AN INVESTIGATION OF' SOCIAL- I
PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES COMPRISING
SCHOOL NORMATl-VE ACADEMIC CLIMATE

IN HIGH- AND LOW-ACHIEVING

WHITE- URBAN, BLACK: URBAN.

. AND RURAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
WITH SCHOOL MEAN SOCIO-‘ECONOMIC
STATUS CONTROLLED

Thesis for the Degree of m D.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY _
JEFFREY M. SCHNEIDER . I v
1973 ‘ 'jif ‘53:

t}. 3' :jylfr.

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN INVESTIGATION OF SOCIAL—PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES
COMPRISING SCHOOL NORMATIVE ACADEMIC CLIMATE IN HIGH-
AND LOWFACHIEVING WHITE-URBAN, BLACK-URBAN, AND RURAL
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WITH SCHOOL MEAN SOCIO-ECONOMIC

STATUS CONTROLLED
presented by

Jeffrey M. Schneider

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Jegree in Education

[721 {m (/22 /e

hhmupnmuun

Date February 27, 1223

0-7639

 

 

       

amomc av 1““
IUAB & SONS' I
0K MNDERY'NR

I03ARY B 91
mar ulcmmIIII

  

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGATION OF SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES
COMPRISING SCHOOL NORMATIVE ACADEMIC CLIMATE IN
HIGH- AND LON-ACHIEVING WHITE-URBAN, BLACK-
URBAN, AND RURAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WITH
SCHOOL MEAN SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS CONTROLLED

By
Jeffrey M. Schneider

The purpose of this study was to compare a number of social-
psychological variables of school normative academic climate,
between high- and low-achieving elementary schools, while controlling,
as much as possible, fer the effects of school mean socio-economic
status (S.E.S.), race, and urban-rural community type. 'More
specifically this researcher's desire was to determine which of
several social-psychological environmental factors most strongly
predict the variation in achievement, as well as differentiate
between high- and low-achieving predominantly white-urban schools,
predominantly black-urban schools, and schools located in rural
communities.

Data were collected from a selected sample, composed of
l0 predominantly white-urban. 7 predominantly black-urban, and 7
rural elementary schools. Schools within each stratum were selected
on the basis of their mean student achievement, as measured by the

Michigan State School Assessment Achievement Index, and mean student

Jeffrey M. Schneider

S.E.S.. as measured by the Michigan State School Assessment S.E.S.
Index. Pairs of schools were selected with similar S.E.S.. racial
composition, and urban-rural community types, but significantly
different mean student achievement scores.

The variables selected for study were derived from a
varimax rotation factor analysis performed upon data gathered
from instruments administered to fourth, fifth, and sixth grade
students and the teachers of these students, in the schools sampled.
Four student factors and six teacher factors emerged from this
analysis: Student Perceived Present Evaluations-Expectations
(S.P.P.E.E.), Student Perceived Future Evaluations-Expectations
(S.P.F.E.E.), Student Reported Sense of Futility (S.R.S.O.F.),
Student Perceptions of School's Academic Norms (S.P.S.A.N.),
Teacher Present Evaluations-Expectations (T.P.E.E.), Teacher Future
Evaluations-Expectations (T.F.E.E.), Teacher Perceptions of Parent
Student Academic Push (T.P.P.S.P.), Teacher Reported Push of
Individual Students (T.R.P.I.S.), Teacher Reported Feelings of Job
Satisfacton (T.R.F.J.S.), and Teacher Perception of Social System
Belief in Student Academic Improvability (T.P.S.A.I.).

Applying these factors as independent variables, this
researcher employed a least square add linear regression analysis to
predict the variation in the dependent variable, achievement. The
following climate variables were found to be significant (p = 0.l0)
predictors of higher achieving schools, beyond the effects of S.E.S..

race, and urban-rural comunity type:

Jeffrey M. Schneider

1. less Student Perceived Sense of Futility; p = 0.0005;
predicting 44.92% of the variance in achievement beyond the
amount accounted for by the design variables

2. greater Teacher Future Evaluations-Expectations; p = 0.008;
predicting an additional 9.83% of the variance in achievement

3. less Teacher Reported Push of Individual Students; p = 0.023;
predicting an additional 5.28% of the variance in achievement

4. greater Student Perceived Present Evaluations-Expectations;
p== 0.052; predicting an additional 3.36% of the variance
in achievement

. Because of the high predictive power of S.R.S.0.F., another
least square add linear regression analysis was employed, as the
dependent variable with the other nine climate factors as independent
variables. The following climate variables were found to be
significant (p = 0.l0) predictors of higher achieving schools,
beyond the effects of S.E.S., race, and urban-rural community type:

l. Higher Teacher Present Evaluations-Expectations; p = 0.002;
predicting 25.l7% of the variance in futility beyond the
amount accounted for by the design variables.

2. Higher Student Perceived School Academic Norms; p = 0.029;
predicting and additional 8.32% of the variance in sense of
futility.

3. Higher Student Perceived Present Evaluations-Expectations;
p = 0.042; predicting an additional 8.05% of the variance in
sense of futility.

This researcher also attempted to find which of the ten
derived student-teacher factors most highly differentiated between
higher- and lower-achieving schools within the three strata:
predominantly white-urban, predominantly black-urban, and rural
schools. Using a discriminant function analysis, it was concluded

that a low student reported sense of futility was consistently the

Jeffrey M; Schneider

most powerful of the four student variables in differentiating
achievement groups. Other factors, however, did vary in their
power to discriminate achievement within each of the three stratum.
Student perceived school social system norms advocating higher
achievement appear to better discriminate in predominantly white—urban
schools than in schools within the other strata. While teacher
perception of the school social system belief that students can
improve upon previous academic achievement appears to differentiate
higher achieving schools within the black-urban stratum, it does
not appear to be very significant in the predominantly white-urban
schools. The level of teacher perceived parent-student push for
educational achievement and student perceived present evaluations-
expectations appears to have greater discriminating powers in rural
communities than in urban schools.

Individual pairs of schools, matched on S.E.S.. race, and
urban-rural community type but differing significantly on achievement,
were case analyzed. Incorporated within this analysis were selected
information from the principal data, and interviewer observations
pertaining to the school, the curriculum, the community, and the
' school-community relationship. As a result of his findings, this
researcher contends that the level of “psychological-integration“
between the school and the community, coupled with teacher and
student stability. are deserving of further research as possible
contributors to the creation of a normative academic climate conducive

to higher achievement.

AN INVESTIGATION OF SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES
COMPRISING SCHOOL NORMATIVE ACADEMIC CLIMATE IN
HIGH- AND LOW-ACHIEVING WHITE-URBAN, BLACK-
URBAN, AND RURAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WITH
SCHOOL MEAN SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS CONTROLLED

By

I
. p.06:
Jeffrey MICSchnei der

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

T973

I
II
:iQ I

.57 V
Iii “‘ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is most difficult for this writer to even begin a listing
of all of those persons responsible for bringing him to the stage
of writing this dissertation. For all those people not formally
acknowledged please for give me. Space limitations are at fault
and not my memory or my sincere thanks.

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my
Doctoral Committee Chairman, Dr. Wilbur Brookover. He was my
reason for coming to Michigan State University and I have never for
a moment regretted that decision. My respect and admiration for
him have continued to grow with each educational and personal
encounter. His loyalty, concern, and friendship to myself and my
family have proved to complete this educational experience.

I would also like to thank the other members of my guidance
committee. To Dr. Ruth Useem, thank you for granting me the
benefits of your professional insights in such a warm and inspira-
tiOnal manner. I owe great gratitude to Dr. Maryellen McSweeney,
who had the ingenuity and resourcefulness to make Statistics and
Research, otherwise difficult topics, both understandable and
enjoyable. A special thanks to Dr. Vincent Salvo who has done as
dech as any person could to shape my thoughts about "society" and
- my role in it.

ii

I would like to thank my research colleagues, Dr. Richard
Gigliotti, for his wiSdom, his humor, and his "Chutzpah," truly
qualities to be admired, Dr. Ronald Henderson, for his continuing
insights, assistance, and friendship, and Dr. John Schweitzer,
who's door was always open for consultation on my research, my
anxieties, and my paranoia.

To my parents, Sam and Helen Schneider, your love and faith
in my ability even when it was doubted by others, have been such a
welcome source of encouragement in my educational as well as
everyday endeavors. Henry and Gertrude Lipschutz, my wife's parents,
have extended warmth, attentiveness, and everlasting toleration
to a sometimes most opinionated son-in-law.

It is to my daughter, Diane, and son, Joseph, that I express
my deep love and appreciation for being forced at times to give up
their father, mother, and their kitchen table during the months
expended in completing this dissertation. You forever provide
pleasure, pride, patience and everyday joy.

To my wife, Susan, not only for the typing, editing, and
suggestions which have truly made this dissertation as much hers as
it is mine, but for the years of bringing me up whenever I have been
down, helping me when help was needed, taking care of the family
as no one else could, and just for being herself, thank you and

I love you!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION

u—l

Statement of the Problem .

Purpose of the Study . .

Inventory of the Variables

Questions to be Explored .

Hypotheses for Analysis .

Significance of the Problem .

Delimitation of the Study . . . . . . . .
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . l

wsooowmww-I

II. LITERATURE AND THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . I4

Introduction . . . . . . 14
Relationship Between 5. E. S. and Achievement . . . l5
Heredity . . . . . . . . . . . . l9
Early Socialization . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Theoretical Foundations . . . . . . . . . . 28
Symbolic Interaction . . . . . . . . . . 29
Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Role Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Structural Effects . . . . 34
A Social- -Psychological Theory of Learning . . . 36
School Climate Literature . . . . . . . . . 37
Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Secondary Schools . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Elementary Schools . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Variables of Interest. . . . . . . . . . . 5l
Evaluations- -Expectations . . . . Sl
Perceived Peer Evaluations and Expectations . . 52
Perceived Parental Evaluations and Expectations . 53
Perceived and Actual Teacher Evaluations and
Expectations . . . 54
Perceived and Actual Principal Evaluations and
and Expectations . . . . . . . . . . 57

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

CHAPTER
II. Continued

Self-Concept of Academic Ability .
Academic Norms Within the Social System .
Academic Norms . .
Press for Individual Competition and Push
Importance of Student Role . . . .
Feelings of Futility/Improvability
Teacher Satisfaction

Community Integration into the School Environment.

III. PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Achievement Index

S.E.S. Index

Racial Composition . . . . . .
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instrumentation . . . . . .
Data Collection
Analysis .

IV. FACTOR ANALYSIS

Student Factors
Teacher Factors
Principal Factors .

V. THE STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Linear Regression Analysis on Achievement . . .
Linear Regression Analysis on Sense of Futility .
Discriminant Function Analysis . . . .

VI. THE CASE STUDIES . . .

VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: CONTRIBUTIONS AND
LIMITATIONS: AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary and Conclusions . .
Contributions and Limitations .
Recommendations

BIBLIOGRAPHY .

APPENDICES

TT4
TT7
TT7
T22
124

T45

T67

T67
T74
T83

TABLE

wN-J

QWNO‘U‘I-h

10
11
12
T3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

LIST OF TABLES

Original Design . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Design . .
Characteristics of Schools Selected for Study: Race,
S. E. 5., Achievement Level, Urban - Rural Type, and
Sample "N" of Students and Teachers .

Mean School Factor Scores fbr Student Perceived Present.

Evaluations-Expectations .

Mean School Factor Scores for Student Perceived Future .

Evaluations- -Expectations . .

Mean School Factor Scores for Student Reported Sense
of Futility

Mean School Factor Scores of Student Perceived School
Academic Norms . . .

Mean School Factor Scores for Teacher Present
Evaluations- -Expectations . .

Mean School Factor Scores for Teacher Future
Evaluations- -Expectations .

Mean School Factor Scores for Teacher Perceived Parent :

Student Push for Educational Achievement. . .
Mean School Factor Scores for Teacher Reported Push
of Individual Students .

Mean School Factor Scores for Teacher Reported Feelings.

of Job Satisfaction . . .
Mean School Factor Scores for Teacher Perception of
Student Academic Improvability . . . .

Matrix of Correlation Coefficients of Variables within .

Total Sample

Findings of Least Square Add Linear Regression Analysis.

for Achievement

Findings of Least Square Add Linear Regression Analysis.

for Sense of Futility . .
Separate within Cell Simple Correlation Matrices of

Student Variables for White, Black, and Rural Schools.

Separate within Cell Simple Correlation Matrices of
Teacher Variables for White, Black and Rural Schools .

Placement of High and Low S. E. S. Schools by Achievement

within Strata .
Discriminant Function Analysis of Student Variables-
Predominantly White- Urban Schools .

vi

Page
10
12
73
90
93
96
99

103
106
108
111
113
115
119
121
122
126
127
130
131

TABLE OF
LIST OF TABLES - Continued

TABLE Page

21 Discriminant Function Analysis of Student Variables -
Predominantly Black- Urban Schools . . . . 132

22 Discriminant Function Analysis of Student Variables -
Rural Schools . . . 134

23 Discriminant Function Analysis of Teacher Variables -
Predominantly White- Urban Schools . . . . 137

24 Discriminate Function Analysis of Teacher VariabTes -
Predominantly Black- Urban Schools . . . 139

25 Discriminate Function Analysis of Teacher VariabIes in
Rural Schools . . . . 140

26 Duncan' 5 Socio- Economic Index Score in Schools in
Comparison with the State Assessment Socio-Economic
Score of Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

vii

FIGURE

010'!th

LIST OF FIGURES

Mean School Student Factor Scores of Matched Pairs

of Schoohsfor Predominantly White-Urban Schools .
Mean School Student Factor Scores of Matched Pairs

of Schools for Predominantly Black-Urban Schools
Mean School Student Factor Scores for Rural Schools
Mean School Teacher Factor Scores of Matched Pairs

of Schools for Predominantly White-Urban Schools.
Mean School Teacher Factor Scores of Matched Pairs of

Schools for Predominantly Black-Urban Schools
Mean School Teacher Factor Scores for Rural Schools

viii

Page

133

135
136

T38

141
142

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

 

The tremendous waste of human potential within the schools
of contemporary American "society" can no longer be tolerated.
The day has long since past when reliance upon such educational
theories as the genetic origin of intelligence or the permanent
effect of environmental deprivation can be used as excuses for the
failure of schools to educate large numbers of children, especially
those from low socio-economic and/or culturally different backgrounds.

There is a good deal of research, including studies by
Coleman (Equality of Educational Opportunity, 1966), Sewell and
Shah (1967), and Sexton (1961) which demonstrate the strong posi-
tive relationship between an individual's social class and
his probable amount of educational attainment. In an attempt to
discover why this is the case, researchers have followed various
paths of inquiry. A large body of environmental research has
focused upon student inadequacies brought to the school (Ausubel
and Ausubel, 1963; McClelland, 1961; Bettleheim, 1964; and Hunt,
1968), and the failure of schools to effectively educate non-middle
class students (Gans, 1962:68; Riessman, 1962; Cloward and Jones,

1963; and Clark, 1965).

In recent years an increasing number of researchers have
begun to give serious consideration to the question of school
normative climates, and their effect upon patterns of behavior within
the school environment, including the achievement orientation of
students (Coleman, 1961; Orth, 1963; Davis, 1963; Pace, 1963;

Trow, 1962; Mitchell, 1968; and Boyle, 1965). An enlightening

study in the area was provided by McDill, Meyers, and Rigsby (1967)
reporting that high schools having high proportions of middle class
students generally have both high academic norms and high achievement,
while schools having all lower class students had low academic

norms and achievement. Their results also indicated that all of

the climate aspects, except one, were more highly related to
achievement than Socio-Economic-Status (S.E.S.). Even when the
effects of both intelligence and S.E.S. were controlled the effects
of climate still had some explanatory power.

1 As the relationship between elementary school academic
achievement, normative academic climate, and S.E.S. has not, thus
far, been empirically established, it becomes an apparent matter
for serious research. The crucial concern which must be investi-
gated is whether a school climate conducive to educational attain-l
ment is only arrived at through those values which the students
bring from their middle-class homes, or if a positive climate can
be structured in any situation and with students from lower S.E.S.
backgrounds, through the manipulation of certain social-psychological
factors. The current lack of research dealing with this question

has led to the present study.

The theoretical foundation for this research is derived
from a social psychological theory of human behavior, as stated by
Brookover and Erickson (1969);

l. The social norms and expectations of others define the
appropriate behavior for persons in various social situations.

2. Each person learns the definitions of appr0priate behavior
through interaction with others who are important and
significant to him.

3. The individual learns to behave in ways that he perceives
are appropriate or proper for him.

4. The individual also acquires conceptions of his ability to

learn various types of behavior through interaction with
others whose evaluations are important to him.

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of this study is to compare certain social-
psychological variables comprising school normative academic environ-
ment between high and low achieving schools of similar socio-econmic
status, race, and community type. This researcher's desire is
to find which of those factors studied most strongly predict the
variation in, and differentiate between, high and low achievement in
predominantly white urban-schools. Predominantly black-urban

schools, and schools located in rural communities.

Inventory of Variables
The following is an inventory of the variables on which we
have collected data. It is categorized according to the data
obtained from the students, teachers and principals. Not all of the
variables listed were employed for the current analysis. The items
which were used are listed in Chapter IV within the ten derived

factors of the varimax rotation analysis.

Student

N—l—l-J—J—J-IJ-fldd-J
Otomwmmth-‘Osomwmm-wa—I
.

Variables1

Age

Sex

Grade level

Years at the school

Occupation of father

Self-aspiration for education

Reported aspiration of other students
Reported student press for competition
Importance of the self-identity or role of student
Academic norms of the school

Extra school academic behavior of friends
Sense of control

Self-concept of academic ability
Perceived "best friend" expectations
Perceived "best friend" evaluations
Reported teacher press for competition
Reported teacher demand for performance
Perceived teacher expectations

Perceived teacher evaluations

Perceived parental expectations

 

21. Perceived parental evaluatons
22. Reported principal evaluations of all students
23. Reported principal expectations for all students
Teacher Variables2
. Sex

d—ul-d—l—l
«DdeOSOCDNOSUT-§WN-'
. C

15:
16.
17.

Years at present school

Years as a teacher

Formal preparation

Attitude (general) toward school before coming

Change in attitude since coming

Grouping practices across sections of grade levels
Grouping practices in own class

Reported importance of standardized tests

How often standardized test scores are used

Academic expectations for students in the school
Academic expectations for students in the class
Evaluations of academic ability of students in the school
Evaluations of academic ability of students in the class
Reported aspirations of the students in the school

Commitment to teaching (job satisfaction) .
Reported principal's expectations for students 1n the school

 

1
2

See

See

Student Questionnaire, Appendix A

Teacher Questionnaire, Appendix B

Principal Variables

—l—l-—l
N-‘ODmNmU‘lth—I
o o o o 0

Reported principal's evaluations of students' academic ability
Teacher press for educational achievement

Teacher demand for performance

Reported teacher press for student competition

Reported student press for competition (whole school)

Reported student press for competition-(own class)

Reported community press for educational achievement of students
Reported community support for school

1

Sex

Years as the principal of the present school

Years in total as a principal

Has the principal ever been a teacher

How long a teacher

Attitude (general) toward school before coming

Change in attitude since coming

Grouping procedure across sections of grade levels

Grouping procedure within sections of grade levels

Grouping procedures across grade levels

Number of teachers with a bachelor's degree; graduate degree
Number of teachers with provisional certificate; permanent
certification

Kinds of standardized tests used in the school

Principal opinion of what standardized tests measure

Use of test results by the principal

Reported importance of standardized test scores for the teachers
Reported use of standardized test scores by the teachers
Academic expectations for students in the school
Evaluations of the academic ability of the students in the
school

Reported community press for educational achievement of the
students

Reported community support for the school

Questions to be Explored
The following questions will be explored in this study:

Which of a number of social-psychological school normative
academic climate variables derived from student attitudinal
data best differentiate between higher and lower achieving
predominantly white-urban elementary schools, when the effects
of S.E.S. have been controlled.

 

1See Principal Questionnaire, Appendix C

Which of a number of social-psychological school normative
academic climate variables derived from teacher attitudinal
data best differentiate between higher and lower achieving
predominantly white-urban elementary schools, when the
effects of S.E.S. have been controlled?

Which of a number of social-psychological school normative
academic climate variables derived from principal attitudinal
data best differentiate between higher and lower achieving
predominantly white-urban elementary schools, when the
effects of S.E.S. have been controlled?

Which of a number of social-psychological school normative
academic climate variables derived from student attitudinal
data best differentiate between higher and lower achieving
predominantly black-urban elementary schools, when the
effects of S.E.S. have been controlled?

Which of a number of social-psychological school normative
academic climate variables derived from teacher attitudinal
data best differentiate between higher and lower achieving
predominantly black-urban elementary schools, when the
effects of S.E.S. have been controlled?

Which of a number of social-psychological school normative
academic climate variables derived from principal attitudinal
data best differentiates between higher and lower achieving
predominantly black-urban elementary schools, when the
effects of S.E.S. have been controlled?

Which of a number of social-psychological school normative
academic climate variables derived from student attitudinal
data best differentiate between higher and lower achieving
rural elementary schools, when the effects of S.E.S. have
been controlled?

Which of a number of social-psychological school normative
academic climate variables derived from teacher attitudinal
data best differentiate between higher and lower achieving
rural elementary schools, when the effects of S.E.S. have
been controlled?

Which of a number of social-psychological school normative
academic climate variables derived from principal attitudinal
data best differentiate between higher and lower achieving
rural elementary schools, when the effects of S.E.S. have
been control led?

10.

are the

What part of the variance, between high and low achieving
elementary schools of various S.E.S., racial, and urban-
rural community types, can be predicted on the basis of
the social-psychological school academic climate variables?

Hypotheses for Analysis
The hypotheses used as a basis for analysis in this study
following:

The student social-psychological variables comprising
elementary school normative academic climate will differ
in relationship to the dependent variable, achievement,

as measured by the Michigan State School Assessment
Achievement Index, when the effects of mean student S.E.S.,
racial composition, and urban-rural community type are
controlled.

The teacher social-psychological variables comprising
elementary school normative academic climate will differ in
relationship to the dependent variable, achievement, as
measured by the Michigan State School Assessment Achieve-
ment Index, when the effects of mean student S.E.S.,

racial composition, and urban-rural community type are
controlled.

The principal social psychological variables comprising
elementary school normative academic climate will differ in
relationship to the dependent variable, achievement, as
measured by the Michigan State School Assessment Achievement
Index, when the effects of mean student S.E.S.. racial
composition; and urban-rural community type are controlled.

There will be differences between predominantly white-urban,
predominantly black-urban, and rural elementary schools,

in the relationship between those student variables
comprising school normative academic climate and the
dependent variable, achievement, as measured by the Michigan
State School Assessment Achievement Index.

There will be differences between predominantly white-urban
predominantly black-urban, and rural elementary schools,

in the relationship between those teacher variables
comprising school normative academic climate and the
dependent variable, achievement, as measured by the Michigan
State School Assessment Achievement Index.

6. There will be differences between predominantly white-urban,
predominantly black-urban, and rural elementary schools,
in the relationship between those principal variables
comprising school normative academic climate and the
dependent variable, achievement, as measured by the Michigan
State School Assessment Achievement Index.
Significance of the Problem

The significance of this area of investigation appears
obvious to this researcher. I'H'the United States, formal educatiorT
functions as one of the "gatekeepers" of the social and economic
fruits of "society.“ Through an apparent inability to deal effec-
tively with students coming from environments where school achieve-
ment is not an internalized value, the educational institution has
not only kept the gate locked but has served as a perpetuating force
for the "societal" economic and social inequities and the preservation
of the social stratification status qug.,,

It is the function of the current research to isolate and
examine certain variables having an effect upon achievement beyond
that of the social background of the student body. IIt is the task
of schools to educate all students and not just those who come
already possessing norms conducive to high academic achievemefit:

This study thus seeks to investigate certain variables in a number
of schools, of varying social types, that are not following the
normal S.E.S. achievement patterns. This should greatly increase
our knowledge of why schools have been failing to deal with the

problem of social inequity. With this knowledge the opportunity

for social change becomes greatly enhanced.

\

A suggested method of altering the school social environment
of low S.E.S. students is to place them in classrooms with "others"
where middle class norms, concerning educational importance, are
both stressed and accepted, This, although possibly an effective
tool is costly in terms of time, money, and the emotional animosity
created by the need to "bus" students to create a balance which is
middle-class oriented. This writer contends that children attending
law achieving schools can not afford the time required for school
districts, courts, and governments, to deal with matters on an
educational rather than political basis. We must, therefore,
study those schools which are experiencing success at educating
varying types of students, hoping to transfer our findings to other

schools with similar populations.

Delimitations of the Study

The State of Michigan Department of Education has provided
data, from the Michigan State Assessment program, consisting of
aggregate scores of the fourth grade students for every elementary
school in the State of Michigan on both achievement, as measured by
a state wide standarized achievement test and S.E.S, as measured by
a questionnaire of family consumption patterns. The sample was
stratified and schools were orginally placed into cells as shown in
Table 1. Three questionnaires developed for this study, by Wilbur
Brookover and Richard Gigliotti, were administered to all students
in grades four, five, and six, teachers of those students who were

surveyed, and the principal of each school involved. These

10

TABLE l.--0riginal Design

 

Quality of School Performance

 

 

 

 

Social Class and Racial High Mean Level Low Mean Level
Composition of Achievement of Achievement

Predominantlya white

high SES 2 Schools 2 Schools

Predominantlya white

average SES 1 School 1 School

Predominantlya white

low SES 2 Schools 2 Schools

Predominantlya black

high SES 1 School 1 School

Predominantlya black

average SES 1 School 1 School

Predominantlya black

low SES 1 School 1 School

White rural and small town Number of schools will Number of schools

high SES depend upon size of will depend upon
enrollment in selected. size of enroll-
schools ment in selected

schools

White rural and small town Number of schools will Number of schools

low SES depend upon size of will depend upon
enrollment in selected size of enroll-
schools ment in selected

schools

 

aPredominantly = 80% or more.

11

attempted to assess various structural and social-psychological
characteristics which might effect school climate and relate to the
dependent variable, achievement.

Most of the data was collected during the 1970-71 school
year, using the previous year assessment information, making the
fifth grade strata the population of greatest interest. One rural
school closed early for the summer and was, therefore, surveyed
during the 1971-72 school year. In this case, the sixth grade was
apprOpriately selected from the sample frame. Whenever possible,
the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades were included, in order that a
wider sample of the student population could be obtained and so that
our sample would consist of those students who had the greatest
familiarity with the school, acting as reporters of the normative
climate.

Because of sampling difficulties, and because in some cases
these problems involved a sample (one school) which was, in fact,
the entire population within the state for a particular cell, the
data matrix cells are not complete and all of the S.E.S. categories
were not used. Therefore, our final sample is that shown in Table 2,
of twenty-four elementary schools chosen non-randomly on the basis
of particular characteristics.

There is no desire to generalize to the p0pulation other
than with the particular schools sampled, considering the sacrifice
of generalizability. This sample enables us to maximize those
differences leading to differential achievement. This study also

does not claim to be an exhaustive examination of all variables

12

TABLE 2.--Current Design

n-n»n 3

Quality of School Performance

 

Social Class and Racial High Mean Level _ Low Mean Level
Composition of Achievement of Achievement

 

Predominantlya white
high S.E.S. 3 Schools 3 Schools

Predominantlya white -
low S.E.S. 2.Schools 2 Schools

 

Predominantlya black
high S.E.S. 1 School 2 Schools

Predominantya black
low S.E.S. 2 Schools 2 Schools

 

Rural and small town
high S.E.S. 1 School 1 School

Rural and Small town
low S.E.S. 3 Schools 2 Schools

 

aPredominantly = 70% or greater

having an effect upon school achievement. It is designed, rather,

as a heuristic investigation of a number of characteristics of school
social environment which may have an association with achievement
beyond the affects of social class, race, and urban-rural conmunity
type. Viewed in this way, it is the hope of this researcher, to

use the findings in two ways; first to eliminate certain variables
from consideration in future investigation, and secondly, to lend
support to further research within the area of the effects of
normative climate upon school achievement, the general purpose of
the current investigation being to generate rather than test

hypotheses.

13

9121/19.!

This study will attempt to differentiate on certain social-
psychological normative academic climate variables between high and
low achieving elementary schools while controlling for the effects
of socio-economic status, race, and community type.

Chapter II of this dissertation will include the review of
related research in the area of school social climate and its effects
upon school achievement. In Chapter III, the methodology for the
study will be presented. The analysis of the data and the findings
of the study will be presented in Chapters IV, V, and VI. Chapter VII
includes the summary and major conclusions, contributions and

limitations, and recommendations of this study.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE AND THEORY

Introduction

 

The current study concentrates upon the general normative
academic climate of the elementary school, and its relationship with
both school mean socio-economic status (S.E.S.), and mean student achieve-
ment.

To accomplish this task, with the limited literature available
in the specific area of the relationship between elementary school
normative academic climate and achievement, the following format will
be employed. Section II reviews literature dealing with the close
relationship between S.E.S. and academic achievement. Literature
hypothesizing reasons for this relationship have been categorized into
three general areas; heredity, early socialization, and school academic
climate. Section III is a review of the theoretical foundations upon
which the current research is based, with symbolic interaction theory,
expectations, role theory, structural effects, and a social-psychological
theory of learning being outlined. Section IV reviews the existing
school climate literature related to colleges and secondary schools,
as well as elementary school academic climates. Finally, section V
reviews the current extent of our study findings on specific variables
of interest; expectations, norms, feelings of futility/improvability,
teacher satisfaction, and community-school integration.

14

15

Relationship Between S.E.S. and Achievement
There is substantial evidence leading to the conclusion that

a strong connection exists, in the United States, between the level of
educational achievement attained by students within a particular school,
and the socio-economic backgrounds of their families. An informative
indication of this relationship was exhibited by Sexton (1961), in her
study of the Detroit Public Schools. Using a sample of 285,000 students,
and 10,000 teachers in 300 schools, she found that elementary school
achievement scores (based upon fourth, sixth, and eighth grade Iowa
Test results) served to demonstrate the following about the Achievement-
S.E.S. correlation:

One: All schools above $7,0001 income are achieving above grade

level (with only one exception in the eighth grade). All schools
below $7,000 income are achieving below grade level.

Two: In general, achievement scores tend to go up as income levels
go up.
Three: In the fourth grade, group 1 (schools having a mean income
of $3,500) is achieving at almost one whole year below grade level.
At the same time, group 26 (schools having a mean income of $11.055)
is achieving at more than a year above grade level. Thus the
highest income group is achieving at a level two whole years above
the lowest income group. (p. 27).
The generality of these findings has been demonstrated by
Herriott and St. John (1966), by means of a comprehensive review of
the literature concerning the association between differential types
of education offered to students and the S.E.S. of student's family of
origin. The authors make it plain that a consistent correlation
exists between social class and academic achievement, with lower S.E.S.

students having both significantly lower levels of achievement and

significantly higher probabilities of becoming school dropouts.

 

1Mean income using revised census data

16

More recent studies of the S.E.S.-achievement relationship have
arrived at the same conclusions. Sewell and Shah (1967) conducted a
seven year longitudinal study of a group of high school seniors, and
found a strong relationship to exist between the S.E.S. of the student
and his plans to attend and subsequent graduation or plans to graduate
from college. Christopher Jencks (1968), in an article concerning
social stratification and higher education, suggests that S.E.S. is a
complex combination of three factors; money, environment, and motivation,
all of which interact to reduce the probability of lower S.E.S. students
attaining a college education.

In a study that must be regarded as one of the most significant
educational and sociological research endeavors of recent years, the
Equality of Educational Opportunity, by James Coleman et. a1. (1966),
the area of S.E.S. and achievement was cultivated in great depth. Using
the student scores on a verbal achievement test as a measure of
achievement, he concluded that much of the variation in achievement
among individual pupils, during their entire educational career,
resulted generally from family differences. Looking more closely,
they found that the family differences, for both black and white
students, most closely relating to achievement at the elementary
school level, were level of parental education and family income.

These two areas are generally considered to be, along with occupa-
tion, the major components of S.E.S.

That S.E.S. and achievement are highly interwoven was

neither a very new nor a very controversial finding. Other Coleman

findings, however, have significantly altered our understanding of

17

this relationship and have also been given an extremely mixed recep-
tion by educational researchers, as well as by school administrators
and teachers. By calculating and comparing the average verbal
achievement score of students within schools and between schools,
he concluded that, for the entire study, differences between schools
accounted for only 10-30% of the variance in individual achievement
for sixth graders, and 5-31% of the variance in individual achieve-
ment for students who survive to the twelfth grade. This small amount
of between school variance accounted for by such school factors as
physical facilities, materials, curriculum, and staff has led some
to the suggestion that further expenditure in time and/or in money
will not achieve desired outcomes, and should be stopped. Instead,
those who advocate this position call for a change in the social
class composition of the entire school, which Coleman found to be
more highly related to achievement, independent of the socio-economic
standing of the individual students family.
These findings lead to Coleman's major conclusion in the
area of the effects of schools upon achievement:
. . . schools bring little influence to bear on a childs
achievement that is independent of his background and general
social context; and that this very lack of an independent effect
means that the inequalities imposed on children by their home,
neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become
the inequalities with which they confront adult life at the end
of school. For equality of educational Opportunity through the
schools must imply a strong effect of schools that is independent
of the child's immediate social environment, and that strong
independent effect is not present in American schools. (1966, p. 325)
The Coleman data were re-analyzed by Mayeske (1969) using

the school, rather than the individual student, as a unit of analysis.

His findings, for the greater part, concur with those of the earlier

18

analysis and resulted with Mayeske's concluding that in school
achievement; (1) the influence of the school upon the student could
not be separated from the student's social class background;

(2) the common influence of the school together with student S.E.S.
were more important than either factor when taken alone; (3) schools
were able to exercise greater influence upon students who were higher
S.E.S., white or oriental, and those living with both parents;

(4) that racial isolation of personnel is a major factor; (5) the
S.E.S. of students tells more over time; and (6) schools achieving
well on one educational factor tend to achieve well on others.

Within the same general area of study, Alan B. Wilson (1969)
researched the effect of social class segregation upon achievement.
His subjects included 5,545 students in 11 junior and senior high
schools in Richmond, California. Several rather interesting findings
were derived, including one in which academic achievement in both
integrated and segregated schools was found to be significantly
affected by the social class composition of its students. The S.E.S.
of schoolmates appears to be even more important than the S.E.S.
of the student neighborhood peer group not attending the same school.

Attempts to arrive at the causal factors leading to the
S.E.S.-achievement correlation have been made by a large number of
researchers in sociology and education. This writer has classified
the existing research under three general headings. The first
heading is that of heredity, the genetic passing on of intelligence
from one generation to the next. Second are the inadequacies of
early socialization, with poor child rearing practices and/or the

absence of language and sensory stimulation in lower class homes,

19

along with conflict between lower and middle-class cultures, stressing
the irrelevancy of middle class education to lower class and/or

ethnic values and life styles. The third area, being the one of
greatest interest to this study, is the failure of predominantly lower
S.E.S. and/or predominantly minority schools to provide an educa-
tional climate conducive to high achievement. The first two cate-
gories will be discussed briefly in the remainder of this section,

and the third will be treated in greater depth in a later section

of this chapter.

Heredity

There is nothing new about a theory of genetically trans-
mitted intelligence. The nature-nurture controversy has a long
history with large numbers of advocates on each side, who conse-
quently look upon the hereditary transmission of intelligence
as either educational fact or fiction. Genetic mental deficiency
has long been applied to groups as well as to individuals as an
explanation of the poorer educational records of certain racial,
religious, ethnic and/or social groupings. Those who disagree
with the theory of genetic group intelligence look upon it as
merely an attempt by those in power to maintain the status quo.
This is demonstrated by Richard J. Light (1972) through the use of
two historic examples. This first example deals with the conclu-
sions of Karl Pearson, British statistician, who in 1925 stated that
on the average, Jewish immigrants were genetically inferior, both
physically and mentally to the native population. As a second

example, prior to 1960, the same thing was being said about

20

Catholics in the United States, and their ability to score high on
intelligence tests. He concludes by pointing out the inaccuracy

of these two beliefs, and how responsible a mistaken genetic explana-
tion might be for helping to create group differences on intelligence
measurements.

Most of the recent educational discussion concerning the
question of genetic intelligence has revolved around the writings of
Arthur Jensen (1969). The Jensen hypothesis is not a true genetic
theory, in that he believes intelligence can be divided into separate
components; heredity, environment, and the interaction of these two
areas. His point is that environment acts as a "threshold variable"
which under circumstances of extreme deprivation can hold a child
back. However, to change the environment can do no more than bring
academic ability up to the individuals genetic potential which is
the most important predictor of intelligence. Environmental factors,
Jensen contends, as measured by differences in socio-economic
status ". . . are not a major independent source of variance in
intelligence." (1969, p. 75) Finally, the article concluded that
the IIIdifference on standardized intelligence tests between black
and white Americans, as groups, is one standard deviation (15 IO
points) and that, to date, no evidence has been produced to show
that this gap in "intellectual ability" can be equalized ". . .
through statistical control of environment and education."

Quite understandably, the Jensen article has created great
controversy in both academic and social circles. Much of the

criticism was reviewed by Silberman (1970) who concluded that the

21

hypothesis of genetic intelligence, as develOped by Jensen, appears
to be the clearest statement of this theory published to date.
Because it has been conceded by Jensen that environment has a role
in intelligence development and that genetic factors take effect
only through interaction with the environment, it has been difficult,
according to Silberman, for his critics to refute this section of
the thesis. The problem, however, is that Jensen did not stop at
this point. He continued by attempting to measure the amountcrf
variation in intelligence accounted for by heredity and environment
(environment accounting for 20% of variance and heredity accounting
for 80%), and even further he attempted to assess social group
differences in genetic terms. This reviewer, in agreement with the
critics who argue that his evidence does not support his conclusion,
further argues that any attempt to assign intelligence differences
of genetic origin to social groups, is racist by its very nature.

Jensen's evidence of identical twins reared in different
homes, having similar IQ scores, and unrelated children reared in
the same homes, having much different scores on intelligence measure-
lnents adds credibility to his genetic argument. His study, however,
covers few children, all of whom were white, and mostly from
Eingland. From these data, his critics contend, a precise measure-
tnent of the effects of environment and heredity is not possible nor
<10 we know if different gene pools exist for blacks and whites,
vvith respect to IQ.

Gage (1972) reviewed data from identical twin studies,

'finding that the high correlation (.85) between IQ's of identical

22

twins reared apart stems from similarity of environment. As the
similarity of the environment decreased, so did the correlation,
with differences of 15 IQ points and greater not uncommon. This
can only be the result of environmental differences. Given the
deprived conditions of certain social groups,in particular most
black Americans, a mean difference for these groups of 15 10
points may not be terribly meaningful.

Sandra Scarr-Salapatek (1971) would also question the use-
fulness of social group comparisons on the basis of the analysis
conducted upon her study of 315 sets of black and 194 sets of white
twins. It is her contention that "heritability" is a function of
the population measured, and that the large proportion of relatively
disadvantaged blacks living within highly isolated conditions in
America, has resulted in less within group variation on intelligence
measurements and less meaningful between group comparisons.

Although the theory of hereditary-intelligence does have
its advocates, most modern researchers seriously question the validity
of the theory of the importance of the genetic variable when compared

\vith the environment and social circumstances. Many of those_
researchers who question the validity of genetic intelligence
iittempt to explain social class group achievement differences in
terms of early socialization practices, which are discussed

tzrjefly in the next section.

.Efiarly Socialization
A good deal of research has been devoted to the area of

I>re-school relationships between a child and his family. Many of

23

these studies have been concerned with similarities and differences
to be found in the socialization patterns of those persons who make
up various socio-economic strata. Bronfenbrenner (1958) conducted
a comprehensive review of the literature concerning child rearing
practices in the United States, from 1930 until the mid-1950's,
concluding that while there appears to be consistent patterns between
social classes in such matters as permissiveness in feeding, weaning,
and toilet training, that a definite reversal of positions has taken
place since World War II, with middle class mothers becoming much
more permissive than their working class counterparts. This most
persistent difference which was discernible between the classes over
the 25 year period studied was, according to Bronfenbrenner, that
a middle class child is “. . . expected to learn to take care of
himself earlier, to accept more reponsibility at home, and, above
all to progress further in school."

More recent studies have arrived at similar conclusions.
Boocock (1966) stated that socio-economic status is closely related
to a number of family background variables which are also closely
related to school performance. These variables include such things
as, values, aspirations, child rearing practices, family size, and
relationships between the family and the teacher. Rosen (1956)
reported three achievement-oriented values which are highly related
't01academic success; (1) preference for manipulation of, rather
‘than the acceptance of, environmental conditions, (2) an individual-
‘istic orientation, and (3) a preference for planning for the future

[and deferring gratification. Kohn (1969) reported that both working

24

class and middle class parents emphasize to their children those
qualities which are important to their own lives. As a result,
working-class parents tend to judge their children's behavior in
terms of their immediate consequences, placing great emphasis

on authority and external conformity. Middle-class parents appear
to be more concerned with motives and attitudes, rather than with a
particular act, and demand a great deal of "self-direction" to be
demonstrated by their children. These conclusions were, in part,
passed upon an earlier Kohn study (1959) where he compared the
child rearing practices of 200 white-collar and 200 blue-collar
workers, finding differences in their discipline practices with
blue-collar workers tending to dictate their desires to their
children, while white-collar parents appeared instead to attempt to
develop in their children a sense of internal control.

, The possibility of dissonance in the perceptions of edu-
cational goals between school personnel and parents, was researched
by Roberts (1971). He found in his study of 30 principals, 154
teachers, and 241 parents, that a serious imbalance existed in the
perceptions held between the three groups concerning the major
problems facing schools. The widest difference existed between
those views of the principal and those of parents. This raises
the question of how children who are brought into this confused
situation might react.

Gans (1962) also studied the question of differences in
educational values. He used as his subjects, the lower class

Italian immigrants and their schools in the West End of Boston.

25

He concluded that the inhabitants of the neighborhood perceived
differences between the type of education which would reinforce the
values of the group and those values which the public schools
attempted to instill in their children. West Enders desired a
"person" oriented education, teaching children the rules of adult
society and stressing discipline as being more advantageous to the
culture of the neighborhood, while the schools concentrated upon

an "object" oriented education, teaching aspirations and skills in
work and social relationships.

At the same time that parents of the West End realized the
need for education to ensure secure blue-or white-collar employment
for their children, they were fearful that it might also act to
estrange their children from their families. This created a
situation of ambivalence for the parents about the value of an
education which, in turn, helped create a lack of educational
motivation for the area children.

The effects of social class upon the verbal ability of
children has been studied by a number of researchers. Nesbit
(1961) reported that lower class children are likely to start
school with a verbal disadvantage resulting from fewer opportunities
‘to communicate with adults, possibly the result of large family
:size. Bernstein (1961) agreed that middle-class children have an
iadvantage in school because of exposure to "correct" verbal language.
lie also (1965) differentiated between what he refers to as "restricted"
Iand "elaborated" language forms. Elaborated language is concerned

vvith the relationship between objects which are logical, temporal,

26

and spatial. Those who use it have a larger vocabulary, especially
of adverbs and adjectives, and their grammatical structure is more
accurate. Restricted language, on the other hand, is one of sub-
jective observation rather than analytical observation. It is more
egocentric, and used by the speaker with less awareness of the
presence of his audience. Bernstein further claims that the type of
language used affects the cognitive structure of individuals and,
thus, their academic ability. It is, therefore, his hypothesis
that the difference in achievement patterns between classes is the
direct result of the language forms employed in the home. Morrison
and McIntyre (1971), however, point out that while this theory is
not inconsistent with much relevant available evidence, it is to
date unsupported by empirical data. It should also be mentioned
that Bernstein is an Englishman who did his research in Great
Britain, and did not look directly at the American class structure.
Thus, the effect of language patterns on values, behavior, or
academic achievement remains a question for research.

Dealing indirectly with S.E.S. much research has been
undertaken to determine the relationship between malnutrition and
Iachievement. Much of the work which used animals as subjects
(:oncluded that a strong negative relationship exists between mal-
r1utrition and ability to learn (Winick, 1969 and Crowley, 1968).

Additional studies using human subjects reinforce much of
‘the experimental findings in animals. The affects upon human
'learning resulting from malnutrition seem to be particularly

‘important during infancy (Winick, 1969) and in the first year of

27

of life (Stoch and Smythe, 1968: and Moncheberg, 1969). Malnutri-
tion appears to affect perception and impairs short term memory
(Klein and Gilbert, 1967) related to child performance on psycho-
logical tests (Cavioto, 1966) and also had a strong relationship
to several disorders of the nervous system of children.

In addition to the direct effects of malnutrition and
illness on learning there are many more indirect effects.

The malnourished child has been observed to be apathetic, irritable
and unresponsive to stimulation (Cravioto and Robles, 1965).

On the basis of the evidence thus far presented this
writer would conclude that many factors a child brings with him to
school appear to have great importance in the prediction of
academic success, and certain of these variables, such as the
instability of homes, larger families, feelings of hopelessness,
contradictory educational values, low parental expectations,
and malnutrition all appear to be associated with both student
social class, and academic success. It may, thus, be correct
to attribute varying practices of socialization as reason, in some
part, for the achievement differential between lower and higher
socio-economic children.

This, however, does not explain the inability of schools
‘to eliminate, or at least reduce, the achievement gap between
saroups of students. It also lacks explanation of why the gap
éictually becomes wider during the time spent in school. This
Eitudy will accordingly concentrate upon the relationship between

Situdent learning and school factors, in an attempt to help answer

28

some of these questions. During the remainder of the present chapter,
this writer will attempt to clarify the theoretical basis of this
research, discuss the historic development of the research on school
normative climate, and review the literature on the social-

psychological variables of current interest.

Theoretical Foundations

Undergirding the present study on school normative climate,
the major theoretical perspective is provided by George Herbert
Mead (1934) in the form of his theories on symbolic interaction.
Symbolic interaction is viewed, by the present researcher, as an
individual's using his perceptions of the evaluations, expectations,
and behavior of "others" as a basis upon which he forms beliefs,
attitudes, and values about himself and any particular situation or
set of situations with which he might come into contact. To the
extent that the individual regards the "other" in question as
"significant," he will tend to conform to his perception accordingly.

It becomes clearthat within our theoretical framework,
there are several important sub-theories with which we must deal;
‘two of these being, expectations and role theory. This writer will
cattempt, in this section, to summarize and clarify how these
(:onstructs have been and are presently being employed in questions
concerning school social-educational climate. The present theoret—
ical analysis is an expansion of the earlier work of David Johnson

(1970) who clearly articulated the literature of present interest.

29

Symbolic Interaction

 

George Herbert Mead (1934), generally referred to as the

father of symbolic interaction, attempted to describe the develop-

ment of the "self" as a phenomenon which:

. arises in conduct, when the individual becomes a social

object in experience to himself. This takes place when the
individual assumes that attitude or uses the gesture which
another individual would use and responds to it himself or tends
to respond . . . . The child gradually becomes a social being
in his own experience, and he acts toward himself in a manner
analogous to that in which he acts toward others.

The question of self-other relationship had earlier been

studied by Cooley (1902), who at that time developed the concept of

"the looking-glass self."

As we see our fact, figure, and dress in the glass, and are
interested in them because they are ours, and pleased or other-

wise with them. . . as in imagination we perceive in anothers

mind some thought of our appearance, manners, aims, deeds,

character, friends, and so on, and are variously affected by it.
p. 184 .

Using this base, Kinch (1963) attempted to formalize the

theory of symbolic interaction. Defining “self-concept" as the

organization of qualities which an individual attributes to himself,

Kinch proposed six basic propositions of symbolic interaction:

1.

The individual's self-concept is based on his perception
of the way others are responding to him.

The individual's self-concept functions to direct his behavior.

The individual's perception of the response of others toward
him reflects the actual responses of others toward him.

The way an individual perceives the response of others
toward him will reflect his behavior.

The actual response of others to the individual will determine
the way he sees himself (his self-concept).

The actual response of others toward the individual will
affect the behavior of the individual.

30

Johnson (1970) summarizes this formal theory with the

following statement:

The actual response of others to the individual will be important

in determining how the individual will perceive himself; this

perception will influence his self-conception which, in turn,

will guide his behavior.

Deutsch and Krauss (1965) as well as Deutch and Soloman

(1959) demonstrate that self-concept is not a unitary phenomenon,
but rather consists of "symbolic representations" a person possesses
of himself physically, mentally, ethically, socially, as well as
his concept of "self" as measured by his actions, memberships, and
possessions. Deutsch and Krauss (1965) also pointed out that the
various “self-concepts' should be internally consistent. In those
situations when an inconsistent element is introduced, Heider (1958)
theorized that, the overall attitude would be altered only if the new
information could not be either denied or ignored and then only
altered to the smallest degree possible under the particular circum-
stances. A constant struggle, thus, exists in order to maintain a
balanced relationship. It is the contention of Brown (1965) that an
individual change of attitude toward a balanced relationship will
emerge only when imbalance is a clearly recognizable phenomenon.
Thus, once again the question of perceived vs. actual relationship

continues to be an important theoretical issue. Some of the

research on this question will be discussed later in this chapter.

Expectations

 

Clearly under the heading of symbolic interaction and of

great importance to the present research, is expectation theory, and

31

the relationship between academic behavior and the student perceived
academic expectations held by "others" who may be significant to

his beliefs. Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) call this phenomenon a
"self-fulfilling prophecy" as coined by Merton (1957), and referred to
by Myrdal (1944), as the "theory of vicious cycle»" When SUCh
significant others as parents, school officials, teachers, and peers,
are perceived by the individual as viewing his failure as an imminent
reality, and he accepts those views, the chances are greatly enhanced
that failure will follow. If any "significant other" is perceived

by that individual, as having varying beliefs about the chances of
academic success, the prospects of failure become diminishable.

While the Rosenthal and Jacobson study itself (to be reviewed
later) is of great research and theoretical value, it appears
obvious, to this reviewer, that we are merely dealing with symbolic
interaction theory under another name. This theoretical perspective
better explains their findings.

Earlier researchers described the same general phenomenon.
Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) coined the term "Hawthorne Effect"
to explain why people who perceive that they have been singled out
for some special trait, soon exhibit the characteristics which they
perceive are being sought. Once again, this reviewer, would classify
the "Hawthorne Effect" as an important contribution to sociological
literature. It is, in actuality, another example of the significance
of perceived expectations, and theoretically based upon symbolic

interaction.

32

Expectation theory becomes extremely informative when we
discuss the complementary construct of "aspirations." Individuals
who experience consistent negative reinforcement within a particular
area will also develOp limited aspirations concerning their future
plans within the area of endeavor. For example, a student who is
expected by "others" to be a failure, and experiences some diffi-
culty early in his education, will rarely attain a “self-concept of
academic ability." His level of future educational aspiration will
remain quite low.

Certain societal positions can follow the same pattern.
Herriott (1963) points out that academic aspirations of boys are
different than those of girls, and aspirations of children from high
income families are different than those of children who come from
low income homes. As Gigliotti (1972) summarized, ". . . certain
aspirations may be out of the frame of legitimate reference for certain
types of people. . . .“

Gross, Mason, and McEachern (1958) have studied the question
of how certain aspirations are developed among groups of peOple,
from the perspective of role theory. Their basic thesis is that
individuals who hold certain social positions (for example, a low
S.E.S. student) will develop complementary identities, behaviors,
and aspirations on the basis of the perceived expectations of
"others." We will, therefore, next concentrate on a discussion of

role theory.

33

Role Theory,
Remaining within the symbolic interactionist tradition of
Cooley (1902) and Mead (1934), we find the construct of role theory.
Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey (1962) define role as:
The pattern of wants and goals, beliefs, feelings, attitudes,
values and actions which members of a community expect should
characterize the typical occupant of a position. Roles perscribe
the behaviors expected of people in standard situations. The
various roles of a group are interdependent. (p. 338)
Role behavior, according to these authors, like all other types of
social behaviors, is a product of the interaction between those
situational factors present, and such social-psychological factors

as . cognitions, wants, attitudes, and interpersonal response

traits of the individual . . . ." Sarbin (1954) also formulated a

role theory which largely stressed the blending of situational

and psychological factors governing the role behavior of individuals.
This synthesis of the human organism with the social environ-

ment as the creating agent of "self" as a cognitive structure,

appears according to Deutsch and Krauss to be employed more by role

theorists than by those of any other theoretical persuasions. Keeping

this characteristic in mind, they attempt to define the meaning

of role by stating at the outset that it is composed of three

operational definitions:

1. Prescribed role consists of the system of expectations which
surround the occupant of a position and his behavior toward
occupants of a complimentary position.

2. Subjective role consists of those particular expectations

the occupant of a position perceives as applicable to his

behavior when he interacts with the residents of some other
position.

34

3. Enacted role consists of a particular overt behavior of the
occupant of a position when he interacts with the occupant

of some other position.

The authors continue by pointing out that prescribed, subjective
and enacted roles actually depict the same underlying phenomenon and
are empirically closely correlated. They hypothesize that members of
a social system which is well-integrated would:
. . . correctly perceive the social norms that govern their
behavior: their subjective roles are similar to their prescribed
roles. Similarly, peoples' actual behavior tends to correspond
to what they believe is expected of them: the enacted roles and
the subjective roles coincide.

Again it clearly appears that the interplay between an
organism and its environment, referred to commonly as role theory,
has its roots deeply embedded within a symbolic interactionist frame
of reference and significantly contributes to the theoretical base of
the current study. This helps us to understand the attitudes and
behaviors of individuals in their relationship to their social system.
In turn, this helps greatly in our understanding of the functioning
of school social systems, with certain actors (students, teachers,
administrators, parents, etc.) playing roles, which are based upon

mutual expectations, complimentary to each other in the formulation

of a particular school learning environment.

Structural Effects

 

Many authors (Blau, 1960; Selvin and Hagstrom, 1963; Blau
and Scott, 1962; Blake and Davis, 1964) have discussed the concept
that groups establish accepted patterns of normative behavior,
beyond the attributes of individual members. Blake and Davis

(1964), in an attempt to clarify their position, state:

35

Human societies differ from animal societies in that the rules

of behavior differ from group to group. For insects and animals,
behavior tends to be nearly identicial, varying only with external
conditions.

In what has become the classic work for those wishing to
further study the possibility that individual behavior is influenced
by the group values and norms held within a social environment, Blau
(1960) refers to the phenomenon of "structural effects." This
argument contends that within any social or complex organization,
certain values and norms are generally accepted by groups as legiti-
mate, with negative sanctions being placed upon those whom the member-
ship perceives as having behaved in a deviant manner. In part, by
having the ability to exercise informal control over the membership,
the group is also better able to control the external environment
(Blau and Scott, 1962). This situation generally results in a
modification of the behavior and attitudes of the deviant member.

In any event, any individual group member is greatly affected by the
pre-existing norms and values of the "group climate."

The structural effect phenomenon was divided by Blau (1960)
into six distinguishable types:

1. Direct Structural Effect of Common Value
Conduct of an individual is motivated by his value system and
the social pressures from members of the group.

2. Inverse Structural Effects of Common Values

Group values precipitate normative constraints that counter-

act individual psychological reaction that are not commen-

surate with group values.
3. Contingency Effect of Common Values

Correlatibn’between indiVidual vaTue construct and a third
value is influenced by value configuration in the group.

36

4. Direct Structural Effects of Relational Network
Indivi cIuaTsT personaT relationships or social status is
separated from the abstract supportiveness or constraining
forces exerted by the organization in regards to interplay
between participant and subgroups in a collectivity.

5. Inverse Structural Effects of Relational Network
Status hierarchy or network in a group may be quite unlike
that of an individual social status or social relationships.
6. Contingency Effects of Rational Networks

Relationship of individual social position and another

variable depends on the distribution of social position or

relation in the collectivity.

Blau contends that "structural effects" can be both isolated
and examined. This can be accomplished by demonstrating the inde-
pendence of various group patterns from the values of various group
members, citing the following example:

If we should find that, regardless of whether or not an individual
has an authoritian disposition, he is more apt to discriminate
against minorities if he lives in a community where authoritarian
values prevail than if he lives in one where they do not, we
would have evidence that the social value exerts external
constraints upon the tendency to discriminate--structural effects

that are independent of the internalized value orientation of
individuals.

A Social-Psychological Theory of Learning

The four theoretical legs which have been presented; symbolic
interaction, expectations, role theory, and structural effects, are
the support undergirding the social-psychological theory of learning,
advanced by Brookover and Erickson (1969) which, in turn is the
theoretical base of the present study. This social-psychological
position is a social interactionist theory dealing with the method
by which individuals operating within various learning situations
and perceiving varying expectations from ”others“ toward their

actions, develop the "appropriate" behavior to their academic role

37

within their social system. The basic theory of "academic self" as
stated by Brookover and Gottlieb (1964) is as follows:

In this context, the self is the intervening variable between
the normative patterns of the social group or the role expec-
tations held by the significant others, on the one hand, and the
learning of the individual, on the other. We hypothesize that,
for the expectations of others to be functional in a particular
1ndividuals behavior, they must be interalized and become part of
the person's conception of himself. Although we recognize the
relevance of self in all aspects of human behavior, our interest
at this point is in a particular aspect of self as it functions
in the school learning situation. We postulate that the child
acquires, by taking the role of the other, a perception of his
ability as a learner of the various types of skills and subjects
which constitute the school curriculum. If the child perceives
that he is unable to learn mathematics or some other area of
behavior, this self-concept of his ability becomes the functionally
limiting factor of his school achievement. Functional limit

is the term used to emphasize that we are speaking not of
gneetic organic limits on learning but rather of those percep-
tions of what is appropirate, desirable, and possible for the
individual to learn. We postulate the latter as the limits that
actually Operate, within broader organic limits, in determining
the nature or extent of the particular behavior learned.

For the present research, this thoretical perspective has
been expanded in an attempt to assess the extent to which it consti-
tutes an effective base from which to analyze variations in school
normative learning climates. We shall presently study the manner and
extent to which these climates have a relationship to the mean
achievement of the student body beyond the effect of such external
variables as socio-economic status of the school population, racial

composition of the school, or if the community type is urban or rural.

School Climate Literature

 

One is faced with a lack of systematic, scientific analysis
in the literature, when attempting to review the topic of normative

academic school climate. There exists a large body of literature

38

whose main thrust, while not a specific analysis of school normative
climate, does certainly deal with the subject in an effective and
revealing manner. Examples of this type of literature range from
the analysis of the importance of certain prep school climates for
the maintenance of a "societal" elite, in the classic Mills (1956)

examination of The Power Elite; to the more recent popular works,

 

designed to cast light on the poor learning conditions present in
those schools whose student bodies are predOminantly black and poor,
Kozol (1967), Kahl (1967), and Stein (1971).

Academic interest in school social systems is by no means a
new phenomenon, with even so reknown a scholar as Talcott Parsons
(1959) theorizing on the classroom social system and discussing the
roles of parents, peers, and teachers and the relative importance of
value concensus among these groups for an increase in academic
achievement. Still, Boocock (1966) commented that the one area where
we find surprisingly little sociological research is in the study
of those social factors leading to learning, or the kind of teacher
and type of teaching which produce the best learning results.

Within the same articule, Boocock stressed her belief that it is
extremely difficult to measure the learning climate within any
given classroom, because of the confounded nature of the classroom in
the school. She concluded, however, that although the research
evidence was very sparse and generally limited to high school and
college situations, certain interesting findings were evident:

On the level of the whole school . . . the research evidence

indicates that certain types of environments, namely those in
which intellectualism and academic achievement are positively

39

valued, are productive Of learning. The trick here is tO under-
stand just what combination Of individual and system charac-
teristics produce various intellectual climates . . . .

Boocock's criticism Of school climate research appears to
be an accurate assessment Of much Of the literature on the topic.

We can find numerous examples (Wendel, 1970; Holland, 1969; Wallin,
1969) of education journal articles in which the author freely
advocates various types Of learning climates (democratic, free, Open,
etc.) with no empirical evidence presented that higher achievement
or any other outcome will result. It has also become clear, however,
that during the past decade ever increasing amounts Of research time
and energy have been devoted tO determining the effects of various
school climates on learning.

For the purposes Of the present review, we will concentrate
on that literature which directly purports to examine the connection
between school normative climates and various educational outcomes.
In this section we pay particular attention tO that literature which
characterizes the historic development Of the general topic Of school
climate. TO do this, we lOOk at three related, but separate areas of
research interest; (1) colleges and universities, (2) secondary
schools, and (3) elementary school environments. Research dealing

with the operationalization Of our specific variables Of interest

will be reviewed and discussed.

Colleges

A number Of studies have concentrated upon normative educa-
tional climates Of colleges and universities. Davis (1963) looked

at differences in the values held concerning intellectualism between

40

different types of colleges. Of 33,982 students at 135 colleges and
universities, he found that high quality, private, small institutions
have high proportions Of their senior students endorsing intellec-
tualism. At the same time, in lower quality, public, and larger
institutions this value is endorsed by lower proportions Of seniors.
In addition, he found technical schools tO score lower in student
expressed intellectual values. While the Davis study is interesting,
it does not attack the question Of whether students chose the particular
college for the intellectual climates which were present or if
existing intellectual climates developed the value patterns in those
students present within the environment. Basing their research upon
a theory advocated by Murray (1938) in which he explains the outcomes
Of the relationship between an individuals internalized personality
traits and environmental pressure in terms Of “needs" and "wants,"
Pace (1964) and Stern (1964) developed three instruments used to
measure these constructs within college environments. The first
instrument, the Activity Index (AI), contains a group Of 30, 10

item scales used to measure such student characteristics as dominance,
nurturance, and achievement. The second instrument, the College
Characteristics Index (CCI) is a measure of environmental press,

and contains parallel scales to those found in the Al. The third
instrument developed by Pace and Stern to measure the "need-want"
relationship is the College Characteristics Analysis (CCA) used to
analyze particular academic and student sub-cultures, in terms Of

both program Objectives and environmental factors.

41

Through use of these instruments, Pace and Stern (1958)
concluded that colleges tended to fOllow several basic patterns:
1. Intellectual-Humanism
2. Intellectual-Scientific

3. Practical and applied Humanities and Scientific emphasis,
(practical-status)

4. Individual responsibility to fellow students and society,
(group welfare).

5. Rebellion against conservatism, (rebellion).
Stern (1964) concludes his review Of studies employing the "need-
press" scales, by stating that colleges do differ systematically in
both the type of student attracted and the experiences which were
allowed those students who actually attended the colleges. It was
further concluded that entering freshmen, in general, did not have a
knowledge Of the true academic climate, but rather possessed a
stereotypic view Of colleges, combining the academic characteristics
Of elite liberal arts schools with the community spirit and orderliness
found in church run schools.

Along the same general line Of inquiry, but with somewhat
different results, Chickering (1966, and 1967) conducted a four year
study Of 13 small colleges (population of students under 1500) in an
attempt to f1nd any pattern Of influence by college variables
(curriculum, religious orientation and emphasis, supervision Of
students, as well as institutional Objectives), over such student
value systems as; atheism-agnosticism, developmental status,
estheticism, theoretical orientation, originality, and liberalism.
He concluded that students tend tO attend those colleges which are

most compatible to their personalities.

42

While Chickering may have accurately assessed the relationship
between personality and college type with his small sample, it was a
group of studies conducted at Bennington College by Newcomb and
Flacks (1964), that attempted to find patterns Of behavior for those
students who were deviates from the norm. Using, among other measures,
the Omnibus Personality Inventory (the same instrument as used by
Chickering, 1966), they assessed the prevailing norms within the
college environment and were able to isolate two possible types Of
deviant student behavior; (1) Collegiate - consisting Of those
deviant students who are involved in the college peer structure and
belonging to identifiable sub-groups, and (2) Noncollegiate - membership
including those deviant students who neither hold the norms of the
institution nor belong to any identifiable sub-group. They found

that those students who were classified as "Collegiate,' were clearly
identified as deviant, had more friends within the college environment,
were less inclined tO ever accept institutional norms, and were more

inclined to stay in school than were the "non-collegiates, who having
no "others" in the college community who were significant to them,
tended either to move in the direction Of the institutional norms or
to drOp out of school.

0n the basis Of such evidence concerning student subcultures
as those previously reviewed, Clark and Trow (1966) devised an
extremely informative taxonomy Of college student group environments.
This is based upon two major factors; (1) the extent to which the

student identifies with the school, and (2) the extent to which the

students are concerned with ideas. From these, four sub-cultures

43

emerge; (l) the Academic group who strongly identify with the college,
usually through the faculty, and are involved with ideas, (2) the
Collegiate group who also identify with the college, however, usually
through such sub-cultures as fraternities and athletic teams,
remaining uninvolved with ideas, (3) the Non-Confonnist group,
composed Of those students who are highly involved with ideas, but
not identifying with the college itself, and finally (4) the Voca-
tional group which identifies neither with the college nor does it
involve itself with ideas.

Skager (1966) attempted to relate changes in student self
ratings on such dimensions as; scholarship, expressiveness, practical-
mindedness, popularity, sensitivity to the needs of others, and
academic self-confidence to the environments Of the schools which
they were attending. He concluded, on the basis Of his research,
that change found in students due to college experiences is highly
related to both environmental and institutional characteristics.

Looking directly at the question Of the effects upon student
achievement of college normative climate, Austin (1965, and 1967)
reported, in his study Of 254,480 students at 307 colleges and
universities, that he was able to identify 36 environmental variables.
He was able to group them into four categories including; classroom
environment, physical environment, peer environment, and adminis-
trative environment. Of these variables studied, he found 21 to have
a significant relationship to college attrition, and he suggested
that;

Students are more likely to complete four years if they attend
colleges where students peer relationships are characterized by

44

friendliness, cooperativeness, and independence, where the students

frequently participate in college activities, where there is a

high level Of personal involvement with and a concern for the

individual student and where the administrative policies con-

cerning student aggression are relatively permissive. (Austin,

1967, p. ii). ~

The college studies reviewed are of both great interest as
well as significance in contributing to our knowledge Of student
sub-cultures, school normative climate differences, and educational
outcomes. We find, however, that some basic questions remain
unanswered by these studies. Any cause-affect relationship between
academic climate and student personality is inconclusive. The research
makes it appear likely that it is an interaction between the two which
is affecting educational outcomes, but the extent of this interaction
is not known and given. Furthermore, given the advanced age and wide
range Of experiences held within these samples Of students, we are
unlikely to come to any specific conclusions by concentrating on
colleges and universities. I
The use Of college subjects is misleading in other ways.

Not only is the generalizability Of our results greatly limited, but
by studying higher education, we are dealing, for the most part, with
a population Of students who have chosen, or whose parents have chosen
to be part Of their particular school environment, thus confounding
any results which have been Obtained. This writer asserts that
results are further confounded by the nature Of variables, to the
extent that parents Of elementary school children select a residential

neighborhood with consideration to its specific school. Finding

research on colleges to be both interesting and necessary, it appears

45

to insufficiently warrant any conclusions about the effects Of school

academic or social climates upon our sample Of students.

Secondary Schools

 

When one is reporting the literature which concerns itself
with secondary school normative climates, it seems fairly apparent
that the place tO begin is with the research by Coleman (1961) in
his classic study Of the adolescent sub-cultures in ten northern
Illinois high schools. He concluded that similarities within value
patterns did exist, but that individual schools had climates which
were to some extent unique. Specifically, Coleman found that pro-
ficiency in athletics was considered an important attribute for boys,
no matter where the school was located, as was social success for
girls. Academic achievement, on the other hand, might either be
rewarded or punished by the peer subculture, depending upon
the specific environment. Punishment would result in those cases
where the academic expectations for students were low and the students
themselves perceived that higher achievement by a few would result in
greater expectations being placed upon the rest. In schools where
achievement was highly valued, the "elite" received higher grades.

It was Coleman's contention that once the adolescent "society" was
known and understood, it could also be controlled, the resulting
outcome being higher achievement.

Several other studies have dealt with secondary school
academic climates and concluded that they have a significant effect

upon the educational achievement Of students. Among these studies

46

were those Of; Walberg (1968), Wilson (1969), Goff (1969), Jones
(1971), and Rousseau (1971). Of great importance to the present
research, McDill, Meyers, and Rigsby (1967) studied a non-random
sample Of 20 high schools, which included 20,345 students and 1,029
teachers, in an attempt to isolate and explain the relationship
between various normative high school climates and achievement
patterns. Using standardized aptitude and achievement tests, supplied
by Project Talent and using schools from varying social and regional
types, they hoped to find the contribution to achievement Of normative
climate beyond effect of the sociO-economic composition of the
student body.
By factor analyzing 39 school characteristic variables,
from students and teachers, McDill, et. al., were able to interpret
six factors of school climate:
1. Academic Emulation-Climate valuing academic excellence.
2. Student Perception Of Intellectualism-Estheticism-----
Climate stressing an intrinsic value on the acquisition Of

knowledge.

3. Cohesive and Egalitarian Estheticism----The extent to which
academic excellence is a criterion for status.

4. Scientism ----- Climate with a scientific emphasis
5. Humanistic Excellence----Climate press toward creation and
maintenance of student interest in art, humanities, social
science, and current social issues.
6. Academically Oriented Student Status System----
Student Bodies socially reward Intellectualism and Academic
performance.
Their results indicated that when S.E.S. composition and intelligence
are controlled, the climate effect still maintains some explanatory

power in which academic composition, achievement, intellectualism,

47

and subject matter competence are demonstrated and emphasized by
faculty and other students. Students entering a school environment
will tend to adopt these scholastic norms and will have higher
achievement scores. They also concluded that sociO-economic status
does serve as an adequate indicator of a normative climate in those
schools which are either very low or very high on the S.E.S.
continuum. However, S.E.S. is a very poor indicator of climate for
those schools which are not at the continuum's extremes.

We thus find that those researchers studying secondary
school environments, as well as those who concentrated upon colleges
and universities, have found the existence Of clearly definable
normative climates within the sub-cultures of schools studied. It is
in the case Of secondary schools, however, that we are more clearly
able to see that the climate also had an impact upon achievement
beyond those pertaining only to the student as an individual. We,
therefore, move on to the literature concerned with elementary school
social climates, in order to see if this concept can be expanded and

our knowledge significantly increased.

Elementary Schools

 

One of the most neglected areas Of research for sociology
Of education has been the study Of normative academic climates
within elementary schools. Until quite recently, those attempting
to comprehensively review the literature on the effects of elementary
school climates upon learning, have been unsuccessful (see Boocock
1966, and Johnson 1970). The current study is, therefore, an

attempt to rectify this situation.

48

There have been a few attempts by researchers to study
certain aspects Of elementary climate within the past few years.

An earlier attempt by Halpin and Croft (1962) to devise a method of
researching school climates, refined their instrument, the
Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ), for an
elementary school population, an instrument Often employed to study
secondary school climates. The idea behind the scale's design is
that organizational climates are similar to the personalities Of
individuals. Just as individuals can have "Open" or "closed"
personalities, so to can schools. The OCDQ which is administered to
school personnel and not to students, contains two groups of scales,
one to find the degree Of disengagement, hindrance, espirit, or
intimacy demonstrated by the staff, and others to measure the degree
to which the leader demonstrates alOOfness, production emphasis,
trust, and consideration. From this, schools can then be placed
upon a six step continuum,from "Open," characterized by the member-
ship demonstrating Openness and concern for one another, to "closed"
in which members feel no group commitment and are unwilling to exhibit
Openness with other group members.

While the Halpin and Croft technique is not completely suited
tO the thrust Of the present investigation, it is still of great
interest to those who study school climate. Researchers have Often
used the OCDQ to characterize staff climates with some (see Fascetti,
1971) reporting that elementary schools, in general, have more
"Open" climates than do secondary organizations.

Others have looked at differences between types Of schools

(Davis, 1969), finding significant differences on the OCDQ between

49

predominantly black and predominantly white high achieving schools.
Kenney and Rentz (1970) attempted to replicate the Halpin and Croft
procedure on an urgan sample, finding that different factors had
emerged. These were; (1) Principal as authority figure, (2) Teacher
qua Teacher, (3) Non-classroom teacher satisfaction, and (4) Work
conditions. They concluded that it was impossible to separate the
internal classroom climate from the environment external to the
immediate classroom, which affect urban teacher perception of their
schools. It is quite evident that much more research must be
conducted, with special emphasis upon the effects Of the "open-closed"
continuum upon school achievement, before we can make any conclusive
statements in this area.
Of greater interest to the present analysis is a study by

Sinclair (1970), of 12,000 students from 100 elementary schools.
By using factor analysis, he was able to articulare five school
climate dimensions which, using Pace's terminology, were named;
Practicality, Community, Awareness, Propriety, and Scholarship.
Looking at schools, it was found that they tended to cluster around
such categories as:

1. Practicality-Schools that are scholarly, yet rebellious

2. Practicality-Schools that are scholarly, warm, and accepting
with a higher score on politeness

3. Schools characterized by emphasis on student conformity and
politeness.

4. Schools which are academically rigorous and have little
concern for practicality.

5. Schools low on Scholarship and Practicality

6. Rebellious schools which are also low on awareness

7. Schools which are cold and rebellious, somewhat like jails.

50

A follow-up study conducted by Sadker and Sinclair (1972)
identified the emergence Of six very interesting new factors. These
new factors were named; Alienation, Humanism, Autonomy, Morale,
Opportunism, and Resources. 4

We have thus far established that in the question of why
certain schools are more academically successful than are others is
a highly complex problem, containing many factors which must be
considered. First we reviewed some Of the large amounts Of evidence
showing a close relationship between achievement and the mean
sociO-economic status Of the school student body. Sociological,
psychological, and educational researchers have attempted to explain
these differences in several ways, three of which were reviewed in
this chapter; a genetic theory Of intelligence, inadequacies Of early
socialization along with a confrontation of values between the home
and the school and, finally, a third body Of research has begun to
suggest that normative educational climate may be an important causal
factor in learning.

This current research endeavor is an attempt tO look more
closely at the question Of an existing relationship between school
climate and achievement within elementary school organizatons. The
theoretical perspective, previously stated, places us within a
framework of the social-psychological theory Of learning, based upon
symbolic interaction, role theory, and environmental structural
effects. Our review of the current state Of school climate litera-
ture has proven research tO be spare, with the greatest concentration

being placed upon college and secondary school environments. The

51

remainder of this chapter will be devoted to a presentation Of the
specific variables of interest which were used in conducting this

research .

Variables Of Interest

 

Although there are 13 primary attitudinal variables (to be
discussed in Chapter III), upon which this study and our conception
Of school climate is based, they are merely refinements Of five
basic social-psychological constructs. These five basic variables
are; (A) evaluations-expectations within the social system, (B)
academic norms within the social system, (c) feelings of futility/
improvability within the social system, (D) teacher satisfaction, and

(E) sense Of community involvement within the school.

Evaluations-Expectations

 

One of the most important aspects Of the present research
lies in the study of the effects of the evaluations and expectations
Of various significant individuals and groups within the school
environment. Specifically this is an attempt tO significantly
increase our understanding of school climate and its relationship
to achievement by studying the present and future evaluations
and expectations Of; (l) the student perception Of his peers,

(2) the student perception Of his parents, (3) those perceived

by the teachers as being held by members Of the school social

system as well as their actual evaluation-expectations Of students, and
(4) those perceived by the principal as being held by members Of

the school social system as well as his actual evaluations-expectations

52

Of students. A somewhat different yet highly interwoven concept,
placed under the heading Of students expectations, is the reported

present and future self—concept of academic ability.

Perceived Peer Evaluations and Expectations

 

There has been a good deal Of research concerned with peer
group influence upon individual students. Johnson (1970) cites the
comprehensive review Of the literature pertaining to college student
peer group relationships, undertaken by Freedman (1967), who concluded
that students influence over fellow students appeared to have greater
impact than any other school influence, and the predominant student
sub-culture transmitted academic goals from one generation to the
next.

The importance of peers is maintained by many. Parsons
(1959) pointed out that peers function as an important compensatory
source Of non-adult acceptance and approval. Coleman (1961), in a
high school study, demonstrated that values concerning such school-
related functions as academics, athletics, cars, and dating were all
profoundly affected by the peer sub-culture. Coleman et. al. (1966)
and Wilson (1969) showed that such factors as social class status,
educational background, and the aspiration level Of the student
majority, have a strong association with increased achievement for
disadvantaged minority students. This has led some (see Johnson,
1970) to speculate that peer influence might be an adequate sub-
stitute for thoseiamilies that do not stress a great emphasis upon

educational achievement.

53

Other studies have cautioned that we must use care in general-
izing about the effects Of peer groups upon student populations.
SeashOre (1954), studying an industrial situation, concluded that
group cohesiveness is an important variable in understanding peer
pressure upon levels Of production. Schmuck (1966), studying
schools, showed that the structure Of the group, diffuse or hier-
archical, had bearing upon students perceptions and acceptance of

each other, as well as the group desire for academic achievement.

Perceived Parental Evaluations and Expectations

 

The amount of parental influence over students and the sig-
nificance Of their evaluations and expectations upon student academic
achievement, has been studied by a number Of researchers, producing
some conflicting evidence. Coleman (1961) contended that we have
seen the formation Of an adolescent sub-society, separate and Often
conflicting with that Of the adult members of the community. This
would thus negate some Of the significance that parents had over
student lives.

It appears, when one looks at academic achievement apart from
other student desires, that parents possibly exert greater influence.
This, at least, is concluded in much of the current research,
Erickson (1967) looked at this question as part Of the analysis Of
Brookover's et. al. (1967) larger study of self-concept of academic
ability. On the basis Of Erickson's analysis of 942 students from
3 urban high schools; (1) parental concern over student achievement
was greater than that Of friends, (2) this applied to both males and

females, (3) parents were perceived to hold higher expectations,

54

(4) parents were also perceived to place greater importance on the
beliefs concerning their childs achievement than did friends, and

(5) parents were perceived to hold students under greater surveillance
than were friends. The author concluded that this study lent strong
evidence to the view that although peers are important "significant
others" in many respects, including academic achievement, parental
evaluations and expectations concerning achievement appeared to be at
least as important as those Of the student peer group.

Lending support to the Erickson study, Thomas (1969), concerned
with academic achievement for deaf students, reported that the counseling
Of parents about their children's work tended tO raise both the student
self-concept Of academic ability as well as actual achievement. Also
concluding that parents are still extremely important "significant
others" to students in the area Of achievement,is the more recent
research by Coleman et. a1. (1966), studying equal educational oppor-

tunity.

Perceived and Actual Teacher Evaluations and Expectations

As stated earlier, much Of the early research in the area Of
expectations and learning is attributable tO the work Of Robert
Rosenthal, both in his study of animals (1966) as well as his highly
important collaborative study (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968), on
elementary schOOl achievement. In order to conduct these studies,
naive subjects were told in random groups that certain subjects were

either more intelligent or were about to make an educational Spurt.

55

Laboratory technicians dealt with rats, and teachers dealt with students:
in the case Of both rats and students, those predicted higher achievers
gained significantly more in achievement than did the control group.
In the case Of the students, this jump in achievement was much more
pronounced in the earlier grades.

Thus, the Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) study lends credence
to the hypothesis that expectations have a symbiotic relationship with
achievement (input result feedback input). Finn (1972), however, points
out that this study has been attacked by a number Of other researchers
as being methodologically incorrect (Snow, 1969); overinterpreted
(Elashoff and Snow, 1971); and inadequate at identifying the teacher
behavior that produces high and low achieving results (Thorndike,
1968). There have also been a number Of attempts at replication Of
the earlier findings which have failed (Jose and Cody, 1971; Fleming
and Anttonen, 1971; Claiborn, 1969; and Rubovits anthaehr, 1971).

Other researchers, after reanalyzing the Rosenthal and
Jacobson data, have concluded that the original conclusions were
adequately reinforced (Gumpert, and Gumpert, 1968). Still others
contend that teacher expectations are an important variable to student
achievement, for both pre-school children (Breez, 1967) and Air
Force trainees (Schrank, 1968). These conflicting findings are, in
part, the result Of the great difficulty which researchers face when
they attempt replications. The studies can never be exactly the same,
as knowledge Of the expectation phenomenon has become so widespread
within educational circles,that contamination of subjects is almost

impossible to control. Finn (1972) has suggested that the reported

56

inability to achieve significant differences through the experimental
manipulation Of subjects, may be accounted for by the inability Of the
experimenter to make his predictions believable to the subject. A
remarkable factor involved in the Rosenthal and Jacobson experiment
might actually be that teachers accepted the experimenters as their
”significant others."

What is safe to presume is that teachers have varying
teaching styles which closely correlate with their beliefs about the
achievement ability of the students in their classes, a phenomenon
which has been Observed by a number of researchers (Brophy and Good,
1970; Silberman, 1969; and Rothbart, Dalfen, and Barrett, 1971). This
results in the high probability that certain learning activities and
results will take place hathe exclusion of others, the result being
differential achievement (see Gigliotti, 1972), or at least, in teachers
reacting to the responses of different students in different ways
depending upon their differing expectations (see Cornbleth, Davis, and
Button, 1972; or Finn, 1972). When these expectations and the
accompanying teacher behavior are based upon some social stratification
groupings, as race or sociO-economic status, we find ourselves in the
position that Brookover and Erickson (1969) describe, as expectations
leading to discrimination (probably through some type Of tracking).
This situation will become increasingly stronger during the years the
student remains in school, thus molding a life pattern most difficult

to significantly alter.

57

That teacher expectations are the result of beliefs about student
S.E.S. and/or race, is confirmed both by Howe (1970) and by Rist (1970).
Howe studied 255 teachers of differing races and social classes from
middle-class white schools, lower—class white schools, and lower-class
black schools. He concluded that teacher age or race made little
difference in their belief that middle-class white students had more
ability than lower-class white students, and that lower-class white
students had more ability than lower-class black students, especially in
reading and math.

The Rist study attempted to answer the question of how and why
teachers form expectations about students. Data for this analysis
were based upon a three year period Of observation Of a single group
of students (K-2), in a school in which both the entire student body
and the entire teaching staff was black. This study demonstrates that
during these early school years teacher expectations Of "fast" and
"Slow" learners are not based upon any Objective criteria. such as
intelligence tests, but rather upon such subjective “middle-class”
characteristics as neatness in appearance, overt signs Of interest,
necessity for adult interaction, and display Of leadership in the
class. Those groups Of students whom teachers believed to be "slow”
learners were characterized as, dirty, smelling Of urine, or speaking
in a dialect unfamiliar to that Of the teacher or the other students
who were considered "fast.”

Perceived and Actual Principal Evaluations
and Expectations

 

 

This reviewer was unable to find any research specifically

studying the relationship between expectation patterns Of principals

58

and the achievement Of the students in their-schools. We do, however,
have information about the role and position Of principals, which gives
us a better understanding about their relationship to the rest Of

the school environment. While principals do not appear to be "sig-
nificant others" to the students in the school (see Brookover et. a1
1967), it has been demonstrated in a number Of studies dealing with
such school matters as innovation in education (see Eichholz and
Rogers, 1964; Helfiker, 1969; and Mahan, 1970), that they are
”significant" to the teaching staff. Thus, if principal expectations
do 1nf1uence achievement, it appears that they may do so through as

mediating forces.

Self-Concept of Academic Ability

 

Expectations are not a direct determinant of an individual's
academic achievement. First, the individual student must accurately
perceive, accept, and internalize expectations held by this
"significant others” concerning his ability. While there appears to
be no evidence Of what contributes "significant" characteristics to
"others” (see Webster, 1969), research demonstrates that these persons
can be identified by the subject. Within the area Of school achieve-
ment, Brookover and his associates (1962, 1965, and 1957) have
identified a student's "significant others" as those individuals
occupying the roles of either parent, peer, or teacher. Once the
student has finished the process Of internalizing the expectations of
his "significant others" and has a view of his own relationship to
his academic environment, he has then formed his self-concept Of

academic ability (SCA).

59

The conception Of SCA as well as the scale used in this
research endeavor are modifications Of the self-concept studies by
Brookover. SCA, as used in this study, is a ”threshold concept"
to set a limit on attempted learning. While high self-concept
of academic ability will not guarantee academic success, a low SCA
will account for a large proportion Of academic failure. In justi-
fication Of this theory, Brookover, et. a1. (1967) found a correlation
was found between SCA and actual achievement to be from .48 to .63
and when measured intelligence and sociO-economic status were
partialed out, the relationship between achievement and self-concept
was not affected.

Johnson (1970) cites many other correlational studies that
verify SCA and actual achievement are related; Bodwin (1957),

Shaw (1961), Shaw and Alvis (1963), and Bledsoe (1964). There have
also been some studies showing white students to have higher SCA's
than black students (see Morse, 1963), also that SCA is an extremely
high correlate Of achievement for both northern and southern black
students (see Epps, 1969). A large amount of recent research
evidence, however, including Soares and Soares (1969), Zirkel and
Moses (1971), and Rosenberg and Simmons (1971) have concluded that
black students SCA is not only higher than originally believed, but

may potentially be higher than that Of white students.

Academic Norms Within the Social System

 

As in the case of expectations, "norms" are the product of a

number of variables having a relationship with school climate. These

60

variables are; (1) academic norms, (2) teacher and student press for
individual competition along with the closely related phenomenon

of teacher push, and (3) importance Of the student role.

Academic Norms

 

Norms are present within the social system when there is common
sanctioned agreement about expected behavior. Johnson (1970) cites
Thibaut and Kelley's (1959) description of norms as being observable
in three ways; (1) by regularity of behavior, (2) by group restoration
Of disturbed regularity by first appealing to the norm, or secondly by
exercising the group power as enforcer of the norm, and (3) a person
who regularly deviates from the norm will feel an obligation to conform
through feelings Of both inner conflict and guilt about his behavior.

That norms are powerful determinants of group behavior, has
been demonstrated by a number Of researchers (see Sherif, 1936,
Festinger, 1950, and Ashe, 1952). That norms either encouraging or
discouraging academic performance have a strong effect upon group
achievement, has also been the conclusion of a number Of studies.
McDill, Meyers and Rigsby (1967) found that of the six factors
which constituted their conception of "school climate" the academic
norms factor ("academic emulation") by itself accounted for twice
the explanatory power of S.E.S. when looking at achievement (see also
Meyers and Rigsby, 1972). Coleman (1961) demonstrated the manner in
which the negative academic norms among peers serve to work against
the official policy of the school environment. Wilson (1969) also

discussed the relationship between norms and achievement, attempting

61

to show how social class segregation helps in the creation of a

normative environment encouraging the spread of delinquent behavior.
Existing evidence points to academic norms as a powerful achieve-

ment variable. This research work attempts to test this theory in

elementary schools, as well as to further knowledge Of the manner

in which norms actually operate in a school situation.

Press for Individual Competition and Push

 

There is not an overwhelming amount Of research evidence
comparing academic performance in cooperative and competitive situa-
tions. It appears clear, however, from that research which is
currently available, that in group climate of the two different
conditions, cooperation creates a more pleasant environment.

Deutsch (1962) theorized that when a learning environment is
cooperative, the goals of individuals are so linked that they
reinforce each other, creating a high correlation between the goal
attainment of group members. The outcome of this situation leads to
higher group achievement.

Research concluding that a cooperative climate is more
advantageous to group situations, was conducted upon cOllege students
by Deutsch (1949), and Haines and McKeachie (1967). While neither
study was able to show that a COOperative learning situation had a
significant impact upon academic achievement, they did find that
cooperation produced friendlier discussion groups, the memberships
Of which were more satisfying, less anxious, less self-oriented, more

respectful of others, and displayed more apparent security.

62

Johnson (1970) cites conflicting evidence concerning COOpera-
tion and achievement through Gurnee's (1968) findings that maze
learning was significantly greater under instructions to cooperate
and Julian and Perry's (1967) findings that group members were more
motivated and productive under certain degrees of competition. The
short duration of the Julian and Perry study (two hours), however,
makes it unfair to generalize to cooperative groups where members
know one another.

In cooperative situations, individuals have been found to
imitate others in the group (see O'Connell, 1965). This would
appear to be important to achievement and to grouping practices
found within schools. Sexton (1961) attributes the success Soviet
education entertains at producing higher achievement might be
the result of using group cooperation rather than competition. Still,
we must significantly increase our knowledge in the area Of
cooperative-competitive environments if we are to increase our knowledge
of how students learn.

This conflicting evidence may, in part, be explained by the
findings Of French, Israel, and As (1960) in their attempted
replication of the original Coch and French (1948) study, which had
concluded that members involved in group democratic participation
are more readily inclined to accept new group goals. The later
study found that positive and negative attitudes of workers directly
related to their own perceived legitimacy of involvement. Therefore,
it is possible that achievement under conditions of cooperation and
competition might be related, to the extent that students believe it

15 . . . right and proper to engage in the decision making process."

63

Importance of Student Role

 

This variable was based on the concept that an individual who
had experience previous success, would continue his efforts as a
means of self-esteem maintenance. This development Of "self" role
variable is, Of course, tightly interwoven with both the expec—
tations held by his “significant others" and the norms present
within his environment.

The original construct was developed by Brookover et. a1.
(1965) as part Of the longitudinal study of self-concept of academic
ability. It was modified and placed into its present form by Gigliotti
(1969, 1972) during the preliminary phase Of the present research.
Although this variable has not been the subject of extensive investiga-
tion, there is indication that the importance Of student role identity

is positively associated with the level of school achievement.

Feelings of Futility/Improvability

 

The basis Of this school climate variable stems from the widely
accepted variable employed by Colemen et. a1. (1969) which has been
referred to as "sense of control." The Equal Educational Opportunity
study found that "sense of control” was an extremely important predictor
Of academic achievement, especially when the school was populated by
members Of minority groups.

A relationship between "sense Of control'I and social class
was also found by Wilson (1969). He reported that middle-class
students had both a higher "sense of control" and achieved higher

than did students who had low sociO-economic status. Heath (1970)

64

studied the expressed "sense of control" of black and white, junior
and senior high school students, finding that white students had a
significantly higher "sense of control" over their environment.

The concept of "sense Of control" stems, in part from the
work of Battle and Rotter (1963) who found that lower socio-economic
children saw themselves as more externally controlled and less
capable Of determining their own destiny than did higher S.E.S.
children. Similar findings were reported by Haggstrom (1964) and
Clark (1965), that in conditions of poverty, minority group status may
produce feelings of powerlessness and futility.

Feelings Of futility/improvability are an extremely important
variable to the present study. While knowledge Of the effects of
frustration upon such social-psychological constructs as self-esteem
is not new (see Lewin, 1944), we are only beginning to understand its

important relationship to achievement.

Teacher Satisfaction

 

As Opposed as they were in other respects, both organizational
theories, the Scientific Management and the Human Relations approach to
management, assumed that the most satisfying organization would also
be the most efficient (see Etzioni, 1964). When teachers belonging to
educational organizations are dissatisfied, have low morale and high
feelings of alienation, we can assume that they may react in a number
of ways that are sounterproductive to the academic success Of their
students. These reactions can become apparent in such forms as,

placing blame on the students (see Ryan, 197 , or Brown, 1965),

65

searching for alternate sources of satisfaction (Handler and Watson,
1966), or becoming more excited and disorganized (Handler and Watson,
1966). Thus, it would appear likely that a positive relationship
exists between teachers feelings Of satisfaction and the academic
achievement of students.

The research in this area seems to justify these conclusions.
Several studies have concluded that teachers are more satisfied in
high achieving environments. Anderson (1953) reported that pupil
achievement is related to teacher morale. Herriott and St. John (1966)
also found that teacher dissatisfaction with the "sub-standard academic
performance” of their pupils, is a fattor in the desire to resign from
teaching. With the evidence of others who assert that teacher dissat-
isfiction is so widespread a phenomenon (see Mason, Dressel, and Bain,
1959), this writer suggests that achievement can be no more than one

Of a number of determining variables.

Community_Integration into the School Environment

 

There has been a vast amount of literature, in recent years,
discussing the positions for and against community involvement in
schools, most of which is polemical rather than empirical in nature.

It is a response to the poor educational conditions and consequent

lack of achievement found in low sociO-economic and/or minority schools
(see Hamilton, 1968; Berube and Gittle, 1968; Levin, 1970). Under-
girding this literature is the concept that the time has come for

schools to adapt to the needs of their local community rather-than

66

the community to meet the needs of the schools (Katz, 1971). This
implies the presence of a value confrontation between school and community,
with students placed in the center of conflict, thus seriously and
negatively affecting the school academic climate (see Gans, 1962).

Systematic empirical research of this current situation has
been almost entirely neglected for a long period of time, and
researchers have only begun studies of school-community integration.
Up to the present, we have had a number of studies linking parental
interest to achievement (Coleman, 1966; Smith and Brahce, 1963;
Willman, 1969). We also have the benefit of a few studies which have
even begun to approach the question of the relationship between
community-school integration and student achievement. Those which
have attempted to systematically study this community variable have
concentrated on such indicators as school millage defeats (Crane,
1971), community support for such school organizations as P.T.A.,
and community turn over (Sexton, 1961).

Thus, one of the Objectives of the present study is to help
fill this Obvious gap in our knowledge of why some schools have higher
achievement than do others. To meet this task, we have separated
high and low achieving schools according to socio-economic status,
race, and community type, with the hope Of finding systematic

differences in our variables of interest.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY

As previously stated, the aim of the present analysis has
been to analyze, by use of certain social-psychological and social
structural indices, the differences in school normative achievement
climate for a sample Of elementary schools which are as closely
matched as possible on both mean sociO-economic status and racial
composition Of student bodies, while differing significantly on
the dependent variable, achievement. Underlying this attempt is:
first, the acceptance of research (reviewed in Chapter II) demon-
strating a high degree Of relationship between S.E.S. and achieve-
‘ment; and secondly, the belief that if we could control, as much
as possible in a non-experimental situation, for the effects of
S.E.S. and race, we could with some accuracy conclude which of our
variables best identify schools beyond the boundary of the S.E.S.-

achievement regression line.

Research Design,

 

Initially a national search was begun to find matched pairs
of schools meeting the criteria of the present research project.
This attempt proved futile, however, as school districts tend to

employ too wide a variety of achievement measures as well as

67

68

insufficiently supplying an index of mean school socio-economic
status beyond area income estimates.

Our situation was furnished considerable aid when the
State Of Michigan, Department Of Education, began a State Wide
Assessment Program for elementary schools, in 1970. Under this
program, each elementary school in the state administered a battery
of instruments to each of its students in the fourth grade, which
included among its items, a standardized achievement test and an
index of socio-economic status.

The State Department of Education allowed those of us
connected with this research project to obtain mean school data
from every elementary school in the state, on S.E.S., race (percent
black), and achievement. In addition, they agreed to sponsor the
project and aid in our attempts to gain entry into various school
districts. Thus, the following design factors, baSed upon State
Assessment Measurements, are very important to the current inves-

tigation.

Achievement Index

 

The standardized index Of achievement, used for the selec-
tion of schools for the current study, was develOped by a group of
research psychologists from the Michigan State Assessment Board.
The index is a composite score of three separate achievement tests;
reading, English expression, and arithmetic. .Identical tests were
administered to every fourth grade student in the State. The

school index range for the 1970-71 school year, upon which this

69

analysis is based, runs from approximately 37.0 to 63.0. Achievement
differences for schools, which are part Of an individual match-up,
upon which a section of our analysis concentrated, are highly

significant (p = .001).

S.E.S. Index

 

The index of sociO-economic status, employed in this
study for school selection, was also developed by the State
Assessment Board, Michigan Department of Education (see Appendix 0).
Its purpose is to measure differences in life style and consumption
patterns which, within the social structure of the United States,
are generally associated with differing S.E.S. levels. Serious
charges have been leveled against the State S.E.S. Index, by a number
of school districts claiming that certain items of the index did
not accurately discriminate between S.E.S. levels. The basis for
these charges is that although the questions might accurately
determine the amount of goods in the homes of students, they do not
discriminate by the age of the products, condition of the products,
or the means by which the products were acquired. To illustrate,
a low S.E.S. family might receive a high S.E.S. rating on the
basis Of owning several automobiles, although none in operable
condition.

It must also be pointed out, however, that consumption was
only one facet of the State socio-economic index. Items measuring
amount of family travel, parental educations, stability of the

home, and the students educational aspirations were also included.

70

Thus, it was felt that this index constitutes the best check we
currently have on school S.E.S., and the decision was made to
employ it as our initial basis Of selection.

Three methods were used to further check the S.E.S. in our
sample schools. First, school district officials were asked to
evaluate the S.E.S. ranking which the school in question had
received on the State Assessment Evaluation. Secondly, this
researcher, along with the other members of the research team,
drove through the area encompassing the school attendance boundaries
to determine if, in their Opinion, the State S.E.S. Index was
noticeably inaccurate. Thirdly, part of the student questionnaire
(see Question 8 of student questionnaire, appendix A) concerning
the occupation of either the father, or principle wage earner,
was coded on the basis of the Duncan SociO-Economic Index for
Occupations (Reiss, 1962, p. 263).

Those schools not satisfying the further check methods 1
and 2, were eliminated from the sample. The Duncan measurement,
however, was a post hoc technique, which was not used for elimination,
but only as an "index Of confidence“ for our State of Michigan data.

Those schools selected as "match-ups" for the final sample
were not always as similar on the Duncan Index as they had been

1

on the State data. Two Of the "match-ups"'hiparticular, (schools

05-06 and 15-16) appeared to have Duncan S.E.S. differences which

 

1For a school by school comparison of State and Duncan
scores see Appendix E.

71

were fairly large. It was decided, however, to retain the State
Assessment as the selection criteria for the following reasons.
First, the wider range of Duncan scores (2-96), which was much
greater than that of the State Index for 1969-1970, upon which
selection was made (Of approximately 39-69), would appear to make
larger differences less significant. Secondly, the Duncan Scale
is based upon the education and income of father, with occupation
as an intervening variable. At the same time, the State index
includes a direct measure of education for both parents and a
measurement Of income, using possessions and travel as intervening
variables, thus, affording a broader base upon which to decide
individual classification. Thirdly, the Duncan Index is based
upon income and prestige figures current in 1950. During the
ensuing years, persons in many occupations, especially those
engaged in skilled "blue collar" employment, have gone through a
tremendous transformation in most areas which are measures of
"societal status." This is a problem which Duncan himself ack-
nowledges (Reiss, 1962, 143-44). Fourth, the Duncan scale treats
all persons engaged in a particular occupation as having equal
S.E.S., which, of course, is simply not the case. Finally,
elementary school students have greater knowledge about their
household goods than they do about the particular type of work

in which their father is involved. This would seem to be even
more apparent in low socio-economic schools. It should also be
acknowledged, however, that if the two indices are not exactly
alike, that they do appear to attain similar results as demonstrated

by a high correlation of r = .74.

72

Racial Composition

 

School racial composition information (percentage of black
and white) was compiled from school records, and recorded along
with other data by the State Assessment Board. Criteria designating
a school as either black or white was based on a student body
composition of at least 70% for either race. Final figures are

presented in Table 3.

Sample

The sample for the current investigation consists of
twenty-four elementary schools located throughout the State of
Michigan. This sample, as previously indicated, was selected
non-randomly, on the basis Of S.E.S. and achievement, within
three strata; predominately white schools (10), predominantly
black schools (7), and rural schools (7) (see Table 2, Chapter 1).
Several separate analyses were applied to the data. In order to
facilitate some Of these, both S.E.S. and achievement were dichot-
imized into high and low scoring schools.

Those schools having a mean S.E.S. above 49.0 were con-
sidered to be high sociO-economic schools and those below were
designated as low S.E.S. schools. The cell placement for achieve-
ment, however, was somewhat more complicated. To restate our
problem, the purpose of this study was not only to predict
differences or differentiate between high and low achieving
schools on certain variables of interest, but it was also our
desire to increase our knowledge of what factors most clearly

differentiate between schools which are referred to as "higher"

73

TABLE 3.--Characteristics of Schools
Achievement Level, Urban -

Selected for Study:
Rural Type, and Sample "N" of

Race, S.E.S.,

 

 

 

 

Students and Teachers
S.E.S. Achievement Percent N N
School Level Level White Students Teachers
01 Higher-55.1 Higher-59.6 85.0 140 6
02 Higher-55.2 Lower -48.1 100.0 173 6
03 Higher—58.2 Higher-54.4 100.0 224 9
O4 Higher-54.9 Lower -47.8 100.0 202 7
E 05 Higher-50.1 Higher-58.0 100.0 88 3
"IE" 06 Higher-49.4 Lower -43.6 97.7 67 2
07 Lower -43.2 Higher-56.7 100.0 104 4
08 Lower -44.9 Lower -44.6 100.0 88 3
09 Lower -46.6 Higher-55.1 97.7 151 6
10 Lower -46.8 Lower -43.7 95.1 81 3
11 Higher-50.0 Higher-51.8
12 Higher-49.2 Lower -37.3 00.5 149 6
:z 13 Lower -43.8 Higher-47.2 00.8 116 6
5:) 14 Lower -46.7 Lower -38.0 13.8 105 6
33 1s Higher-61.3 Higher-55.1 30.0 276 o
16 Higher-52.9 Lower -47.2 01.0 406 12
17 Lower -47.0 Higher-49.6 09.5 105 4
18 Lower -46.7 Lower -39.6 05.3 384 ll
19 Higher—53.2 Higher-58.1 100.0 16 2
20 Lower -44.6 Higher-58.4 100.0 13 2
_, 21 Lower -42.9 Higher-58.2 100.0 18 1
g 22 Lower -44.3 Higher-60.6 87.6 55 3
:3
“ 23 Higher-50.7 Lower -50.2 100.0 62 3
24 Lower -47.8 Lower -4S.6 100.0 40 2
25 Lower -37.8 Lower -42.5 100.0 9 l

 

to collect data.

aChosen as part of the original sample, but we were not allowed

74

and "lower“ achieving when compared with the more usual S.E.S.
achievement relationship. Thus, at times actual achievement scores
are employed as the dependent variable. During other analyses,
however, when we discuss "higher" and "lower" achievement, schools
with lower actual achievement might have been assigned to a higher
achieving strata than have some schools with higher actual achieve-
ment, but also having higher S.E.S. To clarify this, the following

illustration is offered:

 

 

School S.E.S. Achievement
02 55.2 48.1
04 54.9 47.8
16 52.9 47.2
13 43.8 47.2

A comparison of the S.E.S.-achievement relationship for these,
raised the distinct possibility that the similar achievement scores
have different meanings in these schools, therefore, schools 02,
O4, and 16 were categorized as "lower-achieving," while school 13
was categorized as "higher-achieving." With the exception Of school
13, all "higher-achieving" subjects had a mean achievement score
of at least 49.0.

As might be expected, finding low S.E.S.-high achieving
or high S.E.S.-low achieving schools was not an easy task.
This was particularly true in predominantly black schools, where
only three, on the basis of fourth grade data, can be classified
as "high-achieving." All three were included in the original
sample drawn for the present study (11, 15, and 17). In one of

these schools (11), we were refused permission to gather data.

75

Within some of our cells, the current sample, thus, encompasses
the entire population of schools within the State of Michigan with
these particular characteristics, a procedure deemed necessary in
order to maximize and clarify differences in factors related to
achievement. This, however, accounts for the relatively small
sample size, tending to hamper investigation.

Data were eventually collected in 23 of the 24 schools,
during the 1970-71 school year. Although this meant that the
S.E.S. and achievement used for sample selection was based on the
fourth grade data of the current fifth grade population, our final
sample consisted Of all students of each sampled school who were in
the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. This larger sample was
required for several reasons. First, this gave us the ability to
check if the fifth grade population was representative of the
larger group within the school. Secondly, this wider sample
constitutes the "upper grades," composed of those students in the
school who could best read and understand the questionnaire, as
well as those having the greatest familiarity with the school,
thus better able to act as reporters of the normative climate.

One rural school closed early for the summer and was
therefore, surveyed during the 1971-72 school year. Their selection
was thus based on the fourth grade State Assessment results, which
the sixth grade students had two years earlier. Their inclusion

was allowed only after a check that the most recently available

76

State achievement results had revealed no significant change to have

taken place from one year to the next.1
Data were also collected from every fourth, fifth, and

sixth grade teacher in each school. In addition, the principal

of each sampled school was interviewed. Sample sizes are included

in Table 3.

Instrumentation

 

The instruments employed for the current analysis con-
sisted Of three separate but "interrelated" questionnaires, one
each for students, teachers, and principals. These were originally
developed in 1969, for use in the study of school social environ-
ments, by W. B. Brookover and Richard Gigliotti. All three ques-
tionnaires are interrelated in that they contain a core of similar
questions designed to elicit attitudes and beliefs or perceptions
of attitudes and beliefs of those individuals sampled. The original
instruments were pre-tested in a moderate size industrial city,
which culminated in the elimination or rephrasing Of several items
upon which the subjects were jduged to have experienced difficulty
in understanding the intended meaning. The three instruments can

be found in Appendices A, B, and C.

Data Collection

 

Student data were collected through the use of a group

administered questionnaire technique, with a trained staff of four

 

1School 25 State Assessment Achievement results, 1969-7O =
42.5; 1970-71 - 43.0.

77

persons administering the instrument and collecting data on the
basis of one administrater per classroom. Depending upon student
literacy, the questionnaire may have been read to the students in
its entirety or students were asked, after a period Of short
instruction, to complete the instrument on a self-administered
basis. This method Of data collection was found to be both
inexpensive and efficient.

The teacher questionnaire was strictly self-administered.

It was completed by the subject during the same time period that
his or her students were completing theirs. This not only allowed
the research team maximum use out of time spent in the building,
but also reinforced the guarantee of anonymity to the students by
having their teacher out of the room.

The principal was asked to complete the instrument designed
for that position, in a self-administered fashion.r However, once
the team completed its work with students and teachers, the principal
was interviewed, asking that he explain those answers which were
unclear to the research team, and requesting additional information
concerning various factors about the school, which may have been
noticed by a researcher, but not included in the questionnaire.

The research team itself was composed of a diversified
group of individuals. The team had both black and white researchers,
ranging in age from individuals in their middle twenties, to one in
his early fifties. It included some with public teaching experience
and some without. This method of study afforded the widest possible

range in the researchers' selective perceptions Of the school

78

environment, and the reactions of subjects toward the team. NO
women, perhaps regretfully, were included in the research team, on
a regular basis.

Sadly, this researcher must report, that no records were
kept on the Student non-response rate. We collected data from all
fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students present in the school on
the day we were in the building. Students, to the best Of our
understanding, did not have any prior knowledge that anything
special was to take place on this day, Therefore, absence would
seemingly be unconnected to the study and probably random in nature.
However, if students who had the greatest absence rates were also
the extreme members of the population that helped determine the
unusual nature of the S.E.S.-achievement correlation, which was
the basis of the school's selection, the absence may be significant.

There are a number Of good reasons not to follow up on
those students who were absent. First, the expense of having a
member of the research team make a return visit to the school,
to collect student data, would have been prohibitive, due to the
size Of our budget. Second, because of the youthful nature of our
subjects, adult assistance is required for result reliability. We
could not, however, have parents or school officials administer
the questionnaires and still guarantee either anonymity or the
validity Of the results. Third, schools rather than individuals
students were the research subjects of interest.

In the case of non-response of teachers and principals,

an attempt was made to secure the data. A copy of the appropriate

79

questionnaire was left at the school, with the request that it be
filled out by the missing subject and mailed to us as quickly as
possible in an attached self-addressed stamped envelope. All
missing teacher data were soon collected in this manner. One
principal, from school 16, who failed to return the original
instrument was sent another and was telephoned to serve as a
reminder. Again, no response was received. This writer and another
member Of the research team visited his school whereupon they were
told that he had mailed the previous questionnaire and did not
have the time to be interviewed. A promise was made to fill out
another questionnaire and mail it as soon as possible. This one
also has not been received and a further telephone call has failed
to produce any positive results. Thus, this school cannot be

included in the principal section of this analysis.

Analysis

This study is a result of our desire to ascertain a greater
understanding Of those factors which are related to achievement in
schools of various socio-economic, racial, and community types.

The intent is to describe, as accurately as possible, similarities
and differences Of certain social-psychological attitudinal
variables within this group of schools. There are a number of
research questions and hypotheses which have been premised, for a
systematic analysis of the current investigation. These are listed
in Chapter I, but can be restated into the following more general

forms:

80

Questions:

1.

Which of a number of social-psychological school academic
climate factors derived from the perceptions of students,
teachers, and principals, best differentiate between higher
and lower achieving schools, when the S.E.S., race, urban-
rural community type have been controlled?

What part of the the variance, between high and low achieving
schools of various S.E.S., racial, and urban-rural community
types, can be predicted, on the basis of the social-
psychological school academic climate factors?

Hypotheses:

1.

design.

Within our selected sample, the student, teacher, and
principal variables, comprising school normative academic
climate, will differ in relationship to the dependent
variable, achievement, as measured by the Michigan State
Assessment Achievement Index, when the effects of mean
student S.E.S., racial composition, and urban-rural
community type have been controlled.

Within our selected sample, there will be differences

between predominantly white-urban schools, predominantly
black-urban schools, and rural schools, in the relationship
between those variables comprising school normative

academic climate, as measured by the perceptions of students,
teachers, and principals, and the dependent variable,
achievement, as measured by the Michigan State Assessment
Achievement Index.

The analysis of the present research is descriptive in~

The techniques of analysis allow this researcher to

scrutinize the data in the most productive possible manner.

After critical and numerous manners Of data examination, this

researcher attempted to study the relationship between school

climate and achievement from the standpoint Of individual school

cases, in addition to finding those variables which are significant

predictors Of achievement for our entire sample, and those school

climate variables which differentiate between higher and lower

achieving schools within our predominantly white, predominantly

81

black, and rural stratified populations. To accomplish our goals,
the analysis has been divided into four major headings; factor
analysis, regression analysis, discriminate function analysis, and
the analysis of individual cases and paired cases.

The first factor analysis employed was a varimax rotation
type. This is a procedure based upon patterns Of variable inter-
correlations where on the basis of the response patterns of
subjects, the variables are given a weighted leading score within
a number of "factors," which in turn are judged by the researcher
as to their theoretical sense. For the present analysis, three
separate varimax rotation factor analyses were performed. One
used all student subjects as individual respondents and 63 items
from the student questionnaire. A second analysis used all teachers,
also treated as individuals, having their responses to 49 atti-
tudinal items analyzed. The third factor analysis was performed
on 13 items from the principal questionnaire, this one, however,
proved to be unsuccessful.1

The use Of individual rather than school mean scores,
to fOrm the factors, added much greater stability and reliability
to the results. The decision to proceed in this manner, it must be
pointed out, did give much greater weight to the larger schools.
All individual subjects, from all schools, that had completely

answered all items analyzed, were given equal weight in the factor

analysis.

 

1See analysis Chapter IV for the operationalization of our
current variable of interest, as formed by the factor analysis.

82

School factor scores were derived by first multiplying each
respondent's score on each item, by the items leading score within
the factor, which were then added together to attain a mean score
for the school. The factor scores arrived at within a single
analysis, using a varimax factor analysis, are non-correlated prior
to placement in schools. This, of course, is not the case for
factors arrived at through two separate analysis, such as those
based on student responses and those arrived at through teacher
responses.

The second procedure was that of a multiple regression
analysis. This researcher used this analysis on the entire sample
Of 24 schools, placing into consideration, the mean score on each
of the 10 student and teacher factors, after first eliminating that
portion of the variance accounted for by the design factors of
S.E.S., race, and urban-rural community type. The dependent variable
was the sampled schools actual achievement score on the State of
Michigan School Assessment Achievement Index.

The specific procedure used was a least square add analysis.
This analysis performed two functions after accounting for the
variation in the prediction of achievement of our design factors.
It reported both the independent contribution to the variance in
the prediction of the dependent variable, actual achievement, as
well as reporting the level of significance of each successive
variable, placed into the regression equation which fell within the

limits of "significant" prediction as set by this researcher

(p §_.10).

83

Further use was made of the regression analysis to clarify
the interaction of variables. It was believed possible that
predictive powers of certain variables might overshadow the effects
of other variables. This researcher, therefore, both attempted
to predict actual achievement without consideration of certain
variables and also attempted to predict certain school achievement
climate variables as a dependent variable by using other climate
variables as independent variables.

A second multi-variate technique, discriminate function
analysis, was employed to analyze the data within the separate
strata of predominantly white-urban schools, predominantly black-
urban schools, and rural schools. Our desire, in this case, is
to combine our present variables, in such fashion, that they form
a new variable, which most highly distinguishes between two groups of
subjects, higher and lower achieving schools. Keeping the three
strata of schools separate, enables us to make the necessary
comparisons to establish if differences exist in the manner in
which the school climate variables relate to relative achievement
in different types Of schools. Analyzing the three strata separately,
however, also presents problems in the number of variables that can
be placed into the analysis at any one time. It becomes necessary
to analyze differences between strata by using separate, smaller
numbers Of student and teacher variables for each analysis, rather

than all student and teacher factors simultaneously.

84

The final procedure is best described as an analysis of the
normative academic climate effects upon achievement of individual
cases, pairs of cases, and groups Of cases. .Within this chapter,
we will use both our significant and non-significant factor scores
to help explain achievement patterns of individual schools, as
well as achievement differences for schools which have been matched
on our three design variables. Within this chapter, we will
also report the intuitive impressions of this researchers observa-
tions Of the sampled schools, the informal and formal reports of
those familiar with the climate of the sampled schools, and any
other beliefs concerning the sample which have a relationship to
normative achievement climate, but about which we do not have any
systematic empirical data.

It should be obvious from the preceding discussion, that
the present analysis is so designed, to examine study data, and
the entire question of the relationship between school normative
academic climate and achievement, in many productive ways. The
study is intended to be an exploratory endeavor, in both design and
analysis, in order to increase our current knowledge and open new
avenues to further research in the nature and interactions of our
study findings.

More will be said in Chapter VII, under the section,
Limitations of the Study, however, the unusual nature of our sample
should be noted in consideration of the analysis presented in

Chapters IV, V and VI, as should the difficulties in finding

85

significant relationships within small sample analysis. It should
also be understood that much of the analysis presented in Chapter VI,
the analysis of individual cases, is of a highly speculative

nature.

CHAPTER IV

FACTOR ANALYSIS

Chapters IV, V, and VI present the various analyses used
to systematically examine the research questions posed in this
study. Chapter IV reports our findings, using a varimax rotation
factor analysis upon data gathered from our samples of students,
teachers, and principals. It was upon the basis of these factor
analyses that our variables Of interest were operationalized.
Chapter V deals with the statistical analyses in three sections.
The first section contains the results of a least square add
linear regression analysis, performed simultaneously upon all 24
sampled schools. All student and teacher factors were treated
as independent variables and actual school achievement, as indexed
by the State of Michigan School Assessment scores, was treated
as a dependent variable while controlling for the effect of S.E.S.,
race, and urban-rural community type. Secondly, in section two
the results of a least square add linear regression analysis,
using certain climate factors to predict others, is also repOrted.
Finally, section three reports upon our findings of a discriminate
function analysis which was used as a further check of our student

and teacher climate variables upon achievement. This time,

86

87

however, we are looking for factors which differentiate between
relatively higher and relatively lower achieving schools within
three separate strata; predominantly white schools, predominantly
black schools, and rural schools. Chapter VI attempts to examine
school normative academic climates found in individual cases or
pairs of cases which have similar S.E.S., racial, and community

types, but significantly different achievement.

Student Factors

 

As reported in Chapter III, three separate varimax rotation
factor analyses were run on our data. The first was run using 63
attitudinal items from the student questionnaire, forming factors on
the basis of the responses of students considered as individuals,
rather than treating students as nested within certain schools.
Only those students who had no missing data had their responses
factor analyzed, thus dropping the actual number of subjects upon
whom factors were based from 3073 to 2188. The four factors which
emerged from the student data were: (1) student perceptions of
the present evaluations-expectations Of "others" in their school
social system; (2) student perceptions of the future evaluations-
expectationsof "others" in their school social system; (3) student
perceptions about the level of feelings of futility permeating the
social system of the school; and (4) student perceptions Of those
academic norms stressing academic achievement which exist in their

school and social system.

88

Factor 11- ?tudent Pergeived Present Evaluations-Expectations
S.P.P.E.E.

The evaluations-expectations variable of interest which was
discussed in Chapter II, is divided into two separate school climate
factors, on the basis of the four factor varimax factor analysis.
High loading into the first of these variables were those items
which concentrated upon the expectations and evaluations of “others"
(parents, teachers, friends), as well as the students own "self-
concept Of academic ability" from the present through the comple-
tion of high school. The items which were loaded highly on this
factor and their loading scores are below.

Proportion of Variance = .1117
Question # Factor Loading Score
67. Would your mother and father say that your grades -.6700
would be with the best, same as most, or below
most of the students when you finish high school?
44. Would your best friend say that your grades would -.6405
be with the best, same as most, or below most
of the students when you graduate from high
school?
60. Would your teacher say that your grades would be -.6378
with the best, same as most, or below most of

the students when you graduate from high school?

65. How good of a student do your parents expect you -.6297
to be in school?

59. Think of your teacher. Would your teacher say you -.6l30
can do school work better, the same, or poorer
than other people your age?

37. Forget how your teachers mark your work. How -.6028
good do yog_think your own work is?

58. How good of a student does the teacher you like -.5979
the best expect you to be in school?

 

 

1 . o o
R f ,
alternative§.er to Append1x A Student Quest1onna1re for response

89

33. When you finish high school, do you think you will -.5904
be one of the best students, about the same as
most of the students, or below most of the students?

66. Think of your mother and father. 00 your mother -.5781

and father say you can do you school work better,
the same, or poorer than your friends?

43. Think of your best friend. Would your best friend -.5723
say you can do school work better, the same, or
poorer than other people your age?

35. If you went to college, do you think you would be -.5481
one of the best students, about the same as most
of the students, or below most of the students?

32. Think of the students in your class. 00 you think -.5407
you can do school work better, the same, or poorer
than the other students in your class?

38. What marks do you think you really can get if you -.5272
try?

 

42. How good of a student does your best friend expect -.5218
you to be in school?

31. Think of your friends. DO you think you can do -.5200
school work better, the same, or poorer than your
friends?

63. What grades does your teacher think you can get? -.5139

47. What grades does your best friend think you can -.5031
get?

70. What grades do your mother and father think you -.4535

29.11 get?

Operationally defined, S.P.P.E.E., is the mean of the summed
factor scores for the students within each of the sampled schools.
Within the original questionnaire, a lower total score was indicative
of a more positive response. However, for clarity of interpretation,
a transformation was done on all of the resulting mean school
factor scores, thus allowing a higher S.P.P.E.E. score to mean a

more positive present evaluation-expection. School factor scores

for S.P.P.E.E. are shown in Table 4.

90

TABLE '4.--Mean School Factor Scores for Student Perceived Present
Evaluations-Expectations

 

 

 

 

 

Match Rank Rank Standard
Ach. Score High-Low Strata Sample Deviation
Ol-high 0.30531859 + '1 3 0.870780
02-16w -0.34907146 - 10 20 0.928063
33 03-111in 0.11724079 - 4 7 0.928013
w 04-161.:a 0.16715715 3 6 0.880834
:4.) .
5‘; == OS-high 0.11648906 + 5 8 0.842136
g O6-low -0.05306332 - 9 15 1.022954
07-high 0.20983262 2 4 1.017824
33 08-low 0.05673731 - 7 11 0.925299
U)
. 09-high 0.10258272 - 6 9 0.939203
—= lO-low 0.00938668 - 8 13 0.898545
U, lS-high -0.41525058 - 6 23 0.902543
9,: 16-10wa -0.37914961 - s 22 0.998344
,4 a; 12-low -0.19143907 1 16 1.072251
U
5, lS-high -0.20997296 + 2 17 0.969081
m a, 14-low -0.41751724 - 7 24 0.977974
m
”1 l7-high -0.24100206 + 3 19 1.112676
_; 18-1ow -0.35601647 - 4 21 0.977552
:3 19-high 0.19988027 3 5 0.880629
:2 24-lowa 0.30929335 2 2 0.951676
3 20-high 0.05583412 5 12 0.475124
:3 33 21-high 0.06845720 4 10 1.036396
°‘ v: 22-high -o.03631221 6 14 0.979889
'4 23-1owa 0.31492059 1 1 1.220018
25-low -0.21966332 7 18 1.132985
Note: Higher score denotes a more positive student perception

of the present
of the school.

tions-expectations.

evaluations-expectations held within the social system

a . . . . .
Lower ach1ev1ng school Wlth a more p051t1ve present evalua-

9]

Factor 21- Student Perceived Future Evaluations-Expectations
S.P.P.E.E.

The second factor related to our evaluations-expectations
variable of interest dealt with student perCeptions of the beliefs
of "others" (parents, teachers, friends) concerning the subject's
chances of future academic accomplishments. Also loading highly
on this factor were items related to the student's future "self-
concept of academic ability“ and self-evaluation. More specifically,
the high load items within this factor are those items related to
the reported beliefs and perceptions of beliefs about college
attendance and success. The items which loaded highly on this
variable follow.

Proportion of Variance = .0733
Question # Factor Loading Scores

4l. How far do you think your best friend believes -.6367
you will go in school?

68. Do they think you could finish college (mother .6103
and father)?

45. Does your best friend think you could finish college? .6064

69. Remember you need more than four years of college .5978
to be a teacher or doctor. Do your mother and
father think you could do that?

46. Remember you need more than four years of college .5865
to be a teacher or doctor. Does your best friend
think you could do that?

64. How far do you think your parents believe you will -.5789
go in school?

9. If you could go as far as you wanted in school, how .5476
far would you like to go?

 

1Refer to Appendix A, Student Questionnaire for response altern-
atives.

92

57. How far do you think the teacher you like best -.5428
believes you will go in school?

 

62. Remember you need more than four years of college .5242
to be a teacher or doctor. Does you teacher think

you could do that? '

61. Does your teacher think you could finish college? .5237
36. If you want to be a doctor or a teacher you need .4234
more than f0ur years of college. 00 you think

you could do that?

34. Do you think you could finish college? .4l08
14. If most of the students here could go as far as -.3939
they wanted in school how far would they go?

Operationally defined, S.P.F.E.E. is the mean of the summed
factor scores for the students within each of the sampled schools.
Within the original questionnaire, a lower total score on these
items was indicative of a more positive response. However, for
clarity of interpretation, a transformation was done on all of
the resulting mean school factor scores, thus allowing a higher
S.P.F.E.E. score to mean a more positive future evaluation-

expectation. School factor scores for S.P.F.E.E. are shown in

Table 5.

Factor 31 - Student Perceived Sense of Futility (S.P.S.0.F.)
The most-important items within this factor are those
which were referred to in Chapter II as a modification of the
"sense of control" questions used by Coleman (1966). There are
several additional items, however, which highly intercorrelated

and thus, loaded highly on S.P.S.0.F. These items dealt with student

 

lRefer to Appendix A, Student Questionnaire for response
alternatives.

93

TABLE ES.--Mean School Factor Scores for Student Perceived Future
Evaluations-Expectations

xxx 1 1:21 29-, 2 2 »' 1.. rm

'Lr-lir'! x ' x mus;

 

 

 

 

Match Rank Rank Standard
Ach. Score High-Low Strata Sample Deviation
Ol-high 0.29803626 + 3 5 0.845496
02-low 0.05537891 - 6 11 1.066728
m 03-high 0.41092891 - 1 2 0.927898
3; 04-low 0.26647819 - 4 6 0.965846
E 2' OS-high 0.36963399 - 2 4 1.004134
g 06-low -0.28618813 - 0 21 1.073251
07-high 0.10148822 5 9 0.934496
m 08-low -0.00682743 - 7 15 0.981963
5'3 09-high 017745390 - 8 19 1.042200
.5 10-low -0.2508l607 - 9 20 1.086380
fin: 15-high 0.48670769 1 1 0.784465
:- 16-low 0.26195179 — 3 7 0.945558
5, 12-16w -0.13185563 6 17 1.141045
U
3 13-high -0.11669975 5 16 0.943229
99 l4-low -0.31990246 - 7 22 1.098908
U)
34, 17-high 0.38482227 2 3 1.063943
_,- 18-low 0.07781838 - 4 10 0.940151
U)
a 19-high 0.23677040 1 8 0.881040
:- 24-1ow 0.02781378 4 14 0.724016
3 20-high a -0.15327576 5 18 1.017324
___, g 21-higha -0.35702191 7 24 1.057244
0‘ "a 22-high 0.04010356 2 12 1.130119
4 23-16w -0.32158663 6 23 1.130519
25-1owa 0.03920245 3 13 1.363097
Note: Higher score denotes a more positive student perception
of the future evaluations-expectations held within the social system

of the school.

aLower achieving school with a more positive future evaluation-
expectation, and higher achieving school with a more negative evalua-
tion-expectation for future.

94

perceptions of teachers, and to a lesser extent of other students,
feelings of hopelessness or lack of caring about academic achievement,
as an existing factor of school climate. The following are the

high load items for this factor. 6

Proportion of Variance = .0549

Question# Factor Loading Score
30. You have to be lucky to get good grades in this .5650
school.
27. People like me will never do well in school even .5347

though we try hard.

53. 0f the teachers that you know in this school how many .5332
don't care how hard the student works as long as he
passes?

50. 0f the teachers that you know in this school how .5215
many don't care if the students get bad grades?

52. 0f the teachers that you know in this school how .4831
many make the students work too hard?

29. In this school students like me don't have any luck. .4258

49. How many teachers in this school tell students to .4067
try and get better grades than their classmates?

26. People like me will not have much of a chance to .3789
do what we want to in life.

28. I can do well in school if I work hard. -.3390

12. How many students in this school don't care if they .3279
get bad grades?

54. If the teachers in this school think a student can't .2568
do good work, how many will try to make him work
hard anyway?

55. 0f the teachers that you know in this school, how .2340
many think it is not good to ask more work from
a student than he is able to do?

95

Operationally defined, S.P.S.0.F. is the mean of the sumned
factor scores for the students within each of the sampled schools.
Within the original questionnaire, a lower total score on these
items was indicative of a higher S.P.S.0.F. However, for clarity
of interpretation, a transformation was done on all of the resulting
mean school factor scores, thus, allowing a lower S.P.S.0.F. score
to indicate less feelings of futility permeating the school academic
climate environment. School factor scores for S.P.S.0.F. are

shown in Table 6.

Factor 41 - Student Perception of School Academic Norms (S.P.S.A.N.)
Items high loading, within the last student factor, were
those assessing the student perceptions about the amount of
pressure placed upon achievement by members of the school social
system and school bureaucracy. Within this factor, the student
perception concerning the evaluations-expections of their principal,
appear to be intricately interwoven into the general normative
academic push of the school environment. Other variables which
have combined to form S.P.S.A.N. were items designed to measure the
amount of student perceived competition-cooperation within the
environment, as well as the reported and perceived importance of
the student role, all of which were discussed in Chapter 11, within
variables of interest. The following questions were the high

load items for the S.P.S.A.N. factor.

 

1Refer to Appendix A, Student Questionnaire for response
alternatives.

96

TABLE (i--Mean School Factor Scores for Student.Reported Sense of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Futility
Match Rank Rank Standard
Ach. Score High-Low Strata Sample Deviation
Ol-high -0.62019910 - 6 17 0.812212
02-low -0.23728543 4 9 1.047918
03-high -0.64211503 - 7 18 0.749989
U)

m 904 04-low -0.50780024 - 5 16 0.745208

[-

-~ :- OS-high -0.89842529 - 10 23 0.762867

§ 06-low 0 16376390 + 1 7 1.000770
{3 07-high -0.87527320 - 9 22 0.671110
m 08-low -0.22147609 + 2 8 1.131369
~3 09-high -0.72494195 - 8 19 0.830495

10-low -0.24329433 3 10 1.050999
33 15—high -0.28768347 - 6 12 0.949259
m l6-low -0.02319064 - 5 6 0.968904

‘63 r' lZ-low 0.73460769 1 1 0.928284

<1:

3 13-hi gh 0.0695 3242 - 4 5 1 . 109 394
g; l4-low 0.67366694 2 2 0.931151
U)

, 17-high -0.31253803 - 7 13 1.041882
-= 18-low 0.11351697 3 4 0.993447
U)

5; lQ-high -1.00046869 7 24 0.536151
1: 24-lowa -0.75975700 5 20 0.742945

3 ZO-high -0.82664562 6 21 1.129554

3 m 21-high -0.40013792 4 15 0.891716

‘1 a 22-high -0.37334322 3 14 0.745248

. 23-low -0.25139548 2 11 0.902460
-‘ 25-low 0.49827233 1 3 1.466133

Note: Higher score denotes a greater student reported sense of

futility in the social system of the school.

aLower achieving school with a lower student reported sense
of futility.

Question #

23.

22.

74.

71.

75.

73.

18.

19.

15.

17.

10.

11.

13.

72.

16.

97

Proportion of Variance = .0682

How important do you think most 0f_the students
in this school feel it is to do well in school
work?

How important do most of the students in this
class feel it is to do well in school work?

How many of the students in this school do you
think the principal believes will go to college?

How many students in this school do you think the
principal believes can get high grades?

How many students in this school do you think the
principal believes will finish college?

How many students in this school do you think the
principal believes will finish high school?

If your best friend told you that you were a poor
student, how would you feel?

 

How do you think most of the students in this
school react when one of you does a bad job on
school work? ' ’

If the teacher you like the best told you that you
were a poor student, how would you feel?

If your parents told you that you were a poor
student, how would you feel?

How many students in this school try hard to get
a good grade on their weekly tests?

How many students in this school will work hard to
get a better grade on their weekly tests than their
friends do?

How many students in this school do more studying
fOr weekly tests than they have to?

How do you think your principal would grade the
work of the students in this school, compared to
other schools?

How important is it to you to be a good student?

Factor Loading Score

5446

5310

.5067

.4935

.4901

.4799

.4667

.4609

.4554

.4499

.4393

.4362

.4022

.3952

.3843

98

48. 0f the teachers that you know in this school, how .3643
many tell students to try hard to do better on

tests?

51. 0f the teachers that you know in this school, how .3524
many tell students to do extra work so that they
can get better grades?

24. Think about the boys and girls you play with at .2750
recess or after school. How often do they read in

their free time?

56. 0f the teachers that you know in this school, how .2705
many believe that students should be asked to do

only work which they are able to do?

25. When you and your friends are together after school -1879
or on weekends, how often do you talk about your

school work?

Operationally defined, S.P.S.A.N. is the mean of the
summed factor scores for the students within each of the sampled
schools. Within the original questionnaire, a higher total score
on the items comprising this factor also meant a higher student
perceived evaluation of the school academic norm environment. This
allowed for clear interpretation of findings and was, thus, left

unaltered. School mean factor scores for S.P.S.A.N. are shown in

Table 7.

Teacher Factors

 

A second varimax rotation factor analysis was run on the
basis of the inner correlations of 49 items from the teacher
questionnaire. The procedure employed was exactly the same as
that used in the analysis of the student data. The subjects
(teachers) were treated as individual respondents, rather than

using school mean scores of items as a basis for factoring. This

99

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 7.—-Mean School Factor Scores of Student Perceived
School Academic Norms

Match Rank Rank Standard
Ach. Score High-Low Strata Sample Deviation
01-high 0.01221810 + 7 12 0.851117
02-low -0.04398397 - 8 13 1.023701
03-higg -0.12814408 - 9 17 0.903671

m g 04-10W 0.09200696 + 5 8 0.836193
1:. . OS-high 0.38798929 + 1 3 0.726971
E ”3 06-1ow 0.10461594 - 4 7 0.888170
0) 07-11118;l -0.21523780 - 10 22 0.793085

5% 08-low 0.18999434 + 3 6 0.930436

_5 09-high 0.27614048 + 2 4 0.830925
lO-low 0.05882963 - 6 10 1.190013

0) lS-higg 023409775 - 7 23 1.092645
% l6-low 017120988 + 6 19 1.014009
5 :5 12-low -0.16069394 5 18 1.312951
:5 116-high -0. 10202500 3 15 1 . 120225
”‘1 g} l4-low -0.11235000 - 4 16 1.020740
"’ 17-high 0.53895811 + 1 2 0.974389
.5 18-low 0.03327930 - 2 11 1.115538
g 19-high 0.25964615 2 5 0.938701
:- 24-1ow 0.08734000 3 9 0.783614

3 20-high -0.07395385 5 14 0.624751
2 m 21-high -0.40541538 7, 24 0.696963
5): 22-high 0.71915556 1 1 0.736133

_ 23-low -0.17881034 5 20 0.875651

.3 25-low -0.20271667 6 21 1.004780
Note: Higher score denotes higher student perceived emphasis

placed upon academic achievement norms within the social system of the
school.

a I O I O O 0
Lower achieV1ng schools with more p051t1ve student perceived
academic norms.

100

was again done in order to gain greater factor stability, but again
schools which had greater numbers of teachers had greater weight
than did the smaller schools in the sample.~ Only those teachers who
had no missing data were considered for analysis, thus, decreasing
the number of subjects from 114 to 98.

From our responses, six _interpretable factors eventually
emerged. These factors were: (1) teacher present evaluations-
expectations; (2) teacher future evalnations-expectations; (3) teacher
perceptions of parent-student push for education achievement;

(4) teacher reported push of individual students; (5) teacher

satisfaction; and (6) teacher perceptions of the social system

belief in student improvability.

Factor 51- Teacher Present Evaluation-Expectation of Students in
their School (T.P.E.E.)

Just as in the case of the student factor analysis, the
analysis performed on teacher data revealed the emergence of two
separate evaluation-expectation factors; those items having a more
present and those having a more future orientation. More specifically,
items forming T.P.E.E. are those which pertain to teacher evaluations-
expectations of students from the immediate present and continuing
through high school. The following questions were the high load
items for the T.P.E.E. factor.

 

1Refer to Appendix 8, Teacher Questionnaire for response
alternatives.

101

Proportion of Variance = .1938
Question # Factor Loading Score

16. What percent of the students in this school do .7537
you expect to complete high school?

33. What percent of the students in this school do you .7387
think the principal expects to complete high school?

25. What percent of the students in this school would you .6745
say want to complete high school?

61. How many parents in this school service area expect .6310
their children to complete high school?

26. What percent of the students in your class would you .5969
say want to complete high school?

38. Completion of high school is a realistic goal which .5916
you set for what percentage of your students?

17. What percent of the students in your class do you .5828
expect to complete high school?

14. On the average what level of achievement can be .5012
expected of the students in this school?

15. On the average what level of achievement can be .4168
expected of the students in your class?

43. How many teachers in this school aren't concerned -.3124
how hard most students work as long as they pass?

Not High Load (but .3500 or higher)

 

24. How would you rate the academic ability of the .4970
students in this school compared to other schools?

49. How many students in this school try hard to .3705
improve on previous work?

Operationally defined, T.P.E.E. is the mean of the summed
factor scores for the teachers within each of the sampled schools.
Within the original questionnaire, a lower total score on the

items comprising this factor was indicative of a more positive

102

response. However, for clarity of interpretation, a transformation

was done on all of the resulting mean factor scores, thus allowing

a higher T.P.E.E. to also represent a more positive teacher's

present evaluation-expectation. School mean factor scores for

T.P.E.E. are shown in Table 8.

Factor 61 - Teacher Future Evaluation-Expectation of the Students
in their School (T.F.E.E.)

Factor 6 appears to be the future of factor 5, with most items
dealing in teachers evaluations and expectations about their
students and more specifically in the possiblity of the students
gaining entrance into and finding success in college. The
remaining high load items are of a more general evaluations-
expectations nature, with the teacher both reporting for himself,
and giving his perceptions of thebeliefs held by the school
principal.

Proportion of Variance = .1690
Question # Factor Loading Score

20. What percent of the students in this school do you .8427
expect to complete college?

21. What percent of the students in your class do you .8014
expect to complete college?

35. What percent of the students in this school do you .7946
think the principal expects to complete college?

34. What percent of the students in this school do you .7925
think the principal expects to attend college?

 

1Refer to Appendix 8, Teacher Questionnaire for response altern-
atives.

103

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 8.--Mean School Factor Scores for Teacher PTesent
Evaluations-Expectations

Match Rank Rank Standard
Ach. Score High-low Strata Sample Deviation
Ol-high -0.00259167 5 12 0.786157
02-low -0.20301668 - 6 15 0.785913
03-high 0.69654583 + 2 4 0.843330
m 8 O4-low -0.61818667 - 8 19 0.416136
S "’ OS-high 1.10103333 + 1 2 0.284116
5 :n' 06-low -1.08416667 - 10 23 1.717585
07-high 0.09166666 4 11 0.824991
33 08-low 030536667 - 7 17 1.646737
"’ 09-high 0.39995000 3 9 0.493972
3 lO-low -1.08380000 - 9 22 0.859416
33 IS-high 0.43373333 + 1 8 0.322393
:11 16-1ow -0.19706667 - 3 14 1.095569
5 :' lZ-low -1.20560000 7 24 0.860237
§ 13-high -0.85885000 + 5 20 0.564901
33 14-low -1.07266667 - 6 21 1.595785
"i 17-higlg 043706667 - 4 18 0.596786
—1 l8-low -0.13277778 2 13 0.536169
§ lQ-high 0.20428333 6 10 0.666448
:5 24-low 0.57276666 3 5 1.552743
—-= 20-high 0.84959333 2 3 0.553743
g m Zl-high 1.11063333 1 1 0.000000
a: g): 22-h1gg 0.43443333 5 7 0.907218
. 23-low 0.44203333 4 6 1.676409
4 25-low -0.217l6667 7 16 0.000000

Note: Higher score (higher rank) denotes a more positive

teacher perception of the present evaluation-expectations held within

the social system of the school.

a . . . . . .
Lower ach1ev1ng school with a more pos1t1ve present evaluation-
expectation and higher achieving schools with a more negative present
evaluation-expectation.

18.
19.
39.
22.
62.

36.

37.

23.
24.
28.

27.

Not High

104

What percent of the students in this school do you
expect to attend college?

What percent of the students in your class do you
expect to attend college?

Completion of college is a realistic goal which you
set for what percentage of your students?

How many of the students in this school are capable
of getting mostly A's and 8's?

How many parents in this school service area expect
their children to complete college?

How many students in this school do you think the
principal believes are capable of getting mostly
A's and 8's?

How do you think the principal rates the academic
ability of students in this school, compared with
other schools?

How many students in your class are capable of
getting mostly A's and B's?

How would you rate the academic ability of the
students in this school compared to other schools?

What percent of the students in your class would you
say want to go to college?

What percent of the students in this school would you
say want to go to college?

Load (but .3500 or higher)

 

14.

16.

17.

38.

On the average what level of achievement can be
expected of the students in this school?

What percent of the students in this school do
you expect to complete high school?

What percent of the students in your class do you
expect to complete high school?

Completion of high school is a realistic goal
which you set for what percentage of your students?

.7900

.7765

.6933

.6650

.6147

.7946

.6062

.5912

.5259

.5223

.5175

.4345

.3549

.3641

.3661

105

Operationally defined, T.F.E.E. is the mean of the summed
factor scores for the teachers within each of the sampled schools.
Within the original questionnaire, a lower total score on the
items comprising this factor was indicative of a more positive
response. However, again for clarity of interpretation, a trans-
formation was done on all of the mean factor scores, thus, allowing
a higher T.P.E.E. to also stand for a more positive teacher's
future evaluation-expectation. School mean factor scores for
T.P.E.E. are shown in Table 9.

Factor 7'— Teacher Perception of Parent-Student Push for Educational
Achievement (T.P.P.S.P.)

Those items which loaded highly this factor were those
which pertained to the amount of academic push which the teachers
perceived to be coming from sources other than school personnel.
This, of course, appears to be closely interwoven with those
questions designed to assess the perceptions of teachers about the
educational values which were held within the homes of the students
attending their schools. Also important high loading items on
this factor are items dealing with student norms, stressing the
desire for individual competition. The following questions are the
items which high load on the T.P.P.S.P. factor.

Proportion of Variance = .1012
Question # Factor Loading Score

57. How many students in this school don't care when -.8286
other students do much better than they do?

 

'Refer to Appendix 8, Teacher Questionnaire, for response altern-
atives.

TABLE 9.--Mean School Factor Scores for Teacher- Future

106

Evaluations-Expectations

 

 

 

 

 

Match Rank Rank
Ach. Score High-Low Strata Sample Deviation
Ol-high 1.50420000 1 1 1.268997
02-low 0.07337400 - 7 13 0.194384
03-high 0.89955000 4 8 0.682302
3 04-low 0.59471000 - 5 9 0.342074
g m OS-high 0.41610000 + 6 11 0.097227
’55 :1: 06-1ow 073288333 - 9 23 0.231147
3 07-high 0.92735000 + 3 7 0.556772
33 08-low -0.66485000 - 8 21 1.159188
U: 09-high 0.94825000 + 2 6 0.622175
4 10-low -l.08455000 - 10 24 0.438091
m 15-high 1.28567857 + 2 3 0.721990
3 16-low 0.46161667 - 4 10 0.810660
:5 lZ-lowa 1.18541667 3 4 1.414844
=5 13-hi gh 0 . 30006667 5 12 0 . 668956
:5, {3 l4-low -0.08840000 7 17 0.572044
on U)
, 17—high 1.34951667 + 1 2 0.971269
4 l8-low -0.00910556 - 6 15 1.398623
3 19-high -0.03430000 3 16 0.082378
m, 24-lowa 0.00628333 2 14 1.591184
:1:
20-high: 052725000 6 20 1.591184
3 U, Zl-high -0.70475000 7 22 0.000000
3 5,4 22-hig151l 1.05975000 1 5 0.392727
9‘ , 23-1ow -0.27545000 4 18 0.027436
4 ZS-low -0.48015000 5 19 0.000000
Note: Higher score denotes a more positive teacher perception

of the future evaluations-expectations held within the social system of
the school.

aLower achieving school with a more positive future evaluation-
expectation, and higher adhieving schools with a more negative evalua-
tion-expectation for the future.

58.

63.

60.

53.

54.

59.

64.

Not High

107

How many students in your class don't care when
other students do much better than they do?

How many of the parents in this school service area
don't care if their children obtain low grades?

The parents of this school service area are deeply
concerned that their children receive a top quality
education.

How many students in this school are content to do
less than they should?

How many students in your class are content to do
less than they should?

The parents in this school service area regard this
school primarily as a "baby-sitting" agency.

How many of the parents in this school service
area like feedback from the principal and teachers
on how their children are doing in school?

Load (but .3500 or higher)

 

51.

52.

61.

How many students in this school will try hard to
do better on tests than their friends do?

How many students in your class will try hard to do
better on tests than their classmates do?

How many of the parents in this school service area
expect their children to complete high school?

Operationally defined, T.P.P.S.P. is the mean of the

.7493

‘06708

.6199

.5728

.5648

.4985

.4339

.4929

.5848

.3749

summed factor scores for the teachers within each of the sampled

schools.

on the items indicated a more positive T.P.P.S.P.

Within the original questionnaire, a higher total score

This was

judged to allow easy interpretation of the results. Therefore,

the mean factor scores for schools were left unaltered.

mean factor scores for T.P.P.S.P. are shown in Table 10.

School

108

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE .Hl—-Mean School Factor Scores for Teacher Perceived Parent
Student Push for Educational Achievement

Match Rank Rank Standard
Ach. Score High-Low Strata Sample Deviation
Ol-high -0.39652500 + 8 19 0.695990
02-low -0.67242500 — 9 20 0.532191
0341ng 0.21697500 - 3 10 0.568426

8 04-low 0.26760000 2 8 0.915565

E m 05-high -0.18460000 + 7 17 0.335027
35 :1: 06-low -0.87286667 - 10 22 1.131568
07-hig1211 0.08736667 - 5 13 1.034206

{’13 08-low 0.46186667 1 7 0.694474

"i 09-high 0.09770000 + 4 12 0.615545

.3 10-1ow -0.14253333 - 6 16 2.568311

0) IS-high 0.25070000 + 3 9 0.420643

3) l6-low -0.10820833 - 6 15 1.081128

:- lZ-low 0.17583333 4 11 1.076698

§ lS-higla -0.74325000 - 7 21 1.091740
E} g; 14-low -0.05420000 5 14 1.632926
"2 l7-high 1.06756667 + 1 2 0.251991

4 18-low 0.53056667 - 2 6 0.885619

‘sz 19-high 1.10315000 1 1 1.184050

:1: 24-low -1.35263333 7 23 0.463563

__, g 20-high 0.60750000 2 3 0.080610
g . 21-high 0.60560000 3 4 0.000000
3 a 22-high -0.23435000 5 18 0.991152
23-1owa -0.99245000 6 23 1.447235
25-low 0.58210000 4 5 0.000000

Note: Higher score denotes a more positive teacher perceived

parent-student push for educational achievement.

aLower achieving school with a more positive teacher perceived
parents and students desire for educational achievement.

109

Factor 8' - Teachers Reported Push of Individual Students (T.R.P.I.S.)

T.R.P.I.S. emerged as a factor with less highly loaded
items than the others which we have discussed thus far. The items
comprising this factor were those which were designed to measure
the amount of push that teachers were willing to exert upon indi-
vidual students in order to encourage performance greater than the
teacher expectations. The following questions are the ones which
highly loaded within the T.R.P.I.S. factor.

Proportion of Variance = .0586

Question # Factor Loading Score

44. It is unfair to demand more work from a student .7569
than he is capable of giving.

45. If you think a student is not able to do some of .7076
the school work you won't try to push him very hard.

46. For most students you are careful not to push them .6906
to thei rfrustration level.

41. For those students who do not have the resources .6117
which will allow them to go to college, you are
careful not to promote aspirations in them which
probably cannot be fulfilled.

Not HighALoad (but. 3500 or higher)

 

15. On the average what level of achievement can be .3549
expected of the students in your class?

Operationally defined, T.R.P.I.S. is the mean of the summed
factor scores for the teachers within each of the sampled schools.
Within the original questionnaire, a higher total score on the
weighted factor items indicated that push was being exerted upon

students in order to achieve beyond the expectations held by their

 

1Refer to Appendix 8, Teacher Questionnaire for response
alternatives.

110

teachers. This was judged to allow clear interpretation of the
results. Therefore, the mean factor scores were left unaltered.

School mean factor scores for T.R.P.I.S. are shown in Table 11.

Factor 9' - Teacher Reported Feelings of Job Satisfaction (T.R.F.J.S.)
Another small factor, as measured by the number of high
load items emerging from our factor analysis, consisted of three
highly load items, designed to assess degree of teacher satisfaction
with his present school, and with teaching in general. The
following items are those high loading within this factor.
Proportion of Variance = .0670
Question # Factor Loading Score
30. If someone were to offer you an interesting and -.7182
secure non-teaching job for $1,000 more a year,
how seriously would you consider taking the job?
31. If someone were to offer you an interesting and -.6769
secure non-teaching job for $3,000 more a year, how

seriously would you consider taking the job?

29. How much do you enjoy your teaching responsibili- .5405
ties in this school?

Not High Load (but .3500 or higher)

27. What percent of the students in this school would .4537
you say want to go to college?

28. What percent of the students in your class would .4537
you say want to go to college?

59. The parents in this school service area regard this .3520
school primarily as a "baby-setting" agency.

64. How many of the parents in this school service area .4013
like feedback from the principal and teachers on
how their children are doing in school?

 

1Refer to Appendix 8, Teacher Questionnaire for response alterna-
tives.

111

TABLE llr-Mean School Factor Scores for Teadher Reported Push of
Individual Students

 

 

 

 

 

Match Rank Rank Standard
Ach. Score High-low Strata Sample Deviation
Ol—high -0.16175000 - 3 13 1.358140
02-low 0.32082500 1 . 5 0.556434
03-high -0.63567500 - 6 16 0.500162
U, 04- low -0.4l466000 5 15 0.783348
Lu
u, "3 OS-high -1.09960000 - 9 20 0.240841
2 :5 06-low 018760000 4 14 0.390176
II:
3 07-high -1.17130000 - 10 22 1.371315
U, 08-low 023526667 7 17 0.996576
LLl
‘9 09-high -0.67023333 - 8 18 0.722221
_; 10-low -0.66873333 7 17 0.996576
U, lS-high 0.10400000 - 7 12 0.659424
3,4 l6-low 0.49640833 4 4 0.866063
:5 lZ-low 0.50786667 3 3 0.780008
:1. .
g 1341ng 0.30886667 + 5 6 0.589202
:0 a, l4-low 0.11577500 - 6 11 0.723583
LL]
‘9 17-high 0.72436667 - 2 2 0.498157
.5 18-1ow 1.21187778 1 1 1.269075
33 lQ-high -0.85395000 4 ‘19 0.229315
”1 24—low 0.12240000 5 10 0.593545
I ZO-high 0.25010000 1 7 0.272493
..: Zl-high -1.42395000 7 24 0.410334
§ :1) 22-high -1.26610000 6 23 0.000000
2 Si 23-10wa 0.22550000 2 9 0.752079
.3 25-low -1.10880000 5 21 0.000000
Note: Higher Score denotes more perceived teacher reported push

of individual students.

aLower achieving school with less perceived teacher need to push
students.

112

Operationally defined, T.R.F.J.S. is the mean of the
summed factor scores for the teachers within each of the sampled
schools. Within the original questionnaire, a lower total score on
the weighted factor items comprising this factor, represented a
more positive response. However, for clarity of interpretation, a
transformation was performed on all of the mean factor scores, thus
allowing a higher T.R.F.J.S. to also represent a higher teacher
satisfaction with their school and the teaching profession. School
factor scores for T.R.F.J.S. are shown in Table 12.

Factor 10' - Teacher Perception of Student Academic Improvability
(T.P.S.A.I.)

The last factor to emerge was based upon items which were
designed to report teacher perceptions of individuals belonging
to the school social system and their beliefs (negative or positive)
that past academic failure could be overcome. Specifically, this
factor attempts to assess the belief, within the school social
system, that hard work will result in improved student academic
performance. The following items are those with high load in
the T.P.S.A.I. factor.

Proportion of Variance = .0765
Question # Factor Loading Score

55. How many students in this school will seek extra .6305
work so that they can get better grades.

52. How many students in your class will try hard to .6238
do better on tests than their classmates do?

 

'Refer to Appendix 8, Teacher Questionnaire for response altern-
atives.

113

TABLE 12--Mean School Factor Scores for Teacher Reported Feelings
of Job Satisfaction

 

 

 

 

Match Rank Rank Standard
Ach. Score High-low Strata Sample Deviation
Ol-high 0.79086667 + 3 6 0.475346
02-low 0.57154167 - 5 8 0.444558
03—higg 0.46991667 - 6 9 0.429900
:3 04—low 0.64390667 + 4 7 1.347633

(1)
a, . OS-higlgl 1.39246667 - 2 3 0.453680
E 3 06-low 1.60960000 + 1 1 0.308015
3 074111;?l -0 .06060000 - 9 17 1.103096
3 08-low 0.01796667 + 8 15 0.425664
‘9 09-high 0.30313334 + 7 12 0.615008
.5 10-low -0.46996666 - 10 20 1.542970
:6 lS-high 0.30430953 + 4 11 0.470030
5% 16-low -0.23369166 - 6 19 0.685754
:' 12-low -.00553334 5 16 0.834894
:5 1341ng -0.57123333 - 7 21 1.120243
3 £8 14-low 1.24131667 + 1 4 1.371877
m l7-high 0.96053334 + 2 5 0.563878
.5 18-low 0.31178889 - 3 10 1.124375
a 19-high 1.55021667 1 2 0.685540
:5 24-low -1.07890000 6 23 0.262275
.5 20-higha -0.14668333 4 18 2.136947
5 21-higha 0. 15256667 2 13 0.000000
0:; 8 22-high ~l.06513333 5 22 1.403748
m 23-1ow 0.05566667 3 14 0.083580
.5 25-low -1.37263333 7 24 0.000000

 

Note: Higher score denotes higher reported teacher satisfaction
with school and teaching.

aLower achieving school with a higher reported teacher sense of
satisfaction with teaching, or a high achieving school with low teacher
satisfaction. ‘

51.

56.

48.

50.

40.

49.

47.

114
How many students in this school will try hard .6027
to do better on tests then their friends do?

How many students in your class will seek extra .5997
work so that they can get Better grades?

How many teachers encourage students to seek extra .5785
work so that the students can get better grades?

How many students in your class try hard to improve .5561
on previous work?

How often do you stress to your students the .5125
necessity of a post high school education for a
good job and/or a comfortable life?

How many students in this school try hard to improve .4777
on previous work?

How many teachers in this school encourage students .3951
to try hard to improve on previous test scores?

Operationally defined, T.P.S.A.I. is the mean of the summed

factor scores for the teachers within each of the sampled schools.

Within the original questionnaire, a lower total score on the

weighted factor items comprising this factor, represented a more

positive response. However, for clarity of interpretation, a

transformation was performed on all of the mean factor scores.

Therefore, a higher T.P.SJLI. now also represents a more positive

teacher perception that students are not bound by the past and can

show academic improvement in school. School factor scores for

T.P.S.A.I. are shown in Table 13.

Principal Factors

 

This researcher found the preceding ten factors to be the

only ones interpretable for further analysis within the present

study.

The limited number of principal subjects (23), made the

115

TABLE 13.--Mean School Factor Scores for Teacher Perception of Student
Academic Improvability

 

 

 

 

 

Match Rank Rank Standard
Ach. Score High-low Strata Sample Deviation
Ol-high -0.55945000 + 6 17 1.032729
02-low -0.70070000 - 7 19 0.742370
03-higp -0.85606250 - 9 21 0.738001
{:3 04-low -0.46115500 5 15 0.563861
LL) U)
5:: .0541ng 089297500 - 10 23 0.154856
E I 06-low 085224167 8 20 0.812435
07-h1gg -0.16904167 - 3 11 0.281426
g 08-low -0.10960833 2 10 1.029831
. 09-high -0.10599167 + 1 9 0.686005
"‘ 10-low 038224167 - 4 14 0.622914
m lS-high 0.05455357 + 2 6 0.349668
‘05 l6-low -1.37070000 - 7 24 0.808881
x :z' lZ-lowa 0.04169167 3 7 0.589057
'5’ lS-high 025034167 + 5 12 1.129803
no 33 14-low 087682500 - 6 22 2.760540
"’ 17-high 0.59069167 + 1 3 0.802456
.5 l8-low 0.02002500 - 4 8 1.061096
6’5 194mg?l 0.05612500 4 5 0.798889
:3 24-low 0.81532500 2 2 0.060819
20-high 0.42752500 3 4 0.460751
.1 Zl-high 0.98152500 1 1 0.000000
55 m 22-high -0.51507500 6 16 0.450710
3 u.) a
a: u: 23-low 032997500 5 13 0.877661
.5 25-1ow 068917500 7 18 0.000000
Note: Higher score denotes the perception of teachers that

students and their teachers believe that student background does not
determine fUture academic success.

aLower achieving school where teachers perceive that students
and teachers believe that it will be more difficult for students to
improve upon previous work.

116

task of finding stable interpretable factors, from the thirteen
principal attitudinal items, a difficult task. Those factors which
did emerge appeared to be divided among three areas: present
evaluations-expectations, future evaluations-expectations, and
parent-school contact.' It was in the opinion of this researcher,
however, that this observed trend did not progress to the point
where factors could be named and employed as independent variables.
While the thirteen principal items were not used as “factors” in
subsequent analysis, the principal questions and combination of
questions were still employed as part of our case analysis. This

is reported in Chapter VI.

 

'For the readers infermation, high load items which were
not used from a three factor varimax factor analysis are reported
in Appendix F.

CHAPTER V

THE STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Linear Regression Analysis on Achievement

0n the basis of the varimax rotation factor analyses
perfbrmed on the attitudinal responses of our three groups of
subjects, we were able to identify ten factors subsequently employed
as independent variables in analyzing the variation in achievement
between sampled schools. These variables were Operationally defined
in Chapter V. They were named and numberedtx> compose the independent
variables which were placed in our least square add linear regression
analysis. Also employed within this analysis were the design variables
discussed in Chapter III. Our desire was to control for their
effects upon achievement, prior to our consideration of the signifi-
cance of climate factors upon mean achievement of our sampled
schools.

Linear regression analysis, as employed in the current
study, is a descriptive statistic used to predict achievement only
within our selected sample of schools. Because this analysis is
perfbrmed within a study which is exploratory and descriptive,
having a small sample size and thus a low number of degrees of freedom,

the decision was made to use a = .10 as the level of significance.

117

118

Given the objectives of this study, it was this researcher's contention
that commission of a type one error, accepting a variable as a
significant predictor of achievement when it was not, was pre-
ferrable to making a type two error and mistakingly eliminating
any of our independent variables from consideration in subsequent
studies.

Also given the exploratory nature and multi-staged
analysis performed within the current study, the testing of spec1fic
hypotheses is not viewed as essential to our purposes. We will,
therefore, state those general questions and/or general hypotheses of
interest for the particular analysis being performed only when this
procedure seems appropriate. It must be remembered that our purpose
was to generate, rather than test, hypotheses.

Question 2 and Hypothesis 1 are 50 stated in Chapter III:

Qgestion 2:

 

What part of the variance, between high and low achieving
schools of various S.E.S., racial, and urban-rural community
types, can be predicted on the basis of the social-psychological
school academic climate factors?

Hypothesis 1:

 

Within our selected sample, the student and teacher variables,
comprising school normative academic climate, will differ in
relationship to the dependent variable, achievement, as measured
by the Michigan State School Assessment Achievement Index,

when the effects of mean school S.E.S., racial composition,

and urban-rural community type have been controlled.

In order to effectively deal with each of these, a least square add
linear regression analysis was employed on the basis of correlation
coefficients presented in Table 14. Several interesting points

should be noted on the basis of this correlation matrix. The most

119

 

 

 

 

 

A. A .<. m. a. by AuAAAcu>0AmlA uAaovmu< acousum mo :oAumouuom uonuaoh .0A

A. m. n. a. a. Pu :oAuuamnAuuw now we mucAAoom oopuomom Aosuaoh .m

A. m. .. a. a. .5 3.8.58 A3336... we :9... e333. 853... .m

A. a .m. m. a. by swam ucofio>oAnu< ucovzum vacuum mo :OAunouuom uoauaoh .h

A. m. m. a. By mcoAuauuomxm acoAuaaAa>m ousuam uoguuoh .e

A. m. m. m .hv mcoAuauoomxm mcoAuanAu>m uconoum Rosanne .m

A.z.<.m.m.mv nlhoz UAsooau< «Aoogum mo coAumoouom .nucoonum .v

A.m.o.m.x.mv AuAAAusm mo oncom vouuomom mucooaum .n

A.m.m.m.m.mv mcoAuauoodxmlncoAuasAu>m ouzusu mo :oAudouuom .mucoosum .N

A.m.m.m.d.wv acoAuauuodxm-ncoAuazAm>m unomoum mo :oAuaouuom .nucoosum .A

A.o>oA:u<v xoch unnammomm< ouaum cauA:UAz no unoao>oAzu< .o

AnnamnN .canusnA "onbh AuAcuaaou AaASmucanua .u

A003: fins-N .ouAEsnA "Aoocum on... me 33. «5:38am .m

A.m.m.mv :mAzuw .zoauA unsuapm UAaocoomooAuom .<

"noAnaAuu>
oooooo.A ANOAA.o- Aoooo.o mmAA~.o emomo.o ommm~.o ¢A~no.o A~ov~.o- AAAoA.ou ve~m~.o ammwA.c QA~AQ.O ancoc.cu nmnwn.0u .A.<.m.m.H .oA
ooooo.A oAAAo.Oc umewA.o msnoA.o ov~mo.oo Aavno.c envoA.on ovmwA.o mamoc.o nono.c vmvoe.o- Awwmo.o ounnn.o .m.n.m.¢.h .m
ooooo.A mnmo~.o- mooo~.o NQAnv.o vncvo.o ~vmmc.o ownmo.o wmnov.o- moomm.01 one~n.o- mwouo.o menoA.o .n.A.m.m.h .m
ooooo.A oAmuo.o mvmao.o AnovA.o ~no~o.ou onxm.o mwaA.o mNAvA.o mmvno.o stmA.o nvmn~.ou .m.w.m.m.h .«
ooooo.A wonc.o maven.o OAANA.o- oAAmo.o ohmvo.o- veAvn.o ~Navn.ou nNnNn.c mmoon.c .m.m.m.h .o
ooooo.A ooomo.o vusoo.ou nnmm~.c ava~v.o nnnnn.o Aunmv.o ~om~v.ou nonwo.o .m.m.m.h .m
ooooo.A Am~An.o- Am~An.c AvsA~.o nmn~n.o Noowo.ou oovnA.ou nmnvA.ou .z.<.o.m.m .v
ooooo.A Amoen.cu vmomo.01 m-~w.o- omvoA.on Numoo.° mONmA.01 .u.o.m.¢.m .n
ooooo.A o~mvo.o- Anomn.o Acou~.ou AmvnA.o vomAm.o .m.m.m.m.m .N
ooooo.A ovmmv.o usAom.o AAoos.ou nAcsc.o .m.m.m.m.m .A
ooooo.A mnmm~.o vonv.ou anAnA.o o>oAnu< .a
ooooo.A oAAAe.on AnN-.oc sunny: .0
oooooo.A nnwno.on coax .m
oooooo.A .m.m.m .<
.oA .m .m .s .o .m .v .n .N .A .n .u .n .<

oAmaam AuAOH :AzuAr noAnaAun> mo mucvoAmmooo :oAuqunhoo mo xAuun21o.vA m4m<b

120

noticeable findings are the extremely strong simple correlation
between mean school achievement and three of our school climate
factors: a low sense of futility (r = .82), high teacher percep-
tions of present evaluations-expectations (r = .66), and a low
teacher reported perceived need to push individual students (r = .53).
A reported strong teacher need to push individual students also
appears more prevalent in predominantly black schools (r = .67).
There is also a high correlation between a school being predominantly
black and the presence within the environment of a high student
perceived sense of futility (r = .61). Predominantly white schools,
on the other hand, relate much more positively to higher teacher
present evaluation-expectation (r = .41).

The correlational relationship between our school climate
factors will be discussed further in the summary of the present
chapter as well as in Chapter VII. In addition, separate correlation
matrices representing student variables and teacher variables will
be presented for our three design strata: predominantly white,
predominantly black, and rural schools. These will be presented
and discussed in section three of this chapter within the report
of our discriminant function analysis.

Our least squares add linear regression analysis used
each of our sampled school's actual mean achievement scores as
dependent variables. The independent variables were the 10 student
and teacher school climate factors. The effects of S.E.S., race,
and urban-rural community type were controlled by first placing them

into the regression equation. This allowed the researcher to

121

analyze the amount of variation in achievement which could be pre-
dicted by our ten school normative academic climate factors, beyond
the amount of variation predicted by the design variables.

TABLE 15.--Findings of Least Square Add Linear Regression Analysis
for Achievement

 

 

% Added to

2 the Prediction Significance
Variable R R Prob. of Achievement of B
S.E.S.
Race
Urban-Rural
Interaction 0.5056 0.2556 0.109
S.R.S.0.F. 0.8395 0.7048 <0.0005 .4492 <0.0005
T.P.F.E.E. 0.8962 0.8031 0.008 .0983 <0.0005
T.R.P.I.S. 0.9225 0.8559 0.023 .0528 <0.0005
S.P.P.E.E. 0.9418 0.8995 0.052 .0336 <0.0005

 

Thus we can observe that our method of sample selection is
fairly successful in limiting the effects of our design variables
(S.E.S., race, and urban-rural) upon achievement. They account for
less of the variance in achievement than is normally the case. This
analysis also clearly demonstrates that by far the most important
climate variable within our sample of schools is student reported
sense of futility (p <0.0005), of which that part of S.P.S.0.F.
not in common with the design variables accounts for 44.9% of the
prediction of the variance in achievement. Other variables signifi-

cantly contributing to the prediction of the variance in school

122

achievement were: higher teacher perceived future evaluation-
expectations (p = .008), less teacher reported need to push
individual students (p = .023), and higher student perceived present
evaluations-expectations (p = .052). These four school climate
variables predicted slightly over 63% of the achievement variation
in our sampled schools. Thus, this researcher accepts Hypothesis 1,
that school normative academic climate differences do exist between
high and low achieving schools when the effects of S.E.S., race,

and urban-rural community type are controlled.

Linear Regression Analysis on Sense of Futility

As a consequence of the observed strength of the achieve-
ment predictive ability of student perceived sense of futility,
this research decided to use this factor as a dependent variable in
an attempt to predict the amount of variation beyond the effects of
S.E.S., race, and urban-rural community type which were accounted
for by the remaining nine school climate factors. Table 16 represents
our findings:

1

TABLE l6.--Findings of Least Square Add Linear Regression Analysis for
Sense of Futility

 

 

% Added to

2 the Prediction Significance
Variable R R Prob. of Achievement of B
S.E.S.
Race
Urban-Rural
Interaction 0.6320 0.3994 0.015
T.P.F.E.E. 0.8069 0.6511 0.002 .2517 0.0005
S.P.S.A.N. 0.8569 0.7343 0.029 .0832 0.0005
S.P.P.E.E. O 8906 O 8147 0 042 0804 0 0005

 

123

It would appear, according to our findings, that we can
predict 41.53% of the variation in sense of futility for our
sampled schools on the basis of three significant normative academic
climate variables. First, a low sense of futility appears to be
found in those schools which also have a high teacher present
evaluation-expectation (p = .002). Secondly, there exists in low
S.P.S.0.F. schools a more positive student perception, of the
presence within the school environment, of norms stressing academic
achievement (p = .029). And thirdly, there exists high student
perceptions of the present evaluations-expectations of the probability
of student achievement (p = .042). All of these variables, thus,
exercise an important indirect relationship to our original dependent
variable, achievement. Two of the three (teacher present evaluation-
expectations and student perceived academic norms) did not signifi-
cantly add to the prediction of the variation in achievement. Although
not significant, it is worth noting that for the first time there is
evidence of the possible importance of teacher perceptions about the
belief held within the school social system that student academic
achievement can be improved. More will be said concerning this
variable in subsequent analysis.

This analysis adds further weight to our earlier conclusion
that high and low achieving schools can be differentiated by certain
socio-psychological factors related to the school normative academic
achievement environment. It also increases our understanding of

the patterns of relationships existing between these variables.

124

Discriminant Function Analysis

The next stage of our study utilizes a discriminant function
analysis which determines which of our school climate factors best
differentiate between higher and lower achieving schools within our
design strata. As in the case of the least square add linear
regression analysis, the independent variables employed for the
discriminant function analysis consited of those student and
teacher factors arrived at through the use of a varimax rotation
factor analysis, reported in Chapter IV. In the discriminant
function analysis, actual achievement was not the dependent
variable. Schools were assigned to higher and lower achieving
categories on the basis of the relationship existing between their
students mean achievement and their mean S.E.S. index scores.
Their placement into higher and lower achieving categories was also
dependent upon the design strata in which they were placed. The
three design strata were: predominantly white urban schools,
predominantly black urban schools, and schools located within rural
communities.

The three strata were analyzed separately allowing for
both control of their effect and strata comparisons in the rela-
tionships of the independent variables to the dependent variable,
achievement. The small numbers of subjects made it impossible to
control for school mean S.E.S. within any given strata or consider
our independent variables accumulatively, at any one time.
Therefore, the four student climate factors were analyzed as one

group, while the six teacher factors were divided into two groups

125

of three factors each. The two divisions of teacher factors were
determined on the basis of their strength of correlation to achieve-
ment within a previously run correlation coefficient matrix,

reported in Table 14 in section one of the present chapter. The
three factors having the highest correlation with achievement formed
one group while those having the lowest correlation formed the other.
The three groups of variables forming the basis of our attempts to

discriminate between high and low achieving groups of schools were:

Group 1:
1. Students' Present Evaluations-Expectations (S.P.P.E.E.)
2. Students' Future Evaluations-Expectations (S.P.F.E.E.;
3. Students' Perceived Sense of Futility (S.P.S.0.F.
4. Students' Perceptions of Academic Norms (S.P.S.A.N.)
Group 2:
1. Teacher Present Evaluations-Expectations (T.P.E.E.)
2. Teacher Future Evaluations-Expectations (T.F.E.E.)
3. Teacher Reported Push Individual Students . (T.R.P.I.S.)
Group 3:
1. Teacher Perceptions of Parent-Student Push

for achievement (T.P.P.S.P.)
2. Teacher Reported Job Satisfaction (T.R.F.J.S.)
3. Teacher Perceptions of Student Improvability (T P S.A.I.)

A discriminate function analysis evolved from the correlational
relationship between the factors. Matrices of simple within cell
correlations of our independent student and teacher variables were
thus developed and represented in Tables 17 and 18.

There are a number of very interesting correlational patterns
observable in these tables. Following are several noticeable pattern

examples:

126

TABLE 17.--Separate within Cell Simple Correlation Matrices of Student
Variables for White, Black, and Rural Schools

S.P.P.E.E. S.P.F.E.E. S.R.S.0.F. S.P.S.A.N.

 

Predominantly_White-Urban Schools
S.P.P.E.E. 1.000000

 

S.P.F.E.E. 0.158115 1.000000
3.1LS.O.F. -0.262210 -0.349942 1.000000
S.P.S.A.N. 0.155800 -0.130372 -0.625740 1.000000

Predominantly Black-Urban Schools
S.P.P.E.E. 1.000000

 

S.P.F.E.E. -O.395245 1.000000
8.1LS.O.F. 0.451046 -0.868724 1.000000
S.P.S.A.N. 0.282368 0.150282 -0.234520 1.000000

Rural Schools
S.P.P.E.E. 1.000000

 

S.P.F.E.E. -0.151533 1.000000
S.EKS.O.F. -O.877112 -0.l77929 1.000000

S.P.S.A.N. 0.032022 0.663966 -0.l6949l 1.000000

 

 

127

 

 

 

 

 

oooooo.A wvoeA.o oomAAA.ou Amnnnm.o- wovAAe.o- meoumn.o .H.<.m.d.e
oooooo.A menmno.ou mwmoem.o moemnm.ou wmmmmo.ou .m.w.m.m.9
oooooo.A Anoeew.on mmmmmw.o oAmAmo.o .m.H.m.2.H
oooooo.A mmnmmm.ou mmomom.on .m.m.m.a.b
ooooooé Nemmvmdu .m.m.m..~
oooooo.A .m.m.m.~
onocum Ampsm
oooooo.A momemm.o NmAnoo.o mmeAmo.o Noemme.o mmAmmo.o- .A.<.m.d.H
oooooo.A oommmo.o- mommmo.o mmmmmo.o emmAmo.os .m.n.m.m.p
oooooo.A ereom.o omono.ou meeom~.o .m.H.m.z.H
oooooo.A mmNNAm.o mwoomm.o .m.m.a.d.p
oooooo.A mmmwno.o .m.m.m.H
oooooo.A .m.m.d.H
386.6. 5833.88 $655.88..
oooooo.A mvomA.ou ommomm.ou ommAmm.o Annmeo.o Ahmmo~.o- .A.<.m.m.H
oooooo.A commo~.o moAmmm.ou omAmoA.o mummmA.o .m. w. a. m. H
oooooo.A mANmAe.ou meNmAm.o omwuoo.o .m. A. a. 2. H
oooooo.A momnmo.o ermvm.o .m. m. a. d. H
oooooo.A monmoo.o- .m. m. m .H
oooooo.A .m. m .d. H
onocom cmnhauopAzz xwmcchEowoAm
.A.<.m.m.H .m.w.m.m.b .m.A.m.2.H .m.m.a.m.b .m.m.m.e .m.m.m.k
ononom Amusm
fiCd Jumfim Amufifiz HOW modbwflhm> .HmLmeF MO mmuwhumz fiOHHmHGHhOU mHQEunm HHQU ARM—3%»: 0HN.~NQ®WII.®F mqmdfi.

128

Student Variables:

1.

In predominantly white-urban schools, we find a low but
positive correlation to exist between student perceived
present and perceived future evaluations-expectations

(r = 0.158). This is not the case in predominantly black-
urban schools (r = -0.395) or schools located within rural
communities (r = -0.151).

In rural schools, we find an extremely strong relationship

to exist between a low student sense of futility and a high
student perceived present evaluations-expectations (r = -O.877).
This relationship exists, although to a lesser degree,

between variables within our predominantly white-urban sample

(r =-0.26). In predominantly black-urban schools, however,

there appears to exist a fairly strong relationship

between higher student perceived present evaluations-expectations
and a higher sense of futility within the school social

system (r = 0.45).

A low sense of futility has a much higher correlation with
high student perceived future evaluations-expectations in
predominantly black-urban schools (r =-0.868) than we find
in schools which are predominantly white-urban (r = -O.349)
or rural (r = -0.l77).

Examining again a low student perceived sense of futility,
within the school social system, this time with more positive
perceived student academic norms, one can see a stronger
correlation to exist in predominantly white-urban (r = -0.625)
than in black-urban (r = -O.237) or rural (r = -0.169)
schools.

Teacher Variables:

 

1.

We find a rather high positive relationship to exist
between teacher future evaluations-expectations and teacher
willingness to push individual students in predominantly
white-urban schools (r = 0.51), an even stronger positive
correlation between these variables in rural schools

(r = 0.839), but almost no relationship between these
variables in predominantly black-urban schools (r = -0.00l).

A teacher's greater willingness to push individual students
has a strong negative correlation with the greater degree

of teacher perceived parent-student push for educational
achievement, in predominantly white-urban schools (r = -0.41)
and rural schools (r = -0.84), while the correlation between
these variables is strongly positive in predominantly black-
urban schools (r = 0.56).

129

3. While not quite so dramatically, this same sort of relation-
ship is feund to exist between teacher reported willingness
to push individual students and more positive beliefs about
student improvability. Once again, for both predominantly
white-urban schools and rural schools, we find these
variables to be negatively correlated (r = -.226 and -.117
respectively). while for predominantly black schools, we
again find a fairly high positive relationship (r = .607).

4. We find a highly positive relationship to exist between
teachers job satisfaction and amount of parent-student
push for educational achievement in predominantly black-
urban schools (r = .62) and a similarly negative correlation
in predominantly white-urban schools (r = -.595).
Within the context of these relationships, the within
strata maximum discriminate function analysis on our three separate
groups of independent variables can now be examined. This analysis
was employed to help us deal with question one and hypothesis two,
as presented in Chapter III.

Qgestion l:

 

Which of a number of social-psychological school academic
climate factors derived from the perceptions of students,
teachers, and principals, best differentiate between higher and
lower achieving schools, when S.E.S., race, and urban-rural
community type have been controlled?

Hypothesis 2:

Within our selected sample, there will be differences between

predominantly white-urban schools, predominantly black-urban

schools, and rural schools, in the relationship between those

variables comprising school normative academic climate, as

measured by the perceptions of students, teachers, and principals,

and the dependent variable, achievement, as measured by the

Michigan State Assessment Achievement Index.

It must be stated initially that due to several circumstances,

an exact testing of hypothesis 2 or answer to question 1 is not
possible through the present analysis. First, the varimax factor

analysis on principal data did not produce sufficient interpretable

130

factors. Secondly, by using the three separate strata, this
researcher was able to control for their effects, although as a
result of the small sample size, it was possible to analyze the
data by achievement only, and impossible to separate strata by high
and low S.E.S. We do, however, possess substantial evidence that
S.E.S. does not have a great effect upon achievement. First, the
least square add regression analysis found the effect of S.E.S.
upon our current sample to be fairly small, as all of the design
variables together, including S.E.S., accounted for only 25.5% of
the variation in achievement. Secondly, the design of our sample
within our three strata, S.E.S. is fairly evenly divided between
higher and lower achieving schools, as shown in the following
Table.

TABLE l9.--Placement of High and Low S.E.S. Schools by Achievement
within Strata '

 

 

 

 

High Ach. Low Ach.

Predominantly . High S.E.S. 3 3
White-Urban Low S.E.S. 2 2
Total Number of Schools in Strata = 10
Predominantly High S.E.S. l 2
Black-Urban Low S.E.S. 2 2
Total Number of Schools in Strata = 7
Rural Schools High S.E.S. , l 1

Low S.E.S. 3 2
Total Number of Schools in Strata = 7

 

131

In light of these reservations, our desire in this analysis
was to gauge the relative amount of discriminatory power possessed
by each of our 10 independent variables, within the three groupings,
for each of the strata, between higher and lower achieving schools.
To accomplish this, a single vector of standardized scores was
produced which weighted the contribution of each of our variables to
differences in mean student achievement. Bartlett's chi square
test for significance was calculated for each variable group within
each of the strata. Findings are reported in Tables 20 - 25.

TABLE 20.--Oiscriminant Function Analysis of Student Variables
Predominantly White-Urban Schools

 

 

 

Independent Variable Standardized Score
1. S.P.S.0.F. -l.4380
2. S.P.S.A.N. -O.8161
3. S.P.F.E.E. . -0.3931
4. S.P.P.E.E. 0.1201
2

Bart1ett's X = 11.7547 with 4 d.f. P < 0.0193

Thus, we find that our grouping of student variables do
significantly distinguish between higher and lower achieving schools
within the predominantly white-urban school strata. Although no
arbitrary figure was decided upon to determine if a particular
variable was or was not differentiating between the two achievement
groups, by looking at the absolute values of the standardized scores,
we can easily see that student perceived sense of futility and
student perceived academic norms appear to have a much higher

differentiating power than do student future or student present

132

evalnations-expectations. For graphic representation of the manner
in which these student variables differentiate higher and lower
achievement in predominantly white-urban schools, matched on S.E.S.,
see Figure 1.

TABLE 21.--Discriminant Function Analysis of Student Variables
Predominantly Black-Urban Schools

 

 

Independent Variable Standardized Schools
1. S.P.S.0.F. -l.8251
2. S.P.F.E.E. -O.8427
3. S.P.P.E.E. 0.7493
4. S.P.S.A.N. -0.2537

 

2’

Bart1ett's X = 3.3035 with 4 d.f. P < 0.5084

A significant discriminatory power for this group of
variables was not found within these strata. This may have been
the result of: (1) our small sample size within the two achievement
groups in predominantly black-urban schools, (2) there may not have
been a large enough range for independent variables within predominantly
black-urban schools to differentiate achievement groups, or (3)
there may be no actual significance for these variables within the
strata. Assuming that the variable order does have some meaning,
and remaining cautious in interpretation, we again find by looking
at absolute values that student perceived sense of futility is by
far the most important discriminator of achievement differences,
with student future and present expectation, discriminating at
a much lower level. Unlike the case of predominantly white-urban

schools, student perceived school academic norms do not appear to

133

onocum nonuniouAgz AAucmnAEovohm pom Aoocom mo mAAmm vacuum: mo monoom Aouomm acousum Aoocom :moZuu.A on:MAm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Aoocum ch>oAcom nocuA: vhmzou ucAom mzoAA< “ouoz
11. 8.58 T. mmm
N. ASKS 36..
A 1.. 111111 .. 11111111111111111111111 1.. 111 11111 1111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
s. A833
6.. A238 mmm
s. ASLS and.
F. AS+a8 9 v0 mum
. 30
o. .88. ........... 15--.». ....... - ....... EN. ........................... :c
s Aoo+moW 91 v.
R. A238 1* ma
5. Amaze .1 Y .3:
. 8138 E mmm
m A258 813 36..
F” ---------------------------Aamuw3:fih ............ U ..................................................
p. A348 To mm
s A838 To £3.
E. 8758 an: mum
E. ASKS To 36..
am A838}... ....................................................... -
p. A5958 ow. ma
5 A838 3 4 :9...
. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.. mm; P... mo; om. mA. 8. m... on. 2. o 2.. co. m..- 8. me. 8.. 8.7 8.7 3.7 8.7

134

be an important discriminating factor. For a graphic representa-
tion of these variables, differentiating higher and lower achieving
predominantly black-urban schools matched on S.E.S., see Figure 2.

TABLE 22.--Discriminant Function Analysis of Student Variables
Rural Schools

 

 

 

Independent Variable Standardized Score
1. S.P.S.0.F. 2.7984
2. S.P.P.E.E. 2.7488
3. S.P.F.E.E. 1.3009
4. S.P.S.A.N. -0.6251
2

Bart1ett's X = 5.4964 with 4 d.f. P < 0.2401

Again we fail to find group significance and the reasons
stated for our failure to find significance in predominantly black—
urban schools might once again apply to the rural sample. A compari-
son of the absolute scores with the other two strata, however, present
some interesting results. Again we find student perceived sense of
futility to be the most important discriminator of the group, but
not by nearly so wide a margin as the other strata. Student
perceived present evaluations-expectations were almost as strong in
differentiating achievement. For graphic representation of these
variables differentiating higher and lower achievement in rural

schools, see Figure 3.

135

ononom
cmcnznxumAm AAuqazAEOuoum pom onocom mo mAAmd venous: mo monoom nonomm ucovspm Aoocom :m0211.m oasmAm

.Aoonom McA>oAnom nocmA: chosen pcAom mzonn< ”opoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N. 37.24 7F Jo mum
A. ASA: A 36..
s. ...... -Awflwd-q-m:::-: ..... mum
m ANS . and.
.1... 1 GAfia o v. mmm
0 A331: 1 v. 361.
w. ............. -Amflww- ............... ................................... WWW.
N... ANS . :mA:
1 875 T mum
...1. ASA: To 33
m. -- ................... Aawwui: .- ..... .......... - ............ - ........ - ................ WW
8. AN: o :3:
... ASKS emu-o mum
m. A316: Alla 36..
.11.-..--- ----- - ---------------------- ----..1::Aaflwm:vwo::: ----- - ------ 11--mm
.1... AN: o .3:
S

 

om; mm-A QNA moa om. mu. on... me. on. 3. 0 2.. on! me? oer mnr omr moIAu ON.A1 mm.A1 om..A.-

136

ononom Amnsm you monoum Houomm unmo3um Aoocom :m0211.m oADMAm

.ononom ch>oAcum AozoA can HocmAc moumnmmom ocAA :oxoum "ouoz

 

Ammv o
Aamvo Ammo .

r--""' """" """"'|" """""" '-"""'I"'"""'I""' """"""""""""""""""""""""""

AN3 0 Am: 0 88 6 A5 o

 

Ans .. Ans - A43 o

ANS. .23 83 . Am: .

Ammu-
Aauo Ans .

$3.33. 83 6 A5.

 

S.P.P.E’ B. {S.P.F.E.E. 'S.R.S.O.F. S.P.S.A.N. ii

 

Ammo. Ammvo
Aamvo
------------- -A.&u.A~3
AaAvvomvo

 

om.A mm; 2.4 moA

om. mm. on. me. om. ma 0 mA... on... me... Go.- mnr om? mo1A1 0N.A1 mm1A1 om.A1

137

TABLE 23.--Discriminant Function Analysis of Teacher Variables
Predominantly White-Urban Schools

 

 

Independent Variables Standardized Scores

Group I:

l. T.P.F.E.E. 0.9072
2. T.P.W.P.S. -0.7882
3. T.P.P.E.E. 0.6007

Bartlett's x2 = 13.4731 with 3 d.f. P < 0.0038

Group II:

1. T.P.P.S.P. -l.2284
2. T.R.F.J.S. -0.8868
3. T.P.S.A.I. 0.1550

Bartlett's X2

0.6392 with 3 d.f. P < 0.8875

 

The teacher variable analysis was designed so that the
variables having the highest correlation with achievement were
assigned to Group I, while the remaining variables were assigned to
Group II. Therefore, it is not surprising that we find strong
significance to Group I and very low significance in Group II. It
appears also that in Group I while teacher future evaluations- ,
expectations is the most powerful discriminator of achievement,
followed by teacher willingness to push individual students and
teachers present evaluations-expectations, that all three variables
do differentiate higher and lower achieving schools. In Group II, on
the other hand, it appears that the only variable which might
deserve further consideration is the teacher perceived, parent-
student push for educational achievement. For graphic representation
of the teacher variables differentiating lower and higher achieving,

predominantly white-urban schools, matched on S.E.S., see Figure 4.

138

£828

can-51323 .AAucchEovoAm Ao-A onocom mo mAAmm 3:38: we monoom Spoon— .HoAAu-moh Aoocum 507.1144 oASmA-A

.Aoofim 9.302ko HERA: AVA-n33 ucAom use-2 ”ouoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I iflhio. 87.8. . mmm
1.“ ................... brace-e -- 3..
s. ........ - ................ $630.43
6.. lectme mum
T. K11» A8140 :3:
s Alli-IIASSS 8m
1. - ---....d-.:--Amfi.e 111:1...3
Fill-Iva ........... Sana ................. ,
R. l A498. mum
T. To ANoLS , :3:
s 1 0:258 V1. ma
1 ............................ H .......... 1- 38.-A8133
on - ...... - ............. .1 A v V Aoo+m8
R. l .518 new
.1. 168:8 .3:
P 1.0878 . mm
& ----AmA..1nA-A-:.- 1-- ----- -.- so...
P. {1 0 $01.8.
P. Owe A338 mum
T OTIIIANAYAS .AMA:
111 11 AoTaBmmm
F“ lx1\ -1 1 "Amolog 11111111111 1-3mm
E. -- - uh»: 13.58
F” K 11'... mmm
W 04 .- ANQLS em...
. ii A c 8768 mmm
E. .1........... ---------------------------1---------------immoKB- -------------------------- 138
5 1A k A V )1 Soto-8
p. 04‘ I11 3+8 mmm
T. T110 . ASLS a...

 

84 m3 om-A m3 om. mA. 8. .3. cm. 2. A. 2.- 8.- a..- 8.1 w...- om... 8.7 3.7 mm;- 8.7

139

TABLE 24.--Discriminate Function Analysis of Teacher Variables
Predominantly Black-Urban Schools

1:33: "

 

:-u.'3::._r3.sm ’

 

Independent Variable Standardized Score

Group I: i

l. T.P.F.E.E. 0.7248

2. T.P.P.E.E. 0.5348

3. T.W.P.I.S. _. -0.5178

Bartlett's x2 = 1.6251 with 3 d.f. P < 0.6538

Group II:

1. T.P.S.A.I. 1.3844

2. T.P.P.S.P. -0.9390

3. T.R.F.J.S. 0.0924

Bartlett's X2

1.9177 with 3 d.f. P < 0.5897

 

Again significance was not found for our variables in the
sampled predominantly black-urban schools. Possible reasons for
this inability to find significance are the same as those discussed
earlier. Cautiously assuming that our standardized rankings are
meaingful, in Group I we see, just as in the case of the predominantly
white-urban schools, the most powerful differentiating variable for
achievement is teacher future evalnations-expectations. It should
be noted also that the two other differentiating variables are
fairly powerful. 0f great interest, in Group II, is the manner in
which teacher perceptions of student improvability becomes an
important discriminator of achievement within this strata. The
importance of this variable to this stratum becomes apparent when

we compare the graphic representation of mean scores on teacher

140

variables for schools, matched on S.E.S., in white-urban (Figure 4)

and Black-urban (Figure 5) samples.

TABLE 25.--Oiscriminate Function Analysis of Teacher Variables in
Rural Schools

 

 

Independent Variables Standardized Scores

Group I:

l. T.P.F.E.E. 2.8591
2. T.W.P.I.S. -2.7232
3. T.P.P.E.E. 1.4475

Bartlett's x2 = 7.4465 with 3 d.f. P < 0.0590

Group II:

1. T.P.P.S.P. 1.3844
2. T.P.S.A.I. -0.9390
3. T.R.F.J.S. 0.0924

2

Bart1ett's X 2.4575 with 3 d.f. P < 0.4831

 

Thus in the rural sample, as in the white-urban sample,
only the first group of teacher variables significantly differentiate
higher and lower achievement. The most powerful variables of these
groups are, teacher perceived, future evaluations-expectations, and
their willingness to push individual students. Perceived present
evaluations-expectations do discriminate achievement but apparently
not as strongly as do the other two. 0f the three variables in the
second group, only perceived parent-teacher push for educational
achievement, and to a lesser extent feelings of student improvability,
should be given further consideration, and at that with only the
greatest of caution. For a graphic representation of the teacher

variables in lower and higher achieving rural schools see Figure 6.

141

onozom

cmpuz1xomAm AAucwcAEovoAm Mom onocom mo mHAmd vacuum: mo mouoom Houomm Honumoh Aoonom coax-1. m ousmAm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Aoo:0m McA>oAnom sMAn vnmzou pcAom mzoyu< "opoz

. AflfizoAilllo 11 mm
m ............... GTE-1.;- ------ 1 :38
.61 A2133» 1 ma
1 ANS O AAMA:
. 315i: mum
.1... LEE-1 .................................................... W1-- ...................... 11--1%.
w Sim: mum
T can.
. A9113 illvo mum
m. 935%.»---- ...................... 11......
m $72. 1 mum
. ANS. ewe.
. STA: omlillo mm
D.
we ........... A3413}.-- 1111-111-111d1 ........ 1111111 ....... 11111-138
m 87...: 111v.- mum
mL ANS. emu.
.. $23M 1 mm
.1. ------------- 11- A34: J ................................................... 33
H. 37.3 1111/ 1 ma
. AN: 0 may.
.1 A211: oliv- mmm
6.. ............................. 1 AEASI 26..
P. Sims-Tile- ma
.1. ANS. SE

3.. me on. we; om. mA. 8. ma. om. 2. o .4.- 8.1 a..- 8.1 m5- 8.- mo.A1 em... 841 S.A-

.onocom Amusm How monoom Houomm Aocomeh Aoocom amen-1.0 oHSMAm

.Aoo:0m ch>oAzom Aochc mA ocAA coxoun o>oc<

"ouoz

 

A53 I

AAS O 880 83.

Ana.

ANS o

Ammo o

 

TRBJS~ TRSAI.

A2. 0

08: :3 o 83 0

A43.

ANN:

And 0

 

142

ERRIS.

Ana 5
A43 o

8% o

8:.

SS 0

ANN...

:3 o

 

A21. 6

Am: 0 886 A93 0

AME. A48 0

.111---11111-1111-11--111AAMAv-111111-1-1-11-111--11--1---1111111-11 111111111 -11----11-111 11111111111 1-11-

 

Aaa. Ag 0

ANS. .8:

$3 0
Aowv.

:30

 

T.P.E.ET.F.E.E 'lZPPS-P.

A43. .33 38.

A5. 83

 

0 ANN... A2:

 

om.A om.A mo.A

om.

mm. 00. mo. om. mA. 0 mA.1 om.1 mv.1 00.1 mn.1 om.1 mo.A1 om.A1 mm.A1 om.A1

143

As a consequence of the results of the reported discriminate
function analyses, several observations are made. First, in an
attempt to answer question 1, this writer can generally conclude
that the results of the discriminate function analysis accord with the
conclusions of our least square add linear regression analysis.
Student perceived sense of futility, teacher perceptions of future
evaluations-expectations, and teacher willingness to push individual
students are fairly consistent discriminators of achievement,
within all three strata. The fourth significant variable within
the linear regression analysis, student present evaluations-
expectations, although not very powerful in white-urban schools,
was extremely discriminating of higher and lower achievement in rural
schools. Student perceived norms, insignificant in the regression
analysis to achievement, was a more important predictor of sense
of futility in white-urban than in black-urban or rural schools. All
of this must, of course, be tempered by the probability of chance
findings for the black-urban sample as well as for certain variables
in the white-urban and rural samples.

Secondly, because of the lack of significant achievement
differentiation of each variable group, within the predominantly
black-urban sample, as well as the lack of significance found for
some variable groups within predominantly white-urban and rural
schools, we cannot accept our hypothesis that differences exist
between the three strata on the amount of power possessed by our
individual normative climate variables, in differentiating higher

and lower achieving schools. We did, however, find that the order

144

of variable importance changed between strata. If we had sampled
enough cases and were thus able to analyze the ten student and
teacher variables simultaneously within strata, we may have found
differences in the degree of discrimination by any given variable
between different types of schools. Finding significant probabilities
may also have been possible.

Looking at achievement with our present results, two
obvious observations can be made. First, student perceptions of
present evaluations-expectations appears to be a powerful achieve-
ment discriminator in rural schools, although not nearly so important
in the predominantly white-urban schools. Secondly, it appears that
teacher beliefs in student improvability might be more important in
predominantly black-urban schools than in schools categorized
within the other two strata.

We have learned from our least square add linear regression
analyses and the discriminate function analysis that certain social
psychological climate variables significantly, predict achievement,
differentiate between higher and lower achieving schools within
certain stratum, and that the interaction between the climate
variables and higher and lower achievement might differ between
predominantly white-urban, predominantly black-urban, and rural

schools.

CHAPTER VI

THE CASE STUDIES

In this chapter the attempt is made to describe the sampled
population in as many ways as possible, in order that our under-
standing of the formation of positive learning climates and the
"reality" of existing situational relationships, between various
factors of school climate, can better explain consequent achieve-
ment within our schools. The contextual framework of the following
discussion and consequential findings will be highly speculative.
No definitive conclusions can or will be rendered.

The following are included in this chapter: _(1) tables of
factor scores, showing school rankings within their match, their
strata, and the entire sample; (2) graphs, representing school
mean climate factor scores within each strata; and (3) an observa—
tional case comparison of five pairs of schools matched on S.E.S.,
race, and urban-rural community type, with significant differences
in achievement.

The five types of schools include: one pair of high S.E.S.
predominantly white-urban schools, one pair of low S.E.S. predom-
inantly white-urban schools, one pair of high S.E.S. predominantly
black-urban schools, one pair of low S.E.S. predominantly black—
urban schools, and one pair of rural schools.

145

sampled
factor.
noted:

1.

146

Tables and Graphs of Mean School Factor
Scores and School—Rankings-

Tables 4 -13 and Figures 1 - 6 show where individual
schools rank, within matches, and strata of each climate

A few of this researcher's observations should first be

Student perceptions of future evaluations-expectations are
more positive for higher achieving schools within the
individual school match-ups, for both black and white-urban
samples, although not for our sampled rural schools.

Student perceived sense of futility is lower for higher
achieving schools in the white-urban, black-urban, and
rural samples.

Teacher present evaluations-expectations are more positive
in all higher achieving schools, within the white-urban
pairs and all but one of the black—urban pairs.

The teacher present evaluations-expectations factor is
generally more positive in our rural sample than in those
schools classified as urban.

The teacher future evaluations-expectations factor is
generally lower in our rural sample than in our urban
sample.

Teacher future evaluations-expectations of students is
consistently more positive, within the matches, for higher
achieving white-urban schools; the same thing being found
for those black schools which were matched on S.E.S.

Teacher willingness (or need) to push individual students
is consistently lower in the higher achieving schools
within the white-urban matched pairs, and all but one of
the black-urban matched pairs.

Job satisfaction appears to have little relationship to
achievement, but it does appear to have a relationship

to S.E.S. among white and black-urban schools. Interest-
ingly enough, teachers express higher satisfaction in lower
S.E.S. black schools than they do in higher S.E.S. black
schools, while at the same time, teachers express greater
job satisfaction in higher S.E.S. white schools than they
do in lower S.E.S. white schools.

147

9. Teacher perceptions of student improvability does not
appear to differentiate the higher achieving schools, but
it does appear to differentiate high achievement within
black-urban schools.

CASES:
High S.E.S. Predominantly White-Urban Schools 01 and 02.
School 01-

This is a high S.E.S. (55.1), high achieving (59.6),
predominantly white-urban school, located in a medium sized city,
in the western part of Michigan. Most of the students come from
"professional, upper middle class" homes. Many parents hold
advanced university degrees, with several teaching at a nearby,
large state university. Within one group of 13 students, members
of a single classroom, to whom the questionnaire was administered,
three had fathers holding Ph.D. degrees and another father held
both a Ph.D. and an M.0. degree. These 13 students were part of a
split section of third and fourth graders, especially chosen for
their ability to work alone. According to the school principal,
however, this particular group although atypical, was by no means
unusual with respect to the total parental school level of occupation
or education. The principal identified the parents as being extremely
supportive of the goals and educational desires advanced by the
school.

When sampled, the school was thirteen years old. It had
carpeted, spacious hallways and a glassed in courtyard, all con-

veying a comfortable, spacious atmosphere. The library was in the

main hallway and students were encouraged to stop on their way

148

through the school, pick up a book, take a seat or lie on the floor
to read. The courtyard was being used by the students to raise
one goat and an ever expanding family of rabbits. Students took
turns taking the animals home on weekends and during vacation
breaks. In several rooms, this researcher noticed signs over
various displays which stated "please touch."

The principal, a very impressive woman, held her position
since the building first opened. She held very definite ideas
about education, defining a "good teacher" as someone who dared
to try anything, but would admit to failure. She rated the students
at approximately the national norm in achievement, a rather
conservative estimate compared to their State Assessment results.

The school had for some time been racially integrated,
but during the school year in which they were sampled, a large group
of black children from a welfare project composed mainly of mothers
receiving Aid to Dependent Children, had been bused into the school.
According to the principal, any problems presented as a result of
this situation at the start of the school year, were due to a lack
of advanced preparation. Most problems were apparently resolved
at the time of data collection. When asked if she anticipated a
slip in achievement ranking, she replied that "in the short run
this was possible," but that "in the long run, children learn what
they are expected to learn," and that all of the students in her
school were "expected to achieve."

It appears that in this school we have a social system

operating to expose students to an intentional, non-traditional

149

education. Even though it is the feeling that these students come
from a home environment that will most likely insure their future
success, we find that the teachers are willing to push those
individuals whom they believe are not performing up to the standards
set by the school.

To compare this school with others in the white-urban strata

and the entire sample, see Table 4 -l3 and Figures 1 - 6.

School 02

This school was chosen as the high S.E.S. (55.2), low
achieving (48.1) match of school 01. It is located in an older,
fairly affluent community which has, in recent years, absorbed a
large "spill over" from a nearby urban industrial city. It also
services, within its boundaries, a good deal of expensive housing
subdivisions at various stages of development, and a nearby lower
S.E.S. area. As the school's boundaries cover a large area of
land, students are bused to and from school each day. According
to the principal, busing is an extremely complicated task that
creates great confusion in the school's schedule.

The school was constructed three years previously, and
designed then to encourage team teaching. Clusters of classrooms
surround a large commons area where larger group instruction could
take place. According to the principal, the staff had thus far
made a limited attempt at team teaching because they did not feel
"comfortable" in dealing with this method of instruction. She did,

however, envision more participation in the future.

150

Ability grouping was practiced through the school: between
grades, within grades, and within classrooms. Teachers were
encouraged, by the principal, to carefully study ”ability" test
results and to compare their perceptions with where the students
"should be." Just prior to our visit, the school had, according to
the principal, ". . . enlisted the aid of a language and learning
specialist, to help us (make a) more accurate diagnoses (of
readiness)."

Prior to accepting her first administrative position, when
the building opened, the principal had been teaching for 5 l/2 years
and had recently received a Ph.D. degree. She rated her students'
achievement level at the national norm and although she believed
most of her students would complete high school, she expected few
to attend college and less than 30% to obtain a college degree.

It appeared to this researcher that the low achievement might
have been attributable to the newness of the school, servicing a
large geographic area which has not yet become a community, and
employing a staff which was not yet comfortable with their own
positions in this confusing and unstable situation. This researcher
would speculate that integration of community and school behavior,
educational goals and desires had not yet developed. Looking at
the school mean factor scores, we find low student perception of
school academic norms, a fairly high sense of futility, and low
teacher perceptions of parent-student academic push. To compare
this school with others in the predominantly white-urban strata
and the entire sample, on mean factor loading scores, see Table 4-13

and Figures 1 - 6.

151

Low S.E.S. Predominantly White-Urban Schools 07 and 08:
School 07

This low S.E.S. (43.2), high achieving (56.7), predominantly
white-urban school is located on the outskirts of a small city in
the upper peninsula of Michigan. The surrounding neighborhood is
composed of well maintained old homes, lining unpaved roads. The
school itself was initially constructed in the early 1900's.

The total school environment appeared neat and extremely
well ordered. This writer would describe the observed teacher
classroom behavior as "traditional.“ Classes were conducted in
self-contained rooms of about 30 students each, and the curriculum
encompassed such subjects as: arithmetic, spelling, grammar,
reading, and geography.

The principal, who had held his present position for eight
years, taught a class himself. At the time of his interview,
he was just completing his 39th year as a teacher and during the
last 24 of these years, he had been a teaching principal. Only
one teacher in the building had been there for less than 5 years,
replacing another who had recently retired.

When this researcher asked the principal if a good rela-
tionship existed between the school and the community, he replied
positively. Then the principal was asked what type of reaction
might be expected from the school administration if there was ever
a complaint, by parents with respect to the type of job that a
particular teacher was doing. He replied emphatically, "the teacher

would be fired!"-

152

This researcher contends that this school has long been a
highly integrated segment of the surrounding community. The school
personnel were members of the immediate community and reacted
favorably to the will of the local citizenry.

Compared to other schools, some school mean factor scores
of interest are: high student present evaluations-expectations.very
low sense of futility, very low student emphasis placed upon norms
of academic achievement, low teacher perceived need to push students,
and low teacher satisfaction. To compare this school with others
in the white-urban strata or the entire sample, see Table 4-13

and Figure l - 6.

School 08

This school was chosen as the low S.E.S. (44.9), low
achieving (44.6), match for school 07. It is located on the out-
skirts of a medium size city in western lower Michigan. The
surrounding area is composed of small, older homes which appear to
have been constructed by the individual owners. Automobiles were
parked on front lawns, automobile parts were scattered across the
lots, and many garages stored snowmobiles.

The school itself was approximately ten years old and
"traditional" in design. Classrooms were built to accommodate
about 30 pupils each. The student population was fairly small,
with 90 students in the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades. Classrooms were
neatly equipped with straight rows of desks and the subjects
stressed were of the same "traditional" type as found in school 07:

arithmetic, spelling, grammar, etc. The students in school 08,

153

however, were not as orderly as were those in school 07. When one
teacher walked out of the room to complete her questionnaire, her
students immediately became quite restless.

The principal had held his present position for three
years, and was concurrently principal of two other schools, at one
of which he had taught for three years prior to accepting the current
job. He explained to the research team that this particular
building had a high rate of staff turnover and that not a single
teacher remained of those who were there when he became principal.
Four of his current classroom teachers had less than three years
of teaching experience and were not yet permanantly certified. He
felt now, however, that for the first time, he had a staff upon
which he could build a "strong" educational program.

The principal explained that much of the community population
was on welfare, and that those who did work, drove long distances
daily to and from the industrial section of the nearby city. He
stated that although parents expressed a desire for their children
to have a "good" education, many would take their children out of
school for prolonged periods of time, to go on hunting trips and
such, neglecting to inform the school first. Some parents would
apparently hide in their homes when school officials would visit.

This researcher notes a lack of continuity both within the
school itself and between the school and the community. Compared
to other schools, some school mean factor scores of interest are:
low present and future evaluations-expections by both students

and teachers, a high student perceived sense of futility, high

154

student perceived emphasis on academic norms, high teacher perceived
parent-student push for educational achievement, high teacher push,

and a strong teacher perception that members of the school social system
believe that background does not alone determine academic success.

To compare this school with other schools in the white-urban strata

or the entire sample, see Table 4 -l3 and Figures 1 - 6.

High S.E.S. Predominantly Black-Urban Schools 15-16:
School 15:

This is a high S.E.S. (61.3), high achieving (55.1)
school, located in one of the most affluent sections of a large
industrial city of Michigan. The surrounding neighborhood is
composed of large, expensive, well kept homes, most of which are
between 40 and 50 years in age. Ten years ago this section of the
city was almost entirely white and is now almost entirely black.
Before this shift in population, this specific neighborhood was
considered to be one of the wealthiest and most prestigious in
the entire metropolitan area. In recent years, although property
values have decreased, the area remains highly prestigious. A
fairly large white student population that remains in the neighbor-
hood, attend a nearby Catholic elementary school. The parents,
both black and white, who do send their children to school 15,
have a high S.E.S., and include several university professors,
symphony musicians, school administrators, andlocal politicians.
They have chosen to live in this neighborhood because they receive
more housing value for their money, they have a commitment to

remain within the city, and/or some other personal desire to remain.

155

The school itself is as old as the neighborhood, is rather
large in both physical size and student population (276 students
were sampled from grades 4, 5, and 6), but the surroundings are
pleasant and the building is obviously well maintained. Classes
are located in self-contained rooms of about 30 students each and
the curriculum appeared to be fairly "traditional" and structured
in both student-teacher relationship and course content. Ability
grouping was prevalent, both within classrooms and between grade
sections. The principal expected her teachers to use individual
ability test scores in making judgments about student placement
and ". . . individual strengths and weaknesses."

This was the principal's first year in her current position,
having had 8 l/2 years previous teaching experience and one years
experience as assistant principal in the same building. She
was the school's first black principal. The principal, appearing
to be well organized herself, also defined a "good" teacher as
someone who both "challenges" and is organized. She was aware that
the school was the highest achieving predominantly black school in
the state of Michigan and expressed the hope that this ranking would
not "slip".

The teaching staff is very stable, with a slow rate of
turnover (there had been no teacher turnover in two years prior to
our visit and none were anticipated for the next year) and twenty
of twenty-five teachers are permanently certified. School 15 has a
reputation throughout the city as a "good" school and teachers

appear anxious to accept placement there.

156

The principal referred to the parents' extreme interest
in the school, reporting that parents both initiate and carry out
many volunteer projects (tutoring, extended school day, summer
school programs, and much in the way of fund raising activities).

This researcher would characterize this school as an
island of stability, within a slowly changing neighborhood. The
people in this neighborhood have in the past and continue, to
identify themselves as living "in the school community," a
community uniquely resembling in climate, that of influential
suburban peer groups.

Compared to other schools, some of the mean factor scores
of interest for school 15 are: a very low student present evaluations-
expectations, but an extremely high student future and teacher
present and future evaluations-expectations (refer to comment of
community uniqueness in relation to suburban influences), a low
student-perceived emphasis placed upon academic norms, a relatively
low teacher reported need to push students, and high teacher
perceptions that the school social system dictates that the student's
past does not determine future achievement. To compare this school
with others in both the black-urban strata and the entire sample, see

Tables 4-13 and Figures 1 - 6.

School 16:

This school was chosen as the high S.E.S. (52.9), low
achieving (47.2) match of school 15. Considering the wide discrep-
ancy in S.E.S., between schools 15 and 16, they were chosen as a

match for the following reasons: (1) no other predominantly black

157

school came closer to the S.E.S. level of school 15 than did school
16; and (2) school 16 is adjacently located to school 15 (with back
yard fences determining which school certain students attend.

While school 16 is located in a neighborhood that does not
share the high S.E.S. of school 15, it is still characterized by
large, well-kept homes, most of which are 40—50 years old. Like
School 15, this area has also undergone a racial shift in the past
10 years, but unlike that in the school 15 area, it has been less
gradual and was just recently completed. The black families who
had moved into this area were generally not as highan S.E.S. group
as were the white families who had moved out.

The school itself, was approximately the same in size and
physical appearance as school 15. There had, in recent years, been
additions constructed on both schools, however, school 16's were
necessarily larger to accommodate its greater student population
(406 students were sampled in grades 4, 5, and 6). As in school
15, the self-contained classrooms, student-teacher interaction, and
course content appeared to be fairly "traditional" and structured.
Although straight rows of desks faced the front of the rooms, and
a stress on such subjects as English grammar, arithmetic, spelling,
etc., was prevalent, the orderliness reported as a characteristic
of school 15 was not observed in school 16. Interestingly, only
one door in the entire school could be opened from the outside,
with a student guard stationed at that door.

Very little is known about school 16's principal. As was

explained in Chapter III, he was too busy to either fill out our

158

questionnaire or be interviewed during our visit. He has not
complied with our several requests to complete the instruments
which have been both mailed and personally handed to him in self-
addressed stamped envelopes. Although he has claimed to have
returned at least two of our questionnaires, none has been received
by our research office.

The teaching staff has apparently experienced a tremendous
turnover in recent years. Six of the twelve teachers responding to
our questionnaire, were new to the building that year. Only one
teacher in our sample had been in this school for over five years.

Due to the principal's lack of cooperation, this researcher
is unable to accurately assess the present relationship existing
between the school and the surrounding community. However, given
the impressions of school instability, coupled with the recent and
drastic change of community, this researcher questions whether
favorable relationship could exist.

Compared to other schools, the factor scores of interest
for school 16 are: a very low student present evaluations-expecta-
tions, a fairly high sense of futility when compared to the whole
sample, low student perceived emphasis placed upon academic norms,
a high teacher perceived parent student push for educational
achievement, low teacher satisfaction, and a very strong teacher
perception that members of the school social system believe that
the past experiences which a student has had, do determine his
chances of academic success. To compare this school with others
in both the black-urban strata and the entire sample, see Tables 4-13

and Figures 1 - 6.

159

Low S.E.S. Predominantly Black-Urban Schools 17-18

 

School 17:

This school is a low S.E.S. (47.0), high achieving (49.6),
predominantly black school located in a small city which in recent
years has lost much of its individual identity when it was absorbed
into the metropolitan area of a large industrial city. The specific
neighborhood surrounding the school is stable and small, charac-
terized by well kept, "working class" homes.

The school itself is about 10 years old. It is a one
story structure with large windows, surrounded by a well kept lawn
and a large playground. Classrooms are self-contained to accommodate
about 30 students, and are traditionally designed with straight
rows of desks. The school program appears highly structured with
1 students encouraged to raise their hands when they had something to
say, and such basic subjects stressed as: reading, arithmetic,
grammar, spelling, etc. A most appropriate phrase used to describe
this school might be a "highly disciplined environment."

The principal had held this current position for eight
years and fifteen years of prior teaching experience. The teaching
staff was highly stable. Most of the teachers had been in this
building for at least five years, many coming with prior experience.
The principal and three of the teachers had all left the same school,
located about 30 miles away, to come to school 17 together. Inter-
estingly, the school which they had left was school 11 of our
sample, in which we were not allowed entrance in order to collect

data. School 11 is the second highest achieving predominantly

160

black school in the state, while school 17 is the third highest
achieving predominantly black school. These teachers have, thus,
been on the staff of the second and third highest achieving pre-
dominantly black schools in the state, both of which had a low
S.E.S. This researcher does not mean to imply any causality in
this finding. The same school factors which attracted them to
school 11 may well have attracted them also to school 17. However,
given the extremely small number of low S.E.S. - high achieving
predominantly black schools, it might be worthwhile to more closely
study this interesting situation.

The principal reported that the relationship with the
community was excellent. He stated that many of the persons living
in the community had moved there in order to escape "undesirable
circumstances“ and to make a better life for their children.
According to the principal, parents work very closely with the
school in everything from changing its name to choosing textbooks
and recommending changes in the school's curriculum.

Other school factors of interest to compare with school
17 are: extremely high future evaluations-expectations by students
and teachers, a very low sense of futility, very high student
perceived emphasis on norms favoring academic achievement, an
extremely high teacher-perceived parent-student push for educational
achievement, very high teacher push of individual students, high
teacher satisfaction, and very strong teacher perceptions that

members of the school's social system do pp£_believe that a

161

students past determines future achievement. To compare this school
with other schools in the black-urban strata or the entire sample,

see Tables 4-13 and Figures 1 - 6.

School 18:

This school was chosen as the low S.E.S. (46.7), low
achieving (39.6) match of school 17. It is located in the center
of a large industrial city, and services an area of high factory-
industrial concentration. The residential district includes both
single family dwellings and apartments. These are generally old,
many are not well kept, and glass and debris cover many of the
neighborhood streets. The area is densly populated and provides
little space for recreation. The neighborhood recently became a
test area for A.D.C. home purchases.

The school itself resembles a factory. It is quite large,
physically as well as in numbers of students (384 students were
sampled in grades 4, 5, and 6). Inside, the walls and hallways
are dark and rather depressing. Many of the windows were broken,
cracked, and temporarily repaired with tape. Classrooms were
"traditionally" designed with seats bolted to the floor, in straight
rows, facing the front of the rooms.

The principal had held his position for two years after
having had 11 years of teaching experience. The staff was quite
young, with 49 of 60 teachers in their first three years of
experience. The school had been experiencing a very high rate

of teacher turn-over, until the staff had recently been "frozen"

162

into the building. This policy temporarily restrained any teacher
transfers within the school district. It was the principal's
contention that this was the most expedient way to gather and retain
a staff long enough to build a sound educational program.

The principal characterized the school-community relationship
as exhibiting a lack of "cohesiveness" and "identity." Until the
1960's, the racial composition of the area was entirely white
“working class." By the time of our visit (early 1971), the area
was 90 percent black. In addition to this rapid racial transition,
the neighborhood became extremely transient. With the new A.D.C.
home buying program in operation, and staff freeze, it was his h0pe
that stability might prevail to ensure higher achievement within the
school.

Compared to other schools, some of the mean factor scores
of interest fer school 18 are: a very high student perceived sense
of futility, high teacher perceived parent-student push for
educational achievement and extremely high teacher push. To compare
this school with the black-urban strata and the entire sample, see

Tables 4 -l3 and Figures 1 - 6.

Rural Schools 22 and 23:
School 22:

This low S.E.S. (44.3), high achieving (60.6) school is
located in a small farming community, in the northwest portion of
the lower peninsula of Michigan. The center of the area consists
of the school, a church, a small grocery, and a gas station. The

local people live on farmlands, although few families depend on

163

farming as a means of sole support. There is a powerplant, near a
small city of about 8,000 inhabitants, located 15 miles away, where
many of the men earn enough money to provide their livelihoods. In
recent years, a substantial number of black families have moved into
the community as a result of finding work in the powerplant. Their
children now account for about 12-1/2 percent of the school p0pulation.
The school is a combination high school-elementary school.
The main building is quite old, but the elementary classes are
held in a new wing of several large, well lighted, self-contained
classrooms. Even the new section of classrooms appeared to be
rather "traditional" in design, with their straight rows of desks
facing the frpnt, and obviously orderly. The curriculum was
heavily loaded with basic subjects such as: arithmetic, reading,
grammar, geography, etc. There was no question that the teacher
was in control, but at the same time, there was also no tension of
the imposed discipline discernible in many of our schools.
The principal had held his position for twenty-three years
and was also the present superintendent of schools. He took
great pride in his school and the surrounding community. There
had been several new teachers in the school that year, an occurrence
the principal described as extremely rare. Although most of the
teachers in the school had been there for over five years, very
few actually lived in the community. This apparently did not
hinder the excellent relationship that existed between the community
and the school. For at least twenty-five years, the principal had

experienced a community in strong support of education. According

164

to the principal, the families in the area are large, well disciplined,
and total family participation is prevalent in school social and
sporting events. _

Compared to other schools, the mean factor scores of interest
for school 22 are: high student and teacher evaluations-expectations,
extremely high student perceived academic norms, low teacher push,
and low teacher satisfaction. To compare this school with others in

the'ruralsample, see Tables 4 - l3 and Figures 1 - 6.

School 23:

School 23 is the low S.E.S. (47.8), low achieving (45.6)
match for school 22. This school is located in a small farming
and residential community, in the center of the lower peninsula.

As in the case of school 22, most of the fathers of students in
school 23, cannot afford to support their families on a farm income,
and therefore, work at various jobs in a city of slightly over
20,000 people, located about 20 miles away. Originally a Catholic
settlement, large numbers of Protestants have recently begun to move
into the community.

The school accommodates grades K-12 in two fairly new and
large structures, separated by a common cafeteria. The curriculum
in school 23 was not observed to be significantly different than
that offered to students in school 22. The students in school 23
were not as attentive to this researchers instructions concerning
the completion of our questionnaire, as were the students of school

22. Several of the school 23 students, in fact, engaged in a race

165

to see who could finish checking answers first, without bothering to
read the questions.

There was a great deal of confusion as to exactly who was
the principal in charge of the elementary school. The high school
principal directed the research team to the superintendents office,
declaring that he was responsible for only the high school section
of the building. The superintendent, in turn, had us return to the
office of the high school principal, infonning us that he was the
only principal that the building had. We, therefore, interviewed
the high school principal who was at the school his second year in
that position, after five years of teaching in a city located over
200 miles away. Neither the principal nor any of the elementary
teachers in school 23 lived within the school community.

The relationship between the community and the school may
best be categorized as "confused." As was mentioned, the town had
originally been a Catholic settlement and consequently the popu-
lation and present local leadership was, according to the principal,
overwhelmingly Catholic. According to the principal, the Catholic
families of the town sent their children to this public kindergarten,
the Catholic elementary school next door, and then back to this
public high school. The Catholic elementary and public high school,
he claims, both had much higher standards than did the public
elementary school. The only students who attended the public
elementary school were apparently those who were either the children
of the Protestant newcomers, those who were not part of the regional

community, or those who the principal referred to as"dissonant

166

Catholics" who had for some reason (usually academic or disciplinary)
decided to place their children in the public school. According to
the principal, "dissonant Catholics" were not highly regarded by
the town leadership.

Compared to other schools, some of the mean factor scores of
interest for school 23 are: an extremely high student perceived
future evaluations-expectations, but a very low student and teacher
future evaluations-expectations; a high student perceived sense of
futility; low student perceived academic norms; low teacher perceived
parent-student academic push; and high teacher push of individual
students. To compare this school with others in the rural strata,
and the entire sample, see Table 14 - l3 and Figures 1 - 6.

Through the comparison of different types of schools on our
charts, we again found that the relationship between our climate
variables and achievement might be different for different school
strata. By looking more closely at individual cases, within our
sampled schools, it becomes apparent that the amount of "psychic
integration" between schools and their community of service, along
with school stability, might be important bases upon which a norm-
ative academic climate conducive to higher academic achievement
is constructed. Although, as explained, this is very speculative
in nature, the schools which we have case studied do appear typical
of our entire sample. The results of the case studies and the
findings of the three other analyses will be dealt with further in
the next chapter. This researcher will present a summary of the

study, with its limitations, conclusions, and recommendations.

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: CONTRIBUTIONS AND
LIMITATIONS: AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary and Conclusions

 

The purpose of this study was to compare a number of social-
psychological variables in school normative academic climate, between
high and low achieving elementary schools, while controlling, as
much as possible, for the effects of school mean socio-economic
status, race, and urban-rural community type. More specifically,
our desire was to find which of several social-psychological environ-
mental factors most strongly predict achievement as well as
differentiate between high and low achieving predominantly white-
urban, predominantly black-urban, and rural elementary schools.

The theoretical foundation for this research is derived from
a social psychological theory of human behavior, as stated by
Brookover and Erickson (1969);

l. The social norms and expectations of others define the
appropriate behavior for persons in various social situations.

2. Each person learns the definitions of appropriate behavior
through interaction with others who are important and
significant to him.

3. The individual learns to behave in ways that he perceives
are appropriate or proper for him.

167

168

4. The individual also acquires conceptions of his ability to
learn various types of behavior through interaction with
others whose evaluations are important to him.

Data were collected from a selected sample, composed of 10
predominantly white-urban elementary schools, 7 predominantly black-
urban elementary schools, and 7 elementary schools located in rural
areas. Schools within each stratum were selected on the basis of
their mean student achievement, as measured by the Michigan State
School Assessment Achievement Index, and mean student S.E.S., as
measured by the Michigan State School Assessment S.E.S. Index. Pairs
of schools were selected with similar S.E.S.,.racial composition,
and urban-rural community types, but significantly different mean
student achievement scores.

The instruments employed in the current research were
designed to study certain social-psychological and structural
variables constituting normative academic climate within each of
the sampled schools. However, for the purposes of the present
analysis, only the social-psychological variables were examined.

The instruments used within each school consisted of a student
questionnaire, a teacher questionnaire, and a principal questionnaire,
all with overlapping value. These instruments were administered

to feurth, fifth, and sixth graders, the teachers of the students,

and the principal of the school, in the selected schools. All
participants were requested to answer the questionnaires both for
themselves and as expert observers of the school's environment. A
standardized procedure of data Collection and consequent coding of

.the material was done by the same research team.

169

In order to identify clusters of variables which combined to
form meaningful factors, and through this to reduce the number of

factors to managable numbers, we applied a Varimax Rotation Factor

Analysis.1

Analysis I - Varimax Rotation Factor Analysis

Student Factors:

Four factors emerged from the Varimax Rotation Factor
Analys1s on student data and were labeled:

1. Student Perceived Present Evaluations-Expectations (S.P.P.E.E.)
2. Student Perceived Future Evaluations-Expectations (S.P.F.E.E.)
3. Student Perceived Sense of Futility (S.R.S.0.F.)

4. Student Perceived Schools Academic Norms (S.P.S.A.N.)

Teacher Factors:

Six factors emerged from the Varimax Rotation Factor
Analysis on teacher data and were labeled: .

1. Teacher Present Evaluations-Expectations (T.P.E.E.)
2. Teacher Future Evaluations-Expectations (T.F.E.E.)

3. Teacher Perceptions of Parent-Student Academic Push
(T.P.P.S.P.)

4. Teacher Reported Push of Individual Students (T.P.P.I.S.)
5. Teacher Reported Feelings of Job Satisfaction (T.R.F.J.S.)

6. Teacher Perception of Social System Belief in Student
Academic Improvability (T.P.S.A.I.)

Principal Factors:

 

Clearly definable principal factors did not emerge from our
Varimax Rotation Factor Analysis and, therefore, principal
data were not used for further statistical analysis.

 

'A full explanation and listing of items upon which this
factor was derived can be found in Chapter IV, Factor Analysis. For
a general description of factor content and findings, see Contributions
and Limitations in the present chapter.

 

170

Analysis 11 — Least Square Add Linear Regression Analysis
In this analysis the dependent variable was actual achieve-

ment, as measured by the Michigan State School Assessment Achieve-
ment Index. The effects of S.E.S., race, and urban-rural type were
controlled by placing them into our regression analysis prior to
the introduction of our variables of interest. Their inclusion in
the regression equation accounted for 25.56% of the variation in
achievement. The following climate variables were found to be
significant predictors of the higher achieving schools:

1. less S.R.S.0.F.: p = <0.0005, predicting an additional
44.92% of the variance in achievement

2. greater T.F.E.E.; p = 0.008; predicting an additional
9.83% of the variance in achievement

3. less T.R.P.I.S.; p = 0.023; predicting an additional 5.28%
of the variance in achievement

4. greater S.P.P.E.E.; p = 0.052; predicting an additional
3.36% of the variance in achievement '

Because of the high predictive power of S.R.S.0.F., another
least squares add linear regression analysis was run, this time
using it as the dependent variable in an attempt to predict its
presence or absence within a school environment, while the other
nine school factor scores were used as independent variables. Once
again S.E.S., race, and urban-rural community type were controlled
by placing them into our regression analysis prior to the introduction
of our variables of interest. Their inclusion into the regression
equation accounted for 39.94% of the variation in S.R.S.0.F. The
following factors significantly predicted a lower sense of futility

in our samples schools:

171

1. Higher T.P.E.E.; p = 0.002; predicting an additional 25.17%
of the variance in futility

2. Higher S.P.S.A.N.; p = 0.029; predicting an additional
8.32% of the variance in futility .

3. Higher S.P.P.E.E.; p = 0.042; predicting an additional 8.04%
of the variance in futility
Analysis III- Discriminant Function Analysis
For this analysis the dependent variables were higher and
lower achievement relative to both the strata analyzed and the S.E.S.
of the sampled school. The strata were; predominantly white-urban,
predominantly black-urban, and rural schools. The effects of strata
were controlled by analyzing them separately. The effects of S.E.S.
although not controlled, were minimized by our study design and
sample selection. Because of our small sample size, the 10
variables used as independent variables were divided into three
.groups: the student factors (S.P.P.E.E., S.P.F.E.E., S.P.S.0.F.,
and S.P.S.A.N.), group 1 - teacher factors (T.P.E.E., T.F.E.E.,
and T.R.P.I.S.), and group 2 - teacher factors (T.P.P.S.P., T.R.F.J.S.,
and T.P.S.A.I.). 0n the basis of this analysis, the following
conclusions were reached:
1. Within the sample of predominantly white-urban schools,
the 4 student variables significantly (p = <0.019) differ-
entiate higher and lower achieving groups of schools. The
most powerful variable was S.R.S.0.F. followed by
S.P.S.A.N., a much less powerful predictor. S.P.F.E.E. and
S.P.P.E.E. did not appear to be very powerful discriminators
of achievement within this group of variables, for this
stratun.
2. Within our sample of predominantly black-urban schools, the
4 student variables did not significantly (p = <0.5084)

differentiate higher and lower achieving groups of schools.
Of the four factors, the most powerful predictor was

172

S.R.S.0.F. followed by S.P.F.E.E. and S.P.P.E.E., much less
powerful precitors. S.P.S.A.N. did not appear to be a

very powerful discriminator of achievement within this
group of variables, for this stratum.

Within the samples of rural schools, the 4 student

variables did not significantly (p =< 0.2401) discriminate
higher and lower achieving groups of schools. 0f the four
factors the most powerful predictor was S.R.S.0.F. followed

by S.P.P.E.E., almost as powerful a predictor, and S.P.F.E.E.,
which was much less powerful. S.P.S.A.N. appeared to have
very little power in discriminating achievement within this
group of variables, fer this stratum.

Within our sample of predominantly white-urban schools,
teacher group 1 variables significantly (p = <0.003)
differentiate higher and lower achieving schools. The
range of predictive power between variables is not great,
the order of importance being: T.F.E.E., T.R.P.I.S., and
T.P.E.E. For this stratum, the three group 2-teacher
variables did not significantly (p = <O.8875) discriminate
between higher and lower achieving groups of schools. Of
the three factors the most powerful was T.P.P.S.P.,
followed by T.R.F.J.S., a much less powerful predictor and
T.P.S.A.I., a very weak discriminator of higher and lower
academic achievement within this group of variables, for
this stratum.

Within our sample of predominantly black-urban schools,
teacher group - 1 variables did not significantly (p = <0.6538)
differentiate higher and lower achieving schools. The range
of predictive power between variables was also not great, the
order of importance being T.F.E.E., T.P.E.E., and T.R.P.I.S.
For this stratum, the three group 2 - teacher variables

also do not significantly (p = < 0.5897) discriminate between
higher and lower achieving groups of schools. Of the three
factors, the most powerful was T.P.S.A.I. followed by
T.P.S.P., much less powerful and T.R.F.J.S., a very weak
discriminator of higher and lower academic achievement

within this group of variables, for this stratum.

Within our sample of rural schools, group - 1 teacher
variables significantly (p = < 0.0590) differentiate higher
and lower achieving schools. The most powerful discriminator
is T.F.E.E., followed closely by T.R.P.I.S., and finally by
T.P.E.E., although nowhere as powerful a variable as

others still appears to differentiate achievement groups.
Group 2 - teacher variables are not significant (p = 0.4831)
discriminators of achievement, but the most powerful variable
of the group is T.P.P.S.P., fbllowed by T.P.S.A.I., less
powerful and T.R.F.J.S., a weak discriminator of achievement,
fer this stratum.

173

Analysis IV - Case Studies

Employed within this analysis were: (1) tables of factor
scores showing school rankings within individual matches, within
stratum and within the entire sample; (2) graphs representing school
mean factor scores within each stratum and (3) an observational
case comparison of five pairs of schools matched on S.E.S., race,
and urban-rural community type, but significantly differing in
achievement as measured by the Michigan State School Assessment
Achievement Index. This analysis was of a highly speculative nature
attempting to relate the personal observations of this researcher
with respect to: (l) the community, (2) the building, (3) the
curriculum, (4) the principal, and (5) the relationship between the
community and the school.

With the inclusion of this final analysis, this researcher
was able to arrive at several conclusions. First, by comparison
of the relationship between our climate vairables and achievement

in, individual "match-ups, strata, and total sample:
1. Student perceptions of future evaluations-expectations are
more positive for higher achieving schools within the individual
school match-ups, for both blackrand white-urban samples,
although not for our sampled rural schools.

2. Student reported sense of futility is lower for higher
achieving schools in the white-urban, black-urban, and rural
samples.

3. Teacher present evaluations-expectations are more positive
in all higher achieving schools, within the white-urban
pairs and all but one of the black-urban pairs.

4. The teacher present evaluations-expectations factor is
generally more positive incnn~rural sample than in those
schools classified as urban.

174

5. The teacher future evaluations-expectations factor is
generally lower in our rural sample than in our urban sample.

6. Teacher future evaluations-expectations of students is
consistently more positive, within the matches, for higher
achieving white-urban schools; the same thing being found for
those black schools which were matched on S.E.S.

7. Teacher reported willingness (or need) to push individual
students is consistently lower in the higher achieving
schools within the white-urban matched pairs, and all but
one of the black-urban matched pairs.

8. Job satisfaction appears to have little relationship to
achievement, but it does appear to have a relationship to
S.E.S. among white and black-urban schools. Interestingly
enough, teachers express higher satisfaction in lower S.E.S.
black schools than they do in higher S.E.S. black schools,
while at the same time, teachers express greater job
satisfaction in higher S.E.S. white schools than they do
in lower S.E.S. white schools.

9. Teacher perceptions of student improvability does not
appear to differentiate the higher achieving white schools,
but it does appear to differentiate high achievement within
black-urban schools.
By the observational comparison of the five pairs of schools,
we were able to speculate the amount of psychic-integration between
the school andthe community and that a staff sharing certain common

beliefs, mighttmaimportant in the creation of a social-psychological

normative climate that encourages high academic achievement.

Contributions and Limitations

 

This study was substantively increased our understanding
of the relationship between variables of school climate and achieve-
ment, within our three design strata. Our ability to derive and
define, compare and contrast 10 student—teacher factors composing
school normative academic climate has greatly enhanced the existing

state of knowledge we have pertaining to elementary school achievement.

175

Specifically, the main thrust of the current analysis is
to generate rather than test hypotheses, with the intent to
determine which of our variables deserve further study in elementary
schools. The following is a listing of our normative climate
variables, some initial findings concerning their relationship to
academic achievement, and hypotheses to be used as a guide to further
study of the topic.

1. Student Perceived Present Evaluations-Expectations (S.P.P.E.E.)

 

This factor was composed of those items dealing with the

evaluations of “others, as well as the students own "self-concept
of academic ability," from the present through the completion of

high school. In the present study, a high S.P.P.E.E. was found to be
a significant predictor of higher achievement (p = 0.052),1 and a
lower sense of futility (p = 0.042).2 We also found that S.P.P.E.E.
might have greater power to discriminate between higher and lower
achieving schools classified as rural, rather than those classified
as urban. S.P.P.E.E. scores are higher for significantly higher
achieving schools in 4 of 5 pairs of white-urban schools matched on
S.E.S., and 2 of 3 pairs of black-urban schools matched on S.E.S.
Both reversals were matched high S.E.S. and in each case, differences
between the paired schools were minimal. Thus, this researcher

finds the S.P.P.E.E. factor potentially important to further research

on the effects of school climate on elementary school achievement.

 

'See Chapter V within Least Square Add Linear Regression Analysis
on Achievement or Summary section of this Chapter for context in
which this was found.

2Ibid.

176

Hypothesis 1:

There is a significant positive relationship between S.P.P.E.E.,

as defined by this study, and higher achievement, as measured

by the Michigan State School Assessment Achievement Index

(M£L5.A.A.I.), in white-urban, black-urban, and rural schools,

when the effects of S.E.S. are controlled.

2. Student Perceived Future Evaluations-Expectations (S.P.F.E.E.)

This factor was composed of those items which elicit the

students perceptions of “others" expectations as well as the students
own "self-concept of academic ability" in college. It was not
found to be a significant predictor of the variance in school
achievement, nor was it significant to the prediction of variance in
sense of futility, however, a visual comparison of pairs of schools
matched on S.E.S. but differing significantly on achievement,
demonstrates that a higher S.P.F.E.E. is held by the higher achieving
school in every match for both the white-urban and black-urban
samples. Thus, we find it, too, a potentially important factor to
future research.

Hypothesis 2:

There is a significant positive relationship between S.P.F.E.E.,

as defined by this study, and higher achievement, as measured

by the M.S.S.A.A.I., in white-urban, black-urban, and rural

schools, when the effect of S.E.S. is controlled.

3. Student Perceived Sense of Futility (S.P.S.0.F.)

This factor is composed of items dealing with student sense

of fate control as well as items that may determine teacher lack

of interest in what happens in the school. It is a very significant

predictor of achievement (p = 0.0005),1 accounting for 44.9% of the

 

'See Ch. V within Least Square Add Linear Regression Analysis
on Achievement or Summary section of this ch. for context in which
this was found.

177

variance between high and low achieving schools, when the effects

of S.E.S., race, and community type have been controlled. S.R.S.0.F.
is also the most powerful student factor discriminator of higher

and lower achieving schools, within all three of our design strata.
An individual matched pair comparison also found S.R.S.0.F. has

thus been determined to be the most important environmental climate
variable, in relationship to high achieving schools.

Hypothesis 3:

 

There is a significant negative relationship between higher
S.R.S.0.F., as defined by this study and higher achievement as
measured by the M.S.S.A.A.I., in white-urban, black-urban,

and rural schools, when S.E.S. is controlled.

4. Student Perceived School Academic Norms (S.P.S.A.N.)

 

This factor was composed of those items which elicit student
perceptions of the pressure placed upon them to achieve, through
the expectations of the members of the school bureaucracy. It is
difficult to assess the total impact of this item upon achievement
as it does not significantly predict the variation in achievement
fer our sampled schools. It has been determined, however, that a
high S.P.S.A.N. does significantly predict a low sense of futility
(p = 0.029),1 which in turn is our most important predictor of
achievement. While this suggests that S.P.S.A.N. might be an
important variable in the creation of a high achieving elementary
school normative academic climate, it bears only an indirect relation-
ship to achievement. It would appear, however, that this variable

is deserving of further research.

 

1See Ch. V under Least Square add Linear Regression Analysis
on Sense of Futility or Summary section of this Chapter for context

in which this was found.

178

Hypothesis 4:

 

There is a significant positive relationship between S.P.S.A.N.,
as defined by this study, and achievement, as measured by the
M.S.S.A.A.I., in white-urban, black-urban, and rural schools,
when S.E.S. is controlled. '
5. Teacher Present Evaluations-Expectations (T.P.E.E.)
This factor was composed of those items which elicit teacher
actual and perceived expectations, concerning their students
academic ability, from the present through high school. While
T.P.E.E. was not a direct significant predictor of variation in
achievement, a high T.P.E.E. was a very significant predictor of
a low sense of futility, itself an important predictor of achieve-
ment. A comparison of matched schools revealed a higher T.P.E.E.
for the higher achiever in all 5 white-urban pairs, and 2 of 3 black-
urban pairs. Rural schools generally exhibit a higher level of
T.P.E.E. than do urban schools. Further research of this potentially

important factor should thus prove worthwhile.

Hypothesis 5:

 

There is a significant positive relationship between high T.P.E.E.,

as defined by this study, and achievement, as measured by the

M.S.S.A.A.I., in white-urban, black-urban, and rural schools,

when S.E.S. is controlled.

6. Teacher Future Evaluations-Expectations (T.F.E.E.)

This factor is composed of those items which elicit teacher

actual and perceived evaluations-expectations concerning the ability
of their students to achieve in college. This variable was one of

the most significant predictors of achievement within our sample

(p = 0.008).' It exhibited higher significance for the higher

 

lSee Ch. 5 within Least Square add Linear Regression Analysis
on Achievement or Summary section of this Chapter for context in which
this was found.

179

achieving schools of our matched pairs within white-urban and black-
urban strata .

Hypothesis 6:

 

There is a significant positive relationship between high
T.F.E.E., as defined by this study, and achievement, as measured
by the M.S.S.A.A.I., in white-urban, black-urban, and rural
schools when S.E.S. is controlled.

7. Teacher Perceived Parent-Student Push for Educational
Achievement (T.P.P.S.P.)

 

 

This factor is composed of those items which elicit teacher
perceived academic push from sources outside of the school. No
consistent relationship was found to exist in the matched pairs of
schools within the white-urban or black-urban strata, however, our
tables, graphs, and discriminant function analysis, have all uncovered
an important relationship existing between T.P.P.S.P. and achieve-
ment in rural schools. This factor does not appear to be a very
powerful predictor of either achievement or sense 0f futility.

Hypothesis 7:

 

There is a significant positive relationship between high
T.F.E.E., as measured by the M.S.S.A.A.I., in rural schools.

8. Teacher Reported Push of Individual Students (T.R.P.I.S.)

 

This factor is composed of those items which elicit
teacher willingness to exert pressure on individual students to
achieve. A significant negative predictor of high academic
achievement (p = 0.023),' it is interestingly noted that in our

white-urban, and 2 of 3 black-urban, matched pairs of schools, less

 

1See Ch. V within Least Square add Linear Regression Analysis
on Achievement or Summary section of this Chapter for context in
which this was found.

180

teacher push was reported in higher achieving schools. This
researcher cites three possible explanations for this situation:
(1) in higher achieving schools, normative patterns are so strong
that teachers have no need to push students; (2) teachers may be
unaware of pushing their students unless they overtly do so; and
(3) teacher push is relative to school and classroom expectations.
Teachers who hold very high general expectations might be more
reluctant to push an individual student than would teachers who
hold generally low expectations.

Hypothesis 8:

 

There will be a significant negative relationship between
high T.R.P.I.S., as defined by this study, and achievement,
as measured by the M.S.S.A.A.I., in white-urban, black-urban,
and rural schools, when S.E.S. and teacher evaluations and
expectations are controlled.

9. Teacher Reported Feelings of Job Satisfaction (T.R.F.J.S.)

 

This factor is composed of those items that elicit
teacher satisfaction with his school and with teaching, in general.
T.R.F.J.S. did not significantly predict the variance in achievement
or sense of futility, nor did it appear to discriminate greatly
between higher and lower achieving schools. Observational analysis
of the ordering of schools, within strata, on this variable,
however, did lead to the possible conclusion that there is a positive
relationship between high T.R.F.J.S., in white-urban schools, and a
negative relationship between these two variables, in black-urban
schools. As a result of this extremely speculative observation,

this researcher would suggest further research to study the

181

relationship between T.R.F.J.S. and S.E.S., within each of our
strata of interest.

Hypothesis 9:

 

There will be a significant positive relationship between
higher T.R.F.J.S. and S.E.S., in white-urban schools.

Hyppthesis 9a:

 

There will be a significant negative relationship between higher
T.R.F.J.S. and S.E.S., in black-urban schools.

10. Teacher Perceptions of Student Academic Improvability
U)P.S.A.I.)TP

This factor was composed of those items that elicit teachers
perceptions that individuals in the school social system believe
that past academic failure would not determine the chances of future
achievement in school. This factor does not significantly predict
academic achievement or sense of futility. We find, on the basis
of the discriminant function analysis, that T.P.S.A.I. although
not a powerful discriminator of higher and lower achieving white—
urban schools, is a powerful discriminator in our black-urban
sample. This also becomes evident in the graphic comparison of
matched pairs, which shows a large positive relationship to exist
between T.P.S.A.I. and achievement, in black-urban schools, but no
meaningful pattern to exist between these variables, in white-urban
schools.

Hypothesis 10:

 

There will be a significant positive relationship between
T.P.S.A.I. and achievement in predominantly black-urban schools.

Hypothesis 10a:

 

There will not be a significant positive relationship between
T.P.S.A.I. and achievement in predominantly white-urban schools.

182

Fran our case analysis there are three research questions
which should further contribute to the study of this topic:

1. Are schools located in stable communities higher achieving
than schools located in unstable communities, when the
effects of S.E.S., race, and urban-rural type are controlled?

2. Are schools with a stable teaching staff higher achieving
than schools with unstable teaching staffs, when the effects
of S.E.S., race, and urbanerural type are controlled?

3. Are schools with close community relationships higher
achieving than those without close community relationships,
when the effects of S.E.S., race, and urban-rural community
type are controlled?

This study and its research design have contributed sub-
stantially to this researcher's beginning attempts of testing the
preceding hypotheses and research questions. There were, however,
several prevailing limitations of this research, and its results:

1. Given our sample selection, we are unable to generalize
our findings beyond the particular schools studied.

2. Given the small sample size, we can not discount any
variables on the basis of their lack of statistical sig-
nificance alone.

3. The small sample size was a great detriment to our design,
as we were unable to examine all of our variables simul-
taneously in the discriminant function analysis, nor were
we able to perform a least square add linear regression
analysis on all of our variables within strata.

4. While our desire was to study elementary school normative
academic climates, the validity of young students responses
to a questionnaire of this length and complexity was always
in question.

5. In the case study section, a completely systematic method
of measurement was not employed. Rather, the analysis
was written on the basis of the principal questionnaire,
notes taken during the school visitation, and reflections
of this researchers. Results should be interpreted accordingly.

183

6. The current study's unit of analysis is schools and not
individual students. As such, the correlations obtained in
the analysis are ecological in nature and thus higher than
might be obtained if students were the unit of analysis.
Therefore, it is important to point out that any attempt to
generalize the findings of this type of correlation to
individuals rather than to groups of individuals might prove
unw1se.

Recommendations

 

The preceding study has produced a number of important
contributions upon which this researcher has formulated several
substantive and methodological recommendations.

On the basis of substantive findings this researcher makes
two recommendations. ”First, schools can no longer justify the
low achievement of their students strictly upon the basis of low
socio-economic status, race, or their urban-rural community type.
Attentions must focus upon the learning climates within the building.
An environment in which all members of the school social system;
principals, teachers, and students, perceive present and future
academic achievement as a realistic goal appears to have a strong
relationship with achievemept; ‘Even though the present study is
correlational and not causal in nature, the results of this analysis
have led to this researcher's opinion that this sort of,enrironment

W..- 1- - i i a ’"1'1:
should be created in schools. Secondly, as some climate factors
relate similarly to all types of schools, other climatt'fa6t015
relate to varying types of schools differently. Therefore, there is
more than just one uniform method in which high achievement can

be encouraged. Each school must have a clear understanding of its

unique community and the values that that community perceives as

184

important. It follows then, that each member of the school
bureaucracy must have a clear definition of its function in the

service of the school community.

a“--.

m-

0n the basis of methodological considerations, this
researcher makes four recommendations. First, the current study
was based upon a non-randomly selected sample. This researcher
recommends that any further study of elementary schools normative
academic climates be based on random selected samples for the
purpose of expanding generalizability. Secondly, this researcher
further recommends that the sample size be greatly increased so
that data can be better analyzed and significance more attainable.
Thirdly, given the expanded sample size of a proposed study, strata
should be narrowed to include; white-urban, white-suburban, white-
rural, black-urban, black-suburban, and black-rural. The sample
should be categorized on the basis of S.E.S., and achievement relative
to the strata. Finally, sampled schools and the "psychic-integration"
between school and community should be systematically case studied

as well as empirically analyzed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Anderson, Lester W.
1953 "Teacher Moral and Student Achievement," Journal of
Educational Research, Vol. 46 (May): 693-698.

 

Ashe, S. E.
1952 Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice
Hall, Inc.,

Austin, A. W.
1965 Who Goes Where to College? Chicago: Science Research
Associates.

Austin, A. W., and Panos R. J.
1967 Attrition Among College Students. American Council on
Education Research Report.

Ausubel, D. P., and Pearl Ausubel
1963 "Ego develOpment among segregated Negro children." In
A. H. Passow (ed.) Education in Depressed Areas.
New York: Bureau of Publications. Teacher College,
Columbia University.

Battle, E. S., and Rotter, J. B.
1963 "Children Feelings of Personal Control as Related to

Social Class and Ethnic Group." Journal of Personality,

Vol. 31, 482-490.

Beez, W. B.
1968 "Influence of Biased Psychological Reports on Teacher
Behavior and Pupil Performance." Proceedi s of
the 76th Annual Convention of the American sychological
AsSOCiation, 605-606.

 

 

Bernstein, B.
1961 "Social Class and Linguistic Development: A Theory
of Social Learning." In A. H. Halsey, J. Floud and
C. A. Anderson (eds.) Education,_Economy_and Societ .
New York: The Free Press, 288-314.

 

1965 "A Socio-Linguistic Approach to Social Learning," In J.
Gould (ed). Penguin Survey of the Social Sciences 1965.
Hiddlesex, England: 110-121.

 

185

186

Berube, Maurice and Marily Gittell, (eds.)
1969 Confrontation at Ocean Hill-Brownsville: The New
York Schools Strikes of 1968. New York: Frederick A.
Phaeger, Publishers.

 

Bettelheim, Bruno
1964 Review of B. S. Blooms "Stability and change in human
characteristics." New York Review of Books, 3 (Sept. 10):
1-4.

 

Blake, Judith, and Davis, Kingsley
1964 "Norms, Values and Sanctions." Handbook of Modern
Sociolo . Edited by R. E. L. Faris. Chicago: Rand
McNally & Company.

 

Blau, Peter M.
1960 "Structural Effects." American Sociological Review,
Vol. 25 (April): 178-193.

 

Blau, Peter M., and Scott, W. Richard
1962 Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler
Publishing Company.

 

Bledsoe, J. C.
1964 "Self-Concept of Children and their Intelligence,
Achievement, Interests, and Anxiety." Journal of
Individual Psychology. Vol. 20, 55-58.

 

Bodwin, F. B. ‘
1957 "The Relationship between Certain Immature Self-
Concept and Certain Educational Disabilities.“
Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Michigan State University.

Boocock, Sarane.
1966 "Toward A Sociology of Learning: A Selective Review

of Existing Research." Sociology of Education.
Vol. 39 (Winter): 1-45.

 

Boye, R. P.
1965 "The Effect of the High School on Students Aspirations."
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 71 628-639.

 

Bronfenbrenner, Uril
1958 "Socialization and Social Class Through Time and Space."
Readings in Social Psychology. Edited by E. Maccoby,
T. Newcomb, and E. Hartley. New York, 400-425.

Brookover, Wilbur B. and Erickson, Edsel L.
1969 Society, Schools and Learniyg. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, Inc.

 

187

Brookover, Wilbur B. and Gottlieb, David
1964 Sociology of Education. New York: American Book
Company.

Brookover, Wilbur B. and Erickson, Edsel; and Joiner, Lee M.
1967 Self Concept of Ability and School Achievement 111..
U. S. Office of Education, Cooperative ResearCh'
project No. 2831, East Lansing: Educational Publication
Services, College of Education, Michigan State University.

Brookover, Wilbur 8.; Patterson Ann; and Thomas, Shailer.
1962 Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement. U.S.
Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project
No. 845, East Lansing: Office of Research and Publica—
tions, Michigan State University.

Brookover, Wilbur B., et. a1.
1965 Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement II.
U.S. Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project
No. 1636. East Lansing: Bureau of Educational
Research Services, College of Education, Michigan State
University.

Brophy, J. E., and Good, T. L.
1970 "Teachers Communications of Differential Expectations
for Children's Classroom Performance: Some Behavioral
Data." Journal of Educational Psychology, V0. 61,
365-374.

Brown, Roger
1965 Social Psychology. New York: The Free Press.

 

Chickering, A. W.
1966 "Institutional Differences and Student Characteristics."
Speech prepared for the annual meeting of the Mental
Health Section of the American College Health Association,
San Diego, California. (May).

1967 "The Development of Autonomu." Report supported by
Ford Foundation Grant for Gottard College Experiment
in College Curriculum Organization and National
Institute of Mental Health. Plainfield Vt.

Claiborn, W. L.
1969 "Expectancy Effects in the Classroom: A Failure to
Replicate." Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 60, 377-383.

Clark, Burton, and Trow, Martin.
1966 "The Organizational Context." College Peer Groups.
Edited by T. Newcomb and E. Wilson. Chicago: *Aldine,
17-700

 

188

Clark, Kenneth B.
1965 Dark Ghetto: Dilemmas of Social Power. New York:
Harper and’Row.

Cloward, R. A. and J. A. Jones .
1963 "Social Class: Educational Attitudes and Participation."
In A. H. Passow (ed.) Education in Depressed Areas,
New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University.

Coch, L., and French, J. R. P.,

 

 

1948 "Overcoming resistance to change," Human Relations,
I, 512-532.
Coleman, James S. .
1961 The Adolescent Society. New York: The Free Press of
GTencoe.

1966 et. al. Egpality of Educational Opportunity. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cooley, Charles Horton
1902 Human Nature and the Social Order. New York:
Charles SchribnerTé Sons.

Cornbleth, Catherine; Davis 0. L1; and Button, Christine
1972 "Teacher-Pupil Interaction for Pupil Achievement in
Secondary Social Studies Classes." Paper presented at
annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, Illinois.

Corwin, Ronald G.
1965 A Sociology of Education. New York: Appleton,
Century, Crofts.

Cowley, J. J.
1968 "Time, Place, and Nutrition: Some Observations from
Animal Studies," in Serimshaw and Gordon (eds.),
Malnutrition, Learning, and Behavior, Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 218}

Crane, Vivian Frances
1971 "An Investigation of the Relationship Between Citizen
Voting Records in School Elections and School Achievement."
Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia.

Cravioto,J., and Robles, B.,
1965 "Evaluation of Adaptive and Motor Behavior During
Rehabilitation from Kwashiorkor," American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, (April): 449.

189

Cravioto, J., Delicardie, E. R., and Birch, H. G.
1966 "Nutrition, Growth, and Newrointegrative Development:
An Experimental and Ecologic Study. Pediatrics
Supplement, 38, 319-372.

Davis, James
1963 "Intellectual Climates in 135 American Colleges and
Universities: A Study in Social Psycho hysics."
Sociology of Education, Vol. 37 (Winter), 110-128.

 

Davis, Joseph Willard
1970 "The Relationship Between Academic Achievement Levels
of Elementary Schools and Various Faculty Characteris-
tics: An Investigation." Dissgrtation Abstracts,
V01. 30 (May). 4712A.

 

Deutsch, Morton
1949 "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Cooperation
and Competition Upon Group Process." Human Relations,
Vol. 2, 199-231.

1962 "Cooperation and Trust: Some Theoretical Notes."
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska:
University of Nebraska Press.

Deutsch, Morton, and Brown Bert
1954 "Social Influences in Negro-White Intelligence
Differences.“ Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 29
(April): 24-35. 'T

 

Deutsch, Morton, and Krauss, Robert M.
1965 Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Basic Books,
Inc.

Deutsch, Morton, and Solomon, L.
1959 "Relations to Evaluations of Others as Influences by
Self-Evaluations." Sociometry, Vol. 22, 93-112.

 

Eichenwald, H. F., and Fry, P. D.
1969 "Nutrition and Learning," Science, (February): 664.

Eichholz, Gerhard; and Rogers, Everett M.

1964 "Resistance to the Adoption of Audio-Visual Aids by
Elementary School Teachers: Contrasts and Similarities
to Agricultural Innovation." Innovation in Education.
Edited by Matthew B. Miles. New York: Bureau of
Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.

 

Elashoff, J. 0., and Snow, R. E.
1971 Pygmalion Reconsidered. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A.
Jones Publiahing Co.

 

190

Epps, Edgar B.
1969 "Correlates of Academic Achievement Among Northern

and Southern Urban Negro Students." Journal of Social

Issues, Vol. 25 (Summer): 55-70.

Erickson, Edsel
1967 "A Study of Normative Influence of Parents and
Friends." Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement
III, Edited by W. B. Brookover, E.L., EriCkson, and'
L. M. Joiner. East Lansing: Educational Publication
Services, College of Education, Michigan State University.

Etzioni, Amiti
1964 Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prenti ce-Hall , Inc.

Fascetti, Alfred Robert
1971 "A Study of the Organizational Climates of Selected
Elementary and Secondary Schools." Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Festinger, L.
1950 "Informal Social Communication." Psychological Review,
Vol. 42, 271-282.

Finn, Jeremy D.
1972 "Expectations and the Educational Environment."
Review of Educational Research, Vol. 42, 387-410.

Fleming, E. S., and Anttonen, R. G.
1971 "Teacher Expectancy or My Fair Lady.“ American
Educational Research Journal, Vol. 8, 24I-252.

 

Freedman, M. B.
1967 The Student and Campus Climates in Learning. Washington,
0.17.: Department of Health Education and Welfare.

French, J. R. P., Jr., Israel, J., and As, 0.
1960 "An Experiment on Participation in a Norwegian Factory:
Interpersonal Dimensions on Decision Making." Human
Relations, Vol. 13, 3-19.

Gage, N. L.
1972 "1.0. Heritability, Race Differences, and Educational
Research." Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 53 (January): 308-312.

 

Gans, Herbert J.
1962 The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of
Italian-Americans. New York: The Free Press.

 

191

Gigliotti, Richard J.
1969 "A Matrix of Social and Personality Variables for
the Prediction of School Achievement." Unpublished
M.A. thesis, Michigan State University.

1972 "The Expectation Pattern: An Analysis of Elementary
School Social Environments.“ Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University,

Goff, Charles E.
1969 "A Study of the Relationship Between Non-cognitive
Factors and General Intelligence to Academic Achievement."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. Boston University.

Gross, Neal; Mason, W. 5.; and McEachern, A. W.
1958 Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School
Superintendency Role. New York: John Wiley 8
Sons.

Gumpert, P., and Gumpert C.
1968 On the Psychology of Expectations in the Classroom.
The Urban Review, Vol. 3, 21-26.

Guthrie, E. R.
1938 The Psychology of Human Conflict. New York: Harper
and Row.

Haggstrom, W. C.
1964 "The Power of the Poor.“ Mental Health of the Poor.
Edited by F. Riesman, J. Cohen and A. PearWZ New
York: Cornwell-Collier and Macmillan, Inc. 205-223.

Haines, D. B., and McKeachie, W. J.
1967 "Cooperative versus Competitive Discussion Methods in
Teaching Introductory Psychology." Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 58 (December): 386-390.

Halpin, A. W., and Croft, D.

1962 "The Organizational Climate of Schools." U.S. Office
of Education Research Report. Salt Lake City: Utah
University.

Hamilton, Charles V.
1968 "Race and Education: A Search for Ligitimacy."
Harvard Educational Review, (Fall): 669-874.

Heath, G. Louis.
1970 "The Control Identities of Negro and White Students in
a California City.“ Journal of Secondary_Education.
Vol. 45 (May): 209-213.

 

Helfiker, Leo R.
1969 "Interpersonal Characteristics and Innovativeness of
School Systems." Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, Vol. 5.

 

 

192

Henderson, Ronald D.
1972 "A Comparative Analysis of Social-Psychological School
Climate Variables in Whites and Black Elementary
Schools with Socio-Economic Status and Achievement
Controlled.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University. '

Herriott, Robert E.
1963 "Some Social Determinants of Educational Aspirations."
Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 33 (Spring): 157-177.

Herriott, Robert E., and St. John, Nancy Hoyt.
1966 Social Class and the Urban School. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Heider, F.
1958 The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.

Holland, William R.
1969 "School Climates: What Makes Them Tick." School and
Community, (November): 20-21.

Howe, Frederick Charles
1970 "Teacher Perception Toward the Learning Ability of
Students from Differing Racial and Socio-Economic
Backgrounds." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University.

Hunt, J. McV. .
1968 "Environment, Development and Scholastic Achievement.“
In M. Deutch, A. Jensen, and I. Katz (eds.), Social
Class,_Race and Psychological Development. New York:
Rihehart and Winston.

Jencks, Christopher.
1968 "Social Stratification and Higher Education." Harvard
Educational Review, Vol. 38 (Spring): 277-316.

 

Jensen, Arthur
1969 "How Much Can We Boost 1.0. and Scholastic Achievement."
Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39, 1-123.

Johnson, David W.
1970 The Social Psychology of Education. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston,

Jones, Cloyzelle K.
1971 "The HistorifycH=Sydney D. Miller High School with

Particular Exploration into those Factors which
Resulted in the Inordinately High Incidence of Pupil
Success Considering, and Dispite, Existing Socio-
Economic Factors which are Perceived as Being Predictors
of High Incidences of Pupil Failure." Unpublished Ed.d.
Dissertation, Wayne State University.

193

Jose, J. and Cody, J. J.
1971 “Teacher-Pupil Interaction as it Relates to Attempted
Changes in Teacher expectancy of Academic Ability and
Achievement." American Educational Research Journal.
Vol. 8, 39-50.

Julian, James and Perry, Franklyn A.
1967 "Cooperation Contrasted with Intra-Group and Inter-
Group Competition." Sociometry, Vol. 30 (March): 79-90.

Katz, Michael B.

 

 

1971 Class, Bureaucracy, and Schools: The Illusion of
Educational Change in America. ‘New York: Praeger
Phblishers.
Kenney, James B.; and Rentz, R. Robert
1970 "The Organizational Climate of Schools in Five Urban
areas." Elementary School Journal, Vol. 71 (November):
-69.

 

Kinch, John W.
1963 "A Formalized Theory of Self-Concept.“ American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 68 (January): 481-486.

Klein, R. E. and Gilbert, 0.
1967 "Malnutrition and Intellectual Development." Paper
presented at the XI Inter-American Congress of
Psychology. Mexico City, Mexico.

Kohl , Herbert
1967 36 Children. New York: The New American Library.

 

Kohn, M.
1959 "Social Class and Parental Values." American Journal
of Sociology. Vol. 64, 337-351.

 

Kozol, Jonathan
1967 Death at an EarlyAg_, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Krech, David; Crutchfield, Richard S.; and Ballachey, EgertonL.
1962 Individual in Society. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc.

Levin, Henry M.
1970 Community Control of Schools. Washington, D.C.:
The Brookings Institute.

Light, Richard J.
1972 "Intelligence and Genes." The Humanist, Vol. 32
(January/February): 12-13.

 

 

194

Makan, James M.
1970 "The Teachers View of the Principal's Role in Innovation."
The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 70 (April).

Mandler, George, and Watson, David L.
1966 "Anxiety and the Interruption of Behavior."
Anxiety and Behavior. Edited by Charles D. Spielberger.
New York: Academic Press.

Mason, Ward 5.; Dressel, Robert L.; and Bain Robert K.
1959 "Sex Role and Career Orientations of Beginning Teachers."
Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 29, 370-383.

Mayeske, George W., et a1.
1969 A Study of Our Nations Schools. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Office of Education.

McDill, Edward; Meyers, Edmond; and Rigsby, Leo
1967 "Institutional Effects on the Academic Behavior of
High School Students." Sociology of Education, Vol.
40 (Sumner): 181-199.

Mead, George H.
1934 Mind, Self, and Society, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Merton, Robert K.
1957 Social Theory and Social Research, rev. ed., New York:
The Free Press.

Michael, John A.
1961 "High School Climates and Plans for Entering College."
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 37 (Winter): 585-595.

 

Mills, C. Wright.
1956 The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

Mitchell J. V., Jr.
1968 "Dimensionality and Differences in the Environmental
Press of High Schools." American Educational Research
Journal. Vol. 5, 513-131.

Mockeberg, F.
1969 "Nutrition and Mental Development," paper presented
at the conference on Nutrition and Human Development,
East Lansing, Michigan.

Morrison, A.; and McIntyre 0.
1971 Schools and Socialization. Middlesex, England:
Penguin Books Ltd.

 

195

Morse, Richard J.
1963 "Self-Concept of Ability, Significant Others and
School Achievement of Eighth-Grade Student: A
Comparative Investigation of Negro and Caucasian
Students." Unpublished M.A._thesis, Michigan State Univ.

Murray, H. A.
1938 Explorations in Personality, New York: Oxford University
Press.

Myrdal, Gunnar
1944 An American Dilemma, New York: Harper & Row Publishers,
Inc.

Nesbit, J. 0.
1961 "The Family Environment and Intelligence." Education,
Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey J. Floud,
and C. A. Anderson. New York: The Free Press, 273- 287.

Newcomb, T. M.; and Flacks, R.
1964 Deviant Subcultures on a College Campus. University
of MiChigan, Ann Arbor: U.S. Office of Education
Cooperative Research Project.

O'Connell, E. J. Jr.
1965 "The Effects of Cooperative and Competitive Set on
the Learning of Initiation and Nonlimitation."
Jogrgal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.1,
7 - 83.

 

Orth, C. D.
1963 Social Structure and Learning Climate: The First
Year at the Harvard Business SchoOT, Boston:
Harvard Business Schoolf'

Pace, C. R. , and Stern, G. G.
1958 "An Approach to the Measurement of Psychological
Characteristics of College Environments. " Journal
of Educational Psychology, Vol. 49, 269-277.

 

Pace C. R.
1963 "Differences in Campus Atmosphere," In W. W. Carters
Jr. and N. L. Gage (eds.) Reading in the Social Psy-
chology of Education. Boston: Allyn and’Bacon, Inc.

1964 The Influence of Academic and Student Subcultures in

College and University Environments. University of
. Califbrnia, Los Angeles: ’U.S. Office of Education and
Social Science Research Council Cooperative Research
Project.
Parson, Talcott

1959 "The School Class as a Social System: Some of its
Functions in American Society." Harvard Educational
Review, Vol. 29 (Fall): 297-318.

 

 

196

Riessman, Frank
1962 The Culturally Deprived Child. New York, Harper.

RigsbygLeo C.; and McDill, Edward 1
1972 "Adolescent Peer Influence Process: Conceptualization
and Measurement." Social Science Research, Vol. 1
(September): 305-321

Rist, Ray C.
1970 "Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: the
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education.“
Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 49 (August): 411-451.

Roberts, John Gordon
1971 "An Analysis of Elementary School Problems and Goals in
a Large Urban Area as Perceived by Principals,
Teachers and Parents." Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation,
Wayne State University.

Roethlisberger, F. J., and Dickson, W. J.
1939 Management and the Worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
UniversityhPress,

Rosen, B. C.
1956 "The Achievement Syndrome: A Psycho-Cultural Dimension
of Social Stratification." American Sociological
Review, Vol. 21, 203-211.

Rosenberg, Morris and Simmons, Roberta G.
1971 Black and White Self-Esteem: The Urban School Child,
AmeriEan Sociological AssBEiation, The ArnoldiM. and
Caroline Rose Monographe Series.

Rosenthal, Robert
1966 Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New

York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Rosenthal, Robert, and Jacobson, Lenore
1968 Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston, Inc.

Rothbart, M.; Dalfen, S.; and Barrett, R.

 

1971 "Effects of Teacher Expectancy on Student-Teacher
Interaction." Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.
62, 49-54.

Rousseau, Mark Owen
1971 Some Social Correlates of Academic Motivation: A

Surve Anal—sis. Unpublished PhD. thesis, University
0? North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

197

Rubovitz, P. C., and Maehr, M. L.
1971 "Pygmalion Analyzed: Toward an Explanation of the
Rosenthal-Jacobson Findings." Journal of Personality
and Social-Psychology, V01. 19, 197-204.

 

Ryan, William
Blamingithe Victim.

 

Sadker, David, and Sinclair, Robert L.

1972 “Dimensions of the Elementary School Educational
Environment: A Factor Analytic Study." Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, Chicago, Illinois,

 

(April).
Sarbin, T. R.
1954 "Role Theory." Handbook of Social Psycholo . Edited
by G. Lindzey, Vol. 1. Cambridge Mass.: Ad 1son-
Weley.

Scarr-Salapatek, Sandra
1971 "Race, Social Class and I.Q." Science, Vol. 174
(December): 1285-1295.

Schrank, Wilburn R.
1968 "The Labeling Effect of Ability Grouping." Journal
of Educational Research, Vol. 62 (October): 51-52.

 

Schmuck, R.
1966 "Some Aspects of Classroom Social Climate.“ Psychology
in the School, Vol. 3, 59-65.

 

Seashore, S. E.
1954 Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Survey Research
Center, Pub. No. 14.

 

Selvin, Hanan, and Hagstrom, Warren
1963 "The Empirical Classification of Formal Groups."
American Sociological Review, Vol. 28 (June): 399-411.

Sewell, William H., and Armer, Michael
1966 "Neighborhood Contex and College Plans." American
Sociological Review, Vol. 31 (April); 159-168.

 

Sewell, William H., and Shah, Vimal P.
1967 "Socio-economic Status, Intelligence, and the Attain-
ment of Higher Education." Sociology of Education.
Vol. 40.(Winter): 1-23.

Sexton, Patricia Cayo
1961 Education and Income. New York: The Viking Press.

 

198

Shaw, M. C.
1961 "Definition and Identification of Academic Under-

Achievers." Guidance for the Underachiever with
Superior Ability, V61. ,l15-30.

Shaw, M.C., and Alves, G. J.
1963 "The Self-Concept of Bright Academic Under-Achievers."
Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 42, 401-403.

Shrif, M.
1936 The Psychology of Group Norms. New York: Harper
and Row Publishers.

Silberman, Charles E.
1970 Crisis in the Classroom. New York: A Vantage Book.

 

 

Silberman, M. L.
1969 "Behavioral Expression of Teachers' Attitudes Toward
Elementary School Students." Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 60, 402-407.

Sinclair, Robert L.
1970 "Elementary School Educational Environments: Toward
Schools that are Responsive to Students." The
National E1ementary,School Principal, (Apri117'53-58.

Skager, R.
1966 Changes in Self-Ratings and Life Goals Among Students
at Colleges with Different Characteristics. American
College Testing Program Report, No. 14, Iowa City;
American College Testing Program.

Smith, Mildred B., and Brahce, Carol I.
1963 "When Schools and Home Focus on Achievement."
Educational Leadership, Vol. 20, (February): 314-318.

Snow R. E.
’1969 "Unfinished Pygmalion." Contemporary Psychology,
Vol. 14, 197-200.

 

Soares, A. T., and Soares, L. M.
1969 "Self-Perception of Culturally Disadvantaged Children,"
American Educational Research Journal, 6, 31-45.

Spilerman, Seymour
1971 "Raising Academic Motivation in Lower Class Adolescents:
A Convergence of Two Research Traditions." Sociology

of Education, Vol. 49 (Winter): 103-150.

 

Stein, Annie
1971 "Strategies of Failure." Harvard Educational Review,
Vol. 41 (May): 158-204.

 

199

Stern, G. G.
1964 Studies of College Environments. Syracuse University,
Syracuse, New Yorhf ‘ULS. Office of Education and
Social Science Research Council Cooperative Research
Project.

Stoch, M. B., and Smythe, S. M.
1968 Undernutrition during infancy and subsequent brain
growth and intellectual develOpment. In N. S.
Scrimshaw, and J. E. Gordon (Eds.), Malnutrition,
Learningsand Behavior, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 269.

 

Thibaut, J. W., and Kelley, H. H.
1959 The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

Thomas, Shailer
1964 "An Experiment to Enhance Self-Concept of Ability and
Raise School Achievement Among Low Achieving Ninth
Grade Students." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University.

Thorndide, R. L.
1968 "Review of R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson, Pygmalion
in the Classroom." American Educational Research
Association Journal, Vol. 5, 708-711.

 

Trow, Martin 7
' "Student Cultures and Administrative Action." In
R. L. Sutherland, et. al., (eds.) Personality
Factors on the Colle e Campus. Au§tin,lTexas:
univerSity of Texas ress.

Walberg, H. J., and Anderson, G.
1967 Classroom Climate and Individual Learnin . Harvard
University, Camhridge,’Mass.: Research eport of
Harvard Project Physics in Cooperation with Carnegie
Corporation of New York, National Science Foundation,
Sloan Foundation, and U.S. Office of Education.

Wallin, William H.
1969 "Strategies for a Good School Environment." Instructor,
(August/September): 58-59.

Walz, Gerry, and Miller, Juliet
1969 "School Climate and Student Behavior: Implications
four Counselors Role." The Personnel and Guidance
Journal, Vol. 47 (May): 859-867.

200

Webster, Murray, Jr.
1969 "Sources of Evaluations and Expectations for Performance."
Sociometry,Vol. 32 (September).

 

Wendel, Robert L.
1970 "Developing Climates for Learning." Journal of
Secondary Education, Vol. 45 (November): 329-342.

 

Willis, Bill J.
1969 "The Influence of Teacher Expectations on Teachers
Interactions with Selected Children," Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, George Peabody College for
Teachers.

Willmon, Betty
1969 "Parent Participation as a Factor in the Effectiveness
of Head Start Programs." The Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 72 (May-June): 9.

Wilson, Alan
1969 The Conseguences of Segregation: Academic Achievement
in a Northern Community, Berkeley, California: The
Glendessary‘Press.

Winick, M.
1969 "Malnutrition and Brain Development,“ Journal of
Pediatrics, (May): 667.

 

 

Zirkel, P. A. , and Moses, E. G.
1971 "Self— -Concept and Ethnic Group Membership and Mixture
Among Public School Students," The American Educational
Research Journal, 8, 253-265.

 

APPENDICES

201

APPENDIX A

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

202

203

301001. 50cm. mum srumr
swam oms'nommme

Sponsored by

Michigan Department of Education
and
Michigan State University

Dr. Wilbur Brookover, Professor of Sociology and Education, Project Director

DIRECTIONS: We are trying to learn more about students and their work in schools.
We would, therefore, like for you to respond to the following ques-
tions. This is not a test of any sort and will not affect your work
in school. Your teacher and your principal will not see your answers.
There are no right or wrong answers, we simply want you to tell us
your answer to each question.

1. Mane

PLEASE ANSNER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BY CIRCLING THE NUMBER ON THE RIGHT OF YOUR
BEST ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. PICK'ONLY ONE ANSWER FOR EACH QUESTION!

2. How old were you on your last birthday?
9 years old ...... l.
10 years old ...... 2.
ll years old ...... 3.
12 years old ...... 4.
13 years old ...... S.

3. Are you a boy or girl?
boy ...... 1.
girl 00.... 2.

4. What grade are you in?
3rd grade ...... I.
4th grade ...... 2.
5th grade ...... 3.
6th grade ...... 4.
7th grade . ..... S.
5. Please write your teacher's name.

 

6. Please write the nale of your school.

 

 

2M

7. How many years have you been at this school?
Less than 1 year ...... I.

2 years ...... 2.
‘Snus .nu.&
4years ...... 4.
Syears S.
6years 6.
7 years or more ...... 7.

If your father does not live with you or if he is not alive, please
answer this question for the person in your house who makes the
most money.

8. What type of work does your father do? (Give a short description
of his job)

 

 

THE POLWING QUESTIONS ARE TO BE ANSWERED BY CIRCLING THE NMER on THE
RIGIT OF THE comer ANSWER. REEWER, N0 (NE WILL SEE YOUR ANSWERS EXCEPT
THOSE OF US FROM MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, SO PLEASE TELL US JUST WHAT
YOU THINK. (Pick only one answer for each question)

9. If you could go as far as you wanted in school, how far would you

like to go?
Finish grade school ...... I.
Go to high school for a while ..... . 2.
Finish high school . . . . . . 3.
Go to college for a while ...... 4.
Finish college ...... S.

10. How many students in this school try hard to get a good grade on
their weekly tests?

Almost all of the students ...... 1.
Most of the students ...... 2.
Half of the students ...... 3.
Some of the students . ..... 4.
Almost none of the students ...... 5.

11. How many students in this school will work hard to get a better
grade on the weekly tests than their friends do?

Almost all of the students ...... 1.

Most of the students . ..... 2.
Half of the students ...... 3.
Some of the students . ..... 4.

Almost none of the students ...... S.
12. How many students in this school don't care if they get bad grades?

Almost all of the students ...... 1.
Most of the students ...... 2.
Half of the students ...... 3.
Some of the students ...... 4.
Almost none of the students ..... . S.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18,

19.

How many students in this school do more studying for weekly tests

than they have to?

205

Almost all of the students
Most of the students

Half of the students

Some of the students

Almost none of the students

If most of the students here could go as far as they wanted in

school how far would they go?

Finish grade school

Go to high school for a while
Finish high school

Go to college for a while
Finish college

If the teacher that you like the best told you that you were a

 

poor student how would you feel?

I'd feel very bad

I'd feel somewhat bad

It wouldn't bother me very much
It wouldn't bother me at all

How important is it to you to be a good student?

It's the most important thing I can do
It's important, but other things are just as important
It's important, but other things are more important

It's not very important

If your parents told you that you were a poor student, how would

you feel?

I'd feel very bad

I'd feel somewhat bad

It wouldn't bother me very much
It wouldn't bother me at all

If your best friend told you that you were a poor student, how

would you feel?

How do you think most of the students in this class react when one

I'd feel very bad

I'd feel somewhat bad

It wouldn't bother me very much
It wouldn't bother me at all

of you does a bad job on school work?

Theyfeel badly and want to help him (her) do better
They feel sorry, but don't say anything

They really don't care

They are secretly happy that it happened

1
2
...... 3.
4
5

éMNH
e

o'i-‘JJNv-o
.

Layer.)—
0

20.

21.

22.

23.

206

How do you think most of the teachers in this school react when one
of the students does a bad job on school work?

They feel badly and want to help him (her) do better ......
They feel badly, but don't really help him (her) ......
They get mad and tell him (her) to start working harder ......
They get mad but don't say anything ......
They really don't care ......

What do you think most students say when a student has done good
or better than he usually does in his school work?

He was just lucky, he won't do that good next time ......
Anyone could do it if they studied ......
I wish I could do as well as he did ......
I'm glad for him I hope he does as well next time . .....

How important do most of the students in this glass feel it is to
do well in school work?

Almost everybody thinks it is the most important

thing you can do. ......
Most students think it is quite important to do well ......
Doing well in school work is a good thing but other

things are important too. ......
Most students don't seem to care howinrllthey do,

but it's okay for others to do well. . .....
Most students don't seem to care how good they do,

but they don't like other students to do good. ......

How important do you think most of the students in this school
feel it is to do well in school work?

Almost everybody thinks it is The most important

thing you can do. ......
Most students think it is quite important to do well ......
Doing well in school work is a good thing but other

things are impcrt1st ton. ......
Most students don't zoom to ca:e how well they do,

but it's okay for others to do well. ......
Most students don't seem to care how good they do,

but they don't like other students to do good. ......

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS RY CIRCLING THE NUMBER WHICH BEST
ANSWERS THE QUESTION FOR YOU. PICK ONLY ONE ANSWER FOR EACH QUESTION.

24.

Think about the boys or girls you play wi.h at recess or after

school.

How often do they read in tneir free t‘me?

Very often ......
Quite a blt _ ......
Sometimes, but not very much . .....
Seldom . .....

Almost never

MbuNr-I

biblkdhl

H
O

25.

26.

27.

280 ‘

29.

30.

31.

32.

207

When you and your friends are together after school or on week-
ends, how often do you talk about your school work?

Very often ......
Quite a bit ......
Sometimes, but not very much ......
Seldom ......
Almost never ......

People like me will not have much of a chance to do what we want
to in life.

Strongly agree ......
Agree ......
Disagree ......

Strongly disagree ......

People like me will never do well in school even though we try
hard.

Strongly agree ......
Agree ......
Disagree ......

Strongly disagree ......

I can do well in school if I work hard.

Strongly agree ......
Agree ......
Disagree ......

Strongly disagree ......

In this school, students like me don't have any luck.

Strongly agree ......
Agree ......
Disagree ......

Strongly disagree ......

You have to be lucky to get good grades in this school.

Strongly agree ......
Agree ......
Disagree ......
Strongly disagree ......

Think of your friends. Do you think you can do school work
better, the same, or poorer than your friends?

Better ......
The same ......
Poorer ......

Think of the students in your class. 00 you think you can do

SChOOl work better, the same, or poorer than the students in

your class?
Better ......
The same ......
Poorer ......

012.0th—

auNH ALANH
e o .0 e e

a.u|hawa

auto—I autos-
O O CO .0

Nan-n
O 0

fl
0

 

208

33. When you finish high school, do you think you will be one of the
best students, about the same as most of the students, or below
most of the students?

One of the best ,
About the same as most of the students
Below most of the students

34. Do you think you could finish college?

Yes, with no difficulty at all
Yes, as long as I work hard

Yes, but I will probably have a lot of difficulty ...... 3.

No, it will be too difficult

35. If you went to college, do you think you would be one of the best
students, about the same as most of the students, or below most of
the students?

One of the best
About the same as most of the students
Below most of the students

36. If you want to be a doctor or a teacher, you need more than 4
years of college. 00 you think you could do that?

Yes, with no difficulty at all
Yes, as long as I work hard

Yes, but I will probably have a lot of difficulty ...... 3.

No, it will be too difficult

37. Forget how your teachers mark your work. How good do ygg_think
your own work is? '
Excellent
Good
About the same as most of the students
Below most of the students
Poor

38- What marks do YOU think you really can get if you try?

Mostly A's
Mostly B's
Mostly C's
Mostly D's
Mostly E's

NOW WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT PEOPLE THAT YOU KNOW.

ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS BY CIRCLING THE NUMBER AS YOU 010 IN THE OTHER
QUESTIONS. (Pick only one answer)

39. When you do good work in school who do you most
want to know about it? mother
father

brother or sisiter. .....

teacher
friend
other

 

(specify)

4.

40.

NOW WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR BEST FRIEND.

209

Who is the most interested in your work in school?

Mother
Father

Brother or sister .

Teacher
Friend
Other

 

(Specify)

STOP FOR A MINUTE AND THINK WHO YOUR BEST FRIEND IS. ANSWER THESE
QUESTIONS BY CIRCLING THE NUMBER AS YOU DID IN THE OTHER QUESTIONS.

REMEMBER, YOUR BEST FRIEND WILL NOT SEE YOUR ANSWERS.

 

(Pick only one

......

000000

answer)
41. How far do you think your best friend believes you will go in
school?
Finish grade school . .. I.
Go to high school for a while . .. 2.
Go to college for a while .. . 3.
Finish college ...... 4.
42. How good a student does your best friend expect you to be in
school?
One of the best ...... 1.
Better than most of the students ..... . 2.
Same as most students ..... . 3.
Not as good as most students . ..... 4.
He doesn't really care ...... 5.
43. Think of your best friend. Would your best friend say you can
do school work better, the same, or poorer than other people your
age?
Better ...... 1.
The same ...... 2.
Poorer . ..... 3.
44. Would your best friend say that your grades would be with the best,
same as most, or below most of the students when you graduate from
high school? '
With the best ...... 1.
Same as most ...... 2.
Below most ...... 3.
45. Does your best friend think you could finish college?
Yes ...... 1.
Maybe ...... 2.

N“ 00.... 30

46. Remember you need more than four years of college to be a teacher
or doctor. Does your best friend think you could do that?

47.

210

What grades does your best friend think you can get?
Mostly A's ......
Mostly B's ......
Mostly C's ......
Mostly D's ......
Mostly E's ..... .

NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TEACHERS IN THIS
SCHOOL. ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AS YOU ANSWERED THE OTHER ONES BY
CIRCLING THE NUMBER. REMEMBER, N9_TEACHER WILL SEE YOUR ANSWERS 80
BE AS HONEST AS YOU CAN.

48.

49.

SO.

51.

52.

Of the teachers that you know in this school how many tell students
to try hard to do better on tests?

Almost all of the teachers ......
Most of the teachers ......
Half of the teachers ......
Some of the teachers ......

Almost none of the teachers ......

How many teachers in this school tell students to try and get
better grades than their classmates?

Almost all of the teachers , .....
Most of the teachers ......
Half of the teachers ......
Some of the teachers . .....
Almost'none of the teachers ......

Of the teachers that you know in this school how many don't care
if the students get bad grades?

Almost all of the teachers ......
Most of the teachers ......
Half of the teachers . .....
Some of the teachers ......

Almost none of the teachers ......

Of the teachers that you know in this school how many tell students
to do extra work so that they can get better grades?

Almost all of the teachers ......
Most of the teachers ......
Half of the teachers ......
Some of the teachers ......
Almost none of the teachers ......

Of the teachers that you know in this school how many make the
students work too hard ?
Almost all of the teachers ......
Most of the teachers ......
Half of the teachers ......
Some of the teachers ......
Almost none of the teachers

U'lwar-o

MbuNr-I

(fibuNh-o

53.

54.

SS.

56.

S7.

58.

211

Of the teachers that you know in this school how many don't care
how hard the student works, as long as he passes?

Almost all of the teachers
Most of the teachers
Half of the teachers
Some of the teachers

Almost none of the teachers ..

If the teachers in this school think a student can't do good
work, how many will try to make him work hard anyway?

Almost all of the teachers
Most of the teachers
Half of the teachers
Some of the teachers
Almost none of the teachers

Of the teachers that you know in this school, how many think it
is not good to ask more work from a student than he is able to do?

Almost all of the teachers
Most of the teachers
Half of the teachers
Some of the teachers
Almost none of the teachers

0f the teachers that you know in this school, how many believe
that students should be asked to do only work which they are

able to do?

Almost all of the teachers
Most of the teachers
Half of the teachers
Some of the teachers

Almost none of the teachers ..

How far do you think the teacher you like the best believes you

will go in school?

Finish grade school

Go to high school for a while
Finish high school

Go to college for a while
Finish college

How good of a student does the teacher you like the best expect

you to be in school?

One of the best

Better than most of the students ...

Same as most students
Not as good as most students
She :iesn't really care

(”NH

U13:-

MbMNr-a

212

 

59. 1hink of your teacher. Would your teacher say you can do school
work better, the same, or poorer than other people your age?

Better ...... l.
The same ...... 2.
Poorer ...... 3.

60. Would your teacher say that your grades would be with the best
same as most, or below most of the students when you graduate
from high school?

With the best ...... 1.
Same as most ...... 2.
3

Below most ...... .
61. Does your teacher think you could finish college? Yes ...... l.
MOYbe 000.0. 2.
No ...... 3.
62. Remember you need more than four years of college to be a

teacher or doctor. Does your teacher think you could do that?

Yes 0.00.01.
Maybe ...... 2.
No ...... 3.
63. What grades does your teacher think you can get?
Mostly A's ...... 1.
Mostly B's ...... 2.
Mostly C's 0.0... 3.
Mostly D's ...... 4.
Mostly E's ...... 5.
NOW, WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR PARENTS.
ANSWER THEM THE SAME WAY YOU ANSWERED THE OTHER ONES.
64. How far do you think your parents believe you will go in school?
Finish grade school ...... 1.
Go to high school for a while ...... 2.
Finish high school ..... . 3.
Go to college for a while ...... 4
Finish college ...... S
65. How good of a student do your parents expect you to be in school?
One of the best ...... 1.
Better than most of the students ...... 2.
Same as most of the students ...... 3.
Not as good as most of the students ...... 4
They don't really care ...... S
66. Think of your mother and father. Do your mother and father say
you can do school work better, the same, or poorer than your
friends?
Better ...... 1.
Same as most .... . 2.

Poorer ...... 3.

67.

68.

69.

70.

213

Would your mother and father say that your grades would be with
the best, same as most, or below most of the students when you

finish high school?

The best
Same as most
Below most

Do they think you could finish college?

Yes
Maybe
No

Remember, you need more than four years of college to be a
teacher or doctor. Do your mother and father think you could

do that?

Yes
Maybe
No

What grades do your mother and father think you can get?

Mostly A's
Mostly B's
Mostly C's
Mostly D's
Mostly E's

NOW WE WANT TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRINCIPAL OF THIS

SCHOOL.

71.

72.

73.

REFEMBER, YOUR PRINCIPAL WILL NOT SEE YOUR ANSWERS.

How many students in this school do you think the principal

believes can get high grades?

Almost all of the students
Most of the students

Half of the students

Some of the students

Almost none of the students

How do you think your principal would grade the work of the
students in this school, compared to other schools?

How many of the students in this school do you think the principal

believes will finish high school?

Would grade it much better

Would grade it somewhat better. .....

Would grade it the same

Would grade it somewhat lower ......

Would grade it much lower

Almost all of the students
Most of the students
Half of the students
Some of the students
Almost none of the students

“NH

UNH
O

“NH
0..

2.

214

74. How many of the students in this school do you think the principal
believes will go to college?

Almost all of the students ......
Most of the students ......
Half of the students ......
Some of the students ......
Almost none of the students ......

75. How many of the students in this school do you think the principal
believes will finish college?

Almost all of the students ......
Most of the students ......
Half of the students ......
Some of the students ......
Almost none of the students ......

76. When I do a good job on my school work, I am more popular with
other students.
Yes ......
No ......
Doesn't make any difference ......

77. If I do well in school, it will be easier for me to get the job
I want when I graduate.
Yes ......
No ......
Doesn't matter ......

78. My parents allow me greater freedom when I do well in school.
Yes. ......
No ......

Doesn't matter ......

79. If you came home with a good report card, what would your parents
most likely do?

 

Nothing in particular ......

Praise me ...... .

Give me special privileges ...... 3.

Give me money or some Special reward ...... .

Other ...... S.
(specify)

80. If you came home with a poor report card, what would your parents
most likely do?

 

Nothing in particular ......

Seold me ......

Take away privileges ......

Punish me severely in some way ......

Other ......
(specify)

81. Sometimes what you want to happen is not what you think will happen.
How far do you think you will go in school?

Finish grade school
60 to high school for a while

inish h gh SC 001
o to co Iege or a while ......

Finish college ......

MbuNt-o

(11.39:th

APPENDIX B

TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

215

Directions:

216

Teacher Questionnaire
(Revised Draft)

School Social Environment Study

Sponsored by

Michigan Department of Education
and
Michigan State University

This research project is being
carried out under the supervision of

Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover
Professor of Sociology and Education, and
Associate Director, Center for Urban Affairs
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Tel. 517 353-9506

Any questions should be directed to Dr. Brookover

The information which you give us on this questionnaire is
completely £22T540E1131° No one will see ygur anS\.C1s except
the mcmbers of our research sta1f, Reports will be made with
aggregate data, and no one person will be identified with his
or her data. After your questicanaire has been completely
coded and punched on IBM car 5(without your name), your
questionnaire will re destroyed. (.or.nlete confidentie' t) is

us... a“ ,. “fl —- .- ..--

assuied;_ It is VITY imloitant thaL“ you be as canaid as

possible in your a..swers.

U"!

217

Name

 

Sex (Please check appropriate line)
female

male

Please write the name of this school

 

How long have you taught in this school?

(Include this year)

How long have you taught school?

 

What grade level are you teaching?

How much formal preparation do you have? (circle the number of
the correct answer)

less than a Bachelors degree

Bachelors degree

some graduate work but less than Masters degree
Masters degree

more than Masters degree but not Doctorate

. Doctor‘s degree

0 U'Iwar-a
0

How did you feel about this school before coming here? (give
general attitude)

 

lease do not
rite on this
ide of the
inc.

*4
“N

0N

34
L‘l

0”
\

a”
9i

218

9a. Has your attitude changed since? (circle number of correct

answer)
1. yes
2. no

9b. If so, how?

We would like to ask you some questions about grouping practices and
use of standardized tests in this school. Please feel free to write
any additional comments after each question.

10. In general, what grouping procedure is practiced across sections
of particular grade levels in this school?
1. homogeneous grouping according to ability
2. heterogeneous grouping according to ability
3. random sampling
4. no intentional grouping
5. other (indicate)__ r_
11. In general, what grouping procedure is practiced within your
class?
1. homogeneous grouping according to ability
2. heterogeneous grouping according to ability
3. random grouping
4. no intentional grouping
5. other (indicate) A
12. How important do you think the standardized test scores of your

 

 

students are?

very important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all

waH

 

13.

219

How often do you use the standardized test scores of your students?

MAMNH

very often
often
somtimes
seldom
never

Please answer each of the following questions by encircling the
letter before the choice which most nearly answers the question for you.

14.

15.

16.

On the average what level of achievement can be expected of the
students in this school?

Ola-Dilute

much above national norm
slightly above national norm
approximately at national norm
slightly below national norm
much below national norm

On the average what level of achievement can be expected of the
students in your class? ,

U‘lwah-n

much above national norm
slightly above national norm
approximately at national norm
slightly below national norm
much below national norm

What percent of the students in this sghggl do you expect to com-
plete high school?

1.

0'1me

90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
30% or more
less than 30%

T5

k)!
oi

 

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

220

What percent of the students in your class do you expect to complete
high school?

. 90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
30% or more
. less than 30%

MAva-o

What percent of the students in this school do you expect to attend
college? ' ”"'“‘

90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
30% or more
less than 30%

MAMNH

What percent of the students in your Slfl§§.d° you expect to attend
college? ‘“"'

90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
30% or more
less than 30%

mwaH

What percent of the students in this EEDBEl.d° you expect to complete
college?

1. 90% or more
2. 70% or more
3. 50% or more
4. 30% or more
5. less than 30%
What percent of the students in your Elflfih do you expect to complete
college? “' ”"

. 90% or more
. 70% or more
. 50% or more
. 30% or more

1
2
3
4
5 less than 30%

L.
.22

3

"i

 

 

 

 

 

22

23

2’.

ZS

26

 

 

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

How many of the students in this school are capable of getting mostly.“

221

A's and 8's?

1. 90%
2. 70%
3. 50%
4. 30%
S.

or more
or more
or more
or more

less than 30%

How many of the students in your class are capable of getting mostly‘ET
A's and 8'3?

1. 90% or more
2. 70% or more
3. 50% or more
4. 30% or more
5. less than 30%

How would you rate the academic ability of the students in this

UlnLOlhaha

What percent of the students in this school would you say want to

complete
1. 90%
2. 70%
3. 50%
4. 30%
5.

school compared to other schools?

. ability here is much higher
ability here is somewhat higher
ability here is about the same
ability here is somewhat lower
. ability here is much lower

high school?

or more
or more
or more
or more

less than 30%

What percent of the students in your glg§§_would you say want to

complete
1. 90%
2. 70%
3. 50%
4. 30%
5.

high school?

or more
or NOTC
or more
or more

less than 30%

g:
o1

 

27.

28.

222

What percent of the students in this school would you say want to
go to college?

90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
. 30% or more
less than 30%

MDMNH

What percent of the students in your class would you say want
to go to college?

90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
30% or more
. less than 30%

VIkMNt-n

Please remember, your answers to all of these questions is completely
confidential. No one but our research staff will see your answers.

 

29.

How much do you enjoy your teaching responsibilities in this
school?

1. very much
2. much

3. average

4. little

5. not at all

If someone were to offer you an interesting and secure non—
teaching job for $1,000 more a year, how seriously would you
consider taking the job?

very seriously

. somewhat seriously
not very seriously
. not at all

AMNl—I

QJ
H'

(J)
(N

34

 

31.

32.

33.

34.

223

If someone were to offer you an interesting and secure non-
teaehing job for $3,000 more a year, how seriously would you
consider taking the job?

very seriously
somewhat seriously
not very seriously
. not at all

AMNH

How often do you stay after school to help students?

1. very often
2. often

3. sometimes
4. seldom

5. never

What percent of the students in this school do you think the
principal expects to completg_high school?

90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
30% or more
less than 30%

MAWNH

What percent of the students in this school do you think the
principal expects to attend college?

90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
30% or more
less than 30%

mAmNt-o

What percent of the students in this school do you think the
principal expects to complete college?

90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
30% or more
less than 30%

WARN.”

 

37.

38.

39.

40.

224

How many students in this school do you think the principal believes
are capable of getting mostly A's and B's.

. 90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
. 30% or more
less than 30%

MAmNr-I

How do you think your principal rates the academic ability of the
students in this school, compared to other schools?

. rates it much better
rates it somewhat better
rates it the same

rates it somewhat lower
rates it much lower

MAth—o

Completion of high school is a realistic goal which you set for
what percentage of your students?

1. 90% or more
2. 70% or more
3. 50% or more
4. 30% or more
5. less than 30%

Completion of college is a realistic goal which you set for what
percentage of your students?

90% or more
. 70% or more
50% or more
30% or more
. less than 30%

U‘l-tsmNn—o

How often do you stress to your students the necessity of a post
high school education for a good job and/or a comfortable life?

1. very often
2. often

3. sometimes
4. seldom

5. never

5
(“J

l.—

43

A

 

41.

42.

44.

4S.

 

225

For those students who do not have the resources which will allow
them to go to college, you are careful not to promote aSpirations
in them which strongly can not be fulfilled.

strongly agree
agree

not sure

. disagree

strongly disagree

MALANH

The teachers in this school push students to work too hard.

strongly agree
agree

not sure

. disagree

strongly disagree

'J‘lwai—b

How many teachers in this school aren't concerned how hard most
students work, as long as they pass?

almost all of the teachers
most of the teachers
half of the teachcrs
. some of the teachers
almost none of the teachers

Mmei-fi

It is unfair to demand more from a student than he is capable of
giving.

1. strongly agree
2. agree

3. not sure

4. disagree

5

. strongly disagree

If you think a student is not able to do some of the school work
you won't try to push him very hard.

1. strongly agree

2. agree

3. not sure

4. disagree

5. strongly disagree

 

“"1

11'0"

46.

47.

”El.

226

For most students you are very careful not to push them to their

frustration level.

strongly agree
agree

not sure

disagree

. strongly disagree

Ul-thb-n

How many teachers in this school encourage students to
improve on previous test scores?

1. almost all of the teachers
2. most of the teachers
3. about half of the teachers
4. some of the teachers
5. almost none of the teachers

try hard to

How many teachers encourage students to seek extra school work so

that the students can get better grades?

1. almost all of the teachers
2. most of the teachers
3. about half of the teachers
4. some of the teachers
5. almost none of the teachers

How many students in this school try hard to improve on previous

work?

1. almost all of the students
2. most of the students

3. about half of the students
4. some of the students

5. almost none of the students

How many students in your class try hard to improve on previous

work?

1 almost all of the students

2. most of the students

3. about half of the students

4. some of the students

5. almost none of the students

1

U"
e.
‘4

mi

2".

n;

 

52.

53.

SS.

227

How many students in this school will try hard to do better on tests
than their friends do?

1. almost all of the students
2. most of the students
3. about half of the students
4. some of the students
5. almost none of the students

How many students in your class will try hard to do better on tests
than their classmates do?

almost all of the students
most of the students
about half of the students
. some of the students
almost none of the students

WAMNH

How many students in this school are content to do less than they
should?

5. almost all of the students
4. most of the students
3. about half of the students
2. some of the students
1. almost none of the students

How many students in your class are content to do less than they
should?

. almost all of the students

. most of the students

. about half of the students

4 some of the students

5. almost none of the students

1
2
3

How many students in this school_will seek extra work so that they
can get better grades?

almost all of the students
most of the students

about half of the students
. some of the students

almost none of the students

mason:—

 

UH

.—

5(5

w!

a
C!)

 

56.

60.

 

228

L...
How many students in your class Nil] seek extra work so that they canno

get better grades?

almost all of the students
most of the students
about half of the students
some of the students
almost none of the students

macaw».-
oo. o.

How many students in this Efihflfll_d““'t care when other students do
much better than they do?

almost all of the students
. most of the students
about half of the students
Some of the students
almost none of the students

Hmwbm

How many students in your glass don‘t care when other students do
much better than they do?

almost all of the students
most of the students
about half of the studerts
Some of the students
almost none of the students

MAMNH

The parents in this school service area regard this school primarily
as a "baby-sitting” agency.

. strongly agree
agree

not sure

. disagree

. strongly disagree

HNL’IAM

The parents of this school service area are deeply concerned that
their children receive a top quality education.

strongly agree
agree

not sure

difiilffirttc

Strong 3 y (H sagree

’Jlwab—l

3

1’0

()4

 

61.

62.

()4 .

229

How many of the parents in this school serviCe area expect their
children to complete high school?

almost all of the parents
most of the parents
about half of the parents
some of the parents
almost none of the parents

macaw...

How many of the parents in this school service area expect their
children to complete college?

. almost all of the parents

most of the parents

about half of the parents

seme of the parents

almost none of the parents

MALANH

How many of the parents in this school service area don't care if
their children obtain low grades?

5. almost all of the parents
4. most of the parents
3. about half of the parents
2. some of the parents
1. almost none of the parents

How many of the parents in this school service area like feedback
from the principal and teachers on how their children are doing in
school?

. almost all of the parents
. most of the parents
. about half of the Parents
. some of the parents

1
2
3
4
5. almost none cf the parents

'67

 

APPENDIX C

PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE

230

Directions:

 

231

Principal Questionnaire

School Social Environment Study

Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover
Professor of Sociology and Education, and
Associate Director, Center for Urban Affairs
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

The information you give us on this questionnaire is
completely confidential. No one will see your answers
except the members of our research staff. Reports will

be made with aggregate data, and no one person will be
identified with his or her data. After your questionnaire
has been completely coded and puched on IBM cards

(without your name), your questionnaire will be destroyed.
Complete confidentialitygis assured.

9.

2 32

Name

 

Sex (Please check):
Male Female

Please write the name of this school:

 

How long have you been the principal in this school?
(Include this year)

 

How long have you been a principal?

 

Have you ever taught school?

Yes No

 

If so, how long did you teach?

 

How did you feel about this school before coming
here?

Has your attitude changed?

 

We would now like to ask you some questions about grouping
practices, teacher credentials and testing procedures in
your school. Please feel free to write any additional
comments after each question.

0”

“1

01

afl

 

“fl

9”

~fl

“N

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

233

In general, what grouping procedure is practiced
across sections of particular grade levels in this
school?

. homogeneous grouping according to ability

. heterogeneous grouping according to ability
. random grouping

. no intentional grouping

ari-a

In general, what grouping procedure is practiced within
individual sections of particular grade levels of this
school?

1. homogeneous grouping according to ability
2. heterogeneous according to ability

3. random grouping

4. no intentional grouping

In general, what grouping procedure is practices
across grade levels in this school?

. homogeneous grouping according to ability

. heterogeneous grouping according to ability
. random grouping

. no intentional grouping

thr—I

How many teachers in this school have a Bachelors
degree?

1. 75% or more
2. 50-75%
3. 25-50%
4. 25% or less

How many teachers in this school have a provisional
teaching certificate?

1. 75% or more
2. 50-75%
3. 25-50%
4. 25% or less

How many teachers in this school have a permanent
teaching certificate?

1. 75% or more
2. 50-75%
3. 25-50%
4. 25% or less

 

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

234

How many teachers in this school have a graduate degree?
degree?

1. 75% or more
2. 50-75%

3. 25-50%

4

. 25% or less

What kinds of standardized tests are administered in
this school?

 

 

 

In your opinion what do the standardized tests which are
administered in this school measure?

 

 

 

As principal of this school how do you use the results of
the standardized tests which are administered?

 

 

 

 

How important are the standardized test scores for the
teachers in this school?

. Very important

. Somewhat important

. Not very important

. Not important at all

kuNt—o

How are the standardized test scores used by the teachers
in this school?

 

 

 

 

Please answer each of the following questions by circling
the letter before the choice which most nearly answers the
question for you.

I

[v
y—n

Bl

IQ
U1

8]

 

N
(N

lv
00

N
\1

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

235

On the average, what achievement level can be expected
of the students in this school?

. much above national norm
. slightly above national norm

slightly below national norm

1
2
3. approximately at national norm'
4
5

. much below national norm

What percent of the students in this school do you
expect to complete high school?

90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
. 30% or more

MwaH
0

. less than 30%

What percent of the students in this school do you expect
to attend college?

. 90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
30% or more

UTQWNH
. .

less than 30%

What percent of the students in this school do you expect

to complete college?

. 90% or more
70% or more
50% or more
30% or more

m‘bMNt-I
O.

. less than 30%

How many of the students in this school are capable of

getting good grades?

90% or more
. 70% or more
50% or more
30% or more

vie-um»-
0. 0

. less than 30%

How would you rate the academic ability of the students
in this school compared to other schools?

. ability here
ability here
ability here
ability here
ability here

WALNNH
O O.

is
is
is
is
is

much higher
somewhat higher
about the same
somewhat lower
much lower

“I
(x)

“I
LN

ml

36

 

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

236

The parents in this school service area regard this
school as primarily a "baby-sitting" agency.

1. strongly agree
2. agree

3. unsure

4. disagree

5.

strongly disagree

The parents in this school service area are deeply con-
cerned that their children receive a top quality
education.

1. strongly agree
2. agree

3. unsure

4. disagree

5

. strongly disagree

How many of the parents in this school service area
expect their children to complete high school?

. almost all of the parents
most of the parents
about half of the parents
some of the parents
almost none of the parents

m-wat—a
O 0.

How many of the parents in this school service area
expect their children to complete college?

almost all of the parents
most of the parents
. about half of the parents
. some of the parents
. almost none of the parents

ans-mm.—

How many of the parents in this school service area
don't care if their children obtain low grades?

almost all of the parents
most of the parents
about half of the parents
. some of the parents
almost none of the parents

thNl—I

“3's

40

 

33.

34.

35.

237

How many of the parents in this school service area
like feedback from the principal and teachers on how
their children are doing in school?

MAMNH

almost all of the parents
most of the parents

about half of the parents
some of the parents

almost none of the parents

What proportion of your teachers call on the parents
of their pupils at least once during the year?

Ul-bMNH

almost all the teachers
most of the teachers

about hlaf of the teachers
some of the teachers

almost none of the teachers

What else is there about the community school relation-
ship that would help us better understand the nature
of this school?

47

 

APPENDIX D

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS QUESTIONS USED IN THE MICHIGAN
STATE SCHOOL ASSESSMENT S.E.S. INDEX 1969-1970

238

239

SOCIO-ECNOMIC STATUS QUESTIONS USED IN THE MICHIGAN
STATE SCHOOL ASSESSMENT S.E.S. INDEX 1969-1970

General Information Questions

Does your family have a dictionary? (S.E.S.)

A. Yes
8. No
C. I don't know

Does your family have an encyclopedia? (S.E.S.)

A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know

Does your family have a vacuum clearner? (S.E.S.)

A. Yes
3. No
C. I don't know

Does your family have a typewriter? (S.E.S.)

A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know

Does your family have a dishwashing machine? (S.E.S.)

A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know

How many cars does your family have? (S.E.S.) (Don't count trucks.)
A. None

8. One

C. Two or more

Do you have your own wrist watch? (S.E.S.)

A. Yes
B. No

Has anypne in your family traveled in an airplane in the last year?
S.E.S.

A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know

240

How much education does your father have? (S.E.S.)

A. Grade school--Grades l-8

B. High School-~Grades 9- 12

C. College or special training after high school
D. I don' t know

How much education does your mother have? (S.E.S.)

A. Grade school--Grades l-8

B. High School--Grades 9-12

C. College or special training after high school
D. I don't know

How many different schools have you gone to since you started first
grade? Count only the schools which you went to during the day.
(S.E.S., Att. A, Att. B)

A. 0ne--only this one
B. Two

C. Three

D. Four

E.

Five or more

What is the highest grade you want to finish in school?
(5. E.S ,Att. A, Att. B, Att. C)

A. I don't want to go to school any more

B. I only want to finish high school -

C. I want to go to a special school, like nursing or business school
D. I want to go to college

Are you planning to go to college?
A. Yes

B. No
C. I'm not sure

241

APPENDIX E

DUNCAN'S SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDEX SCORE IN SCHOOLS IN COMPARISON
WITH THE STATE ASSESSMENT SOCIO-ECONOMIC
SCORE OF SCHOOLS

242

TABLE 26.--Duncan's Socio-Economic Index Score in Schools in Comparison
with the State Assessment Socio-Economic Score of Schools

 

 

Duncan S.E.S. S.E.S. State Assessment
School Index Level S.E.S. Score
l 50.5 High 55.1
2 41.6 High 55.2
3 51.8 High 54.4
4 48.7 High 54.9
5 30.0 High 49.4
6 50.2 High 50.1
7 32.4 Low 43.2
8 26.0 Low 44.9
9 36.5 Low 46.6
10 29.0 Low 46.8
1] ** **
12 17.76 High 49.2
13 20.l Low 43.8
14 18.8 Low 46.7
15 64.9 High 61.3
16 40.4 High 52.9
17 28.7 Low 47.0
18 19.1 Low 46.7
19 29.1 High 53.2
20 35.3 Low 44.6
21 32.8 Low 42.9
22 21.3 Low 44.3
23 23.6 High 50.7
24 29.2 Low 47.8
25 17.7 Low 37.8

 

**School ll not available for data collection.

243

APPENDIX F

THREE FACTOR VARIMAX - PRINCIPALS

244

Three Factor Varimax - Principals

 

Factor 1 Proportional Variance = .3577

Var. I . Factor LoadinggScore

6. How would you rate the academic ability of students .8808
in this school compared to other schools?

7. The parents in this school service area regard this -.8719
school as primarily a "baby-sittind'agency.

3. What percent of the students in this school do you .8024
expect to attend college?

8. The parents in this school service area are deeply .8020
concerned that their children receive a top quality
education.

10. How many of the parents in this school service area .7603

expect their children to complete college?

4. What percent of the students in this school do you .6913
expect to complete college?

5. How many students in this school are capable of getting .6519
good grades?

Factor 2

9. How many parents in this school service area expect .9158
their child to complete high school?

11. How many of the parents in this school service area -.9068
don't care if their children obtain low grades?

2. What percent of the students in this school do you .8772
expect to complete high school?

1. 0n the average what achievement level can be expected .7549
of the students in this school?

Factor 3

12. Howmany parents in this school service area like feed— -.8856

back from the principal and teachers on how their
children are doing in school?

13. What proportion of your teachers call on the parents of -.2567
their pupils at least once during the year?

"‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII“