educational Characteristic 42 Teachers' judgments are almost always used in the determination of educational policies. Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 13 l7 18 20 24 31 4O 50 Teachers have intimate knowledge of children. Teaching practices reflect concern for individual differences. Teaching practices reflect a knowledge of indi— vidual differences. Evidence exists of instructional and/or curricular experimentation. Teachers thoroughly understand the information gathered on students and use this information to make sound educational decisions. A11 teachers are certified to teach at the grade level or subject they are now teaching. A great variety of instructional techniques are presently used in the classrooms. Teachers often avail themselves of professional help. There is a high degree of teacher participation in social and political activities of the community. The community and its residents are used for instructional purposes. A great deal of homework is assigned to students. 101 On the basis of the significant difference in individual educational characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypotheses: H3a: There is no difference between the high finan— cial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score according to teacher responses. H3b: There is no difference between the high finan— cial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score according to administrator responses. for each of the three educational characteristics listed in Table 8 and accept the research hypothesis that the Educa- tional Characteristics Criterion will discriminate between the district types according to teacher responses and ac— cording to administrator responses. The discrimination in this case indicates that there is a significant negative relationship between educational quality and educational financial support since there is a significant difference between the individual educational characteristic mean scores of teacher respondents or between the individual educational characteristic mean scores of administrator respondents in high financial support districts and in low financial support districts in conjunction with the higher individual educa— tional characteristic mean score of the low financial support districts. This evidence means that these three educational 102 characteristics are present in higher degree in low finan— cial support districts than high financial support districts. Upon further examination it is evident that all of these characteristics are not of the type which would normally demand financial support since they refer to socio—cultural composition and attitudes of the community. All three characteristics appear to be typical of small Michigan communities, many of which are in rural areas where there is a generally low degree of educational financial support. It is quite normal for parents in these areas to expect their children to perform a number of family chores, and one would expect that urban children in relatively higher educational financial support communities would have less demands placed upon them in this regard. There is a higher degree of ethnic, racial, and religious homogeneity (pre— dominantly Protestant) in most small Michigan communities typically having low financial support than in large urban areas having comparatively high financial support. The findings regarding the three educational characteristics in Table 8 point up the striking fact that none refer to school characteristics or to the majority of community attitude characteristics which might be expected to greatly influence 103 the degree of financial support for education. The find— ings also imply that ethnic, racial, and religious homo— geneity in a community may have a detrimental effect on the degree of its financial support for education. TABLE 8.-—Individua1 educational characteristics which are present in a significantly higher degree in low financial support districts than in high financial support districts according to teachers or administrators Item No. Educational Characteristic Category II: Community Attitudes 52 The parents in this community expect their chil— dren to perform their share of family chores. Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of the Community 51 A high degree of ethnic, racial, and religious homogeneity exists among the local population. 53 This community is composed of people who are predominantly Protestant. Unlike the educational characteristic scores which have been analyzed thus far, the characteristics in Table 9 vary in their relationship to financial support according to 4See Appendix F for statistical data. 104 respondent type. On the basis of the significant difference in individual educational characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypothesis: H3a: There is no difference between the high finan— cial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score according to teacher responses. for each of the educational characteristics listed in Table 9, and on the basis of the non—significant difference in individual educational characteristic mean scores we accept the null hypothesis: H3b: There is no difference between the high finan- cial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score according to administrator responses. for each of the educational characteristics listed in Table 9. The research hypothesis that the Educational Character— istics Criterion will discriminate between the district types is accepted according to teacher responses and rejected according to administrator responses. The discrimination according to teacher responses indicates that there is a significant positive relationship between educational quality and educational financial support since there is a signifi— cant difference between the individual educational charac— teristic mean scores of teacher respondents from high financial 105 support districts and low financial support districts in conjunction with the higher individual educational char— acteristic mean score of the high financial support dis- tricts. The non—discrimination according to administrator responses indicates that there is no positive or negative relationship between educational quality and educational financial support. TABLE 9.——Individua1 educational characteristics which according to teacher responses are present in a signifi— cantly higher degree in high financial support districts than in low financial support districts and according to administrator responses are not significantly different in high financial support districts than in low financial ‘ support districts5 Item No. Educational Characteristic Category I: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes 59 The professional staff of the schools in the community consider an academic grade of at least “B“ to be the norm for academic achievement. 61 Parents and patrons in the community consider an academic grade of at least ”B" to be the norm for academic achievement. Category II: Community Attitudes 43 A high percentage of the electorate in the community vote in school elections. 5See Appendix F for statistical data. 106 TABLE 9—-Continued Item No. Educational Characteristic 62 Parents condone or encourage early dating for their children. Category V: Socio—cultural Composition of the Community 55 This community is composed of people who are predominantly Jewish. Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 25 Complete freedom is granted to students to investigate any local, state, national, or international issue. 26 Availability to students of materials that reflect all shades of political and sociological points of View. 38 There exists a high level of cooperation among the teachers of the staff. It is evident that educational characteristic No. 26 would normally be considered related to the degree of finan— cial support since a wide selection of materials entails expenditure. This statement is supported according to teacher responses but not supported according to administra- tor responses. One's interpretation depends upon his 107 relative trust in either type of respondent, and this trust will vary according to the relative experience, knowledge, and efficiency of the communication channels of the respond— ents. Furthermore, the examination of the differences be- tween responses of teachers and administrators within high educational financial support districts and within low educational financial support districts may have a bearing upon one‘s decision regarding the findings between these district types. The analysis of Hypothesis II will be con— cerned with these differences. One might expect that the expectations of professional educators regarding the norm for academic achievement would be the same regardless of the financial support of the school district because of the training and indoctrination that they receive as student teachers. However, according to teacher responses this is not so. Higher norms are held by the professional staff in high financial support districts than low support districts. Thus the level of academic aspiration of teachers is definitely associated with the degree of educational financial support. Administrator responses do not denote any such difference. According to teacher responses the expectations of 108 parents and patrons regarding academic norms for achieve— ment are higher in high financial support districts than low support districts. This might be expected since school districts showing high financial support usually have con— siderable wealth in natural resources or industrial devel— opment and a relatively higher educational level among the population under these conditions. Parents and patrons having a relatively good education would probably have higher expectations for academic achievement norms than parents and patrons having a poor education. However, according to administrator responses there are no differen— ces in expectations according to district type. Higher interest in education is demonstrated in high financial support districts than low support districts. The higher percentage of the electorate who vote in school elections in high support districts denotes an attitude of relatively higher concern regarding educational matters. Higher educational concern appears to be logically associ— ated with higher financial support of education. The higher degree of encouragement of early dating of children by their parents in high financial support dis— tricts might be expected because of the more active social 109 life in urban areas of the typical high financial support district. The better communication facilities and sheer number of children living in close proximity would be con— ducive toward earlier dating. Administrator responses do not indicate differences in dating between district types. The finding that high financial support districts more frequently have a predominantly Jewish population than do low financial support districts is expected on the basis that Jewish people tend to live in urban areas which typi— cally have a relatively higher financial support for educa- tion than rural areas have. Administrator responses do not indicate this difference. A more liberal point of view regarding the freedom of students to investigate issues exists in the high financial support districts which typically are urban areas having great heterogeneity in social and political views. Thus it appears logical that this more liberal attitude would be reflected in the freedom which the community through its school board and administrators allows to students for the investigation of all types of issues. Less freedom would be likely in small, homogeneous communities typically having more conservative attitudes as well as relatively lower level 110 of educational financial support. Administrator responses do not indicate a difference between district types. The existence of a higher degree of teacher cooperation in high financial support districts than low support dis— tricts might be expected as a result of the necessity for a relatively larger body of teachers to cooperate as well as the presence of better teachers and clearer personnel policies which raise morale of teachers. Good cooperation and explicit personnel policies tend to be typical of large urban districts having high financial support, however, it is not so easy to decide on the other factor, better teach— ers. It is likely that relatively better teacher candidates from universities are attracted toward school districts having relatively high teacher salaries which are more typical of high financial support districts than small low support districts. It is true however that there are many resource- ful and effective teachers in small school districts in rural and semi-rural areas typical of the low financial support quartile districts. On the basis of the significant difference in individual educational characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypothesis: 111 H3a: There is no difference between the high finan— cial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score according to teacher responses. for the one educational characteristic listed in Table 10, and on the basis of the non—significant difference in individual educational characteristic mean scores we accept the null hypothesis: H3b: There is no difference between the high finan— cial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score according to administrator responses. for the one educational characteristic listed in Table 10. The research hypothesis that the Educational Charac- teristics Criterion will discriminate between the district types is accepted according to teacher responses and rejected according to administrator responses. The discrimination according to teacher responses indicates that there is a significant negative relationship between educational quality and educational financial support since there is a signifi- cant difference between the individual educational charac— teristic mean scores of teacher respondents from high finan— cial support districts and low financial support districts in conjunction with the higher individual educational char- acteristic mean score of the high financial support districts. 112 The non—discrimination according to administrator responses indicates that there is no positive or negative relation- ship between educational quality and educational financial support. TABLE lO.——Individua1 educational characteristic which according to teacher responses is present in a signifi— cantly higher degree in low financial support districts than in high financial support districts and according to administrator responses is not significantly different in high financial support districts than in low financial support districts6 Item No. Educational Characteristic Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 19 Teachers have complete freedom to teach what they consider to be important. According to teacher responses there is more freedom for teachers to teach what they consider important in 19w financial support school districts than in high financial support districts. The reason for this might be rela— tively less supervision resulting in great individual free— dom or community permissiveness reflected in the local school board policy and administrative procedures. Consider 6See Appendix F for statistical data. 113 also the greater relative conformity which is necessary in a large urban school district having a relatively higher educational financial support. Curricula tend to be stand- ardized in a large school system of this type resulting in less individual freedom for teachers. The relatively greater freedom of teachers in low financial support dis— tricts may or may not have good educational advantages depending on the objectives and competence of the individual teacher. Lower levels of student knowledge and attitudes appear in conjunction with it. There is probably less ten— dency to leave the teaching activities of the teacher to chance in a relatively larger and better financially sup- ported school district especially in a large urban area. On the basis of the non-significant differences in indi— vidual educational characteristic mean scores we accept the null hypotheses: H3a: There is no difference between the high finan- cial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score according to teacher responses. H3b: There is no difference between the high finan— cial support districts and low financial support districts in each educational characteristic mean score according to administrator responses. for each of the educational characteristics in Table 11 and 114 reject the research hypothesis that the Educational Char— acteristics Criterion will discriminate between the district types according to teacher responses and according to administrator responses. This non-discrimination indicates that there is no positive or negative relationship between educational quality and educational financial support in regard to these educational characteristics. TABLE ll.—-Individual educational characteristics which are not significantly different in high financial support dis— tricts and low financial support districts according to teachers or administrators7 Item No. Educational Characteristic Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of the Community 45 This is a highly stable community which does not have too many people leaving. 57 One or two ethnic groups comprise the largest number of residents in the community. Category VI: Administration and Supervision 30 Regulations governing student conduct are highly explicit and detailed. 7See Appendix F for statistical data. 115 Stability of the community evidently does not affect the degree of educational financial support, however, there may be factors which favor financial support in event of sta— bility and are infavorable in event of instability as well as other factors having opposite effects. The presence of one or two ethnic groups which really denotes a degree of homogeneity in the community appears to be independent of educational financial support. This is somewhat contrary to previous findings in which ethnic, racial, and religious homogeneity was more characteristic of low financial support districts. Heterogeneity is typi- cal of larger urban communities which tend to have high financial support. The finding that regulations governing student conduct appear to be independent of the degree of educational finan— cial support reflects the uniformity of general standards of conduct in Michigan communities as implemented by local boards of education, administrators, and teachers. 116 TABLE 12.-—Summary of relationships between educational qual— ity and educational financial support as indicated by fre— quencies of individual educational characteristics within their categories according to teacher responses and administrator responses Teachers Adminis— Both trators Category and No. of Items + _ NS + _ NS + _ NS I: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes (6) 6 O 0 4 O 2 4 O 0 II: Community Attitudes (ll) 10 l O 8 l 2 8 l 0 III: Curriculum (5) 5 0 0 5 O O 5 O 0 IV: Use of Facilities(l) l O O 1 0 0 1 0 O V: Socio-cultural Compo— sition of Community (11) 7 2 2 6 2 3 6 2 2 VI: Administration and Supervision (7) 6 0 l 6 0 1 6 0 1 VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods (l5) l4 1 0 ll 0 4 ll 0 0 Total 49 4 3 41 3 12 41 3 3 Key: + indicates association of high quality with high financial support and low quality with low financial support. — indicates association of high quality with low financial support and low quality with high financial support. NS indicates non—significant association of degree of quality with degree of financial support. The frequency of the educational characteristics which have the same quality-—support relationship according to either teachers or administrators is indicated under “Both.” 117 Individual Educational Characteristic Score Summary ‘1. The strong positive relationship of educational qual- ity to educational financial support as indicated by the Educational Characteristics Criterion total scores and each of the seven category scores according to responses of either teachers or administrators is supported by the findings re— garding individual educational characteristics as shown in Table 12. The significant association between high quality and high support and between low quality and low support is indicated by the teacher responses to forty—nine of the total fifty—six educational characteristics. Forty—one of these characteristics indicate the same relationship according to administrator responses (Table 7). 2. A strong negative relationship of educational quality to educational financial support is indicated by teacher responses to four educational characteristics as shown in Table 8 and Table 10. High quality is significantly associated with low financial support and low quality with high support. Three of the four characteristics indicate the same relation— ship according to administrator responses (Table 8). 3. Teacher responses indicate that three educational characteristics have no significant association with the 118 degree of financial support as shown in Table 11. Adminis— trator responses indicate the same finding. 4. Since all of the individual educational characteris— tics do not indicate the positive relation of educational quality and educational financial support which is evident in the analysis of total and category scores, nor consistent findings according to teacher respondents or administrator respondents,one must decide how much relative weight to give to the various individual educational characteristic findings. Since either teacher responses or administrator responses have indicated the negative quality-support relationship for three characteristics (Table 8) as well as a non—significant positive or negative quality-support relationship for three other characteristics (Table 11), it appears that these six educational characteristics considered individually and apart from their respective category score findings or total score findings deserve attention. In regard to individual educational characteristics which show a positive relation— ship between educational quality and educational financial support, it would appear that the forty—one educational characteristics in Table 7 are the most reliable indicators of this positive relationship since either teacher or administrator responses support this finding. 119 Summary of Hypothesis I Findings 1. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination indicates that according to the total scores of either teach— ers or administrators,educational quality is present in a significantly higher degree in school districts having high educational financial support than school districts having low educational financial support (Table 5). 2. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination indicates that according to each of the following seven cate— gory scores of either teachers or administrators in Table 6, educational quality is present in a significantly higher degree in school districts having high educational financial support than school districts having low educational financial support: I, student's level of knowledge and attitudes; II, community attitudes; III, curriculum; IV, use of facilities; V, socio-cultural composition of the community; VI, adminis— tration and supervision; VII, the teacher and teaching methods. 3. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination indicates that according to each of forty—one individual edu— cational characteristic scores of either teachers or adminis- trators, educational quality is present in a significantly higher degree in school districts having high educational 120 financial support than in school districts having low educa— tional financial support (Table 7). 4. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination indicates that according to each of three individual educa— tional characteristic scores of either teachers or adminis- trators, educational quality is present in a significantly higher degree in school districts having low educational financial support than in school districts having high edu- cational financial support (Table 8). 5. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination indicates that according to each of eight individual charac— teristic scores of teachers, educational quality is present in a significantly higher degree in school districts having high educational financial support than in school districts having low educational financial support (Table 9). Educa— tional Characteristics Criterion non—discrimination indicates that according to administrator scores of these characteris— tics there is no significant difference in educational quality between high or low educational financial support districts. 6. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination indicates that according to one individual educational char— acteristic score of teachers, educational quality is present 121 in a significantly higher degree in school districts having low educational financial support than in school districts having high educational financial support (Table 10). Educa— tional Characteristics Criterion non—discrimination indicates that according to administrator scores of this characteristic there is no significant difference in educational quality between high or low educational financial support districts. 7. Educational Characteristics Criterion non-discrimina- tion indicates that according to three individual educational characteristics scores of either teachers or administrators there is no significant difference in educational quality ‘between high or low educational financial support districts (Table 11). 8. The overall indications of the Educational Character— istics Criterion total score, seven category scores, and fifty- six item (educational characteristic) scores reveals that edu— cational quality has a strong positive relationship to finan- cial support for education in Michigan school districts having kindergarten through twelfth grade programs. 122 Analysis pf the Educational Characteristics Criterion Discrimination Ability between Perceptions pf Teachers and Administrators within High and Low Financial Support Quartiles and within Individual Large and Small School Districts The second major null hypothesis is as follows: The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show no ability to discriminate between responses of teachers and administrators within the high financial support quartile, within the low financial support quartile, within individual large school districts, and within individual small school districts. This hypothesis is operationally stated in null form in five sub-hypotheses: H4a: Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between total mean scores of teachers and administrators. H4b: Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each category mean score of teachers and administrators. H4c: Within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each educational characteristic mean score of teachers and administrators. H5a: Within individual large and small school dis— tricts there is no difference between total mean scores of teachers and administrators. H5b: Within individual large and small school dis- tricts there is no difference between each category mean score of teachers and administrators. 123 Statistical Procedure The "t'l test was used to determine the presence of a significant difference between the mean scores of teachers and administrators. The level of significance or chance of rejecting the null hypothesis if true was chosen at 0.05. The general procedures which were described and used for the proving of Hypothesis I are in effect for analysis of Hypothesis II. The statistical details are presented in the Appendices as indicated on each table. Since teacher scores of educational characteristics No. 18 (teacher certifica- tion) and No. 28 (school accreditation) were obtained from administrators' information (see page 83, Treatment of Data) because of their exact nature and use in the Hypothesis [tests, these characteristics were not useful in the analysis of Hypothesis II regarding the relative perceptions of teach- ers and administrators. They were included within the total and related category scores for economy of machine tabulation but not analyzed individually. The presence of a non—significant statistical differ- ence between the mean scores of teachers and administrators indicates agreement of perception between teachers and administrators. The presence of a significant statistical 31.31;“ 'x-ztvgp __._ . 124 difference between the mean scores of teachers and adminis— trators indicates a difference of perception between teach— ers and administrators. A comparison is made between the agreement or difference of perception of teachers and ad- ministrators in school districts having high educational financial support with the agreement or difference of per— ception of teachers and administrators in school districts having low educational financial support. It is expected that this comparison will reveal valuable information re- garding the relative perceptions of educational quality by administrators and teachers as represented by total, cate— gory, and individual educational characteristic scores which will furnish clues as to communication effectiveness and the relative expectations of administrators and teachers. The presence of administrative dispositions to overvalue or undervalue certain aspects of educational quality will be indicated when administrator mean scores are significantly higher or lower than teacher mean scores within both high and low financial support districts since financial support factors appear to be independent in this case. The presence of a nonmsignificant statistical difference between teacher and administrator mean scores in both high and low financial 125 support districts will indicate unity of teacher and admin— istrator perceptions regarding educational quality which appears to be independent of financial support factors. Teacher and administrator perception relationships which are different in the two levels of financially supported school districts will indicate the possibility of differences attributable to such factors as communication channels or administrative expectations which are associated with high or low levels of financial support for education. Results 'Within High and Low Financial Support Districts -- Total Scores On the basis of the significant difference in total mean scores as indicated in Table 13 we accept the null hypothesis: H4a: Within high and within low financial support districts there is no difference between total mean scores of teachers and administrators. and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will not discriminate between teacher and administrator responses within the district types. 126 TABLE l3.——Differences between the total mean scores of teachers and administrators according to high and low educational financial support school districts8 Score High Financial Low Financial Support Districts Support Districts Teachers Administrators Teachers Administrators Total 171.54 173.42 145.09 148.51 NS (P) .05) NS (P) .05) NS indicates a non—significant statistical difference between mean scores The non-discrimination between teacher and administra— tor responses indicates that there is agreement between teachers and administrators regarding the total educational quality within high financial support school districts and within low financial support school districts. In other words, the teachers and administrators value educational quality in the same degree as one might expect from profes— sional educational personnel having a similar frame of reference concerning educational quality. Within High apdpppw Financial Support Districts—~Category Scores On the basis of the non—significant difference in category mean scores as indicated in Table 14 we accept 8See Appendix G for statistical data. 127 the null hypothesis: H4b: Within high and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each category mean score of teachers and administrators for category I (student's level of knowledge), category II (community attitudes), category III (curriculum), category V (socio—cultural composition of the community) and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will not discriminate between teacher and adminis- trator responses within the district types. The non—discrimination between teacher and administra~ tor responses indicates that there is agreement between teachers and administrators regarding the valuing of educam tional quality of each of the above categories within high financial support school districts and within low financial support school districts. TABLE l4.—-Differences between category mean scores of teachers and administrators according to high and low educational financial support school districts9 High Financial Low Financial Su ort Districts 8 ort D str°ct Score pp upp l l S T A T A Category I: 17.68 18.15 15.29 15.70 Student's Level of NS (p > .05) NS (p > .05) Knowledge & Attitudes 9See Appendix G for statistical details. 128 TABLE l4--Continued High Financial Support Districts Low Financial Support Districts Score T A T A Category II: 32.22 31.39 26.27 26.87 Community Attitudes NS (P > .05) NS (P > .05) Category III: 17.52 17.58 14.25 14.84 Curriculum NS (P > .05) NS (P > .05) Category IV: 3.36 3.57 2 43 2.54 Use of Facilities 8 (P < .005) NS (P > .05) Category V: 29.43 28.73 25.95 25.70 Socio—cultural NS (P > .05) NS (P > .05) Composition of the Community Category VI: 22.13 23.10 17.39 17.89 Administration 3 (P < .005) NS (P > .05) and Supervision Category VII: 49.16 50.59 43.45 44.93 The Teacher and Teaching Methods 5 (P < .025) On the basis of the significant difference in category mean scores as indicated in Table 14 we reject the null hypothesis: H4b: Within high and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each category mean score of teachers and administrators for category VII (the teacher and teaching methods) and reject the research hypothesis that the Educational 129 Characteristics Criterion will not discriminate between teacher and administrator responses within either district type. The discrimination between the responses of teachers and administrators indicates that there is a difference between their valuing of the educational quality in cate- gory VII within high financial support school districts and within low financial support school districts. The higher mean score is made by the administrators within each dis— trict type, and so administrators are overvaluing the edu- cational quality of category VII (the teacher and teaching methods) as it applies to their school district in relation to this educational quality viewed by teachers. Since this overvaluing occurs in both district types it appears to be independent of financial support factors. If one assumes that the professional ideals or expectations of teachers and administrators are similar, then overvaluing of the teacher and teaching methods may be the result of the lack of ade— quate information supplied by communication channels avail- able to administrators in either high or low financial support districts. If one assumes that equally adequate communication exists to provide similar information to 130 teachers and administrators alike, then it may be that administrators' ideals or expectations regarding the teach- er and teaching methods are lower than teachers' ideals or expectations since administrators' mean scores are higher than teachers' mean scores. On the basis of the significant difference in category mean scores as indicated in Table 14 we reject the null hypothesis: H4b: Within high and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each category mean score of teachers and administrators for category IV (use of facilities) and category VI (admin- istration and supervision) in high financial support dis— tricts and accept the null hypothesis for both categories in low financial support districts. Therefore the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will not discriminate between teachers and administrators is rejected for categories IV and VI in high financial support districts and is accepted for categories IV and VI in low financial support districts. The discrimination indicated within high financial support districts means that there is a difference between teachers and administrators of high financial support 131 districts in their valuing of educational quality regarding use of facilities and administration and supervision. Fur— thermore, the high mean score of the administrators indicates the overvaluing of quality in category IV and VI in relation to teachers' valuing. Again, as in the case of the analysis of category VII (teacher and teaching methods), communication inadequacy or lower expectations by administrators may be the reason for this finding. The non—discrimination indicated for low financial sup— port districts means that there is teacher—administrator agreement regarding their valuing of quality in category IV and VI in low support districts. If one assumes that com— munication information regarding this quality is adequate in a small school such as is typical in low support districts, one could say that the expectations of teachers and adminis— trators are similar since their ratings of quality in these categories are similar. In summary, the category score findings indicate that all administrators regardless of the financial support con- ditions of their school districts overvalue the teacher and teaching methods. This might occur as a result of the general character of the administrative personality, 132 situational factors of the administrative position, or other factors. The relative adequacy of the information supplied from administrative communication channels or the relative professional expectations of the administrator have been suggested as possible reasons for the cause of the overvalu- ing of this category by administrators in relation to teacher's valuing. In addition, the category score findings indicate that administrators in high financial support districts overvalue use of facilities and administration and supervision while administrators in low financial support districts do not overvalue these categories of quality in relation to teach- ers' valuing. The conditions associated with administrative positions in high financial support districts evidently cause this overvaluing. Assuming similar teacher—administrator expectations, the reason for overvaluing might be lack of information available to administrators upon which to base a rating. Since high financial support districts are typi- cally larger with more communication problems, this explana— tion appears to have a rational basis. 133 Within High and Low Financial Support Districts—~Educational Characteristic Scores On the basis of the non-significant difference in indi— vidual educational characteristic mean scores we accept the null hypothesis: H4c: Within high and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each educational characteristic mean score of teachers and administrators for all educational characteristics listed in Table 15 and we accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will not discriminate between teacher and administrator responses within the district types. TABLE 15.--Individua1 educational characteristics which are valued similarly by teachers and administrators within high financial support districts and within low financial support districtslO Item No. Educational Characteristic Category I: Student”s Level of Knowledge and Attitudes 58 Pupils consider an academic grade of at least "B" to be the norm for academic achievement. 59 The professional staff of the schools in the com- munity consider an academic grade of at least “B“ to be the norm for academic achievement. 0See Appendix H for statistical data. 134 TABLE 15——Continued Item No. Educational Characteristic Category II: Community Attitudes 35 The perceptions of parents and patrons concerning the purposes of education are consistent and clear. 37 There is no lag between the values taught in the school and what is practiced in the community. 44 There are outstanding community leaders in this community who exhibit great interest in school affairs. 27 Parents and patrons (those residents of a school district without school-age children) are highly knowledgeable about education. Category III: Curriculum 10 Teachers perceive a coherent and coordinated structure to the educational program. 11 Consensus exists among the staff concerning the goals of the educational program. 12 A structure has been developed that permits continual curriculum improvement. Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of the Community 32 41 The social status of teachers is very high in this community Cultural experiences are readily available in the community. 135 TABLE 15——Continued Item No. Educational Characteristic 45 This is a highly stable community which does not have too many people leaving. 48 A high percentage of high school students own personal cars. 49 A high percentage of homes own television sets. Category VI: Administration and Supervision 16 Professional staff of the school system are involved in in-service education. 29 Lay members of the community are highly involved in the planning of educational goals with the school staff. 33 Regulations governing personnel policies are highly explicit and detailed. Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 8 Teaching practices reflect concern for individual differences. 9 Teaching practices reflect a knowledge of indi— vidual differences. 17 Teachers thoroughly understand the information gathered on students and use this information to make educational decisions. 19 Teachers have complete freedom to teach what they consider to be important. 136 TABLE 15——Continued Item No. Educational Characteristic 20 A great variety of instructional techniques are presently used in the classrooms. 38 There exists a high level of cooperation among the teachers of the staff. 40 The community and its residents are used for instructional purposes. Twenty—four individual educational characteristics listed in Table 15 are valued similarly by teachers and administra— tors within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts as indicated by the non-discrimi— nation finding. It appears that these characteristics are distributed proportionately to the total number of character— istics within each category. Therefore the finding that there is agreement between teacher responses and administra- tor responses within high and within low financial support districts according to total scores and according to each of the category scores is generally supported by the findings regarding individual educational characteristic scores. On the basis of the significant difference in individual educational characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypothesis: . .1 137 H4c: Within high and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each educational characteristic mean score of teachers and administrators for the high financial support districts and accept the null hypothesis for the low financial support districts for the ten educational characteristics listed in Table 16. The research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will not discriminate between teacher and adminis- trator responses is rejected for the high financial support districts and accepted for the low financial support districts. The discrimination in high financial support districts occurs in conjunction with a higher teacher mean score than adminis- trator mean score. This means that administrators in high financial support districts are undervaluing the six educa— tional characteristics listed in Part 1 of Table 16. The four educational characteristics listed in Part 2 of Table 16 are overvalued by administrators in high financial sup— port districts since discrimination occurs in conjunction with a higher administrator mean score than teacher mean score for each characteristic. 138 TABLE l6.——Individual educational characteristics which are undervalued (Part 1) or overvalued (Part 2) by administra— tors in high financial support districts and are valued simi— larly by teachers and administrators in low financial support districtsll Item No. Educational Characteristic Part l——Underva1ued by Administrators in High Financial Support Districts Category II: Community Attitudes 43 A high percentage of the electorate in the commun— ity vote in school elections. 46 The community exhibits a great concern for the development of aesthetic and artistic interests. 52 The parents in this community expect their chil— dren to perform their share of family chores. Category V: Socio—cultural Composition of the Community 51 A high degree of ethnic, racial, and religious homogeneity exists among the local population. 53 This community is composed of people who are predominantly Protestant. 57 One or two ethnic groups comprise the largest number of residents in the community. 11See Appendix H for statistical data. 139 TABLE l6-—Continued Item No. Educational Characteristic Part 2-—Overvalued by Administrators in High Financial Support Districts Category III: Curriculum 21 A great variety of instructional materials are presently used in the classroom. Category IV: Use of Facilities 39 The physical facilities of the school system (buildings and equipment) are completely adequate. Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 24 Teachers often avail themselves of professional help. 50 A great deal of homework is assigned to students. The findings indicate that administrators of high finan— cial support districts see their community as being less interested in school elections, less culturally-minded, and more heterogeneous in ethnic, racial, and religious aspects (especially Protestant) than do teachers. They also feel that parents are less demanding of their children in regard to chore responsibility than do teachers. Administrators may feel the pressure of many more kinds of community groups 140 than do teachers. Teachers give parents more credit for responsibility and cultural interests and see a relatively greater homogeneity than administrators. Administrators overvalue teachers and students in the characteristics listed in Part II. It is evident that administrators“ information regarding the variety of instructional materials, use of facilities, use of professional help by teachers, and amount of homework assigned to students is probably less than teachers“ information. Since teachers would normally have closer contact with students and more extensive contact with parents than administrators in high financial support districts, one might conclude also that the information upon which administrators base their ratings is less accurate than teachers' information. This conclusion appears logi— cal also for the extent of community cultural interests and parental expectations regarding chore work by their children (Part I) since much information about the home is available to the teacher through the students. Assuming that administrators and teachers have similar professional expectations, it appears that administrators of low financial support districts have a more effective source of information regarding the educational characteristics 141 listed in Table 16 since there is agreement in the valuing of each of these characteristics by teachers and adminis- trators. This might be expected in the smaller districts that are typical of the low financial support districts since communication regarding these educational character— istics might be expected to be more effective in a relatively smaller area than in the typically large high financial sup— port districts. Another analysis is possible if one assumes that accu- rate information is available through the communication channels of administrators in either high or low financial support districts. One might say that administrators in high support districts undervalue the educational charac— teristics listed in Part 1 as a result of having higher ex- pectations regarding them than do teachers. In other words, if both teachers and administrators are valuing the same characteristic in the light of relatively similar profes— sional education training, the undervaluing of administrators as evident in the lower mean score is explained in the fact that educational quality expectation level is higher than teachers' level of expectations thus resulting in lower scores for the rating of the characteristic. According to 142 this rationale the three community attitude characteristics listed in Part 1 of Table 16 are undervalued by administra- tors of high support districts because of relatively higher professional expectations than teachers' expectations. Since there is teacher—administrator agreement in low finan— cial support districts, this means that administrators in high support districts have relatively higher expectations compared to teachers' expectations than do administrators in low support districts regarding these characteristics. Using the assumption that communication channels of administrators are equally adequate in either high or low financial support districts, the analysis of Part 2 of Table 16 indicates that administrators' expectations regarding the variety of instructional materials used, physical facili- ties, teacher use of professional help and amount of student homework are lower than teachers' expectations in high sup- port districts. On the basis of the significant difference in individual educational characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypothesis: H4c: Within high and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each educational characteristic mean score of teachers and administrators 143 for the low financial support districts and accept the null hypothesis for the high financial support districts for all eleven educational characteristics listed in Table 17. The research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will not discriminate between teacher and admin— istrator responses is rejected for the low financial support districts and accepted for the high financial support dis— tricts. The discrimination in low financial support dis— tricts occurs in conjunction with a higher teacher mean score than administrator mean score. This means that ad— ministrators in low financial support districts are under— valuing the four educational characteristics listed in Part 1 of Table 17. The seven educational characteristics listed in Part 2 of Table 17 are overvalued by administra- tors in low financial support districts since discrimination occurs in conjunction with a higher administrator mean score than teacher mean score for each educational characteristic. 144 TABLE l7.——Individual educational characteristics which are undervalued (Part 1) or overvalued (Part 2) by administra— tors in low financial support districts and are valued similarly by teachers and administrators in high financial support districts12 Item No. Educational Characteristic Part l——Undervalued by Administrators in Low Financial Support Districts Category II: Community Attitudes 62 Parents condone or encourage early dating for their children. Category V: Socio—cultural Composition of the Community 54 This community is composed of people who are predominantly Catholic. 56 The population of this community is equally divided between Protestants and Catholics. Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 31 High degree of teacher participation in social and political activities of the community. Part 2——Overvalued by Administrators in Low Financial Support Districts Category I: Student’s Level of Knowledge and Attitudes 2See Appendix H for statistical data. 145 TABLE l7——Continued Item No. Educational Characteristic 61 Parents and patrons in the community consider an academic grade of at least ”B” to be the norm for academic achievement. Category II: Community Attitudes 47 A two—way communication channel readily exists between the home and school. 60 A high value is placed on education by the parents and patrons (those residents of a school district without school—age children) of the community. Category III: Curriculum 23 A complete comprehensive testing program includ— ing intelligence and achievement testing is avail— able in the schools. Category VI: Administration and Supervision 30 Regulations governing student conduct are highly explicit and detailed. Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 13 Evidence exists of instructional and/or curricular experimentation. 25 Complete freedom is granted to students to investi- gate any local, state, national, or international issue. 146 The findings indicate that administrators of low finan— cial support districts undervalue the encouragement that parents give their children regarding early dating, the proportion of Catholic population and relative proportion of Catholic and Protestant population, and teacher participa- tion in community life. Using the relatively greater number of teacher responses as a norm, it appears that administra- tors in low support districts are not receiving the same kind of information through their communicative facilities as teachers do through their communicative facilities. If one assumes equal teacher and administrator expectations in regard to the educational characteristics in Part 2 of Table 17, it is evident that the information available from the communication channels of administrators in low finan— cial support districts differs from those of teachers. The academic grade norms, educational values of parents and patrons, student regulations, two—way communication between home and school, testing program, curricular experimenta- tion, and student freedom to investigate issues are over- valued. The overvaluing regarding two~way communication appears to support the basis for the overvaluing of parents' and patrons“ educational values and grade norms. The 147 tendency to overvalue home—school communications also appears to be related to the overvaluing of the explicitness of student regulations. It is possible that teachers and administrators are not rating the same aspects of the test- ing program and curricular experimentation since a system— wide view by administrators might differ from a building— view of teachers. Administrators in low quality districts overvalue student freedom to investigate issues which may again reflect a lower expectation level with a consequent higher rating value. A possible reason for this might be that administrative expectations tend to be lower as a result of explicit or implicit pressure from the board of education which may or may not represent the desires of H community residents. According to analysis of Hypothesis student freedom to investigate issues was significantly lower in low quality districts than in high quality dis— tricts——a finding which appears to be congruent with ten— dencies toward lower expectations of administrators in these districts. -Perhaps this reflects indirectly (through inn fluence on boards of education) the reluctance of parents to give permission to teachers to lead students toward investigating contemporary local, state, national, or 148 international issues which might conflict with their own family or community social or political norms. One might analyze the administrative overvaluing of the other characteristics in Part 2 of Table 17 as being the result of lower expectations on their part than those of teachers, communication information being assumed equal. It might be fruitful to investigate the relative age of teach— ers and their administrators in order to determine relative differences in expectation as a result of type of training and experience. Could older administrators who have been in low financial support districts for a considerable numn ber of years have lower expectations than younger teachers who have had more recent educational training? Could administrators of low financial support districts who have older, more experienced teachers in their districts have lower expectations than the teachers? The relative length of service by teachers in their present school district is an important factor to consider also. Community attitudes and factors associated with the community composition are likely to affect school personnel in their attitudes and expectations. Whatever the effect of all the various fac- tors mentioned above, the fact remains that according to the ._ _.. “in...“ .. .. 149 research sample of thirty—nine school districts having low financial support, administrators are overvaluing the seven educational characteristics listed in Part 2 of Table 17. On the basis of the significant difference in individual educational characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypothesis: H4c: Within high and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each educational characteristic mean score of teachers and administrators. and reject the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will not discriminate between teachers' and administrators' responses within either high or low financial support districts for all educational characteristics listed in Table 18. The discrimination occurs in conjunction with a higher teacher mean score than administrator mean score for the characteristic listed in Part 1 thus indicating a relative undervaluing of it by administrators. The six characteristics listed in Part 2 are overvalued by administrators since the discrimination occurs in conjunction with a relatively higher administra- tor mean score for each characteristic listedo 150 TABLE 18.—-Individual educational characteristics which are undervalued (Part 1) or overvalued (Part 2) by administra— tors in low financial support districts and in high financial support districtsl3 Item No. Educational Characteristic Part l——Undervalued by Administrators Category V: Socio—cultural Composition of the Community 55 This community is composed of people who are predominantly Jewish. Part 2——Overvalued by Administrators Category I: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes 14 Students show a positive attitude toward scholastic work. 15 Students evidence accurate knowledge of self. 22 Students are knowledgeable about the educational and social opportunities available to them. Category VI: Administration and Supervision 42 Teachers' judgments are almost always used in the determination of educational policies. Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods 7 Teachers have intimate knowledge of children. 26 Availability to students of materials that reflect all shades of political and sociological points of view. 13 . . See Appendix H for statistical data. 151 Since administrative undervaluing or overvaluing of the educational characteristics occurs in both high and low financial support districts, it appears likely that factors independent of financial support are influential in stimu— lating this consistent undervaluing or overvaluing. The nature of the administrative personality, training, exper- ience, or situational factors may be responsible. Over— valuing appears to be more prevalent since only one of seven characteristics are undervalued, the rest being overvalued. Assuming equal expectations of teachers and administrators, it is probable that through closer contact with students and consequent availability of parental information, teachers would have a better basis upon which to judge the propor- tion of Jewish population in the school community. It is especially noticeable that all three characteristics regard“ ing desirable student achievements other than academic grades such as attitudes, knowledge of self, and knowledge of opportunities are overvalued by administrators regardless of district type. Assuming equal teacher-administrator expectations, this means that administrators, being more remote from daily contact with students, do not have the information they should have in order to make a comparable judgment with teachers regarding these characteristics. 152 Also overvalued by administrators regardless of the level of district financial support are the use of teachers0 judgments in policy—making, teachers“ knowledge of children, and availability to students of materials that reflect all points of View. Assuming equal expectations by teachers and administrators, it appears as though administrators do not have access to adequate information regarding many aspects of their schools. There may be an exception re- garding the use of teachers' judgments in policy-making. It appears reasonable to assume that in this case adequate in- formation must necessarily be available to administrators, and so the overvaluing of the characteristic is caused by a relative difference in expectations between administrators and teachers with administrators having the lower expec- tations. A general tendency has been for administrators to rely predominantly on administrative judgments rather than teacher judgments in the determination of policies, and this tendency appears to be present in the findings. Assuming equal available information from communication channels in both high and low support districts, one could 153 say that the reason for undervaluing or overvaluing by administrators is that their expectations or professional norms are respectively higher or lower than teachers' norms. Perhaps administrators do not expect as much in the area of student outcomes such as attitudes and self—knowledge as do teachers. In this case the administrators” mean score would be higher than teachers' mean score resulting in a conclu— sion of the presence of overvaluing by administrators. According to the same rationale, one could say that there is a general administrative pre—disposition to expect less in the use of teacher judgments, teachers“ knowledge of chil- dren, and variety of materials available to students. Could this pre—disposition be a result of the training that admin— istrators receive or because of the situational factors of their positions that tend to create different levels of expectations than those of teachers regardless of the degree of financial educational support. It is probable that in order to know the effect of expectations on professional personnel in education a controlled study of communication factors would have to be made. Likewise, expectations would have to be controlled in order to study communication infor- mation effects on the overvaluing and undervaluing by 154 administrators in relation to teachers“ valuing. On the basis of the significant difference in individual educational characteristic mean scores we reject the null hypothesis: H4c: Within high and within low financial support districts there is no difference between each educational characteristic mean score of teachers and administrators for educational characteristics listed in Table 19 and reject the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will not discriminate between teacher and adminis— trator responses for each characteristic. Since the discrim- ination occurs in conjunction with a lower administrator mean score than teacher mean score this means that adminis— trators in high support districts are undervaluing the one characteristic listed in Part 1 of Table 19. This same characteristic is being overvalued by administrators in the low support districts since the discrimination occurs in conjunction with a higher administrative mean score than teacher mean score. According to the same rationale the one educational characteristic listed in Part 2 of Table 19 is being overvalued by administrators in high support districts and undervalued by administrators in low support districts. 155 TABLE l9.——Individual educational characteristics which are undervalued by administrators in high financial support districts and overvalued by administrators in low financial support districts (Part 1) and are overvalued by adminiSn trators in high financial support districts and undervalued . . . . . . . . 14 by administrators in low finanCial support districts (Part2) Item No. Educational Characteristic Part l——Undervalued by Administrators in High Support Districts and Overvalued by Administrators in Low Support Districts Category II: Community Attitudes 36 The local newspaper has shown a high interest in local school affairs. Part 2--Overvalued by Administrators in High Support Districts and Undervalued by Administrators in Low Support Districts Category VI: Administration and Supervision 34 Citizens are highly organized to discuss school problems. It is evident that factors associated with the relative degree of educational financial support are affecting the administrators within high support districts and Within low support districts. These factors probably do not affect the 4 . , . See Appendix H for statistical data. 156 administrators in each district type in the same manner. If one assumes equal available information between teachers and administrators, then it is likely that administrators have higher expectations than teachers in high support districts and administrators have lower expectations than teachers in low support districts regarding the local newspaper“s interest in local school affairs. It is probable that administrators in high support districts have higher expectations in view of the potential capabilities of a more highly educated and industrially competent population which is typically aSSO‘ ciated with high financial support districts. Consequently the administrators tend to undervalue the degree in which this educational characteristic is present. The situation is reversed regarding the degree to which citizens are or- ganized to discuss school problems (listed in Part 2 of Table 19). Administrators in high support districts tend to overvalue their efforts in their organization of citizens. They place considerable faith in organization of citizens to cope with the tremendous problem of securing satisfactory home-school relationships in a populous heterogeneous community. Administrators in low support districts under- value their citizens” organization and probably logically 157 so when one considers the sparseness of population so typical of low support districts in rural and semi—rural areas which is not conducive to organization of citizens to discuss education. Summary 9: Hypothesis I;_Findings Concerning High and Low Financial Support School Districts 1. Educational Characteristics Criterion non-discrim- ination between the total mean scores of teachers and administrators within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts indicates that there is agreement between teachers and administrators within each district type as to the total educational quality of the district. 2° Educational Characteristics Criterion non-discrimi- nation between the category mean scores of teachers and administrators within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts indicates that there is agreement between teachers and administrators within each district type as to the educational quality represented in category I, studentcs level of knowledge; category II. com- munity attitudes; category III, curriculum; and category V, socio—cultural composition of the community. 158 3. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination between the category mean scores of teachers and administra— tors within high financial support districts and within low financial support districts indicates that administrators are overvaluing category VII, the teacher and teaching methods, within each district type. 4. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination between the category mean scores of teachers and administra— tors within high financial support districts indicates that administrators are overvaluing category IV, use of facili« ties, and category VI, administration and supervision. Non— discrimination between the category mean scores of teadhers and administrators within low financial support districts indicates that teachers and administrators agree as to the educational quality represented by these categories, 5. Educational Characteristics Criterion non—discrimi‘ nation between the individual educational characteristic mean scores of teachers and administrators within high financial support districts and within low financial sup- port districts indicates that there is agreement between teachers and administrators within each district type as to the educational quality represented in each of the 159 twenty-four educational characteristics (Table 15). 6. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination between the individual educational characteristic mean scores of teachers and administrators within high financial support districts indicates that administrators are under~ valuing the educational quality as represented in each of six educational characteristics and overvaluing the educa- tional quality as represented in each of four other educa— tional characteristics (Table 16). Non—discrimination between the individual educational characteristic mean scores within low financial support districts indicates that teachers and administrators within these districts agree as to the educational quality represented in these characteristics. 7. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination between individual educational characteristic mean scores of teachers and administrators within low financial support districts indicates that administrators are undervaluing the educational quality represented by four educational charac= teristics and overvaluing the educational quality represented by seven other educational characteristics (Table 17). Nonx discrimination between the individual educational charac- teristic mean scores within high financial support districts indicates that teachers and administrators within these 160 districts agree as to the educational quality represented in these characteristics. 8. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimina~ tion between individual educational characteristic mean scores of teachers and administrators within high finan- cial support districts and within low financial support districts indicates that administrators are undervaluing the educational quality as represented by one educational characteristic according to both district types. Discrimm ination between individual educational characteristic mean scores of teachers and administrators in each district types indicates that administrators are overvaluing the edu- cational quality as represented by six educational charac- teristics according to each district type (Table 18}. 9. Educational Characteristics Criterion discriminaw tion between individual educational characteristic mean scores of teachers and administrators within high financial support districts indicates that administrators are under‘ valuing the educational quality represented by one charaCn teristic and discrimination between the individual educan tional characteristic mean scores of teachers and adminis- trators within low financial support districts indicates that administrators are overvaluing the educational quality l6l represented by the same characteristics (Table 19). Dis— crimination also indicates that administrators in high financial support districts are overvaluing the educational quality represented by one educational characteristic while administrators in low financial support districts are under— valuing the educational quality represented in the same characteristic. Results 2: Within District Tests-— Total Scores Hypothesis II is tested to determine differences in the responses of teachers and administrators within a large school district typical of the high financial support dis— tricts sample and within each of two small districts typi- cal of the low financial support school districts sample, and to identify any variations from the results of the tests concerning the high financial support quartile of districts and low financial support quartile of districts. In order to test for outstanding variations only total mean scores and each of seven category mean scores were used. District No. l was selected as a representative of a large district within the high financial support districts sample. There are 405 teachers (about forty per cent of the total number) and 61 administrators (about eighty per cent 162 of the total number) in this district sample. District No. 10 and District No. 37 were selected as representatives of small districts within the low financial support districts sample. District No. 10 sample has 28 teachers (about ninety per cent of the total number) and three administra— tors (about eighty per cent of the total number). District No. 37 sample has ten teachers (about fifty per cent of the total number) and three administrators (one hundred per cent of the total number). On the basis of the significant difference in total mean scores as indicated in Table 20 we reject the null hypothesis: H5a: Within individual large districts and within individual small school districts there is no difference between total mean scores of teachers and administrators for District No. l and accept the null hypothesis for Dis— tricts No. 10 and No. 37. The research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will not discrim- inate between responses of teachers and administrators is rejected for District No. l and accepted for Districts No. 10 and No. 37. The discrimination indicated for District No. 1 means that there is a significant difference in the valuing of total educational quality in the school district between teachers and administrators. The non—discrimination 163 indicated for District No. 10 and District No. 37 means that teachers and administrators within each of these two districts agree as to the total educational quality of their school districts. TABLE 20.——Differences between the total mean scores of teachers and administrators within Districts No. 1, No. 10, and No. 37 District Teachers Administrators Significance of Difference No. 1 (Large) 167.34 172.18 S (P < 05) No. 10 (Small) 146.25 146.33 NS (P) .05) No. 37 (Small) 146.80 152.33 NS (P > 05) The finding that there is a significant difference between the perceptions of teachers and administrators re— garding total educational quality within District No. l (a large district in the high financial support quartile) indicates a variation from the finding that teachers and administrators agree on total educational quality according to the entire high financial support quartile. While the difference in valuing of teachers and administrators in District No. l was just sufficient to be significant at 15See Appendix I for statistical data. 164 P < .05 level, the entire quartile difference of teachers and administrators was P > .05 (actually P > .30), thus denoting a strong non-significant difference or strong agreement. The finding that there is a non—significant difference or agreement between the valuing of teachers and adminis— trators in District No. 10 and in District No. 37 (small districts in the low financial support quartile) supports the finding that there is teacher—administrator agreement as to total educational quality according to the entire low financial support quartile. The individual district tests show stronger agreement however since the teacher-adminis— trator non—significant difference was indicated at P > .90 for District No. 10 and at P > .60 for District No. 37 while the entire low financial support quartile tests showed the non-significant difference indicated at .10 > P > .05. Thus it is evident that conditions peculiar to individual school districts will cause differences in teacher-administrator perceptions regarding educational quality that may vary from the relationships indicated from a large sample of teacher and administrator respondents within an entire financial support quartile. 165 Results 9; Within Districts Tests-—Category Scores On the basis of the non-significant difference in cate— gory mean scores as indicated in Table 21 we accept the null hypothesis: H5b: Within individual large districts and within individual small school districts there is no difference between category mean scores of teachers and administrators for all category scores listed for District No. 1, No. 10, and No. 37, except category VI, administration and supervi— sion, and category VII, teacher and teaching methods, for District No. 1. The research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will not discriminate between teacher and administrator responses is accepted for all category scores except category VI and VII scores of District No. 1. The null hypothesis is rejected and the research hypothesis is rejected for category VI and VII scores of District No. 1. TABLE 21.—~Differences between the category mean 166 scores of teachers and administrators within Districts No. 1, No. 10, and No. 37 District District District No. 1 No. 10 No. 37 Score T A T A T A Category I: Student“s Level 16.92 17.91 14.28 13.66 15.60 16.33 of Knowledge NS NS NS and Attitudes Category II: Community 30.02 30.34 26.60 29.66 25.50 27.33 Attitudes NS NS NS Category III: 17.15 17.77 14.32 12.00 15.40 16.00 Curriculum NS NS NS Category IV: Use of 3.43 3.60 2.64 3.00 .10 4.00 Facilities NS NS NS Category V: Socio-cultural 29.26 28.68 26.35 27.33 24.50 23.00 Composition of NS NS NS the Community Category VI: Administration 22.33 23.50 18.35 18.66 18.10 17.33 and Supervision S (P < .005) NS NS Category VII: The Teacher 48.20 50.36 43.67 41.66 44.60 48.30 and Teaching 5 (P < .005) Ns NS Methods 16See Appendix I for statistical data. level used in Table 21 is P > .05, except where indicated. The significance n... . ..._. _...._._. 167 The non—discrimination indicated between teacher and administrator responses means that there is agreement be- tween teachers and administrators regarding the educational quality of each of the seven categories within the three districts with the exception of the two noted categories of District No. 1. The discrimination indicated between teach— ers and administrators for these two categories means that there is a significant difference in valuing by teachers and administrators. Excepting category IV, use of facilities, the findings of the individual large districts tests support the findings of the high financial support district sample tests. Excepting category VII, the teacher and teaching methods, the findings of the individual small districts tests support the findings of the low financial support district sample tests. It is evident that variations within school districts are associated with differences in valuing of quality by teachers and administrators as represented by the category scores. It appears that differences may occur within high financial support districts to a greater degree than within each of the low financial support districts according to these brief tests. The establishment of this conclusion must depend on the results of many individual 168 district tests which is a problem for future research. It also appears that the valuing of quality by teachers and administrators shows stronger agreement in the small indi— vidual districts typically having low financial support than in large districts typically having high financial support. Summary of Hypothesis II Findings Concerning Tests within Individual Large and Small School Districts 1. Educational Characteristics Criterion non—discrimi— nation between teacher and administrator total mean scores within each of two small districts in the low financial sup— port districts sample indicates that there is agreement between teachers and administrators as to the total educa— tional quality within each of these districts. 2. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination between teacher and administrator total mean scores within one large district in the high financial support districts sample indicates that there is a significant difference be“ tween the perceptions of teachers and administrators as to the total educational quality within this district. 3. Educational Characteristics Criterion nonmdiscrimim nation between teacher and administrator category mean scores - v 7.. . W...’ - -.._—,:.n_.:_ ...-..__I'_._ _._._". :- —_ .... 2-4... ._._.... _._._.__._— 169 within each of two small districts in the low financial support districts sample indicates that there is agreement between teachers and administrators as to the educational quality represented by each of the following seven cate— gories in their school district: (I) student”s level of knowledge, (II) community attitudes, (III) curriculum, (IV) use of facilities, (V) socio—cultural composition of the community, (VI) administration and supervision, and (VII) the teacher and teaching methods. 4. Educational Characteristics Criterion non—discrimi- nation between teacher and administrator category mean scores within one large district in the high financial sup- port districts sample indicates that there is agreement between teachers and administrators as to the educational quality represented by each of the following five categories in their school district: (I) student's level of knowledge, (II) community attitudes, (III) curriculum, (IV) use of facilities, and (V) socio—cultural composition of the comm munity. Discrimination between teacher and administrator category mean scores within this district indicates that there is a significant difference between the perceptions of teachers and administrators as to the educational quality 170 represented by category VI, administration and supervision and category VII, the teacher and teaching methods. 5. With two exceptions the findings regarding teacher- administrator agreement as to educational quality by cate- gories within individual school districts support the find- ings of tests regarding each of the entire research sam- ples of high financial support quartile of districts and low financial support quartile of districts. The excep— tions were category IV, use of facilities for the high financial support quartile and category VII, the teacher and teaching methods, for the low financial support quartile. Analysis 9: the Educational Characteristics Criterion Reliability within High and Low Financial Support Quartiles The third major null hypothesis is as follows: The Educational Characteristics Criterion will not show high reliability within the high financial support quartile of districts and within the low financial support quartile of districts. This hypothesis is operationally stated in null form in two sections: H6(a——d): There will not be high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and total scores of (a) teacher respondents of high financial support 171 quartile of districts, (b) administrator respondents of high financial support quartile of districts, (c) teacher re- spondents of low financial support quartile of districts, and (d) administrator respondents of low financial support quartile of districts. H-7(a-—d): There will not be high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and related category scores of (a) teacher respondents of high financial support quartile of districts, (b) administrator respondents of high financial support quartile of districts, (c) teacher respondents of low financial support quartile of districts, and (d) administrator respondents of low financial support quartile of districts. Statistical Procedure The test used is the Hoyt analysis of variance for the estimation of reliability from consistency of individual performance upon the test items.17 An assumption of this test is that the score of an individual may be divided into four independent (mutually uncorrelated) components, as follows: (1) a component common to all individuals and to all items, (2) a component associated with the item, (3) a component associated with the individual, (4) an error com— ponent that is independent of l, 2, and 3. Reliability may be estimated from the expression: variance among individual scores minus error variance divided by variance among indi— vidual scores. 17C. J. Hoyt, ”Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of Variance,” Psychometrika, Vol. 6 (1941), pp. 153-160. 172 Two statistics are used——the F and v.18 The F ratio of the mean square for the individuals to the residual mean square is used to accept the hypothesis or reject the hypo— thesis if the F value exceeds the critical region: F>F.99 (row N-1)(column N—l) degrees of freedom. The rejection of F indicates that there are individual score variations which significantly exceed error variation effects, thus proving that the test measures with sufficient accuracy to dis— tinguish between individuals tested. The V measures the sensitivity of the test by determining the relative accuracy of measurement according to the relation between the magni— tude of the errors of measurement and the size of the dif- ferences among individuals. V is the standard deviation of the distribution of true scores divided by the standard deviation of error of measurement. The error mean square is subtracted from the mean square between individuals and the result is divided by the error mean square. The rela— tion between Jackson's V and the reliability coefficient is: rtt r tt V equals 1—:f;f—'. tt 18Robert W. B. Jackson, ”Reliability of Mental Tests,” British Journal of Psychology, Vol. XXIX (1939), pp. 267— 287 and J. C. Hoyt, op. cit. 173 V is interpreted on the normal probability scale in the following manner: if V equals 2.56 we would expect to make an error as great or greater than one standard deviation of the true scores only once in a hundred times or according to the normal curve table for a two~sided test, exactly 0.0105 times. Results Total Score Reliability Within Quartiles Based on the reliability test results listed in Table 22 we reject the null hypothesis: H6: There will not be high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and total scores of (a) teacher respondents of high financial support quartile of districts, (b) administrator respondents of high financial support quartile of districts, (c) teacher respondents of low financial support quartile of districts, and (d) admin— istrator respondents of low financial support quartile of districts and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion shows high reliability in school districts within high financial support quartile of districts and within the low financial support quartile of districts. 174 TABLE 22.—-Reliabi1ity and sensitivity significance level of £99 total scores of teachers and of administrators within the high financial support quartile of districts and within the low financial support quartile of districts. Teachers Administrators Score rtt P rtt P High Financial Support Quartile Total 0.90 0.002 0.90 0.001 Low Financial Support Quartile Total 0.95 0.000001 0.89 0.004 It is evident from the results in Table 22 that the Educational Characteristics Criterion has highly reliable total scores for teachers or for administrators in either high or low financial support quartile of school districts. Category Score Reliability Within Quartiles Based on the reliability test results listed in Table 23 We reject the null hypothesis: H7: There will not be high consistency in individ— ual educational characteristic scores and related category scores of (a) teacher respondents of high financial support quartile of districts for category I (student”s level of knowledge and attitudeQ, category II (community attitudes), and category VII (the teacher and teaching methods); of (b) administrator respondents of the high financial support quartile of districts for category I, II, and VII; of (c) 19See Appendix J for statistical data. 175 teacher respondents of the low financial support quartile of districts for category I, II, III (curriculum), and VII; of (d) administrator respondents of the low financial support quartile for category III and VII. and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion shows high reliability within the high and low financial support quartiles of districts accord— ing to the categories listed above. Based on the reliability test results listed in Table 23 we accept the null hypothesis: H7: There will not be high consistency in indi- vidual educational characteristic scores and related cate— gory scores of (a) teacher respondents of high financial support quartile of districts for category III (curriculum), category V (socio-cultural composition of the community), and category VI (administration and supervision); of (b) administrator respondents in the high financial support quartile of districts for category III, V, and VI; of (c) teacher respondents in the low financial support quartile of districts for category V and VI; of (d) administrator respondents in low financial support quartile of districts for category I (student”s level of knowledge and attitudes), category II( community attitudes), category V, and category VI. and reject the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion shows high reliability within the high and low financial support quartiles of districts ac“ cording to the categories listed above. 176 TABLE 23.——Re1iability and sensitivity significance level of Egg category scores of teachers and of administrators within high financial support quartile of districts and within low financial support quartile of districts20 Teachers Administrators Score rtt P rtt P High Financial Support Quartile Category I: Student's Level of Knowledge and Attitudes Category II: Community 0.80 0.04 0.76 0.07 Attitudes Category III: Curriculum Category IV: Use of (no test possible—-l item in category) Facilities Category V: Socio—cultural 0.39 0.42 0.46 0.35 Composition of Community Category VI: Administration 0.61 0.20 0.65 0.17 and Supervision Category VII: The Teacher and 0.75 0.08 0.79 0.05 Teaching Methods 20See Appendix J for statistical data. 177 TABLE 23——Continued Teachers Administrators Score rtt P rtt P Low Financial Support Quartile Category I: Student's Level of Knowledge 0.75 0 08 0 70 0 13 and Attitudes Category II: Community 0.78 0.05 0.68 0.14 Attitudes category III: 0 74 0 09 0.74 0.09 Curriculum Category IV: Use of (no test possible—~1 item in category) Facilities Category V: Socio-cultural Composition of Community Category VI: Administration 0.68 0.14 0.61 0.20 and Supervision Category VII: The Teacher 0.80 0.04 0.78 0.10 and Teaching Methods The definition of high reliability in this analysis was from 0.71 to 1.00 (sensitivity significance level of 0.11). 178 There were twenty-four possible category tests (six testable categories according to two respondent types within two dis- trict types). Twelve of the twenty-four tests showed high category reliability. Eight other tests showed reliabili— ties closely approaching the defined lower limit of high reliability (0.71), these being from 0.61 and higher (sen- sitivity significance level of 0.20 or less). Thus twenty of the twenty-four possible tests show that the Educational Characteristic Criterion category scores are operationally usable within extended reliability limits. The most un- reliable category is V (socio-cultural composition of the community). This fact should be taken into account in the conclusions regarding the first two hypotheses of this study. Analysis gf_the Educational Characteristics Criterion Reliability Within Individual Large and Small School Districts The fourth major null hypothesis is as follows: The Educational Characteristics Criterion will not show high reliability within individual large and small school districts. This hypothesis is operationally stated in null form in two sections: H8(a~-d): There will not be high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and total 179 scores of (a) teacher respondents of large districts, (b) administrator respondents of large districts, (c) teacher respondents of small districts, and (d) administrator re— spondents of small districts. H9(a-—d): There will not be high consistency in individual educational characteristic scores and related category scores of (a) teacher respondents of large districts, (b) administrator respondents of large districts, (c) teacher respondents of small districts, and (d) administrator respondents of small districts. The statistical procedures used for the reliability tests of the third hypothesis are also used for the relia- bility tests of the fourth hypothesis. The rejection of F indicates the ability of the instrument to significantly distinguish between the scores of individuals. The signin ficance of the reliability coefficient rtt is indicated by the significance level of the sensitivity coefficient V or the standard deviation of the distribution of true scores divided by the standard error of measurement. Results Total Score Reliability Within Individual Districts Based upon the results of the reliability tests as listed in Table 24 we reject the null hypothesis: H8: There will not be high consistency in the individual educational characteristic scores and total scores 180 of (a) teacher respondents of large districts, (b) adminis— trator respondents of large districts, and (c) teacher re- spondents of small districts. and accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion shows high reliability within these individual district types. Based upon the results listed in Table 24 we accept the null hypothesis H8d for administrators of small districts and reject the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion shOWS high reliability within this individual district type. It is evident from the results of Table 24 that the Educational Characteristics Criterion has very high total score reliability except for administrators in small dis- tricts. The number of administrators in each small district was three, and this small number probably accounts for the low reliability coefficient. Category Score Reliability Within Individual Districts Based upon the reliability test results as listed in Table 25 we reject the null hypothesis: H9: There will not be high consistency in indiVidual educational characteristic scores and related category scores of the following respondent types-- 181 .mump HMUHumHDMDm How 2 can .A .M mmoflpcwam< mwmam h¢.o om.o Hooo.o mm.o H©.o Hm.o mooo.o mm.o mooo.o Hm.o Hoo.o 00.0 m ##n m ppu m Dun m ups m ##H m Dun HMDOB Amnzv < AOHHZV B AMHZV < Awmnzv B ”Houzv < Amovuzv B AH .ozv poanpmflm mmnmq whoom ABM .OZV DUHHDmHQ HHmEm AOH .OZV #UflHpmHQ HHmEm ammuoflnumnw Hmsafl>flwsfl Hamsm 030 QHSPHB can poanumat Hmspfl>flcsfl momma m QHSDHB mHODMHDmHQHEUm Mo was mumnommp mam >0H>flunmgmm cam muflaflnmflam [n.4m mamas mo wwuoom H0000 00m mo Hw>wH mUQMUHMHQ 182 (a) teachers of large districts for category scores I (student's level of knowledge and attitudes); II (community attitudes); and VII (the teacher and teaching methods). (b) administrators of large districts for category scores I (student's level of knowledge and atti- tudes); VII (the teacher and teaching methods). (c) teachers of small districts for category score VII (the teacher and teaching methods). We accept the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will show high reliability for these respondent types according to individual small and large districts. Based upon the results of the reliability tests as listed in Table 25 we accept the null hypothesis: H9: There will not be high consistency in the individual educational characteristic scores and related category scores of the following respondent types-— (a) teachers of large districts for category scores III (curriculum); V (socio—cultural composition of the community); and VI (administration and supervision). (b) administrators of large districts for category scores II (community attitudes); III (curricu- lum); V (socio—cultural composition of the community); and VI (administration and supervision) (c) teachers of small districts for category scores I (student's level of knowledge and attitudes); II (community attitudes); III (curriculum); V (socio-cultural composition of the community); and VI (administration and supervision). 183 (d) administrators of small districts for all the category scores——I (student's level of knowledge and attitudes); II (community attitudes); III (curriculum); IV (use of facilities); V (socio— cultural composition of the community); VI (administration and supervision); and VII (the teacher and teaching methods). we reject the research hypothesis that the Educational Characteristics Criterion will show high reliability for these respondent types according to individual small or large districts. From an examination of the reliability tests of the con- sistency between individual educational characteristic scores and their related category scores it is evident that there is great variability in reliability coefficients within in- dividual large and small districts. Category I (student's level of knowledge and attitudes), category II (community attitudes), and category VII (the teacher and teaching methods) have high reliability for teachers in individual large districts and category I and VII have high reliability for administrators in individual large districts. The definition of high reliability selected for the category tests was the same level used in the reliability tests within quartiles of districts being 0.71 (sensitivity significance level of 0.11). If the defined lower limit of reliability 184 TABLE 25.——Reliability and sensitivity significance level of a large individual district and within two small individual Large District (No. l) . “~"‘ "-"—-'=-.a:~g._n. ‘- gm". - a T A rtt P rtt P 5 Category I: Student's Level f of Knowledge and Attitudes .81 .03 .73 .09 " Category II: Community Attitudes .76 .07 .69 .13 Category III: Curriculum .69 .13 .68 .14 Category IV: Use of No test Facilities 1 item in category Category V: Socio—cultural Composition of Community .44 .36 .50 .31 Category VI: Administration and Supervision .59 .23 .69 .13 Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods .78 .05 .83 .02 2 . . . See Appendices K, L,and M for statistical data. I 185 ECC category scores of teachers and of administrators within districts22 Small District (No. 10) Small District (No. 37) T A T A rtt P rtt P tt P tt P .85 .016 .73 .09 .17 .65 .OO .00 .57 .25 .85 .02 .81 .03 .OO .00 .51 .31 .00 .OO .82 .03 .00 .OO .34 .47 .00 .OO .14 .68 .00 .OO .70 .12 .21 .60 .79 .05 .51 .30 .81 .03 .37 .46 .95 .00004 .00 .00 186 of 0.72 were extended to approximately 0.68 (sensitivity significance level of 0.14), then category III (curriculum) could be included for teachers of individual large dis- tricts and category II (community attitudes), category III (curriculum), and category VI (administration and super— vision) could be included for administrators of large dis— tricts. Category VI (administration and supervision) could be included for teachers of individual small districts. The summary which follows clarifies the reliability of each respondent class. Summary 1. Using the coefficient range of 0.71 to 1.00 as the definition of ”high reliability” which for the sample used has a sensitivity significance level of 0.11 or less, the following reliability results were obtained for tests within individual districts: (a) Teachers of one large district (in the high finan— cial support quartile): high reliability of total score (0.91) and category I score (student's level of knowledge and attitudes), category II score (community attitudes), and category VII score (the teacher and teaching methods). 187 (b) Administrators of one large district (in the high financial support quartile): high reliability of total score (0.90) and category I score (student's level of know- ledge and attitudes) and category VII score (the teacher and teaching methods). (c) Teachers of small individual districts (in low finan— cial support quartile based upon agreement of results within two individual small districts having ten and twenty—eight teacher respondents respectively): high reliability in total score and category VII score (the teacher and teach— ing methods). (d) Administrators of small individual districts (in low financial support quartile based upon agreement of results within two individual small districts each having three administrator respondents): no highly reliable total or category scores. 2. Using the coefficient of 0.68 as an extended lower limit of reliability which may have operational usability with a sensitivity significance level of 0.14 or less, the following reliability results may be added to those listed in paragraph one above: (a) Teachers of one large district (in the high financial 188 support quartile): category III score (curriculum). (b) Administrators of one large district (in high finan- cial support quartile): Category II score (community atti— tudes), category III score (curriculum), category VI score (administration and supervision). (c) Teachers of small individual districts (in low fi- nancial support quartile): category VI score (administration and supervision). (d) Administrators of small individual districts (in low financial support quartile): none. 3. The findings indicate that the EducatiOnal Characteristics Criterion total scores are highly reliable according to within individual district tests for large districts accord— ing to teachers or administrators. Within individual small districts the total scores of teachers were highly reliable but the total scores of administrators were not highly reliable, both district tests showing low reliability. 4. The majority of category scores have reliability that may be regarded as operationally useful for teachers or administrators within extended limits of the definition of reliability. The relatively low number of administrator respondents (three) probably accounts for low reliability 189 coefficients of this respondent class in small districts. This factor also affects reliability of teacher scores in small districts since only two category scores (VI and VII) have fair or high reliability within both of the small districts. 5. Category V (socio—cultural composition of the com— munity) has relatively low reliability within all individual large or small districts. This finding is consistent with its low reliability in the tests within quartiles of dis— tricts as described in the analysis of Hypothesis III of this study. Analysis 9: the Educational Characteristics Criterion Item Discrimination The fifth major null hypothesis is as follows: The individual educational characteristics in the Educational Characteristics Criterion will not have adequate positive discrimination power with respect to the total quality score and totheir related category quality scores. The testing of this hypothesis involves the determina— tion of the proportion of high scores made by the high scor— ing group of respondents in relation to the proportion of high scores made by the low scoring group of respondents. This determination is made for individual educational char- acteristics in relation tototal score and to each category 190 score. The relationship is concisely expressed in the point biserial correlation coefficient used which is the appropriate type for distributions of scores in these tests. Accordingly, the null hypotheses used will be expressed in reference to the correlation coefficient as follows: H10: The correlation coefficient for the relation of individual educational characteristic scores to total score differs significantly from zero. Hll: The correlation coefficient for the relation of each educational characteristic score to its respective category score differs significantly from zero. Statistical Procedure: An analysis of the distribution of the 1962 grand total scores of teacher respondents showed that the distribution was continuous and normal. An examination of the distribu— tion of educational characteristic scores for each of the 56 Educational Characteristics Criterion items showed that normality of distribution was rare. It was decided to dichotomize each educational characteristic distribution according to the following plan: High group-—score 3 and 4, Low group score 1 and 2. The total score distribution was divided at the median. The point biserial coefficient of correlation between educational characteristic scores and total scores and between each educational characteristic 191 and its respective category score was considered the appropriate measure to use. For rapid calculation an abac was used which is designed for estimates of the point pbis) when one variable biserial correlation coefficient (r which is divided at the median.23 To test the significance of the correlation the "t“ test in the following form was used: n _ 2 l - r2 for n-2 or 981—2 degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis for this test is that the value obtained for "r” is that of a random sample from a population of paired variables having a correlation of zero (H: = 0). A two—tailed table was pbis used to determine the correlation significance level. For 979 degrees of freedom the minimum correlation to be signi— ficant at the 0.01 level was 0.08. Results Based on the analysis in Table 26 we reject the null hypothesis: H9: The correlation coefficient for the relation of each educational characteristic score to total quality score does not differ significantly from zero 23J. P. Guilford, Psychometric Methods (2nd ed.; McGraw— Hill Book Co.), Fig. 15.3, p. 429. 192 for all educational characteristics except No. 19 and No. 52 and accept the research hypothesis that the educational characteristics have adequate positive discrimination power with respect to the total quality score. For each educa- tional characteristic there is a significantly higher pro— portion of high scores made by high scoring group of re- spondents than by low scoring group of respondents with respect to the total quality score. The null hypothesis is accepted for characteristic No. 19, category VII (”Teachers have complete freedom to teach what they consider to be important") and characteristic No. 52, category II ("The parents in this community expect their children to perform their share of family chores"). These two characteristics do not have significant positive discrimination power. Based on the analysis in Table 26 we reject the null hypothesis: H10: The correlation coefficient for the relation of each educational characteristic score to its respective category score does not differ significantly from zero for all educational characteristics except No. 19 and No. 52 and accept the research hypothesis that the educational characteristics have adequate positive discrimination power \Nith.respect to the related quality score. For each 193 TABLE 26.--Point biserial coefficients of (l) correlation of £99 educational characteristic scores with respective category score and (2) correlation of Egg educational characteristic scores with total score No. (1) (2) No. (l) (2) Category I: Student's Level of Category V (cont.) Knowledge and Attitudes 49 .14 .14 14 .57 .55 51 .34 .20 15 .57 .53 53 .10 .08 22 .50 .50 54 .32 .20 58 .66 .41 55 .30 .20 59 .60 .30 56 .40 .24 61 .68 .48 57 .43 .17 t : ' t 't d . . . Ca egory II Community A t1 u es Category VI: Administration 3; '2: '2: "and Supervision 36 :54 :52 16 '60 °54 37 .59 .54 28 °20 °21 43 .50 .43 29 °64 '57 44 .60 .55 3O '49 °37 46 .68 .64 33 °62 °52 47 .63 .62 34 °66 °60 52 .04* .05* 42 °43 °48 :3 :33 :i: Category VII: The Teacher and Teaching Methods Category III: Curriculum 7 .37 .30 10 .58 .46 8 .50 .40 ll .59 .45 9 .44 .38 12 .64 .53 13 .58 .54 21 .60 .61 17 .57 .54 23 .50 .50 18 .32 .13 Category IV: Use of Facilities 19 °05* °O4* 39 __ .51 20 .50 .45 24 .60 .55 Category V: Socio-cultural 25 .42 .34 Composition of Community 26 .53 .47 32 .40 .40 31 .48 .47 41 .53 .64 38 .40 .34 45 .38 .16 4O .58 .60 48 .45 .44 50 .55 .31 All correlations are significantly positive at the level of P’< .01 except No. 52 (Category II) and No. 19 (Category VII) marked *. 194 educational characteristic there is a significantly higher proportion of high scores made by the high scoring group than low scoring group of respondents with respect to the related category score. The null hypothesis is accepted for characteristics No. 19 and No. 52 thus indicating lack of significant positive discrimination power with respect to the related category score. Analysis Qf_the Relative Discrimination Power 9f_the Categories 9f_Scores A median correlation coefficient was calculated for each of the categories of educational characteristics based upon the distribution of correlation coefficients determined from the relation of educational characteristic scores and their respective category scores. The ranking of the categories of educational characteristics with approximate median cor- relation coefficient values is as follows: First, category VI, administration and supervision (Md = .62); second, cate- gory II, community attitudes (Md : .60); third, category III, curriculum (Md = .59); fourth, category I, student”s level of knowledge and attitudes (Md = .585); fifth, category VII, the teacher and teaching methods (Md = .50); and sixth. category V, socio—cultural composition of the community 195 (Md = .38). Category IV, use of facilities, had only one characteristic and consequently no correlation is included. The approximate median correlation coefficient value of all of the above category medians is 0.59. Based upon 979 degrees of freedom this value is far beyond the signifi— cance level of 0.01. It is evident that category V has the lowest overall discrimination power. This category also had the lowest reliability in each of the financial support quartiles ofdistricts and also within individual large or small districts although all educational characteristics in the category had correlation coefficients which were signi— ficant beyond the level of 0.01. A median correlation coefficient was also calculated for each of the categories of educational characteristics based upon the distribution of correlation coefficients determined from the relation of educational characteristic scores within each category to the total score. The ranking of the categories of educational characteristics with approximate median correlation coefficient values is as follows: First, category II, community attitudes (Md = .54) second, category IV, use of facilities (Md = .51); third, category VI, administration and supervision (Md = .52); 196 fourth, category III, curriculum (Md = .50); fifth, cate— gory I, student”s level of knowledge (Md = .49); sixth, category VII, the teacher and teaching methods (Md = .45); and seventh, category V, socio~cultural composition of the community (Md = .20). The median correlation coefficient value of all the above category medians is 0.52. Based upon 979 degrees of freedom this value is far beyond the significance level of 0.01. It is evident again that category V which has the lowest category reliability also has the lowest overall discrimination power as determined from category correlation coefficient medians based upon the relation of educational characteristic scores of each category to the total score. It is concluded that all but two of the educational charac— istics in the Educational Characteristics Criterion have adequate discrimination power with respect to the total score and with respect to the related category score. No. 19, category VII (”Teachers have complete freedom to teach what they consider to be important“) and No. 52, category II (“The parents in this community expect their children to perform their share of family chores”) do not have adequate discrimination power and should be revised, replaced, or 197 eliminated. Eight of eleven characteristics in category V, sociOmcultural composition of the community, have correla— tion coefficients based on their relation to total scores ranging from 0.08 to 0.24 and these characteristics should be revised if possible to obtain higher discrimination power. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter will summarize the purpose of the study, procedures, limitations, pertinent findings, and conclu- sions. The implications of the findings and recommendations are included. Summary This study is concerned with the determination of the discrimination and reliability indices of the Educational Characteristics Criterion, an instrument designed to meas- the quality of an educational program. This instrument is based on the judgments of educational specialists. The procedures of the study are designed to discover the rela- tionships between educational quality and financial support of education and between the perceptions of teachers and administrators regarding educational quality. Five major hypotheses and twenty-seven subhypotheses were formulated concerning the perception of fifty—six educational characteristics by teachers and administrators .from.school districts within the first and fourth financial 198 199 support quartiles of Michigan public school districts (K—12) which are classified on the educational cost factors of size, effort, ability and expenditure. The major hypotheses are: l. The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show ability to discriminate between the first or low financial support quartile and fourth or high financial support quar— tile of Michigan public school districts (K-12) which are classified on the educational cost factors of size, effort, ability, and expenditure. 2. The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show no ability to discriminate between the responses of teachers and administrators within the high financial support quar- tile, within the low financial support quartile, within individual large school districts, and within individual small school districts. 3. The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show high reliability within the high financial support quartile of districts and within the low financial support quartile of districts. 4. The Educational Characteristics Criterion will show high reliability within individual large andismall school districts. 5. The individual educational characteristic scores of the Educational Characteristics Criterion will have adequate positive discrimination power with respect to the total quality score and to their related category quality score. Design Qf_the Study The study involved the selection of a sample, the development and distribution of a questionnaire intended to elicit perceptions by teachers and administrators concerning the degree of presence of the Educational Characteristics 200 Criterion quality factors, and the statistical treatment of the data obtained from the completed questionnaires. The Sample The sample was determined in such a way as (l) to pro- vide a means of discrimination by the Educational Character- istics Criterion on the basis of high or low level of finan— cial support of education, (2) to provide a means of deter- mining the relative perceptions ofeducational quality by teachers and administrators, (3) to provide a balance in the number of respondents by quartile of financial support, and (4) to provide more than one district per quartile of financial support. Two school districts were selected in the fourth or highest financial support quartile of the three districts that closely approximated the definition and thirty-nine school districts were picked randomly from approximately seventy possible districts in the first or lowest financial support quartile.v The number of usable respondent”s questionnaires by quartile was: High financial support quartile--87l teachers, 82 administrators; Low finan- cial support quartile--lO9l teachers, 106 administrators. 201 The Questionnaire The Educational Characteristics Criterion is based upon the assumption that educational quality may be defined as those educational characteristics of a school district, both school and community, which are perceived as effective in accomplishing the purposes of American public school edu- cation. The version of the instrument used in this study consisted of fifty—six scored educational characteristics. Responses are made by marking an “X" over the number which represents the degree to which each educational character- istic is present in a given situation, e.g., “Most char- acteristic”--4; ”Somewhat characteristic"—-3; “Slightly characteristic”-—2; "Least characteristic”--l. The teacher or administrator respondent is directed to relate the educa— tional characteristic to their building experience. Central office administrators or supervisors are directed to relate the item educational characteristic statements to the school system in general. The educational characteristic scores are obtained by the weighted sum of the responses to each item. Seven category scores are obtained by Ema sum of the Eflhkzational characteristic scores included in each of the categories. The total score is obtained by the sum 202 of the fifty—six educational characteristics scores. The seven categories.are: (1) Student"s Level of Knowledge, and Attitudes; (2) Community Attitudes; (3) Curriculum; (4) Use of Facilities; (5) Socio-cultural Composition of the Community; (6) Administration and Supervision; and (7) The Teacher and Teaching Methods. Mailinqurocedures The letter of invitation sent in January 1962 to the Superintendents of the school districts in the sample was answered by unanimous affirmative replies. The question— naires with general and specific instructions for its admin- istration and individually enclosed respondent instruction sheets‘mithin questionnaire envelopes were sent to the Superintendents and were returned completed within a few weeks with few exceptions. The questionnaire administration instructions stressed the necessity for securing individual type responses in a manner which would minimize prior com— munication between respondents concerning the Educational Characteristics Criterion. Treatnent 9f_the Data The data was punched, scored, and tabulated in printed fornm by IBM processing procedures at Michigan State 203 University. It was necessary to use a hand calculator to prepare certain data for the analysis of variance. All calculations of the statistics were performed personally by the investigator on an Underwood—Olivetti Divisumma 24 printing calculator. The point biserial coefficients of correlation were read from an abac. Statistical Methods Utilized l. The ”t" test was used to determine the discrimina— tion between high and low financial support quartiles of school districts and between the perceptions of teachers and administrators within quartiles and within individual large and small school districts. 2. The Hoyt analysis of variance method was used to esti- mate the reliability of the instrument from the consistency of individual performance on the test items. 3. The point biserial correlation coefficient was used to determine the positive discrimination power of the individual educational characteristics of the instrument With respect to the total score and with respect to their related category scores. 204 Delimitations 9§_the Study, 1. The study is delimited to the sample of Michigan public school districts used and the selected financial and educational factors. 2. The conclusions of the study regarding the relation- ships of educational characteristics and educational finan— cial support factors are to be interpreted in the sense that the relationships are associational and not causal. Major Findings 1. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination indicates that according to the total scores, seven category scores, and forty-one individual educational characteristic scores of either teachers or administrators, educational quality is present in a significantly higher degree in Mich- igan school districts having high educational financial sup- port than in Michigan school districts having low educational financial support. 2. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination indicates that according to the scores of either teachers or administrators, three educational characteristics are pres- ent in higher degree in low support districts than in high support districts. 205 3. Educational Characteristics Criterion non- discrimination indicates that according to the scores of either teachers or administrators, three educational char- acteristics do not differ significantly in degree between high and low support districts. 4. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimina- tion indicates that eight characteristics are present in higher degree in high support districts than in low support districts and one other characteristic is present in higher degree in low support districts than in high support dis- tricts according to teachers. Non-discrimination indicates that these nine characteristics do not differ in degree between high and low support districts according to administrators. 5. Educational Characteristics Criterion non- discrimination indicates that there is agreement between teachers and administrators within high support districts and within low support districts as to the total educational quality and educational quality in the categories of the student°s level of knowledge, community attitudes, curricu- lum, and socio-cultural composition of the community. 6. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimina- tion indicates that administrators are overvaluing 206 educational quality in the category of the teacher and teach— ing methods within high support districts and within low sup- port districts. 7. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimination indicates that administrators with high support districts are overvaluing educational quality in the category of the use of facilities and the category of administration and super- vision. Non—discrimination indicates that teachers and administrators in low support districts agree as to the edu— cational quality in these two categories. 8. Educational Characteristics Criterion non- discrimination indicates that there is agreement between teachers and administrators within high support districts and within low support districts as to the degree of educa— tional quality represented in each of twenty—four educational characteristics. Discrimination indicates that administra- tors in high support districts, and in low support districts, are overvaluing six educational characteristics and are undervaluing one educational characteristic. 9. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimina— tion and non-discrimination indicate that teacher— administrator perception relationships of twenty-three 207 educational characteristics are different in high support districts than in low support districts. 10. Educational Characteristics Criterion discrimina— tion and non-discrimination indicate that according to total scores and six of the seven category scores of teachers and administrators within a large district (high financial sup— port quartile) and within two small districts (low financial support quartile), the findings support the teacher— administrator perception relationships indicated by the total and category scores of the sample of respondents of the high financial support quartile and low financial supe port quartile. 11. Educational Characteristics Criterion total scores of either teachers or administrators within the high sup- port quartile of districts and within the low support quar- tile of districts have high reliability based on consis- tency of individual responses upon the test items. The reliability range of these total scores is from 0.89 to 0.95 with a sensitivity significance level from 0.004 to 0.000001. Using 0.61 (level of 0.20) as a lower reliability limit, twenty of the twenty—four possible category tests (six in each of two district types for two respondent types) appear 208 to be reliable enough to utilize. Eleven categories have a reliability of above 0.71 (level of 0.11). 12. Educational Characteristics Criterion total scores of teachers within a large district and within each of two small districts have a high reliability of 0.90 with a sensitivity significance level of 0.001 or less. Total scores of administrators within a large district have a reli- ability of 0.91 (level of 0.001). The separate category scores of teachers and administrators within both small districts vary greatly in their reliability probably because of the small number of educational characteristics within some categories and the small number of teachers and very small number of administrators within each district. More category scores of teachers have considerable reliability than those of administrators. 13. The item analysis tests indicated that all but two educational characteristic scores of the Educational Charac— teristics Criterion correlated positively with the total score and with the respective category scores according to the point biserial correlation procedure and therefore had adequate discrimination power. Most of the correlation coefficients were significantly positive far beyond the 209 minimum 0.08 coefficient required for the 0.01 significance level for 979degreesiof freedom. The educational character— istics of Category V, socio—cultural composition of the com- munity, had the lowest level of discrimination power (as well as having the lowest reliability according to tests within high and low financial support quartiles and within individual large and small districts). Conclusions The Educational Characteristics Criterion is an excel- lent measure of educational quality in public school dis— tricts. This instrument, which is composed of those edu- cational characteristics for which there have been estab— lished a significantly high agreement among specialists in educational programs, can discriminate between Michigan public school districts having high financial support and those having low financial support with high reliability in terms of consistency of individual responses. The reasons for this conclusion are as follows: 1. Total scores, each of seven category scores, and forty-one individual educational characteristic scores indi- cate the expected positive relationship between educational quality and financial support for education which has been _ —-W— 210 established in previous research, and this relationship is supported according to either teacher or administrator responses. Since either teacher or administrator responses are significant for these scores, it is concluded that com- bined teacher and administrator responses would also sup- port this conclusion. .2. The six individual educational characteristic scores which indicate other than a positive educational quality-financial support relationship do so according to either teacher or administrator responses. Three charac— teristics which indicate a negative educational quality-- financial support relationship concern community attitude or socio—cultural composition factors which are not related to expenditure for education. Three characteristics which indicate neither positive nor negative educational quality-- financial support relationship concern socio-cultural com- position or administration factors which are not related to expenditure for education. Since either teacher or administrator responses are significant for these scores, it is concluded that combined teacher and administrator responses would also support this conclusion. 3. There is agreement between teachers and adminis- trators within the high financial support quartile and 211 within the low financial support quartile which is expected from certificated public school personnel having a similar professional frame of reference in terms of training and expectations, and this conclusion is supported by total scores, the majority of category scores, and twenty-four individual educational characteristic scores. Significant discrimination on other scores indicates a tendency for administrators to overvalue or undervalue certain educational characteristics in relation to teachers0 valuing of these characteristics, and this occurrence varies according to high or low support quartiles. 4. The reliability of Educational Characteristics Criterion total scores based on consistency of individual performance on test items ranges from 0.89 to 0.95 according to teachers or administrators within high or low support quartiles. The reliability of category scores is 0.61 and ‘above, category V excepted, according to teachers or admin- istrators within high or low support quartiles. Reliability tests within individual large and small districts indicate wide variations and the need for an adequate number of respondents. The total scores of teachers (at least ten per district) had a reliability of 0.90 to 0.93 in small and ... - ~-~— . .-.——-—- 212 large districts, and several category scores appeared to have adequate reliabilities. Only in large districts which had a considerable number of administrator respondents did scores of administrators have high reliability (category V excepted), total score reliability being 0.91 and category score reliability being from 0.68 to 0.83. 5. Each of the fifty-six individual educational char— acteristics except two had adequate positive discrimination power (p < .01) with respect to the total score and its related category score. Implications 1. Since the findings indicate that high financial support of education is necessary in order to obtain high educational quality in Michigan public school districts, it is implied that action should be taken in the school dis— tricts having low quality and low financial support to increase the financial support cost factors of wealth, school taxation effort, school membership size, and expendi— ture for operation. Re—districting should be continued where it will increase valuation and pupil membership size of school districts. Operational millage should be raised to provide financial incentives to the teaching staff, to 213 attract capable new teachers, and to provide more instruc— tional materials and equipment. The development of new industries in the relatively poor regions of Michigan is needed in order to provide the increased educational funds made possible by greater wealth. School districts which have relativelygfleabarwealth are able to spend beyond the basic amount allotted per pupil according to the present state aid formula and thus provide a broad high quality school program with a good teaching staff and a wide variety of instructional materials and equipment. The revision of local assessment of property valuation within townships and counties toward correcting inequalities may provide more educational funds for some school districts. 2. Since the findings indicate that a highly favorable community attitude toward education is found in conjunc— tion with high educational quality in terms of desirable student levels of knowledge and attitudes, it is implied that increased effort toward establishing better community attitudes toward education in the low quality school dis- tricts will tend to result in higher student level of knowledge and attitudes in these districts. Favorable com— munity attitudes in high quality districts are associated 214 with the reinforcement of the aims of the school curriculum, establishing a close relation between school and community values, promoting cooperative effort in developing the goals and content of the curriculum, and enhancing the gen— eral morale of the professional school staff. It is implied that a favorable community attitude would tend to affect low quality school districts in the same manner. 3. Since administrators in either high or low quality v/ school districts overvalue relative to teachers' valuing desirable student outcomes such as the attitudes of students toward their scholastic work, students“ knowledge of them- selves, and students“ knowledge of their educational and social opportunities, it is implied that administrators do not develop enough contact with students through their existing communication channels to agree with teachers“ perceptions of these student outcomes. It is also implied that where adequate contact with students exists, adminis— trative overvaluing of student outcomes occurs as a result of lower expectation level than teacher expectation level and a consequent higher rating score. 4. It is implied that administrators in either high or low quality school districts are more concerned with academic 215 grade norms of students which administrators and teachers value similarly than with other desirable student outcomes as attitudes toward scholastic work, students“ knowledge of themselves and their social and educational opportunities which administrators overvalue. If one assumes that teacher and administrator expectations are equal regarding students” academic grade norms, it is also implied that administra- torsu sources of information are greater and more accurate for studentS° academic grade norms than for the other desir- able student outcomes. Since many administrator'rparent conferences focus on the academic grades of the parent”s children, this implication appears to have a logical basis. It also appears reasonable to believe that the expectations of teachers and administrators regarding student academic grade norms are similar since there is a finding of teach— er-administrator agreement concerning the academic grade norms of the professional staff. 5. Since administrators in either high or low quality districts accurately value the extent to which students own their cars (relative to teachers0 valuing) and overvalue desirable student outcomes such as attitude toward scholas— tic work, knowledge of self and social and educational 216 opportunities, it is implied that administrators may tend to be occupied with details not related to the principal goals of the educational curriculum. It would seem that the type of communication channels providing such detailed information as car ownership could also provide enough information for administrators to make an accurate assess— ment of the desirable student outcomes. If adequate infor— mational channels do exist, it appears that either the administrators are not interested enough in the desirable student outcomes mentioned above to secure the necessary information with which to accurately assess them or do not have as high an expectation level regarding them as do teachers. This results in a higher or overvalued score. 6. It is implied that administrators in high quality districts have a better frame of reference regarding educa- tion with parents and patrons within their school district than do administrators in low quality districts since they accurately perceive (in relation to teachers" perceptions) the value placed on education by parents and patrons as well as their academic grade norms while administrators in low quality districts overvalue these characteristics. It is also implied that the existence of a similar frame of ref— erence between administrators, teachers, parents, and patrons 217 in low quality districts such as exists in high quality dis— tricts would increase empathy, the development of shared expectations regarding educational quality, and consequently, similar standards of school evaluation. Since the existence of teacher--administrator agreement exists in both low qual- ity districts and in high quality districts regarding the perceptions of the purposes of education by parents and patrons and the degree of their involvement in the planning of educational goals, it is implied that teacher——adminis- trator agreement regarding the value placed on education by parents and patrons may be more significant than the agree— ment on the other two educational characteristics. Since administrators in high quality districts perceive the values placed on education by parents and patrons more accurately (relatively to teachers” perceptions) than do administra— tors in low quality districts who overvalue this character— istic, it is implied that the former have better sources of information, and this is supported by the finding of better two—way communication between home and school in high qual- ity districts than in low quality districts. Administrators in high quality districts are probably supplied with much more information with which to make an accurate rating of 218 the values placed on education by parents and patrons through communication sources such as numerous teachers, guidance personnel, and central office supervisors and con— sultants. It appears that administrators in low quality districts do not have an effective advantage in accurately assessing the educational values of the comparatively smaller number of parents and patrons in their school districts nor advantage in access to informational sources in the smaller student body through which they can make an indirect assess— ment of parental values about education. 7. Although a relatively high degree of two-way com— munication between home and school exists in high quality districts, it is implied that it is not sufficient to provide an accurate assessment of the organization of citizens to discuss educational problems since administrators overvalue this characteristic relative to teachers" valuing. This implication appears to hold true for low quality districts in which administrators undervalue the characteristic. It is possible that the type of information available to admin— istrators as a result of parent~~administrator or patron— administrator conferences is different than the information resulting from teacher-—parent or patron conferences or 219 meetings. Although the perceptive problems are not clear the differences between teacher-administrator valuing both in high quality districts and in low quality districts appear, and it is evident that there is need for investiga— tion into the methods of evaluating organization of citi— zens to discuss educational problems with particular atten- tion to the accuracy of information channels to administra— tors and to teachers. 8. It is implied that administrators in high and low support districts have lower expectations than teachers have regarding the educational characteristics which they overvalue relative to teachers0 valuing such as the amount of materials available for instructional purposes, the avail— ability of instructional materials which reflect wide points of View (only high support districts), knowledge that teach- ers have about students, and the extent to which teachers“ judgments are used in the formation of educatiOnal policies. This implication is made with the assumption that adminis— trators and teachers should have similar information regard— ing these characteristics. 9. It is implied that there is closer teacher- administrator contact and exchange of information in high 220 _ quality districts than in low quality districts since admin— istrators in high quality districts accurately value rela— tive to teachers0 valuing the amount of curricular experi- mentation by teachers, participation in community activi— ties by teachers, student freedom to investigate issues, and the amount of homework assigned to students by teachers while low quality district administrators either overvalue or undervalue these characteristics relative to teachers“ valuing. 10. It is implied that communication exchange between teachers and administrators can be fruitful since there is teacher-—administrator agreement in high or low support dis- tricts regarding the educational characteristics entailing cooperative teacher and administrator effort such as estab- lishment of curricular structure, development of educational goal consensus, and coordination in curricular efforts. 11. Since administrators in both high and low quality districts should have the necessary information regarding the situation, it is implied that not lack of information but lower administrative expectations accounts for the over— valuing of the extent to which teachers0 judgments are used in the determination of educational policies by administra- tors in both high and low quality districts. There appears 221 to be a predisposition for all administrators because of their training, personality, situational conditions of their job, or pressure from the board of education or community, to believe that teachers have been permitted a role in pol- icy formation to a greater extent than teachers believe. 12. There appears to be an administrative predisposi- tion in high quality districts to view existing buildings and equipment as being better than teachers believe them to be. Since information as to the real situation appears to be equally available to both teachers and administrators, it is implied that administrative expectations are lower in high quality districts than teachersu expectations regard- ing these facilities. The consideration of this implication raises several questions. Do administrators really under- stand the needs of teachers regarding equipment in the various subject areas? Do teachers have an opportunity to requisition or describe their equipment needs to adminis— trators in detail? Are administrators in high quality dis— tricts prone to be too easily satisfied with apparently adequate facilities while teachers require more or better facilities in order to perform what they consider a good teaching job? The possibility also arises that teacher 222 expectations regarding facilities and equipment may always be higher than the existent level——a kind of occupational malady which might be resolved by greater attention on the part of teachers to the development of abstract reasoning and discussion of principles, concepts, and logical consid- erations which may not require an abundance of materials. This solution may not be primarily applicable to low qual- ity districts where there is an inadequate minimal level of facilities in terms of buildings and equipment, 13. Since the findings indicate that there is less ethnic, racial, and religious homogeneity in high quality districts than in low quality districts, it is implied that any community development which tends to promote a hetero— geneous population in regard to ethnic, racial, and reli— gious characteristics should be welcomed. There are prob- ably more differences of opinion in heterogeneous communi— ties which may promote discussion of educational issues and community action toward the acquisition of facilities, pro- fessional staff, and establishment of a favorable community attitude all of which are necessary for an educational pro— gram of high quality in the school district. 14. Since parents in low quality districts have higher expectations regarding the amount of chore work to be done 223 by their children than parents in high quality districts have in conjunction with a significantly lower level of knowledge and attitudes held by their children,it is implied that the amount of chore work done by children in low qual— ity districts should be reassessed.'by administrators and teachers (with whom they agree) in order to provide an optimum balance between academic study time and chore work time. Administrators in high quality districts should also do this, especially since they are undervaluing the paren— tal expectations regarding childrens“ chore work in relation to teachers" valuing. 15. It is implied that all the educational decisions are being made better by administrators in high quality districts than in low quality districts because the overall frame of reference for parents, patrons, professional staff, and students is more strongly defined by the presence of higher values placed on education by parents and patrons; higher student, teacher, and parent academic grade norms; a clearer perception of educational purposes held by parents and patrons; higher involvement of the community residents in the planning of educational goals; greater use of teach- ers in educational policy—making; greater involvement of 224 teachers in community social and political activities; closer connection between school and community values; and higher two-way communication between the home and the school. 16. It is implied that the presence of the high reli— ability of the Educational Characteristics Criterion total scores indicates a high correlation between the views of university educational specialists who contributed educa- tional characteristics for the instrument and the views of the teachers and administrators of the Michigan public schools included in the research sample. There appears to be a general agreement as to what educational quality con— sists of in public school districts which is verified by the correlation of individual educational characteristics with total score and category scores and the consistency of these correlations with large numbers of respondents. 17. Since favorable community attitudes are present in high quality districts and since two—way communication between home and school appears to be essential in develop- ing favorable community attitudes, several implications are presented in connection with the presence or non—presence of a high degree of two—way communication between home and school. 225 The educational characteristics listed in Table 27 are present in a significantly higher degree in high quality districts than in low quality districts and are valued sim- ilarly by administrators and teachers in high support dis- tricts while being either overvalued or undervalued by administrators in relation to teachers“ valuing in low sup— port districts. It is implied that the presence of a high degree of two—way communication between home and school, one of the characteristics listed in the table, will tend to promote the raising of the academic grade norms of par— ents and patrons; the value placed on education by parents and patrons; and general confidence in the professional school staff which leads to the approval of student freedom to investigate current issues on the local, state, national, or international level; approval for students to engage in early dating; curricular experimentation by teachers; and teacher participation in social and political activities of the community. 226 TABLE 27.—~Educational characteristics which appear in higher degree in high quality districts than in low quality dis— tricts and are valued in the same degree by teachers and administrators of high quality districts and not in the same degree by teachers and administrators in low quality districts Category and Item No. Characteristic I 61 Parents and patrons in the community consider an academic grade of at least "B" to be the norm for academic achievement. II 47 A two-way communication channel readily exists between home and school. II 60 A high value is placed on education by the parents and patrons (those residents of a school district without school-age children) of the community. II 62 Parents condone or encourage early dating for their children. V 54 This community is composed of people who are predominantly Catholic. V 56 The population of this community is equally divided between Protestants and Catholics. VII 13 Evidence exists of instructional and/or cur- ricular experimentation. VII 25 Complete freedom is granted to students to in— vestigate any local, state, national, or inter— national issue. \7II 31 High degree of teacher participation in social and political activities of the community. 1See Appendices F and H for statistical data. 227 It is also implied that there is a tendency for better two-way communication between home and school to be estab— lished in communities having a predominantly Catholic popu- lation or an equal division of Protestant and Catholic population. One may also imply that the other characteris- tics listed in the table would promote better two-way com- munication between home and school. Since two-way communication between home and school is present in significantly higher degree in high quality dis- tricts than in low quality districts and all the character- istics listed in Table 27 are valued in the same degree by teachers and administrators in high quality districts and not in the same degree in the low quality districts, it is implied that two-way communication between home and school is necessary to furnish the administrators of high or low quality districts with adequate information to accurately determine the degree to which these characteristics are present in the school district. It is likely that good two- way communication would provide the administrator with adequate information regarding the academic grade norms for achievement and educational value placed on education by 228 parents and patrons, the religious denominational propor— tions of the community, the extent of teacher participation in community activities, and the attitude of parents toward early dating of their children. The administrators' view of instructional and/or curricular experimentation and the freedom which is granted by teachers to students to inves— tigate any type of issue might be made more accurate accord— ing to information secured from formal or informal confer— ence or meetings with parents. Since experimentation and student freedom to investigate issues are likely to be con— troversial issues with a consequent increase in the possi— bilities of effective communication between parents and administrators concerning them, this implication appears to have a reasonable basis. The educational characteristics listed in Table 28 are perceived as being present in the same degree by teachers and by administrators in low quality districts which accord— ing to the findings have a low two-way communication between home and school and are perceived in different degree by teachers and by administrators in high quality districts which have high two-way communication between home and school. It is implied that the characteristics listed in 229 Table 28 are not perceived by administrators of high or low quality districts according to information from two—way communication between home and school. TABLE 28.--Educational characteristics which are valued in the same degree by teachers and by administrators in low quality districts and are valued in different degree by teachers and by administrators in high quality districts Category and Item No. Characteristic II 43 A high percentage of the electorate in the community vote in school elections. II 46 The community exhibits a great concern for the development of aesthetic and artistic interests. II 52 The parents in this community expect their children to perform their share of family chores. V 51 A high degree of ethnic, racial, and religious homogeneity exists among the local population. V 53 This community is composed of people who are predominantly Protestant. V 57 One or two ethnic groups comprise the largest number of residents in the community. VII 24 Teachers often avail themselves of professional help. VII 50 A great deal of homework is assigned to students. 2 . . . See Appendices F and H for statistical data. 230 Further consideration of this implication may lead one to revise it according to district type. It may be that in low quality districts which were quite small in the re— search sample it requires a far smaller frequency of two— way communication to provide teacher-administrator agree— ment as to the degree to which the educational character- istics listed in Table 28 are present than in high quality districts which were very large in the research sample. The frequency of two—way communication between home and school in the large high quality districts is evidently insufficient to provide teacher—administrator agreement regarding the characteristics in the table. It is also likely that communication channels other than between home and school are providing the administrators and teachers of low quality districts with enough information to agree regarding the characteristics. One characteristic, teachers“ use of professional help, does not appear to be related to two-way communication be— tween home and school since this informational source would probably be teachers. Also, the amount of homework as— signed to students would normally be determined by adminis- trators from direct information supplied by teachers. 231 There appears to be a tendency for administrators in high quality districts to place too much reliance on present information sources regarding these characteristics since they overvalue them while administrators in low quality districts agree with teachers concerning them. It is implied that ethnic, racial, and religious homo— geneity in low quality districts and indicated in charac— teristics V-Sl, V-53, and V-57 of Table 28 do not contribute sufficiently to establish two—way communication in low quality districts. Another explanation might be that the indicated homogeneity does contribute towards two-way com- munication between home and school and that there may be a lack of effort on the part of the school to establish or promote this communication. It is evident that high two- way communication between home and school is not necessary for administrators to secure enough information with which to agree with teachers on the presence of characteristics regarding community homogeneity. It is also evident that a relative lack of homogeneity (or positive heterogeneity) is associated with a high two-way communication between home and school in high quality districts. 232 In considering the implications of two—way communica— tion between home and school, it is necessary to notice the differences in the effects of socio—economic factors in high quality districts which typically have high financial support and the low quality districts which typically have low financial support. (The educational requirements neces- sary for types of occupations which are aspired to by stu- dents and parents may act to affect the frequency of com- munication between home and school. If the educational need for these particular occupations is low, it is likely that there will be a low demand for education of the stu— dents and therefore less need to discuss the educational activities of the students by parents and school staff members. If the educational need for these particular occupations is high, there will be more demand for more education, higher parental educational expectations, and greater communication frequency between the home and school. 233 Recommendations Relationship 9§_Educational Quality and Its Financial Support 1. It is recommended that the boards of education in Michigan public school districts be informed of the findings in this research study which indicate that there is a sig— nificantly higher educational quality in public school dis— tricts which have a high degree of financial support for education than in public school districts which have a low degree of financial support for education. Local boards of education should be urged to initiate and continually oper- ate informational programs designed to enlighten parents and patrons in their school districts regarding the neces- sity for operational expenditure in sufficient quantity to achieve high quality in terms of students" level of knowl— edge and attitudes. Local boards of education should also point out the importance of favorable community attitudes and aspects of the socio—cultural composition of the commun— ity, the curriculum, administration and supervision, and the teacher and teaching methods since high quality in each of these factors appears to be essential to the total config- uration of educational quality within a school district. 234 2. It is recommended that re—districting continue towards increasing the valuation and membership size of school districts, that industrial development within poor school districts be stimulated in order to increase valua— tion, and that inequalities in local assessments of prop— erty valuation be corrected. Those school districts that are not making a maximum effort to raise operational millage should be stimulated by official state education agencies to do so in order to make possible the acquisition of a high quality professional staff and plentiful instructional materials and equipment which will facilitate a broad school program. Development 9f_Favorable Community Attitudes 3. Since a favorable community attitude is essential to securing adequate operational millage for a high quality educational program, it is recommended that local boards of education increase their efforts toward the development of a favorable community attitude toward education based upon understanding as to what the local educational situation is. Understanding of the realities of the educational situation by parents and patrons as well as the professional staff 235 will tend to stabilize successful relations and make possié ble a systematic and effective development toward educa- tional goals. Understanding is achieved by means of effec— tive communications which lead to agreement of perception regarding the realistic educational situation that exists within the school district. In order that communications regarding educational matters be rapid and effective it is necessary that mediating agencies be employed to pass on and receive educational information of importance. This is especially important in large school districts. The fac- tors which administrators must contend with in developing good community understanding and attitudes are different in large urban districts and small rural districts. Although educational level is higher in large urban dis- tricts, there are negative factors such as adverse pressure from various large organizations, chambers of commerce, and large taxpayers. Negative factors in small rural districts might be a lower educational level, elderly population, lower status occupations, and a less cohesive community attitude in sparse areas. In view of the presence of these potentially active negative factors in large urban school districts and in small rural school districts, it is 236 important that boards of education and their administrators emphasize every positive educational factor in developing understanding and favorable community attitudes within their school districts. 4. It is recommended that two—way communication between home and school be improved to a great extent in low quality school districts since effectiveness of this communication is positively associated with favorable community attitude characteristics and the accuracy of administrators' per- ceptions regarding these characteristics. Administrators in low quality districts should be informed that they are overvaluing the effectiveness of two-way communication between home and school. 5. It is recommended that boards of education, admin- istrators, and professional staffs use their influence toward raising the value placed upon education by parents and patrons since this is a distinguishing characteristic of high quality school districts. This means that the prestige, image, or identity of education as a basic fac- tor in the process of human development and welfare must be raised in the minds of the community residents to its full- est potential. The desirable educational outcomes such as 237 self—knowledge, knowledge of social and educational oppor— tunities, and positive attitudes toward self-development must be communicated to the community. The positive achieve- ments of graduates should be given great prestige by the administration and teaching staff. The social prestige of teachers should be raised in order that they will be able to exert their maximum effect upon community residents toward promotion of educational goals and establishment of empathy between the school and parents and patrons of the community. The professional staff should take an active part in the development of cultural resources and aesthetic and artistic interests in cooperation with community resi— dents. This activity may provide opportunities for under— standing between teachers, parents, and patrons and increase the amount of two—way communication that is desirable. The development of general educational prestige, social pres— tige of teachers, and cooperative cultural activity will increase opportunities for the dissemination of accurate educational information and for the development of consis— tent and clear purposes of education by parents and patrons --both characteristics being present in high degree within high quality districts. The increased prestige of educators 238 and increased interaction of educators, parents, and patrons will tend to reduce any gaps between values taught in school and what is practiced in the community. 6. It is recommended that both administrators and teaching staff learn more about the socio—cultural composi— tion of their school district communities in order to bet- ter understand the attitudes and values associated with ethnic, racial, and religious factors and the relation of these attitudes and values to education. Administrators have a tendency to undervalue these factors so they should develop more and better informational sources regarding the socio—cultural composition of the community. 7. It is recommended that administrators in high quality districts and in low quality districts develop more effective information sources regarding the organization of community citizens to discuss educational problems. It would be helpful for administrators to establish an eval— uation system based upon a reliable poll of citizens who are active in the communication network of educational activities. Citizens'organizations are not attaining their potential value because of administrative overvaluing of them in high quality districts and administrative under— valuing of them in low quality districts. It is recommended 239 that administrators develop and use new types of survey questionnaires in order to accurately assess community opinion on various educational issues before major board of education decisions are made. 8. It is recommended that prospective members of com- munity education councils or other citizen educational organizations which work with the board of education be required to complete an orientation training course in edu- cational goals, school-community relations, curriculum, and committee procedure before being accepted as a full mem— ber on executive committees of these organizations. Encour- agement should be given to members of the community who have a high educational level to take part in the community educational organization. Development 9f_Administrator——Teacher Communication and Empathy 9. It is recommended that administrators in both high quality districts and low quality districts develop new means of communication with the teachers on their staff since it is very obvious that there is a noticeable lack of congruence in teacher-administrator perceptions of many educational characteristics in the school district. This 240 lack of agreement regarding existent educational quality in its many aspects denotes lack of empathy which may tend to develop lack of confidence in educational leadership, low morale, and general educational inefficiency. Any tech- nique which raises the extent and effectiveness of communi— cation between administrators and teachers should promote understanding of the educational situation as it really exists. The techniques might be the participation in the study and solution of common problems; exchange of informa- tion, opinion, and judgments about educational matters; and formal reviews of expectations and performance by teachers and administrators. It is likely that a detailed study of various educational values among the professional staff members would help to provide a clearer frame of reference for discussions regarding the curriculum and teaching meth— ods and would clarify the basis for administrative deci- sions. The development of empathy between teachers and administrators as a result of frequent and accurate communi— cation would tend to result in the use of similar standards for the evaluation of teacher behavior and to promote the development of shared expectations and perceptions which are needed for good functional staff relations. 241 10. It is recommended that administrators learn a great deal more about the needs of teachers concerning instruc- tional materials, instructional equipment, and teaching procedures. There is a considerable divergence of percep— tion concerning these characteristics and an administrative predisposition to overvalue educational materials and equip— ment in relation to teachers' valuing. Administrators in low quality districts should completely re-evaluate the ade— quacy of their testing program since they overvalue it in relation to teachers and the professional staff has a rela- tively low understanding and use of information gathered on students in comparison to high quality districts. 11. It is recommended that personnel policies be made more explicit and detailed by boards of education in low quality school districts in order to raise morale and effi— ciency. Explicitness of personnel policy is typical of high quality districts. 12. It is recommended that teachers be included in the determination of educational policies, a characteristic which is typical of high quality districts in a high degree. The use of teachers in policy—making will tend to generate more communication, interest, and empathy in the entire 242 educational system and raise the prestige of teachers toward beneficially influencing students. The involvement of teachers will tend to stimulate and motivate them to take a high professional interest in their work which may be noticed by the community as a whole and promote favor— able community attitudes which have been shown to be asso— ciated with adequate financial support for education in a school district. Hiring 9f Teachers 13. It is recommended that boards of education, espec— ially those in low quality districts, hire teachers who are recommended highly for having an intimate knowledge of chil- dren, knowledge and concern for individual differences, abil- ity to use information gathered on students for the welfare of those students, and the ability to use a wide variety of instructional techniques. These characteristics are present in high degree in high quality districts. Student Load 14. It is recommended that more homework be assigned to students in low quality districts and that a reasonable bal- ance between chore work demanded by parents and study time 243 lxaestablished in order to aid students in achieving good academic progress. Another area that should be investigated is the total student time and energy expenditure on extra— curricular athletic and club activity, homework, and chore work in order that boards of education may establish sensi- ble policies regarding school and home schedules which concern study, work, and relaxation. Administrators in high quality districts should study this problem very care— fully since they overvalue the amount of homework done by students in relation to teachers' valuing while administra- tors in low quality districts agree with teachers regarding it. Administrative Evaluation 9f_ Students 15. It is recommended that administrators in high qual— ity districts and in low quality districts develop more con- tact with students, directly or indirectly, in order to evaluate accurately the desirable student outcomes of edu— cation other than academic grade norms. All administrators overvalue these outcomes in relation to teachers' valuing. It is also recommended that administrators examine their own expectations regarding these desirable outcomes such as 244 attitude of students toward scholastic work, students' knowledge of themselves, and students' knowledge of social and educational opportunities. The development of existing communication channels with teachers or new channels would be valuable to administrators in assessing these aspects of the educational product. New information collecting tech- niques may be needed in this area to be added to present techniques. Recommendations for Colleges 9f_ Education 16. It is recommended that colleges of education emphasize the development of congruent professional educa- tional expectations between college students in the teach- ing and administrative fields. This development should probably include classwork and conferences as well as gen- eralized inspirational lectures to both types of students. There appears to be some value in having undergraduate teaching students meet with experienced teachers who are converting to an administrative status since the respective expectations of these two groups might tend to differ. Likewise, the contact of young graduate administrative students with older experienced teachers might prove valu- able also because of the possibility of differing _. - . _.,-."' 245 expectations of each of these groups. The sharing of the perceptions and professional expectations concerning educa— tion among these students types appear to provide an under- standing which might lead to good functional staff rela— tions in the field. 17. It is recommended that colleges of education ini- tiate research studies which are designed to probe for rea- sons which influence the overvaluing or undervaluing of edu- cational characteristics by administrators in relation to teachers' valuing of them. The research studies should take into consideration the areas of administrative person- ality types, professional expectations, the effect of the culture of the professional training institution on its students, previous educational experience of the adminis- trator, and the situational conditions of the administra— tive position. The predispositions of administrators and teachers to perceive educational characteristics in certain ways should be noted and included in the program of the college of education. 18. It is recommended that colleges of education make a study of the effect of various types of communication channels upon the perception of teachers and upon the per- ception of administrators. It is possible that educational 246 information is being modified according to the type of com— munication channel. Efforts should be made to provide a means of rapidly comparing the information received by administrators from parents to information received by teachers from parents to check its accuracy and completeness. 19. It is recommended that colleges of education ini— tiate studies concerning the effect of socio—cultural com— position of the community upon community attitudes toward education. This study should include ethnic, racial, and religious factors in both large and small districts with controls for high and low quality or high and low financial support. Recommendations Concerning_the Develop- ment and Use gf_the Educational Char— acteristics Criteron 20. It is recommended that Educational Characteristics Criteron be tested with board of education members and com- petent community educational council members in order to determine their perception of educational quality existent in their local school districts and to compare their responses with responses of the professional teaching and administration staffs. A discussion of the differences in perception of educational quality might be valuable in 247 leading to better educational curricula in local school districts. 2l. It is recommended that the Educational Character— istics Criterion be tested with teacher and administrator respondents from the second and third financial support quartiles of Michigan public school districts which are determined according to educational cost factors of wealth, membership size, effort, and expenditure. The results would provide a view of the complete spectrum of educa— tional quality in Michigan according to degree of financial support. 22. It is recommended that the Educational Character- istics Criterion be tested in different regions of the United States in order to verify the general positive rela— tionship of educational quality to financial support accord- ing to total quality (measured by total average scores) and according to the seven categories of quality (measured by category average scores). Verification is also desired for teacher-administrator agreement or non-agreement concerning individual educational characteristics and categories of educational characteristics. Further studies by regions should include the investigation of the factors of communi- cation and expectations as they are associated with or 248 impinge upon the relative perceptions of teachers and administrators. 23. It is recommended that a revision of items having a relatively low correlation with ‘total scores and/or category scores be made. Two items which were not signi- ficantly correlated to total or category scores at the 0.01 probability level should be eliminated (II-52, ”The parents in this community expect their children to perform their share of family chores;" and VII—l9, "Teachers have com— plete freedom to teach what they consider to be important"). The items within Category V (socio—cultural composition of the community) appear to have greatest need of revision. This category also had the lowest reliability. It is also recommended that information regarding certain educational characteristics such as those related to the socio-cultural composition of the community which are factually verifiable by means of written records be used instead of using ratings which may vary from respondent to respondent according to judgments based upon information that may be incomplete or inaccessible to either type of respondent or both types of respondents. 24. It is recommended that the relationship of the Educational Characteristics Criterion scores to educational 249 output or product type measurements such as achievement gains be investigated. The individual educational charac— teristics and categories of educational characteristics which are present in high degree in conjunction with high achievement gains should be identified as being desirable. Research studies of this kind are even more valuable when the educational input in terms of intelligence, socio- economic background, and various special capacities of the student are taken into account. BIBLIOGRAPHY Associated Public School Systems. APSS Time Scale. New York: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1954. Ayer, Frederick L. "An Analysis of Controllable Community Factors Related to Quality of Education." Doctoral thesis, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1950. Bertocci, Peter A. Education and the Vision pf_Excellence. Boston: Boston University Press, 1960. Bloom, Benjamin S. "The 1955 Normative Study of the Tests of General Educational Development," The School Review, XLVI (March, 1956), 110-24. Bradfield, James M., and Moredock, H. Stewart. Measurement and Evaluation ip_Education. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1957. Burke, Arvid J. Financing Public Schools ip_the United States. Revised edition. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1957. ‘ Burton, William H., and Brueckner, Leo J. Supervision: A_ Social Process. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1955. The Committee for the White House Conference on Education. A_Report ppjthe President. Washington: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1956. The Council of State Governments, Francis S. Chase, Director. The FortyrEiqht State School Systems, A_Study pf_ph§_ Organization, Administration, and Financing_gf_Public Elementary and Secondapy_Education. Chicago: The Council, 1949. Di Carlo, Louis M. Our Educational Dilemma (The 1959 J, Richard Street Lecture). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1959. 250 251 Downey, Lawrence William. The Task 9: Public Education: The Perceptions pf_People. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1960. Eurich, Alvin C. ”Money Isn't Everything," in Crucial Issues ip_Education, Henry Ehlers and Gordon C. Lee, editors. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1959. Ferrell, D. T. Relation Between Current Expenditures gag Certain Measures pf_Educational Efficiency ip Kentucky County apd_Graded School Systems. Contributions to Edu- cation, No. 126. Nashville: George Peabody College for Teachers, 1936. Firman, William D., pp 11. ”Procedures in School Quality Evaluation—-A Second Report of the Quality Measure Project." New York: The State Education Department, 1961. (Mimeographed.) Freeman, Roger L. School Needs in the Decade Ahead. Washington: The Institute for Social Science Research, 1958. Furno, Orlando F. ”The Projection of School Quality From Expenditure Level." Unpublished doctoral project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1956. Grogan, Robert S. ”Determination of Staff Characteristics That Should Be Assessed in Future Studies." Doctoral project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1961. Guilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1954. Hall, Harold Dale. "Relationships of Selected Characteris— tics of Organization to Practices in School Systems: An Exploratory Measure of the Extent of Diffusion of Administrative Procedures and Staffing Practices and Their Relationships to Selected Characteristics of School Systems.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1956. Hecker, Stanley E. Your Michigan School Costs. East Lan— sing: College of Education, Michigan State University, 1960. 252 Hoyt, C. J. "Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of Variance," Psychometrika, VI (1941), 153-60. Iowa Tests pf_Basic Skills. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1956. Iowa Tests pf_Educational Development. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1958. Jackson, Robert W. B. "Reliability of Mental Tests," British Journal pf_P§ychology, XXIX (1939), 267-87. Johns, R. L., and Morphet, Edgar L. Financing the Public Schools. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960. Kochnower, William. "The Case for Centralization," in Phi Delta Kappan, IV: No. 9 (January, 1961). Kraft, Leonard E. "The Perceptions Held by Professors of Education, Professors in Areas Other than Education, and School Board Members on Ninety Factors Which May or May Not Affect the Quality of an Educational Program." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962. Melby, Ernest O. The Education pf_Free Men (Horace Mann Lecture, 1955). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1955. Molnar, Thomas. The Future pf Education. New York: Fleet Publishing Corporation, 1961. Mort, Paul R. "Cost-Quality Relationship in Education,” in Johns and Morphet (eds.). Problems and Issues in_ Public Finance. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952. . "School and Community Relationships to School Quality," Teachers College Record, LV, No. 4 (January, 1954), 201—14. 253 , and Cornell, Francis G. American Schools ip Transition. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941. , and Cornell, Francis G. A Guide for Self—Appraisal gf_School Systems. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1937. , and Pierce, Truman. A_Time Scale f9r_Measuring phg_Adaptability gf_School Systems. New York: Metro— politan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1947. , Reusser, Walter C., and Polley, John W. Public School Finance, Its Background, Structure, and Opera— tion. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc.,l960. , Vincent, William S., and Newell, Clarence A. The Growing Edge. New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1945. National Education Association. ”A Few Comments on School Needs in the Decade Ahead.” Special memo. Washington: National Education Association, 1958. National Education Association Policies Commission. Ag Essay gp_Qualitv i3 Public Education. Washington: National Education Association, 1959. National Study of Secondary School Evaluation. Evaluative Criteria. Washington: The Study, 1960. Ostrander, Chester B. "A Study of Characteristics of New York State Central Schools Classified on the Basis of Enrollment Size.” Doctoral project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1961. Pierce, Truman M. Controllable Community Characteristics Related tp_the Quality g: Education. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1947. 254 Rhee, Jeung. "An Analysis of Selected Aspects of the Public School Finance System in Michigan." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Rudman, Herbert C. "The Relationship Between the Financial Support of Education and Quality of Educational Program as Expressed by Certain Related Variables." Unpublished Report, Mighigan State'University, East Lansing, 1961. Smith, Stanley V. "Quality of Education Related to Certain Social and Administrative Characteristics of Well- Financed Rural School Districts: A Study of Central Schools of New York State." Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1954. Southern Association of Secondary Schools. Evaluating the Elementary School: A_Guide for Co—operative Study. Atlanta: Commission on Research and Service, The Association, 1951. State of Michigan. Public Acts 312, 1957 and 267, 1959. Swanson, Austin D. "An Analysis of Factors Related to School System Quality in the Associated Public School Systems." Doctoral project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1960. Thaden, J. F. Equalizing Educational Opportunity Through Community School Districts. Special Bulletin 410. East Lansing: Agricultural Experiment Station, Depart- ment of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State University, 1957. Thorndike, Edward L. Education g§_Cause and a§_Symptom. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1939. Trump, J. Lloyd, and Baynha, Dorsey. Focus gp_Change: Guide pg_Better Schools. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1961. Turck, Merton James, Jr. ”A Study of the Relationships Among the Factors of Financial Need, Effort, and Ability in 581 High School Districts in Michigan." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960. 255 U. S. Congressional Record. Vol. CV. Vincent, William S. Emergipg_Patterns gf_Public School Practice. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1945. . ”Quality Control: A Rationale for Analysis of a School System," IAR Research Bulletin, I (January, 1961). New York: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, Columbia University. Woollatt, Lorne H. The Cost—Qualipy Relationship gp_the Growipg_Edge. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1949. APPENDIX A EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION 256 257 EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION Herbert C. Rudman Michigan State University School District 2. County Type of Organization Pattern Followed in School District (Please check the most appropriate organizational pattern) a. 6—3—3 C. 6-6 e. 6-2—4 b. 8—4 d. 5—3-4 f. Other Approximate Average Pupil-teacher Ratio...ELEMENTARY (Please check appropriate response) a. 50-1 d. 35—1 g. 20—1 b. 45-1 e. 30—1 h. Less than c. 40-1 f. 25—1 20—1 Approximate Average Pupil-teacher Ratio...SECONDARY (Please check appropriate response) a. 50—1 d. 35—1 g. 20—1 b. 45-1 e. 30-1 h. Less than c. 40-1 f. 25—1 20-1 Type of Population Center a. Rural____ City: less than 2500 2500—4999 5000-9999 10,000-24,999 25,000—999,999 100,000 and over____ mmrPWNH 258 EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION DIRECTIONS: Listed below are 56 statements. Please place an ”X" on the number under the statement which best describes your attitude about or perception of what actually exists within your school building or school system. If you are a teacher or a building principal relate these statements to your build- ing experience. If you are an individual whose major responsi- bility is in central administration or supervision relate these statements to your school system. Most Somewhat Slightly Least Factor Charac— Charac— Charac— Charac— teristic teristic teristic teristic 7. Teachers have intimate knowledge of children. 4 3 2 1 8. Teaching practices re- flect concern for individual differences. 4 3 2 1 9. Teaching practices re— flect a knowledge of individual differences. 4 3 2 l 10. Teachers perceive a coherent and coordinated structure to the educational program. 4 3 2 1 11. Concensus exists among the staff concerning the goals of the educational program. 4 3 2 1 12. A structure has been developed that permits continual curriculum improvement. 4 3 2 l 13. Evidence exists of in- structional and/or cur- ricular experimentation. 4 3 2 1 259 Factor Most Charac- teristic Somewhat Slightly Least Charac- Charac- Charac- teristic teristic teristic 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Students show a positive attitude toward schol- astic work. Students evidence accu- rate knowledge of self. Professional staff of the school system are involved in in—service education. Teachers thoroughly understand the informa- tion gathered on stu— dents and use this information to make sound educational decisions. All teachers are certi— fied to teach at the grade level or subject they are now teaching. Teachers have complete freedom to teach what they consider to be important. A great variety of in- structional techniques are presently used in the classrooms. A great variety of in— structional materials are presently used in the classrooms. 260 Most Somewhat Slightly Least Factor Charac— Charac— teristic teristic Charac- Charac- teristic teristic 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Students are knowledge- able about the educa- tional and social op- portunities available to them. 4 3 A complete comprehen- sive testing program including intelligence and achievement test- ing is available in the schools. 4 3 Teachers often avail themselves of profes- sional help. 4 3 Complete freedom is granted to students to investigate any local, state, national or international issue. 4 3 Availability to stu- dents of materials that reflect all shades of political and socio- logical points of View. 4 3 Parents and patrons (those residents of a school district without school—age children)are highly knowledgeable about education. 4 3 School program is ac- credited by the state and regional accredit— ing agencies. 4 3 2 l 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 l 2 1 261 Factor Most Charac- teristic teristic teristic Somewhat Slightly Least Charac- Charac- 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Lay members of the com- munity are highly in— volved in the planning of educational goals with the school staff. Regulations governing student conduct are highly explicit and detailed. High degree of teacher participation in social and political activities of the community. The social status of teachers is very high in this community. Regulations governing personnel policies are highly explicit and detailed. Citizens are highly organized to discuss school problems. The perceptions of parents and patrons concerning the purposes of education are con- sistent and clear. The local newspaper has shown a high interest in local school affairs. Charac- teristic 262 Most Somewhat Slightly Least Factor Charac- Charac- Charac— Charac- teristic teristic teristic teristic There is no lag between the values taught in the school and what is prac- ticed in the community. 4 3 2 1 There exists a high level of cooperation among the teachers of the staff. 4 3 2 l The physical facilities of the school system (buildings and equip- ment) are completely adequate. 4 3 2 l The community and its residents are used for instructional purposes. 4 3 2 1 Cultural experiences are readily available in the community. 4 3 2 1 Teachers' judgments are almost always used in the determination of educational policies. 4 3 2 1 A high percentage of the electorate in the community vote in school elections. 4 3 2 1 There are outstanding community leaders in this community who exhibit great interest in school affairs. 4 3 2 1 263 Factor Most Charac- teristic teristic teristic teristic Somewhat Slightly Least Charac— Charac— Charac- 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. This is a highly stable community which does not have too many people leaving. The community exhibits a great concern for the development of aesthetic and artistic interests. A two—way communication channel readily exists between the home and the school. A high percentage of high school students own personal cars. A high percentage of homes own television sets. A great deal of homework is assigned to students. A high degree of ethnic, racial and religious homogeneity exists among the local population. The parents in this community expect their children to perform their share of family chores. This community is com- posed of people who are predominately Protestant. 3 2 l 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 264 Factor Most Somewhat Slightly Least Charac- Charac— Charac- Charac— teristic teristic teristic teristic 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. This community is com— posed of people who are predominately Catholic. This community is com— posed of people who are predominately Jewish. The population of this community is equally divided between Protes- tants and Catholics. One or two ethnic groups comprise the largest number of residents in the community. Pupils consider an academic grade of at least ”B" to be the norm for academic achievement. The professional staff of the schools in the community consider an academic grade of at least ”B“ to be the norm for academic achievement. A high value is placed on education by the parents and patrons (those residents of a school district without school-age children) of the community. 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 l 4 3 2 l 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 265 Factor Most Somewhat Slightly Least Charac- Charac- Charac- Charac— teristic teristic teristic teristic 61. 62. Parents and patrons in the community consider an academic grade of at least "B” to be the norm for academic achievement. Parents condone or encourage early dating for their children. APPENDIX B LETTER SENT TO SUPERINTENDENTS 266 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING COLLEGE OF EDUCATION The College of Education, Michigan State University is con— ducting several national and state—wide studies concerned with the identification and measurement of quality in an education— al program. The purpose of this study is to test a preliminary form of an instrument which we hope can measure the quality of educational programs. we are seeking to establish its reliability, its validity and its relationship to such cost factors as size of school district, state equalized assessed valuation, effort, and expenditure. we should like to invite you and the administrative and teach— ing staffs of your district to participate in this study. All that it will require is approximately thirty minutes of your time to read and check the items in the instrument. Please check the appropriate box at the end of this letter to indicate your willingness to participate in this very important project. In order to begin this study promptly we would like to have your response by February 28, 1962 at the latest. If you will help us, and we hope you will, please list the number of teachers and administrators employed by your district. we would be delighted to send you an abstract of the results if you would so indicate. Cordially yours, Herbert C. Rudman Associate Professor of Education will ( we , Will not ( 3 take part in this study. we desire results ( ). Number of Teachers Number of Administrators (Superintendents, Principals, and Supervisors) APPENDIX C ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION 268 TO: SUBJECT: II. 269 Superintendents of Cooperating Michigan School Districts in the Quality Research Project, H. C. Rudman, Project Director, College of Education, Michigan State University. General Instructions for Administration and Mailing of the Test Instrument, Educational Characteristics Criterion (ECC). CONTENTS OF PACKAGE OF MATERIALS A. envelopes, each containing one copy of the ECC and instruction sheet for teacher respondents, with two extra copies. envelopes, stamped ”ADMIN” each containing one copy of the Egg, also stamped ”ADMIN" for ad— ministrative respondents (Supt., Principals, Supervisors) with one extra copy. one business envelope containing: 1. Return postage (Educational Materials clas- sification) from Supt. office to Michigan State University. 2. Sticker “Educational Materials” for return package. 3. Sticker with address to H. C. Rudman, College of Education, Michigan State University. One Supplementary Information Form to be com— pleted by the Superintendent. Special instructions for principals with an attached copy of the respondent instruction sheet contained in each envelope. DISTRIBUTION A. Please contact each principal to notify him of the participation of your school district in the research project which is concerned with the identification and measurement of quality in an educational program and its relation to certain cost factors. III. 270 Please give the principals their instruction sheets and envelopes for each teacher (unless this can be accomplished from central office, etc.) According to the principal's instructions, it is desired that teachers be prepared for their participation by means of a teacher memo or notice in the daily bulle— tin of the types suggested in the principal's instructions. Give principals and other administrator and super— visor respondents their envelopes (marked “ADMIN”) which are to be completed in the same manner as the teachers do. All respondents are to omit items 3, 4, 5, 6, 28. The Superintendent is requested to fill out the Supple— mentary Information Form that has the information con— tained in these items. The Superintendent is requested to complete the Egg as a respondent also using an envelope marked ”ADMIN.” In case there is only one administrator (Supt.) who also acts as principal, it is desired that one "AD— MIN” E99 be given to the faculty individual who assists the Superintendent administratively generally more than any other faculty member. This individual would not fill out a plain teacher respondent Egg, but would fill out the “ADMIN” Egg. COLLECTION A. It is requested that the collection point of the ECC envelopes be clearly specified, such as ”Principal's Secretary,” "Principal,” etc. All envelopes with the enclosed ECC's should be col— lected, used or unused, and checked against the total sent (see I. Contents). Do not retain ECC's for absent teachers. Assuming there will be few absent cases, it will not matter much. However, it is highly desired that all person— nel designated who are present fill out ECC's. All 271 forms should be returned within 48 hours at the latest to your office. It is hoped that these limits will result in better individual perceptions uninfluenced by group discussion. IV. MAILING A. The return package should include all envelopes and Supplementary Information Form completed by Supt. There should be one package bound with cover paper, cord, and tape if necessary. Postage and stickers are in the business envelope. The Supplementary Informa— tion form should be placed in an envelope on the top ... ECC envelope inside the package. ]) C. Postage is calculated for ”Educational Materials" rate. If reimbursement for additional postage is required, please contact H.C. Rudman, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. In conclusion, thank you, your staff, and teachers for the cooperation you have given in this project. An abstract of results will be sent to you upon completion. A. D. Berg Project Assistant APPENDIX D RESPONDENT INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS CRITERION 272 273 Instructions for Responding to the Educational Characteristics Criterion 1. Your participation as a respondent to the Educational Characteristics Criterion (Egg) within the sample of coopera- ting Michigan School Districts is greatly appreciated. This is a phase of a comprehensive research project conducted by the College of Education, Michigan State University. 2. It is important that your responses to the Egg_represent your own individual perceptions, therefore it is recommended that you complete the Egg without prior discussion with other faculty members, preferably in private and quiet surroundings. All information will be treated confidentially and anonymously. Approximate respondent time is thirty minutes, however there is no time limit. 3. Omit Items 3, 4, 5, 6 and 28. 4. Use pencil and mark with firm pressure pg the number rep- resenting the characteristic that you perceive. Relate the statements to your experience as follows: (a) Teachers and Building Principals: Relate the state- ments to your building experience. (b) Central Administrators and Supervisors: Relate the statements to your school system. 5. Example of marking one item: Most Somewhat Slightly Least Factor Charac— — - — teristic 7- Teachers have inti- mate knowledge of children. 4 3 >i: 1 (Bk>te: The "X'' ON the “2” will indicate that your per- CGEJtion of the statement is that it is "slightly charac— ter‘istic" of your building situation (if you are a teacher 274 or building principal); or that it is ”slightly character— istic" of your school system (if you are a central adminis— trator or supervisor). Upon completion of your responses to all Egg items (except items 3, 4, 5, 6 and 28), place the Egg and this instruction sheet in the envelope and SEAL the envelope flap. Do not put your name or other markings on the Egg or envelope. Return the envelope with enclosed Egg to your building principal or to the collection point prescribed by the principal or the superintendent. It is highly desired that you complete the Egg at your very earliest opportunity and return it within 24 hours, and if delayed, within 48 hours. APPENDIX E DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TOTAL MEAN SCORES AND BETWEEN CATEGORY MEAN SCORES OF TEACHERS AND OF ADMINISTRATORS FROM HIGH FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE AND FROM LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE 276 -flmflzmam “mamflm .am>®a oocmoamacmam .Uoumoaoca mam mao>ma oocmu mc.c och pm ompoohmn mum mmmonhomhc aasc mze uomhmm acc.v ww.o oma mmo.c mm.v wo.om mm.am 4 Doohmm acc.v co.mm coma amm.c mm.m nm.om mm.mm B AmEopa aav mwcspanaé >pacSEEOU "whoom Ha whommpmo powwow acc.V gm.m oma ma¢.c mg.m cb.ma ma.ma fl pomhmm acc.v m.oa coma ava.c mm.m mm.ma mo.ha E Amsmua ov omooasocx mo aw>ma m.#cocspm "ouoom H waommpmu pomamm Hoo.v m.oa oma aa.m Hm.vm Hm.m¢H ma.maa a pomnom acc.v o.am coma omm.c m¢.om mc.m¢a gm.a>a B AmEoua omv ouoom amvoe O m . m m e .m.o .m.m gm: m am mm asouo .ocauz Houmnumacaaom .amcauz Hmcumoa "maapumso 30a “mmnz HovmupmaCaEpm .ahouz HmcomoB noaapumso Smam .oaahnmso puommsm amaocmcam 30a Eoum cam waapumso pnommsm awaocmcam flmam Eoum mnoumupmacaew< mo cam mam£UMMH mo monoom coo: whomoumo cooBqu Ucm mouoom cows amuoe cmeMwQ moocouommam 277 pomawm Hoo.v Hm.o oma omv.o mo.m oa.mm ma mm a poohmm acc.v v.am coma moa.c wv.m mm.mm m¢.mm E Amsmwa aav xpaCSEEOU onp mo coapamomEOU amuspasoioaoom "mnoum > whomowmu pomamm Hoo.v om.m oma aHH.o mo.H am.m am.m a pomnom acc.v o.mm coma mmc.c mm.c mv.m om.m B Aana av moapaaaomm mo mmD "whoom >H huommpmo pomamm Hoo.v m.m oma am.o mo.m am.aH om.aa < pomamm Hoo.v m.am coma mHH.o am.m mm.vH mm.na e AmEmpa mv Ecasoaunso "whoom HHH whommhmo o a m m a a .md .m.m w? m 98.5 278 aomamm acc.v am.mm oma oam.c aa.m ma.mv oa.ma a pumamm acc.v om.a coma maa.c oo.o mm.ca mm.co e Ameopa mav mcocpoz mcacomme cam amnommfi mSB "maoom HH> xaomopmo aomamm acc.v m.ma oma amc.c am.m mm.aa ca.mm a aomamm acc.v v.ma coma aca.c an.c mm.aa ma.mm e AmEopa NV coama>aom5m pcm coapmapmacafio< "whoom H> haommpmo o a m a m m m e .m.o .m.m x: m x x macaw APPENDIX F DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTIC MEAN SCORES OF TEACHERS AND OF ADMINISTRATORS FROM HIGH FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE AND FROM LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE 279 280 uaoaamam amamam .omumoaoca mam mam>oa mocmo .ao>ma oocmoamacmam mc.c oz“ um copoohoa mam monocpomwc aasc mce oomamm acc.v ma.o oma mmc.c ma.c om.m mm.m < mm pumamm acc.v ac.¢a coma mmc.c ha.c ah.m ma.m e :.Em£p oa magmaam>m wwapacsuaommo amaoom Ucm amcoapmocom och pconm manmmmomaBch mam mpcmoSpm: comamm acc.v ao.m oma mmc.c mm.c am.m om.m a ma aomamm acc.v mm.aa coma amc.c om.c am.m ca.m e :.mawm mo mmpwa30cx mamasoom mococa>m mucooshm: aomamm acc.v ma.o ooa oamc.c oo.c mm.m ma.m a aa aomamm acc.v No.oa coma oamc.c co.c oo.m oa.m e :.va.H03 OHHmMHOSOm UHMBOD ®US#H##M O>H#HmOQ m 303m mpflmmoaauvm: moospappm ocm ompoaBOCM mo ao>oa m.#cmosum "a waommpmo O m m e .m.o .m.m Mumm am mm cacao smpa ocanz aopmapmacasca .amcauz amromme umaaa Iamso 30a “mmuz HOpmaumacaEc< .ammuz Hocomoa "maauamoo scam amaocmcam 30a anm com oaaaawso paocmsw amaocmcam Smam anw mHOp maocumme mo moaoom cmmz oaumaampomamnu amc0aum05pm amsoa>aoca cow .waabamcc uaommmm upmacafivfi MO USN Bumn moonwamwmam 281 ammooa oc.A cm.a oma maca.c ca.c ma.m mm.m a ao poohom acc.v mm.ma coma cmmc.c m¢.c m¢.m mm.m B :.pcmEm>ma£om UaEmomow aom anc one on Oh .m. ummma pm mo mpmam UaEmUmom cm Hmoamcoo wpaczafioo wflu ca mcoaumm Ucm mucmamm: pmwoo< mc.A mm.a oma mama.c ma.c om.m mn.m < mm commom acc.v mm.m coma mmmc.c ma.c vo.m mh.m B :.pcmEm>macom anmUmom Mom anc och on 0p .m. pmmma no mo momam oaamomom cm amoamcoo Spacsafioo ocy Ca maoocom mnu mo mmmum amcoamwomoac 0:9: uomhom mcc.v cm.m owa ocma.c mm.c mm.m mm.m a mm aomamm acc.v mo.ca coma acac.c m¢.c Na.m mo.m e :.pcoEo>oa£om anoomom How anc map on op .m. ummma um mo opmam anmowom cm Hmpamcou maamsm: O m m m e .m.o .m.m xumm am m msoao smua 282 poonmm mcc.v cc.m oma mmva.c o¢.c gm.m cm.m a om pumhom acc.v om.na coma mmmc.c no.0 ¢P.N av.m B :.maammmw aOOSUm amooa Ca ummaopca £ma£ m c3ocm mm: HommmmBoc amooa $39: poohmm acc.v mm.v oma moaa.c cm.c mc.m mm.m a mm aomawm acc.v mm.qa coma oomc.c mm.c mc.m mm.m e :.Hmoao cam acmpmamcoo mam coapmucoo mo monomasm och mcacamucoo mcoapmm Ucm mpcmnmm mo mcoavmooamm mLB: poohom acc.v mm.o oma mcaa.c cm.c Na.m mm.m m cm oomamm acc.v am.ma coma cmmc.c ma.c oc.m ma.m e :.coapmosom “Dona maflmomoma3ocx wacman mam Acmaoaaco mmmuaoonom pDOSuHB poaaumao aoonom m mo mucwcamoa mmocuv mcoaumm Ucm mpcmamm: mmUSpauv< whacseaoo ”Ha maommpmu o m m m B .m.Q .m.m ANImM ax N mcoaw Empa I 283 aomamm acc.v ca.o oma mnaa.c ma.o cm.m mm.m a av aomamm acc.v am.oa coma mmmc.c mo.c ao.m om.m e :.waammmw aoonom ca pmoaopca ummam uaflaflxo 0:3 >paCSEEoo manu ca mamomma mpHCSEEOU mcavcmumuco mam oaofle: ammoom mc.A ao.c oma mmaa.c ao.c am.m cm.m < ma pumamm acc.v ma.o coma aamc.c ma.o cm.m mm.m a :omCOHUUGHQ HOOEUW CH THONV \flflHCDEEOU 03L. CH oumaoauoaw wnp mo mmmucooamm cmac «: aomamm occ.v am.m oma ooaa.c am.c cm.m ao.m a am oomamm acc.v ma.aa coma vamc.c ma.o om.m mo.m e :.>pacsafioo may ca owoauomam ccm aoozom map ca pcmsmu mmDam> oca cmeme mMa on ma maocez O m m e .m.o .m.m xumm am ax macaw smaa 284 aomamm acc.v om.m oma maa.c co.c mm.m mm.m a mm powwow acc.v wa.ca coma vmmc.c mm.c mm.m mm.m B :.mwa0£o maaamm mo macaw aawnp anmuom 0p cmaoaaflo aamnp uommxo mpacsafioo mafia Ca mpcwamm mSB: aomamm acc.v ma.o ooa mcca.c om.c oo.m am.m < mv poohom acc.v mm.cm coma momc.c om.c m¢.m mm.m B =.aoocom ocm maoc one cmoBqu mamaxo maacmoa aoccmco coaamoaGSEEoo >m3303p £2 poonmm acc.V om.w ooa oaa.c mm.c mm.a om.m 4 og pomnom acc.v mm.mm coma oomc.c am.a mm.a mc.m B :.w#mmampca oapmapam cam oapmcpmom mo pcoEQOam>mo och How camocoo hmoam m mpanaaxm SpacsEEoo o£B: o . m m m B .m.c .m.m Nlmm ax m msoaw Emwa 285 aomamm acc.v ma.a ooa ommc.c aa.c No.m om.m a ca aomamm acc.v am.ma coma mamc.c oa.c mm.m mm.m e =.Emamoam amcoaumosoo och 0p ®H5#UDH#m COHVMQHUHOOU USN #QOHOQOO m O>HOUHOQ mHOSUMOHI. EDaSoaaHSU "HHH waomoumo ammooa mc.A ma.a oma mmma.c ma.o om.m co.c a mo aomamm acc.v ma.a coma mmmc.c oa.c mm.m an.m e _.cmaoaa£o Hawgp How mcapmc maamm mmmasooco Ho mcoocoo mpcoamm: somamm acc.v om.m oma mmca.c ao.c ma.m ma.m a co oomamm acc.v ac.mm coma onmc.c mm.c mv.m mm.m e mpcmoamoa mmocpv :.>#acsaaoo och mo Acmaoaaco mmmuaoocom acocpaB poaapmac aoocom m mo mcoapmm Ucm mpcoamm map >9 coaumosom co omomam ma oSam> cmac <= .m.Q a m m m msoaw EmpH 286 powaom acc.v mm.m ooa wmo.c om.c mw.m mm.m < am aowamm acc.v am.om coma mamc.c mm.c on.m mm.m e :.Eooammmao och Ga com: >apcomoam mam mamaawumfi amc0awosawmca mo >uoaam> ammam <= nomawm acc.v mm.» ooa aaa.c mm.c ao.m ao.c a ma pomaom aco.v ma.om coma Nmmc.c ma.o om.m mm.m B :.ucmEQOaw>wU ESaSUaaHSU amscaucoo mpaanm umcu ommoao>oo coon mm: wasposaam <= aomamm mc.v cm.m ooa maca.c am.c mm.m mm.m a aa aowaom acc.v co.m coma nomc.c om.c oo.m mm.m e =.Emamoam amcoapwusow map mo mamom och mcacaoocoo mmmum map mcoam mumaxm msmcomQOO: o . . . . a m a m m e m c m m x: m x mx Qsoaw aopa 287 uomawm acc.v mv.m ooa ooaa.c cv.c mm.m mm.m a mm vomnom acc.v mc.¢ coma Nmmc.c ma.o mo.m cw.m B :.>pacsfiaoo mafia ca cmac >am> ma maoflumou mo msawpm amaoow o£B= wpaQSEEoo och mo coaaamomfioo amaspaSUioanm u> maomocmo pomawm acc.v cw.m owa maa.c mc.a «m.m hm.m < mm aomamm acc.v oo.mm coma mmmc.c mm.c mv.m om.m e :.ovmsgoom haowmamaou mam AucwEmasmm ocm wmcaoaasnv Empmhm aoocom map mo mwaaaaaomm amoam>£Q wQB: moauaaaomm mo omD ">H maomoamo poonom acc.v mm.m owa cmc.c oo.c mm.m gm.m < mm poonom acc.v ma.om coma mamc.c No.0 cc.m mm.m B :.maoocom ocu ca oahmaam>m ma mcaumwu acmao>oa£om cam mocomaaaouca mcaosaoca Emamoam mcapmma o>awcw£wamfioo opmamEoo c: o a m m m na .a. Hag .m.m canola ax x @905 83H i. ' . 2132'?— aomamm acc.v ma.o ooa maaa.c ac.a om.a om.m a ma aomamm acc.v mm.am coma oomc.c mo.c ac.m cm.m e :.mamo amc0mamm CBC mpcooshm aoocom cmac mo ommvcooaom Smas 4: pmooofl mc.A ma.c oma mmma.c mc.c mm.m mm.m < ma 8 ammooa oc.A mm.a coma m¢¢c.c oc.c mm.m oa.m e 8 2 :.mca>mma mamomm mama 00p m>mc aoc mooo £0a£3 wuacDEEoo maQMpm manman m ma mace: aomamm acc.v mo.ca ooa aaaa.c ma.a cm.a mm.m a av aomamm acc.v mo.cm coma momc.c mm.a mm.a mo.m e :.>paccaaoo oca ca oaflwaaw>m waaomma mam moocoaammxo amacuasoz o m m m a .m.c .m.m xumm ax x msoao amaa 289 uomamm acc.v cm.o oma omma.c ma.o aa.m am.m a mm pumamm acc.v am.m coma amac.c om.c mc.m an.m e :.pcmumwpoam xampmcafioomam mam 0&3 mamowm mo Ummomfioo ma huaccafioo maflB: aomamm ac.v ma.m oma maaa.c mm.c oa.m Rm.m a am aomamm oc.v mc.m coma mmmc.c oc.c aa.m mo.m e :.c0auma5mom amooa och mGOEm mpmaxm mpamcmmofioc msoamaama Ucm .amaoma .Uaccpo mo moammo Smac 4: pooaom mcc.v mm.m oma mmc.c ma.o om.m am.m < ma oomawm acc.v aa.aa coma mmac.c ma.o mo.m cm.m e :.mpom coama>waop £30 mmaoc mo mmmacooamm Smac d: o m m E .m.Q .m.m axlmm am mx msoaw Boga 290 aomamm acc.v oc.a ooa mmva.c mm.c ma.a cm.m < om aomamm acc.v mm.o coma ooac.c mm.c oo.a am.m e :.moaaocamu cam macwpmwpoam coo3uoa oooa>ao waamsgo ma haaQSEEoo mafia mo coaamasmom oLB: umooom mc.A vm.a owa mmmc.c mc.c oc.a ma.a < mm pomawm acc.v mo.o coma ammc.c ma.o ma.a cm.a B :.£ma3wb waoamcafioooam mam 0:3 manomm mo oomomfioo ma wanSEEOU mace: poohom acc.v mo.m oma wmma.c ma.o hm.a Nc.m d am pooaom acc.v ao.c coma mmmc.c am.c mm.a vc.m B :.Uaa0£pmo xawawcaeoomam mam 0:3 mamomm mo oomomfioo ma waacsfifioo mane: o m a m m \ na _ .a. .md .m.m axiom x x @505 53a 291 poohom acc.v mm.oa owa mmoc.c oc.a mm.m cc.v < mm pomnom acc.v m¢.mm coma whac.c oc.a cc.m oc.a B :.moaocwmm mcauaooauum amcoamoa ocm macaw ma“ ha oopaooaoom ma Emamoam aooaom: pooawm acc.v mm.» owa cma.c co.c mm.m mv.m < oa aomamm acc.v «.mm coma comc.c ao.c mm.m om.m e :.c0apmosow ooa>awmlca ca U®>ao>ca mam Ewpmwm aoonom wan mo woman awc0amwmmoam: 50ama>awmom cam coaumaamaCan< uH> >HOOO#MU ammooa oc.A ma.a oma m¢oa.c ma.o oc.a om.m < no ammoom mc.A am.c coma «oc.c ao.c oc.a oc.a e :.>aaQDEEOU map Ca macooamwa mo aoQESQ anomama oca omaamEoo mmsoam oaczpw 03p Ho mac: 0 a m a m m m _ e .m.c .m.m x: m x x cacao swaa 292 aomamm acc.v cc.o ooa ooaa.c co.c ao.m am.m a mm aomamm acc.v cm.oa coma cmmc.c aa.c co.c am.m a :.©oaamamo cam uaoaamxm magma: mam moaoaaom awccomaom mcacam>om mCOapMaDmmm: ammoom mc.A oo.c ooa mmaa.c oc.c om.m go.m m cm ammooa oc.A mma.c coma mca.c ma.o aa.m am.m e :6maamamo cam aaoaanaxo \aacma: mam pococoo ucmoaapm moacam>om wcoapMaaamom: aowamm acc.v ma.o ooa amaa.c nm.c ma.m mc.m a mm aommom acc.v o.NN coma mcvc.c mm.c ac.m gm.m B :.mmmpm aoocom one cpaB mamom awcoaumosom mo mcaccmam may ca om>ao>Ca wanmac mam whacseaoo map mo wanEoE hma: o . . . . m a m na .a. m o m m on? m x mx @580 83a 293 aomaom mmc.v cm.m ooa mooc.c cm.c cm.m co.m a m aomhom acc.v mm.m coma mcmc.c mm.c vc.m om.m B :.coaoaa£o mo omooaBOQa oamEaaca o>mn mawcomofi: moonpmz mcafiomofi Ucm aoflommfi 038 "HH> whomwamo poohom mc.v mm.m oma mmca.c mm.c mm.m ca.m < mg uuoflom acc.v cm.m coma mmmc.c cm.c mm.m mm.m B :.moauaaom amc0apmospo mo coapmcaaaoaoo oca ca coma w>m3am pmoEam mam mpcoampsn .mawsowoB= pooaom acc.v mm.aa oma mca.c mN.a mm.a wa.m < am aomamm acc.v oc.mm coma mmmc.c mm.c mm.a cm.m e :.manQoam aoocom mmsomao 0p oomacmmao hacmac mam mconaan: o m a m m m E .m.Q .m.m MI M M M QSOHU Emaa 294 aomamm acc.v am.o oma cmoc.c oa.c mo.m mo.m a ma aomamm acc.v m.om coma mamc.c ac.a oo.m ao.c e .cOaampcoEaammxm amasoaaaso HO\Ucm amcoaaosaamca mo mamaxm mocmoa>mz aomamm acc.v mm.m oma ammc.c ma.o ca.m mm.m a m aomamm acc.v mo.ca coma acmc.c mm.c ac.m mm.m e :.mm0cmammmao aMSpa>aoca mo omomaBOQM m vomamma mmoapomam mcaflomoe: aomamm acc.v aa.m oma mamc.c cm.c ma.m ma.m a m aomamm acc.v mm.aa coma mcmc.c mm.c ao.c mm.m e : .meGOHOMMHU HMSUH>HUCH HOW CHOUQOU #OOHMOH mOUHDUMHQ OQHSUMOB: o m m m a .m.o .m.m m am m cacao amaa 295 amwoo4 mc.A oh.a oma mmca.c ma.o mm.m ha.m 4 ma aomawm acc.v mo.ca coma ommc.c oc.c ac.m mc.m e :.aQMpaomEa ma 0p amcamcoo hoap pMSB gummy Op Eocmmam mamamfioo o>mc maoaomofiz poomom acc.v vo.o oma ohmc.c mm.c mm.m oc.c 4 ma poohom acc.v om.oa coma mmac.c om.c gm.m oc.a B :.mca£ommp 30c mam wona agonasm ao am>ma momam may no Scamp op cmamauamo mam mamcomop aa4: poonmm acc.v 4m.¢ oma amca.c ao.c mm.m ma.m 4 ma poohom acc.v om.va coma mgmc.c Om.c mo.m ma.m B :.mcoawaomo amcoapmosom ocsom mama oa coaumaaomca mach own ocm mpcwccum co commaamm coaamaaomca map ocmpmaoccs macmsoaonp mamaomoaz o m m a .m.c .m.m xumm ax ax cacao smua amwoo4 mc.A ca.c oma moca.c ao.c mv.m Nv.m 4 mm aoomwm acc.v cm.m coma o4mc.c ma.o Na.m cm.m B :.05mma amcoaamcamaca Ho .amc0apmc .mumam .amooa hcm mammaamo>ca Op mucmosam Op ooacmam ma Eooowaw opmamEOU: . poonom acc.v mm.c oma aaa.c ww.c oo.m 4m.m 4 gm aowmwm acc.v am.ma coma Nmmc.c wo.c mm.N cm.m B 6 9 2 :.maw£ amcoawmwmoam mo mo>amew£p aam>m cmamo mamflomofi: aomhom acc.v oa.m oma cmmc.c co.c oc.m om.m 4 cm aowhmm acc.v cc.wa coma aamc.c om.c hm.m mm.m B :.Eooammmao on“ Ca coma maacomoam mam mngacflooa amcoaaosaawca mo hawaam> pmoam 4: o a m a m m a e .m.o .m.m xi m x x msoao smaa 297 ammooa oc.A mo.a oma oomc.c oa.c oc.c oc.a a om pomamm acc.v am.a coma mmmc.c am.c mm.m mm.m e :.Wa.Hmpm Oran. MO mHOSUM®# moan. OQOEM COHflMHwQOOU m0 HO>®H SOHS m mnwmaxm THOSE: aomamm acc.v mm.a oma mmaa.c ma.o mm.m oc.a a am aomamm acc.v oc.a coma nomc.c om.c mo.m mn.m e :.>aaCDEEoo msa mo mmaua>apum amoapaaom ocm amaoom ca ceaammaoauamm Hmsommp mo moamoo Smam: ammooa oc.A mm.c oma amaa.c ao.c am.m am.m a om uomamm acc.v mm.aa coma oomc.c aa.c aa.m ma.m e .3wa> mo mucaom awoamoaoaoom Ucm amoauaaom oo mwomam aam aomaama para mamaamums mo mpcmcsam on maaaanmaam><= 0 m a m e .m.o .m.m xumm ax x msoao smua -e. 298 aomamm acc.v oc.a oma amca.c ma.o co.m oc.c a co aomamm acc.v mm.o coma mcmc.c cm.c am.m am.m e :.macocspm ou Umcmammm ma MHOBGEOS mo ammo amoam 4: auwamm acc.v aa.m ooa cma.c mo.c mm.m mm.m a 0% aumamm acc.v m.cm coma ammc.c co.c ma.m om.m a :.momomasm amcoaposaumca How com: mam macmoamoa mua Ucm haacDEEoo ocB: o m m na .a. .md .m.m Salaam ax x msoao aoaa APPENDIX G DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TOTAL MEAN SCORES AND BETWEEN CATEGORY MEAN SCORES OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS WITHIN HIGH FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE AND OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS WITHIN LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE 299 300 -aoaamam amamam .Umamoaoca mam mam>ma mocmo .ao>ma mocmoamacmam oc.c map um Umpomnma mam mmmoauomms aasc oSB ammoum mc.A mm.a omaa ma.o co.c no.om ma.om 30a ammuoa oc.A mm.a amm cmc.c co.c mm.am mm.mm amam Amfimpa aav moosaapp4 muacsafioo "maoom HH whommumu ammooa oc.A om.a mmaa mam.c ao.c ca.ma mm.ma Boa ammooa oc.A om.a aom om.c aa.c ma.ma mo.aa amam amEopa ov mmomaBOcM mo ao>ma m.acoosam "whoom H maomoumo ammooa mc.A om.a mmaa mm.a ma.m ao.m¢a mc.oaa 30a ammooa oc.A mm.c amm om.a om.a ma.m>a am.aaa :mam Amfiwpa omv maoom aMpOB O m m e .m.c .m.m Mum mm .em. mmsoao .ocauz aoamaamaQasoa .amcanz awaomme Honomoe "waauamso Scam “oaaaamso 30a ummuz aoamaamaaaaca .anmuz .oaapamso “Hommsm amaocmcam 30a canvaz mHOpmapwacaEU4 ocm mawaomos mo ccm oaaaamso “Hommsm amaocmcam cmam caspaz maoumaumacaao4 ocw maocomoe mo moaoom cmm2.>aommumo coonoQ can moaoom com: aMpOB coozuwa moocmammwam fir. _ _ umooo4 mc.A Nmo.c l mmaa aom.c mm.c cm.mm mm.mm Boa _ umooo4 mc.A am.a amm mcv.c cm.c mm.wm mv.mm zmam AmEopa aav huacsEEou oca mo coauamomeoo amaDpasoloaoom "whoom > waomoamo ammoum oc.A oc.a omaa mca.c aa.c ao.m ma.m 30a powamm occ.v ac.m amm moc.c am.c am.m om.m amam l w AEwpa av moapaaaomm mo mmD "oaoum >H anomouwo umooo4 mc.A mm.a mmaa Nam.c mm.c aw.Va mm.va 30a umooo4 mc.A avN.c amm mvm.c oc.c mo.ca mm.ma amam amaoaa my Egasoaaaso "oaoom HHH anomopmo o m m B .m.Q .m.m Nlm 4% Bx mmsoaw 302 aomamm mac.v M oc.a mmaa co.c oc.a mm.va ma.ma 30a 1 aomamm mmc.v oc.a aom ohm.c mv.a mo.cm oa.ma amam AmEopa mav moocpmz mcHSUmmfi ocm amnomofi mSB "maoom Ha> macmmpmo ammooa oc.A oc.a omaa aam.c co.c mm.na mm.na 30a aomamm mcc.v ao.m amm mam.c am.c ca.mm ma.mm amam AmEmaa by coama>ammsm Ucm coapmapmacaac4 HH> maoom xaommamo O m m a .m.o .m.m xum 4x ex mmsoao APPENDIX H DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTIC MEAN SCORES OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS WITHIN HIGH FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE AND OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS WITHIN LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE 303 304 uaaacmam amamam .UOHHMUHUCH OHM mH®>mH QUCMU .ao>oa mocmuamacmam oc.c map pm oopoohoa mam momoflpommc aasc mSB pumamm m oc.v ma.m mmaa mooc.c ma.o aa.m om.a 30a . mm aomamm “ mmc.v om.a amm maac.c aa.c ma.m mm.m amam :.Em£u Op magmaaw>m mmauacsaaommo amaoom Ucm ocm amc0aamocow on“ usoam manmmmomaBch mam mpcmospm: pumamm acc.v aa.m mmaa «moc.c ma.o am.m no.m Boa ma aomamm acc.v am.m amm anc.c om.c om.a om.a amam :.maom mo omomaBOQM mamasoom mocmoa>m mpcmosum; pumamm acc.v ¢¢.m mmaa nooc.c mm.c oo.m mo.m 30a aa aomamm acc.v om.a aom cmoc.c ma.o oa.m oc.c amam :.¥H03 oaamMaosom UHMBOu mosaaUpm m>auamom m 303m mpcmosum: moosuapp4 cam omooaBOCM mo ao>oa m.ucmcsum "H whomoumo O m m e .m.o .m.m m..m ex am msoao amaa .ooanz Hoamaumacafifi4 .amoauz HOSUMOB aonomme ”maauamso amam "oaaaamso.3oa .oaapamso #aommsm amaocmcam 30a cacuaB maoumaumacaec4 ammuz aoamaumacaao4 .ammuz cam maosomoa mo cam maaaamso paommsm amaocmcam nmam GaLpHB whoawaumacasc4 cam mamaomoa mo mmaoom com: oaamaampomamco amcoaumusom amsma>aoca cmmzpwn wwucmammmam .1 '1 305 pumawm acc.v oc.a mmaa mmmc.c ma.o ma.m ma.m 30a ao ammooa oc.A oc.c amm mmmc.c oc.c nm.m mm.m amam :.UC®E®>OH£OM OHEOUMOM HON EHOC O3# O9 O# .m. #mmwfi am mo oomam UaEmUmom cm Hmoamcoo waacDEEoo map ca mcoaumm cam mpcoamm: ammooa mc.A oc.c mmaa ommc.c oc.c ao.m om.a 30a mo ammooa oc.A co.c amm mmmc.c oc.c ma.m ma.m amam :.#G@E@>OH£UM UHEQUMUM MOM EHOC 03# @Q O# .m. #mmmH “M NO @UMHW UHETUMUM Cm HGUHmCOU %#HCSEEOU 03# CH mHOOSUm 05# MO MMMHm HMCOmemMOHQ 059: ammooa oc.A oc.c omaa «moc.c ao.c Na.m om.a 30a mo ammooa oc.A om.a amm ammc.c ma.o om.a mn.m amam :.HC@EO>@H£UM UHETUMUM HOW EHOC 03“ 69 O# .m. #mmwfl UM MO QUMHG UHEQUMUM Cm HOUHmCOO mHHQUQ: m m B .m.m .m.m M.nm m M msoaw Emua 306 pownmm mmc.v mm.m mmaa mgvc.c ca.c gn.m cm.m Boa om aomamm mc.v am.m aom mmac.c aa.c aa.m cm.m :mam :.maamwmm aoosom aMUOa ca pmoampCa fimas m c30£m mm: Hommmm3mc amooa one: amouo4 mc.A co.c mmaa mmmc.c cc.c Nc.m mc.m 30a mm ammooa oc.A ma.o aom mmmc.c ao.c om.a mo.m amam =.ammau cam pcmamamcoo mam coapmocoo mo monomasm map mcacaoocoo mcoaamm ocm magmamm mo mcoaammoaom one: ammuo< oc.A mm.c omaa maac.c oc.c oc.a ma.m 30a mm ammooa oc.A am.c amm cmc.c mc.c mn.m mm.m cmam :.c0aumospm asonm maflmomooaBOCx hacmac mam Acmaoaaco mmmnaoonom usocpaB poaapmao aoocom m mo mpcwcamma mmonpv "HH whommamo moosaaup4 %uacDEEOU mcoaumm cam mpcoamm: .m.Q IX IX msoao Ewua 307 umooo4 mc.A mm.a mmaa hvmc.c aa.c ao.m cm.m Boa vv pmooo4 mc.A mm.c amm wmmc.c mc.c om.m mm.m amam :.maammmm aoocom ca ummaouca ummam paaasxm 0:3 wpacsfifioo mach ca mamomma hpaQSEEoo mcaUCMpmuso mam mamas: ammoom oc.A mm.c omaa cmc.c ao.c om.a nm.m 30a mv oomaom mc.v oc.a aom mmmc.c ma.o mm.m om.a rmam :.mcoapomao aoocom ca mao> waacsaaoo map Ca mamaovooao may mo mepcmoamm :mas 4: ammooa oc.A ao.c omaa opac.c oc.c, om.a om.a 30a mm amooo4 mc.A av.c amm oomc.c ao.c mo.m vo.m cmam :.%aacDEEOU mflu ca oooapomam Ucm aoocom map Ca pamsmp mosam> onp coonoQ mma on ma mamas: .m.Q IN I IN 4 m QSOHU Empa 308 ammooa oc.A cc.a mmaa caoc.c ao.c mm.m mm.m 30a mo aomamm oc.v ac.m aom momc.c cm.c mm.m mm.m amam :.moa0£0 >aaEMm mo mamnm aaoflu anmaom 0a coaoaaao aamna uommxm maaQDEEoo mach ca mpcoawm one: aomamm ac.v mo.m omaa omac.c ma.c a¢.m oo.m 30a ma ammooa oc.A ma.o aom mmmc.c mc.c mm.m am.m amam : .aOOSUm mocam OEOS moan. Qmwefiawfl. mamflxw WHHUMOH HOGGNSU COHHVMOHQSEEOU \HMBIOBO. 4: ammoua oc.A ac.c mmaa cmo.c ac.c om.a ma.a 30a ow aomamm occ.v am.m amm mca.c mm.c mc.m om.a rmam :.mammampca oapmauam cam oaaocpmmm mo acmEQOam>oo map How camocoo pmmam w mpaaanxo mpacsaaoo oce; o B 4 m B .m.Q .m.m M..m m m msoaw ana pmooo4 mc.A ma.o mmaa wmoc.c ao.c mw.m Nw.m 30a ca amooo4 mo.A oc.c amm mmmc.c mc.c mN.m om.m cmam :.Emamoam amcoaamosoo map 0a oasaosaum ooamcaoaooo ocm acoaocoo m o>aooaom maosomoB: Edasoaaaso "HHH whomopmo aomflmm Nc.v mv.m mmaa acmc.c cm.c om.N mm.m 30a No ammuoa oc.A om.a amm mca.c aa.c an.m co.m amam 9 m. :.cmaoaa£0 aawfip aom mcaamo waamo ommacooco Ho wcoocoo mucwamm: woohom acc.v mm.m mmaa cmmc.c mm.c mv.m on.m 30a co amooo4 mc.A mc.a amm mamc.c ca.c mm.m Nv.m Smam :.>aacsEEoo may mo macooamwa mmocav Acoaoaaao mmmaaooaom usocpaB aoaaamao aOOSUm m mo mcoaamm ocm mucmamg @3# ha coapmocow co owomam ma wSam> Swag 4: O .m.m mn.m ex umaam> amoam 4: ammooa oc.A ao.c mmaa mmmc.c oc.c on.m ao.c 30a Na umooo4 mc.A mw.a amm mmmc.c wa.c mm.m mo.m amam :.acoam0ao>mo Edasoaaasu amscapcoo mpaaaoc pmcu cocoao>oo coma mm: oasaosaum 4: ammuu4 mc.A mm.a mmaa oomc.c ma.o ow.N mm.m 30a aa amwuoa oc.A ma.o amm oomc.c ao.c mm.m mm.m amam :.Emamoam amcoaumosow map mo mamom may mcacaoocoo mmmpw may mcoEm mumaxm msmcwmcou: o m m B .m.Q .m.m mnum Bx 4% msoaw EopH 311 umm004 mc.A oc.a mmaa mmmc.c ma.o mo.N mm.m 30a mm amwoo4 mc.A vv.a amm mmmc.c ma.o co.m mm.m cmam :.>pacsEEoo wasp ca cmac >aw> ma maocomoa mo wsamam amaoom $39: wpacsaaoo osa mo QOapamomEoo amasaasoloaoom u> kaomwpmo ugooo4 mc.A oc.a mmaa Nca.c aa.c mv.m gm.m 30a mm pumaom occ.v ac.m amm omoc.c am.c om.m ao.c amam :.opm5moom haopmamEoo mam aacofimasgo ocm mmcacaasav Eoummm aoocum ocu Mo moapaaaomM amoamwflm one: moapaaaomm mo omD ">H waomoumo aowawm mmc.v mm.m omaa «amc.c am.c ao.c om.m 30a mm umooo4 mc.A Nb.a amm mmc.c oc.c mw.m vm.m cmam :.maoocom oca Ga oaamaam>m ma mcaamwu pcwEo>oa£om ocm wocwmaaaouca mcaoSaoca Emamoam mCaummp w>amcwsmamfioo opoamfioo 4: o m m e .m.c .m.m m..m ex «x cacao amaa ' fl -' *Jun‘” 312 ammoo< mc.A mo.c mmaa mmmc.c ao.c ac.m om.a Boa mg amwooa oc.A mo.c amm oomc.c oc.c om.a om.a amam :.mam0 amcomaom Q30 mucwosam aoocom cmac m0 mmmucooaom nmas 4: amo004 mc.A mo.c mmaa camc.c mc.c mm.m nm.m 30a ma ammooa oc.A mo.c aom mca.c mo.c on.m om.a amam :.mca>moa mamomm mama 00p o>m£ uoc mmoo £0a£3 wuaccfifiou maflmam >a£ma£ w ma maca: pmm004 mc.A cm.c mmaa oomc.c mc.c mm.a om.a 30a aw pmm004 mc.A ma.o amm mmmc.c oc.c mm.m mm.m scam :.>pacDEEOU och Ca oaQMaam>m haapmma mam mmocoaammxm aMHSpaDO: 0 B m m e .m.c .m.m m..m x cm msoao amua ~vg: 2 313 pmw004 mc.A mo.c mmaa mvmc.c oc.c mc.m Va.m 30a mo aomamm acc.v mm.m amm aaa.c Rm.c aa.m nm.m amam :.pcmummuoam xaacmcaEOUmam mam 0:3 mamomm a0 oomomeoo ma waacDEEOU wa:H: amouo4 mc.A mo.c mmaa vmmc.c oc.c am.m om.m 30a am aomamm acc.v mo.m aom vac.c ma.o mo.m am.m amam :.c0aama5mom amooa o:u mcoEm mamaxo haaocomofio: mDOamaama ocm .amauma .Uac:am m0 mwamwo :ma: 4: ammuom oc.A om.a mmaa moac.c oc.c oo.m oa.m 30a . mg ammooa oc.A cm.c amm mmmc.c ac.c cm.m _am.m rmam :.mamm c0ama>mamp :30 woeo: m0 omopcmoamm :ma: 4: 0 B m m e .m.o .m.m m..m x 4x cacao smaa 314 pomnmm mcc.v vm.m mmaa mggc.c ma.o om.a Nh.a 30a om pmo004 mc.A co.c amm caa.c oc.c 4N.N cm.m :mam :.m0aao:umo paw magmammuoam cmo3po: cmca>ao waamcgm ma >paQDEEOU ma:p m0 coapmasmom o:B: poommm mc.v oc.m mmaa mmmc.c mo.c ma.a .oc.a 30a mo uomamm ac.v co.m amm maoc.c ma.o om.a ma.a amam ..:ma3mc haucMCaEOUmam mam 0:3 mamoom Mo oomomaoo ma thQSEEOU ma:B: pomhom mc.v mc.m mmaa mhc.c oa.c mm.a hm.a 30a 4m ammooa oc.A oma.c amm aca.c mo.c ac.m mc.m rmam :.0aao:pm0 maucmcaaocmam mam 0:3 mamowm m0 oomomaoo ma hpacsaaoo ma:B: 4 N msoaw smaa 315 ammooa oc.A nm.a omaa cmc.c aa.c ao.c Na.m 30a mm ammooa oc.A mo.a aom oomc.c ma.o am.m mc.m rmam :.MMMpm a00:0m m:a :aa3 mamom amcoaumospo m0 mcaccmam m:p ca Um>a0>ca >a:ma: mam >aacDEEOU m:a m0 mamQEmE hma: ammooa mc.A am.c mmaa mmmc.c mo.c om.a no.m 30a oa ammooa oc.A oc.a aom mmmc.c mc.c om.m ma.m amam :.c0aamosco m0a>aomlca Ga oo>a0>ca mam Empmwm a00:0m m:a m0 mmmum awcoammomoam: 00ama>aomsm ocm coaamapmacaap4 HH> whommpmo ammoom oc.A oc.c mmaa caa.c oc.c oc.a om.a 30a no aomamm acc.v ao.m aom oomc.c ma.o oc.a om.a amam :.>aaCDEE00 o:p Ga mpcooamoa mo HoQESc ammmHMa m:p omaamEOU mmsoam oac:ao 03p a0 ch: o m m e .m.o .m.m m..m ex 4x cacao amaa ‘1- ‘_t-_‘ s n... 316 nomamm mc.v oc.a mmaa mmoc.c ma.o om.a om.a 30a 4m pumamm mc.v aa.m amm anmc.c am.c om.a aa.m amam :.man:0am a00:0m mmcomao 0p Conacmmao ma:ma: mam mconaaao: pmooo4 mc.A om.a mmaa mmmc.c aa.c cm.m ao.m 30a mm umo004 mc.A cm.c amm mmmc.c mc.c am.m ¢N.m :mam :.anaMme Ucm uauaamxm ma:ma: mam moaoaaom amccomaom mcacam>om mcoapmasmom: aowmmm mmc.v om.m mmaa mmmc.c ma.c mh.m om.m 30a cm ammooa oc.A oc.a aom acmc.c ca.c am.m ac.m amam :.cmaamumo pom paoaamxo wa:ma: mam moaoaaom acoUSHm mcacao>om mcoaumaamom: .m.Q IN I Ix msoaw Eopa 317 ammooa oc.A aa.a omaa amoc.c mc.c ao.c ma.m 30a m ammooa oc.A mo.c aom omoc.c ao.c mm.m ma.m amam _..mmUCOHwMMHU HMDUH>HUCH .HOM QMOUQOU #UOHMOH mOUHnaUMHQ WQHSUmwB: pumamm acc.v mm.a mmaa ococ.c oc.c ac.m cm.m 30a e aomamm acc.v aw.m aom emoc.c cm.c om.m co.c amam :.cmaoaa:0 m0 omoma30cx oumfiaeca w>m: mam:0mmB: moo:um2 mca:omoe cam ao:0moe m:e "HH> waommumo aomamm acc.v ma.m mmaa omec.c em.c om.a mo.m 30a ma aomamm acc.v ma.a aom maoc.c om.c me.m ca.m amam :.mma0aa0m amcoaumucom m0 coapmcafiamamo o:p Ca cows mwm3am pmoaam mam mucoamosm .mam:0moe: O m m e .m.o .m.m m..m ex 4x msoao amaa 318 ammoo< oc.A me.c omaa moec.c oc.c oo.m mm.m 30a ea ammooa oc.A em.c amm mmmc.c mo.c oa.m ma.m amam :.m£0-.am._a0mw.© HMQOHHMOSUO muflaaom OXME Ofl COH¥MEHOMQH mflaaua mmaa Ucm mpcmosam c0 cwam:umm coapmaaomca w:p Ucmumamocs ha:m50ao:p mam:omoe: aomamm acc.v ao.c mmaa omoc.c mm.c om.a mo.m 30a ma ammooa oc.A am.a amm maoc.c oc.c em.m mo.m omam :.COH#M#QOEHHOQX® HMHSUHHHSU .HO\UC..M HMQOH#OSHu.mCH maO mnamflunw OUCGUHRM: ammooa oc.A em.a omaa mmoc.c mc.c ac.m ca.m Boa m ammoua oc.A mo.c aom meoc.c oc.c mm.m mm.m amam :.m®0coammmao amsoa>aoca m0 omcoa3oc: m pooamoa mmoapomam mca:omoe: 0 . B 4 m m e .m.o .m.m m..m x x msoao smaa 319 :Qm004 mc.A ao.c mmaa mmmc.c mo.c mm.m oo.N 30a 4N aomamm acc.v ea.m amm meec.c em.c em.m co.m amam :.mao: amcoammmmoam m0 mo>amem:a aam>m cmpmo mam:umme: ammoua oc.A am.a omaa mmec.c mc.c em.m oc.c 30a cm pmw004 mc.A mg.c amm gmoc.c mo.c mm.m om.m :mam :.EooammMa0 ca poms waacmmmam mam mosgac:owa amcoapooaamca m0 humaam> ummam 4: pmooo4 mc.A mmm.c mmaa choc.c oc.c a¢.m mm.m 30a ma pmooo4 mc.A co.a amm choc.c wa.c mc.m ca.m :mam :.ucmua0m8a m: 0p amoamcoo >m:a um:3 :Umma op soomwaw oumamfioo m>m: mao:omoe: o m m B .m.Q .m.m M..m 5% 4m macaw Eopa 320 aomamm oc.v ca.m mmaa moec.c oa.c co.a em.m 30a am ammooa oc.A we.c amm ommc.c ec.c me.m om.a amam :.>pacsaaoo o:p mo moapa>ap0m amoaaaaom ocm amauom ca coaammaoapamm am:omma m0 mmamoo :mam: aomamm occ.v ac.m mmaa aomc.c om.c ae.m em.m 30a om aomamm mc.v aa.m amm eeec.c ma.o ma.m am.m amam :.3ma> m0 macaom awoamoaoaoom ocm amuapaaom mo moom:m aam pumamoa am:a mamaamuma mo mucmosam 0p huaaaQMaaw>4: pomhmm acc.v mv.¢ mmaa mmoc.c am.c ma.m mw.m 30a mm umo004 mc.A mv.a amm gamc.c ma.c cm.m N¢.m :mam :.m5mma amaoaamcamaaa ao .amaoaam: .mamam .amooa hcm mammapmo>Ca 0p mpchSpw 0p oopcmam ma Eoomoam maoamEOU: 0 B 4 m m B .m.Q .m.m m.um N M QSOHO Empa 321 ammooa oc.A oc.a mmaa omoc.c ec.c co.a ao.m 30a co aomamm acc.v em.m aom mmmc.c am.c am.m mc.m amam :.mpcoo5am 0D omcmammm ma :ao3mEo: m0 ammo pmoam 4: ammooa oc.A om.a mmaa amec.c ca.c ma.m om.a 30a ca ammoom oc.A co.c amm vmmc.c oc.c om.a mm.m omam .mwmomacm amc0aaosapmca How poms mam mammoamma mua ocm haaCSEEOU m:E: ammuua oc.A me.a omaa omoc.c ma.o om.a ca.m 30a mm ammooa oc.A ao.c aom meec.c ao.c mm.m om.m omam :.MMMpm o:p m0 mao:omou o:a mcoam coaamaomooo mo am>ma :ma: m mamaxm wao:B: .m.Q msoao Empa IN E . _ APPENDIX I DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TOTAL MEAN SCORES AND BETWEEN CATEGORY MEAN SCORES OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS WITHIN DISTRICTS NO. 1, NO. 10, AND NO. 37 322 '5“ Iacmam Hw:mam .ompmoaoca mam mam>ma mocmoam .ao>oa mocwoamacmam oc.c o:p pm oopoonoa mam mono:aom%: aasc m:e ammooa mc.A ao.c aa am.m co.a mm.em. cm.mm em .02 “cocoa mc.A oc.a mm om.a oc.c oo.mm co.om ca .02 ammooa mc.A moc.c coc amo.c mm.c am.cm mo.cm a .02 Ameaa aav moosuaaa4 mpaCDEEOU "mmaoom Ha waommpmo ammoom oc.A mm.c aa mm.a me.c mm.oa co.ma em .02 amwoo< oc.A mm.c mm mm.a mo.c oo.ma om.aa ca .02 ammooa oc.A mm.c cov om.a mm.c am.ea mm.oa a .02 B Amampa ov omoma3oflx m0 ao>oa m.ucwosum "whoom H >a0moumo 3 ammooa oc.A ma.o aa oe.ma mm.c mm.mma co.oaa em .02 ammooa oc.A occ.c mm om.aa oc.c mm.o¢a ma.oaa ca .02 aomamm oc.v ac.m aoa occ.m co.a ma.mea am.eoa a .02 AmEmaa omv maoom amaoe o . . . . u a e U.oaau. m m B m Q m m M M M M Imam .muz aoamaumacaao4 .canz ao:0moe "mm .02 “MHZ aoamapmacaeo4 .mmuz aw:omoe "ca .02 “aouz aoamaumacaao4 .mcwuz ao:0moe “a .02 .mm .02 cam .ca .02 .a .02 macaapmam ca:ua3 maouwaamacaao4 cam mam I:0mmB mo moaoom com: haomopmo cmo3um: ocm moaoom cmmz amuoe coo3ao: moocoaomaac 1W" . 324 amoooa mc.A am.c aa co.a co.a cc.mm co.am em .02 ammooa oc.A mem.c mm ae.a mm.c mm.em mm.om ca .02 ammooa oc.A ma.a vow cao.c mm.c oo.om om.mm a .02 AmEmpa aav wpacDEEOU o:u Mo coauamomEOU amaspasoloauom "maoom > maomopmo ammooa oc.A mm.a aa amm.c cm.c oc.a ca.m em .02 ammooa oc.A meo.c mm mmo.c oc.c cc.m co.a ca .02 ammoua oc.A ee.a cow omc.c ea.c co.m ma.m a .02 AEoua av mmaaaaaomm m0 mmD ”whoom >H whomopmo ammooa oc.A eem.c aa mm.a co.c cc.oa ca.ma em .02 ammooa oc.A oc.a mm aa.m mm.m cc.ma mm.aa ca .02 ammooa oc.A co.c aoa mmm.c co.c oe.ea ma.ea a .02 AmEmpa mv Edasoaaaso "whoom HHH whommamo O UHH m m e .m.c .m.m Mum 4x ex a . a -mac 325 ammuoa oc.A cm.c aa oc.a ce.m cm.oa co.aa em .02 ammooa mc.A mm.c mm mm.m ac.m oo.ac eo.ma ca .02 pumamm occ.v om.a cow mme.c oa.m om.cm cm.ma a .02 Amamua may moo:am2 mca:0mme Ucm am:0mmB m:B "maoum HH> haommpmu ammoom oc.A mm.c aa ea.m ee.c mm.ea ca.ma em .02 ammooa oc.A aa.c mm mc.m am.c oo.ma cc.oa ca .02 pumamm occ.v mm.m cow «oc.c ea.a cm.mm mm.m~ a .02 coama>ammsm Ucm coaumapmacafio4 "whoom a> whommpmv 0 4 B aoaap a m e .m.o .m.m xum m x ImHQ m“. I,” _ i. ,... APPENDIX J ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RELIABILITY TESTS FOR TOTAL SCORES AND CATEGORY SCORES OF TEACHERS AND OF ADMINISTRATORS IN HIGH AND IN LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILES 326 327 up .> ccm .m . a mo coaumcmamxo How mealaba .Qm mom o¢.c mm.mocm mmwv aoaam mm.mm am.mcma mm mEopH acc.c Na.m ac.v m.ca cm.c Nc.m om.oc¢ am .caEU4 amouzv mHOpmapmacan4 caam.c mo.mm¢vm comma Hoaam omoc.acm ao.omcaa mm mampa mcc.c mc.m ac.v a.ca cm.c mmwa.m ac.¢amv chm mam:omme up mmamsmm mmamsgm . . coaamaam> m > m m a com: mo Eco m Q mo moasom aaeouzc macromme mo ocm .oaapamso aaommsm amaocwcam :mam ca mHOpmaumacaEU4 mao:0moB mo mmaoom amuoe How mamoe mpaaaQNaamm mocmaam> mo mammamc4 328 m M mom.c am.maa mca w aoaam w mm.e om.om o W mamaa a I aa.c om.a _ ac.v mm.m ae.c eem.a ma.mca am 1 .caso< maoumaamacafifi4 W mm.c amea coma _ aoaam a cm.mm moa o mamaa i oc.c mm.a ac.v mm.c m ee.c ae.a amaa cem mamaomme a pa moamsgm moamcgm coaumaam> m > m m a a com: m0 85m m 0 m0 condom i mam:umoB .maapamso uaommsm amaocmcam :mam ca mHOpmaumacan4 m0 cam mam:ome m0 Ammpcaaap4 cam ompma30cM mo ao>ma m.acmosumv wmaoom H >Homoamo How mamma wpaaaQMaaom mocmaam> m0 mamhamc4 —... W—F‘ a... '.‘ _c 329 w , m mm.c co.ama cam aoaam a _ . i a w ae.ma oa.ema ca mamaa M l ec.c co.a ac.v om.a a oe.c m em.m co.ama am .casca maoamaamacaap4 a ea.c mmaa ccem aoaam m a.cca acca ca mamaa ao.c ac.m ac.v oc.m a cm.c om.m oecm cem mamaumme W a: mamsgm mmamcgm . . coaamaam> mam:owoe . oaauamso anommsm awaocmcam :mam Ga maoamapmacaac4 m0 cam mao:omoe mo ammosuauu4 waacsfiaoov moaoom Ha haomoumo How mawoB wpaaanmaamm Gunmaam> m0 mammamc4 330 am.c Nm.m® fimm HOHHW mm.c m©.am 4 wEmaH ma.o am.a HO.V m.m 00.0 00.0 am.®m Hm .CHEUfl WHOHMHflmHCHF—UAN Om.O flvoa omflm HOHHH Om.O® Nflm v mEODH ma.o m4.a HO.V ®O.m No.0 No.0 mow Ohm mamfivwmfi UH“. mHmsmvm memflHva o o COHpMHHMNV mHmaumwB .oaaaamso uaommsm amaocmcam :mam Ca whoamaamacaao4 m0 m0 aadasoaaasov mmaoom HHH whomoumo Mom mumme >uaaaamaamm mocmaam> mo mamaamc4 ocm mam:omoe 1 A ao.c om.amm cam aoaam _ Nc.o¢ cm.cov ca maopa mm.c mm.c ac.v om.a oc.c ma.a we.om am .can4 maoamaumacaao4 l 3 3 ce.c omao cceo aoaam o.mmg ommv ca maopa Nv.c cm.c ac.v co.a mm.c ma.a mcca chm mao:omoe pp mamsgm mmamsgm . . coapmaam> m > m m a com: mo ago m D mo ooaDom mam:0moe oaapamso “Hommsm amaUQMCam :mam ca mao:mapmacaao4 m0 cam mao:0moe m0 Amaacsaaoo o:p mo coapamomfiou amasuasoloaoomv mwaoom > whommamo Mom mammB %uaaa:maawm m0cmaam> m0 mamhamc4 V'WE 7’2: 715—— 332 ma.c «a.cam omc aoaam ma.o ma.mc o mamaa ea.c om.a ac.v om.a mo.c am.a em.cca am .caao< maoamapmacaao4 ma.o av.cmmm cmmm aoaam mo.mma ea.amm o mamaa cm.c om.a ac.v ao.c ao.c om.a mm.oaaa cem mamaomme a: mamsgm mmamsgm . . coaamaam> m > m m a com: m0 85m m D m0 moasom mao:omoB .maauamco paommsm amaocmcam :mam Ca mHOpmapmaCaEU4 mo Ucm mao:0moe m0 Acoama>ammsm ocm coaumaumacafio4v mmaoom H> maommpmu How mammB apaaaamaaom mocmaam> mo mamwamc4 333 am.c am.cmm wmaa aoaam cm.c om.oca va mEouH mo.c om.a ac.v mm.c mm.c mo.a mm.mma aw .CaEU4 maoumapmacaeo4 a¢.c mm.vcam cmama aoaam 4m.mm No.mmaa 4a meaH mo.c mn.a ac.v mo.c mm.c mo.a ma.mmva chm mao:omme m > m m upa mamsgm moamsmm .m.Q coauMaaw> cmoz mo 85m mo moasom mam:0moe OHHQLHMDO “Hommsm awaocmcam :mam Ga waoumaumacaao4 mo cam mao:0moe mo Amoo:ao2 mca:omoe ccm Ho:omwB o:Bv moaoom HH> maomoamu Mom mumoe muaaaQMaamm moccaam> mo mawwamc4 1‘51”“ 'I I _. —5————fi 334 '- Nm.c ma.occm mmnm aoaam ma.mm mm.cmoa mm mEopH vcc.c oo.N ac.v ma.m mo.c mm.c mm.mcm mca .caao4 maoumaamacafio4 mamm.c ma.omgma cmmmm aoaam cvaw.mvm ma.macom mm mEoua accccc.c om.a ac.v m.vm mm.c wmaa.n mo.cohm cmca mao:omoa ua moamsgm mmamsmm . . coa:MaHm> m > m m a cow: mo 85m m 0 mo monsom mam:0ww8 oaaaamso aaommsm amaocmcam 30a Ga mHOpmaamacan4 mo Ucm maw:0moe m0 moaoom aMpOB aom mamoe huaaanwaaom oocmaam> mo mamxamc4 -H.. .-.—e 335 amca.c mo.aam mmm aoaam mocc.m mm.mm m mEopH ma.o om.a ac.v cm.m cm.c mmmm.a mm.mma mca .caao4 ma0pmapmacaac4 v¢a¢.c ma.mmmm cmvm aoaam cc.om cc.mma m mEopH oc.c vm.a ac.v mc.¢ mm.c acmo.a om.amma cmca mao:omoe pp oamsgm moamsgm . . coap0aam> m > m m a com: mo ago m O HO ooasom mao:omme amaocwcam 30a ca woaoom H whomoamo How mamoe maaaHQMHamm mommaam> Ho mammamc4 H0 ao>ma m.pcmosamv maaaamso anommsm maoamaamacaao4 Ho Ucm mam:omo9 Ho ammUSpaup4 Ucm omcoa3ocM "9‘.- I .. I = -. 336 mv.c aa.aam cmca aoaam mm.ma om.mma ca mamaH va.c oc.a ac.v am.m mo.c om.a cg.moa mca .caEU4 mHOpmaumacaEU4 gam.c mh.mcom ccmca Hoaam www.mma no.5mma ca mEouH oc.c om.a ac.v No.4 mm.c mmmm.m mm.momm cmca mao:omme aw mamamm moamsgm . . coapmaam> m > m m a cow: Ho Edm m Q Ho ooasom mao:omoe oaaaamso aaommsm amaocmcam 30a ca maOpmaamacan4 H0 ocm mao:omoe H0 Amwosa [aaa4 waacsaaoov moaoom HH maomopmo Mom mpwoe >paaa:waaom oocmaam> mo mammamc4 ‘W‘" " 337 mav.c mm.mma cmv Moaam mvN.N wm.m v mEmuH mo.c mo.a ac.v mm.m am.c «om.a mm.voa mca .caEc4 maoamapmacaao4 ammv.c mm.cmam coma aoaam mmac.mm mc.mma w mEouH mo.c om.a ac.v cm.m Vm.c mmmm.a am.mmom cmca mao:omoe pp oawsgm moamsmm . . coapmaam> m > ha .m .H EMT: MO 5.5m .m Q .HO OUHSOW mao:omme oaapamso uaommsm amaocmcam 30a Ga maoumaumacaao4 Ho ocm mam:omoe mo Asgasoaaagov moaoow HHH maomopwo aom mpmoe HpaaaQMaaom ooamaam> mo mammamc4 338 ammo.c ca.mme cmca aoaam cc.oo mc.coo ca mamaa oz ce.c mm.c ac.A ma.a aa.c mmcm.c om.am oca .aaso< maoamapmacafio4 mooo.c om.mome ccmca aoaam mcm.mmm mc.m~mo ca mamaa em.c mm.c ac.v ee.a ma.c oaoa.a cc.omma cmca mamaomme m > m m pea mamsgm moamsgm .m.Q coaumHHm> cows H0 85m H0 monsom MHOSUMOB oaapamco anommcm aMHUQMCam 30a Ca mHOpmaamacan4 H0 Ucm mam:0mmB H0 Ampacsaaou o:u H0 coaaamomfiou amasuasoloaoomv moaoom > haommamo How mamme mpaaaamaaom mocmaam> mo wamwamc4 .. 1w- 339 wv.o ma.mom omo HOHMM oh.ma co.maa o meuH cm.c om.a ao.V oo.N ao.c om.a av.ama moa .CHEU4 maoamaumacaeo4 mmmm.o NN.aOmm OVmo Hoaam mmvw.ama oo.aam o mamaa Va.o mv.a ao.V ma.m mo.c Noho.a mo.hmma omca me:OmwB pa wawsgm woamsgm . . coauMaam> m > m m a cow: H0 85m m O HO woasom mam:omw9 oaaaamso aaommsm amaocmcam 30H ca maoumaumacaao4 H0 cam mao:omoa H0 Ac0ama>aomsm cam coaamaumazasoi moaoom H> whomoumo aom mammB hpaaaamaaom mocmaam> mo mamhamc4 340 c¢.c am.mmm cmca aoaam cc.oa mo.Nmm va mEopH ca.c mm.a ac.v mm.m mm.c mm.a hm.ama mca .can4 mHOpmapmacan4 mam¢.c ma.mmah comma aoaam vmwo.vma mm.cmmm Va mEopH vc.c ac.m ac.V vc.m cm.c ocmm.m vc.vmmm cmca mao:owme pp mamsgm moamsgm . . coaumaam> m > m m a cow: Ho Sam m O HO ooasom mam:omofi maaaamsc whoamsm amaocmcam 30a Ca ma0pmapmacaao4 Ho ocm mam:0moe H0 Amoo:um2 mca:0moe ocm ao:omme o:BV mmaoom HH> >a0mmum0 How mamme wpaaaamaaom mocmaam> m0 mammamc4 APPENDIX K ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RELIABILITY TESTS FOR TOTAL SCORES AND CATEGORY SCORES OF TEACHERS AND OF ADMINISTRATORS IN DISTRICT NO. 1 (HIGH FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE) 341 342 .> com .m .pua Ho coapwcmamxo How mmalama .mQ mom W aemv.c we.maaa ccmm aoaam covm.ma mc.cmca mm manH mocc.c am.m ac.v vm.aa am.c comm.m cm.mam co .caEU4 _ aaouzc maoamaamagaaom mmmm.c om.avoaa cmmmm aoaam ommv.aca om.mmmm mm manH acc.c mc.m ac.v om.ca cm.c cmmm.m mm.ammm vow mao:omoe up mamsgm moamsmm . . coaamaam> m > m m a com: Ho 55m m Q Ho woasom mo pom 38.5 9.283 Awaauamso aMOQQDm amao:mEam :mamv mao:omoe Ho moaoom ampoe How mpmoe mpaaaamaaom oocmHHm> H0 mamxamc4 a .02 aoaaamao ca maoamaamacaeoa 1“... II II _. momm.c vm.mca com aoaam ccmv.m om.em m mEopH mo.c mo.a ac.V mm.m mm.c ocgm.a «a.cm co .caEU4 weepwapmacaeo4 cvmm.c gm.vmo cch aoaam u 3 coma.mm mo.maa m meaH mo.c mc.N ac.V gm.m am.c ocmh.a mm.ecm v04 mam:omoe m > m m ape oamsgm mwamsgm .m.Q coapwaam> cmmz Ho Eco Ho ooasom mam:omme Aoaaaamso uaommsw amaocmcam :mamv a .02 poaaamaQ ca maoumapma2a564 Ho ocm mao:umoB Ho awoospauw4 ocm omoma30cM H0 aw>ma m_acwcspmv moaoum H haomwpmo How mumoe haaaaamaaom oocmaaw> H0 mammamc4 ommooo wa.vhm coo HOHHW 344 cvom.ca vo.mca ca mEmpH ma.o mv.a ao.V mm.m mo.c whao.N co.ama 0o .GHEU4 maoamapmacaeo4 mmmm.o wh.omaN 0404 HOHHH Ommh.av mm.nav 0a meaa no.0 om.a aO.V mm.v oc.c mmomom Owooam 40¢ mam:omwB pa oamsgm mmamsmm . . c0apmaam> m > m m a cow: Ho Eco m Q Ho moasom mam:owoB Aoaaaamso paom imam awaocmcam :mamv a .02 poaapmaQ ca mHOpmaumacan4 Ho ocm mam:0woe Ho amoosa Iaaa4 mpacsfifioov moaoom HH waomoamo How mammB haaaanmaamm oocmaam> Ho wamhamc4 NmaN.c mm.mm cam aoaum cmco.m No.mm 4 mEmuH va.c m¢.a ac.v ma.m mo.c mvwo.c mc.av co .can4 maoamapmacaao4 5 ommm.c ma.mmm oaoa aoaam m... mmao.mm m¢.wma g manH ma.o am.a ac.v cm.m mo.c maca.a ma.mvv gov mam:omme m > m m pea wamsgm moamsgm .m.Q coaamaam> coo: H0 Ego Ho ouaoom mao:omme awaaaamso paommsm awaUQMCam :mamv a mo Hagasoaaasov woaoom HHH haomopmo now mumoe apaaaQMaaom oocmaam> Ho mammamc4 .oz poaapmaQ Ca whoamapmacaeo4 mo 0cm mao:omme 346 vcao.c vm.oom cco aoaam cmmm.om mm.mom ca mEopH am.c cc.a ac.v ac.N cm.c mmmm.a mo.me co .can4 maoumapmacaao4 mvmo.c mc.hcmm cwcv aoaam cmmm.mma mm.mmma ca manH om.c cm.c ac.v am.a aa.c acom.a aa.mco «ca mamaomme up oamsgm mmamsgm . . acaumaam> m > m m a com: Ho 85m m Q Ho ooasom mam:omoe awaapawso whommsm amaccmcam :mamc a.oz poaaamaQ ca maoamaumacafio4 m0 0cm mam:omwB H0 Amaacsfiaoo m:a m0 coaaamomfioo ama5pa50noaoomv.mmaoom > whomoamu Mom mumme haaaaamHamm oUQMHam> Ho mammamc4 347 mva.O ma.mma oom HOHHM oaah.m cm.cm o mEmaa ma.o am.a ac.v mm.m mo.c omoa.a wa.cm co .caEU4 maoumaamacaao4 oaam.o ma.ovma ¢NVN HOHHM 00mm.mh oa.mm4 o meaa mm.c ma.a ao.v m¢.N mm.c awVNoa 4N.vom 40¢ mam:ummB pa mamsmm moamsmm . . coaamaaw> m > m m a com: me 85m m Q mo moasom mao:omoe amaocmsae amamc Aoaapamso paommsm a .02 uoaapwaQ Ca maoumaumacaeo4 mo ocm mao:omwe mo 0cm QOaumapmacan4v mmaoom H> Haemopmo HOH mpmoe muaaaQMHaom oocmaam> mo mamhamc4 ac0ama>aomzm mmmm.c ma.ovN cam Hoaam voam.m mc.ch va mEopH mo.c 4N.N ac.v oc.o mm.c mmom.a vm.oca co .can4 mHOpmapmacan4 comm.c om.ammm omom aoaam % ccmm.ch cm.mch va manH 3 mo.c am.a ac.v oo.v mm.c oomm.a ca.cmm gov wao:umoe pa wamsgm moamsmm . . coaumaam> m > m m a cow: Ho Sam M Q Ho monsom mew:0mwe aoaauamso aaommsm HMHUSMCHm :mamv a .02 poaaumaQ ca maoamaamacaeo4 mo ocm mao:omoe Ho Amoo:umz mca:omme ocm Mm:omwe 0:9v moaoom HH> waomopmo How mpmoe wpaaaQMaaom oocmaam> mo mawwamc4 APPENDIX L ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RELIABILITY TESTS FOR TOTAL SCORES AND CATEGORY SCORES OF TEACHERS AND OF 10 (LOW ADMINISTRATORS IN DISTRICT NO. FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE) 349 350 .> U30 .3 a mo coapmcmmem Mom mealama .QQ mom amcm.c hm.hm caa aoaam omc.c mo.ca mm mampH mZ ao.c mcm.c ac.A mm.a am.c cmmm.c mn.a N .can4 amuzv mHOpmapmHCaEU4 mmmc.c om.amn mmva aoaam mmma.h mm.mmm mm mEmuH mccc.c ma.m ac.v mm.va mm.c maom.m ma.oma mm mao:0mme mamag mmamsg coa maam m. > m m 5a m m .md .a . > cco: H0 85m mo ooasom Ammuzv mam:0moe Amaauamso paommsm awaocmcam 30av .OZ aoaaumaQ ca wHOpmaumacaEU4 Ho cam mam:0moe H0 mwaoom aMpOB How mamme wpaaHQMHamm mocmaam> H0 mamHamc4 omc.c om.a ca aoaam omv.c mN.N m mEmaa mZ mo.c co.a ac.A mm.m mm.c mw.m mw.m N .can4 waoamaumaCaEU4 mvNN.c mm.cm mma aoaam M om.a cv.o m mEmaH 3 oac.c cv.m ac.V om.o mm.c ooam.a mm.cv SN mao:omoe a» wamsgm mwamsgm . . coapmaam> m > m m a com: Ho 85m m Q Ho ooasom maw:omme Amaauamso aHOQQSM amaocmcam 3oav ca .02 #oaapmaQ ca mHOpmapmacaEU4 ocm mam:owoB mo Amoosuapu4 0cm wmoma3ocm Ho ao>ma m.acoo5pmv moaoom H >aomouwo Mow mamoe wpaaaQMaaom moccaam> Ho mamwamc4 mmmv.c ma.m cN aoaam mom.c mo.m ca manH Nc.c mN.N ac.v ma.o mo.c cmmm.N em.m N .can4 mHOpmapmacan4 w moam.c ma.omm cem aoaam 3 cmam.N ma.mN ca manH mN.c oa.a ac.v mm.N mm.c mmam.a cm.mm eN mao:omwe oamsm mwamsg coa maam m > m m uua m m .m.Q .a . > com: me ESm Ho monsom mam:omoB aoaaaamso aHOQQSm awaocmcam 3oav ca .02 poaauwaQ Ca maoamapmacaac4 ocm mam:omoe Ho Amoosa [aaa4 wpaCSEEOUV moaoom HH Haomwamo How mpmoB maaaHQmaaom mocmaam> Ho mamwamc4 353 I o>aammwz w aoaam oc.aN cc.vm w mEouH u a I I m>aammmz ec.cv «a.cm m .caao< maoamapmacaao4 maoa.a cm.wm mca aoaam ccmo.c co.N v mEopH am.c Nc.a ac.v vc.N am.c wamm.N mc.vo eN mao:omoe mamsm moamsm c a waa m > m m aha w m .m.Q o.a . m> cmoz m0 55m H0 ooasom mam:omoe Awaaaamso uaommsm amaocmcam 3oav ca .02 poaaamaQ ca maowmupmacaao4 ocm mam:omoe mo AESaDUaaasov moaoom HHH whomwamo aom mpmwB hpaHHQMaaom mocmaam> Ho mamwamc4 354 mvmm.c mc.aa cN aoaam amo.a am.oa ca mEopH m>aammmc caa.c mm.c m .casoa maoumapmacaac4 ammv.c mm.vma cmN aoaam cNmo.ma Nm.oma ca manH mz ma.o Nm.c ac.A mm.a am.c NNoh.c mm.cN mN wao:omoe m > m m apa mawsgm moamsgm .m.Q coapmaam> cows Ho Edm Ho woasom mam:omoe aoaauamso “HOQQDm amao IQMCam 3oav ca .02 aoaapmaQ ca mHOpmapmacafio4 cam maw:omoe mo Ahuacsaaou w:u mo ceauamomfioo aMHSpaDUIoaoomv > maomoamo How mumoe Haaaaamaawm mocmaam> Ho wawwamc4 mmmm.o ma.m Na HOHHH ooo.c 00.4 o manH mZ co.c Nm.c ac.A mN.a aN.c oc.c Nm.a N .can4 maoumaamacaao4 5 mon.c mm.mm Noa aoaam 5 3 mm.a aN.m o mamaH Na.c Nm.a ac.v mm.m cm.c mome.a ma.mv mN mam:omme mang mommag m > m m ape m m .m.Q coapmaam> coo: Ho 85m H0 ooasom mam:omoe Awaauamso aaomQSm amaocmcam 3oav ca .02 poaaumaQ ca maoawaumacaao4 cco mam:omoe Ho ac0ama>aomsm cco ceaamaumacaao4v moaoom H> Naomoamu How wpmoe haaaaQMHamm oocmaam> Ho mamwamc4 '11-. homv.o No.Na mm HOHHQ Naom.c ma.ma ca mamaa oz oc.c me.c ac.A mo.a em.c cmo.c om.a m .aaso< mHOpmaamacaEU4 % memv.c em.mea mem aoaam 3 om.o co.am ca mamaa mo.c oc.a ac.v om.a am.c maov.m ma.oo em mamaumme pp oamsgm moamsgm . . coapmaam> m > m m a com: H0 85m m Q Ho moasom mHOSUNOE Aoaaaamso aaommsm amao Icmcam 3oav ca .02 uoaaamaQ ca macawaumacaeo4 0cm mao:omoe Ho Amoo:poz mca:omwe 0cm Ho:omofi o:Bv woaoom HH> Naomowmo HOH mpmoe maaaaamaaom moccaam> Ho mamhamc4 VT .1 i APPENDIX M ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RELIABILITY TESTS FOR TOTAL SCORES AND CATEGORY SCORES OF TEACHERS AND OF ADMINISTRATORS IN DISTRICT NO. 37 (LOW FINANCIAL SUPPORT QUARTILE) 357 358 .> ocm .m .uua Ho coaumcmamxw How mealama .QQ mom omma.a mN.mNa caa Hoaam mNam.N ma.mma mm mEouH m2 ma.o mcm.c ac.A om.a cm.c coN.N Nm.v N .caEU4 amuzc waoamaumacasoaa mmhv.c mm.oMN mmv aoaam «mmm.v mm.NmN mm mEopH accc.c mw.m ac.v om.ma mm.c mmmc.c No.mo m mao:owoe oamsm moamsg coa waam m > .a .a 3a m m .md .u . > cam: Ho Edm Ho ooasom acauzv mam:omm8 Aoaaaamso aaommgm amaocmcam 30av mm .02 uoaauwaQ ca maoamap Imacan4 cco mam:omoe Ho moaoom amuoe mo mamoe Naaaaawaaom oocmaam> Ho mamwamc4 1| .‘L mmh.N mm.cm 0a HOHHW comc.a mN.m m wEopH I I u I m>aammmc cmme.c oa.a N .caso< maopmaamacaao4 mmmN.a mm.om m4 aoaam 9 w co.a cc.m m mswaa mZ mo.c mv.c ac.A aN.a ma.o mmNm.a ma.ma m mam:omoB m > m m pea oamsgm mwamsgm .m.Q c0aamaam> cmwz Ho 85m Ho monsom mao:omme Amaaaamso uaommsm amaocmcam 30Hv mm .02 uoaaamaQ ca whoamaumacafio4 Ho cam mao:umwe Ho Amoosuaua4 ocm omoma3ocx Ho ao>mH m_acocsumv moaoom H waommamo Ho mamme HaaaaamHaom wocmaam> Ho mamxamc4 360 chmc.N vm.av cN aoaam cmN¢.a mN.va ca mEopH I I I I m>aammmc mo.c oc.c m .caso< maoumapma2afio4 awmm.c mo.mm cm aoaam cham.a ma.ma ca mEouH mo.c mc.N ac.v om.m am.c mNON.m mm.oN m mao:omoe m > m m uua wamsgm mwamsmm .m.Q coaumaam> cmoz Ho 85m Ho moasom mam:omoe Imam amaocmcam 3oav Iaaa4 huacDEEOUV amaaaamso whom .02 aoaaumaQ Ga waoumaumacaeo4 Ho 0cm maw:omoa Ho amwocp moaoom HH Naomoamo H0 mvmoB Huaaaflmaaom o0cmaam> Ho mamhamc4 361 I o>aummoc w Hoaam I 00.00 v mEouH I I I I o>apmmmc I 00.00 N .caEU4 maoumapwacaao4 ch.c Nm.m om aoeam caa.c mc.m v manH mo.c mc.N ao.v cm.m No.0 aamv.a mm.Na m mao:0moe ma sq mom 5m : a m > m h ape m m m m .m.Q o.amaam> smog H0 Edm Ho ooasom maw:omoB amaauamso aaommsm amaocmcam 30QV cm .02 poaapmaQ ca maoamauwacafio4 0cm mao:0mwB H0 “Egasoaaasov mmaoom HHH Haomopmo Ho mamoe wuaaanmaaom wocmaam> H0 mammamc4 362 moma.m me.ma cm aoaam cmea.m aa.aa ca mamaa m>aa I I I I Immmc cmmo.c em.a N .caso< maoumapmacaao4 mcev.c ma.ma cm aoaam cmcm.ca mc.aca ca mswaa mZ co.c av.c ac.A oa.a aa.c ccmm.c om.a m mamromwe pp oaosgm moamsgm . . coaumaaw> m > m m a com: Ho Edm m Q Ho monsom who:ome Aoaapamso pHOQQSm awaUCMCHM 30av mm .02 aoaapmaQ ca maouwaumacaao4 ocm mam:omme Ho AHaHGSEEOU w:u Ho coapamOQ IEOU amasaasoloaoomv moaoom > waommumv Ho mamme hwaaaamaaom oocmaam> Ho mamhamc4 363 comb.a oh.w Na Moaam mmmc.c 4N.m o wEwaH mz cm.c Nc.a ac.A vc.N am.c cho.m «m.a N .caEU4 maoumaumacaao4 vvmm.c oo.Na gm aoaam mmvh.m m¢.NN o mEopH mo.c m.a ac.v no.4 mm.c mmmc.a vw.m m mam:omwe mamsg mo mag m > m m aua m a m .m.o coaamaam> coo: Ho 85m Ho ooasom mam:omwe N amaoamcam zoac em 0cm coaumaumHCan4v moaoom H> Naomoamo H0 mamwe mpaaanmaawm mocmaam> Ho mamhamc4 Amaauamso aaommsm .OZ aoaapmaQ Ca maoawaumacaeo4 Ucm mao:omwe H0 Acoama>aomsm 364 mmem.c mo.e om aoaam mmmo.a ma.mm ca mamaa m>aa I I I I Immma cmc.c ma.o m .caeo< .maoumapwacafic4 omaa.c mm.ce oma aoaam mem.a cc.ma ca mamaa acccc.c m.a ac.v m.mm mm.c «aaa.m mc.aa m macromwe up wamsgm mmamsgm . . GOHuMHam> m > m m a cmoz Ho 85m m Q H0 ooacom mHOHaUMQB Amaaaamso paommsm amao Icmcam 3oav mm .02 eoaapmaQ ca maoamaamacaao4 0cm mao:ommB Ho Amoo:awz mca:omoB cco am:omoe w:ev moaoom HH> whomoumo Ho mamme >uaaaamaawm moccaaw> Ho mammawc4 ROOM USE ONLY ROOM USE ONLY