INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent 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 with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority 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 dissertation. Silver
prints of "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 NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.

University Microfilms International
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106 USA
St. John’s Road, Tyler's Green
High W ycom be, Bucks, England HP10 8HR

78-3530

MC GHAN, Barry Robert, 1939A SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS*
USE OF AUTHORITY AND ITS RELATION TO
OPEN EDUCATION AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
VARIABLES IN MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS.
Michigan State University,
Ph.D., 1977
Education, theory and practice

University Microfilms International,

@

Copyright by

BARRY ROBERT MC GHAN

Ann A rbor, M ic h ig a n 48106

A SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS' USE OF
AUTHORITY AND ITS RELATION TO OPEN EDUCATION
AND SCHOOL CLIMATE VARIABLES
IN MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

By

Barry Robert McGhan

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in p a rtia l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements
fo r the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department o f Secondary Education and Curriculum

1977

i

ABSTRACT
A SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF TEACHERS' USE OF AUTHORITY AND ITS RELATION
TO OPEN EDUCATION AND SCHOOL CLIMATE VARIABLES
IN MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
By
Barry

Robert McGhan

The purpose o f th is study was to examine some o f the claims made
about a lt e r n a t iv e education by analyzing and id e n tify in g an open teaching
s t y le often found in such schools and then looking a t th is s ty le and i t s
re la tio n s h ip to other variables in a random sample o f a l l Michigan
elementary schools with 4th and 5th grades.
In p a r t ic u l a r , the goal was to determine (1 ) i f openness of teach­
ing s t y le was re la te d to students' socioeconomic status (SES); (2) i f
openness o f teaching s ty le was re la te d to other features of open educa­
tio n in a general population; (3) how openness o f teaching s ty le was
re la te d to c e rta in educational outcomes, v i z . , achievement, s e lf-r e lia n c e ,
sense o f competitiveness, and college a s p ira tio n s .

Several other

questions were investigated during the course o f research, these having
to do with the prevalence o f an open teaching s t y le in a general popula­
tio n o f schools, and the r e la t io n between an open

s ty le and (1) race,

(2 ) c e rta in teacher c h a r a c te r is tic s , and (3) school and class size.
The study contains two major parts.

The f i r s t part includes d is­

cussions o f fundamental assumptions, the problems w ith , and value o f,
social clim ate research, the nature o f open education and the d i f f i c u l t i e s
encountered in studying i t , and a review o f research p e rtin en t to open
education.

This p a rt also includes a development o f E tz io n i's compliance

typology (as i t pertains to education) and thus provides a well-known
in te r p r e tiv e background fo r viewing teacher a u th o rity .

B arry Robert McGhan

The second p a rt o f the study contains the analysis o f data from a
sample of 70 Michigan elementary schools.

Although the classroom was the

principal u n it o f an a ly s is , school level analyses were also performed,
and data were c o lle c te d from both teachers and students, thus permitting
a tw o-tiered lev el o f analysis not only fo r classrooms and schools, but
fo r the organizational roles o f teachers and students as w e ll.
The fin din gs o f the research were th a t an open teaching s t y l e : (1) is
r e l a t i v e l y rare in Michigan elementary schools; (2) is generally more
l i k e l y to be found among higher SES students, and less l i k e l y to be
found among black students (though th is la s t finding may be related to
SES); (3) has a minor impact on educational outcomes when considered in
conjunction w ith clim ate and background va ria b le s; (4 ) is less l i k e l y to
be found in la r g e r schools and classes; (5) is not more l i k e l y to occur
in one type o f community than another; (6 ) does not occur very much in
conjunction w ith other aspects o f open education in a general population
of schools; (7) is weakly re la te d to some teacher c h a ra c te ris tic s (female
teachers, teachers w ith less experience, and teachers with more tra in in g
are a l l somewhat more l i k e l y to e x h ib it an open teaching s t y le — teacher
race appears to be unrelated to teaching s t y l e ) .
Because the prevalence o f an open teaching s ty le is not great, and
because i t is found more often with higher SES and non-black students, i t
seems th a t much fu r th e r development o f th is form w ill have to take place
before the open education movement gains popularity among large numbers
o f educators and the general public.

The problem of developing more open

teaching styles is f u r t h e r complicated by the f a c t th a t these styles
apparently do not have a c le a r -c u t impact on widely accepted educational

Barry Robert McGhan
outcomes, and are th erefo re hard to "s e ll" on the basis o f what they
produce.

This la s t problem is especially cru c ia l fo r low-SES and black

groups, who tend to place high value on t r a d it io n a l outcomes (p a r tic u la r
l y achievement), and who may be skeptical o f schools which vary from the
tr a d itio n a l form and which do not c le a r ly produce valued outcomes in a
more advantageous way than t r a d itio n a l programs.

to my parents,
Lawrence and Lois McGhan

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion o f th is research p ro ject leaves me indebted to a
number of people.
To the F l i n t Public Schools and the open school program th e re ,
fo r t h e ir cooperation with the research survey.
To Joseph Wisenbaker, fo r his p a tie n t in s tru c tio n in the some­
times curious ways of the Michigan State U n iv ersity Computer Center.
To Professor J.G. Moore, fo r his e a rly guidance with my doctoral
program and fo r his e f f o r t to help me appreciate the value o f a know­
ledge of the history of education.
To Professor Frederick Ignatovich, fo r his example of dedication
to the value of theory in social science in general, and in educational
administration in p a r t ic u la r , and fo r his frank and studied c r itic is m
of my ideas.
To Professor Rick H i l l , fo r his illu m in a tio n o f and in stru ctio n
in the myriad and often insidious aspects o f social s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , and
fo r his persuasively challenging view o f contemporary p o l i t i c a l economy.
To Professor Wilbur Brookover, f o r his patience in seeing me
through th is excessively protracted quest, fo r his generous support
of my research and his forbearance while I discovered the d irec tio n
I wanted to take and, most im po rtantly, f o r his enlightening presen­
ta tio n of the idea th a t human in te llig e n c e is not an irmiutable e n t i t y ,
but rather is the product o f a c h ild 's environment, an environment
which teachers can help to shape fo r good or fo r i l l .

To Barbara McGhan, fo r e d it o r ia l help with too-many to rtured
sentences and misplaced paragraphs, fo r lis te n in g to my not-alwaysfavorable remarks about one o f her f a v o r ite subjects— open education,
fo r re fr a in in g from placing obstacles in my path when I was on i t ,
and fo r helping me fin d the path when I became discouraged.

PREFACE

I t is a hindrance to a boy's progress which
nothing w i l l ever n u l l i f y , when his master
succeeds in making his pupil hate learning
before he is old enough to li k e i t f o r i t s
own sake. For a boy is often drawn to a
subject f i r s t fo r his master's sake, and
afterwards fo r i t s own. Learning, l i k e many
other th in g s , wins our lik in g fo r the reason
th a t i t is offered to us by one we love.

-Erasmus-

from Desiderius Erasmus Concerning the Aim
and Method o f Education. William Harrison
Woodward. Teachers College Press: Columbia
U n iv e rs ity . New York. p. 203.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................

x

LIST OF F IG U R E S .......................................................................................................xiv
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................

1

TheProblem andi t s S i g n i f i c a n c e ..............................................
Nature of the S t u d y ........................................................................
Propositions fo r Analysis ............................... .

1
5
9

PART 1

GENERAL CONCEPTS, VIEWPOINTS, AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
CONCERNING SCHOOL CLIMATE, TEACHER AUTHORITY, AND
OPEN EDUCATION

Chapter
I

II

CONSIDERATIONS OF A PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEORETICAL
NATURE..............................................................................................................14
THEORY AND RESEARCH ON SCHOOL CLIMATES AND
TEACHER AUTHORITY ................................................................................

30

Theory and Research on School Climates .............................
30
The Importance of the Concept of Authority
in Schools . . ............................................................................ 41
A Theoretical Perspective on A uthority in Schools . . 46
The Relation Between Social Class and A u th o rity /
Authoritarianism ...................................................................
56
Review o f Research on Classroom Authority .....................
62
III

THE PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICE OF OPEN EDUCATION............................... 71
The Philosophical Background of Open Education. . . .
74
The Problems of Implementing Open Education.......................... 84

IV

RESEARCH IN OPEN EDUCATION.................................................................... 95
Problems in Comparing Open and Trad itio n al
A p p r o a c h e s .................................................................................... 96
Research Findings in Open Education .................................. 104

v ii

PART 2

SPECIFIC FINDINGS ABOUT OPEN TEACHING
STYLES

Chapter
V

PROCEDURES, METHODOLOGY, VARIABLES STUDIED ...............................

127

Prelim inary Remarks .................
127
Population and Sample ............................................................... 128
Data G a t h e r in g ................................................................................... 133
Variables of In te r e s t ............................................................... 134
D is c u s s io n ........................................................................................... 139
The Problem of D iffe re n t Levels o f Analysis ................. 143
R e l i a b i l i t y of Variables.............................................................. 148
VI

STATISTICAL ANALYSES .............................................................................

151

The Relationship Between Various Reports of
O p e n n e s s ....................................................................................... 151
The V a l i d i t y o f the Openness V a r i a b l e s .................................166
The Prevalence of Openness in Michigan
Elementary Schools ............................................................... 172
The Relationship Between Openness and Social Class . . 181
The Relationship Between Openness and Some
Background Variables
........................................................... 189
The Relationship Between Openness and Other
Aspects of Informal Education .......................................... 198
The Relationship Between Openness and Some
Educational Outcomes ........................................................... 211
V II

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH .................................................................................... 222
L i m i t a t i o n s ....................................................................................... 222
Contributions .
.......................................................................... 225
Conclusions and Reconmendations .......................................... 232

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 245

APPENDIX A

STUDENT, TEACHER, PRINCIPAL SURVEYFORMS ............................

APPENDIX B

SURVEY SCALE VARIABLES AND THE ITEMSFROM WHICH
THEY ARE COMPOSED.......................................................................... 299

APPENDIX C

ITEMS CLUSTERING INTO FACTORS AT THEINDIVIDUAL,
CLASS, AND SCHOOL LEVELS UNDER A TEN-FACTOR
VARIMAX FACTOR ANALYSIS ........................................................... 306

vi i i

257

APPENDIX D

FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF THE PARENTS OF CENTRAL
OPEN SCHOOL....................................................................................... 307

APPENDIX E

CENTRAL OPEN SCHOOL OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT .................. 309

APPENDIX F

COMPARISON OF SURVEY OPENNESS ITEMS WITH
SIMILAR ITEMS IN CENTRAL OPEN SCHOOL
OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT ........................................................... 314

APPENDIX G

ARCHETYPAL OPEN TEACHER ATTITUDES ..................................... 316

APPENDIX H

EFFECT OF TIME OF YEAR OF SURVEY ON PERCENTOF
PARENTS KNOWN BY TEACHERS ....................................................... 317

APPENDIX I

CLASS LEVEL CORRELATION MATRIX; SCHOOL LEVEL
CORRELATION MATRIX .................................................................... 318

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.

The Development of Two Factors Through Several
Levels of Factor Analysis ........................................................... 145

Table 2.

Cronbach's Alpha R e l i a b i l i t i e s fo r V ariable Scales
Used in the S t u d y .............................................................................. 149

Table 4.

Means and Standard Deviations o f Variables Used in
the Modified Sample o f Classrooms .......................................... 150

Table 5.

School Level C orrelations For Students', Teachers'
and P rin c ip a ls ' Reports of Openness ...................................... 152

Table 6.

Frequencies o f the Differences Between the Standard
Scores o f Teachers' and Students' Reports of
Openness (ZDIFF)
............................................................................. 1 5 5

Table 7.

Analysis o f Variance of the Summed Standard Deviations
of Items Forming the Student Openness Scale by the
Three ZDIFF Categories . ...................................................... . 1 5 8

Table 8.

Correlations Between Students' Reports o f Openness,
Teacher Reports o f Openness, and ZDIFF .............................

160

Table 9.

Analysis o f Variance o f Student and Teacher Reported
Openness By Three ZDIFF Categories.............................................. 161

Table 10.

Analysis of Variance of ZDIFF By Three Categories
of Student Reported Openness and Three Categories
of Teacher Reported Openness..........................................................162

Table 11.

Variables fo r Which an Analysis of Variance Showed
S ig n ific a n t Differences Between the Three ZDIFF
Categories .
.................................................................................. 164

Table 12.

Correlations of Central Open School Observers'
Evaluations and the Pre-Selected Ideal Observations .

. 167

Table 14.

Rank o f Central and Northern Open Schools Among
108 Schools Surveyed.
......................................................... 169

Table 15.

Rank o f Classrooms in Central and Northern Open
Schools Among 529 Classrooms S u rv e y e d ................................. 1 7 0

Table 16.

Table 17.

Proportions o f White and Non-White Classrooms in
Total Survey and in Two Sub-Categories Above the
Mean o f the Student Reported Openness Scale .....................

176

School and Class Means and Standard Deviations o f ,
And Correlations Between Student and Teacher
Reported Openness For Three Racial Categories .................

177

Table 18.

Class Level Analysis of Variance o f Student and
Teacher Reported Openness Broken Down By Race of
Teachers and Race of S tu d e n ts ...................................................... 179

Table 19.

T-Test o f SES of Classes For Teachers Grouped by
High and Low Reported Openness S c o r e s ..................................... 181

Table 20.

Two-Way Analysis o f Variance of Students' Sense of
F u t i l i t y By SES and By Student Reported Openness in
Groups o f Classes Selected For High and Low SES
and Openness S c o r e s ........................................................................... 184

Table 21.

Two-Way Analysis of Variance of Teacher Expectations
and Evaluations By SES and By Student Reported
Openness in Groups o f Classes Selected fo r High
and Low SES and Openness S c o r e s .................................................. 185

Table 22.

Summary of Stepwise M u ltip le Regression of
Student Reported Openness By A ll Other Independent
Variables in Modified Sample ..................................................

188

Table 23.

Number and Percentage of Teachers By Sex, Race,
Teaching Experience, and Training .................................. . . 190

Table 24.

Class Level Two-Way Analysis of Variance o f Student
Reported Openness By Teacher Experience and Teacher
T r a i n i n g ................................................................................................191

Table 25.

Class Level Two-Way Analysis of Variance of Teacher
Reported Openness by Teacher Experience and
Teacher Training ...........................................................................

192

Table 26.

C orrelation o f ZDIFF with Teacher Sex and Teacher
T r a i n i n g ................................................................................................193

Table 27.

Analysis of Variance of ZDIFF by Teacher R a c e ..................... 193

Table 28.

Analysis o f Variance of ZDIFF by Teacher Experience . . 193

Table 29.

D escriptive S t a t is t ic s on Variables Related to
Openness and School and Class S i z e ..........................................195

Table 30.

Correlations For Variables Related to Openness and
School and Class S i z e .......................................................................195

xi

Table 31 .

Table 32!.

Table 33!.

Table 34 .

Table 35 .

Table 36 .

Table 37 .

Table 38 .

Table 39 .

Table 40 .

Table 41 .

Chi-Square Test of Teachers Report o f Their Primary
Responsibility To Their Students (Teachers Grouped
By High and Low Openness Scores) ..........................................

200

Correlations of Openness With Teachers' Reports of
Their Success With Regard to Student Development in
Four Areas (Based on High and Low Teacher Reported
Openness Groups) ...........................................................................

201

Correlations of Openness With Teachers' Reports of
the Extent To Which They In d iv id u a liz e T h eir
In stru ctio n (Based on High and Low Teacher Reported
Openness Groups) ...........................................................................

202

Chi-Square Test of Teachers' Reported Within-Class
Grouping Practices (Based on High and Low Teacher
Reported Openness Groups) .......................................................

203

T-Tests o f Teachers' A ttitudes About Their
R esponsibility For Students' Performance and
the C orrelation o f Those A ttitudes With Reported
Openness When SES is Controlled (Based on High
and Low Teacher Reported Openness Groups) .....................

206

T-Tests of Teachers' View of Students' A b i l i t y
and Their Evaluations and Expectations fo r
Performance and the Correlation of Those Views
With Reported Teacher Openness When SES is
Controlled ........................................................................................

207

T-Tests o f Teachers' Opinions of the Value o f I.Q .
Tests and the C orrelation of Those Opinions With
Reported Openness When SES is Controlled (Based
on High and Low Teacher Reported Openness Groups).

. .

209

T-Tests o f Teachers' Concern For Their Parental
Relationships and the C orrelation o f Those
Concerns With Openness When SES is Controlled
(Based on High and Low Teacher Reported Openness).

. .

210

Zero-Order and F irs t-O rd e r Correlations Between
SES, Student Reported Openness and Student
Reported S elf-R eliance For A ll Classes in
Modified Data Sample ...................................................................

212

Summary o f Stepwise M u ltip le Regression on
Student Reported S elf-R eliance By A ll Other
Independent Variables in Modified Sample . . . . . . .

213

Summary o f School-Level Regression on Mathematics
Achievement By A ll Variables in the Modified
Sample ................................................................................................

215

xi i

Table 42.

Summary o f School-Level Regression on Reading
Achievement By A ll Variables in the Modified
S a m p l e ....................................................................................................215

Table 43.

Summary o f School-Level Regression on Sense of
Competitiveness By A ll Variables in the Modified
S a m p l e ................................................................................................

216

Table 44.

Summary o f School-Level Regression on College
Aspirations By A ll Variables in the Modified Sample . . 216

Table 45.

Summary o f School-Level M u ltip le Regression on
Sense of S elf-R eliance by A ll Variables in the
Modified Sample ................................................................................ 217

Table 46.

Summary of Percent o f Variance Contributed to Five
Dependent Variables By Background Variables and
Openness Variables at The SchoolLevel
................................. 217

Table 47.

Summary o f Percent of Variance Contributed to
Three Dependent Variables By Background Variables
and Openness Variables At the Class Level ..............................

Table 48.

218

Summary of Class-Level M u ltip le Regression on
Sense of Competitiveness By A ll Variables in the
Modified Sample ................................................................................ 219

Table

49. Summary o f Class-Level M u ltip le Regression on
College Aspirations By A ll Variables in the
Modified Sample ................................................................................ 219

Table

50. Summary of Class-Level M u ltip le Regression on
Sense of S elf-R eliance By A ll Variables in the
Modified Sample ................................................................................ 220

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.

The Research Design: The Relationships Between
The Variables Under In ves tig a tio n .............................................

Figure 2.

7

Hal pin and C ro ft's Elementary School Climate
Typology Containing Eight Climate Dimensions
and Six Climate Types . . ................................................................ 36

Figure

3. E tz io n i's Compliance Typology of Complex Organizations.

47

Figure

4. E tz io n i's Typology of Organizational E lite s ......................

50

Figure

5. E tz io n i's Typology of E lite s and The A c t iv it ie s
They C ontrol............................................................................................. 50

Figure 6.

Hodgkins and H e r r io t t 's View o f the Relation
Between The Compliance Structure and the Age-Grade
Structure o f Schools .
................................................................ 53

Figure 7.

F a n tin i's "Freedom-to-Prescription" Categorization
of S c h o o l s ............................................................................................. 76

Figure 8.

The Research Design: The Relationships Between
The Variables Under In ves tig a tio n
........................................ 140

Figure

9. Frequency Diagram of the Differences Between The
Standard Scores of Teachers' Reports of Openness
and Students' Reports of Openness .
.......................................156

Figure 10.

Frequency Diagram of Students' Reports of Openness
(SOPEN) For All Schools Surveyed................................................. 173

Figure 11.

Expected Pattern of Relationships Between
Students' Sense of F u t i l i t y , Teachers' Expectations
fo r Achievement, Socioeconomic Status, and Students'
Reports of Openness When Openness Overcomes The
Effects of SES....................................................................................... 183

Figure 12.

The Relationship Between V ariatio n in School S ize,
V ariation in Class Size Within Schools, and Range
of Students' Reports of Openness a t the School Level. . 196

Figure 13.

The Relationship Between School and Class S ize ,
Range o f Class S ize , and Students' Reports of
Openness a t the School L e vel..........................................................197

x iv

INTRODUCTION

The Problem and i t s Significance

The decade o f the 1960's was a time of social unrest, a time
when some people, p a r t ic u la r ly college students and

blacks, f e l t the

need to speak out against established relation ship s and develop new
ways to li v e and work.

The *601s were also a time when a host o f

social s c ie n tis ts examined American public education and found i t
wanting, es p ec ially with respect to poor and black c h ild ren .
the locus

Since

o f unrest was among college students, who were in school,

and among blacks and other m in o r itie s , who f e l t they needed school
in order to b e tte r t h e ir position in s o c ie ty , and because academic
research had spotlighted schools' f a i l u r e s , there was an understand­
able in t e r e s t in try in g to get the education system to function more
e f f e c t iv e ly .
One re s u lt o f the desire to make schools more e f f e c t iv e and
responsive to the needs o f children was the development o f public
and p riv a te a lt e r n a t iv e schools, and during the f i r s t h a lf o f the
1970's th is movement grew r a p id ly .

The motivations fo r developing

a lte r n a tiv e schools varied according to the in terests o f the par­
t i c u l a r groups involved in the movement.

In some cases the public

school professionals themselves developed a lte r n a tiv e s .

Their

motivations may have included an in te r e s t in experimenting with
d i ffe r e n t and p o te n tia lly more e f fe c tiv e forms of schooling; in

2
meeting or appearing to meet the demands o f community groups; in
promoting desegregation; in maintaining and extending t h e i r control
over the educational "marketplace"; and perhaps in merely keeping up
with innovations in other d i s t r i c t s .

In other cases, community

groups or individuals outside the public school systems sought to
establish t h e ir own a lt e r n a t iv e schools.

They may have f e l t th a t

the public school bureaucracy was not responding quickly enough to
t h e ir problems; th at public school people were tryin g to thwart e f f o r t s
to change; or th at educators were only try in g to apologize fo r the
status quo.

Some a lt e r n a t iv e school groups sought to have the best

of both public and p riv a te worlds--schools funded from public revenues
but meeting the needs of special in te r e s ts .

These groups promoted the

ideas o f d e c e n tra liz a tio n , community c o n tro l, and the voucher system.
Some a lt e r n a t iv e schools were s t r u c tu r a lly and ph ilosop hically s im ila r
to the public schools they sought to supplant, d if f e r in g only in the
issue of o v e r -a ll c o n tro l.

Others offered philosophical and/or s tru c ­

tural differences but remained "in the fold" o f the public school
system.

S t i l l others wanted to change s tru c tu re , philosophy, and

source o f c o n tr o l.
In sp ite o f a l l the c r itic is m of the tr a d itio n a l school system,
and despite in te r e s t expressed in new forms, i t is not y e t c le a r th a t
the tr a d itio n a l forms cannot meet students' needs, or th a t the new
forms can.

Recently, considerable atten tio n has been focused on the

drawbacks and deficiencies of some kinds o f a lt e r n a t iv e schools.

For

example, a young w r it e r reports from her experiences as a student in
an elementary "free school" th a t no matter what high school she and
her classmates went on t o , they were under-achievers.

"The parents

3
of my former classmates c a n 't fig u re out what went wrong," she says.
"They had sent in b rig h t curious children and had gotten back, nine
years l a t e r , helpless adolescents (Wolynski 1976-11)."
Even i f some a lt e r n a t iv e schools are not a c tiv e ly d e trim e n ta l,
they may not be very h e lp fu l.

As Katz (1973) says,

" . . . poor people do not need another lesson in how to
behave, even i f th a t behavior is to be lib e r a te d rath er
than repressed. They need knowledge and s k i l l s to move
out of poverty. A ffe c tiv e schooling . . . could be a
d is tra c tio n rath er than a b e n e fit to people whose long
term in te re s ts would be best served by the r e d is tr ib u tio n
o f power and income (p. 344)."
On the other hand, i t seems c le a r th a t a lt e r n a t iv e schools do
provide a good opportunity to experiment with various practices.
Grassis (1967) points out th a t while any given type o f school does
not seem to be more or less e f fe c tiv e in teaching s k i l l s than other
types, d i f f e r e n t types o f schools do teach d i f f e r e n t a ttitu d e s about
society.

He fe els th a t

" . . . the expectations exerted by the whole stru ctu re of
school, not ju s t in dividual teachers' expectations, can
c rip p le the students' self-concepts and performance. We
need data on the e ffe c ts of d if f e r e n t schools and programs
on a l l aspects of an in d iv id u a l's development, not ju s t on
academic achievement alone (p. 2 2 )."
Moreover, proponents of English informal education claim th a t ce rtain
unfortunate a ttitu d e s and practices are mostly absent from such
schools: th a t i s , IQ and achievement tests are not extensively used
to predict fu ture achievement; students who take more time to master
something are not branded as problems; and streaming (tra c k in g ) is
being abandoned.
In sum, the proponents and opponents of a lt e r n a t iv e schools
have made many claims fo r and against such schools.

For the most

p a rt, these claims seem to be based on personal experiences and/or

4
informal observations, and thus do not have the in te r s u b je c tiv ity
necessary to be widely convincing.

However, since the educational

system is s t i l l f a i l i n g to provide m illio n s o f children with needed
academic and social s k i l l s , i t behooves us to learn more abcut the
advantages and disadvantages o f a lt e r n a t iv e education to see i f the
system's performance can be improved.
One way to in ves tig a te the f i e l d o f a lt e r n a t iv e education would
be to locate p a r t ic u la r examples o f i t and analyze them.

But, such

an approach might lead to p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c explanations of the success
or f a i l u r e of such programs.

Instead, we w i l l focus on an important

element of education in general which has a s p e c ific connection to
a lte r n a tiv e education.

This element is often ca lled "teaching sty le "

and refers to the kind o f a u th o rity relation ship s which e x is t in a
school or classroom.
In b r i e f , various a u th o rity styles produce classes with d if f e r e n t
patterns o f in teractio n s between in d iv id u a ls , and those patterns
account fo r much of the stru ctu re o f the classroom (Brookover and
Erickson 1975-156).

Since a primary c h a r a c te r is tic o f many teachers

in a lt e r n a t iv e schools is a teaching s ty le which is usually viewed as
less a u th o rita ria n and more humanistic than the s ty le most often found
in tr a d itio n a l public schools, we can expect to learn something about
a lte r n a tiv e education by examining teaching s ty le in a more general
settin g.
Because the data we w i l l be reporting on comes from elementary
schools, and because the most prominent type o f a lt e r n a t iv e school a t
that level seems to be the "open school" Cor e q u iv a le n tly , "informal
school"), our discussion re la te d to a lt e r n a t iv e education w i l l be

in....

5
*

la rg e ly confined to th a t type.
The primary measures o f teacher au th o rity in th is study of
Michigan elementary schools are student- and teacher-reported degrees
of teacher control over such classroom a c t i v i t i e s as s i t t i n g in
assigned seats, working on in d iv id u a lly selected p ro je c ts , ta lk in g
to classmates a t w i l l , e tc .

Teachers who e x h ib it a low degree of

control over student a c t i v i t i e s are herein defined as having a more
•k "k

open teaching s t y le .

However, as our l a t e r discussions demonstrate,

open schools and classrooms are not id e n t if ie d as such s o le ly by the
au tho rity s ty le o f the teacher.

That i s , not every instance o f an

open teaching s t y le is also an example of open education, although
i t seems l i k e l y th a t every example of open education represents the
use o f an open teaching s t y le .

Nature o f the Study
O v e ra ll, the study has two main parts.

Part One, consisting

of Chapters I through IV , attempts to delineate important general
aspects o f the research problem, in terms o f both the method and the
object of the research.

Chapter I id e n t if ie s ce rtain basic

Note th a t the term " a lte r n a tiv e school" is often used in conjunc­
tion with the concept o f choice. That i s , a lt e r n a t iv e schools e x is t in
school systems which allow parents and children to choose between
d iffe r e n t school programs. The use o f the term " a lte rn a tiv e " in th is
paper is closer to the meaning o f the term " n o n -tr a d itio n a l." Taken
in th is sense, an open elementary school provides an a lt e r n a t iv e to
tr a d itio n a l educational practices whether or not the school's c lie n t e le
elects i t .
C le a rly , someone (superintendent, p r in c ip a l, teachers, some
parents, e t c . ) has chosen to follow a n o n -tra d itio n a l path when an open
school is found, and i t is the existence o f the d if f e r e n t approach and
the nature of i t s underlying concepts which are o f most in te r e s t in th is
discussion.
icie

Referred to simply as openness.

6
phenomonological issues and perspectives.

Chapter I I contains

discussions of (1) organizational climate research, and (2) teachers'
autho rity s t y le s , including: the importance o f the concept o f a u th o rity ;
a th e o re tic a l perspective on i t ; i t s re la tio n s h ip to social class; and
a review of general research on au th o rity styles in education.

Chap­

te r I I I establishes the connection between a teacher's au th o rity s ty le
and open education, and presents a discussion o f the nature of open
education and d i f f i c u l t i e s th a t a ris e in try in g to implement such
programs.

Chapter IV contains a discussion o f the problems th at can

arise when try in g to compare open and t r a d it io n a l education and
offers a review o f research s p e c ific to open (o r open a u th o rity )
schools.
Part Two, consisting o f Chapters V through V I I , presents the
findings o f the current research on an open teaching s t y le .

Chapter

V contains s p e c ific information on the variables and the population
in which they were studied.

Chapter VI reports the findings o f th is

research, and Chapter V II summarizes the study's lim ita tio n s and
contributions and o ffe rs conclusions and recommendations.
The research design c a lls f o r the variables measuring teaching
style (students' and teachers' reports of the degree o f teacher
control) to be examined in r e la t io n to selected social-psychological
climate variables (norms, expectations, va lu e s), background variables
(sex, race, socioeconomic status) and products o f schooling (achieve­
ment, e t c . ) .

A ll o f these variables are discussed in d e ta il in

Chapter V.
The causal relation ship s th a t are presumed to e x is t between
these variables are shown in the Diagram on the following page:

7

INPUT

OUTPUT

Background
Variables
Teacher
Variables

Outcome
Variables
Student _
Variables

Background V ariables:

student race, sex, SES; community type;
race, sex, experience, tr a in in g

Teacher Variables:

classroom and school s iz e , f i v e teacher climate
v a ria b le s , teacher report o f c o n tr o l, seven
other teacher a ttitu d e s and practices

Student Variables:

f iv e student climate v a ria b le s , student
of c o n tro l, student s e l f concept

Outcome Variables:

student sense o f s e l f - r e l i a n c e , sense o f com­
p e titiv e n e s s , aspirations fo r c o lle g e , reading
and mathematics achievement

Figure 1.

teacher

report

The Research Design: The Relationships Between the
Variables Under In vestigation

The ra tio n a le o f th is model is : the teacher is the central character
in the development o f the set o f ty p ica l social in te ra c tio n s th at
take place in the school and e s p e c ia lly the classroom.

The teacher's

role is influenced by a number of fa c to rs , v i z . , h is /h e r professional
t r a in in g , past teaching experiences and s e l f concept as a teacher;
h is /h e r assessment o f what the community and immediate superiors expect
and/or w i l l accept; the feedback he/she receives from the students; and
many other things.

Some o f the factors which shape a teacher's perform­

ance are w ithin h is /h e r c o n tro l, some are not.

Some o f the aspects of

a teacher's method are in t e n t io n a l, some are not.

These factors are

8
" d is t i lle d " w ithin the teacher so as to produce a c e rta in a t t it u d in a l
and methodological approach to the classroom.
The nature o f a teacher's behavior in any given class s itu a tio n
is la rg e ly beyond the scope of th is study.

However, a fundamental

assumption of the study is th a t while many factors influence a
teacher's approach to managing a classroom, the teacher's e ffe c tu a ­
tion o f those influences is r e l a t i v e l y autonomous.

In other words,

the teacher's classroom behavior is not d ir e c t ly supervised by some
other on-the-spot agent.
While teacher behavior in a classroom may be r e l a t i v e l y autono­
mous, student classroom behavior seems less autonomous.

Because of the

differences in a u th o rity and power between teacher and student (which
seems greatest at the elementary l e v e l ) , student behavior can be
considerably influenced by the au th o rity s ty le o f the teacher.
The teacher's degree o f control over student behavior varies in
*
several ways.
But, regardless of the degree o f control over a given
behavior a t a given tim e, the teacher's autonomy to choose a s ty le and
h is /h e r power and a u th o rity to e ffe c tu a te i t j u s t i f y c la s s ify in g measures
o f teacher performance as input variables in r e la tio n to student outcomes.
Together, the background variables and teacher-influence variables
produce some d ire c t e ffe c ts on student outcome behavior, and some in d i­
re c t e ffe c ts through the creation o f intermediate student behaviors which
in turn accompany and perhaps influence student outcomes.
*

In th is study,

I t varies between teachers, and can vary w ith in the same
teacher's classroom from one time to another. I t also varies with
respect to d if f e r e n t kinds o f behavior. For example, the contingencies
which a teacher can provide f o r the behavior " s it t in g in one's seat"
are more e a s ily and e f f e c t i v e l y applied than the contingencies f o r the
behavior "doing one's own homework."

9
the accompanying intermediate or intervening variables are best under­
stood as clim ate variables.

Propositions For Analysis
Since we have connected our measure o f teaching s ty le to open
education in a p a r t ic u la r way ( i . e . , low control is equivalent to
high openness, which i s , in tu rn , re la te d to open education), we
can derive some propositions from open education which can be tested
by our data.

These propositions are l is t e d below, followed by a

b r i e f explanation o f them.

The p rin cipal u n it o f analysis i s , fo r

reasons discussed in Chapter V, the classroom.

A classroom data

u n it consists of the teacher's survey responses and the averages fo r
his or her students' survey responses.

Since openness can also e x is t

on a school-wide basis, and since achievement data were only a v a ila b le
a t the school l e v e l , some of the propositions are worded to include
both lev els o f analysis.
(1)

The students' mean socioeconomic status s ig n if ic a n t ly predicts
the degree of openness of a c la s s , and the degree o f reported
s e l f re lia n c e .

(2)

The degree o f openness o f a class is p o s itiv e ly co rrelated
wi t h :

(3)

a.

An emphasis on a f fe c tiv e development (personal and social
growth);

b.

An emphasis on in d iv id u a liz a tio n of in s tru c tio n ; and

c.

The use of non-homogeneous grouping.

The degree of openness of a class s ig n if ic a n t ly pred icts:
a.

High teacher present-expectations and evaluations fo r
performance;

b.

Low teacher opinion o f the value of IQ te s ts ;

c.

High acceptance of re s p o n s ib ility fo r student performance;
and

10

d.
(4)

Low student sense o f academic f u t i l i t y .

The degree of openness of a class (o r a school) is :
a.

P o s itiv e ly correlated with the degree o f se lf*-relia n ce
reported by students;

b.

Negatively correlated with the degree of competition
reported by students and teachers; and

c.

Not correlated with the degree o f importance of reported
college as p iratio n s ; and

d.

Not correlated with the level o f achievement (o f the
school) .

Through Proposition One th is study attempts to analyze one aspect
of the societal purposes th at may be re la te d to openness o f teaching
s t y le .

Within the a lt e r n a t iv e school movement (o f which open education

is a p a rt) i t has been suggested th a t two d if f e r e n t perspectives on the
purposes o f a lt e r n a t iv e schools have developed ( Edcentric 1976-3).

The

"system patchers" hold th a t the goals o f schools are worthwhile, but
the stru ctu re through which the goals are pursued need to be augmented.
The view of the "radical reformers" is th a t the structure and goals of
many schools, both t r a d itio n a l and a lt e r n a t iv e , are wrong-headed.
The system patching view of open schools might be expressed
this way:
Open schools are capable of elim in atin g many aspects of
tr a d itio n a l schools which are negative, and can more humanely,
but not necessarily more e f f i c i e n t l y , bring students into the
ad u lt so ciety.
The radical reform view o f open schools might be expressed th is way:
Open schools support the same class in terests th a t are
supported by tr a d itio n a l schools.
Some proponents o f this second view would assert th a t the
a lte r n a tiv e school movement in general is intended to reduce the

11
th re at o f social c o n f lic t by enacting humanitarian and r a t i o n a l i s t i c
reforms which promise change but serve instead to maintain schools'
so c ia liz in g and sorting functions (Katz 1973-343; Russo 1975-22).
McDonough (1975-20) has also proposed th a t a lt e r n a t iv e schools support
the in te re s ts of a managerial class (which requires tra in in g fo r
leadership, individualism , independence, c r i t i c a l th in k in g , and
humanism).

In p a r t ic u la r , i t is asserted th at a new class of radical

managers is a r is in g , a group which wants to wrest control o f corpora­
tions and bureaucracies from c a p ita lis t s so th at i t can run i n s t i t u ­
tions along the lin es of e f f i c i e n t humanism.

Since they cannot pass

along great personal wealth they provide t h e i r children with an
education th a t develops c r i t i c a l th in k in g , a humanitarian outlook,
independence, r e s p o n s ib ility , group cooperation, and use o f le is u re
tim e, so th a t the children become candidates fo r entrance in to the
managerial class.

This view, i f c o rre c t, would not describe a new

phenomenon:
"Throughout American h is to ry , extensions of public education
have given more b e n e fit to middle class or a f f lu e n t people
than to the poor (Katz 1973-342)."
The question o f what social class in te re s ts are being served
by a lt e r n a t iv e schools has been raised by several w r ite r s .

Some point

out th a t the w ritin g s of informal education advocates contain l i t t l e
e x p l i c i t c r it ic is m of contemporary social structures (Katz 1973-347;
Simmons 1975-301).
"There is no mention of class structures or class in t e r e s t ,
no sense of the dominant h is to ric a l considerations in the
development of public education which help to explain the
forms and purposes of the school system. The important
s o c ia l, p o l i t i c a l and economic ways in which the system is
successful are not discussed (Graubard 1974-301)."

12

While overt discussion of class in te re s ts is absent from much
o f the l i t e r a t u r e on informal education, c e rta in c la s s -re la te d i n t e r ­
ests do seem to be co vertly represented.

For example, the demand fo r

humanistic public schools seems to come from middle and upper middle
class fa m ilies (LaBelle 1973-30).

One w r i t e r notes th a t some o f the

basic concepts of open education (e .g . freedom, in d ivid u a lism , s e l f ­
development) are s im ila r to ideas which were central to the c r itiq u e
o f feudal society and which furnished the ideological base f o r the
rise of c a p i t a l i s t bourgeois democracy (Simmons 1975-146).

The same

w r it e r notes th a t Piaget's genetic epistemology expresses the
pragmatic middle class desire fo r orderly social change (p. 157).
To a very lim ite d e x te n t, th is study examines a question related
to the "classism" o f open schools and classrooms.

I f open schools

(along with other a lte r n a tiv e forms) are o f special in t e r e s t to higher
SES groups, then we would expect to fin d th a t knowing a school's SES
predicts how open i t i s , and, in tu rn , how much s e lf - r e li a n c e it s
students develop.
Moreover, i f open schools are supporting the same class in te re s ts
as tr a d itio n a l schools, then some of the c h a ra c te ris tic s of t r a d itio n a l
schools which favor one class over another should also be found in open
schools.

For instance, two variables ( i . e . , low teacher expectations

fo r performance and high student sense o f f u t i l i t y ) seem to be present
in many low ^ES schools, and generally absent from higher SES schools,
and these variables also can be examined with respect to school openness.
The analysis o f Proposition Two indicates the extent to which
other aspects of open education tend to accompany teachers' open au tho rity
s ty le s .

These other aspects of open education are discussed in some

13

d e ta il in Chapter IV.

The analysis o f Proposition Three indicates the

re la tio n s h ip between open teaching styles and other a ttitu d e s teachers
have, a ttitu d e s which are in turn related to student achievement.
These a ttitu d e s are discussed in Chapter I I .

The analysis o f Propo­

s itio n Four indicates how openness is related to some school outcomes.
While a more extensive discussion is found in Chapter IV , i t is appro­
p ria te to say here th a t open school advocates fo r the most part do
not claim th a t open schools produce higher achieving students.

Open

school advocates do claim th a t t h e ir approach w i l l produce more s e l f r e l i a n t students, and students who value cooperation more than compe­
titio n .

No p a r t ic u la r open school position on college aspirations

e x is ts , but the strong emphasis on development o f an in d iv id u a l's
"true" po tential would lead one to speculate th a t college aspirations
should not be es p e c ia lly emphasized over other l i f e opportunities.
In addition to these i n i t i a l research propositions, other
findings obtained during the course o f research are discussed.

In

p a r t ic u la r , these findings concern the extent o f the openness phenome­
non and it s re la tio n to class size and ce rtain teacher c h a ra c te ris tic s .
The foregoing propositions w i l l be analyzed in Part Two, p rin ­
c ip a lly in Chapter V I.

At th is p o in t, we turn to Part One, containing

a number of other m atters, some general, some s p e c ific , the discussion
of which w ill help to in te r p r e t and c l a r i f y the research findings.

PART ONE

GENERAL CONCEPTS, VIEWPOINTS, AND RESEARCH FINDINGS
CONCERNING SCHOOL CLIMATE, TEACHER AUTHORITY, AND
OPEN EDUCATION

CHAPTER I

CONSIDERATIONS OF A PHILOSOPHICAL
AND THEORETICAL NATURE

In undertaking a study in education one encounters the problem
of working with an amazing v a rie ty o f facts and conjectures, even in
r e l a t i v e l y circumscribed areas.

O ften, i t seems, a study begins some­

where "in the middle" and proceeds towards a conclusion which is am­
biguous since, in p a rt, the underlying foundations of the research
were never stated.

In order to reduce the ambiguity of this study,

some discussion of fundamental concepts is necessary.
There are several fundamental issues which are relevant to the
subject and method of th is research, including some o f the most con­
tro v e rs ia l social science problems of recent times.

In te lle c tu a l

honesty requires one to acknowledge the existence of these contro­
versies and to s ta te a position with respect to them.

However, the

more thorough review and analysis which each controversy deserves is
la r g e ly outside the scope o f th is paper.
One important issue is the question of how people lea rn .

This

question must, in p a r t , be framed in r e la t io n to the much-debated
issue of the r e la t iv e influence o f heredity vs. environment.

The

debate over th is issue has been going on fo r thousands of years,
and i t w i l l not be resolved by th is study.

So f a r , each side has

f a ile d to propose a te s t of t h e ir theory th a t provides v e r if ic a t io n

14

15
which is c le a r and unambiguous enough to convince most of the people
on the other side.

In sp ite o f the absence o f v e r if ic a t io n o f one

side or the o th e r, one must s t i l l choose a te n ta tiv e position with
■k

respect to the dichotomy.
This study's focus is generally on the environmental side of
the question o f how people learn .

Such a stance does not deny the

p o s s ib ilit y o f genetic explanations o f human behavior: i t simply does
not a ffir m them, and seeks answers elsewhere.
There may be many reasons fo r choosing an environmentalist
perspective ra th e r than a h e re d ita rian one.

For example, one could

say th a t the arguments and evidence o f the environmentalist side seem
more convincing.

But then another could le g itim a te ly ask why they

seem more convincing, and so on ad in fin it u m .

I t is possible to

analyze the reasons why th is researcher finds the environmentalist
perspective more persuasive, but such an e f f o r t would eventually lead
back to some non-logical assumptions which others could f r e e ly choose
to accept or r e je c t (unless one believes in P lato 's doctrine of innate
ideas).

Such an analysis is beyond the scope of th is paper.

Within the environmentalist perspective on human behavior there
e x is t several psychological th eories.

The p rin cipal o rie n ta tio n of

th is study is th a t o f the s y m b o lic -in te ra c tio n is t view o f human be­
havior.

"Sym bolic-interaction" refe rs to an area in social psychology

which is concerned with the behavior th a t is influenced by a s e lf-o th e r
k

Kuhn's (1962) concept o f the pre-paradigm stage o f s c i e n t i f i c
development a p tly describes the current state of the social sciences.
The competing schools o f thought have mostly f a ile d to produce success­
ful tests fo r t h e i r theories which were s u f f i c i e n t l y risky ( i . e . , not
subject to post hoc explanations) to convince the competitors. In the
absence o f undisputed proof of a theory, one is l e f t with the ex iste n ­
t i a l choice--a baseless one.

16
re la tio n s h ip sometimes re fe rre d to as " s ig n ific a n t o th e r."

In b r i e f ,

the idea is th a t an in d iv id u a l's behavior is influenced by his per­
ceptions of the behavioral expectations th a t his s ig n if ic a n t others
have fo r him.

These perceptions c o n s titu te his s e l f concept which

in turn direc ts his behavior.

According to Brookover and Erickson

(1969-15) th is social-psychological conception o f learning holds
th at
(1 )

Children learn to behave in the ways th a t the people
with whom they associate behave.

(2)

Norms of behavior are basic components of every social
group.

(3)

Norms and expectations define the appropriate behavior
o f persons.

(4)

Each person learns the d e fin itio n s o f appropriate
behavior through in te ra c tio n with s ig n if ic a n t others.

(5)

The individ ual learns to behave in the ways th a t he
perceives are proper f o r him through in teractio n s with
others.

(6)

The in d iv id u a l's s e l f concept o f a b i l i t y to learn is
acquired through in te ra c tio n s with others.

(7)

P ositive s e l f concept is a necessary but not s u f f ic ie n t
condition in determining behavior to be learned.

This view of human behavior should be analyzed not only in re la tio n
to a nature/nurture dimension, but also in r e la tio n to the dimensions
of freedom/determinism and materialism /dualism (Stevenson 1974 121, 123).

F i r s t , sym bolic-interactionism presents an almost com­

p le te ly environmentalist view.

Although a genetic-environmental

in te ra c tio n e f f e c t could e x i s t , since a s ig n if ic a n t o th er's expecta­
tions could be influenced by, e . g . , a su bject's race, no d is t in c t
genetic component is implied in the model.

Second, symbolic-

interactionism views behavior as p a r t ly - f r e e and partly-determ ined:

17
S ig n ific a n t others' expectations do not command a c e rta in performance,
they only influence i t .
c a lly d u a lis t view.

T h ird , symbolic-interactionism holds a basi­

That i s , mental states (f e e lin g s , a t t it u d e s , per­

ceptions, e t c . ) are assumed to e x is t along with brain states (e le c t r o ­
chemical a c t i v i t y ) and are fu rth e r presumed to guide behavior.

The

I

methodology of symbolic-interactionism is to survey the a ttitu d e s of
subjects and others regarding expectations and perceived expectations.
The reported a ttitu d e s are then compared with other phenomena.

If a

s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t r e la tio n is found, one can t e n t a t iv e ly con­
clude (given the assumption th a t a ttitu d e s influence behavior) th a t
the reported a ttitu d e s have "caused" the r e la tio n to be s ig n if ic a n t .
Symbolic in te ra c tio n theory is perhaps weakest in explaining the
motivation fo r behavior (M eltzer 1972-20).

There i s , however, another

psychological theory which does explain motivation fo r behavior and
which seems to coordinate well with the s y m b o lic -in te ra c tio n is t view,
v i z . , behaviorism.

These two perspectives complement each other.

Be­

haviorism emphasizes the behavior-shaping e f f e c t o f p o sitive and nega­
tiv e reinforcement; symbolic-interactionism emphasizes the social m ilieu
in which these reinforcements are defined and presented.

So f a r as the

data reported in th is study are concerned, i t is the symbolic in te r a c t io n i s t perspective which provides underlying support.

At most, the

behaviorist perspective can only provide us with some useful terminology
and in t e r p r e ta tiv e concepts.
Behaviorism, l i k e sym bolic-interactionism , is high on the environ­
mental side o f the heredity-environment dimension.

However, the behav­

iorism denies th a t there is any free w i l l component to behavior, and
asserts th a t the mind is e n t ir e ly m a te r ia l, thus precluding the possi­
b i l i t y th a t a ttitu d e s or other a f fe c tiv e states can guide behavior.

18

Behaviorists do not deny th a t fe elin gs e x is t ; they simply say th a t
feelin gs accompany behavior rather than cause i t .
Consequently, the a ttitu d e s measured by sy m b o lic -in teractio n ists
can be thought of as correlates (not causes) o f behavior.

I f we f u r ­

ther assume th a t the re la tio n between a ttitu d e s and behavior is stable
and ra tio n a l

( i . e . , the a ttitu d e s are about the behavior they accom­

pany), then we can say th a t in te r a c tio n is ts and behaviorists are
studying concomitant phenomena.
We may now reformulate our social psychological conception of
learning as follow s.

V i r t u a l l y a l l human behavior is learned from

the people with whom an individual associates.

These p e o p le - - s ig n if i-

cant o t h e r s - -e it h e r by accident or by design establish norms and convey
expectations which, through various means o f reinforcement, shape the
in d iv id u a l's p e rs o n a lity , s k i l l s , a p titu d e s , in te re s ts and overall
s e l f concept.

Because random events also shape behavior, the corre­

la tio n between norms, expectations and behavior is not p e rfe c t.

In t e ­

gral to th is view is the proposition th a t there are no substantial
innate differences between individuals in a b i l i t y to lea rn .
One o f the p rin cip a l components o f the symbolic in t e r a c t io n is t
perspective in education, the e f f e c t o f teacher expectations on stu­
dent performance, has produced considerable controversy.

The contro­

versy was mostly sparked by Rosenthal and Jacobsen's fin d in g s , re­
ported in t h e i r book Pygmalion in the Classroom (1968).

This work

launched a host o f attempts to r e p lic a te or challenge t h e i r fin d in g s ,
followed by the in e v ita b le reviews and analyses o f research: Brophy
and Good (1974); Johnson (1970); Insel and Jacobsen (1975); R ist (1970,
1974); Rosenthal (1968); Finn (1972); Claiborn (1969); Rothbart (1971);

19

Rubovitz and Maehr (1971); Howe (1970); West (1974).

Having accepted

a symbolic in te ra c tio n perspective, one cannot a t the same time r e je c t
the concept th a t the expectations o f s ig n if ic a n t others such as te a ­
chers influence students' behavior.

However, one must be open-minded

enough to acknowledge th a t the phenomenon is not understood so well
th at we can always produce the behavior we d e s ire , on the p a rt of
e ith e r teachers or students.
Some researchers in to expectation e ffe c ts ( e . g . , Brophy and
Good 1974) have concentrated on the types of teachers and students
th at resp ectively give and receive d i f f e r in g expectations, and some
o f the conditions under which the phenomenon seems to operate.

They

id e n t ifie d three types o f teachers (c a lle d p ro a c tiv e , r e a c tiv e , and
o v e rre a c tiv e ), analyzed differences in the reinforcement teachers gave
to low and high achieving students, and found th a t expectations had
reduced e ffe c ts when teachers concentrated more on subject matter and
less on individ ual differences in student a b i l i t i e s .
Other researchers ( e . g . , Rist 1970, 1974; Howe, 1970; Rosenthal
and Jacobsen 1968) have tended to emphasize the r e la tio n s h ip between
more general social facto rs (such as students' race and socioeconomic
status) and teachers' expectations.

Such studies tend to show th a t

teacher expectations favor higher SES and non-minority students.

These

studies provide a lin k to , and can be considered a subset o f , another
class of studies (c a lle d aggregate or contextual studies) which are
discussed below.
West (1 9 7 4 ), in his review of research on the expectancy e f f e c t ,
c a lls fo r a conceptualization o f the basic elements associated with
teacher expectancies and the id e n t if ic a t io n o f linkages between these

20
elements in order to determine the necessary and s u f f ic ie n t conditions
fo r the e f f e c t to occur.

For example, one such set o f important l i n k ­

ages would be those between teacher expectations, parent expectations,
and the c h ild 's r e l a t i v e success in school, the question being: To what
extent does each o f these components influence the others?

(Smith

1972-260).
The problem o f determining the necessary and s u f f i c i e n t condi­
tions fo r the expectancy e f f e c t to occur leads
s ia l issue— th a t of teacher a c c o u n ta b ility .

us to another controver­

At present some researchers

feel th a t a c c o u n ta b ility cannot be in s tit u te d because we lack s u f f ic ie n t
knowledge to judge teaching effectiveness (Brophy and Evertson 1976-144).
Others argue th a t ac c o u n ta b ility is e s s e n tia lly a p o l i t i c a l

issue,

sought by school administrators as a means of making teachers the scape­
goats f o r educational f a i l u r e s , or th a t ac c o u n ta b ility would, in prac­
t i c e , r e s u lt in the systematic punishment of teachers and thus produce
some of the same undesirable behaviors t h a t , behaviorists a s s e rt, always
occur when people are co ntrolled through punishment (McGhan 1970-13).
I t is appropriate here to consider the notion o f a theory o f teach­
ing.

I t seems reasonable to believe th a t some connection exists between

teaching and le a rn in g , perhaps o f a p r o b a b ilis tic kind.

I f there were

a causal connection between teaching and le a rn in g , i t would mean th a t
the f a i l u r e to produce learning is the teacher's r e s p o n s ib ility , fo r
which he can be held accountable.

However, there is no t i g h t lo gical

or causal lin k between teaching and learn ing : each may occur without
the other (Green 1971-140).

The problem is th a t " i f teaching and

learn ing , l i k e playing and winning, are to be understood as task and
achievement, then they are the task and achievement o f d if f e r e n t

21

persons (Green 1971-142)."

In f a c t , teaching and learning can be

viewed as task and achievement of both teacher and le a rn e r , thus r e ­
vealing a process/product ambiguity (Green 1971-142).
How can we resolve th is ambiguity?

I f there is no d ir e c t causal

lin k between teaching and le a rn in g , what kind o f lin k does e x is t be­
tween them?

The answer to th is question lie s in the development of

a theory o f teaching which in turn answers these questions (Gage 197245; DeCecco 1968-7): (1)
behave as they do?
student behavior?

(3)

How do teachers behave?

(2)

Why do they

What are the e ffe c ts o f teacher behavior on

Symbolic i n t e r a c t io n is t and behaviorist theories

of learning both assert th a t teachers can have a positive e f f e c t on
students' learning under c e rta in circumstances, and c e r t a in ly many
of the re la te d studies o f teacher expectations and school climate
(to be discussed l a t e r ) do tend to support th is position.

The work

of Rist (1 9 7 4 ), fo r example, makes i t c le a r th a t the socioeconomic
background o f students is not ju s t an unconquerable force having a
p o sitive or negative e f f e c t on the students' school l i f e , but th a t
on the co n trary, social class provides schools and teachers with cues
which they a c t iv e ly use to give d i f f e r e n t i a l treatment to d i f f e r e n t
social types.
However, research in to any phenomena suspected to have impor­
tance f o r school learning must do more than t e l l us th a t an associa­
tion exists between those phenomena and learn ing .

For example, a

study of school climate must t e l l us not only th a t a c e rta in climate
"causes" c e rta in school achievements but also how th a t climate was
produced and how s im ila r and d i f f e r e n t ones can be produced.

Otherwise,

22

the researcher may be fa lla c io u s ly supposing th a t his variables con­
s t i t u t e necessary and s u f f ic ie n t conditions f o r student achievement
(Brown and House 1967-402).

I f th a t supposition were so, such*know­

ledge would c o n s titu te a fu ll- f le d g e d theory o f teaching, and teachers
could be f a i r l y held accountable fo r the results o f t h e ir teaching
actions.
A major approach to research in education in recent years has
been the contextual or aggregative approach.

Such studies attempt

to understand schools and students in re la tio n to the contexts or
environments in which they are found.

These environmental influences

can be studied on an in t e r - and/or intra-school basis.

Inter-school

v a ria tio n in education's e f f e c t on students is often related to the
concept o f social class ( i t s e l f a controversial concept).

Bidwell

(1965-984, 985) notes some of these re la tio n s h ip s : fo r example, he
c a lls a tte n tio n to Del S olar's finding th a t teachers in upper middle
class communities were found to be more concerned about students'
withdrawal from class a c t i v i t y than with disorderly behavior.

Bid-

well also c a lls a tte n tio n to Coleman's fin din g of considerable schoolto-school v a ria tio n in the dominance o f value themes in student sub­
c u ltu re s , and his b e l i e f th a t interschool differences are a function
of teachers' motivational a b i l i t y , the social class mix o f school
and community, and values fo r parental and community support o f the
school.
One study, Coleman's massive Equality o f Educational Opportunity
(1966), is p a r t ic u la r ly notable because of it s findings and the con­
troversy and analyses th a t have followed from i t .

One o f Coleman's

prin cipal findings was th a t socioeconomic status (SES) was s ig n if ic a n t ly

23
related to achievement; Pettigrew's (1967) reanalysis o f Coleman's
data found th a t race was also s ig n if ic a n t ly related to achievement.
Studies li k e Coleman's, climate stu d ie s , and others--!umped
together under the term "contextual s tu d ie s " --a re not without t h e i r
c ritic s .

Hauser (1 971-43), fo r example, fa u lts them because " . . .

fo r one th in g , such 'explanations' are concerned with a small p art
of the to ta l v a ria tio n in performance and, f o r another, the s t r a ig h t ­
forward use of social-psychological in te rp re ta tio n s to account fo r
the differences is u n ju s tifie d ."

Hauser makes some in te re s tin g

points, and they are worth quoting in d e t a i l .

C r i t i c i z i n g studies

by M c D ill, Meyers and Rigsby in 1967 and 1969, he says:
"In some studies of the value climates of schools, normative
a ttrib u te s are c a re fu lly measured, but l i k e the studies using
gross correlations of school c h a r a c te r is tic s , they f a i l to
provide a consistent basis on which to in te r p r e t the data
(p. 4 6 )."
M c D ill, Meyers, and Rigsby and others are also fa u lte d f o r t h e i r pre­
occupation with school q u a lit y , which has
" . . . resulted from an erroneous id e n t if ic a t io n of the e ffe c ts
of the school with those of schooling as a process. While some
educational inputs may be in d iv is ib le below the aggregate level
of the school, the learning experience of in dividual students
is not. Moreover, schooling is d if f e r e n t ia t e d tem porally, not
t e r r i t o r i a l l y . . . and [students] being ' i n ' rath er than 'o u t'
of schools is f a r more important than which schools they
attend (p. 7 ) ."
Hauser also states th at:
"Contextual analysis is based on a misunderstanding o f s t a t i s ­
t ic a l aggregation and of social process which is rooted in the
id e n t if ic a t io n of differences among groups with the social and
differences among individuals with the psychological (p. 13).
" . . . the id e n t if ic a t io n of residual v a ria tio n with the e ffe c ts
of p a r tic u la r variables [ e . g . , SES] places the in v e s tig a to r
under some obligatio n to demonstrate th a t those variables per­
form as advertised. The place to begin is not the betweengroup segment of the model, but the within-group segment.

24

Neither normative climates nor peer groups are homogeneous
w ithin schools. This form o f 'co n textu al' analysis depends
on the e x p l i c i t assumption of a p a r t ic u la r re la tio n s h ip
among a t le a s t two v a ria b le c h a ra c te ris tic s of individuals
(p. 24).
"Since student bodies of s im ila r socioeconomic composition
do vary in performance, [use of the SES composition of student
bodies as a surrogate fo r the school] leads to underestimates
o f the gross e ffe c ts o f school. Unlike the gross c o rre la tio n
school studies, these studies do attempt to control the socio­
economic status of individ ual students . . .
[by en tering ]
both school and student SES measures in m u ltip le regression
analyses. The net co variation o f level of performance with
the schools' socioeconomic composition is then id e n t if ie d
as an e f fe c t of a normative climate . . . .
[But] there is
no basis fo r assigning s p e c ific content to the unmeasured
school va ria b le s. They might be the e ffe c ts of the peer
group, but they might also be a t tr ib u t a b le to newer b u ild ­
ings, b e tte r teachers or more e x tr a -c u r r ic u la r a c t i v i t i e s
(p. 4 5 )."
I t is Hauser's p o s itio n , in l i g h t of these flaw s, th a t re­
searchers must consider the place of the individ ual in a social
structure before a t t r ib u t in g causal relevance to c h a ra c te ris tic s
of the c o l l e c t i v i t y .

This means th a t a tte n tio n must be paid to

the mechanisms by which an aggregate's social c h a ra c te ris tic s
exert influence on group or individual behavior through the aggre­
gate's irre d u c ib le s tru c tu ra l properties (p. 15).
In an e f f o r t to overcome the fa u lts he sees in other analyses,
Hauser undertakes his own analysis.

His prin cipal s t a t i s t i c a l tools

are path analysis and the analysis of covariance.
I t is tru e , as Hauser says, th at most contextual studies are
concerned only with between-school v a ria tio n in achievement, which
is usually considerably smaller than within-school v a r ia tio n .

His

c r itic is m is apparently based on the idea th a t many researchers seem
to feel th a t social (as contrasted with psychological) explanations
o f behavior are only v a lid in inter-group comparisons.

However, such

25
is not the case with the symbolic-i n te ra c tio n is t perspective which
presents the view th a t individual behavior is shaped by the expecta­
tions o f s ig n if ic a n t others, where each individual "other" has an
impact on behavior which can, but need no t, be independent of other
"others."

In th is view, climate factors can be in terp rete d as sum­

maries (in s o fa r as they express c o lle c tiv e a ttitu d e s which cause or
accompany behavior) of some of the in d iv id u a l/o th e r in teraction s th a t
occur in the organizations.

Climate researchers in e f f e c t choose to

lose the power to completely explain a l l behavior w ith in an organiza­
tio n in order to generalize about behavioral commonalities among organi­
zations.

This kind o f approach does not involve d i f f e r e n t kinds of

explanations about differences w ithin and between organizations; r a th e r,
i t o ffe rs one explanation which values g e n eralizatio n over complete
speci f i c i t y .
We can also agree with Hauser th a t there is no reason to assign un­
measured v a ria tio n to the e ffe c ts o f normative clim ates.

But i t is per­

f e c t ly permissible to conjecture th at climate may account fo r some of
the unmeasured v a r ia t io n , and then set about measuring the climate to
see how much v a ria tio n i t does account f o r , as is done in the Brookover
studies (1973, 1976).
I t is true th a t studies of climate tend to p r o l if e r a t e rath er than
to r e p lic a te v a ria b le s.

However, some lack of success in re p lic a tio n

should not in i t s e l f be reason enough to discontinue try in g to r e p lic a te
climate v a ria b le s .

In f a c t , use o f a climate instrument carries with i t

the obligatio n to attempt a re p lic a tio n in order to v e r if y the i n i t i a l
use.

Each r e p lic a tio n attempt can add to our understanding o f the d i f ­

f i c u l t i e s in using the concept o f clim ate.

26
Although we have acknowledged the v a l i d i t y o f some o f Hauser's
c r itic is m s , there are some exceptions to be taken with his perspec­
tiv e .

I f , as he says, contextual analysis confuses social explanations

with group a ttrib u te s and psychological explanations with in dividual
a t t r ib u t e s , then the in te r d is c ip lin a r y social-psychological perspec­
tives o f sym bolic-interaction and organizational climate may be the
most appropriate areas of study where these confusions can be worked
out.
Furthermore, when Hauser says th a t normative climates are not
homogeneous w ithin schools he is merely speculating.
mains to be resolved by research.

That issue r e ­

And, when he says th a t learning

experiences of individual students are d i v is ib le below the aggregate
level of the school we can re p ly , "Yes, but only to the extent th a t
aspects of school climate are not pervasive throughout the school."
Even then, the concept of climate would not exclude an aggregate
e f f e c t on subgroups below the to ta l school le v e l .

Such a fin din g

would be consistent with other sociological and behavioral perspec­
tiv e s .

I t seems th a t climate studies would have l i t t l e

research value

only in those cases where individual behavior is shaped by completely
individual

(thus not in t e r - in d iv id u a l) environmental circumstances.

Those events would be b e tte r investigated through a s o c ia l-b e h a v io ris t
observational approach.
F in a lly , while a student's presence in any school may be c le a r ly
more important than the nature o f the school he attends, i t is equally
c le a r th at some schools may have climates which system atically "create"
more dropouts than others, thus (avoidably) increasing the number who
are not in school.

27

Whether a l l o f Hauser's c ritic is m s o f contextual studies are
meritorious or no t, his in te r e s t in the analysis o f covariance as a
means o f elim in atin g differences in antecedent variables related to
w ith in - and between-school v a ria tio n in achievement is a thoughtprovoking contribution to the f i e l d .

S im i la r ly , the use o f path

models to investigate "causal" relation ship s is p o te n tia lly valuable.
However, i t must be noted th a t the form o f any path model, though
perhaps eminently sensible and widely subscribed t o , is a r b it r a r y .
In sum,

i t seems f a i r to say th a t some o f Hauser's c ritic is m s

of contextual

studies are v a lid , some seem less v a l i d , and his own

a lt e r n a t iv e is open to c r itic is m .
A f in a l

controversial subject needs to be mentioned--one th at

is probably relevant to any research in education.

B a s ic a lly ,

this

controversy can be reduced to one question, what is the value of an
education?

The tr a d itio n a l answers include: (1) the perpetuation of

democracy requires a l i t e r a t e e le c to ra te ; (2) minimum li t e r a c y is
needed to l i v e safely and happily in a complex in d u s tr ia liz e d society;
and, (3) a good education leads to a good job and a chance to improve
one's l i f e chances.
The la s t of these answers has led to considerable analysis and
debate in recent years.

See Coleman (1 9 6 6 ), Jencks (1 972 ), Berg (1971),

Collins (1971), Mayeske (1 969 ), Wilson (1 968 ), Pettigrew (1 9 6 7 ), Bowles
and G intis (1972).

The most common and t r a d it io n a l view o f education

is th a t i t is m e rito c ra tic — those who work hard and achieve in school
are rewarded by obtaining worthwhile jobs.

This view has been chal­

lenged by research showing the high c o rre la tio n between social class
and success in school, and the related fin din g th a t ce rtain ra c ia l

28
groups show l i t t l e b e n e fit from high achievement in so far as l a t e r
l i f e chances are concerned.
An important accompanying (and very co n tro v ersia l) finding of
t

the Coleman study in p a r t ic u la r was th a t not only are schools' e f fo r ts
mainly influenced by social class and race, but th a t the conventional
wisdom regarding the value of common educational inputs (class s iz e ,
teacher t r a in in g , per-pupil expenditures, e t c . ) appears mistaken.
This assertion has led to considerable secondary analysis and discus­
sion (M o steller and Moynihan 1972) and fu rth e r e f fo r ts to restore the
value o f these common resources (Summers and Wo'ife 1975, Shipman

1976).

Other research shows th a t although there seems to be no re la tio n
between IQ and income, or achievement and income, there is a re la tio n
between level of education and income.

Thus, one could argue th a t i t

does not matter how well one does in school, but merely how f a r one
goes.

Another more unusual in te rp re ta tio n asserts th a t luck is as

important a fa c to r as e it h e r fam ily background or educational achieve­
ment (Jencks 1972).
This question o f the value o f education, li k e other controversial
issues, cannot be discussed in the d e ta il i t deserves.

The view taken

here is th at formal education is a p rim a rily conservative, and a secon­
d a r ily c r i t i c a l s o c ia liz in g i n s t i t u t i o n .

In the terms o f Bowles and

G intis (1972), schools reproduce the social relatio n s
systems in which they e x is t .

o f the productive

Schools have always been expected to

"reproduce" ce rtain aspects of social groups: a common language or

The social relatio n s o f production is the system o f rights and
r e s p o n s ib ilitie s , duties and rewards th a t governs the in te ra c tio n of
a l l individuals involved in organized productive a c t i v i t y (Bowles and
Gintis 1972-74).

29
r e lig io n , acquired knowledge, ce rtain norms and standards of conduct,
p o lit ic a l b e lie f s , etc.

What Bowles and Gintis and others assert is

th a t schools reproduce other aspects of a s o c ie ty --e s p e c ia lly the
class stru ctu re --as w e l l, and th a t they do this in a r e l a t i v e l y
covert manner.
"In many respects schools give students t h e i r major sense of
moral worth . . . [and] can be seen as agencies o f fa te or
career co ntrol. Schools function to so rt and f i l t e r social
selves and set these selves on the proper moral track . . . .
(Denzin 1972-25) [emphasis added] ."
While they promote the social m obility o f a society to some
ex ten t, schools mainly serve to le g itim iz e social s t r a t i f i c a t i o n .
And, since schools reproduce the ex istin g social s t r a t i f i c a t i o n ,
they must be mostly serving the in terests of various advantaged groups.
The somewhat pessimistic opinion o f people who hold these views is
th a t change in the social structure cannot re s u lt from changing the
way schools function because the advantaged groups w i l l be able to
thwart change based on a lt e r in g a secondary social i n s t i t u t i o n .
Even so, i t is worthwhile to s t r iv e to understand and improve
the schools' methods of basic education so th at students w i l l at le a s t
have a functional set o f minimum s k i l l s with which they may in te r p r e t
the world they liv e in .

I t seems to th is w r it e r th a t the promise o f

a lte r n a tiv e schools is th a t they may serve the primary educational
needs of children at the same time th a t they change the context in
which education is usually provided so th a t the students' "selves"
are not so firm ly shaped to f i t into the e x istin g social stru ctu re .
A principal component of schools' means to accomplish t h e i r overt
and covert goals is the teacher's use of his or her a u th o r ity , and
i t is th a t phenomena which is the principal focus of th is study.

CHAPTER I I
THEORY AND RESEARCH ON SCHOOL CLIMATES
AND TEACHER AUTHORITY

The general o rie n ta tio n of th is study is w ith in th a t f i e l d of
sociological in quiry ca lled complex organization s, and is es p e c ia lly
concerned with the "climates" which those organizations are believed
to have, and in p a r t ic u la r , the climates o f elementary schools and
classrooms which have some degree of n o n -tra d itio n a l a u th o rity
stru ctu re (commonly ca lled open or informal schools).

This chapter

includes a discussion of theory and research related to two major
topics: (1) school climates; and (2) a u th o rity structures in complex
organizations, es p ec ially schools.

Theory and Research on School Climate
A basic assumption of climate studies, which t r y to measure the
environmental context in a school, is th a t schools' climates a c tiv e ly
influence and shape students' behavior.

A fundamental view held by

those in terested in studying climate is th a t
" . . . the values held by the in te ra c tin g members o f a school
organization are closely associated with the functional
dimensions o f the organization, which in tu rn , a f f e c t the
achievement o f the organizational goals (Leonard and Gies
1 9 7 1 -8 )."
The case f o r the influence of climate is stated by Jencks (1972-150),
"A high school's impact on individual students seems to depend
on r e l a t i v e l y subtle 'c lim a tic ' conditions, not on the size of

30

31

the budget, or the presence o f the resources professional
educators claim are important."
I f SES and race are properly understood as gross environmental fa c ­
tors which influence le a rn in g , then studies of school clim ate can be
viewed as attempts to discover more refin ed environmental factors
and produce an understanding of the mechanisms th a t operate in schools
to produce v a ria tio n in achievement.
The term "organizational climate" (OC) is r e l a t i v e l y new to the
l i t e r a t u r e on schools as complex organizations, as evidenced by the
fa c t th a t i t did not appear as a separate heading in The Education
Index u n til the middle o f 1969.

An examination of the t i t l e s lis t e d

under the heading indicates two d i f f e r e n t areas of in t e r e s t w ith in
the major to p ic , v i z . , one related to students, the other to fa c u lty
and s t a f f .
As is the case with so many concepts in social science (and
e s p ec ially because i t is r e l a t i v e l y new), there is some d is p a rity
among the d e fin itio n s o f OC.

Consider the following d e scrip tio n s/

d e fin itio n s .
"Every organization develops i t s own culture or climate with
i t s own taboos, folkways and mores. The climate or cu ltu re
o f the system r e fle c ts both the norms and values o f the formal
system and t h e i r re in te r p r e ta tio n in the informal system, . . .
the histo ry of in tern al and external stru g g le, the types of
people the organization a t t r a c t s , i t s work processes and physi­
cal lay o u t, the modes o f communication and the exercise of
au th o rity . . . (Kenney and Rentz 1970-65)."
" . . . look at the terms we use when we r e fe r to what surrounds
the in d iv id u a l: atmosphere, behavior s e ttin g , conditions,
c u ltu r e , . . . environment, . . . and very descrip tive is the
word climate . . . .
By climate we mean those c h a ra c te ris tic s
th a t distinguish the organization from other organizations and
th a t influence the behavior o f people in the organization
(Gilmer 1971-37)."

32
" . . . one finds th a t each [school] appears to have a 'p er­
s o n a lity ' o f it s own. I t is th is 'p e r s o n a lity 1 th a t we
describe here as the 'Organizational Climate' o f the school.
Analogously, personality is to the individual what Organiza­
tio n a l Climate is to the organization (Halpin and C ro ft
1966-131)."
" . . . organizational climate might be defined as the global
assessment o f the in te ra c tio n between the task-achievement
dimension and the need-satisfaction dimension w ith in the
o rg anization , or in other words, of the extent o f task-needs
in teg ratio n (Wiggins 1971-57)."
Although one can fin d some s i m i l a r i t i e s between these explanations
of the nature of OC, i t is c le a r th a t the term does not have a
un ive rs ally accepted meaning.
Even when the term OC is not s p e c ific a lly used, one s t i l l
finds s im ila r concepts under consideration.

For example, in

L ik e r t 's New Patterns of Management (1961-178) we f in d , "These
interdependent motivations and processes constitu te an o v erall
system which coordinates, integrates and guides the a c t i v i t i e s of
the organization and a l l it s members."

He views th is " In te r a c tio n -

Influence System" as an ideal to be sought, and th is system could
be construed as the equivalent of a "healthy" organizational clim ate.
Whatever organizational climate i s , i t seems c le a r th a t i t is
a complex phenomenon.

In his review of research on the concept,

Johnson (1970-232) found th a t climate components seemed to be d iv is ib le
into three groups:
(1)

Personality c h a r a c te r is tic s , a b i l i t i e s , motives, values,
plans and past experiences o f students;

(2)

Norms, values and role requirements (a u th o rity s tru c tu re ,
f a c i l i t i e s ) o f schools;

(3)

Values and norms o f the informal organization.

Because of th is complexity, only careful study w i l l enable educators to

33
understand the climate phenomenon well enough to control and d ir e c t
i t toward desired ends.
The antecedents of the concept o f organizational c lim a te , in p a r t ,
are the studies o f leadership and morale which have been undertaken
by researchers often id e n t ifie d with the Human Relations school
organization theory.

of

A major source o f fr u s tra tio n fo r researchers

in leadership and morale and related areas has been the lack of
a r t ic u la t io n between group and formal leader c h a r a c te r is tic s , with
the re s u lt th a t attempts to a l t e r these c h a ra c te ris tic s in a given
s itu a tio n often e it h e r f a i l to work, or have unintended consequences.
The follow ing quotations indicate related views:
"The contradictory evidence on styles of leadership . . .
provides n e ith e r consistent support of a group-centered
s ty le . . . nor consistent support of the favorable e ffe c ts
of a d ir e c tiv e s ty le (Golembiewski 1965-116)."
" . . . cohesion is not a fa c to r which determines the d ire c tio n
of involvement of lower p a rtic ip a n ts in the organization
(E tzio n i 1961-175)."
"Experience had shown us how f u t i l e i t was to
p rin cip a l with [c e rta in c h a r a c te r is tic s ] to a
fa c u lty was not ready to accept a leader who,
our point o f view, was l i k e l y to be e f fe c tiv e
C roft 1966-132)."

assign a
school whose
at le a s t from
(Halpin and

While the foregoing quotations do not a l l r e fe r to exactly
the same problem, they do a t t e s t to the fa c t th a t in te ra c tio n in
complex organizations is a m u lti-v a r ia b le problem.

I t is ju s t th is

m u lti-v a r ia b le s it u a t io n , i t seems, which studies o f organizational
climate attempt to understand and explain.
One o f the main areas of in te r e s t in studies o f OC is the
organization 's open/closed-ness.

Gilmer (1971), fo r example,

reviews a number o f d if f e r e n t c la s s ific a tio n schemes fo r organizational

34
climate and finds the following o rie n ta tio n to the terms "open" and
"closed.11

Closed________________________ vs_;______________________ Open
no member autonomy - - - - - - - l i t t l e social in te ra c tio n - - —
low upward influence - - - - - - status consciousness - - - - - - job performance and job
s a tis fa c tio n inversely
re la te d

- - - - -

individual autonomy
high social in te ra c tio n
mutual influence
individual concern f o r
overall goals
higher job s a t is f a c t io n ,
salary re la te d to performance

Gilmer says th a t the organizational climate is a composite o f the varied
behaviors of the people in the organization.

He fe e ls th a t there is

some kind o f in te ra c tio n between the company's climate and the in d i­
vid uals' p e rs o n a litie s .

In a d d itio n , he points out th a t clim ate is

re la te d to not only the in tra o rg an izatio n a l in te ra c tio n s but also to
in tero rg an izatio n a l

in te r a c t io n s .

Wiggins (1971) notes th a t school climates r e s is t attempts to
change them, th a t the prin cip a l can expect to fin d th a t his behavior
is la rg e ly subject to the control o f the school c lim a te , and th a t
p rin cip a ls tend to pattern t h e i r leader s ty le to the role they per­
ceive is construed fo r them by the school and the d i s t r i c t .

He

concludes th a t the school's impact on the prin cipal is g rea ter than
his impact on the school, and fe els th a t th is s itu a tio n should cause
a change in the perspective of ad m inistrative leadership concepts
cu rren tly popular.
Monahan (1967) takes the position th a t factors in the school's
environment can a f f e c t i t s clim a te, and points to the anomie caused
by problems p e cu liar to big c i t y school systems.

He o ffe rs Merton's

35

typology o f anomic response patterns (conformity, innovation,
r itu a lis m , re tre a tis m , r e b e llio n ) as a paradigm fo r understanding
urban schools, and sees a correspondence between th is paradigm and
the experimental work o f Halpin (discussed below).
Some of the l i t e r a t u r e about organizational climate centers
around e f fo r ts to measure climate differen ces.

Principal among

these studies is the one by Halpin and Croft (1 966 ), which id e n t i­
fie d eig ht dimensions o f school organizational clim ate.
sions were related to the group behavior of teachers:
ment,

(2)

Hindrance,

(3)

E s p r it,

(4)

Intimacy.

Four dimen­
(1)

Disengage­

The other four

dimensions were related to the individual behavior of the p rin c ip a l:
(1)

Aloofness,

e ra tio n .

(2)

Production Emphasis,

(3)

Thrust,

(4) Consid­

These eig ht dimensions were obtained by a fa c to r analysis

of an Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) which
was administered to teachers and principals in 71 elementary schools.
For the second stage o f t h e ir research Halpin and Croft
developed climate p r o file s fo r each school by taking the average
response of the teachers in the school and applying fa c to r analysis
techniques to the p r o f ile s .

As a r e s u lt , they were able to id e n tify

six types o f clim ates— arranged on a continuum from "open" to
"autonomous," "c o n tro lle d ," " f a m ilia r ," "p atern al," and "closed."
They likened t h e ir concepts of open and closed climates to Lewin's
hypothesis about the stru ctu re of the mind (p. 170):

"To use Lewin's

terms, we can describe the Open Climate as marked by 'functional
f l e x i b i l i t y ' and the Closed Climate as distinguished by 'functional
rig id ity .'"

These six climates were also p ro to ty p ic a lly related to

36

the eig h t climate dimensions as the Figure below shows.

___________________
Climate Dimensions
Open

Types o f Climate
Autono­
mous

Con­
t r o ll e d

Fam iliar

Paternal

Closed

Disengagement

low

low

low

high

high

high

Hindrance

low

low

high

low

low

high

E sprit

high

moderate

moderate

low

low

low

high

low

moderate

re la ­
tiv e ly
high

Intimacy

mod­
erate

re la ­
tiv e ly
high

Aloofness

mod­
erate

high

r e la t i vely
high

low

low

high

Production
Emphasis

low

low

high

low

low

high

Thrust

high

re la ­
tiv e ly
high

moderate

moderate

low to
moderate

low

Consideration

high

mod­
erate

low

high

moderate

low

Figure 2.

Halpin and C ro ft's Elementary School Climate Typology
Containing Eight Climate Dimensions and Six Climate Types

Halpin and C ro ft admitted succumbing to the u n s c ie n tific judgment
th at open climates were good and closed climates were bad (p. 135) and
they hypothesized th a t the concept o f a u th e n tic ity best expressed the
d ifferen ce between the two:
"We were struck by the v iv id impression th a t what was going on
in some schools was fo r r e a l , while in other schools, the
characters on stage seemed to have learned t h e i r parts by
rote . . . (p. 2 0 4 )."

37
Their fa c to r analysis indicated th a t the dimensions of e s p r it
and th ru s t contributed most to a u th e n tic ity .
The authors devote considerable space to discussing the meaning
o f "a u th e n tic ity " and i t s r e la tio n to concepts u t i l i z e d by other
researchers.

For example, they in d ic a te th a t in open-climate schools

p e rsonalities seemed more important than professional ro le s , while in
closed-climate schools roles were used to hide in d iv id u a ls ' id e n t it ie s
They also lin k a u th e n tic ity with a considerable body of l i t e r a t u r e in
three d i s t in c t conceptual areas:
(1 )

The problem o f the marginal man ( i . e . , a man close to the
boundary of some status group which he desires to become—
or s ta y --p a r t o f ) .

(2 )

The problem o f person-to-person re la tio n s in cross-cultu ral
(and s u b -c u ltu ra l) exchange ( i . e . , a t t it u d in a l differences
in values—what is appropriate behavior?).

(3 )

The c r is is o f id e n t ity ( i . e . , the process by which an
individual develops and grows into an authentic " I " ) .

Several c r i t i c a l comments about the H alp in -C ro ft study are in
order.

According to the authors, t h e i r i n i t i a l resolve to avoid value

judgments about the types of climate they found eventually gave way to
a fe e lin g th a t open climates were good and closed climates were bad.
I t is unfortunate th a t t h e ir subjective value judgments were not trans
la te d in to ob jective evidence to which others could attach value, such
as school achievement.
The most serious c r it ic is m o f Halpin and C ro ft's work comes from
research l i k e th a t of Kenney and Rentz (1970).

According to them,

" . . . Halpin and Croft d e lib e r a te ly excluded urban core schools
choosing instead schools in communities where the concentration
o f Negroes was low. The data were collected in 1960 and 1961
when the issues of teacher m ilita n c y and race problems were
backstage (p. 6 3 )."

38
Kenney and Rentz conjectured th a t using the OCDQ on a d i f f e r e n t sample
of schools might show a d if f e r e n t stru ctu re o f climate fa c to rs .

And,

to make a long story short, they did fin d a d i f f e r e n t climate s tru c tu re .
Theirs contained only four fa cto rs :
(2)

(1)

Principal as A uthority Figure,

Non-Classroom Teacher S a tis fa c tio n , (3)

Perception, (4)

Work Conditions.

Teacher Qua Teacher Group

Of special in te r e s t to them was the

fa c t th a t they found Halpin and C ro ft's e s p r it - r e la t e d OCDQ items to
be dispersed across the four new fa c to rs .
Another study using the OCDQ with urban elementary teachers found
no s ig n if ic a n t differences in the values held across various clim ates.
However, the m ajo rity o f in n e r -c ity elementary schools in th is study
had p rim a rily closed climates (Leonard and Gies 1971).

Other d i f f i ­

c u ltie s in understanding Halpin and C ro ft's concept of climate and
its e ffe c ts have also been found.

For instance, in t h e i r review o f

a number o f OCDQ studies, Brown and House (1967-402) found no syste­
matic or enduring lin k between pupil achievement and the overall
climate p r o f ile o f the schools.
In sp ite o f the d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced by some climate resear­
chers, the concept has seemed s u f f i c i e n t l y useful to encourage others
to keep studying i t .

One r e s u lt of the continued in te r e s t in climate

research may be to overcome B idw ell's (1965) complaint th a t
"Researchers have concentrated on the student so cie ty, ignoring
the teacher colleague group and the modes o f in te g ra tio n of
those two components o f the school's small society (p. 9 9 2)."
Two research projects (M c D ill, e t . al_. 1967 and Brookover, e t . al_.
1973,

1976) have taken approaches th a t do attem pt, unlike the OCDQ

studies, to

in te g ra te information about both students and teachers in

the school's society.

McDill and his colleagues, using fa c to r analysis

39
on instruments fo r high school students and teachers, found th a t the
climate fa c to r they c a lle d "academic emulation" (valuing academic
excellence) was the most important clim ate fa c to r re la te d to achieve­
ment, and was in fa c t more strongly re la te d to achievement than the
SES context o f the school.

They also found th a t climate variables

were s t i l l s ig n if ic a n t ly re la te d to achievement a f t e r fam ily SES and
student in te llig e n c e were c o n tro lle d .

The studies by Brookover and

his associates found s ig n if ic a n t re la tio n s between student and
teacher climate variables in elementary schools.

Their research

viewed school climate as a subcultural phenomena: th a t i s , the com­
ponents o f a school's clim ate are the norms, values, b e l i e f s , and
expectations o f a l l o f the members o f the school organization .

In

th e ir p i l o t study (1973) they found th a t a f t e r c o n tro llin g f o r SES,
race, and urban-rural type, the student climate fa c to r c a lle d "sense
of f u t i l i t y " accounted fo r an additional 10%.

These two v a ria b le s ,

plus two others, were a l l found to be " c le a r ly re la te d to mean school
achievement in several types o f analysis (Brookover 1973-123)."
The study which followed the 1973 Brookover report (Brookover
1976) also found important climate e f f e c t s .

One key fin d in g resulted

from the comparisons of the r e l a t i v e impact o f climate variables and
composition (SES and race) variables in samples th a t were m a jo rity black only, m ajo rity -w h ite o n ly, and a combination o f both.

A m u ltip le

regression analysis showed th a t the climate variables accounted fo r
more o f the variance when they were added a f t e r the composition v a r ia ­
bles than the composition variables accounted fo r when added a f t e r the
climate v a ria b le s.

These resu lts were found in two out o f three

samples of elementary schools with which they were working.

40

Brookover and his associates concluded th a t
" I t is apparent th a t composition variables used alone as a
measure of school environment are inadequate measures o f the
impact of school clim ate as id e n t if ie d in th is study.
. . . The school climate variables which we have id e n t if ie d
explain a s ig n if ic a n t proportion o f the d iffe re n c e in achieve­
ment between schools beyond th at explained by social composi­
tio n and . . . much o f the variance explained by socioeconomic
composition is also explained by differences in climate
variables which are associated with composition (p. 2 4 )."
In other words, the phenomenon o f climate does seem to have an important
general e f f e c t on one of the major outcomes o f education— student
achievement.
Brookover and associates also investigated various components
o f climate and again found th a t the students' sense of academic f u t i l i t y
contributed more to achievement than any o f the other clim ate variables.
This va riable in turn was found to be most influenced by teacher climate
variables in one sample, and about equally influenced by teacher climate
variables and composition variables in the other two samples.
In an attempt to f u r t h e r understand how climates a f f e c t student
achievement, Brookover and associates followed up t h e i r s t a t i s t i c a l
analyses with a p a r tic ip a n t observation in v e s tig a tio n a t four schools
in t h e i r sample.

These schools were selected to have s im ila r SES and

ra c ia l composition but d i f f e r e n t levels o f achievement.

Their te n ta tiv e

conclusions based on these observations were:
(1)

Teachers in the higher achieving schools spent more class
time in in s tru c tio n and seemed to have a g rea ter concern
fo r students' achievement.

(2)

The s t a f f o f lower SES schools tended to "w rite o f f" a
la rg e r proportion o f students. That i s , the students
were id e n t if ie d as low achievers and low expectations
fo r achievement were set fo r them.

41

(3)

Higher achieving schools tended to make more use o f group
competition and teaching games rath er than individual
competition.

(4)

The teachers in higher achieving low SES schools practiced
more consistent p o sitive reinforcement f o r achievement.

In sum, teachers in higher achieving schools could be said to work
harder, hold higher expectations f o r achievement, u t i l i z e the social
rewards found in c o lle c tiv e e f f o r t s , and more e f f e c t iv e ly shape
students' behavior toward the goal o f achievement.
The ra th e r obvious in te r p r e ta tio n o f the findings o f Brookover
and his associates seems to be th a t in many cases teachers allow
t h e ir a c t i v i t i e s to be defined by the nature o f t h e ir c l i e n t e l e , and
in some cases th a t c li e n t e le seems more worthy of e f f o r t than in
others.

A more o p tim is tic conclusion which can be drawn is th a t

expectations fo r performance can run counter to conventional practice
and in those cases where they do, the e f f e c t on student achievement
is b e n e f ic ia l.

I t now remains fo r educators of a l l kinds— teachers,

teacher unions, ad m in istrators, school boards, s ta te departments o f
education and colleges o f ed ucation--to determine how school e ffe c ts
on achievement can be a lte re d where they are d e trim e n ta l, so th at
more students have the opportunity fo r the education to which they
are e n t it l e d .

The Importance of the Concept
o f A uthority in Schools
There are a number o f reasons which can be c ite d fo r studying
the role th a t a teacher's use of his or her au th o rity plays in pro­
moting or r e s t r ic t in g student outcomes.
F i r s t , power is a fundamental ingredient in a l l kinds o f social
relation ship s and s it u a t io n s , and a u th o rity is often considered a

42
clo sely re la te d phenomenon.

Much has been w r itte n about the nature

of social power and the meaning of the term "a u th o rity ."

While i t

cannot a l l be reviewed here, some discussion is warranted.

"Power,"

"fo rc e ," and "might" are a l l terms which connote related meanings,
but fo r which s p e c ific , widely accepted d e fin itio n s which cover a l l
situ a tio n s do not seem to e x is t .

For our purposes we can leave them

as e s s e n tia lly undefined terms which nonetheless evoke common under­
standings among many people.

However, we can do b e tte r in saying

what we mean by the term "a u th o rity ."

A f a i r l y good way to explain

"authority" is to c a ll i t the le g itim a te use o f power— th a t i s , i t
is might transformed into r ig h t.

The purpose o f le g itim a tin g power—

of transforming i t in to a u t h o r it y - - is to reduce a lie n a tio n and make
control more acceptable to those being co n tro lled .
The notion o f au th o rity has several dimensions.

Following the

analysis o f Max Weber, we can speak o f three types o f a u th o rity :
t r a d i t i o n a l , l e g a l - r a t i o n a l , and charismatic.

Each o f these, in

tu rn , may be best understood in terms o f how the a u th o rity is obtained
or conferred--how i t is made le g itim a te .

T rad itio n al a u th o rity is

conferred by the tr a d itio n s which a society m aintains, the fundamental
b e lie fs to which i t adheres.

Charismatic a u th o rity is conferred on a

leader by his followers insofar as they perceive in him personal
q u a lit ie s worthy of follow ing.

L e g al-ra tio n al or bureaucratic

a u th o rity is conferred by the rules o f an organization.

This a u th o rity

can be divided in to two types: au th o rity o f o f f ic e or position and
a u th o rity o f knowledge or expertise.
The three types of au th o rity ju s t discussed are a l l ideal types
and i t may not be c le a r in any given case j u s t exactly which one o f

43

them is most p e rtin e n t.

In the case o f teachers, f o r example, i t

seems th a t several o f the types mentioned may be im portant, depend­
ing on the circumstances.

For example, when a teacher enforces a

class ru le he exercises his a u th o rity of o f f i c e ; when he d irects a
learning sequence he exercises his a u th o rity of knowledge; and when
he is tryin g to motivate a student to do b e tte r he exercises ch aris­
matic a u th o rity .
Second, a considerable body of research in education has been
devoted to analyzing the re la tio n between a teacher's leadership s ty le
and student outcomes, p r in c ip a lly student achievement.

As Sexton (1967)

says,
"The most eloquent dispute in American education was over
a u th o rita ria n versus democratic values in the school. The
debate, interru pted by Sputnik, promises to resume i f the
assumed need f o r a u th o rita ria n methods and 'high standards'
diminishes (p. 8 1 )."
We w i l l examine some o f the research findings p e rtin e n t to th is dispute
more closely l a t e r .
Third, class "d is c ip lin e " is a major concern to parents as shown
by a 1969 Harris poll fo r L ife magazine, which found th a t two third s
of the high school students' parents surveyed believed th a t maintain­
ing d is c ip lin e was more important than developing s e lf - in q u ir y
(Silberman 1970-145).

Class control is also very important to teachers

since
". . . i t is the c h ie f means by which t h e i r competence is
judged (Silberman 1970-144)."
Willower (1967-3) found th a t pupil control problems played a
major part in teacher-teacher and teacher-adm inistrator re la tio n s h ip s .
Teachers who were viewed as weak on control had only marginal status
among colleagues.

In t h e i r p a rtic ip a n t observation study o f an

44

elementary school Smith and Geoffrey (1969-52) found th a t the primary
concern o f teachers was to establish control of the classroom.

They

also observed th a t i t seemed to be considered a major sin f o r a
student to be reprimanded by another teacher.

They concluded th a t

students in some sense "belong" to a teacher, and i f they don't
behave according to the norms o f the teaching s t a f f , questions are
raised about the teacher's adequacy f o r carrying out his ro le .
Even apart from th is judgmental aspect of a teacher's a b i l i t y to
control students through his exercise o f a u th o r ity , i t seems only
common sense to agree with Johnson (1970-194) th a t "Unless the
teacher is able to influence and control student behavior, he cannot
d ire c t and supervise the learning w ithin the classroom."

According

to B l i t z (1 973 ), "For a teacher to deny th a t she has a u th o rity is to
be dishonest, and f a i l u r e to use her au th o rity may be damaging to
children (p. 4 3 ) ."

However, the manner in which a teacher should

exercise au th o rity is a highly debatable s u b je ct, which advocates
of informal education fin d to be of fundamental importance to t h e ir
view o f schools, and about which more w i l l be said l a t e r .
Fourth, is the h is to ric a l connection between studies o f leader­
ship s ty le and the concept o f organizational climate mentioned
e a rlie r.

I t seems proper to continue to examine the issues o f

teacher au th o rity and leadership through the climate approach.
C ertainly i f clim ate is viewed as a global concept which encompasses
a l l organizational behavior, i t makes sense to include a u th o rity and
leadership styles as components o f th a t clim ate.

Furthermore, some

social s c ie n tis ts believe th a t teacher behavior is one o f the most
important determinants of classroom climate (Smith 1960-1) and th a t

45

the teacher's classroom control is an important aspect in the develop­
ment o f the classroom's social stru ctu re (Smith and Geoffrey 1969-71).
They argue th a t as a teacher makes class rules c le a r he is dealing
with b e l i e f systems, and th a t as he t r ie s to b u ild the students'
emotional commitment to those b e lie fs he is engaged in shaping
normative s tru c tu re .

Rubovits and Maehr (1971-198), c it in g Kirscht

and D ille h a y , s ta te th a t the degree o f a u th o rity exercised by a
teacher may well mediate a students' conformity to an imposed set
or expectancy.
I t is f e l t not only th a t the teacher's a u th o rity ro le has a
strong impact on class climate but also th a t the school environment
in turn prescribes the ro le o f the teacher to some e x te n t, es p ec ially
as regards a u th o rity and control (Smith 1960-2).

In t h e ir p a rtic ip a n t

observation study c ite d e a r l i e r , Smith and Geoffrey (1969) concluded
th at a teacher's conception of "proper" pupil behavior is a product
of his or her past experiences with teacher-pupil in teraction s and
the norms of the clique o f teachers with whom he or she associates
(p. 50).
F i f t h , ju s t as the climate studies discussed above have shown
an important re la tio n s h ip between social class and c e rta in teacher
a ttitu d e s and behavior, so too is i t f e l t th a t there is a d e f in it e
connection between social class and the exercise o f teacher a u th o rity .
For example,
"The question of why teachers have more trouble maintaining
control in lower class than in middle class schools remains . .
. . Leacock suggests [ t h a t ] the school . . . conveys a middle
class image o f how working class children are and how they
should be— an image which emphasizes obedience, respect, and
conscientiousness . . . ra th e r than a b i l i t y , r e s p o n s ib ility
and i n i t i a t i v e and which expects . . . unruliness with regard
to behavior and apathy with regard to curriculum (Silberman
1970-91)."

46

This "middle class" school view o f lower class children corresponds
with recent r e v is io n is t views o f the h is to ry o f American education
which Silberman also c it e s .
"The purpose o f public education was to give the lower classes
the habits o f obedience and submission necessary fo r public
peace, a docile labor force and the protection of property
(p. 6 0 )."
S ix th , the ro le o f teacher au th o rity is perhaps the central
issue in recent discussions about a lt e r n a t iv e schools in general,
and informal elementary schools in p a r t ic u la r , and the research
reported l a t e r in th is study is concerned with a p a r t ic u la r aspect
of teacher a u th o rity in such schools.

A more d e ta ile d discussion

of teacher a u th o rity in informal schools appears in Chapter I I I .
In summary, the concept o f au th o rity is o f general importance
in social re la tio n s h ip s , much research in education has been devoted
to i t , and the nature of teacher a u th o rity is o f central concern to
parents and teachers.

Furthermore, leadership styles have h i s t o r i ­

c a lly been connected with climate research, and, l i k e some climate
fa c to rs , teachers' use of a u th o rity is related to social class.
F i n a lly , teachers' use o f au th o rity is o f fundamental concern to
proponents o f informal schools.

A Theoretical Perspective on Authority in Schools
In order to give some form to our discussion and analysis of
teacher a u th o rity , i t w i l l be worthwhile to produce a hypothetical
viewpoint to which the items under discussion can be re la te d .

Such

a viewpoint is a v a ila b le in the w ritin gs of Amitai Etzioni (1961),
who has developed what he c a lls a compliance typology to describe
various kinds of organizations.

According to E tz io n i, compliance

47

is a central and universal element of organizational s tru c tu re .

It

is the re la tio n s h ip which consists o f the power employed by superiors
to control subordinates, and the o rie n ta tio n o f the subordinates to
th is power.

I t is a global concept since i t is concerned with the

kinds and d is tr ib u tio n o f power in many organization s, the d i f f e r e n t i a l
commitment o f actors to those organizations, the goals, e l i t e s , con­
sensus, recruitment and scope, d is tr ib u tio n and control o f charismatic
p a rtic ip a n ts , and the a llo c a tio n o f tasks in various organizations
(p. xv ).

This approach f a l l s w ithin the s t r u c t u r a lis t school o f

organizational study.

I t seeks to understand and explain the in e v ita b le

strains between upper and lower levels o f p a rtic ip a tio n in o rg a n iza tio n s-the incompatible in te r e s t s , d if f e r in g values, a lie n a tio n from work, and
manipulation o f lower p a rtic ip a n ts .

I t emphasizes formal and informal

elements o f o rg a n iza tio n , the scope o f informal groups, social and
material rewards, and the in te ra c tio n between an organization and i t s
environment.
E tz io n i's typology contains two major dimensions:
involvement.

Power is divided in to three types:

tiv e or u t i l i t a r i a n , and normative.
three types:

Kinds of Power

power and

coercive, remunera­

Involvement is also divided in to

a l i e n a t iv e , c a lc u la tiv e and moral.

Kinds o f Involvement
A lie n a tiv e
C a lc u la tive

Coercive

Moral

2

3

U t i1i t a r i an

4

5

6

Normati ve

7

8

9

Figure 3.

E tz io n i's Compliance Typology o f Complex Organizations

48
The organization types found in the main diagonal of th is m atrix are
ca lle d "congruent types," by which he means such organizations occur
most o fte n .

To put i t another way, fo r example, the "c orre latio n"

between coercive power and a lie n a tiv e involvement is higher than the
"c o rre la tio n " between coercive power and e it h e r c a lc u la tiv e or moral
involvement.
I t must be noted, before going fu r th e r with th is typology, th a t
Etzioni emphasizes power and not a u th o rity .

However, he does state

th a t a l l three kinds o f power can be viewed as le g itim a te by the lower
p a rtic ip a n ts in an o rg a n iza tio n , thereby becoming a u th o r ity , moreover,
there is increasing legitim acy to the types as one passes from coercive
to u t i l i t a r i a n to normative power (p. 15 ).
This w r it e r believes th at th is typology provides a su ita b le per­
spective from which to view teacher a u th o rity in schools, esp ec ially
elementary schools, f o r two reasons.

F i r s t , Etzioni himself views

schools as p rim a rily normative organizations (p. 45) and so as he
says, power would be more l i k e l y to be viewed as le g itim a te .

Second,

because o f the r e la t iv e superordinate/subordinate positions o f adults
and ch ildren in any s o c ie ty , even coercive power (which Etzioni iden­
t i f i e s as a secondary compliance pattern f o r elementary schools) seems
very l i k e l y to be viewed as le g itim a te by a l l the p a rtic ip a n ts in the
organization .

In other words, fo r a l l p ra c tic a l purposes, teacher

"power" and teacher "auth ority" are v i r t u a l l y synonomous terms fo r
elementary schools.
Even though our use o f E tz io n i's typology may include a b i t of
w a fflin g with regard to the meanings o f the terms "power" and "a u th o rity ",
there are some important conceptual benefits which r e s u lt .

For one

49
th ing, the paradigm focuses a tte n tio n not ju s t on the a u th o rity used
by teachers but on the involvement (E tzio n i c a lls i t the c a th e c tic evaluative o rie n ta tio n o f an actor to an object) o f the students.
This focus is advantageous here because i t is exactly the question
of how students react to teacher a u th o rity which is o f principal
in te r e s t in th is study.

Furthermore, the typology i t s e l f can be

considered as a climate concept and thus may be expected to coordinate
in some way with other climate analyses.
E tz io n i's concept o f involvement has two dim ensions--intensity
and direc tio n --w h ich describe the three types of involvement.

The

a lie n a tiv e type is high in in te n s ity and negative, while the moral
*
type is high in in te n s ity and p o s itiv e .
C alculative involvement
is mild in in te n s ity and n e u tra l.

Insofar as schools are concerned,

students are said to have a p rim a rily moral involvement.
ment breaks down in to two types:

pure and s o c ia l.

Moral involve­

Pure moral involve­

ment is based on in te r n a liz a tio n of norms and id e n t if ic a t io n with
au th o rity ; social moral involvement "rests on s e n s i t iv it y to pressures
of a primary group and t h e ir members (p. 1 1 )."

Pure moral involvement

tends to develop in v e rtic a l r e la tio n s h ip s , such as between students
and teachers, while social moral involvement develops in horizontal
relatio n sh ip s.
Etzioni does not dwell nearly as much on the type o f involvement
of students as he does on the type of power (or a u th o rity ) of teachers.
The position we take is th a t student involvement is both pure and

Here, "positive" and "negative" r e fe r to the d irec tio n of the
involvement, e it h e r "toward" the organization (commitment) or "away"
from the organization ( a lie n a t io n ) .

50
s o c ia l, and f u r t h e r , th a t teachers behave in such a way as to transform
the pure moral involvement th a t students have with them in to a social
moral involvement with each other th a t also fosters the compliance of
students with the goals of the teachers.

This transformation e f f o r t

creates some of what we commonly c a ll school or classroom clim ate.
Two other a n c illa r y typologies developed by Etzioni are of
in te r e s t here.

The f i r s t is a typology of e l i t e s , based on differences

in sources o f power.

Power Derived From O ffic e
(c o ercive, u t i l i t a r i a n , normative)
Personal Power
(normative only)
+

+
formal leaders

informal leaders
n o n -e lite s

o f f i cers

-

Figure 4.

-

Etzioni 's Typology of Organizational E lite s

The second is a typology of e l i t e s and the a c t i v i t i e s they c o n tr o l.

Leaders
A c t iv it ie s
Informal

Formal

O fficers

instrumental

le a s t l i k e l y

more l i k e l y

most l i k e l y

expressive

most l i k e l y

more l i k e l y

le a s t l i k e l y

Figure 5.

E tz io n i's Typology of E lite s and the A c t i v it ie s They Control

51
Here, instrumental a c t i v i t i e s f u l f i l l

the needs of input and a llo c a ­

tion and usually require c a lc u la tiv e involvement produced by u t i l i t a r ­
ian c o n tro l, while expressive a c t i v i t i e s f u l f i l l

the needs o f social

and normative in te g ra tio n and usually require moral involvement
produced by normative co n tro l.

For schools, instrumental a c t i v i t i e s

are directed a t developing knowledge and s k i l l s , but since u t i l i t a r i a n
control plays a t best a t e r t i a r y role in schools (t h a t i s , in elementary
schools), control o f instrumental a c t i v i t i e s must be sought by e it h e r
coercive or normative means; expressive a c t i v i t i e s are directed at
shaping values, a ttitu d e s and m otivation.
Now th a t the basic elements o f E tz io n i's perspective have been
introduced, we can go in to more d e ta il about some o f them with respect
to schools.

As we mentioned above, schools make much use of normative

power/authority.

Normative controls include grades, honors, personal

influence o f teacher, scolding, appeals to moral commitments, manipula­
tion of the class climate o f opinion (p. 4 5 ).

Like moral involvement,

normative power comes in two v a r ie t ie s : pure and social (not s u r p r is in g ly ,
since moral involvement which is of two types, co rrelates most highly
with normative power).

Pure normative power u t i l i z e s the manipulation

of esteem, p re s tig e , and other r i t u a l i s t i c symbols.

Social normative

power u t i l i z e s manipulation o f acceptance and p o s itiv e response.

Pure

normative power is used most often in v e rtic a l re la tio n s h ip s , social
normative power in horizontal re la tio n s h ip s .

As we said above, teachers

seek to use social normative power to produce the social moral involve­
ment o f students in schools.
E tz io n i's (1961) b e l i e f th a t schools are p rim a rily normative
organizations is f a i r l y strongly stated:

52

"Organizations which r e ly heavily on normative power are the
most successful in terms o f t h e i r s o c ia liz a tio n achievements.
Modern schools are a prime example (p. 2 0 )."
His position is based on his analysis o f the type of controls most
often used by teachers, and he c ite s survey evidence to support his
view.

He also states th at
"Modern schools have gradually reduced corporal punishment
and other coercive means o f d is c ip lin e and stress the need
to r e ly on psychological in s ig h t, leadership o f the teacher,
clim ate o f the classroom and other such normative means
(E tz io n i 1961-311)."

He believes th a t coercion is an important secondary fa c to r in producing
compliance but th a t only a small m inority o f students are affected by
coercive measures.
Because coercion is used to some e x te n t, schools e x h ib it somewhat
more a lie n a t iv e involvement than other normative organizations.

Coercion

is a fa c to r because schools are not voluntary organizations and therefore
cannot be very s e le c tiv e .

Thus, there is a b u i l t - i n need f o r some degree

of fo rc efu l ness to insure the s o c ia liz a tio n of the lower p a rtic ip a n ts to
the s a tis fa c to r y performance o f organizational roles and accomplishment
o f organizational goals.

A ll students experience some a lie n a tiv e in ­

volvement in .schools because o f compulsory attendance (although, lik e
Marx's a lie n a tio n , i t is not necessarily f e l t in a psychological sense).
Other w rite rs stress the coercive nature o f schools more heavily.
For example,
" I f one thinks o f a u th o r ity , c o n tr o l, and leadership in p o li t i c a l
terms, i t is c le a r th a t the classroom group, a t le a s t in it s
formal aspects, is about as f a r from democracy as one can get.
Not only do the students have no control over the selection of
t h e i r lea d e r, they normally also have no recourse from his
leadership, no influence on his method o f leadership beyond
th a t granted by him, and no power over the tenure o f his
le a d e rs h ip .- There are very few working groups in our society
in which these e s s e n tia lly despotic conditions are le g itim a te ly
so much the rule (Getzels and Thelen 1960-56)."

53

Several w rite rs have noted the s im ila r it y o f some aspects o f schools
to prisons and other involuntary in s tit u tio n s (Boocock 1973-20; Haney
and Zimbardo 1975-29, 30; Friedenberg 1963-32).
Hodgkins and H e r r io t t (1970) have proposed the idea th a t the
compliance stru ctu re o f schools varies with the age-grade s tru c tu re .
Diagrammatically, t h e i r hypothesis looks l i k e t h is :

K - 6

Coercive
Control

Figure 6.

7 -9

10-12

College

Normative
Con ;rol

Hodgkins and H e r r i o t t 's View o f the Relation Between The Com­
pliance Structure and the Age-Grade Structure of Schools

This proposed addition to E tz io n i's analysis bears some s i m ila r it y
to S ilk 's (1976-775) suggestion t h a t , as grade level increases, the
teacher becomes more

a u th o rity (exercising a u th o rity of knowledge)

and less ij^ a u th o rity (exercising a u th o rity o f p o s itio n ).

S im ila r ly ,

from t h e i r research in to the re la tio n between student dependency and
teacher a u th o rity or permissiveness, Wallen, e t . al_. (1963, 1964,
1966) derived the impression th a t fir s t -g r a d e r s are unsure of school

One problem with the Hodgkins-Herriott model is th a t i t does
not account fo r the d i f f e r e n t types o f a c t i v i t i e s in which students
engage at d i f f e r e n t points in t h e ir school careers. I t does not seem,
fo r example, th a t the very e a rly grades (where much general learning
and s o c ia liz a tio n seem to occur) are as coercively managed as l a t e r
elementary grades (where class a c t i v i t i e s tend to focus r e l a t i v e l y
more on producing cognitive achievement).

54
and so are more comfortable with teachers who exercise higher control
which is comforting but not o v e rtly a ffe c tio n a te .

F u rther, Wallen

f e l t th a t pupil behavior may be very d i f f e r e n t between the f i r s t two
grades and l a t e r grades.
We o f f e r the ad ditional hypothesis th a t the r e la t iv e decrease
in coercive control and increase in normative control over time is
due to the emphasis teachers give to developing social normative o rie n ­
tations among the students.

As time passes, many students become

successfully so cia lized to normative c o n tro l; the ones who don't
eventually drop out or are pushed out (note th a t the rapid increase
in normative control in the H odgkins-Herriott model occurs near the
upper age fo r compulsory attendance, when " d i f f i c u l t " students no
longer need to be r e ta in e d ).
As we have s a id , the question o f how much normative or coercive
control is (and/or should be) used in school is related to the in s tr u ­
mental and expressive a c t i v i t i e s o f the school and to the fa c t th a t
schools are not voluntary.

E tz io n i's typology o f e l i t e s and a c t i v i t i e s

indicates th a t the two types o f a c t i v i t i e s are most l i k e l y to be pursued
by d if f e r e n t e l i t e s (instrumental a c t i v i t i e s by o f f i c e r s , expressive
a c t i v i t i e s by informal le a d e rs ).

But the school has an in t e r e s t in

pursuing both instrumental (knowledge and s k i l l s ) and expressive (values,
a ttitu d e s ) a c t i v i t i e s because i t s o v e ra ll purpose is s o c ia liz a tio n .

And

so, the locus of control must l i e la r g e ly w ith the formal leaders and
o ffic e rs of the organization .

One problem th a t confronts the teacher

in his e f fo r ts to carry out instrumental and expressive a c t i v i t i e s as
formal leader is the degree to which the expressive a c t i v i t i e s he pursues
c o n f lic t with the expressive a c t i v i t i e s pursued by informal leaders among

55
the students.

Use o f coercive controls w i l l increase a lie n a tiv e

involvement and may strengthen the informal leaders' p o s itio n .

Use

of normative controls w i l l increase moral involvement and is l i k e l y
to promote some degree o f expressive leadership on the p art o f the
teacher.
Even i f there is no c o n f l ic t between formal and informal leaders
in schools, there may be a c o n f l ic t between the two fundamental types
of a c t i v i t i e s themselves.

Etzioni (1961) says

". . . t o the degree th a t . . . the primary school educates
(communicates values) more than i t t r a i n s , supremacy of
expressive leadership in the classroom in general, and in
the teacher's role in p a r t ic u l a r , seems to us highly functional
(p. 110)."
But, he fe e ls th a t in schools i t is also functional fo r instrumental
a c t i v i t i e s to dominate expressive ones a t times, and th a t coercive
controls c a n 't always be avoided and so some a lie n a tiv e involvement
of students w i l l r e s u lt.

The dilemma is summarized by Etzioni

(quoting Brim):
" . . . the dominant ro le prescription fo r teachers is to be
ta s k -o rie n te d , though e it h e r role is acceptable; th a t teachers
follow th is a t the expense o f expressive considerations; th a t
they gain respect but lose a ttra c tio n in doing t h is ; th a t both
teachers and students wish more a tte n tio n were (o r could be)
given to expressive or social-emotional m atters, and, f i n a l l y ,
th a t i f they do, learning (or task accomplishment ) suffers
(p. 109)."
Having developed th is th e o re tic a l perspective we may now use i t
to discuss other factors p e rtin e n t to this study.

One o f these,

mentioned above, is the r e la t io n between social class and the use o f
a u th o rity.

56

The Relation Between Social Class
and A uthority/A uth oritarianism
In general, one usually considers organizations to be subunits
of a la rg e r social system.

Thus, the social class stru ctu re in a

society forms part o f the general context or environment in which
organizations e x is t.

The Etzionian model is p r in c ip a lly concerned

with what goes on inside an organization and not with it s environment.
However, given the model's inclusion o f the concepts of power and
organizational e l i t e s , i t c e r t a in ly can be presumed th a t i t would be
able to accommodate some development o f a r e la tio n between advantaged
groups in the society a t large and the a c t i v i t i e s and relation ship s
w ithin organizations.

For example, C ollins (1971-1010) believes th a t

in complex s o c ie tie s , struggles between status groups are c a rried on
la rg e ly w ithin organizations.
In b r i e f , we assert th at schools are influenced by in te r e s t
groups in s o c ie ty , but th a t the sp ecifics o f th is influence are outside
the bounds o f th is discussion.

The fa c t th a t student achievement is

highly co rrela ted with race and social class is a general in d ica tio n
of such in flu e n c e , and our e a r l i e r remarks about the functional role
of schools in reproducing the social re la tio n s o f production should
be re c a lle d .
For the present we w i l l review some o f the findings o f studies
which show some re la tio n s h ip between social class and organizational
control or a u th o rity .

The study which is most enlightening in i t s

analysis of th is re la tio n s h ip is the cros s-c ultu ra l study of
Pearlin and Kohn (1 966 ), who surveyed I t a l i a n and American middle and
working class parents' a ttitu d e s about ch ild rearing .

Based on t h e i r

review o f other research they f e l t th a t i t was f a i r l y well established

57
th at in the United States "s e lf-c o n tro l is the pivotal parental value
f o r the middle class, obedience fo r the working class (p. 4 6 6 )."
Their objective was to enlarge the scope o f th is fin d in g by looking
a t these values fo r s o c ia liz a tio n in another country.
I f we look at s e lf - r e lia n c e and obedience in Etzionian terms—
as a ttitu d e s r e fle c tin g the involvement o f lower p a rtic ip a n ts in an
organization—we would characterize s e lf - r e li a n c e as a kind o f moral
involvement, compatible with normative c o n tro l, while obedience is a
more a lie n a tiv e involvement and is a more appropriate o rie n ta tio n fo r
situation s involving coercive c o n tro l.

In both the U.S. and I t a l y ,

Pearl in and Kohn found th at working-class c h ild -re a r in g values
emphasized obedience and neatness, while middle-class c h ild -re a r in g
values were strongest fo r s e lf - c o n t r o l, de p en d a b ility, happiness and
showing consideration.

( I t should be noted th a t most parents in both

countries found some value in most of the q u a lit ie s mentioned above,
and the social class differen ce found in the study was only a d ifferen ce
in r e la t iv e emphasis.)

Pearlin and Kohn found the s i m i l a r i t y of value

patterns between the two countries to be very impressive: in both
countries middle-class parents valued s e l f control fo r both boys and
g i r l s , while working-class parents valued conformity to external
prescription fo r both sexes.

The authors noted th a t f o r both classes of

parents in both countries, the c h ie f value was fo r co ntrol: control from
w ithin or control from w ithout.

Some studies have shown th a t th is social

class d ifferen ce in the locus o f control f o r c h ild ren s' behavior is found
in school as well as the home.

Research reviewed by Brophy and Good

(1574-253) showed th a t lower-class children were more productive when
the teacher presented in stru ctio n in an a u th o rita ria n ( i . e . , coercive)

58
and h o s tile way; another study they reviewed found th a t mild th reats
were more e f fe c tiv e with middle class c h ild re n , while harsh threats
were more e f fe c tiv e with lower-class c h ild ren .
Pearl in and Kohn's analysis went beyond the general phenomenon
of social class and t r i e d to grasp the r e la t io n between parents' values
fo r the s o c ia liz a tio n o f t h e i r ch ildren and t h e i r occupational exper­
iences and requirements.
occupations:

They id e n t i f i e d three crucial dimensions of

(1) closeness o f supervision; (2) the content of the

work— things vs. people or ideas; (3) the need fo r s e l f re lia n c e .
They noted th a t while both middle and working class jobs deal with
a ll three dimensions, there is a tendency fo r working class jobs to
be more involved with things and middle class jobs to be more involved
with people and ideas.

They also noted th a t although these three

dimensions tend to be re la te d in a regu lar way, they can be independent
They found th a t the more a man was supervised from above, the more he
valued obedience, and th a t the g rea ter his sense of power over work
conditions, the more he valued s e lf - c o n t r o l.

Their analysis o f job

types led them to conjecture th a t dealing with things e n ta ile d the
le a s t freedom and le a s t necessity fo r independent judgment (as on a
factory assembly l i n e ) , while dealing with people and e s p e c ia lly with
ideas is more under the d ir e c t control o f the individual
doctor, or mathematician).

(as fo r a

T h e ir research indicated th a t men who

worked with things were le a s t disposed to value s e lf - c o n t r o l, while
men who work with ideas were most disposed to value s e l f - c o n t r o l , and
f u r t h e r , th a t these re la tio n s were independent o f social class.

Lastly

they found th a t men who f e l t t h e i r jobs required a large measure of
s e lf - r e lia n c e overwhelmingly valued s e lf-c o n tro l fo r c h ild re a rin g ,

59
while those whose jobs require l i t t l e s e lf - r e li a n c e valued obedience-again independent o f social class.
Pearl in and Kohn concluded th a t the combined e f f e c t o f these
three dimensions o f occupations account fo r a large part o f the
differen ce between middle- and working-class values f o r the s o c ia liz a tio n
of children .

In other words, the typical occupations o f working-class

men tend to be closely supervised, to deal with th in g s, and to require
l i t t l e s e l f - r e l i a n c e , and the usual conjunction o f these three condi­
tions produce the workers' value fo r ra is in g children who e x h ib it more
obedience than s e lf - c o n t r o l.

S im ila r statements could be made fo r

middle class occupations and the re s u ltin g valuation of s e lf-c o n tro l
over obedience.
Since "occupation" and "organization" are not synonomous terms,
there is some d i f f i c u l t y in coordinating these findings with the
Etzioni paradigm.

However, since occupations and organizations are

r e la te d , we should expect to fin d some way to express the P e a rlin Kohn findings in Etzionian terms.
o f co n tro l.

The key idea seems to be locus

As we said before, the Etzioni model contains the basic

proposition th a t d i f f e r e n t types o f control produce d i f f e r e n t kinds
of involvement.

Etzioni asserts th a t moral involvement (produced by

normative co ntrol) is based on the in te r n a liz a tio n o f norms, while
a lie n a tiv e and c a lc u la tiv e involvement (produced by coercive and
u t i l i t a r i a n co n tro l) is based on actors tr e a tin g each other as means,
or objects, with no in te rn a l aspect (E tz io n i 1961-10).

So, i f an

occupation involves mostly a lie n a tiv e or c a lc u la tiv e re la tio n s with
others the appropriate locus o f control seems to be control from
w ithout, and so obedience is valued.

S im i la r ly , i f an occupation

60

involves mostly moral re la tio n s with others the appropriate locus o f
control seems to be control from w ith in , and s e lf-c o n tro l is valued.
Before leaving Pearl in and Kohn, i t is appropriate to say th a t
while we can believe th a t occupational experiences and needs (r a th e r
than social class) are a t the root of some parents' values f o r the
education o f t h e i r c h ild re n , we must s t i l l tr y to understand why
certain occupations and occupational dimensions are more freq uen tly
found among the members o f one social class than another.
To sum up, we have argued th a t the r e la tio n between social
classes and d i f f e r e n t types o f au th o rity exists both in schools and
in fa m ilie s , and th a t the lower-class value fo r a u th o rity is coercively
oriented, while the middle-class value fo r a u th o rity is normatively
oriented.
Having established th at some connection seems to e x is t betweer
social class and values fo r normative and coercive c o n tro l, we can now
propose a lin k between th is phenomenon and other findings in climate
research.

For example, Brookover e t . al_. (1973, 1976) found student

reported sense o f f u t i l i t y ( s im ila r to Coleman's celebrated sense of
control) to be an important climate va ria b le re la te d to achievement
in schools.

Other important variables in th is study were teacher

evaluations-expectations o f achievement and teacher push o f students.
The research indicates t h a t , with respect to low achievement, teachers'
expectations are also low, teacher push is high and so is students'
sense of f u t i l i t y .
Using E tz io n i's terms, l e t us regard teacher expectations as a
kind of normative c o n tro l, teacher push as a kind of coercive c o n tro l,
and students' sense of f u t i l i t y as a kind o f a lie n a tiv e involvement.

61

Insofar as Brookover's climate variables are representative o f
E tz io n i's compliance concepts, we can say th a t his findings show
th at normative and coercive control methods vary in r e l a t i v e strength
among schools, and th a t teacher push and students' sense o f f u t i l i t y
are higher in the low SES, p a r t ic u la r ly black, schools.
Other research can also be in terp rete d using E tz io n i's terms.
Consider, fo r example, the finding th a t low SES children view them­
selves as more e x te rn a lly co ntrolled and less capable o f determining
t h e ir own destiny than do high SES children ( c f .
1963; Haggstrom 1964; Clark 1965).

B a ttle and Rotter

Consider also C o llin s ' (1971)

finding th a t the "evidence indicates educational requirements fo r
employment r e f l e c t (primarily] employers' concern f o r acquiring
respectable and w e ll-s o c ia liz e d employees . . . .

The higher the

normative control concerns of the employer, and the more e l i t e the
organization's sta tu s , the higher his educational requirements
(p. 1014)."

These findings can be a r tic u la te d with the r e la t iv e

use of normative (expectations) and coercive (push) techniques in
schools through the well known re la tio n between SES, educational
attainm ent, and job attainment.

We can speculate th a t the lower a

c h ild 's SES, the more e x te rn a lly controlled and less capable of
determining his own destiny he is judged to be ( i . e . , the more
coercively controlled he i s ) , thus the less his educational a t t a i n ­
ment and the lower the job level he can a t t a in .

Or, to put i t

another way, the lower a c h ild 's SES, the more a teacher substitutes
push (coercive control) fo r expectations and (we surmise) since th is
teacher e f f o r t is an e s s e n tia lly aversive technique and therefo re
according to behaviorist prin ciples not as e f f e c t iv e in shaping

62

behavior as p o s itiv e reinforcement, i t does not r e s u lt in high
achievement.

Consequently, students' experience with normative

control in school is often shortened (because low achievers escape
the aversive s itu a tio n by dropping out) and thus do not q u a lify fo r
higher-level jobs.

Looking a t the reverse o f th is s it u a t io n , we can

see th a t the higher the c h ild 's SES, the more l i k e l y his teachers
are to exercise normative control (p o s itiv e ex pectation s), thus
producing higher achievement.

The higher his achievement, the fa r th e r

he goes in school and the more experience with normative control he
gets, thus making him more a t t r a c t i v e to employers.
We note also th at regardless o f the length o f time students
spend in school gaining experience with normative control v is -a - v is
coercive c o n tro l, t h e i r overall experience is with a fundamentally
bureaucratic i n s t i t u t i o n , and they thus receive "tra in in g " in the
ways o f s im ila r in s tit u tio n s which they w i l l encounter in l a t e r
l i f e (Cusick 1973).

This idea is echoed by Meyer (1971-6) who says,

"In the tr a d itio n a l elementary school, the closest thing to
a routine bureaucratic employee turns out to be the c h ild ."
In order to more f u l l y understand the phenomenon of teacher
a u th o rity , we now turn to some o f the research studies s p e c ific to
this area.

Review o f Research on Classroom A uthority
Research in to the effectiveness o f one or another kind of
leadership s ty le has been going on fo r a long time.

The classic

study in th is area was undertaken by Lewin, L i p p i t t and White, who
studied the r e la t io n between three group leader s t y le s - - a u t h o r it a r ia n ,
democratic, and la is s e z -fa ir e --a n d ch ild ren 's arts and c ra fts work in

63

a club s e ttin g (E tzioni 1964-37).

This study led researchers to

emphasize communication between ranks, p a rtic ip a tio n in decision
making and democratic leadership.
The study o f leadership in schools has been, in p a r t , concerned
with the teacher's use o f a u th o rity — his teaching s t y le .

The

au th o rita ria n and democratic types o f the classic study can be
likened to several dichotomies which have been used to describe
teaching s t y le — fo r example, Anderson's (1946) d o m inative/integrative
concept, W ith a l!'s (1948) teacher-centered/pupil-centered o rie n ta tio n
and, Smith's (1960 p. 3) use o f Halpin's notion of i n i t i a t i n g stru ctu re/con sid eratio n.

One e a rly study using the a u th o r ita r ia n /

democratic dichotomy (Brookover 1943) found th at students o f au to c ra tic
teachers had higher achievement than students of democratic teachers.
However, Brookover f e l t th a t his data might only r e f l e c t the fa c t th a t
the students were more thoroughly so cia lized to autocratic methods.
Indeed, the au thoritarian/dem ocratic conceptualization o f teacher
behavior has received considerable c r itic is m since i t was f i r s t pro­
posed.

Anderson (1959) reviewed 49 experimental studies in an attempt

to determine the answer to two questions:

(1) Is there s u f f ic ie n t

evidence to say one s ty le o f leadership is more e ffe c tiv e ?

(2) Does

the au tho ritarian/dem ocratic continuum provide an adequate conceptuali­
zation o f leadership?

From his review Anderson d i s t i l l e d the fo llo w ­

ing description o f the two styles o f leadership:
Democratic - f r ie n d ly , personal, allows group as a whole to
plan agenda, allows members to choose tasks, allows group to
ta lk without permission, accepts group suggestions, talks
l i t t l e more than average group member.

64

A u th o rita ria n - impersonal, punishes disobedience, decides
what group does, decides on d ivisio n o f la b o r, decides method
o f work, judges soundness o f ideas, ta lk s more than other
members o f group.
His review led him to conclude th a t
"We cannot s ta te with any c e rta in ty th a t e it h e r teacher-centered
or learner-centered methods are associated with g rea ter learning
(p. 20 6 )."
He found th a t some studies showed greater gains f o r one s t y le in some
areas and greater gains fo r the other in other areas.

For example, a

teacher-centered (a u th o r ita r ia n ) s ty le seemed more e f f e c t iv e in develop­
ing knowledge and information and producing gains on ap titu de te s ts ,
while the learner-centered (democratic) s ty le seemed more e f f e c t iv e in
developing leadership s k i l l s and in te r e s t in subject.

Anderson found

th at n e ith e r s t y le was co nsistently associated with higher p ro d u c tiv ity
and came to the overall conclusion th a t "The authoritarian -dem o cratic
construct provides an inadequate conceptualization o f leadership
behavior (Anderson 1959-212)."
In an attempt to overcome the problem o f the m u lti-d im e n s io n a lity
of teaching s t y le , some researchers have developed additional variables
and new conceptual approaches.
Willower (1967) approached the study o f teachers' use o f a u th o rity
by looking a t teachers' a ttitu d e s about students' needs f o r control
rather than teachers' classroom practices and t h e ir e f f e c t s .

He hypo­

thesized th a t teachers' a ttitu d e s l i e along a continuum from c u s to d ia lism (where students are viewed as irresponsible and undisciplined and
in need of stru ctu re and punishment) to humanism (where students are
viewed as capable o f s e l f d is c ip lin e and democratic p a r t ic ip a t io n ) .
He found th a t teachers (who are more d ir e c t ly responsible f o r d a y-to day control of pupil behavior) are more custodial than counselors and

65

adm inistrators; secondary teachers are more custodial than elementary
*
teachers; experienced teachers are more custodial than less exper­
ienced teachers; elementary teachers with more formal education are
less custodial than less educated teachers.

In a l l cases, he found

th a t more dogmatic teachers were more custodial than less dogmatic
ones (supported by Helsel 1974).

On a contrary note, Rubovits and

Maehr (1971-202) found th a t dogmatism was not re la te d to expectations
fo r performance.
Another e f f o r t to lin k teaching styles with teacher's a ttitu d e s
and b e lie fs was undertaken by Harvey, e t . a]_. (1966).

They id e n t if ie d

four teacher types (which they ca lled systems) among Head S ta r t teachers.
System 1 - most concrete (high absolutism, ta u to lo g ical ness, high
frequency o f p la titu d e s , high ethnocentrism, r e l i g i o s i t y , super­
i o r i t y o f American m o ra lity ).
System 2 - next most concrete (h igh ly e v alu ativ e and a b s o lu t is t ic ,
strong negative a ttitu d e s toward r e lig io n , American values, e t c . )
System 3 - next to highest abstractness (more r e la t iv is m , less
evaluativeness, strong p o sitive b e lie fs about frie n d s h ip , people,
interpersonal r e la t io n s ) .
System 4 - highest abstractness (high degree o f n o velty, indepen­
dence, r e la tiv is m , contingency of thought, general usage of
multidimensional in te r p r e tiv e ca teg o ries ).
The teachers were then rated by observers on the extent to which
t h e ir teaching approach was characterized by d ic t a t o r ia l ness (approxi­
mately the opposite of expressiveness) and task o r ie n ta tio n .

They

found th a t high concrete teachers were s ig n if ic a n t ly more d ic t a t o r ia l
and less task-oriented than high abstract teachers, but drew no con­
clusions about the e ffe c ts o f these differences on students.
*

This fin din g c o n flic ts with the Hodgkins-Herriott model
discussed e a r l i e r .

66
A l a t e r stuoy by Harvey e t . al_. (1972) found th a t teacher systems
having greater abstractness correlated with higher achievement.

In

ad d itio n , these researchers found th a t a teacher's needs f o r structure
and order were the most in f lu e n t ia l of several factors related to
achievement and th a t those needs were negatively correlated with
achievement.

They also found th a t a teacher's resourcefulness was

p o s itiv e ly correlated with achievement while punitiveness correlated
negatively.

They concluded th a t teacher b e l i e f systems are related

to overt teacher behavior and th a t teacher behavior is related to
student behavior.

They devalued the notion th a t both student and

teacher behavior re s u lt from organizational climate because they found
that teachers with d if f e r e n t b e l i e f systems experienced the same organi­
zational climate (o f the school) and y e t d iffe r e d in classroom behavior.
Silberman (1969-406) also found th a t teachers' attitu d es were revealed
in t h e ir behavior, th at some a ttitu d e s were more c le a r ly expressed than
others, and th a t students were aware of these a ttitu d e s .

Brophy and

Good (1974-250) reviewed another study which d e a lt with the concepts
of convergent and divergent thinking of teachers which bore some sim i­
l a r i t i e s to the systems in Harvey's analysis.
A somewhat more complex analysis o f teaching styles which u t i l i z e d
concepts very s im ila r to some aspects o f the Etzionian model was reported
by Larkin (1973, 1975).

He began with Anderson's c r itic is m th a t the

authoritarian/dem ocratic contrast lacked consistency and unidimension­
a l i t y , and hypothesized th a t the d i f f e r e n t e ffe c ts of the three styles
in the Lewin, L i p p i t t , White study resulted from the democratic
teacher's successful leg itim atio n of power, while the au th o ritarian

67
k

and laissez f a i r e teachers did not achieve th is le g itim a tio n .

Larkin

states th a t the thesis of his study is th a t a teacher gains compliance
from students through a process o f social exchange:

teachers must

inspire t r u s t or they w i l l meet resistance; helpfulness and a ffe c tio n
a f fe c t morale and transform power in to le g itim a te au th o rity (Larkin
1975-401).
As we have said e a r l i e r , teachers are concerned with transform­
ing a lie n a tiv e involvement in to pure moral involvement and social
moral involvement on the part of the students; we propose th a t th is
transformation is a s a tis fa c to ry equivalent fo r Larkins's transformation
of power into le g itim a te a u th o rity .

A fte r a l l , coercive power seems

(o r fe els ) less le g itim a te than normative power, and so what might
appear to Larkin as a s h i f t to legitimacy may in fa c t be a s h i f t to
normative co ntrol.

Surely the notion of in spiring t r u s t is compatible

with the Etzionian concept o f normative control producing a social
moral involvement.
Some of the other aspects of Larkin's conceptualization are very
closely related to the Etzionian paradigm.

For example, he id e n t ifie s

three dimensions of teacher leadership behavior:
expressive o r ie n ta tio n , and power o rie n ta tio n .

task o r ie n ta tio n ,
Larkin also discusses

three other variables he c a lls climate dimensions:
influence and c e n t r a li t y .

morale, peer

He says th a t the peer group is a source

k

Our e a r l i e r analysis of the Etzioni model did not distinguish
between power and legitim ated power (or a u th o r ity ), but ra th e r
emphasized types of c o n tr o l--p r in c ip a lly normative and coercive
control fo r schools. We e s s e n tia lly agreed with Etzioni th a t types
of control and the involvement they evoke are more f r u i t f u l concepts
than the presence or absence of le g itim a tio n . Our primary divergence
from Etzioni lie s in our assertion th a t in schools a l l types of
control are e s s e n tia lly le g itim a te .

68

of normative influence and i f i t "perceives" th at the teacher is
working toward the common good i t w i l l approve o f conformity to the
teacher's d ire c tio n s .

These ideas are representative of E tz io n i's

concepts o f instrumental and expressive e l i t e s .
Larkin's three leadership variables and three climate dimensions
allowed him to id e n t ify eig ht d if f e r e n t elementary school class climates
(1) peer dominated acquiescent; (2) d if f e r e n t ia t e d acquiescent;
(3) d iffu s e acquiescent; (4) teacher dominated acquiescent; (5) re b e l­
lious; (6) d i ffe r e n tia t e d alien a ted ; (7) d iffu s e a lie n a te d ; (8) weak
alienated .

For example, "teacher dominated acquiescent" classes re s u lt

when the teacher's leadership s ty le is high on power and expressiveness.
In general, Larkin found th at acquiescent classes resulted from leader­
ship styles of middle to high task and low power o r ie n ta tio n s , or
middle power orien tation s with middle to high expressive o rie n ta tio n s .
He f e l t th at such classes clustered around the democratic s ty le of
leadership.

He found the highest morale in classes with "super teachers
*

who were high on a l l three leadership dimensions.

Other findings were

that (1) teachers with a low expressive o rie n ta tio n had trouble l e g i t i ­
mating t h e ir power ( i . e . , producing moral involvement); (2 ) teachers
with a low power and low task o rie n ta tio n produced anomic clim ates;
(3) use of power was not related to morale but did reduce the influence
of the peer group.
*

Etzioni speaks o f leaders who e f f e c t iv e ly control both in s tr u ­
mental and expressive a c t iv i t ie s as "great men," and Larkin's notion
of "super teachers" seems to be a p a ra lle l concept. In a s im ila r ve in ,
we can characterize as "competent" those teachers who f u l f i l l e it h e r
t h e ir task (instrum ental) or expressive roles (though t h e ir competencies
would obviously lead to d if f e r e n t outcomes fo r students).

69
While Larkin did not report any relatio n sh ip between the leader­
ship o rien tation s of teachers, the climates they tended to produce,
and student outcomes, he did take a look at the leadership orien tation s
with respect to various background and contextual va ria b le s.

He found

(1973): more expressiveness exhibited by teachers in higher SES communi­
tie s ; higher task o rie n ta tio n in la rg e r communities; higher task and
power orien tation s and lower expressiveness in more urban communities;
higher power o rie n ta tio n in more segregated communities.

He found no

re la tio n between leadership s ty le and school s iz e , organizational
clim ate, class size and school ra c ia l composition.

L a s tly , he found

that "open-structure" environments have lower task and expressive
o rie n ta tio n s , though power was not re la te d .
Two aspects of Larkin's study are worth special mention.

F irs t,

i t is f a i r l y c le a r ly a r tic u la te d with a prominent th e o re tic a l perspec­
tiv e and thus tends to provide a fundamental in te rp re ta tio n o f the
phenomena.

Second, i t begins to approach, in it s own s tru c tu re , the

complexity of the social stru ctu re under in ves tig a tio n .

For example,

i t introduces consideration fo r the varying influences th a t peer
groups might have on classes irre s p e c tiv e of teacher leadership
o rien tatio n s.
In closing th is discussion on school/classroom climate and
teacher leadership types, we applaud those research e f fo r ts which
attempt to develop s u f f i c i e n t l y complex conceptual systems to be
able to deal with the phenomena in a robust manner.

Such attempts

may lead to an understanding o f the phenomenon mentioned by Boocock
(1973-35), namely th at some studies have apparently shown th at
authority is c u r v ilin e a r ly related to achievement:

th a t i s ,

increasing au tho rity produces less and less learning gain u n til the
middle range, a f t e r which the lin e curves up again, with the most
au th o ritarian teachers producing the highest gains.
The global perspectives th at climate studies provide, along
with the stru ctu ral analysis th a t modern organization theory makes
possible, can lead us to grasp why— to paraphrase F ie ld e r (1 9 7 3 -2 6 )-. . i t makes no sense to speak o f a good [teac h er] or a
poor [te a c h e r].
There are only [teachers] who perform
well in one s itu a tio n but not well in another."
Given a grasp of the re la tio n between teaching and learning we might, as
Boocock suggests, even be able to determine the conditions under which
au th o ritarian or l a i s s e z - f a ir e modes of teaching may be more e f f e c t iv e
than democratic modes.

CHAPTER I I I

THE PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICE OF OPEN EDUCATION

Now th a t we have a th e o re tic a l viewpoint fo r studying a u th o rity
in schools we can look a t what the concept means in open education
and what some o f the l i t e r a t u r e in th is area says.
Before we can t a lk about teacher a u th o rity with respect to open
schools, we need to make a prelim inary i d e n t if ic a t io n o f th is type of
school.

I f we were to t a lk with contemporary proponents o f open

schools we would discover two things:

( 1 ) there are several important

features which distinguish open education from tr a d itio n a l education,
and ( 2 ) there is no single widely accepted view as to what these
features are.

Thus, we are confronted with an immediate d i f f i c u l t y

in explaining what we are ta lk in g about.

In th is s it u a t io n , i t seems

most p ractical i n i t i a l l y to attempt to derive a meaning fo r the term
"open education" which conveys a r e l a t i v e l y general understanding.
More s p e c ific aspects o f open education w i l l be discussed l a t e r .

In

the discussion to fo llo w , the terms "open education" and "informal
★
education" w i l l be considered synonymous.
We begin our attempt to grasp the meaning of "open education"
by taking note o f a number o f relevan t contrasts which are often found

*

The use of the term "informal education" seems more common in
Great B r it a in , while the term "open education" is more commonly used
in the United States.
"Informal" does not r e f e r to the day-to-day
methods of s o c ia liz a tio n found in s o c ia l groups.

71

72
in the l i t e r a t u r e of education:
informal
open
progressive
open
ac tiv e
in t r i n s i c
h o lis t ic
process
child-centered
person-oriented
informal
romantic
freedom
abstract
independent
democratic
in te g ra tiv e
p a rtic ip a to ry
non-directive
humanistic

conventional
tr a d itio n a l
tr a d itio n a l
closed
passive
e x tr in s ic
fragmented
product
teacher-centered
object-o riented
formal
re a lis tic
prescription
concrete
dependent
a u th o rita ria n
dominative
supervisory
d ire c tiv e
custodial

More contrasts could be added to th is l i s t o f 20, but these are more
than enough fo r our purposes.

In general, the terms in the l e f t hand

column, even though many of them contain p re s c rip tiv e valuations,
tend to connote what is meant by "open education."

We do not claim

th at any o f the terms have any simple denotative meaning or th a t any
simple re la tio n s h ip ex ists between any two or more contrasts.

By

taking th is position we are e s s e n tia lly saying th a t none of the con­
trasts represent simple one-dimensional continuums, and th a t there
is no equivalence between any two contrasts.

To make a mathematical

analogy, informal education is a t le a s t as complicated as a 2 0
dimension vector space.
Not only are these contrasts relevan t to the meaning o f the term
"open education," but they are also important to our topic o f teacher
a u th o rity.

Several of them are discussed by Anderson (1959) in his

major review o f research in to the use o f a u th o rity in schools.

In

th is study, we contend th a t how a teacher uses his or her a u th o rity

73
is o f major concern to the proponents and p r a c titio n e rs o f open
education and th a t the use o f a u th o rity tends to define and/or
influence most other features o f schools o f th a t type.
Not only does this connection between recent discussions of
informal education and e a r l i e r discussions o f teacher leadership
styles e x i s t , but there also seems to be an important conceptual
connection between informal education and the idea o f clim ate.
Though the term "climate" is not always used in discussions
of th is type of education (even in a nontechnical sense), neverthe­
less, i t is something very much l i k e school clim ate which concerns
the proponents of open education.
"Advocates o f informal education begin w ith the conception
o f childhood as something to be cherished, a conception
th a t leads in turn to a concern with the q u a lity o f the
school experience in i t s own r i g h t , not merely as prepara­
tion fo r l a t e r schooling or l a t e r l i f e (Silberman 1970-208)."
Other analysts of informal education make s p e c ific use o f the term.
"In much o f the l i t e r a t u r e concerning open-informal education
there is strong emphasis on achieving open 'c lim a t e ,' [b u t]
the s p e c ific cues by which observers judge a classroom
climate are not c le a r (Katz 19 71-9)."
In l i g h t

of our previous discussion o f c lim a te , several points

should be made immediately.

F i r s t , the word "open" in the term

"open school" does not necessarily mean the same thing as i t does
in the term "open clim a te ."

Second, i f open schools r e a l l y are

d iffe r e n t from tr a d itio n a l schools, then a clim ate study may provide
a useful perspective from which to view both types, determine the
character o f t h e ir organizational d iffe re n c e s , and assess what impact
the respective characters have.

I t must be noted th a t not a l l a t t r i ­

butes and aspects o f e ith e r t r a d it io n a l or open schools w i l l be assessed

74
in th is study.

There may well be several important dimensions o f

climate or i t s impact which are not in the study's compass.
l i m i t is impossible to avoid:
fixed somewhere.

This

the study's boundaries have to be

Whatever conclusions re s u lt from i t , i t must be

remembered th at a l l the stru ctu re and functions o f the organizations
have probably not been accounted fo r .
The Philosophical Background o f Open Education
As we have s a id , the concept o f a u th o rity and the a u th o rita ria n
nature of tr a d itio n a l or conventional schools plays a major ro le in
the thinking of proponents o f informal education.

For instance,

Herbert Kohl, author o f The Open Classroom (1 9 6 9 ),says:
"There is the same obsession with power and d is c ip lin e every­
where; fo r most American children there is e s s e n tia lly one
public school system in the United States and i t is
a u th o rita ria n and oppressive. Students everywhere are
deprived of the r ig h t to make choices concerning t h e i r
own destinies (p. 1 2 ) . "
Echoing s im ila r concerns, Marin (1975) says,
" . . . the open classroom has come to represent f o r many
parents and teachers an ideal kind o f freedom: the creation
o f a wider sense of choice and the diminishment o f coercion
w ithin the ordinary lim it s o f the public schools (p. 8 3 )."
Both o f these quotations suggest the idea th a t coercion and freedom
of choice are inversely re la te d and th a t since freedom o f choice is
a desirable go al, coercion must be diminished.

Boocock (1973-19)

quotes a re la te d view expressed f i r s t by Waller:
"Teacher and pupil confront each other in the school with an
o rig in a l c o n f l ic t o f desires, and however much th a t c o n f l ic t
may be reduced in amount or however much i t may be hidden i t
s t i l l remains . . . . The teacher represents the established
social order in the school and his in te r e s t is in maintaining
th a t order . . . .
Pupils are the material in which teachers
are supposed to produce r e s u lts . Pupils are human beings
s t r iv in g to r e a liz e themselves in t h e i r own spontaneous

75
manner, s tr iv in g to produce t h e i r own resu lts in t h e ir
own way."
Boocock also points out s i m ila r it ie s between W aller and contemporary
proponents of a lte r n a tiv e schools, namely Kozol, H o lt, and Farber.
The issues o f freedom and control are so important in discussions
of a lt e r n a t iv e education th a t Mario Fantini (1 974 ), a leading analyst
of the current trends toward a lte r n a tiv e forms o f schooling, uses a
freedom -to-prescription continuum to categorize a lt e r n a t iv e schools.
He id e n t if ie s seven types of schools:
Free - le a rn e r-d ire c te d and c o n tro lle d ; lea rn er has complete
freedom to orchestrate his own education; teacher is one
resource.
Free/Open - school open to the community and i t s resources;
non-competitive environment; no student f a ilu r e s ; curriculum
is viewed as a social system rath er than as a course o f
studies; learn er centered.
Open - lea rn er has considerable freedom to choose from a wide
range o f content areas considered relevant by parents,
teachers, and students; resource centers in major s k i l l
areas are made a v a ila b le to the student; teacher is supportive
guide.
Open/Modified - teacher-student planning, teacher centered.
Modified - prescribed content is made f l e x i b l e through i n d i v i ­
dualized in s tru c tio n ; ungraded; curriculum same fo r a l l , but
ra te of learning is d i f f e r e n t ; teacher and programmed course
of study are the major sources o f student learning.
Modified/Standard - competitive; school is the major in s tru c ­
tio n a l s e ttin g ; subject matter centered.
Standard - lea rn er adheres to in s t it u tio n a l requirements
uniformly prescribed; what is taught, when, where, how, with
whom is a ll decided fo r the student; teacher is both in s tru c to r
and evaluator; student passes or f a i l s according to normative
standards.
The differences between proponents of informal schools and
adherents of conventional schools can be best understood in a general
way as a differen ce in world views, or paradigms, or myths.

These

76

paradigms reach back in to the h isto ry of educational thought and
although one may seem more prominent in discussion and/or practice
than another a t any given tim e, the others l i e w aiting to renew
t h e ir message to those who become d is s a tis f ie d with the current
approach.
I f these competing paradigms were based on s im ila r views of
the nature and goals of man, and simply o ffered d if f e r e n t educational
practices, the task o f deciding which is best would be somewhat ea sie r.
But such is not the case.

In general, these paradigms vary in p h ilo ­

sophy (what is good), psychology (what is man's n a tu re ), and method
(what is education).

A ll three o f these areas bear some re la tio n to

the topic o f teacher a u th o rity and th erefo re warrant some discussion.
The Fantini typology discussed e a r l i e r can be conceptualized
as four overlapping sets o f thought and p rac tice arranged li k e links
in a chain:

Free

Figure 7.

Open

Modified

Standard

F a n tin i's "Freedom-to-Prescription" Categorization of Schools

This view suggests th a t an educational continuum e x is ts .

Some w rite rs

have proposed a simpler d iv is io n , in to two d is t in c t viewpoints.
Denton (1975), fo r example, characterizes the viewpoints as d iffe r in g

77
in myths and speaks metaphorically o f Mr. Open Education and Principal
Standard liv in g "next door, but in d if f e r e n t worlds."

Of p a rtic u la r

in te r e s t to us, he says,
"Mr. Open Education envisions a w orld -of-ed ucation, not
necessarily schooling, in which social growth [ i s ] enhanced
through the sharing of a u th o rity . He envisions a w orld-of
education in which a u th o rity is freed o f it s oppressive
aspects . . . (p. 4 0 0 )."
Though Denton claims th a t most contemporary proponents of Mr.
Open Education's viewpoint tend to ignore the in t e lle c tu a l histo ry
of t h e i r b e lie f s , some attempts to connect current approaches to
e a r l i e r ones have been made.

For instance, Stephens (1974) traces

concepts re la te d to open education through Socrates, P la to , A r i s t o t le ,
Montaigne, Comenius, Locke, Rousseau, P e s ta lo z zi, H erbart, Froebel,
Tolstoy, Dewey, K ilp a t r ic k , Montessori, Isaacs, P iaget, Bruner, and
Rogers.

Other recount a somewhat shorter and less luminous histo ry:

"Open education . . . resonates strongly with the educational
thought of Rousseau . . . and the methods used in the one-room
p r a i r i e school house in the 19th century and by some Progressives
during the 1920's and ' 3 0 ' s (Walberg and Thomas 1972-198)."
Graubard (1972) c ite s A. S. N e i l l ' s ideas about freedom as an
important part o f the core assumptions o f the free-school proponents
at the l e f t (and most r a d ic a l) end o f F a n tin i's spectrum.

According

to Graubard, N e ill holds the Freudian and Reichean view th at repression
through a u th o rita ria n d is c ip lin e is bad, and th a t happiness results
from abolishing a u th o rity and l e t t i n g the c h ild be himself.

N e ill

believes th a t fre e children w i l l be se lf-m o tivated , w e ll-in te g ra te d
people who are able to seek the learning they need in order to pursue
th e ir in te r e s ts .

They are capable of choosing a way of l i f e from

inner considerations rath er than being ruled by e x te rn a lly imposed
standards.

78
For proponents of th is view o f the nature of human beings, the
word "natural" has the normative connotation o f "good" and " r ig h t ."
Because o f the p re s c rip tiv e nature of th is view, radicals fe el th a t
the natural motivations o f children are superior to others such as
pleasing a d u lts , competing with peers and s ib lin g s , and desire fo r
approval.

Graubard notes th a t th is view, while extreme, has had an

impact on current educational thought to the extent th a t modern
educators generally do not espouse the view ( t y p i f i e d by Dickens'
schoolmaster Thomas Gradgrind, or the e a rly C a lv in is ts ) th a t children
k

are e s s e n tia lly s lo t h f u l, s in fu l and r e c a lc it r a n t .
A more d e ta ile d analysis of these two viewpoints is offered by
Riegle (1 9 7 3 ), who has adapted McGregor's Theory X/Theory Y analysis
of organizations to schools:
Theory X

(1

Students are by nature indolent and work as l i t t l e
possible.

as

(2

Students lack ambition, d i s lik e re s p o n s ib ility and p re fe r
to be directed .

(3

Students are in d if f e r e n t to the needs of the school
organization.

(4

Students n a tu r a lly r e s is t change.

(5

Students are e a s ily duped and must be protected from
t h e i r own ignorance.

(6

Teachers must d ir e c t students e f f o r t s , m otivate, and
modify behavior to f i t the needs o f the organization.

(7

Teachers must reward, punish and control the a c t i v i t i e s
o f students in order to persuade them to remain a c tiv e .

W illower's research on custodial a t t it u d e s , discussed in
Chapter I I , may indicate th a t Grauband's view is overly o p tim is tic .
**

For a s im ila r tabulatio n of two d i f f e r e n t views of education,
see Carl Rogers (1969), pp. 15 7 f . , 171f.

79
Theory Y
(1)

Students are not by nature passive, lazy or re s is ta n t to
organizational needs.

(2)

In d iffe re n c e is a re s u lt of negative experiences in school.

(3)

Teachers have r e s p o n s ib ility to arrange organizational
conditions so th a t students can achieve t h e i r own goals.

(4 )

R esponsibility of teachers is to make i t possible fo r
students to develop t h e i r characters fo r themselves.

(5 )

Teaching is a process which c o n tin u a lly creates o p p o rtu n itie s ,
releases p o te n tia l, removes obstacles, encourages growth and
provides guidance.

E a r lie r we discussed differences in o rie n ta tio n to control (obedience
vs. s e lf - r e li a n c e ) found among d i f f e r e n t social classes.

Analogously,

adherents o f both Theory X and Theory Y may believe th a t t h e i r approach
leads students to a d iscip lin e d l i f e :

the former through teacher

d i s c ip lin e , the l a t t e r through s e l f - d is c ip lin e .
Riegle says th a t Theory X depends on coercion, ve iled th re a ts ,
close supervision, r ig id co ntrols, and c e n tra liz e d a u th o rity .

He views

the t r a d it io n a l classroom as an example of an organization shaped by
Theory X, and fe e ls i t does not provide fo r c e rta in needs:

reco g n itio n ,

s ta tu s , s e c u r ity , acceptance as an in d iv id u a l, need fo r belonging,
independence, s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t .

Whether he disagrees with Graubard's

b e lie f th a t Theory Y ( i f we may tra n s la te Graubard's position in th is
way) has made some inroads in contemporary schools is not c le a r .
Graubard's c r itiq u e of N e i l l ' s philosophy--the Rousseauian posi­
tion th a t man's nature is badly modified by social pressures--is that'
i t misunderstands the meaning o f c u ltu re .

He says,

" . . . the natural c h ild , l i k e the natural person, appears only
as a concept, while real children are always a mixture o f pure
natural capacities and the e ffe c ts of a p a r t ic u la r world . . . ,
a complex c u ltu ra l environment which creates motives or a t le a s t
warps the so -c a lle d natural motives (1974-p. 300)."

80
Graubard asserts th a t c u ltu ra l norms, social personality t r a i t s , and
typical value clusters are not accidental shapings added on to some
essential human nature:

r a th e r , humans are, in p a r t , products of

cultures.
Not only does the radical view o f freedom lack s u f f ic ie n t
appreciation fo r the c u ltu ra l aspect of man's nature, i t also seems
inadequate to deal with the problems of liv in g with other people, i . e . ,
the problems of social ju s t ic e .

Although the radical perspective f o r

schools could be f i t t e d in to a more general anarchist social view,
that is usually not done.

As Graubard (1972) points o u t, radical

school reformers are generally not concerned "with a p o l i t i c a l and
social analysis o f the functioning of the educational system, but
with the kinds of pedagogical fa ilu r e s th a t [Silberman (1970) summarizes],
i . e . , m u tilatio n o f spontaneity, of joy in le a rn in g , o f pleasure in
crea tin g , of sense of s e l f (p. 1 6 )."
In summary, we may say th a t the radical school reformers' view
i s , in p a r t , a reaction against ce rtain coercive aspects o f t r a d it io n a l
education, and affirm s th a t in the absence o f compulsion, man's natural
( i . e . , desired) development w i l l occur.

Graubard challenges th is

proposition by noting th a t i t is a statement of an ideal th a t is safe
from empirical t e s t , since i t s proponents may claim th a t any counter­
example based on research in schools has already been contaminated by
the negative e ffe c ts o f social contact (p. 18).

Another v a lid c r it iq u e

of the radical position is th a t i t is not enough to say what one
opposes; one must say what one is f o r as w e ll.

Radebaugh (1 9 7 3 ), fo r

example, points out th a t s h iftin g from the external control o f the
school to the in tern al control of students could lead to b e l i e f in

81
supernatural or t o t a l i t a r i a n values which could threaten a democratic
social order.

In terms o f behavioral psychology, fo r example, i f one

proposes to discontinue the use of overt aversive reinforcers to shape
behavior, one should also take some position on the presence of overt
positive re in fo r c e r s , as well as the presence of both kinds of covert
reinforcers.

In the same terms, i t seems th a t radical school reformers

place t h e i r emphasis on which reinforcers are unsuitable while most
behaviorists seem more concerned with which behaviors are su ita b le and
unsuitable.

"For us," says Henderson (1 973-372), "genuine humanism

rests not so much in in ten tio n as in the actual resu lts of e f fo r ts to
f a c i l i t a t e the growth o f the children in our charge."
I f we look a t Theory X and Theory Y as thesis and a n tith e s is a t
the ends o f F a n tin i's spectrum, then i t may be appropriate to think of
the middle types as the d ia le c tic a l product, the synthesis, o f the best
parts of both.
We can begin our discussion o f th is synthesis with a statement
with which the radical reformers would be l i k e l y to agree:
"The highest good f o r man is . . . a dynamic process of growth
and s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n (Feinberg 1973-21)."
S e lf - r e a liz a t io n is developed when an individual is able to practice mak­
ing d i f f i c u l t choices and freedom provides one with the opportunity to
make those choices.

Growth is stunted

" . . . when one is given no choice in the f i r s t place, e ith e r
because of being kept in ignorance, or because one is te rr o r iz e d
by the wielders of bayonets (Feinberg 1973-22)."
Therefore, says Feinberg
"The highest social good is then the greatest possible [emphasis
added] amount o f individual s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n . .
(p. 2 1 ) . "
However, says Feinberg, seeking the social good can include the use of

82

coercion, through the Public Harm P rin c ip le and the notion o f legal
paternalism.

Coercion is j u s t i f i e d on the ground th a t i t is necessary

to prevent impairment o f in s t it u t io n a l practices and regulatory systems
that are in the public in t e r e s t .

Legal paternalism j u s t i f i e d s ta te

coercion to protect in divid uals from s e l f - i n f l i c t e d harm or to guide
them toward t h e ir own good.

Feinberg rejec ts the views th a t paternalism

is e it h e r always or never a v a lid ground f o r in te rfe re n c e .

Therefore,

he says, we must s ta te the conditions under which paternalism is v a lid .
"Even children a f t e r a ce rtain p o in t, had b e tte r not be 'tre a te d
as ch ild re n ' or they w i l l never acquire the outlook and capa­
b i l i t y o f responsible adults (Feinberg 1973-45, 4 6 ) ."
Feinberg's emphasis on the goals o f growth and s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n in
human development lead very obviously to the educational philosophy of
John Dewey, W illiam H. K ilp a tr ic k and other educators of the progressive
movement.

For example, in comparing N e ill to K ilp a t r ic k , Hopkins (1976-

210) quotes K ilp a tr ic k as saying th a t children are "to assume as much
re s p o n s ib ility in matters of choice and d ire c tio n as is consistent with
best growth", but the teacher is to have f in a l a u th o rity "to command or
forbid as may be necessary."
The q u a lif ic a t io n on freedom in the phrase above--" as is consistent
with the best growth"--turns us away from the more philosophical o rie n ­
ta tion of radical school proponents towards the more psychological o rie n ­
tation of the progressives and t h e ir la t te r -d a y open-school colleagues.
We do not claim th a t the philosophical and psychological components are
completely d is t in c t from each other or th a t they are very d if f e r e n t
between free-school and open-school advocates, but there does seem to be
a d iffe r e n t emphasis present.

In taking th is view, we agree with

Graubard (1972-155) th a t the dilemmas debated w ith in fre e schools "are

83

set by the basic opposition o f the l ib e r t a r ia n [philosophy] to the
structure of conventional schools, the key o b jec tive being to abolish
constricting and a u th o rita ria n philosophies."
Kohl berg and Mayer (1972) see three divisions o f educational
ideology, each with i t s own psychology.

They c a ll t h e i r three

ideologies "romanticism", "progressivism", and "c u ltu ra l transmission",
and they appear to bear some s i m i l a r i t y to F a n tin i's typology, with
romanticism on the l e f t , c u ltu ra l transmission on the r i g h t , and
progressivism somewhere in between.
Romanticism - Rousseau, Freud, G e s e ll, N e i l l , Mead, and Hall
are cited as proponents o f the idea th a t the c h ild is n a tu r a lly
good. The ideology values growth, h e a lth , spontaneity,
c re a tiv ity .
It s re la te d psychology can be described as
m aturationist and organic.
Cultural Transmission - This ideology is characterized as the
classical academic t r a d it io n .
I t emphasizes l i t e r a c y , mathe­
matics, moral ru les .
I t s re la te d psychology is described as
mechanical, involving cla s s ic a l and operant conditioning.
Educational technology and behavior m odification f i t in with
th is ideology.
Progressivism - Based on the philosophy o f John Dewey, th is
ideology aims to create an unconflicted environment which can
fo s te r healthy development. Education progresses through
in v a ria n t stages. There is an emphasis on ac tiv e knowledge;
moral development occurs through social in te r a c tio n . The
related psychology is described as the cognitive developmental
in t e r a c t io n is t type associated with Jean Piaget, which is
la b e lle d d i a l e c t i c a l .
MacDonald (1970-24) describes open education as a combination of
the psychology of c h ild development and the moral prin ciples of
democracy.

He believes th a t overriding eth ica l concerns are the

motivation fo r the development o f open schools.

This description f i t s

in well with Kohlberg and Mayer's description of progressivism, which
combines the pragmatic moral philosophy o f Dewey with the developmental
rinciples advanced by Piaget.

The mammoth "Plowden Report" ( Children

84
and Their Primary Schools:

A Report of the Central Advisory Council

fo r Education, 1967) also id e n t if ie s a p a r t ic u la r school o f research
on learning with informal schools in England.

The report distinguishes

between the b e haviorist school (Thorndike, H u ll, Pavlov, Skinner) and
the developmentalist school (Baldwin, Isaacs, Luna, Bruner, P ia g e t);
i t avers th a t the developmental school seems to f i t the observed facts
*
about the learning o f young ch ild ren .
Though much more could be said about the interweaving of p h ilo ­
sophical and psychological viewpoints in education, such a discussion
is beyond the scope o f th is paper.

In summary, the foregoing paragraphs

have ra th e r b r i e f l y attempted to characterize some varying viewpoints
in education.

We note e s p e c ia lly th a t open school advocates view the

child as a special kind of "m aterial" and t h e i r goals fo r the develop­
ment o f th a t m aterial are special as w e ll:

open education is d if f e r e n t

from tr a d itio n a l education coming and going.

The Problems in Implementing Open Education
The fundamental differences between educational paradigms lead
to c e rta in empirical claims and counter-claims.

For example, Graubard

(1972-17) c a lls a tte n tio n to H o lt's claim th a t children learn much
more ra p id ly and e f f e c t iv e ly in t h e i r own way than i f they are directed
by a teacher.

This e s s e n tia lly psychological claim about the nature

of children combines with the coordinate philosophical b e l i e f th at
the goal o f education is to produce c r e a tiv e , independent thinkers
*

The position expressed by the Plowden Report re c a lls Kuhn's
(1962) admonition th a t facts do not e x is t as facts apart from the
paradigm through which they are in te rp re te d and th a t indeed, there
is a dynamic in te ra c tio n between facts and theory.

85
and the claim th a t too much authoritarian ism depresses in t e lle c t u a l
c u rio s ity and produces low s e lf - r e li a n c e .

The conclusion drawn insofar

as school practice is concerned is th at reducing the teacher's use of
au tho rity w i l l stim ulate the development of g rea ter s e lf - r e li a n c e and
independence, which is good in i t s e l f ( i . e . , i t is a humanistic g o a l),
and f u r t h e r , th at s e lf - r e li a n c e and independence lead to g rea ter s e l f ­
esteem and sense o f c o n tro l, which also promote higher achievement
(Lickona 1971-5).
These assertions have stimulated counter-claim s, m odifications
of the o rig in a l claim s, and apologia on the p a rt of various educators,
and we now turn our a tte n tio n to some o f these reactions.
One position s ta te d , we th in k , in a n tic ip a tio n o f c r it ic is m of
the informal approach is th a t a good formal class can be b e tte r than
a poor informal class (Featherstone 1968-328), and another is th a t
when both tr a d itio n a l and modern approaches are competently executed
s im ila r results w i l l be obtained (Wallache 1971-238).

These positions

give some c r e d it to the t r a d itio n a l approach to education and a t the
same time leave an opening to apologize fo r the f a i l u r e o f informal
methods.
The possible f a i l u r e of informal methods is often a t tr ib u t e d to
potential fa u lts in teachers' a ttitu d e s .
"An organizational change— the free day, fo r example, or simply
rearranging classroom space is u n lik e ly to make much differen ce
unless teachers r e a ll y believe th a t in a ric h environment young
children can learn a great deal by themselves and th a t most
often t h e ir own choices r e f l e c t t h e i r needs (Featherstone 1 9 6 7 -7 )."
". . . i t is suggested th a t the success o f the many approaches
now being followed in primary schools is l i k e l y to depend f a r
more upon the individual teachers using them than upon any
organizational change in i t s e l f .
Unless, th e re fo re , relevan t
aspects of the teachers' philosophy and a t t it u d e s , as well as
sp e c ific features o f the learning s itu a tio n created by the new

86
approaches, are taken in to account, evaluations [o f informal
schools] w i l l be as varied and inconsistent as were those
from the e a rly studies o f streaming. Blanket comparisons o f
outcomes from schools using new approaches with those not so
doing, w i l l prove o f very lim ite d value (Pidgeon 1972-12)."
One o f the greatest obstacles to teacher acceptance o f informal
methods (c ite d by Pidgeon) is the b e l i e f th a t ", . . a n approach th a t
does not seek to d i f f e r e n t i a t e among children o f c le a r ly d i f f e r e n t
a b i l i t i e s can indeed do ju s t ic e to a l l

(p. 3 6 )."

He fe e ls th at

teachers' a ttitu d e s are based on a model of normally d is trib u te d
a b i l i t y to do co gn itive work which "explains" what happens in school,
and mentions other models which may be more approp riate, v i z . , the
so-called J-curve o f le a rn in g , and the Carroll-Bloom model which
posits th a t the degree of learning achieved is a function o f time
spent in mastery.

The Plowden Report also notes th a t teachers

"brought up" on a u th o rita ria n precepts may feel h o s tile or contemp­
tuous or fe a r fu l o f informal methods, and are thus less l i k e l y to
successfully use them.

I t seems c le a r , in view o f our e a r l i e r accept­

ance of the proposition th a t teachers' expectations influence t h e i r
behavior (and consequently student behavior) th a t we can surmise th a t
some kind o f s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy may influence the success of
both formal and informal methodologies.
An in te r e s tin g study th a t i l l u s t r a t e s some o f the d i f f i c u l t i e s
teachers have in implementing an informal approach ( d i f f i c u l t i e s
possibly based on t h e i r own past experiences and b e lie f s ) was conducted
in B ritis h primary schools by Berlak and Berlak (1975).

T h eir obser­

vations o f teachers led them to conclude th a t some o f the more glowing
accounts o f informal education in Great B r ita in presented an incomplete
picture o f the operation o f such classrooms.

They found, fo r example,

87
many instances where teachers exercised f a i r l y d ir e c t control over
ch ild ren 's a c t i v i t i e s , but they were unable to determine through
observation a t ig h t connection between the teacher's ideals and
h is /h e r behavior.

They id e n t if ie d fourteen dilemmas ( e . g . ,

eq u a lity o f opportunity vs. e q u a lity o f r e s u lt ; in t r i n s i c motivation vs.
e x tr in s ic m otivation; learning as a social experience vs. learning as
an individ ual experience) which they f e l t could be divided in to three
major areas:
(1)

The in te r r e la tio n s h ip o f c h ild and society;

(2)

The teaching-learning process;

(3 )

Social ju s t ic e and due process.

They observed th a t during class a c t i v i t i e s , problematic situation s
arose which involved one or more o f these dilemmas

and which the

teacher would resolve in favor of one value pole on one occasion,
and the other on another.
McCauley and others' (1972) comparison o f t r a d itio n a l and
radical a lt e r n a t iv e school teachers' responses to questionnaires
showed s im ila r d i f f i c u l t i e s in expressing a consistent position
fo r the teachers taking the a lt e r n a t iv e approach.

They found th at

the a lt e r n a t iv e school teachers perceived t h e i r tasks with less goal
c l a r i t y , p r e d i c t a b i l i t y and e ffic a c y of performance.
The degree to which a tr a n s itio n from formal to informal methods
can or should or did take place is central to the analysis o f the
success o f informal programs.

For example, Deal (1975) reviewed the

history o f several a lt e r n a t iv e schools and concluded th a t they f a ile d
because the change in au th o rity patterns caused organizational problems
with which the schools could not (o r would not) cope.

Salzberg (1973),

88
speaking from his experiences with the d i f f i c u l t i e s in developing a
free school sa id ,
. . w e gave our children a school environment with a
maximum of freedom from ad ult a u th o rity and assumed th a t
t h e i r actions would r is e to meet the occasion. They d i d n 't .
The opposite e f fe c t occurred and the r e s u lt was a h o s t i le ,
unproductive atmosphere (p. 6 4 )."
Salzberg and his associates discovered th a t the school developed an
environment where none of the children were f r e e , even from fe a r fo r
th e ir own physical w e ll-b e in g .

He concludes th a t freedom is not a

global e n t i t y - - t h a t there are many p o te n tia l freedoms w ith in a school
and they can be maintained so long as they are accompanied by associated
responsible behaviors.

This p a r t ic u la r school did manage to change it s

climate by in s t it u t in g a behavior-m odification program which helped
students learn to exercise greater r e s p o n s ib ility .
The problem of tr a n s itio n from formal to informal methods encoun­
tered by Salzberg could be said to r e s u lt from removing one kind o f
structure (deemed undesirable) without i n s t i t u t i n g some other kind
of s tru c tu re , the r e s u lt being also undesirable (but in a d i f f e r e n t
way).

Czajkowski and King (1975) also speak to th is point:
"The danger is ever present th a t devastating forms o f hidden
curriculum can be ac tive in the open classroom (p. 2 8 0 )."

The elements of th is hidden curriculum include things l i k e uncontrolled
noise, overexcitement and in s u f f i c i e n t d ir e c tio n .

Czajkowski and King

say th a t open school proponents' b e l i e f in the value of play as a means
of learning should not lead to the conclusion th a t a l l learning looks
lik e play.
The d i f f i c u l t i e s th at informal schools have had in prac ticin g
t h e ir psychology and reaching t h e i r philosophical goals have led some

89
of the educators who once f e l l

towards the more radical end o f the

Fantini spectrum to take a more c e n t r is t view of the problem of
teacher a u th o rity .
Like the Berlaks (1 9 7 5 ), Stephens (1974-320) c r i t i c i z e s American
observers' reports on informal English schools ( e . g . , th a t "children
e s s e n tia lly work on t h e i r own a t whatever they d e s ir e " ) , reporting
th at she found English educators f e l t such views were so f a r from the
tru th as to be u n jus tly misleading.

She believes th at i t is more

proper to view open classrooms as both ch ild-cen tered and teachercentered, th a t giving students more freedom does not include the
freedom not to fu n c tio n , and c ite s Dewey as endorsing th is po sitio n .
For her, freedom is not merely the absence of com pulsion--it requires
some stru ctu re f o r i t s existence.

A s im ila r viewpoint is expressed

in the Plowden Report (1967):
"Children . . . depend upon adults fo r t h e i r moral standards
and guidance on what behavior is to le r a b le in s o cie ty; an
a d ult who withholds such guidance is in fa c t making a decision
which involves as heavy a claim f o r his own judgment as is
made by the m artinet (p. 2 6 8)."
The idea th a t both teacher and c h ild take a hand in d ire c tin g learning
a c t i v i t i e s is echoed by many open school proponents, such as Featherstone
(1967), Lickona (1 9 7 1 ), Hapgood (1 9 7 1 ), Taylor (1 972 ), B l i t z (1973),
and Barth (1972).

These w rite rs generally tend to agree th a t making the

tra n s itio n from formal to informal classrooms requires careful a tte n tio n
to planning and caution in implementation.

Two cases can be c ite d
'ic

which a ffir m the view th a t a "go slow" approach is worthwhile.
*
These cases are also o f in te r e s t to us because they both involve
in n e r - c i t y , mostly black schools and thus may be thought to have some
bearing on the question o f how informal approaches work with these
students.

90
One case, apparently successful, is L i l l i a n Weber's development o f
an "open corridor" program which we c it e as an example of gradualism,
where students, teachers, and parents were drawn toward an informal
structure in small steps over a period of time (Tobier 1969).

The

other case, conceded unsuccessful, is reported by Barth (1972) from
his experiences in a school where teachers s tarted the school year
with a completely new approach but by December found i t necessary to
in s t it u t e a number o f more t r a d it io n a l practices.
The c e n t r is t position th a t open school proponents adopt about
the teacher's use o f au th o rity leads them to look a t student behavior
as a product o f the climate o f a te ach er/ch ild-c en tered classroom.
Taylor (1972-55) says, fo r example,
"Young children cannot act responsibly i f they do not have an
o rderly environment in which to do so . . . ."
One approach to developing an orderly environment in open class­
rooms which has received r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e a tte n tio n in the l i t e r a t u r e
is the b e haviorist approach.

According to Robin (1974),

" . . . the s i m i l a r i t i e s in practice are so astounding th a t i t is
surprising th a t proponents o f the two approaches have not gone
beyond t h e i r ideological differences to e s tab lish useful cross­
f e r t i l i z a t i o n of ideas (p. 4 9 )."
I f we view re s p o n s ib ility as a s k i l l to be learned rath er than as a
natural tendency to be lib e r a te d , then a behavior modification approach
seems worthy o f consideration.

Robin says th a t

"Young children can take r e s p o n s ib ility fo r learning only when
t h e ir teachers have done t h e i r homework: a high lev el of
hidden teacher planning . . . is essential to the success o f the
open classroom (p. 5 0 )."
He l i s t s f iv e areas o f s im i l a r i t y between informal education concepts
and behavior modification p rin cip le s (planning, in d iv id u a liz a tio n ,
p a r tic ip a tio n , gradual ness, m o tivatio n).

91

Some b e h a v io ris ts ' in te rp re ta tio n s are more aggressively
expressed.

For example,

"Looking a t schools and classrooms from Skinner's point of
view, i t is obvious th a t there is always control of conduct
in school. In an open classroom the teacher may have made a
conscious decision to abandon some o f the more tr a d itio n a l
procedures, goals and controls in order to su b stitu te those
of his own choosing (Madden 1972-101)."
Madden goes on to say th a t children cannot be made fre e by teacher
f i a t because they have already been conditioned by previous experiences
'k

both in school and with parents and peers.

Madden fe e ls th a t some

open classroom teachers o f f e r a v a rie ty of a c t i v i t i e s without giving
students a sense of d ire c tio n because they view the overt use of r e in ­
forcement as an imposition o f students' freedom and because they f a i l
to understand th at control is not a process to be avoided but a tool
which must be exercised in e it h e r a p o s itiv e or negative way.

He

concludes by saying,
" I f teachers view freedom of choice and s e lf - d ir e c t i o n as
s k i l l s to be learned in sm all, s e q u e n tial, reinforced steps
rath er than as the natural condition of American school
children today, they w i l l fin d the path to creating and
maintaining an open classroom much ea sie r (p. 106)."
The task of developing r e s p o n s ib ility is not only one of the
most important goals o f informal schools, but i t is also, according
to Stephens (1 974 -39 ), one o f the most d i f f i c u l t problems.

We o f fe r

the observation th at open school proponents may not have made much
use of behavioral approaches to the development of r e s p o n s ib ility
and s e lf-r e lia n c e p a rtly because in the view of t h e i r developmentalist
psychology, these a ttrib u te s occur in large p a rt through a natural

He f e e ls , fo r example, th at children in middle-class schools
are conditioned to go along with whatever new school scheme the adults
in autho rity cook up. Presumably, then, the success of an open program
should be judged not ju s t where i t is easy to implement, but where i t
is d i f f i c u l t as w e l l .

92
process o f maturation.

We have not d e a lt with the developmental

psychology o f informal education very much, and r e a ll y cannot present
much of a discussion here.

I t w i l l be s u f f ic ie n t to note, with

Featherstone (1 9 6 7 -9 ), th a t c r i t i c s o f Piaget say he pays too l i t t l e
a tte n tio n to the expectations o f parents and teachers ( t h a t i s , his
concepts are weak with respect to c e rta in environmentalist fa c to r s );
in a d d itio n , we note th a t both Piagetan and Skinnerian psychologies
claim to be c r o s s -c u ltu r a l, and thus do not provide p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c
explanations of the success or f a i l u r e of a program such as the kind
t y p ifie d by the "cultu re of poverty" explanation of social problems.
The explanation of some social problems as re s u ltin g from the
culture o f the lower socioeconomic classes is one form o f what Ryan
(1972) c a lls "blaming the v ic tim ."

Something lik e th is approach is

also used to explain the d i f f i c u l t i e s th a t c e rta in teachers and schools
encounter with c e rta in students.
In p a r t ic u l a r , some research shows a re la tio n s h ip between teacher
s t y le , student type and achievement.

Brophy and Good (1974-246)

reviewed several studies o f th is general type.

One study id e n t ifie d

students as "compulsive" or "anxious" and compared t h e ir achievement
in democratic and a u th o rita r ia n classes.

They found th a t compulsive

students had higher achievement in both types o f classrooms, and th at
both types o f students had higher achievement in the more structured
classes.

Another study reviewed by Brophy and Good id e n t if ie d

students and teachers as "convergent" thinkers (oriented to organized
deductive problem-solving leading to a single co rrect so lution) and
"divergent" thinkers (oriented to generating a lt e r n a t iv e solutions
to problems).

Teachers and students were found to r e la te b e tte r to

93

each other when they were o f the same type.

Convergent college

students were found to p re fe r structured courses, while divergent
students preferred courses with less stru ctu re and more student
involvement.
Some recent studies of informal education have raised the question
of how d i f f e r e n t types o f students succeed in d i f f e r e n t types o f class­
rooms.

For example, a recent study of informal education in Great

B rita in (Bennett 1976) takes pains to point out th a t open educators
may be unmindful o f the lack of a match between children with c e rta in
c h a ra c te ris tic s and schools with c e rta in environments (p. i x ) .

In

some ways th is kind o f research may seem li k e a p e rfe c tly sensible
approach to understanding why some students succeed and others f a i l
under d i f f e r e n t approaches to the use o f teacher a u th o rity .

We have

characterized i t as a form of "blaming the victim " because of an under­
lying assumption th a t appears to be present.

This assumption seems to

be th a t the various types id e n t if ie d (convergent vs. divergent, com­
pulsive vs. anxious, e t c . ) are natural aspects of students' p e rs o n a litie s .
Consequently, the thinking goes, in order to maximize achievement as f a r
as possible f o r a given type, we must fin d the teaching approach which
is most b e n e fic ia l to th a t type.

I t then becomes possible to say, fo r

example, th a t a student is unsuccessful not because the school has
f a ile d him, but because "he is the wrong type of student" fo r the kind
of teacher he has.

This approach is indeed ingenious, since i t not

only allows schools to be excused f o r f a i l u r e to produce achievement,
but also permits a given type of school or classroom to be c r i t i c i z e d
as in e f f e c t iv e , e s p e c ia lly when a m ajo rity of students are thought
to be o f a d is s im ila r type.

94
The general environmentalist o rie n ta tio n we have adopted leads
us to be skeptical of the assumptions th a t such personality d i f f e r ­
ences are n a tu ra l.

Furthermore, whether they are natural or not,

we are skeptical o f how accurately they can be measured, and how
much real gain in various outcomes would r e s u lt from attempting to
match student types to teaching s ty le s .

O v e ra ll, th is educational

approach seems plausible but not p a r t ic u la r ly u s e fu l, except insofar
as i t allows schools to deny re s p o n s ib ility fo r student progress,
and factions w ithin schools to deny the e ffic a c y o f the programs
of other fa ctio n s.
Even i f student types are r e a l , our environm entalist o rie n ta tio n
would lead us to study how the type developed, and i f the type is
judged to be unwholesome or ab errant, would lead us to study how i t
could be a lte r e d .

About the only student types which seem l i k e l y

to m erit serious consideration with respect to teaching s ty le are
those types th at occur as a student develops to m atu rity; however,
this Piagetan psychological paradigm has y e t to vanquish a l l i t s
competi t o r s .
In the following chapter we w i l l devote our a tte n tio n to some
sp ecific research findings re la te d to informal education.

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH IN OPEN EDUCATION

Up to th is p o in t, we have la r g e ly talked about teacher a u th o rity
as the prin cip a l v a ria b le with which we d i f f e r e n t i a t e between types
of schools and classrooms.

I t is true th a t a teacher's use of a u th o rity

is an important fa c to r in classroom s t y le ; furthermore, i t is a major
fa c to r in id e n tify in g informal or open schools.

But other factors

are important in open schools too, and we mention some of them b r i e f l y .
Walberg and Thomas (1974) have t r i e d to develop an operational d e f i ­
n itio n o f open education based on e ig h t themes.

In general, they say

" . . . Open education is a n tip a th e tic to a lin e o f mainstream
educators . . . who c la s s ify the curriculum in to subjects,
group learners by a b i l i t y , and view knowledge as represented
a u th o r it a t iv e ly by the teacher . . . (p. 192)."
S p e c ific a lly , the eig h t themes in open education are
(1)

In s tru c tio n - characterized by a high degree o f individual
in s tru c tio n and in te r a c tio n .

(2 )

Provisioning - characterized by a wealth and d iv e r s ity of
manipulative m aterials in in te r e s t centers; children move
about f r e e ly in heterogeneous groups.

(3)

Diagnosis - characterized by in d iv id u a liz e d observation
and questioning; teacher evaluations are more important
than standardized te s ts ; children diagnose t h e ir own work.

(4)

Humaneness - ch ild re n 's ideas, a c t i v i t i e s , products are
r e fle c te d abundantly about the classroom.

(5)

Evaluation - individual growth is assessed, based on
observation o f class behavior as well as products; evalu­
ation is used p rim a rily to improve in s tru c tio n .

95

96

(6 )

Seeking - teacher looks fo r new approaches, seeks community
resources.

(7)

S elf-perception - teachers are resource persons, feel
comfortable with children taking the i n i t i a t i v e , and
working with set c u rric u la .

(8 )

Assumptions - knowledge is a personal synthesis; warm
accepting atmosphere is necessary; e x p l i c i t a u th o rity ,
competition, te s tin g , th re a ts , bargaining are a l l frowned
on.

Stodolsky (1974) o ffe rs several key developmental objectives fo r open
education:

thinking s k i l l s and problem solving; i n i t i a t i v e ; respon­

s i b i l i t y ; a b i l i t y to r e la t e to others; high level of i n t e l l i g e n t
thinking; creativeness; ingenuity.
The task o f reviewing research relevan t s t r i c t l y to the use
of teacher au th o rity by examining research in informal education is
complicated by the above-mentioned additional aspects (themes and
objectives) of informal schools.

The m u l t i p l i c i t y o f factors in ­

volved in informal education has produced a diverse body o f research,
marked not only by differences in research methodology, but by d i f f e r ­
ences in factors studied as w e ll.

Problems with Comparing Open
and T ra d itio n a l Approaches

Since the findings reported l a t e r in this study f a l l w ithin the
a n aly tica l perspective o f organizational climate research (and thus
deal with a number o f v a r ia b le s ), i t is necessary to examine a v a rie ty
of research e f f o r t s , which, though not always related too closely to
each o th er, do have some r e la t io n to th is study.
In general, i t seems safe to agree with Gatewood (1975-175) th at
" . . . c le a r and consistent data have not ye t been collected
to e m p iric a lly prove the open classroom superior to any other
type o f classroom."

97

Gatewood also notes th a t many open school advocates claim th a t open
education is by i t s nature unresearchable; he fe e ls th a t nevertheless,
demands fo r ac c o u n ta b ility must be met, and th a t proponents of open
education must work out ways to meet them.

The somewhat negative

tone of his remarks might be counterbalanced (though not necessarily
proved u n ju s tifie d ) by noting th a t the data may not prove th a t the
open classroom is i n f e r i o r to every other type o f classroom e it h e r .
Nor should demands fo r acco u n ta b ility ( i f th a t concept can be
properly defined) be met only by programs th at vary from the more
tra d itio n a l approaches.
As we have implied above, the basic problem in evaluating
research findings is coming to grips with the paradigmatic d i f f e r ­
ences th a t e x is t among educators and researchers.

I f open school

proponents feel th a t th at type of education is unresearchable, i t
may be because they do not adhere to the same rules of evidence th at
other educators fo llo w .

I t is said th at n o n -tra d itio n a l schools

emphasize process ra th e r than s p e c ific outcomes ( Center fo r New
Schools 1974-17), and so a straightforw ard comparison o f the outcomes
of d if f e r e n t school types would be of l i t t l e value to open school
supporters without some accompanying comparison of the processes by
*
which those outcomes were obtained.
In th is co ntext, we also note
that the research methodology which one selects tends to determine
whether one can study process or outcome:

cross-sectional studies

(li k e the present case) seem less relevan t f o r judging processes

However, tr a d itio n a l education is also a process. Therefore,
i t too needs to be studied as such. Indeed, some o f the most impor­
tant critic ism s th a t open school proponents make o f tr a d itio n a l
education have to do with the processes th a t occur th ere.

98
than longitudinal studies.

Epstein and McPartland (1975-26) fo r

instance, believe th a t
"The most convincing t e s t o f the e ffe c ts o f open school
attendance on academic achievement is the te s t fo r cumulative
e ffe c ts over the long term, when many students have attended
r e l a t i v e l y stable open school programs throughout t h e i r school
ca re ers."
C le a rly , long-term research is desirable and should be pursued.

At

the same tim e, studies lim ite d to a given "moment" in a program can
help to define and guide f u r t h e r study and p ra c tic e .

We assert th at

outcomes o f school practices are a matter o f concern, and can be
used to i n f e r conclusions about processes.
I f open school proponents devote t h e i r study to some outcomes
rather than o th e rs , i t is because they subscribe to d i f f e r e n t goals.
" U ltim a te ly ," says Friedlander (1 975 -46 7), "the process of form ulating,
conducting, and in te r p r e tin g open education must come to grips with
the question o f values."

This view is stated in a somewhat d if f e r e n t

way by Silberman (1970-256):
"What the researcher must do, Goodlad argues, is 'come to
grips with the conceptual underpinnings o f the innovation'
f o r i f i t is t r u l y r a d ic a l, i t w i l l have objectives the
conventional instruments o f evaluation simply are not designed
to measure."
What these w rite rs seem to be saying is th a t we must be careful not
to end up comparing apples and oranges.

I f the goals o f open schools

are d i f f e r e n t from the goals of t r a d it io n a l schools, then to judge the
one inadequate because i t does not meet the goals o f the other doesn't
make too much sense.

The i n i t i a l

th ru s t o f research probably ought to

be to analyze how well a given kind o f program is meeting i t s own
goals.

Then one may go on to judge how well d i f f e r e n t programs are

meeting common goals, and to judge what other la t e n t resu lts are also

99
obtained.

Cronbach's statement seems p e rtin e n t here:

" I t is no defense fo r the [researcher] to say th a t competition
[ f o r example] is the only o b jective th a t concerns him. I f he
recommends an educational change, i t is his re s p o n s ib ility to
consider how th a t change w i l l a f f e c t a l l the outcomes th at
reasonable men consider important (quoted by Silberman 1970-257)."
Let us attempt to f u r t h e r delineate the research problem by
casting the argument in ab stract terms.
programs, ca lle d A and B.
goals a-|, a2 , a^,

Suppose we have two school

Suppose also th a t program A has manifest

, c2 , and la t e n t consequences 1 -j, 1 2 , 1 3 , while

program B has manifest goals b-|, b2 , bg, c-| , c 2 and la t e n t consequences
l<i, k2 , kg.

Goals a^ f b^ fo r any i , goals c^ are the same, and

consequences 1. and k^ may or may not be the same.

In order to choose

between the programs, one must decide not ju s t which programs are most
e f f e c t i v e l y meeting t h e i r goals, but also which goals are most worth
meeting, as well as whether the la t e n t consequences are acceptable.
One could, fo r example, decide th a t goal c2 is highly worthwhile, and
th a t program A meets goal c 2 b e tte r than program B, but s t i l l

r e je c t

program A because la t e n t consequences 1-j, 12 , 1 3 are a l l highly
undesirable.
When research e f f o r t s are governed by an unexamined ideological
perspective, the resu lts have an o b jective s c i e n t i f i c appearance but
are in f a c t contaminated by c e rta in value judgments.

The degree of

prescriptiveness in any s c i e n t i f i c study is a matter fo r analysis by
philosophers o f science and we w i l l not pursue i t fu rth e r here.

Let

i t s u ffic e to say th a t researchers probably cannot avoid some normative
judgments, but they should make t h e i r position as c le a r as they can.
In sp ite o f arguments favoring longitudinal studies o f educational
processes and products, most o f the research reported here is r e la t iv e ly

100

short-term (one or two years or less) and focused on outcomes ra th e r
than processes.

None o f the so -called lo n gitudinal studies approaches

the period o f time ca lled fo r by Epstein and McPartland, nor is even
as long as the well-known Eight Year Study o f progressive and t r a d i ­
tional high school students conducted in the 1930*s .
There are probably several reasons f o r th is s it u a t io n .

For

example, the kind o f research th a t uses survey data, measures a t t i ­
tudes, se lf-c o n c ep ts, achievement and the l i k e is the most common
approach to c o lle c tin g large amounts of information on large numbers
of people.

And, given the v a rie ty o f s t a t i s t i c a l methods which can

be brought to bear on these data, i t is most l i k e l y to produce the
results which are needed to j u s t i f y the costs of the research e f f o r t .
I t i s , in sh ort, the kind o f research th a t educators know b e st, and
which they w i l l most l i k e l y be able to j u s t i f y the expense o f.

Further­

more, educational research has often concentrated on outcomes, es p e c ia lly
achievement and s e lf-c o n c e p t, as measures of the success o f experimental
programs, and these kinds o f outcomes seem s u f f i c i e n t l y common to a l l
school programs to provide some basis f o r comparison.

F i n a lly , informal

education does have c e rta in goals—broadly described as humanistic—
which i t seeks to promote, and some research has attempted to define
these goals and measure t h e i r attainment.
Since much of the research is cro s s -s e c tio n a l, sh ort-term , r e la ­
t iv e ly s t a t i c , and product-oriented, i t can be characterized f a i r l y
e f f e c t iv e ly in terms of inputs and outputs.

Inputs include background

variables such as socioeconomic s ta tu s , race, fam ily a t t it u d e s , and
community type and school-located variables such as kind and degree
of a u th o rity , openness, teacher and student behavior and a t titu d e

101
types, m otivatio n, grade l e v e l , climate dimensions and other researcherdefined program a t t r i b u t e s .

Outputs include academic achievement,

feelin gs o f se lf-w o rth (also termed se lf-c o n c e p t, self-esteem , feelings
of competence); s e lf - r e li a n c e (also termed independence, i n i t i a t i v e ,
r e s p o n s ib ility , m a tu rity , autonomy, resourcefulness); cooperativeness
(as opposed to competitiveness); as p ira tio n s ; a ttitu d e s towards school;
c r e a t i v i t y ; and c e rta in outcomes which might be ca lled la t e n t conse­
quences, such as a n x ie ty , fe elin g s of estrangement, la b e lin g , and
adjustment to school. (The exceptions to th is input/output overview
of open school research are the p a rticip ant-ob servation studies which
undertake to look a t educational process by studying the e f fo r ts to
implement n o ntrad itio nal programs.)
In the previous chapter we went to some lengths to characterize
some o f the paradigmatic differences between open and tr a d itio n a l
education.

We re c a ll th a t discussion here because those differences

l i e behind the d i f f e r e n t research emphases we fin d in the l i t e r a t u r e ,
esp ec ially with regard to outputs, but perhaps with regard to inputs
too.

For example, open education stresses the individual and unique

nature o f each c h ild and so must have more d iv e r s if ie d goals fo r
students.

In c o n tra s t, t r a d it io n a l education stresses scholastic

achievement.

We might ch aracterize the t r a d itio n a l school as concen­

tr a tin g on primary cognitive matters (where cognitive a b i l i t y is
believed to be normally d is tr ib u te d ) and secondarily on c e rta in
a f fe c tiv e matters re la te d to " f i t t i n g in" to bureaucratic structures
and social ro le s , while informal schools concentrate r e l a t i v e l y more
on a f f e c t iv e areas than on cognitive areas, and these areas are f e l t
to be based in the c h ild 's unique nature.

102
Using the terminology introduced above, we can say th a t the
manifest outcomes o f informal schools seem to be the development o f:
feelings o f s e l f worth; s e l f r e lia n c e ; cooperativeness; academic
achievement; p o s itiv e a ttitu d e s toward schools; and c r e a t i v i t y .

The

manifest outcomes of t r a d it io n a l schools seem to be the academic
achievement and perhaps secondarily " f i t t i n g in to the real world."
We also mentioned la t e n t consequences th a t re s u lt from a
p a r tic u la r educational approach.

Often, i t seems th a t the la t e n t

consequences o f a given method are more obvious to the detractors
of th at method than to i t s supporters.

For example, as mentioned

in the previous chapter, open school is not characterized ju s t by
what i t is f o r , but by what i t is a g ain st, and i t is against aspects
of the t r a d it io n a l program which could be described as i t s la t e n t
consequences:

excessive competitiveness, repression of s p i r i t ,

prejudice expressed through la b e lin g , and other aspects o f the socalled "hidden curriculum" which r e s u lt from the school's function
as an i n s t it u t io n fo r s o c ia liz a tio n and s t r a t i f i c a t i o n .

See Greer

(1972), Bowles and G in tis (1 972 ), Katz (1 971 ), Cusick (1973).
Proponents of informal education point out th at t h e ir d if f e r e n t
methodology d i r e c t ly opposes ce rtain practices in tr a d itio n a l school
which have (in t h e i r eyes) undesirable consequences, and which are
a t le a s t n e u tra liz e d , i f not turned in to p o s itiv e gains, by the
informal o r ie n ta tio n . For example, according to Featherstone (1967-10)
"The spread o f informal methods o f teaching is c a llin g it s [ i . e .
tra c k in g ] u t i l i t y in to question, and many of the schools run on
f r e e r lin es are abandoning the p ra c tic e ."
He also notes th a t the trend toward informal schools in Great B r ita in
is linked to a p a r t ia l l i f t i n g o f "the shadow o f IQ and achievement

103
te s ts ," and th a t children a r e n 't "branded as problems i f they take
th e ir tim e."
On the other hand, skeptics of informal education c a ll a tte n tio n
to the problems of noise, an xie ty, overexcitement, normlessness and
other la t e n t consequences which they see in the informal approach.
Parsons (1964-135) characterizes the differences between tr a d itio n a l
and progressive schools as va ria tio n s w ith in the same p a tte rn .
"The more tr a d itio n a l schools put more emphasis on discrete
units of su b je ct-m atter, whereas the progressive type allows
more "in d ire c t" teaching through 'p ro je c ts ' and broader
topical in te re s ts where more than one b ird can be k i l l e d with
a stone.
In progressive schools there is more emphasis on
groups of pupils working together, compared to the tr a d itio n a l
d ir e c t re la tio n of the individual pupil to the teacher. This
is re la te d to the progressive emphasis on cooperation among
pupils rath er than d ir e c t competition, to g rea ter permissiveness
as opposed to stric tn e ss of d is c ip lin e , and to a de-emphasis on
formal marking.
[These differences in schools e x is t because
o f differences i n ] the independence-dependence tr a in in g which
is so important to e a rly s o c ia liz a tio n in the fa m ily . My broad
in te r p r e ta tio n is th a t those people who emphasize independence
tra in in g w i l l tend to be those who favor r e l a t i v e l y progressive
education. The re la tio n of support fo r progressive education to
r e l a t i v e l y high socioeconomic status and to 'i n t e l l e c t u a l '
in terests and the li k e is well known."
Since we are looking fo r common means of assessing d if f e r e n t types
of schools, and since informal schools seek more outcomes f o r students
than do tr a d itio n a l schools, i t seems c le a r th a t the common outcomes
we can in vestigate w i l l be p ro p ortio nally more important in the t r a d i ­
tional school, and w i l l thus have more time devoted to them.

At the

same time we recognize th a t some proponents o f open schools fe e l th a t
" . . . the consequence of d i f f e r e n t modes o f schooling should be
sought less in academic attainment than in t h e i r impact on how
children feel about themselves, about school and about learning
(Silberman 1970-262)."
So, while we might a t f i r s t think th a t achievement is an outcome conmon
to these d if f e r e n t types o f schools, we must acknowledge th a t i t is not

104

a uniformly important outcome fo r a l l types.

This means, f o r example,

th a t one could fin d lower achievement in an open school than in a
tr a d itio n a l school and y e t s t i l l fin d the open school to be successful
because i t was meeting the goals i t had set fo r i t s e l f .

Research Findings in Open Education
Some

research findings pertain to the prevalence of open and/or

non-authoritarian educational approaches.

Here we re c a ll the findings

of Berlak and Berlak (1 9 7 5 ), which indicated many instances where even
teachers in informal
students.

B ritis h classrooms used a directed approach with

S im ila r ly , Stephens' (1974-321f f . ) study o f informal B ritis h

classes found th a t in f i v e out o f s ix decision-making categories teachers
made more decisions about the i n i t i a t i o n and execution of a c t i v i t y than
did students.

The teacher exercised the greatest r e s p o n s ib ility in

deciding the general

area of work and, while work periods seemed

shorter than in U.S.

informal classes, two third s

tie s involved the "three R 's ."

of the class a c t i v i ­

In another comparative study (o f U.S.

t r a d i t i o n a l , U.S. open classes and B ritis h open cla ss es), Evans (1975)
collected observational data on the amounts of needless wandering vs.
stable behavior.

Only one o f four s t a b i l i t y categories showed any

s ig n if ic a n t differences between the three types of classes.

Evans

concluded th a t teachers in a l l three types o f classrooms i n s i s t th a t
students concentrate on school a c t i v i t i e s and on following teacher
d ire c tio n s .

T rad itio n al U.S. classes were not found to be more stable

than open classes, although B r itis h open classes were s l i g h t l y more
stable than U.S. open classes.

One may conclude from these findings

th at students in informal classrooms do indeed experience considerable

105
teacher d ir e c tio n , thus making this s t y le c le a r ly a c e n t r is t position
between the extremes o f the Fantini spectrum discussed e a r l i e r .
Other aspects o f classroom behavior have also been examined.
Bennett's (1976) general survey o f teachers in Great B r ita in shows
that two thirds o f the teachers r e s t r i c t physical movement and t a lk in g ,
expect students to be q u iet most o f the tim e, and require students
to obtain permission to leave the room.

Teachers were found to d ire c t

student a c t i v i t i e s 77% o f the time (ta lk in g to the whole class occupied
19% of the time; students working in groups on teacher tasks took up
21%; students working in d iv id u a lly on teacher tasks took up 37% of
the tim e).

In the informal classrooms Bennett found a higher level

of work-related a c t i v i t y and a higher level of social in te ra c tio n
than in formal classrooms ( f o r both high and low achievers; average
students did not d i f f e r s ig n if ic a n t ly between types o f classes).
Informal classes had a higher degree o f classroom movement (the
amount o f movement and level o f achievement were inversely r e la t e d ) .
Formal classes were found to have a higher degree o f "fid g e tin g "
(also inversely related to achievement).
Evans (1975) found th a t t r a d itio n a l U.S. classrooms had a
s ig n if ic a n tly higher percentage o f reading a c t i v i t i e s than e it h e r
U.S. open or B ritis h open classes.

Norwood and Norwood (1975) found

open class students s ig n if ic a n t ly more often engaged in divergent
tasks and less frequently involved in teacher showing and t e l l i n g .
They also found th a t open classes were more noisy and busy, and
students cooperated more frequently with each other,

Brophy and

Good (1974) found open classroom teachers to be more f l e x i b l e in the
use o f space and organization o f classroom a c t i v i t i e s .

They were also

106

more c r e a tiv e , warmer and more accepting.
Observational analysis methods have provided a considerable
amount o f information on the behaviors practiced in informal class­
rooms.

One well known observation technique is th a t developed by

Flanders, which allows fo r systematic coding o f teacher-student i n t e r ­
actions into "d ire ct" and " in d ire c t" categories.

Bennett, e t . aK

(1976), in reviewing research using the d i r e c t / i n d i r e c t analysis
approach did not fin d the degree o f teacher directness or indirectness
consistently related to student achievement (p. 18 f f . ) .

This lack of

consistent e f f e c t may be due to the m u lti-v a r ia b le character of
student-teacher in te ra c tio n s .

For example, Brophy and Evertson (1976-

132) found th a t in d ir e c t teaching received l i t t l e

support in studies

at the e a rly elementary l e v e l , and Bennett's review o f the l i t e r a t u r e
indicates th a t the r e la t io n between teaching and learning varies depend­
ing on several factors (age, grade, task complexity, level of a b i l i t y ,
student personality ty p e ).

The s itu a tio n a l aspect of d ire c t/in d ire c tn e s s

seems es p ec ially prominent in Johnson's (1970-54) analysis o f classroom
in teractio n research.

He notes th a t teacher f 1ex ib i 1it.y in the use of

d ire c t or in d ir e c t methods is highly p re d ic tiv e o f teacher success in
producing student achievement.

Teachers who were more e f f e c t iv e in

s h iftin g from one method to the other (depending on the s itu a tio n )
had students with above average achievement.
The Bennett study o f informal schools and classes in B rita in
sampled more than 800 teachers in one educational a u th o rity in England
and found th a t only 17% were using "progressive" methods ex clu sive ly.
In sum, one may say th a t in England, informal classes are not very
prevalent, and where they do e x is t the degree o f teacher control of
a c t i v i t i e s seems to be s u b s ta n tia l.

107
There may be several reasons fo r the low incidence o f informal
approaches.

One reason may be th a t i t is j u s t outside o f the exper­

iences o f most teachers, and they may be re s is ta n t to what might be
considered an unproved innovation. Another reason might be th a t informal
methods are viewed as more d i f f i c u l t .

Bennett, fo r example, found th a t

teachers c la s s ifie d as formal in t h e i r approach believed th a t informal
methods make heavy demands on the teacher.
A t h ir d reason fo r the low incidence o f informal classes probably
has to do with the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered in implementing such an
approach.

Two p a rtic ip a n t observation s t y le studies i l l u s t r a t e the

implementation problems.

One, by Smith and Keith (1 9 7 1 ), followed the

development of an innovative elementary school which provided a t o t a l l y
in d iv id u a liz e d and c h ild -s e le c te d curriculum.

Smith and Keith observed

that children a t the innovative school could be l e f t unsupervised fo r
periods o f tim e, and contrasted th is with the e a r l i e r fin d in g o f Smith
and Geoffrey (1969) where unsupervised periods in an inner c i t y school
led very quickly to aggressive behavior such as name c a llin g and f i g h t ­
ing.

In s p ite of considerable advance planning fo r the school y e a r, the

students a t th is innovative school had d i f f i c u l t i e s handling t h e i r
in stru ctio n al
stru ctu re .

freedom and the teachers had to add controls to provide

The d i f f i c u l t i e s

persisted to such an extent th a t midway

through the f i r s t semester the prin cipal in s tit u te d a number of rule
changes th a t were viewed by the teachers as a major r e t r e a t from the
school's mandate.
The other p a rtic ip a n t o b servatio n-style study, by Barth (1 9 7 2 ),
recounted his

experiences in tryin g to develop an informal program in

an in n e r -c ity

black school. Barth concluded th a t

the attempt to

implement an open school approach f a ile d because the approach ( 1 )
differed too r a d ic a lly from the ch ild re n 's previous experiences and
( 2 ) did not coordinate very well with parent expectations and per­
ceptions.

The children had been accustomed to e it h e r firm a u th o ri­

tarian control or chaos, and since the informal approach seemed more
lik e chaos to them, chaos was the r e s u lt.

The parents' concepts of

q u ality education were formulated with respect to the t r a d i t i o n a l ,
rigorous, transmission-of-knowledge, m i l i t a r y academy model, and they
were very concerned th a t the school see to i t th a t t h e ir children
"make i t . "

Consequently, the black parents in terprete d the teachers'

lack of s p e c ific a tte n tio n to s k i l l s as condescending and uncaring.
When the teachers emphasized p la y -s ty le a c t i v i t i e s as in te g ra l to
learning abstract concepts, the parents in turn viewed such a c t i v i t y
as worthless, or a t best something to be allowed a f t e r work on basic
s k ills was taken care o f. The teachers also developed s u f f i c i e n t l y warm
relationships with some students to seem to pose a th re a t to the parents'
re la tio n to the c h ild .

O v e ra ll, Barth believed th a t the parents f e l t

that open education was too ris k y to gamble on.

He did not believe th at

the f a i l u r e of th is kind o f innovation proves th a t open education is
unsuitable fo r lower-class c h ild re n , but th a t the case does provide some
instruction to white l i b e r a l middle-class educators who attempt to
(benevolently) impose t h e i r ideas and ideals on a d if f e r e n t c u ltu re .
A fourth reason f o r the low incidence of informal methods may
be related to the social class "in te ra c tio n " mentioned by Barth.

Barth

(1972-206) believes th a t in n e r -c ity parents see open education as appro­
p ria te fo r middle class students who already "have i t made," while para­
d o x ic a lly , suburban parents see informal education as appropriate fo r
working class children who have l i t t l e to lose.

I f i t were possible

109
to say th a t informal education only appealed to a c e rta in class of
people, one could then c i t e th is r e s tric te d appeal as an additional
fa cto r in the low incidence o f open schools.

U nfortunately, there is

not a great deal of th is kind o f information a v a ila b le .

Bennett's

study, f o r example, covers a large number of teachers and students
but has v i r t u a l l y nothing to say about the influence of social class
on any o f the variables th a t were examined--a major methodological
flaw.

Weber (1971) says th a t in England the o r ig in of the in fa n t

school (informal school) is rooted in work with the poor.

In the

United States the very e a r l i e s t work with the progressive education
ideas of Dewey may have been connected with the work in Chicago's
settlement houses and other social welfare a c t i v i t i e s o f the progres­
sives a t the turn of the century, but in general the progressive educa­
tion movement in the U.S. was an e l i t i s t movement (Stephens 1974-28).
Silberman says th a t the progressive movement never did help schools
learn to be e f f e c t iv e with children from lower-class and m inority group
homes.

And, according to Gans (1 970 -42 ),
". . . Dewey's name and ideas became known more to people who
read journals l i k e Harpers than to readers o f the NEA Journal . 11

Gans notes th a t Dewey's theories gave ris e to outstanding priva te schools
which in turn promoted progressive public schools in a f flu e n t suburban
communities.

On the basis of these conments we may t e n ta tiv e ly conclude

that informal methods may have more middle class appeal than lower class
appeal, a t le a s t in the United States.
Now th a t we have looked a t some o f the information a v a ila b le about
the extent of informal education and the degree o f teacher a u th o rity and
other practices exercised in such classrooms, we can look a t the r e la tio n
ships between various inputs and outputs which research has probed.

no
One such re la tio n s h ip th a t has received major a tte n tio n is the
one between openness and achievement.

The research reveals no very

cle ar-cu t advantage to e it h e r informal or tr a d itio n a l methods.

S ta tis ­

t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t but small differences favoring the formal schools
have been found in mathematics, and favoring the informal schools in
reading (Silberman 1970-260).

Silberman c ite s a number o f reasons as

to why we should be cautious with these fin d in g s.

They include:

(1)

The differen ce may disappear in l a t e r years.

(2)

Formal schools teach children to take the conventional
tests which are used to measure achievement.

(3)

Tests are geared to the objectives o f the formal

(4)

SES was not co n tro lled .

schools.

In her wide-ranging review o f research in open education,
Stodolsky (1974) finds th at more-structured programs seem more success­
ful in producing achievement than les s-s tru ctu red programs.

She fe e ls

this may be the case because tests used to evaluate achievement coordi­
nate b e tte r with the objectives o f structured programs and because
structured classrooms provide a more homogeneous set o f experiences fo r
students which in e f f e c t co nstitu te a more sp ecialized "treatment" fo r
developing academic behavior.

The research reviewed here th a t post­

dates Stodolsky's review generally supports her view th a t morestructured programs seem more successful in producing achievement
(Reynolds 1974; Pierce 1976; Wright 1974; Epstein and McPartland 1975).
Some of these findings r e la t in g openness and achievement are worth
special discussion.
Wright's study covered a two year period in two schools, where
students who i n i t i a l l y were together in one school were s p l i t through
r e d is tr ic tin g in to two schools, one more in fo rm a l, the other less

informal.

The samples were matched fo r parental education and showed

no differences in c r e a t i v i t y , s e l f esteem, locus o f control or cognitive
development, while the open school students were d e fic ie n t in academic
s k ills .
Epstein and McPartland (1 9 7 5 ), using regression analysis on a
large sample o f students a t various levels in a country school system
over a two year period, found th a t the unique contribution o f the
openness o f the school program was small compared to other fa cto rs .
Less than 3% o f the variance was accounted fo r by openness when con­
sidered in conjunction with other variables measuring student back­
ground and fam ily a u th o rity s tru c tu re ; together a l l three categories
accounted fo r nearly 30% o f the variance in achievement.

Moreover,

the size and d ire c tio n o f the re la tio n s h ip across tests and grades
was inconsistent.

One other fin d in g , which re la te s to our e a r l i e r

discussion of the r e la t io n between SES and openness, is th a t there
were s ig n if ic a n t in te ra c tio n s between SES and openness on achievement:
the higher SES students showed a more p o s itiv e r e la tio n between open­
ness and achievement.

A study by Traub e_t. al_. (1974) showed a r e la ­

tionship between school type and openness th a t is also very l i k e l y
related to SES.

Traub found th a t while suburban schools showed no

evidence o f consistent association between openness and achievement,
inner c i t y schools' achievement consistently was more favorable in the
less open programs.
One d iffe re n c e between the Epstein and McPartland study and
studies l i k e th a t o f Wright's is the method of id e n tify in g openness.
In the case o f W right's research, openness is determined by reports
of school professionals regarding t h e i r intentions and/or practices.

112

In the case o f Epstein and McPartland, openness is measured by student
responses to questions about the pattern o f t h e i r d a ily a c t i v i t i e s .
In this l a t t e r case, the possible openness scores ranged from 0 to
100, while actual scores obtained ranged from 10 to 58 on t h e ir scale:
thus openness is described as a matter o f degree rath er than a c le a r
dichotomy between open and tr a d itio n a l schools.

In the former study,

we may describe the openness measured as "intended openness," while
in the other we could describe the measured openness as "obtained
openness."

These kinds o f differences in measurements of openness

tend to cloud comparisons between studies.
Benett's (1976) large -sc ale study of informal education in
Great B r ita in approached the openness measurement problem by surveying
teachers regarding t h e i r approaches to pupil c o n tro l, subject matter
organization, assessment, and use o f m otivation.

He f e l t th a t a simple

formal-informal continuum would be an o v e rs im p lific a tio n of actual
teaching styles and th a t such categories would be ambiguous and con­
taminated by p re s c rip tiv e viewpoints.

Based on survey responses (and

v e r ifie d by observation) they defined twelve teaching styles embodying
various approaches to the four factors mentioned above.
were divided in to three general categories:

These styles

in fo rm a l, mixed, and

formal, accounting f o r 17%, 58%, and 25% o f the sample resp ectively.
Bennett, e t . al_. used an analysis o f covariance to assess achieve­
ment in pre- to p o s t-te s t gains fo r the three categories.

They found

formal and mixed styles superior to informal ones in producing growth
in reading, while the formal styles were s ig n if ic a n t ly b e tte r than
mixed and informal ones in producing growth in mathematics.
also looked at in te ra c tio n e ffe c ts re la te d to openness.

Bennett

He found, fo r

113
example, th a t informal classrooms were generally more e f f e c t iv e than
formal types with the lowest IQ groups.

He also found th a t high and

low achievers in formal classes engaged in s ig n if ic a n t ly more work
a c t iv it y than t h e i r counterparts in informal classes, while the work
a c t iv i t y o f average achievers was about the same in formal and informal
classes.

He also id e n t ifie d eig h t student p e rsonality types and found

that the formal teaching styles produced co nsistently higher achieve­
ment fo r a ll the student types.
In comparing the Epstein-McPartland study with Bennett, e t . a l . ,
we note th a t in the former study the degree o f openness or in fo rm a lity
of approach accounts fo r a small p a rt o f the variance in achievement,
while the l a t t e r study gives considerable emphasis to the achievement
differences th a t are related to teaching s t y le .

These apparent d i f f e r ­

ences may be due to the somewhat d i f f e r e n t measures of openness (studentreported vs. teacher-reported) or to the f a c t th a t the studies were con­
ducted in d i f f e r e n t countries.

However, the d iffe re n c e seems very

li k e l y to be the r e s u lt o f the fa c t th at the U.S. study took in to
account c e rta in background v a ria b le s , notably SES, which the B r itis h
study did not consider.

The fa c t th at there seems to be some kind o f

social class/openness re la tio n s h ip makes th is omission in the Bennett
study p a r t ic u la r ly serious.
Another outcome which has received considerable a tte n tio n in
school research is self-concep t.

Research in open education tends to

show th a t informal approaches are e it h e r as successful as or more
successful than formal approaches in producing p o s itiv e self-c o n c ep ts,
e . g . , studies by Pierce (1976), Reynolds (1 9 7 4 ), Tuckman (1 9 7 3 ), Kohler
(1973), Groobman (1 976 ), Brophy and Good (1 9 7 4 ), and Franks e£. a l . (1974).

114
The l a t t e r study is o f special in te r e s t because i t connected the con­
cepts o f i n t r i n s i c motivation with fe elin g s o f self-esteem (based on
a sense of competency).

Quoting Hess and Shipman, Franks ejt. al_.

note th a t because a school's cognitive environment is co n trolled by
status rules ra th e r than by a tte n tio n to individual c h a ra c te ris tic s
of the s it u a t io n , the c h ild 's o rie n ta tio n is to an a u th o rity (in the
Etzionian sense o f coercive a u th o rity ) ra th e r than to ra tio n a le (in
the sense o f normative a u th o rity and moral involvement). Franks e t . aK
assert th a t open schools o f f e r more roles fo r students, and thus increase
the chance th a t they w i l l be able to spend a s ig n if ic a n t amount o f time
doing something they are successful w ith , so th a t they are i n t r i n s i c a l l y
motivated to pursue some a c t i v i t i e s .

This study showed th a t open school

students did manifest higher rates of self-esteem ; th a t open schools
offered more opportunities to m a te ria liz e la t e n t self-conceptions; and
that students reported t h e i r performance in t h e i r roles as more ade­
quate than students in t r a d itio n a l schools.
An outcome v a ria b le th a t seems l i k e l y to be re la te d to se lf-c o n c ep t,
and which is p a r t ic u l a r ly important to informal education is the variable
" s e lf - r e lia n c e ."

The notion o f competence may play a role in lin k in g

self-concept and s e l f - r e l i a n c e : th a t i s , the more competent a person
fe e ls , the higher the self-concept and the greater the s e lf - r e li a n c e .
Or, s e lf - r e li a n c e i t s e l f may be a component o f an in d iv id u a l's general
self-concept.

Whatever the re la tio n s h ip between s e lf - r e li a n c e and

se lf-concep t, the philosophy o f informal education asserts th a t by
reducing a teacher's use o f a u t h o r it y - - t h a t i s , h is /h e r d ir e c t control
of student a c t iv i t ie s - - o n e increases the student's s e lf - r e li a n c e .
Since research in th is area has n e ith e r proved nor disproved th is

115
proposition, i t can best be characterized as a d iffu s e body o f facts
and ideas.

The d iv e r s it y o f findings in the general area of s e l f -

relia n ce , independence, r e s p o n s ib ilit y , m a tu rity , e t c . , is evident
from a b r i e f review o f some open school research.
Epstein and McPartland (1975) speculated th a t some threshold
level of s e lf - r e lia n c e may be necessary fo r students to take advantage
of the opportunities offered by open school programs.

They found

that greater openness was p o s itiv e ly correlated with higher s e l f re lia n c e , but as with achievement, openness uniquely accounts fo r only
a small portion of the variance in s e lf - r e li a n c e .

They also found

that s e lf - r e lia n c e increases with age; th a t fam ily a u th o rity structure
is related to s e lf - r e li a n c e regardless of openness of the school; and
that there were no consistent in te ra c tio n e ffe c ts between SES and
openness on s e lf - r e li a n c e .
Stephen's (1974) observations in B ritis h informal classes led
her to conclude th a t younger children exercised more freedom to make
decisions than older c h ild re n .

She concluded th a t students' exercise

of r e s p o n s ib ility is not a function o f m aturity but rath er of h is to ric a l
patterns of organization and curriculum.
Comparing open classes with tr a d itio n a l classes, Stone (1974)
found a higher degree o f in tern al locus o f control fo r both high and
low achievers in open classes, where 7th graders were matched fo r sex,
SES, achievement, and IQ.
Wismer (1974) found th a t students with high personal autonomy
were more competent in low-control schools, although students with low
autonomy were not found to be more competent in high control schools.
Wismer's findings tend to support Epstein and McPartland's feelings

116

that some degree o f s e lf - r e lia n c e may be necessary f o r a student to
function in an open school.
The notion of students' having enough s e lf - r e li a n c e to take
advantage of an informal program seems clo sely re la te d to the more
comnon idea o f m atu rity.

Bennett, f o r example, found th a t 41% o f the

informal teachers surveyed did not fe el th a t t h e i r students had s u f f i ­
cient maturity to choose a topic to study and carry i t through.

I t is

his contention th a t the level o f m aturity of the students is central
to successful use o f "discovery" learning approaches.
A study by Allman-Snyder e t . al_. (1975) showed th a t s e lf - r e lia n c e
was high in both open and tr a d itio n a l classes.

They suggested th a t

d iffe r e n t causes may be involved:
(1)

For open classes, high s e lf - r e li a n c e may be a manifestation
o f developing independence.

(2)

For t r a d itio n a l classes, i t may be a manifestation of
withdrawal or submission [o r , we may add, perhaps i t indicates
defiance of the teacher].

Allman-Snyder also found ( l i k e Epstein and McPartland) th a t home a t t i ­
tudes d iffe r e d among open and t r a d itio n a l students, and concluded th a t
the open classroom has children who are less dependent and submissive
toward a u th o rity .
Traub (1974) reported th a t suburban open students reported ta k­
ing more i n i t i a t i v e and r e s p o n s ib ility than t r a d itio n a l students, which
corresponds with the fin din g o f the Eight Year Study th a t students from
progressive schools demonstrated a higher degree o f resourcefulness in
meeting new s itu atio n s than did the matched sample o f graduates o f other
high schools (Aiken 1942).
Brophy and Evertson (1976) found th a t high SES classes were more
capable o f assuming independent r e s p o n s ib ility , moving fr e e ly about the

117

classroom, exercising some choice among assignments and working inde­
pendently or in cooperative small groups.

"In co n tras t, most low SES

children were not y e t ready f o r th is kind o f independent r e s p o n s ib ility
. . . (p. 5 9 )."
We might sumnarize the findings with respect to s e lf - r e li a n c e ,
independence, r e s p o n s ib ility , e t c . , by saying th a t while the school
impact on th is va ria b le is now known, there does seem to be some kind
of fam ily background e f f e c t a t work (expressed in terms of SES or
family a u th o rity s t r u c tu r e )— a finding th a t conforms very well to
our e a r l i e r discussion o f the re la tio n between parents' values fo r
chi Id -re a r in g and parental work experiences.
Another outcome th a t has been looked a t in re la tio n to the
op en /trad itio n al differences in schools is the students' a ttitu d e s
toward schools and teachers.

Groobman (1976) and Brophy and Good (1974)

both report th a t open school students were more p o sitive than t r a d i ­
tional students in t h e i r a ttitu d e s about school.

On the other hand,

a study in an a lt e r n a t iv e high school ( Center fo r New Schools 1974)
showed d i f f e r e n t types o f students with s ig n if ic a n t ly d if f e r e n t a t t i ­
tudes about the nature o f the school.
was found to have three dimensions:

In th is study the school climate
( 1 ) tolerance fo r individual

differences; ( 2 ) closeness and non-compartmentalization of students t a f f r e la tio n s ; (3) degree o f in q u iry -o rie n te d learning.

The climate

scale in th is study showed s ig n if ic a n t differences between the a l t e r ­
native group and a n o n -a lte rn a tiv e control group.

Within the a l t e r ­

native school the student group defined as "black, school-alienated"
perceived the school as s i g n if ic a n t ly less t o le r a n t , open, and
supportive than the student group defined as "white, school-alienated,
youth-culture (p. 2 0 ) . "

118
A f i f t h outcome, student a s p ira tio n s , has received very l i t t l e
general a tte n tio n .

Epstein and McPartland found a small p o sitive

re la tio n between aspirations and openness in elementary school.
They also found s ig n if ic a n t in te ra c tio n effe c ts between openness
and SES on a s p ira tio n s .

Open schools more p o s itiv e ly influenced

low SES students to make college plans than did t r a d itio n a l schools.
In general, boys, blacks, high SES, and high achieving students were
a ll more apt to report high college a s p ira tio n s , as well as did stu­
dents from fa m ilie s with more open relationships (when SES and past
school success were c o n tr o lle d ).

Epstein and McPartland f e l t th a t

th e ir resu lts suggested th a t students who might be more l i k e l y to
re je c t college e a rly in t h e i r school career are more apt to keep the
option o f college in mind i f they attend open schools.

This fin d in g ,

we may speculate, could r e s u lt from less w ell-d e fin e d te ach er-lab elin g
which open school advocates claim e x is ts , or may re s u lt from some
diffuse peer lab elin g stru ctu re such as th a t described l a t e r in the
discussion o f the Franks et_. al_. study.
A s ix th outcome re la te d to informal education is the greater
degree o f cooperation among students th a t such an approach is expected
•k

to fo s te r .

An in te re s tin g review and analysis o f the l i t e r a t u r e in

this general area was ca rried out by Johnson and Johnson (1974).
described three types o f goal structures:

They

( 1 ) cooperative in which

We must emphasize th a t we are ta lk in g about students cooperating
with one another and not cooperation between students and the teacher.
However, we recognize th a t the two forms o f cooperation are not unre­
lated since teachers may judge how cooperative students are with them
by how cooperative they are with each other. For open schools, the
principal in te r e s t is not in coerced cooperation with the teacher and
other students, but ra th e r s e l f - i n i t i a t e d cooperation on j o i n t tasks
with other students.

11 9

goals are j o i n t and when one gains, a l l gain; (2)

competitive in

which goals are separate and when one gains, others lose; (3) i n d i ­
v id u a lis tic in which goals are individual and one can gain or f a i l to
gain a goal independently of the others.
Johnson and Johnson also defined two types o f motivation:
in tr in s ic and e x t r in s ic .

T h eir review shows th a t school is perceived

as a place where considerable competition e x is ts ; th a t American c h ild ­
ren are more competitive than other n a t i o n a l i t i e s ; th a t they become
more competitive the longer they stay in school; and th a t AngloAmerican and urban students are more competitive than others.

They

found, in f a c t , th a t instances o f cooperation were so few as to be
viewed as inappropriate.

They went on to id e n t if y four myths which

favor competitiveness over cooperation and found no support f o r any
of them:
(1)

Competition does not promote survival of the f i t t e s t ;
cooperation is required f o r successful mastery of complex
social problems.

(2)

Achievement is not greater under competition; i t depends
on the type of motivation involved.

(3)

Competition does not build character; on the contrary,
c e rta in personality t r a i t s found in competitive people
are undesirable.

(4)

Students do not necessarily p re fe r competition; t h e ir
preferences depend on t h e i r past experiences.

Johnson and Johnson

f e l t the research tended to show th a t a

competitive goal stru ctu re was superior i f the a c t i v i t y was simple and
mechanistic or when quantity o f production was most important, but
cooperation seemed superior when the task was more complex, as in
problem-solving s itu a tio n s .

They pointed out th a t behavior varies

according to the g o al-stru ctu re and motivational approach used, and
that i f no goal stru ctu re is implemented by the teacher, the students

120
w ill provide t h e i r own:

a competitive one since th a t is the most

common o rie n ta tio n in American schools, and in our society generally.
Although they f e l t th a t research on th is point was sparse, the authors
thought th a t extensive use o f competition would create fe elin gs of
helplessness, worthlessness and incompetence in students who were
often losers.

I t seems l i k e l y th a t repeated f a ilu r e s in competitive

situations would be an aversive experience and would have an undesir­
able e f f e c t on a student's a ttitu d e s about s e l f and school.
As in the case o f several other outcomes discussed so f a r , SES
may have some r e la tio n s h ip to cooperative and competitive orien tation s
in school.

Brophy and Evertson report th a t high-SES classrooms were

characterized by w ell-m otivated and competitive students who were eager
to respond to public s itu a tio n s .

Low-SES classrooms, on the other hand,

were characterized by students who avoided opportunities to respond and
were not competitive.

These classes also exhib ited considerable inatten

tio n , d is ru p tio n , a n x ie ty , and fe a r o f f a i l u r e .
c a lly re la te d to informal education has l i t t l e
*
more cooperative behavior among students.

The l i t e r a t u r e s p e c i f i­
to say about fo sterin g

The foregoing outcomes o f schooling (achievement, se lf-concep t,
s e lf - r e li a n c e , a ttitu d e s toward school, a s p ira tio n s , cooperation/
competition) might a l l be f a i r l y considered as overt goals o f schools,
that i s , intended consequences.

However, some school outcomes seem

b e tte r described as unintended or la t e n t consequences.

For example, i t

may be th a t anxiety is a la t e n t consequence o f informal types of classes
since Bennett reports fin d in g anxiety to be highest in informal

See the studies by Franks e t . a K
discussed l a t e r in th is chapter.

(1 9 7 4 ), and S ta llin g s (1974)

121
and lowest in mixed type classes.

As another example, Wismer (1974)

found th a t perceptions o f competence were more closely re la te d to
feelings o f estrangement from school a c t i v i t i e s than was observed
competence of behavior.
A p a r t ic u l a r ly important kind o f la t e n t consequence could be
the labeling e f f e c t which occurs when teachers ac t on c e rta in expecta­
tions th a t they have fo r student performance.

One in te re s tin g study

of the lab elin g e f f e c t and i t s re la tio n to open school was conducted
by Franks, Wismer and D illo n (1974).

This study takes as i t s point

of departure the la b e lin g e f f e c t which Rosenthal and Jacobsen id e n t i­
fie d in r e la t io n to i n s t it u t io n a l d iscrim ination .

The question was,

"Do open schools o f f e r an a lt e r n a t iv e to tr a d itio n a l schols with respect
to this la b elin g e ffe c t? "

U t i l i z i n g two predominantly black parochial

elementary schools, t h e i r overall research ob jective was to determine
i f d if f e r e n t types of organization resulted in d if f e r e n t labelin g pro­
cesses, the presumption being th a t d if f e r e n t lab elin g processes in turn
«

would have d i f f e r e n t e ffe c ts on school outcomes.

In p a r t ic u l a r , i t was

the researchers' fe e lin g th a t i f the open school showed a broader base
fo r selecting labelees ( i . e . , students labeled good or bad by t h e ir
peers), had more v a ria tio n in labels selected , and exhibited more
diffuseness of la b e lin g , i t s students would have t h e ir i d e n t it y development enhanced ra th e r than constrained.

B r ie f descriptions o f

tr a d itio n a l and open schools were given:
T ra d itio n a l School: Source o f pedagogical content is
external to student. Teacher t a lk s , students l i s t e n ,
work on same m aterial regardless o f individual differences.
Students are age-grouped f o r competition, also ski 11grouped. Reward stru ctu re (grades) emphasizes social
comparison and competition. A llo cation o f rewards is
c e n tr a lly and e x te rn a lly located in teacher (p. 5 ).

122
Open School: Source o f a c t i v i t i e s is perceived in t e r e s t of
student in conjunction with teacher. Students are grouped
heterogeneously by age and s k i l l comparisons are not used to
define social groups. Older children are models f o r younger
ch ild ren . Rewards are i n t r i n s i c , a^ la^ Bruner (pg. 5 ).
Because o f the need fo r cooperative behavior in the open school,
Franks e t. al_. hypothesized th a t open school students would emphasize
the interpersonal s k i l l s o f t h e i r peers, while t r a d itio n a l school
students would emphasize the expectations o f a u th o rity fig u re s .
The investigators hoped to fin d th a t the two d i f f e r e n t school
organizations had d if f e r e n t c r i t e r i a fo r s e lf /o t h e r ev alu atio n s, with
the open school being more d iffu s e .

Their analysis showed th a t in

the open school, the "best" and "worst" labels th a t were applied by
students to t h e ir fellows were p rim a rily based on a b i l i t y to in te r a c t
with peers, while in the tr a d itio n a l school the labels were p rim a rily
based on a b i l i t y to in t e r a c t with teachers.

Furthermore, they found

s ig n if ic a n tly more decisive la b elin g in the tr a d itio n a l school.

Their

fin a l finding was th a t lab elin g showed s ig n if ic a n t re la tio n s to s e lf
esteem fo r those labeled best and worst.

However, the researchers

note th a t t h e ir analysis does not r e a ll y permit them to say th a t the
labeling caused the differences in self-esteem .

They note th a t these

differences in self-esteem may even play a part in producing the
labeling th a t goes on.

While the Franks, e t . a]_. study showed what

we might c a ll organizational "climate" differences in peer lab elin g
between open and tr a d itio n a l elementary schools, i t did not in ves tig a te
any differences in teacher labelin g ( i . e . , teacher expectations fo r
performance).

Nor did i t demonstrate the e f f e c t o f lab elin g on an

outcome va riable such as achievement.
Another study th a t might most properly be included in the

123
la te n t consequences category is one by Epstein and McPartland (1 973 ),
which was concerned with the adjustments th a t open and tr a d itio n a l
elementary students make to a tr a d itio n a l ju n io r high school.

They

found th a t there was a s ig n if ic a n t re la tio n s h ip between students'
preferences f o r open school organization and a fam ily s ty le which
held fewer rules f o r c h ild behavior and allowed more decision-making
fo r ch ildren .

They also found th a t open elementary students showed

no special problems o f adjustment to ju n io r high in terms o f d is c i­
p lin e , attendance, ta rd in e s s , or academic performance.

Open elemen­

tary students saw a g rea ter s i m i l a r i t y between elementary and ju n io r
high styles than did the tr a d itio n a l elementary students.

And, by

the end o f the seventh grade, open students had maintained t h e ir
preferences fo r the open school c h a ra c te ris tic s while tr a d itio n a l
elementary students s ig n if ic a n t ly increased t h e i r acceptance o f open
c h a r a c te r is tic s .
All these findings tend to in dicate th a t there is greater
organizational s i m i l a r i t y between open elementary and tr a d itio n a l
ju n io r high school programs than between tr a d itio n a l elementary and
tra d itio n a l ju n io r high programs.

The researchers decided th a t the

two most s a lie n t organizational properties which defined differences
between the tr a d itio n a l elementary and the tr a d itio n a l ju n io r high,
and s im ila r it ie s between the open elementary and the tr a d itio n a l
ju n io r high were:
(1)

The t o ta l number o f d if f e r e n t kinds o f a c t i v i t i e s
(they found a la r g e r number of a c t i v i t i e s in the
ju n io r high and the open elementary than in the
t r a d itio n a l elementary).

(2)

The degree to which students are dependent on
teacher a u th o rity f o r determining t h e i r behavior

124
(they f e l t th a t supervision was closer in the
t r a d itio n a l elementary than in the ju n io r high
or open elementary).
Since the researchers had no evidence about the e f f e c t o f these
organizational d iffe re n c e s , they were not able to draw any conclusions.
They noted th a t on the one hand, d i s s im ila r it ie s in school organization
could cause adjustment problems which might a f f e c t le a rn in g , but th a t
on the other hand, d is c o n tin u itie s in organizational type may provide
learning experiences which help students learn to cope with increasingly complex organizational se ttin g s .

•k

A study which has examined several of the outcomes already d is ­
cussed and connected those outcomes to c e rta in classroom practices is
S ta llin g s ' study o f Follow Through programs (1974).

She f i r s t

attempted to determine i f the implementation of several Follow Through
programs was (1) d if f e r e n t from non-Follow Through classrooms, and
(2) s im ila r among a l l the classrooms o f a given Follow Through
sponsor.

Both o f these implementation c r i t e r i a were found to be met.

S ta llin g s then id e n t if ie d several categories of c h ild outcomes
and determined how these outcomes were affec ted by the various types
of Follow Through programs.

I t was found th a t independent behavior,

where children selected t h e ir own seating and grouping; where a wide
*

We note in passing th a t the tr a d itio n a l K-12 program has
always been organized in a way th a t indicates th a t the development
of some kind o f independence is a general school goal. Many school
systems are organized v e r t i c a l l y to give students the opportunity
to operate among increasingly la rg e r student bodies and come into
contact with an increasingly large number of teachers on a d a ily
basis. This seems to be illu s t r a t e d by another study by Epstein
and McPartland (1 975 ), which found th a t schools measure more open
as grade level increases. Thus, i t makes sense to fin d th a t elemen­
tary schools which give students the opportunity to operate inde­
pendently e a r l i e r in t h e i r school careers w i l l have s im ila r it ie s to
secondary schools which do the same thing.

125
variety of a c t i v i t i e s were a v a ila b le ; and where adults gave fr ie n d ly
individual a tte n tio n .

Less independent behavior was found where

textbooks and workbooks were used; where adults asked d ire c t questions
on subject m atter; and where adults gave a l o t of general praise.
Cooperative behavior, where two or more children worked together on a
jo in t task, was found to be more l i k e l y in classrooms where a wide
variety of a c t i v i t i e s occurred; where exploratory m aterials were a v a i l ­
able; and where children chose t h e i r own groupings.

In classes where

textbooks and workbooks were used a great deal by children in d iv id u a lly ,
fewer children were coded as cooperating.
In S ta llin g s ' study, task persistence and question-asking were
found to be re la te d to c e rta in in stru c tio n a l programs.

Moreover, a

s ig n ific a n t c o rre la tio n between high achievement te s t scores and small
group in stru ctio n was found f o r the f i r s t grade, but high scores corre­
lated with large group in s tru c tio n fo r th ir d grade.

High achievement

was also found to c o rre la te s ig n if ic a n t ly with p o s itiv e reinforcement
from the teacher, with s e lf - in s t r u c t io n , with task persistence, and
(not s u rp ris in g ly ) with time spent in reading and math a c t i v i t y per
c h ild .

The study also found th a t children in the more f l e x i b l e pro­

grams took re s p o n s ib ility fo r t h e ir own success, but not f o r t h e ir
f a i l u r e , while children in the more structured programs a ttrib u te d
th e ir success to the teacher or other outside forces and took respon­
s i b i l i t y fo r t h e i r own f a i l u r e .

F i n a lly , an analysis of variance

showed th a t the class process variables were more p re d ic tiv e o f ch ild
behavior such as s u cce ss /failu re scores, mathematics scores, and
absence rates than were entering school te s t scores.
While the S ta llin g s ' study connects classroom processes to

126

several outcomes, including achievement, i t does not provide any
information about the climate o f a ttitu d e s which exists with respect
to any o f the various in s tru c tio n a l processes.

In the absence of

contrary in form ation, i t seems reasonable to suppose th a t these
in struction al processes are probably not e f f e c t iv e with a l l possible
climates o f expectations.
E a r l i e r , we discussed teachers' a ttitu d e s and the re la tio n of
these a ttitu d e s to t h e i r use o f a u th o rity .

In a s im ila r manner, we

could expect to discuss teachers' a ttitu d e s in r e la tio n to t h e ir
o rien tatio n to informal education.

Traub et_. al_. (1974) found th at

teachers in r e l a t i v e l y open programs in suburban schools had more
positive a ttitu d e s toward students, education, innovations, and
teaching as a profession.

Brophy and Good (1974-247) found th a t teacher

personality variables were re la te d to t h e i r preferences fo r open as
opposed to tr a d itio n a l classrooms.

Bennett (1976-69) found th at

informal s ty le teachers opposed streaming (a b ility -g ro u p in g ) by four
to one.

I t is unfortunate th a t more research has not been undertaken

to probe the v a r ie ty o f a t t it u d in a l differences which may e x is t be­
tween open and t r a d it io n a l teachers.

Such research would tend to

confirm the existence o f , and d e lin e ate the nature o f , the d if f e r e n t
world-views educators bring to t h e i r work.

Of special in te r e s t in

this study is the extent to which open and tr a d itio n a l teachers d i f f e r
in t h e ir expectations fo r student performance, and other differences
in climates which might be found between schools th a t d i f f e r in the
degree o f formal or informal educational p ractices.

PART TWO

SPECIFIC FINDINGS ABOUT OPEN TEACHING STYLES

CHAPTER V

PROCEDURES, METHODOLOGY, VARIABLES STUDIED

Preliminary Remarks
At the conclusion o f his review of research on the e ffe c ts of
teaching s t y le on student outcomes, Bennett (1976) remarks th a t
" I t would therefore appear th a t in vestigators have
commonly observed a narrow range of the behavior of
a small and unrepresentative sample of teachers drawn
from a population o f unknown parameters, and have
categorized them according to some g lo b a l, i l l - d e f i n e d
dichotomy, unrelated to any th eo retical perspective
(p. 3 2 )."
I t is hoped th at some of these f a ilin g s o f other studies have
been avoided in the study a t hand.

For one th in g , the th eo retical

perspective o f both the study and the phenomena being studied have
been extensively discussed in preceding chapters.

For another, the

range of behavior under consideration— although based on survey
responses ra th e r than observation— is f a i r l y all-encompassing due
to the use o f a climate approach, where climate is viewed as a sub­
cu ltural phenomena (t h a t i s , the set of norms, values, b e l i e f s , and
expectations of the various school p a r tic ip a n ts ).

Furthermore, the

study is not based on a small and unrepresentative sample drawn from
a population of unknown parameters— and we w i l l sh o rtly turn our
attention to the nature o f th a t sample in order to establish th is
claim.
Another c r itiq u e of school research has been offered by Bidwell

127

128
"Almost no studies have been completed th a t include an
analysis o f the student's ro le in the school organization,
and those schools th a t have been studied have been almost
e n t ir e ly t r a d itio n a l in t h e ir o rie n ta tio n (Bidwell 1965-15)."
The research reported here attempts to avoid these critic ism s
too, by looking a t elements o f both teacher and student clim a te, and
by tryin g to id e n t if y the existence and e f f e c t o f no n -tra d itio n a l
attitudes and practices.

Population and Sample
The population from which the sample was drawn was the set o f
a ll Michigan elementary schools which included both 4th and 5th grades
during the 1974-75 school year.

The data were collected by Brookover

and his associates fo r the purpose of following up t h e ir p i l o t study
of the re la tio n between school climate and school achievement
(Brookover, e t . al_. 1973).
A random sample of 80 schools was selected out of a universe
of 2008 schools.

Several o f these schools were discovered to have

closed, and a few others chose not to p a rtic ip a te in the study, thus
reducing the data set to 6 8 schools.

Of these, only seven contained

student populations which were more than 50% black, and since race
was f e l t to be an important variable--based on the results o f the
p ilo t study--an additional random sample of 23 m ajority-black schools
was taken from a state-w ide population o f 221 such schools.

S im ila r ly ,

additional random sampling from those schools containing a t le a s t 1 0 %
Chicano or Indian students was also performed.

O v e ra ll, th is s t r a t i f i e d

random sampling approach produced data from 108 schools, which included
data on nearly 13,000 students, more than 500 teachers, and more than
1 0 0 p rin c ip a ls .

129
Non-response resulted in a loss o f about 1% o f student data
and about 2% o f teacher data.

The possible e f f e c t o f lack o f coopera­

tion in the study was analyzed by t - t e s t s of differences in achievement,
racial composition, and community type between the cooperating and non­
cooperating schools.

This analysis showed no s ig n if ic a n t differences

between the two groups, and so Brookover, et_. al_. concluded th a t the
study's resu lts could be generalized to the relevant population of
Michigan elementary schools (Brookover 1976-19).
The sample was r e s tr ic te d to schools with fourth and f i f t h grade
students because i t was fo r this level th a t tim ely data on achievement
was a v a ila b le through the Michigan Department of Education's statewide
assessment program, which is undertaken fo r 4th and 7th graders every
fa ll.

The survey was administered to

order to increase the sample size per

both 4th and 5th graders in
school and thus increase the

r e l i a b i l i t y o f mean student responses to the survey.

A d d itio n a lly ,

use of achievement data from the previous year f o r the current 5th
graders made i t possible to undertake prelim inary analyses before the
1974 data became a v a ila b le .
For the study a t hand, a sample stru ctu re somewhat d if f e r e n t
than th a t u t i l i z e d by Brookover and his associates was defined.

The

sample fo r th is study was defined by c r i t e r i a which the researcher
f e l t was e s p ec ially relevan t to the analysis o f the possible impact
of teachers' use o f a u th o rity .
In p a r t ic u la r , i t was f e l t th at whatever impact teacher
has on student behavior would be most

v is ib le a t the classroom level of

analysis rath er than the school level o f analysis.
Bidwell (1965-976),

au tho rity

According to

130
"The teacher works alone w ith in the classroom, r e l a t i v e l y
hidden from colleagues and supervisors, so th a t he has a
broad d iscretiona ry ju r is d ic t io n w ithin the boundaries of
the classroom."
This view is supported by Meyer (1971-4) whose review o f studies of
prin cip a ls' impact on teacher performance showed th a t prin cipals
performed minimal evaluation of teachers and applied few sanctions
to t h e ir approach to teaching.

He notes th a t teachers are most often

isolated from t h e i r peers in self-contain ed classrooms, and concluded
that teaching proceeds in an o rg a n iz a tio n a lly uncontrolled manner.
Meyer f e l t th a t the main sphere of influence and reward fo r elementary
teachers is the classroom and (quoting L o rtie ) describes them as
"small universes o f c o n tro l."
We also suggest th a t a teacher's use o f his or her autho rity to
control student movement and supervision of learning a c t i v i t i e s is an
overt feature of teacher s ty le and thus, unlike teacher a ttitu d e s such
as expectations fo r performance, more a matter of conscious choice on
the part o f a given teacher f o r a given set o f students.
This viewpoint raises c e rta in methodological problems about the
use of clim ate variables a t both school and classroom levels of
a n alysis--a point to which we w i l l speak more s p e c if ic a lly below.

For

the moment, l e t i t s u ffic e to say th a t i t is th is researcher's b e l i e f ,
based on 14 years o f public school teaching experience, th a t several
teachers in the same building can adopt widely varying approaches to
the use of t h e i r a u th o rity .

Furthermore, i t must be noted th a t in te r e s t

in less t r a d itio n a l approaches to education has only recently become
prominent again; thus i t seems reasonable to suppose th a t while some
teachers in a given school might be w il l i n g to experiment with more
informal p ractices, not a l l would be.

S t a t i s t i c a l l y , an analysis of

131
teacher a u th o rity a t the class level could be expected to increase
the variance in our measurement of th is v a ria b le , and, since i t is
considered as an input v a r ia b le , such added variance w i l l permit
broader conclusions regarding i t s impact.
In order to u t i l i z e the data a v a ila b le in the Brookover study
with the classroom as the u n it o f an alysis, several decisions about
sample structure were made.

F i r s t , only classrooms which were

surveyed during the second quarter o f the school year (defined
herein as the period from November 1 , 1974 to January 31, 1975) were
included.

This r e s t r ic t io n was imposed because th is period seemed

s u f f ic ie n t ly la t e in the year to have allowed f o r the development
of a stable au th o rity stru ctu re in the classroom (r e c a ll Barth's
1972 observation th a t a f t e r 3 months, teachers a t the open school he
observed had changed t h e ir i n i t i a l l y more open approach to a more
tra d itio n a l one; a ls o , i t may be common practice among many teachers
to begin the school year with a somewhat more a u th o rita ria n approach
than th a t which they eventually expect to use, a practice described
by Smith and Geoffrey 1969 as "grooving the students").

The r e s t r i c ­

tion to ju s t the second quarter (r a th e r than including classes sur­
veyed a f t e r January 31) was imposed because i t was f e l t th a t this
would elim in ate flu c tu a tio n s in the class a u th o rity stru ctu re th at
might r e s u lt from possible mid-year changes in student and/or teacher
personnel.
The second decision th a t influenced sample stru ctu re was the
decision to exclude classes f o r which a mean measure o f socioeconomic
status was unavailable.

As indicated in e a r l i e r chapters, some

connection between informal classes and SES may e x is t and so, this

132

variable is of special in te r e s t in th is study.

As explained in

Brookover e t . al^. (1 976 ), many o f the m ajo rity-black schools came
from the D e tr o it school system, which was re lu c ta n t to allow the
gathering o f data on SES from individual students.

Thus, while

school-level data on SES was a v a ila b le fo r these schools, no i n d i v i ­
dual data (which could then be aggregated to a c la s s -le v e l measure
of SES) was obtained fo r these students.

And so, classes from these

schools were excluded from the analysis.
The t h ir d decision th a t influenced sample stru ctu re had to do
with the way missing data was handled.

There were a few cases where

a set o f class means could be obtained, but no matching teacher survey
was a v a ila b le , and conversely, where teacher data was a v a ila b le with
no matching class data.

This presented no major problem f o r a school

level of analysis since the mean of the a v a ila b le survey results can
be substituted fo r missing individual data.
cases were dropped alto g e th e r.

But fo r classrooms, such

The to ta l data set provided some i n f o r ­

mation on 529 teacher/class combinations.

These 529 combinations in ­

cluded classrooms and teachers from seven non-randomly selected schools
which were included f o r use in various comparative ways (two o f these,
id e n t ifie d by the researcher as open schools, are discussed below).
The non-randomly selected schools were also excluded from the sample
on which th is research is based.
A ltogether, the above-described c r i t e r i a by which c e rta in class­
rooms were excluded from th is study resulted in a reduction from 529 to
309 classrooms and teachers.

The overall e f f e c t o f this reduction was

to produce a set of classrooms from a set o f schools which was s im ila r
to the set o f schools in the state-wide random sample used in the

133

Brookover, et^. al_. (1976) study.

A lto gether, the classrooms in the

sample fo r this study came from 71 of the 101 schools selected at
random from various s t r a t a .

Of these 71 schools, 58 (81.7%) were

also members of the state-wide sample used by Brookover, et_. al_. (1976)
Of the schools in the state-wide sample, classrooms from 12 schools
did not meet the c r i t e r i a established above.
classes from m ajority-black schools.

Of these 12, f i v e were

However, classrooms from four

other m ajority-black schools did f i t the c r i t e r i a and were thus in a
sense substituted f o r the classes from the m ajority-black schools
which were excluded.

T -tes ts were performed on several variables

fo r the two sets of schools not conmon to the state-w ide sample and
the modified sample.

No s ig n if ic a n t differences were found in means

fo r race, sex, SES, achievement, or measures of openness.

Data Gathering
The student questionnaires were administered in each school by
a trained s t a f f o f research personnel.

Each fourth and f i f t h grade

classroom teacher was asked to respond to the teacher questionnaire
during the time th a t the student questionnaires were being adminis­
tered.

To avoid any potential in te ra c tio n between teacher and p u p ils ,

the teachers were asked to leave the room during questionnaire admin­
is t r a tio n .

Each data c o lle c to r was instructed to read each question

and each response to the students so as to insure th a t students did not
f a i l to respond as a re s u lt of d i f f e r e n t i a l reading a b i l i t i e s .

The

race or ethnic background of each student was recorded e it h e r by the
data c o lle c to r , or by the student c ir c lin g the appropriate l e t t e r in
the race-ethnic code contained on the f i r s t page of each student
questionnaire.

For the purpose of f a c i l i t a t i n g rapport with prin cip a ls

134

teachers, and students, e it h e r a l l black or integrated teams of data
collectors were sent in to m ajority-black schools to c o lle c t data.
The principal was given a questionnaire during the time the f i e l d
team was th ere.

In a few instances when the principal could not

complete the questionnaire i t was returned by m a il.

One hundred

percent o f the p rin cipal questionnaires were returned and nearly a l l
of the fourth and f i f t h grade teachers in sampled schools responded
to the teacher questionnaires.

A very small number of teachers,

never more than one or two per school, refused to complete the ques­
tio n n aire.

Samples of the questionnaires appear in Appendix A.

Variables o f In te r e s t
The variables u t i l i z e d in th is study can be categorized as
e ith e r background, school ( f i r s t - o r d e r or second-order), or outcome
measurements.

The variables are described below, followed by a

discussion of t h e i r development.

Background Variables
(1)

Student race:

percentage o f black students and white
ic

students per class or school.
(2)

Student sex:

percentage of males per class or per school

as determined by student survey response.
(3)

Community type:

Six types were id e n t if ie d by responses

to item #9 on the prin cipal questionnaire; r u r a l; suburban; middle
c ity (5,000 - 50,000 population); small town (5000 or le s s ); large
c it y (50,000 or more); inner c i t y .
*

Percentages f o r both blacks and whites were obtained because
these two ra c ia l categories were not exhaustive. Several schools and
classes contained s ig n if ic a n t proportions o f other ra c ia l groups.

135
(4)

Student socioeconomic status (SES):

students were asked

to id e n t ify the occupation of the fa m ily 's main breadwinner.

Members

of the research s t a f f who administered the questionnaires provided
assistance when needed in id e n tify in g occupations.

The occupation

data were scored using the Duncan occupational scale (Reiss ert. a l . ,
1961) with the re s u ltin g scores being averaged across a l l students
within a school or class to provide the mean SES.
(5)

Teacher race:

obtained from teacher survey responses,

trich otim ized in to the categories "black", "white", and "other".
(6 )

Teacher sex:

obtained from responses to the teacher

(7)

Teacher experience:

survey.

on teacher responses;
(8 )

0 -4

Teacher tr a in in g :

divided into three categories based

years, 5 - 9

years, 10 years or more.

based on teachers' responses divided

into 2 categories; less than a master's degree, master's degree or
more.

First-O rder School Variables
(1 )

Class and school size:

the number o f students surveyed

per class and per school.
(2)

Teacher Climate Variable One (TSCL1):*

A b i l i t y , Evaluation,

Expectations and Q uality o f Education fo r College ( e . g . , How many o f
your students want to and are capable of going to college and being
successful th ere? ).

This variable was formed from teacher survey items

23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 43, 61, 63.
*

This and a l l other variables composed o f several survey items
are lis te d in Appendix B with the items th a t they were formed from.

136

(3)

Teacher Climate Variable Two (TSCL2):

Present Evaluations

and Expectations fo r High School Completion ( e . g . , How many of these
students w i l l fin is h high school?).

This va ria b le was formed from

items 19, 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 42, 44 (reversed ), 62.
(4)

Teacher Climate Variable Three (TSCL3):

Teacher-Student

Commitment to Improve ( e . g . , How hard do students t r y to do good work
and do you encourage the ones with d i f f i c u l t i e s to go to co lleg e?).
This variable was formed from items 45, 46, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,
58, 59.
(5)

Teacher Climate Variable Four (TSCL4):

Teacher Perception

of P rin c ip a l's Expectations ( e . g . , How successful does the prin cipal
think the student can be?).

This variable was formed by items 37, 38,

39, 40, 41.
(6 )

Teacher Climate Variable Five (TSCL5):

Teacher Academic

F u t i l i t y ( e . g . , There is l i t t l e a teacher can do to insure high student
achievement).

This variable was formed from items 48, 49, 50, 56, 60,

64, 77.
(7)

Other Teacher Variables:

(a)

Teacher Reported Practices

in Controlling Students’ A c tiv itie s (T0PEN):

e . g . , How often are

students allowed to s i t where they want, t a lk with others, and work
on divergent tasks?
82(reversed), 83, 84.

This variable is based on items 79, 80, 81(re v e rs e d ),
(b)

Personal and Social Growth.
(c)

Degree of Teacher In te r e s t in Producing
This variable is based on items 6 8 , 69.

Teacher Reported Attention to In d iv id u a liz a tio n o f In s tru c tio n .

This variable is based on items 67b, c, 85.
of Non-Homogeneous grouping.
(e)

(d)

Teacher Reported Use

This variable is based on item 16.

Degree o f Teacher Acceptance o f R esponsibility fo r T h eir Students'

137

Performance.

This v a ria b le is based on items 70, 71, 72.

(f)

Extent

to Which Teachers With Average Students Report High Expectations For
Their Achievement.
33, 42, 57.

(g)

This variable is based on items 20, 22, 29, 30, 31,
Reported Value Teachers Hold fo r I.Q . Tests.

variable is based on items 17, 18.
Relationships With Parents.

(h)

This

Teachers Report o f Their

This variable is based on items 61, 65,

88 .
Second-Order School Variables
(1)

Student Climate Variable One (SSCL1):

Student Sense of

Academic F u t i l i t y ( e . g . , How many students d o n't care i f they get bad
grades?

How much harassment do they experience?

have to be?).

How lucky do they

This variable is based on student survey items 13, 20,

21, 22, 24, 25, 26 (reversed), 27, 28, 40, 41, 44.
(2)

Student Climate Variable Two (SSCL2):

Student Future

Evaluations and Expectations ( e . g . , How f a r do others think a student
can go in school?).

This variable is based on items 9, 10, 15, 38,

45, 54 (reversed ), 55 (reversed), 56, 60 (reversed, 61 (reversed).
(3)

Student Climate V ariable Three (SSCL3):

Student Perceived

Present Evaluations and Expectations ( e . g . , How well do the students'
s ig n ific a n t others feel he is doing in school?).

This variable is

based on items 46, 47, 48, 57, 58, 59.
(4)

Student Climate Variable Four (SSCL4):

Student Perception

of Teacher Push and Teacher Norms ( e . g . , How much do teachers care
about students doing well in school?).

This variable is based on

items 39, 49, 52, 53.
(5)

Student Climate Variable Five (SSCL5):

Student Academic

138
Norms ( e . g . , Do other students think doing well in school is im portant?).
This variable is based on items 11, 12, 17, 18, 50, 51.
(6 )

Other Student Variables:

A b il it y (SCAA).
34, 35, 37.

(a) S e lf Concept o f Academic

This variable is based on items 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,

(b) Student Report of Teacher's Use o f A uthority (SOPEN):

e .g ., How much does the teacher control where students s i t , who they
ta lk to , and what they are working on?

This va riable is based on items

62 (reversed), 63 (reversed), 64, 65, 6 6 , 67.
Outcome Variables
(1)

Students' Sense o f S e lf Reliance (SRELI):

solve problems by yourself?

e . g . , Can you

This variable is formed from items 6 8 , 70,

71, 72 on the student survey.
(2)

Students' Sense o f Competitiveness (COMPET):

This va riable

is based on items 1 1 , 1 2 .
(3)

Students' Aspirations fo r College (COLLEGE):

This variable

is based on items 9 (reversed), 32, 34.
(4)

Student Achievement.

The mean achievement of students in

the fourth grade in each of the elementary schools was calculated fo r
school level state achievement data obtained from the Michigan Assessment
Program of the Michigan State Department o f Education.

These data consist

of the percentage o f students in each school mastering each of the 19
reading and 30 arith m etic objectives as well as data on each o f the 245
items entering into these 49 o b jec tive s.

Our dependent variables of

primary in te re s t are the percentages passing each of the two groups o f
objectives.

Preliminary analysis examining in te rc o rre la tio n s among the

average fo r a l l 49 o b jectives, the separate reading average, the separate

139
arithm etic average, an average equally weighting the reading and
arithm etic percentages, reading to ta l scores, a rith m e tic to ta l scores,
weighted and unweighted average o f reading and a r ith m e tic , demon­
strated minimum correlations above .97.

Discussion
F i r s t , an explanation o f the four va ria b le categories is re­
quired.

The f i r s t three categories (background v a ria b le s , f i r s t -

order school v a ria b le s , and second-order school va ria b le s) are a ll
considered as independent variables in re la tio n to the outcome, or
dependent va riables.

In addition to th is simple input/output per­

spective, we also suggest th a t a c e rta in re la tio n s h ip ex ists between
the three input categories.

This presumed r e la tio n s h ip is not

offered up f o r s t a t i s t i c a l an a ly s is , but rath er is intended to be
h e u ris tic .

The relatio n sh ip th a t seems to make the most sense to

this researcher is to presume th a t the background variables contribute
to the development of teachers' a ttitu d e s and practices and these
f ir s t - o r d e r school factors in turn shape second-order school
fa c to rs --s tu d e n ts 1 a ttitu d e s and behavior--which also influence school
outcomes.

As we did in the in tro d u c tio n , we can schematically arrange

these variables in clusters l i k e th is :

140

Background

______

llir

! Output

F ir s t -o r d e r School
Second-order School

Figure 8 .

The Research Design: The Relationships Between the
Variables Under In vestigation

Since the f i r s t - o r d e r and second-order school variables are based on
the a ttitu d e s o f two d i f f e r e n t s tra ta w ithin a single organization,
where the members of the d if f e r e n t s tra ta in t e r a c t over a period o f
time, we have added a feedback cycle to the lin k between these two
k

sets o f va ria b le s.
Most o f the background variables seem straightforw ard and do
not require any f u r t h e r discussion.

The measure of SES produced from

the student survey responses was matched with other independently
obtained SES data a t the school level and found to compare very
favorably with i t (Beady 1975).
The measure o f class s iz e was obtained by merely counting the
number o f surveys obtained f o r a given class.

Thus, i t is not a

measure o f true class s iz e , but ra th e r of the number o f unspoiled
responses obtained on the day the survey was administered.

Since

the survey was always administered to a l l the students present in
*

Other such cycles may e x is t too--however none of them are in
any way analyzed by the research presented here.

141
class, we may expect the c o rre la tio n between those surveyed and those
enrolled to be high, although th a t c o rre la tio n is not a v a ila b le since
data on the number enrolled per class was not obtained.

We know, from

the p rin c ip a ls ' responses to item 1 2 on the p rin cipal survey, th a t
83.3% o f the principals (representing 90 o f the 108 schools) reported
that the d a ily attendance percentage at t h e i r schools was g rea ter than
90% per day.
More s p e c ific information is a v a ila b le regarding the re la tio n
between the number of students surveyed per school and the size of
the school.

Not only was the goal to survey a l l students in a given

class, but also a l l 4th and 5th grade classes in a given school.

The

data also included the school size as reported in the State Department
of Education's assessment repo rt.

Thus, i t was possible to obtain a

co rrelatio n between the to ta l number o f 4th and 5th graders surveyed
and the overall size o f the school.

This c o r r e la tio n , f o r 107 of the

108 schools, was . 8 8 , which was s ig n if ic a n t a t the . 0 0 1 p r o b a b ility
le v e l.

The mean school size was 475.4 (standard deviation 288.9) and

the mean school sample size was 118.3 (standard deviation 7 0 .5 ).

We

may conclude, based on the above in form ation, th a t the numbers sampled
(per class and per school) are highly representative of the actual
class and school enrollment fig u re s .

Thus, conclusions drawn regard­

ing the e f f e c t o f size o f sample may be extended to include size of
class or school.
The various student and teacher clim ate variables were a ll
developed by Brookover and his associates (Brookover et^. ajL 1973,
1976).
using.

B r i e f l y , these variables were obtained by fa c to r analysis

142
" . . . both prin cipal components and varimax ro ta tio n
techniques. All items designed to id e n t if y the school
climate variables were included in the fa c to r analysis
fo r teacher, p r in c ip a l, and student v a ria b le s . Since
the focus of th is research was on the school clim a te,
the school was the u n it o f analysis f o r both student
and teacher climate data. Thus, the mean student
response and the mean teacher response fo r each school
were the data used in each fa c to r analysis. Since
there was only one prin cipal f o r each school, the
individual p r in c ip a l's response was the input into
the fa c to r analysis.
"The fa c to r analyses were major inputs in determining
the content o f each school clim ate v a ria b le , but the
factors thus i d e n t if ie d were not the sole consideration
in id e n tify in g the climate v a ria b le s .
Examination of
the content v a l i d i t y o f the item as a measure of the
variable id e n t if ie d was a consideration in including or
re je c tin g items fo r the variables used in the analysis.
A few items th a t loaded heavily on two factors were
placed in the one on which they had greater content
v a l i d i t y in the second fa c to r. No item was included
in any climate v a ria b le th a t did not have a loading of
a t le a s t .30 on th a t fa c to r . A small number of items
th a t had reasonably high loading on a fa c to r were not
included in any clim ate va ria b le in the fin a l analysis
because they did not have appropriate content v a l i d i t y
in the independent judgments o f the members of the
s ta ff.
For these reasons, the fa c to r loadings were not
used to weight the items in creating climate va ria b le s.
Each item in the three questionnaires had a m u ltip le
choice response. The to ta l score o f these responses
was used as the score f o r each v a ria b le (Brookover e t .
al_., 1976-13)."
The various measurements described as "other teacher variables"
are mostly id e n t ifie d by th is researcher based on the apparent content
of the items.

The s e l f concept of a b i l i t y scale is based on an in s tr u ­

ment used in e a r l i e r Brookover studies (1962, 1965, 1967).

The sense

of competitiveness scale and aspirations f o r college scale were iden­
t i f i e d by the researcher on the basis o f the content o f c e rta in items.
I t should be noted th a t some of these researcher-selected scales share
items with some o f the climate scales.

This matter requires careful

a tte n tio n , since scales which share items may be presumed to have an

143
especially strong re la tio n s h ip to each other ju s t by v ir tu e o f those
shared items.

We note, a t th is p o in t, th a t such spurious r e la t io n ­

ships may e x is t between Students' Sense o f Competitiveness and
Student Climate V ariab le Five, and between Students' Aspirations fo r
College and both Student Climate V ariable Two and S e lf Concept of
A b il it y .
The variables which have not been discussed so f a r are Student
Report o f Teacher's Use of A u th o rity , Teacher Reported Practices in
Controlling Students' A c t i v i t i e s , and Students' Sense o f S e lf
Reliance.

The f i r s t two of these are e s s e n tia lly students' and

teachers' reports on the degree of control used by the teacher, or
*

a lt e r n a t e ly , the openness o f the school program.

These variables

are re la te d to the stru ctu re o f the relation ship s among students and
teachers.
All three o f these variables were developed during the same
school level fa c to r a n a ly tic process described above fo r the climate
variables.

That i s , the items comprising these factors were included

in the same analyses th a t produced the student climate and teacher
climate variables and formed separate and d is t in c t factors in the
process.

The Problem o f D iffe re n t Levels of Analysis
The decision to use the classroom as the principal level of
analysis presents several problems.

For one th in g , the climate

variables developed by Brookover and associates were based on school
*
High control is herein considered to be equivalent to low
openness, and conversely.

144
level data and cannot be autom atically presumed to have v a l i d i t y at
the classroom le v e l.

Not only are the samples o f d i f f e r e n t sizes

(schools vs. classes) but the set o f item means used in the fa c to r
analysis are necessarily based on d i f f e r e n t numbers o f responses.
Furthermore, a t the class l e v e l , teacher responses must be treated
as individual responses in the same way th a t p rin cip a l responses are
treated as individual responses a t the school le v e l.

In order to

determine the a d v is a b ility o f using scales developed at one level
of aggregation a t another l e v e l , fa c to r analyses of student survey
items were performed at the class level and a t the in divid ual student
level of analysis.
The factoring program (c a lle d FACTRB and run on Michigan State
U n iversity's CDC 6500 computer) allowed the researcher to c a ll f o r a
certain maximum number o f factors and a t the same time provided d is ­
plays of intermediate numbers of factors and the items comprising them.
Thus, one can review the grouping and regrouping o f fa c to r items as the
number o f factors increases and items s h i f t from one c lu s te r to another.
In order to decide what seemed to be the most appropriate number of
factors to examine between the three lev els o f a n a ly s is , FACTRB was
run on a l l classes in the data se t.

Since th is researcher was most

interested in the SOPEN and SRELI v a ria b le s , these were the ones
"tracked" through various le v e ls .

In order to accommodate the f iv e

student climate v a ria b le s , the self-concept o f a b i l i t y s c a le , and
SOPEN and SRELI, a minimum of eig h t factors was required.

At the

eight fa c to r l e v e l , four o f the s ix items which were intended

to

form the student openness scale had in f a c t begun to appear as an
independent fa c to r.

These four items (#64, 65, 6 6 , 67) continued

145
to form a unique fa c to r through the 19 fa c to r le v e l.

Also, a t the

eight fa c to r level four o f the f iv e items intended to form the s e l f reliance fa c to r (# 6 8 , 70, 71, 72) appeared in an independent fa c to r
along with three other items (#62, 63, 26 ).

At the 12 fa c to r l e v e l ,

items 6 8 , 70, 71, 72 f i n a l l y formed a unique fa c to r and continued to
do so through the 19 fa c to r le v e l.

Two of the other three items

accompanying these fo u r, namely 62 and 63 also formed an independent
factor a t the 12 fa c to r level and continued th a t way through the 19
factor le v e l.

The following table

il l u s t r a t e s the development of

these two important factors through various fa c to r le v e ls .

Table 1.

The Development of Two Factors Through Several Levels
of Factor Analysis

8 or 9 factors

SOPEN

SRELI

1 0 or 11 factors

1 2 thru 19 factors

Item #

Item #

Item #

64
65

64
65

64
65

66

66

66

67

67

67

68

68

68

70
71
72
62
63
2 6 _______

70
71
72
62
63

70
71
72

SRELIRelated

62
63

Based on th is a n a ly s is , i t was decided th a t 10 factors provided a
sa tisfacto ry alignment o f clustered items— n e ith e r two few and too
globally defined, nor too many and too fragmented.

146
Having selected a s p e c ific number of fa c to rs , we can now look
at the factors as they appear in the three levels o f analysis.

Our

in t e r - le v e l comparison is r e s tric te d to the machine-derived factors
and does not include an examination of the f in a l researcher-adjusted
scales developed by Brookover and others as well as by th is researcher.
In general, the comparison shows some d iffe re n c e s , but major
s im ila r it ie s between the three le v e ls .

Appendix C contains a chart

showing the factors obtained from each le v e l.

The prin cipal concern

here was to see which items clustered together across the three levels
of analysis.

Thus, the item loading w ithin factors and the order of

appearance of the factors were disregarded.

Based on th is 10 fa c to r

comparison of the three lev els of an aly sis, the researcher concluded
that the fa c to r formation stru ctu re was s u f f i c i e n t l y s im ila r a t the
class and school level to allow the scales developed a t the school
level to be used with class level data.

Recall th a t these scales

are not ju s t machine derived clusters anyhow, but have been altered
by researchers.

In the case of the SOPEN and SRELI variables fo r

example, i t was only at the school level where items 62 through 67
clustered together as one fa c to r .

At the other two le v e ls , 62 and

63 went with four o f the f iv e s e l f reliance items (the f i f t h
s e lf - r e lia n c e item never did f a l l
so i t was dropped from the s c a le ).

intended

in a fa c to r with the other four and
In s p ite o f the uncertain "behavior"

of items 62 and 63, the researcher f e l t th a t they were more appropri­
a te ly included with the fa c to r containing items 64 through 67 (where
they had t h e i r second highest loading).
As we mentioned above, one problem with working a t two levels
of analysis is th a t what might le g itim a te ly be considered a teacher

147
climate va ria b le a t the school level cannot be so considered a t the
class level because class level data admits o f only one teacher per
class.

Thus, there is no group o f teachers from which a clim ate can

arise a t the class le v e l.

This means th a t a phenomena which is

assumed to be a group phenomena is considered to have a meaningful
counterpart r e la t iv e to individ ual a t titu d e s .

Suppose th a t we con­

stru ct and evaluate an individual teacher's a t t it u d e using the same
formula th a t defines a p a r t ic u la r teacher climate v a ria b le .

With th is

teacher (c lim a te) a t t itu d e score we can consider the question o f how
well knowing the value of the climate v a ria b le f o r a school predicts
the value of the related individual teacher a t t it u d e .

In th is study

we found th a t knowing the school allows us to "predict" between 18%
and 35% o f the variance in the f iv e teacher clim ate v a ria b le s .

This

approach also showed th a t 24% o f the variance in in dividual TOPEN
scores could be predicted from knowing the school score.
S im ila r ly , we may wonder how much o f the class climate variables
may be predicted by knowing the school.

Brookover, ejt. al_., (1976-15)

report th a t
"The knowledge o f the school in which a classroom is located
alone accounts f o r 43 percent o f the between classroom
variance in student sense o f f u t i l i t y and somewhat less
but s ig n if ic a n t proportions, 16 - 35 percent, o f the
between classroom variance in other student and teacher
climate va ria b le s. The F - r a t io in the analysis of va r­
iance is s ig n if ic a n t a t the . 0 1 lev el on a l l variables
except student climate variables 4 and 5, which were .03
and .13 resp ective ly.
"These data in dicate th a t school c lim a te s , as measured by
the variables we have i d e n t i f i e d , d i f f e r from school to
school and the climates o f the classrooms w ithin a school
are somewhat more li k e each other than they are li k e the
climates o f classrooms in other schools in the s ta te random
sample. Thus, the school is also an appropriate and mean­
ingful social u n it fo r the analysis o f the e f f e c t of social
climate on achievement."

148
In addition to the figures mentioned above, we also found th a t 24%
of the variance in class SOPEN score is accounted fo r by knowing the
school where the class is located.
Recall th a t e a r l i e r we surmised th a t using a less a u th o r ita r ia n /
more open approach was an overt practice th a t seemed less l i k e l y to be
influenced by other teachers' practices than a t t it u d in a l factors would
be influenced by clim ates.

From th is viewpoint we would expect th a t

the percent of class TOPEN and SOPEN accounted f o r by the school would
be somewhat less than the percent of other school climate variables
accounting fo r v a ria tio n in other class scores.

However, the data

indicate th a t school TOPEN and SOPEN, while accounting f o r less va r­
iance than some climate v a ria b le s , account f o r more variance than other
climate v a ria b le s.

We can, on the basis of these fin d in g s , modify the

e a r li e r view th a t a t t it u d in a l factors are more susceptible to the
effects of a climate o f expectations and values in a school than
certain more overt practices:

we surmise th a t while some individual

attitu des are more strongly influenced by climate factors than overt
fa cto rs , others are not so c le a r ly shaped.

I t is even possible th a t

some climate fa c to r unmeasured by this research governs the extent to
which teachers fe el fre e to diverge from the "normal" practices o f a
school.

R e l i a b i l i t y of Variables
R e l i a b i l i t y tests were conducted f o r a l l o f the major scales.
The te s t used was Cronbach's Alpha, which is equivalent to the KuderRichardson 20 te s t (Ferguson 1966-368).

These r e l i a b i l i t i e s are based

on the modified sample of 309 classrooms (and f o r the school le v e l,
on the 70 schools from which these classrooms come).

149
Table 3.

Cronbach's Alpha R e l i a b i l i t i e s fo r V ariable Scales
Used in the Study

Scale
Student Climate V ariable One (SSCL1)
Student Climate Variable Two (SSCL2)
Student Climate Variable Three (SSCL3)
Student Climate V ariable Four (SSCL4)
Student Climate V ariable Five (SSCL5)
Teacher Climate Variable One (TSCL1)
Teacher Climate Variable Two (TSCL2)
Teacher Climate V ariable Three (TSCL3)
Teacher Climate V ariable Four (TSCL4)
Teacher Climate Variable Five (TSCL5)
Student S e lf Concept o f A b i l i t y (SCAA)
Student Perception o f Teacher A uthority (SOPEN)
Teacher Report o f Teacher A uthority (TOPEN)
S e lf Reliance (SRELI)
Sense o f Competitiveness (COMPET)
College Aspirations (COLLEGE)

Class
Level
Alpha

School
Level
Alpha

.82
.88

.94
.81
.87
.91
.79
.80
.88

.84
.94
.93
.77
.68

.92
.85
.83
.92
.62
.91

.65
.94
.69

.8 8

.66

.76

.84
NA*

.6 8

.6 8

NA
.87

The following ta b le shows the means and standard deviations o f
variables f o r the modified sample o f 309 classrooms.

Figures in

parentheses are the corresponding values fo r Brookover's (1976)
state-wide sample of schools.

R e l i a b i l i t i e s could not be computed fo r a scale composed on
only two items.

150
Table 4.

Means and Standard Deviations o f Variables Used in the
Modified Sample o f Classrooms

Variable
Class Size
Percent Black
Percent White
Percent Male
Socioeconomic Status
Student Climate One
Student Climate Two
Student Climate Three
Student Climate Four
Student Climate Five
Teacher Climate One
Teacher Climate Two
Teacher Climate Three
Teacher Climate Four
Teacher Climate Five
S e lf Concept o f A b i l i t y
Student Report o f Authority
Teacher Report o f Authority
Sense of S e lf Reliance
College Aspirations
Sense o f Competitiveness

Mean
23.71
7.02
8 8 .1 2

51.74
2.99
26.83
39.40
22.99
16.69
22.90
30.67
35.21
29.80
14.74
21.69
28.56
15.40
16.94
13.95
11.54
7.73

(1 1.15 )
(8 5.44 )
(51.38)
( 3.0 3)
(26.52)
(3 9.69 )
(2 3.11 )
(1 6.63 )
(22.81)
(32.56)
(3 5.50 )
(31.78)
(1 6.10 )
(21.89)
(2 8.77 )
(15.47)
(17.15)
(14.04)
(1 1.65 )
( 7.69)

Standard Deviation
5.49
19.82
22.01

9.64
1 .0 2

3.23
2.25
1.29
.94
1.2 0

8.69
4.49
5.82
3.67
3.84
1.58
1.90
3.02
.91
.71
.53

CHAPTER VI

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

The research th a t is reported in th is chapter seeks to analyze
several propositions th a t provided the study with i t s i n i t i a l d ire c ­
tio n , and to discuss some additional concerns th a t developed during
the course of in v e s tig a tio n .
with:

The i n i t i a l propositions are concerned

the re la tio n s h ip between th is study's measure of openness and

other aspects of informal education; the re la tio n s h ip between open­
ness and social class; and the re la tio n s h ip between openness and
several educational outcomes.
the study are:

The concerns th a t developed during

the re la tio n s h ip between various reports o f openness,

p r in c ip a lly students' and te ach ers'; the v a l i d i t y of the openness
variables; the prevalence of openness in Michigan elementary schools;
and the re la tio n s h ip between openness and several background va riables.
This l a t t e r group of concerns is discussed f i r s t .

The Relationship Between Various
Reports o f Openness
This section compares the degree of openness perceived and
reported by students, teachers, and p rin cip a ls in the schools and
classrooms surveyed.

One va ria b le which has not been mentioned b e fo re--

mainly because i t has a very lim ite d u s e --is one we w i l l c a ll P r in c i­
pal 's Report of Teachers' Use o f Authority (abbreviated POPEN):

th at

i s , "what proportion of teachers in your school allow freedom of movement

151

152

in t h e i r rooms?"

This va ria b le is based on two items in the p r in c ip a ls '

survey (# 's 5 5 ,6 6 ), and since i t s r e l i a b i l i t y could not be checked at
the class lev el of an aly sis, as the others ( o r , in f a c t , a t any l e v e l ,
since i t contained only two item s), we concede th at the following
remarks are te n ta tiv e .
Since the three d if f e r e n t surveys ( i . e . , student, teacher, and
p r in c ip a l) were administered, f o r a given school, a t the same tim e,
we would expect a c e rta in amount o f agreement about classroom prac­
tices between the "actors" in each o f the school's organizational
s t r a ta .

In s t a t i s t i c a l terms, we would expect to fin d s ig n if ic a n t

co rrelatio ns between students' reports o f openness (SOPEN), teachers'
reports o f openness (TOPEN), and p r in c ip a ls ' reports o f openness
(POPEN).

These co rrelatio ns were obtained ( a t the school level o f

analysis) and are shown in the ta b le below.

Table 5.

School Level Correlations fo r S tudents',
Teachers' and P rin c ip a ls ' Reports o f Openness.

SOPEN XTOPEN = .77*
SOPEN XPOPEN = .37
TOPEN XPOPEN = .44
( a l l s ig n if ic a n t a t the p - . 0 0 1 le v e l)
N = 108

The fa c t th a t POPEN correlates less well with the other two than they
do with each other may be due to the f a c t th a t i t is based only on

*

This c o rre la tio n was .39 (p - .001) a t the class le v e l.

153
two items and thus may not have a high r e l i a b i l i t y .

However, another

explanation might be th a t teachers and students are reporting on the
same behavioral s e t t in g , namely the classroom, w hile the p r in c ip a l's
report is summarizing several classrooms and thus is reporting on a
somewhat d if f e r e n t behavioral s e ttin g .

We take these c o rr e la tio n s ,

especially the one between SOPEN and TOPEN, as evidence th a t the
scales are in fa c t measuring la r g e ly the same phenomena.

The corre­

lations seem es p e c ia lly sound in view o f the fa c t th a t the content
of the items forming the scales in the three surveys is so s im ila r ,
and the f a c t th a t the responses to them were independently obtained.
At th is p o in t, a few more remarks about the rela tio n s h ip
between SOPEN, TOPEN, and POPEN seem in order.

T e ch n ica lly, the

TOPEN scale is ju s t the teachers' report o f how much openness exists
in h is /h e r class a t the time the instrument was administered.

But,

the teacher, as author o f the class ro u tin e s, may have responded to
the TOPEN items in terms of h is /h e r in tentions f o r class performance
as well as h is /h e r report o f performance obtained.

(One could argue

that the closer to the beginning o f the school year the survey was
made, the more l i k e l y TOPEN is to be a measure o f teacher in tentions
rather than merely^a report o f r e s u lt s . )

Given the assumption th at

TOPEN is a measure of the intended openness in a classroom, then SOPEN
and POPEN may be viewed as reports (from two d if f e r e n t perspectives)
on the degree o f openness obtained.
This p ro p o s itio n --th a t TOPEN measures intended openness and
SOPEN measures obtained openness— can be analyzed fu r t h e r .
Since the two scales are based on questions from d if f e r e n t
surveys of d if f e r e n t populations o f quite d i f f e r e n t organizational

154
s ta tu s , i t seems th a t the best d ire c t de scrip tive comparison between
the scales would be based on standard scores.

Consequently, standard

scores f o r the scales were found fo r each case, and the differen ce of
these standard scores (c a lle d ZDIFF) was obtained f o r a l l the class­
rooms in the modified sample (TOPEN - SOPEN = ZDIFF).

This d iffe re n c e ,

i t is presumed, measures the differen ce between the amount o f openness
intended by the teacher and the amount obtained with the students.
Since standard scores in e f f e c t locate cases w ithin a given d is tr ib u ­
tion (with respect to the mean), the differences between TOPEN and
SOPEN scores t e l l us how cases are located d i f f e r e n t ly by teachers
and students.
Assuming th a t a c e rta in phenomena pertaining to teacher au tho rity
exists and can be measured in a l l classrooms, and supposing fo r the
moment th a t SOPEN and TOPEN are both completely r e lia b le and v a lid
instruments ( a l b e i t with d i f f e r e n t s c a le s ), then we would have to con­
clude th a t f o r any given set o f classrooms, exactly the same frequency
diagrams would be obtained from the two scales.

The underlying assump­

tion o f the follow ing discussion, then, is th a t the d is trib u tio n s of
the classrooms measured by the two scales should be, in th eory, id e n t ic a l.
Not only should the d is trib u tio n s be id e n t ic a l, but id e a lly each case
should be located a t the same place in both d is tr ib u tio n s .

That i s , i f

the SOPEN z-score fo r a case is 1 .0 , the TOPEN z-score fo r the same
case should also be 1 .0 .

On the other hand, i f fo r example, TOPEN -

SOPEN = 1.0 - .5 = . 5 , we would conclude th a t there is a differen ce
of .5 standard deviations in the location of a given classroom between
teacher report and student repo rt.

A p o s itiv e d ifferen ce can be i n t e r ­

preted as in d ic a tin g th a t less openness is being obtained than intended,

155
while a negative d iffe re n c e would in d ica te th a t more openness is being
obtained than is intended.

The ta b le below shows the frequencies o f

differences in z-scores (c a lle d ZDIFF) between TOPEN and SOPEN.

Table 6 .

Frequencies of the Differences Between the
Standard Scores o f Teachers' and Students'
Reports o f Openness (ZDIFF).

ZDIFF Values
+1.50
+1.00
+ .50
+ .00
- .50
-1 .0 0
-1 .5 0
-2.621

to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to

2.336
1.49
.99
.49
-.01
-.51
-1.01
-1.51

Number of Cases
20

27
45
66

52
40
36

mean ZDIFF - .003
Standard
deviation - .958

20

A d ifferen ce o f zero would indicate perfect agreement between
teacher and students as to the openness in th a t class.

In other words,

*

the students would confirm the teacher's in ten tio n s.

On the other

hand, a large p o s itiv e or negative d ifferen ce would in dicate consider­
able student/teacher diagreement about openness.

Below is a frequency

diagram f o r the ZDIFF scores.

★
N a tu ra lly , i t would be unusual to obtain very many exact
matches with actual data.

156

TOPEN

-

(Intended)

SOPEN

ZDIFF

(Obtained)

about as open as
intended
(HI)

more openness
than intended

less openness
than intended
(II)

(I)

N=

20

-2 .5

Figure 9.

36
- 1 .5

40

52

(

0

66

I

45

22

27

.5

Frequency Diagram o f the Differences Between the
Standard Scores of Teachers' Reports o f Openness
and Students 1 Reports o f Openness

1.5

157
I f the openness measures are i n t e r v a l - r a t i o scales, we would
expect a high Pearson c o rre la tio n c o e ff ic ie n t between them.

For the

modified sample the Pearson c o rre la tio n was .54 (p - .0 0 1 ).

Even i f

the scales are not both in te rv a l r a t i o , but are ju s t ordinal we would
expect to fin d a s ig n if ic a n t rank-order c o rre la tio n .

The same sample

of cases produced Kendall and Spearman co rrelatio ns of .35 and .48
re s p e c tiv e ly , both s ig n if ic a n t a t the .001 p r o b a b ility le v e l.

Conse­

quently, i t seems c le a r th a t there is general agreement about class
openness between students and t h e i r teachers.

However, there are

some cases o f classes and teachers which are in considerable diagree­
ment.

For example, teacher #15901 placed her class at .69 standard

deviations above the T0PEN mean, while her class placed i t s e l f (so to
speak) a t 1.65 standard deviations below the S0PEN mean.

In another

case, teacher #16902 placed her class a t .97 standard deviations below
the T0PEN mean, while her class placed i t s e l f a t 1.41 standard devia­
tions above the S0PEN mean.

We concede th a t there are no completely

c le a r cut and o b jec tive standards against which to judge v a ria n t cases
of ZDIFF.

However, we note th a t the mean of ZDIFF is near the "perfect

agreement" value o f zero, and th a t the standard deviation o f the d i f ­
ferences is close to one, which means th a t the m ajority of cases d i f f e r
by the absolute value of one standard u n it or less.

Thus, we w i l l

a r b i t r a r i l y set our standard a t the absolute value o f one standard u n it
and define those cases which have a differen ce greater than one or less
than negative one as cases where student and teacher reports of open­
ness are*considerably d i f f e r e n t .

Given our assumption th a t teachers

are reporting the openness they intend to have in t h e i r classes, while
students are reporting the openness th a t is obtained, we can define

158
three d i s t in c t categories:
I - those cases where more openness is obtained than
intended;
I I - those cases where less openness is obtained than
intended; and
I I I - those cases where the openness obtained is about
what is intended.
The v a ria n t cases might simply be the re s u lt o f s t a t i s t i c a l
errors in measurement.

These cases could e x is t because o f differences

in in te r p r e ta tio n of the language in the items between teachers and
students, even though the language seems very s im ila r .

I t is also

possible th a t the v a ria n t cases o f ZDIFF occur when classes are of a
certain s iz e , or when the v a r i a b i l i t y of student responses to the
SOPEN scale w ith in a class is a t a p a r t ic u la r le v e l.

However, ZDIFF

was not s ig n if ic a n t ly correlated with class s iz e , and an analysis of
variance o f the standard deviations of class means fo r the SOPEN items
by the three ZDIFF categories defined above showed no s ig n if ic a n t ly
greater va ria tio n s in class responses to the open items among the
three groups.

Table 7.

The table below shows these re s u lts .

Analysis o f Variance o f the Summed Standard Deviations of
Items Forming the Student Openness Scale by the Three
ZDIFF Categories.

ZDIFF
I

j
i

Sum of
SOPEN item
standard deviations

6.64

F = .272

III

6 .6 6

(P = .05)

II

6.57

159
I t is th is researcher's opinion, given the frankness of small
ch ild ren , the s i m i l a r i t y o f content o f the SOPEN and TOPEN scale items,
and the circumstances o f the survey s itu a tio n (which allowed fo r
teachers and students to respond independently o f each o t h e r ) r th a t
the SOPEN score o f a class provides a more accurate placement o f th a t
class in the d is tr ib u tio n o f scores than does the TOPEN score.

This

may be in part due to the fa c t th a t a c la s s 's SOPEN score is the mean
of several students' scores, while each TOPEN score is ju s t th at
individual teacher's r a tin g .

However, we re c a ll our e a r l i e r discus­

sion of the general importance o f class control in judging teachers'
competence, and we also re c a ll the generally p o s itiv e popular endorse­
ments given to the methods of open education in recent l i t e r a t u r e .
The former phenomena may have influenced some teachers to report
more control o f t h e i r class than they r e a l l y had, to avoid appearing
incompetent (thus producing negative ZDIFF scores), while the l a t t e r
may have caused other teachers to report more open approaches in
order to appear au courant with new methods (thus producing p o sitive
ZDIFF scores).

Other in te rp re ta tio n s are also possible.

Teachers

who report q u ite d i f f e r e n t degrees o f openness than t h e i r students
may do so because of self-d eception or may have poor s e lf-p e rc e p tio n .
Or, perhaps those teachers are reporting the way they would lik e to
run t h e i r class i f circumstances perm itted.

These circumstances

might even include the norms o f the teaching s t a f f which the
va ria n t teacher conforms to in p ra c tic e , but with which he or she
disagrees.

Whatever the reason, teachers who s u b s ta n tia lly vary from

t h e ir classes in reports o f openness seem in e ffe c tiv e in putting

160
t h e ir ideas in to p ra c tic e .

*

These speculations about the nature o f the SOPEN and TOPEN
class scores would, i t seems, tend to be devalued i f no p a rtic u la r
re la tio n s h ip between SOPEN or TOPEN and ZDIFF e x is t s , th at i s , i f
positive and negative ZDIFF scores are as l i k e l y to be found with
high SOPEN and TOPEN scores as with low ones.

To put i t another

way, i f the existence o f v a ria n t cases o f ZDIFF is due to s t a t i s t i c a l
e r r o r , we would expect no s ig n if ic a n t c o rre la tio n between ZDIFF and
SOPEN and TOPEN.

On the other hand, the existence o f a s ig n ific a n t

c o rre la tio n would not prove the foregoing speculations about teacher's
motives to be c o rre c t, but merely possible.

The following table shows

the Pearson co rrela tio n s f o r these three v a ria b le s .

Table 8 .

Correlations Between Students' Reports o f Openness,
Teacher Reports o f Openness, and ZDIFF.

ZDIFF
ZDIFF
SOPEN

1

SOPEN
-.4 8
1

TOPEN

TOPEN
.48
.54
1

( a l l signi fic a n t a t p -

.001)

N = 306

Not only are these co rrela tio n s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t , but the
re la tio n s between ZDIFF and SOPEN and ZDIFF and TOPEN are opposite,

•k

Discrepancies between a ttitu d e s and behavior are not unusual;
Brophy and Evertson (1976-16) report th a t some teachers were found
to strongly endorse praise and peer tu to rin g but were infrequently
observed p rac ticin g those behaviors.

161
even though SOPEN and TOPEN are themselves p o s itiv e ly c o rrela ted .
In order to pursue th is matter f u r t h e r , several analyses of
variance were performed.

F i r s t , an analysis o f variance o f SOPEN

and TOPEN based on d i f f e r e n t categories of ZDIFF was performed.
The ta b le below shows the results of th is procedure.

Table 9. Analysis of Variance of Student and Teacher
__________ Reported Openness by Three ZDIFF Categories
..

I
ZDIFF less
than - 1

III
ZDIFF between
-1 & 1

II
ZDIFF more
than 1

. . . .

F

P

1

iSOPEN mean
|
N
|
j
:T0PEN mean
!
N
ii

17.18
55

15.11
204

14.63
50

37.88

.0001

15.40
55

16.64
204

20.06
47

42.41

.0001

I t is possible th a t the apparent e ffe c ts of the ZDIFF categories
in a sense overstate the importance of the r e la tio n between ZDIFF and
openness.

That i s , perhaps the SOPEN and TOPEN values in ZDIFF ca te­

gory I , fo r example, occur because i t is only with high-SOPEN/low-TOPEN
scores where such large negative differences can be found.

In other

words, th is category has mostly high SOPEN and low TOPEN scores because
only these combinations would be a v a ila b le in s u f f ic ie n t numbers to
provide the differences fo r the category ( f o r example, fewer ZDIFF <- 1
would be found with very low TOPEN and medium level SOPEN than with low
TOPEN and high SOPEN).
In order to determine whether categorizing by ZDIFF as above gives
undue weight to the category d iffe re n c e s , another analysis o f variance
was run, th is time based on categories of SOPEN and TOPEN.

In th is

162

analysis, the researcher f e l t th a t d ivid in g the SOPEN and TOPEN
d is trib u tio n s into thirds would provide categories broad enough to
then compare mean differences in ZDIFF (exact th ird s could not be
determined fo r TOPEN because o f the values in the d i s t r ib u t io n ; SOPEN
was f a i r l y closely divided into t h ir d s ) .

The ta b le below shows the

results of th is approach.

Table 10.

Analysis o f Variance o f ZDIFF by Three Categories of
Student Reported Openness and Three Categories o f
Teacher Reported Openness

Low
Third
SOPEN
GROUPS

TOPEN
GROUPS

Mean
ZDIFF

Middle
Third

.430

F

| 34.53
'
N
103
101
1
102
i
-------------------- ;------->
-------------------------1--------------------------------------1--------------I
i
Mean
i
.
!
ZDIFF
-.521
!
.027
.429
! 35.53
;
I
N

no

.115

1 High
! Third

!

'

-.5 5 7

69

i

127
i

p
.0001

.0001

:
i

These resu lts show b a s ic a lly the same pattern as the analysis of
variance based on categories o f ZDIFF.

Furthermore, the categoriza­

tion o f cases was less s trin g e n t and based on primary variables rath er
than the derived v a ria b le ZDIFF.

Based on these two approaches to the

analysis of variance, we can say th a t very high or low openness reports
by teachers tend to be disputed by students.
At th is point we must emphasize again th a t i t is not c le a r what
the real nature of ZDIFF i s .

On the one hand, ZDIFF may e x is t simply

because the c o rre la tio n between SOPEN and TOPEN is not p e rfe c t.

On

the other hand, our analysis o f the nature of the openness variables

163
leads to a d if f e r e n t ( a l b e i t i n t u i t i v e ) conclusion.

The openness

measures are reports from two d if f e r e n t perspectives about a common
behavioral s e t t i n g - - i n the classroom.

Furthermore, the openness

reported by students has been judged to be ( 1 ) produced by the teacher
(th a t i s , i t is a second-order school v a r ia b le ) , and ( 2 ) a more
accurate measure of openness than the teachers' reports.

Given

this perspective, one is encouraged to explain the existence of
ZDIFF as something other than random s t a t i s t i c a l v a r ia tio n .

Post­

survey observation in the v a ria n t classrooms would seem to be the
most l i k e l y method of s e t t lin g the question of the nature of ZDIFF,
but since th a t approach was not possible in th is study, another kind
of analysis was performed.
In order to gain some additional understanding of the nature
of the types of classes and teachers id e n t if ie d by the three a r b it r a r y
ZDIFF categories, a one-way analysis of variance of the ZDIFF types
was performed fo r a number of variables in th is study.

Only the

ones which showed s ig n if ic a n t differences in c e ll means a t the .05
p ro b a b ility level are lis t e d in the following ta b le .
did not seem related to ZDIFF were:

Variables which

class s iz e , student sex, sense of

s e lf - r e li a n c e , teacher climate variables two through fo u r, teacher
background variables (sex, experience, t r a i n i n g ) , teacher a ttitu d e s
toward standardized te s ts , teacher relatio n s with parents, and
teachers' sense of r e s p o n s ib ility fo r achievement.

164

Table 11.

Variables fo r Which An Analysis o f Variance Showed
S ig n ific a n t Differences Between the Three ZDIFF Categories

1

1

Variable

1
I
! (ZDIFF < - 1 )

;
.................................................... :

White
ses

III
(-1 <ZDIFF < 1)
1

..

i
;
|
:

SSCL1
SSCL2
SSCL3
SSCL4
!
SSCL5
SCAA
TSCL1
TSCL5
Teaching Obj.

90.68
3.23
26.05
39.71
22.72
16.40
22.56
28.47
32.06
21.75
2.92

90.91
2.98
26.73
39.12
22.90
16.66
2 2 .8 8

28.39
29.86
21.96
3.04

F

II
( 1 < ZDIFF)

P

'
73.94
2.74
28.10
40.19
23.69
17.11
23.36
29.35
32.52
20.57
3.59

13.37
3.04
5.70
5.36
9.53
8.26
6.07
7.99
2.71
2.59
5.93

.0001

.05
.004
.005
.0001

.0003
.003
.0004
.07
.08
.003

The foregoing table l i s t s the variables fo r which there is a
s ig n ific a n t variance among the three group means, but does not t e l l us
which groups are s ig n if ic a n t ly d i f f e r e n t .

Since we have characterized

category I I I as the group o f cases where students and teachers mostly
agree about the degree of openness which exists in the class (the most
common type) i t seems th a t we ought to compare both o f the v a ria n t
categories with category I I I to see how they d i f f e r from i t .

This

comparison was made using the t - t e s t fo r independent samples (with a
p ro b a b ility level of .0 5 ) , and p ro file s of the two v a ria n t categories
were created based on the s ig n if ic a n t ly d i f f e r e n t group means which were
found.
Category I P r o file (teachers report low openness, students
report high openness)
no s ig n if ic a n t differences with Category I I I .

165

Category I I P r o f ile (teachers rep o rt high openness, students
report low openness)
In comparison with category I I I , classes in th is category
have s ig n if ic a n t ly lower percent w h ite , higher f u t i l i t y
§SCL1) , higher fu tu re expectations (SSCL2), higher present
expectations (SSCL3), higher teacher push (SSCL4), higher
academic norms (SSCL5), higher s e l f concept o f a b i l i t y
(SCAA), higher evaluation/expectations o f teachers (TSCL1),
lower teacher f u t i l i t y (TSCL5), and less s i m i l a r i t y of
teaching objectives fo r a l l students.
What these differences might mean, i f an ything,is not easy to
say.

We can speculate th a t some underlying re la tio n s may e x is t which

explain the pattern o f s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences between the three
groups, but fu rth e r research in to the matter w i l l be needed in order
to id e n t ify those underlying r e la tio n s .

In s p ite o f the uncertainty

about the causes of the differences in some students' and teachers'
reports o f openness, i t s t i l l

seems reasonable to conceptualize those

reports as the openness obtained, and the openness intended (or thought
d e s ir a b le ), resp ective ly.
Summary
We found th a t students, teachers, and p rin cip a ls tend to agree
about the amount of openness which ex ists in t h e i r schools.

When we

compared students' and teachers' reports more c lo s e ly , a t the classroom
le v e l, we found two categories of cases where students' and teachers'
reports were considerably d i f f e r e n t .

Assuming th a t the students'

reports are in a sense more naive and th erefore more accurate, we
found th a t teachers who report e it h e r e s p e c ia lly high or low openness
tend to have t h e ir reports disputed by t h e i r students.

We speculated

about the reasons f o r the teachers' v a ria n t repo rts, and found some
differences in our other variables between one o f these v a ria n treport categories and the group of cases where students and teachers

166

tend to agree on the degree of openness.

The reasons f o r the existence

of the v a ria n t categ ories, and the reasons why only one of these groups
d iffe r s from the "non-variant" category await f u r t h e r research.

The V a lid it y of the Openness Variables
The r e l i a b i l i t y o f SOPEN and TOPEN, as measured by Cronbach's
Alpha, seems adequate and t h e i r reasonably strong c o rre la tio n indicates
they are fo r the most part measuring the same phenomena.

I f we can

determine th a t th a t phenomena is indeed re la te d to the openness or
autho rity s ty le o f teachers and classes, then we may conclude th a t the
scales are v a lid as w e ll.
In order to judge t h e ir v a l i d i t y , the student, teacher and
principal surveys were administered a t two schools in a large Mid­
western school d i s t r i c t which had been id e n t if ie d by the researcher
and others as open elementary schools.

I f SOPEN and TOPEN do in fa c t

measure some essential featu re o f open schools then we can expect such
schools to measure high on these scales.
One o f these schools, Central Open Elementary (not i t s real
name), was opened in 1972 as the r e s u lt of a request by a group of
parents.

I t was the in ten tio n o f the parents th a t the school operate

in accordance with c e rta in prin cip le s o f informal education (See
Appendix D).

In 1973-74, the open program a t Central was evaluated

by a task force o f adm in istrators, teachers and parents, and as a
re s u lt o f the p o s itiv e nature of the ev alu atio n ,

*

the open program

was extended to include four classrooms in Northern Elementary, an
otherwise tr a d itio n a l school.

(Some of the teachers, students and

*

Open School Evaluation Task Force (1974).

^

167

..

parents formerly involved with Central tra n s fe rre d to Northern.
In p a rt, the evaluation o f the Central program e n ta ile d use
of an observation instrument which had been used in other open schools
around the country.

This s c ale , b a s ic a lly the same one formulated by

Walberg and Thomas (1 974 ), was modified f o r use a t Central by a sub­
committee of the task fo rce.
appears in Appendix E.

A copy o f the observation instrument

The subcommittee, composed of three parents

and an adm inistrator from the system's curriculum o f f i c e , selected
what they thought should be the ideal observation in so far as the p r in ­
ciples of open education at th a t school were concerned.

The modifica­

tions amounted to a change in wording o f several items in the WalbergThomas version, as well as a deletion of four items in the o rig in al
form and an addition o f e ig h t items devised by the subcommittee.

The

fin a l instrument was used by observers from a nearby u n iv e rs ity as
well as by parents of children a t the school.
The mean responses o f the outside observers, parent observers
and the ideal responses formulated by the corrmittee were co rrelated
across the 54 item observation ra tin g s c ale , and the resu lts appear
in the table below.

Table 12.

Correlations of Central Open School Observers' Evaluation
and the Pre-Selected Ideal Observation

Ideal
Responses
Ideal Response

1

Outside Observers
Parent Observers
( a l l s ig n if ic a n t at . 0 1 le v e l)

Outside
Observers

Parent
Observers

.83

.86

1

.92
1

168
From th is ta b le we can see th a t there is a high degree o f agreement
between the two groups of observers about the a c t i v i t i e s they observed,
and fu rth e r th a t both groups' observations in d ic a te a f a i r l y close
approximation to the preselected ideal open school po sition.

Thus,

we can conclude th a t Central Open School does represent the open
education themes id e n t if ie d by Walberg and Thomas (1974) as adapted
by parents and local school o f f i c i a l s to meet the objectives of th a t
p a rtic u la r program.
The v a l i d i t y of the SOPEN and TOPEN scales can be f a i r l y
easily established with the data a v a ila b le from Central and Northern
Open programs.
The six items which form the SOPEN scale were compared with
s im ila r items from the observation instrument used by the Central
evaluation task fo rce.

The survey items and t h e i r related observation

instrument items are shown in Appendix F.

Although no s t a t i s t i c a l

comparison was made, i t is easy to see th a t the observation responses
of the two types of observers agree closely with each other and f a i r l y
closely with the "id eal" open observation.

Further, the observers'

responses coordinate well with what could be expected to be the high
openness selection fo r the student survey items.
Since the evaluation of Central Open School led to the expansion
of the program a t Northern, we could expect the SOPEN scale responses
of these "s is te r" open schools to be s im ila r .

To check t h i s , the two

schools' scores fo r the SOPEN va riable were subjected to two kinds o f
tests.

F i r s t , a t - t e s t of the means of SOPEN and the six individual

items th at comprise i t showed no s ig n if ic a n t differences in mean
responses between the schools a t the .05 le v e l.

2

Second, a X

te s t

169

showed no s ig n if ic a n t differences in the two schools' pattern o f
responses to the same seven measures.

To sum up, the Central and

Northern SOPEN and re la te d SOPEN-item scores compare closely with
each o ther, and an independent observation instrument reveals a con­
siderable degree o f openness a t Central o f a kind not unlike th a t which
the survey instrument was intended to measure.
I f Central and Northern are open schools (in accordance with
the philosophy of open schools found in the l i t e r a t u r e ) and i f the
SOPEN va ria b le measures some p a rt of t h e i r openness, then we would
expect th at these two schools would rank high on SOPEN among a l l the
schools surveyed.

I t is claimed th a t the two premises o f th is

hypothesis have been v e r if ie d .

The charts below show th a t the con­

clusion is also v e r if ie d .

Table 14.

|
1
i1
I
SOPEN

Rank of Central and Northern Open Schools Among 108
Schools Surveyed

Grand
mean

Open
Schools'
means
---

Rank
in
Sample

15.36

I 24.21 (C en tral)
! 23.19 (Northern)

F irs t
Second

!
i
j

16.87

j

F irs t
Third

j

I

—

f-'

Number o f
s t . dev. above
mean
4
4

1

TOPEN

,
|
:;

26.00 (C e n tr a l)*
25.00 (Northern)

j

3
3

i
t

★
Some of the teachers a t Central and Northern did not respond
to a ll the items in the TOPEN Scale. Consequently, the mean response
of the items th a t were answered was substituted f o r the unanswered
i terns.

170
Table 15.

Rank of Classrooms in Central and Northern Open Schools
Among 529 Classrooms Surveyed

Rank in
Sample

Number of s t .
dev. above mean

Grand
mean

!
j

15.16

|

25.70 (Centralg)

j F ir s t

j

|

24.45 (Northern^)

1 Second

;

•

23.63 (C en tral^)

: Third

2

1

i

22.75 (C e n tra l2 )

: F ifth

2

'

22.26 (Northern2 )

| Seventh

2

SOPEN !

ii

■■

TOPEN j

16.72

Open classroom means

i
i

;

2
'

2

j
;

;

!

28.00 (N o r t h e r n ^ * * *

Fi rs t

1

j

26.00 (C e n tra l2 )

Second

|

!

26.00 (Central^)

Second

i

|

26.00 ( Central -j)

Second

i
i

1

!

j

22.00 (Northern2 )

★★

2
j

2
2

2
t
23rd ( t i e i
1
with 14
i
others
!
.
. J _______ ___

j
-.J

In view of the foregoing fin d in g s , i t seems reasonable to conclude,
based on the uniformly high rank o f the open schools and classrooms ( f o r
both student and teacher openness v a r ia b le s ), th a t SOPEN and TOPEN measure
some important part of the openness o f school programs.

We take care to

note th a t we are not arguing th a t whenever one finds a class or school
which measures high on the SOPEN scale th a t one has found an instance
of open education.

Obviously, i t is possible fo r a class to measure

high on SOPEN but e x h ib it few other c h a ra c te ris tic s of informal education.
Such a class could be one which has simply gotten out o f hand.
**

Recalling

Three classes were surveyed a t Central Open, two a t Northern

Open.
* * *

These teacher scores a re , o f course, not means but rather
individual scale scores.

171

our e a r l i e r remarks about TOPEN and SOPEN as intended and obtained
measures o f openness, we suggest th a t i f both of these measures are
r e la t iv e ly high f o r a given cla ss , we would regard th a t f a c t as more
certain evidence th a t the class was an example of informal education.
C e rta in ly , Central and Northern Open programs show the teachers'
intended high openness is obtained (according to the reports of the
students).
Since th is study is concerned with the degree of a u th o rity
exercised by teachers in general, and is not ju s t a study o f open
education per se, we s t i l l

remain in terested in the degree o f control

of student a c t i v i t i e s , even though the amount of openness obtained
may not be intended.

Summary
We id e n t if ie d two s p e c ia lly selected open schools, one of which
was studied by other researchers.

We found i t to have a program which

exhibited many features o f informal education.

We found th a t the "open"

rating used by these researchers corresponded favorably with the open­
ness scales used in th is research e f f o r t ; f u r t h e r , we found the second
open program appeared to be s im ila r to the f i r s t on the basis of the
survey results obtained in each by th is researcher.

F i n a lly , we found

that these two schools were the most open according to teachers' and
students' reports in a l l schools, and nearly a l l classes surveyed.
c ite the agreement with the independent analysis of the openness of
the f i r s t of these two open schools and the high rank they both have
among a l l schools and classes as evidence o f the v a l i d i t y o f the
openness measures used in th is study.

We

172

The Prevalence of Openness in Michigan
Elementary Schools
A principal finding o f th is study is th a t a lim ite d degree of
openness is present in Michigan elementary schools.

The frequency

diagram fo r school-level openness (below) makes th is point very
c le a r.

The diagram contains a l l schools surveyed; those selected

at random from various s tra ta and those few not selected a t random.
The two cases fa rth e s t to the r ig h t ( i . e . , most open) are Northern
and Central Open Schools.

Note th a t f iv e responses were permitted

fo r each item on the SOPEN scale ("never," "seldom," "sometimes,"
"often," "always"), and thus we can surmise t h a t , fo r example, a
school which is viewed by students as generally "sometimes" open
would be expected to score at about 18 (# o f items ( 6 ) m u ltip lie d
by item value ( 3 ) ) .

S im ila r ly , the ty p ic a l "never" score would be

6 , "seldom" would be 1 2 , "often" would be 24 and "always" would be

the maximum, 30.

As the frequency diagram shows, only 6.5% o f the

surveyed schools can be described as "sometimes to often" open, while
the remaining 93.5% of schools can be described as "sometimes to
*

seldom" open.
included

I f the non-randomly selected schools are not

in the an aly sis, the range measured by the SOPEN scale

contracts from 12.1 units to 9.2 units out of a possible 24.
★
I t is possible th a t a "sometimes" open score of 18 could be
obtained from the six items in the sc ale , where three items received
"never" responses and the other three received "always" responses.
However, a school-level c o rre la tio n m atrix of the s ix SOPEN scale
items and the scale i t s e l f showed no item co rrela ted with any other
at a value of less than .34 (p^ .001) and no item co rrelated with
the scale to ta l at less than .74 (p< .0001). These correlatio ns
indicate th at low, medium, and high SOPEN scores r e s u lt from
consistently low, medium, and high item responses.

SCHOOL

LEVEL

MEAN '

15.36

S.D.

SOPEN

1.91

RANGE

number of
schools

never

seldom
Figure 10.

sometimes

often

Frequency Diagram of Students' Reports o f Openness
(SOPEN) fo r All Schools Surveyed

always

174
This fin d in g o f lim ite d openness ( in comparison to the openness
found in schools such as Central and Northern which in te n tio n a lly
follow open p ra c tic e s ) among a random sample of Michigan elementary
schools is in accordance with Bennett's (1976) findings o f a r e l a ­
t i v e l y small proportion of informal teaching approaches in English
classrooms.

Educational t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s can take comfort from the

fa c t th a t in sp ite o f a l o t of p u b lic ity about the benefits of in f o r ­
mal education, l i t t l e
been pursued.

experimentation with th is form seems to have

Conversely, educational n o n -tr a d itio n a lis ts may fe el

discouraged th a t t h e i r ideas have not received more a tte n tio n ; but
at the same time they can maintain t h e i r ideals since they may feel
th at informal concepts have not been f a i r l y tested.
I f SOPEN is to be considered as a secondary input variable
of the school program, then the skewness o f i t s d is tr ib u tio n presents
a special problem, since i t means th a t not very much o f the high
openness phenomena ex ists to be studied.

Because the small number

of schools with any appreciable degree o f openness make s t a t i s t i c a l
conclusions d i f f i c u l t (because of low va ria n c e), there may be some
s t a t i s t i c a l as well as conceptual advantages to looking a t SOPEN a t
the class level o f a n a ly s is .

F i r s t , th is level c le a r ly provides a

greater number of cases to study.

I t was also hoped th a t the SOPEN

variable would reveal a greater proportion of openness;

i t was f e l t

th a t a few teachers in some schools might be attempting to implement
an open approach while others in the school continued more t r a d i ­
tional p rac tice s.

At the school level o f analysis the r e s u lt would

be to obscure the existence of these open-classrooms by averaging
those classes' open ratin gs with other t r a d itio n a l r a tin g s .

175

As a matter o f f a c t , a s lig h t reduction in SOPEN skewness did
occur when class level data was examined.

While 12.0% o f the schools

were more than one standard deviation above the grand mean, 13.1% of
the classrooms were more than one standard deviation above the class
grand mean.

Also, some open classrooms were discovered among schools

that were not so open themselves.

Of the 69 classrooms lyin g more

than one standard deviation above the mean fo r classes, nearly h a l f ,
30 (43.5% ), came from schools which themselves were not more than one
standard deviation above the school mean.

We also note th a t the

range of SOPEN scores increases from 12.1 units on the school level
SOPEN scale to 14.8 units on the class level SOPEN scale.
Another important fin d in g

with respect to SOPEN is th a t a l l of

the randomly selected m ajo rity -b lack schools have SOPEN scores below
the mean of a ll schools (only one m ajo rity -b lack school f e l l

above the

grand mean and i t was not one of the randomly selected ones).
When we look a t class level d a ta, the findings with respect to
race, while s t i l l

f a i r l y c le a r c u t, are not q u ite so one-sided.

For

example, some m ajority-black classrooms do have SOPEN scores above
the mean, as the following ta b le shows.

176

Table 16.

Proportions of White and Non-White Classrooms in Total
Survey and In Two Sub-Categories Above the Mean of the
Student Reported Openness Scale

Racial Categories
Openness Categories
N

Percent White

Percent Non-White

All Classes

526

62.5

37.5

Classes Above
SOPEN mean

227

81 .5

18.5

69

92.8

7.2

Classes Above
SOPEN mean plus
one standard
deviation

In general, the g rea ter the degree of openness, the smaller the pro­
portion of black classrooms.

These findings indicate th a t a r e la t io n ­

ship exists between race and openness:

in p a r t ic u la r , students in

mostly black classes seem to be the object of more teacher control of
t h e ir a c t i v i t i e s than students in mostly white classes.
In order to b e tte r understand the relation ship between race and
openness the SOPEN and TOPEN variables were examined in three d i ffe r e n t
racial categories.

These three categories are (1) the classrooms (or

schools) with more than 80% white students; ( 2 ) the classrooms (or
schools) with more than 2 0 % black students and less than 80% white
students; (3) the classrooms (or schools) with more than 80% black
students.

These three groupings were selected to give sets of ample

size which were c le a r ly distinguished by race as e it h e r , w h ite,
integrated or black.

F a ir ly wide lim its on the ra c ia l percentages

177

fo r integrated classes and schools were set because of the "U-shaped"
d is tr ib u tio n o f classes with respect to race.

(For example, 50.4%

of the classes are 0% black, while 23.6% are 100% b la c k .)
words, 74% o f the classes l i e at
scale.

In other

the very extremes of the ra c ia l

The ta b le below shows how SOPEN and TOPEN seem to be affected

by the ra c ia l fa c to r.

Table 17.

School and Class Means and Standard Deviations o f , and
Correlations Between Student and Teacher Reported
Openness fo r Three Racial Categories (Total Sample)

White more than 80%
Classes
283

N

White less than 80%
more than 2 0 %
Black more than 80%

Schools

Cl asses

63

77

Schools

Classes i Schools

20

166

25

!

SOPEN mean

15.60

15.66

15.67

15.93

14.17

! 14.16

TOPEN mean

17.05

17.08

16.85

17.59

15.74

15.83

.60

.72

.58

.84

.18

.001

.001

.001

.001

.024

S0PEN/T0PEN
correlatio n
P

!i
i

.08
NS

....... ......... _L
Here we see th a t the black schools and classrooms are consistently lower
in openness than the white ones, while the integrated groupings seem
somewhat higher in openness than the white schools and classes, but
not consistently so.

The set with mostly black classes and schools

also shows a considerable weakening of the re la tio n between SOPEN and
TOPEN.

One in te r p r e ta tio n of these findings might be th at when the

proportion of black students in classrooms is high, the teachers'
reported openness decreases, y e t the degree of openness obtained

178

with students (while also lower) is not c le a r ly the product o f the
decreased openness in the approach of the teachers.

Furthermore,

we note th a t there are g rea ter discrepancies in reported openness in
black schools and classes than in white ones, as measured by the ZDIFF
v a ria b le .

When the category means fo r SOPEN and TOPEN in Table 17

were converted to standard scores (based on the means and standard
deviations o f the e n tir e sample) we obtained ZDIFF values o f -.0 7 0
and -.0 9 2 fo r the white classes and schools, re s p e c tiv e ly , while
the corresponding ZDIFF values fo r black classes and schools were
.247 and .282.

Not only are the discrepancies greater in black

groups, but they are in the opposite d ire c tio n from the white groups.
This same phenomenon is re fle c te d in Table 11, which shows the high
ZDIFF category to be s ig n if ic a n t ly lower in proportion o f white
students than the other two.

Apparently, teachers in black schools

and classes perceive themselves as s u b s ta n tia lly more open than t h e ir
students do.
Further analysis o f the r e la t io n between race and openness
was undertaken by performing an analysis o f variance on SOPEN and
TOPEN broken down by both race o f teacher and race of class.

In th is

analysis, a black class is defined as a class where more than 80% of
the students are black; a white class is defined as a class where more
than 80% o f the students are w hite.

Results o f the analysis of

variance are shown in the ta b le below.

The data base f o r th is

analysis was a l l the classrooms from the randomly selected schools.

179
Table 18.

Class Level Analysis of Variance o f Student and Teacher
Reported Openness Broken Down By Race of Teachers and
Race of Students

Teacher — >
Class
—>

SOPEN

mean
s .d.
"

Black
Black

{

14.23
1 .6 6

109

i
j

F = 24 .70

TOPEN

mean
s .d.
n

15.48
3.31
105

t
i
i
i

F = 16 .72

Whi te
White

1 Black

White

15.62
2.30

,

14.06
1.08
45

15.54
1.97
264

6

(P - . 0 0 0 1 )
16.40
1.52
5

;
,
:
.

16.36
2.97
44

17.04
3.06
252

(P * . 0 0 0 1 )

These re s u lts in d ic a te s ig n if ic a n t differences among the four classroom
racia l combinations fo r both SOPEN and TOPEN.

Furthermore, the in d i­

cation seems to be th a t both black and white teachers operate with a
lower degree of openness in black classes, and conversely, a higher
degree o f openness in white classes.

While there is not a great deal

of research l i t e r a t u r e lin k in g race and openness, we reca ll Barth's
(1972) study which concluded th a t a d e f in it e ra c ia l o rien tatio n
toward informal approaches

to education e x is ts .

study seem to confirm th is

re la tio n s h ip .

The findings of this

However, we reca ll th a t the

l i t e r a t u r e also indicates some d e f in it e connections between openness
and social class, and i t is possible th a t the re la tio n between race
and openness exists because o f the social class fa c to r (which is
closely related to race.
In order to examine

the r e la tio n between race and openness more

180

c lo s e ly , co rrelatio ns between SOPEN, TOPEN and the proportions of
blacks and whites were also obtained, f o r both school lev el and class
level using the modified samples.

At the school l e v e l , the only

s ig n if ic a n t (p - .05) zero order c o rre la tio n found was between SOPEN
and percent white ( . 2 4 ) .

This c o rre la tio n became n o n -s ig n ific a n t

when co ntrolled f o r the e ffe c ts of SES.

At the class l e v e l , both

percent black and percent white were s ig n if ic a n t ly co rrelated a t the
.05 level with SOPEN.

However, when co ntrolled fo r SES, both of these

relationships became n o n -s ig n ific a n t.

Thus, we may t e n t a t iv e ly con­

clude th a t the lin k between race and use of open practices in schools
*
"depends" on the re la tio n s h ip between SES and open p rac tice s.
Summary
We found th a t the position of the selected ( in t e n t io n a ll y ) open
schools on the openness scale continuum r e la t iv e to the bulk o f schools
surveyed showed th a t only a handful of schools can be described as
"sometimes to often" open:

th is r e la t iv e s c a rc ity of openness was

found among both schools and classes.

We also found th a t m a jo rity -

black schools and classes were disproportionately less open than
m ajority-w hite schools and classes, and th a t the lower openness of
the m ajority-black classes is apparently not related to the race of
the teacher.

F i n a lly , we found th a t the correlatio ns between race

and openness which were s ig n if ic a n t when uncontrolled f o r other
*

I f the c o rre la tio n between openness and SES were s im ila r ly
found to "depend" on the e ffe c ts of race, we would have to conclude
th at SES and race are, in a sense, s t a t i s t i c a l l y in d istin g u ish ab le.
That i s , each would elim in ate the s ig n if ic a n t re la tio n th a t the other
has with openness. However, the school level c o rre la tio n between SOPEN
and SES did not become n o n -s ig n ific a n t when controlled f o r percent
WHITE, and the c o rre la tio n between c la s s -le v e l SOPEN and SES remained
s ig n ific a n t when controlled f o r both percent BLACK and percent WHITE.

181
variables became n o n -s ig n ific a n t when co ntrolled fo r socioeconomic
status.
The Relationship Between Openness and Social Class
One c r itic is m of open education is th a t i t serves the same
class in te re s ts th a t are served by t r a d itio n a l education:

th a t i s ,

i t reproduces the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n in society and makes i t appear l e g i t i ­
mate.

We cannot analyze th is c r itic is m d i r e c t l y , but there are some

in d ir e c t analyses th a t can be made.
One such analysis involves looking a t the re la tio n s h ip between
the incidence o f openness and social class.

I f these two variables

are p o s itiv e ly co rrelated we could say th a t the use of an informal
approach seems to be "reserved" fo r higher SES students and th ere­
fore may provide some special advantage to them.

In the foregoing

section we found the r e la t io n between SES and openness to be "stronger"
than the r e la t io n between race and openness.

The following ta b le

shows th a t openness and SES are related in a p a r t ic u la r way in
sp ecially selected groups o f low and high TOPEN teachers.

Table 19.

T-Test o f SES o f Classes For Teachers Grouped
By High and Low Reported Openness Scores

low TOPEN
group
mean SES

2.75

high TOPEN
group
3.08

t

p

-2 .7 5

.01

*A low TOPEN teacher was defined as any teacher with a TOPEN
score below h standard deviation below the mean; a high TOPEN teacher
is a teacher with a TOPEN score above % standard deviation above the
mean.

182
We can see th a t the low TOPEN teachers have students with s ig n if ic a n t ly
lower SES scores than the high TOPEN teachers.

This re la tio n s h ip also

holds true f o r a l l the classes in our data s e t, since the c o rre la tio n
between SES and TOPEN in th a t set is .16 (p - .0 1 ) .

The other

openness measure, SOPEN, also is s ig n if ic a n t ly c o rrela ted a t .32
(p - .001) with SES a t the class level of an alysis.

At the school

level o f analysis TOPEN and SES are not s ig n if ic a n t ly c o rre la te d , but
SOPEN and SES c o rre la te a t .31 (p - .0 1 ).
From these results we can conclude th a t higher openness scores
are generally found among higher SES students.

Whether or not higher

openness provides the higher SES students with some advantage is uncer­
ta in , but i t seems c le a r th a t openness is not an approach commonly used
with students at a l l SES le v e ls .
We can also look at the rela tio n s h ip between social class and
openness with respect to c e rta in climate variables which have been
found to be related to achievement.

Some of the studies discussed in

previous chapters have indicated th a t fo r low SES students a high sense
of f u t i l i t y and a low level o f teacher expectations are important
factors in producing lower achievement levels in many schools.

If

this is the case, and i f open classrooms do not perform in th is way,
then we would expect to fin d the pattern of relation ship s displayed
in the following ta b le , and could conclude th a t openness overcomes
the usual e f f e c t of SES.

183

SES
LOW

HIGH

Low expectations
and high f u t i l i t y

High expectations
and low f u t i l i t y

High expectations
and low f u t i l i t y

High expectations
and low f u t i l i t y

LOW
fiPFNNFcc
UrL.IMIiC.00

HIGH

Figure 11.

Expected Pattern o f Relationships Between Students'
Sense of F u t i l i t y , Teachers' Expectations f o r Achieve­
ment, Socioeconomic S tatus, and Students' Reports of
Openness When Openness Overcomes the Effects o f SES

In other words, we would expect to fin d s ig n if ic a n t differences
between the low and high SES categories (as other studies have),
as well as between the low and high openness categories (e s p e c ia lly
fo r low SES students).

Such a fin d in g could be in te rp re te d to mean

that informal approaches overcome the negative e ffe c ts o f low expec­
tations and high f u t i l i t y on low SES students.
In order to analyze the re la tio n s h ip between SES, openness,
sense of f u t i l i t y and teacher expectations, some analyses o f variance
were performed.

For the analyses, two open categories and two SES

categories were constructed.

The high and low open categories were

defined as a l l the cases e it h e r o n e-h alf standard deviation below or
one-half standard deviation above the mean SOPEN value, resp ective ly.

184

The SES categories were s im ila r ly constructed (low SES--one-half
standard deviation below the mean SES; high SES on e-half standard
deviation above the mean SES).

One e f f e c t o f these c r i t e r i a was to

reduce the sample siz e from 309 cases to 119 cases fo r th is an alysis.
But, since the frequency diagram of the openness va ria b le shows most
cases to be r e l a t i v e l y closed, i t was f e l t th a t the loss o f cases
was j u s t i f i e d by the f a c t th a t this dichotomization could c l a r i f y
the differences th a t might be found.

The tables below present the

findings f o r these two c r it e r io n v a ria b le s.

Table 20.

Two-Way Analysis of Variance of Students Sense of F u t i l i t y
By SES and By Student Reported Openness In Groups o f Classes
Selected For High and Low SES and Openness Scores

Student Sense
of F u t i l i t y
(SSCL1)

Low Openness

Low
SES

High
SES

mean

28.90

23.84

s.d .

2.96

2.08

n

53

12
grand mean 26.83

High Openness

mean

27.90

24.51

s.d .

2.66

2.54

n

15

39

F

P

Main e ffe c ts

37.08

.001

SES

48.89

.001

SOPEN
In te ra c tio n Effects

.20

NS

1.98

NS

185
Since the in te ra c tio n e f f e c t was not s i g n i f i c a n t , a m u ltip le c l a s s i f i cation analysis was appropriate (Nie e t . al_. p. 409).

*

This analysis

gives the net e f f e c t o f each v a ria b le when the d iffe re n c e in the other
fa cto r is controlled f o r .

For the f u t i l i t y c r it e r io n v a r ia b le , con­

t r o l l i n g the e ffe c ts of openness produced low and high SES category
means o f 28.62 and 24.44.

C ontrollin g fo r SES gave low and high

openness category means of 26.95 and 26.68 re s p e c tiv e ly .

The m u ltip le

c la s s ific a tio n analysis found th a t the e ffe c ts o f SES and openness
together account fo r 39% o f the variance in student sence o f f u t i l i t y .
Table 21.

Two-Way Analysis of Variance of Teacher Expectations and
Evaluations By SES and By Student Reported Openness in
Groups of Classes Selected For High and Low SES and Openness
Scores

Teacher
Expectations
(TSCL1)
Low Openness

Low
SES

High
SES

mean

25.55

31.17

s.d .

6.94

6.67

n

53

12
grand mean 30.25

High Openness

mean

26.07

37.97

s.d .

6.85

8.04

n

15
F

39
P

Main Effects

33.60

.001

SES

30.92

.001

SOPEN

4.24

.04

In teractio n Effects

3.83

.05

A m u ltip le c la s s ific a tio n analysis is useful when the a t t r ib u t e
variables are not experimentally manipulated and are therefo re correlated .

186

Here, since s ig n if ic a n t in te ra c tio n effe c ts were found, no m u ltip le
c la s s ific a tio n analysis was performed.
For the most p a r t , we see th a t the expected pattern does not
prevail fo r e it h e r c r it e r io n v a ria b le .

We note, in passing, th a t

the c e ll sizes themselves in d ic a te , as we have suggested elsewhere,
that low openness/low SES and high openness/high SES classes seem
to be the more common types.
For the f u t i l i t y f a c t o r , the resu lts of the analysis f a i r l y
c le a r ly f a i l to support the hypothesis, namely th a t more open class­
rooms have an e s p e c ia lly d i f f e r e n t influence on f u t i l i t y than less
open classrooms when SES is taken in to account.

We note th a t the c e ll

means show th a t higher openness reduces f u t i l i t y somewhat f o r low SES
students, while i t seems to have the reverse e f f e c t on high SES
students.
Nor is the hypothesis confirmed by the analysis o f the teacher
expectations v a r ia b le , although because o f the in te ra c tio n e f f e c t , the
row/row and column/column comparisons are not so c le a r as they are
with respect to f u t i l i t y .

Again, there may be a modest advantage fo r

both low and high SES students in more open classrooms in so far as
teacher expectations are concerned.

The prin cipal conclusion we can

draw from these figures is th a t openness, as measured by th is study,
has l i t t l e

impact on student sense o f f u t i l i t y and teachers' expecta­

tions in comparison to the impact th a t social class appears to have.
The f in a l analysis o f the re la tio n between openness, social
class, and s e lf - r e li a n c e involves a stepwise regression on openness
(SOPEN) using the clim ate variables and teacher and student background
variables.

S e lf- r e lia n c e was also included as an independent va ria b le

187
fo r th is regression, even though the o rig in a l research design places
SRELI with the other dependent v a ria b le s .

Recall th a t some research

indicates th a t a student's sense of s e lf - r e lia n c e may be as much a
product of home background as of tr a in in g in school.

Also, i t has

been suggested th a t some degree of m aturity is required of students
before they can take advantage of informal approaches.

So, we can

speculate th a t some s e lf - r e li a n c e produced by the home is a fa c to r
in the degree o f openness found in school.

We are not, a t th is p o in t,

changing the o rig in a l research design which defines s e lf - r e lia n c e as a
dependent v a r ia b le , but fo r th is analysis on ly, we are allowing SRELI
to act as an independent va ria b le in order to see how i t is related to
openness in comparison with other independent variables in the design.
A stepwise regression with class level data was performed because
such an analysis allows variables to be entered in to the regression
equation in the order o f t h e i r r e la t iv e importance.
allows us to see where SES and s e lf - r e lia n c e f a l l

This analysis

r e la t iv e to each

other and to the other major variables in the research design.

188
Table 22.

Summary o f Stepwise M u ltip le Regression on Student Reported
Openness (SOPEN) By All Other Independent Variables in the
Modified Sample

F to en ter
or remove

Variable
TOPEN
SES
SSCL4
SSCL3
TSCL1
TSCL3
SCAA
SSCL5
TSCL5
WHITE
T. Experience
TSCL2
SSCL1
T. Training
% Males
T. Sex
SRELI
TSCL4
SSCL2

102.64
21.90
13.44
5.65
4.29
4.24
1.88
1.46
1.19
.87
.89
.94
.66
.23
.10
.08
.05
.05
.03

P
.000
.000
.000
.018
.039
.041
.171
.228
.276
.351
.345
.333
.417
.632
.750
.779
.819
.830
.853

m u ltip le
R

o
R

p
R change

.53
.58
.60
.61
.62
.63
.63
.64
.64
.64
.64
.64
.64
.64
.64
.64
.64
.64
.64

.276
.331
.363
.376
.386
.396
.400
.403
.406
.408
.410
.412
.414
.414
.415
.415
.415
.415
.415

.276
.055
.032
.013
.010
.010
.004
.003
.003
.002
.002
.002
.002
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000

s i mpl e
R
.53
.31
-.1 2
-.1 2
.26
- .0 4
-.0 0 3
-.1 2
- .0 8
.13
-.1 0
.17
-.2 2
.03
-.0 1
- .0 8
- .0 3
.15
.11

This analysis shows th a t teacher reported openness (TOPEN) makes
the greatest co ntribution to SOPEN, as could be expected, since i t had
the highest c o rre la tio n with student reported openness.

The next

greatest co ntribution to the variance in SOPEN is produced by SES,
which accounts fo r 5. 5%.

Another m u ltip le regression on SOPEN which

forced SES and student reported s e lf - r e lia n c e (SRELI) in to the regres­
sion equation before the other variables showed th a t SES accounted fo r
9.8% of the variance in SOPEN, while SRELI accounted fo r 1.2% and TOPEN
accounted f o r an additional 22.7%.

The remaining 16 variables together

accounted fo r 7.8% of the variance, fo r a to ta l o f 41.5% o f the variance
of SOPEN.

This a n a ly s is , l i k e the others in th is section, shows a

f a i r l y strong r e la t io n between openness and SES in comparison with a ll

189
the other independent variables except teacher reported openness.

Summary
We found th a t both teachers and students report higher openness
in higher SES classes, and students (but not teachers) report higher
openness in higher SES schools.

We found th a t teacher expectations

fo r achievement and students' sense of f u t i l i t y , which other studies
have linked to SES, were not s u b s ta n tia lly d if f e r e n t because of d i f ­
ferences in the degree of openness of classroom approaches.

F in a lly ,

we found th a t SES contributes more to the v a ria tio n in the openness
than any o f the other variables used in the study, with the exception
of teacher openness.
The Relationship Between Openness
and Some Background Variables
Several of the studies discussed in preceding chapters have
sought to i d e n t if y c e rta in teacher c h a ra c te ris tic s which are related
to t h e ir teaching styles (r e c a ll Harvey's 1966 study of "concrete"
and "abstract" teach ers).

While we w i l l not undertake the invention

of concepts l i k e Harvey's, we w ill look a t the relation ship s between
some teacher status c h a ra c te ris tic s (sex, race, experience, and t r a i n ­
ing) and openness, as well as the relationships between openness and
some other background variables (community type, class s i z e ) .

The

table below indicates the number and percentage o f teachers in the
various categories of sex, race, experience, and tra in in g fo r the
modified classroom sample.

190

Table 23.

Number and Percentage of Teachers by Sex, Race, Teaching
Experience, And Training (in the Modified Sample, N = 309)

N

%

Sex

Female
Male

230
79

74.4
25.6

Race

Black
White
Other

19
284
4

6.1
91.9
1.3

Experience

0 - 4 years
5 - 9 years
10 or more years

82
87
140

26.5
28.2
45.3

Training

Less than Masters
Masters or more

221
87

71.5
28.2

L . .. ..................... .

The r e la tio n between teacher race and openness has already been
examined with another data base where more black teachers were present.
The c o rre la tio n between teacher sex and openness (TOPEN in th is case)
fo r this sample was - .1 3 (p - .0 5 ) , which indicates somewhat more
k

intended openness occurs with female teachers.
The teachers' tra in in g and experience were also examined with
respect to openness, using a one-way analysis o f variance approach.
These two variables can both be surmised to have a s p e c ific re la tio n
to class openness.

For example, in the case o f t r a in in g , we might

expect th a t more tra in in g might provide a teacher with more knowledge
about n o n -tra d itio n a l methods.

In the case of experience, we might
kk

e x p ec t--in so far as more experienced teachers are also older

--th a t

more experienced teachers have developed an established routine and
★
Teacher sex and SOPEN were not s ig n if ic a n t ly co rrelated .
No data on teacher age was co llected .

191

are less l i k e l y to use the new informal approach.

Recall also our

e a r l i e r remarks th a t SOPEN may on occasion measure lack o f control
in a class ra th e r than planned in fo r m a lity .

I f th is is in f a c t the

case, we would expect th a t more experienced teachers would be more
successful in c o n tro llin g t h e ir classes and would thus have lower
SOPEN values.

The tables below show the results o f the analysis of

variance in SOPEN and TOPEN based on teachers' tra in in g and experience.

Table 24.

Class Level Two-Way Analysis o f Variance o f Student
Reported Openness by Teacher Experience and Teacher
Training

N = 308
SOPEN

Experience
0 -4
Less than
Masters

Training

years

15.52
n = 76

5 -9

years

15.92
n = 61

10 + years
14.78
n = 84

__________________________________ _____________________
Masters
or more

15.76
n=5

Main effe c ts
Experience
Training
In te ra c tio n

15.66
n=26

15.41
n = 56

F

P

3.82
5.54
1.38
1.26

.01
.001
NS
NS

192

Table 25.

Class Level Two-Way Analysis o f Variance o f Teacher
Reported Openness by Teacher Experience and Teacher
Training

N = 305
TOPEN
Experience
0 -4

years

5 -9

years

10 + years

Less than
Masters

17.08
n = 75

17.22
n = 60

16.05
n = 83

Masters
or more

18.20
n = 5

17.77
n = 26

17.14
n = 56

F

P

Training

Main e ffe c ts
Experience
Training
In te ra c tio n

3.67
3.95
5.47
.209

.013
.02
.019
NS

Tentative in te rp re ta tio n s o f these tables are th a t student reported
openness (SOPEN) is lower in the classrooms of more experienced
teachers, while the teacher reported openness (TOPEN) is higher with
teachers who have had more tr a in in g .
Because o f the re la tio n s th a t seem to e x is t between SOPEN,
TOPEN and several teacher background variables and because ZDIFF had
a p a rtic u la r re la tio n s h ip to SOPEN and TOPEN, i t seemed worthwhile to
examine ZDIFF's r e la tio n to the background va riables.

193
Teacher sex and tr a in in g (as simple dichotomies) were corre­
lated with ZDIFF, and the Pearson c o e ffic ie n ts are reported below.

Table 26.

C orrelation o f ZDIFF With Teacher Sex and Teacher Training

ZDIFF X SEX

= - .1 4

(p * .012)

.16

(p * .005)

N = 306
ZDIFF X TRAINING =

These c o rrela tio n s show th a t female teachers and teachers with more
train in g tend to have classes which are less open than intended.
Since race and teacher experience were nominal ra th e r than
interval v a ria b le s , an analysis o f variance was used to determine i f
they were related to ZDIFF.

Table 27.

mean ZDIFF

Results are reported below.

Analysis o f Variance o f ZDIFF by Teacher Race

Black

Other

White

-.021

-1.262

.020

4

282

19

N

F = 3.60

Table 28.

Analysis of Variance o f ZDIFF by Teacher Experience

0 -4
mean ZDIFF
N

p * .029

years

5 -9

years

.018

-.0 8 6

81

86

F = .45

NS

10 + years
-.0 36
139

194
Apparently, a teacher's level o f experience is not re la te d to ZDIFF
(th a t i s , the concordance o f teacher intentions and re s u lts obtained ),
and while teacher race may be related to ZDIFF, the great differen ces
in size o f the teacher race categories are not conducive to a firm
conclusion in th is area.
In addition to the r e la t io n o f the foregoing teacher background
variables to openness, we can suppose th at the type o f community th a t
a school is in may influence the degree of in fo r m a lity th a t a teacher
might t r y to use in class.

However, an analysis o f variance o f SOPEN

and TOPEN with respect to community type showed no s ig n if ic a n t d i f ­
ferences in openness, e it h e r intended or obtained.
Another well known school fa c to r which may be presumed to be
related to openness is class size (and school s i z e ) .

I t seems reason­

able to suppose th a t the size o f a class may influence the amount of
control a teacher brings to bear on class a c t i v i t i e s ; in p a r t ic u la r ,
we might expect to find less openness where there are la rg e r number
of students.
In order to assess the r e la tio n between class size and open­
ness, class data were aggregated to schools to obtain several new
measurements (using a l l classes surveyed).

These measurements were,

in turn, correlated with each other so th a t in te rre la tio n s h ip s could
be studied.

Descriptive s t a t is t ic s and co rrela tio n s fo r these

variables are shown in the tables below.

195
Table 29.

Descriptive S t a t is t ic s on Variables Related to Openness
and School and Class Size f o r 108 Schools
Standard
deviation

Mean
number o f 4th and 5th grade classes per
school (N)
mean class size per school (Ml)
standard deviation of class size per
school (S I)
range of class sizes per school (R l)
mean class SOPEN score per school
(M2)
standard deviation of class SOPEN score
per school (S2)
range of class SOPEN scores per school
(R2)

Table 30.

4.55
24. 70

2.47
4.04

3.06
6.36

2.00
4.61

15.39

1.89

1.32

.69

2.87

1.76

Correlations For Variables Related to Openness and School
and Class Size (only c o rrela tio n s s ig n if ic a n t a t p - .05
are reported)

N

N

Ml

1

.30

Ml

1

SI

M2

S2

- .3 0
-.2 2

M2

.23

.48

.90
1

S2

R2

- .3 9

1

SI

Rl

.19

- .1 9

1

.85
1

Rl

.21
1

R2
N = 108

★

This school SOPEN measure is not id e n tic a l with school SOPEN
mentioned elsewhere. The l a t t e r SOPEN measure was obtained as an
average of a l l individuals in a given school. The former is an average
of class averages which were not weighted f o r class s iz e . Consequently,
some discrepancies between the two school SOPEN measures undoubtedly
e x is t.

196

Several s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t co rrela tio n s were found.

The

number of classes per school (N) p o s itiv e ly correlated with both the
average class size per school (Ml) and the range o f class sizes per
school ( R l ) .

That i s , the more classes surveyed in the school , the

larger they tend to be, and a t the same time, the more va ria b le the class
size i s .

Not unexpectedly, the v a r i a b i l i t y (in range) of class size (R l)

is almost p o s itiv e ly co rrela ted with the v a r i a b i l i t y ( in range) o f SOPEN
mean class score (R 2).

The number o f classes per school is also p o s itiv e ly

correlated with the v a ria tio n ( in range) of SOPEN.

In f a c t , th is second

re la tio n (N X R2) seems stronger than the f i r s t (Rl X R2), since the f o r ­
mer remains s ig n if ic a n t when Rl is held constant, but the l a t t e r becomes
no n -s ig n ific an t when N is c o n tro lle d .

We can speculate th a t th is r e l a ­

tion is stronger than the other because, as we have already claimed, open­
ness can vary widely w ithin a school because o f teachers' autonomy in
methodological approach.

Whatever the case, i t is cle ar th a t v a ria tio n

in school s ize , as shown by the number of classes, and v a ria tio n in class
size, as shown by the class size range w ithin a school, are both related
to each other and to the v a ria tio n in class SOPEN score.

la r g e r school
size (N)

Schematically,

_
greater range of
class SOPEN (R2)

greater range of
class size ( R l) '

Figure 12. The Relationship Between V ariatio n in School S ize, V aria­
tion in Class Size Within Schools, and Range o f Students1
Reports of Openness a t the School Level

*We w ill consider th is as equivalent to saying "the more classrooms
in the school" since we have already noted the close r e la t io n between the
number of students a c tu a lly surveyed and the actual numbers in schools and
classes.

197
Apparently, school and class size also bear some r e la t io n to mean
class SOPEN values.

The number of classes per school (N ), the mean

class size per school (Ml) and the range of class sizes per school
(Rl) are a l l negatively co rrela ted with SOPEN.

Schematically,

la rg e r school (N)
la rg e r classes (M l) —

openness (M2)

la rg e r range o f class
(R l) size

Figure 13.

The Relationship Between School and Class Size, Range of
Class Size, And Students' Reports o f Openness a t the
School Level

These findings suggest th a t openness does decrease as school and class
size increases.

The fin din g th a t class size and openness are inversely

related is also borne out by the c o rre la tio n between class size and
measures of openness found in the modified sample.

Both SOPEN and

TOPEN co rrelated with class size a t a value of -.1 5 (p = .0 1 ).

Summary
We examined openness in r e la t io n to c e rta in background v a ria b le s .
We found th a t obtained openness was apparently not related to a teachers'
race.

We found th a t female teachers reported more openness, as well as

did teachers with more tra in in g :

students reported less openness in

classes where the teacher was more experienced.

We found th a t female

teachers and teachers with more tr a in in g tended to have classes which
reported considerably d i f f e r e n t degrees o f openness.

We found th a t

198
community type was not re la te d to the degree o f openness and th a t
school and class size were inversely related to the degree o f open­
ness.
The Relationship Between Openness and Other
Aspects of Informal Education
Up to th is point we have looked a t the nature o f variables
measuring the degree o f teacher a u th o rity or openness, and t h e ir
r e la tio n to some common background fa c to rs .

We can also in ves tiga te

how our measures o f openness are related to other aspects o f open
education.

I f SOPEN is not ju s t measuring lack of co n tro l, then we

would expect to fin d s ig n if ic a n t relation ship s between our measures
of openness and other open practices such as:
(1)

R e la tiv e ly greater a tte n tio n to personal and social
(as contrasted with co g n itive ) growth and development;

(2)

Greater in d iv id u a liz a tio n of in s tru c tio n ;

(3)

The use o f non-homogeneous grouping.

Also, the use o f the survey instruments a t Central and Northern
Open Schools presents the opportunity to look a t some p a r t ic u la r open
teachers' a ttitu d e s and then use them to construct hypotheses about
teachers' a ttitu d e s in the reduced sample.
In order to look a t the r e la t io n between openness and these
other open-related a ttitu d e s and p ractices, several decisions seemed
appropriate.

F i r s t , i t was decided th a t TOPEN was a more v a lid open­

ness measurement to use to r e la t e to other teacher survey items than
was SOPEN.

E a r l i e r , we id e n t if ie d a c lu s te r o f f i r s t - o r d e r variables

which contained several te ach er-related v a ria b le s , and i t seems most
reasonable to suppose th a t other teacher variables would f a l l in th is
c lu s te r as w e ll, thus preceding any second-order student-related

199
v a ria b le .

Furthermore, one might presume th a t even i f there was some

discrepancy between a ttitu d e s and practices reported and behavior
obtained ( i f , fo r example, a teacher with a high TOPEN score had a
class with a low SOPEN score), we could s t i l l expect other openrelated a ttitu d e s and practices to coordinate f a i r l y well with TOPEN,
despite the fa c t th a t the general o rie n ta tio n reported by the teacher
was apparently not having an e f f e c t on classroom behavior.
Second, i t was decided to elim in ate cases which f e l l

in ZDIFF

category I (ZDIFF less th an< -1 ), where TOPEN was r e l a t i v e l y low and
SOPEN r e l a t i v e l y high, cases where the teacher c le a r ly did not espouse
open p ractices, and where, fo r example, the label "out o f control"
might be j u s t i f i a b l y a p p lie d .

The s t a t i s t i c a l e f f e c t o f th is reduc­

tion in sample by e lim in a tin g the 56 cases where ZDIFF is less than
4 1 , would be to shorten the range of the TOPEN v a ria b le and thus
decrease somewhat the lik e lih o o d of finding s ig n if ic a n t c o rrela tio n s
between i t and other a t t it u d e s .

This approach was f e l t to be

j u s t i f i e d since the removal o f the ZDIFF category I cases would,
given the in te r p r e ta tio n we have already assumed about the r e la tio n
between TOPEN and SOPEN, mean th a t the openness found in the cases
was intended to be th ere.

Thus, we could conclude th at the presence

of a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t re la tio n s h ip between openness and other
open a ttitu d e s might be evidence th a t c e rta in a ttitu d e s do "hang to ­
gether."

Below are several tables which show how the expected open-

related items in the teacher survey are re la te d to the teacher openness
variable TOPEN.

In the follow ing an aly sis, a high TOPEN score is defined

as any TOPEN score a t or above 19 (approximately % standard deviation
above mean), while any TOPEN score a t or below 15 (approximately %

200
standard deviation below mean) is defined as a low TOPEN score.
Dichotomizing the TOPEN measure in th is way, while again reducing the
number o f cases, also separates the two groups f a r enough to insure
th at they vary appreciably in the amount of openness they contain.

Open-related Practices
(1)

Do teachers with high openness scores attach r e l a t i v e l y
greater importance to personal and social growth and
development than to cognitive development?

Items 68 and 69 are relevan t to th is question.

High and low

2

TOPEN group responses to item 68 were analyzed by a X
responses to item 69 were analyzed by c o rre la tio n s .
analysis

of item 68 are in the f i r s t ta b le

analysis

o f item 69 follows in the next ta b le .

Table 31.

t e s t , while

Results of the

immediately below, while

Chi-Square Test o f Teachers' Report of T h eir Primary
R esponsibility To T h eir Students (Teachers Grouped By
High and Low Reported Openness Scores)

Teaching
Academi c
Subjects
(1)

Enhanc­
ing
Social
S k ills
(2)

Personal
Growth &
Develop­
ment
(3)

Encourag­
ing Aspirations
(4)

Other
(5)

No Response
or more than
one response
(6)

Low
TOPEN

52.7%

10.8%

27.0%

2.7%

0

High
TOPEN

36.2%

5.8%

36.2%

4.3%

2.9%

%

N

6 .8%

74

14.5%

69

This item could also be assigned an archetypal open teacher response:
v i z . , personal growth and development.

As the ta b le shows, the two

groups were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y d is t in c t in the pattern o f t h e i r responses
(a t the .05 level of p r o b a b ilit y ) .

201
Table 32.

Correlations o f Openness With Teachers' Report o f Their
Success With Regard to Student Development in Four Areas
(Based on High and Low Teacher Reported Openness Groups).

Zero order
c o rre la tio n
with TOPEN

F i r s t order
c o rre la tio n
with TOPEN
P (SES c o n tro lle d )

P_

A.

Success in teaching academic
s k ills

.16

.05

NS

B.

Success ip enhancing social
s k ills

.18

.01

NS

C.

Success in enhancing personal
growth and development, s e l f re lia n c e , e tc .

.16

.05

NS

D.

Success in developing educa­
tional and occupational
aspirations

NS

NS

F ir s t , we note th a t

the re la tio n s h ip these success factors

have with

openness is not too

strong, and seems to depend la rg e ly on SES, since

when th a t l a t t e r fa c to r is c o n tro lle d , TOPEN is not s ig n if ic a n t ly
related to any o f the other fo u r.

Also, given the general o rie n ta tio n

of open education, we would expect th a t TOPEN would be re la te d to
factors B and C, and would not be re la te d to factors A and D.

However,

this pattern does not appear.
Consequently, we conclude th a t openness and an emphasis on
personal and social

growth seem unrelated, although theresu lts

suggest th a t openness and social class are re la te d .

do

202
(2)

Do teachers with high openness scores practice greater
in d iv id u a liz a tio n of instruction?

Items 67 and 85 are relevant to th is question.

Table 33.

Correlations of Openness With Teachers' Report o f the
Extent To Which They In d iv id u a liz e Their In s tru c tio n
(Based on High and Low Teacher Reported Openness Groups)

Zero order
c o rre la tio n
with TOPEN
A.

B.

C.

Percentage of time spent
conferring with i n d i v i ­
dual students* bout academic
progress

.19

Percentage of time spent
with individual students
about behavior or personal
and social growth

F i r s t order
c o rre la tio n
with TOPEN
P (SES c o n tro lle d )

.01

P

-

NS

NS

Degree to which teaching
objectives d i f f e r fo r
d i f f e r e n t students

.34

.001

NS

.36

.001

Here again we see th a t the re la tio n between openness and other openrelated factors is at le a s t p a r t i a l l y subject to the influence of
social class.

In the case o f these three factors our expected finding

would be th a t a s ig n ific a n t p o sitive c o rre la tio n exists between the
degree of openness and each o f them.

However, a f t e r c o n tro llin g fo r

SES, only one of the three meets our expectations.

Again, we are

unable to conclude th a t openness is related to a fa c to r commonly
thought to accompany i t .
(3)

Do teachers with high openness scores practice non-homogeneous
groupings?

Item 16 is relevant here.
2

th is item were analyzed by a X
the table below.

High and low TOPEN group responses to
te s t.

Results of th is analysis appear in

203
Table 34.

Chi-Square Test o f Teachers' Reported Within-Class Grouping
Practices (Based on High and Low Teacher Reported Openness
Groups).

Homogeneous
grouping by
a b i l i t y in
a l l subjects
Low
TOPEN

42.3%

Hi qh
TOPEN

50.0%

Homogeneous
grouping by
a b i l i t y in
some subjects

.9%

2.9%

Heterogenous
grouping by Random
a b ility
grouping

51.4%

44.1%

5.4%

2 .0%

N

X

P

3.62

NS

111

136

Here, fo r a t h ir d tim e, we fin d no re la tio n s h ip between openness and
a fa c to r which could be expected to be re la te d to i t .
We can summarize our discussion up to th is point by saying t h a t ,
insofar as th is sample and survey instrument are concerned, there is no
evidence to support the view th a t lower teacher control over classroom
a c t iv i t ie s is re la te d to other practices ( e .g . emphasis on personal and
social growth, in d iv id u a liz a tio n o f in s tr u c tio n , non-homogeneous grouping),
which the l i t e r a t u r e would lead us to believe do accompany th is more open
approach.

We conclude, in the absence o f a re la tio n s h ip , th a t teachers

may exercise less control over t h e i r students' a c t i v i t i e s , thus giving
them more freedom o f choice, but th a t such a practice does not auto­
m atically insure th a t other open-related practices w ill also occur.
The absence o f these concordant aspects o f open education may be viewed
as fu rth e r proof th a t the open classroom approach has not been widely
accepted.

204
Open-related A ttitudes
In the surveys administered to the f iv e teachers in the two
open schools, Central and Northern, there were a number o f items with
s u f f ic ie n t agreement so th a t an "archetypal" open teacher response
could be id e n t if ie d .

Such archetypal items were id e n t if ie d f o r those

cases where:
(1 )

Four or f iv e teachers selected the same response to an
i tern;

(2 )

Three selected the same response and the other two
selected close responses (e ith e r both immediately above
or below, or one above and the other below: e . g . , 33344,
33322, 23334).

When such a response pattern was found, the mean Central-Northern teacher
response was obtained and th is value was defined as the archetypal open
teacher response.

In cases where item responses were not scales but

categories, the category with the greatest number of "votes" was called
the archetypal response.
The complete l i s t of archetypal items fo r the Central and Northern
Open school teachers is in Appendix G.

An analysis o f the content of

these items seemed to indicate the presence of c e rta in a ttitu d e s held
by the open school teachers.

*

For example, they seem ready to assign

re s p o n s ib ility fo r student performance to themselves, judging by t h e ir
responses to items 70, 71, 72.

In a day when teacher organizations

seem to mainly oppose "a cc o u n ta b ility ," these teachers have v o lu n ta r ily
accepted i t .

Also, the open teachers seem to view t h e i r students as

*

Several other items produced archetypal responses but did not
appear to th is researcher to be related to the a ttitu d e s to be d is ­
cussed, nor did they appear to form any other category with a special
re la tio n to open education.

205
of average a b i l i t y (items #20, 2 9 ) ,

*

y e t they hold high expectations

f o r , and evaluations o f , student performance (items #22, 30, 31, 33,
42, 57).

Perhaps open school teachers are es p e c ia lly o p tim is tic

about t h e i r e f f o r t s .

The Open School teachers also seem to have a low

opinion o f IQ tests (items #17, 1 8 ).

L a s tly , the Open School teachers

appear to have a firm and p o sitive re la tio n s h ip with parents (items #61,
65, 8 8 ).

I f these so -called archetypal a ttitu d e s o f the open school

teachers a t Central and Northern are in fa c t representative of open
attitu des in general, then we can expect to fin d these a ttitu d e s
related to our openness measures in the modified sample of classrooms.
Two kinds of analysis were performed on these items.

F irs t,

classes were divided in to high and low categories of TOPEN (in the same
manner as before) and a t - t e s t o f the group means was performed fo r
each item.

The group means were also compared with the archetypal

response.

Second, each of the archetypal items was co rrelated with

TOPEN (with the e ffe c ts of SES c o n tr o lle d ).

These two procedures were

used in combination because they provided the desired an aly sis, made
the most e f f i c i e n t use o f computer tim e , and allowed the most robust
use of the reduced data s e t.

The maximum sizes o f the low and high

groups were 75 and 71 re s p e c tiv e ly , and the t - s t a t i s t i e s and p a r t ia l
correlations in the following four tables are based on these 146 cases.
(1)

Do teachers with higher openness scores accept greater
re s p o n s ib ility fo r t h e i r students' performance?

*

There is some reason to be skeptical o f the teachers' view
th at the students a t these two schools are "average." The Central
Open School evaluation report revealed th a t an e s p e c ia lly high pro­
portion of middle class and professional fam ilies were sending t h e ir
children to the school. The open teachers' la b elin g o f t h e ir students
as average may be an excessively modest appraisal.

206
This question is based on archetypal responses to the follow ing
teacher survey items:
70.

How responsible do you fe el fo r a student's academic
achievement?

71.

To what extent do you think th a t teaching methods a f f e c t
students' achievement?

72.

To what extent do you th ink teachers' a ttitu d e s toward
t h e i r students a f f e c t t h e i r students' achievement?

Table 35.

T-Tests of Teachers' A ttitud es About Their R espon sib ility
For Students' Performance and the Correlation o f Those
A ttitudes With Reported Openness When SES is Controlled
(Based on High and Low Teacher Reported Openness Groups).

Mean
C en tralNorthern
archetypal
response
'•

High
TOPEN
Group
Mean

Low
TOPEN
Group
Mean

t

| Items'
! Correlations
with TOPEN
(SES C ontrolled)
P

P

Item 70

3.8

i
i

4.40

4.36

-

NS

-

NS

Item 71

4.0

;

4.07

4.19

-

NS

-

NS

Item 72

4 .8

j

4.77

4.64

-

NS

-

NS

3

No s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t re la tio n s were found.
(2)

Do teachers with higher openness scores view t h e i r students
as having only average a b i l i t y and do they hold higher
expectations fo r and evaluations of t h e ir performance?

The f i r s t p art of th is question is based on archetypal responses to
the following two teacher items:
20.

On the average, what level of achievement can be expected of
the students in your class?

29.

How would you rate the academic a b i l i t y of the students in
th is school compared to other schools?

The l a t t e r part of the question is based on archetypal responses to the
following teacher items:
22.

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

207
30.

What percent o f the students in
want to complete high school?

th is school would you say

31.

What percent of the students in
want to complete high school?

your class would you say

33.

What percent o f the students in
want to go to college?

your class would you say

42.

Completion o f high school is a r e a l i s t i c goal which you set
fo r what percentage o f your students?

57.

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

Table 36.

T-Tests o f Teachers' Views of Students' A b i l i t y and Their
Evaluations and Expectations For Performance and the
Correlations o f Those Views With Reported Teacher Openness
When SES is Controlled (Based on High and Low Teacher
Reported Openness Groups).

Mean
Central
Northern
archetypal
response

~ T
}
High
TOPEN
group
mean

Low
TOPEN
group
mean

t

p

Item 20

3.0

3.25

2.92

-2 .3 8 .02

Item 29

3.0

3.16

2.90

-1 .9 6 .05

Item 22

4.8

4.54

4.32

Item 30

4.6

4.61

4.34

Item 31

5.0

4.72

Item 33

4.8

Item 42
Item 57

jlterns' Corre­
la tio n s with
[TOPEN (SES
bo ntrolled)
i

P
NS

-

NS

-

NS

-2 .2 2 .03

-

NS

4.41

-2 .7 4 .007

-

NS

3.40

2.64

-4 .2 4 .001

4.8

4.46

4.43

2.0

2.00

2.77

-

-

NS

NS

2.56 .01

.29
-

.20

.001
NS
.02

This analysis shows th a t teachers with higher openness scores tend to
view t h e ir students as s ig n if ic a n t ly more able than teachers with lower
openness scores, and th a t these archetypal items and openness are not

208
related when social class is c o n tro lle d .

Also, we note th a t while

the low and high openness group means are both near the archetypal
scores, i t is the low openness group which a c tu a lly scores closest
to the archetypal values.
The analysis also reveals th a t four o f the six items concerned
with evaluations and expectations show th at the teachers with higher
openness scores have s ig n if ic a n t ly higher evaluations and expectations
than do teachers w ith lower openness scores.

Moreover, the co rrelatio ns

between two o f these items (33 and 57) and openness, with SES c o n tro lle d ,
are also s i g n i f i c a n t , and in d ic a te th a t higher openness is related to
higher evaluations and expectations.
To sum up, i t seems f a i r to say th a t teachers with higher open­
ness scores do hold higher expectations f o r , and evaluations o f , t h e i r
students, but they do not view t h e i r students as having only average
a b ility .

On the contrary, they view t h e i r students as having s ig n i­

f ic a n t ly higher a b i l i t y than do the low openness teachers.

Thus, we

conclude th a t the expected archetypal a t t itu d e (o f open teachers view­
ing t h e i r students as average while at the same time holding high
expectations fo r them) does not e x is t.
(3)

Do teachers with higher openness scores have a generally
lower opinion o f the value of IQ tests?

This question is based on archetypal responses to the fo llo w ­
ing items:
17.

How important do you think standardized in te llig e n c e te s t
scores o f your students are?

18.

How often do you r e fe r to or consider the IQ te s t scores
of your students when you plan t h e i r work.

209
Table 37.

T-Tests o f Teachers' Opinions o f the Value o f I.Q . Tests
and the C orrelation o f Those Opinions With Reported
Openness When SES is Controlled (Based on High and Low
Teacher Reported Openness Groups)

Mean
Central
Northern
archetypal
response

High
TOPEN
group
mean

Low
TOPEN
group
mean

Item 17

3.0

3.03

3.40

Item 18

1.2

2.00

2.21

t
2.33

P
.02
NS

Item s' Corre­
la tio n s with
TOPEN (SES
c o n tro lle d )
- .2 3

p
.02
NS

While the group means f o r only one o f the two items are s ig n if ic a n t ly
d i f f e r e n t , the s ig n if ic a n t negative c o rre la tio n between th a t item and
TOPEN shows th a t higher TOPEN teachers do tend to fe el th a t i n t e l l i ­
gence t e s t scores are not very important, independent of social class
fa cto rs .

We conclude th a t teachers with higher openness scores do

have a lower opinion o f the value o f I.Q . te sts than teachers with
low openness scores.
(4 )

Do teachers with high openness scores have special concern
fo r t h e i r relationships with parents?

This question is based on archetypal responses to the following items:
61.

The parents o f students in th is school are deeply concerned
th a t t h e i r children receive a top q u a lity education.

65.

How many o f the parents o f students in th is school want
feedback from the prin cipal and teachers on how t h e i r
children are doing in school?

88.

What proportion o f your students' parents do you know when
you see them?

210
Table 38.

T-Tests o f Teachers Concern For Their Parental R elation­
ships and the Correlation o f Those Concerns With Openness
When SES is Controlled (based on High and Low Teacher
Reported Openness Groups).

Mean
Central
Northern
archetypal
: response

High
TOPEN
group
mean

Low
TOPEN
group
mean

t

p

Items' Corre
la tio n s with
TOPEN (SES
co n tro lled )

p

Item 61 j

4.4

3.97

3.58

-2 .4 0

.02

-

NS

Item 65 i

4.4

4.20

3.70

-3 .09

.002

-

NS

Item 88 |
i

5.0

4.42

3.73

-3 .7 0

.001

.22

.002

Here we note th a t a l l the means are s ig n if ic a n t ly d if f e r e n t between the
two groups, and th a t the high TOPEN group is more closely re la te d to the
archetypal responses than the low TOPEN group fo r a ll items.

Also, item

88 is s i g n if ic a n t ly p o s itiv e ly related to openness even when SES is con'k

t r o ll e d .

We may conclude th a t teachers with high openness scores do

feel more concerned about t h e i r relatio n s with parents than do teachers
with lower openness scores.

Summary
We found no differences between teachers with high and low open­
ness scores in r e la tio n to emphasizing personal and social growth over
cognitive development*, in prac ticin g greater in d iv id u a liz a tio n o f i n ­
s tru c tio n ; in p ra c tic in g non-homogeneous grouping.

In comparing

teachers with higher openness scores on archetypal open a ttitu d e s
*

I t might be thought th a t the time o f year when the survey was
administered influenced teachers' responses to th is item: th a t i s , the
l a t e r the survey was administered, the more parents were known. However,
th is was not found to be the case. See Appendix H fo r the analysis of
the e f fe c t o f time of survey on proportion of parents known.

211
we found th a t the two groups were not s i g n if ic a n t ly d i f f e r e n t in
accepting r e s p o n s ib ility fo r t h e ir students' performance.

We also

found th a t while teachers with higher openness scores viewed th e ir
students s ig n if ic a n t ly d i f f e r e n t ly in terms of a b i l i t i e s , expecta­
tions and evaluations, those differences did not conform to the
expected archetypal open p a tte rn .

We found th a t teachers with high

openness scores do have a lower opinion o f the value o f I.Q . tests
and are more concerned about t h e i r rela tio n s h ip s with parents than
teachers with lower openness scores.

Also, we found th a t 60% o f the

archetypal items fo r which s ig n if ic a n t d ifferen ces existed between
the two groups, were not s ig n if ic a n t ly re la te d to openness when SES
was c o n tro lle d .

The Relationship Between Openness
and Some Educational Outcomes
One es p e c ia lly important outcome th a t is often thought to be
related to informal education is the development o f the students'
senses o f s e lf - r e li a n c e .

I t is commonly believed th a t teachers who

are more open (and therefore who use less control to d ir e c t a c t i v i t i e s )
w ill be able to help increase students' sensesof s e lf - r e li a n c e .
In the following analysis we w i l l f i r s t look a t the re la tio n s h ip
between openness, social class, and s e l f - r e l i a n c e , and then a t the
impact openness and social class and other variables have on educa­
tional outcomes.
Using the class level data, the three possible f i r s t order co rre­
lations between these variables were obtained, each p a ir being controlled
fo r the e ffe c ts o f the th ird v a ria b le .

The findings are reported below.

212
Table 39.

Zero-Order and F irs t-O rd e r C orrelations Between SES,
Student Reported Openness and Student Reported S e lf Reliance For A ll Classes in Modified Data Sample

Zero order c o rre la tio n

F i r s t order c o rre la tio n

SES X SOPEN

=

.32

(p = .001)

.33
(p = .001)
(SRELI co n trolled)

SES X SRELI

=

.21

(p = .001)

.22
(p = .001)
(SOPEN co n tro lled )

SOPEN X SRELI =

-.0 0 9

(NS)

- .0 8
(NS)
(SES co n trolled)
N = 309

We conclude from these c o rrela tio n s th a t SOPEN and SRELI are
e s s e n tia lly unrelated; th e ir c o rre la tio n with each other is small
(although c o n tr o llin g fo r SES makes i t s lig h t ly stro n g e r), and
fu rth e r, n e ith er one has any e f f e c t in reducing the o th e r's s ig n i­
fic a n t c o rre la tio n with SES.
A stepwise regression analysis using class level data was run
with SRELI as the dependent v a ria b le and SES, race, teacher sex,
teacher t r a in in g , teacher experience and various student and teacher
climate variables as independent v a ria b le s .

The object was to te s t

the hypothesis th a t the students' mean SES s ig n if ic a n t ly predicts
the degree o f reported s e lf r e lia n c e , and th a t SES w ill be a b e tte r
predictor of s e l f reliance than openness i s .

213
Table 40.

Summary o f Stepwise M u ltip le Regression on Student
Reported S e lf-R e lia n c e (SRELI) By A ll Other V ariables
in the M odified Sample

Variable
SSCL2
SCAA
TSCL4
T. Experience
SSCL4
T. Sex
% Males
SSCL1
TSCL5
TOPEN
SSCL3
SES
T. Training
SSCL5
TSCL2
% White
TSCL1
TSCL3
SOPEN

F to en ter
or remove
41.06
13.66
8.27
10.03
8.87
3.58
2.58
2.63
1.84
2.37
1.36
1.42
1.04
.58
.54
.46
.15
.24
.07

P
.000
.000
.004
.002
.003
.060
.109
.106
.176
.125
.245
.233
.308
.446
.462
.498
.695
.621
.793

M u ltip le
R
.36
.42
.45
.50
.51
.52
.53
.53
.54
.54
.54
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55

R^ change
.132
.175
.199
.228
.253
.263
.271
.278
.282
.289
.293
.297
.300
.301
.303
.304
.305
.305
.305

.132
.043
.024
.029
.025
.010
.008
.007
.004
.007
.004
.004
.003
.001
.002
.001
.001
.000
.000

Simpl
.36
.36
.25
.13
.24
.02
.06
-.0 7
-.21
-.0 2
.33
.23
-.01
.24
.17
-.01
.25
.15
-.0 3

From these re s u lts we see th a t n e ith e r SES nor SOPEN contribute
much to the variance in SRELI.

When SES and SOPEN are forced in to the

regression equation before the other v a ria b le s , SES accounts fo r 5.4%
of the variance in SRELI and SOPEN accounts fo r 1.2%.

The next variab le

to enter a f t e r SES and SRELI is self-co n cep t o f academic a b i l i t y (SCAA),
which accounts fo r 12.2% o f the variance, w hile the remaining 16 v a r i­
ables, including openness, account fo r 11.6%.

In th is second a n aly sis,

SES is a s ig n ific a n t p re d ic to r o f SRELI, but predicts less variance
than SCAA, even though i t is entered f i r s t .
The fin a l s t a t is t ic a l analyses we have to rep o rt on are those
intended to reveal the r e la tio n between openness and four outcomes,

214
v i z . , achievement (reading and m ath), s e lf re lia n c e ,
p e titiv e n e s s , and college a s p ira tio n s .

"ic

sense o f com­

These analyses, a t the school

level and a t the class le v e l, were made using a forward stepwise
regression procedure.
At the school le v e l, we forced three independent background
variables in to the equation f i r s t , followed by a forward stepwise
regression procedure which added fu rth e r variab les by se lecting the
one from the l i s t o f those remaining which had the la rg e s t p a rtia l
c o rre la tio n w ith the dependent v a ria b le , when the e ffe c ts o f those
already in the equation were c o n tro lle d .

This process was continued

u n til the F-to leran ce o f the remaining variables f e l l below .01.
Regressions were performed on reading and math achievement scores
separately since some researchers in open education have reported
th at openness has d iffe r e n t e ffe c ts on these two achievement measures.
The three background variab les were SES, sex (percent o f male stu­
dents), and race (percent o f white stu d en ts).

The remaining v a ria ­

bles included a ll the student and teacher clim ate v a ria b le s , as well
as student and teacher openness, and an openness/SES in te ra c tio n
variable (c a lle d INTERAC) created by m u ltip ly in g the student openness
measure by the SES score fo r each c la s s .

These school le v e l regres­

sions on various outcomes are reported in tables below.

*

The regressions on s e lf-r e lia n c e included in the follow ing
tables d i f f e r somewhat from the preceding regression on s e lf relia n ce in th a t they conform to the design o f the regressions on
the other dependent v a ria b le s .

215
Table 41.

Summary o f School Level Regression on Mathematics Achieve­
ment By A ll V a ria b le s in the M o d ified Sample (W ith Three
V a ria b le s Forced In to the Regression)

F to en ter
or remove
SES
% Males
% White
TSCL2
SSCL3
TSCL3
TSCL4
TSCL5
SSCL4
SSCL2
TOPEN
SSCL5
TSCL1
SSCL1

Table 42.

P

M u ltip le
R

R2

R2
Change

Simple R

7.58
.36
11.04

.008
.551
.001

.50
.50
.60

.248
.249
.357

.248
.001
.108

.50
.12
.52

6.60
1.95
2.14
1.81
3.38
1 .39
.98
.42
.50
.26
.14

.013
.167
.149
.184
.071
.243
.326
.519
.487
.609
.706

.65
.66
.67
.68
.70
.71
.72
.72
.72
.72
.73

.416
.434
.452
.468
.496
.507
.515
.519
.523
.525
.526

.059
.018
.018
.016
.028
.011
.008
.004
.004
.002
.001

.52
-.3 4
.10
.17
.002
-.0 2
.10
-.0 3
-.1 3
.25
-.5 3

Summary o f School Level Regression on Reading Achievement
By A ll V ariables in the M odified Sample (With Three
Variables Forced Into the Regression)

F to enter
or remove

P

M u ltip le
R

R2

R2
Change

Simple R

SES
% Males
% White

12.49
2.19
23.20

.001
.144
.000

.55
.57
.71

.307
.329
.504

.307
.022
.175

.55
-.0 6
.64

TSCL2
TOPEN
SSCL5
TSCL5
TSCL4
TSCL3
SSCL1
SSCL4
SSCL2
SOPEN
INTERAC
TSCL1
SSCL3

4.59
2.32
1.80
.96
2.56
2.50
.56
.42
.64
.27
.38
.09
.05

.036
.132
.185
.331
.115
.119
.456
.520
.427
.604
.540
.765
.824

.73
.74
.75
.76
.77
.78
.78
.78
.79
.79
.79
.79
.79

.536
.553
.565
.572
.589
.605
.609
.612
.616
.618
.621
.621
.622

.032
.017
.012
.007
.017
.016
.004
.003
.004
.002
.003
.000
.001

.53
-.0 7
-.1 2
.01
.14
.01
-.6 2
-.0 3
.14
.13
.51
.24
-.31

216
Table 43.

Summary o f School Level Regression o f Sense on C o m p etitive­
ness By A ll V a ria b le s in the M o d ified Sample (W ith Three
V a ria b le s Forced In to The Regression)
F to enter
or remove

P

M u ltip le
R

R2

R
Change

Simpli

SES
% Males
% White

3.66
1.74
.02

.060
.191
.888

.24
.29
.29

.059
.083
.083

.059
.024
.000

.24
-.1 1
.14

TSCL1
TSCL3
SSCL3
SSCL1
SSCL2
SSCL4
TSCL4
INTERAC
SOPEN
TSCL5
SCAA
TSCL2
TOPEN

1.92
2.52
1.15
1.96
.79
.77
.38
.13
.24
.16
.20
.06
.02

.170
.118
.287
.167
.378
.382
.541
.715
.624
.689
.655
.812
.903

.33
.38
.40
.43
.44
.45
.46
.46
.46
.47
.47
.47
.47

.110
.144
.159
.185
.195
.205
.210
.212
.216
.218
.221
.221
.222

.027
.034
.015
.026
.010
.010
.005
.002
.004
.002
.003
.000
.001

.28
-.0 4
.10
-.2 7
.19
.18
.09
.25
.13
-.1 8
.07
.23
.12

Table 44.

Summary o f School Level Regression On College A spirations
By A ll V ariables in the Modified Sample (With Three
Variables Forced In to The Regression)
F to enter
or remove

P

M u ltip le
R

R2

R2
Change

Simple R

SES
°l Males
% White

27.25
1.00
11.39

.000
.321
.001

.44
.46
.57

.195
.209
.325

.195
.014
.116

.44
.19
-.1 0

SSCL3
TSCL2
SSCL5
SOPEN
SSCL4
INTERAC
TSCL3
TSCL4

42.67
3.97
2.77
1.65
1.48
.21
.13
.19

.000
.051
.101
.204
.228
.646
.724
.665

.77
.78
.79
.80
.81
.81
.81
.81

.593
.617
.633
.642
.651
.652
.653
.654

.268
.024
.016
.009
.009
.001
.001
.001

.58
.24
.46
-.0 9
.32
.37
.23
.19

217

Table 45.

Summary o f School-Level M u ltip le Regression on Sense o f
S e lf-R e lia n c e By A ll V ariables in the M odified Sample
(With Three V ariables Forced In to the Regression)

School Level Regression on Sense o f S e lf Reliance
F to enter
or remove

P

M u ltip le
R

R2

R2
Change

Simple R

% Males
% White

12.53
2.39
.17

.001
.125
.681

.37
.39
.39

.133
.153
.154

.133
.020
.001

.37
.16
.17

SCAA
TSCL2
SSCL1
TSCL3
TOPEN
SSCL2
TSCL4
SSCL5
TSCL5
SOPEN
INTERAC
TSCL1
SSCL4
SSCL3

19.99
4.41
4.06
2.17
1.97
1.11
.51
.19
.17
.04
.52
.05
.04
.02

.000
.038
.047
.144
.164
.295
.475
.665
.683
.838
.473
.816
.850
.901

.54
.57
.59
.60
.61
.62
.62
.62
.621
.62
.62
.62
.62
.62

.292
.321
.347
.361
.374
.381
.384
.385
.386
.386
.390
.390
.390
.391

.138
.029
.026
.014
.013
.007
.003
.001
.001
.000
.004
.000
.000
.001

.19
.35
-.1 8
.15
.03
.36
.18
.16
-.1 0
.02
.33
.30
.19
.12

SES

In sum we may say th a t the three ineasures o f openness

(SOPEN

TOPEN, INTERAC) account fo r only small portions o f the variance in any
dependent v a ria b le .

Table 46.

Summary o f Percent o f Variance Contributed to Five Dependent
Variables By Background V ariables and Openness Variables At
the School Level

Dependent
V ariable
Mathemati cs
Reading
S e lf Reliance
Competi t i on
Aspirations
*

These resu lts are summarized in the ta b le below.

% o f Variance

Due to Background
35.7
50.4
15.4
8.3
32.5

% o f Variance *
Due to Openness

Total % o f
Variance Expi

.4
5.2
1.7
.7
1.0

52.6
62.2
39.1
22.2
65.4

The sum o f the variances fo r SOPEN, TOPEN and INTERAC

218
In no case did any of the three openness measurements have the next
g reatest impact on an outcome a f te r the background variab les were
entered.
The school level regressions discussed above were run because
no appropriate class le v e l achievement data was a v a ila b le .

The only

outcome variab les s u ita b le fo r analysis a t the class lev el are s e l f re lia n c e , sense o f competitiveness and college a s p ira tio n s , and fo r
the sake o f in te r -le v e l comparisons, these outcomes were also analyzed
at the school le v e l.
At the class le v e l, a somewhat d iffe r e n t se t o f background
variables were forced in to the regression before the remaining variables
were added in a stepwise procedure.
class le v e l were:

The background variables a t the

SES, teacher sex, teacher experience, teacher t r a in ­

in g , student race (% w h ite) and ZDIFF (th e v a ria b le created by sub­
tra c tin g student openness--SOPEN-“from teacher openness--TOPEN).

The

other independent variables were the same as the ones used a t the school
le v e l.

The re s u lts o f the class le v e l regression analyses are approxi­

mately the same as the school le v e l:

the openness variables did not

account fo r much v a ria tio n in the outcome v a ria b le s .
summarized in the ta b le immediately below.

Results are

Regression re s u lts appear

in the other tables th a t fo llo w .

Table 47.

Summary o f Percent o f Variance Contributed to Three Dependent
V ariables By Background Variables and Openness V ariables At
the Class Level

Dependent
V ariable
S e lf Reliance
Competitiveness
Aspirations

% o f Variance Due

to Background
9 .7
4 .7
15.5

% o f Variance

Due to Openness
1.8
1. 1

.1

Total % o f
Variance
30.8
20.7
34.1

219
Table 48.

Summary o f C lass-L evel M u ltip le Regression on Sense o f
Com petitiveness By A ll V a ria b le s in the M odified Sample
(W ith S ix V a ria b le s Forced In to The Regression)
F to en te r
or remove

P

M u ltip le
R

R2

R2
Change

Simple R

.87
SES
.06
Experiencei
Teacher sex
.07
11.66
ZDIFF
.04
Training
% White
1.71

.353
.801
.795
.001
.831
.191

.05
.06
.06
.20
.20
.22

.003
.003
.003
.040
.040
.047

.003
.000
.000
.037
.000
.007

.05
-.01
-.0 0 3
.18
.001
.06

SSCL4
TSCL2
SSCL2
INTERAC
SOPEN
SSCL1
SCAA
TSCL5
TSCL4
SSCL3
TSCL1

.000
.030
.229
.267
.121
.260
.341
.501
.763
.825
.876

.41
.43
.43
.44
.45
.45
.45
.45
.45
.45
.45

.167
.182
.187
.191
.198
.202
.205
.206
.207
.207
.207

.120
.015
.005
.004
.007
.004
.003
.001
.001
.000
.000

.37
.17
.18
.03
-.0 7
-.0 9
.10
-.0 3
.02
.12
.07

Table 49.

38.09
4.73
1 .45
1 .24
2.42
1.27
.91
.45
.09
.05
.02

Summary o f Class Level M u ltip le Regression on College
Aspirations By A ll Variables in the Modified Sample
(With S ix V ariables Forced Into The Regression)

F to en ter
or remove

P

M u ltip le R

R2

R2
Change

Simple R

SES
43.54
.04
Experience
Teacher Sex
.02
ZDIFF
2.72
Training
1.23
t White
14.02

.000
.836
.881
.100
.268
.000

.29
.30
.30
.33
.33
.39

.087
.089
.089
.106
.110
.155

.087
.002
.000
.017
.004
.045

.29
-.0 3
-.0 2
.08
-.0 2
-.1 0

SSCL3
TSCL1
SSCL1
SSCL4
TSCL5
TSCL3
TSCL4
TSCL2
SSCL5
INTERAC

.000
.048
.099
.182
.276
.439
.757
.749
.846
.855

.56
.57
.58
.58
.58
.58
.58
.58
.58
.58

.314
.323
.331
.335
.338
.340
.340
.341
.341
.341

.159
.009
.007
.004
.003
.002
.000
.001
.000
.000

.46
.27
-.0 8
.23
-.21
.13
.18
.18
.21
.27

60.86
3.93
2.74
1.79
1.19
.60
.09
.10
.04
.03

220

Table 50.

Summary o f C lass-Level M u ltip le Regression on Sense o f
S e lf-R e lia n c e By A ll V a ria b le s in th e M o dified Sample
(W ith S ix V a ria b le s Forced In to The Regression)

F to en ter
or remove

P

M u ltip le
R

r

O

Change

Simple R

SES
21.61
7.21
Experience
Teacher sex 1.33
ZDIFF
.36
Training
2.98
% White
3.88

.000
.008
.250
.549
.086
.050

.23
.26
.27
.27
.29
.31

.054
.069
.071
.073
.083
.097

.054
.015
.002
.002
.010
.014

.23
.13
.02
.01
-.0 1
-.0 1

SCAA
SSCL4
TSCL4
INTERAC
SSCL2
SOPEN
SSCL3
TSCL5
SSCL5
TSCL2
TSCL3
TSCL1
SSCL1

.000
.001
.001
.038
.155
.157
.237
.258
.312
.435
.625
.597
.759

.45
.49
.52
.53
.54
.54
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.55
.56

.206
.240
.272
.284
.289
.295
.299
.302
.305
.306
.307
.308
.308

.109
.034
.032
.012
.005
.006
.004
.003
.003
.001
.001
.001
.000

.36
.24
.25
.18
.36
-.0 3
.33
-.2 1
.24
.17
.14
.25
-.0 7

36.24
11.57
11.53
4.33
2.03
2.02
1.41
1.28
1.03
.61
.24
.28
.09

O v e ra ll, i t seems f a i r to conclude th a t openness, as defined
in th is study, does not bear a p a rtic u la r ly strong re la tio n s h ip to
any of the outcome variables we have examined.

While we would not

expect i t to bear much re la tio n to achievement or co lleg e asp iratio n s
(based on viewpoints expressed in the open education l i t e r a t u r e ) , we
would expect some unique connection to appear w ith respect to students'
senses o f competitiveness and s e lf-r e lia n c e .

We note th a t a t the class

le v e l, openness makes a somewhat la rg e r co n trib u tio n to com petitive­
ness and s e lf-r e lia n c e than to a s p ira tio n s , but a t the school level
openness makes it s greatest co ntrib utio n to reading.

Thus, i t is hard

221

to say what the connections between openness and these outcomes o f
school r e a lly a re .

In any event, one may conclude th a t the connec­

tio n , whatever i t i s , is weak.

Summary
We found th a t none o f the openness va ria b le s made much
contribution to the variance o f any o f the fo ur dependent variables
in the study when compared to the co ntrib utio ns o f other v a ria b le s .

CHAPTER V II

LIMITATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Lim itatio ns
A major lim ita tio n o f th is study, which i t shares w ith a ll
other cross-sectional surveys, is th a t i t describes a set o f phenomena
a t a s p e c ific point in tim e, and th erefo re cannot explain how the
phenomena developed up to th a t tim e, or how they w ill develop from
then on.

However, the s t a t is t ic a l procedures which were applied

allowed us to control fo r the v a ria tio n in some phenomena so th a t
we could examine the v a ria tio n in o th ers, and thereby in fe r what
processes un derlie th e ir development.

Such research is valuable

because i t enhances our understanding o f e x is tin g conditions and
guides subsequent e ffo r ts to in v e s tig a te s im ila r s itu a tio n s .
Other lim ita tio n s unique to th is study also e x is t.

One o f

them is th a t the o v e ra ll survey was not designed w ith the in te n tio n
of analyzing many s p e c ific d ifferen ces between open and tr a d itio n a l
schools (such as those discussed in studies lik e F ran k's, 1974, and
S ta llin g s ', 1974).

Because o f the design o f the survey, the

measures o f openness used here are highly re la te d to open education,
but not re la te d s o le ly to i t .

In gen eral, our measures o f openness

are d e scrip tive o f the a u th o rity stru ctu re o f classrooms (o fte n
refe rred to as "teaching s t y le " ) .
2 22

A complete d escrip tion o f the

223
a u th o rity stru ctu re o f a classroom would have to include an explanation
of the behavior th a t is produced and the method (o r re in fo rc e rs of
behavior) by which i t is produced.

The openness scale used here

(SOPEN) measures the degree to which c e rta in behaviors are reported
to occur by the actors in the behavioral s e ttin g , but i t does not
include the means by which th is behavior is obtained.
This lack o f inform ation about the re in fo rc e rs o f behavior
presents another lim ita tio n to the study because i t makes i t d i f f i c u l t
to completely use the Etzionian paradigm introduced in Chapter I I .
While we can, fo r example, consider the student openness scale as a
report o f some o f t h e ir involvement in the class or school organiza­
tio n , we cannot s im ila r ly analyze the means o f control (norm ative,
coercive, u t i l i t a r i a n ) applied by the teacher to produce th a t in vo lve­
ment.

That i s , although we have some measures o f normative control

(teacher clim ate v a ria b le s ) and m oral/social involvement (student
clim ate v a ria b le s ), these variables are p r in c ip a lly re la te d to
school achievement ra th e r than other behaviors.
Although one might th in k th a t the teachers' reports o f open­
ness measure the type o f control they apply to students, a more
appropriate in te rp re ta tio n o f th is scale is th a t i t measures some
*
of the involvement o f teachers in the school o rg a n iza tio n .
In
other words, we have two measures of involvement of actors a t
d iffe r e n t le v e ls w ith in the o rg a n iza tio n , but no measure o f the
means of control th a t the higher lev el exercises over the low er.

*This involvement, re la te d to th e ir use o f a u th o rity , could
be any o f the three types E tzioni id e n tifie s (a lie n a tiv e , c a lc u la tiv e ,
m oral), depending on the power used to bring i t about. This w r ite r 's
fe e lin g is th a t in most cases, i t is a kind o f moral involvement.

224
The only way to resolve th is problem is by f i a t .

R ecalling

R iegle's adaptation o f McGregor's Theory X/Theory Y paradigm to open
education (discussed in Chapter I I I ) , we note th a t a high degree of
control o f student behavior is associated with Theory X.

The operation

o f Theory X, b a s ic a lly , depends on coercion, close supervision, r ig id
controls, and c e n tra lize d a u th o rity .

Given th is perspective, we can

in fe r th a t when the student openness scale indicates a high degree o f
teacher control o f class a c t iv i t ie s , the control applied is o f a more
coercive, less normative nature.
Another lim ita tio n of th is study concerns the nature o f the
scale which reports students' sense o f s e lf-r e lia n c e .

This scale

would perhaps be more accurately c a lle d "students' reported sense o f
s e lf-re lia n c e in school."

That is to say, the content o f the items

forming th is scale does not permit us to generalize our conclusions
about i t beyond the boundary o f s c h o o l-rela ted behavior.

This l i m i ­

ta tio n may reduce the value o f the scale so fa r as proponents o f open
education are concerned, because they often seem concerned w ith produc­
ing a more general sense of s e lf-r e lia n c e .

However, we note th a t some

researchers have had s im ila r d i f f ic u l t ie s in g e n eralizin g the value o f
school achievement beyond the boundaries o f school.

Whether or not

educational outcomes extend beyond school and a f fe c t a student's l i f e
chances is a question to be answered by other research.

For our

discussion, student reported s e lf-r e lia n c e is best understood as a
measure o f s t i l l another aspect of students' involvement in the
school o rg a n iza tio n .
A fin a l lim ita tio n o f th is study concerns the s t a t is t ic a l bases
fo r many o f the analyses.

For one th in g , the random sampling process

225
was applied to schools ra th e r than classrooms, which means th a t class­
rooms were e s s e n tia lly sampled in c lu s te rs .

This sampling approach'

has the advantage o f perm itting a tw o -tie re d level o f analysis o f
the school o rganization but a t the same time may a f fe c t the "g en e ra lizab i lit y " o f the fin d in g s .
G e n e ra liz a b ility is fu rth e r influenced by the m anipulation o f the
data base fo r d iffe r e n t analyses.

In some instances, a l l or nearly a ll

of the schools and classes surveyed were used.

In other instances,

only those cases id e n tifie d as belonging to the modified sample were
used.

In s t i l l other instances, only a subset o f the modified sample

was used.
The stru ctu re o f the modified sample resu lted mainly from the
desire to examine openness a t the class le v e l, and because many classes
lacked c e rta in important data they had to be e lim in ate d .

Further

elim in atio n o f cases from the modified sample occurred because o f pre­
lim inary fin din gs which showed th a t not much openness existed in the
main data base.

The problem was s im ila r to th a t o f a b io lo g is t who

wishes to study the influence o f a scarce hormone:
enough o f the substance to supply his research.

he must c o lle c t

Since we did not have

the option o f adding more openness to the d ata, the most reasonable
a lte rn a tiv e seemed to be to conserve the openness present and elim in ate
some o f the non-open cases.

Contributions
One co n trib u tio n th a t th is study makes toward understanding open
education and teachers' use o f a u th o rity is conceptual:

the a p p lic a tio n

(a lb e it rudimentary) o f E tz io n i's compliance typology to the a u th o rity

226
stru ctu re o f schools and classes.

Many tim es, i t seems, educational

research is undertaken in the absence o f a th e o re tic a l perspective;
when such a perspective is present, i t is not often connected to
concepts already developed in other f ie ld s .

The E tzionian paradigm,

w h ic h --!ik e symbolic interactionism --com es from the fie ld s o f sociology
and social psychology, is s p e c ific a lly a p p lic a b le to discussions o f
teacher a u th o rity and can help us stru ctu re and c la r i f y our under­
standing o f i t .
At th is p o in t, the a p p lic a tio n o f E tz io n i's compliance concepts
to schools has been only p a r t ia lly re a liz e d , and more work is needed to
reach the point where it s use can spread.

One problem th a t remains has

to do w ith the conceptualization of students as lower p a rtic ip a n ts in
the o rg a n iza tio n .

In a larg e in d u s try, managers and supervisors are

o ffic e rs and formal leaders, production workers are the lower p a r t i c i ­
pants, and some manufactured commodity is the product o f the o rg a n iza tio n .
But what is the product o f the educational en terp rise?

Surely whatever

i t is , i t is often clo se ly connected to or a p a rt o f the students them­
selves.

Thus, fo r schools, we may have to develop some ad d itio n a l

concepts which explain how the lower p a rtic ip a n ts o f an organization
can also be the products o f the o rg a n iza tio n .

A re la te d problem w ith

the E tzio ni paradigm has to do with the separation between consumption
and control o f educational serv ice s.

I f parents or society a t large

are to be viewed as the consumers o f education, then the problem o f
consumption separate from control has one c h a ra c te r.

But, i f ch ild ren

are viewed as the consumers o f educational services (ra th e r than ju s t
the product of them) then the separation o f consumption from control
has a much d iffe r e n t ch aracter.

The problem o f separation o f consumption

227
from control is a serious one according to E tzio n i (1 964 -98 ):
". . . i t seems re le v a n t to po int out th a t freedom o f
choice is often s a c rific e d w ithout any real gains in terms
o f other values. Once control is withdrawn from the
consumer there aris e s a tendency on the p a rt o f the
organization to expand the area o f it s control fo r
ille g itim a te reasons. . . . "
In r e a li t y , the p u b lic , the parents, and the ch ildren are a l l consumers
o f education and a ll have in te re s ts in exercisin g control over i t , and
these in te re s ts can o fte n c o n f lic t .

Furthermore, each set o f in te re s ts

would give school a unique ch aracter.

For example, i f s o c ie ty 's in ­

terests were paramount, schools could become something lik e th a t
envisioned in P la to 's R epublic.

I f parents' in te re s ts were paramount,

schools could be subject to considerable parochialism .

I f c h ild re n 's

in terests were paramount, schools could approach the fre e school s ty le
ty p ifie d by Summerhill.

C le a rly , the reso lu tio n o f problems o f con­

sumption ap art from control could take many d iffe r e n t forms depending
on the id e n tific a tio n o f the consumers.
Before discussing ad d itio n al co n trib u tio n s o f th is study, we
need to review some o f the other research fin din gs discussed in e a r lie r
chapters.

B r ie fly , we found evidence in other studies th a t open teach­

ing styles are r e la t iv e ly r a re , and th a t where they do occur they s t i l l
e n ta il substantial d ire c tio n o f students' a c t i v i t ie s .

We c ite d several

w riters who discussed the special r e la tio n between open schools and
mi d ale-cl ass fa m ilie s .

We found mixed re s u lts in the r e la tio n between

openness and achievement, w ith a tendency fo r more formal schools to
fo ste r higher achievement.

We noted th a t open education seems to have

a s lig h tly more favorable e f fe c t than tr a d itio n a l education on fe e lin g s
o f se lf-w o rth ; th a t s e lf-r e lia n c e may be more re la te d to fa m ily background

228

than to the openness o f a school program; th a t openness may produce
higher as p iratio n s among low SES students; and th a t cooperative
behavior among students occurs more often in open classes.

A lso, we

reviewed some studies which showed the existence o f a ttitu d in a l d i f ­
ferences between formal and informal teachers.
The s p e c ific fin d in g s o f th is study co n trib u te to the body o f
knowledge about informal schools and teaching s ty le s p rim a rily by
supporting some o f these other fin d in g s , and secondarily by suggesting
the importance o f other fa cto rs which have not y e t been studied to any
great e x te n t.
The c le a re s t single corroborative fin d in g o f th is study is th a t
open education is f a i r l y ra re ; most schools and classes are c l a s s i f i ­
able as "sometimes to seldom open."

F u lly 93.5% o f the schools (and

91.6% o f the classes) surveyed f e l l below the m id-point o f the student
openness scale.
The second corroborative fin d in g o f th is study is th a t the
existence o f openness is re la te d to social c la s s .

Openness and SES

were s ig n ific a n tly p o s itiv e ly c o rre la te d ; SES contributed s ig n ific a n tly
to the variance in student-reported openness; and c o n tro llin g fo r the
e ffe c ts o f SES was often found to e lim in ate the e ffe c ts th a t openness
appeared to have on other v a ria b le s .

S im ila r ly , varia b le s found to

be re la te d to SES and achievement (namely, student sense o f f u t i l i t y
and teacher expectations) were not found to be appreciably d iffe r e n t
in classes with high or low openness when the s o c ia l-c la s s fa c to r was
c o n tro lle d .

229
Although classes w ith higher proportions o f black students
were found to be considerably less open than classes o f mostly white
students, th is phenomenon may depend more on social class differences
than on ra c ia l d ifferen ces (th is la s t fin d in g apparently does not
corroborate any other research and may c o n flic t w ith other re p o rts ).
Our fin d in g o f a s ig n ific a n t re la tio n between openness and social
class confirms the f i r s t p a rt of one o f our i n i t i a l p ro p o s itio n s-Proposition Three.

The second p art o f Proposition T h re e --th a t SES

would be a s ig n ific a n t p re d ic to r o f s e lf-re lia n c e --w a s also found to
be tru e , but only when SES was forced in to the regression equation
before the other v a ria b le s .
The findings o f th is study fu rth e r co ntrib ute to our understand­
ing o f informal education in th a t they agree w ith the Epstein-McPartland
analysis (1 9 7 5 ), which found th a t openness contributes r e la t iv e ly l i t t l e
to the variance in achievement, s e lf-r e lia n c e , and college as p ira tio n s .
Furthermore, we found th a t openness did not co ntrib ute much to the
variance in com petitiveness.

We c a ll p a rtic u la r a tte n tio n to the

absence o f a re la tio n between openness and s e lf-r e lia n c e because the
la t t e r outcome is often presumed to have a f a i r l y d ire c t re la tio n to
the teacher's use o f a u th o rity .
The fin din gs w ith respect to openness and the fo ur outcomes above
are re la te d to the various parts o f Proposition Four.
of Proposition Four are confirmed.

Parts (a ) and (d)

That i s , no s ig n ific a n t re la tio n

between openness and achievement or college asp irations was found.
Parts (b) and (c ) o f Proposition Four were disconfirmed.

That i s ,

openness was not p o s itiv e ly re la te d to s e lf-r e lia n c e or negatively
related to com petitiveness.

230
When we looked a t teachers' a ttitu d e s and practices which were
i n i t i a l l y thought to be re la te d to openness, we found few differences
between teachers who reported high openness and those who reported
low openness.

We found no evidence to support Proposition O ne--that

more open teachers would e s p e c ia lly emphasize a ffe c tiv e development,
in d iv id u a liz a tio n o f in s tru c tio n , or non-homogeneous grouping.

Fur­

thermore, the a ttitu d e s o f the more open teachers in the modified
sample did not correspond well with the a ttitu d e s of teachers in
the s p e c ia lly selected open schools.

The more open teachers did

not accept g rea ter re s p o n s ib ility fo r th e ir student performance
(Proposition Two P art ( c ) ) , and they did not seem to hold higher
expectations fo r the performance o f average students (Proposition
Two p a rt ( a ) ) .

They d id , however, have the expected lower opinion

of the value o f I.Q . te sts (Proposition Two part ( b ) ) , and did seem
to have special concern fo r th e ir re la tio n s with parents.

These

findings give very modest corroboration to other studies which found
a ttitu d in a l d ifferen ces between more and less open styles o f teaching
although corroboration is not given s p e c ific a lly to the very same
attitu d e s and practices in vestigated in other studies.
The fin a l set o f contributions th a t th is study makes to our
understanding o f informal education concerns teacher-background
c h a ra c te ris tic s , school s iz e , and community type.

Studies o f these

factors seem la rg e ly absent from the lit e r a t u r e on informal education
Taking these fa cto rs in reverse order, we found no re la tio n between
openness and community type but a f a i r l y convincing inverse re la tio n
between school and class size and openness.

Since the community

types were id e n t ifie d , fo r the most p a rt, on the basis o f t h e ir s iz e ,

231
we can say th a t w hile the s ize o f the population outside the school
does not a ffe c t a teacher's use o f a u th o rity , the size o f the popula­
tion inside the school d e f in it e ly does play a ro le .
When we examined teacher-background c h a ra c te ris tic s , we found
that obtained openness was not c le a r ly re la te d to the race o f the
teacher, but female teachers and teachers w ith more tra in in g tended
to have higher teacher-reported openness scores, w h ile the more exper­
ienced teachers tended to have lower student reported openness.
Perhaps the most unique v a ria b le in th is study was the va ria b le
we ca lled ZDIFF (which was derived from the standard scores of teacherand student-reported openness fo r each c la s s ).

The analysis o f th is

variable showed th a t teachers who reported very high or very low open­
ness tended to have th a t rep o rt disputed by t h e ir students.

Thus, we

would expect, from the above-mentioned re la tio n s h ip between teacherreported openness and teacher race, sex, tra in in g and experience, th a t
female teachers and teachers w ith more tra in in g would have higher ZDIFF
scores, w hile teachers w ith more experience would have lower ZDIFF
scores, and teacher race would be unrelated to ZDIFF.
Our analysis of ZDIFF in re la tio n to these background character­
is tic s did show th a t female teachers and teachers with more tra in in g
had higher ZDIFF scores, but teacher experience was unrelated to ZDIFF
and the analysis o f teacher race seemed to in d ic a te th a t white teachers
had higher ZDIFF scores.

R ecalling th a t our analysis o f variance of

the three ZDIFF categories showed no re la tio n between teacher sex,
tra in in g , and experience and ZDIFF, we suggest th a t these c o n flic tin g
findings may re s u lt from the fa c t th a t the s t a t is t ic a l procedures used
were d iffe r e n t.

For example, i t seems lik e ly th a t a c o rre la tio n a l

232
analysis across the e n tire ranges o f two variab les would be more
s e n s itiv e to a weak re la tio n s h ip between them than would an analysis
o f variance which subdivides the range of one v a ria b le and then com­
pares mean values o f the other w ith in those subdivisions.

I f th is is

the case, we can conclude th a t the re la tio n between ZDIFF and teacher
sex, tr a in in g , and experience may be what we would expect, but the
re la tio n s h ip is too weak to be considered very dependable.

Consider­

ing the re la tio n between teacher race and ZDIFF, we note th a t the
ra c ia l c e ll sizes in the analysis o f variance o f ZDIFF based on the
modified sample are q u ite d iffe r e n t; th e re fo re , th is analysis is
suspect too.

This study's co n trib u tio n to our knowledge about the

re la tio n o f openness to teacher-background c h a ra c te ris tic s then, is
mixed:

on the one hand i t suggests th a t c e rta in re la tio n s h ip s do

e x is t, but on the other th a t they are not e x cep tio n ally strong.

Conclusions and Recommendations
The research conducted fo r th is study allows us to give f a i r l y
d e fin itiv e answers to three questions about open education.

F u rth er­

more, they are the same answers given by some other students o f the
f ie ld .
The f i r s t question is , "How prevalent is teachers' use o f an
open a u th o rity style? "

The answer i s , "The use o f an open a u th o rity

s ty le is r e la t iv e ly ra re ."

The second question i s , "Is the use of an

open a u th o rity s ty le re la te d to the s o c ia l-c la s s le v e l o f students?"
The answer is , "Yes, the higher the so c ia l-c la s s le v e l, the more
prevalent is the use o f an open au th o rity s t y le ."

The th ir d question

is , "How much o f an impact does an open a u th o rity s ty le have on c e rta in
common educational outcomes?"

The answer i s , "In re la tio n to other

233
va ria b le s , i t has very l i t t l e

impact on any o f the outcomes considered

here."
While these answers may be challenged on one ground or another,
as most research in social science even tu ally i s , th is w r ite r believes
they s a tis f a c t o r ily describe current conditions in Michigan elementary
schools.

U n fo rtu n ately, these answers do not cover a ll th a t can be

said about informal education— c e rta in ly not fo r those who may object
to them, nor even fo r the author o f them; r a th e r , they serve to re c a ll
some other questions and generate s t i l l more.

These ad d itio n a l ques­

tions do not have d e f in it iv e answers, but they are thought-provoking
and deserve to be discussed.
Why do parents subscribe to d iffe r e n t educational styles?
do teachers?

Why

We have already suggested th a t the answers to these

questions l i e in d iffe r in g world-views th a t people hold and the
d iffe rin g goals they seek to achieve.

One educational s ty le is more

a ttra c tiv e than another because i t conforms to the r e a li t ie s th a t
some people perceive and because i t promises to provide the advan­
tages they desire to have.

These d iffe r in g world-views and goals

are es p e c ia lly cru c ial elements in the se lec tio n o f d iffe r e n t educa­
tio nal approaches because o b je c tiv e evidence o f th e ir comparative
value has been so d i f f i c u l t to e s ta b lis h .

This is true fo r black

parents who believe th a t s t r i c t d is c ip lin e w ill provide th e ir c h ild ­
ren with the s k ills they need to achieve success, but whose children
are system atically deprived o f a decent education by so many t r a d i­
tional schools.

I t is tru e fo r working class parents who b elieve

th at th e ir ch ildren should learn obedience to external control and
are thereby channeled in to "appropriate" occupational categ o ries.

234
I t is tru e fo r middle class parents who want t h e ir ch ildren to have
the freedom they need to develop r e s p o n s ib ility , independence, s e l f reliance and a humanistic outlook on l i f e , but whose ch ild ren f a i l
to gain the academic s k ills they need to en ter the social m ilieu th e ir
parents expect.

I t is tru e o f tr a d itio n a l educators who succeed in

producing high achievement in students who then f a i l to fin d reward­
ing employment su ited to the narrow range o f s k ills provided by the
school.

I t is tru e fo r informal educators who expend so much e f f o r t

to develop classrooms where childhood is cherished but where some
children are uncomfortable w ith the lack o f d ire c tio n and develop
habits which are la t e r found to be undesirable.
While n e ith e r tr a d itio n a l nor informal education can lay claim
to s o lid evidence th a t favors i t w hile denigrating the o th e r, the
former appears to many to need less ju s t if ic a t io n fo r it s existence
than the l a t t e r because i t is t r a d itio n a l.

Informal education, in

spite o f it s long h is to ry , is always viewed as the unproved challenger
when in te r e s t in i t waxes.

This w r ite r fe e ls i t is debatable whether

informal education needs more ju s t if ic a t io n fo r it s existence than
does tr a d itio n a l education.

But, i t is c le a r th a t informal education

ought to produce some evidence o f the advantages th a t it s proponents
claim i t has, and i t also ought to provide evidence th a t i t does not
have the disadvantages claimed by it s d e tracto rs.
This evidence w ill be forthcoming as we learn more about how
schools can f u l f i l l both the instrum ental (academic achievement, other
s k ills ) and expressive (s o c ia liz a tio n ) needs o f students.

At th is

tim e, opponents o f open education claim th a t such schools do not meet
students' instrumental needs (w h ile tr a d itio n a l schools d o ), and

235
proponents o f open schools claim th a t such schools do meet expressive
needs (w h ile tr a d itio n a l schools do n o t).

Thus, instead o f claim and

counter-claim , we have two claims and no counter-claim s!

That is ,

each side claims something th a t is not denied by the other.

The

present s ta te o f knowledge about meeting instrumental and expressive
*

needs seems to be th a t they are only ra re ly both met a t the same tim e.
In the absence o f evidence supporting the claims o f friends and
foes o f open education, we may w ell wonder i f the choice between one
sty le o f education and the other is even im portant.

The answer to

this question is th a t we d o n 't know, but we d o n 't want to make any
mistakes. We d o n 't want to accept informal education i f i t is d e t r i­
mental, or re je c t i t i f i t is b e n e fic ia l.

I f educators could demon­

s tra te c le a r evidence o f harmful e ffe c ts o f open education, they could
then ju s t if ia b ly invoke the Public Harm P rin c ip le and withdraw i t from
the educational market.

But in c o n tro v e rtib le evidence is not now

a v a ila b le , and because i t is n o t, i t seems to th is w r ite r th a t parents
who favor the open approach should have i t a v a ila b le to them.

(In

E tzio n i's terms, they should have some control over t h e ir consumption
of educational s e rv ic e s .)

By the same token, teachers should not be

able to e le c t to use an open approach where parents have no choice.
At the present, n e ith e r perm itting parent choice nor p ro h ib itin g
teacher choice o f open methods seems to present d i f f i c u l t problems.
Few teachers use an open s t y le , thus lim itin g the numbers of students
who might s u ffe r presumed detrim ental e ffe c ts ; those teachers who do
*

Recall E tz io n i's remarks in th is regard (p . 49 preceding).
Spaulding (1963-121) asserts th a t most evidence indicates th a t a
teacher cannot behave in such a manner as to promote a ll the desirab le
dimensions o f pupil growth.

236
take an open approach generally do so where th e ir students come from
higher social class backgrounds, and where parents are more lik e ly
to approve o f such methods or a t le a s t be open to innovation and
experim entation.

Where open education exists and is not wanted by

parents (as c ite d in B arth's stu d y ), or where i t does not e x is t and
i£ wanted by parents (as in the case o f the Central Open School
parents c ite d in th is s tu d y ), the educational system is often
altered to meet parents' demands.
While the current s ta te o f education in general cannot be
described as the best o f a l l possible worlds, i t does seem to th is
w rite r th a t the current s ta te o f open education is a t le a s t s a tis fa c ­
to ry , in the sense th a t it s lim ite d appeal can provide fu rth e r oppor­
tu n itie s fo r study, w hile a t the same time it s p o ten tia l fo r harm is
lim ite d .

While both expansion and contraction o f open education are

unwarranted a t th is tim e, contraction appears to be the current
th re a t.

I f open education follow s the pattern of the progressive

education movement (to which i t is clo sely r e la te d ), i t may seem to
v ir t u a lly die o u t, only to reappear la t e r under other conditions and
perhaps another la b e l.

During the umbral p erio d, educators w ill lose

the opportunity to study th is type o f education, and when i t comes to
lig h t again, much e f f o r t w ill be expended rediscovering facts th a t were
known before.
For the reasons c ite d above, the p rin cip a l recommendation of
th is study is th a t open educational approaches should be provided fo r
parents who seek them, and be perm itted fo r teachers who b elieve in
them and whose parents do not object to them.

The continued existence

of open education w ill not ju s t provide the opportunity to determine

237
its valu e, but also the opportunity to learn more about the value o f
tra d itio n a l education through in fo rm a l/tra d itio n a l comparisons.
Further study o f open education should attend to the follow ing
questions.

Is open education, lik e tr a d itio n a l education, cla ss -

biased in some way?

We know th a t the incidence o f open education is

related to social c la s s , but we do not know why th is is so.

To say

th at open education should not be provided fo r low SES ch ildren because
i t is not provided fo r them is to commit the "is-ought" fa lla c y and to
give in to biased th in k in g .

We should tr y to fin d out i f teachers have

certain evaluations o f , and expectations f o r , low er-class children which
cause them to employ a greater degree o f control over students' a c t i v i ­
tie s .

A lte r n a tiv e ly , i t is conceivable th a t open education is in h eren tly

class-biased.

That i s , i t may be in t r in s ic a lly less e ffe c tiv e in meeting

the instrumental needs th a t low SES ch ild ren have and which th e ir parents
want met.

Furthermore, the expressive a c t iv it ie s fostered in open schools

may somehow have a detrim ental e ffe c t on lower SES c h ild re n 's l i f e
chances.
LaBelle (1973-30) points out th a t d iffe r e n t social classes have
d iffe re n t in te re s ts , and so in te re s ts in schooling d i f f e r .

I f i t is

true th a t "survival precedes humanism," we can re a d ily agree w ith
Katz's observation (p . 2 preceding) th a t "poor people do not need
another lesson in how to behave."

They could ju s t if ia b ly c r i t ic iz e

open schools fo r providing an education which is dysfunctional to the
societal positions th a t low er-class ch ildren w ill most lik e ly a tta in
in la t e r l i f e .
At th is point we are caught on the horns o f a dilemma.

Lower-

class fa m ilie s want and need a good education fo r t h e ir fa m ilie s .

238
But the kind they apparently view as most appropriate seems to be
sin g u larly e ffe c tiv e in producing low achievement, acceptance o f
low s e lf-w o rth , and high f u t i l i t y .

The re s u lt is the le g itim a tio n

of th e ir low social status and th is prevents them from acquiring both
the experience with normative control found in la t e r schooling and
the modes o f s e lf-p re s e n ta tio n which are c h a ra c te ris tic o f higher
occupational groups.
Many open school proponents b e liev e th a t t h e ir approach w ill
make students fe el th a t going to school is an e s p e c ia lly desirable
a c tiv ity .

I f th a t b e lie f is tr u e , we might conclude th a t young

people w ill stay in school longer and get more out o f i t , so th a t
they would acquire not ju s t g rea ter achievement but other life -c h a n c e
enhancing c h a ra c te ris tic s as w e ll.

But th is promise is too tenuous

fo r most parents and teachers to accept.

Several other matters w ill

have to be cleared up before open education w ill be accepted as a
reasonable a lte r n a tiv e to the tr a d itio n a l school program.
I t is not s u ffic ie n t fo r open school advocates to promote only
the advantages o f a ffe c tiv e education and humanism fo r low SES students.
Proponents o f open education w ill have to demonstrate th a t th e ir schools
can produce s a tis fa c to ry achievement le v e ls . (As f a r as th is w r ite r is
concerned, those lev els should be as high as in the best tr a d itio n a l
schools.)

Although some claim (Myers 1974) th a t open education has

already died because i t did not make s ig n ific a n t differen ces in student
achievement, we do not agree w ith th is in te r p r e ta tio n .

While open

education has not made s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ces in achievement among
high SES students, in those instances where i t has been t r i e d , it s
proponents have not r e a lly been concerned w ith achievement but have

239
had other goals in mind.

However, i t w ill probably not flo u ris h among

low SES groups u n til i t can demonstrate th a t i t makes s ig n ific a n t d i f ­
ferences in achievement fo r th e ir c h ild re n .
Another problem th a t open educators should tacke is th a t o f the
often-unquestioned b e lie f th a t a high degree o f teacher control of
student a c t iv it ie s is both necessary and s u ffic ie n t to produce high
achievement.

I t may be po ssible, fo r example, to show th a t a high

degree o f coercive teacher d ire c tio n produces undesirable side e ffe c ts
which are not conducive to achievement.

I f open school proponents can

show th a t t h e ir schools are e ffe c tiv e in producing achievement and at
the same time show th a t the high degree o f teacher control in t r a d i­
tio nal schools does not by i t s e l f produce high achievement, then they
w ill have some chance o f making inroads on the vast t e r r it o r ie s now
in the g rip o f tr a d itio n a l education.
As i f these problems did not present challenge enough to open
school proponents, there are s t i l l

other b a ttle s to f ig h t .

Morgan

(1974-285) believes th a t the open school movement represents a form of
re la tiv is m which threatens presupposed a u th o rity re la tio n s and the
d ivisio n o f la b o r.

As such, i t challenges the s o c ia liz a tio n practices

of tr a d itio n a l education which provide the social control necessary
to reproduce the e x is tin g s t r a t if ic a t io n o f s o c ie ty .

Morgan believes

th at because o f th e ir lack o f privacy (o r a lte r n a te ly , t h e ir wider
range o f supervision o f behavior) and th e ir emphasis on mutual social
tr u s t, open schools have f a r g rea ter s o c ia liz in g p o ten tia l than
tra d itio n a l schools.
I t is th is w r ite r 's opinion th a t th is aspect o f open schools
w ill not be viewed as much o f a problem so long as open education is

240
la rg e ly re s tric te d to higher SES groups.

For these groups, "de­

regulation" o f a u th o rity re la tio n s and the d iv is io n o f lab or w ill
be viewed as social progress!

But, i f open education spreads to lower

levels o f s o c ie ty , de-reg u latio n w ill almost c e rta in ly be viewed as a
th re a t to the social order.
So f a r , most o f our recommendations fo r fu rth e r study in open
education have borne most h eavily on the extension o f open education
to lower SES groups.

But we d o n 't even know whether or not th is

educational s ty le meets the expressive needs th a t higher SES parents
seem to value.

For those who b elieve th a t d iffe r e n t teacher a ttitu d e s

lead to d iffe r e n t practices th a t in turn produce d iffe r e n t re s u lts ,
the research reported here and elsewhere o ffe rs scant hope th a t the
b e lie f is w ell-founded.
case in point:

We c it e the findings on s e lf-r e lia n c e as a

openness does not seem to bear any re la tio n to i t .

I f we subscribe to the proposition th a t teacher expectations always
form part o f the hidden curriculum o f any school, then we must regard
Parson's (1964-136) remarks as cautionary:
"A progressive teacher, lik e any o th e r, w ill form opinions
about the d iffe r e n t m erits o f her pupils r e la tiv e to the
values and goals o f the class and w ill communicate these
evaluations to them in fo rm a lly i f not fo rm a lly ."
Parsons notes th a t grades are downplayed mostly in cases where going
to a good college "is so f u l ly taken fo r granted th a t fo r p ra c tic a l
purposes i t is an ascribed s ta tu s ."

He goes on to say, "In other

words, in in te rp re tin g these facts the s e le c tiv e functions o f the
school class should be kept co n tin u a lly in the fo re fro n t o f a tte n tio n ."
We should also consider the la te n t consequences o f the open
approach.

For example, some open school proponents may b eliev e th a t

a goal o f open schools is the development o f Maslow's s e lf-a c tu a liz in g

241
person, one who is well-rounded and happy.

But th is kind o f person

may not have the achievement m otivation and drive th a t often seems to
l i e behind innovative th inking and the discovery o f new knowledge which
contributes to man's progress.

For another example, Frank's study gave

some in d ic a tio n th a t open schools have a more d iffu s e la b e lin g e ffe c t
"brought on" by the g rea ter number o f d iffe r e n t a c t iv it ie s against
which expectations are form ulated.

So, i f the teachers' evaluations

and expectations fo r students have a less pointed, more d iffu s e impact,
the teacher may w ell be a less s ig n ific a n t other than in classrooms
where expectations are more pointed.

The general impact o f the pre­

sumed reduction o f the teach er's sig n ific a n c e on the a c t iv it ie s he/she
tr ie s to c o n tro l, may explain why open schools have d i f f ic u l t y producing
high achievement.

In other words, i f there is a lim i t to the degree

th at a student can be influenced by s ig n ific a n t o th ers, open schools
can be said to "divvy up" th a t in fluence in to a la rg e r number of
correspondingly sm aller pieces than do tr a d itio n a l schools.

Informal

education attempts to increase the number o f s ig n ific a n t others each
student has, and to increase the number o f a c t iv it ie s th a t the teacher
is expected to c o n tro l.

So, the teach er's sig n ific a n c e fo r a given

a c tiv ity may decrease both as the number o f a c t iv it ie s in crease, and
as the number o f other others increases.
Our fin a l recommendations fo r fu rth e r study are concerned with
elaborating on some o f the s p e c ific findings o f th is study.
phenomenon th a t c a lls fo r more study is ZDIFF.

One

Do teachers a t the

extremes o f the teacher openness range tend to have t h e ir reports
disputed by students, as our research suggests, and i f so, why?
Another phenomenon is the a ttitu d in a l d ifferen ces and differences

242
in practice which may e x is t between open and t r a d itio n a l teachers.
Further in ves tig a tio n here would require id e n tify in g p a r t ic u la r
schools or classrooms which have been in te n tio n a lly planned to be
open and comparing them with tr a d itio n a l schools.

Another area fo r

fu rth er research concerns the r e la t iv e impact o f SES and race on
openness.

Can we design a study th a t w i l l more c le a r ly determine

whether or not race is re la te d to openness independently o f social
class?

Another fin d in g worthy o f fu r th e r study is the one which

showed th a t openness had very l i t t l e impact on s e lf - r e li a n c e .

What

exactly are "openness" and " s e lf - r e lia n c e " , and h o w --if a t a l l - - a r e
they related?
We conclude th is study with some f in a l remarks about the possible
future of open education.

I t seems to th is w r it e r th a t open education

is often practiced with too much f a it h and too l i t t l e planning.

As

Henderson (1971-10) points ou t, children need help in sorting out the
rich stimulus environment o f the open classroom.

Without planning,

th e ir behavior is shaped somewhat a t random by whatever stim u li happen
to be nearby.

With planning, p a r t ic u la r ly the kind practiced by behavior-

is t s , goals can be s e t , timeliness developed, and reinforcements disbursed
so th at maximal accomplishment of the goals is reached.

Planning allows

behavior to be monitored so th a t the desired goals continue to be the
focus of the reinforcement schedule.

This is not the kind of classroom

that a teacher is only involved with during the time when school is in
session.
created

Nor can i t be the kind o f classroom th a t is extemporaneously
as the year progresses.

I f open education d ies, i t may well be

because of in e ffe c tiv e planning, es p e c ia lly in the area of achievement.
E a r lie r we said th a t f a i l u r e to produce s a tis fa c to ry achievement

243
w ill prevent open education from spreading.

But th a t shortcoming

may well cause the v ir tu a l disappearance o f the small amount cu rren tly
in existence.

The crucial fa c to r here is teacher a c c o u n ta b ility .

Current demands f o r teacher ac cou ntability seek to change the rules
fo r judging teacher competence.

Most often the competent teacher

has been defined as the teacher who is in control o f her c la s s , whose
students are well-mannered, q u ie t , and industrious in t h e i r assign­
ments.

This kind of competence is reasonably easy to demonstrate

through the use o f various coercive and normative co ntrols; the
desired behavior is w e ll-d e fin e d , o v e r t, and c le a r ly connected to
certain re in fo rc e rs .

But current in t e r e s t in teacher competence

centers on the production of achievement rath er than obedience.

Here

the ta rg et behavior is more poorly defined, more c o v e rt, and more
dubiously connected to reinforcements.
Teachers view th is s h i f t in the basis on which t h e ir competence
is judged as threatening since they are less ce rtain as to how the pro­
duction of achievement is brought about.
aversive, they t r y to escape from i t .

Since they fin d th is s itu a tio n

They look fo r scapegoats (uncar­

ing parents, incompetent ad m in istra to rs, penny-pinching school boards
and taxpayers); natural causes (IQ , c u ltu ra l d e p riv a tio n ); p ractical
problems (the poor r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of achievement t e s t s ) , and
so on.

Some look to research in learning theory f o r answers.

Others

assume th at because "d is c ip lin e " produces obedience, i t w i l l also pro­
duce achievement, without regard to the differences between these
behaviors.
One thing th a t teachers faced with ac co u n ta b ility demands are
not l i k e l y to do is experiment with an educational form which has so f a r

244
promised l i t t l e in terms o f producing achievement.

I t seems th a t

the only way teachers might be coaxed to t r y an open educational
approach is i f they are guaranteed immunity from ac co u n ta b ility while
they experiment.

Whether such immunity w i l l be forthcoming or not is

hard to say, but th is w r i t e r fe els th a t i t ought to be, so th a t open
education can be thoroughly studied.
In the f in a l a n a ly s is , friends and foes of open education w i l l
need to grapple with two questions, one sm aller, one la r g e r.

Can

open schools provide a useful and valuable education fo r anyone?
Can open schools provide a useful and valuable education f o r every­
one?

In the struggle to resolve these questions, they should remember

that:
"The necessity in educational d is c ip lin e is the maintenance
of a learning s it u a t io n . But i t is necessary to beware of
appearances. The appearance of perfect order need not mean
learning is taking place; n e ith e r need disorder mean th a t
dynamic learning is in the making. Schoolteacherishness and
hooliganism are both equally productive as springs of bad
d is c ip lin e .
(Crary 1971-171)."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aiken, W ilford.
1942.

Story o f the Eight Year Study.

New York: Harper,

Allman-Snyder, A l i c i a , e t . a l . "Classroom Structure and Children's
Perception o f A uthority: An Open and Closed Case." Urban
Education, X (J u ly , 1975), 131-149.
Anderson, H .H ., e t . a l . Studies o f Teachers Classroom P erson alities I I .
Applied Psychology Monograph Number Eight. Palo Alto C a lifo r n ia :
Stanford U n iversity Press, 1946.
Anderson, Richard C.
"Learning in Discussions: A Resume of the A uthori­
tarian-Democratic Studies." Harvard Educational Review, 29
(1 959 ), 201-215.
'
Barth, Roland S. Open Education and the American School.
Agathon Press, 1972.

New York:

B a ttle , E.S. and R o tte r, J.B.
"Children's Feelings of Personal Control
as Related to Social Class and Ethnic Group." Journal of Pers o n a lity , 31 (1 9 6 3 ), 482-490.
Beady, Charles H.
"Systemic In te rp re ta tio n of an Analysis of the
Relationship Between Academic Climate Variables and Achievement
in Predominantly Black Elementary Schools." Unpublished Ph.D.
d is s e rta tio n , Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , 1975.
Bennett, N e v ille , e t . a l .
Open Books, 197.6.

Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress.

Berg, Iv a r.
Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery.
Beacon Press, 1971.

London:
Boston:

Berlak, Ann and B erlak, Harold.
"The Dilemma o f Schooling: An
Application and In te r p r e ta tio n of G.H. Mead's Social Behaviorism."
Paper prepared f o r the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research A ssociation, 1975 (Mimeographed).
Bidwell, C. "The School as a Formal Organization." Handbook of Organi­
zations . Edited by J. March. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965.
B l i t z , Barbara. The Open Classroom: Making I t Work.
and Bacon, 1973.

245

Boston: Allyn

246
Boocock, Sarane S. "The School as a Social Environment For Learning:
Social Organization and Micro-Social Process in Education."
Sociology o f Education, 46 (W in ter, 1973), 15-50.
Bowles, Samuel and G in tis , Herbert.
" I.Q . In the U.S. Class S tru c tu re ."
Social Policy (November/December, 1972, January/February, 1973),
pp. 65-96.
Brookover, Wilbur.
"The Social Roles o f Teachers and Pupil Achievement." American Sociological Review, 8 (1 9 4 3 ), 389-393.
Brookover, W ilbur, e t . a l . "Self-Concept of A b i l i t y and School Achieve­
ment I . "
East Lansing: O ffic e of Publication Services, College
o f Education, Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , 1962.
Brookover, Wilbur, e t . a l . "Self-Concept o f A b i l i t y and School
Achievement I I . "
East Lansing: O ffic e of Publication Services,
College of Education, Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , 1965.
Brookover, W ilbur, e t . a l . "Self-Concept of A b i l i t y and School Achieve­
ment I I I . "
East Lansing: O ffic e o f Publication Services,
College o f Education, Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , 1967.
Brookover, Wilbur and Erickson, Edsel.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1969.

S ociety, Schools and Learning.

Brookover, Wilbur B. and Erickson, Edsel L. Sociology o f Education.
Homewood, 111.: The DDrsey Press, 1975.
Brookover, W ilbur, e t . a l . Elementary School Social Environment and
School Achievement. East Lansing: College of Urban Development,
Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , 1973.
Brookover, W ilbur, e t . a l . "Elementary School Social Climate and
School Achievement." College o f Urban Development, Michigan
State U n iv e rs ity , 1976 (Mimeographed).
Brophy, Jere and Evertson, Carolyn.
Allyn and Bacon, 1976.

Learning From Teaching.

Boston:

Brophy, Jere and Good, Thomas L. Teacher-Student Relationships: Causes
and Consequences. New York: H o lt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974.
Brown, Alan F. and House, John H. "The Organizational Component in
Education." Review o f Educational Research, 37 (October, 1967),
399-416.
Center For New Schools. "A Q u a n tita tiv e -Q u a lita tiv e Study o f Student
Subcultures in an A lte rn a tiv e High School." Paper presented
to the American Educational Research Association, A p r i l , 1974
(Mimeographed).
Claiborn, W.L. "Expectancy Effects in the Classroom: A F a ilu re to
R eplicate." Journal of Educational Psychology, 60 (1 9 6 9 ), 377-383.

247

Clark, Kenneth. Park Ghetto: Dilemmas of Social Power.
Harper and Row, 1965.

New York:

Coleman, James S ., e t . a l . Equality of Educational Opportunity.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Government P rin tin g O f f ic e , 1966.
C o llin s, Randall. "Functional and C o n flic t Theories of Educational
S t r a t i f i c a t i o n . " American Sociological Review, 36 (December,
1971), 1002-1019.
Crary, Ryland W. "D is c ip lin e as Curriculum." Elementary School
Curriculum. Edited by J. Michael Palardy. New York:
Macmillan, 1971, pp. 171-177.
Cusick, P h ilip A. Inside High School.
Winston, 1973.

New York: H o lt , Rinehart and

Csajkowski, T .J . and King, M. "Hidden Curriculum and Open Education."
Elementary School Jo u rn al, 75 (February, 1975), 279-283.
Deal, Terrence E. "An Organizational Explanation of the F a ilu re of
A lte rn a tiv e Secondary Schools." Educational Researcher, 4
( A p r i l , 1975), 10-16.
DeCecco, John P. The Psychology o f Learning and In s tru c tio n : Educa­
tio n a l Psychology. Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n tic e -H a ll, 1968.
Denton, David E. "Open Education: Search fo r a New Myth."
Theory, 24 ( F a l l , 1975), 397-406.

Educational

Denzin, Norman K. "Children and T h eir Caretakers." Restructuring
American Education. Edited by Ray R ist. New Brunswick:
Transaction Books, 1972, pp. 23-45.
Edcentric. "Introduction: Public A lte rn a tiv e Schools and Society."
February, March, 1976, p. 3.
Engstrom, Georgianna, e d ito r .
Open Education: The Legacy of the
Progressive Movement. Washington, D.C.: National Association
fo r the Education o f Young C hildren, 1970.
Epstein, Joyce and McPartland, James. "Student Reactions to the Transi­
tio n From Open Elementary School to Junior High: A Case Study."
Baltimore: Center For Social Organization of Schools, The Johns
Hopkins U n iv e rs ity , 1972.
Epstein, Joyce and McPartland, James. "The Effects o f Open School
Organization On Student Outcomes: Final Report." Baltimore:
Center fo r Social Organization o f Schools, The Johns Hopkins
U n iv e rs ity , 1975 (Report Number 194).
E tz io n i, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations.
New York: The Free Press, 1961.

248
E tzio n i, Amitai. Modern Organizations.
H a ll, 1964.

Englewood C l i f f s : P rentice-

Evans, Judith.
"An A c tiv ity Analysis o f U.S. T r a d it io n a l, U.S. Open
and B ritis h Open Classrooms." Studies in Open Education.
Edited by Bernard Spodek and Herbert J. Walberg. New York:
Agathon Press, 1975, pp. 155-167.
Fa n tin i, Mario D. "A lternatives in the Public Schools."
Education, September/October, 1974, pp. 63-66.

Today's

Featherstone, Joseph. "The Primary School Revolution in B r i t a in ."
The New Republic. Reprint of a r t ic le s from the issues of
August 10, 1967, September 2, 1967, and September 9 , 1967.
Featherstone, Joseph. "Report Analysis: Children and T h eir Primary
Schools." Harvard Educational Review, 38 (Spring, 1968)
p. 317.
Feinberg, Joel. Social Philosophy.
H a l l , 1973.

Englewood C l i f f s : P rentice-

Ferguson, George A. S t a t is t ic a l Analysis in Psychology and Education.
3rd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Fielder, F. "The Trouble With Leadership Training is That i t Doesn't
Train Leaders." Psychology Today, 6 (February, 1973), 23 f f .
Finn, Jeremy D. "Expectations and The Educational Environment."
Review o f Educational Research, 42 (1 972 ), 387-410.
Franks, David, e t . a l . "Peer Labeling in Open and T ra d itio n a l Schools."
U niversity of Denver, Ju ly, 1974 (Mimeographed).
Friedenberg, Edgar Z.
House, 1963.

Coming of Age in America.

New York: Random

Friedlander, Bernard Z. "Some Remarks on Open Education." American
Educational Research Association Journal, 12 ( F a l l , 1975],
465-68.
Gage, N.L. "An A nalytical Approach to Research on In stru ctio n al
Methods." Social Psychology of Teaching. Edited by A. Morrison
and D. McIntyre. Middlesex England: Penguin Books, 1972.
Gans, Roma. "The Progressive Era: I t s Relation to the Contemporary
Scene." Open Education: The Legacy o f the Progressive Movement.
Edited by Georgianna Engstrom. Washington, D.C.: National
Association fo r the Education o f Young C hildren, 1970, pp. 39-50.
Gatewood, T.E. "How E ffe c tiv e Are Open Classrooms: A Review o f Research."
Childhood Education, 51 (January, 1975), 170-179.

249
Getzels, Jacob W. and Thelen, Herbert A. "The Classroom Group as a
Unique Social System." The Dynamics o f In stru ctio n al Groups.
U n iversity o f Chicago Press, 1960, p. 56 f f .
Gilmer, B. Von H a lle r .
In d u s trial and Organizational Psychology.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Golembiewski, Robert. "Small Group and Large Organization." Handbook
o f Organizations. Edited by James March. Chicago: Rand McNally,
1965, pp. 87-141.
Grannis, Joseph C. "The School as a Model o f S ociety." Harvard
Graduate School o f Education Association B u lle t in , 12 ( F a l l ,
1967), 15-27.
Graubard, A lle n . Free The C h ild ren .
House), 1972.

New York: Pantheon (Random

Graubard, A lle n .
"Freedom Works: The Theory o f Radical School Reform."
De-Mystifying Schools. Edited by Miriam Wasserman. New York:
Praeger Press, 1 9 7 4 , pp. 297-303.
Green, Thomas F.
1971.
Greer, C o lin .
1972.

The A c t i v it ie s of Teaching.
--------------------------------------------

The Great School Legend.

New York: McGraw-Hill,

New York: The Viking Press,

Groobman, D .E ., e t . a l . "A ttitu d e , Self-Esteem and Learning in Formal
and Informal Schools." Journal of Educational Psychology, 68
(February, 1976), 32-35.
Haggstrom, W.C. "The Power o f the Poor." Mental Health o f the Poor.
Edited by F. Riesman, J. Cohen, A. P earl. New York: CornwellC o ll ie r and Macmillan, 1964, pp. 205-223.
Halpin, Andrew and C ro ft, Donald. "The Organizational Climate of
Schools." Theory and Research in A dm inistration. Edited by
Andrew Halpin. New York: Macmillan, 1966, pp. 131-249.
Haney, Craig and Zimbardo, P h ilip G. " I t ' s Tough To T e ll a High
School From a P rison." Psychology Today, (June, 1975), pp. 28, f f .
Hapgood, M arilyn.
"The Open Classroom: Protect I t From I t ' s Friends."
Saturday Review, September 18, 1971, p. 66 f f .
Harvey, O.J. e t . a l . "Teachers' B e lie f Systems and Preschool Atmos­
pheres?" Journal o f Educational Psychology, 57 (1 966 ), 373-381.
Harvey, O .J ., e t . a l . "Teachers' B e lie fs , Classroom Atmospheres and
Student Behavior." Social Psychology o f Teaching. Edited by
A. Morrison and D. McIntyre. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books,
1972, pp. 215-228.

Hauser, Robert M. Socioeconomic Background and Educational Performance.
Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association Rose Mono­
graph Series, June, 1971
Helsel, Ray A. "Personality and Pupil Control Behavior." Paper
presented a t the annual American Educational Research Associa­
tio n meeting, Chicago, A p r il, 1974.
Henderson, Ronald W. "Mindlessness in and About the Open Classroom."
A Study fo r the Arizona Center fo r Early Education, Mimeographed,
1971.
Henderson, R.W. "A ccountability and Decision-Making in Open Education."
Childhood Education, 49 ( A p r il, 1973), 368-72.
Hodgkins, Benjamin J . and H e r r i o t t , Robert E. "Age-Grade S tructure,
Goals and Compliance in the School: An Organizational A nalysis."
Sociology o f Education, 43 (W inter, 1970), 90-105.
Hopkins, Richard L. "Freedom and Education: The Philosophy o f Summerh i l l ." Educational Theory, 26 (Spring, 1976), 188-213.
Howe, Frederick C. "Teacher Perception Toward the Learning A b i l i t y o f
Students From D iffe r in g Racial and Socioeconomic Backgrounds."
Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Michigan State U n iv ersity , 1970.
In s e l, Paul M. and Jacobsen, Lenore F. What Do You Expect?
Park: Cummings Publishing Co., 1975.

Menlo

Jencks, Christopher, e t . a l . In e q u a lity : A Reassessment o f the E ffects
o f Family and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books, 1972.
Johnson, David W. The Social Psychology o f Education.
H o lt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.

New York:

Johnson, David and Johnson, Roger T. "In stru c tio n al Goals Structure:
Cooperative, Competitive or I n d iv id u a lis t i c ." Review o f
Educational Research, 44 (Spring, 1974), 213-240.
Katz, L.G. "Open-informal Education; Recommendations fo r Research and
Development." Report to the National I n s t it u t e of Education
Planning U n it, U n iversity of I l l i n o i s , 1971.
Katz, Michael.

Class, Bureaucracy and Schools.

New York: Praeger, 1971.

Katz, Michael.
"On C ris is in the Classroom." Education in American
History: Readings in the Social Issues. Edited by Michael Katz.
New York: Praeger, 1973, pp. 339-348.
Kenney, James and Rentz, Robert. "The Organizational Climate o f Schools
in Five Urban Areas." The Elementary School Journal, November,
1970, pp. 61-69.

251
Kohl, Herbert R. The Open Classroom.
House), 1969.

New York Review Book (Random

Kohl berg, Lawrence and Mayer, Rochelle. "Development as the Aim of
Education." Harvard Educational Review, 42 (November, 1972),
449-496.
Kohler, P. Terence. "A Comparison o f Open and T ra d itio n a l Education:
Conditions That Promote Self-Concept." Paper presented a t the
f i f t y - e i g h t h annual meeting o f the American Educational Research
Association meeting, New Orleans, February, 1973.
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of S c ie n t if ic Revolutions.
University o f Chicago Press, 1962.

Chicago:

LaBelle, Thomas J. "Cultural Determinants o f Educational A lte rn a tiv e s ."
New Directions For Education, 1 (W inter, 1973), 27-46.
Larkin, Ralph. "Social Exchange in the Elementary School Classroom:
The Problem of Teacher Legitimation of Social Power." New York:
Center fo r Urban Education, 1973.
Larkin, Ralph. "Social Exchange in the Elementary School Classroom:
The Problem of Teacher Legitim ation of Social Power." Sociology
o f Education, 48 ( F a l l , 1975), 400-410.
Leonard, B.C. and Gies, F.T.
"Value Homogeneity in Open and Closed
Organizational Clim ates." Columbia, Missouri: Center fo r
Educational Improvement, College o f Education, U niversity o f
Missouri, May, 1971.
Lickona, Thomas. "The Psychology o f Choice." Early Childhood Education
P ro jec t, D ivision o f Education, State University o f New York a t
Cortland, 1971 (Mimeographed).
L ik e rt, Rensis.

New Patterns o f Management.

New York: McGraw-Hill,

Macdonald, James. "The Open School: Curriculum Concepts." Open
Education: The Legacy o f the Progressive Movement. Edited by
Georgianna Engstrom. Washington, D.C.: National Association
fo r the Education o f Young Children, 1970, pp. 23-37.
Madden, P.C. "Skinner and the Open Classroom."
(November, 1972), 100-107.

School Review, 81

Manis, Jerome and M eltzer, Bernard. Symbolic In te ra c tio n : A Reader
in Social Psychology. Boston: A llyn and Bacon, 1972.
Marin, Peter, e t . a l . The Limits o f Schooling.
P re n tic e -H a ll, 1975.

Englewood C l i f f s :

252
Mayeske, George, e t . a l . A Study o f Our Nation's Schools. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department o f Health, Education and Welfare, O ffic e
o f Education, 1969.
McCauley, Brian, e t . a l . "Evaluation and Authority in A lte rn a tiv e
Schools and Public Schools." Stanford Center fo r Research
and Development in Teaching. Technical Report Number Twentyth ree, June, 1972.
M cDill, Edward, e t . a l . " In s titu tio n a l E ffects On the Academic Behavior
o f High School Students." Sociology o f Education, 40 (Summer,
1971), 181-199.
M cD ill, Edward, e t . a l . Educational Climates o f High Schools: Their
E ffects and Sources." American Journal o f Sociology, 74
(May, 1969), 567-86.
McDonough, T e rry.
"When You're Hot, You're Hot, When You're Not,
You're Not--The Rise o f the Meritocracy in A lte rn a tiv e Education."
New Schools Exchange Newsletter, A p r i l , 1976, pp. 20 f f .
McGhan, Barry.
"Accountability as a Negative R einforcer."
Teacher, 55 (November, 1970), p. 13.

American

M eltzer, Bernard N. "Mead's Social Psychology." Symbolic In t e r a c t io n :
A Reader in Social Psychology. Edited by Jerome Manis and
Bernard M e ltz e r. Boston: A llyn and Bacon, 1972, pp. 4 -2 2 .
Meyer, John, e t . a l . "The Impact o f the Open Space School Upon Teacher
Influence and Autonomy: The Effects o f an Organizational Innova­
t io n ." Stanford Center fo r Research and Development in Teach­
ing, Technical Report Number 21, October, 1971.
M oesteller, Frederick and Moynihan, Daniel, e d ito rs . On E qu ality of
Educational Opportunity. New York: Vintage Books (Random
House), 1972.
Monahan, W illiam G. "The Anomic Factor in Big C ity School Systems."
Educational Administration Q u a rte rly , (Autumn, 1967), pp. 239-247.
Morgan, Kathryn. "S o c ia liz a tio n , Social Models and the Open Education
Movement: Some Philosophical Considerations." Studies in
Philosophy and Education, 8 ( F a l l , 1974), 278-314.
Myers, Donald A. "Why Open Education Died."
Development, 8 ( F a l l , 1974), 38-44.

Journal o f Research and

Nie, Norman H ., e t . a l . SPSS: S t a t is t ic a l Package fo r the Social
Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
Norwood, Elizabeth R. and Norwood, Don J. "A V alid atio n o f PROSE as
a Means o f Assessing Classroom Openness." The Journal o f
Educational Research, 69 (September, 1975), 20-22.

253
Nyberg, David, e d it o r . The Philosophy o f Open Education.
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975.

London:

Open School Evaluation Task Force.
"Evaluation o f the Walker Open School
Program." F l i n t : F l i n t Public Schools, A p r i l , 1974.
Parsons, T a lc o tt. Social Structure and P e rs o n a lity .
Free Press, 1964.

New York: The

P earlin , Leonard I . and Kohn, Melvin L.
"Social Class Occupations
and Parental Values: A Cross-National Study." American
Sociological Review, 31 (August, 1966), p. 466 f f .
[Pettigrew, Thomas.] Racial Is o la tio n in the Public Schools. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Commission on C iv il Rights, U.S. Government P rin tin g
O ffic e , 1967, (Two volumes).
Pidgeon, Douglas A. Evaluation o f Achievement: Informal Schools in
B r ita in Today. New York: C ita tio n Press, 1972.
Pierce, Gael E. "A Close Look At the Open Classroom." Changing Educa­
t i o n , May, 1976, pp. 8-10.
[Plowden, Lady B. e t . a l . ] Children and T h eir Primary Schools. (Report
o f the Central Advisory Council fo r Education) London: Her
Majesty's Stationery O ff ic e , 1967, (Two volumes).
Radebaugh, B.F. "Open Classroom Concept has Some A u th o rita ria n Im p li­
c a tio n s ." Journal o f Teacher Education, 24 (Spring, 1973),
44-47.
Reiss, A lbert J . , e t . a l .
Free Press, 1961.

Occupation and Social S ta tu s .

New York:

Reynolds, Robert N ., e t . a l . "Does Open Classroom Education R eally Make
a Difference?" Harrisburg: Pennsylvania State Department o f
Education (Final Report), December, 1974.
Riegle, Jack D. "Open Concept Education: A Human E n te rp ris e." National
Association o f Secondary School P rincip als B u lle t in , January,
1973, pp. 10-14.
R ist, Ray. "Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The S e lfF u l f i l l i n g Prophecy in Ghetto Education." Harvard Educational
Review, 40 (August, 1970), 411-451.
R ist, Ray. Restructuring American Education: Innovations and A lte rn a tives~ New Brunswick, N .J .: Transaction Books, 1972.
R ist, Ray. The Urban School: A Factory f o r F a ilu r e . Cambridge, Mass:
Massachusetts In s t it u t e o f Technology Press, 1974.

254

Robin, Arthur. "Behavior M odification and Open Education: Strange
Bedfellows?" Educational Technology, 14 (November, 1974),
49-53.
Rogers, C a r l.

Freedom to Learn.

Columbus, Ohio: M e r r i l l , 1969.

Rosenthal, Robert. " S e l f - F u l f i l l i n g Prophecy."
September, 1968, pp. 47-51.
Rosenthal, Robert and Jacobsen, Lenore.
New York: H o lt, Rinehart, 1968.

Psychology Today,

Pygmalion in the Classroom.

Rothbart, M. e t . a l . "E ffect o f Teacher Expectancy on StudentTeacher In te r a c tio n ." Journal o f Educational Psychology, 62
(1971 ) , 49-54.
Rubovits, P.C. and Maehr, M.L. "Pygmalion Analyzed: Toward an Explana­
tio n o f the Rosenthal-Jacobsen Findings." Journal o f Person­
a l i t y and Social Psychology, 19 (1971), 197-204.
Russo, John. "Lost Ideals: Past and Present Movements fo r Educational
Change." Edcentric, A p r i l , 1975, p. 6 f f .
Ryan, W illiam .

Blaming the V ic tim .

New York: Vintage Books, 1972.

Salzberg, Charles I .
"Freedom and R esponsibility in an Elementary
School." Behavior Analysis and Education. Edited by George
Semb, e t . a l . Support and Development Center fo r Follow Through,
Department o f Human Development, U niversity o f Kansas, 1972,
pp. 62-77.
Sexton, P a tr ic ia Cayo. The American School.
P r e n tic e -H a ll, 1967.

Englewood C l i f f s :

Shipman, V ir g in ia , e t . a l . Young Children and Their F i r s t School
Experiences. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1976
(Mimeographed).
Silberman, Charles.
1970.

C ris is in the Classroom.

New York: Random House,

Silberman, M.L. "Behavioral Expression o f Teachers' A ttitud es Toward
Elementary School Students." Journal o f Educational Psychology,
60 (1969), 402-407.
S ilk , David N. "Aspects of the Concept of Authority in Education."
Educational Theory, 26 (Summer, 1976), 271-278.
Simmons, Michael L . , J r .
"Open Education and Social C ritic is m ."
The Philosophy o f Open Education. Edited by David Nyberg.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975.

255

Smith, Louis M. Pupil Expectations o f Teacher Leadership Behavior.
S t. Louis: Graduate I n s t i t u t e of Education, Washington Univer­
s i t y , 1960.
Smith, Louis and Geoffrey, R. Complexities o f an Urban Classroom.
New York: H olt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.
Smith,

Louis and Keith, P.M.The Anatomy o f Educational Innovation:
An Organizational Analysis o f An Elementary School. New York:
Wiley, 1971.

Smith, Marshall S. "Equality o f Educational Opportunity: The Basic
Findings Reconsidered." On Equality o f Educational Opportunity.
Edited by Frederick M oesteller and Daniel Moynihan. New York:
Vintage Books (Random House), 1972, pp. 230-343.
Spaulding, Robert L. Achievement, C r e a t i v it y , and Self-Concept
Correlates o f Teacher-Pupil Transaction in Elementary School.
Urbana, 111.: University o f I l l i n o i s , College of Education,
1963.
Spodek, Bernard and Walberg, Herbert J . , eds. Studies
Education. New York:
Agathon Press, 1975.

in Open

S ta llin g s , Jane. "What Teachers Do Does Make a D iffere nc e--A Study
o f Seven Follow Through Educational Models." Stanford
Research In s t i t u t e , 1974 (Mimeographed).
Stephens, L i l l i a n . The Teachers Guide to Open Education.
H o lt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974.
Stevenson, L e s lie . Seven Theories o f Human N ature.
Press, 1974.

New York:

Oxford: Clarendon

Stodolsky, Susan. "Open Education: A Challenge to Evaluation: Report
Number 29." Washington, D.C.: National In s t i t u t e o f Education,
1974.
Stone, H a r rie tte K. "The E ffe c t o f the Open Classroom Environment on
Locus of C ontrol." Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Walden
U n iv e rs ity , 1974.
Summers, Anita A. and Wolfe, Barbara L. "Which School Resources Help
Learning? E ffic ien cy and Equity in P hiladelphia Public Schools."
Business Review, February, 1975, pp. 4 -2 9 .
Taylor, Joy.
1972.

Organizing the Open Classroom.

New York: Schocken Books,

Tobier, A .J.
"The Open Classroom: Humanizing the Coldness o f Public
Places." The Center Forum, 3 (May 15, 1969), 19-23.
Traub, Ross, e t . a l . "Studying Openness in Education: An Ontario Example."
Journal o f Research and Development in Education, 8 ( F a l l , 1974).

256

Tuckman, Bruce W. e t . a l . "Evaluating the Open Classroom." Paper
presented a t the annual meeting o f the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, 1973.
Walberg, H .J. and Thomas, S.C. "Open Education: An Operational
D e fin itio n and V a lid a tio n in Great B r it a in and the United
S tates." American Educational Research Journal, 9 (Spring,
1972), 197-207.
Walberg, Herbert and Thomas, Susan. "Defining Open Education."
Journal o f Research and Development in Education, 8 ( F a l l , 1974).
Wall ache, Michael A. "The Psychological Impact o f School Experience."
Harvard Educational Review, 41 (May, 1971), 230-239.
Waller, Norman E. and Wodtke, Kenneth H. "Relationships Between
Teacher C h a ra c te ris tic s and Student Behaviors." U niversity
o f Utah, Department o f Educational Psychology, 1963, 1964,
1966 (Three volumes).
Wasserman, Miriam.

De-Mystifying Schools.

New York: Praeger, 1974.

Weber, L. The English In fa n t School and Informal Education.
Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n tic e -H a ll, 1971.
West, Charles K. "A Review o f the Teacher Expectancy E ffe c t: The
Question o f Preponderant Causation." Washington, D.C.:
National In s t i t u t e o f Education, 1974.
Wiggins, Thomas. "Principal Behavior in the School Climate: A
System A nalysis." Educational Technology, September, 1971,
pp. 57-59.
Willower, Donald J. e t . a l . The School and Pupil Control Ideology.
(Pennsylvania State University Studies, Number 24) University
Park: Pennsylvania State U n iv e rs ity , 1967.
Wilson, Alan B. "Social Class and Equal Educational Opportunity."
Harvard Educational Review, 38 (W inter, 1968)
Wismer, Susan L. "A Four Unit Theory o f A lie n a tio n : An Empirical
Test o f Various School S tructures." Unpublished Ph.D. d isse r­
t a t io n , U n iv ersity o f Denver, 1974.
W ith a l!, J. "The Development o f a Technique fo r the Measurement of
Social-Emotional Climate in Classrooms." Unpublished Ph.D.
d is s e rta tio n , U n iv ersity o f Chicago, 1948.
Wolynski, M. "Confessions o f a Misspent Youth."
30, 1976, p. 11.

Newsweek, August

Wright, Robert J. "The A ffe c tiv e and Cognitive Consequences o f an
Open Education Elementary School." American Educational Research
Journal, 12 ( F a l l , 1975), 449-465.

APPENDIX A

STUDENT SURVEY FORM
TEACHER SURVEY FORM
PRINCIPAL SURVEY FORM

uccoDer, iy/q

S T U D E N T

S c h o o l

S o c i a l

a

M i c h i g a n

Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

b

C l i m a t e

e

S t u d y

d

s p o n s o r e d

b y

D e p a r t m e n t

of

E d u c a t i o n

an d
M i c h i g a n

Dr.

DIRECTIONS:

W e

a r e

q u e s t i o n s .

a f f e c t
no t

y o u r

s e e

s i m p l y

w o r k

y o u r

w a n t

y o u

m o r e

t h e r e f o r e ,
T h i s
i n

is

to

n o t

s ch o o l .

a n s w e r s .

s t u d e n t s

l i k e
a

u s

a r e

y o u r

a n d

y o u

t e s t

Y o u r

T h e r e

t e l l

f o r

o f

to

s o r t

a n d

r i g h t

a n s w e r

w o r k

r e s p o n d

a n y

t e a c h e r
n o

t h e i r

to

a n d

y o u r

o r

t h e
w i l l

p r i n c i p a l

w r o n g

e a c h

i n

to

a n s w e r s ;

q u e s t i o n .

Are

W h a t

y o u

a

g r a d e

y o u

b o y

or

a r e

o n

P l e a s e

w r i t e

y o u r

6.

P l e a s e

w r i t e

the

y o u r

l a s t

B Y

P I C K

C I R C L I N G
O N L Y

b i r t h d a y ?

O N E

T H E

N U M B E R

A N S W E R

F O R

O N

T H E

E A C H

in?

t e a c h e r ’s

n a m e

o f

name.

y o u r

s c ho o l.

257

R I G H T

O F

Q U E S T I O N ! ! !

9

y e a r s

o l d

.

10

y e a r s

o l d

.

11

y e a r s

o l d

.

12

y e a r s

o l d

.

13

y e a r s

o l d

.

g ir l ?

y o u

5.

Q U E S T I O N S

Q U E S T I O N .

b o y

.

g i r l

.

3 r d

g r a d e

.

4 t h

g r a d e

.

5 t h

g r a d e

.

6 t h

g r a d e

.

7 t h

g r a d e

.

WN H

w e r e

T H E

Ui

o l d

F O L L O W I N G
T O

N H

H o w

T H E

A N S W E R

U) W H

A N S W E R

B E S T

Ln

4.

a b o u t

w o u l d ,

D i r e c t o r

Name

PLEASE

3.

l e a r n

f o l l o w i n g

w e

2.

to

P r o j e c t

W e

w i l l

YOUR

t r y i n g

U n i v e r s i t y

B r o o k o v e r ,

s ch o o l s .

n o t

1.

W i l b u r

S t a t e

Student questionnaire
Fage 2

m a n y

y e a r s

h a v e

y o u

b e e n

at

t h i s

s c h o o l ?

L e s s

7

8.

W h a t

t y p e

o f

w o r k

d o e s

y o u r

f a t h e r

do?

( G i v e

a

t h a n

y e a r s

s h o r t

y e a r

....

2

1

y e a r s

....

3

y e a r s

....

4

y e a r s

....

5

y e a r s

....

6

y e a r s

....

m o r e

....

o r

d e s c r i p t i o n

o f

U N3 H

H o w

vl ffv Ul

7.

258

h i s

job.)

9.

o n l y

If

y o u

o n e

S T A T E

a n s w e r

c o u l d

go

A N S W E R E D
N O

U N I V E R S I T Y ,
fo r

as

B E

e a c h

f a r

as

O N E

SO

B Y

W I L L

P L E A S E

C I R C L I N G

TH E

S E E

A N S W E R S

Y O U R

T E L L

U S

J U S T

N U M B E R

W H A T

Y O U

y o u

w a n t e d

i n

s c h o o l ,

h o w

f a r

F i n i s h
to

h i g h

G o

to

w o u l d

g r a d e

s c h o o l

f o r

F i n i s h

h i g h

c o l l e g e

a

fo r

far

do

w h a t

y o u

y o u

t h i n k

w a n t

y o u

to

w i l l

h a p p e n
g o

i n

is

n o t

w h a t

y o u

t h i n k

F i n i s h
to

Go

H o w

m a n y

s t u d e n t s

i n

t h i s

s c h o o l

yo u

l i k e

to

s c h o o l

.......

w h i l e

.......
.......

w h i l e

.......

c o l l e g e

.......

w i l l

h i g h

h a p p e n .

to

g r a d e

s c h o o l

f o r

F i n i s h

h i g h

c o l l e g e

fo r

F i n i s h

w e e k l y

O F

T HI N K.

H o w

s c h o o l ?

G o

11.

R I G H T

T H O S E

s c h o o l
a

F i n i s h

S o m e t i m e s

T H E

q u e s t i o n . )

Go

10.

O N

E X C E P T

O

(Pick

M I C H I G A N

T O

R E M E M B E R ,

Ui f' W M H

F R O M

A R E

A N S W E R .

t ry

h a r d

to

g e t

a

g o o d

a

a

s c h o o l

.......

w h i l e

.......

s c h o o l

.......

w h i l e

.......

c o l l e g e

.......

g r a d e

o n

IO H

US

Q U E S T I O N S

C O R R E C T

t h e i r

t ests?
A l m o s t

A l m o s t

al l

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.

M o s t

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.

H a l f

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.

S o m e

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.

n o n e

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.

M H

THE

In -MO

F O L L O W I N G

OF

Ln 4MO

THE

Student Questionnaire
Page 3

H o w

m a n y

the

w e e k l y

s t u d e n t s
t e s t s

i n
t h a n

this

s c h o o l

t h e i r

w i l l

f r i e n d s

w o r k

h a r d

to

A l m o s t

m a n y

s t u d e n t s

i n

this

s c h o o l

m a n y

h av e

s t u d e n t s

in

this

s c h o o l

d o n ' t

d o

of

thes t u d e n t s

........... 1

thes t u d e n t s

........

2

H a l f

of

thes t u d e n t s

........

3

c a r e

if

S o m e

of

th es t u d e n t s

........

4

n o n e

of

thes t u d e n t s

........

3

t h e y

ge t

1

m o r e

of

t h es t u d e n t s

........

of

thes t u d e n t s

........

2

H a l f

of

thes t u d e n t s

........

3

S o m e

of

th es t u d e n t s

........

4

n o n e

of

t h es t u d e n t s

........

5

s t u d y i n g

fo r

w e e k l y

t e s t s

a ll

of

t h e s t u d e n t s

........

1

of

thes t u d e n t s

........

2

H a l f

of

t h es t u d e n t s

........

3

S o m e

of

thes t u d e n t s

........

4

n o n e

o f

t h es t u d e n t s

........

5

of

w o u i d

t h e

s t u d e n t s

t h e y

h e r e

c o u l d

g o

as

f a r

G o

to

as

t h e y

w a n t e d

in

h i g h

Go

g r a d e

s c h o o l fo r

s c h o o l

a

to

c o l l e g e for

H o w i m p o r t a n t is

it to

y o u to

b e

a

g o o d

i m p o r t a n t

do

m o s t

of

t he

s t u d e n t s

H o w i m p o r t a n t do y o u t h i n k
do

w e l l

2

..........

3

w h i l e

4
5

i m p o r t a n t

.........

1

I m p o r t a n t

.........

2

S o m e w h a t

i m p o r t a n t

.........

3

N ot

i m p o r t a n t

.........

4

.........

5

in

t h i s

v e r y

i m p o r t a n t

c l a s s

feel

it

at

is

a ll

to

do

w e l l

w o r k ?

T h e y

fe e l

T h e y

f e e l

T h e y

to

1

s t u d e n t ?

T h e y

18.

.........
...........

.........

N ot

s c h o o l

h o w

c o l l e g e

V e r y

in

w h i l e
s c h o o l

a

F i n i s h

H o w

s c h o o l ,

go?

F i n i s h h i g h

17.

they

M o s t

F i n i s h

16.

t h a n

to?

m o s t

far

g r a d e s ?

a l l

A l m o s t

If

b a d

M o s t

A l m o s t

15.

o n

of

A l m o s t

H o w

g r a d e

a l l

A l m o s t

14.

b e t t e r

i n

s c h o o l

m o s t

o f

f e e l

t h e

f e e l

it

T h e y

f ee l

it
it

it

is

is

is i m p o r t a n t

..........

s o m e w h a t i m p o r t a n t

is

n o t

i m p o r t a n t

in this

v e r y i m p o r t a n t
at

s c h o o l

a l l

f e e l

1

..........

is

n o t

s t u d e n t s

v e r y i m p o r t a n t
it

2
.

.

H o w

a

M o s t

A l m o s t

13.

g e t

do?

.........

it

3
4
5

is

w o r k ?
T h e y

T h e y

f e e l

T h e y

f e e l

T h e y

f e e l

f e e l

it

T h e y

feel

it

it
it
is

n o t

is

v e r y i m p o r t a n t
it

..........

1

i s i m p o r t a n t ..........

is

s o m e w h a t i m p o r t a n t

is

n o t

i m p o r t a n t

v e r y i m p o r t a n t
at

a l l

2
.

3

.

12.

4

.........

5

Student questxonnaire

-ww

Page 4

s t u d e n t s

w h e n

t h e y

i n

th i s

c l a s s

d o n ' t

h a v e

to?

t h i n k

r e a d i n g

is

A l m o s t

a

m a n y

good

s t u d e n t s

i n

t hi s

s c h o o l

m a k e

f un

o f

do

a n d

s t u d e n t s

r ea d

a l l

of t h e
o f t h e

s t u d e n t s

...

.........

1

h a l f o f t h e

s t u d e n t s

..

S o m e

of t h e

s t u d e n t s

...

N o n e

of t h e

s t u d e n t s

..

o r

t e a s e

s t u d e n t s

w h o

get

r ea l

g r a d e s ?
A l m o s t

A b o u t

21.

to

H ow

m a n y

are

a f r a i d

s t u d e n t s
o t h e r

d o n ' t

d o

s t u d e n t s

as

w e l l

w o n ' t

as

l i k e

t h ey
t h e m

a l l

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.........

M o s t

o f

t h e

s t u d e n t s

.........

h a l f

of

th e

s t u d e n t s

.........

S o m e

o f

th e

s t u d e n t s

.........

N o n e

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.........

in

s c h o o l

c o u l d
as

do

b e c a u s e

Ui-C'CONJH*

Ho w

t h i n g

M o s t
A b o u t

20.

f u n

Cri-C'CotO

m a n y

even

they

m u c h ?

A l m o s t

all

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.

M o s t

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.

h a l f

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.

S o m e

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.

N o n e

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.

C I R C L I N G

T H E

N U M B E R

H

Cn

A b o u t

N5 h- 1

H o w

-P~ W

19.

REMEMBER,
ANSWERS

A N S W E R

Q U E S T I O N

How

m a n y

are

a f r a i d

T H E

F O R

s t u d e n t s
t h e i r

F O L L O W I N G

YOU.

d o n ' t

P I C K

d o

f r i e n d s

as

Q U E S T I O N S

O N L Y

w e l l

w o n ' t

O N E

as

l i k e

B Y

A N S W E R

t h ey

t h e m

F O R

c o u l d

as

E A C H

W H I C H

Q U E S T I O N .

do

in

s c h o o l

b e c a u s e

a l l

o f

the

s t u d e n t s

th e y

m u c h ?
H

22.

P L E A S E

TH E

N

A l m o s t

of

the

s t u d e n t s

h a l f

of

the

s t u d e n t s

S o m e

of

the

s t u d e n t s

N o n e

of

the

s t u d e n t s

U

M o s t

Ui

A b o u t

How

m a n y

graded

b y

s t u d e n t s
t h e

i n

t hi s

s c h o o l

w o u l d

s t u d y

h a r d

A l m o s t

A b o u t

24.

P eo p le

l i k e

m e

if

t h e i r

w o r k

wa s n* t

t e a c h e r s ?

w i l l

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

of

a

c h a n c e

a l l

of

the

s t u d e n t s

M o s t

of

the

s t u d e n t s

h a l f

o f

the

s t u d e n t s

S o m e

o f

the

s t u d e n t s

N o n e

o f

the

s t u d e n t s

to

do

w h a t

w e

w a n t

S t r o n g l y

to

a g r e e

4 > U J N 3 l —1

23.

....

in

life.

.........

1

D i s a g r e e

.........

3

d i s a g r e e

.........

4

A g r e e

S t r o n g l y

2

Student questionnaire
Page 5

n e v e r

do

w e l l

i n

s c h o o l

e v e n

t h o u g h

w e

tr y

S t r o n g l y

hard.

a g r e e

.........

1

D i s a g r e e

.........

3

d i s a g r e e

.........

4

.........

1

D i s a g r e e

.........

3

d i s a g r e e

.........

4

A g r e e

S t r o n g l y

26.

I

c a n

do

w e l l

i n

s c h o o l

if

I

w o r k

2

hard.
S t r o n g l y

a g r e e
A g r e e

S t r o n g l y

27.

In

this

s c h o o l ,

s t u d e n t s

l i k e

m e

d o n ' t

h a v e

a n y

2

luck.
S t r o n g l y

a g r e e

........... 1

A g r e e

S t r o n g l y

28.

Y o u

h a v e

to

b e

l u c k y

to

g e t

g o o d

g r a d e s

in

this

2

D i s a g r e e

.........

3

d i s a g r e e

......

4

.........

1

D i s a g r e e

.........

3

d i s a g r e e

.........

4

school.

S t r o n g l y

a g r e e
A g r e e

S t r o n g l y

same

of
or

y o u r

f ri e n d s .

p o o r e r

t h a n

Do

y o u r

y o u

t h i n k

y o u

c a n

do

s c h o o l

w o r k

B e t t e r

t h a n

B e t t e r

t h a n

P o o r e r

t h a n

P o o r e r

T h i n k

of

better,

t he
th e

s t u d e n t s
s a m e

o r

i n

y o u r

p o o r e r

c lass.

t h a n

t h e

D o

y o u

t h a n

t h i n k

s t u d e n t s

in

y o u

y o u r

B e t t e r
B e t t e r

a l l

o f

t h e m

.....

of

t h e m

.......

t h e

s a m e

.......

m o s t

of

t h e m

.......

a l l

o f

t h e m

.......

c a n

do

P o o r e r

t h a n
t h a n

t h a n

P o o r e r

W h e n

y o u

s tudents,

f i n i s h
a b o u t

h i g h
t h e

s c h o o l ,
s a m e

as

do
m o s t

t h a n

w i l l

s c h o o l

w o r k

c l a s s ?

a ll

of

t h e m

.......

m o s t

o f

t h e m

.......

the

s a m e

.......

A b o u t

31.

the

m o s t

A b o u t

30.

b e t t e r ,

f r i e n d s ?

b e

m o s t

of

t h e m

.......

a l l

of

t h e m

.......

y o u

t h i n k

y o u

o r

b e l o w

m o s t

of

B e t t e r

t h a n

m o s t

of

t he

s t u d e n t s

.....

a s

m o s t

o f

th e

s t u d e n t s

.......

B e l o w

m o s t

t h e

O n e

S a m e

of
O n e

o n e

o f

t h e

b e s t

s t u d e n t s ?

of

t he
o f

t h e

b e s t

s t u d e n t s
t he

w o r s t

.......

.......

-E-

T h i n k

.......

VJ1

29.

2

U i-P -O JN Jl-1

w i l l

U l-E 'U S fO l-1

m e

M

l i k e

to

P e o p l e

OJ

25.

261

Student Questionnaire
Page 6

Y es ,

for

s u r e

.........

Y es ,

p r o b a b l y

.........

M a y b e
No,

p r o b a b l y
No,

d o

m o s t

y o u
of

t h i n k
t h e

y o u

w o u l d

b e

o n e

of

O n e

b e s t

.........

the

s t u d e n t s

.........

as

m o s t

o f

t h e

s t u d e n t s

.........

B e l o w

m o s t

o f

y o u

w a n t

to

D o

b e

y o u

a

d o c t o r

t h i n k

y o u

or

a

t e a c h e r ,

c o u l d

do

y o u

n ee d

of

the

t h e

O n e

college.

s t u d e n t s ,

o f

t h a n

S a m e

If

b e s t

m o s t

B e t t e r

34.

t h e

s t u d e n t s ?

of

m o r e

s t u d e n t s
t h e

t h a n

w o r s t

f o u r

y e a r s

for

s u r e

.........

Yes,

p r o b a b l y

.........

p r o b a b l y
No,

Forget

h o w

y o u r

t e a c h e r s

m a r k

y o u r

w o r k .

H o w

y o u

k i n d

g o o d

of

o f

g r a d e s

a

do

s t u d e n t

y o u

do

t h i n k

y o u

y o u

y o u r

o w n

t h i n k

y o u

y o u

t h i n k

y o u r

b e s t

f r i e n d

s t u d e n t s

.........

B e l o w

m o s t

o f

th e

s t u d e n t s

.........

P o o r

.........

M o s t l y

A ' s

....... .

M o s t l y

B's

.........

M o s t l y

C ?s

.........

M o s t l y

D's

.........

M o s t l y

E's

.........

b e s t

.........

c a n

ca n

b e

g e t

in

t h a n

if

t h i s

y o u

try?

s c h o o l ?

of

the

m o s t

of

the

s t u d e n t s

......

as

m o s t

of

t he

s t u d e n t s

.........

B e l o w

m o s t

b e l i e v e s

of

y o u

w i l l

F i n i s h
Go

.........

t h e

O n e

d o

.........

G o o d
o f

S a m e

far

E x c e l l e n t

m o s t

O n e

H o w

.........

as

r e a l l y

B e t t e r

38.

t h i n k

s u re

to

G o

h i g h

to

t h e
of

s t u d e n t s
the

g o

i n

g r a d e

s c h o o l

fo r

F i n i s h

h i g h

c o l l e g e

f o r

F i n i s h

a

w o r s t

sc h o o l ?

s c h o o l

.........

w h i l e

.........
.........

s c h o o l
a

.........
.........

N5

H o w

do

.........

■
> W

37.

What

g o o d

f o r

.........

n o t

is?

S a m e

36.

of

Y e s,

No,

w o r k

.........
.........

that?

M a y b e

35.

P

b e l o w

N)

c o l l e g e ,

o r

W

to

m o s t

Ln

w e n t

as

.........

Ut ^ W W H

y o u

s u r e

f-1

If

same

.........

N5

33.

f o r

.........

n o t

In JS C
OM P

c o l l e g e ?

Ui

f i n i s h

Un

c o u l d

H

y o u

NJ

t h i n k

Ui J>-W

y o u

U i- P 'O J fo l- 1

Do

P-1

32.

262

w h i l e

c o l l e g e

...........

jjtu a e u u
Page

NOW

v ;u e s L j.o iu ia J .r e

.

7

W E

W O U L D

L I K E

ANSWER

T H E S E

Q U E S T I O N S

REMEMBER,

39.

.

2 6 3

Of
try

A S K

S O M E

Q U E S T I O N S

A B O U T

A S

Y O U

A N S W E R E D

T E A C H E R

W I L L

S E E

Y O U R

A N S W E R S ,

t e a c h e r s

that

y o u

k n o w

i n

N O

t h e

T O

h a r d

to

d o

b e t t e r

o n

T H E

t h i s

T H E

O T H E R
S O

T E A C H E R S
O N E S

B E

A S

s c h o o l ,

m a n y

than

t e a c h e r s

t h e i r

i n

this

s c h o o l

t e l l

s t u d e n t s

the

t e a c h e r s

st u de n ts

g e t

b a d

t h a t

y o u

k n o w

i n

t h is

s ch o o l ,

the

e x tr a

t e a c h e r s
w o r k

so

t h a t

t h a t

y o u

t h e y

k n o w
c a n

i n

g e t

t hi s
b e t t e r

s c h o o l ,

Of

the

t e a c h e r s

too

of

t he t e a c h e r s

..........

o f

t he t e a c h e r s

..........

2

H a l f

of

the t e a c h e r s

..........

3

S o m e

of

t h et e a c h e r s

......

n o n e

of

the t e a c h e r s

..........

try

a l l

o f

t h a t

y o u

k n o w

i n

t h i s

s c h o o l ,

the

g r a d e s

the t e a c h e r s

..........

1

.........

2

H a l f

of thet e a c h e r s

..........

3

S o m e

of th et e a c h e r s

............ 4

n o n e

of t he t e a c h e r s

..........

m a n y

d o n ' t

c a r e

if

5

the

a l l

o f

the t e a c h e r s

..........

1

M o s t

of thet e a c h e r s

..........

2

H a l f

of th et e a c h e r s

..........

3

S o m e

of th et e a c h e r s

..........

4

n o n e

of thet e a c h e r s

..........

5

m a n y

tell

s t u d e n t s

to

do

a l l

o f

..........

the t e a c h e r s

1

M o s t

of thet e a c h e r s

.........

2

H a l f

of thet e a c h e r s

..........

3

S o m e

of th et e a c h e r s

............ 4

n o n e

of t he t e a c h e r s

.........

h o w

A l m o s t

the

b e t t e r

5

of t h et e a c h e r s

m a n y

a l l

of

m a k e

th e

5

s t u d e n t s

..........

1

of thet e a c h e r s

.........

2

H a l f

o f thet e a c h e r s

.........

3

S o m e

o f th et e a c h e r s

.........

4

n o n e

of thet e a c h e r s

.........

5

M o s t

Of

g e t t

4

h a r d ?
A l m o s t

44.

a nd

1

M o s t

h o w

A l m o s t

w o r k

to

g r a d e s ?

A l m o s t

43.

s t u d e n t s

g r a d e s ?

A l m o s t

Of

t e l l

N UM B E R .

CAN.

a ll

h o w

A l m o s t

42.

m a n y

Y O U

M o s t

to

A l m o s t

Of

AS

SCHOOL.
T H E

c l a s s m a t e s ?
A l m o s t

41.

T H I S

t e s t s ?

A l m o s t

Ho w

I N

C I R C L I N G

H O N E S T

h o w

A l m o s t

40.

B Y

t e a c h e r s

s t u d e n t

t h a t

w o r k s ,

as

y o u

k n o w

l o n g

a s

i n

t h i s

h e

p a s s e s ?

sc h o o l ,

h o w

A l m o s t

A l m o s t

m a n y

t h e t e a c h e r s

d o n ' t

t h e

c a r e

h o w

t e a c h e r s

h ar d

a l l

of

.........

1

M o s t

o f

t h et e a c h e r s

........

2

H a l f

of

t h e t e a c h e r s

........

3

S o m e

of

t h et e a c h e r s

...........4

n o n e

o f

t h e t e a c h e r s

........

5

Student Questionnaire
page 8

45.

H o w

f a r

d o

y o u

264

t h i n k

t h e

t e a c h e r

y o u

l i k e

t h e

b e s t

b e l i e v e s

y o u

w i l l

g o

i n

G o

to

g r a d e

s c h o o l

f o r

F i n i s h

h i g h

c o l l e g e

for

H o w

of

a

s t u d e n t

d o e s

t h e

t e a c h e r

y o u

l i k e

th e

b e s t

e x p e c t

y o u

to

b e

of

the

s t u d e n t s

......

y o u

t h e

c a n

d o

s c h o o l

B e t t e r

t h a n

P o o r e r

y o u r

t e a c h e r

b e l o w

m o s t

s a y
o f

th a t
t h e

y o u r

g r a d e s

s t u d e n t s

w o u l d

w h e n

y o u

b e

o f

t h e m

.........

of

t h e m

.........

t h a n

m o s t

of

t h e m

.........

a l l

of

t h e m

......

t h a n

w i t h

the
f r o m

their

s c h o o l

t e a c h e r s

i n

t h i s

s c h o o l

t r y

of

t h e

s a m e

as

s c h o o l ?

b e s t

.........

s t u d e n t s

.........

as

m o s t

of

t he

s t u d e n t s

.........

B e l o w

m o s t

s t u d e n t s

.........

to

h e l p

of

the
of

t h e

w o r s t

s t u d e n t s

w h o

do

.........

b a d l y

o n

w o r k ?
T h e y

T h e y

a l w a y s

try

to

h e l p

.........

u s u a l l y

try

to

h e l p

.........
.........

s o m e t i m e s

T h e y

try

to

h e l p

s e l d o m

t r y

to

h e l p

.........

n e v e r

try

to

h e l p

.........

s t u d e n t s

in

t h is

s c h o o l

T h e y

to

h i g h

t he

T h e y

C om p a r e d

b e s t ,

of

O n e

d o

.........

m o s t

S a m e

o f t e n

t h e m

m o s t

g r a d u a t e

t h a n

of

m o s t

O n e
B e t t e r

al l

as

P o o r e r

or

w o r k

P

t h a n

S a m e

most

.........

age?

B e t t e r

Wo u l d

w o r s t

N

y o u r

of

LO

s a y

p e o p l e

O n e

H

..........

as m o s t

N)

s t u d e n t s

W

t h e

•)>

t e a c h e r

o t h e r

o f

Ui

y o u r

t h a n

..........

a s m o s t

H

W o u l d

p o o r e r

t he

M

o r

s t u d e n t s

OJ

t e a c h e r .

s a m e

g o o d

of

-t*

y o u r
t h e

..........

the

s t u d e n t s

i n

o t h e r

s c h o o l s ,

h o w

m u c h

d o

P

of

as

b e s t

of

fO

T h i n k

better,

learn?
T h e y
T h e y

T h e y

l e a r n

l ot

m o r e

l i t t l e

a

m o r e

l e a r n

a

A b o u t

t he

l e a r n
T h e y

a

s a m e

l i t t l e
l e a r n

a

as

i n

i n

th i ss c h o o l
in

o t h e r

.....

thiss c h o o l
s c h o o l s

.

........

b i t

l e s s in

th i s

s c h o o l

..........

l o t

l e s s in

this

s c h o o l

..........

U l- P 'U J N iH 1

50.

.........

Ui

N o t

H o w

.........

c o l l e g e

m o s t

t h a n

S a m e

49.

.........

w h i l e

^

O n e

48.

s c h o o l

s ch o o l ?

B e t t e r

47.

.........

U

in

g o o d

.........

w h i l e

a

F i n i s h

46.

s c h o o l
a

N

h i g h

U

to

U

F i n i s h
G o

H

school?

Student Questionnaire
Page 9

51.

C o m p a r e d
from

to

t hi s

265

s t u d e n t s

s c h o o l

do

f r o m
i n

o t h e r

h i g h

s c h o o l s ,

h o w

w e l l

w i l l

T h e y

w i l l

b e

T h e y

w i l l

w i l l

do

T h e y

i m p o r t a n t

their

s c h o o l

is

it

to

t e a c h e r s

in

is

th e

m o s t

It
It
It

T h i n k

a b o u t

this

or

not

t he

s c h o o l
t h e i r

s c h o o l

b e s t

.........

1.

m o s t

.........

2.

a s

m o s t

.........

3.

t h a n

m o s t

.........

4.

w o r s t

.........

5.

s a m e

p o o r e r
a m o n g

t h e

that

t h e i r

s t u d e n t s

l e a r n

t h i n g

to

the

t e a c h e r s

.........

i m p o r t a n t

to

the

t e a c h e r s

.........

t e a c h e r s

c a r e

2.

s o m e w h a t

i m p o r t a n t

to

t h e

t e a c h e r s

.........

3.

.............

4.

...........

5.

isn o t
isn o t

k n o w

o r

less,

l e a r n

t h e i r

v e r y i m p o r t a n t

i m p o r t a n t

y o u

m o r e ,

s t u d e n t s

is

in

this

t h a n

to

t e a c h e r

t h i n k

Do
in

t e a c h e r s

the

t e a c h e r s

y o u t h i n k

o t h e r

the

s c h o o l s

inth i ss c h o o l

T e a c h e r s

i n th i ss c h o o l

c a r e

c a r e

f i n i s h

l ot

t e a c h e r s

a b o u t

m o r e

l i t t l e

is n o

c a r e

in thiss c h o o l

a

a

w h e t h e r

a

1.

..........

2.

d i f f e r e n c e ..........
l i t t l e

c a r e

............

m o r e

a

l o t

l es s
l e ss

4.

............

5.

Yes,

f o r

s u r e .........

1.

Yes,

p r o b a b l y .........

2.

M a y b e

No,

R e m e m b e r
Does

y o u

y o u r

n e e d

t e a c h e r

m o r e

t h a n

f o u r

y e a r s

t h i n k

y o u

c o u l d

d o

of

c o l l e g e

to

b e

f o r

n o t

3.
.........

s u r e

a t e a c h e r

or

d oc t o r .

that?
Y es ,

f o r

s u r e .........

1.

Yes,

p r o b a b l y .........

2.

P r o b a b l y
No,

W E

THE

SAME

W O U L D
W A Y

Y O U

L I K E

56.

H o w

f a r

d o

Y O U

T O

A N S W E R E D

y o u

t h i n k

A N S W E R
T H E

y o u r

S O M E

O T H E R

4.
5.

M a y b e

NOW

3.

..........

c o l l e g e ?

P r o b a b l y

55.

1.

w o r k ?

i n th i ss c h o o l

c o u l d

to

s c hool.

T e a c h e r s

y o u

t h e

ata l l

t e a c h e r s

s c h o o l

T e a c h e r s

y o u r

t h e
t h a n

b e

T h e r e

Does

the

d o

w i l l

a m o n g

b e t t e r

a b o u t

i m p o r t a n t

is

T e a c h e r s

54.

s t u d e n t s

v e r y

It

in

the

w o r k ?
It

53.

this

d o

w i l l

T h e y

H ow

o f

s c h o o l ?

T h e y

52.

m o s t

Q U E S T I O N S

A B O U T

Y O U R

f o r

P A R E N T S .

n o t

3.
......

s u r e

4.
5.

A N S W E R

T H E M

ONES.

p a r e n t s

b e l i e v e

y o u

w i l l

go

in

F i n i s h
Go

to

G o

h i g h

s c h o o l ?

g r a d e

s c h o o l

fo r

F i n i s h

h i g h

toc o l l e g e

f o r

F i n i s h

a

s c h o o l

.........

w h i l e

.........

s c h o o l
a

1.
2.
3.

w h i l e

.........

4.

c o l l e g e

.........

5.

266

y o u r

p a r e n t s

e x p e c t

y o u

to

b e

i n

m o s t

o f

th e

s t u d e n t s

......

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.........

s t u d e n t s

.........

O n e
B e t t e r

N o t

as

t h a n

S a m e

as

m o s t

g o o d

a s

m o s t

of

the

of

y o u r

s a m e

o r

p a r e n t s .

p o o r e r

D o

t h a n

y o u r

y o u r

p a r e n t s

s a y

y o u

c a n

B e t t e r

m o s t

or

b e l o w

m o s t

s a y
o f

t h a t
t h e

y o u r

g r a d e s

s t u d e n t s

w o u l d

w h e n

y o u

N o t

yo u r

p a r e n t s

t h i n k

y o u

b e

as

c o u l d

f i n i s h

o f

Remember,

y o u
D o

n e e d

y o u r

m o r e

t h a n

p a r e n t s

f o u r

t h i n k

y o u

.........

t h a n

m o s t

of

t h e m

.........

a l l

o f

t h e m

.........

t h a n

w i t h

the

h i g h

b es t ,

62.

EACH

S T A T E M E N T

S T AT E ME N T

I

c an

IS

t a l k

BE L OW .

T R U E

to

F O R

o t h e r

C I R C L E

T H E

s a m e

as

s ch o o l ?

of

the

b e s t

.........

m o s t

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.........

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.........

S am e

as

m o s t

g o o d

as

m o s t

of

the
of

s t u d e n t s
th e

.........

w o r s t

.........

c o l l e g e ?
Yes,

f o r

s u r e

.........

Yes,

p r o b a b l y

.........

M a y b e

.........

p r o b a b l y

y e a r s
c o u l d

of
do

c o l l e g e

to

b e

for

a

N U M B E R

O F

n o t

.........

s u r e

.........

t e a c h e r

or

that?

T HE

A N S W E R

s u r e

.........

Yes,

for

Yes,

p r o b a b l y

.........

M a y b e

.........

p r o b a b l y
No,

READ

.........

t h e m

No,

THE

.........

t h e m

No,

doctor.

t h e m

of

f i n i s h

t h a n

all

of

No,

61.

2

b e t t e r ,

m o s t

O n e

Do

w o r k

.........

m o s t

O n e
B e t t e r

60.

w o r s t

1

as

P o o r e r

p a r e n t s

t h e

s c h o o l

t h a n

P o o r e r

y o u r

d o

t h a n

S a m e

W o u l d

of

b e s t

f r i e n d s ?
B e t t e r

59.

t h e

WM H

Th i n k

of

the

O n e

58.

sc h o o l ?

Ln

d o

M H

s t u d e n t

U

a

in

o f

U i-P 'C O h o l-1

g o o d

for

T H A T

n o t

.........

s u r e

.........

T E L L S

H O W

U i-P'C O N Jt-1

H o w

O F T E N

YOU.

s t u d e n t s

w h i l e

I

w o rk .

A l w a y s .. .........
O f t e n

.........

S o m e t i m e s

.........

S e l d o m

.........

N e v e r

.........

L n - C ' U J f O l —1

57.

U i-t'U )

Student Questionnaire
Page 10

Student questionnaire
Page 11

c lass,

I

m o v e

h a v e

a b o u t

t h e

s a m e

the

s e a t

r o o m

an d

w i t h o u t

I

m u s t

a s k i n g

sit

t h e

n e x t

to

t e ac h er .

th e

A l w a y s

.........

O f t e n

.........

S o m e t i m e s

.........

S e l d o m

.........

N e v e r

.........

s a m e

s t u d e n t s .

A l w a y s

65.

W h e n
on

66.

In

I

a m

the

w o r k i n g

s a m e

m o s t

o f

o n

a

l e s s o n ,

the

o t h e r

s t u d e n t s

in

m y

.........

O f t e n

.........

S o m e t i m e s

.........

c l a s s

S e l d o m

.........

N e v e r

.........

a r e

w o r k i n g

lesson.

m y

c l a s s e s ,

t h e

t e a c h e r

t e l l s

m e

w h a t

I

m u s t

A l w a y s

.........

O f t e n

.........

S o m e t i m e s

.........

S e l d o m

.........

N e v e r

.........

w o r k

UJ N5 I—1

c a n

Ln

I

on;

Ln f- W M H

In

c lass,

I

h a v e

OJ N5 I-1

64.

In

l/i

63.

267

no

68.

In

class,

as

a

If
h ow
to

t h e

t e a c h e r

s t a n d s

in

f r o n t

of

the

r o o m

a nd

O f t e n

.........

S o m e t i m e s

.........

S e l d o m

.........

N e v e r

.........

w o r k s

w i t h

t he

c l a s s

y o u r
to
do

t e a c h e r
d o

it

b y

g a v e

y o u

a

y o u r s e l f

h a r d

or

a s s i g n m e n t ,

w o u l d

y o u

w a n t

w o u l d
y o u r

y o u

to

.........
.........

S e l d o m

.........

N e v e r

.........

f i g u r e

t e l l

y o u

Oi

.........

O f t e n
S o m e t i m e s

r a t h e r

t e a c h e r

A l w a y s

WM H

w h o l e .

o u t
h o w

it?
I

a l m o s t
I

a l w a y s

p r e f e r

u s u a l l y

S o m e t i m e s
I
I

I

f i g u r i n g

it

o u t

f o r

m y s e l f

.........

p r e f e r

f i g u r i n g

it

o u t

f o r

m y s e l f

.........

p r e f e r

f i g u r i n g

it

o u t

for

m y s e l f

.........

u s u a l l y

l i k e

the

t e a c h e r

to

t e l l

m e

h o w

to

d o

it

.........

a l w a y s

l ik e

t h e

t e a c h e r

to

t e l l

m e

h o w

to

d o

it

.........

U1 -C- W N) H

67.

.........

Ln -MJ

A l w a y s

to H

choice.

Student Questionnaire
Page 12

69.

W h e n
too

y o u r
m u c h

268

t e a c h e r s
h e l p

or

g i v e

n o t

y o u

d i f f i c u l t

a s s i g n m e n t s ,

T h e y

a l m o s t
T h e y

S u p p o s e

y o u

f ri e nd s

w e r e

s o m e t h i n g

h a d

s o m e

b u s y

f u n

to

f r e e

a n d
d o

t h e y

u s u a l l y

a l w a y s

g i v e

too

m u c h

u s u a l l y

g i v e

too

m u c h

T h e y

70.

do

g i v e

y o u

e n o u g h ?

t i m e

b y

u s u a l l y

T h e y

a l m o s t

an d

c o u l d n ' t

a l l

T h e y

.........

1

h e l p

.........

2

g i v e

j u s t

e n o u g h

h e l p

d o n ' t

g i v e

e n o u g h

h e l p

.........

4

-always

g i v e

e n o u g h

h e l p

.........

5

w a n t e d

to

w i t h

you.

p l a y

h e l p

d o

s o m e t h i n g
D o

f u n

b u t

3

a l l

y o u r

c o u l d

f i n d

y o u

t h i n k

y o u

it

w o u l d

b e

e a s y

.........

1

t r i e d

h a r d

.........

2

y o u r s e l f ?
Y e s ,
Yes,

if

I

M a y b e .........
No,
No,

71.

S o m e t i m e s w e

a r e f a c e d

us

toh an d l e .

all

b y

w i t h

ap r o b l e m

W h e n t h is h a p p e n s ,

y o u r s e l f

i n s t e a d

of

it

is

th a t atf i r s t

h o w o f t e n

a s k i n g

n e v e r

s o m e o n e

do

.........

4

to

b e

a l o n e

.........

5

s e e m s

too

tr y

to s o l v e

y o u

for

f u n

d i f f i c u l t

f o r

th ep r o b l e m

he l p ?
A l w a y s .... .......
M o s t

Some
ot h er

p e o p l e
p e o p l e

e n j o y
d o n ' t

s o l v i n g
e n j o y

p r o b l e m s
it.

D o

or

y o u

m a k i n g
l i k e

d e c i s i o n s

to

s o l v e

I

I
I
I
I

.........

2

S o m e t i m e s

.......

3

t h e

v e r y

a ll

p r o b l e m s

a l m o s t

a l w a y s

b y

o f t e n

.........

N e v e r

.......

4
5

t h e m s e l v e s ,

a l l

b y

y o u r s e l f ?

...........

1

o

...........

2

to s o m e t i m e s

.......

u s u a l l y

l i k e

1

t i m e

of

N o t

72.

3

n o t

p r o b a b l y

l i k e to
l i k e t

3

u s u a l l y

d o n ' t

l i k e to

..........

4

a l m o s t

n e v e r

l i k e to

..........

5

269
October, 1974

T E A C H E R

S c h o o l

Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

S o c i a l

C l i m a t e

s p o n s o r e d
M i c h i g a n

S t a t e

S t u d y

b y
U n i v e r s i t y

a n d
M i c h i g a n

Dr.
U r b a n

a n d

D e p a r t m e n t

of

d i r e c t e d

b y

W i l b u r

B.

M e t r o p o l i t a n

B r o o k o v e r ,
S t u d i e s ,

M i c h i g a n

S t a t e

T e l e p h o n e :

Directions:

'T h e

i n f o r m a t i o n

c o m p l e t e l y
t h e

o r

h e r

a n d

data.

1.

Name

2.

P l e a s e

3.

Are

4.

What

y o u

o u r

n o

as

g i v e

b e

y o u r

I B M

ca r d s ,

c a n d i d

a n y

q u e s t i o n

a s

t h a t

r e a s o n

N o

o n e

A f t e r
o n

p r e f e r

o n

this

w i l l

E d u c a t i o n

staff.
p e r s o n

y o u r
is

l e a v e

y o u r

R e p o r t s
w i l l

b e

in

y o u r

h a s

too

It

a n s w e r s

w i l l

b e

b e e n

is

v e r y

" p e r s o n a l "

w i t h

w i t h

his

c o m p l e t e l y

w i l l

answ e r s .

is
e x c e p t

m a d e

i d e n t i f i e d

q u e s t i o n n a i r e

a s s u r e d .

is

q u e s t i o n n a i r e

s e e

q u e s t i o n n a i r e

f e e l

to

us

o n e

p o s s i b l e

y o u

a n d

U n i v e r s i t y

r e s e a r c h

a n d

c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y

y o u

o t h e r

o f

data,

p u n c h e d

C o m p l e t e

w h i c h

P r o f e s s o r

S o c i o l o g y

5 1 7 / 3 5 3 - 9 5 0 3

c o n f i d e n t i a l .

m e m b e r s

a g g r e g a t e

E d u c a t i o n

n o t

t h a t

c o d e d

d e s t r o y e d .

i m p o r t a n t

Do
o r

b e

t h a t

r e s p o n d
y o u

for

to
a n y

u n a n s w e r e d .

________________________________________________________

w r i t e

y o u

is

m a l e

y o u r

t h e

o r

n a m e

o f

f e m a l e

r a c e

o r

t h i s

school.

( c i r c l e

e t h n i c

t h e

n u m b e r

of

t h e

c o r r e c t

a n s w e r ) ?

f e m a l e

.........

1

m a l e

.........

2

g r o u p ?

O t h e r

S p a n i s h
N a t i v e

B l a c k .........
1
Chicano ........... 2
S p e a k i n g
.........
3
A m e r i c a n

O r i e n t a l

O r i g i n

.........
.........

W h i t e

5.

H o w

l o n g

h a v e

y o u

t a u g h t

s c h o o l

( c i r c l e

the

n u m b e r

o f

the

T h i s

is

m y

c o r r e c t

f i r s t

1 -4
5 -9
10

y e a r s

5
6

a n s w e r ) ?

y e a r

y e a r s
y e a r s
o r

4

m o r e

.........

1

2
3
4

270

y o u

t a u g h t

i n

t h i s

s c h o o l ?
T h i s

is

m y

y e a r

.........

y e a r s

.........

y e a r s

......

m o r e

.........

4 t h

g r a d e

.........

5 t h

g r a d e

.........

6 t h

g r a d e

.........

C o m b i n a t i o n

4 t h

&

5 t h

.........

C o m b i n a t i o n

5 t h

&

6 t h

.........

5 t h

&

6 t h

.........

10

W h a t

g r a d e

l e v e l ( s )

a r e

y o u

-

4

5

-

9

y e a r s

o r

teaching:

O'

Ul

■C'

7.

f i r s t
1

H

h a v e

N)

l o n g

W

H o w

{>

6.

N5 I—1

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 2

C o m b i n a t i o n

..........

M a s t e r ' s

d e g r e e

..........

d e g r e e

..........

D o c t o r a t e

..........

D o c t o r ' s d e g r e e

..........

M a s t e r ' s
M o r e

H o w

d i d

y o u

f e e l

a b o u t

y o u r

a s s i g n m e n t

W h i c h

b e s t

d e s c r i b e s

t h e

t h i s

s c h o o l

y o u

h a d

h e r e ?

h a p p y

a b o u t

the

a s s i g n m e n t

.........

h a p p y

a b o u t

the

a s s i g n m e n t

.........

f e e l i n g s

o n e

w a y

o r

t h e

o t h e r

.........

u n h a p p y

a b o u t

the

a s s i g n m e n t

.........

V e r y

u n h a p p y

a b o u t

the

a s s i g n m e n t

.........

i n

y o u r

c l a s s ( e s ) ?

A l l

c h i l d r e n

of

p r o f e s s i o n a l

a n d

w h i t e

c o l l a r

w o r k e r s

.........

M o s t l y

c h i l d r e n

of

p r o f e s s i o n a l

a n d

w h i t e

c o l l a r

w o r k e r s

.........

M o s t l y

c h i l d r e n

o f

f a c t o r y

a n d

A l l

c h i l d r e n

o f

f a c t o r y

a n d

f r o m

a

g e n e r a l

c r o s s

s e c t i o n

o t h e r

b l u e

o t h e r

b l u e

y o u r

c h o i c e

o f

s c h o o l

s e t t i n g s ,

w h i c h

of

w o u l d

o f

s o c i e t y

.........

c o l l a r

w o r k e r s

.........

w o r k e r s

.........

f a m i l i e s

.........

c o l l a r
r u r a l

y o u

s e l e c t

f r o m

a m o n g

f o l l o w i n g ?

A l l

c h i l d r e n

o f

p r o f e s s i o n a l

a n d

w h i t e

c o l l a r

w o r k e r s

.........

M o s t l y

c h i l d r e n

o f

p r o f e s s i o n a l

a n d

w h i t e

c o l l a r

w o r k e r s

.........

s o c i e t y

.........
.........

f r o m

a

g e n e r a l

c r o s s

s e c t i o n

o f

M o s t l y

c h i l d r e n

of

f a c t o r y

a n d

o t h e r

b l u e

c o l l a r

w o r k e r s

A l l

c h i l d r e n

of

f a c t o r y

a n d

o t h e r

b l u e

c o l l a r

w o r k e r s

.........

Ln

C h i l d r e n

f a m i l i e s

......

O'

If

c o m i n g

V e r y

C h i l d r e n

the

b e f o r e

S o m e w h a t

s t u d e n t s

C h i l d r e n

11.

n o t

S o m e w h a t
N o

10.

to

d e g r e e b u t

H

9.

t h a n M a s t e r ' s

H

t h a n

K)

l e s s

..........

W

b u t

B a c h e l o r ’s d e g r e e
B a c h e l o r ' s d e g r e e

-f~

g r a d u a t e w o r k

a

I-1

S o m e

t h a n

In

L e s s

O ' U i - P ' W N J l —1

h a v e ?

NJ

y o u

U)

do

-t>

p r e p a r a t i o n

Ul

f o r m a l

O'

m u c h

fo

H o w

W

8.

4th,

C h i l d r e n

o f

r u r a l

271

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 3

12.

W h a t
is

k i n d

o f

s c h o o l

d o

y o u

p r e f e r

to

w o r k

i n

as

f a r

r a c i a l

A
A

s c h o o l

m o s t l y w h i t e
t h a t

A

s c h o o l

h a s a b o u t

b u t w i t h

h a l f w h i t e

m o s t l y n o n - w h i t e

a n d

s c h o o l

b u t

A s c h o o l

Inyour

j u d g m e n t ,

o u t s i d e

t h e

w h a t

is

t h e

g e n e r a l

w h i t e

..........

2.

...........

3.

w h i t e

s t u d e n t s

............. 4 .

n o n - w h i t e

s t u d e n t s

...........

s o m e

a l l

h a v e

r e p u t a t i o n

of

n o

p r e f e r e n c e

t h i s

s c h o o l

y o u

to

c h o o s e

t h i n k

a

s i n g l e

b e s t p r e d i c t s

a

one,

w h i c h

p u p i l ' s

o f

the

s u c c e s s

o r

i n d i v i d u a l i n t e l l i g e n c e

O t h e r

s t a n d a r d i z e d

i n v e n t o r i e s ,

t e s t

o r

s c o r e s

s c h o l a s t i c
(e.g.,

the

t h a n

WOULD

L I K E

STANDARDIZED
COMMENTS

15.

In

T O

A S K

T E S T S

A F T E R

Y O U

I N

E A C H

general,

t e a c h e r s

b e s t

.........

a v e r a g e

......

h o w

2.
3.

B e l o w

a v e r a g e

4.

s c h o o l

5.

p o o r

f a i l u r e

s o u r c e s

in

o f

h i g h e r

i n f o r m a t i o n

e d u c a t i o n ?

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

a p t i t u d e

p e r s o n a l i t y

1.

a v e r a g e

t e s t
a n d

s c o r e s

.........
..........

v o c a t i o n a l

1.
2.
3.

etc.)
S c h o o l

WE

a m o n g

6.

A b o u t

f o l l o w i n g

o r

T e a c h e r
Group

5.

.

s c h o o l ?

A

y o u h a d

1.

s t u d e n t s

A m o n g

do

.........

s t u d e n t s

B e t t e r

If

s c h o o l

s o m e n o n - w h i t e

w i t h

w i t h

a l l

h a l f n o n - w h i t e

I

14.

c o m p o s i t i o n
/

A n

13.

as

c o n c e r n e d ?

S O M E

T H I S

Q U E S T I O N S

S C H O O L .

A B O U T

P L E A S E

G R O U P I N G

F E E L

F R E E

P R A C T I C E S

T O

W R I T E

g r a d e s

.........

4.

O t h e r

.........

5.

A N D

A N Y

U S E

O F

A D D I T I O N A L

Q U E S T I O N .

a r e

s t u d e n t s

i n

t h e

s a m e

g r a d e

l e v e l

a s s i g n e d

to

d i f f e r e n t

classes?
H o m o g e n e o u s

g r o u p i n g

a c c o r d i n g to

H o m o g e n e o u s b y
H e t e r o g e n e o u s

a b i l i t y

N o
O t h e r

16.

In

general,

h o w

do

y o u

H o m o g e n e o u s

g r o u p

...........

s u b j e c t s

...........

2.

.........

3.

R a n d o m g r o u p i n g

...........

4.

i n t e n t i o n a l g r o u p i n g

...........

5.

g r o u p i n g

a c c o r d i n g

H e t e r o g e n e o u s

w i t h i n

to
b y

y o u r

a b i l i t y
a b i l i t y

g r o u p i n g

N o
( i n d i c a t e )

s o m e

to

a b i l i t y

..........

s t u d e n t s

H o m o g e n e o u s

in

a l l

a c c o r d i n g

( i n d i c a t e )

t h e

O t h e r

s u b j e c t s

a b i l i t y

g r o u p i n g

in

in
i n

1.

6.

c l a s s ?

a l l

s u b j e c t s

.........

1.

s o m e

s u b j e c t s

.........

2.

a b i l i t y

.........

3.

a c c o r d i n g

to

R a n d o m

g r o u p i n g

.........

4.

i n t e n t i o n a l

g r o u p i n g

.........

5.

..................................

6.

272

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 4

i m p o r t a n t

d o

y o u

t h i n k

s t a n d a r d i z e d

i n t e l l i g e n c e

.........

N o t

i m p o r t a n t

y o u

r e f e r

t h e i r

to

o r

i n t e l l i g e n c e

c o n s i d e r

the

t e s t s

I.Q.

t e s t

in

t h i s

s c o r e s

.........

s c h o o l

.........

y o u r

s t u d e n t s

of

w o r k ?
o f t e n

.........

O f t e n

.........

S o m e t i m e s

.........

S e l d o m

.........

N e v e r

.........

this

a v e r a g e ,

w h a t

l e v e l

o f

a c h i e v e m e n t

c a n

b e

e x p e c t e d

M u c h

a b o v e

S l i g h t l y

a b o v e

A p p r o x i m a t e l y

20.

O n

the

in

y o u r

a v e r a g e ,

w h a t

l e v e l

of

at

.........

n o r m

n a t i o n a l

n o r m

.........

n a t i o n a l

n o r m

.........

b e l o w

n a t i o n a l

n o r m

.........

M u c h

b e l o w

n a t i o n a l

n o r m

.........

a c h i e v e m e n t

c a n

b e

e x p e c t e d

of

t h e

s t u d e n t s

c l a s s ?

W h a t

p e r c e n t

h i g h

s c h o o l ?

M u c h

a b o v e

n a t i o n a l

n o r m

.........

S l i g h t l y

a b o v e

n a t i o n a l

n o r m

.........

n a t i o n a l

n o r m

.........

o f

t h e

s t u d e n t s

in

this

at

S l i g h t l y

b e l o w

n a t i o n a l

n o r m

.........

M u c h

b e l o w

n a t i o n a l

n o r m

.........

s c h o o l

d o

y o u

e x p e c t

to

p e r c e n t

o f

t h e

s t u d e n t s

i n

y o u r

c l a s s

do

y o u

e x p e c t

c o m p l e t e

o r

m o r e

.........

70 %

to

8 9 %

.........

5 0 %

to

69%

.........

3 0 %

to

4 9 %

.........

t h a n

3 0 %

.........

L e s s

W h a t

s t u d e n t s

n a t i o n a l

9 0 %

22.

the

S l i g h t l y

A p p r o x i m a t e l y

21.

o f

s c h o o l ?
U l- P 'O J N 3 l- ‘

the

in

to

U l- P 'O J t O M

O n

M

p l a n

g i v e

.........

a l l

hO

d o

y o u

n o t

at

-£■ U>

o f t e n

d o

v e r y

i m p o r t a n t

I—1

.........

i m p o r t a n t

Ni

i m p o r t a n t

•£> 00

V e r y

V e r y

19.

y o u r

c o m p l e t e

H

H o w

of

Ul

W e

w h e n

s c o r e s

S o m e w h a t

N o t

18.

test

a r e ?

Ui

s t u d e n t s

NJ

H o w

U

17.

h i g h

90%

W h a t

p e r c e n t

o f

t h e

s t u d e n t s

i n

this

s c h o o l

d o

y o u

m o r e

.........

to

89%

.........

5 0 %

to

69%

.........

3 0 %

to

4 9 %

.........

t h a n

3 0 %

.........

L e s s

23.

o r

7 0 %

e x p e c t

to

9 0 %

a t t e n d

o r

7 0 %

to

c o l l e g e

m o r e

.........

8 9 %

.........

5 0 %

to

69%

.........

30 %

to

4 9 %

.........

t h a n

3 0 %

.........

L e s s

U l- P 'U J t v J h - 1

school?

273

24.

W h a t

p e r c e n t

o f

t h e

s t u d e n t s

i n

y o u r

c l a s s

do

y o u

e x p e c t

to

a t t e n d

90%

o r

W h a t

p e r c e n t

of

t h e

s t u d e n t s

i n

t h i s

s c h o o l

d o

y o u

m o r e

1

7 0 %

to

8 9 %

.........

5 0 %

to

69%

.........

3 0 %

to

4 9 %

.........

t h a n

3 0 %

.........

L e s s

25.

c o l l e g e ?

e x p e c t

to

Ul-P'OJfO

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 5

c o m p l e t e

90%

m o r e

.........

7 0 %

o r
to

89%

.........

5 0 %

to

69%

.........

3 0 %

to

4 9 %

.........

t h a n

3 0 %

.........

L e s s

26.

What

p e r c e n t

o f

t h e

s t u d e n t s

i n

y o u r

c l a s s

do

y o u

e x p e c t

to

U i- O - U J M t- 1

college?

c o m p l e t e

.........

3 0 %

to

4 9 %

.........

t h a n

30%

.........

of

g e t t i n g

9 0 %

o r

m o r e

.........

to

89%

.........

5 0 %

to

69%

.........

3 0 %

to

4 9 %

.........

t h a n

3 0 %

.........

m a n y

and

B's?

o f

t h e

s t u d e n t s

i n

y o u r

c l a s s

a r e

c a p a b l e

of

g e t t i n g

90%

or

8 9 %

.........

5 0 %

to

69%

.........

3 0 %

y o u
to

r a t e

o t h e r

t h e

a c a d e m i c

a b i l i t y

of

t h e

s t u d e n t s

A b i l i t y h e r e is

p e r c e n t

h i g h

s c h o o l ?

of

.........

3 0 %

.........

this

s c h o o l

m u c h

h i g h e r

.............

h e r e iss o m e w h a t

h i g h e r

.............

A b i l i t y

h e r e

isa b o u t

A b i l i t y

h e r e

iss o m e w h a t

A b i l i t y h e r e

What

4 9 %

s c h o o l s ?

A b i l i t y

30.

in

to

t h a n

t h e

s t u d e n t s

i n

t h i s

s c h o o l

w o u l d

y o u

is

the

m u c h

s a y

s a m e

............

l o w e r

............

l o w e r

w a n t

90%

c o m p l e t e

m o r e

.........

70%

to

8 9 %

.........

50 %

to

6 9 %

.........

3 0 %

to

4 9 %

.........

t h a n

3 0 %

.........

L e s s

o r

to

..........

M jJ

w o u l d

c o m pared

.........

to

U1

H o w

m o r e

A ' s

7 0 %

L e s s

29.

m o s t l y

H

H o w

A ' s

7 0 %

L e s s

28.

m o s t l y

H

c a p a b l e

M

a r e

U

s c h o o l

Ln

t h i s

H

i n

N)

s t u d e n t s

M

t h e

W

o f

Ul

B's?

H

m a n y

and

NJ

69%

W

to

Ui

.........

5 0 %

M

H o w

.........

8 9 %

L e s s

27.

m o r e

to

-P> W

or

70%

Ln

90%

H

college?

274

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 6

31.

W h a t

p e r c e n t

h i g h

s c h o o l ?

of

t h e

s t u d e n t s

i n

y o u r

c l a s s

w o u l d

y o u

s a y

w a n t

9 0 %

W h a t

p e r c e n t

o f

t h e

s t u d e n t s

i n

t h i s

s c h o o l

w o u l d

y o u

c o m p l e t e

o r m o r e

1.

7 0 %

to

8 9 % .........

2.

5 0 %

to

6 9 % .........

3.

3 0 %

to

4 9 % .........

4.

t h a n

3 0 % .........

5.

L e s s

32.

to

s a y

w a n t

to

g o

to

college?
90%

to

50%
3 0 %
L e s s

33.

W h a t

p e r c e n t

of

t h e

s t u d e n t s

i n

y o u r

c l a s s

w o u l d

y o u

say

o r m o r e

70%

1.

8 9 % .........

2.

to

6 9 % .........

3.

to

4 9 % ........... 4 .

t h a n

w a n t

to

3 0 % .........

go

5.

to

college?
90%

o r m o r e

1.

7 0%

to

8 9 % .........

2.

5 0 %

to

69%

.........

3.

3 0 %

to

4 9 % .........

4.

t h a n

3 0 % .........

5.

L e s s

PLEASE REMEMBER, YOUR ANSWERS TO ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL.
NO ONE BUT OUR RESEARCH STAFF WILL SEE YOUR ANSWERS.

34.

H o w

m u c h

d o

y o u

e n j o y

t e a c h i n g

i n

this

s c h o o l ?

m u c h ............ 1.
M u c h ........... 2 .
A v e r a g e
3.
L i t t l e
4.
at
a l l
5.

V e r y

N o t

35.

If

s o m e o n e

$ 1,000

m o r e

w e r e
a

to

y e a r ,

o f f e r
h o w

y o u

a n

i n t e r e s t i n g

s e r i o u s l y

w o u l d

y o u

a n d

s e c u r e

c o n s i d e r

n o n - t e a c h i n g

t a k i n g

V e r y
S o m e w h a t
No t

v e r y

If

s o m e o n e

$3,000

m o r e

w e r e
a

to

y e a r ,

o f f e r
h o w

y o u

a n

i n t e r e s t i n g

s e r i o u s l y

w o u l d

y o u

a n d

s e c u r e

c o n s i d e r

s e r i o u s l y
s e r i o u s l y
at

a l l

n o n - t e a c h i n g

t a k i n g

V e r y

t h e

for

1.

........... 2.
3.
........... 4.
j o b

for

job?

s e r i o u s l y

S o m e w h a t

s e r i o u s l y

N o t

s e r i o u s l y

v e r y

j o b

job?

s e r i o u s l y

N o t

36.

t h e

N o t

at

a l l

1.
.........

2.

3.
4.

275

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 7

s t u d e n t s

s c h o o l

d o

y o u

t h i n k

t h e

.........

to

89%

.........

5 0 %

to

69%

.........

3 0 %

to

4 9 %

.........

t h a n

3 0 %

.........

L e s s

t h e

s t u d e n t s

i n

t h i s

s c h o o l

d o

y o u

t h i n k

t h e

.........

3 0 %

to

4 9 %

.........

t h a n

3 0 %

.........

t h i n k

t h e

90%

m o r e

.........

7 0 %

to

89%

.........

5 0 %

to

69%

.........

3 0 %

to

4 9 %

.........

t h a n

3 0 %

.........

L e s s

40.

H o w

m a n y

c a p a b l e

s t u d e n t s
o f

i n

g e t t i n g

t h i s

s c h o o l

m o s t l y

A ' s

d o

and

y o u

t h i n k

t h e

o r

p r i n c i p a l

b e l i e v e s

o r

7 0 %

in

d o
this

y o u

t h i n k

s c h o o l ,

y o u r

p r i n c i p a l

c o m p a r e d

to

r a t e s

o t h e r

the

a c a d e m i c

it

to

69%

.........

to

4 9 %

.........

t h a n

30%

.........

R a t e s

it

h i g h

s c h o o l

o f

y o u r

s t u d e n t s ?

is

a

C o m p l e t i o n

.........

b e t t e r

.........

it

r e a l i s t i c

g o a l

w h i c h

it

s o m e w h a t
it

y o u

m u c h

o f

c o l l e g e

is

a

r e a l i s t i c

g o a l

w h i c h

y o u

s e t

s a m e

.........

l o w e r

.........

l o w e r

.........

s e t

f o r

9 0 %

o r

w h a t

m o r e

.........

7 0 %

to

89%

.........

5 0 %

to

69%

.........

3 0 %

to

4 9 %

.........

t h a n

30%

.........

f o r

w h a t

9 0 %

o r

p e r c e n t a g e

s t u d e n t s ?
m o r e

.........

70 %

to

8 9 %

.........

5 0 %

to

69%

.........

3 0 %

to

4 9 %

.........

t"U

y o u r

t h e

t h a n

30%

.........

Ul

of

s t u d e n t s

b e t t e r

L e s s

43.

the

m u c h

R a t e s

of

o f

s o m e w h a t

R a t e s

C o m p l e t i o n

.........

5 0 %

a b i l i t y

R a t e s

p e r c e n t a g e

.........

8 9 %

s c h o o l s ?

R a t e s

42.

m o r e

to

3 0 %
L e s s

H o w

a r e

B's?
9 0 %

41.

H

p r i n c i p a l

H

y o u

M

d o

W

s c h o o l

P

this

H

i n

K)

s t u d e n t s
c o l l e g e ?

U

o f

Ui

t h e

c o m p l e t e

M

.........

69%

J>W

89%

to

Ui

to

5 0 %

M

to

......

N3

p e r c e n t

e x p e c ts

m o r e

7 0 %

L e s s

W h a t

or

Ui

9 0 %

39.

p r i n c i p a l

c o l l e g e ?

U>

o f

a t t e n d

-P'

to

Ln

p e r c e n t

e x p e c t s

H

W h a t

o r

N3

m o r e

7 0 %

( -*

s c h o o l ?
9 0 %

38.

p r i n c i p a l

U)

h i g h

t h i s

Ln

c o m p l e t e

i n

K)

to

t h e

to

e x p e c t s

o f

In

p e r c e n t

H

W h a t

L e s s

N

37.

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 8

276

44.

How o fte n do you s tre s s to your students the n e c e s s ity o f a post high school
education f o r a good jo b a n d /o r a com fo rtab le l i f e ?
Very o f t e n
1
O fte n
2
Sometimes ............ 3
S e ld o m
4
Never ............ 5

45.

Do you encourage your students who do not have s u f f ic ie n t economic resources
to a s p ire to go to college?
Always ............ 1
U s u a lly ............ 2
Sometimes ........... 3
S e ld o m
4
N ever
5

46.

Do you encourage your students who do not have s u f f ic ie n t academic a b i l i t y
to a s p ire to go to college?
Always ...........
U su a lly ...........
Sometimes ...........
Seldom ...........
Never ...........

1
2
3
4
5

How many teachers in t h is school f e e l th a t a l l t h e ir students should be
taught to read w e ll and m aster o th e r academic s u b je c ts , even though some
students may no t appear to be in te re s te d ?
Almost a l l
o f the teachers ............
Most
o f the teachers ............
H a lf
o f the teachers ............
Some o f the teachers . . . . . .
Almost none
o f the teachers ............

1
2
3
4
5

47.

48.

I t would be u n f a ir f o r teach ers in t h is school to in s i s t on a higher le v e l
of achievement from students than they now seem capable o f achieving?
S tro n g ly agree ............
A g re e
Not s u r e
D isagree ...........
S tro n g ly d i s a g r e e ...........

49.

I f I th in k a student is no t a b le to do some school work, I d o n 't t r y to
push him v e ry hard?
S tro n g ly agree ............
A g re e
Not s u r e
D isagree ...........
S tro n g ly d isa g re e ...........

1
2
3
4

1
2
3
4
5

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 9

52.

How many students i n th is school t r y hard to improve on previous work?
Almost a l l
Most
About h a lf
Some
Almost none

the
the
the
the
the

students
students
students
students
students

...........
...........
...........
...........
...........

00
-COn

How many students in your class t r y hard to improve on previous work?

How many students in th is school w ilj. t r y hard to do b e tte r school work
than t h e ir frie n d s do?
Almost a l l o f the students ...........
Most o f the students ...........
About h a lf of the students ...........
Some o f the students ...........
Almost none of the students ...........

55.

How many students in your class w i l l t r y hard to do
t h e ir classmates do?
Almost a l l
Most
About h a lf
Some
Almost none

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

LO
Ul
N

students
students
students
students
students

W

the
the
the
the
the

-t*

of
of
of
of
of

H 1

b e tte r school work than

the
the
th e
the
the

students
students
students
students
students

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

N)

of
of
of
of
of

W

Almost a l l
Most
About h a lf
Some
Almost none

H

How many students in t h is school are content to do less than they should?

U

56.

H

54.

N

...........
...........
...........
...........
...........

W

students
students
students
students
students

JS

the
the
the
the
the

Ln

of
of
of
of
of

Ul

Almost a l l
Most
About h a lf
Some
Almost none

N3

P

53.

of
of
of
of
of

H ‘

How many teachers encourage students to seek e x tra school work so th a t the
students can get b e t t e r grades?
Almost a l l of the teachers ...........
Most o f the teachers ...........
About h a lf o f the teachers ...........
Some o f the teachers ...........
Almost none o f the teachers . . . . . .

K)

51.

-P> W

...........
...........
...........
...........
...........

Ui

S tro n g ly agree
Agree
Not sure
D isagree
S tro n g ly d isa g re e

to H 1

I am g e n e ra lly v e ry c a re fu l not to push students to a le v e l o f f r u s t r a t io n .

U i - P - W N J l —1

50.

277

278

m a n y

s t u d e n t s

i n

y o u r

c l a s s

a r e

c o n t e n t

to

d o

A l m o s t

m a n y

be t t e r

s t u d e n t s

i n

t h i s

s c h o o l

w i l l

H o w

a l l

of

the

of

t h e

s t u d e n t s

A b o u t

h a l f

of

the

s t u d e n t s

S o m e

of

the

s t u d e n t s

A l m o s t

n o n e

of

t h e

s t u d e n t s

s e e k

e x t r a

so

t h a t

t h e y

c a n

get

s t u d e n t s

i n

y o u r

c l a s s

w i l l

.........

a l l

of

the

s t u d e n t s

M o s t

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.........

A b o u t

h a l f

of

t h e

s t u d e n t s

......

S o m e

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.........

A l m o s t

n o n e

of

t h e

s t u d e n t s

.........

s e e k

e x t r a

w o r k

so

t h a t

t h e y

c a n

get

g r a d e s ?
A l m o s t

A b o u t

A l m o s t

a l l

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.........

M o s t

of

t h e

s t u d e n t s

.........

h a l f

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.........

S o m e

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.........

n o n e

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.........

as a
....
....
....
....
....

The parents o f students in th is school are deeply concerned th a t t h e ir
c h ild ren re c e iv e a top q u a lit y education .
S tro n g ly agree . . . .
Agree . . . .
Not sure . . . .
D isagree . . . .
S tro n g ly d isa g re e . . . .

62.

How many o f th e parents o f students in th is school expect t h e ir c h ild re n
to complete high school?
Almost a l l o f the parents . . . .
Most o f the parents . . . .
About h a lf o f the parents . . . .
Some o f the parents . . . .
Almost none o f th e parents . . . .

63.

How many o f the parents of students in th is school expect t h e ir c h ild re n
to complete college?
Almost a l l of the parents . . . .
Most of the parents . . . .
About h a lf of the parents . . . .
Some o f the parents . . . .
Almost none of th e parents . . . .

Ln

U N H

61.

ui ^ W N3 H

The parents o f students in th is school regard th is school p r im a r ily
" b a b y -s ittin g " agency:
S tro n g ly agree
Agree
Not sure
D isagree
S tro n g ly d isa g re e

UlJSOJN3[—>

60.

w o r k

s t u d e n t s

g r a d e s ?

m a n y

better

s h o u l d ?

M o s t

A l m o s t

59.

t h e y

W to H

H o w

t h a n

Ui

58.

l e s s

Ui -E> U> t\J M

H o w

Ui ■C' W to H

57.

Ul -C- U to H

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 10

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 11

64.

65.

How many o f the p arents o f students in t h is school d o n 't care i f t h e ir
c h ild re n o b ta in low grades?
Almost a l l o f th e p a r e n t s
Most
o f the parents ...........
About h a lf
o f the parents ...........
Some
of the p a r e n t s
Almost none
o f th e p a r e n t s ...........
How many o f the paren ts o f students in th is school want feedback from the
p r in c ip a l and teachers on how t h e ir c h ild re n are doing in school?
Almost a l l
Most
About h a lf
S o m e

Almost none
66.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

o f the parents ...........
o f the parents ...........
o f the parents ...........
...........
of the p a r e n t s
o f the parents ...........

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

For each o f the fo llo w in g aspects o f your jo b , please in d ic a te in the f i r s t
column howim po rtant i t i s f o r your jo b s a t is f a c t io n and in the second
column, how w e ll s a t is f ie d you are w ith th a t aspect o f your jo b .
I
Degree o f Im portance
f o r Your Job S a tis fa c tio n
A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

S a la ry :

L e v e l o f student
achievem ent:

P a re n t/te a c h e r
r e la tio n s h ip s :

T e a c h er/teach er
r e la tio n s h ip s :

T e a c h e r/p u p il
r e la tio n s h ip s :

II
Present L evel o f
S a tis fa c tio n w ith Job

. . ... 1 .
......... 2.
......... 3.
......... 4.
......... 5.

Very s a t is f ie d
S a tis fie d
Somewhat s a t is f ie d
D is s a tis fie d
Very d is s a t is fie d

Very im portant ...... 1.
Im portant ......... 2.
Somewhat im portant
Unimportant
Very unim portant ......... 5.

Very s a t is fie d
S a tis fie d
Somewhat s a t is fie d
D is s a tis fie d
Very d is s a t is fie d

1

Very im portant
Im portant
Somewhat im portant ......... 3.
Unimportant ......... 4.
Very unim portant ......... 5.

Very s a t is fie d
S a tis fie d
Somewhat s a t is f ie d
D is s a tis fie d
Very d is s a t is fie d

1

Very im portant . . ... 1 .
Im portant ......... 2.
Somewhat im portant ..... 3 .
Unimportant ......... 4 .
Very unim portant

Very s a t is f ie d
S a tis fie d
Somewhat s a t is f ie d
D is s a tis fie d
Very d is s a t is f ie d

Very im portant ...... 1 .
Im portant
Somewhat im portant ......... 3.
Unimportant
Very unim portant ......... 5.

Very s a t is f ie d
S a tis fie d
Somewhat s a t is f ie d
D is s a tis fie d
Very d is s a t is f ie d

Very im portant
Im portant
Somewhat im portant
Unimportant
Very unim portant

1
2

3
4
5

2

3
4
5

2

3
4
5

1
2

3
4
5

1
2

3
4
5

Teacher Questionnaire

280

G.

The c u r r ic u la
your school:

in

Very im portant
Im portant
Somewhat im portant
Unimportant
Very unim portant

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Very s a t is f ie d
S a tis fie d
Somewhat s a t is f ie d
D is s a tis fie d
Very d is s a t is f ie d

H.

Teacher autonomy:

Very im portant
Im portant
Somewhat im portant
Unimportant
Very unim portant

......... 1.
......... 2.
......... 3.
......... 4.
......... 5.

Very s a t is f ie d
S a tis fie d
Somewhat s a t is f ie d
D is s a tis fie d
Very d is s a t is f ie d

Teacher a u th o rity
over students:

Very im portant
Im portant
Somewhat im portant
Unimportant
Very unim portant

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Very s a t is f ie d
S a tis fie d
Somewhat s a t is f ie d
D is s a tis fie d
Very d is s a t is f ie d

J.

Teacher e v a lu a tio n
Very im portant
procedures in your
Im portant
school:
Somewhat im portant
Unim portant
Very unim portant

.........
.....
.........
.........
.........

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Very s a t is f ie d
S a tis fie d
Somewhat s a t is f ie d
D is s a tis fie d
Very d is s a t is f ie d

K.

R ecognition fo r
teacher
achievement:

Very im portant
Im portant
Somewhat im portant
Unim portant
Very unim portant

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Very s a t is f ie d
S a tis fie d
Somewhat s a t is f ie d
D is s a tis fie d
Very d is s a t is f ie d

U i- C 'O J N J I - 1

L.

P a r tic ip a tio n in
making decisions
w ith in the
b u ild in g :

Very im portant
Im portant
Somewhat im portant
Unimportant
Very unim portant

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Very s a t is f ie d
S a tis fie d
Somewhat s a t is f ie d
D is s a tis fie d
Very d is s a t is f ie d

-P-

W

to

H

Ui

JS

W

N

H

U1

i>

U

IO

H

I.

Ui

-

Ln

Very s a t is f ie d
S a tis fie d
Somewhat s a t is f ie d
D is s a tis fie d
Very d is s a t is f ie d

L n - C ' C O f O t —1

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

H

.........
.........
.........
.........
.........

IO

Very im portant
Im portant
Somewhat im portant
Unimportant
Very unim portant

-M *)

Teacher/adm inis­
t r a t io n
r e la tio n s h ip s :

Ui

F.

W

Page 12

2 gl

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 13

67.

A d m in is tra tiv e d u tie s , counseling, handling o f d is c ip lin e problems, e t c . ,
are a l l tim e consuming a c t i v i t i e s th a t teachers must assume in a d d itio n
to t h e ir teaching r e s p o n s ib ilit ie s . Approxim ately what percentage o f a
ty p ic a l school day is spent on each o f these a c t iv it ie s ?
P a ren t-te a c h e r contacts (notes to p a re n ts , phone c a lls , conferences)______ %
C onferring w ith in d iv id u a l students about academic progress ______ %
C onferring w ith in d iv id u a l students about behavio r or personal and
s o c ia l growth ______ %
Classroom or sm all groups in s tr u c tio n ______ %
E s ta b lis h in g and m a in ta in in g order in the c la s s ro o m ______ %
A d m in is tra tiv e d u tie s (attendance ta k in g , record keeping) ______ %
Time between lessons (re c e s s , moving c h ild re n from one a c t i v i t y to
anoth er) ______ %
O th e r _________________________________________________________________________ %
TOTAL 100%

68.

69.

What do you consider to be your prim ary r e s p o n s ib ility to students in your
class ( c ir c le only one)?
Teaching o f academic subjects ...........
Enhancing s o c ia l s k i l l s and s o c ia l in t e r a c t io n ...........
P ersonal growth and development ...........
Encouraging e d u c a tio n a l/o c c u p a tio n a l a s p ira tio n s ...........
Other (please s p e c ify ) .......................................................

H o w

s u c c e s s f u l

d e v e l o p m e n t

A.

w o u l d

i n

T e a c h i n g

t h e

o f

y o u

s a y

f o l l o w i n g

a c a d e m i c

y o u r

s c h o o l

h a s

b e e n

w i t h

r e g a r d

to

s t u d e n t

ar e a s ?

s k ills:

V e r y

s u c c e s s f u l
S u c c e s s f u l

S o m e w h a t
N o t

E n h a n c i n g

o f

s o c i a l

s k ills:

s u c c e s s f u l

v e r y s u c c e s s f u l

V e r y

B.

u n s u c c e s s f u l

V e r y

1

2
3
............. 4
......
5
.........

........

s u c c e s s f u l

1

S u c c e s s f u l
S o m e w h a t
N o t

P e r s o n a l
r e l i ance,

g r o w t h

a n d

d e v e l o p m e n t

(s e l f -

E d u c a t i o n a l / o c c u p a t i o n a l

s u c c e s s f u l

........

u n s u c c e s s f u l

V e r y

etc.)

.........

s u c c e s s f u l

S o m e w h a t

s u c c e s s f u l

N o t

s u c c e s s f u l

v e r y

a s p i r a t i o n s :

u n s u c c e s s f u l

V e r y

S o m e w h a t
Not

V e r y

.........

.........

s u c c e s s f u l
.........

s u c c e s s f u l

.........

u n s u c c e s s f u l

2
3
4
5
1

S u c c e s s f u l

v e r y s u c c e s s f u l

2
3
4
5
1

S u c c e s s f u l

V e r y

D.

.........

v e r y s u c c e s s f u l

V e r y

C.

1
2
3
4
5

..........
.........

2
3
4
5

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 14

70.

H o w

r e s p o n s i b l e

282

d o

y o u

f e e l

f o r

a

s t u d e n t s ’

a c a d e m i c

a c h i e v e m e n t ?

r e s p o n s i b l e ............1 .

V e r y

R e s p o n s i b l e .........
r e s p o n s i b l e

No t

r e s p o n s i b l e

No t

71.

To

w h a t

e x t e n t

d o

T h e y

y o u

h a v e
T h e y

t h i n k

a

g r e a t

h a v e

T h e y

that

t e a c h i n g

d e a l

of

To

w h a t

t heir

e x t e n t

d o

s t u d e n t s '

y o u

h a v e
T h e y

y o u r

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

1.

e f f e c t

o n

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

2.

e f f e c t

o n

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

3.

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

4.

t h i n k

teach e r s '

h a v e

a t t i t u d e s

a

n o

e f f e c t

t o w a r d

t h e i r

at

a l l

.........

s t u d e n t s

5.

a f f e c t

of

e f f e c t

o n

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

s u b s t a n t i a l

e f f e c t

on

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

2.

g r e a t

d e a l

h a v e

s o m e

e f f e c t

o n

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

3.

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

4.

.........

5.

d o

a c a d e m i c

1.

T h e y

T h e y

do

a c h i e v e m e n t ?

s o m e

h a v e

T h e y

H o w

5.

a c h i e v e m e n t ?

T h e y

73.

a l l .........

s t u d e n t s '

3.
4.

h a v e

T h e y

72.

a f f e c t

at

2.

T h e y
d o

s u b s t a n t i a l

o n

v e r y

r e s p o n s i b l e

m e t h o d s

e f f e c t

.........

S o m e w h a t

e x p e c t a t i o n s

for

b o y s

h a v e

c o m p a r e

n o

e f f e c t

w i t h

t h e

at

a l l

e x p e c t a t i o n s

for

girls?
I
I
I

74.

W h a t

e f f e c t

d o

y o u

t h i n k

e a c h

of

the

e x p e c t

b o y s

e x p e c t . b o t h
e x p e c t

f o l l o w i n g

g i r l s

h a s

o n

to

to

d o

d o
to

b e t t e r

t h e
d o

.........

1.

s a m e

.........

2.

b e t t e r

.........

3.

s t u d e n t s '

a c a d e m i c

a c h i e v e m e n t ?

A.

P a r e n t s :

T h e y

h a v e
T h e y

a

g r e a t

h a v e

T h e y

d o

d e a l

of

s u b s t a n t i a l

e f f e c t

..........

1.

e f f e c t

o n

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

2.

h a v e

s o m e

e f f e c t

o n

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

3.

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

4.

.........

5.

1.

h a v e

n o

e f f e c t

at

a l l

T e a c h e r s :

T h e y

h a v e
T h e y

a

g r e a t

h a v e

T h e y

d o

of

e f f e c t

o n

s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ...........

s u b s t a n t i a l

d e a l

e f f e c t

o n

s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ......

2.

T h e y

h a v e

some

e f f e c t

o n

s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ...........

3.

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n

s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ......

4.

T h e y

C.

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

T h e y

T h e y

B.

o n

F r i e n d s

o r

p e e r

T h e y

T h e y

n o

e f f e c t

at

a l l

5.

group:

h a v e
T h e y

h a v e

a

g r e a t

h a v e

d o

of

e f f e c t o n

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

...........

s u b s t a n t i a l

d e a l

e f f e c t o n

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

T h e y

h a v e

s o m e

e f f e c t o n

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t o n

s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t

T h e y

h a v e

n o

e f f e c t

at

a l l

1.
2.
3.
4.

.........

5.

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 15

D.

S c h o o l

283

b o a r d s :

T h e y

h a v e
T h e y

T h e y

a

g r e a t

h a v e

o f

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

s u b s t a n t i a l

d e a l

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

2

T h e y

h a v e

s o m e

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

3

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

4

.........

5

d o

T h e y

E.

h a v e ..n o

e f f e c t

at

a l l

P r i n c i p a l :

T h e y

h a v e
T h e y

T h e y

a

g r e a t

h a v e

o f

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

........

s u b s t a n t i a l

d e a l

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

2

F.

S t u d e n t

h a v e

s o m e

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

3

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

4

.........

5

d o

h a v e

a

g r e a t

T h e y

h a v e

o f t e n

d o e s

a n d

a c a d e m i c

n o

e f f e c t

a t

a l l

T h e y

d o

of

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

1

s u b s t a n t i a l

d e a l

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

2

T h e y

h a v e

s o m e

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

3

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

4

.........

5

T h e y

a ssist

h a v e

h i m s e l f :

T h e y

H o w

1

T h e y

T h e y

75.

t h e

g i v e

p r i n c i p a l

s u p p o r t

to

a n d / o r

t h e

o t h e r

t e a c h e r s

h a v e

no

e f f e c t

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

o n

w a y s

to

in

i m p r o v e

at

a l l

t h i s
t h e i r

s c h o o l
s t u d e n t s '

a c h i e v e m e n t ?
V e r y

o f t e n

.........

1

S o m e t i m e s

.........

3

S e l d o m

.........

4

N e v e r

.........

5

O f t e n

76.

One

i m p o r t a n t

w e l l

h i s / h e r

c r i t e r i o n
s t u d e n t s

f o r

e v a l u a t i n g

a c h i e v e

a

t e a c h e r s 1

p e r f o r m a n c e

s h o u l d

S t r o n g l y

In

this
of

s c hool,
h i s / h e r

t h e r e

is

s t u d e n t s

b e

h o w

a g r e e

.........

1

A g r e e

.........

2

N o t

all

2

a c a d e m i c a l l y .
S t r o n g l y

77.

1

r e a l l y
a c h i e v e

v e r y

l i t t l e

at

h i g h

a

a

t e a c h e r

c a n

s u r e

.........

3

D i s a g r e e

.........

4

d i s a g r e e

.........

5

do

to

i n s u r e

that

level.
S t r o n g l y

N o t

S t r o n g l y

a g r e e

.........

1

A g r e e

2

s u r e

3

D i s a g r e e

.........

4

d i s a g r e e

.........

5

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 16

i n s t r u c t i o n a l

p r o g r a m ,

h o w

e a s y

o r

e a s y

.......

a s s i s t a n c e ?
V e r y

E a s y .......
V a r i e s

f r o m

t i m e

V e r y

79.

W h a t

is

they

a r e

y o u r

p o l i c y

w o r k i n g

w i t h

o n

r e g a r d

c l a s s

H o w

d o

y o u

f e e l

a b o u t

s t u d e n t s

t a l k i n g

S t u d e n t s

to

.......
.......

d i f f i c u l t

.......

e a c h

to

o t h e r

w h i l e

are:

n e v e r

e n c o u r a g e d

to

t a l k

w i t h

e a c h

o t h e r

.......

s e l d o m

e n c o u r a g e d

to

t a l k

w i t h

e a c h

o t h e r

.......

S o m e t i m e s

e n c o u r a g e d

to

t a l k

w i t h

e a c h

o t h e r

.......

o f t e n

e n c o u r a g e d

to

t a l k

w i t h

e a c h

o t h e r

.......

a l w a y s

e n c o u r a g e d

to

t a l k

w i t h

e a c h

o t h e r

.......

a l m o s t

80.

to

a s s i g n m e n t s ?

t i m e

D i f f i c u l t

s t u d e n t s

w a l k i n g

a r o u n d

t-1

y o u r

p r i n c i p a l s

to

i m p r o v e
t h e

CO

to
g e t

-S'

to

Cn

t r y i n g
it

in

the

c l a s s r o o m ?

I-1

is

N5

a r e

CO

y o u

d i f f i c u l t

->

W h e n

Cn

78.

284

S t u d e n t s

are:

w i t h o u t

r o o m

f i r s t

g e t t i n g

p e r m i s s i o n
s o m e t i m e s

to

a l l o w e d

m o v e

a b o u t

the

f i r s t

w i t h o u t

r o o m

g e t t i n g

p e r m i s s i o n
o f t e n

a l l o w e d

to

m o v e

the

a b o u t

w i t h o u t

r o o m

f i r s t

g e t t i n g

p e r m i s s i o n
al m o s t

a l w a y s

a l l o w e d

to

m o v e

the

a b o u t

w i t h o u t

r o o m

f i r s t

g e t t i n g

p e r m i s s i o n

81.

W h a t

k i n d

of

s e a t i n g

a r r a n g e m e n t

do

y o u

S t u d e n t s
G e n e r a l l y
S o m e

s t u d e n t s

h a v e

in

a l w a y s

s e l e c t

t h e i r

o w n

s e a t s

s e l e c t

t h e i r

o w n

seats

s e l e c t

t h e i r

seats;

y o u r

c l a s s ( e s ) ,

h o w

o f t e n

a r e

s t u d ents'

s o m e

a r e

a s s i g n e d

t e a c h e r

a s s i g n s

s e a t s

a l w a y s

a s s i g n s

s e a t s

T e a c h e r

In

c l a s s ( e s ) ?

s t u d e n t s

G e n e r a l l y

82.

y o u r

s e a t s

c h a n g e d ?

S e v e r a l

t i m e s

a

d a y

D a i l y
P e r i o d i c a l l y
T h e y

83.

H o w

o f t e n

d o

y o u

w o r k

k e e p

w i t h

the

y o u r

s a m e

c l a s s

s e a t s

as

a

to

the

a b o u t

CO

m o v e

H

to

N

a l l o w e d

U

s e l d o m

I-*

g e t t i n g

p e r m i s s i o n

-P~

f i r s t

Cn

w i t h o u t

r o o m

-P-

the

a b o u t

Ul

m o v e

d u r i n g

the

s e m e s t e r

t h r o u g h o u t

the

s e m e s t e r

H

to

N

a l l o w e d

w h o l e ?
A l w a y s
O f t e n
S o m e t i m e s
S e l d o m
N e v e r

U l- P 'W N S H - *

n e v e r

Teacher Questionnaire
Page 17

H o w

w o u l d

y o u

y o u r

s t u d e n t s

c h a r a c t e r i z e

y o u r

w o r k i n g

t e a c h i n g

o n

t h e

s a m e

l e s s o n ?

A l w a y s

.........

O f t e n

.........

S o m e t i m e s

.........

S e l d o m

.........

N e v e r

.........

s t u d e n t s

.........

H

o f

K)

a l l

W

a r e

■P'

o f t e n

o b j e c t i v e s ?
H 1

85.

H o w

Ui

84.

285

a r e

the

s a m e

f o r

a l l

|v)

T h e y
a r e

t h e

s a m e

for

m o s t

o f

t h e

s t u d e n t s

.........

T h e y

a r e

the

s a m e

f o r

s o m e

of

the

s t u d e n t s

.........

d i f f e r e n t

for

m o s t

of

t h e

s t u d e n t s

.........

s t u d e n t

.........

^

lo

T h e y

a r e

Ui

T h e y

T h e y

H o w

i m p o r t a n t

f o r

y o u r

A.

S c h o o l

a r e

e a c h

of

the

f o l l o w i n g

d i f f e r e n t

in

for

e a c h

d e t e r m i n i n g

t e a c h i n g

o b j e c t i v e s

s t u d e n t s ?

p o licy:

V e r y

i m p o r t a n t

.........

I m p o r t a n t

.........

S o m e w h a t

i m p o r t a n t

.........

N o t

i m p o r t a n t

......

u n i m p o r t a n t

.........

v e r y

i m p o r t a n t

.........

i m p o r t a n t

.........

u n i m p o r t a n t

.........

v e r y

s t u d e n t

a b i l i t y :

V e r y

i m p o r t a n t

.........

I m p o r t a n t

.........

S o m e w h a t

i m p o r t a n t

.........

Not

i m p o r t a n t

.........

u n i m p o r t a n t

.........

U

S o m e w h a t
N o t

V e r y

D.

Y o u r

p e r s o n a l

p r e f e r e n c e :

V e r y

i m p o r t a n t ..........
.........

W

I m p o r t a n t

Is) H 1

v e r y

(*n

-C-

I n d i v i d u a l

......
.........

V e r y

C.

i m p o r t a n t
I m p o r t a n t

-t>

V e r y

Ui

i n t e r e s t :

N) I—1

S t u d e n t

U)

B.

M

H

V e r y

L n J N O J N J l —1

86.

a r e

i m p o r t a n t

.........

N o t

i m p o r t a n t

.........

u n i m p o r t a n t

.........

ye s

.........

n o

.........

■P'

S o m e w h a t

Ui

v e r y

V e r y

Do

y o u

h a v e

a

t e a c h e r

a i d e ?

N)

H

87.

s t u d e n t s '

p a r e n t s

do

y o u

k n o w

w h e n

y o u

s e e

them?
I—1

y o u r

N e a r l y

all

.........

A b o u t

75% ...........

A b o u t

5 0 %

.........

A b o u t

2 5 %

.........

f e w

.........

O n l y

a

N)

o f

O)

p r o p o r t i o n

-t-

W h a t

<~n

88.

October, 1974

286

PRINCIPAL.

S c h o o l

Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

S o c i a l

C l i m a t e

s p o n s o r e d
M i c h i g a n

S t a t e

S t u d y

b y
U n i v e r s i t y

a n d

Dr.
U r b a n

a n d

W i l b u r

D e p a r t m e n t

of

d i r e c t e d

b y

B.

M e t r o p o l i t a n
M i c h i g a n

B r o o k o v e r ,
S t u d i e s ,
S t a t e

T e l e p h o n e :

Directions:

T h e
-

i n f o r m a t i o n

c o n f i d e n t i a l .
o f

o u r

a n d

n o

y o u r

y o u
N o

r e s e a r c h
o n e

w i l l

q u e s t i o n n a i r e

c a r d s

( w i t h o u t

C o m p l e t e

y o u r

h a s

u s

w i l l

s taff.

p e r s o n

a n d

E d u c a t i o n

U n i v e r s i t y

o n

t h i s

q u e s t i o n n a i r e

s e e

y o u r

a n s w e r s

R e p o r t s
b e

w i l l

i d e n t i f i e d

b e e n

n a m e ) ,

c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y

P r o f e s s o r

S o c i o l o g y

5 1 7 / 3 5 3 - 9 5 0 3

g i v e

o n e

E d u c a t i o n

b e

c o m p l e t e l y
y o u r

is

m a d e

w i t h

is

e x c e p t
w i t h

h i s

c o d e d

o r

m e m b e r s

a g g r e g a t e
h e r

a n d

q u e s t i o n n a i r e

c o m p l e t e l y

t h e

d a t a .

p u n c h e d

w i l l

b e

o n

d a t a ,
A f t e r
I B M

d e s t r o y e d .

a s s u r e d .

1.

N a m e ____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________

2.

P l e a s e

3.

S e x

w r i t e

t h e

( c i r c l e

n a m e

t h e n u m b e r

o f

t h i s

s c h o o l .

o f t h e c o r r e c t

a n s w e r ) ?

f e m a l e
m a l e .........

4.

W h a t

is y o u r

r a c e

o r e t h n i c g r o u p ?

B l a c k
C h i c a n o
O t h e r

S p a n i s h

S p e a k i n g

N a t i v e

A m e r i c a n

O r i e n t a l

O r i g i n
W h i t e

5.

H o w

l o n g

h a v e

y o u

b e e n

t h e

p r i n c i p a l

in

t h i s

s c h o o l ?
J u s t
1
5
1 0
15

6.

H o w

l o n g

h a v e

y o u

b e e n

a

p r i n c i p a l ?

t h i s
to
to

9

y e a r s
y e a r s

m o r e

y e a r s

J u s t

t h i s

y e a r

1

to

4

y e a r s

5

to

9

y e a r s

1 0
1 5

y e a r
y e a r s

1 4

to

o r

4

o r

to

1 4

y e a r s

m o r e

y e a r s

.

M i c h i g a n

2

1

Principal Questionnaire
Page 2
287

t a u g h t

.........

1

to

4

y e a r s

.........

5

to

9

y e a r s

.........

1 4

y e a r s

.........

m o r e

.........

this

s c h o o l

b e f o r e

y o u

V e r y

W h i c h

b e s t

d e s c r i b e s

t h e

l o c a t i o n

o f

y o u r

.........

H a p p y

......

h a p p y

.........

Q u i t e

u n h a p p y

.........

V e r y

u n h a p p y

.........

s c h o o l ?

I n

I n

a

a

r e s i d e n t i a l
I n

10.

W h i c h

b e s t

d e s c r i b e s

t h e

t h e

i n n e r

p u p i l s

I n

a

I n

a n

s m a l l

I n
I n

a

a r e a

.........

r e s i d e n t i a l

s u b u r b

.........

i n d u s t r i a l

s u b u r b

......

l e s s )

.........

t o w n

c i t y

o f

m a n y

the

P T A

( 5 , 0 0 0
5 , 0 0 0

o r

to

5 0 , 0 0 0

of

a

l a r g e r

c i t y

( o v e r

5 0 , 0 0 0 )

...........

p a r t

o f

a l a r g e r

c i t y

( o v e r

5 0 , 0 0 0 )

...........

s e r v e d

b y

t h i s

s c h o o l ?

c h i l d r e n

o f

p r o f e s s i o n a l

a n d

w h i t e

c o l l a r

w o r k e r s

.........

c h i l d r e n

o f

p r o f e s s i o n a l

a n d

w h i t e

c o l l a r

w o r k e r s

.........

M o s t l y

c h i l d r e n

o f

f a c t o r y

a n d

A l l

c h i l d r e n

o f

f a c t o r y

a n d

f r o m

a

g e n e r a l

s i m i l a r

o f

y o u r

p a r e n t

o f

s o c i e t y

.........

o t h e r

c r o s s

b l u e

s e c t i o n

c o l l a r

w o r k e r s

.........

o t h e r

b l u e

c o l l a r

s t u d e n t s

a r e

o f

r e p r e s e n t e d

r u r a l

a t

a

w o r k e r s

.........

f a m i l i e s

.........

t y p i c a l

h a v e

n o

p a r e n t s

o r g a n i z a t i o n
O n l y

L e s s

i s

t h e

a v e r a g e

d a i l y

p e r c e n t a g e

of

a t t e n d a n c e

a

.........

f e w

.........

t h a n

h a l f

.........

A b o u t

h a l f

.........

O v e r

h a l f

.........

t h e m

.......

a l l

i n

o f

y o u r

O v e r

s c h o o l ?

9 8 %

.........

9 7 %

-

9 8 %

.........

9 5 %

-

9 6 %

.........

9 3 %

-

9 4 %

.........

9 1 %

-

9 2 %

.........

8 6 %

-

9 0 %

.........

O'

w h a t

of

l e s s

.........

Vl

A l m o s t

A b o u t

m e e t i n g

g r o u p ?
W e

12.

..........

A l l

f a m i l i e s
o r

r u r a l

a r e a

C h i l d r e n

H o w

a

M o s t l v

C h i l d r e n

11.

h e r e ?

h a p p y

S o m e w h a t

9.

c a m e

H

to

H

a s s i g n m e n t

W

y o u r

W

a b o u t

^

f e e l

ff iln

y o u

nJ

d i d

H

H o w

o r

K)

8.

y e a r s

K)

1 5

to

IjO

1 0

Ui ■t'

N e v e r

U 1 4 S W IO H

p r i n c i p a l ?

W

a

Ui

b e c o m i n g

O'

b e f o r e

N3 M

t e a c h

OMJ1 - M j J

y o u

H

d i d

W

l o n g

8 5 %

o r

U

H o w

U1

7.

Principal Questionnaire
Page 3
288
p e r c e n t a g e

y o u r

s t u d e n t s
w h o

h a d

t h i s

y e a r

c o m p l e t e d

a r e

t h e

t r a n s f e r s

h i g h e s t

f r o m

g r a d e

a n o t h e r

in

the

s c h o o l ?

s c h o o l

f r o m

c a m e . )
%

.........

1.

5Z - 9Z ...........
1 0 %

-

1 4 %

1 5 %

-

1 9 %

.........

2 0 %

-

24 %

.........

2 5 %

i s

t h e

l o w e s t

g r a d e

i n

y o u r

.

s c h o o l ?
K i n d e r g a r t e n

.........

1 s t

.........

2 n d .........
3 r d

.........

4 t h .........

15.

W h a t

i s

t h e

h i g h e s t

g r a d e

i n

y o u r

s c h o o l ?
5 t h .........
6 t h .........
7 t h

.

8 t h .........
9 t h .........

16.

W h a t

p e r c e n t

o f

s t u d e n t s

i n

y o u r

s c h o o l

r e c e i v e

f r e e

l u n c h e s

e a c h

d a y ?

N o n e .........
9 %

l e s s

.........

1 0 %

-

3 0 %

.........

3 1 %

-

5 0 %

.........

5 1 %

-

7 0 % ________

7 1 %

-

9 0 %

.........

t h a n

9 0 %

.........

p r o g r a m

.........

M o r e
T h e r e

17.

In

y o u r

j u d g m e n t ,

w h a t

i s

t h e

H

W h a t

m o r e

M

14.

o r

------

Ni

4

-P- W

-

O'* Ui

0

W

t h e y

o f

s t u d e n t s

Ul

w h i c h

c o u n t

g e n e r a l

is

n o

f r e e

r e p u t a t i o n

of

l u n c h

t h i s

o r

s c h o o l

N3 M

n o t

■C' U!

(Do

Ui

VJhat

0 0 " J C T s ly T - P 'U > f 'O h J

13.

a m o n g

.........

a v e r a g e

.........

A b o u t

a v e r a g e

.........

B e l o w

t h e

a v e r a g e

.........

I n f e r i o r

.........

U

b e s t

t h a n

>

A m o n g
B e t t e r

W H

e d u c a t o r s ?

i
s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ,

h o w

w o u l d

y o u

r a t e

t h i s

A m o n g
B e t t e r

t h a n

s c h o o l ?

t h e

b e s t

a v e r a g e

A b o u t

a v e r a g e

B e l o w

a v e r a g e
I n f e r i o r

H

t o

M

r e g a r d

W

W i t h

Ul

18.

Principal Questionnaire
Page 4
289
19.

W i t h

r e g a r d

s c h o o l

c a n

t o

s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ,

h o w

g o o d

a

s c h o o l

d o

y o u

A m o n g
B e t t e r

20.

W h a t

d o

y o u

c o n s i d e r

t o

b e

t h e

s c h o o l ' s

p r i m a r y

T e a c h i n g

O t h e r

H o w

s u c c e s s f u l

d e v e l o p m e n t

A.

this

w o u l d

i n

T e a c h i n g

( p l e a s e

t h e

o f

y o u

s a y

a c a d e m i c

b e s t ............ 1 .

a v e r a g e ...........

2.

A b o u t

a v e r a g e ...........

3.

B e l o w

a v e r a g e

4.

I n f e r i o r

5.

o f

a c a d e m i c

to

t h e

s u b j e c t s

s t u d e n t s ?

..........

1.

...........

2.

a n d

d e v e l o p m e n t

..........

3.

E d u c a t i o n a l / o c c u p a t i o n a l

a s p i r a t i o n s

...........

4.

y o u r

g r o w t h

s o c i a l

s k i l l s

...............................................................

s p e c i f y )

f o l l o w i n g

t h e

t h a n

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

E n h a n c i n g
P e r s o n a l

21.

t h i n k

b e ?

s c h o o l

h a s

b e e n

w i t h

r e g a r d

to

5.

s t u d e n t

a r e a s ?

s k i l l s :

V e r y

s u c c e s s f u l

.........

1.

S u c c e s s f u l
S o m e w h a t
N o t

E n h a n c i n g

s o c i a l

i n t e r a c t i o n ,

s k i l l s

( s o c i a l

u n s u c c e s s f u l

V e r y

e t c . ) :

P e r s o n a l

g r o w t h

a n d

......

s u c c e s s f u l

1.

2.

S o m e w h a t

s u c c e s s f u l

N o t

s u c c e s s f u l

v e r y

u n s u c c e s s f u l

.........

3.

......

4.
5.

V e r y s u c c e s s f u l .......... 1 .

d e v e l o p m e n t :

2.

S u c c e s s f u l
S o m e w h a t
N o t

E d u c a t i o n a l / o c c u p a t i o n a l

s u c c e s s f u l

a s p i r a t i o n s :

S o m e w h a t

WE

W O U L D

N O W

CREDENTIALS
ANY

22.

L I K E
A N D

A D D I T I O N A L

In

A S K

T E S T I N G
C O M M E N T S

g e n e r a l ,

p a r t i c u l a r

T O

Y O U

S O M E

Q U E S T I O N S

P R O C E D U R E S

I N

A F T E R

Q U E S T I O N .

w h a t

g r o u p i n g

g r a d e

l e v e l s

E A C H

Y O U R

A B O U T

p r o c e d u r e
i n

t h i s

is

G R O U P I N G

S C H O O L .

P L E A S E

p r a c t i c e d

5.

s u c c e s s f u l

1.

S u c c e s s f u l

2.

s u c c e s s f u l

3.

4.
5.

v e r y s u c c e s s f u l

V e r y

u n s u c c e s s f u l

P R A C T I C E S ,
F E E L

a c r o s s

3.

4.

u n s u c c e s s f u l

V e r y

N o t

.........

v e r y s u c c e s s f u l

V e r y

D.

3.
4.
5.

S u c c e s s f u l

V e r y

C.

2.
.........

v e r y s u c c e s s f u l

V e r y

B.

s u c c e s s f u l

F R E E

s e c t i o n s

T E A C H E R
T O

W R I T E

of

s c h o o l ?

H o m o g e n e o u s

g r o u p i n g

a c c o r d i n g

to

a b i l i t y

.........

1.

H e t e r o g e n e o u s

g r o u p i n g

a c c o r d i n g

to

a b i l i t y

.........

2.

N o

R a n d o m

g r o u p i n g

.........

3.

i n t e n t i o n a l

g r o u p i n g

.........

4.

Principal Questionnaire
Page 5

290
p r o c e d u r e

is

p r a c t i c e d

H o m o g e n e o u s

g r o u p i n g

a c c o r d i n g

to

a b i l i t y

.........

g r o u p i n g

a c c o r d i n g

to

a b i l i t y

.........

e x t e n t

d o

i n s t r u c t i o n a l

t h e

u p p e r

p r o g r a m s

A l l

p l a n

M o s t
I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n

t h e i r

f r o m

.........
.........

t e a c h e r s ,

3 - 6

h a v e

p r o g r a m s

i n d i v i d u a l i z e

s o m e

t e a c h e r

to

m o s t

s t u d e n t s

f o r

i n d i v i d u a l i z e d

p r o g r a m s

t e a c h e r

a n d

t i m e

to

......
.........

t i m e

......

M o s t

t e a c h e r s

h a v e

c o m m o n

i n s t r u c t i o n a l

p r o g r a m s

f o r

t h e i r

s t u d e n t s

.........

A l l

t e a c h e r s

h a v e

c o m m o n

i n s t r u c t i o n a l

p r o g r a m s

f o r

t h e i r

s t u d e n t s

.........

h a v e

a n y

n o n - g r a d e d

c l a s s r o o m s

f o r

c h i l d r e n

p r o p o r t i o n

y e a r s

of

age

o f

t h e

4 t h

w e

h a v e n ' t

a n d

5 t h

g r a d e

a n y

a r e

n o n - g r a d e d

.........

c l a s s r o o m s

.........

c l a s s r o o m s

i n

y o u r

s c h o o l

h a s

a i d e s ?
.........

N o n e

m a n y

t e a c h e r s

i n

t h i s

s c h o o l

h a v e

a t

l e a s t

a

B a c h e l o r ' s

d e g r e e ?

A l l
7 5 %

o r

m o r e

......

-

7 4 %

.........

t h a n

5 0 %

.........

5 0 %
L e s s

28.

H o w

m a n y

t e a c h e r s

i n

t h i s

s c h o o l

h a v e

a

p r o v i s i o n a l

t e a c h i n g

7 5 %

.

c e r t i f i c a t e ?

o r

5 0 %

m o r e
-

7 4 %

.
.........

25% - 49% ...........
L e s s

29.

H o w

m a n y

t e a c h e r s

i n

t h i s

s c h o o l

h a v e

a

p e r m a n e n t

t h a n

t e a c h i n g

L e s s

2 5 %

.........

c e r t i f i c a t e ?

7 5 %

§

H

H o w

.........

W N )H

A l l

S o m e .........

27.

H

s o m e

n o n - g r a d e d

to

n o n - g r a d e d

U

No,

.........

a r e

N)

t e a c h e r

e i g h t

a l l

Y e s ,

W h a t

o v e r

s c h o o l ?

U

t h i s

^

y o u

i n

H

D o

Y e s ,

26.

g r a d e s ,

s t u d e n t s ?

i n d i v i d u a l

t e a c h e r s

v a r i e s

g r o u p i n g
g r o u p i n g

M

25.

e l e m e n t a r y
f o r

R a n d o m
i n t e n t i o n a l

M o

what,

t h e

s e c t i o n s

m o r e

......

5 0 %

o r
-

7 4 %

.........

2 5 %

-

4 9 %

......

t h a n

2 5 %

.........

M H

T o

i n d i v i d u a l

H e t e r o g e n e o u s

N o

24.

w i t h i n

s c h o o l ?

H

t h i s

N

o f

M j)

l e v e l s

H

g r o u p i n g

g r a d e

to

w h a t

-M J

g e n e r a l ,

p a r t i c u l a r

U

I n
o f

frW

23.

Principal Questionnaire
Page 6

30.

291

How many te a c h e rs i n t h i s s c h o o l have a g ra d u a te degree?
75% o r m o r e
1.
50% - 7 4 % ............ 2 .
25% - 4 9 % ...............3 .
Less th a n 2 5 % ...............4 .

31.

I n w hat g ra d e does y o u r s c h o o l g iv e i n t e l l i g e n c e o r a p t it u d e t e s t s to th e
s tu d e n ts ( c i r c l e a l l t h a t a p p ly )?
1 s t g r a d e ...............1 .
2nd g ra d e . . . . . . 2.
3 rd g r a d e
3.
4 th g r a d e
. 4.
5 th g r a d e
5.
6 th g ra d e . . . . . . 6 .
Do n o t g iv e I . Q . o r a p t it u d e t e s t s ............ 7 .

32.

I n w hat g ra d e does y o u r s c h o o l g iv e s ta n d a rd iz e d a c h ie v e m e n t t e s t s t o s tu d e n t
( C ir c le a l l c o r r e c t a n sw e rs. Do n o t in c lu d e S ta te A s s e s s m e n t.)
1st
2nd
3 rd
4 th
5 th
6 th
Do n o t g iv e s ta n d a rd iz e d

g r a d e ...............1 .
g r a d e ............ 2 .
g ra d e
3.
g ra d e
4.
g ra d e
5.
g r a d e ............ 6 .
t e s t s ............ 7 .

33.

How o f t e n do te a c h e rs i n t h i s s c h o o l r e f e r t o , o r c o n s id e r , a s t u d e n t 's I . Q .
o r a p t it u d e s c o re when p la n n in g h is w ork?
A lw a ys . . . . . . 1 .
O fte n
2.
S o m e tim e s
3.
S e ld o m
4.
N e v e r ............ 5.

34.

In t h i s s c h o o l, how o f t e n a re s tu d e n ts a s s ig n e d t o c e r t a in c la s s e s on th e
b a s is o f t h e i r I . Q . o r a p t it u d e sco re s?
A lw a y s
O fte n
S o m e tim e s
S e ld o m
N e v e r ............

35.

Which o f th e f o llo w in g do you t h i n k b e s t p r e d ic t s a p u p i l 's su cce ss
i n h ig h e r e d u c a tio n ?
Teacher recom m endations
Group o r i n d i v i d u a l i n t e ll i g e n c e o r s c h o la s t ic a p tit u d e t e s t s c o re s
O th e r s ta n d a rd iz e d t e s t s c o re s ( e . g . , p e r s o n a lit y and v o c a t io n a l
in v e n t o r ie s , e t c . )
S c h o o l g ra d e s
O th e

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

o r fa ilu r e
............ 1 .
............ 2.
............ 3.
. . . . . . 4.
r
5.

Principal Questionnaire
Page 7

P LEASE
W HICH

36.

37.

38.

A N S W E R
M O S T

E A C H

N E A R L Y

O F

T H E

A N S W E R S

292

F O L L O W I N C
T H E

Q U E S T I O N S

Q U E S T I O N

F O R

B Y

C I R C L I N C

T H E

N U M B E R

O F

T H E

C H O I C E

YOU.

On th e a v e ra g e , w hat a ch ie ve m e n t l e v e l can be e xp ecte d
t h i s s c h o o l?
Much above
S l i g h t l y above
A p p ro x im a te ly a t
S l i g h t l y b e lo w
Much b e lo w

o f th e s tu d e n ts in
n a t io n a l norm ........... 1.
n a t io n a l norm ............ 2.
n a t io n a l n o r m
3.
n a t io n a l norm ............ 4 .
n a t io n a l n o r m
5.

What p e rc e n t o f th e s tu d e n ts i n t h i s s c h o o l do you e x p e c t to co m p le te h ig h
sch o o l?
90% o r m o r e
70% - 8 9 % ............
50% - 6 9 % ............
30% - 4 9 % ............
Less th a n 3 0 % ............

What p e rc e n t o f th e s tu d e n ts i n t h i s s c h o o l do you e x p e c t t o a tte n d c o lle g e ?
90% o r m o r e
70% - 89% ............
50% - 6 9 % ............
30% - 49% ............
Less th a n 3 0 % ............

39.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

What p e rc e n t o f th e s tu d e n ts i n t h i s s c h o o l do you e x p e c t to c o m p le te , c o lle g e ?
90% o r m o r e
1.
70% - 89% ............ 2.
50% - 6 9 % ............ 3.
30% - 4 9 % ...............4 .
Less th a n 3 0 % ............ 5 .

40.

How many o f th e s tu d e n ts i n

t h i s s c h o o l a re c a p a b le o f g e t t in g good grades?
90% o r m o r e
1.
70% - 8 9 % ...............2.
50% - 69% ........... 3.
30% - 4 9 % .............. 4 .
Less th a n 3 0 % ............ 5 .

41.

How w ould you r a t e th e academ ic a b i l i t y o f th e s tu d e n ts i n t h i s s c h o o l
compared t o o th e r s c h o o ls ?
A b i l i t y h e re i s much h ig h e r ............
A b i l i t y h e re i s somewhat h ig h e r . . . . . .
A b i l i t y h e re i s a b ou t th e s a m e
A b i l i t y h e re i s somewhat lo w e r ............
A b i l i t y h e re i s much l o w e r

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Principal

Questionnaire

Page 8

s t u d e n t s

i n

t h i s

s c h o o l

r e g a r d

t h i s

s c h o o l

as

p r i m a r i l y

a g e n c y .

S tr o n g ly a g ree
Agree
U nsure
D is a g re e
S tr o n g ly d is a g re e

47.

How many o f th e p a re n ts o f s tu d e n ts i n t h i s s c h o o l w ant fe e d b a c k fro m th e
p r in c i p a l and te a c h e rs on how t h e i r c h ild r e n a re d o in g i n s c h o o l?
A l m o s t

A b o u t

A l m o s t

a l l

of

the

p a r e n t s

.

M o s t

of

the

p a r e n t s

.

h a l f

of

t h e

p a r e n t s

.

S o m e

o f

t h e

p a r e n t s

.

n o n e

o f

t h e

p a r e n t s

.

W M
■
>
U
H

How many o f th e p a re n ts o f s tu d e n ts i n t h i s s c h o o l d o n 't c a re i f t h e i r
c h ild r e n o b ta in lo w grades?
A lm o s t a l l o f th e p a re n ts ............
M ost o f th e p a re n ts . . . . . .
•**
A bout h a l f o f th e p a re n ts ...........
Some o f th e p a re n ts ............
A lm o s t none o f th e p a re n ts . . . . . .

W M

46.

Ui ■>

How many o f th e p a re n ts o f s tu d e n ts i n t h i s s c h o o l e x p e c t t h e i r c h ild r e n to
com plete c o lle g e ?
A lm o s t a l l o f th e p a re n ts ............
M ost o f th e p a re n ts ...........
A bout h a l f o f th e p a re n ts ............
Some o f th e p a re n ts ...........
A lm o s t none o f th e p a re n ts ............

W Is) M

45.

Ul •>

How many o f th e p a re n ts o f s tu d e n ts i n t h i s s c h o o l e x p e c t t h e i r c h ild r e n
to c o m p le te h ig h s c h o o l?
A lm o s t a l l o f th e p a re n ts ............
M ost o f th e p a re n ts ............
A bout h a l f o f th e p a re n ts ............
Some o f th e p a re n ts ...........
A lm o s t none o f th e p a re n ts ............

P

44.

M

'

............
............
............
............
............

M H

S tr o n g ly a g ree
A gree
U nsure
D is a g re e
S tr o n g ly d is a g re e

P

The p a re n ts o f s tu d e n ts i n t h i s s c h o o l a re d e e p ly concerned t h a t t h e i r
c h ild r e n r e c e iv e a to p q u a l i t y e d u c a tio n .

U

43.

............
...........
............
............
...........

M

o f

N

p a r e n t s

" b a b y - s i t t i n g "

U

a

Ln

T h e

Ul

42.

2g3

U

X

U

lU

ld ir t i

Page

9

2 9 4

48.

What p r o p o r tio n o f th e te a c h e rs i n t h i s s c h o o l w ould p r e f e r to be te a c h in g
i n a n o th e r s c h o o l?
A bout a l l ........... 1 .
A bout 7 5 % ............ 2.
A bout h a l f ............ 3 .
A bout 25% .............. 4 .
A lm o s t n o n e
5.

49.

A t y p i c a l te a c h e r i n t h i s s c h o o l has some c o n ta c t w it h :
A ll
M ost
Some
A few
None

50.

th e
th e
th e
th e
th e

of
of
of
of
of

p a re n ts
p a re n ts
p a re n ts ............
p a re n ts
p a re n ts

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

How much c o n ta c t does a t y p i c a l te a c h e r i n t h i s s c h o o l have w it h m ost o f th e
p a r e n t s ?
A b o u t

A bout

51.

o n c e

a

m o n t h

o r

m o r e .........

1.

two tim e s a s e m e s te r ........... 2.
A bout once a s e m e s te r ...............3.
O n c e
a y e a r
o r
l e s s
4.

A p p ro x im a te ly w ha t p e rc e n ta g e o f a t y p i c a l s c h o o l day does th e average te a c h e r
spend on each o f th e s e a c t i v i t i e s ?
P a r e n t- te a c h e r c o n ta c ts (n o te s to p a r e n ts , phone c a l l s ,
c o n fe re n c e s ) ______ %
C o n fe r r in g w it h i n d i v i d u a l s tu d e n ts (a b o u t academ ic p ro g re s s ) ______ %
C o n fe rrin g w it h i n d i v i d u a l s tu d e n ts (a b o u t b e h a v io r , s o c ia l g ro w th ,
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) ______ %
A d m in is tr a tiv e d u t ie s (a tte n d a n c e t a k in g , n o tin g p u p il p ro g re s s ,
f i l l i n g o u t r e p o r t c a rd s ) ______ %
E s ta b lis h in g and_m a in ta in in g o rd e r i n th e c la s s ro o m _______ %
C lassroom and s m a ll group i n s t r u c t i o n ______ %
Time betw een le s s o n s
( b e fo r e and a f t e r re c e s s , m oving c h ild r e n fro m
one a c t i v i t y to a n o th e r) ______ %
O ther ( s p e c if y ) _________________________________________________________________ %
T O T A L

52.

E v a l u a t i n g
f o r

t e a c h e r s '

p r i n c i p a l s .

p e r f o r m a n c e

W h e n

is

e v a l u a t i n g

a

do you place on his/her students'

a n

i m p o r t a n t

t e a c h e r s '

a n d

It

a

p r i n c i p a l ,

h o w

m u c h

e f f e c t

d o

m u c h

t a s k

i m p o r t a n c e

y o u

is
is

v e r y
q u i t e

i m p o r t a n t ............1 .
i m p o r t a n t

It

is

s o m e w h a t

i m p o r t a n t

It

is

n o t

i m p o r t a n t

I t

A s

d i f f i c u l t
h o w

academic achievement?

It

53.

o f t e n

p e r f o r m a n c e ,

1 0 0 %

t h i n k

is

n o t

y o u

v e r y

i m p o r t a n t

h a v e

o n

a t

.

4.

a l l

s t u d e n t s '

2.

........... 3 .

5.

a c a d e m i c

a c h i e v e m e n t ?
V e r y

g r e a t

S u b s t a n t i a l

e f f e c t
e f f e c t

1.
.........

2.

S o m e

e f f e c t

3.

V e r y

l i t t l e

e f f e c t

4.

N o

e f f e c t

a t

a l l

.......... 5 .

Principal Questionnaire
Page 10

54.

W h a t

p e r c e n t a g e

l e a r n i n g

t o

o f

r e a d

295.

t h e

b y

s t u d e n t s

t h e

e n d

of

i n

t h i s

s e c o n d

s c h o o l

do

y o u

f e e l

a r e

c a p a b l e

o f

g r a d e ?
1 0 0 %

L e s s

W h a t

e f f e c t

d o

a c h i e v e m e n t

i n

A.

y o u

t h i n k

t h i s

e a c h

o f

t h e

f o l l o w i n g

h a v e

a

g r e a t

d o

d e a l

o f

e f f e c t

s u b s t a n t i a l

3.

7 0 %

-

7 9 % ............4 .

5 0 %

-

6 9 % .........

5.

t h a n

5 0 % .........

6.

s t u d e n t s ’*

a c a d e m i c

o n s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .... 1 .

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ....... .....

s o m e

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ....... .......4 .

h a v e

n o

e f f e c t at

2.

....... 3 .

a l l

5.

T e a c h e r s :

T h e y

h a v e

a

g r e a t

T h e y

h a v e

T h e y

d o

o f

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

......

1.

s u b s t a n t i a l

d e a l

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ....... ....

2.

T h e y

h a v e

s o m e

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .... 3 .

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .... 4 .

T h e y
F r i e n d s

o r

p e e r

T h e y

h a v e

T h e y

a

g r e a t

h a v e

n o

e f f e c t at

a l l

.

5.

d o

o f

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

s u b s t a n t i a l

d e a l

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ....... ....

2.

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

3.

T h e y

h a v e

s o m e

e f f e c t

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t
T h e y

S c h o o l

h a v e

g r o u p :

T h e y

......

......

1.

o n s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .... 4 .
h a v e

n o

e f f e c t

at

a l l

.....;

5.

b o a r d s :

T h e y

h a v e
T h e y

T h e y

a

g r e a t

h a v e

d o

of

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ....... ....

1.

s u b s t a n t i a l

d e a l

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

2.

......

T h e y

h a v e

s o m e

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .... 3 .

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

T h e y

h a v e

n o

a c h i e v e m e n t

e f f e c t

a t

a l l

......

4.

......

5.

P r i n c i p a l :

T h e y

h a v e
T h e y

T h e y

a

g r e a t

h a v e

d o

d e a l

o f

s u b s t a n t i a l

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ....... ....

1.
2.

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ....... ....

T h e y

h a v e

s o m e

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

T h e y
F.

8 9 % .........

h a v e

T h e y

E.

-

T h e y

h a v e

T h e y

D.

2.

8 0 %

s c h o o l ?

T h e y

C.

o n

9 9 % .........

P a r e n t s :

T h e y

B.

h a s

-

.

55.

1.

9 0 %

S t u d e n t

h a v e

n o

e f f e c t at

...... 3 .
......
a l l

4.

.

5.

2.

h i m s e l f :

T h e y

h a v e

a

g r e a t

T h e y

h a v e

T h e y

d o

o f

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .... 1 .

s u b s t a n t i a l

d e a l

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

....

T h e y

h a v e

s o m e

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

....

3.

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t ....... ....

4.

T h e y

h a v e

no

e f f e c t at

a l l

.

5.

Principal Questionnaire
Page 11

56.

H o w

o f t e n

d o

y o u

296

s u g g e s t

w a y s

of

i m p r o v i n g

s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

to

y o u r

t e a c h e r s ?
V e r y

o f t e n .
O f t e n

1.

......

S o m e t i m e s

.....

S e l d o m .

4.

N e v e r

57.

H o w

o f t e n

s t u d e n t

d o

y o u

m e e t

w i t h

t h e

t e a c h e r s

as

a

g r o u p

to

d i s c u s s

w a y s

2.
3.

5.

of

i m p r o v i n g

a c h i e v e m e n t ?
V e r y

o f t e n .

1.

O f t e n .

2.

S o m e t i m e s

.....

3*

S e l d o m ...4 .
N e v e r .

58.

T o

w h a t

e x t e n t

d o

y o u

t h i n k

t e a c h i n g

m e t h o d s

a f f e c t

s t u d e n t ' s

5.

a c a d e m i c

a c h i e v e m e n t ?
T h e y
T h e y

h a v e

h a v e

T h e y

a

g r e a t

o n s t u d e n t

T o

w h a t

e x t e n t

a f f e c t s

d o

s t u d e n t s '

y o u

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

3.

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

4.

.....

5.

t h i n k

T h e y

t h a t

a

T o

w h a t

l e v e l

e x t e n t

i n

d o

l e a r n i n g

a t

a l l

h i s / h e r

s t u d e n t s

g r e a t

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

s u b s t a n t i a l

a

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

2.

h a v e

s o m e

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

3.

n o t

h a v e

m u c h

e f f e c t

o n s t u d e n t

a c h i e v e m e n t

..........

4.

t h i n k

s h o u l d

b e

t h e

n o

e f f e c t

d e g r e e

to

w h i c h t h e i r s t u d e n t s

c o n s i d e r e d

i n

e v a l u a t i n g

a

a t

a l l ...

a c h i e v e

t e a c h e r s '

V e r y

g r a d e

c o m p e t e n c e ?

S o m e .

N o t

If
j o b

t h e

t e a c h e r s

w e l l ,

n e a r l y

a n d
a l l

o t h e r
o f

s t a f f

t h e

m e m b e r s

s t u d e n t s

i n

w o u l d

t h i s

s c h o o l

a c h i e v e

a t

w e r e
g r a d e

5.

m u c h ...1 .

N o t

61.

1.

T h e y
d o

y o u

e f f e c t

t e a c h e r ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d

T h e y h a v e

60.

n o

2.

a c h i e v e m e n t ?

h a v e

h a v e

T h e y

1.

s o m e

a c a d e m i c

T h e y

......

h a v e

T h e y h a v e

59.

a c h i e v e m e n t

T h e y
d o

s u b s t a n t i a l

e f f e c t

m u c h

at

a l l

2.

......

a l l

3.
4.

d o i n g

t h e i r

l e v e l .

S t r o n g l y

a g r e e

......

1.

A g r e e ... 2 .
N o t

s u r e ... 3 .

D i s a g r e e
S t r o n g l y

......

d i s a g r e e ............

4.
5.

Principal Questionnaire
Page 12

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

to

w o r k

w i t h

t h e

t e a c h e r s

to

S t r o n g l y

is

to

c h a n g e

p o s s i b l e
a

f o r

l o w

a

p r i n c i p a l ,

a c h i e v i n g

w i t h

s c h o o l

t h e

i n t o

a

c o o p e r a t i o n
h i g h

o f

a c h i e v i n g

.........
.........

d i s a g r e e

.........

t h e

y o u

c h a r a c t e r i z e

t h e

a c h i e v e m e n t

o b j e c t i v e s

A b o u t

w h a t

p r o p o r t i o n

o f

t e a c h e r s

i n

......
.........

s u r e

.........

D i s a g r e e

.........

d i s a g r e e

.........

t h i s

a l l

s t u d e n t s

.........

m o s t

s t u d e n t s

.........

D i f f e r e n t

f o r

m o s t

s t u d e n t s

.........

a l l

s t u d e n t s

.........

t h i s

s c h o o l

H

s c h o o l ?

f o r

f o r

D i f f e r e n t

65.

i n

a g r e e
A g r e e

S a m e

S a m e

N

t e a c h e r s ,

s c h o o l .

S t r o n g l y

w o u l d

.........

D i s a g r e e

N o t

H o w

.........

s u r e

S t r o n g l y

64.

a g r e e
A g r e e

W

N o t

It

t h a t

JN

S t r o n g l y

63.

i n s u r e

le v e l .

f o r

a s s i g n

H

h i g h

N

a

W

a t

^

a c h i e v e

Ui

principal's

s e a t s

to

H

t h e

s t u d e n t s

N

is

t h e i r

U

It

4S

62.

297

t h e i r

t e a c h e r s ...........

o f t h e

t e a c h e r s ...........

s c h o o l

a s k i n g

A l m o s t

67.

W h a t

p r o p o r t i o n

o f

t h e

c l a s s r o o m s

i n

a l l o w

t h e i r

s t u d e n t s

to

p e r m i s s i o n ?

a l l

o f

t h e

t e a c h e r s

.........

M o s t

o f t h e

t e a c h e r s ...........

A b o u t

h a l f

o f t h e

t e a c h e r s ...........

F e w

o f t h e

t e a c h e r s ......

A l m o s t

n o n e

o f t h e

t e a c h e r s ......

y o u r

s c h o o l

h a v e

t e a c h e r

a i d e s ?

A l l .........

.
'

L e s s

h-<

t h i s

f i r s t

N3

o f t h e

n o n e

W

F e w
A l m o s t

^

t e a c h e r s ...........

to

i n

t e a c h e r s ......

oft h e

OJ

t e a c h e r s
w i t h o u t

o f t h e

h a l f

■>

o f

c l a s s r o o m

M o s t
A b o u t

Ln

t h e

.........

H

p r o p o r t i o n

t e a c h e r s

N

w h a t
a b o u t

t h e

•

M o s t

.........

A b o u t

h a l f

.........

t h a n

h a l f

......

■C'U

A b o u t
m o v e

o f

N o n e .. .........

Ul

66.

a l l

Ln

A l m o s t

H

s t u d e n t s ?

Principal Questionnaire
Page 13
298

68.

What p e rc e n ta g e o f y o u r tim e i n a t y p i c a l week i s d e v o te d t o each o f th e
f o llo w in g a c t i v i t i e s ?
Long ra n g e c u r r ic u lu m p la n n in g ______
S u p e rv is io n o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t a f f ______
S u p e rv is io n o f n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t a f f ______
P a re n t and com m unity co n ce rn s

%
%
%
%

D i s c i p l i n e ___________ %

O th e r a d m in is t r a t iv e d u tie s
TOTAL
69.

%
100%

What p r o p o r t io n o f th e s tu d e n ts ' p a re n ts do you know when you see them?
N e a rly
About
About
About
Only a

a ll
1.
7 5 % ...............2 .
50% ............ 3 .
2 5 % ...............4 .
few ............ 5 .

70.

In g e n e ra l, how do your s tu d e n ts ' p a re n ts f e e l about th e achievement o f t h e i r
ch ild re n ?
N e a rly a l l f e e l th e y a re doing w e ll ............ 1 .
Most th in k students a re a c h ie v in g as w e ll as they should ............ 2.
Most th in k t h e i r c h ild r e n a re N O T a c h ie v in g hig h enough ......... 3 .
N e a rly a l l th in k
they a re N O T a c h ie v in g hig h enough ............ 4 .

71.

In g e n e ra l, how do you f e e l about th e achievement o f the stud en ts in t h is
school?
N e a rly a l l students a re a c h ie v in g as w e ll as th e y can ............. 1 .
Most students a re a c h ie v in g as w e ll as th e y can ..............2 .
Lessthan h a lf th e students a re a c h ie v in g as w e ll as th e y c a n
3.
Only a few o f th e students a re a c h ie v in g as w e ll as they c a n
4.

APPENDIX B

SURVEY SCALE VARIABLES
AND THE ITEMS FROM
WHICH THEY ARE
COMPOSED

A.

Teacher clim ate variables
1.

A b i l i t y , Evaluations, Expectations and Q u ality o f Education
fo r College.
(TSCL1)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
1.

2.

What percent o f the students in th is school do you expect
to attend college?
What percent o f students in your class do you expect to
attend college?
What percent of the students in th is school do you expect
to comp!ete college?
What percent o f the students in your class do you expect
to complete college?
How many of the students in th is school are capable
of g e ttin g mostly A's and B's?
How many o f the students in your class are capable
of g e ttin g mostly A's and B's?
How would you rate the academic a b i l i t y of the students
in th is school compared to other schools?
What percent o f the students in th is school would you
say want to go to college?
What percent o f the students in your class would you say
want to go to college?
Completion o f college is a r e a l i s t i c goalwhich you set
fo r what percentage of your students?
The parents of students in th is school are deeply concerned
th a t t h e i r children receive a top q u a lity education.
How many o f the parents o f students in th is school expect
t h e ir children to complete college?

Present Evaluations and Expectations fo r High School Completion.
(TSCL2)
a. On the average, what level o f achievement can be expected
o f the students in th is school?
b. On the average, what level o f achievement can be expected
of the students in your class?
c. What percent o f the students in th is school do you expect
to complete high school?
d. What percent of the students in your class do you expect to
complete high school?
e. What percent o f the students in th is school would you say
want to complete high school?
f . What percent o f the students in your class would you say
want to complete high school?
g. Completion of high school is a r e a l i s t i c goal which you set
fo r what percentage of your students?
h. How often do you stress to your students the necessity o f a
post high school education f o r a good job and/or a comfor­
table l i f e ?
i.
How many o f the parents of students in th is school expect
t h e ir children to complete high school?

299

300
3.

Teacher-Student Commitment to Improve.
a.
b.
c.

d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.

4.

Do you encourage your students who do not have s u f f ic ie n t
economic resources to aspire to go to college?
Do you encourage your students who do not have s u f f ic ie n t
academic a b i l i t y to aspire to go to college?
How many teachers in th is school feel th a t a l l t h e ir
students should be taught to read well and master other
academic subjects, even though some students may not
appear to be interested?
How many teachers encourage students to seek extra work
so th a t the students can get b e tte r grades?
How many students in th is school tr y hard to improve on
previous work?
How many students in your class t r y hard to improve on
previous work?
How many students in th is school w i l l tr y hard to do
b e tte r school work than t h e ir friends?
How many students in your class w i l l t r y hard to do b e tte r
school work than t h e i r classmates do?
How many students in th is school w i l l seek extra work so
th a t they can get b e tte r grades?
How many students in your class w i l l seek extra work so .•that
they can get b e tte r grades?

Teacher Perception o f P rin c ip a l's Expectations.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

5.

(TSCL3)

What percent o f the students in th is school do you think
the prin cipal expects to complete high school?
What percent o f the students in th is school do you think
the principal expects to attend college?
What percent o f the students in th is school do you think
the prin cipal expects to complete college?
How many students in th is school do you think the principal
believes are capable o f gettin g mostly A's and B's?
How do you think your principal rates the academic a b i l i t y
o f the students in th is school, compared to other schools?

Teacher Academic F u t i l i t y .
a.

b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

(TSCL4)

(TSCL5)

I t would be u n fa ir fo r teachers in th is school to in s is t
on a higher level of achievement from students than they
now seem capable o f achieving.
I f I think a student is not able to do some school work,
I don't t r y to push him very hard.
I am generally very careful not to push students to a
level of f r u s t r a t io n .
How many students in th is school are content to do less
than they should?
How many students in your class are content to do less
than they should.
The parents o f students in th is school regard th is school
p rim a rily as a "b ab y -sittin g " agency.

301

g.
h.

B.

How many o f the parents o f students in th is school do n't
care i f t h e i r children obtain low grades?
In th is school, there is r e a l l y very l i t t l e a teacher can
do to insure th a t a l l o f h is /h e r students achieve a t a
high l e v e l .

Other Teacher Variables
1.

Teacher Reported Practices in Controlling Students' A c t i v i t i e s .
(TOPEN)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

2.

Degree o f Teacher In te r e s t in Producing Personal and Social
Growth.
a.

b.

3.

b.

Approximately what percentage o f the typical school day
is spent on conferring with individual students about
academic progress and about behavior or personal and
social growth?
To what extent are your teaching objectives the same or
d i f f e r e n t f o r your students?

Teacher Reported Use o f Non-homogeneous grouping.
a.

5.

How successful would you say your school has been with
regard to student development in the areas o f (a) teach­
ing academic s k i l l s ; (b) enhancing social s k i l l s ; (c)
personal growth and development; (d) educational/
occupational aspirations?
What do you consider to be your primary r e s p o n s ib ility to
students in your class: (1 ) teaching of academic subjects;
(2 ) enhancing social s k i l l s and social in te ra c tio n ; (3)
personal growth and development; (4) encouraging educational/
occupational as p iratio n s ; (5 ) other?

Teacher Reported Attention to In d iv id u a liz a tio n o f In s tru c tio n .
a.

4.

What is your policy with regard to students ta lk in g to
each other while they are working on class assignments?
How do you feel about students walking around in the class­
room?
What kind of seating arrangement do you have in your classes?
In your classes, how often are students' seats changed?
How often do you work with your class as a whole?
How often are a l l o f your students working on the same
lesson?

In general, how do you group the students w ithin your
class?

Degree of Teacher Acceptance o f R esponsibility fo r Their
Students' Performance.
a.

How responsible do you fe e l fo r a student's academic
achievement?

302
b.
c.

6.

To what extent do you think th a t teaching methods a f fe c t
students' achievement?
To what extent do you think teachers' a ttitu d e s toward
t h e i r students a f f e c t t h e i r student's achievement?

Extent to Which Teachers With Average Students Report High
Expectations For Their Achievement.
a.

On the average, what level of achievement can be expected
o f the students in your class?
b. How would you rate the academic a b i l i t y o f the students
in this school compared to other schools?
c. What percent o f the students in your class do you expect
to complete high school?
d. What percent of the students in th is school would you say
want to complete high school?
e. What percent o f the students in your class would you say
want to complete high school?
f . What percent of the students in your class would you say
want to go to college?
g. Completion of high school is a r e a l i s t i c goal which you
set f o r what percentage o f your students?
h. How many students in your class are content to do less
than they should?
7.

Reported Value Teachers Hold For I.Q . Tests.
a.

How important do you think standardized in te llig e n c e te s t
scores o f your students are?
b. How often do you r e fe r to or consider the I.Q . te s t scores
o f your students when you plan t h e i r work?
8.

Teachers Report o f Their Relationships With Parents.
a.
b.
c.

C.

The parents o f students in th is school are deeply concerned
th a t t h e i r children receive a top q u a lity education.
How many o f the parents of students in th is school want
feedback from the prin cipal and teachers on how t h e i r c h ild ­
ren are doing in school?
What proportion of your students' parents do you know when
you see them?

Student Climate Variables
1.

Student Sense o f Academic F u t i l i t y . (SSCL1)
a.
b.
c.

How many students in th is school do n't care i f they get
bad grades?
How many students in th is school make fun of or tease
students who get real good grades?
How many students don't do as well as they could do in
school because they are a fra id other students won't li k e
them as much.

303
d.

e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
1.

2.

Student Future Evaluations and Expectations.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

h.
i.
j.

3.

How many students don't do as well as they could do in
school because they are a fra id t h e i r friends won't l i k e
them as much?
People l i k e me w i l l not have much o f a chance to do what
we want to in l i f e .
People l i k e me w i l l never do well in school even though
we t r y hard.
I can do well in school i f I work hard.
In th is school, students l i k e me don't have any luck.
You have to be lucky to get good grades in th is school.
How many teachers in th is school t e l l students to t r y and
get b e tte r grades than t h e i r classmates?
Of the teachers th a t you know in th is school, how many
do n 't care i f the students get bad grades?
Of the teachers th a t you know in th is school, how many
do n't care how hard the student works, as long as he
passes?
(SSCL2)

I f you could go as f a r as you wanted in school, how f a r
would you li k e to go?
Sometimes what you want to happen is not what you think
w i l l happen. How f a r do you think you w i l l go in school?
I f most o f the students here could go as f a r as they
wanted in school, how f a r would they go?
How f a r do you think your best frien d believes you w i l l
go in school?
How f a r do you think the teacher you li k e best believes
you w i l l go in school?
Does your teacher think you could fin is h college?
Remember you need more than four years of college to be a
teacher or doctor. Does your teacher think you could do
that?
How f a r do you think your parents believe you w i l l go in
school?
Do your parents think you could fin is h college?
Remember you need more than four years of college to be a
teacher or doctor.
Do your parents think you could do that?

Student Perceived Present Evaluations and Expectations. (SSCL3)
a.
b.

c.

d.

How good a student does the teacher you lik e the best expect
you to be in school?
Think of your teacher. Would your teacher say you can do
school work b e t t e r , the same or poorer than other people your
age?
Would your teacher say th a t your grades would be with the
best, same as most or below most o f the students when you
graduate from high school?
How good o f a student do your parents expect you to be in
school?

304
e.
f.

4.

Student Perception of Teacher Push and Teacher Norms. (SSCL4)
a.
b.
c.
d.

5.

Of the teachers th a t you know in th is school, how many
t e l l students to t r y hard to do b e tte r on tests?
How often do teachers in th is school t r y to help students
who do badly on t h e i r school work?
How important is i t to teachers in th is school th a t t h e i r
students learn t h e ir school work?
Think about the teachers you know in th is school.
Do you
think the teachers
in th is school care more, or le s s , than
teachers in other schools about whether or not t h e ir
students learn t h e ir school work?

Student Academic Norms. (SSCL5)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

D.

Think o f your parents. Do your parents say you can do
school work b e t t e r , the same or poorer than your friends?
Would your parents say th a t your grades would be with the
best, same as most or below most o f the students when you
f in is h high school?

How many students in th is school t r y hard to get a good
grade on t h e i r weekly tests?
How many students in th is school w i l l work hard to get a
b e tte r grade on the weekly tests than t h e i r friends do?
How important do most of the students in th is cl ass fe el i t
is to do well in school work?
How important do you think most of the students in this
school feel i t is to do well in school work?
Compared to students in other schools, how much do
students in this school learn?
Compared to students from other schools, how well w i l l
most of the students from th is school do in high school?

Other Student V a ria b le s .
1.

Student Report of Teacher's Use o f Authority to Control Class
A c t iv it ie s (SOPEN).
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

2.

I can t a lk to other students while I work.
In class, I can move about the room without asking the
teacher.
In class, I have the same seat and I must s i t next to the
same students.
When I am working on a lesson, the other students in my
class are working on the same lesson.
In most o f my classes, the teacher t e l l s me what I must
work on; I have no choice.
In class, the teacher stands in fro n t o f the room and works
with the class as a whole.

Student Self-Concept of Academic A b i l i t y (SCAA).
a.

Think of your frie n d s .
Do you think you can do school
work b e tte r , the same or poorer than your friends?

305

b.

c.

d.
e.

f.

g.
h.
E.

Think o f the students in your class. Do you think you
can do school work b e tte r , the same or poorer than the
students in your class?
When you fin is h high school, do you think you w ill be
one o f the best students, about the same as most or
below most o f the students?
Do you think you could fin is h college?
I f you went to co lleg e, do you think you would be one o f
the best students, same as most or below most o f the
students?
I f you want to be a doctor or a teacher, you need more
than four years o f co lleg e. Do you think you could do
that?
Forget how your teachers mark your work. How good do
you think your own work is?
How good of a student do you think you can be in this
school?

Outcome V a ria b le s .
1.

Students' Reported Sense o f S e lf-R e lia n c e . (SRELI)
a.

b.

c.

d.

2.

Students' Reported Sense o f Competitiveness. (COMPET)
a.
b.

3.

I f your teacher gave you a hard assignment, would you
rath er fig u re out how to do i t by yo u rself or would you
want your teacher to t e l l you how to do it ?
Suppose you had some fre e time and wanted to do something
fun but a l l your friends were busy and co uld n't play with
you. Do you think you could fin d something fun to do a ll
by yourself?
Sometimes we are faced with a problem th a t a t f i r s t seems
too d i f f i c u l t fo r us to handle. When th is happens, how
often do you t r y to solve the problem a l l by yo u rself
instead of asking someone fo r help?
Some people enjoy solving problems or making decisions
a l l by themselves, other people don't enjoy i t .
Do you
lik e to solve problems a l l by yourself?

How many
grade on
How many
a b e tte r

students in th is school t r y hard to get a good
t h e ir weekly tests?
students in th is school w ill work hard to get
grade on the weekly tests than t h e ir friends do?

Students' Reported Aspirations For College. (COLLEGE)
a.
b.
c.

I f you could go as f a r as you wanted in school, how f a r
would you li k e to go?
Do you think you could fin is h college?
I f you want to be a doctor or a teacher, you need more
than four years o f c o lleg e. Do you think you could do
that?

APPENDIX C

ITEMS CLUSTERING INTO FACTORS AT THE INDIVIDUAL,
CLASS, AND SCHOOL LEVELS UNDER A TEN-FACTOR
VARIMAX FACTOR ANALYSIS

Factor

I

Item Numbers
Individual Class
Level
Level
29
30
31
33
35
37
46
47
48
51
57
58
59
—

36
- -

*
IA
Column
One
Only
II

34
54
55
60
61
42
13
20
21
22
40
44
—
—
- -

11A
Column
One
Only

29
30
31
33
35
37
46
47
48
51
57
58
59
32
—

43
34
54
55
60
61

29
30
31
33
35
37
46
47
48
51
57
58
59
32
36

—

—

—

—

9
10
15
38
45
56
-------

9
10
15
38
45
56
32
34
54
60

IV

49
50
52
53
69

49
50
52
53
69
37
--

49
50
52
53
69
__
55

V

--43
11
12
17
18
19
14
62
63
68
70
71
72
.......64" '
65
66
67

_

—

11
12
17
18
19
--62
63
68
70
71
72
64
65
66
67
---

—

-------

16
26
39
41

16
26

-------

-----

IX

---

23

-------

X

—

36

- —

24
25
27
28

9
10
15
38
45
56
32
------

_ _

13
20
21
22
40
44
14
41
42
23
24
25
27
28
19
26
43

School
Level

III

- -

—

—

Factor

- -

13
20
21
22
40
44
14
41
42

23
24
25
27
28

___“ “ ......

School
Level

Item Numbers
Individual Class
Level
Level

VI

V II

V III

'

11
12
17
18
-_

---68
--71
72
" 64......
65
66
67
62
63
-------

★

These items formed a separate fa c to r at the individual level o f
analysis, which we have ca lled fa c to r IA. Note th a t items 34, 54, 60
from this c lu s te r also group together in fa c to r I I I under the school
level of analysis. Factor I I also contains a subfactor at the individual
level of analysis.

306

APPENDIX D

FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF THE PARENTS
OF CENTRAL OPEN SCHOOL

SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF THE OPEN SCHOOL PHILOSOPHY

An open school has the basic goal o f using c h ild
development knowledge when estab lish ing goals,
curriculum and methodology.

Child development considerations:
1.

The q u a lity of l i f e the c h ild is experiencing is viewed as
important now, not considered a preparation fo r the fu tu re .

2*

Learning, not teaching is emphasized.

3.

In te r a c tio n , between ad ult and c h ild , reinforces the c h ild 's
feelin gs of competency - s e lf-c o n c ep t. Children are
respected and trea ted with d ig n ity .

4.

Knowledge of how children (and adults) learn is understood
and practiced.
a.
b.

c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

i.

j.

Children learn f a s t e r , learn more and r e ta in longer when
s e lf-m o tivated and in te re s te d in the subject or a c t i v i t y .
Children learn from each other and through in te r a c tio n ,
can be between ad ult and c h ild . To be successful, c h ild en must have in te ra c tio n with successful ad u lt model.
Children learn from concrete sensory, fir s t-h a n d exper­
iences. Progression to abstract learning is gradual.
Children learn through physical in te ra c tio n with
t h e i r environment.
Children can and do learn when there is some "noise"
and a c t i v i t y .
Children respond to expectations - both in q u a lit y of
work done and by appropriate behavior.
Children learn through play as well as work, less
dichotomy between work and play.
Children learn more e f f e c t i v e l y when relie v e d of
external f r u s t r a t io n , a n x ie ty , re je c tio n o f selves
or work, (judgmental a d u lts ).
Learning is more e f f i c i e n t when a c t i v i t i e s are designed
to meet the present needs o f the c h ild , not too d i f f i ­
c u l t , too simple, or inappropriate to the developmental
le v e l.
Children learn re s p o n s ib ility in an atmosphere of mutual
tru s t.

5.

Expression o f ideas and fe elin gs are encouraged and valued.

6.

Societal taboos are examined; sex, r a c i a l , c u l t u r a l , e tc .

7.

The importance of the growth o f the "whole c h ild " (p h ys ica l,
s o c ia l, emotional and i n t e l l e c t u a l ) is recognized and

307

308
incorporated in the curriculum. A r t , music, science,
physical a c t i v i t i e s are valuable in t h e i r own r i g h t , not
viewed as something you do when the "three R' sf1 are
fin is h e d .
8.

Subjects are in te r r e la te d whenever possible.

9.

Children make as many decisions as possible—what,
and how to pursue an in t e r e s t .

when,

10.

Segmentation - age, sex, in t e r e s t , t a le n t s , e tc . is viewed
as an unfortunate aspect o f American c u ltu re . Every e f f o r t
is made to include experiences with people of d i f f e r e n t
s k i l l s , in t e r e s t s , ages, c u ltu re s , races, e tc .

11.

Areas o f study are more f l e x i b l e .
Children are involved
in the planning and teachers incorporate c h ild re n 's
in te re s ts and expressed needs in to the curriculum.

12.

Curriculum is in d iv id u a liz e d . Learning i s , however, imple­
mented with cooperation, in te r a c t io n , and communication
valued.

13.

The thinking process is emphasized ra th e r than rote learning
of facts . . . c r e a tiv e , divergent th in k in g - in te r e s t in
continued learning and how to le a r n .

Adult R e s p o n s ib ilitie s
The teacher in an open classroom has a challenging, very important,
d i f f i c u l t but rewarding r o le . A large share of the teacher's task is
the development o f the classroom environment. A c t iv it ie s and areas
must be planned, organized and managed keeping the needs and in terests
of individual children in mind, as well as the needs o f the e n tir e
group. He is expected to pass on to children the s k i l l s , a t t it u d e s ,
knowledge and values th a t produce mature, c re a tiv e and happy adults.
The teacher f a c i l i t a t e s , encourages, guides, observes, i n i t i a t e s new
d ire c tio n s , suggests new techniques, engages in d ir e c t encounters with
the children and becomes involved a c tiv e ly with them.
The teacher must assess her own work, ch ildren s' work, and report
progress without threatening the c h ild 's fe e lin g o f self-w o rth or
confidence. A teacher involved in an open school needs a l l the
support, encouragement and assistance possible from ad m inistrators,
parents and the community.

DM 1973

APPENDIX E

CENTRAL OPEN SCHOOL
OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT

CENTRAL OPEN SCHOOL
OBSERVATION RATING SCALE
Please en c irc le the number th a t most clo sely corresponds to your
observation.
i/>
s.

<u
>

s- <D
to
c:
J=> o
O
CL
to
<D <U
-a cc
a;
to

<u
to
1-- eo
ra Q.
CD lO
-a CD
i—i CC

a
at
S
as

•r—
to c

+-> tO
=> cu
o s:

T3
<U to
> +j
i— c
O a)
> Jc ra
i—i a .

• 2.07

2.40

1.

The same te x t and m aterials are supplied
to each c h ild in a classroom so th a t
each c h ild may have his own.

1

2.

Each ch ild has a space fo r his belongings and the major p art o f the classroom
is arranged f o r common use.

4

3.08

3.18

3.

M aterials are kept out of the way u n til
they are used under the teacher's
d ire c tio n .

1

1.00

1.31

4.

Many d if f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s go on at the
same time in the classroom.

4

3.86

3.25

5.

Children are expected to do t h e i r own
work without g e ttin g help from other
children .

2

1.57

1.19

6.

Many d if f e r e n t m aterials are supplied,
with l i t t l e d u p lic a tio n , a t various
levels of d i f f i c u l t y .

4

3.64

3.18

7.

The school day is divided in to large
blocks of time and c h ild re n , with the
teacher's help, choose t h e i r own routine.

4

3.79

3.24

8.

Children work in d iv id u a lly and in small
groups a t various a c t i v i t i e s .

4

3.62

3.29

9.

Many d i f f e r e n t books are supplied,
including reference books and
ch ild ren 's l i t e r a t u r e .

4

3.62

3.26

10.

Children should have permission to
move about the room.

1

309

3.29

2.07

<u
c
o
CL
to
a>
cc
to

310

to
SCD
>
JCD
to
JO
O

r—
fO
<D
-O
i— i CC

CD
10
C
O
Oto
CD CD
-a cc
•(—
to c
+-> (O
3 CD
O Si

-O
CD
CD to tO
> +J C
r— C O
O CD Q.
> s_ to
s= re a>
i— i CL DC

1 .00

1.19

CD

10

c
O
Qto
CD

a
to

CD

s:

11.

Desks are arranged so th a t every ch ild
can see the blackboard or teacher from
his desk.

1

12.

The classroom m aterials include m aterials
developed by the teacher.

4

3.14

3.23

13.

Common objects and substances found in
and around the home are used in the
classroom.

4

3.29

3.25

14.

Children may decide on t h e ir own to
make use o f other areas o f the building
as part o f t h e i r school time.

4

3.00

2.28

15.

Even fo r in d ivid ual children the school
program conmonly uses the neighborhood
and the community.

4

2.85

3.01

16.

Children use "books" w ritte n by t h e ir
classmates as p art o f t h e ir reading
and reference m a te ria ls .

4

2.36

2.20

17.

Adults and children t r e a t mistakes as
a part of learning ra th e r than as
measures o f f a i l u r e .

4

4.00

3.23

18.

The teacher prefers th a t children be
q u iet when they are supposed to be working.

2

2.23

1.20

19.

Children may decide on t h e i r own to
group and regroup themselves.

4

3.67

3.15

20.

The classroom m aterials include materials
developed or supplied by the ch ildren .

4

3.46

3.16

21.

The teacher plans and schedules the
c h ild ren 's a c t i v i t i e s through the day.

2

1.52

1.31

22.

A student is allowed to play only a f t e r
his work has been completed.

2

1.29

1.21

311

cu
e
1— o
(C Q.
a> to
•o a>
l-H CC
to

to

cu
to
c
o
C l­

C
CO
cu
s:

s~ io
<u <d cu
■a > cc
•i- sto a> c
4-> to <a
zs _a cu
o o

-a
cu
cu to to
> -*-> c
i— c o
o cu Q_
> s- to
c ro CD
m a_ cc

23.

The teacher makes sure children use
materials only as instructed.

2

1.29

2.02

24.

The teacher groups children fo r lessons
directed at s p e c ific needs.

3

2.13

3.05

25.

The children work d ir e c t ly with real
objects they handle.

4

3.86

3.24

26.

M aterials are re a d ily accessible to
ch ildren.

4

4.00

3.32

27.

Motivation o f students is based on each
in d iv id u a l's needs and in te re s ts and not
on comparisons between students.

4

3.82

3.30

28.

Children are grouped f o r reading and/or
math in stru ctio n on the basis of
achievement.

2

1.22

1.25

29.

The children expect the teacher to
correct a l l t h e ir work.

1

1.31

1.26

30.

The teacher bases in s tru c tio n fo r each
individual c h ild on the way each ch ild
uses m aterials and equipment.

4

3.40

3.08

31.

Adults in te r a c t with students so as to
fo s te r the c h ild re n 's good feelings
about themselves.

4

4.00

3.27

32.

The progress of students is determined
by te stin g them.

2

1.60

1.14

33.

People in the classroom act in a warm
and accepting way.

4

3.93

3.22

34.

The work children do is divided in to
subject matter areas.

1

2.42

2.15

35.

The teacher's lessons and assignments
are given to the class as a whole.

1

1.15

1.26

36.

The teacher closely observes the c h ild
and asks immediate questions based on
what the teacher observes.

4

3.73

3.04

312

CU

c

in

c
to Cl
L- tO
CU CU
> C
C

ra
cu

o

cu

to
c
r— O

ra a.
cu to
-o cu
r-r C
C

cu
-o

•1— ito a>
4-> to

x>

s:

cu
cu to to

> 4-> C
C O
o cu a.
> i- CO

i—

c
to
jj

o o s:

c. ra cu
1— 1 C
l. c
c

1.21

1 .18

37.

In stru ctio n is based on curriculum
guides or te x t books.

2

38.

The teacher keeps notes and w rites
individual h is to rie s o f each c h ild 's
i n t e l l e c t u a l , emotiona’ and physical
development.

4

39.

Children o f d i f f e r e n t ages are in the
same classroom.

4

3.00

3.14

40.

Children are happy and e n th u s ia s tic .

4

3.86

3.30

41.

The class operates w ith in guidelines
developed by the students and the
teacher.

4

4.00

3.19

42.

D isruptive behavior is worked out between
the teacher and those students involved.

4

3.60

3.26

43.

Children's a c t i v i t i e s , products and
ideas are re fle c te d abundantly about the
classroom.

4

3.64

3.26

44.

There is evidence th a t c u ltu ra l d i f f e r ences are respected and u t i l i z e d in the
classroom.

4

3.62

3.19

45.

Before the teacher makes recommendations
to change a student's a c t i v i t y , he finds
out how well the a c t i v i t y is meeting the
student's goals.

4

3.70

3.09

46.

The children are fre e to look a t and
discuss each o th er's work.

4

3.79

3.25

47.

The teacher obtains support and advice
from the p r in c ip a l.

4

48.

The teacher t r i e s to keep a l l children
w ithin sig ht to make sure they are doing
what they are supposed to do.

1

1.29

1.33

49.

Teachers help one another.

4

3.00

3.15

-

-

3.07

3.09

313

cu
to

<u
C/>
c
— o
CO Q.
CU CO
-o CU
i—• cc

in Q.
S- i/i
d) a) aj
T3 > cu
•i—i~
(/> <u c
+J in re
3
a>
0 0 2 :

c
IB
a>
2 :
•a
<u
a> in in
> +J c
r— c o
O ai cl
> S- to
c 10 cu
►
—1a. cc

c
o

1

50.

A c o lle c tio n o f each c h ild 's work is used
by the teacher to make evaluations and
to encourage the c h ild 's s e lf-e v a lu a tio n .

4

3 .00

3.15

51.

Evaluation is used by the teacher to
guide classroom a c t i v i t i e s .

2

3.50

3.11

52.

Classroom m aterials and a c t i v i t i e s
include those developed and supervised
by parents.

4

3.08

3.16

53.

Academic achievement is the teacher's
top p r i o r i t y fo r the c h ild ren .

1

1.21

1.24

54.

Children are in terested in what they
are doing.

4

3.86

3.28

APPENDIX F

COMPARISON OF SURVEY OPENNESS ITEMS
WITH SIMILAR ITEMS IN CENTRAL OPEN
SCHOOL OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT

Comparison of Openness Scale Items From the Student Survey With
Related Items From the Central Open School Observation Instrument
And The Observation Items' Ideal and Observed Values.

SURVEY ITEM 62
I can t a lk to other students while
I work.
(1 = always, 5 = never)
(1 = no evidence, 4 = much evidence)
Outside
Observer

Parent
Observer

2

2.23

1.20

4

3.79

3.25

1

3.29

2.07

4

3.00

2.28

Ideal
OBSERVATION ITEM 18
The teacher prefers th a t children
be quiet when they are supposed
to be working.
OBSERVATION ITEM 46
The children are fre e to look a t
and discuss each others work.
SURVEY ITEM 63
In c la ss , I can move about the room
without asking the teacher.
OBSERVATION ITEM 10*
Children should have permission
to move about the room.
OBSERVATION ITEM 14
Children may decide on t h e i r own
to make use of other areas of
the bu ilding as part of t h e i r
school time.
SURVEY ITEM 64
In class, I have the same seat and I
must s i t next to the same students.
•k

The differences between the outside observers and parent observers
mean scores fo r item #10 may r e s u lt from d if f e r in g in te rp re ta tio n s o f the
wording of the item. This item had the la rg e s t discrepancy of any item
in the 54 item observation instrument. The outside observers may have
placed the emphasis o f the item on the word "permission" and may have ob­
served considerable student movement and concluded th a t students "should
have permission" and do! The parent observers, on the other hand, may
have placed the emphasis on the word "should" and could have observed
th at the students moved about f r e e ly without gaining permission, and so
concluded th a t students d id n 't and shouldn't need to seek permission to
move about. To put i t another way, the outside observers in te r p r e ta tio n
of the item led them to view the response "much evidence" as favoring
openness, while the parent observers' in te r p r e ta tio n led them to view
the same response as opposing openness.

314

315
OBSERVATION ITEM 11
Desks are arranged so th a t every
c h ild can see the blackboard or
teacher from his desk.

1

1.00

1.19

SURVEY ITEM 65
When I am working on a lesson, the other
students in my class are working on the
same lesson.
OBSERVATION ITEM 4
Many d if f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s go on at
the same time in the classroom.
OBSERVATION ITEM 8
Children work in d iv id u a lly and in
small groups a t various a c t i v i t i e s .

4

3.86

3.25

4

3.62

3.29

2

1.52

1.31

1

1.29

1.33

4

3.67

3.15

1

1.15

1.26

SURVEY ITEM 66
In most of my classes, the teacher t e l l s
me what I must work on; I have no choice
OBSERVATION ITEM 21
The teacher plans and schedules the
ch ild re n 's a c t i v i t i e s through the day.
OBSERVATION ITEM 48
The teacher t r ie s to keep a l l c h ild ­
ren w ithin sig h t to make sure they
are doing what they are supposed to do.
SURVEY ITEM 67
In class, the teacher stands in fr o n t of
the room and works with the class as a
whole.
OBSERVATION ITEM 19
Children may decide on t h e i r own
to group and regroup themselves.
OBSERVATION ITEM 35
The teacher's lessons and assign­
ments are given to the class as a
whole.

APPENDIX 6

ARCHETYPAL OPEN
TEACHER ATTITUDES

Archetypal Open School Teachers1
Responses to Survey Items

Item Number

Mean Response

15
17
18
20
22
29
30
31
33
34
42
50
57
61
65
68
70
71
72
73
74a
74b
74c
74f
78
86b
86c
87
88

3.0
3.2
1.2
3.0
4.8
3.0
4.6
5.0
4 .8
4.4
4 .8
4.4
2.0
4.4
4.4
3.0
3.8
4.0
4 .8
2.0
4 .8
4.6
4.8
4.6
4.6
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0

316

APPENDIX H

EFFECT OF TIME OF YEAR OF SURVEY
ON PERCENT OF PARENTS
KNOWN BY TEACHERS

In order to determine i f the reported percent of parents
known by teachers was related to the time o f year th a t the survey
was administered, the following analysis was performed.
were divided in to four categories:

Classes

white classes surveyed e a rly

and l a t e , black classes surveyed e a rly and l a t e .

T -te s ts o f the

responses to the item concerning percent o f parents known were
run fo r the two pairs of ra c ia l groups.

The resu lts are in the

table below.
N

Mean

W hite/Early

24

1.50

White/Late

47

1.96

Black/Early

16

2.44

Black/Late

29

2.97

t

p

-2 .2 0

.031

-1 .2 7

NS

A response of 1 indicates th a t a teacher recognizes nearly a l l of
h is /h e r parents on s ig h t.

Curiously, fewer parents seem to be

known by teachers whose classes were surveyed l a t e r in the ye ar.
We may conclude, at le a s t, th a t the opposite possible e f f e c t does
not seem to be the case.

317

APPENDIX I

CLASS LEVEL CORRELATION MATRIX
SCHOOL LEVEL CORRELATION MATRIX

-01

-19

-11

-13

22

.25

06
.56
-.66
-08

16
.49
-.46
-13

07

18

03

-.3 4
- .4 0

16
.25
1

02
.24
-18
-08
13
19
.46
.65

.26

.36
1

09
13
-03
15
.58
.49
.84
18

01
18
.30
1

SCAA

-.72
-14
-13

. 61
-.32
1

-05
.34
.58
.44
.86
.37
.53
1

19
-20
-16
17
.24
.32
.36
.37
03
.52
.49
1

.45
-06
.44
.48
.53
1

04
-07
.51
.34
.41
08
.30
-.34
.50
15
16
.31
1

-02

.56
.28

.24
-11
-03
-.5 7
.30
-19
-03
06
.69
1

-07
06
.29
-.3 0
.00
06
26
23
04
.35
07
22

11
05
07
-02
-08
.28
21
19
-07
11
-20
22
-0 4
-0 2
12
.75
.54
.58

-1 3
-1 8
-1 4
08
-06
-1 9
- .2 5
-21
-0 6
-.2 5
11
-1 5
-1 5
-06
-11
- .2 8
-.3 2
-15
10
1

14
-0 3
- .5 6
.52
12
.50
02
-0 5
-1 3
- .3 2
- .5 3
10
- .3 4
-0 2
-1 3
.25
.52
10
17
00
1

.25
05

09
.55

.29
1

1

TSCL5
MATH
READING

COMBMR ________________________________

( ATI | r 1 £ .2 4

are s i g n if ic a n t a t P < . 0 5 )

COMBMR

-.24

16
.57
-.47
-02
09
.43
.74

READING

-12

13
21
-21
-11

MATH

-05

-07
23
-10
19
.44
.57
1

TSCL5

-09

-07
07
-01
16
.35
1

TSCL4

-13

11
-.39
.47
17
1

TSCL1

.31

-04
-04
03
1

SSCL2

-06

SSCL1

.24
-05
-.93
1

UJ

TSCL3

TSCL2

SSCL5

SSCL4

SSCL3

COMPET

COLLEGE

-21
05
1

to

<s>

SRELI

.69
1

MALES

I

WHITE

TOPEN
BLACK
WHITE
MALES
SES
SREL1
COLLEGE
COMPET
SCAA
SSCL1
SSCL2
SSCL3
SSCL4
SSCL5
TSCL1
TSCL2
TSCL3
TSCL4

BLACK

SOPEN

TOPEN

SOPEN

SCHOOL LEVEL CORRELATION MATRIX FOR
MODIFIED SAMPLE OF 70 SCHOOLS

13
-0 7
- .6 2
.6 3
-06
.55
03
-0 5
-1 4
-.3 1
- .6 2
14
-.3 1
-0 3
-1 2
.24
.53
01
14
01
.86
1

14
-0 5
-.6 1
.60
03
.55
03
-0 5
-14
-.3 2
-.6 0
13
- .3 4
-02
-13
.26
.55
05
16
01
.96
.97
1

CLASS LEVEL CORRELATION MATRIX
FOR MODIFIED SAMPLE OF 309
CLASSES

Z

z

LU

oo

a.

Q_

>-

__ 1

to

SOPEN
TOPEN
BLACK
WHITE
MALES
SES
SRELI
COLLEGE
COMPET
SCAA
SSCL1
SSCL2
SSCL3
SSCL4
SSCL5
N
TSCL1
TSCL2
TSCL3
TSCL4
TSCL5
T. SEX
T.TRAINING
T. RACE
ZDIFF

1

1—

.54
1

co

3

e

:

ts

LU

to
to

-.12
.14
.32
.00
.02 -.0 1 -.0 3
.16
1 -.91 -.05 -.3 2
1 -.02
.39
1
.05
1

LU

to

— I
CJ

i—
LU

s:
o

—<*»

<
to

-.01
-.01
.07
.00
.07
. 21

.08 - . 0 8
.00
.14
.06
.07
.16
.14
. 41
-.08 -.1 2 -.3 4
-.01 - . 1 8 - . 0 3
.30 - . 0 9
.05
1
.40
.20
.35
.17
1
.62
1
.27
1

7—

CM

CO

•53*

LO

r-

C\J

o
to

O

cj

CJ

O

tj

CJ
CO
t—

to

-.24
.15
-.11
.16
.42
.09
-.49 -.0 0
.10
.00
-.54
.45
-.09
.36
-.11
. 81
.16
.14
.25
.50
1 -.26
1

(Jl

-.12
.05
.37
-.33
-.06
-.03
.31
.44
.30
.80
.30
.45
1

C/O

-.13

CO

z

1—

-.12 -.15
.23
.03
.03 -.1 5
.19
.12
.13 - . 0 3 - . 0 8
.12
-10 -.0 7
.12
-.14 -.1 2
. 01 - . 0 3
.06 - . 0 2
.00
.42
.20
.24
09
.15
.22
.22
04
.22
.44
.70
01 - . 0 4
.20
. 31
05
.15
.01
.04
-04 -.2 3
.28
04
.30
. 31
.27
.35
.09
.05
1
.53
. 01
.09
1
.03
.06
1 -.07
1

.12
.18
-.25
.30
-.03
.34
.04

CO
—J

o

CO

-.13
-11
.08
-.07
. 01
-.01
.06
.12 - . 0 2
.02 - . 0 1
.03
.10
-.24
.06
.18
.00
-.05
.04
.10
.05
.04
.04
.03 - . 0 2
.64
.32
1
.26
1

*3 —J
CJ
CO

ID
J
CJ
CO

. 11

-.07

1—

h-

.00 - . 0 5
-.07 -.1 7
.10
.11
.04
.17
.23
-11
.13 - . 1 2
.08 - . 1 3
-.06
.00
.09 - . 1 5
.07
-.16
.17 - . 1 5
.02 - . 1 0
.06
.05
.04 - . 0 7
-.06
.00
.55 - . 0 8
.45
.10
.44
.04
1
.04
1

X
LU
CO

HH
c

o

CC.

Li_
u_

1—

Q
IM

et

f—

h-.08
.02
-.13
.09
.03 - . 1 0
-.06
.06
.00 -.0 1
-.09
.15
.02 -.0 1
-.03
.01
-.03
.02
-.03 -.04
.12 - . 0 4
-.10
.01
.00 - . 0 3
-.11 -.0 5
-.05 -.0 6
-.05
. 01
-.05
. 01
. 01
.03
.00 - . 1 8
-.09 -.1 4
.06 - . 0 2
1
.16
1

-.03
.07
-.51
.47
-.02
.09

-.11
.60
.14
-.14
-.03
-.13

-.10
-.13
-.04
-.26

.10
.07
.03
.08

-.19
-.14

.10
.03
.06
.05
.04

-.25
-.07
-.09
.11
-.11
.13
-.10
-.12
.27
.06
.08
1

-.02
-.06
.00
-.02
-.12
-.11
-.06
.09
.03
1

( A l l |r| >..10

are s ig n if ic a n t a t P < . 0 5 )

co

1