A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC, INDEPENDENT, FREE, AND CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARENTS REGARDING SELECTED PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES IN THE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS OF MICHIGAN By William Henry Sumner A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1971 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF PUBLIC, INDEPENDENT, FREE, AND CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARENTS REGARDING SELECTED PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES IN THE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS OF MICHIGAN By William Henry Sumner The purpose of the study was to obtain information about the perceptions of Public, Independent, Free, and Catholic Elementary School parents regarding selected programs and practices in the Public Elementary Schools of Michigan. With this information public school adminis­ trators might develop future programs and practices which would better meet the expectations of parents from the four types of schools concerning public elementary edu­ cation in their communities. While much research has been done about public elementary education from the perspective of educators, little research has been done regarding Public Elementary School parents' perceptions of public elementary education. Research concerning Independent, Free, and Catholic Ele­ mentary School parents' perceptions of public elementary education— except for two Gallup surveys— is virtually non-existent. William Henry Sumner To obtain information, questionnaires were mailed to 1,352 parents who sent their children to twenty-nine Michigan elementary schools located in Jackson, Kalamazoo, Kent, Oakland, and Wayne counties. The study was limited to parents with children enrolled in grades one through six or who were enrolled in age-equivalent, non-graded, or multi-level groups within the four types of elementary schools. Three hypotheses were formulated to assess infor­ mation regarding parental perceptions. I. These were: There is a difference in the perceptions of parents included in this study (regardless of school type) between selected Public Elementary School programs and practices. II. There is a difference between the perceptions of parents from the four types of schools toward selected Public Elementary School programs and practices. III. There is an interaction between parent types and selected Public Elementary School programs and practices. A factor analysis of the attitudinal statements included in the questionnaire showed that the concepts could be placed into three measures. The focus of the William Henry Sumner study was placed on two of the measures, subsequently designated the instructional process and discipline. An analysis of variance procedure was used to interpret the data obtained from the questionnaires. This analysis showed an interaction between parent types and educational measures which was significant at the .05 level. No straightforward test of the first two hypotheses was possible because of the interaction between types and measures. The third hypothesis concerning the interaction between types and measures was supported. Conclusions 1. Public Elementary School parents were not con­ cerned with the concepts included in the questionnaire about recent instructional trends but were concerned with the concepts regarding teacher effectiveness in the class­ room in the Public Elementary Schools. 2. Public Elementary School parents were con­ cerned with concepts regarding disciplinary methods and standards in the Public Elementary Schools. 3. Independent Elementary School parents were concerned with the concepts included in the questionnaire regarding recent instructional trends but were not con­ cerned with the concepts regarding teacher effectiveness in the classroom in the Public Elementary Schools. William Henry Sumner 4. Independent Elementary School parents were not concerned with those concepts regarding disciplinary methods and standards in the Public Elementary Schools. 5. Free Elementary School parents were concerned with those concepts regarding recent instructional trends but were not concerned with the concepts regarding teacher effectiveness in the classroom in the Public Elementary Schools. 6. Free Elementary School parents were not con­ cerned with those concepts regarding disciplinary methods and standards in the Public Elementary Schools. 7. Catholic Elementary School parents were not concerned with those concepts regarding recent instruc­ tional trends in the classroom, and they were not con­ cerned with those concepts regarding teacher effectiveness in the classroom in the Public Elementary Schools. 8. Catholic Elementary School parents were not concerned with those concepts regarding disciplinary methods in the Public Elementary Schools but were con­ cerned with the disciplinary standards of the Public Elementary Schools. William Henry Sumner Recommendations 1. Public school administrators should conduct attitudinal surveys periodically to obtain information about the perceptions of Public, Independent, Free, and Catholic Elementary School parents regarding programs and practices in the Public Elementary Schools. 2. Parents who send their children to Public, Independent, Free, and Catholic Elementary Schools should be encouraged to attend Public School meetings so that they may contribute information to public school adminis­ trators regarding programs and practices in the Public Elementary Schools of their communities. 3. Prior to the introduction of new programs and practices in the Public Elementary Schools, administrators should provide parents with information about them through conferences, workshops, and the news media. 4. Administrators should use the information obtained from these procedures to determine whether parents need information about school programs and prac­ tices, as well as whether they (the administrators) should develop new programs and practices in the Public Elementary Schools. 5. Public school administrators should use available public relations services to help them use William Henry Sumner effectively the news media in their communities to inform parents about elementary school programs and practices. The Michigan School Public Relations Association (MSPRA), affiliated with the Michigan Education Association, and the Information Services Office of the Michigan Department of Education provide public relations information to administrators. Moreover, in some Michigan communities private public relations firms are available to help local school administrators assess and develop public relations programs in their communities. 6. Parents should be encouraged to participate frequently in selected aspects of the development, imple­ mentation, and assessment of Public Elementary School pro­ grams and practices. PLEASE NOTE: Some Pages ha ve i n d i s t i n c t prin t. F i l m e d as r e c e i v e d . UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many educators and parents gave generously of their time in this research regarding school types of parents. It is with special gratitude that I acknowledge the assistance which Dr. Troy Stearns, chairman of the doctoral committee, contributed to me in the pursuit of this study. Dr. Stearns' continued support and guidance were of inestimable value and will always be remembered. The direction provided in matters related to the research design of the study by Dr. Howard Teitelbaum and Miss Jo Lynn Cunningham were indeed invaluable. A sincere expression of appreciation is extended to Dr. Dale Alam, Dr. Samuel Corl, and Dr. Howard Hickey for serving on the doctoral guidance committee and for their helpful suggestions and encouragement. Not to be overlooked are the 1,352 parents together with their school principals and administrators who graciously cooperated with me in the arrangements regarding the phase of the study in which survey infor­ mation was provided. ii Finally, the cooperation and assistance provided by my wife, Virginia, and my children, Kathleen, Steven, and Leslie, are very much appreciated. I TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. Page THE P R O B L E M ............................... 1 Introduction............... Need for This S t u d y ................... Purpose of the S t u d y ................... The Research Hypotheses ............... Assumption ............................ Limitations of the Study............... Definition of T e r m s ................... Overview of the Study................... 1 3 9 9 9 10 10 13 SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . Introduction............................ Section I. Public Elementary School P a r e n t s ............................... 15 15 17 Perceptions About the Instructional Process in Public Elementary Schools. Perceptions About Discipline in Public Elementary Schools . . . . 19 Section II. Independent Elementary School Parents ......................... 20 Perceptions About the Instructional Process in Public Elementary Schools. Perceptions About Discipline in Public Elementary Schools . . . . Section III. Free Elementary School P a r e n t s ............................... Perceptions About the Instructional Process in Public Elementary Schools. Perceptions About Discipline in Public Elementary Schools . . . . 17 20 22 23 23 25 iv \ Chapter Page Section IV. Catholic Elementary School P a r e n t s .................................. Perceptions About Process in Public Perceptions About Public Elementary 27 the Instructional Elementary Schools . Discipline in Schools ............ Summary of Chapter I I ................... III. 27 30 30 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................... 32 Introduction ............................ Design of the S t u d y ...................... Description of the S a m p l e ............... 32 32 33 Geographic Location ................... Public Schools......................... Independent Schools ................... Free Schools ...................... Catholic Schools ............ Income Level ......................... 33 34 35 35 35 35 Sample S i z e ............................ Development of the Questionnaire. . . . 39 39 Construction of the Questionnaire Statements . . . . . Sources of Information for the State­ ments.................................. Response Categories ................... Materials Included with the Question­ naire.................................. Administration of the Questionnaire. . . The Initial Questionnaire ............ . . . . The Follow-Up Questionnaire Methods of Interpreting the Data. . . . Designating and Weighting the R e s p o n s e s ............................ Analysis of the Questionnaire. . . . Analytical Technique................... S u m m a r y .................................. v 39 41 41 42 42 42 43 44 44 44 45 46 Chapter IV. Page ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ...................... 47 O v e r v i e w ............................... 47 Interaction Between Types and M e a s u r e s ......................... The Plan for Presenting the Analysis. 50 52 Parent Perceptions Concerning the Instructional Process................... 53 Recent Instructional Trends. . . . Teacher Effectiveness in the Class­ room ...................... . . . Summary of Parent Perceptions Regarding the Instructional Process . 56 Parent Perceptions Concerning Discipline 58 Disciplinary Methods ................ Disciplinary Standards ............ Summary of Parent Perceptions Regard­ ing D i s c i p l i n e ...................... 58 58 Parent Perceptions Regarding Other School Concerns ...................... S u m m a r y .................. V. 53 54 58 59 61 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . S u m m a r y ............................... Comparison of the Major Findings of This Study with the Chief Concerns Expressed in the Literature............ Public School Parents................ Independent School Parents . . . . Free School P a r e n t s ............... Catholic School Parents ............ 70 70 74 74 74 75 76 Conclu s i o n s ............................ 76 Specific Conclusions ............... General Conclusions ............... 76 78 Questions Generated by This Study. Recommendations. . vi . . 79 81 Chapter Page BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 84 APPENDICES Appendix A. Location and Number of School Parents Who Were Mailed Questionnaires ................... 87 B. Sample Parent Questionnaire....................... 91 C. Sample Letters Included WithParentQuestion­ naire D. 97 Parent Information Forms......................... 103 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Page Michigan Public Elementary School Enrollments, Grades 1-6, 1966-1971 ...................... 5 Michigan Non-Public Elementary School Enroll­ ments During the Past Five Years, 1967-1971. 7 Michigan kon-Public Elementary School Enroll­ ments, Grades 1-6, 1 9 7 1 ................... 8 Michigan Elementary Enrollment by School Type, 1970-1971 .................................. 8 3.1 Design Matrix. ......................... 33 3.2 Income Levels of Parents Who Participated in the Study .............................37 3.3 Types of Schools, Student Enrollments, and Parent Sample Sizes. . . . 40 3.4 Number of Questionnaires Mailed to and Com­ pleted by P a r e n t s ......................... 4 3 4.1 Interactions Between Parent Types and Edu-rcational Measures ......................... 48 Means and Standard Deviations of Educational Measures by Parent Types ................... 48 4.2 4.3 Parental Responses to the Attitudinal State­ ments of the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ................... 62 4.4 Summary of Parents' Responses Regarding the Fifty-Four Attitudinal Statements in the Questionnaire ............................ 4.5 67 Scheffe Post-Hoc Analysis of Questionnaire Statements...................................... 68 viii Table A-l. A-2. A-3. A-4. Page Location and Number of Public Elementary School Parents Who Were Mailed Question­ naires . 87 Location and Number of Independent Elemen­ tary School Parents Who Were Mailed Questionnaires ......................... 88 Location and Number of Free Elementary School Parents Who Were Mailed Question­ naires.. ................................. 89 Location and Number of Catholic Elementary School Parents Who Were Mailed Question­ naires ................................. 90 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3.1 Annual Family Income ......................... 38 4.1 Graph of the I n t e r a c t i o n s ................... 49 x CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction School administrators are concerned about the growing parental discontent with the Public Schools. Much has been written in periodicals and magazines about this discontent of parents with programs and practices. Indeed, one has only to read the daily newspaper to learn of problems related to these concerns. Some parents have doubts as to whether the Public Schools are capable of providing worthwhile programs for children. Even though these parents express dissatisfaction with the schools, many continue to send their children to them. Other parents, however, have abandoned the Public Schools, apparently believing that other types of schools can better fulfill their expectations for their children. These parents have withdrawn their children from the Public Schools and enrolled them in Non-Public Schools. This flight from the Public to Non-Public Schools should not be underestimated. John H. Fischer, president of Teachers College, Columbia University, recently said 1 2 this about parental discontent with the Public Schools: " by the thousands they are removing their children from the public schools and competing desperately and at high cost for the limited places available in private schools Further, it has been estimated in America's twenty largest cities that four out of every ten whites and one out of every ten Negroes have fled the Public Schools for Non-Public Schools. 2 These withdrawal figures are significant, despite the possibility that they may also include numbers of children whose parents are not dissatisfied with the'Public Schools, but who enroll their children in Non-Public Schools with program offerings which they believe will satisfy their familial needs. Whether numbers of parents continue to withdraw their children from the Public Schools is of concern to administrators. The need to obtain additional information about parental perceptions of the Public Schools is apparent. ^■John H. Fischer, "Who Needs Schools?" Saturday Review, September 19, 1970, p. 78. 2 Edward W. Brooke, "Education for Progress: Social Change and the American School," National Association of Secondary School Principals, LIII (May, 1969), 101. 3 Need for This Study Administrators need information about parents' perceptions so that they will be aware of parental expec­ tations about the schools and establish mutual communi­ cation for the exchange of ideas and the development of future programs and practices. Studies support the idea not only that parental attitudes improve when parents are involved in school affairs, but the schools have greater success in educating children. Jablonsky reported that schools which have open doors to parents and community members have greater success in educating children .^ Hess and Shipman reported that involving parents in school activities may assist the child in developing better images about school. 2 Furthermore, Cloward and Jones found parental involvement in school affairs to be positively correlated Adelaide Jablonsky, "Some Trends in Education of the Disadvantaged," IRCD Bulletin, IV (March, 1968), 1-11, cited by Carol Lopate, e t a l . , "Decentralization and Com­ munity Participation in Public Education," Review of Educational Research, XL (February, 1970) , 2 Robert D. Hess and Virginia C. Shipman, "Maternal Attitude Toward the School and the Role of the Pupil: Some Social Class Comparisons" (paper prepared for the Fifth Work Conference on Curriculum and Teaching in Depressed Urban Areas, New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1966), cited by Lopate, et al., "Decentralization and Community Participation in Education." 4 with parents1 evaluations of the importance of education and their attitudes toward the school as an institution."*" While the foregoing discussion indicates a need for information about parental perceptions of public edu­ cation, relatively little research has been done in this area. Few studies have been made regarding Public School parents' perceptions of the Public Schools, and even fewer studies have been done concerning types of NonPublic School parents' perceptions of the Public Schools. This lack of information prompted the writer to make this study. To obtain information about parental perceptions, the writer selected parents with children in four types of elementary schools. These were Public, Independent, Free, and Catholic Schools. Public Elementary School parents were included in the study because they represent the majority of parents who send children to Michigan elementary schools. Approxi­ mately 86 per cent of the children who are enrolled in Michigan elementary schools attend Public Schools. Public School enrollments have increased steadily over the years. Richard A. Cloward and James A. Jones, "Social Class: Educational Attitudes and Participation," in Edu­ cation in Depressed Areas, ed. by A. H. Passow (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Uni­ versity, 1963), pp. 190-216, cited by Lopate, et al., "Decentralization and Community Participation.111 5 During the past five years, however, Public Elementary School enrollments have increased at a decreasing rate, as indicated in Table 1.1. TABLE 1.1.— Michigan Public Elementary School enrollments, grades 1-6, 1966-1971.a Year Total Grades 1-6 Enrollment 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 942,840 968,206 978,150 988,296 993,132 993,433 Percentage of Increase Over Preceding Year • • 3 1 1 <1 <1 Michigan Department of Education, Bureau of Administrative Services, Public School Enrollments by Grades for Selected Years. Independent School parents were surveyed because they represent a group who are willing to incur the expense of this type of Non-Public Education for their children rather than send them to the Public Schools. Less research has been published about this school type of parents than is the case regarding the other parent types. Approximately .1 per cent of the children enrolled in Michigan elementary schools attend Independent Ele­ mentary Schools. National enrollment trends indicate that Independent Schools have grown at the steady rate of 3 to 4 per cent annually during the past twenty years.1 There are over 700 Independent Schools in the United 2 States. Free School parents were included in the survey because they have been dissatisfied enough with the Public Elementary Schools to withdraw their children from them. Approximately .015 per cent of the children enrolled in Michigan elementary schools with grades one-through-six programs attend Free Elementary Schools. While these schools have not been in existence long enough to indicate national enrollment trends, one source reported that Free Schools are being established"at a relatively rapid rate. In January, 1971, there were 1,600 Free Schools in the United States, enrolling approximately 60,000 students. In 1973, it is predicted that there will be 7,000 Free Schools which will enroll 340,000 students. (These estimates include elementary and secondary students.) 3 Catholic School parents were included because the children of these parents comprise 11 per cent of the Cary Potter, "The Independent School Today" (address given at a meeting of parents and alumni of North Country School, New York, April 28, 1967). 2 Edward Yeomans, The Changing Role of the Inde­ pendent School (Boston: National Association of Inde­ pendent Schools, 1969), p. 6. 3 Mike Rossman, "Pro3ections on the New Schools Movement," New Schools Exchange, No. 52, p. 8. 7 students enrolled in Michigan elementary schools and 83 per cent of the students enrolled in Michigan NonPublic Elementary Schools. Non-Public Elementary School enrollments in this state have decreased steadily during the past four years, as indicated by the enrollment figures presented in Table 1.2. TABLE 1.2.— Michigan Non-Public Elementary School enroll­ ments during the past five years, 1967-1971.a School Year Percentage of Enrollment Decline 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 17 16 15 14 13 a Michigan Department of Education, Department Services Division. Because Catholic Elementary Schools comprise a majority of the Non-Public Elementary School enrollment, it is sus­ pected that Catholic Elementary Schools have shown a cor­ responding decrease in enrollment. Moreover, the national enrollment of students in Catholic Schools is down 16 per cent from the 1964-65 high.'*' Table 1.3, page 8, indicates percentages of stu­ dents attending Michigan Non-Public Elementary Schools, ^Edd Doerr, "What Is A Catholic School?" Education Digest, February, 1971, p. 39. 8 and Table 1.4 provides the percentages of students who attend Public, Independent, Free, Catholic, and other Non-Public Elementary Schools in this state. TABLE 1.3.— Michigan Non-Public Elementary School enroll­ ments, grades 1-6, 1971.a Total Non-Public Elementary School Enrollment: 151,419 Type of School Catholic Independent Free Other Non-Public Enrollment 126,219 1,696 175 23,329 Percentage of Total Non-Public State Enrollment 83 >1 .1 >15 Michigan Department of Education, Department Services Division. TABLE 1.4.— Michigan elementary enrollment by school type 1970-1971.a Total Public and Non -Public School Enrollment: 1 ,144,852 Type of School Public Independent Free Catholic Other Non-Public Enrollment Percentage of Total State Enrollment 993,433 1,696 175 126,219 23,329 >86 >.1 .015 >11 > 2 aMichigan Department of Education, Department Services Division. 9 Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to obtain information about the perceptions of Public, Independent, Free, and Catholic Elementary School parents concerning selected programs and practices in the Public Elementary Schools. The Research Hypotheses Three hypotheses were formulated to assess infor­ mation regarding parental perceptions. I. These were: There is a difference in the perceptions of parents included in this study (regardless of school type) between selected Public Elementary School programs and practices. II. There is a difference between the perceptions of parents from the four types of schools toward selected Public Elementary School programs and practices. III. There is an interaction between parent types and selected Public Elementary School programs and practices. Assumption The assumption is made in this study that the parents who were surveyed were objective in their responses and that their perceptions can be measured. 10 Limitations of the Study This study of elementary education is limited to: 1. Selected programs and practices in the Public Elementary Schools. 2. Selected types of Public and Non-Public Elementary School parents with children enrolled in schools located in the following Michigan counties: Jackson, Kalamazoo, Kent, Oakland, and Wayne. 3. Parents with children who are enrolled in grades one through six or who are enrolled in age-equiva­ lent, non-graded, or .multi-level groups. Parents with children enrolled only in the kindergarten level were excluded from the study because the Catholic Schools in the sample did not include kindergarten programs in their school curriculum. Definition of Terms The parents who have participated in this study send their children to four types of schools, defined as follows: Public School.— A public school in the United States is an elementary or secondary school that is part of a system of schools maintained by public taxes and supervised by municipal, county, or State authorities. It offers education, usually free, to the children and youth of the district.1 ^Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition, 1969, p. 1,177. 11 Independent School.— In contrast to the public school, it is supported chiefly by nonpublic funds, and it is controlled by a nonpublic body, usually a board of trustees. It is relatively independent of state control; conditions and regulations vary from state to state, but as a general rule it has considerable freedom to set its own standards and curriculum, admit and dismiss stu­ dents, and hire and dismiss teachers, without state supervision or control. . . . The independent school is usually nonsectarian ...-*■ The financial resources for operation come largely from tuitions, but also from various kinds of essential voluntary support, and in a few cases from endowments accumulated over the years. The curricula, in general, are in the liberal arts tradition and are oriented toward some kind of higher education.2 Free School.— Free Schools are sometimes called new schools or com­ munity schools. . . . They charge little or no tuition, are frequently held together by spit and string, and run mainly on the energy and excitement of people who have set out to do their thing. Their variety seems limitless. No two are alike. They range from innercity black to suburban and rural white. Some seem to be pastoral escapes from the grit of modern conflict while others are deliberate experiments in integrated multicultural, multilingual education. They turn up anywhere— in city storefronts, old barns, former barracks, abandoned church buildings and parents1 and teachers' homes.2 Free School parents maintain that their schools provide child-centered curriculums for children, whereas "^Francis Parkman, "Independent Schools," Encyclo­ pedia of Educational Research, 4th ed., 1969, p. 633. 2 National Association of Independent Schools, Inc., Admission to Independent Schools (Boston: National Associ­ ation of Independent Schools, 1966) , p. 1. 3 Bonnie Barrett Stretch’ , "The Rise of the 'Free School,'" Saturday Review, June 20, 1970, p. 76. 12 the Public Schools are perceived to provide mainly teachercentered curriculums. Schools of this type may implement programs and policies which are not fully recognized by state boards of education. Further, curriculum require­ ments may not meet all of the educational standards of receiving institutions. The Free School is non-public and nonsectarian. Catholic Schools.— The Catholic Schools in America offer a God-centered education which is both sectarian and secular in nature and purpose. The schools generally benefit from subsidies provided by a parish, parishes or a diocese and tuition fees from the parent group. Public assistance has been granted to many Catholic Schools by way of auxiliary service. Increasingly, Catholic Schools are coming under the jurisdiction of elected lay boards of education.1 The Instructional Process.— The interaction of stu­ dents with teachers regarding subject matter. This inter­ action occurs primarily in the classroom. Discipline.— The process of imposing expectations and limitations on the social behavior of students by edu­ cators. Types.— One of the two independent variables of this study; used interchangeably with the phrases parent types and parents from the four types of schools. William Blackburn, Associate Superintendent of Education, private interview held at Office of Catholic Education, Diocese of Lansing, Lansing, Mich., May 26, 1971. Measures.— The second independent variable of this study; used interchangeably with the terms edu­ cational measures and the instructional process and discipline. Categories.— Subordinate concerns within the measures; each of the two primary measures of the study has two subordinate concerns within it. Attitudinal Statements.— The fifty-four statements within the questionnaire which were concerned with selected programs and practices in the Public Elementary Schools. Overview of the Study In Chapter I a discussion of parental discontent with the Public Schools is presented. National estimates of numbers of parents who have withdrawn their children from Public for Non-Public Schools also are presented. The need for more research about parents' perceptions of the Public Schools, together with the benefits frequently derived by parents who participate in school affairs are discussed. The reasons for selecting Public, Independent, Free, and Catholic parents for this study are presented. The purpose and research hypotheses provide the reader with the objectives of the study, and a discussion of assumptions, limitations, and definition of terms provide supportive information about the operational conditions 14 of the study. The chapter is concluded with an overview of the study and a description of chapters to follow. A selected review of the literature regarding the perceptions of the four types of school parents about the instructional process and discipline in the Public Elementary Schools is presented in Chapter II. In Chapter III the research procedures used in this study are described. The development of the ques­ tionnaire, the sampling technique used to obtain infor­ mation from parents, and the methods used to analyze the data also are described. An analysis of the data is made in Chapter IV, with attention given to differences and similarities of parental perceptions regarding the instructional process and discipline in the Public Elementary Schools. The relationship of the findings to those pre­ sented in the literature is discussed in Chapter V. Presented also in Chapter V are the conclusions, together with the recommendations made for further study. CHAPTER II SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Public and Non-Public Elementary School parents share concerns about the kinds of education they believe are practiced in the Public Elementary Schools. A dif­ ference lies in the manner in which these concerns are expressed. Some parents express mild remonstrances about the Public Elementary Schools, while others show less restraint. Still others are downright vitriolic in their expressions about the schools. The literature reviewed, relative to the types of Public and Non-Public Elementary School parents, will be discussed in four sections. The literature about Public Elementary School parents' perceptions of the Public Elementary Schools is presented in section one. In comparison with the amount of literature about the other three types of school parents' perceptions of the Public Elementary Schools, literature about Public Elementary School parents' per­ ceptions was not difficult to obtain. 15 16 Selected literature about Independent Elementary School parents' perceptions of the Public Elementary Schools is presented in section two. While these parents presumably have had direct or indirect contact with the Public Elementary Schools— through their readings or conversations with others— little has been published about their perceptions in either Public or Non-Public School materials. This section includes primarily infor­ mation obtained from two studies. Free School parents' perceptions are discussed in section three. These parents also have not had many of their perceptions about the Public Elementary Schools published. This is not to say that no writings exist by Free School supporters. Quite the opposite is true. An abundance of literature, largely critical, exists about the Public Elementary Schools. This literature, however, is written mostly from the perspective of the professional educator or journalist. Nevertheless, some Free School parents have been able to get their concerns about the Public Elementary Schools into print. The literature about Catholic School parents' perceptions of the Public Elementary Schools is pre­ sented in section four. While the amount of literature about these parents' perceptions regarding the Public Schools is limited, the findings are more substantive than those about the aforementioned types of Non-Public 17 School parents. The discussion about the schools begins with a look at Public School parents' perceptions of the Public Elementary Schools. Section I. Public Elementary School Parents Perceptions About the Instructional Process in Public Elementary Schools The literature concerning parental perceptions of the instructional process in the Public Elementary Schools is derived largely from two recent Gallup surveys. While other sources make significant contributions to this discussion, they are less comprehensive in scope. The 1969 and 1970 Gallup surveys provide the reader with information about the parental outlook on specific con­ cerns regarding the Public Elementary Schools. Although a number of parents withdrew their chil­ dren from the Public for Non-Public Schools because of discontent with the Public Schools, Gallup reported that the majority of Public School parents either had no strong beliefs about the public schools or they were not dissatisfied with Public School practices. In the 1970 Gallup survey it is reported that the majority of Public Elementary School parents— 59 per cent— had no opinion or reported that the schools were "just about right" in trying new ideas and methods. Only 21 per cent 18 of these parents reported that the schools were "too ready" to try new ideas and methods, while another 20 per cent indicated that the Public Schools were not interested enough in trying new ideas and methods.^ In the 1969 Gallup survey, 45 per cent of the parents replied "yes" to the question: "Do you think there are some teachers in the local Public School sys­ tem who should be dropped or fired"? Of this 45 per cent, 24 per cent cited incompetence as reason for dismissal of some Public School teachers. 2 Some parents disliked receiving from educators what they believed to be doubt­ ful information about their children's school progress. These parents expressed dissatisfaction about educators when they declared new instructional ideas or gadgets to be the panaceas to their children's learning problems, only to find, however, that these educators' 3 expectations had missed their mark. Further, some parents expressed dissatisfaction with educators for placing limitations on their participation in Public School activities in their children's behalf. These George Gallup, "Second Annual Survey of the Pub­ lic's Attitude Toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, LII (October, 1970), 104. 2 George Gallup, How the Nation Views the Public Schools (Princeton, N.J.! Gallup International, 1969), p. 59. 3 Martin Essex, "Getting Through to the Establish­ ment," The Education Digest, XXXV (January, 1970), 42. 19 parents were displeased when educators stated that little could be done for the education of children from impover­ ished backgrounds. Finally, parents also were displeased when educators stated that parents had no right to initiate change or criticize the schools.^" Perceptions About Discipline in Public Elementary Schools The import of the information provided in the readings about discipline is one of discontent. Whether parents experienced disciplinary problems with their chil­ dren in schools or whether they obtained information about discipline in the schools through the news media is not known. Gallup reported that parents perceived discipline to be the biggest problem faced by the schools, believing it to be an even greater problem than school finance. 2 Parents also believed that lack of school discipline is associated with "poor education," and school adminis­ trators who cannot keep students in order are poor adminis­ trators .3 Parents, however, did not believe discipline to be as great a problem in the schools as did the general "'‘Rudolph Dreikurs and Marvin Chernoff, "Parents and Teachers: Friends or Enemies?" Education, XCI (November-December, 1970), 147. 2 Gallup, "How the Nation," p. 32. 3 Ibid ., p. 1 0 . 20 public. Fifty-three per cent of the general public reported that discipline "is not strict enough" in Public Schools, while only 2 per cent indicated that discipline was "too strict" in the schools. Parents, however, were evenly divided in their responses, for as many indicated that discipline was "just about right" as indicated that it was "not strict enough. Gallup further reported that parents favored physical punishment, with 63 per cent of the parents indicating that they supported spanking by educators. A recent NEA survey of teachers' beliefs about spanking, however, indicated that only 57 per cent of the teachers surveyed favored this form of discipline. 2 Section II. Independent Elementary School Parents Perceptions About the Instructional Process in Public Elementary Schools Independent School parents succinctly expressed themselves in their perceptions about the instructional process in the Public Elementary Schools. While there is a paucity of literature dealing with the instructional process, these parents unequivocally stated their beliefs, 1Gallup, "Second Annual Survey," p. 101. 2 Ibid. 21 as indicated in a study by the Danforth Foundation, which provides the basic information for this section of the chapter. Independent School parents cited more individual attention for students as a chief reason for choosing Independent Elementary Schools over Public Elementary Schools for their children. Smaller classrooms enabling teachers to give students more personal attention also was cited as an advantage of Independent over Public S c h o o l s . S m a l l e r classrooms, however, was not the only factor of importance in parental choice of schools. Some parents stated that the Public Schools were "bad scholas­ tically," while others indicated better school programs as the primary reason for preferring Independent over 2 Publxc Elementary Schools. Other parents reported that Independent Schools hired better teachers than Public 3 Schools. Still others believed that the Public Schools Charles E. Johnson, Jr. and Larry E. Suter, "Private Schools: Enrollment Trends and Student Charac­ teristics," Education, XCI (February-March, 1971), 237. 2 Danforth Foundation, How the Public Views Nonpublic Schools: A Study of the American Independent School (Cambridge, Mass.: The Danforth Foundation, 1969), p. 9. ^Ibid. 22 had only limited success in providing adequate school programs for intellectually gifted children.1 Perceptions About Discipline in Public Elementary Schools The literature about Independent School parents' perceptions of discipline in the Public Elementary Schools is more limited than the literature regarding their per­ ceptions of the instructional process. The intent of the literature, however, is unmistakably clear. Independent Elementary School parents generally disapproved of the type of discipline used in the Public Elementary Schools. The Danforth Foundation also provided the basic information for this section of the chapter. Independent School parents expressed themselves in the following ways about discipline in the Public Elemen­ tary Schools: They [Independent School educators] don't have to stand for nonsense the way the Public Schools do. Independent Schools supervise their students better. Children have to behave [in Independent Schools]. According to the literature, some of these parents were so strong in their dislike of Public School discipline Terry Ferrer, "The Independent School," Public Affairs Pamphlet Number 238 (New York: Public Affairs-Pamphlets, 1956), p. ITT 2 Danforth Foundation, How the Public Views Non­ public Schools, p. 9. 23 that they were willing to pay for Independent School edu­ cation in the belief there would be less likelihood of student disorders in this type of school.'1' Section III. Free Elementary School Parents Perceptions About the Instructional Process m Public Elementary Schools While the literature about the aforementioned types of Public and Non-Public School parents described several types of weaknesses regarding the instructional process in the Public Schools, the literature concerning Free School parents mainly emphasized one such weakness: Public School educators. Public School educators were believed to be incompetent, as is observed in the follow­ ing discussion. Public School parents were believed to implement school programs which were designed to prevent rather than help children acquire an elementary education. Free School parents saw the Public Elementary Schools as hopelessly committed to irrelevant instructional prac­ tices. These parents also believed public educators placed undue emphasis on memorization of information 1Johnson and Suter, "Private Schools," p. 237. 24 that would soon be outdated.^ Moreover, Free School parents reported that learning in the Public Schools was no longer something children did for themselves, but something teachers imposed on them. 2 Authoritarian teaching practices also were considered commonly used in Public School classrooms. Teachers were believed to stifle whatever originality and creativity children possessed because of their obsession with educational 3 conformity. These objections regarding the practices of public educators are exemplified in the following quotations: Why should our kids sit with folded hands and glazed eyes in their assigned seats because it's 11:05 and this is the day they start a unit on Mesopotamia, like it or not.4 My daughter is beginning to understand [because of her participation in a Free school program] that learning is something you do for yourself and not something you do for the t e a c h e r . ^ A man educated at Harvard spoke of the enrollment of his four children in a Free School and his subsequent Allen Graubard and Tim Affleck, The Community School (Santa Barbara, Calif.: Community School Incor­ porated, n.d.), p. 1 . ^Stretch, "Rise of the 'Free School,'" p. 76. 3 Graubard and Affleck, The Community School, p. 1. 4 Jane Howard, "We Can Too Start Our Own Schools," Life, LXX (January 8 , 1971), 45. ^"Summerhill in Ithaca," Newsweek, February 23, 1970, p. 65. 25 adjustment to his children's "sassiness and indifference to spelling." The father exclaimed, however, that he was determined " . . . not to set standards of achieve­ ment for them the way they were set for me. Let them discover for themselves where they are heading."^ Some supporters of Free School programs believed the Public Schools had placed children in differentiated programs according to social class. Children of working class parents, for example, were believed to be placed in "dead end" programs designed to "slot" these children for future work roles in adulthood. 2 These supporters also believed that public educators administered cul­ turally biased intelligence tests and implemented ability-grouping procedures as ways of limiting children's opportunities for educational advancement. 3 Perceptions About Discipline in Public Elementary Schools Free School parents were dismayed by the types of discipline they believed to be practiced in the Public Elementary Schools, maintaining that disciplinary methods of public educators were purposely oppressive. ^"Chaos and Learning: April 26, 1971, p. 82. 2 Discipline The Free Schools," Time, "Perspectives for Teachers," The Red Pencil (Boston, Mass.: Radical Teachers Group, December, 1970), p. 2 . "^Ibid. 26 in Public Schools was seen by Free School parents to cause children to fear school. These parents also main­ tained that the Public Schools were overly concerned with discipline, that it had become the primary interest of these schools, frequently at the expense of learning itself.^ It was believed by some Free School advocates that the Public Schools used different kinds of discipline for children from working-class backgrounds than were used with children from other backgrounds. Children from working-class backgrounds, for example, were believed to be disciplined by more repressive methods than were children from executive and professional backgrounds. 2 One Free School parent had this to say about the harshness of discipline in the Public Schools: In a public school, we turn our children over to the wardens; there is no illusion about the possibility of influence to torture us. . . . 1 suggest that, unless we find a way of dealing with the real anxie­ ties and concerns that this type of enterprise arouses, then we'll fail before we've hardly started . . .3 ^"Stretch, "Rise of the 'Free School,'" p. 76. 2 "Perspectives for Teachers," The Red Pencil, p. 15. 3 Stretch, "Rise of the 'Free School,'" p. 79. i 27 Section IV, Catholic Elementary School Parents Perceptions About the Instructional Process in Public Elementary Schools' Catholic School parents were less critical of classroom instruction in Public Elementary Schools than were Independent and Free School parents. After review­ ing the literature, one could easily believe that these parents implicitly approved of Public School efforts to educate children. The following survey made in Indiana and Kentucky is a comprehensive study of Catholic parents' perceptions of the Public Schools. In a 1968 attitudinal survey in which 48,000 Catholic parents from the Indianapolis, Evansville, and Louisville Dioceses participated, one out of four parents believed the Public Schools to be better than the Catholic Schools. When only the attitudes of suburban Catholic parents were considered, one out of three of these parents believed the Public Schools to be better than Catholic S c h o o l s . T h e reader, however, is cautioned by the author of this survey not to draw presumptive conclusions from the results of these comparisons between Public and Catholic Schools: George Elford, "Alternatives in Catholic Edu­ cation," National Catholic Education Association, February, 1969, p. 9. 28 It is important to note that, in any comparison of Catholic and public schools concerning the relative merits of either type of school, the majority opinion does not establish the fact of superiority but rather the image or impression of superiority conveyed by one or the other school. The question can be fairly raised whether these responses are related to real differences in program or in public relations or in both.1 In a study of the Diocese of Buffalo, New York, Catholic School parents reported that the Public Elemen­ tary Schools were worthwhile. The perceptions of (a) 468 Catholics who persisted in sending their children to Catholic Elementary Schools and (b) 329 Catholics who withdrew their children from Catholic Elementary Schools and enrolled them in Public Schools were sampled. The perceptions of both groups of Catholic parents were sought on three factors: (1 ) "perceived better quality of education in the Public Schools"; (2) "concern over increasing parental costs for Catholic Elementary Schools"; and (3) "opinion of need for Catholic Ele­ mentary Schools."* The parents who persisted in sending their children to Catholic Schools indicated the factors in order of importance to be: opinion of need for Catholic Elementary Schools; perceived better quality of education "^Elford, "Alternatives in Education," p. 9. * "Opinion of need" in this study of the parents of Buffalo, New York, basically refers to providing chil­ dren with the teachings of the Catholic faith. 29 in the Public Schools; and concern over increasing parental costs for Catholic Elementary Schools. The Catholic parents who withdrew their children from the Catholic Elementary Schools in the Diocese of Buffalo and enrolled them in Public Elementary Schools within this city indicated the factors in order of importance to b e : perceived better quality of education in Public Schools; concern over increasing parental costs for Catholic education; and opinion of need for Catholic Elementary Schools.^ While the above study indicated that Catholic parents generally considered public education to be worthwhile, Gallup's survey presented contrasting infor­ mation concerning teacher competence in the Public Schools. Gallup reported that 39 per cent of the parents in his survey replied "yes" to the question: "Do you think there are some teachers in the Public School system who should be dropped or fired"? More than half of this 39 per cent cited incompetence as the most important reason these teachers should be dismissed. 2 S. Theodore Berg, "Factors Influencing Parental Decision to Transfer Children from Catholic Elementary School to Public Elementary School" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, May, 1969), p. 78. ^Gallup, "How the Nation," p 59. 30 Perceptions About Discipline in Public Elementary Schools While Catholic parents believed classroom instruction in the Public Elementary Schools to be worthwhile, they were as critical of discipline in the Public Schools as were the other types of parents. They also believed discipline to be the chief concern of public educators, with 39 per cent ranking discipline as the biggest problem faced by the schools.^ asked the question: When "How do you feel about discipline in the local schools— is it too strict, not strict enough, or just about right"? 58 per cent stated that it was not strict enough. 2 Gallup's 1970 survey also reported that Catholic School parents believed that discipline was a major problem in the schools. Fifty per cent of the Catholic School parents indicated in this survey that discipline was "not strict enough" in 3 the Public Schools. Summary of Chapter II In this chapter the selected readings from the literature about Public and Non-Public Elementary School parents' perceptions regarding instruction and discipline 1 Gallup, "How the Nation," p. 32. ^Ibid., p. 43. 3 Gallup, "Second Annual Survey," p. 104. 31 in the Public Elementary Schools were presented. While the literature indicated that Public Elementary School parents were to some extent dissatisfied with programs and practices in the schools, their dissatisfactions were not so strongly expressed as were those of the Non-Public School parents. A discussion of the development and implementation of the parental questionnaire is presented in Chapter III, with attention given to the research techniques used to analyze the questionnaire data. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this study was to obtain infor­ mation about the perceptions of parents in four types of elementary schools regarding selected programs and prac­ tices in the Public Elementary Schools. A questionnaire was used to obtain this information from parents. Dis­ cussed in this chapter are the procedures for selecting parents from the four types of schools, the locations of the schools to which they sent theif children, and family income data. Discussed also are the number of parents included in the survey, together with the procedures used to develop and implement the questionnaire. The chapter is concluded with a discussion of the methods used to analyze the data obtained from the questionnaires. Design of the Study Two independent and one dependent variables were included in this study, with parent types and educational measures the independent variables and parent perceptions the dependent variable The schools included in this 32 33 study were nested within types, and the subjects were nested within schools. school dimension. No analysis was made of the Table 3.1 presents a design matrix. TABLE 3.1.— Design matrix. Types of Parents Public P. Educational Measures The Instructional Process (M^) Discipline (M„) 6 M_a J • P346 Independent P347 • • • P 509 Free P• 510 • P Catholic 595 P cn, 596 • • P 735 aMeasure could not be interpreted. Description of the Sample Geographic Location The parents in this survey sent their children to Public, Independent, Free, and Catholic Elementary Schools. The latter three types are Non-Public Schools. Of the four types only Catholic Schools include religious 34 education in their educational programs. Only parents with children in grades one-six (or age-equivalent groupings) were included in the study. Because the Catholic Schools in this survey did not include kinder­ garten classes in their programs, the writer excluded parents with children enrolled only in kindergartens or comparable early-age programs in the other three types of schools. The parents who were surveyed sent their children to twenty-nine schools located in five counties of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. from urban or suburban areas. All of the parents were Additional information about the schools to which these parents sent their chil­ dren is provided in the following four sections. Public Schools Public School parents sent their children to one of eight Public Elementary Schools located in Grand Rapids, Jackson, and Taylor School Districts. Parents from two of the fifty-four Grand Rapids Public Elementary Schools, four of the twenty-one Jackson Public Elementary Schools, and two of the twenty-three Taylor Public Elementary Schools participated in the study. These school districts are located respectively in Kent, Jackson, and Wayne counties. These Public Schools were not randomly selected but were selected because of their closeness 35 to Michigan State University. The parents within these schools, however, were randomly selected. Independent Schools Independent School parents sent their children to one of nine elementary schools located in Oakland and Wayne counties, the only Michigan counties in which Independent Schools are located. Parents from nine of the ten available schools participated in the survey. Free Schools Free School parents sent their children to one of six schools located in Jackson, Kalamazoo, Kent, Oakland, and Wayne counties. These are the only Free Schools in the state with grades one-through-six programs. All of the parents were included in the survey. Catholic Schools Catholic School parents sent their children to one of six schools located in Jackson, Michigan. These are all of the Catholic Elementary Schools located in Jackson, Michigan. This survey of Catholic parents was restricted to the Jackson area because of budget and time limi­ tations . Income Level The majority of parents who completed the ques­ tionnaire were willing to provide information about their 36 annual incomes, the concern of questionnaire statement five, included in the section entitled Information About You. Fifty-three per cent of the Public School parents earned family incomes which were between $9,000 - $14,999. At the lower and upper income levels 20 per cent earned less than $9,000 while 19 per cent earned $15,000 or more. The family income levels of Catholic School parents generally corresponded with those of Public School parents, except at the upper income level, in which 9 per cent more Catholic School parents than Public School parents earned $15,000 or more per year. Independent and Free School parents earned gen­ erally higher incomes than Public and Catholic School par­ ents. Eighty-nine per cent of the Independent and 90 per cent of the Free School parents earned incomes above $9,000. More Independent School than Free School parents, however, earned $15,000 or over, with 75 per cent of the Independent School parents' incomes in this top level, while 56 per cent of the Free School parents had incomes at this top level. Table 3.2, p. 37, and Figure 3.1, p. 38, provide information regarding the annual family incomes of the four types of parents. 37 TABLE 3.2.— Income levels of parents who participated in the study. Schlof ts Public Ino°mea ®°°SrnIa 6.000 9.000 12.000 15.000 or less - 8,999 - 11,999 - 14,999 or over 6 14 28 25 19 Questionnaire 92 $ 5,999 Catholic 94 $ 5,999 6.000 9.000 12.000 15.000 or less - 8,999 - 11,999 - 14,999 or over 6 10 31 18 28 Independent 97 $ 5,999 6.000 9.000 12.000 15.000 or less - 8,999 - 11,999 - 14,999 or over 4 4 4 10 75 Free 98 $ 5,999 6.000 9.000 12.000 15.000 or less - 8,999 - 11,999 - 14,999 or over 5 2 14 20 56 aTotal family income for 1969-70. 38 80 - i o Public Parents ■+ Catholic Parents ■a independent Parents ■a Free Parents Typos 70- School 60- 40- 30- Per Cent of Families Within 50- 20 - 10 - $5,999 or less $6,0008,999 $9,00011,999 $12,00014,999 FIGURE 3.1.— Annual Family Income $15,000 or over 39 Sample Size A sample size was selected for. the entire group of parents and sub-groups within this group that was thought to be large enough to provide valid information about the perceptions of parents from the four types of schools. Of the 1,352 questionnaires mailed to parents, 600 were mailed to Public, 300 to Independent, 152 to Free, and 300 to Catholic School parents. The Public School sample represents the parent population from three relatively large Public School Districts in Michigan. The Indepen­ dent and Catholic School samples each represent parent populations located respectively in one area of this state. The 152 parents in the Free Schools represent the total Free School population in the state. Table 3.3, p. 40, presents the types of schools, student enrollments, and sample sizes, and Appendix A provides the names of the twenty-nine schools, together with the number of questionnaires mailed to parents in each of the schools. Development of the Questionnaire Construction of the Question­ naire Statements A questionnaire was constructed to elicit from parents (a) information regarding their perceptions of selected programs and practices in the Public Elementary Schools and (b) demographic information about themselves. The first fifty-four statements, which were called 40 TABLE 3.3.— Types of schools, student enrollments, and parent sample sizes. Type of School Student Enrollment in Grades 1-6 Size of the Sample Public 8 Schools: Grand Rapids Public Schools Jackson Public Schools Taylor Public Schools Total 15,047 6,285 10,254 20 0 200 200 31,586 600 1,346 300 171 152 1,770 300 34,873 1,352 Independent 9 Schools Free 6 Schools Catholic 6 Schools Total 41 attitudinal statements, were concerned with parent per­ ceptions of the Public Elementary Schools; the last seventeen statements were concerned with demographic information about the parents. Sources of Information for the Statements The sources of information for the fifty-four attitudinal statements came chiefly from the writer's occupational experience, educational conferences, the news media, and educational readings. Sources of infor­ mation for the seventeen demographic statements came from survey studies previously written by graduate students and a census publication.^" These statements were con­ cerned with the level of education of parents, occu­ pational and income information, marital status, age, and number of dependents. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix B. Response Categories Parents were instructed to indicate their responses to the attitudinal statements by placing a (S) check beside one of these five response categories: "strongly agree," "agree," "neutral," "disagree," and "strongly disagree." In their responses to the demographic ■^U.S ., Department of CQmmerce, Bureau of the Census, Data Access Description, Collection, Evaluation, and Processing Series, CEP-1 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, March, 1970), pp. 3-11. 42 statements parents were asked to place a (*0 check beside one of the alternatives within each of these statements which appropriately described their familial situations. Materials Included With the Questionnaire' ~ Two cover letters were included with the question­ naire. The first cover letter explained the purpose of the questionnaire and identified the writer as a graduate student at Michigan State University. The second letter, while prepared by the writer, was written from the per­ spective of school principals to parents. In these let­ ters the principals also explained the purpose of the study and identified the writer as a graduate student. Further, the principals in these letters asked school parents to complete the questionnaires if they were so inclined. Each of the principals signed his cover letter and forwarded it to this writer who then had copies made. Copies of these cover letters are included in Appendix C. Stamped, return-addressed envelopes also were included with the questionnaires mailed to parents. Administration of the Questionnaire The Initial Questionnaire On Wednesday, November 11, 1970, the question­ naires were mailed to parents. Wednesday was chosen so that parents would receive the questionnaires on Thursday i 43 or Friday. Research indicates that the percentage of returns frequently is higher when people receive question­ naires during the latter part of the week.'*' The Follow-Up Questionnaire Two weeks later follow-up questionnaires were mailed to Public, Independent, and Free School parents. Catholic parents did not receive follow-up questionnaires because their returns from the first mailing effort were higher than the returns from the other three types of school parents. Thus, at the time, more information was provided about Catholic School parents than was provided about the other three types of school parents. Table 3.4 shows the number of questionnaires mailed to and completed by parents from the four types of schools. TABLE 3.4.— Number of questionnaires mailed to and com­ pleted by parents. Number of Questionnaires Completed by Parents Type of School Public Independent Free Catholic3 Total Number of Questionnaires Mailed to Parents 600 300 152 300 1,352 1st Mailing 269 91 61 140 2nd Mailing 45% 30% 41% 47% 77 13% 72 24% 25 16% 561 41% 174 13% • • Combined Mailings 346 163 86 140 58% 54% 57% 47% 735 54% aone mailing only ^"Donald S. Longworth, "Use of A Mail Question­ naire," American Sociological Review, XVIII (June, 1953), 311. 44 Methods of Interpreting the Data Designating and Weighting the Responses Parent responses to the attitudinal statements were designated "strongly agree," "agree," "neutral," "disagree," and "strongly disagree." Each of these descriptors was weighted respectively: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The mean responses indicated by each of the four types of parents were subsequently derived by averaging the weighted responses rendered to each of the fifty-four attitudinal statements. Analysis of the Questionnaire A factor analysis of the questionnaire was per­ formed to determine the categories into which the atti­ tudinal statements could be placed. The results of this analysis showed that the statements could be placed in three measures. These were designated the instructional process, discipline, and a third measure which could not be interpreted and was not considered for further analy­ sis. A scale was then constructed to determine which attitudinal statements had a high loading on a given measure. Following the determination of the two measures in which most of the attitudinal statements could be grouped, subordinate categories within each measure were then developed. Within the instructional process, 45 attitudinal statements were placed in one of two cate­ gories, called recent instructional trends and teacher effectiveness in the classroom. Within discipline, attitudinal statements were placed in one of two cate­ gories, called disciplinary methods and disciplinary standards. The dependent variables for this study now became the sub-factor scores. These sub-factor scores were obtained by summing over the items which appear under the sub-groupings that were determined by the factor structure of the questionnaire. Analytical Technique An analysis of variance procedure was used to interpret the data. The first step was to analyze the results of the interaction between types and measures. The second step was to determine whether main effects results could be interpreted. Following the use of the analysis of variance procedure to assess types and measures, a Scheffe post hoc analysis was made. This procedure was used to show whether specific differences between types of parents on the two measures could be determined. 46 Summary In Chapter III a discussion was presented of the criteria used to select parents from the four types of schools. Discussed also were the procedures used to analyze the questionnaire. presented in Chapter IV. An analysis of the data is CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Overview An analysis of the perceptions of parents from the four types of schools regarding the educational measures of the study is presented in this chapter. First, a discussion of main effects results is presented, followed by a discussion of the results of the inter­ action between school types and educational measures, as determined by the analysis of variance procedure. Second, a discussion of parent responses to the concepts within the educational measures, as determined by the Scheff£ post hoc analysis, is presented. An analysis of the data showed that there was an interaction between parent types and educational measures. Table 4.1, p. 48, and Figure 4.1, p. 49, provide data regarding this interaction, and Table 4.2, p. 48, indi­ cates the means and standard deviations for each edu­ cational measure by parent type. Main effects were dif­ ficult to interpret because of the interaction between types and measures. 47 48 TABLE 4.1.— Interactions between parent types and edu­ cational measures. Source d.f. Interaction (Parent Types X Educational Measures) S.S. M.S. F. 6 3,003.76 500.63 34.98a Error (Subjects and Measures Within Parent Types) 1,460 20,893.41 14.31 . . Significant at the .05 level. TABLE 4.2.--Meansi and standard deviations of educational measures by parent types. The Instructional Process Type of School Na Public 346 Independent 163 Free 86 Catholic 140 X S.D. 41.145 40.883 37.306 43.100 5.870 5.955 8.942 5.889 Discipline X 11.295 13.687 15.353 11.636 S.D. 2.920 3.964 5.318 2.791 aNumber of parents of each school type who com­ pleted questionnaires. i L. 49 o-----o Public Parents •-----• Catholic Parents Independent Parents a Free Parents 45 - M. = The Instruc­ tional Process = Discipline 40 “ 35- 30 Means - 25- 20 - 15 - 10 M M FIGURE 4.1.— Graph of the Interactions 50 Interaction Between Types and Measures Looking first at the results of the interaction between parent types and educational measures, Free and Independent School parents showed more concern for the concepts regarding the instructional process than did Public School and Catholic School parents. The results of this analysis were summarized as follows: - P3 > >P 4 # where M1— signifies the instruc­ tional process, P^— Public School parents, P 2— Independent School parents, P^— Free School parents, P^— Catholic School parents. Regarding discipline, however, the concerns of parent types were reversed. Public and Catholic School parents showed greater concern for the concepts about discipline than did Free and Independent School parents. These results were summarized as follows: M 2 - P.^ > P 4 > P 2 > P 3' w^ere M 2 — signifies discipline, P^— Public School parents, P2— Independent School parents, P^— Free School parents, and P^— Catholic School parents. In summary, Free and Independent School parents showed greater concern for the instructional process than did Public and Catholic School parents. Public and Catholic School parents, on the other hand, showed greater concern for discipline than did Free and Inde­ pendent School parents. 51 With the information provided in the foregoing discussion, the outcome of the hypotheses could now be stated. Regarding the first hypothesis, there is a difference in the perceptions of parents included in the study (regardless of school type) between selected Public Elementary School programs and practices, the results showed that there appeared to be a difference between selected programs and practices. This difference, how­ ever, must be interpreted in light of the interaction between types and measures, subsequently described in this section, which is actually a component of the main effects statistics. The second hypothesis, there is a difference between the perceptions of parents from the four types of schools toward selected Public Elementary School pro­ grams and practices, also must be interpreted in light of the interaction between types and measures. The results of the third hypothesis, there is an interaction between parent types and selected Public Elementary School programs and practices, could be determined. The results of the analysis showed this hypothesis was supported at the .05 level of significance. A look at specific differences regarding measures by types as indicated by the Scheffe post hoc analysis is presented in the following discussion. 52 The Plan for Presenting the AnalysiSA discussion of the perceptions of parents from the four types of schools concerning the instructional pro.cess will be presented in two sections. In the first section the concepts related to the category designated recent instructional trends are discussed. The second section contains a discussion of concepts related to the category designated teacher effectiveness in the class­ room. The presentation of parents1 perceptions regard­ ing discipline also is presented in two sections, the first section designated disciplinary methods, the second designated disciplinary standards. Finally, the concepts included in the thirteen attitudinal statements which were not shown to be related to the primary educational measures of this study (as revealed by the factor analysis) are discussed. The criteria for using the labels "strongly agree," "agree," "neutral," "disagree," and "strongly disagree" are as follows: 0.5 -1.5 = 1 1.6 -2.5 = 2 2.6 - 3.5 = 3 3.6 -4.5 = 4 4.6 -5.0 = 5 53 Parent Perceptions Concerning the Instructional Proces¥ Recent Instructional Trends Public and Catholic School parents showed rela­ tively little concern about recent instructional trends in the Public Elementary Schools, with Public School parents indicating neutral responses to ten of the twelve concepts and Catholic School parents to nine of the twelve concepts included in the attitudinal state­ ments related to this category. Free and Independent School parents showed more concern for recent instructional trends than did Public and Catholic School parents. Free School parents agreed with five of the twelve concepts and Independent School parents with four of the twelve concepts included in the attitudinal statements related to this category. Catholic and Free School parents disagreed more with the statements regarding recent instructional trends than did Public and Independent School parents; their "disagree" responses, however, tended to be about dif­ ferent concepts. Interestingly, Free School parents recorded the only "strongly agree" mean response to an attitudinal statement, responding in this manner to the concept presented in statement thirteen, "more non-graded school programs should be developed in the elementary schools 54 Public, Independent, and Free School parents agreed with the concept in statement forty-five, "More teacher aides should be employed in the Elementary Public Schools," while Catholic School parents were neutral about this concept. All of the parent types disagreed with the instructional trend in the Public Schools fre­ quently called "social promotion," indicated in statement nineteen, "... students should be promoted to the next grade whether or not they have learned the work of the previous grade." Lastly, parents from the four types of schools were neutral about the place of arts and crafts in the curriculum, indicated in the concepts presented affirmatively and negatively in statements thirty-eight and sixteen, " . . . time is spent working on arts and crafts activities." Teacher Effectiveness in the Classroom Public School parents perceived that teachers were effective in the classroom, as indicated by their "agree" responses to eleven of the twenty-three statements about this category. Independent, Free, and Catholic parents were neutral regarding this category. Parent responses to concepts regarding teacher effectiveness in the classroom showed interesting results. Catholic School parents, for example, believed that not enough time is spent on "the 3 R's," statement twelve, 55 while the other three types of parents were not generally concerned with this concept. Free School parents, on the other hand, were the only parent type to respond neutrally about too much time spent on "the 3 R's," statement forty-nine, with the other three reporting that teacher effectiveness teachers who gave what was parent types was not reduced by perceived to be too much attention to "the 3 R's." Independent and Free School parents did not believe Public School teachers showed classroom effec­ tiveness through the study habits with which they pro­ vided students, statement thirty, while Public and Catholic School parents were neutral about this concept. Public and Catholic School parents, however, agreed that teachers sufficiently praised children for doing good work in class, statement twenty-four, whereas Free and Independent School parents were neutral regarding this concept. Catholic School parents perceived moral education differently from the other three types of parents. "Not enough time is spent on moral training in the Public Schools," statement three, elicited "agree" responses from Catholic School parents, whereas Public, Independent, and Free School parents were neutral regarding this concept. Only Free School parents responded neutrally 56 about the same concept when positively phrased, statement thirty-five, while the other three parent types recorded "disagree" responses. Lastly, the diverse perceptions expressed by parent types concerning teacher effectiveness in teach­ ing children to respect all racial groups— statement twenty-six— is significant. Public School parents agreed that teachers do teach such respect, while Free School parents did not believe teachers did so; Indepen­ dent and Catholic School parents were neutral about this concept. Summary of Parent Perceptions Regarding the Instructional Process Free and Independent School parents showed the most concern for the category designated recent instruc­ tional trends, whereas Public and Catholic School parents were neutral regarding this category. Free and Indepen­ dent School parents responded in the same way to seven of the twelve concepts included in the attitudinal state­ ments concerning recent instructional trends, while Public and Catholic School parents responded in the same way to nine of the twelve concepts. The perceptions of parents from the four types of schools were the same about only four attitudinal statements. Parent perceptions regarding teacher effectiveness in the classroom showed Public School parents were more 57 concerned with this measure than were the other three parent types. Public School parents agreed with eleven of the twenty-three concepts included in the attitudinal statements regarding teacher effectiveness; these parents disagreed with only two of the twenty-three concepts regarding teacher effectiveness. Independent School parents agreed with none of the concepts regarding this measure, but disagreed with three of the concepts. Free School parents agreed with one of the concepts regarding teacher effectiveness in the classroom and disagreed with two of the concepts regarding teacher effectiveness. Catholic School parents agreed with four of the concepts concerning teacher effectiveness and dis­ agreed with two of the concepts regarding teacher effec­ tiveness . Independent, Free, and Catholic School parents perceived similarly fourteen of the twenty-three concepts regarding teacher effectiveness in the classroom. Public School parents, however, agreed with the other three parent types in only seven of the twenty-three concepts. None of the twenty-three concepts related to teacher effectiveness in the classroom elicited four different mean responses from the four parent types. 58 Parent Perceptions Concerning Discipline Disciplinary Methods Public School parents perceived that the disci­ plinary methods used by educators in Public Elementary Schools were proper, whereas Independent, Free, and Catholic School parents were not concerned with this category. Disciplinary Standards Free and Independent School parents were mostly neutral in their responses about disciplinary standards, with Free School parents indicating neutral responses to all of the four and Independent School parents to three of the four concepts concerning this category. Public and Catholic School parents, however, tended to agree regarding disciplinary standards, with Catholic School parents responding similarly to the concepts included in the four attitudinal statements and public parents with three of the four concepts in these statements. Summary of Parent Perceptions Regarding Discipline Free "chool parents showed no concern and Indepen­ dent School parents little concern for the disciplinary methods and standards of the public elementary schools. Public and Catholic School parents, however, were con­ cerned with methods and standards of discipline in the 59 Public Elementary Schools. Both types of parents recorded "agree" or "disagree" responses to six of the eight con­ cepts contained in the eight attitudinal statements regarding the combined categories about discipline. Parent Perceptions Regarding Other School Concerns As previously indicated, the factor analysis of the questionnaire showed that thirteen of the fifty-four concepts included in the fifty-four attitudinal statements were unrelated to the two primary measures of this study. Consequently, the concepts within these thirteen statements have only incidental relationship with the study. The fol­ lowing discussion, therefore, provides only supplemental information which may be of interest to the reader. Parents from the four types of schools were neu­ tral in their responses to statement forty-four, "Elemen­ tary schools are involved in too many matters that should be left up to the home." Further, the four parent types responded neutrally to statements thirty-three, one, and twenty-three, respectively concerned with school boun­ daries , teacher dedication, and bus discipline. The four types of parents recorded "agree" responses to only one statement in the questionnaire, statement fifty-three: "Adequate safety provision is made at the streets in which children must cross to and from school." 60 Public School parents agreed with statement twenty-nine: "Elementary Public Schools keep parents adequately informed of their children's school progress," while the other three types of parents responded neutrally to the statement. Public School parents agreed with statement forty-six— concerned with whether school adminis­ trators keep parents informed adequately about the schools— while the other three parent types responded neutrally to this statement. Only Free School parents agreed with statement twenty-seven: "Parents don't have enough voice in deter­ mining school policies," while the other three parent types were neutral in their responses to this statement. Further, only Free School parents believed that parents should be able to enroll their children in any school of their choice that is located in their Public School Dis­ trict, statement thirty-four, whereas the other three types of parents responded neutrally to this statement. Catholic School parents agreed and the other three types of parents were neutral in their responses to statement thirty-nine, "Elementary teachers should give more attention to the personal appearance of stu­ dents." Further, Catholic School parents agreed with statement forty-seven, "Teachers are too concerned about salary increases and not enough with the educational welfare of children," whereas the other three types of parents were neutral regarding this statement. 61 Public and Free School parents disagreed with statement forty-three: "Parents have too much voice in determining school policies," while Independent and Catholic School parents were neutral about this statement. Finally, Public and Catholic School parents agreed with statement eighteen: " . . . elementary schools that have lunch programs do a satisfactory job of operating them," while Independent and Free School parents were neutral in their responses to this statement. Table 4.3, p. 62, provides the responses of parents from the four types of schools to the concepts presented in the fifty-four attitudinal statements, and Table 4.4, p. 67 , summarizes these responses. Table 4.5, p. 68, provides data regarding the specific concerns of parents as indicated by the Scheffe post hoc analysis. Summary An analysis of the results of the data obtained from the questionnaires that were sent to parents from Public, Independent, Free, and Catholic Elementary Schools was presented in this chapter. This analysis showed that an interaction between types and measures could be inter­ preted (the concern of hypothesis three). Because an interaction could be determined, main effects were dif­ ficult to interpret (the concerns of hypotheses one and two) . 62 TABLE 4.3.— Parental responses to the attitudinal state­ ments of the questionnaire. Attitudinal Statements3 Mean Responses*3 THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESS Recent Instructional Trends P I P Cc 13 - More non-graded programs should be developed. N A SA N 19 - Students should be promoted to the next grade whether or not they have learned the work of the previous grade. D D D D 51 - There is too much shifting chil­ dren about, from room-to-room and one activity to another. N N N N 20 - Too much time is spent worrying about tests and grades. N A A N N A A N 10 - Sex education is satisfactorily taught. N N D N 31 - Children should help determine subject matter. N N A D 32 - Children should help determine how subjects are taught. N N A D 45 - More teacher-aids should be employed. A A A N N N D N 16 - Not enough time is spent on arts and crafts activities. N N N N 38 - Too much time is spent doing arts and crafts activities. N N N N 9 - Sex education is an essential subject. 21 - much money is spent on edu­ cational gadgets. t o o 63 Table 4.3 Continued. Attitudinal Statements3 Teacher Effectiveness in the Classroom Mean Responses*3 P F 1^ Cc 12 - Not enough time is spent on "the 3 R 's ." N N N A 49 - Too much time is spent on "the 3 R 's ." D D N D 5 - Elementary mathematics gives students a good foundation for high school math. A N N N 6 - The teaching of reading is better today than it used to be in the Public Schools. A N N N 7 - The teaching of science is a strong area in the Public Ele­ mentary Schools. N N N N 8 - Physical education programs are properly conducted. N N N N 42 - Elementary Public School teachers use up-to-date methods. A N N 2 - Teachers spend too many days attend­ ing workshops and professional conferences onschooltime. N 17 - Teachers adequately test students over subject matter. N A N A N N N N 30 - Public Schools provide children with good study habits. N D D N 50 - Teachers correct enough students' work to know the kind of work they do. A N N N 54 - Teachers use good judgment in assigning homework. 11 - Too much teachers' time is spent working with below-average children. A N N N N N N N 64 Table 4.3 Continued. Attitudinal Statements3 Mean Responses*3 Teacher Effectiveness in the Classroom P I_ F Cc 22- - Teachers adequately help children with problems that affect their school performance. N N N N 24 - Teachers praise children when they do good work. A N N A 48 - Teachers do a good job of teaching good citizenship. A N N N A N A N 4 - Public Schools teach children respect for the rights and property of others. 26 - Schools do a good job of-teaching children to respect all racial groups. A N D N 40 - Schools teach respect for all religious groups. N N N N 41 - Too much time is spent teaching about other countries and not enough aboutour country. N N N N 52 - Teachers provide students with good field trips. A N N 35 - Too much time is spent on moral training. D D N D N N N A 3 - Not enough time is spent on moral training. N DISCIPLINE Disciplinary Methods 14 - Teachers use proper discipline with children. A N N N 15 - Principals use proper discipline with children. A N N N 65 Table 4.3 Continued. Attitudinal Statements3 Mean Responses*5 Disciplinary Standards P I F 25 - Teachers should be more strict with children. A A N 36 - Students are permitted to talk too much. N N N 37 - Teachers should demand more respect from students. A N N 28 - Teachers should do more to pre­ vent children from using foul language in the schools. A N N Gc OTHER SELECTED PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES8 1 - Teachers are as dedicated today as they were in the past. 47 - Teachers are too concerned with salary increases and not enough with students' educational welfare. N N N N N N N A 2 9 - Schools inform parents of chil­ dren's progress. A N N N 46 - Administrators keep parents informed of new programs and policies. A N N N 43 - Parents have too much voice in determining school policies.f D N D N 27 - Parents don't have enough voice in school policies. N N A N 3 3 - Administrators use good judgment in setting school boundaries. N N N N 34 - Parents should be able to enroll their children in any elementary school in their school district. N N A N 18 - Schools with lunch programs satis­ factorily operate them. A N N A 66 Table 4.3 Continued. Attitudinal Statements3 OTHER SELECTED PROGRAMS ANDPRACTICESe Mean Responses*3 P I F CG 21 - Discipline on Public School busses is good. N N N N 39 - Teachers should give more atten­ tion to the personal appearance of students. N N N A 44 - The schools are involved in too many matters that should be left up to the home.f N N N N 53 - Adequate safety provision is made at the streets in which chil­ dren must cross to and from school.f A A A A Abbreviated statements— see Appendix B for com­ plete questionnaire statements. Responses were derived from the mean scores of parents from each of the four types of schools. Q P - Public School parents' responses; I - Indepen­ dent School parents' responses; F - Free School parents' responses; C - Catholic School parents' responses. SA - "strongly agree"; A - "agree"; N - "neutral"; D - "disagree"; SD - "strongly disagree." Attitudinal statements of the measure which could not be interpreted. ■^Non-statistically significant at the .05 level. 67 TABLE 4.4.— Summary of parents' responses regarding the fifty-four attitudinal statements in the questionnaire. Number of Items Characterized by Response Categories3 School Type of Parents StAgree^ Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESS Recent Instructional Trends Public Catholic Independent Free 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 5 10 9 7 3 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 Teacher Effectiveness in the Classroom Public Catholic Independent Free 0 0 0 0 11 4 0 1 10 17 20 20 2 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 DISCIPLINE Disciplinary Methods Public Catholic Independent Free 0 0 0 0 Disciplinary Standards Public Catholic Independent Free 0 0 0 0 OTHER SELECTED PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES Public Catholic Independent Free 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 3 8 9 12 .9 aMean responses to the fifty-four attitudinal statements. 68 TABLE 4.5.— Scheffe Post-Hoc analysis of questionnaire statements. A Measure Comparison The Instructional Process P1 - P2 P1 - P3 P1 - P4 P 2 " P3 P2 - P4 P3 Discipline P4 P1 - P2 P1 " P3 P1 - P4 P 2 - P3 P 2 - P4 P 3 - P4 Legend: Significant at .05 V S/var^ .262 1.3498 3.839 .9597 Yes -1.955 1.4237 Yes 3.577 1.2636 Yes -2.217 1.6439 Yes -5.794 1.3423 Yes -2.392 1.3498 Yes -4.058 .9597 Yes - .341 1.4237 No —1.666 1.2636 Yes 2.051 1.6439 Yes 3.717 1.3423 Yes No P^ - Public School parents; P2 - Indepen­ dent School parents; P^ ~ Free School parents; P^ - Catho­ lic School parents. 69 A post hoc analysis procedure was then used to look at specific differences regarding the perceptions of the four types of parents concerning the educational measures. The results of this analysis showed that Free School and Independent School parents were more concerned about new instructional trends than were Public and Catholic School parents. Public and Catholic School parents, on the other hand, were more concerned with discipline than were Free and Independent School parents. Finally, Public School parents were more concerned about teacher effectiveness in the classroom than were Indepen­ dent, Free, and Catholic parents. The chapter was concluded with a discussion of those concepts that were presented in the thirteen atti­ tudinal statements of the questionnaire which were unre­ lated to the primary measures of the study. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The information included in this chapter is pre­ sented in five parts. The first provides a summary of the primary concerns of the first four chapters; the second presents a comparison of the major findings of this study with the chief emphases of the literature; the third provides the conclusions; the fourth includes the research questions generated by this study; and the fifth provides the recommendations for further research. Summary The purpose of this study was to obtain infor­ mation about the perceptions of Public, Independent, Free, and Catholic parents regarding selected programs and practices in the Michigan Public Elementary Schools. From this information public school administrators might develop future programs and practices which would meet the expectations of parents from the four types of ele­ mentary schools concerning public elementary education 70 71 in their communities. While much research has been done about public elementary education from the perspective of educators, relatively little has been done from that of parents. Whereas research about Public Elementary School parents' perceptions was scarce, research regard­ ing Independent, Free, and Catholic School parents' per­ ceptions of public elementary education— except for the Gallup surveys— was virtually non-existent. This lack of research prompted the writer to undertake this study. Public School parents were included in this study because they represent the majority of parents who send children to Michigan Elementary Schools; Independent School parents were included because relatively little is known about their perceptions of public elementary education; Free School parents were included because they demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the Public Elementary Schools by withdrawing their children from them; and Catholic parents were included because they increasingly turned to the Public Schools for their children's education. Three hypotheses were formulated to assess the data to be obtained from the questionnaires. I. These were: There is a difference in the perceptions of parents included in this study (regardless of school type) between selected Public Elementary School programs and practices. 72 II. There is a difference between the perceptions of parents from the four types of schools toward selected Public Elementary School programs and practices. III. There is an interaction between parent types and selected Public Elementary School programs and practices. The questionnaire consisted of seventy-one state­ ments, fifty-four of which were designed to obtain the attitudinal concerns of parents regarding public elemen­ tary education in Michigan Schools, and seventeen of which were included to obtain demographic information from parents. While the attitudinal statements were used to obtain parental perceptions about selected programs and practices, the demographic statements were considered beyond the scope of this study. One demographic state­ ment regarding family income, however, was used merely as a description of parent types. A factor analysis of the questionnaire showed that the concepts within the fifty-four attitudinal statements could be placed in three measures. These measures were subsequently designated as the instructional process, discipline, and a third measure which was not analyzed because it was difficult to interpret and because it was a measure which was not a primary concern of this study. 73 Each primary measure had two categories within it, with recent instructional trends and teacher effectiveness in the classroom grouped within the instructional process and disciplinary methods and disciplinary standards grouped within discipline. The questionnaires were mailed to 1,352 parents in the fall of 1970. These parents sent their children to twenty-nine elementary schools located in five counties of the Lower Peninsula. Follow-up questionnaires were mailed to parents two weeks after the first mailing effort. Fifty-four per cent of the parents completed the question­ naires . An analysis of variance procedure was then used toanalyze the information obtained about parental per­ ceptions as indicated by the primary measures of the study. The results of this analysis showed an interaction between parent types and educational measures which was signifi­ cant at the .05 level. The next step in the analysis was to use a Scheffd posthoc procedure to analyze specific differences between the perceptions of parent types and educational measures. The results of this procedure showed that Public and Catholic School parents were generally more concerned with discipline than they were in the instructional process, while Free and Independent School parents were generally more concerned with the instructional process than they were in discipline. 74 Comparison of the Major Findings of This Study With the Chief Concerns Expressed in the Literature Public School Parents The findings of this study regarding Public Ele­ mentary School parents' perceptions of the instructional process tended to agree with those presented in the liter­ ature. This study indicated that Public School parents were not concerned with recent instructional trends but were concerned with teacher effectiveness in the class­ room. The literature indicated that the majority of the parents believed that the curriculum "is all right as it is." Further, the literature indicated that parents were concerned with teacher effectiveness in the class­ room. Regarding discipline, the findings agreed with the focus of the literature, with parents perceiving disci­ pline to be the chief problem which confronts the Public Schools of today. Independent School Parents The findings of this study indicated that Indepen­ dent Elementary School parents were more concerned with recent instructional trends than they were in teacher effectiveness in the classroom. The literature, however, tended to focus on limited aspects of the instructional process, giving attention to the .high pupil-teacher ratios 75 in public elementary classrooms rather than the categorical concerns included within the instructional process and discipline. The findings indicated also that parents were not concerned with discipline, whereas the literature tended to focus on the inability of the Public Schools to do much about students who were uncooperative with educators. The writer suspects that these parents may not have been concerned with discipline because it was not a chief problem of the suburban Public Elementary Schools which are located in the same geographical areas as are the Independent Schools. Free School Parents The differences between the findings of this study and the foci of the literature regarding the instructional process and discipline were greater than they were for each of the other three types of schools. This study indicated that parents were concerned with recent instructional trends but were not concerned with teacher effectiveness in the classroom, whereas the literature indicated that parents were concerned about both of these categories. A contrast also existed between the findings of the study and the focus of the literature regarding dis­ cipline, with the study indicating that parents were not concerned with discipline in the Public Elementary Schools 76 while the literature stated that parents were very much concerned with it. The writer suspects that those parents who were strongly dissatisfied with Public School disci­ pline were more likely to get their perceptions into print than were those who were only mildly dissatisfied with it. Catholic School Parents The findings of this study and the focus of the literature agreed that Catholic School parents were not concerned with the instructional process in the Public Elementary Schools. Further, the findings of this study and the focus of the literature agreed that school disci­ pline was the chief problem faced by the Public Schools. Conclusions Specific Conclusions Public School Parents.— 1. Public School parents were more concerned with whether teachers were effective as classroom edu­ cators than they were with recent instructional trends in the curriculum. 2. These parents supported the disciplinary methods used by educators and at the same time maintained that disciplinary standards in the Public Schools were not high enough. 77 Independent School Parents.— 1. These parents were concerned with recent instructional trends but were not concerned whether public elementary teachers were effective in the classroom. 2. Disciplinary methods and standards in the Public Elementary Schools were not of concern to Indepen­ dent School parents. Free School Parents.— 1. Free School parents also were concerned with recent instructional trends but were not concerned with whether public elementary teachers were effective in the classroom. 2. Disciplinary methods and standards in the Public Elementary Schools were not of concern to Free School parents. Catholic School Parents.— 1. Catholic School parents were neither concerned with recent instructional trends nor teacher effectiveness in the classroom. 2. While Catholic School parents were not con­ cerned with the disciplinary methods used by public elementary educators, they were more concerned with disciplinary standards than were parents from the other three types of schools. 78 General Conclusions 1. Public and Catholic School parents tended to perceive similarly the attitudinal concepts included in this study. 2. Independent and Free School parents tended to perceive similarly the attitudinal concepts included in this study. 3. Notwithstanding the environmental differences between Independent and Free Schools, both schools attracted parents who were more concerned with the instructional process than they were with discipline in the Public Elementary Schools. ferences": ("Environmental dif­ refers to the differences regarding school facilities and school reputation between Independent and Free Schools. Independent Schools, for example, tend to have attractive buildings. Moreover, these schools have established, in the minds of some parents, excellent school reputations. Free Schools, on the other hand, frequently teach with books and materials which are no longer useful to parents and others in the community. Further, Free Schools are often housed in less than desirable rental units. Moreover, these schools have not been in existence long enough to establish school reputations which are relatively stable.) 79 4. Notwithstanding the pervasive influence of religious education in the Catholic School curriculum and the absence of such education in Public School cur­ riculum, both types of schools have parent constituencies that tended to perceive similarly the educational concepts included in this study. 5. This study did not indicate a significant degree of dissatisfaction with programs and practices from public elementary parents, a contention frequently suggested in the news media. 6. Public School parents were interested in teacher effectiveness in the classroom whereas the other three types of parents were not interested in this cate­ gory. The writer suspects that the direct experience which Public School parents had with the Public Elementary Schools influenced their perceptions in this direction. Questions Generated by This Study Several questions arose during the course of this study which at the time could not be pursued. These questions raised concerns which could be of interest to the writer and others who might undertake future research regarding parental perceptions about public elementary education. These questions were: 80 1. Why were Public School parents not concerned with recent instructional trends in the Public Elementary Schools? (a) Could the reason be that they were not ade­ quately informed about such trends by public school admin­ istrators? (b) Were these parents disillusioned with the results of previous efforts of the Public Schools to improve programs and practices, and therefore had little interest in current instructional trends? (c) Did Public School parents tend to have con­ servative views about public elementary education, only reluctantly accepting educational innovations that were introduced by administrators? 2. Why were Public and Catholic School parents so interested in disciplinary standards in the Public Elementary Schools? (a) Could the reason be that disciplinary situ­ ations which were perceived to be negatively resolved were the ones which predominated the news media? (b) Did parents who perceived discipline to be the chief problem do so because it was a convenient "scapegoat" for some of the other problems which faced the schools? 81 A study of the perceptions of the following types of parents also might provide interesting information regarding the Public Elementary Schools: 1. Do parents who have one child enrolled in a Public Elementary School and another in one of the three types of Non-Public Elementary Schools included in this study perceive public elementary education differently from parents who have children enrolled in only one of the four types of elementary schools? 2. Do parents who withdrew their children from the Public Elementary Schools for Independent, Free, or Catholic Schools because of dissatisfaction with Public Elementary School programs and practices, then re-enrolled their children in the Public Elementary Schools because they were even more dissatisfied with non-public edu­ cation, perceive the Public Schools differently from (a) parents who have always sent their children to the Public Elementary Schools or (b) parents who have with­ drawn their children from the Public Schools for NonPublic Schools and maintain they never plan to return their children to public classrooms? Recommendations 1. Public school administrators should conduct surveys periodically to obtain information concerning 82 Public, Independent, Free, and Catholic parents' per­ ceptions of programs and practices in the Public Elemen­ tary Schools of their communities. 2. Parents who send their children to Public, Independent, Free, and Catholic Elementary Schools should be encouraged to attend Public School meetings so they may contribute information regarding the programs and practices of the Public Elementary Schools in their com­ munities . 3. Prior to the introduction of new programs and practices in the Public Elementary Schools, administrators should provide parents with information about them through conferences, workshops, and the news media. 4. Parents who withdraw their children from the Public Elementary Schools during the year should be asked to submit written information to the principal regarding their perceptions of the programs and practices imple­ mented in the schools attended by their children. Guide­ lines for obtaining such information from parents are presented in Appendix D. 5. At the close of each school year, parents should be asked to submit written information to the principal regarding their perceptions of the programs and practices which were implemented in the Public 83 Elementary Schools attended by their children. Guidelines for obtaining such information from parents also are pre­ sented in Appendix D. 6. Administrators should use the information obtained from the methods described above to determine whether parents need information about school programs and practices, as well as whether they (the administrators) should develop new programs and practices in Public Ele­ mentary Schools. 7. Public school administrators should use available public relations services to help them use effectively the news media in their communities to inform parents about elementary school programs and practices. The Michigan School Public Relations Association (MSPRA), affiliated with the Michigan Education Association, and the Information Services Offices of the Michigan Department of Education provide public relations services to school administrators. Further, in some Michigan communities private public relations firms are available to help local school dis­ tricts assess and develop public relations programs in their communities. 8. Parents should be encouraged to participate frequently in selected aspects of the development, imple­ mentation, and assessment of Public Elementary School programs and practices. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Cloward, Richard A., and Jones, James A. "Social Class: Educational Attitudes and Participation." Edu­ cation in Depressed Areas. Edited by A. H. Passow. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Col­ lege, Columbia University, 1963. Parkman, Francis. "Independent Schools." Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 4th ed., 1965^ Webster's New World Dictionary. Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Company, 1964. Periodicals Brooke, Edward W. "Education for Progress: Social Change and the American School." National Association of Secondary School Principals, LIII (May, 1969) , 101 . "Chaos and Learning: The Free Schools." 1971, pp. 81-82. Time, April 26, ~' Doerr, Edd. "What Is a Catholic School?" Digest, February, 1971, p. 39. The Education Dreikurs, Rudolph, and Chernoff, Marvin. "Parents and Teachers: Friends or Enemies?" Education, XCI (November-December, 1970), 147. Elford, George. "Alternatives in Catholic Education." National Catholic Education Association, February, 196$, p. V.----------------------------Essex, Martin. "Getting Through to the Establishment." The Education Digest, January, 1970, p. 42. Fischer, John H. "Who Needs Schools?" September 19, 1970, p. 78. 84 Saturday Review, 85 Gallup, George. "Second Annual Survey of the Public's Attitude Toward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan, LII (October, 1970), 101, 104. Howard, Jane. "We Can Too Start Our Own Schools." January 8 , 1971, p. 45. Life, Johnson, Charles E. Jr., and Suter, Larry E. "Private Schools: Enrollment Trends and Student Charac­ teristics." Education, XCI (February-March, 1971), 237. Longworth, Donald S. "Use of a Mail Questionnaire." American Sociological Review, XVIII (June, 1953), 311. Stretch, Bonnie Barrett. "The Rise of the '"Free School.'" Saturday Review, June 20, 1970, pp. 6 , 79. "Summerhill in Ithaca." Newsweek, February, 1970, p. 65. Other Published Materials Danforth Foundation. How the Public Views Nonpublic Schools: A Study of the American Independent School. Cambridge, Mass.: The Danforth Foun­ dation, 1969. Ferrer, Terry. "The Independent School." Public Affairs Pamphlet Number 238. New York: Public Affairs Pamphlets, 1956. Gallup, George. How the Nation Views the Public Schools. Princeton, N.J.: Gallup International, fall, 1969. Graubard, Allen, and Affleck, Tim. The Community School. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Community School Incorporated, n.d. Jablonsky, Adelaide. "Some Trends in Education of the Disadvantaged." IRCD Bulletin, IV (March, 1968), 1-11. Cited by Carol Lopate, et al. "Decentrali­ zation and Community Participation in Public Edu­ cation. " Review of Educational Research, XL (February, 1970) , 142. National Association of Independent Schools. Admission to Independent Schools. Boston, Mass.7 National Association of Independent Schools, 1966. "Perspectives for Teachers." The Red Pencil. Boston, Mass.: Radical Teachers Group, December, 1970, pp. 2, 15. Rossman, Mike. "Projections on the New Schools Movement." New Schools Exchange Newsletter, No. 52, Santa Barbara, California, p. 8 . U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. "Data Access Description." Collection, Evaluation, and Processing Series, CEP-1, rev., Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, p. 2. Yeomans, Edward. The Changing Role of the Independent School. Boston, Mass.: National Association of Independent Schools, April, 1969. Unpublished Material Berg, S. Theodore. "Factors Influencing Parental Decision to Transfer Children from Catholic Elementary School to Public Elementary School." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1969. Address Potter, Cary. "The Independent School Today." Address given at a meeting of parents and alumni of North Country School, New York, April 28, 1967. Interview Blackburn, William, Associate Superintendent of Education. Interview at Office of Education, Diocese of Lansing, Lansing, Michigan. Provided the writer with a definition of a Catholic School in America, May 26, 1971. APPENDICES APPENDIX A LOCATION AND NUMBER OF SCHOOL PARENTS WHO WERE MAILED QUESTIONNAIRES TABLE A-l.— Location and number of public elementary school parents who were mailed questionnaires. School District . and Schools Grand Rapids Public Schools Location County City Kent Grand Rapids Riverside School North Park School Number of Questionnaires Mailed to Parents 100 100 Total 200 Jackson Public Schools Jackson Jackson Blackman School Blair School Bennett School Griswold School 38 40 69 53 Total 200 Taylor Public Schools Wayne Taylor Two Schools3 Total 200 Total number of Public School parents receiving questionnaires 600 a Names of participating schools undisclosed to writer. 87 88 TABLE A-2.— Location and number of Independent Elementary School parents who were mailed questionnaires. Location School County Brookside School Cranbrook Oakland City Number of Questionnaires Mailed to Parents Bloomfield Hills 51 Friends School in Detroit Wayne Detroit 46 Grosse Pointe Academy Wayne Grosse Pointe 32 Ilsley School Oakland Lake Orion 3 Kensington Academy Oakland Bloomfield Hills 21 Kingsbury School Oakland Oxford 19 Academy of the Sacred Hearta Oakland Bloomfield Hills 30 Roeper City and Country School Oakland Bloomfield Hills 72 Detroit 26 Detroit Waldorf School Total Wayne 300 aWhile the Academy of the Sacred Heart School, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, has religious ties with the Catholic Church, the school program— according to a resume of school offerings provided the writer by this school's headmistress— does not include religious edu­ cation in its curriculum. Further, the vice president of the National Association of Independent Schools, Boston, Mass., informed the writer that the headmistress of this school maintains active membership in NAIS. 89 TABLE A-3.— Location and number of Free Elementary School parents who were mailed questionnaires. Location School County City Number of Questionnaires Mailed to Parents City School of Detroit Wayne Detroit 58 Earl Kelly School Jackson Jackson 19 East Main Learning Village Kalamazoo Kalamazoo 16 Leeward School Oakland Lake Orion The Children's School Kent Grand Rapids 41 Detroit 12 The Detroit Free School Total Wayne 6 152 90 TABLE A-4.— Location and number of Catholic Elementary School parents who were mailed questionnaires. City Number of Questionnaires Mailed to Parents Location School County Our Lady of Fatima School Jackson Jackson 31 Queen of the Miraculous Medal Jackson Jackson 96 St. John School Jackson Jackson 55 St. Joseph School Jackson Jackson 36 St. Mary School Jackson Jackson 58 St. Stanislaus School Jackson Jackson 24 Total 300 APPENDIX B SAMPLE PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 91 The Public Elementary Schools Please check ( v O the box that is the best response for each statement. Be sure to answer every question. We would like for the mother to answer the questionnaire. If the questionnaire is answered ty someone other than the mother, please indicate this on page $ of the questionnaire. 1. Elementary school teachers are as dedicated to their work today as they were in the past. 2. Public school teachers spend too many days attending workshops and professional conferences on school time. □ □ □ □ □ 3. Not enough time is spent on moral training in the public schools. □ □ □ □ □ In In general, the elementary public schools try to teach children respect for the rights and property of others. □ □ □ □ □ 5. The teaching of mathematics in the public schools gives children a good foundation for high school mathematics. □ □ □ □ □ 6. The teaching of reading is better today than it used to be in the public schools. □ □ □ □ □ 7. The teaching of science is one of the strong areas in the public elementary schools. □ □ □ □ □ 8. Generally speaking, physical education programs are being properly conducted in the elementary schools. □ □ □ □ □ 9. Sex education is an essential subject in the elementary school curriculum. □ □ □ □ □ 10. Sex education is being satisfactorily taught in the elementary public schools. □ □ □ □ □ (please turn over) 92 S' I) i z> 11. c v J? A# K- Too much of the regular classroom teachers' time is spent trying to educate below-average children at the expense of children who are more capable of learning. □ □ □ □ □ 12. Not enough time is spent on basic subjects, like reading, writing, and arithmetic. □ □ □ □ □ 13. More non-graded school programs should be developed in the elementary schools, to replace the grade-level programs. □ □ □ □ □ lit. For the most part, elementary teachers use proper methods of discipline. □ □ □ □ □ 13. In general, elementary principals use proper methods of discipline. □ □ □ □ □ 16. Not enough time is spent working at arts and crafts activities. □ □ □ □ □ 17. Generally speaking, teachers adequately test their students ever the subject matter that is covered in class. □ □ □ □ □ 18. Generally speaking, elementary schools that have lunch programs do a satisfactory job of operating them. □ □ □ □ □ 19. So that they can remain with their own age group, students should be promoted to the next grade whether or not they have learned the work of the previous grade. □ □ □ □ □ Too much time is spent worrying about tests and grades, and not enough about whether children are enjoying school while they learn. □ □ □ □ □ 20. 21. / Too much money is spent in the elementary schools on educational gadgets, such as: tape recorders, record players, film projectors, etc.. □ <5 □ □ □ □ 93 22. Generally speaking, teachers do agood job of helping children work out problemsthat affect their school performance. -A > 4 * £ <> T ^ I 1 j *[ ’— ‘ '— ^ V * ^ I I *— * ^ *0 ^ I I [ I *■— ' ' — * □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 23. Discipline on public school busses is usually good. . 2Ji. Elementary teachers sufficiently praise children when they do good work in class. 25. Elementary publj c school teachers should be more strict with students who cause trouble in the classroom. □ □ □ □ □ 26. The elementary public schools are doing a good job of teaching children to respect all racial groups. 27. Parents don't have enough voice in determining public school policies. 28. In general, teachers should do more to prevent children from using foul language in the elemen tary public schools. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ -□ □ □ □ □ 29. Elementary public schools keep parents adequately informed of their children's school progress. □ □ □ □ □ 30. The elementary public schools provide children with good study habits for their future education. □ □ □ □ □ 31. Children should have some voice in helping to determine the kinds of subject matter that is taught to them in school. □ □ □ □ □ 32. Children should have some voice in helping to determine how subject matter is taught to them in school. □ □ □ □ □ 33. Generally speaking, public school administrators__ use good judgment in setting up school j | boundaries which determine the particular schools that children must attend. □ □ □ □ (please turn over) 94 ^ O' sr\ O A /C rv w rC [_ | (___| |___ 1 \ 'O .0 o° '3 vC - 3 3b. Parents should have the right to enroll their children in any elementary public school in their school district — on a first-come-firstserve basis. 35. Too much time is spent on moral training in the public _schools. 36. Students are permitted to talk too much ■with one another when they should be busy doing their school work. 37. Elementary teachers should demand more respect from their students. 38. Too much time is spent working at arts and crafts activities. □ □ □ □ 39. Elementary teachers should give more attention to the personal appearance of students. . □ □ □ □ □ hO. The elementary public schools are doing a good job of teaching children to respect all religious groups. □ □ □ □ □ hi. Too much time is spent teaching about other countries and not enough about our own country. 1x2. Elementary public school teachers use up-to-date classroom methods. h3. Parents have too much voice in determining public school policies. hh. Elementary schools are involved in too many matters that should be left up to the home. h5. More teacher-aides should be employed in the elementary public schoolst □ □ □ □ □ h6. Public school administrators usually keep parents adequately informed of the new programs and policies that occur in the elementary schools. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ & ^ .0 £■*$ |___ | ■— . |___| *0 $ p —. I | □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ ,— , 35. Too much time is spent on moral training in the public .schools. 36. Students are permitted to talk too much with one another when they should be busy doing their school work. 37. Elementary teachers should demand more respect from their students. 38. Too much time is spent working at arts and crafts activities. 39. Elementary teachers should give more attention to the personal appearance of students. . □ □ □ □ □ hO. The elementary public schools are doing a good job of teaching children to respect all religious groups. □ □ □ □ □ hi. Too much time is spent teaching about other countries and not enough about our own country. 1x2. Elementary public school teachers use up-to-date classroom methods. h3. parents have too much voice in determining public school policies. hh. Elementary schools are involved in too many matters that should be left up to the home. h5. More teacher-aides should be employed in the elementary public schools* □ □ □ □ □ h6. public school administrators usually keep parents adequately informed of the new programs and policies that occur in the elementary schools. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ 96 b. Please check the category which describes the work you do: (1) housewife (2) unemployed (3) unskilled laborer (b) semi-skilled laborer (5) craftsman or foreman (6) sales (7) business or managerial (8) professional (9) 5. _____________________________ other (please specify): Check total yearly income for family: (1) $2,999 or less ____ (2) $3,000-$5,999 _____ (b) $9,000-$ll,999 (5) $12,000-$lit,999 _____ Yes ____ (3)$6,000-$8,999 _ (6)$15,000 or over 6. Are you the head of household? 7. Marital status: 8. Number of children 12 or under living with you:_____________ 9. Number of children between 13 and 18 living with you: ________ 10. Do any of .your children presently attend the public elementary school? Yes No 11. If your answer is no to question 10, have any of your children in the past attended the public elementary school? Yes ____ No ____ 12. are you presently a teacher? 13. If your answer Married No ____ Widowed Yes ____ Separated No_____ is no to question 1 2 , were lLi. Is your spousepresently a teacher? Divorced you ever Yes____ a teacher? Yes ___ No No ___ 15. If .your answer is no to question 1 )4, wasyour 16. Your age: (1) under 20 ___ (2) 20-25 ___ (3) 26-30 ___ (b) 31-35____ (5) 36-hO ___ (6) bl-b5 ___ (7) U6-50 ___ (8) 51 and older ____ 17. The age of your spouse: (1) under 20 ___ (2) 20-25 ___ (3) 26-30 ___ (U) 31-35_____ (5) 36-bO ___ (6) bl-U5 ___ (7) b6-50 ___ (8) 51 and older ____ spouse ever ateacher? Please include any comments that you would like to make about the questionnaire: Thank you very much for completing the questionnaire and returning it promptly. Yes_ APPENDIX C SAMPLE LETTERS INCLUDED WITH PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE Erikson Hall Room 517 Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 November 11, 1970 Dear Parents, -You have more direct contact with the elementary public schools than most other people. Day in and day out, you are the ones who must listen to the praises and complaints about school that come from your children. Your opinions, therefore, are very important. Moreover, you read a lot about the schools. This, along with your children's opinions, gives you an under­ standing about some of the issues and concerns that face the public schools. The enclosed questionnaire is about ELEMENTARY public school education. The questionnaire has been approved by the Grand Rapids Public Schools. The purpose of the questionnaire is to find out how parents feel about elementary education in Michigan Public Schools. It is hoped that the results of the questionnaire will provide information that might help public school administrators know more about how well informed Michigan parents are about elementary education in the public schools. Your responses of course will be held in strictest confi­ dence. Please do not sign your name. I will be pleased to send you a summary of questionnaire results if you so desire. Just send a card to the address given at the heading of this letter. Our experience with the questionnaire indicates that it should take you about 15 minutes to complete it. A selfaddressed envelope is provided for you to return the question­ naire. It will be especially helpful if you will return the questionnaire by: November 18. Please contact your school principal if you have further questions about the study. Remember: the questionnaire is concerned only with ELEMENTARY public school education. Thank you. Your help with this educational study is very much appreciated. Yours truly, William 11. Sumner 97 98 Erikson Hall Room 517 Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 November 11, 1970 Dear Parents, You send your children to an independent school. You have your.reasons for doing so. But this does not prevent your having important opinions about the public schools— even though your children may never have attended one. Some of you, however, have at one time or another sent your children to the public schools, so you speak from actual experience. But whether or not your children have attended the public schools makes no difference. You read many things about the public schools. You have a background of information on which to base your opinions. Your opinions are needed. The enclosed questionnaire is about PUBLIC ELEMENTARY school education. The questionnaire has been reviewed and approved by your school principal. The purpose of the question­ naire is to find out how parents- feel about elementary education in Michigan public schools. It is hoped that the results of the questionnaire will provide information that might help public school administrators know more about how well informed Michigan parents are about elementary education in the public schools. Your responses of course will be held in strictest confi­ dence. Please do not sign your name. I will be pleased to send you a summary of questionnaire results if you so desire. Just send a card to the address given at the heading of this letter. Our experience with the questionnaire indicates that it should take you about 15 minutes to complete it. A selfaddressed envelope is provided for you to return the question­ naire. It will be especially helpful if you will return the questionnaire by: November 18. Please contact your school principal if you have further questions about the study. Remember: the questionnaire is concerned only with PUBLIC ELEMENTARY school education. Thank you. Your help with this educational study is very much appreciated. Yours truly, William H. Sumner 99 Erikson Hall Room 517 Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 November 11, 1970 Dear Parents, You send your children to a private school. You have your reasons for doing so. But this does not prevent your having important opinions about the public schools— even though your children may never have attended one. Some of you, however, have at one time or another sent your children to the public schools, so you speak from actual experience. But whether or not your children have attended the public schools makes no difference. You read many things about the public schools. You have a background of information on which to base your opinions. Your opinions are needed. The enclosed questionnaire is about PUBLIC ELEMENTARY school education. The questionnaire has been reviewed and approved by your school principal. The purpose of the question­ naire is to find out how parents feel about elementary education in Michigan public schools. It is hoped that the results of the questionnaire will provide information that might help public school administrators know more about how well informed Michigan parents are about elementary education in the public schools. Your responses of course will be held in strictest confi­ dence. Please do not sign your name. I will be pleased to send you a summary of questionnaire results if you so desire. Just send a card to the address given at the heading of this letter. Our experience with the questionnaire indicates that it should take you about 15 minutes to complete it. A selfaddressed envelope is provided for you to return the question­ naire. It will be especially helpful if you will return the questionnaire by: November 1 8 . Please contact your school principal if you have further questions about the study. Thank you. Your help with this educational study is very much appreciated. Yours truly, William Sumner 100 Erikson Hall Room 517 Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 1*8823 November 11, 1970 Dear Parents, Some parents prefer parochial schools for their children. Others want their children to attend private schools* Still others prefer the public schools. But no matter what kind of school your children attend — parochial, private, or public — you have important opinions about the quality of education that ALL Michigan schools provide for children. The enclosed questionnaire is about PUBLIC ELEMENTARY school education. The questionnaire has been reviewed and approved by the Diocesan Office of Education, Lansing, Michigan. Moreover, it has the approval of the Jackson Area Board of Education, the regional body that helps direct educational policy for the Catholic Schools in the Greater Jackson area. The purpose of the questionnaire is to find out how parents feel about elementary education in Michigan Public Schools. It is hoped that the results of the questionnaire will provide information that might help public school administrators know more about how well informed Michigan parents are about elementary education in the public schools. Perhaps at this point you are saying: "I've never had a child attend the public schools — of what worth are my opinions?" Your opinions are worth a lot. You pay public school taxes. You read many things about the public schools — even though your children may never have attended one. Those of you whose children at one time or another have attended the public schools of course speak from actual experience. But whether or not your children have attended the public schools makes no difference. Your opinions are needed. Your responses of course will be held in strictest confidence. Please do not sign your name. I will be pleased to send you a summary of questionnaire results if you so desire. Just send a card to the address given at the heading of this letter. Our experience with the questionnaire indicates that it should take you about 15 minutes to complete it. A self-addressed envelope is provided for you to return the questionnaire. It will be especially helpful if you will return the questionnaire by: November 18. Please contact your school principal if you have further questions about the study. Remember: the questionnaire is concerned only with PUBLIC ELEMENTARY school education. Thank you. Your help with this educational study is very much appreciated. Yours truly, William H. Sumner 101 November 11, 1970 Deaf Parents, This letter will introduce to you Mr. William Sumner, doctoral student at Michigan State University. Mr. Sumner is doing a study about PUBLIC ELEMENTARY education in Michigan schools. His questionnaire is concerned with obtaining parents' opinions about public school practices in this state. It makes no difference whether or not you have children attending the public elementary schools. He believes you have important opinions about them. I would appreciate your extending to Mr. Sumner the privilege of considering his questionnaire and completing it if you are so inclined. Remember: the questionnaire is concerned only with PUBLIC ELEMENTARY education. Thank you. Yours truly, 102 Erickson Hall Room 517 Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan December 5, 1970 Dear Parents, Recently you received a letter from me asking you to complete a questionnaire about public elementary education. Since I have not heard from you, I assume that you have been busy, and that you have not had time to complete the question­ naire. Your contribution is very important to this study. Without it, the study will be incomplete. Your responses will be held in strictest confidence. Please do not sign your name. Thank you very much for participating in this study. Your contribution may indeed provide information previously unknown or overlooked by educators. Please disregard this letter if you have already mailed your questionnaire. Sincerely yours, William H. Sumner APPENDIX D PARENT INFORMATION FORMS School Improvement Information -Dear Parents, Please help us improve the program provided for children at ______________ School. Complete the following statements, then return this form to your school in the enclosed return-envelope. 1. Why are you withdrawing your child from ____________ School? 2. Thank you. Your Comments: Have you approved of the curriculum provided your child by this school? Yes No Your Comments: 3. Have you approved of how the subjects are taught in this school? Yes No Your Comments: 4. Have you approved of the disciplinary methods used by the teachers and principal of this school? No Yes Your Comments: 5. Do you have further suggestions which might help the teachers and principal improve the school pro­ gram? Yes No 103 104 Parent Information Concerning This Year's Program at _________ School Dear Parents, Please help your teachers and principal determine whether the school program provided your child during this school year has been satisfactory. Complete the following statements, then return this form to your school in the enclosed return-addressed envelope. Thank you. 1. Have you been pleased with the curriculum provided your child during this school year? Yes No Your Comments: 2. Do you approve of how the subjects are taught in this school? 3. Yes No Your Comments: Have you approved of the disciplinary methods used by the teachers and principal of this school? Yes No 4. Your Comments: Do you have further suggestions which might help the teachers and principal improve the school pro­ gram? Yes Your Comments: No