IN F O R M A T IO N T O USERS This material was produced from a m icrofilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have bean used, the quality is heavily dependant upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along w ith adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. Whan an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black m ark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus causa a blurred image. You w ill find a good image o f the page in the adjacent frame. 3. Whan a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part o f the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the m aterial. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper le ft hand corner of a large dieet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4 . The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertat ion. Silver prints o f "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title , author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE N O TE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor. Michigan 46106 USA St John's Road, Tyler s Green Htgh Wycombe. Bucks. England HP10 8HR BAILEY, Archie Hall, 1937AN INVESTIGATION OF PARENTS* ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS REGARDING THE COLLECTION AND USE OF STUDENT INFORMATION IN THREE SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1977 Education, guidance and counseling Xerox University Microfilms , Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106 AN INVESTIGATION OF PARENTS' ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS REGARDING THE COLLECTION AND USE OF STUDENT INFORMATION IN THREE SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS By A rc h ie H a ll B a ile y A DISSERTATION Subm itted to M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity in p a r t ia l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e requirem ents f o r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f C ounseling, Personnel S ervices and E ducational Psychology 1977 ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF PARENTS' ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS REGARDING THE COLLECTION AND USE OF STUDENT INFORMATION IN THREE SELECTED MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS By A rc h ie H a ll B a ile y The purpose o f t h is study was to conduct an in v e s tig a tio n o f parent a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s reg ard in g the c o lle c tio n and use o f student in fo rm a tio n in elem entary and secondary schools. The researcher was unable to lo c a te any previous exam ination o f how parents view t h is to p ic . The degree and in t e n s ity o f parent in te r e s t was unknown. The dimensions o f the study re q u ire d proposing fo u r re ­ search q u e s tio n s : Q. 1: How do parents b e lie v e the c o lle c tio n and use o f stu d e n t in fo rm a tio n has been handled in t h e ir school d i s t r i c t ? Q. 2: What do parents b e lie v e should be contained 1n stu de n t records? Q. 3: Who do parents b e lie v e should have access to stu d e n t records? Q. 4: How do parents view the s to rin g /m a in te n a n ce o f student records? The study was a d e s c r ip tiv e study and rep re se nts an e xplora to r y a ttem pt to id e n t if y and examine parent a ttitu d e s r e la tin g to the A rch ie H all B a ile y c o lle c tio n and use o f student in fo rm a tio n . o f t h is research were: The two main o b je c tiv e s (1) to study the a ttitu d e s o f parents re ­ garding student in fo rm a tio n in th re e se le cte d Michigan school d is ­ t r i c t s , and (2) i f d iffe re n c e s were found to e x is t , to attem pt to id e n t if y the fa c to rs th a t appear to c o n trib u te to the observed d iffe re n c e s . Three K-12 M ichigan p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s p a rtic ip a te d in the study. The th re e school d i s t r i c t s were se le cte d on the basis o f id e n t if ie d d iffe re n c e s thought to be associated w ith v a ria tio n in a ttitu d e s . The p o p u la tio n f o r the study consisted o f 51,000 students e n ro lle d in th re e school d i s t r i c t s as o f June, 1976. The sample size was determined by using a m o d ific a tio n o f a form ula developed by the Research D iv is io n o f the N ational Education A s s o c ia tio n . E ig h t hundred ten students were randomly se le cte d from elem entary sch o o l, ju n io r high sch o o l, and s e n io r high school enrollm e n ts o f a ll d is t r ic t s . A s t r a t if ie d sample o f 383 p a re n ts, re p re se n tin g c h ild re n in a ll grades in a ll schools was then drawn from th is group. A q u e s tio n n a ire was used to gather data f o r assessing parent a ttitu d e s regarding the c o lle c tio n and use o f student inform a tio n . The q u e s tio n n a ire , c o n ta in in g 31 items in th re e s e c tio n s , was developed s p e c if ic a lly f o r th is study and v a lid a te d in a p i l o t pro­ gram in c lu d in g a group o f s e v e n ty -e ig h t parents. nine items d e a lin g w ith demographic data. S ection I contains Section I I contains A rc h ie H a ll B a ile y s ix te e n items d e a lin g e x c lu s iv e ly w ith respondents' a ttitu d e s re g a rd ­ ing th e c o lle c tio n and use o f s tu d e n t in fo rm a tio n , and S e ctio n I I I co n ta in s items d e a lin g w ith : (a) how parents have been inform ed by t h e ir school d i s t r i c t s about the stu d e n t reco rd process, (b ) the degree o f s ig n ific a n c e the respondents place on m a te ria l kept in stu d e n t record f i l e s , and (c ) who th e responding parents see as the f in a l a u th o r ity in d e a lin g w ith s tu d e n t re c o rd s . Items in S ection I I I were framed w ith in the c o n te x t o f th e C h ild A ccounting Student Record F ile (CA-60) w id e ly used in M ichigan. A q u e s tio n n a ire was m ailed to the p a re n t(s ) o f each ra n ­ domly s e le c te d s tu d e n t. Two fo llo w -u p m a ilin g s to non-responding parents were conducted. The procedure f o r a n a ly z in g the data in t h is study con­ s is te d p r im a r ily o f a comparison o f p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s in th e th re e s e le cte d M ichigan school d i s t r i c t s . D e s c rip tiv e s t a t i s t i c s were used to summarize and d e s c rib e the research d a ta . The Z - te s t was used to e s tim a te th e range o f scores re p re s e n tin g th e respondents' a ttitu d e s . One-way a n a ly s is o f va ria n ce was used to te s t s i g n i f i ­ cant d iffe re n c e s among the th re e school d i s t r i c t s . Package f o r the S o cia l Sciences (SPSS) was used. The S t a t is t ic a l Data were run on th e CDC 6500 computer a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity . M ajor fin d in g s and Im p lic a tio n s in c lu d e : (1) d e s p ite th e f a c t th a t a l l th re e school d i s t r i c t s a p p lie d th e l e t t e r o f the law in a d v is in g parents o f stu d e n t record p rocedures, th e respondents This volume is dedicated to my parents F re d e rick and K atherine B a ile y 1i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am g ra te fu l f o r th e guidance o f my d o c to ra l committee members. Dr. James C ostar, Dr. A rc h ib a ld Shaw, D r. C h ris to p h e r Vanderpool and e s p e c ia lly my chairman Dr. Raymond N. Hatch. Dr. C. Robert M uth's a ssistan ce in securing the coopera­ tio n o f the th re e school d i s t r i c t s was exemplary. Many thanks go a lso to Ms. Suwatana Sookpokakit f o r her a ssistan ce w ith the s t a t i s t i c s o f t h is study and to Ms. Deborah Dearlng f o r ty p in g the o r ig in a l m anuscript. F in a lly — and most Im p o rta n tly — my w ife , Susan, who never walvered 1n her t o t a l support o f my e f f o r t . . .d u rin g what must have seemed H k e an endless p e rio d o f tim e . 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................v i i Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1 1 In tro d u c tio n To The Problem ................................................. Fam ily E ducational R ights and P rivacy A ct in P r a c t i c e .................................................................. 2 Parent A ttitu d e s and The Issue o f Student Record In fo rm a tio n .............................................................. 4 P a ren ts' Role to D a t e ..................................... . .................... 8 Statement o f The Problem ...................................................... 9 Questions To Be Answered by This S t u d y ......................... 9 Purpose o f The S t u d y .............................................................. 9 I d e n t if ic a t io n and D e fin itio n o f Terms ........................... 10 L im ita tio n s o f The S t u d y ...........................................................14 Summary................................................................................................15 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...................................................................18 In tro d u c tio n .............................................................................. 18 H is to ry o f Student In fo rm a tio n ......................................... 18 Student Record L ite r a tu r e ...................................................... 29 Legal Aspects o f Student Records ..................................... 29 Movement f o r C hange.......................................................................30 L ite r a tu r e Since Passage o f The Fam ily Educational R ights and P riva cy A ct o f 1974 . . . . 33 Parent A ttitu d e s ...................................................................... 34 Summary............................................................................................... 36 III. DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ........................................................................... 38 In tro d u c tio n .............................................................................. 38 Data C o l l e c t io n ............................................................................... 38 F l i n t Community Schools .......................................................... 40 The C o m m u n ity ...........................................................................40 F a c i l i t i e s ................................................................................... 41 S tu d e n ts ....................................................................................... 42 S t a f f ........................................................................................... 43 Sources o f F u n d s .......................................................................43 1v Page Chapter Bay C ity P u b lic S c h o o ls ................. . ..................................... 44 The C o m m u n ity ....................................................................... F a c i l i t i e s and S t a f f ........................................................... Sources o f F u n d s ................................................................... S tu d e n ts .................... 44 46 46 47 Ann A rb o r P u b lic Schools ....................................................... 47 The C o m m u n ity ....................................................................... S t a f f ........................................................................................ Sources o f F u n d s ................................................................... S tu d e n ts .................................................................................... F a c i l i t i e s ................................................................................ 47 49 49 50 50 The Survey P o p u la tio n and Sample IV . ...................................... 50 The P o p u la tio n ....................................................................... The S a m p le ............................................. 50 51 Development o f The In s tr u m e n t.............................................. Q u e s tio n n a ire A d m in is tra tio n .............................................. Data P r o c e s s in g ............................................................................ Data A n a ly s is .................................................................. Summary............................................................................................ 54 57 58 58 59 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF D A T A .......................................... 60 I n t r o d u c t i o n ..................................... Parent Q u e s tio n n a ire ............................................................... Answer C ategories ....................................................................... C h a r a c te r is tic s o f Respondents .......................................... Three School D is t r ic t s C ontrasted ...................................... Q u e s tio n n a ire Response by School D i s t r i c t ..................... Demographic C h a r a c te r is tic s ................................................... Level o f Education o f R e sp o n d e n ts...................................... Age o f R e s p o n d e n ts ................................................................... Years o f Residency in School D i s t r i c t .............................. Occupation o f Respondents ....................................................... D iscussion o f S tudent Records Among Parents ................. P arent Attendance a t School Sponsored M eetings . . . Parent/S chool O f f ic i a l D iscussion o f Student Records ................................................................... P arent A ttitu d e s and O pinions .............................................. S a t1 s fa c t1 o n /D 1 s s a t1 s fa c tio n Level o f P arents. . . 60 60 60 61 61 62 63 63 63 63 64 67 67 Student Record L o c a tio n ........................................................... Parent A c c e s s ib ilit y to Student Records ......................... Student Record C ontent ........................................................... School D i s t r i c t Procedures Regarding th e H andling o f S tudent Records .......................................... 69 69 72 v 67 68 68 72 Page Chapter Parent Use o f Student R e c o rd s ............................................. Legal P ro te c tio n o f Student Records ................................. P a ren ts' R ig h t to Challenge Accuracy o f T h e ir C h ild 's School Record ......................................... Student Record Use by P o lic e o r S ocial A g e n c ie s .................................................................................. S chool's A u th o rity to C ontrol Student Records . . . . S p e cia l-H e lp In fo rm a tio n 1n Student Records ................. S toring/M aintenance o f Student Records ......................... Use o f Computers 1n S to rin g Student Records ................. Use o f Student Records f o r Research by I n s t it u t io n s o f H igher Education ................................. School D i s t r i c t O f f ic i a l s ' Awareness o f P a ren ts' A ttitu d e s and Opinions ................................. School D i s t r i c t P o lic y f o r Handling Student In fo rm a tio n .......................................................... S ch o ol's Motives f o r Keeping Student Records . . . . Removing Negative In fo rm a tio n FromStudent Records. . Parent Sources o f In fo rm a tio n Regarding Student R e c o r d s .................................................................................. Student Record Content .......................................................... F in a l A u th o rity Over Use o f Student Records ................. T e s tin g Data 1n Student Records ......................................... Items C u rre n tly Included in Student Records .................. A n a ly s is by Age .......................................................................... A n a ly s is by Educational S tatus ......................................... A n a ly s is by Occupation .......................................................... Open-Ended Q uestionnaire Responses ................................. 72 76 76 76 80 80 83 83 86 86 86 90 90 93 93 96 96 96 100 105 109 113 " S a tis fie d " Parents .......................................................... 113 " D is s a tis fie d " Parents . .................................................. 116 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 119 Summary o f F in d in g s : Im p lic a tio n s and O b s e rv a tio n s . Research Question 1 Summary o f Related F i n d i n g s ........................ Research Question 2 Summary o f Related F indings ............................................. Research Question 3 Sunmary o f Related F indings ............................................. Research Question 4 Summary o f Related F indings ............................................. A d d itio n a l F indings .............................................................. 119 120 120 120 121 122 122 122 123 123 vi Page Chapter Recommendations f o r F u rth e r Research ........................... Recommendations f o r Im plem entation o f The Fam ily E ducational R ights and P rivacy A c t ...................................................................... 126 A. LETTERS TO PARENTS................................................................... 130 B. PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................... 134 C. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCETABLES ..................................................... 137 127 APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. vi 1 154 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Page The Number o f Students 1n The Ann A rbor P u b lic Schools Selected For The Sample ......................... 52 The Number o f Students 1n The Bay C ity P u b lic Schools Selected For The Sample ......................... 53 The Number o f Students 1n The F l i n t Community Schools Selected For The Sample ..................................... 53 S elected School D is t r ic t s Id e n tifie d by Community, P o p u la tio n , Type .............................................. 62 Q uestionnaires D is trib u te d to School D is t r ic t s and Percentage o f R e t u r n s .................................................. 62 Demographic C h a ra c te ris tic s o f Respondents By School D i s t r i c t ...................................................................... 65 7. An A n a ly s is o f Respondents By O c c u p a t io n ........................ 66 8. Verbal Communication o f Parents Regarding D iscussions Between Parents Regarding the In fo rm a tio n Kept 1n Student Records ...................................................................... 67 Parent Attendance A t School Sponsored Meetings . . . . 68 Verbal Communication Between Parents and School O f f ic ia ls Regarding School Records ................................. 68 Parent Responses Regarding S a tis fa c tio n W ith How School D i s t r i c t Personnel Have Informed Parents o f Where T h e ir C h ild 's School Record is Located . . 70 Parent Responses Regarding S a tis fa c tio n W ith How School Personnel Have Informed Parents o f A c c e s s ib ility to Student Records ...................................... 71 Parent Responses Regarding S a tis fa c tio n W ith How They Have Been Informed By School O f f ic ia ls Of The Content Of Student R e c o r d s ................................. 73 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. v i 1i Table 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Page Parent Responses Regarding S a tis fa c tio n With School D i s t r i c t Procedures R e la tin g G e ne rally To Student Record In fo rm a tio n ............................................. 74 Parent Responses Regarding Parent A c c e s s ib ility To T h e ir C h ild 's School Record ......................................... 75 Parent Responses Regarding Legal P ro te c tio n o f In fo rm a tio n 1n Student Records ......................................... 77 Parent Responses Regarding P arents' R ig h t To Challenge The Accuracy o f In fo rm a tio n In T h e ir C h ild 's School Records ............................................. 78 Parent Responses Regarding The Use o f Student Records by P o lic e o r Other Social Agencies W ithout P r io r P arental Consent ......................................... 79 Parent Responses Regarding The A u th o rity o f The School To C ontrol Student Records ..................................... 81 Parent Responses Regarding The In c lu s io n o f S p e cia l-H e lp In fo rm a tio n 1n Student Records ................. 82 Parent Responses Regarding The S toring/M aintenance o f Student R e c o r d s ........................................................... 84 Parent Responses Regarding The Use o f Computers To Store Student Record In fo rm a tio n ................................. Parent Responses Regarding Use o f Student Records By I n s t it u t io n s o f Higher Learning For Research P u r p o s e s ................................................................................ Parent Responses Regarding School O f f i c i a l 's Awareness o f Parent A ttitu d e s and Opinions 85 87 ................. 88 Parent Responses Regarding School D i s t r i c t P o lic y For The Handling o f Student In fo rm a tio n . . . . . . . 89 Parent Responses Regarding P arents' P erceptions o f The S ch o ol's M otives For Keeping Student Records . . 91 Parent Responses Regarding An Annual Purge o f Negative In fo rm a tio n From Student Records ..................... 92 P arents' Sources o f In fo rm a tio n Regarding Student I n fo r m a t io n ........................................................................... ix 94 Table 29. Page Parent Ranking By "Degree o f Importance1' o f In fo rm a tio n To Be Contained in Student Records . . .................................................................................... 95 Parent Responses Regarding Who Should Have "F in a l A u th o rity " Over The Use o f Student R e c o r d s ................. 97 Parent Responses Regarding "Degree o f Im portance" o f Test Data To Be Contained 1n Student Records . . . 98 Parent Responses Regarding Ranking o f Items C u rre n tly Included In Student Records (Re: R ussell Sage G u idelines .......................................................... 99 Parent Responses Ranked By Age Regarding S a tis fa c tio n With How School D i s t r i c t Personnel Have Informed Parents o f Where T h e ir C h ild 's School Record Is L o c a te d ........................................................................................... 101 Parent Responses Ranked By Age Regarding S a tis fa c tio n With Hov E f fe c t iv e ly School Personnel Have Informed Parents o f A c c e s s ib ility To Student Records ................. 102 Parent Responses Ranked By Age Regarding S a tis fa c tio n W ith How They Have Been Informed By School O f f ic ia ls Of The Content Of Student Records ................. 103 Parent Responses Ranked By Age Regarding S a tis fa c tio n W ith School D i s t r i c t Procedures R e la tin g G e n e ra lly To Student Record In fo rm a tio n ............................................. 104 Parent Responses Ranked By E ducational Status Regarding S a tis fa c tio n With How School D i s t r i c t Personnel Have Informed Parents o f Where T h e ir C h ild 's School Record Is Located ..................................... 106 38. Parent Responses Ranked By E ducational S tatus Regarding S a tis fa c tio n With How E f fe c t iv e ly School Personnel Have Informed Parents o f A c c e s s ib ility to Student R e c o rd s ........................................................................................... 107 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 39. Parent Responses Ranked By Educational Status Regarding S a tis fa c tio n With How They Have Been Inform ed By School O f f ic ia ls o f The Content o f Student Records. . 108 40. Parent Responses Ranked By E ducational S tatus Regarding S a tis fa c tio n With School D i s t r i c t Procedures R e la tin g G e n e ra lly To Student Record In fo rm a tio n ......................... 110 x Page Parent Responses Ranked By Occupation Regarding S a tis fa c tio n With School D i s t r i c t Procedures R e la tin g G e n e ra lly To Student Record Inform a­ tio n (P a rt I ) .............................................................. 111 Parent Responses Ranked By Occupation Regarding S a tis fa c tio n With School D i s t r i c t Procedures R e la tin g G e ne rally To Student Record Inform a­ tio n (P a rt I I ) .......................................................... 112 A n a ly s is o f Variance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q u estio n na ire Item #10 ......................................... 137 A n a ly s is o f Variance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q uestionnaire Item #11 ......................................... 138 A n a ly s is o f Variance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q uestionnaire Item #12 ......................................... 139 A n a ly s is o f Variance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q uestio n na ire Item #13 ......................................... 140 A n a lysis o f Variance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q u estio n na ire Item #14.... ......................................... 141 A n a ly s is o f Variance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q uestionnaire Item #15 ......................................... 142 A n a ly s is o f Variance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q uestionnaire Item #16 ......................................... 143 A n a ly s is o f Variance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q u estio n na ire Item #17.... ......................................... 144 A n a ly s is o f Variance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q uestionnaire Item #18 ......................................... 145 A n a ly s is o f Variance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q u estio n na ire Item #19.... ......................................... 146 A n a ly s is o f Variance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q uestionnaire Item #20 ......................................... 147 A n a ly s is o f Variance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q uestionnaire Item #21 ......................................... 148 x1 Table 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. Page A n a ly s is o f V ariance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q u e s tio n n a ire Item # 2 2 .......................................................... 149 A n a ly s is o f V ariance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q u e s tio n n a ire Item #23 .......................................................... 150 A n a ly s is o f V ariance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q u e s tio n n a ire Item # 2 4 .......................................................... 151 A n a ly s is o f V ariance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q u e s tio n n a ire Item .. # 2 5 .......................................................... 152 A n a ly s is o f V ariance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Q u e s tio n n a ire Item ..# 2 6 .......................................................... 153 x 11 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In tro d u c tio n To The Problem One o f the la t e s t convulsions In the c o n tin u in g c r is i s o f p u b lic education deals w ith the c o lle c tio n and use o f stu de n t record in fo rm a tio n and the general use o f the cum ulative re co rd . Student records in v o lv e p riv a c y . P riva cy has been both w id e ly e x a lte d and debated throughout our n a tio n 's h is to r y . J u s tic e Louis Brandels a ffirm e d t h is 1n a famous m in o rity o p in io n : Every u n ju s tifie d in tru s io n upon the p riv a c y o f th e in d iv id u a l, by whatever means employed, must be deemed a v io la tio n o f the Fourth Amendment.1 The Buckley Amendment, the Fam ily E ducational R ights and P rivacy Act o f 1974, seemed to focus s ig n if ic a n t n a tio n a l a tte n tio n on common e du catio n al p ra c tic e s which c o n s titu te d a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f the in d iv id u a l's r ig h t to p riv a c y . The Fam ily Educational R ights and P rivacy Act was seen as the c u lm in a tin g step in a movement to p ro te c t in fo rm a tio n about the liv e s o f stu d e n ts . and s p e c ific . 2 The Act was basic The A ct s a id : ^Olmstead v. U nited S tates 277 U.S. 438 (1927). 2W1ll1am R loux, "W hile 25 M illio n C h ild re n W a lt," Parent A le r t (O ctober, 1975), p. 1. 1 2 (a) parents o f students have the r ig h t to see t h e ir c h ild r e n 's school re co rd s. (b) parents have the r ig h t to challenge and c o rre c t m is le a d in g . In c o rre c t and Ir r e le v a n t In fo rm a tio n . (c ) c o n tro ls on a c c e s s ib ilit y to stu d e n t records must be estab­ lis h e d . In August, 1976 the Department o f H e a lth , E ducation, and W elfare (HEW) Implemented the Fam ily Educational R ights and P rivacy A ct by p u b lis h in g g u id e lin e s re a ffirm in g the n e c e s s ity f o r educators to develop a s e n s it iv it y f o r the p riv a c y o f students 1n t h e ir care. 3 The Fam ily E ducational R ights and Privacy A ct In P ra c tic e C u rre n tly the broad p r in c ip le o f the r ig h t o f p riv a c y re ­ garding the c o lle c tio n and use o f student In fo rm a tio n 1s being tra n s ­ la te d In to procedures Implemented by lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s n a tio n a lly . And, 1n some In sta nce s: . . . school a d m in is tra to rs are r e s is tin g e f f o r t s to s p e ll o u t new p o lic ie s o r t e l l parents about t h e ir new r ig h ts (as re q u ire d by la w ). . . 4 The Fam ily E ducational R ights and P rivacy Act is evidence o f a growing n a tio n a l concern reg ard in g the c o lle c tio n and use o f student in fo rm a tio n . C Several s tu d ie s o f school d i s t r i c t s completed since ^ "P riv a c y R ights o f Parents and S tu d e n ts ," Federal Reg1s t e r , Volume 40, No. 3, P a rt I I I (W ashington, D.C.: Department o f H e a lth , Education and W e lfa re ), p. 24662. 4 R1 o u x , o p . c 1 t . . p. 1. 5 R1 o u x , o p . 2. c1 t.. p. 3 passage o f the A ct were designed to examine how w e ll school systems are responding to p u b lic and ju d ic ia l pressure to reform the in fo rm a tio n handling and re le a s in g procedures. The re s u lts o f those s tu d ie s Im ply non-com pliance.8 F ollo w in g passage o f the A ct the Department o f HEW worked f o r f if t e e n months p re pa rin g o p e ra tio n a l g u id e lin e s . The Department attem pted to re c o n c ile questions ra is e d by more than th re e hundred p u b lic ly recorded comments on the p ro po sa l. From November 19, 1974 to August, 1976 n a tio n a l parent advocacy groups f o r c e f u lly urged HEW to issue comprehensive g u id e lin e s .7 The Buckley Amendment, the Fam ily Educational R ights and P riva cy A c t, and the f in a l HEW g u id e lin e s have c o n trib u te d to a pro­ fe s s io n a l dilemma. In support o f th a t p o s itio n one observer had commented th a t: The problem w ith the f in a l re g u la tio n s , which are described 1n pure a d m in 1 s tra tiv e s e , is th a t they are n e a rly Im possible to comprehend and they tend to c re a te a c lim a te among school people which c le a r ly approximates f e a r . 8 In e f f e c t , re c e n t le g is la t io n has fu r th e r com plicated the issue o f the c o lle c tio n and use o f stu d e n t in fo rm a tio n . Instead o f Carl Ashbaugh and Martha W illia m s , "Changing Laws and Un­ changing P ra c tic e s in Student Record Keeping," Phi D elta Kappan, (May, 1975), p. 62. 7R1oux, op. c i t . , p. 2. 8E d 1 to r, "School P riva cy A c t," The F lushing Observer (F lu sh ­ in g , M ichigan: August 11, 1976), p. 4. 4 a c tin g 1n c o n s u lta tio n w ith p r a c titio n e r s and a f t e r le n g th y s u b s ta n tiv e stu d y, the Buckley Amendment, f o r example, was passed w ith o u t b e n e fit o f any p u b lic h ea rin gs. One U nited S tate s Senator f e l t and expressed the fr u s t r a tio n o f the Issue b efo re v o tin g . Senator P h ilip H art (D ), Michigan s a id : I profess to ta l b a ffle m e n t on th is Issue. I d o n 't know which sid e I am on. . .1 wish we had a study o r re p o rt on t h is , [th e Issue was then passed on an unrecorded vo ice v o t e ] . 9 Others a ls o saw the le g is la t io n as fu r th e r c o m p lic a tin g re ­ s o lu tio n o f the Issue. The new laws sound so s tra ig h tfo rw a rd , you would th in k school people would have l i t t l e tro u b le understanding them. T rouble 1s, a la b y r in th o f c o m p le x itie s lu r k behind the w o r d s . 10 Parent A ttitu d e s and the Issue o f Student Record In fo rm a tio n The Buckley Amendment, the Fam ily Educational R ights and P rivacy A c t, and the HEW g u id e lin e s have made the c o lle c tio n and use o f In fo rm a tio n one o f the most w id e ly discussed to p ic s 1n educational c ir c le s a t th is t lm e . ^ Parent a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s can p la y an im p o rta n t r o le 1n the re s o lu tio n o f th is Issue. 12 Id e n tify in g , c la s s ify in g , comparing. ^Congressional Record, V o l. 120 (1974), 1183. ^ E d i t o r , "School Record Dilemma," American School Board Journal (January, 1975), p. 47. ^ A s demonstrated by the In c lu s io n o f the to p ic "S tudent Records" 1n Research 1n E ducation. 1975-76. ^A m erican A s s o c ia tio n o f Secondary School A d m in is tra to rs , P u b lic R e la tio n s f o r A m erica's S chools, Tw enty-Eighth Yearbook (WashIn g to n , & .C .• 1960), p. 5. 5 and understanding parent a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s reg arding p ra c tic e s and procedures used f o r c o lle c tin g and using stu de n t In fo rm a tio n can be Im p o rta n t. An understanding o f the issue is e s s e n tia l 1n o rd e r to determ ine a proper balance between lim ite d access to stu d e n t Inform a­ tio n and freedom o f in fo rm a tio n to meet the needs o f s o c ie ty and the w e lfa re o f the s tu d e n t. There has been in c re a s in g acknowledgment th a t support fo r p u b lic education depends upon the g o o d w ill and understanding o f 13 p a re n ts. Parents c o n fro n t school a d m in is tra to rs d a lly w ith strong In d ic a tio n s o f approval and d isa p prova l o f what they are doing. Admin­ is t r a t o r s are becoming more aware th a t keeping a le r t to the o p in io n o f the people 1s Im p o rta n t.14 The p u b lic 's past passive consumption o f educational o p e ra tio n s can no lo n g e r be taken f o r gra nted . In s te a d , th e re 1s a growing demand f o r g re a te r d ir e c t parent p a r tic ip a tio n In 15 the planning and Im plem entation o f school programs. P o lls te r George G allup confirm ed t h is re c e n tly w r itin g th a t: . . . i f parents are to m a in ta in t h e ir f a it h 1n the p u b lic schools as a b a sic s e rv ic e , c itiz e n s w i l l have to share in p o lic y d e c is io n s a ffe c tin g t h e ir c h ild r e n 's f u t u r e . 16 13 Raymond N. Hatch, "Summary o f Overhead P re s e n ta tio n : P upil Personnel R ecord," (East Lansing: M ichigan S tate U n iv e rs ity , 1975), p. 1. l4 M1chael Y. Nunnery and Ralph B. Kimbrough, P o lit ic s . Power, P o lls , and School E le c tio n s , (B e rke le y: McCutchan Press, 1971), pp. 2 -3 . 15I b i d . , p. 122. ^G eorge G a llu p , "The P u b lic Looks a t the P u b lic S ch o ols," Today's Education (September, 1975), p. 17. 6 The fo rm u la tio n o f p o lic ie s and p ra c tic e s f o r th e c o lle c tio n and use o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n w ith in In d iv id u a l school d i s t r i c t s now m e rits d ir e c t p a re n t p a r t ic ip a t io n . An Im p o rta n t p r e r e q u is ite o f th a t p a r tic ip a tio n must be a s y s te m a tic exam ination o f p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s re g a rd in g th e s u b je c t.^ 7 A stu d y o f p a re n t a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s re g a rd in g the c o lle c tio n and use o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n , and o f th e c o n te n t o f the cu m u la tive re c o rd , can be s ig n if ic a n t a t t h is tim e as a r e s u lt o f growing In te r e s t among th e general p u b lic and e d u ca to rs. Assessing p a re n t a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s o f school a c t i v i t i e s is one way f o r edu­ c a to rs to e f f e c t iv e ly r e la te to th e school community and I t s e x is tin g concerns. Several w r ite r s have emphasized th e need f o r more a ccu ra te p e rce p tio n s o f p a re n t a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s . G r i f f i t h s has sa id t h a t : One must know th e group he 1s w orking w ith . T his means th a t th e school a d m in is tr a to r should know th e fa c ts about th e 18 community as w e ll as th e fe e lin g s and o p in io n s o f th e community. D o ll agrees and suggests a means f o r measuring community a ttitu d e s b u t expresses the fo llo w in g concerns: What a community expects and w i l l to le r a t e from I t s schools can be In d ic a te d ro u g h ly by surveys o f community o p in io n . Responses to q u e s tio n n a ire s have lim ite d value ^7Donald Ross, A d m in is tra tio n f o r A d a p ta b ility (M e tro p o lita n School Study C o u n c il: New Y o rk, l9 ? 1 ), pp. fife-86. 1ft D aniel E. G r i f f i t h s , Human R e la tio n s 1n School A d m in is tra ­ tio n (New York: A p p le to n -C e n tu ry -C ro fts , 1956), p'."~2Sl 7 unless th e meanings which th e respondents In te n d to express are e x p lo re d . D eterm ining meaning can be accom plished which co n firm s su p p o rt f o r c e r ta in p ro je c ts and pro vide s warnings a g a in s t lau n ch in g o th e r s .19 S im ila r ly , Donald T. Cam pbell, p a s t-P re s ld e n t o f th e American P sych o lo g ica l A s s o c ia tio n , sa id r e c e n tly th a t : . .we should In fo rm th e p u b lic as b e st we can, and be w i l l i n g to be Inform ed by them ." The issue o f th e c o lle c t io n and use o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n can be d e a lt w ith 1n those term s. A f i r s t ste p 1s a study d e a lin g w ith the c o lle c tio n o f b a s ic data re g a rd in g the s u b je c t from both parents and p ro fe s s io n a ls . A d m in is tra to rs need a ccu ra te in fo rm a tio n about p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s re g a rd in g th e c o lle c tio n and use o f s tu d e n t i n ­ fo rm a tio n . A ttitu d e s are based to a c o n s id e ra b le degree upon understand1ng. 20 C onsiderable evidence e x is ts which In d ic a te s th a t p a re n t a t t i ­ tudes and o p in io n s re g a rd in g the c o lle c t io n and use o f s tu d e n t ln fo rm a 21 t1on can be s ig n if ic a n t . However, a l i t e r a t u r e search f a l l s to reve al evidence o f a research base d ir e c t l y r e la te d to t h is s u b je c t. The rese a rch e r was unable to lo c a te s tu d ie s th a t deal w ith what parents are th in k in g about t h is to p ic , what th e y know about c u rre n t law , and how th ey want th e Issue d e a lt w ith 1n t h e i r own lo c a l school d i s t r i c t . 1Q Ronald C. D o ll, C u rricu lu m In p u t: 0ec1s1on-Mak1ng Process (Boston: A lly n -B a c o n , 1964), p. 62. 20Robert M cN e ils, "An In v e s tig a tio n o f P a re n ts ' A t titu d e s , O pinions and Knowledge o f S elected Aspects o f th e P u b lic Schools o f S t. M ary's County, M a ryla n d ," (U npublished Ph.D. d is s e r ta t io n , George Washington U n iv e r s ity , 1968), p. 3. 21 See Chapter I I f o r a revie w o f th e r o le o f p arents to date 1n the stu d e n t re co rd c o n tro v e rs y . 8 P a re n ts' Role to Date The N a tio n a l Committee f o r C itiz e n s 1n Education (NCCE) r e ­ p o rts th a t as o f June, 1976 t h e i r o rg a n iz a tio n had re c e iv e d over 6,000 n e g a tive p a re n t c o n ta c ts fo c u s in g on a lle g e d abuses 1n th e c o lle c tio n and use o f stu d e n t In fo rm a tio n by sch o o ls. No comprehensive e va lu a ­ tio n o r c la s s if ic a t io n o f th e p a re n t c o n ta c ts was made. The 6,000 parent c o n ta c ts may n o t be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t , b u t th e y do In d ic a te a degree o f p a re n ta l concern. NCCE s ta te s th a t t h e i r o rg a n i­ z a tio n has n o t re ce ive d a s im ila r volume o f m all on any o th e r s in g le Issu e. O b ta in in g and a n a ly z in g more In fo rm a tio n about how p aren ts fe e l w i l l be a m ajor goal o f t h is s tu d y . McClosky agrees th a t o fte n school-com m unity communications a re u n r e a lis t ic because educators f a l l to o b ta in an a ccu ra te measure o f p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s on Issues th a t can p ro v id e d ir e c t io n . McClosky s ta te s th a t one o f th e key steps 1n th e e f f e c t iv e communication process 1s to : o b ta in fa c ts from parents about e d u c a tio n a l values and needs as th ey see them .22 To d a te , parents have been 1n the shadows on t h is Im p o rta n t Issu e. 23 In d iv id u a l p a re n ts have o rig in a te d ch a lle n g e s 1n th e c o u rts , prodded le g is la t o r s to a c tio n , formed p a re n t advocacy g ro up s, and g e n e ra lly attem pted to s tim u la te In te r e s t 1n th e Issue o f s tu d e n t In ­ fo rm a tio n , b u t these were p r im a r ily In d iv id u a l e f f o r t s . 22Gordon L. McClosky, "P la n n in g th e P u b lic R e la tio n s Program ," N a tio n a l Education J o u rn a l, XLIX (F e b ru a ry, I9 6 0 ), p. 15. 23See C hapter I I . 9 Statement o f th e Problem The problem o f th is study 1s to conduct an In v e s tig a tio n o f parent a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s reg ard in g the c o lle c tio n and use o f student In fo rm a tio n . The researcher has been unable to lo c a te a system atic exam ination o f how parents view t h is to p ic . The degree and In te n s ity o f p a re n t In te r e s t appears to be unknown. The dimensions o f t h is study re q u ire proposing fo u r research q u e stio n s. Questions to be Answered by This Study This study was designed to fin d answers to fo u r general re ­ search q u e s tio n s : Question 1: How do parents b e lie v e the c o lle c tio n and use o f stu d e n t In fo rm a tio n has been handled in t h e ir own school d i s t r i c t ? Question 2: What do parents b e lie v e should be contained in stu d e n t records? Question 3: Who do parents b e lie v e should have access to stu d e n t records? Question 4: How do parents view the sto rin g /m a in te n a n ce o f stu d e n t records? Purpose o f the Study This study 1s a d e s c r ip tiv e study and represents an e x p lo ra to ry attem pt to Id e n tify and examine parent a ttitu d e s re la te d to the c o lle c ­ tio n and use o f stu d e n t in fo rm a tio n . 10 The o b je c tiv e s o f t h is research a re : (1 ) to stu d y the a ttitu d e s o f parents re g a rd in g s tu d e n t in fo rm a tio n 1n th re e se le cte d M ichigan school d i s t r i c t s , and, (2) i f d iffe re n c e s are found to e x is t , to atte m p t to I d e n t if y the fa c to rs th a t appear to c o n tr ib u te to the observed d iffe r e n c e s . I t would appear th a t a thorough exam ination o f t h is Issue can p ro vid e a new source o f in fo rm a tio n f o r a d m in is tra to rs 1n t h is v i t a l area. C o n co m ita n tly, th e study can a s s is t 1n developing e ffe c tiv e school d1str1ct-com m un1ty r e la tio n s and an Improved educa­ tio n a l atmosphere. A c c o rd in g ly , the study can p ro v id e a d m in is tra to rs 1n the p a r tic ip a tin g school d i s t r i c t w ith d ir e c t access to p a re n t a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s in t h e i r school d i s t r i c t s . The d iffe re n c e s In paren t a ttitu d e s w i l l be e xplo re d and t h e i r e x te n t and Im portance assessed. F in a lly , t h is study can a ls o p ro v id e in fo rm a tio n in form u­ la t in g le g is la t io n to fu r t h e r deal w ith t h is Issu e. I d e n t lf 1c a tlo n and D e fin itio n o f terms A t titu d e : s o c ia l s c ie n tis ts c o n s id e r a t t it u d e to be an Im p o rta n t v a ria b le o f b e h a v io r. attem pted to d e fin e 1 t. C onsequently, many o f them have For th e purpose o f t h is s tu d y , a t t it u d e w i l l be used as d e fin e d by G. W. A ll p o r t: "A mental and neural s ta te o f re a d in e s s , organized through n e xperience, a s s e rtin g a d ir e c tiv e o r dynamic In flu e n c e upon the In d iv id u a l's response to a l l o b je c ts and s itu a tio n s w ith which i t is re la te d . P riv ile g e d Communication: 24 r ig h t o f the c lie n ts o f p ro fe s s io n a l persons to p ro te c t these persons from re v e a lin g 1n le g a l proceedings any in fo rm a tio n given in confidence as a re 25 s u it o f the p ro fe s s io n a l r e la tio n s h ip . R ight to P riv a c y : le g a lly p ro te c te d r ig h t o f an In d iv id u a l to be fre e from unwarranted p u b lic it y and to be p ro te cte d from any w rongful in tr u s io n in to t h e ir p riv a te l i f e which would outrage o r cause mental s u ffe r in g , shame, o r h u m ilia tio n 26 to a person o f o rd in a ry s e n s it iv it ie s . S tudent: any person a t any tim e e n ro lle d as a stu d e n t in a p u b lic 27 school reg ard le ss o f th e dates o f attendance. 28 M inor Student: any stu d e n t under the age o f 18 ye a rs. 24Gordon W. A ll p o r t, Handbook o f S o cial Psychology (Cam­ b rid g e , Mass.: Addison-W esley, 1954), p. 16. 25John B a n c ro ft, "E th ic a l and Legal Aspects o f P upil Per­ sonnel Work," The O rg a n iza tio n o f Pup H Personnel Program s--Issues and P ra ctice s (East Lansing: M ichigan S tate U n iv e rs ity b re s s • ^157^7J , p. 7^. 28B la c k , B la c k 's Law D ic tio n a ry 1038 (4 th e d ., 1968). 27M1ch1gan C h ild Accounting and Attendance A s s o c ia tio n , In ­ fo rm a tio n Guide f o r th e Collect1on-Ma1ntenance-D1ssem1nation o f Student Records (P o n tia c , M1ch.: Oakland Schools, 1<^4), p. £. 28Ib 1 d ., p. 2. 12 Student Record: a record kept by the schools 1n accordance w ith a s ta te law o r re g u la tio n and kept on f i l e 29 1n a school d i s t r i c t o f f ic e . C o n fid e n tia l Records: 1n a school o r a l l In fo rm a tio n concerning students (except th a t recorded in the Cum ulative R ecord), In c lu d in g psycho­ lo g ic a l e v a lu a tio n s , e x te rn a l agency re p o rts , school re p o rts , school s o c ia l worker re p o rts , and b eh a vio ra l reco rd s. Permanent Records: those records th a t are sto re d d u rin g th e s tu d e n t's tenure in the school d i s t r i c t which Includes o n ly the cumu31 la t lv e re co rd . Temporary Records: records which are used d u rin g the school ye a r and In clu d e o n ly evidence o f academic progress and some examples o f a c h ild 's work such as language s k i l l s sample, a s o c ia l s tu d ie s s k i l l sample, a h a n d w ritin g example, and an a r t work sample. Once the c h ild 's placement f o r the next school year is determ ined, these temporary records should be destroyed. 32 29 Michigan C h ild Accounting and Attendance A s s o c ia tio n , op. c 1 t. , p. 2. 30 Michigan C h ild Accounting and Attendance A s s o c ia tio n , op. e f t . , p. 2. 31 Michigan C h ild Accounting and Attendance A s s o c ia tio n , op. c l t . , p. 3. 32 M ichigan C h ild Accounting and Attendance A s s o c ia tio n , op. c l t . , p. 3. 30 13 Cum ulative Record: c o n ta in s th a t In fo rm a tio n recorded on school forms which In c lu d e th e fo llo w in g : (a ) I d e n t if y in g d a ta : name, p a re n ts ' name, c o u n try o f b ir t h o f p a re n ts , home language, ra c e , sex, resid en ce and phone number. (b ) academic re c o rd : elem entary and secondary grades and attendance. (c ) re co rd o f tr a n s fe r s : schools attended and where c r e d its have been s e n t. (d ) personal q u a lif ic a t io n s : s u b je c tiv e s e n io r h ig h school r a tin g . (e ) s ta n d a rd ize d te s tin g In fo rm a tio n : p e r c e n tile and I.Q . s co re s. (f) h e a lth in fo rm a tio n : Im m unization re c o rd and o th e r h e a lth t e s t r e s u lts .* * 3 CA-60 (M ichigan) F ile : te c h n ic a l re fe re n c e name used by p ro fe s s io n a ls to d e s c rib e a s tu d e n t's cu m u la tiv e re c o rd . Fam ily E ducational R ig h ts and P riv a c y A c t o f 1974: an a c t d e a lin g w ith th e c o lle c t io n , use, and d is s e m in a tio n o f s tu d e n t re co rd In ­ fo rm a tio n . B u c k le y -P e ll Amendment: (see Appendix) amendment to th e Fam ily E ducational R ig h ts and P riv a c y A c t o f 1974. C la r if ie d the meaning o f th e words 33F l1 n t P u b lic S chools, "R ig h t o f Access, C um ulative and Con­ f id e n t ia l R ecords,11 (R evised, November, 1974), p. 1. 14 "Records" and "H e a rin g s ". The o n ly s a n c tio n s f o r e n fo rc e ­ ment o f th e la w (s ) c a lls f o r th e w ith h o ld in g o f Federal funds from such I n s t it u t io n s as f a ile d to fo llo w i t s and Amendment's) p ro v is io n s . (th e A c t's The A c t and Amendment placed th e burden o f in fo rm in g the parents o f t h e i r r ig h t s 1n t h is 34 area on th e e d u c a tio n a l I n s t it u t io n s . N a tio n a l Committee f o r C itiz e n s 1n E ducation: headquartered 1n Columbia. M aryland. M arburger. a parent-advocacy group Headed by C arl L. A s s is te d in the development o f a p p ro p ria te p ro ­ cedures f o r th e Department o f H e a lth , Education and W elfare to m o n ito r com pliance w ith th e Fam ily E ducational R igh ts and P riv a c y A c t. " S a tis fie d P a re n ts ": r a tin g s 1n response to th e fo u r q u e s tio n n a ire Items d e a lin g w ith p a re n t s a t is f a c t io n . S a tis fa c tio n : (Q: 10, 11, 12, 13). the degree to which an I n d iv id u a l's e x p e c ta tio n s are r e a liz e d . In t h is stu d y s a tis fa c t io n 1s assessed by the degree to which th e respondents p e rc e iv e s tu d e n t reco rd procedures in t h e i r school d i s t r i c t as they b e lie v e th ey should be, as compared to what they b e lie v e th e y a re . L im ita tio n s o f th e Study T h is study 1s e x p lo ra to ry in n a tu re . The s tu d y 's main p u r­ pose 1s to In v e s tig a te p a re n t a ttitu d e s and, 1 f d iffe re n c e s are found to e x is t , to I d e n t if y th e fa c to rs needing f u r t h e r research th a t appear to c o n tr ib u te to th e observed d iffe r e n c e s . Roger E. C ra ig , "F a m ily E ducational R ig h ts and P riv a c y A ct o f 1974: A T e n ta tiv e L o o k," M ichigan Personnel and Guidance N e w s le tte r, IX , No. 1, September, 1975, p. 1. 15 The study was planned and conducted under the fo llo w in g lim it a t io n s : (1) T his study Is lim ite d to an In v e s tig a tio n o f 383 ra n ­ domly se le cte d parents o f c h ild re n 1n th re e se le cte d K-12 Michigan school d i s t r i c t s . The c h ild re n were e n ro lle d 1n the th re e school d is t r i c t s as o f June, 1976. The 383 randomly se le cte d parents re p re ­ sent .0074% o f the to t a l stu d e n t p o p u la tio n 1n the th re e school d is t r ic ts . (2) The c o lle c tio n o f data was lim ite d to p a re n ts ' w r itte n responses on a q u e s tio n n a ire . (3) tile I t 1s recognized th a t a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s are v o la ­ and are s u b je c t to change. T his should be considered w ith in the time frame 1n which the q u e s tio n n a ire was a d m in iste re d . (4) T w en ty-six parents d id n o t complete the q u e s tio n n a ire . Whether the responses o f those tw e n ty -s ix non-respondents could have changed the r e s u lts o f t h is study 1s unknown. Summary The p riv a c y o f the In d iv id u a l has been the c e n tra l Issue in the co n tro v e rs y regarding the c o lle c tio n and use o f stu d e n t record In fo rm a tio n . L e g is la to rs have w r itte n le g is la t io n In te n d in g to guarantee the r ig h t o f p riv a c y as 1 t a p p lie s to stu d e n t record In fo rm a tio n . At the same tim e educators attem pted to m a in ta in a v ia b le stu d e n t record file . The cum ulative record fo ld e r o f stu de n t In fo rm a tio n 1s much more than an academic re c o rd , I t Is a human document. Both le g is la to r s and educators have aimed f o r balance between the p riv a c y o f the In d iv id u a l and th e p u b lic 's need to know. 16 In d iv id u a l parents have played an a c tiv e r o le 1n h ig h lig h t ­ in g In d iv id u a l cases o f a lle g e d s tu d e n t re c o rd abuse. Parents have s ta rte d c o u rt cases, a g g re s s iv e ly lo b b ie d f o r s ta te and fe d e ra l le g is ­ la t io n , and sponsored p a re n t advocacy groups searching f o r s o lu tio n s to the is s u e . The Fam ily E d u catio na l R ig h ts and P riv a c y A ct and the Buckley Amendment are th e products o f t h is a c t i v i t y . Throughout th e c o n f l i c t , p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s re g a rd in g th e Issue have n o t been s tu d ie d . The depth and degree o f p a re n t In te r e s t and concern appears to remain unknown. P a re n ts, how­ e v e r, appear to have been a t th e c e n te r o f the c o n tro v e rs y . O pinions o f w r ite r s in th e f i e l d su p p o rt the c o n te n tio n th a t th e Fam ily E ducational R ig h ts and P riv a c y A c t 1s n o t being con­ s is t e n t ly o r u n ifo rm ly e n fo rce d . They a ls o contend th a t th e Issue o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n 1s a w idening gap s e p a ra tin g p a re n ts and school o ffic ia ls . T h is study 1s an a tte m p t to p ro v id e data from parents r e ­ g ardin g t h e i r p e rc e p tio n s o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n and th e im portance they place on— th e c o n te n t o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s , access to stu d e n t re co rd In fo rm a tio n , th e m a in te n a n c e /s to rin g o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s , and how p aren ts want s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n handled 1n t h e i r own school d is ­ tr ic t. The problem o f t h is study has been presented and th e I1m1ta tlo n s o u tlin e d . T his stu d y p re sen ts research q u e stio n s fo c u s in g on fo u r are as: the c o n te n t o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s , access to s tu d e n t reco rd In fo rm a tio n , th e m a in te n a n c e /s to rin g o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s , and how the respondents want s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n to be handled 1n t h e i r own lo c a l school d i s t r i c t . 17 The l i t e r a t u r e re la te d to th e stu d y and th e h is t o r ic a l aspects o f th e Issue w i l l be reviewed In Chapter I I . Chapter I I I 1s a d is c u s s io n o f th e procedures and methods used 1n th e stu d y. Chapter IV , p a r t I , w i l l c o n ta in r e s u lts o f p a re n t responses on the q u e s tio n n a ire by school d i s t r i c t . Chapter IV , p a r t I I , w i l l c o n ta in the r e s u lts o f p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s re g a rd in g s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n 1n r e la t io n to c e r ta in th e o r e tic a l c o n s tru c ts and demo­ g ra p h ic d a ta . Chapter V presents a general summary o f fin d in g s , c o n c lu s io n s , and recommendations. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In tro d u c tio n A revie w o f th e l i t e r a t u r e f o r t h is stu dy re q u ire s a re vie w o f p re viou s research 1n p a re n t a ttitu d e s and s tu d e n t in fo rm a tio n . T his review o f th e l i t e r a t u r e w i l l p ro v id e a background f o r In fo rm a tio n to be c o lle c te d and analyzed in t h is stu d y. The most Im p o rta n t a r t ic le s o f l i t e r a t u r e which co n sid e r p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s and th e c o lle c tio n and use o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n have been surveyed. A thorough search o f the li t e r a t u r e f a ile d to lo c a te s im ila r s tu d ie s . The re s e a rc h e r was unable to lo c a te s tu d ie s o f th e e xact n a tu re o f th e p re s e n t s tu d y ; however, research s tu d ie s d e a lin g w ith c e rta in re le v a n t aspects o f t h is stu d y were lo c a te d and w i l l be r e ­ fe rre d to In t h is c h a p te r. The fo rm a t used f o r th e re vie w o f l i t e r a t u r e on s tu d e n t In ­ fo rm a tio n and p a re n t a ttitu d e s 1s the to p ic a l approach. H is to ry o f Student In fo rm a tio n The p riv a c y o f school reco rd s has developed as a c r u c ia l Issue 1n th e 20th c e n tu ry . Louis Brandeis c a lle d th e r ig h t to p riv a c y "th e most comprehensive o f r ig h t s and th e r ig h t most valued by c i v i li z e d man. " 1B ra n d e is, op. c l t . 18 19 Student reco rd-keeping began In n o c e n tly enough In New England 1n the 1820's. School o f f i c i a l s began keeping records o f e n ro llm e n ts and attendance re co rd s. As the s iz e o f the p o p u la tio n Increased, reco rd-keeping procedures a lso Increased. The n a tu ra l c e n tr a liz a tio n o f s c h o o lin g , and the In cre a s­ ing m o b ility o f s o c ie ty , added to the causes o f the expansive growth o f the stu d e n t re c o rd . The need o f educators to know, and encourage­ ment from agencies and o rg a n iz a tio n s o u ts id e the school s e ttin g con­ tr ib u te d to the growth o f the school record-keeping process. In 1925 th e N a tio n a l Education A s s o c ia tio n recommended th a t e xte n s iv e h e a lth , guidance, and p sych o lo g ica l data a ls o be malnta ln e d f o r each p u p il. In 1941 the American Council o f Education Introduced a stu d e n t record form th a t d ire c te d more a tte n tio n to b eh avioral d e s c rip tio n s and e v a lu a tio n and le ss to o th e r data lik e 4 grades and s u b je c ts . In the 1950's and e a r ly 1960's a v a r ie ty o f o th e r sp e cia l In te r e s t o r g a n iz a tio n s - - !.e . co u n se lo rs, p r in c ip a ls , school psycholo­ g is t s , school s o c ia l w orkers— a l l made s u b s ta n tia l a d d itio n s to the co n te n t o f the stu de n t re c o rd . As la te as 1960 the U.S. O ffic e o f Education lis t e d e ig h t m ajor c la s s ific a tio n s o f In fo rm a tio n to be 1n5 eluded 1n stu d e n t re co rd s. Diane D lvoky, "C um ulative Records: A s s a u lt on P riv a c y ," L e a rn in g . September, 1973, p. 18. 3Ib 1 d ., p. 18. 4 D lvoky, op. c l t . , p. 19. 5 D lvoky, op . d t . . p. 19. 20 By 1964 th e sta nd a rd , w idely-used Michigan Student Record F ile , f o r example, was e x te n s iv e . The f i l e included:® Necessary Enclosures: (1 ) Elementary In s e r t (CA-60A) (2 ) Secondary In s e r t (CA-60B) (3 ) H ealth In s e r t (CA-60C) O ptional E nclosures: (1 ) Reading In s e r t (CA-60D) (2 ) S pecial Help - such as Guidance C lin ic s , Remedial w ork, Special E ducation, S ocial Ad­ ju s tm e n t, Parent-Teacher Conferences. (3) Test T a b u la tio n Sheets (4 ) Records: (a) anecdotal (b) In h e r ita b le tendencies (c ) neighborhood environment (d) where reared: (e) p a re n ts ' preference o f occupation f o r stu de n t (f) a ssocia tes (9) sociograms 9), p. 1(54. 38 39 the Bay C ity P u b lic Schools, and the F l in t Community Schools. A ll school d i s t r i c t s are members o f the M iddle C itie s Education A s s o c ia tio n (MCEA). MCEA 1s an o rg a n iz a tio n o f school d i s t r i c t s formed to c o n fro n t common problems. The researcher v is ite d the superintendents o f each school d i s t r i c t to -evle w the proposed research and secure co op era tion and to arrange f o r the c o lle c tio n o f the sample. In two d i s t r i c t s the sample was drawn by a computer (Ann A rb o r, Bay C it y ) ; 1n the t h ir d school d i s t r i c t ( F lin t ) the sample was drawn by an o b je c tiv e t h ir d p a rty . The three school d i s t r i c t s are d is t i n c t l y d if f e r e n t . These th re e school d i s t r i c t s were se le cte d because o f I d e n tifie d d iffe re n c e s th a t In c lu d e : (a) r a c ia l and e th n ic com position o f the d i s t r i c t s , (b) geographic lo c a tio n around the s ta te , (c ) p o p u la tio n /a re a d iffe re n c e s , (d) In flu e n c e o f h ig h e r ed I n s t it u t io n s 1n the area, and (e) amount o f lo c a l, s ta te , and fe d e ra l fin a n c ia l su pp ort. S e le c tio n o f these th re e p a r tic ip a tin g d i s t r i c t s was done w ith th e con­ s u lta tio n and cooperation o f Dr. C. Robert Muth, E xecutive D ir e c to r , M iddle C itie s Education A s s o c ia tio n . A b r i e f scenario o f each d i s t r i c t 1s Included here. 40 The F l i n t Community Schools 3 The Community The c e n te r o f Genesee County, F l i n t a ls o 1s s t r a t e g ic a lly lo ca te d 1n th e h e a rt o f one o f th e n a tio n 's g re a te s t In d u s tr ia l c o r r id o r s , s tr e tc h in g westward from New York s ta te to Chicago. Its southeastern M ichigan lo c a tio n , 70 m ile s n orth w e st o f D e t r o it , is one o f the fa s te s t growing and most populous re g io n s 1n th e s ta te . In terms o f economic Im portance, F l i n t and Genesee County serve as a m ajor w o rld In d u s tr ia l complex, w ith many re s id e n ts employed as p ro ­ fe s s io n a l, s k ille d and s e m i- s k ille d w orkers 1n th e numerous In d u s tr ia l p la n ts 1n th e area. The p u b lic schools serve a c i t y p o p u la tio n o f 193,000 re s id e n ts re s id in g 1n an area c o v e rin g more than 30 square m ile s . N early 500,000 people re s id e 1n the F l i n t m e tro p o lita n area com pris­ ing most o f Genesee County, and the c i t y ' s r e t a i l tra d e area extends to a p o p u la tio n o f more than a m illio n persons. A r a c i a ll y mixed community, F l i n t Is made up o f a p p ro xim a te ly 70 p e rce n t Caucasian and 30 p ercen t Negro re s id e n ts . P r im a r ily a m ix tu re o f w h ite and b lu e c o lla r w o rke rs, F l i n t re s id e n ts e n jo y a h ig h e r than average standard o f l i v i n g . More than 70 p ercen t o f F l i n t d w e llin g s are s in g le - fa m ily houses, w ith a m a jo rity o f F l i n t households being homeowners. I n s t it u t io n s o f h ig h e r le a rn in g ^The F l i n t Community Schools { F l i n t , M ichigan: O ffic e o f the Superl n te n d e n t, 1 9 % ). 41 In c lu d e C harles S tew art M ott Community C o lle g e , th e F l i n t C ollege o f the U n iv e r s ity o f M ich ig a n , General M otors I n s t it u t e and Baker Business U n iv e r s ity . The c i t y 1s a ls o th e home o f th e M ichigan School f o r the D eaf, and a unique c u lt u r a l c e n te r composed o f seven d i s t i n c t l y d if f e r e n t f a c i l i t i e s life . th a t e n ric h th e c i t y ' s e d u ca tio n a l and c u lt u r a l A f u l l complement o f c i t y and county parks and f a c i l i t i e s , 1n a d d itio n to o p p o rtu n itie s provided by th e s c h o o ls , o ffe r s e xte n s iv e re c re a tio n a l advantages. The In d u s tr ia l Mutual A s s o c ia tio n , e sta b ­ lis h e d as a benevolent a s s o c ia tio n o f f a c t o r ie s , a ls o p ro vide s a w ealth o f f a c i l i t i e s and s e rv ic e s — e d u c a tio n , r e c r e a tio n a l, s o c ia l and c i v i c — f o r th e enjoyment and w e ll-b e in g o f th e c i t y ' s populace. S ocial and h e a lth s e rv ic e s and f a c i l i t i e s — In c lu d in g s ix h o s p ita ls — a ls o a re o u ts ta n d in g . F a c ilitie s The F l i n t Community Schools serve a k in d e rg a rte n through tw e lfth grade s tu d e n t e n ro llm e n t o f more than 39,000 1n an e d u ca tio n a l p la n t th a t In clu d e s more than 60 permanent b u ild in g s — as w e ll as 170 p rim a ry and m obile u n it s — a l l valued 1n excess o f $155 m illio n . In the p ast 25 y e a rs , 30 new schools have been c o n s tru c te d , 19 e x is tin g schools have re c e iv e d a d d itio n s , and most o f th e o th e r f a c i l i t i e s have been m odernized. The F l i n t Board o f Education a ls o operates a p u b lic l i b r a r y system, F l i n t ' s C olleg e and C u ltu ra l Development, and a p u b lic ra d io s ta tio n . Two m ajor b u ild in g p ro je c ts are underway. In c lu d in g a $3.5 m illio n m o d e rn iza tio n p r o je c t and a d d itio n to C e n tra l High 42 School and a $1.5 m illio n elem entary school re p la c in g the 6 4 -y e a r-o ld D ort b u ild in g . From 1953 u n t i l 1974, c o n s tru c tio n o f new f a c i l i t i e s was funded on a "p ay-as-you-go" b a s is , saving F l in t taxpayers m illio n s o f d o lla r s 1n in t e r e s t payments. However, the re c e n t s p ir a llin g In ­ f la t io n has made i t more economical to change to a bonding plan and borrow funds f o r immediate c o n s tru c tio n . The C entral and D o rt pro­ je c ts are p a rt o f a bonding proposal o f $7 m illio n to be re p a id 1n f iv e years ending 1n 1980. Students Of th e 39,000 students e n ro lle d in k in d e rg a rte n through tw e lfth grade c la s s e s , 22,000 are elem entary school y o u n g s te rs , 9,000 are ju n io r high school age and 8,000 a tte n d s e n io r high sc h o o l. A ddi­ t io n a lly , 600 youngsters are e n ro lle d 1n preschool programs on a re g u la r b a s is , and 5,500 a d u lts are e n ro lle d 1n a d u lt high school cla sse s. R a c ia lly , Caucasian and Black students are n e a rly equal 1n numbers, each making up a pp ro xim a te ly 49 percent o f th e stu d e n t popu­ la t io n . Students o f Spanish-Am erican, In d ia n and O rie n ta l h e rita g e , to g e th e r, account f o r most o th e r e th n ic groups served by th e sch oo ls. Class size s average about 28 p u p ils per c la s s a t the elem entary le v e l, 29 p u p ils per c la s s a t th e ju n io r high le v e l, and 30 students a t the se n io r high le v e l (based on th e Fourth F rid a y Count, September, 1974). The r a t io o f a d u lt s t a f f having a d ir e c t e f f e c t on In s tr u c tio n — in c lu d in g sp e cia l te a c h e rs , s t a f f s p e c ia lis ts , o th e r p ro fe s s io n a l personnel and teacher a id e s— averages about one a d u lt f o r every 19 s tu d e n ts . 43 S ta ff Governed by a nine-member Board o f Education e le c te d a t la rg e , th e F l i n t school system 1s Genesee C ou n ty's n e xt to la r g e s t em ployer, second o n ly to th e f a c i l i t i e s o f th e General M otors Corpora­ tio n . T o t a lly , 3,750 In d iv id u a ls are employed by the schools on a re g u la r f u l l and p a r t- tim e b a s is , e x c lu s iv e o f s u b s titu te h e lp . Of th is number 1,950 are classroom teachers and o th e r p ro fe s s io n a l In ­ s tr u c tio n a l p e rs o n n e l, and 200 are a d m in is tra to rs and c e n tra l s u p p o rtiv e s ta ff. A ls o , th e d i s t r i c t employs 437 p a ra p ro fe s s lo n a l classroom a id e s , 678 m aintenance, o p e ra tio n a l and c le r ic a l employees, and 137 food s e rv ic e w o rke rs. The p ro fe s s io n a l s t a f f com position is 70 p e rce n t Caucasian, 29 p e rce n t Negro and le s s than one p e rce n t o f o th e r e th n ic groups. In terms o f te a c h e rs ' s a la r ie s , th e F l i n t schools compare fa v o ra b ly w ith Bay C ity and Ann A rb o r. Based on both e du catio n and number o f ye ars o f e x p e rie n c e , F l i n t teachers are w e ll q u a lif ie d , w ith 915 h o ld in g a m a s te r's degree o r more advanced e d u c a tio n a l t r a in in g . The average F l i n t te a ch e r has been 1n th e p ro fe s s io n more than 11 y e a rs , and s t a f f tu rn o v e r 1s le s s than f iv e p e rce n t a n n u a lly . Sources o f Funds For o p e ra tio n o f the schools and th e p u b lic l i b r a r y system, more than $33 m il l i o n , o r 60 p e rc e n t, o f th e $60 m illio n re q u ire d 1n 1974-75 came from lo c a l ta x e s . More than $32 m illio n o f th e lo c a l ta x su pp ort was f o r o p e ra tio n o f th e schools and about $1.4 m illio n 44 f o r o p e ra tio n o f the F l i n t P u b lic L ib r a r y . About 30 p e rce n t— $17.8 m illio n — o f the fu nding came from s ta te a id and g ra n ts ; and fe d e ra l money— $5 m illio n — represented a p p ro xim a te ly nine p e rce n t. W ith in a to ta l budget o f some $68.7 m illio n , about $2.8 m illio n was f o r m oderni­ z a tio n and r e p a ir , and $2.1 m in io n f o r o p e ra tio n o f a u x ilia r y s e rv ic e s . In c lu d in g o p e ra tio n o f the Genesee Area S k i l l Center and F l i n t 's c u ltu r a l c e n te r. I t should be noted th a t a l l 21 school d i s t r i c t s 1n Genesee County p ro vid e ta x funds f o r o p e ra tio n o f the s k i l l ce n te r and th a t p riv a te funds are used f o r o p e ra tio n o f the c u lt u r a l c e n te r. A d d itio n a lly , $4.7 m illio n 1n g ra n ts from the M ott Foundation fund Community Education programs 1n the school system, In c lu d in g a number o f enrichm ent o p p o rtu n itie s and experim ental p ro je c ts . The Bay C ity P u b lic Schools4 The Community The Bay C ity P u b lic Schools In clu d e two In co rp o ra te d c i t i e s and two u nin corporated v illa g e s . Bay C ity proper 1s s p l i t by the Saginaw R iv e r, making a n a tu ra l r iv a l r y w ith in the c i t y . The r e lig io u s a f f i l i a t i o n s are predom inantly Roman C a th o lic (55%)• p r im a r ily P o lis h , I r is h , and French. There 1s a ls o a la rg e Lutheran p o p u la tio n , g e n e ra lly o f German e x tr a c tio n . w id e ly d isp e rse d . The Black and H ispanic communities are both There 1s a s u b s ta n tia l Jewish p o p u la tio n . The Bay C ity P u b lic Schools (Bay C ity , M ichigan: O ffic e o f the S u p erinte n de nt, 1976). 45 The geographic area is la r g e ly r u r a l and suburban. The c it ie s and v illa g e s make up less than 10 percent o f the to t a l area. Farming is s t i l l a fa c to r in the a re a , w ith emphasis on cash crops— sugar, b e e ts, c o rn , p o ta to e s, and beans. Bay C ity 1s a c e n te r f o r w h o le sa lin g — hardware, auto p a r ts , e le c t r ic a l s u p p lie s —w ith auto p a rts m a n u fa ctu rin g , s h ip b u ild in g , machinery m a n u fa ctu rin g , and sugar processing as m ajor In d u s tr ia l e n te rp ris e s . There 1s a growing fo u r-y e a r d e g re e -g ra n tin g S tate supported c o lle g e , and a tw o-year community c o lle g e 1n the area. The p o p u la tio n is la b o r u n io n -o rie n te d , Democratic p a rty dominated, and p ro v in c ia l 1n o u tlo o k . There are many in th e work fo rc e who tr a v e l to Midland (Dow C hem ical), Saginaw (auto p la n ts ) , and F l in t (auto p la n ts ). The community supports a l i t t l e th e a te r group, a lo c a l a r t g a lle r y , a county museum, a community c e n te r and swimming p o o l, two separate l i b r a r i e s , th re e separate h o s p ita ls , movie houses, and several churches. The Downtown Bay C ity , In c . has a c tiv e ly worked to preserve the commercial downtown c e n te r. The Bay C ity P u b lic School D i s t r i c t has a $20 m illio n budget. The school d i s t r i c t co nta ins over 250 square m ile s . I t extends as f a r east as Tuscola County and as f a r south as the Saginaw County lin e . There are a few p a rce ls o f land w ith in Saginaw County I t s e l f . t r i c t extends as f a r west as the Midland County o f the low er h a lf o f Bay County. lin e The d is ­ andIncludes most 46 F a c ilit ie s and S ta ff The School D i s t r i c t operates and m aintains over 30 separate b u ild in g s w ith a to t a l c a p ita l Investm ent estim ated to be 1n excess o f $50 m illio n . The D i s t r i c t operates a f le e t o f 57 buses w ith a c a p ita l Investm ent clo se to $500,000. c h ild re n d a lly . T his f l e e t tra n s p o rts 6,000 Not o n ly are the p u b lic schools served by th is f a c i l i t y , but a lso 27 p a ro c h ia l schools. The d i s t r i c t Is governed by a Board o f Education. The Board Is p o p u la rly e le c te d and 1s an extension o f the educational arm o f the s ta te . I t s members are e le c te d on a r o ta tin g b a s is , w ith o u t pay, fo r a p e rio d o f fo u r ye ars. The Bay C ity P u b lic School D i s t r i c t has grown to the p o in t where 1 t now employs approxim ately 1,100 In d iv id u a ls . d i s t r i c t one o f the key employers 1n the area. T his makes the These employees re tu rn 1n excess o f $15 m illio n In w a g e s/sa la rie s back In to the lo c a l economy. The m a jo rity o f them are homeownlng, taxpaying re s id e n ts o f the community. Sources o f Funds Sources o f funds f o r the school d i s t r i c t are as fo llo w s : Local taxes ■ $9,608,274 S ta te /F e d e ra l funds * $9,294,383 The 1976 ta x ra te : 25.0 m ills (general school fund) 4.85 m ills (debt s e rv ic e ) 47 Students There are 85,000 people li v in g in th e school d i s t r i c t . The 1976 school census shows a p p ro x im a te ly 30,000 persons under age 20 ye a rs. A p p ro xim a te ly 17,500 o f these young people a tte n d p u b lic schools and a no th er 5,500 a tte n d p a ro c h ia l schools w ith in th e d i s t r i c t . The s tu d e n t p o p u la tio n 1s o ver 91 p e rce n t w h ite . The r e ­ mainder In c lu d e s a p p ro x im a te ly 4 .5 p e rce n t Spanish surnamed, 2 p e rce n t American In d ia n , and 2 p e rce n t B la ck. These percentages approxim ate the p o p u la tio n in g e n e ra l. The Ann A rb o r P u b lic Schools 5 The Community Ann A rb o r, a p p ro x im a te ly 35 m ile s from th e c e n te r o f D e t r o it , 1s p a rt o f a la rg e and v a rie d geographic re g io n which 1s one o f the most r a p id ly u rb a n iz in g areas 1n th e n a tio n . The c i t y 1s surrounded by a netw ork o f highways co nnecting 1 t w ith o th e r c e n te rs and c o n t r i­ b u tin g to I t s grow th. I t is the county se at o f Washtenaw County and the business c e n te r o f a lo n g -e s ta b lis h e d , prosperous fa rm ing com­ m un ity. The U n iv e r s ity o f M ichigan moved to Ann A rb or 1n 1837. It has grown to be one o f th e la r g e s t u n iv e r s itie s 1n th e n a tio n , and I t s stu d e n t body accounts f o r a p p ro x im a te ly o n e -th ir d o f Ann A rb o r's ^The Ann A rbor P u b lic Schools (Ann A rb o r, M ichigan: O ffic e o f the S u p e rin te n d e n t, 1$7<>). 48 p o p u la tio n . Since 1945 government and p riv a te research la b o ra to rie s and l i g h t in d u s try have lo ca te d in the a re a , le a d in g to the designa­ tio n o f Ann Arbor as the "Research Center o f the M idw est." The p r o f ile o f the community served by the Ann Arbor P u b lic Schools r e f le c t s a p o p u la tio n whose c h a ra c te r has been shaped by i t s la rg e s t In d u s try , e d u ca tio n . The p o p u la tio n is young, w e ll educated, cosm opolitan, r e la t iv e ly a f f lu e n t — and growing. The p o p u la tio n o f the Ann A rbor area increased s u b s ta n tia lly d u rin g the s ix t ie s . Washtenaw County, west o f D e t r o it, grew from 172,440 persons In 1960 to 234,103 in 1970, a gain o f 35 p e rce n t. The c i t y o f Ann A rbor grew even more r a p id ly , 99,797 in 1970, a gain o f 47 p ercen t. from 67,340 in 1960 to The Ann A rbor school d i s t r i c t encompasses a 114-square-m ile a re a , f iv e tim es the s iz e o f the co rp o ra te lim it s o f Ann A rbor. The school d i s t r i c t p o p u la tio n in 1970 was 115,216. Between 1960 and 1970 the number o f Arbor P u b lic Schools increased by 67 p e rc e n t, students in the Ann from 12,118 to 20,152. Some o f the growth was due to changes in the d i s t r i c t ' s boundaries, but most was the r e s u lt o f expansion o f the p o p u la tio n w ith in the general area. Between 1971 and 1974 th e re was a s lig h t decrease in the number o f s tu d e n ts . In 1973-74 students numbered 19,201, a de­ c lin e o f 951, o r 4.7 p e rc e n t, from the peak ye ar o f 1970-71. The more than 30,000 students a t th e U-M c o n s titu te over o n e -fo u rth o f the school d i s t r i c t ' s p o p u la tio n . The r e la t iv e ly young 49 age o f th e p o p u la tio n is e v id e n t from 1970 s t a t i s t i c s w hich show th e median ages o f re s id e n ts o f Ann A rb o r to be 20-24 ; o f Washtenaw C ounty, 2 5 -3 4 ; and o f M ic h ig a n , 25-44. Ann A rb o r c it iz e n s a t t a in a h ig h e r le v e l o f e d u c a tio n than those in th e s ta te as a w ho le. In 1970 th e median number o f school ye a rs com pleted by Ann A rb o r r e s id e n ts o ve r th e age o f 25 was 1 5 .4 ; th e comparable f ig u r e f o r th e s ta te o f M ichigan was 1 2 .1 . W hile 82.9 p e rc e n t o f Ann A rb o r r e s id e n ts o ve r 25 were h ig h school g ra d u a te s , o n ly 52.8 p e rc e n t o f th o se o ve r 25 in th e s ta te had com pleted h ig h s c h o o l. A t th e tim e o f th e 1970 census, n e a rly o n e - th ir d o f th e 47,699 employed r e s id e n ts o f th e school d i s t r i c t worked in e d u c a tio n a l s e rv ic e s . The second la r g e s t group was employed in m a n u fa c tu rin g , b u t numbered fe w e r th an h a lf as many as th ose in e d u c a tio n . S ta ff There a re a p p ro x im a te ly 880 classroom te a ch e rs in th e d is ­ t r i c t , 91 p e rc e n t w ith te n u re . The average percentage o f te a ch e rs le a v in g th e d i s t r i c t is 8 .5 p e rc e n t. A p p ro x im a te ly 35 p e rc e n t are men, 65 p e rc e n t women; 88 p e rc e n t w h ite , 12 p e rc e n t n o n -w h ite ; 69 p e r­ c e n t have MA o r MA+ (17 te a c h e rs have Ph.D. d e g re e s ). Sources o f Funds Local p ro p e rty ta x : S ta te fu nd s : County fu nd s : F ederal funds : O th e r : 90.6 % 5.29% 1.24% .38% 2.13% (o r) (o r) (o r) (o r) (o r) $23,994,783 $ 1,395,311 $ 328,315 $ 100,000 $ 560,311 50 Students There are 121*216 people l i v in g in th e school d i s t r i c t . A p p ro xim a te ly 19*201 young people a tte n d th e p u b lic sch oo ls. The s tu d e n t p o p u la tio n is a p p ro xim a te ly 85.2 p e rce n t w h ite . The rem ainder in c lu d e s a p p ro x im a te ly 1.18 p e rce n t Spanish surnamed* 1.63 p e rce n t o r ie n t a l, 11.78 percen t b la c k . These percentages approxim ate the p o p u la tio n in g e n e ra l. Class s iz e approxim ates 26.46 s tu d e n ts . F a c ilI t ie s F a c i l i t i e s in c lu d e more than 41 permanent b u ild in g s valued in excess o f $205 m illio n . In th e past 25 ye a rs * 26 new schools have been c o n s tru c te d . The Ann A rbor Board o f Education is a ls o th e governing body o f th e Ann A rb or P u b lic L ib r a r y , the In s tr u c tio n a l M a te ria ls C e n te r, and a cable te le v is io n s ta tio n . The Survey P o p u la tio n and Sample The P o p u la tio n The Ann A rb o r, Bay C it y , and F l i n t school d i s t r i c t s provided th e respondents f o r t h is s tu d y . The p o p u la tio n c o n s is ts o f 51,000 stu de n ts e n ro lle d in the th re e school d i s t r i c t s as o f June, 1976. 51 The Sample The sample s iz e was determ ined by u t i l i z i n g a m od ified form ula developed by the Research D iv is io n o f th e N ational Educa­ tio n a l A s s o c ia tio n .6 The form ula is : s = X2 NP (1-P ) v d2 [ ( N - l ) + X2p (1 -P )] where: s = re q u ire d sample s iz e based upon the number in the p o p u la tio n 2 X = the ta b le value o f ch i-s q u a re from one degree o f freedom a t th e d e sire d confidence le v e l (3.841) N = the p o p u la tio n s iz e p = the p o p u la tio n p ro p o rtio n (assumed to be .50 since t h is would p ro vide the maximum sample s iz e ) d = the degree o f accuracy ( .0 5 ) . expressed as a p ro p o rtio n This form ula was a p p lie d to the p o p u la tio n o f 51,000 students in the th re e d i s t r i c t s . The small sample s iz e was computed to be 410 s tu d e n ts .^ The parents o f 810 students were randomly se le cte d from school e n ro llm e n t l i s t s as o f June, 1976. was employed to o b ta in the sample. A random s e le c tio n procedure A ta b le o f random numbers was 6Nat1onal Education A s s o c ia tio n , "Small Sample Techniques," The NEA Research B u lle t in , V o l. 38, (December, 1960), p. 99. ^W1th a ssista n ce o f th e O ffic e o f Research, E rickson H a ll, M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity . Q u t iliz e d f o r t h is purpose. A t th e suggestion o f the d o c to ra l guidance committee c h a irp e rs o n , a g re a te r number o f stu de n ts were s e le c te d (810) than th a t re q u ire d by th e sample (4 1 0 ). From the t o t a l p o p u la tio n (51,000) 810 random respondents were randomly s e le c te d from E lem entary, J u n io r H igh, and S e nior High School e n ro llm e n ts , as shown 1n ta b le s 1, 2 , and 3. Table 1. The Number o f Students 1n th e Ann A rb o r P u b lic Schools S elected f o r the Sample. B u ild ln g Level T o ta l No. o f Schools No. o f Students S elected No. o f Bu1Idlngs Drawn* No. o f Students From Each B u ild in g T o ta ls S e nior High School 5 90 5 x 18 90 J u n io r High School 5 90 2 x 45 90 26 90 5 x 18 90 Elem entary School 1« o | aBu1ld1ngs randomly s e le c te d . M a lc o lm J . S la k te r , S t a t is t ic a l In fe re n c e f o r E ducational Researchers (Reading: Addison-W esley, 1972), p. 466. 53 Table 2. The Number o f Students 1n th e Bay C ity P u b lic Schools S elected f o r th e Sample. T o ta l No. o f Schools B u ild in g Level No. o f Students Selected No. o f B u ild in g s Drawn No. o f Students From Each B u ild in g T o ta ls S e n io r High School 3 90 3 X 30 90 J u n io r High School 5 90 2 X 45 90 26 90 5 X 18 90 Elementary School 1 270 | Table 3. The Number o f Students 1n the F l i n t Community Schools S e lected f o r th e Sample. B u ild in g Level T o ta l No. o f Schools No. o f Students S elected No. o f B u ild in g s Drawn No. o f Students From Each B u ild in g T o ta ls S enior High School 4 92 4 X 23 92 J u n io r High School 8 90 4 X 22 88 41 90 5 X 18 90 Elem entary School 1 270 | 54 I t was determined a t th e beginning o f the sampling procedure th a t the f in a l se le cte d sample would be a random, s t r a t if ie d sample across a l l grades from K-12. I t was d e s ire d th a t the sample be re p re g s e n ta tlv e o f the e n ro llm e n ts in each d i s t r i c t and 1n a l l grades. In summary, a sample s iz e o f approxim ately 410 was c a lc u la te d using a form ula developed by the N ational Education A s s o c ia tio n Research D iv is io n . Twenty-seven q u e s tio n n a ire s were n ot re tu rn e d ; th e re fo re , 383 respondents make up the sample f o r th is stu dy. Development o f the Instrum ent A q u e s tio n n a ire was se le cte d as th e v e h ic le to be used to gather data f o r assessing parent a ttitu d e s regarding the c o lle c tio n and use o f stu d e n t in fo rm a tio n . The q u e s tio n n a ire f o r t h is study meeds the fo llo w in g c r i t e r i a : (1) the questions are e a s ily understood and e a s ily answerable (2) the questions are a p p ro p ria te f o r parents (3) the data can be obtained in a usable form th a t can be e f f i c i e n t l y evaluated and ta b u la te d (4) th e q u e s tio n n a ire provides the data necessary fo r the in v e s tig a tio n . The q u e s tio n n a ire was developed s p e c if ic a lly f o r th is stu d y. The q u e s tio n n a ire was developed by: co n s id e rin g the purpose o f the ^ L e s lie K ish , Survey Sampling (New York: J . W ile y, 1965), p. 218. 55 s tu d y ; by d e c id in g what In fo rm a tio n would p ro v id e th e data re q u ire d f o r a ccu ra te a n a ly s is o f p a re n t a ttitu d e s toward the c o lle c t io n and use o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n ; by a s e rie s o f m eetings w ith th e Execu­ t iv e Board o f th e Genesee Area Personnel and Guidance A s s o c ia tio n ( F l i n t ) ; and by d is c u s s io n s w ith Dr. Raymond Hatch* chairman o f the d o c to ra l guidance com m ittee; by a p i l o t s tu d y ; and by re v ie w in g Chapter Two o f M arvin E. Shaw ^ and Jack M. W rig h t's Scales f o r the Measurement o f A ttitu d e s "Methods o f Scale C o n s tru c tio n ." A ls o , q u e stio n s s u c c e s s fu lly used in o th e r s tu d ie s were examined. There were fo u r m ajor Issues considered in th e q u e s tio n ­ n a ir e 's c o n s tru c tio n . They a re p re v io u s ly s ta te d as research q u e stio n s th a t focus on how paren ts view : (a ) th e h a n d lin g o f c o n fid e n tia l In ­ fo rm a tio n In t h e i r own lo c a l school d i s t r i c t s , (2 ) a c c e s s ib ilit y o f stu d e n t re c o rd s , (c ) c o n te n t o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s , (d ) s to rin g /m a in te n a n c* o f stu d e n t re c o rd s . Upon co m p letio n o f th e i n i t i a l q u e s tio n n a ire the in s tru m e n t was p ilo te d w ith a group o f s e v e n ty -e ig h t (78) parents f o r purposes o f v a lid a t io n . The p i l o t stu d y was conducted in May, 1976, s ix t y days b efo re th e f i n a l research packet was m ailed to th e random ly s e le c te d p a re n ts. C o n d itio n s o f th e p i l o t stu d y approxim ated th e f i n a l s tu d y . The p i l o t s tu d y 's purpose was to a s s is t 1n d e te rm in in g w hether th e In ­ strum ent would produce the necessary d a ta . Adequate space was a llo te d on th e p i l o t q u e s tio n n a ire f o r comments, c r it ic is m s , and general r e ­ a c tio n s . ^°Marv1n E. Shaw and Jack M. W rig h t, Scales f o r th e Measure­ ment o f A ttitu d e s (New Y ork: M c G ra w -H ill, 1967), p. i%. 56 S ixteen re v is io n s were made In the In s tru m e n t, and th re e 1n the co n te n t o f the cover l e t t e r based on the re a c tio n s o f th e p i l o t group. The q u e s tio n n a ire , as adm inistered to the p a re n ts , and in I t s f in a l form , 1s Included 1n Appendix B. The q u e s tio n n a ire co n ta in s th ir ty - o n e (31) ite m s. th re e s e c tio n s to the in s tru m e n t. There are S ection I c o n ta in s nine (9) Items d e a lin g w ith demographic data. S ection I I has s ix te e n (16) items d e a lin g e x c lu s iv e ly w ith the respondents1 a ttltu d e ( s ) regarding the c o lle c tio n and use o f student in fo rm a tio n . In Section I I respondents were d ire c te d to place an "X" In one o f f iv e c a te g o rie s p ro vide d: (1) s tro n g ly agree; (2) agree; (3) undecided; (4) d is a g re e ; (5) s tro n g ly d isa g re e . Items 1n Section I I concentrated on the c o lle c tio n and use c f stu d e n t inform a ­ tio n . S ection I I I co nta ins f iv e (5) Items d e a lin g w ith : (a) how th e y , as p a re n ts , have been inform ed o f the stu d e n t record-keeping procedures In t h e ir school d i s t r i c t ; (b) the degree o f s ig n ific a n c e they place on m a te ria l kept in stu de n t record f i l e s ; (c ) the respondents' d e te rm in a tio n o f who should be the f in a l a u th o r ity 1n d e a lin g w ith student re co rd s. Items in S ection I I I are framed w ith in the c o n te x t o f the c u r r e n tly w id e ly used and accepted CA-60 stu d e n t record f i l e . T hu rston e 's judgmental procedure o f sca le c o n s tru c tio n was used In s e le c tin g Items f o r Section I I . (1) Procedures employed In clud ed : a la rg e number o f Items d e a lin g w ith th e o b je c t o f the a t t it u d e were fo rm ulated 57 (2 ) the Item s were s o rte d 1n eleven (11) d if f e r e n t c a te g o rie s which appeared to be e q u a lly spaced 1n terms o f th e degree to which agreement w ith the Items r e fle c te d the u n d e rly in g a t t it u d e (3) the c a te g o rie s were numbered 1 to 11, and a sca le was computed f o r each Ite m , taken as th e median o f th e p o s itio n given th e Item (4) the I n t e r q u a r t ile range, o r Q v a lu e , was computed as a measure o f judgm ental v a r i a b i l i t y , item s f o r which th e re was disagreem ent were re je c te d (5 ) a sm all number o f Items f o r th e f in a l sca le were s e le c te d as th e y spread e ven ly along th e a t t it u d e continuum . Q u e stio n n a ire A d m in is tra tio n A q u e s tio n n a ire was se nt to th e parents (respondents) o f 816 randomly s e le c te d s tu d e n ts . Each p a r tic ip a tin g school d i s t r i c t was asked to p ro v id e a 11st o f ten (10) a d d itio n a l randomly drawn names to be used 1n case o f d u p lic a tio n . P a re n ts ' names were used once, re g a rd le s s o f th e number o f c h ild re n in sch o o l. A cover l e t t e r accompanied the q u e s tio n n a ire (see Appendix B) b r i e f l y o u t lin in g th e purpose o f th e study and g uaranteeing the re s ­ pondents' anonym lth. Parents were asked to complete and re tu rn an en­ c lo s e d , stamped postca rd In d ic a tin g th a t th e y would com plete the q u e s tio n n a ire (Appendix B). a c tiv it ie s . T h is procedure f a c i l i t a t e d the fo llo w -u p 58 Two fo llo w -u p s o f non-respondents were conducted. A personal message, h an dw ritte n and signed by the re s e a rc h e r, accompanied the f i r s t fo llo w -u p packet. Data Processing Data from the q u e s tio n n a ire s were tra n s fe rre d to machine scored answer sheets. The answer sheets were processed and the data tra n s fe rre d to data cards f o r a n a ly s is by computer. Data A n a lysis The means o f data a n a ly s is in th is study was a comparison o f p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s in th re e se le cte d Michigan school d is tr ic ts - - A n n A rb o r, Bay C ity , and F lin t . The respondent is used as the u n it o f a n a ly s is and the prim ary u n it o f in te r e s t. The respondents were randomly se le cte d from a s t r a t if ie d p o p u la tio n . The d e s c rip tiv e s t a t is t ic s (mean, percentage, standard d e via ­ t io n , v a ria n c e , ra n k in g ) were used in th is study to summarize and d escribe the research data. The Z -te s t was used to e stim a te the ranges o f scores which rep re se nt th e respondents' a ttitu d e s . One way a n a ly s is o f va ria nce was used to te s t s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e s in the th re e school d i s t r i c t s . Tables re p o rtin g the a n a ly­ s is o f va ria nce are included in the appendices. Post hoc p a ir-w is e comparison was used to s p e c ify the d iffe re n c e s between any two d i s t r i c t s . 59 To summarize, tra n s fo rm and analyze th e d a ta , th e S t a t i s t i ­ cal Package f o r th e S o c ia l Sciences (SPSS) was used. Data were run on the CDC 6500 computer a t the M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity Computer C enter. Summary T h is ch a p te r c o n ta in s th e methodology used 1n t h is stu d y. The ch a p te r d iscu sse d : data c o lle c t io n , development o f the c o lle c tio n in s tru m e n t, a d m in is tra tio n o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire , data p ro c e s s in g , and data a n a ly s is . Each was discussed in terms o f what was needed as a s e t o f procedures f o r a n a ly z in g and s y n th e s iz in g th e o b s e rv a tio n s in to a number o f r e la tio n s h ip s th a t can serve as a b a sis f o r f u r t h e r study and o b s e rv a tio n . Data were c o lle c te d by a d m in is te rin g q u e s tio n n a ire s to parents o f stu de n ts e n ro lle d as o f June, 1976 in th re e s e le c te d K-12 M ichigan school d i s t r i c t s . The p o p u la tio n was composed o f a p p ro x im a te ly 51,000 s tu d e n ts . A sample, c a lc u la te d by using a form ula developed by th e Research D iv i­ sion o f th e N a tio n a l Education A s s o c ia tio n , was randomly s e le c te d from the p o p u la tio n . Three hundred and e ig h ty th re e (383) respondents made up th e f in a l sample f o r t h is s tu d y . Data from the q u e s tio n n a ire s were scored answer sh ee ts. tra n s fe rre d to machine The M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity Computer Center S ervices a s s is te d 1n th e data a n a ly s is . The data were analyzed to determ ine p re se n t a ttitu d e s la t io n to th e c o lle c t io n and use o f s tu d e n t in fo rm a tio n . in r e ­ CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA In tro d u c tio n The purpose o f th is chapter is to p resent and analyze inform a ­ tio n regarding parent a ttitu d e s toward the c o lle c tio n and use o f stu d e n t In fo rm a tio n as revealed 1n the form o f q u e s tio n n a ire responses. D iscussion w i l l begin w ith the p re s e n ta tio n and a n a ly s is o f data obtained through the q u e s tio n n a ire m ailed to p aren ts. Parent Q uestionnaire The to t a l number o f responses received from parents 1n the th re e se le cte d school d i s t r i c t s was 383. T his was considered to be an adequate re tu rn based on the o r ig in a l number m ailed o u t in September, 1976. The re tu rn represented 47.2 p ercen t. The q u e s tio n n a ire s provided in fo rm a tio n re g a rd in g demobraphic data and fo u r research questions on student in fo rm a tio n . The method o f a n a ly s is was the use o f frequency o f responses contained in the 383 retu rne d q u e s tio n n a ire s . Each q u e s tio n n a ire had th ir ty - o n e responses w ith a f in a l open-ended q u e s tio n . A zero was recorded when no response was g iven. Answer C ategories There were th re e types o f answer responses. Demographic data was answered In Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8 , and 9 by s e le c tin g the a p p ro p ria te response th a t a p p lie d to the respondent. 60 61 Items 10-26 asked f o r th e re sp o n d e n t's a t t it u d e . answers were lim ite d to a s in g le L ik e r t s c a le -ty p e response: Respondents' (a) s tro n g ly agree , (b ) agree, (c ) undecided, (d ) d is a g re e , (e ) s tr o n g ly d isa g re e . Respondents were asked 1n t h is s e c tio n o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire to respond to a statem ent. Items 27-31 asked respondents to rank t h e i r response from 1 (most Im p o rta n t) to 5 ( le a s t im p o rta n t). The p e rce n t fig u re s co n ta in e d 1n the ta b le s re p re s e n t a com­ b in a tio n o f c a rry o uts to th e t h i r d place to the r ig h t o f the d ecim al. The p e rce n t fig u r e s were rounded o f f to th e second place to th e r ig h t o f th e d ecim al. Percentage t o t a ls do n o t always equal 100 p e rce n t be­ cause o f th e ro u n d 1 n g -o ff procedure. C h a ra c te ris tic s o f th e Respondents The s e le c tio n o f th re e school d i s t r i c t s composed o f v a ry in g g eo gra ph ic, economic, r a c i a l, and e d u c a tio n a l c h a r a c te r is tic s formed a group q u ite c o n tra s tin g 1n I t s c o m p o s itio n . I t 1s th e purpose o f th is ch a p te r to e x p lo re th e a ttitu d e s w ith in th e p a r t ic ip a t in g school d i s t r i c t s c o lle c t iv e ly and I n d iv id u a lly and c o n tr a s tin g , where a p p lic ­ a b le , c e r ta in a ttitu d e s and c h a r a c t e r is tic s . Three School D i s t r i c t s C ontrasted Table 4 c o n tra s ts th e th re e p a r tic ip a tin g school d i s t r i c t s se le cte d f o r a n a ly s is . and ty p e . They are I d e n t if ie d by community, p o p u la tio n , 62 Table 4. Selected School D is t r ic t s Id e n tifie d by Community, P o p u la tio n , Type. Community P o p u la tio n ** Ann Arbor 115,216 Composite Bay C ity 85,000 Composite F lin t Type* In d u s tr ia l Urban 193,000 *As recorded by the U nited S tates Census Bureau, 1970 Census. **As rep orte d by the school d i s t r i c t ' s s u p e rin te n d e n t. Q uestionnaire Response by School D i s t r i c t Table 5 1s an a n a ly s is o f the responses to the q u e s tio n n a ire by parents according to school d i s t r i c t . An a n a ly s is o f the ta b le re ­ veals th a t o f the 810 q u e s tio n n a ire s m a ile d , 383 (47.2%) were re tu rn e d . F u rth e r a n a ly s is o f the ta b le reve als th a t f o r th e Ann A rbor School D i s t r i c t , o f the 270 m ailed to parents 1n the d i s t r i c t , 124 (45.9%) were re tu rn e d . Of the 270 m ailed to the Bay C ity P u b lic Schools, 154 (57.0%) were re tu rn e d , w h ile 105 (38.9%) o f the 270 m ailed to the F l in t Community Schools were re tu rn e d . Table 5. Q uestionnaires D is trib u te d to Communities and Percentage o f Returns. Community Q uestionnaires D is trib u te d Q uestionnaires Returned Percent Returned Ann Arbor 270 124 45.9 Bay C ity 270 154 57.0 F lin t 270 105 38.9 810 383 47.2 T o ta ls : 63 Demographic C h a ra c te ris tic s Table 6 Is an a n a ly s is o f the demographic c h a r a c te r is tic s o f respondents. An a n a ly s is o f the ta b le re ve a ls th a t In the c a te ­ gory o f Parental S tatus o f Respondents, 282 (74%) were MOTHERS, 91 (24%) were FATHERS, and 10 (2%) were GUARDIANS. The researcher re ­ quested In the cover l e t t e r th a t "th e parent who deals most d ir e c t ly w ith the school d i s t r i c t " should complete the q u e s tio n n a ire . Level o f Education o f Respondents Under the category o f Level o f Education data was compiled as fo llo w s (Table 6 ). Of the 383 respondents, fo u r (1%) attended elem entary s ch o o l, 13 (3%) completed elem entary s ch o o l, 27 (7%) attended high sch o o l, 137 (36%) graduated from high s c h o o l, 70 (18%) attended c o lle g e , 58 (15%) were c o lle g e graduates, and 74 (19%) had attended graduate s c h o o l. Age o f Respondents An a n a ly s is o f th e category o f Age provides the fo llo w in g data (Table 6 ). Of the 383 respondents none were under the age o f 20. One (.8%) was between 20-24 years o f age, 114 (30%) were between 25-34 years o f age, 173 (45%) were between 35-44 years o f age, 80 (21%) were between 45-54 years o f age, 15 (4%) were 55 years o f age o r o ld e r. Years o f Residency 1n the School b l s t r i c t Years o f Residency 1n the school d i s t r i c t were as fo llo w s (Table 6 ). Of the 383 respondents 13 (3%) had liv e d 1n the d i s t r i c t 64 f o r le s s than one y e a r, 85 (22%) hadliv e d 1n th e school d i s t r i c t from 1-5 y e a rs , 81 (21%) had liv e d 1n th e school d i s t r i c t from 6-10 y e a rs , and 204 (53%) had liv e d 1nth e school d i s t r i c t f o r 11 years o r more. Occupation o f Respondents Respondents were asked to answer th e q u e s tio n : yo u r o ccup atio n ?" "What Is For th e purpose o f t h is s tu d y , th ir te e n o ccu p a tio n a l c a te g o rie s were determ ined f o r use. The c a te g o rie s were developed from The O ccupational O utlook Handbook. 1976-77 E d itio n (W ashington, D .C .: U.S. Department o f L a b o r). The th ir te e n d e fin e d c a te g o rie s a re : In d u s tr ia l p ro d u c tio n and re la te d occupations O ffic e occupations S e rvice occupations E d u catio na l and re la te d occupations Sales occupations C o n s tru c tio n occupations T ra n s p o rta tio n occupations S c ie n t if ic and te c h n ic a l occupations Mechanics and re p a ire rs H ealth occupations S o cia l s c ie n t is t s S o cia l S e rv ic e occupations A r t , d e s ig n , and communication occupations 65 Table 6. Demographic C h a r a c te r is tic s o f Respondents by School D i s t r i c t . Ann A rb or C h a r a c te r is tic N Bay C ity % N % P arental S ta tu s : Mother F ather Guardian 95 24 5 77 99 19 4 50 5 Level o f E d u ca tio n : Attended elem entary school Completed elem entary school Attended h ig h school 0 9 12 0 7 High school graduate Attended c o lle g e C ollege graduate F lin t N % N and Percent o f T o ta l Sample H % 64 32 88 17 84 16 282 91 4 0 0 10 74 24 3 4 6 3 4 4 37 22 39 46 24 14 25 30 4 13 27 1 3 7 61 18 9 10 49 15 7 0 9 39 30 10 4 0 36 18 15 Attended graduate school 15 12 0 0 13 137 70 58 74 Age: Under 20 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 0 1 31 57 30 0 0 25 46 24 0 0 43 80 0 0 40 36 20 0 38 34 19 0 1 5 4 30 1 0 0 28 52 19 1 9 9 114 173 80 15 0 0 30 45 21 4 4 29 17 74 3 23 14 5 38 43 3 25 28 4 17 20 60 68 44 4 18 21 62 13 85 81 204 3 22 21 53 55+ Years o f Residency 1n School D i s t r i c t : Less than 1 y e a r 1-5 years 6-10 years 11 ye ars o r more 9 37 29 10 12 0 59 19 66 An a n a ly s is o f Table 7 re v e a ls th a t o f th e 383 respondents 27 (7%) were 1n in d u s tr ia l and r e la te d o c c u p a tio n s . 29 (8%) o f f ic e o ccu p a tio n s . 22 (6%) s e rv ic e o c c u p a tio n s . 41 (11%) e ducation and re ­ la te d o c c u p a tio n s , 26 (7%) s a le s , 2 (1%) c o n s tr u c tio n , 2 (1%) tr a n s ­ p o r ta tio n , 8 (2%) s c i e n t i f i c and te c h n ic a l, 1 (0%) mechanics and r e ­ p a ir e r s , 38 (10%) h e a lth o c c u p a tio n s , 5 (1%) s o c ia l s c ie n t is t s , 11 (3%) s o c ia l s e rv ic e o c c u p a tio n s , 4 (1%) a r t , d e s ig n , and communications o ccu p a tio n s. One hundred s ix ty -s e v e n respondents w ro te 1n th e word HOUSEWIFE as t h e i r o ccu p a tio n . Table 7. An A n a ly s is o f Respondents1 by O ccupation. Occupation Number o f Respondents Percentage o f T o ta l Housewife 167 43.6 In d u s tr ia l + R elated 27 7 .0 O ffic e 29 7.6 S e rvice 22 5 .7 Education + R elated 41 10.7 Sales 26 6 .8 C o n s tru c tio n 2 5 .0 T ra n s p o rta tio n 2 5 .0 S c ie n t if ic + T echnical 8 2.1 Mechanics + R epairers 1 .3 38 9 .9 5 1.3 11 2 .9 4 1 .0 H ealth S o cia l S c ie n tis ts S o cial S e rv ic e A r t , D esign, Communication 67 D iscussion o f Student Records Among B a re n ts Table 8 presents th e number and percentage o f responses f o r q ue stion s ix which d e a lt w ith d e te rm in in g 1 f p a re n ts had ta lk e d w ith o th e r parents 1n t h e i r d i s t r i c t about In fo rm a tio n kept In stu d e n t r e ­ cords. Table 8. Answer p o s s ib ilit ie s were d iv id e d In to "ye s" o r "no" responses. Verbal Communication o f Parents Concerning D iscussions Be­ tween Them and O ther Parents Regarding the In fo rm a tio n Kept 1n Student Records. Ann A rb o r Bay C ity F lin t T o ta l Category N % N % N % N "yes" 49 38 47 31 32 30 127 33 "no" 75 61 108 69 72 70 253 66 124 99 155 100 104 100 380 99 T o ta l: % Parent Attendance a t School Sponsored MeetJngT A re p o rtin g o f p a re n t responses to th e q u e s tio n (# 7 ): you a tte n d school-sponsored m eetings?" is re p o rte d 1n Table 9. p o s s ib ilit ie s were: "Do Answer "Yes, r e g u la r ly , " " o c c a s io n a lly ," "n o ." Parent/School O f f ic i a l D iscussion o f Student Records Table 10 re v e a ls th a t 199 respondents (52% 1n th e t o t a l sample had n o t met w ith a school o f f i c i a l re g a rd in g In fo rm a tio n 1n t h e i r c h ild 's school re c o rd . o ffic ia l Item 9 asked: " In th e p a s t, have you met w ith a school ( p r in c ip a l, c o u n s e lo r, te a c h e r) re g a rd in g In fo rm a tio n 1n yo u r c h ild 's school re co rd ? " Answer p o s s ib ilit ie s were: "yes" o r "no" responses 68 Table 9. P arent Attendance a t School Sponsored M eetings. Ann A rb or Category N % Bay C ity N F l in t N % % T o ta l N % Yes, r e g u la r ly 49 40 49 32 31 30 129 34 O cca s io n a lly 61 49 81 53 62 59 204 53 No 12 10 23 15 10 10 45 12 122 99 153 100 103 99 378 99 T o t a l: Table 10. Verbal Communication Between Parents and School O f f ic i a l ( s ) Regarding School Records. Ann A rbor Category Bay C ity F lin t N % T o ta l N N % N Yes 69 56 65 42 47 45 181 47 No 55 44 86 56 58 55 199 52 124 100 151 98 105 100 380 99 T o t a l: % % Parent A ttitu d e s and O pinions S a t1 s fa c t1 o n /D 1 s s a tls fa c ti on Level o f Parents L lk e r t sca le Item responses are re p o rte d 1n Tables 11-33. Tables 11, 12, 13, and 14 r e p o r t th e frequency and percentage o f p a re n t " s a t ls f a c t lo n 'V 'd ls s a t ls f a c t lo n " w ith t h e i r school d i s t r i c t ' s h an d lin g o f stu d e n t re co rd procedures. S p e c if ic a lly , how have school d i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l s perform ed 1n a d v is in g parents where t h e i r c h ild 's school re ­ cord 1s lo c a te d (Table 1 1 ), who has access to th e re co rd (Table 1 2 ), 69 what 1s contained 1n the record (Table 1 3 ), and how w e ll prepared are they (p a re n ts ) w ith the In fo rm a tio n provided by school o f f i c i a l s to lo c a te , examine, and c o n s u lt w ith school personnel reg ard in g t h e ir c h ild 's records (Table 14). Answer a lte r n a tiv e s In clu d e d : s tro n g ly agree, agree, undecided, d is a g re e , s tro n g ly d isa g re e . Student Record Location Table 11 re p o rts p a re n ts ' responses regarding t h e ir s a t is ­ fa c tio n /d is s a tis fa c tio n w ith how good a jo b school d i s t r i c t personnel had done o f In fo rm in g parents o f the lo c a tio n o f t h e ir c h ild 's school re co rd . Numbers and percentages are recorded by school d i s t r i c t and to t a lle d . Summarizing, 213 respondents (56%) were d is s a tis fie d w ith the jo b t h e ir school d i s t r i c t had done o f In fo rm ing them o f where t h e ir c h ild 's school record was lo c a te d . cid e d . F o rty respondents (10%) were unde­ One hundred t h i r t y respondents (34%) were s a tis fie d w ith the jo b t h e ir school d i s t r i c t had done. Parent A c c e s s ib ility to Student Records Table 12 re p o rts parent responses reg ard in g parent s a t is ­ fa c tio n /d is s a tis fa c tio n w ith school d i s t r i c t procedures r e la tin g to p a re n ts ' a c c e s s ib ilit y to stu d e n t records. Summarizing, 235 respondents (61%) were d is s a tis fie d w ith the jo b t h e ir school d i s t r i c t had done 1n In fo rm in g them about who could see (had a c c e s s ib ilit y to ) t h e ir c h ild 's school re c o rd s . respondents (11%) were undecided. F o rty-tw o One hundred s ix respondents (27%) were s a tis fie d w ith the jo b t h e ir school d i s t r i c t had done In th is area. Table 11. Parent Responses Regarding Satisfaction With How School District Personnel Have Informed Parents of Where Their Child's School Record is Located. Statement: Your school d i s t r i c t has done a s a tis fa c to ry jo b o f in fo rm in g parents o f where t h e ir c h ild 's school record is kept. SA___________A___________U___________ D__________SD CITY No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Nean S.D. 2.500 1.340 2.818 1.205 2.143 1.104 2.587 1.301 ANN ARBOR BAY CITY 10% 17% FLINT 20% 106 TOTAL: 114 28% Response Code: SA A U D SD = = = = S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree 10% 26% Table 12. Parent Responses Regarding Satisfaction With How School Personnel Have Informed Parents of Accessibility to Student Records. Statement: Your school d i s t r i c t has done a s a tis fa c to r y jo b o f Inform ing parents o f who can see your c h ild 's school records. SA___________A___________U___________ D__________SD CITY No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Mean S.D. ANN ARBOR 25% 12% 32% 35% 2.258 1.255 37% 31% 16% 2.818 1.207 13% 39% 37% 2.057 1.117 2.428 1.240 BAY CITY FLINT 128 TOTAL: 23% Response Code: SA A U D SD = = = = = S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree 11% 107 33% 72 Student Record Content Table 13 re p o rts parent responses re g a rd in g s a t is f a c t io n / d is s a tis fa c tio n w ith th e jo b done by school o f f i c i a l s in a d v is in g them o f th e c o n te n t o f stu d e n t re c o rd s . spondents (69%) were d is s a t is f ie d . were undecided. Two Hundred S1xty-S1x re ­ F o rty -th re e respondents (11%) S e ve nty-th re e respondents (19%) were s a tis fie d w ith school personnel a c tio n on t h is Issue. School D i s t r i c t Procedures Regarding Student Records"" Table 14 re p o rts paren t responses re g a rd in g t h e ir s a t is ­ fa c tio n /d is s a tis fa c tio n w ith school d i s t r i c t procedures r e la tin g to student record In fo rm a tio n . Two hundred th 1 r ty - f1 v e respondents (61%) were d is s a tis fie d w ith t h e ir school d i s t r i c t ' s h a n dlin g o f stu d e n t record procedures. Th1rty-n1ne respondents (10%) were undecided. One Hundred Nine re ­ spondents (28%) were s a tis fie d w ith the way t h e ir school d i s t r i c t was handling stu de n t In fo rm a tio n . Parent Use o f Student Records Table 15 re p o rts parent responses re g a rd in g p a re n t use/rev1ew o f t h e ir c h ild 's school re co rd s. Three Hundred S ix ty - e ig h t respondents (96%) favored the r ig h t o f parents to review t h e ir c h ild 's school re ­ cords. Five respondents (1%) were undecided. Ten respondents (3%) opposed paren t review o f t h e ir c h ild 's school re c o rd . Table 13. Parent Responses Regarding Their Satisfaction With How They Have Been Informed by School Officials of the Content of Student Records. Statement: Your school d i s t r i c t has done a s a tis fa c to ry jo b o f in fo rm in g you about what 1s in your c h ild 's school records. SA___________A__________ U___________D__________SD CITY No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Mean S.D. 36% 34% 2.218 1.265 47% 19% 2.383 1.116 35% 37% 2.095 1.131 29% 2.251 1.173 ANN ARBOR BAY CITY 13% FLINT 11% 155 TOTAL: 14% Response Code: SA A U D SD = = = = = S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree 11% 111 Table 14. Parent Responses Regarding Satisfaction With School District Procedures Related to Student Record Information. Statem ent: W ith the in fo rm a tio n you have received from your school d i s t r i c t you are now able to go to yo u r c h ild 's school knowing where, how, and who to see to lo ok a t you r c h ild 's school records. SA CITY No. A U % No. % No. D % No. SD % No. % Mean S.D. ANN ARBOR m 2.468 1.252 2.766 1.257 2.210 1.158 2.517 1.247 BAY CITY 32% 18% FLINT 149 TOTAL: 10% Response Code: SA A U D SD = = = = S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree 39% 22 % Table 15. Parent Responses Regarding Parent Accessibility to Their Own Child's School Record. Statement: Parents should be allowed to see a l l in fo rm a tio n in t h e ir c h ild 's school records. SA CITY No. ANN ARBOR A * * No. D SD Mean S.D. 4.895 .390 4.571 .740 15* 4.686 .788 21 * 4.021 1.213 * No. * No. * 101 81* BAY CITY No. U 19* 104 68* FLINT 80* TOTAL: Response Code: 289 SA A U D SD = = = * = S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree 76 Legal Protection of Student ftecords T a b le 16 r e p o r ts p a re n t responses re g a rd in g le g a l p ro ­ t e c t io n o f In fo r m a tio n 1n s tu d e n t re c o rd s . S u m m a rizin g, 283 re sp o n d e n ts (74%) fa v o re d le g a l p ro ­ t e c t io n o f In fo r m a tio n th ro u g h an A c t o f C o ng ress, 1 f n e c e s s a ry . F o r t y - f i v e re s p o n d e n ts (12%) were u n d e c id e d . (13%) w ere opposed on t h i s F if t y - o n e re sp o n d e n ts Is s u e . P a re n ts* R ig h t to C h a lle n g e A ccu ra cy o f T h e ir C h T ld r s School Record T a b le 17 r e p o r ts p a re n t responses re g a rd in g p a r e n ts ' r i g h t to c h a lle n g e th e a c c u ra c y o f th e In fo r m a tio n 1n t h e i r c h i l d 's scho ol re c o rd . S u m m a rizin g, 355 re sp o n d e n ts (93%) fa v o re d th e r i g h t o f p a re n ts to c h a lle n g e th e a c c u ra c y o f In fo r m a tio n c o n ta in e d 1n t h e i r c h i l d 's sch o o l r e c o rd . Tw elve re sp o n d e n ts (3%) were u n d e cid e d . F if te e n re sp o n d e n ts (4%) opposed p a r e n ts ' r i g h t t o c h a lle n g e th e a c c u ra c y o f t h e i r c h i l d 's scho ol re c o rd . S tu d e n t Record Use by P o lic e o r S o c ia l A g en cies T a b le 18 r e p o r ts p a re n t responses re g a rd in g th e use o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s by p o lic e o r s o c ia l a g e n c ie s w ith o u t p r i o r p a re n ta l c o n s e n t. Table 16. Parent Responses Regarding Legal Protection of Information in Student Records. Statement: The In fo rm a tio n in your c h ild 's school record is worth "le g a l p ro te c tio n " through an A ct o f Congress, i f necessary. SA___________A___________U___________D__________SD CITY No. * No. * No. * No. * No. * Mean S.D. 13* 4.097 1.246 11* 3.090 1.128 11* 4.095 1.290 4.021 1.213 ANN ARBOR 54* 21* BAY CITY 38* FLINT TOTAL Response Code: 56* 19* 48* 26* 184 SA A U D SD = = = = = S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree Table 17. Parent Responses Regarding Parents1 Right to Challenge The Accuracy of Information In Their Child's School Records. Statement: Parents should have the r ig h t to challenge the accuracy o f in fo rm a tio n 1n t h e ir c h ild 's school records. SA__________ A__________ U___________D__________SD CITY No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Mean S.D. 33% 4.589 .612 34% 4.351 .918 28% 4.610 .643 32% 4.499 .765 ANN ARBOR BAY CITY FLINT TOTAL: 122 233 61% Response Code: SA A U D SD s = * S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree Table 18. Parent Responses Regarding The Use of Student Records by Police or Social Agencies Without Prior Parental Consent. Statement: As p a rt o f an In v e s tig a tio n , p o lic e o r o th e r s o c ia l agencies should be allowed to see any s tu d e n t's school record w ith o u t perm ission o f s tu d e n t/p a re n t. SA CITY No. A 2 No. U 2 No. D 2 No. ANN ARBOR SD 2 No. 30% 2 Mean S.D. 462 2.129 1.414 502 1.961 1.273 492 2.086 1.279 482 2.050 1.320 BAY CITY FLINT 202 102 TOTAL: 122 Response Code: SA A U D SD = = = = s S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree 185 272 80 S c h o o l ‘s A u t h o r i t y to Control Student Records T a b le 19 r e p o r t s p a re n t re sp o n se s r e g a r d in g th e s c h o o l's a u t h o r it y t o c o m p le te ly c o n t r o l s tu d e n t r e c o r d s . Two Hundred N in e ty re s p o n d e n ts (76%) opposed th e c o n c e p t t h a t s ch o o l re c o rd s s h o u ld be th e s c h o o l's b u s in e s s and t h a t th e sch o o l s h o u ld have c o m p le te c o n t r o l o f s tu d e n t r e c o r d s . w ere u n d e c id e d . T w e n ty -n in e re s p o n d e n ts (8%) S ix t y - f o u r re s p o n d e n ts (17%) ap p ro ve d o f th e s c h o o l's c o n t r o l o f s tu d e n t r e c o r d s . S p e c ia l- H e lp In fo r m a tio n in S tu d e n t R ecords T a b le 20 r e p o r t s p a re n t resp o n se s re g a r d in g th e I n c lu s io n o f s p e c ia l h e lp In fo r m a tio n 1n s tu d e n t re c o r d s . Two Hundred N in e ty - Seven re s p o n d e n ts (77%) ap p ro ve d I n c lu d in g s p e c ia l- h e lp In fo r m a tio n I.e . s p e c ia l re a d in g I n s t r u c t i o n , math I n s t r u c t io n 1n t h e i r c h i l d 's s c h o o l re c o rd . T h ir t y - o n e re s p o n d e n ts w ere u n d e c id e d . F ifty - O n e re s p o n d e n ts (14%) opposed p la c in g s p e c ia l- h e lp In fo r m a tio n 1n th e c h i l d 's school re c o rd . Table 19. — 1— 1 ■ * Statement: Parent Responses Regarding The A u th o rity o f The School to C ontrol Student Records. ^ — — — — 1^ School records should be the s c h o o l's business. c o n tro l o f student records. — — .H _ L iL The school should have complete SA___________ A___________U___________D__________SD CITY No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Mean S.D. 40% 2.056 1.191 1.994 1.146 2.095 1.341 2.042 1.214 ANN ARBOR 37% BAY CITY 11% 34% 12 % 27% FLINT 47% 164 126 TOTAL: 11% Response Code: SA A U D SD = = « = = S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree 33% Table 20. Parent Responses Regarding The Inclusion of Speclal-Help Information 1n Student Records. Statement: I f your c h ild received spe cia l help 1n re a d in g , math, o r some o th e r area 1 t should be noted 1n t h e ir school reco rd. SA CITY No. A * No. U * No. D * No. SD * No. * Mean S.D. 3.774 1.027 3.870 905 3.495 1.161 3.736 1.029 ANN ARBOR 2U 13* 55* 105 BAY CITY 68* 16* FLINT 10* 11* 11* 234 TOTAL: 16* Response Code: SA A U D SD = = = = * 61* S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree 83 Storing/Maintenance of Student Records T a b le 21 r e p o r ts p a re n t responses re g a rd in g th e s t o r in g / m aintenance o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s when a c h i ld t r a n s f e r s fro m one scho ol d i s t r i c t t o a n o th e r. One Hundred N in e ty - S ix re sp o n d e n ts (52%) f a v o r th e p r a c t ic e o f h a v in g sch o o l d i s t r i c t s re c o rd o f a c h i l d ed s c h o o l. keep a perm anent 1n each sch o o l d i s t r i c t 1n w h ic h th e c h i ld a tte n d ­ F ifty - S e v e n re s p o n d e n ts (1*5%) were u n d e c id e d . One Hundred T w e n ty -N in e re s p o n d e n ts (34%) opposed sto r1 n g /m a 1 n ta 1 n 1 n g a s tu d e n t re c o rd 1n each s c h o o l d i s t r i c t . Use o f Computers 1n S to r in g S tu d e n t Records T a b le 22 r e p o r ts p a re n t responses re g a rd in g th e use o f com puters t o s t o r e s tu d e n t re c o rd in fo r m a t io n . One Hundred T w en ty- S ix re s p o n d e n ts (33%) approved o f u s in g com puters to s t o r e s tu d e n t re c o rd In fo r m a tio n . u n d e c id e d . One Hundred Seventeen re s p o n d e n ts (31% were One Hundred F o r ty re s p o n d e n ts (36%) were opposed to u s in g com puters t o s to r e s tu d e n t re c o rd In fo r m a tio n . Table 21. Parent Rhsponses Regarding The Storing/Maintenance of Student Records. Statement: When a c h ild tra n s fe rs from one school d i s t r i c t to a n oth er, the school d i s t r i c t the c h ild 1s le a vin g should keep a permanent copy o f the c h ild 's complete school reco rd. SA CITY No. A * U * No. No. 0 * No. SD * No. * Mean S.D. ANN ARBOR 34* 19* 3.274 1,303 25* 3.351 1.197 3.076 1.238 3.251 1.245 BAY CITY 17* 35* 17* 10* 38* 10* FLINT 10* 136 TOTAL: 16* Response Code: SA A U D SD = = = = = 36* S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree 25* Table 22. Parent Responses Regarding The Use of Computers to Store Student Record Information. Statement: Computers should be used to s to re stud en t record In fo rm a tio n . SA CITY A No. % U No. t No. 0 t No. SD t No. t Mean S.D. ANN ARBOR lit 22t 37t 3.065 BAY CITY 113! 283! 293! 3.013 27 % 28 % 2.810 1.241 31t 26 % 2.974 1.157 FLINT 113! 183! 117 TOTAL: lit Response Code: SA A U D SD = = = * = 21% S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree lO t 86 Use o f S tu d e n t R ecords f o r R esearch Purposes b.v H ig h e r Ed I n s t i t u t i o n ! " T a b le 23 r e p o r t s p a re n t re sp o n se s re g a r d in g th e s tu d y o f th e c o n te n ts o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s by c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . Two Hundred S eventeen re s p o n d e n ts (56%) b e lie v e d t h a t th e use o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s by c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s 1s n e c e s s a ry t o o b t a in an u n d e rs ta n d in g o f p a s t , c u r r e n t , and f u t u r e s c h o o l pro g ra m s. S 1 x ty -e 1 g h t re s p o n d e n ts (18%) w ere u n d e c id e d . N in e ty -s e v e n r e ­ sp o n d e n ts (25%) opposed th e p r a c t ic e o f c o lle g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s u s in g s tu d e n t re c o rd s t o e v a lu a te p a s t, c u r r e n t , and f u t u r e s c h o o l p ro g ra m s. School D 1 s tr 1c t O f f 1c l a l s 1 Awareness o f P a re n ts ' A t t i t u d e s and O p ^ o n T T a b le 24 r e p o r t s p a re n t re sp o n se s r e g a rd in g s c h o o l o f f i ­ c i a l s ' aw areness o f p a r e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s and o p in io n s . S u m m a riz in g , T h re e Hundred F iv e re s p o n d e n ts t h a t , g e n e r a lly s p e a k in g , s c h o o l o f f i c i a l s (79%) b e lie v e d s h o u ld pay more a t t e n t i o n t o p a r e n ts ' a t t i t u d e s and o p in io n s th a n th e y c u r r e n t ly d o . one re s p o n d e n ts (11%) w ere u n d e c id e d . b e lie v e d t h a t s c h o o l o f f i c i a l s F o rty - T h 1 r t y - f 1 v e re s p o n d e n ts (9%) a re a d e q u a te ly aw are o f p a r e n ts ' a t t it u d e s and o p in io n s . S chool D i s t r i c t P o lic y f o r H a n d lin g S tu d e n t I n fo r m a tio n T a b le 25 r e p o r t s p a r e n t re sp o n se s re g a rd in g w r i t t e n d i s t r i c t p o l i c i e s f o r th e h a n d lin g o f s tu d e n t I n f o r m a tio n . school Table 23. Parent Responses Regarding Use o f Student Records by I n s t it u t io n s o f Higher Learning f o r Research Purposes. Statement: Study o f the contents o f student records by co lle g e s and u n iv e r s itie s is necessary to o b ta in an understanding o f p a s t, c u rre n t, and fu tu re school programs. SA CITY No. A U % No. % No. D % No. SD % No. % Mean S.D. 13% 3.435 1.283 3.318 1.192 10% 3.410 1.246 10% 3.381 1.235 ANN ARBOR 19% 44% 12* 12 % 14% 39% 20% 18% 21 % 33% 21 % 39% 18% BAY CITY FLINT 150 TOTAL: 17% Response Code: SA A U D SD = = = = - S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree 15% Table 24. Parent Responses Regarding School Officials' Awareness of Parents' Attitudes and Opinions. Statement: G enerally speaking* school o f f i c i a l s should pay more a tte n tio n to p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s and opinions than they do. SA CITY No. A % No. U % No. D % No. SD % No. % Mean S.D. ANN ARBOR 36% 15% 4.105 .891 3.974 1.022 4.067 1.040 4.042 .986 BAY CITY 34% 42% 12 % 10% FLINT 39% 139 166 TOTAL: 36% Response Code: SA A U D SD = = a = 43% S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree 11 % Table 25. Parent Responses Regarding School District Policy For The Handling of Student Information. Statem ent: School d i s t r i c t s should have a c le a r ly w r itte n p o lic y f o r the c o lle c tio n and use o f in fo rm a tio n kept in stud en t records. SA CITY No. A % No. U % No. D % No. SD % No. % Mean S.D. ANN ARBOR 51* 38* 4.323 .915 48* 46% 4.435 .625 45* 4.390 .778 4.386 .771 BAY CITY FLINT 165 189 TOTAL: 49* Response Code: SA A U D SD = = = = = S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree 90 T hree Hundred F if t y - F o u r re s p o n d e n ts (92%) fa v o re d a c l e a r l y w r i t t e n s ch o o l d i s t r i c t p o li c y f o r th e c o l l e c t i o n and use o f In fo r m a tio n k e p t 1n s tu d e n t r e c o rd s . N in e te e n re s p o n d e n ts (5%) w ere u n d e c id e d . N ine re s p o n d e n ts (3%) opposed a w r i t t e n p o lic y f o r th e c o l l e c t i o n and use o f In fo r m a tio n k e p t 1n s tu d e n t r e c o rd s . S c h o o l's M o tiv e s f o r K eeping S tu d e n t R ecords T a b le 26 r e p o r t s p a re n t re sp o n se s r e g a rd in g p a r e n ts ' s u s­ p ic io n o f th e s c h o o l's m o tiv e s f o r c o l l e c t i n g and m a in ta in in g s tu d e n t re c o rd s a t a l l . T hree Hundred T h re e re s p o n d e n ts (79%) w ere n o t s u s ­ p ic io u s o f th e s c h o o l's m o tiv e s f o r k e e p in g s tu d e n t r e c o r d s . e ig h t re s p o n d e n ts (13%) w ere u n d e c id e d . F o rty - T h ir t y - t w o re s p o n d e n ts (9%) w ere s u s p ic io u s o f th e s c h o o l's m o tiv e s f o r k e e p in g s tu d e n t r e c o r d s . Removing N e g a tiv e In fo r m a tio n From S tu d e n t R ecords T a b le 27 r e p o r t s p a re n t re sp o n se s r e g a rd in g an an nu al purge o f n e g a tiv e In f o r m a tio n fro m s tu d e n ts ' re c o r d s . Two Hundred S ix t y - One re s p o n d e n ts (68%) opposed rem oving n e g a tiv e I n fo r m a tio n a b o u t a c h i l d fro m a c h i l d 's file a t th e end o f th e s c h o o l y e a r . sp o n d e n ts (13%) w ere u n d e c id e d . F if ty re ­ S e v e n ty -o n e re s p o n d e n ts (19%) opposed th e c o n c e p t t h a t “ W h a t's d o n e , 1s done I " and t h a t n e g a tiv e I n fo r m a tio n a b o u t a s tu d e n t s h o u ld be removed fro m each c h i l d ' s o f e v e ry sch o o l y e a r . f ile s a t th e end Table 26. Statement: Parent Responses Regarding Their Perceptions of The School's Motives for Keeping Student Records. I am suspicious o f the s c h o o l's motives f o r keeping student records a t a l l . SA__________ A___________U___________D__________SD CITY No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Mean S.D. ANN ARBOR 10% 19% 19% 2.242 .905 34% 1.890 .867 21 % 2.076 .863 25% 2.055 .889 BAY CITY FLINT 60% 12% 206 TOTAL: 13% Response Code: SA A U D SD = = = = - S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree Table 27. Parent Responses Regarding Annual Purge of Negative Information From Student Files. Statement: "What's done, is done!" and negative in fo rm a tio n about a student should be removed from the f i l e s a t the end o f each school ye a r. SA__________ A___________U___________D___________SD CITY No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Mean S.D. ANN ARBOR 13 % 37% 19% 23% 2.500 1.291 2.214 1.041 2.400 1.253 22% 2.358 189 BAY CITY FLINT 10% 13% 22 % 175 TOTAL: 10% Response Code: SA A U D SD = = = = = S tro n g ly Agree Agree Undecided Disagree S tro n g ly Disagree 46% 93 Parent Sources o f Information Regarding Student Records" Table 28 re p o rts p a re n t r a tin g s o f t h e i r sources o f In ­ fo rm a tio n re g a rd in g s tu d e n t re co rd in fo rm a tio n . A ccording to the respondents, newspapers and magazines were t h e i r p rim a ry source o f In fo rm a tio n re g a rd in g s tu d e n t re c o rd s . Parent m eetings, le t t e r s from school o f f i c i a l s , and school n e w s le tte rs fo llo w e d . Student Record Content Table 29 re p o rts th a t p a re n t ra n kin g s by "degree o f Im­ portance" o f data to be In clu d e d 1n s tu d e n t re c o rd s . are c o lle c ta b le per th e c u rre n t M ichigan CA-60. Items ranked Items were ranked 1 (most Im p o rta n t) through 10 ( le a s t Im p o rta n t). Summarizing, " p a r t ic ip a t io n 1n school a c t i v i t i e s " was ranked number 1 by 109 respondents. fo llo w e d w ith 105 respondents. "C h a ra cte r and moral t r a i t s , " "C h a r a c te r is tic s In h e r ite d from p a re n ts" and "sex c u r io s it y and development" re ce ive d the g re a te s t number o f "no response" ra n k in g s . Table 28. Parents' Sources of Information Regarding Student Information. Frequency o f Rankings ITEM 1 2 3 4 Average o f Ranking Numerical Ranking No Response Newspaper/Magazine a r t ic le s 169 42 31 47 1.394 1 94 Parent m eeting(s) 25 82 64 53 1.548 2 159 L e tte r from school o ffic ia l 74 53 73 50 1.564 3 133 School n e w s le tte r 60 62 49 1.595 4 142 Table 29. Parent Ranking by "Degree of Importance" of Information for Student Record File. ITEM 1 B a g f f l t t t f J t e M " ! ------------2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Average o f Ranking Numerical Ranking No Response P a rtic ip a tio n in school a c t iv it ie s 109 76 38 24 43 17 16 15 11 2.922 1 34 Character and moral tr a its 105 43 49 46 41 26 24 11 5 3.091 2 33 Truancy h is to r y 41 47 45 66 30 35 35 23 6 3.559 3 57 D is c ip lin a r y h is to ry 31 77 84 41 29 10 r» . CM 19 30 3.700 4 35 C h a ra c te ris tic s in ­ h e rite d from parents 22 9 28 27 32 32 18 35 48 3.713 5 132 Temper tantrums 11 21 18 38 48 43 27 72 22 4.491 6 83 Neighborhood environment 17 34 38 22 38 51 47 45 39 4.760 7 52 4 7 6 15 14 26 63 33 89 4.773 8 126 14 23 23 37 28 36 58 39 56 4.843 9 69 13 17 24 36 47 71 35 55 43 5.211 10 42 Sex C u rio s ity and development Where reared: farm/town C h ild 's frie n d s c ity / 96 F in a l A u th o r ity Over Use o f S tudent Records' Table 30 re p o rts p a re n t ra n k in g o f who parents b e lie v e should be th e " f in a l a u th o r ity " over th e use o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s . Summarizing, 313 respondents ranked "p a re n ts , and one o f th e below" as t h e i r f i r s t ch o ic e . One Hundred T h irty -S e v e n r e ­ spondents ranked " p r in c ip a l" as t h e i r second c h o ic e . The "school c o u n se lo r" was ranked t h i r d . T e s tin g Data 1n Student Records Table 31 re p o rts p a re n t ra n k in g o f t e s t data to be In ­ cluded 1n s tu d e n t re c o rd s . Summarizing, 156 respondents ranked In te llig e n c e te s ts ( I . Q . ) as t h e i r f i r s t c h o ic e . One Hundred Tw enty-Five respondents ranked v o c a tio n a l/c a re e r te s ts as t h e i r f i r s t c h o ic e . Reading and math te s tin g fo llo w e d . Items C u rre n tly In clud ed 1n S tudent Records Table 32 re p o rts p a re n t ra n kin g o f Items g e n e ra lly In ­ cluded 1n s tu d e n t re c o rd s . Summarizing, 193 respondents ranked "grades earned each y e a r" as th e most Im p o rta n t Item on a s c a le from 1 to 5. In num erical ra n kin g "re a d in g le v e l, " " c it iz e n s h ip , " "a b s e n c e /ta rd in e s s r e c o rd ," and "c la s s e s /g ra d e s f a ile d " fo llo w e d 1n o rd e r. Table 30. Parent Responses Regarding Who Should Have "Final Authority" Over Use of Student Records. Frequency o f Rankings ITEM Parents w ith one o r more o f the fo llo w in g 1 2 3 4 5 Ayerage f lf 6 Ranking Ranking No Response 313 17 8 9 10 16 1.444 1 10 P rin c ip a l 20 137 63 64 54 24 3.010 2 21 Counselor 12 75 140 100 24 13 3.081 3 19 9 84 55 68 110 37 3.619 4 20 24 44 85 92 80 45 3.668 5 13 3 9 12 29 80 227 5.052 6 23 School P sychologist Teachers School Nurse Table 31. Parent Responses Regarding "Rank of Importance" of Test Data to be Contained 1n Student Records. F l uency, o f Rankings ITEM Reading te s ts 1 2 flyerage o f 3 4 Ranking Ranking No Response 91 132 137 16 2.167 1 7 In te llig e n c e te s ts ( I.Q .) 156 58 46 118 2.303 2 5 V ocational/C areer te s ts 125 62 65 124 2.454 3 7 6 123 127 117 2.888 4 9 Math te s ts Table 32. Parent Responses Regarding Ranking o f Items C u rre n tly Included in Student Records (Re: Russell Sage G u id e lin e s). F re a jencj r . o f . Rankings ITEM Grades earned each year 1 2 Ayerage Qf Nun]er1cal Ranking 3 4 5 Ranking No Response 193 77 45 34 26 1.953 1 8 Reading le v e l 80 102 87 79 27 2.601 2 8 C itiz e n s h ip 57 83 118 78 39 2.846 3 7 Absence/Tardiness record 21 51 55 119 121 3.642 4 9 Classes/Grades f a ile d 26 50 69 58 152 3.757 5 9 100 A n a ly s is by Age In r e la t io n to Research Questions 1, 2 , 3 and 4 fu r t h e r a n a ly s is and comparison by age, e d u c a tio n a l s ta tu s , and occupation can be re p o rte d here. Table 33 re p o rts th a t p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s on Research Q uestion 1 ( lo c a tio n o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s ), ranked a ccordin g to age from th e most d is s a t is f ie d (1 ) to th e le a s t d is s a t is f ie d (4 ) a re : (1 ) 25-34 y e a r o ld s , (2) 45-54 y e a r o ld s , (3 ) 35-44 y e a r o ld s , and (4 ) 55+ y e a r o ld s . There was no response from those under 25. Table 34 re p o rts p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s on Research Question 2 ( a c c e s s ib ilit y o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s ). Ranked by age from th e most d is s a t is f ie d (1 ) to th e le a s t d is s a t is f ie d (4 ) a re : (1 ) 25-34 ye a r o ld s , (2) 35-44 y e a r o ld s , (3 ) 45-54 y e a r o ld s , and (4 ) 55+ y e a r o ld s . There was no response from those under 25. Table 35 re p o rts p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s on Research Question 3 (c o n te n t o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s ). Ranked by age from the most d is s a t is ­ fie d (1 ) to th e le a s t d is s a t is f ie d (4 ) a re : (2 ) 35-44 y e a r o ld s , (3) (1) 25-34 y e a r o ld s , 45-54 y e a r o ld s , and (4 ) 55+ y e a r o ld s . There was no response from those under 25. Table 36 re p o rts p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s on Research Question 4 (th e school d i s t r i c t s ' procedures f o r h a n d lin g s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n ). Ranked by age from th e most d is s a t is f ie d (4 ) a re : (1 ) to th e le a s t d is s a t is f ie d (1 ) 25-34 y e a r o ld s , (2 ) 45-54 y e a r o ld s , (3 ) 35-44 ye a r o ld s , and (4 ) 55+ y e a r o ld s . Table 33. Parent Responses Ranked by Age Regarding Satisfaction With How School District Personnel Have Informed Parents of Where Their Child's School Record is Located. SA AGE No. A % No. U % No. D % No. SD % No. % Mean S.D. Under 20 20-24 25-34 36.0% 2.307 1.090 35-44 45-54 6.4% 7.5% 23.7% 27.7% 2.682 1.363 0 . 0% 8 . 8% 35.0% 25.0% 2.563 1.339 3.667 1.234 55+ 33.3% (No Response areas are blank) 26.7% Ranking: 1 = Most dissatisfied 4 = Least dissatisfied Rank Table 34. Parent Responses Ranked by Age Regarding Satisfaction With How Effectively School Personnel Have Informed Parents of Accessibility to Student Records. SA AGE No. A * No. U * No. 0 * No. SD * No. * Mean S.D. 30.7* 2.298 1.182 2.364 1.151 2.550 1.395 3.333 1.345 Under 20 20-24 25-34 2.6* 20 . 2% 35-44 24.9* 34.1* 45-54 7 .5 * 55+ 26.7* (No Response areas are blank) Ranking: 1 B Most dissatisfied 4 = Least dissatisfied Rank Table 35. Parent Responses Ranked by Age Regarding Satisfaction With How They Have Been Informed by School Officials of the Content of Student Records. SA AGE No. A % No. U % No. D % No. SD % No. % Mean S.D. 36.8% 1.956 981 28.3% 2.324 1.191 2.337 1.211 3.333 1.295 Under 20 20-24 25-34 2 . 6% 5.3% 35-44 22.5% 6.9% 39.3% 45-54 8 . 8% 43.8% 10. 0% 55+ 33.3% (No Response areas are blank) 33.3% Ranking: 1 = Most dissatisfied 2 = Least dissatisfied Rank Table 36. Parent Responses Ranked by Age Regarding Satisfaction with School District Procedures Relating Generally to Student Record Information. U SA___________A AGE No. * No. * No. D * No. SD * No. * Mean S.D. 21.9* 2.386 1.133 2.532 1.278 2.462 1.242 3.467 1.302 Under 20 20-24 25-34 4 .4 * 16.7* 35-44 5 .8 * 5 8* 37.0* 45-54 8 . 8* 37.5* 23.8* 55+ 26.7* (No Response areas are blank) 33.3* 40.0* Ranking: 1 = Most dissatisfied 2 = Least dissatisfied Rank 105 A n a ly s is by E d u c a tio n a l S ta tu s T a b le 37 r e p o r ts p a r e n ts ' a t t it u d e s on Research Q u e stio n 1 ( lo c a t io n o f s tu d e n t r e c o r d s ) . m ost d i s s a t i s f i e d Ranked by e d u c a tio n a l s ta tu s fro m (1 ) to le a s t d i s s a t i s f i e d a re : (1 ) co m p le te d e le m e n ta ry sch o o l (5 ) h ig h sch o o l g ra d u a te (2 ) a tte n d e d e le m e n ta ry scho ol (6 ) c o lle g e g ra d u a te (3 ) a tte n d e d c o lle g e (7 ) g ra d u a te (4 ) a tte n d e d h ig h sch o o l school T a b le 38 r e p o r ts p a r e n ts ' a t t it u d e s on Research Q u e s tio n 2 ( a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f s tu d e n t r e c o r d s ) . fro m m ost d i s s a t i s f i e d Ranked by e d u c a tio n a l s ta tu s (1 ) to le a s t d i s s a t i s f i e d (7 ) a re : (1 ) co m p le te d e le m e n ta ry sch o o l (5 ) h ig h sch o o l g ra d u a te (2 ) a tte n d e d e le m e n ta ry school (6 ) a tte n d e d c o lle g e (3 ) a tte n d e d h ig h s c h o o l (7 ) g ra d u a te scho ol (4 ) c o lle g e g ra d u a te T a b le 39 r e p o r t s p a r e n ts ' a t t it u d e s on Research Q u e stio n 3 ( c o n te n t o f s tu d e n t r e c o r d s ) . th e m ost d i s s a t i s f i e d Ranked by e d u c a tio n a l s ta tu s from (1 ) t o th e le a s t d i s s a t i s f i e d (7 ) a re : (1 ) co m p le te d e le m e n ta ry sch o o l (5 ) c o lle g e g ra d u a te (2 ) a tte n d e d c o lle g e (6 ) h ig h scho ol g ra d u a te (3 ) a tte n d e d e le m e n ta ry (4 ) a tte n d e d h ig h s ch o o l scho ol (7 ) g ra d u a te scho ol Table 37. Parent Responses Ranked by Educational Status Regarding Satisfaction With How School District Personnel Have Informed Parents of Where Their Child's School Record 1s Located. SA LEVEL OF EDUCATION No. A 56 No. u 56 No. D 56 No. Attended Elementary School SD 56 No. 56 Mean S.D. 2.000 10056 Completed Elementary School 15.456 1.769 .725 Attended High School 14.856 2.444 1.396 High School Graduate 5.856 2.511 1.278 Attended College 2.956 C ollege Graduate Graduate Work (No Response areas are blank) 29.256 1.068 48.656 15.756 12.156 20.756 14.95* Ranking: 29.356 2.690 1.417 16.251 3.149 1.352 1 - Most d is s a tis fie d 7 ■ Least dissatisfied Rank Table 38. Parent Responses Ranked by Educational Status Regarding Satisfaction With How Effectively School Personnel Have Informed Parents of Accessibility to Student Records. SA__________ A__________ U LEVEL OF EDUCATION No. % No. % No. D % No. SD % No. % Mean S.D. Attended Elementary School 10016 Completed Elementary School 15.4% 69.2% 1.462 .776 25.9% 40.7% 2.185 1.241 Attended High School High School Graduate 3.6% Attended College College Graduate Graduate Work (No Response areas are blank) 2.000 25.9% 7.4% 19.0% 9.5% 2.292 1.183 24.3% 12.9% 2.343 1.128 39.7% 2.276 1.056 18.9% 3.162 1.385 15.5% Ranking: 1 = Most dissatisfied 7 - Least dissatisfied Rank Table 39. Parent Responses Ranked by Educational Status Regarding Satisfaction With How They Have Been Informed by School Officials of the Content of Student Records. SA__________ A__________ U LEVEL OF EDUCATION No. % No. % No. D % No. SD % No. % Attended Elementary School 38.5% Attended High School 18.5% 7.3% 11.7% 30.7% Attended College 45.7% College Graduate Graduate Work S.D. 2.000 Completed Elementary School High School Graduate Mean 13.5% (No Response areas are blank) 17.2% 15.5% 18.9% 13.5% 14.9% Ranking: 1.769 .725 2.148 1.322 2.204 1.226 1.986 .876 2.190 1.067 2.770 1.299 1 * Most d is s a tis fie d 7 B Least dissatisfied Rank 109 T a b le 40 r e p o r t s p a r e n ts ' a t t i t u d e s on R esearch Q u e s tio n 4 ( th e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s ' t io n ) . p ro c e d u re s f o r h a n d lin g s tu d e n t In fo rm a ­ Ranked by e d u c a tio n a l s t a t u s fro m th e m ost d i s s a t i s f i e d t o th e le a s t d i s s a t i s f i e d (1 ) (7 ) a r e : (1 ) a tte n d e d e le m e n ta ry s c h o o l (5 ) c o lle g e g ra d u a te (2 ) c o m p le te d e le m e n ta ry s c h o o l (6 ) h ig h s c h o o l g ra d u a te (3 ) a tte n d e d h ig h sch o o l (7 ) g ra d u a te s c h o o l (4 ) a tte n d e d c o lle g e A n a ly s is by O c c u p a tio n T a b le 41.1 and T a b le 4 1 .2 r e p o r t p a r e n ts ' a t t i t u d e s on R esearch Q u e s tio n 4 ( th e s ch o o l d i s t r i c t s ' I n f o r m a t io n ) . p ro c e d u re s f o r h a n d lin g c o n f id e n t ia l Ranked by o c c u p a tio n fro m th e m ost d i s s a t i s f i e d t o th e le a s t d i s s a t i s f i e d (1 4 ) a r e : (1 ) A rt/D e s1 g n /C o m m u n 1 ca tio n (2 ) S a le s (3 ) H e a lth /S o c 1 a l S cie n ce s (4 ) I n d u s t r i a l R e la te d (5 ) H o u se w ife (6 ) S c ie n t if ic / T e c h n ic a l (7 ) T r a n s p o r ta tio n (8 ) M e c h a n ic s /R e p a ire rs (9 ) S o c ia l S e rv ic e s (1 0 ) S e rv ic e (1 1 ) O f f ic e (1 ) 1 Table 40. Parent Responses Ranked by Educational Status Regarding Satisfaction With School District Procedures Relating Generally to Student Record Information. D SA___________A___________U LEVEL OF EDUCATION No. % No. % No. % No. SD % No. % Attended Elementary School College Graduate Graduate Work Rank 14.8% 7.7% 2.077 .494 7.4% 33.3% 2.148 1.167 21 . 2 % 2.584 1.264 2.257 1.112 2.466 1.143 2.919 1.450 OIL 3.7% 15.4% High School Graduate Attended College S.D. 2.000 Completed Elementary School Attended High School Mean 2.9% 17.1% 3.4% 19.0% 16.2% (No Response areas are blank) 8. 6% 34.5% 27.0% 22.4% Ranking: 1 * Most dissatisfied 7 = Least dissatisfied Table 41.1. Parent Responses Ranked by Occupation Regarding Satisfaction With School District Procedures Relating Generally to Student Record Information (Part I). SA OCCUPATION No. A % No. U % No. D % No. SD % No. % Mean S.D. Housewife 21 . 6* 2.600 1.552 20. 0% 2.200 1.095 4.000 1.095 3.500 .577 2.407 1.162 1.667 .887 2.345 1.233 7.91 In d u s tr ia l Related O ffic e 36.4% 45.5% Service Education Related 23.4% 3.0% Sales 7.4% C o nstructio n 6.9% 37.0% 13.8% 37.9% Ranking: (No Response areas are blank) 27.6% 1 = Most d is s a tis fie d 12 = Least d is s a tis fie d Rank Table 41.2. Parent Responses Ranked by Occupation Regarding Satisfaction With School District Procedures Relating Generally to Student Record Information (Part II). SA OCCUPATION No. A 2 No. U 2 No. D 2 No. SD 2 No. 2 Mean S.D. 2.864 1.207 2.780 1.333 3.000 1.327 2.000 .000 2.000 .000 3.167 1.169 1.000 .000 T ra n s p o rta tio n 9.12 S c ie n t if ic / Technical 7.32 Mechanics/ Repairers 59.12 34.12 9.82 23.12 23.12 23.12 Health Social S c ie n tis ts 100.02 S ocial Service 50.02 33.32 A rt/D e sig n Conmunl c a tio n (No Response areas are blank) Ranking: 1 * Most d is s a tis fie d 9 B Least dissatisfied Rank Open-Ended Questionnaire Responses In a f i n a l open-ended Ite m on th e q u e s tio n n a ir e re s p o n d e n ts were a d v is e d : "THIS SPACE HAS BEEN SAVED FOR YOUR COMMENTS. th e r e any q u e s tio n s on t h i s s u b je c t t h a t I have n o t asked? A re P lease comment f r e e l y he re on any a s p e c t o f s tu d e n t r e c o r d s ." One hundred e ig h t y th r e e re sp o n d e n ts (48%) used t h i s s e c tio n o f th e q u e s tio n n a ir e t o comment on some a s p e c t o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s . The 183 re sp o n d e n ts were I d e n t i f i e d as e i t h e r SATISFIED/ DISSATISFIED p a re n ts on th e b a s is o f t h e i r resp on se to q u e s tio n n a ir e Ite m s 10 . 11 , 12 , 13 on th e q u e s tio n n a ir e . I f a re s p o n d e n t answered DISAGREE, STRONGLY DISAGREE th e y were c l a s s i f i e d as a DISSATISFIED re s p o n d e n t. I f th e re s p o n d e n t answered AGREE o r STRONGLY AGREE th e y were c l a s s i f i e d as a SATISFIED re s p o n d e n t. R e p re s e n ta tiv e comments o f b o th gro up s a re p re s e n te d h e re . The re s p o n d e n ts a re I d e n t i f i e d by o c c u p a tio n . "SATISFIED" P a re n ts O c c u p a tio n : H a ird re s s e r "M o st s c h o o ls a llo w p a re n ts access to a l l scho ol re c o rd s . We have n o t had any need f o r o b ta in in g th e s e r e c o r d s , b u t I am s u re t h a t no p r in c ip a l w ould r e fu s e . O c c u p a tio n : Homemaker " I t 1s u n fo r tu n a te to d e p riv e te a c h e rs o f p a s t re c o rd s (as was done 1n o u r system some y e a rs a g o ), s in c e 1 t can be o f g r e a t h e lp 114 t o a p r o f e s s io n a lly o r ie n te d te a c h e r whose c o n ce rn s h o u ld be t o u n d e r­ s ta n d h is s tu d e n ts as w e ll as t o e d u c a te them . Though such re c o rd s a re som etim es m isused t o p r e ju d ic e a te a c h e r to w a rd a c h i l d , t h i s 1s p ro b a b ly th e e x c e p tio n r a t h e r th a n th e r u l e . 11 O c c u p a tio n : S e c re ta ry "As a s e c r e ta r y t o an e d u c a to r— I am aware o f th e S tu d e n t P r iv a c y A c t. I b e lie v e 1n openess and h o n e s ty . to h id e , th e n why h id e h is re c o rd s ? I f a p e rson has n o th in g I f a s tu d e n t needs t o be p ro ­ te c te d th e n I b e lie v e 1n c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . " O c c u p a tio n : Homemaker "The s c h o o ls s h o u ld ap p ro a ch s tu d e n t r e c o r d -k e e p in g w it h g re a t d is c r e tio n . S tu d e n ts ' r i g h t s t o p r iv a c y m ust be p r o te c te d . The o n ly re c o rd s t o be k e p t s h o u ld be ones t h a t w i l l t o p r o v id e a b e t t e r e d u c a tio n . h e lp te a c h e rs A l l o t h e r u n n e ce ssa ry d a ta s h o u ld n e v e r be s o u g h t." O c c u p a tio n : E n g in e e r " I n g e n e r a l, I f e e l t h a t a l l p e rs o n s , te a c h e r s , p a r e n ts , e t c . s h o u ld w o rk to g e th e r fro m s tu d e n t re c o rd s w h ic h a re r e le v a n t t o th e fu tu re . I see no re a so n why a l l 1n a c h i l d ' s o f th e above Ite m s may n o t be In c lu d e d re c o rd as lo n g as th e c h i l d 1s n o t t h e r e f o r e a u t o m a t ic a lly assumed t o have u n ch a n g e a b le s c o re s , h a b it s , e t c . f o r th e f u t u r e . " O c c u p a tio n : Homemaker and School V o lu n te e r "Upon c o m p le tin g t h i s , I r e a l i z e t h a t 1 know le s s c o n c e rn ­ in g th e s u b je c t th a n I th o u g h t I d id . o u t more a b o u t my c h i l d 's f o r b r in g in g a l l O c c u p a tio n : o f t h is It 1s now my I n t e n t io n t o f i n d s c h o o l re c o rd s and t h e i r c o n te n t. Thank you t o my a t t e n t i o n . " R e c e p tio n is t "W hat 1s c o n ta in e d 1n s c h o o l re c o rd s 1s r e a l l y n e v e r b ro u g h t to th e p a r e n t s 1a t t e n t i o n o r even m e n tio n e d . because o f my c h i l d 's t o see my c h i l d ' s I ' v e become I n t e r e s te d p ro b le m s 1n a d ju s t in g t o s c h o o l. re c o rd s because I f e e l I a ls o p la n 1 f 1 t c o n ta in e d h is s tr u g g le s 1n such e a r ly y e a rs th e y s h o u ld n 't h in d e r h is f u t u r e 1n a d u lt l i f e . We go th ro u g h many s ta g e [ s i c ] g ro w in g up and m ost o f us fa c e a d u l t ­ hood when need be. O c c u p a tio n : I f e e l t h a t g ra d e s a re a l l t h a t need be r e c o r d e d ." W a itre s s " L a s t s c h o o l y e a r my husband and I w ere s e p a ra te d t h a t le d t o a d iv o r c e 1n o f t h is th e m id d le o f th e s c h o o l y e a r . I t o ld a l l th e te a c h e rs p ro b le m t h a t d id n o t r e f l e x [ s i c ] on th e c h ild r e n g r e a t l y . O n ly one te a c h e r o u t o f s e ve n , s a id t h a t , t h a t had n o th in g t o do w it h s c h o o l. W e ll, s i r 1 t d o e s , my e n v iro n m e n t does r e f l e x c h ild r e n . and B. [ s i c ] on my T h e ir g ra d e s w ere k e p t a t C, b e fo r e th e y w ere b o th a b o u t A A l l a b o u t my d iv o r c e 1s in my c h ild r e n s re c o r d s 1" 116 O c c u p a tio n : H o u se w ife "S tu d e n ts r e c o r d s , 1s a s u b je c t I have n e v e r even h e a rd d i s ­ cussed a t a s c h o o l m e e tin g , w it h te a c h e r s , p r i n c i p a l s , c o u n s e lo r s , o r any one a t no tim e I o r my husband e v e r been t o l d we c o u ld o r had any r i g h t t o re v ie w o u r c h ild r e n s ' O c c u p a tio n : re c o rd s ." S e c re ta ry " I have n e v e r d is c u s s e d o r h e ard d is c u s s e d any phase o f s c h o o l re c o rd s m e n tio n e d In above q u e s t io n n a ir e . " O c c u p a tio n : H ousekeeping A id e "O th e r th a n my sons g ra d e s , th e c i t y s c h o o ls have n e v e r m e n tio n e d h is r e c o r d — th o u g h I know he has one— When ir^y second h y s band l e g a l l y a d o p te d iny son a t age f o u r th e f i n a l d e c re e d i d n ' t come th ro u g h u n t i l a f t e r th e s t a r t o f s c h o o l. The s c h o o ls w e r e n 't [ s i c ] g o in g t o l e t us e n r o l l o u r son 1n o u r l a s t name u n t i l have c o p ie s o f a l l h is a d o p tio n p ro c e e d in g s . have t h a t , p lu s , more 1n h is p e rs o n a l f i l e . t o a p r iv a t e s c h o o l t h i s y e a r . th e y c o u ld So I know th e y m ust We have t r a n s f e r r e d him I'm g la d yo u rem ind ed me. in g t o h is o ld s c h o o l and re q u e s t h is r e c o r d s . I am go­ L e ts [ s i c ] see w h at h a p p e n s ." "DISSATISFIED" P a re n ts O c c u p a tio n : H o u se w ife " I t h in k th e s c h o o ls 1n my d i s t r i c t have p la y e d down th e p a r e n ts ' r i g h t s t o see t h e i r c h i l d ' s e lim in a t e tim e and t r o u b le f o r them . re c o rd s . I suspect th is 1s to 117 " I am q u ite concerned about the way in which one m istake on a c h ild 's p a rt fo llo w s him along a f t e r 1 t should have been f o r ­ g o tte n . " Occupation: Real E state Salesman "To be honest I can never remember h e a rin g , re a d in g , or seeing a n yth in g In regard to stu d e n t re co rd s. c h ild 's p rin c ip a l about a behavior problem. I ta lk e d w ith my Only then d id he men­ tio n my c h ild 's school record and o n ly s ta te d th a t the d is c ip lin e taken w ith my c h ild would n o t be on the s tu d e n t's re c o rd . I 'v e always wanted to see my c h ild 's school re c o rd s , b u t thought they were personal records f o r school o f f i c i a l s o n ly . (Something l ik e d o c to rs ' records on p a tie n ts ) . O ccupation: P ra c tic a l Nurse "1 know n oth ing th a t has been p ut 1n my c h ild re n s ' re co rd s. I have found th a t each o f my c h ild re n have gone through a phase 1n which they were s la c k o r should I say lacks 1n t h e ir s c h o o lin g , but once they were 1n c o lle g e t h e ir grades picked up. I c e r ta in ly would n ot have wanted t h e ir high school grades held a g a in s t them ." Occupation: S k ille d Trades Worker "S ince we have ve ry young c h ild re n (K, 2nd grade) we were not aware th a t records were open a t the schools. T his d i s t r i c t has had no p u b lic d iscu ssio n o f school records th a t we know o f . " 118 O ccupation: Homemaker " I do n o t fe e l th a t records kept a re used to t h e i r f u l l e s t e x te n t. As I have a 13 y e a r o ld w ith re a d in g problems and each ye a r 1 t takes th e te a ch e r a t le a s t 1/2 o f th e school y e a r to g e t a p ro ­ gram going f o r him. th e same: When I q u e s tio n th e d e la y th e answer 1s always ' I have n o t had a chance to lo o k a t h is r e c o r d s .1 Why are th e y ke pt 1 f te a ch e rs are n o t going to use them to p o s s ib ly help th e c h ild fu n c tio n b e tte r? " O ccupation: Nurse " I d id n o t see my c h il d 's f o ld e r . When I asked I was to ld to come back a no th er day, th e y were locked up o r som ething. L a te r I was t o ld th e y could n o t leave th e room o r be copied to stu d y o ver a t home o r go o ver w ith my husband." pr'- CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Included 1n th is ch ap te r 1s a summary o f the r e s u lts o f th e In v e s tig a tio n , suggestions f o r fu r t h e r re se a rch , and recommenda­ tio n s re la te d to c u rre n t p a re n t a ttitu d e s reg ard in g th e c o lle c tio n and use o f stu d e n t record In fo rm a tio n a t the elem entary and secondary le v e ls . The recommendations p e rta in p r im a r ily to Implementing the Fam ily R ights and P riva cy A ct o f 1974. The purpose o f t h is study was to In v e s tig a te p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s re g a rd in g the c o lle c tio n and use o f stu de n t In fo rm a tio n 1n th re e s e le c te d M ichigan school d i s t r i c t s . The dimensions o f the study re q u ire d proposing fo u r research q u e stio n s. Four areas were p re v io u s ly Id e n t if ie d and In fo rm a tio n r e la tin g to those areas was o btained from th e q u e s tio n n a ire . The fin d in g s f o r va rio u s aspects o f t h is study were pre­ sented 1n the preceding c h a p te r. Tables d e ta ilin g re la tio n s h ip s between the th re e school d i s t r i c t s are Included 1n Appendix C. Sumnar.y o f F in d in g s: Im p lic a tio n s and O bservations In o rd e r to b rin g th e fin d in g s In to fo c u s , the fo llo w in g general summary o f fin d in g s 1s presented. 119 120 Research Question 1 Q. 1: How do parents b e lie v e the c o lle c tio n and use o f stu d e n t in fo rm a tio n has been handled in t h e ir school d i s t r i c t ? Summary o f Related Findings 1. Of the 383 t o t a l respondents, 61 percent In d ic a te d th a t they e ith e r "d isag re e d" o r "s tro n g ly disagreed" w ith th e s ta te ­ ment th a t they were aware o f where and how and who to see to examine t h e ir c h ild 's school re c o rd . 2. F i f t y - s ix p ercent o f th e respondents expressed d is ­ s a tis fa c tio n w ith the procedure t h e ir school d i s t r i c t used to advise parents o f where t h e ir c h ild 's school record was a c tu a lly lo c a te d . 3. S1xty-one p ercent o f th e respondents expressed d is ­ s a tis fa c tio n w ith the procedures t h e ir school d i s t r i c t has used 1n In fo rm in g parents about a c c e s s ib ilit y to t h e ir c h ild 's school re c o rd s . 4. S1xty-n1ne percent o f th e respondents were d is s a tis ­ fie d w ith t h e ir school d i s t r i c t ' s procedures f o r a d v is in g them o f the co nte n t o f t h e ir c h ild 's school re co rd s. In a s itu a tio n such as t h i s , perhaps a more d e lin e a te d evalua­ tio n o f the data w i l l In d ic a te th a t t h is 1s not a s ig n if ic a n t develop­ ment. Research Question 2 Q. 2: records? What do parents b e lie v e should be contained 1n stu d e n t 121 S u mmary of R e lated Findings 1. S e v e n ty -fo u r p e rc e n t o f th e respondents b e lie v e d t h a t , re g a rd le s s o f th e c o n te n t o f th e s tu d e n t f i l e , s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n was w orth an "A c t o f Congress" to p r o te c t, 1 f necessary. 2. N in e ty -th re e p e rc e n t o f th e respondents approved o f th e p a re n ts 1 r ig h t to c h a lle n g e th e accuracy o f th e c o n te n t o f In ­ fo rm a tio n co nta ine d 1n t h e i r c h ild 's stu d e n t re c o rd . 3. Seventy-seven p e rce n t o f th e respondents fa vore d In ­ c lu s io n o f s p e c la l-h e lp In fo rm a tio n ( t u t o r in g , e t c . ) 1n s tu d e n t re c o rd s . 4. Using the c u r r e n t, w id e ly used M ichigan C h ild Account­ in g Student F o ld e r (CA-60) as a g u id e , p aren ts ra n k -o rd e re d the fo llo w in g Items f o r In c lu s io n 1n the s tu d e n t re c o rd : (1 ) In fo rm a ­ tio n d e la t in g to a s tu d e n t's p a r tic ip a tio n 1n school a c t i v i t i e s ; (2 ) s tu d e n t's c h a ra c te r and moral t r a i t s , (3 ) s tu d e n t's tru a n c y h is t o r y , and (4 ) s tu d e n t's d is c ip lin a r y h is t o r y . 5. (a ) Respondents ranked the fo llo w in g te s t data f o r In ­ c lu s io n 1n s tu d e n t re c o rd s : (1 ) rea d in g t e s t d a ta , (2 ) in t e llig e n c e t e s t data ( I . Q . ) , (3 ) v o c a tio n a l/c a re e r t e s t d a ta , and (4 ) math t e s t d a ta . 5. (b ) Respondents ranked th e fo llo w in g general Item In c lu s io n 1n th e s tu d e n t re c o rd : (1 ) grades earned each y e a r, (2) a s tu d e n t's rea din g le v e l, (3 ) c it iz e n s h ip , (4 ) a b s e n c e /ta rd in e ss r e ­ c o rd , and (5 ) c la s s e s /g ra d e s f a ile d . 122 Research Question 3 Q. 3: Who do parents be li e v e should have access to student records7 Summary o f R elated F in d in g s 1. N1nety-s1x p ercen t o f th e respondents fa vo re d p a re n ts ' r ig h ts to re vie w a l l o f t h e i r c h ild 's school re c o rd s . 2. S e v e n ty -s ix p e rce n t o f the respondents disagreed w ith the concept th a t school re co rd s should be s o le ly the s c h o o l's business and th a t th e school records In c lu d in g 3. should have com plete c o n tro l o f stu d e n t th e r ig h t o f a c c e s s ib ilit y to them. S e v e n ty -fiv e p e rce n t o f the respondents disa g re ed w ith a llo w in g p o lic e o r o th e r s o c ia l agencies to re vie w s tu d e n t records w ith o u t perm ission o f parents o r s tu d e n t. 4. F 1 fty -s 1 x p e rce n t o f th e respondents fa vo re d a llo w in g c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s itie s to stu d y th e c o n te n t o f school records to g ain an understanding o f th e e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f p a s t* c u r r e n t, and fu tu r e school programs. 5. E ig h ty p e rce n t o f th e respondents In d ic a te d th a t parents should be th e " f in a l school re c o rd s . a u th o r ity " over th e r ig h t to use In ra n k -o rd e r th e y expressed a w illin g n e s s to share th a t a u th o r ity w ith : (1 ) p r in c ip a l, (2 ) c o u n s e lo r, (3 ) school p s y c h o lo g is t, and (4) school nurse. Research Q uestion 4 Q. 4: records? How do p arents view th e s to rin g /m a in te n a n c e o f stu d e n t 123 Su mm a r y of Related Findings 1. S ix ty - e ig h t p e rc e n t o f the respondents d id n o t fa v o r removing n e g a tiv e in fo rm a tio n about stu d e n ts from t h e i r s tu d e n t r e ­ cords a t th e end o f each school y e a r. They disagreed w ith th e s ta te ­ ment th a t : "W hat's done, Is done." 2. F ifty - tw o p e rce n t o f th e respondents fa vo re d the p ra c tic e o f having each school d i s t r i c t 1n which a s tu d e n t re s id e s keeping and m a in ta in in g a c h il d 's permanent school re c o rd . 3. T h 1 rty -s 1 x p e rce n t o f th e respondents opposed using computers to s to re s tu d e n t re c o rd In fo rm a tio n . ce n t approved th e p ra c tic e . T h ir ty - th r e e p e r­ T h irty -o n e p e rce n t were undecided. A d d itio n a l F in d in g s 1. N in e ty -tw o p e rce n t o f th e respondents fa vore d a c le a r ly w r itt e n school d i s t r i c t p o lic y re g a rd in g th e c o lle c t io n and use o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n . 2. S e ve nty-n in e p e rce n t o f th e respondents expressed a b e lie f th a t school o f f i c i a l s should pay more a tte n tio n to p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s than th e y c u r r e n tly do. 3. S eventy-nine p e rce n t o f th e respondents were n o t s u s p ic io u s o f th e s c h o o l's m otives f o r c o lle c tin g and u sin g stu d e n t In fo rm a tio n . 4. S 1 xty-s1x p e rce n t o f th e respondents In d ic a te d th a t they had n o t discussed the Issue o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n w ith o th e r p a re n ts. 124 5. E ig hty-se ven p e rce n t o f th e respondents In d ic a te d th a t th e y attended school-sponsored m ee ting s; 33% a tte nd ed r e g u la r ly and 53% attended o c c a s io n a lly . 6. F o rty-se ve n p e rce n t o f th e respondents In d ic a te d th a t th ey had discussed school records w ith school o f f i c i a l s . 7. F o r ty - fo u r p e rce n t o f th e respondents In d ic a te d t h i t newspapers and magazine a r t ic le s about s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n were t h e i r p rim a ry sources o f In fo rm a tio n re g a rd in g t h is Is s u e . O ther sources o f In fo rm a tio n , 1n rank o rd e r, were: (2) s c h o o l-p a re n t m eetings, (3 ) l e t t e r , o r n o tic e , from a school o f f i c i a l , and (4) school n e w s le tte r. 8. A n a ly s is o f th e fo u r research q u e s tio n s by age, educa­ tio n a l s ta tu s , and o ccup atio n re v e a ls t h a t , w ith age, th e le v e l o f d is s a tis fa c tio n 1s g re a te s t among young parents (ages 25-34) and decreases w ith age. W ith e d u c a tio n a l s ta tu s th e re 1s a p a tte rn re v e a lin g th a t th e low er th e re sp o n d e n t's e d u c a tio n a l s ta tu s the g re a te r th e d is ­ s a tis fa c t io n . In r e la t io n to a l l fo u r research q u e s tio n s , parents w ith an elem entary school e du catio n were th e most d is s a t is f ie d ; parents who were h ig h school g ra d u a te s, c o lle g e g ra d u a te s , o r had attended graduate school were le a s t d is s a t is f ie d . Ranking by o c c u p a tio n a l s ta tu s reve ale d th a t th e h ig h e s t le v e l o f d is s a t is f a c t io n e x is te d among h ig h ly p ro fe s s io n a l occupa­ tio n a l a re a s . I . e . Art/Des1gn/Commun1cation, S a le s , H e a lth . m iddle range In c lu d e d : I n d u s t r ia l- r e la t e d , C o n s tru c tio n , The 125 E d u c a tio n -re la te d , and Housewives. 1n : Least d is s a tis fa c tio n was found S c ie n tific - T e c h n ic a l, T ra n s p o rta tio n , Mechan1c-Repa1rers, S ocial Science, S e rv ic e , and O ffic e occupations. A p r o f ile o f parents who completed and re tu rn e d the q u e s tio n n a ire Is re v e a lin g : A m a jo rity o f th e responding parents were m others. E ighty-seven percent o f the responding parents a tte n d school meet­ in g s . The m a jo rity o f parents received t h e ir In fo rm a tio n about stu d e n t records from newspaper and magazine a r t ic le s . The responding parents b e lie v e school o f f i c i a l s should pay more a tte n tio n to p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s than they do. The responding parents re p re se n t a wide spectrum o f occu­ p a tio n s . Most have earned high school diplom as; h a lf have attended c o lle g e , graduated from c o lle g e , a nd /o r attended graduate sch oo l. S e v e n ty -fiv e percent are between 25-44 years o f age. S ix ty - fo u r percent have liv e d 1n th e d i s t r i c t f o r from 6 to 11 years o r more. The responding parents are In te re s te d 1n the Issue o f the c o lle c tio n and use o f stu d e n t In fo rm a tio n . Most o f the responding parents have met w ith school a d m in is tra to rs to discuss t h e ir c h ild 's stu d e n t re c o rd s , b u t they have n o t ta lk e d w ith o th e r parents about school re co rd s. The responding parents are se rio u s about the p riv a c y r ig h ts o f t h e ir c h ild re n . They are d is s a tis fie d w ith how t h e ir school d i s t r i c t has handled the stu d e n t record Issu e . They do not 126 q u e s tio n the s c h o o l's m otives f o r c o lle c t in g and using s tu d e n t In ­ fo rm a tio n , b u t th e y q u e s tio n th e school d i s t r i c t ' s methods f o r a d v is in g parents about th e c o lle c t io n , use, and c o n te n t o f stu d e n t re c o rd s . The responding parents b e lie v e th a t th e c o n te n t o f t h e ir c h ild 's school re co rd m e rits p ro te c tio n by an "A c t o f C ongress," i f necessary. They a ls o b e lie v e 1n a p a re n t's r ig h t to c h a lle n g e the accuracy o f th e c o n te n ts o f th e c h ild 's s tu d e n t re c o rd . They want both " p o s itiv e " and "n e g a tiv e " In fo rm a tio n in c lu d e d 1n th e stu d e n t re c o rd , b u t th e y emphasize th e need f o r both p riv a c y and fa irn e s s . S lig h t ly more than h a lf o f th e responding p a re n ts fa v o r th e use o f th e co n te n ts o f s tu d e n t reco rd s by c o lle g e and u n iv e r s ity personnel 1n o rd e r to study th e e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f school programs. I t seems th a t these are a c tiv e , In te re s te d , and concerned parents who could be d ir e c t p a r tic ip a n ts in th e p la n n in g and d ir e c tio n o f s tu d e n t record procedures. Recommendations f o r F u rth e r Research An assessment o f c u rre n t p a re n t a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s r e ­ gardin g the c o lle c t io n and use o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n d e riv e d from th e data co n ta in e d 1n th e 383 p a re n t q u e s tio n n a ire s su pp orts th e fo llo w in g recommendations r e la te d to f u r t h e r re se a rch . ings r a is e Im p o rta n t q u e stio n s f o r f u r t h e r re se a rch . In c lu d e : These f in d ­ Suggested areas 127 1. The e f f e c t o f geographic lo c a tio n on p a re n t a ttitu d e s toward th e c o lle c tio n and use o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n a t th e elemen­ ta r y and secondary le v e ls . 2. Methods f o r d is t r ib u t in g In fo rm a tio n to paren ts re g a rd ­ in g th e c o lle c t io n and use o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n would seem to m e rit f u r t h e r s e rio u s stu d y. Q uestions o f c o n te n t and procedure need f u r t h e r o b je c tiv e s tu d y . 3. co rd s. How schools can f a c i l i t a t e p a re n t review o f school r e ­ A d d itio n a l research 1s needed to determ ine how to b e st remove th e I n h ib it in g fa c to r s . 4. A lte r n a tiv e methods f o r making In fo rm a tio n more understandable to stu d e n ts and t h e i r p aren ts through th e use o f a fo rm a t developed f o r th a t purpose. 5. The r e la tio n s h ip o f p a re n ta l responses to a v a r ie ty o f Item s and th e a ttitu d e s th e y hold toward th e c o lle c tio n and use o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n 1n such areas as: p a re n t o c c u p a tio n s , age, e d u c a tio n a l s ta tu s , ra c e , and 1one-ch11d v. m u lt ip le - c h ild fa m ilie s . 6. F u rth e r research may be p ro d u c tiv e 1n e x p lo rin g how p a re n ta l concern 1n one area matched p a re n ta l concern expressed 1n a n o th e r. Recommendations f o r Im plem entation o f th e Fanrily E ducational Rights" and P riv a c y A c t These recommendations are suggested: 128 1. The law re q u ire s schools to n o t if y p a re n ts o f t h e ir r ig h t s ; th e r e fo r e , a l l aspects o f th e Fam ily E d u catio na l R igh ts and P riva c y A c t o f 1974 should be a c t iv e ly e nfo rced by a l l school d i s t r i c t s w ith th e r ig h t to p riv a c y o f both p a re n ts and stu de n ts guaranteed. Parents should p ro v id e In -p u t 1n p la n n in g and d ir e c t ­ ing th e In fo rm a tio n a l process. Parents should be advised th a t school records a re p ro te c te d by an A c t o f Congress. tr ic ts School d is ­ should e s ta b lis h a P arent A d v is o ry Committee to c h a rt and Implement th e enforcem ent o f a l l aspects o f th e A c t th ro u g h o u t th e system. (a ) Comprehensive e d u c a tio n a l programs f o r s t a f f , s tu d e n ts , and p a re n ts should be developed by th e Parent A d viso ry Committee to p ro v id e f o r e f f e c t iv e Im plem entation o f th e A c t. (b ) G u id e lin e s e s ta b lis h e d by th e A c t should be p u b lish e d and w id e ly d is t r ib u te d by th e school d i s t r i c t v ia a wide v a r ie ty o f media. 2. S p ecial n o t if ic a t io n forms f o r p arents should be developed 1n every school system w hich: (a ) I d e n t if y In d iv id u a ls a n d /o r o rg a n iz a tio n s who have asked f o r p erm ission to see t h e i r c h il d 's s tu d e n t re c o rd . (b ) E x p la in procedures to be used by p a re n ts who want to c h a lle n g e th e accuracy o f th e c o n te n t o f t h e i r c h il d 's stu d e n t re c o rd . 3. S tudent re co rd s should be made a v a ila b le f o r p a re n t revie w a t a t le a s t one p a r e n t- te a c h e r - p r ln c lp a l m eeting d u rin g th e 129 school y e a r. Provide the p a re n t w ith the complete f i l e plus a thorough, system atic e x p la n a tio n o f the Fam ily Educational R ights and P riva cy A ct o f 1974 and t h e ir r ig h ts as p arents. 4. Parents should be advised th a t they have a m ajor r o le , 1n p a rtn e rs h ip w ith the school p r in c ip a l, reg ard in g th e use o f t h e ir c h ild 's school re co rd . The v e h ic le f o r In fo rm ing parents should be decided on the basis o f the r e s u lts o f an 1 n -d 1 s tr1 c t survey re g a rd in g the d e s ir a b ilit y o f c e rta in in fo rm a tio n dissem ina­ tio n techniques. 5. P ro fe ssio n a l o rg a n iz a tio n s should a tte m p t to sponsor le g is la t io n th a t goes beyond th e e s ta b lis h e d n a tio n a l g u id e lin e s f o r c o lle c tio n and d is s e m in a tio n o f in fo rm a tio n 1n an a ttem pt to p ro vide g re a te r p ro te c tio n f o r student as w e ll as parent r ig h ts and p r iv ile g e s . APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTERS TO PARENTS Ar ch i e H. Bailey 423 Somerset Drive Flushing, Michigan 48433 J u ly , 1976 Dear Parent: I am in te re s te d 1n g e ttin g yo ur o p in io n re g a rd in g the c o lle c tio n and use o f 1nforma11on Ikept 1n s tu d e n ts ' school reco rd s. You are among several hundred parents whose names have been randomly s e le cte d and who are being asked to complete the enclosed q u e s tio n n a ire . You are n o t re q u ire d to d is c lo s e yo u r I d e n t it y . Your anonym ity Is guaranteed! I hope you w i l l make every e f f o r t to complete and re tu rn the q u e s tio n n a ire In the enclosed, stamped, addressed envelope (h o p e fu lly to d a y ). This 1s yo u r chance to make yo u r o p in io n s c o u n t! F in a lly , I am re q u e stin g th a t the q u e s tio n n a ire be com­ p le te d by the m o th e r/fa th e r o r guardian who deals most w ith yo u r c h ild 's sch oo l. Thank you f o r your c o o p e ra tio n . S in c e re ly , A rch ie H. B a ile y D octoral Candidate M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity (The to t a l c o s t o f t h is m a ilin g 1s a t personal expense.) 130 131 Mr. B a ile y : I w i l l re tu rn the attached q u e s tio n n a ire , s e p a ra te ly , 1n th e enclosed re tu rn envelope as soon as p o s s ib le . Name __________________________________________ Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C ity __________________________________________ 132 A rc h ie H. B a ile y 423 Somerset D riv e F lu s h in g , M ichigan 48433 Dear P arent: Your o p in io n counts 1 . . . t h a t ' s why I am asking you to com plete th e enclosed q u e s tio n n a ire and m ail 1 t 1 n th e en­ c lo s e d , stamped, addressed envelope. P a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s are having a g re a te r Im pact on American e d u catio n today more than e ver b e fo re . I would l i k e and a p p re c ia te your o p in io n re g a rd in g th e c o lle c t io n and use o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n . I am lo o k in g fo rw a rd to h e a rin g from you. S in c e re ly , A rc h ie H. B a ile y D o cto ra l Candidate M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity 133 A rc h ie E. B a ile y 423 Somerset D riv e F lu s h in g , M ichigan 48433 Dear P a ren t: A ccording to my records I have n ot y e t re c e iv e d yo u r q u e s tio n n a ire re g a rd in g th e c o lle c t io n and use o f s tu d e n t In fo rm a tio n . I hope t h is does n o t In d ic a te a d e c is io n n o t to p a r tic ip a te 1n th e s tu d y . Your o p in io n counts I In o rd e r to h e lp th e p ro cessin g o f q u e s tio n n a ir e s ... and to In c lu d e y o u r o p in io n in th e s tu d y .. .p le a s e re tu rn the enclosed q u e s tio n n a ire 1 n th e e n clo se d , stamped, addressed envelope. Thank you. S in c e re ly , A rc h ie H. B a ile y D octoral C andidate M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity APPENDIX B PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE P ARENT Q U E S T I O N NA I R E T his q u e s tio n n a ire deals w ith th e c o lle c tio n and use o f In fo rm a tio n kept 1 n s tu d e n ts 1 school re c o rd s . DIRECTIONS: For t h is f i r s t s e t o f Item s place an "X" n e xt to th e space th a t a p p lie s to you. (1 ) (2 ) (3 ) (4 ) (5 ) (6 ) (7 ) 111 T his q u e s tio n n a ire 1s being completed by: m other fa th e r gu a rd ia n o th e r:_______________ How much e d u ca tio n have you had: attended e lem entary school completed h ig h school completed elem entary school attended c o lle g e attended high school ____ graduated from c o lle g e -g ra d u a te work How o ld are you: under 20 25-34 45-54 __ 55+ 20-24 35-44 how many c h ild re n do you have 1 n th e folTowThg grades: K 3____ 6 ____ 9____ 12 1 4 7 10 qraduated 5_ 8 11 2_______ How many ye ars have you T lved 1n t h is school d i s t r i c t : le s s than a y e a r __ 1-5 years 6-10 ye a rs ____ 11 o r more Have you ta lk e d w ith o th e r parents 1n th e d i s t r i c t about the c o lle c tio n and use o f In fo rm a tio n ke p t 1n s tu d e n t re c o rd s : yes no Do you a tte n d school sponsored m eetings: y e s , r e g u la r ly o c c a s io n a lly no What 1 s y o u r o c c u p a tio n : ______ _____ In the p a s t, have you met w ith a school o f f i c i a l ( p r in c ip a l, c o u n s e lo r, te a c h e r) re g a rd in g In fo rm a tio n 1n y o u r c h ild 's school re c o rd s : yes no THESE STATEMENTS ASK FOR YOUR OPINION. In d ic a te y o u r o p in io n by p la c in g an "X" f o r each statem ent w hether you s tr o n g ly agree (SA); agree (A ); d isa g re e (D ); o r s tr o n g ly d isa g re e (SD) w ith th e sta te m e n t. I f you cannot make up y o u r m ind, o r fe e l you d o n 't know, mark th e undecided (U) space. (10) SA A UN D SD Your school d i s t r i c t has done a s a t is ­ fa c to r y jo b o f In fo rm in g p a re n ts o f where t h e i r c h il d 's school re co rd 1 s k e p t. (11) SA A UN D SD G e n e ra lly speaking, y o u r school d1str1c1 has done a s a tis fa c t o r y Job o f l e t t i n g p arents know who can see yo u r c h il d 's re c o rd s . (12) __S A A UN D SD Your school d i s t r i c t has done a s a tls fa c to r y jo b o f In fo rm in g you about what 1 s 1 n y o u r c h ild 's school re c o rd s . 134 135 SAA UN D SD W ith th e In fo rm a tio n you have re celved from y o u r sc hooV^Jl s t r i c t you are a b le to go to yo u r c h ild 's school knowing where and how and who to see to lo o k a t y o u r c h ild 's school re c o rd . SA AUN p SD Parents should be allow ed to see a l l In fo rm a tio n 1 n t h e i r c h ild 's school re c o rd s . SA AUN D SD The In fo rm a tio n 1n y o u r c h ild 's school re co rd 1s w orth "le g a l p ro te c tio n " through an A ct o f Congress, 1 f necessary. SA A UN D SD Parents should have th e r ig h t to ch a lle n g e the accuracy o f th e In fo rm a tio n 1n t h e i r c h ild 's school re c o rd s . SA AUN D SD As p a rt o f an In v e s tig a tio n , p o lic e o r o th e r s o c ia l agencies should be allow ed to see any s tu d e n t's school reco rd w ith o u t perm ission o f s tu d e n t o r p a re n t. SA AUN D SD School records should be th e s c h o o l's B usiness, th e school should have complete c o n tro l o f stu d e n t re c o rd s . SAA UN D SD I f y o u r c h ild re c e iv e d s p e c ia l help In re a d in g , math, o r some o th e r area 1 t should be noted 1 n h is / her school re c o rd . SA AUN D SD When a c h ild tr a n s fe rs from one school d i s t r i c t to a n o th e r, th e school d i s t r i c t th e c h ild 1 s le a v in g should keep a permanent copy o f th e c h ild 's complete school re c o rd . SA A UN D SD Computers should be used to s to re stu d e n t re co rd In fo rm a tio n . SA A UN D SD Study o f th e co n te n ts o f stu d e n t records by c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s itie s 1 s necessary to o b ta in an understanding o f p a s t, c u rr e n t, and fu tu r e school programs. SA A UN D SD G e n e ra lly speaking, school o f f i c i a l s should pay more a tte n tio n to p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s than th ey do. SA A UN D SD School d i s t r i c t s should have a c le a r ly w r itt e n p o lic y f o r the c o lle c tio n and use o f In fo rm a tio n kept 1 n s tu d e n ts ' re co rd s. SA A UN D SD I am s u s p ic io u s o f th e s c h o o l's motives f o r keeping s tu d e n t records a t a l l . SA A UN D SD "W hat's done, 1s d on e!" and n e g a tive in fo rm a tio n about a s tu d e n t should be removed from th e f i l e s a t the end o f each school y e a r. 136 PLEASE ANSWER THESE BRIEF QUESTIONS ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR m rr.------------------------------------------------ --------------(27) (28) (29) (30) (31) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S p e c if ic a lly , what kin d o f In fo rm a tio n have you re a d , heard, o r seen 1n th e p a st y e a r o r two about th e c o lle c tio n and use o f In ­ fo rm a tio n ke pt 1n s tu d e n ts ' school re c o rd s . Please mark each Item from 1 (most remembered) to 4 ( le a s t remembered). I read an a r t i c l e 1n a school n e w s le tte r. I re c e iv e d a l e t t e r from a school o f f i c i a l . School personnel discussed the Issue a t a PTA m eeting. .Newspaper and magazine a r t ic le s . Many o f th e Item s below about stu d e n ts could be placed 1n stu d e n t re c o rd s . Please mark each Item a ccordin g to how Im p o rta n t you th in k I t 1s to the s tu d e n t. Please mark each Item from 1 (most Im p o rta n t) through 1 0 ( le a s t Im p o rta n t). c h a r a c te r is tic s In h e r ite d from parents c h a ra c te r and moral t r a i t s _________ ___ neighborhood environm ent where re a re d : c ity /fa rm /to w n _______ ___ d is c ip lin a r y a c tio n c h ild 's fr ie n d s ____________________ ___ temper tantrum s sex c u r io s it y and development p a r t ic ip a t io n 1 n school tru a n c y h is to r y a c tiv it ie s Who should be th e " f i n a l a u th o r ity " o ver th e use o f th e in fo rm a ­ tio n 1n y o u r c h ild 's school re c o rd . Rank each o f th e fo llo w in g from 1 (most a u th o r ity ) through 6 ( le a s t a u t h o r it y ) . teachers_____________ ___ school p s y c h o lo g is t school counselors school nurse p r in c ip a l __p a re n ts , w ith one o r more o f the above In yo u r o p in io n , which o f th e fo llo w in g do you c o n s id e r most Im­ p o rta n t to be In clu d e d In a s tu d e n ts ' school re c o rd . Rank each o f th e fo llo w in g from 1 (most Im p o rta n t) through 4 ( le a s t Impor­ ta n t). In te llig e n c e t e s t scores ( I . Q . ) ___ rea din g t e s t scores math t e s t scores ___ v o c a tio n a l/c a re e r In te r e s t te s ts These Items lis t e d here are recorded 1n s tu d e n t records 1n many school d i s t r i c t s . Rank each accordin g to im portance from 1 (most Im p o rta n t) through 6 ( le a s t Im p o rta n t). jjr a d e s earned each y e a r c itiz e n s h ip (how a c h ild how w e ll y o u r c h ild reads "behaves") a l l c la s s e s , o r grades, f a ile d a b s e n c e /ta rd in e ss record TR15"§PAT:I MAS bfcfeN Saved FOR YOUR COMMENTS. Are th e re any q u e stio n s on t h is s u b je c t th a t I have n o t asked? Please comment f r e e ly here on any aspect o f s tu d e n t re c o rd s . (When you have completed t h is page place th e completed q u e s tio n n a ire 1n enclosed envelope and m a ll. THANK Y0U1) 1 APPENDIX C ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES Table 42. An al y s i s of Variance and Post Hoc Comparison o f Quest i o n na i r e Item #10. "Your school d i s t r i c t has done a s a tis fa c to r y o f where t h e i r c h ild 's school re co rd 1 s ke p t. jo b o f In fo rm in g parents ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Degree o f Freedom Sum Squares F -R a tio 2 57.2057 18.434 WITHIN GROUPS 380 589.6142 TOTAL 382 646.8198 Source o f V a r ia tio n BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .0 0 0 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e CONTRAST 1 CONTRAST 2 CONTRAST 3 D1 " D3 D1 - °2 °2 - °3 Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-P rob. .3247 .1576 2.060 380.0 .040 -.6454 .1503 -4.2 9 4 380.0 .0 0 0 .9700 .1652 5.872 380.0 .0 0 0 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e ■ .05. D.| - Ann Arbor, D 2 » Bay City, D 3 » Flint. 137 138 Table 43. Analysis of Variance and Post Hoc Comparison of Questionnaire Item #11. "G e n e ra lly speaking, your school d i s t r i c t has done a s a tis fa c to r y jo b o f le t t in g parents know who can see your c h ild 's re c o rd s ." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Degree o f Freedom Sum Squares F -R atio 2 54.1966 19.299 WITHIN GROUPS 380 533.5789 TOTAL 382 587.7755 Source o f V a ria tio n BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .0 0 0 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-Prob. CONTRAST 1 D] - D3 .1961 .1500 1.308 380.0 .192 CONTRAST 2 - D2 -.7064 .1430 -4.941 380.0 .0 0 0 CONTRAST 3 D2 - D3 .9025 .1572 5.743 380.0 .0 0 0 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e * .05. Dj * Ann Arbor, ■ Bay City, = Flint. 139 T a b l e 44. A n al y s i s of V a r i a n c e and Post Hoc C o mp a r i s on o f Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Item #12. "Your school d i s t r i c t has done a s a t is f a c t o r y jo b o f in fo rm in g you about what 1 s 1 n y o u r c h il d 's school re c o rd s ." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Sum Squares F -R a tio 2 9.6961 3.569 WITHIN GROUPS 380 516.2413 TOTAL 382 525.9373 Source o f V a r ia tio n Degree o f Freedom BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .029 POST HOC COMPARISON M agnitude o f D iffe re n c e CONTRAST 1 Di CONTRAST 2 Di CONTRAST 3 °2 Standard E rro r T -V alue Degree o f Freedom T -P rob. - D3 .0801 .1475 .543 380.0 .588 - D2 -.3 0 0 5 .1406 -2.1 3 7 380.0 .033 - D3 .3806 .1546 2.462 380.0 .014 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e - .05. Dj ** Ann Arbor, 0 2 = Bay City, 0 3 « Flint. 140 Table 45. Analysis of Variance and Post Hoc Comparison of Questionnaire Item #13. “ With the in fo rm a tio n you have received from yo ur school d i s t r i c t you are able to go to your c h ild 's school knowing where and how and who to see to look a t yo u r c h ild 's school re c o rd s ." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Degree o f Freedom Sum Squares F-Rat1o 2 27.2131 9.128 WITHIN GROUPS 380 566.4266 TOTAL 382 593.6397 Source o f V a ria tio n BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .0 0 0 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-Prob. CONTRAST 1 D] - D3 .2255 .1545 1.460 380.0 .145 CONTRAST 2 D] - Dg -.4440 .1473 -3.014 380.0 .003 CONTRAST 3 Dg - D3 669g .1619 4.135 380.0 .0 0 0 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e = .05. D.| - Ann Arbor, Dg s Bay City, D 3 - Flint. 141 Table 46. Analysis of Variance and Post Hoc Comparison of Questionnaire Item #14. "Parents should be allow ed to see a l l In fo rm a tio n 1n t h e ir c h ild 's school re c o rd s ." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Sum Squares F-Rat1o 2 5.4265 6 .2 2 2 WITHIN GROUPS 380 165.7118 TOTAL 382 171.1384 Source o f V a ria tio n Degree o f Freedom BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .0 0 2 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-Prob. CONTRAST 1 Di - D3 .1195 .0836 1.430 380.0 .154 CONTRAST 2 Di - D2 .2810 .0797 3.527 380.0 .0 0 0 - D3 -.1615 .0876 -1.844 380.0 .066 CONTRAST 3 °2 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e ■ .05. Dj * Ann Arbor, D 2 ■ Bay City, Dg = Flint. 142 Table 47. A n alysis of V a riance and Post Hoc Comparison of Q u estionnaire Item #15. "The In fo rm a tio n 1 n y o u r c h ild 's school re co rd 1s w orth 'le g a l p ro ­ te c tio n * through an A c t o f Congress, 1 f n e ce ssa ry." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Sum Squares F-Rat1o 2 1.5352 .521 WITHIN GROUPS 380 560.2977 TOTAL 382 561.8329 Source o f V a ria tio n Degree o f Freedom BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .595 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-P rob. CONTRAST 1 D*, “ D3 -.05 6 3 .1537 -.3 6 6 380.0 .714 CONTRAST 2 D] - D2 .1035 .1465 .706 380.0 .480 CONTRAST 3 t>2 ~ ° 3 “ * 1598 .1610 -.9 9 2 380.0 .322 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e » .05. ■ Ann Arbor, Dg ■ Bay City, D 3 = Flint. 143 T a bl e 48. Analysis of V a riance and Post Hoc Comparison of Questionnaire Item #16. "P arents should have th e r ig h t to c h a lle n g e th e accuracy o f the In fo rm a ­ tio n in t h e i r c h il d 's school re c o rd s ." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Sum Squares F -R a tio 2 5.8114 5.066 WITHIN GROUPS 380 217.9397 TOTAL 382 223.7493 Source o f V a ria tio n Degree o f Freedom BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .007 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T -P rob. CONTRAST 1 D1 - D3 -.04 4 6 .0958 -.4 6 5 380.0 .642 CONTRAST 2 D] - D2 .2424 .0914 2.652 380.0 .008 CONTRAST 3 0 2 - D3 -.28 6 9 .1004 -2.8 5 7 380.0 .005 Level o f S1gn1f1ca- ce * .05. D-| * Ann Arbor, 0 2 c Bay City, D 3 ■ Flint. 144 T able 49. A n alysis of V a riance and Post Hoc Comparison of Q u e s t i o n na i r e Item #17. "As p a r t o f an In v e s tig a tio n , p o lic e o r o th e r s o c ia l agencies should be allow ed to see any s tu d e n t*s school re co rd w ith o u t perm ission o f the s tu d e n t o r p a re n t." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Degree o f Freedom Sum Squares F-Rat1o 2 4.1330 1.186 WITHIN GROUPS 380 661.9244 TOTAL 382 666.0574 Source o f V a r ia tio n BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .306 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-Prob. CONTRAST 1 D] - D3 .0571 .1670 .342 380.0 .732 CONTRAST 2 D7 - D2 .2396 .1592 1.505 380.0 .133 CONTRAST 3 D2 - D3 -.1 8 2 5 .1750 -1.0 4 3 380.0 .298 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e * .0 5 . D-j - An n Arbor, D 2 = Bay City, D 3 ■ Flint. 145 Table 50. Analysis of Variance and Post Hoc Comparison of Questionnaire Item #18. "School records should be the s c h o o l's business. have complete c o n tro l o f stu de n t re c o rd s ." The school should ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Degree o f Freedom Sum Squares F-Rat1o 2 2.0728 .702 WITHIN GROUPS 380 561.2588 TOTAL 382 563.3316 Source o f V a ria tio n BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .496 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-Prob. CONTRAST 1 Dt - D3 *.0043 .1538 -.0 2 8 380.0 .978 CONTRAST 2 D] - D2 .1554 .1466 1.060 380.0 .290 CWfPWST 3 D2 - D3 -.1598 .1612 -.991 380.0 .322 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e ■ .05. D 1 - Ann Arbor, D 2 * Bay City, D 3 c Flint. 146 Table 51. Analysis of Variance and Post Hoc Comparison of Questionnaire Item #19. " I f yo u r c h ild received s p e c ia l help in re a d in g , math, o r some o th e r area I t should be noted In h is /h e r school re c o rd ." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Sum Squares F-Rat1o 2 8.4346 4.048 WITHIN GROUPS 380 395.9309 TOTAL 382 404.3655 Source o f V a ria tio n Degree o f Freedom BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .018 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D1fference CONTRAST 1 CONTRAST 2 CONTRAST 3 °3 D1 D1 °2 “ °2 °3 Standard E rro r T-Prob. .3229 .1292 2.500 380.0 .013 -.0205 .1232 -.1 6 7 380.0 .8 6 8 .3435 .1354 2.537 380.0 .0 1 2 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e - .05. « Ann Arbor, T-Value Degree o f Freedom - Bay City, ■ Flint. 147 Table 52. Analysis of Variance and Post Hoc Comparison of Questionnaire Item #20. "When a c h ild tra n s fe rs from one school d i s t r i c t to another* the school d i s t r i c t the c h ild 1 s le a v in g should keep a permanent copy o f the c h ild 's complete school re c o rd ." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Sum Squares F-Rat1o 2 4.4768 1.448 WITHIN GROUPS 380 587.4605 TOTAL 382 591.9373 Source o f V a ria tio n Degree o f Freedom BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .236 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e CONTRAST 1 CONTRAST 2 CONTRAST 3 Di °i °2 Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-Prob. - D3 .2550 .1574 1.620 380.0 .106 - D2 .0328 .1500 .219 380.0 .827 - D3 .2 2 2 2 .1649 1.347 380.0 .179 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e ■ .05. Dj ■ Ann Arbor, D2 ■ Bay City, D 3 * Flint. 148 Table 53. Analysis of Variance and Post Hoc Comparison of Questionnaire Item #21. “ Computers should be used to s to re stu d e n t record In fo rm a tio n ." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Sum Squares F-Rat1o 2 7.8526 2.961 WITHIN GROUPS 380 503.8863 TOTAL 382 511.7389 Source o f V a ria tio n Degree o f Freedom BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .053 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-Prob. CONTRAST 1 D1 - D3 .3333 .1457 2.287 380.0 .023 CONTRAST 2 D] - D2 .2396 .1389 1.725 380.0 .085 CONTRAST 3 D2 - D3 .0937 .1527 .614 380.0 .540 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e = .05. D.j ■ Ann Arbor, D 2 * Bay City, D 3 ■ Flint. 149 Table 54. Analysis of Variance and Post Hoc Comparison of Questionnaire Item #22. "Study o f the contents o f stu d e n t records by c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s itie s 1 s necessary to o b ta in an understanding o f p a s t, c u rr e n t, and fu tu re school program s." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Source o f V a ria tio n Degree o f Freedom BETWEEN GROUPS 2 Sum Squares F " 2.5546 WITHIN GROUPS 380 579.7900 TOTAL 382 582.3446 f * .837 .434 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e CONTRAST 1 CONTRAST 2 CONTRAST 3 D1 - °3 D1 ' D2 °2 - °3 Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-Prob. .0450 .1563 .288 380.0 .774 .1884 .1490 1.264 380.0 .207 -.1434 .1638 -.8 7 5 380.0 .382 * Level o f S ig n ific a n c e = .05. D<| * Ann A rb o r, D^ ■ Bay C ity , D^ * F l in t . 150 Table 55. Analysis of Variance and Post Hoc Comparison of Questionnaire Item #23. “ G e n e ra lly speaking, school o f f i c i a l s should pay more a tte n tio n to p a re n ts ' a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s than they d o ." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Source o f Variance Degree o f Freedom BETWEEN GROUPS 2 Sum Squares F-Rat1o 1.8558 .954 WITHIN GROUPS 380 369.4758 TOTAL 382 371.3316 F. Prob. .386 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-Prob. CONTRAST 1 Dj - D3 .0372 .1248 .298 380.0 .766 CONTRAST 2 D] - D2 .1603 .1190 1.348 380.0 .179 CONTRAST 3 D2 - D3 -.1231 .1308 -.941 380.0 .347 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e « .05. = Ann Arbor, D 2 = Bay City, Dg = Flint. 151 Table 56. Analysis of Variance and Post Hoc Comparison of Questionnaire Item #24. "School d i s t r i c t s should have a c le a r ly w r itte n p o lic y f o r the c o lle c tio n and use o f In fo rm a tio n kept 1n s tu d e n ts ' re c o rd s ." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Degree o f Freedom Sum Squares F -R atio 2 1.2543 1.057 WITHIN GROUPS 380 225.5551 TOTAL 382 226.8094 Source o f V a ria tio n BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob, .349 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-Prob. CONTRAST 1 D] - D3 -.0658 .0975 -.67 5 380.0 .500 CONTRAST 2 D] - Dg -.1350 .0930 -1.452 380.0 .147 CONTRAST 3 D? - D3 .0692 .1022 .677 380.0 .499 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e * .05. Dj * Ann Arbor, Dg ■ Bay City, * Flint. 152 Table 57. Analysis of Variance and Post Hoc Comparison of Questionnaire Item #25. " I am su spiciou s o f the s c h o o l's m otives f o r keeping stu d e n t records at a ll." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Sum Squares F -R atio 2 8.3113 5.380 WITHIN GROUPS 380 293.5373 TOTAL 382 301.8486 Source o f V a ria tio n Degrees o f Freedom BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .005 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-Prob. CONTRAST 1 D-j - D3 .1251 .1112 1.125 380.0 .261 CONTRAST 2 Dj - D2 .3465 .1060 3.267 380.0 .0 0 1 CONTRAST 3 D2 - D3 -.2 2 1 4 .1166 -1.899 380.0 .058 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e = .05. Dj * Ann Arbor, D 2 “ Bay City, ■ Flint. 153 Table 58. Analysis of Variance and Post Hoc Comparison of Questionnaire Item #26. "'W h a t's done, 1s done ! 1 and n e g a tive In fo rm a tio n about a student should be removed from the f i l e s a t the end o f each school y e a r ." ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Sum Squares F-Rat1o 2 7.5466 2.693 WITHIN GROUPS 380 532.4482 TOTAL 382 539.9948 Source o f V a ria tio n Degree o f Freedom BETWEEN GROUPS F. Prob. .069 POST HOC COMPARISON Magnitude o f D iffe re n c e Standard E rro r T-Value Degree o f Freedom T-Prob. CONTRAST 1 D] - D3 .0870 .1498 .581 380.0 .562 CONTRAST 2 D] - D2 .3257 .1428 2.281 380.0 .023 CONTRAST 3 D2 - D3 -.2387 .1570 -1.521 380.0 .129 Level o f S ig n ific a n c e = .05. D.| “ Ann Arbor, D 2 = Bay City, D 3 ■ Flint. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY P u b lic Documents C ongressional Record. V o l. 120 (1974). Elnhorn v. M aul, e t a l . , 300 F. Supp. (1969) E ld e r v . Anderson. 23 C a l. R p tr. 48 (1962). Marmo v . The New York C1tv Board o f E d u ca tio n , 289 N.Y.S. -------------- (1466).---------------------------------------------01 instead v . U.S. , 66 2nd. 51 A .L .R . 376 (1928). People v . R u s s e ll. 29 C al. R p tr. 562 (1963). "P riv a c y R igh ts o f Parents and S tu d e n ts ," FederalR e g is te r D .C ., 1976), 24662. (W ashington, Van A lle n v . M cClearv. 211 N.Y.S. 2nd. 501 (1961). P e rio d ic a ls Ashbaugh, C arl R ., W illia m s , M artha. "Changing laws and Unchanging P ra c tic e s 1n Student R ecord-K eeping," Ph1 D e lta Kappan (1976). B a ile y , A rc h ie H. "A S tra te g y f o r H andling C o n fid e n tia l S tudent In ­ fo rm a tio n ," The C le a rin g House. 47, (F e b ru a ry, 1973), pp. 351-2. Beavan, K e ith . "P aren ts Should be Able to C hallenge School F ile s , " New York Times: E ducational Supplement, No. 2862 (March 27, M T ---------------------------- ----------------------- -------------- C ra ig , Roger E. "F a m ily E ducational R ig h ts and P riv a c y A ct o f 1974: A T e n ta tiv e L o o k ," Quest, M ichigan Personnel and Guidance A s s o c ia tio n , January, 1975. D lvoky* Diane. "C um ulative Records: (1973). A s s a u lt on P riv a c y ," L e a rn in g , G a llu p , George. " S ix th Annual G a llu p P o ll o f P u b lic A t titu d e Toward E d u c a tio n ," Phi D e lta Kappan, 56, (September, 1974). 154 155 George, Thomas W. "The Law and P u p il School Records: Issues and V ie w s," N a tio n a l A s s o c ia tio n o f Secondary School P r in c ip a ls Journa1 , 56, ( September, 19?2) . pp. 132-41. G o s lln , David A. "New School Record-Keeping G u id e lin e s P ro te c t S tu d e n t/P a re n t P r iv a c y ," N a tio n 's S chools, 8 6 . No. 1 ( J u ly , 1970). G o s lln , David A ., T e lte lb a u m , V iv ie n . "The R ussell Sage Foundation G u id e lin e s : R eactions from th e F ie ld , " The Personnel and Guidance J o u rn a l. Volume 50, No. 4 (December, 1971). K e r lln g e r , Fred. "Progress1v1sm and T ra d itio n a lis m : Basic F actors o f E ducational A t t it u d e s , " Jo urnal o f S o d a ! Psychology. X L V III, (1958). K i l l i a n , John C. "The Law, th e C ounselor, and Student R ecords," The Personnel and Guidance J o u rn a l, 48 (F e b ru a ry, 1970). McCloskey, Gordon. "P la n n in g th e P u b lic R e la tio n s Program ," N a tio n a l Education A s s o c ia tio n J o u rn a l. XLIX, (1960). M ichigan C h ild A ccounting and Attendance A s s o c ia tio n , In fo rm a tio n Guide f o r th e Collect1on-M a1ntenance-D1ssem 1nation o f Student Records. P o n tia c , M ichigan: O ctober, 1974. N a tio n a l A s s o c ia tio n o f Secondary School P r in c ip a ls , Concerning the C o n f id e n t ia lit y o f Pud11 School Records. New Y ork: NA5 SP P 7 e 7 s T l9 7 1 . -----------------------------------N a tio n a l Education A s s o c ia tio n , Code o f Student R ights and Responsi­ b i l i t i e s . W ashington, D .C .: 1971. Pardue, J e r r y , e t a l. " L im itin g C o n fid e n tia l In fo rm a tio n 1n Counsel­ in g ," The Personnel and Guidance J o u rn a l, 49 (September, 1970). R1oux, W illia m . "W hile 45 M illio n C h ild re n W a lt," Parent A l e r t . 1, O ctober, 1975. R ussell Sage Foundation. G u id e lin e s f o r the C o lle c tio n . M aintenance. and D issem in a tion o f Pud11 Records. S te r lin g F o re s t, New York (May 25-287. T & T T ----------------T ra v e rs , R. M. "A Study 1n Judging th e O pinions o f G roups," A rch ive s o f Psychology, XLIX, (I9 6 0 ). Ware, M artha. "The Law and Counselor E th ic s ," The Personnel and Guidance J o u rn a l, 50 (December, 1971). 156 Books A ll p o r t, Gordon. Handbook o f S o cia l Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-W esley, 1954. American A s s o c ia tio n o f School A d m in is tra to rs , P u b lic R e la tio n s f o r A m e rica 's S ch o ols. T w enty-E ighth Yearbook. W ashington, D. C. , Tsstr: American Bar A s s o c ia tio n , In d iv id u a l R ig h ts and R e s p o n s ib ilitie s , W ashington, D. C ., 1968. B a n c ro ft, John. " E th ic a l and Legal Aspects o f P u p il Personnel W ork," The O rg a n iz a tio n o f P u p il Personnel Program s--Issues and P ra c tic e s . East L an sing , M fchfgan: M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity t're s s , 1974. Barnes, Fred P. Research f o r th e P ractlcum In E d u c a tio n . D. C. : N a tio n a l Education A s s o c ia tio n , 1964. B e st, John. Research 1n E ducation. P rent'fce-H al 1 , In c .-," IS'5'9. B la ck. W ashington, Enqlewood C l i f f s . New Je rse y: B la c k 's Law D ic tio n a ry 1038 (4 th e d ., 1968). Borg, W a lte r and G a ll, M e re d ith . McKay & C o ., 1971. E ducational Research. New York: B u llo c k , R obert P. School-Community A ttitu d e s A n a ly s is f o r E d u ca tio n . Columbus, OhTcTi Ohio S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1959. B u tle r , Henry E ., Moran, K .D ., and Vanderpool, F loyd . Legal Aspects o f Student Records. Topeka, Kansas: N a tio n a l O rg a n iz a tio n o f Legal Problems o f E d u catio n, 1972. C arve r, F. D. and Serg1ovann1, T. J . Focus on S chools. New York: D o ll, Ronald C. Boston: Org a n iz a tio n s and Human B e h a vio r: Mcfiraw-Hi 11 Co"., 1969. C urricu lum Improvement: A lly n -B a c o n , 1964. Dec1s1on-Mak1ng Process. G o s lln , David A ., B o rd le r, Nancy. The G osl1n-Bord1er S tudy. The R ussell Sage Foundation, 1969. New York: G r i f f i t h s , D aniel E. Human R e la tio n s 1n School A d m in is tr a tio n . York: A p p le to n -C e n tu ry -C ro fts , 1956. Gross, Hyman. 1964. P riv a c y — I t ' s Legal P r o te c tio n . New New York: M acM illan C o., 157 H atch, Raymond N. ( e d .) . The O rg a n iz a tio n o f P u p il Personnel Program sIssues and P ra c tic e s ^ feast L a n sin g , M ichigan: M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity h re s s , 1974. H a r r is , C hester ( e d .) . Encyclopedia o f E ducational Research. M acM illan C o ., I960! H uckins, Wesley L. E th ic a l and Legal Q uestions In Guidance. Houghton-M1 f f U n t o . , 1968. K1sh, L e s lie . Survey Sam pling. New York: New York: Boston: J . WHey, 1965. Lane, W illia m R ., C orw in, Ronald C ., and Monahan, W illia m G. Founda­ tio n s o f E ducational A d m in is tra tio n : A B e h avioral A n a ly s is . New Y o rk : MacM1 1 1 an t o . , 1970. M U le r , A rth u r R. D o s s ie rs . The A s s a u lt on P riv a c y : Computers. Data Banks, and Ann A rb o r: th e U n iv e r s ity o f M ichigan Press, 1971. Ross, Donald ( e d .) . A d m in is tra tio n f o r A d a p t a b ilit y . Columbia U n iv e r s ity P ress, 1958. New York: S la k te r , Malcolm T. S t a t is t ic a l In fe re n c e f o r E ducational Research. Reading: Addlson-W esley, 1972. Wagner, Elmer. Legal Im p lic a tio n s o f D u tie s Performed by P u p il Per­ sonnel Workers in C a lifo r n ia P u b lic S chools. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County S u p erinte n de nt o f S chools, 1966. W estin, Alan F. P riv a c y and Freedom. New Y ork: Atheneum P ress, 1967. W rig h t, Jack and Shaw, M arvin. Scales f o r th e Measurement o f A t t it u d e . New York: M cG ra w -H ill, 1967. D is s e rta tio n s B la d t, D orothy L. "A Comparison o f th e A ttitu d e s o f Parents o f Elementa Teachers Toward Elem entary School Problem s." Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e r ta t io n , N orthern I l l i n o i s U n iv e r s ity , 1968. D avis, W illia m P. "An A n a ly s is o f A d u lts ' Knowledge o f P u b lic School M a tte rs ." Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e r t a t io n . The George Washington U n iv e r s ity , 1968. Groshong, R oderick B. "An E x p lo ra to ry Study o f F actors C o n trib u tin g to Parent A ttitu d e on a Graded and Ungraded Elementary S c h o o l." Un p ub lish e d Ph.D. d is s e r ta t io n , U n iv e rs ity o f Oregon, 1968. 158 Gunnings, Thomas S. "The E ffe c ts o f Computers on the Legal S tatus o f C o n fid e n tia l In fo rm a tio n as Related to P u b lic School C ou n selo rs." Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e r ta tio n , U n iv e rs ity o f Oregon, 1969. M cN eils, Robert E. "An In v e s tig a tio n o f P a re n ts 1 O pinions, A ttitu d e s , and Knowledge o f Selected Aspects o f the P u b lic Schools o f S t. M ary's County, M aryland." Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e r ta tio n , The George Washington U n iv e rs ity , 1968. P a rker, Charles A. "An A n a ly s is o f P u b lic A ttitu d e s Toward Education 1n Selected D is t r ic t s Associated With P u b lic School Systems." Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e r ta tio n , The George Washington U n ive r­ s i t y , 1968. P r a tt, P h ilip D. "P ra c tic e s Employed by P u b lic High Schools and P o lic y Statements o f Educational O rga n iza tio ns 1n the C o lle c tio n , Maintenance, and D issem ination o f Student In fo rm a tio n ." Un­ published Ph.D. d is s e r ta tio n . The U n iv e rs ity o f M ichigan, 1972. S c h lf f , H erbert J . "The E ffe c ts o f Personal C on tractua l R e la tio n sh ip s on Parent A ttitu d e s Toward and P a r tic ip a tio n 1n Local School A f f a i r s . " Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e r ta tio n , Northwestern U n iv e rs ity , 1963.