INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a docum ent sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, the quality b heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted. The following explanation o f techniques b provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on th b reproduction. 1.T he sign or “ target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed b "Missing Pagc(s)" If it was possible to obtain the missing pagc(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. T h b may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you o f complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film b obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed cither blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we m eant to delete copyrighted m atcriab that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., b part of the material being photo* graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning" the material. It b customary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning b continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satbfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indbtinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD. ANN ARBOR. Ml 4 8 1 0 6 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON W CIR 4 E J. ENGLAND 7917689 CRANE. ROBERT LEE A STUDY EF MICHIGAN PUBLIC MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER AND ADMINISTRATOR ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE CF GRADES AS COMPARED WITH SELECTED ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF P U P IL PROGRESS REPORTING. MICHIGAN STATE U N I V E R S I T Y . University MtadRbns lntemattorvd won m.MOAD,annarboh, musiog P H .D .. 1978 PLEASE NOTE: In a ll cases th is m aterial has been filmed 1n the best possible way from the av ailab le copy. Problems encountered with th is document have been Id en tified here vrlth a check mark v * . 1. Glossy photographs ________ 2. Colored Illu s tra tio n s ________ 3. Photographs with dark background __ '4. Illu s tra tio n s are poor co p y ________ 5. P rin t shows through as there 1s text on both sides o f page _________ 6. In d is tin c t, broken or small p rin t on several pages 7. Tightly bound copy with p r in t lo s t In spine ________ 8. Computer p rin to u t pages with In d istin c t p r in t ________ 9. Page(s) lacking when m aterial received, and not available from school o r author ________ 10. ^ throughout P a g e (s)________seem to be missing 1n numbering only as tex t follows ________ 11. Poor carbon copy ________ 12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred type _____ 13. Appendix pages are poor copy ________ 14. Original copy with lig h t type ________ 15. Curling and wrinkled p ag e s________ 16. O th e r____________________________________________________________ __ University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB RD.. ANN ARBOR. Ml ->8106 <3131 761-4700 A STUDY OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER AND ADMINISTRATOR ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF GRADES AS COMPARED WITH SELECTED ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING By Robert L. Crane A DISSERTATION Submi t t e d t o Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 1n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e requirements f o r t h e d egre e o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Higher Education 1978 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER AND ADMINISTRATOR ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF GRADES AS COMPARED WITH SELECTED ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING By Robert L. Crane The focus o f t h e r e s e a r c h was th e a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward A B C D F r e p o r t i n g as compared with seven a l t e r n a t i v e r e p o r t i n g methods I n c l u d i n g b l a n k e t g r a d e s , check 11st r e p o r t i n g , c r e d l t - n o c r e d i t , n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t s , p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , p a s s - f a l l , and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . The r e s e a r c h was a r e p l i c a t i o n o f a stu d y conducted 1n 1977 by William G. S c h a r f f e , who i n v e s t i g a t e d th e a t t i t u d e s o f e le m entary e d u c a t o r s toward t h e same r e p o r t i n g methods. A s e l e c t e d sample o f 484 t e a c h e r s and 39 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s was drawn by randomly s e l e c t i n g 160 p u b l i c middle s c h o o l s which Inclu d e grades s i x , seven, and e i g h t th rou g ho u t t h e S t a t e o f Michigan. This group o f 160 sch o o ls was f u r t h e r narrowed t o 30 b u i l d i n g s a f t e r d e t e r ­ mining t h e i r l e v e l s o f implementation o f middle school c h a r a c t e r ­ i s t i c s by u t i l i z i n g a middle school I d e n t i f i c a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e and seeking commitment from b u i l d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t h e i r s t a f f s t o p a r t i c i p a te f u r t h e r in the study. F i f t e e n b u i l d i n g s were I d e n t i f i e d Robert L. Crane as "high" middle sch o o ls and 15 were "low" middle s c h o o l s . A response r a t e o f 53 p e r c e n t was o b t a i n e d from t h e t o t a l number o f a v a i l a b l e t e a c h e r s and 61 p e r c e n t o f t h e a v a i l a b l e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s p a r t i c i p a t e d 1n the stu d y . Analysis o f v a r i a n c e f o r r e p e a t e d measure, ch1 square t e s t o f homogeneity, chi square Independency, and means and v a r i a n c e s o f rank o r d e r i n g were used t o a n aly ze th e d a t a . In ranking th e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods, middle school t e a c h e r s s e l e c t e d A B C D F as t h e i r f i r s t p r e f e r e n c e , followed by p a r e n t con­ ferences. Middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e v e r s e d t h e s e two methods by s e l e c t i n g p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s as f i r s t choice followed by A B C D F. I t 1s concluded t h a t both groups f a v o r a combination o f A B C D F and parent conferences. N a r r a t i v e s and check l i s t s were ranked t h i r d and f o u r t h by t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a l i k e , and i t 1s concluded t h a t t h e s e two methods a r e viewed as worthy o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n . S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t , p a s s - f a l l , and b l a n k e t grades were n o t fav ore d 1n t h e r a n k i n g s by e i t h e r grou p , and 1t I s concluded t h a t t h e i r use would be met with c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s i s t a n c e . The o v e r - a l l rank ing s o f t h e e i g h t methods by t h e two groups did n o t vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y . F u r t h e r , t h e rankings o f t h e e i g h t methods co n sid ere d d i d n o t vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e ele m e ntary e d u c a t o r s ' rankings 1n t h e S c h a r f f e s t u d y . T h e r e f o r e , 1 t 1s con­ cluded t h a t a t t i t u d e s o f middle school e d u c a to r s toward A B C D F when compared t o s e l e c t e d r e p o r t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e co mpatible with a t t i t u d e s o f e le m en tary e d u c a t o r s . Robert L. Crane Teachers l i s t e d t e a c h e r - o r i e n t e d resp on ses f o r f a v o r i n g A B C D F w h ile a d m i n i s t r a t o r s l i s t e d p a r e n t - o r i e n t e d r e a s o n s . The v a r i a b l e s o f s e x , y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , degrees h e l d , u n d e rg ra d uate t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g , o r middle school s t a t u s had no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e a t t i t u d e s o f middle school t e a c h e r s o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The c o n c lu sio n was reached by t h e r e s e a r c h e r t h a t t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s f a v o r p a r e n t conferences with A B C D F as th e w r i t t e n r e c o r d s , and both groups showed some i n t e r e s t i n n a r r a t i v e s and check l i s t s as p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o l e t t e r g r a d e s . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Pr e p a r in g the acknowledgments f o r t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n 1s a t a s k t h a t should have begun several y e a r s ago when I f i r s t began working toward t h i s d e g re e , f o r every p r o f e s s o r a lo ng the way has had a hand 1n I t s completion. There a re so many p e op le who have, unknowingly, p rovided I n s p i r a t i o n and guidance t h a t I know should be Included 1n t h e s e p ages, b u t the 1 1 st 1s so long t h a t a s e p a r a t e c h a p t e r would be r e q u i r e d t o merely mention them. I t goes w ith ou t sa ying t h a t t h e I n d i v i d u a l a t the top o f th e l i s t 1s Dr. Louis Romano, a d v i s o r and committee chairman. From p la n n in g my e n t i r e course o f stu d y thro ugh a d v i s i n g me on t h i s d i s ­ s e r t a t i o n , Dr. Romano has been a " b r i c k , " and words cannot ade­ q u a t e l y e x p re ss my a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r h i s p a t i e n c e and u n d e rs t a n d i n g . Dr. Robert Muth was so gracio us in a g r e e i n g t o j o i n my committee a f t e r one o f th e o r i g i n a l committee members l e f t t h e u n i v e r s i t y , and I w i l l always be g r a t e f u l t o him f o r t a k i n g on t h i s unexpected a s s i g n ­ ment. Dr. Arden Moon, longtime f r i e n d and committee member, found h i m s e l f being c a l l e d upon perhaps more t h a n planned s i n c e he r e s i d e s 1n Saginaw n e a r my home, and 1 t was t o o c o n v e n i e n t t o c a l l him s e v e r a l times d u rin g t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s work f o r advic e and guidance. The p a t i e n c e , u nd e rs tan d in g , and c h a r a c t e r o f t h i s gentleman w i l l always be an I n s p i r a t i o n t o me. And, Dr. P h i l i p Marcus, cognate committee member, has been so h e l p f u l i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s work, with h i s t e c h n i c a l ad vic e and s u g g e s t i o n s on a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t i s ­ t i c a l t e s ti n g devices. Much could be s a i d about Dr. William G. S c h a r f f e , who o r i g i ­ n a l l y advis ed me t o conduct t h i s r e s e a r c h a s a fo llo w -u p t o h i s study on t h e a t t i t u d e s o f elementary t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward t h e same g radin g and r e p o r t i n g sy stem s. B111 has been more h e l p f u l than he w i l l e v e r know by p r o v id in g me w ith h i s d a ta and a llowing me t o modify some o f h i s I n str u m en ts f o r t h i s s t u d y . After c a llin g on him l i t e r a l l y dozens o f times f o r a d v i c e , he was always very h e l p f u l and u n d e rs t a n d i n g . Thanks, B i l l . I am f o r e v e r I n debte d . A f t e r so many y e a r s o f c o u rs e work a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y , I have grown t o depend upon the h e lp o f a very g r a c i o u s and b e a u t i f u l lady 1n th e g r a d u a t e o f f i c e o f Erickson H a l l , Mrs. V i r g i n i a Wiseman. Like so many o t h e r s b e f o r e me, t h e r e have been tim e s o f f r u s t r a t i o n and e x a s p e r a t i o n o v e r t h e d e t a i l s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e paper work connected w ith g r a d u a t e s t u d i e s , and each tim e , I have been helped and placed a t e a s e by t h e sm ile and r e a s s u r i n g "wink" from t h i s wonderful lad y. Every u n i v e r s i t y should have a V i r g i n i a Wiseman. A f t e r completing t h e f i n a l page o f t h e d r a f t o f t h e d i s s e r ­ t a t i o n , th e j o b o f ty p in g 1 t 1n f i n a l form a c c o rd i n g t o a c c e p t a b l e u n i v e r s i t y form i s a form id able t a s k r e q u i r i n g t h e s k i l l and e x p e r t i s e o f an accomplished t y p i s t . I found such a pers on 1n Mrs. Susan Cooley. I t was a g r e a t r e l i e f t o hand t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n t o h e r , knowing I t would be completed p e r f e c t l y , and I wish t o thank h e r f o r h e r a s s i s ­ t a n c e on t h e completion o f t h i s p r o j e c t . 11i With a l l t h e cours es In s t a t i s t i c s I have taken o v e r the y e a r s , I s t i l l could not have completed t h i s r e s e a r c h w i t h o u t t h e he lp o f Mrs. Suwatana Sookpokaklt 1n t h e O f f i c e o f Research C o n s u l t a ­ tion. I am most a p p r e c i a t i v e o f the many hours she has given me 1n appointments t o b u i l d t h e programs and a s s i s t me 1n I n t e r p r e t i n g t h e data. I f e e l I must acknowledge t h e t h r e e a s s i s t a n t p r i n c i p a l s I have had d uring the y e a r s I have been working on t h i s degree and the dissertation. There have been c o u n t l e s s days t h a t I l e f t the jo b e a r l y t o t r a v e l to campus, and I always f e l t comfort 1n knowing I l e f t Webber J u n i o r High School 1n t h e competent hands o f A rthur Anderson, Thomas B a r r l s , and Raymond G a l le g o s . To A r t , Tom, and Ray: t h a n k s , guys, f o r co vering f o r me and f o r y o u r p a t i e n c e and under­ standing. F i n a l l y , and most I m p o r t a n t l y , I d e d i c a t e t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n to my b e a u t i f u l wife Janet-Ann and my wonderful son Donald. I have been a s t u d e n t during our e n t i r e l i v e s t o g e t h e r . I t seems Maybe now we can f i n a l l y c l e a n up some o f th e many p i l e s o f paper and books I have accumulated around th e house t h a t no one was allow ed t o tou ch . And Don, so many times I have n e g l e c t e d you when we should have been o u t p l a y in g g o l f , o r th e many o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s we t a l k about so o f t e n , and I hope now we w i l l f i n d t h e time t o be t o g e t h e r much more. 1v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ..............................................................................................................v111 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS............................................................................................ x Chapter I. II. III. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.................................................................. 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................................................................................ Purpose o f th e Study ...................................................................... S i g n i f i c a n c e o f th e Problem .......................................................... D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms ........................................................................... P o s s i b l e D e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study ........................................ Review o f Rela te d L i t e r a t u r e ..................................................... O b j e c t iv e s ............................................................................................ A na lysis o f Data ............................................................................... S e l e c t i o n o f Sample ...................................................................... D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e Survey ..................................................... Length o f S t u d y ............................................................................... Treatment o f th e D a t a .................................................................. 1 3 3 5 7 8 9 11 11 12 14 14 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................. 16 A H i s t o r y o f R e porting Methods ............................................. Proponents o f t h e L e t t e r Grade System .................................... Opponents o f th e Grading S y s t e m ................................................. P a r e n t Conferences ........................................................................... N a r r a t i v e Reports ............................................................................... S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n .................................................................................... Blanket Grades .................................................................................... Check L i s t s ............................................................................................. Pa ss -F a1l R eporting ........................................................................... Credlt-No C r e d i t R eporting .......................................................... R eporting Techniques and Middle School Concepts . . . . Summary..................................................................................................... 16 22 27 41 47 54 56 59 61 65 67 76 DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND HYPOTHESESOF THE STUDY .................... 79 P o p u la tio n and Sample ....................................................................... Development and V a l i d a t i o n o f Survey I n s tr u m e n ts . . . S e l e c t i o n o f Sample f o r Final Survey .................................... 79 81 89 v Chapter Page V a l i d a t i o n o f the Final Survey In strum ent ........................... S t a t i s t i c a l Methods Used 1n Data A n a ly sis ........................... Summary.................................................................................................... 92 97 100 IV. PRESENTATION OF D A T A ............................................................................ 102 S t a t i s t i c a l Methods .......................................................................... S t a t i s t i c a l Findings ...................................................................... A n a ly sis o f Variance o f Repeated Measure Data . . . . Cross T a b u l a t i o n Technique ..................................................... Ch1 Square A n a l y s i s ...................................................................... R e s u l ts o f Rank Orde ring ......................................................... C o n siste n cy o f the Responses ..................................................... Summary o f Findings ........................................................................... 102 103 103 112 115 127 131 132 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . . 138 R a ti o n a l e f o r the S t u d y .................................................................. Summary o f Methodology .................................................................. O b j e c t i v e s ............................................................................................ S a m p l e ..................................................................................................... Data C o l l e c t i o n ................................................................................... Data A n alysis ........................................................................................ L i m i t a t i o n s ............................................................................................ C o n c l u s i o n s ............................................................................................ I m p li c a t io n s ........................................................................................ Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Study ............................................ R e f l e c t i o n s ............................................................................................ 138 139 139 142 143 143 144 145 153 156 157 APPENDICES.................................................................................................................. 161 A. MIDDLE SCHOOL IDENTIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE ............................ 162 B. MIDDLE SCHOOL PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................... 182 C. PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................... 190 D. LETTER TO FIVE JUDGES WHO VALIDATED THE MIDDLE SCHOOL PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................. 195 E. INITIAL LETTER TO MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ASKING THEM TO COMPLETE MIDDLE SCHOOL PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE . . . 199 F. FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SCHOOLS THAT AGREED TO PARTICIPATE FURTHER IN ST U D Y ............................................................................... 201 G. LETTER TO PRINCIPALS ACCOMPANYING FINAL QUESTIONNAIRES 203 v1 . Chapter H. I. Page FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SCHOOLS LATE IN RETURNING QUESTIONNAIRES ....................................................................................... 205 TABULATION OF RESPONSES ON PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................... 207 ................................................................................................................. 215 BIBLIOGRAPHY v11 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Page T ab u l a t i o n o f J u d g e s ' Scores f o r U t i l i z a t i o n o f Kendall-W S t a t i s t i c a l T e s t ................................................................................... B6 Rankings o f L evels o f Agreement Among Judges on Each Page o f t h e Reorganized R l e g l e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .................................... 88 3 .3 Response and Commitment o f S e l e c t e d Schools ............................. 90 3 .4 Scores o f Responding Schools and Number o f Schools Committed t o Continue P a r t i c i p a t i o n ............................................ 91 High Implementation and Low Implementation P a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e S t u d y ............................................................................................. 92 3 .6 Opposing Items o f a General E v alu atio n Nature ........................... 95 3 .7 Opposing Items o f S tu d e n t Concern ...................................................... 95 4.1 R e s u l t o f A n a l y s i s o f Variance f o r Repeated Measure Data f o r Research Q uestion 1, Hypotheses 1 Through 7 .................. 105 R e s u l t o f A n a l y s i s o f Variance f o r Repeated Measure Data f o r Research Que st ion 2, Hypotheses 8 Through 14 . . . . 110 Cross T a b u l a t i o n o f T each er Rankings o f t h e A B C D F Method and t h e O r i e n t a t i o n o f T h e i r R a t i o n a l e f o r A ssignin g a P a r t i c u l a r Rank ............................................................. 114 A d m i n i s t r a t o r Rankings o f P a r e n t Conference Reporting and the O r i e n t a t i o n o f T h e i r R a t i o n a l e f o r Assigning a P a r t i c u l a r Rank .................................................................................... 116 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between T eacher Sex and E v a lu a tio n and R e p o rting P r e f e r e n c e s ........................................................................... 117 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between T each er E xperienc e and E valuation and Reporting P r e f e r e n c e s .................................................................. 118 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between T each er P r e f e r e n c e f o r Blanket Grading and Years o f Experience ..................................................... 119 3.2 3 .5 4 .2 4 .3 4.4 4 .5 4 .6 4 .7 v111 Page R e l a t i o n s h i p Between T e a c h e r s ' Highest Degree and Reporting P r e f e r e n c e s ....................................................................... 120 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Teacher Undergraduate T r a i n i n g and Reporting P r e f e r e n c e s .............................................................. 121 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between School S t a t u s and Teacher Evaluation and R eporting P r e f e r e n c e s ........................................ 122 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between A d m i n i s t r a t o r Sex and E v alu atio n and Reporting P r e f e r e n c e s .............................................................. 123 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between A d m i n i s t r a t o r E xperience and Ev alu atio n and R eporting P r e f e r e n c e s ........................................ 124 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' Highe st Degree and Reporting P r e f e r e n c e s ................................................. 125 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between A d m i n i s t r a t o r Undergraduate T r a i n in g and R eporting P r e f e r e n c e s ............................................ 126 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between School S t a t u s and A d m i n i s t r a t o r E v aluatio n and R ep o rtin g P r e f e r e n c e s ........................................ 127 Means and Standard D e v ia tio n s o f Ranking o f E ig h t Reporting Methods by Teachers and A d m i n i s t r a t o r s . . . . 128 Comparison o f Teacher and A d m i n i s t r a t o r Ranking o f Eight Reporting Methods .................................................................. 131 Cross T a b u l a t i o n o f P o s i t i v e and Negative Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items t o T e s t C on siste n cy o f A tt1 tu d 1 n a l Responses Toward Grading and R e po rtin g Methods ........................................ 133 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Responses t o Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items With the Exception o f Open-Ended Items and Item 49 ..................................................................................................... 208 ix LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illu s t r a t io n 2.1 Page Example o f a Typical Report Card C u r re n tly Being Used, Where L e t t e r Grades f o r Achievement, Numerical Marks f o r C i t i z e n s h i p , and Comments on C h aracte r Are All U s e d ........................................... x 30 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction One o f the most p e r p l e x i n g , and o f t e n u n p l e a s a n t , t a s k s f a c i n g e d u c a to r s today 1s t h e process o f e v a l u a t i n g s t u d e n t s ' achievement, and r e l a t i n g t h a t achievement with some degree o f acc u ra c y t o t h e s t u d e n t and t h e p a r e n t s . To say the l e a s t , 1 t o f t e n i s d i f f i c u l t t o know what has r e a l l y been absorbed o r l e a r n e d by t h e s t u d e n t . Be t h a t as 1 t may, s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n remains a n e c e s s i t y — a r e q u ir e m e n t demanded o f e d u c a t o r s a t a l l l e v e l s . The demands a r e made by p a r e n t s , s t u d e n t s t h e m se lv e s, and i n s t i t u t i o n s o f l e a r n i n g as well as I n s t i t u ­ t i o n s o f employment. S tu d ie s by t h e National Education A s s o c i a t i o n have shown t h a t t h e most commonly used method o f " d e f i n i n g " s t u d e n t achievement Is t h e l e t t e r g r a d e , o r A B C D F, system. While l e t t e r g rade s a re t h e most widely used method o f r e p o r t i n g s t u d e n t ach iev em ent, t h e r e 1s widespread de b ate over whether such marks p ro v id e a v a l i d form o f a ssessm en t. A s tu d y by William G. Scharffe^ I n v e s t i g a t e d t h e a t t i t u d e s o f e le m e n tary school t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1n grades k i n d e r g a r t e n through s i x toward t h e use o f l e t t e r grades as compared w i t h seven Whe S c h a r f f e s t u d y , along with any o t h e r s c i t e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r , w i l l be s p e c i f i c a l l y c i t e d 1n C hapte r I I . 1 2 o t h e r forms o f r e p o r t i n g i n c l u d i n g b l a n k e t g r a d i n g , check l i s t , c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t , n a r r a t i v e s , p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , p a s s - f a i l , and self-evaluation. The S c h a r f f e stu dy i n d i c a t e d t h a t g r a d e s , A B C D f , were second o nly t o p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s i n o v e r - a l l f a v o r by both a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t e a c h e r s . S c h a r f f e a l s o found t h a t , even though p a r e n t c o n fe ren c es were viewed as most d e s i r a b l e , they a re seldom used e x c l u s i v e l y and a r e u s u a l l y accompanied by some form o f w r i t t e n e v a l u a ­ tion. The d e b ate about t h e v a l i d i t y o f l e t t e r grades i s not new, however; n e i t h e r i s th e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f the t r a d i t i o n a l e le m e n tary school which g e n e r a l l y houses grades k i n d e r g a r t e n through s i x In s e l f - c o n t a i n e d c la ss ro o m s . A school o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e which 1s r a t h e r new 1s th e middle school concept designed t o meet the unique needs o f th e t r a n s e s c e n t c h i l d between t h e ages o f 11 and 14. The middle school movement has grown s i n c e t h e e a r l y 1960s when p i o n e e r middle s c h o o ls emerged in C e n t e r v i l l e , Ohio; B a r r i n g t o n , I l l i n o i s ; Eagle Grove, Iowa; Mt. Kisco, New York; and Upper S t . C l a i r , Pe n n sylv a n ia . The middle school i s un iq u ely d e sign ed t o meet t h e needs o f y o u n g s t e r s 1n t r a n s i t i o n from c h ildhood t o a d o le sc e n c e . H opefully, t h e t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a s s i g n e d t o middle school programs sh a re an awareness o f the purposes f o r which t h e middle was d esig n ed. I t would seem l o g i c a l , t h e n , t h a t a follo w -up o f t h e S c h a r f f e stud y be completed w ith t h e exam ination o f th e a t t i t u d e s o f middle school t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward t h e use o f l e t t e r grades as compared with b l a n k e t g r a d i n g , check l i s t , c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t , 3 n a r r a t i v e s , p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , p a s s - f a i l , and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , f o r i f t h e middle school concept i s indeed working a d i f f e r e n c e in a t t i ­ tudes would be p r e s e n t . Purpose o f t h e Study The purpose o f t h e s t u d y i s t o de term ine th e a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in Michigan toward t h e use o f l e t t e r grades {A B C D F) as compared with s e v e r a l o t h e r methods o f s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g , and t o compare t h o s e a t t i t u d e s to the a t t i t u d e s e x p re s s e d by e le m entary t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s In the S c h a r f f e s t u d y . S i g n i f i c a n c e o f th e Problem The purpose o f e v a l u a t i n g t h e work, achievement, or growth o f any i n d i v i d u a l , whether th ey be a s t u d e n t o r employee, must be t o pro v id e a v a l i d , f a i r a sse ss m e nt o f t h e i r performance. I t should be an e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e t o give t h e i n d i v i d u a l d i r e c t i o n in which t o s t r i v e f o r c o n tin u ed Improvement. The assess ment must be c l e a r and p r e c i s e 1n d e l i n e a t i n g s p e c i f i c s t r o n g p o i n t s as well as a r e a s needing added a t t e n t i o n . And, assess ment must in v o lv e t h e p a r t i c i p a ­ t i o n o f both t h e e v a l u a t o r and the e v a l u a t e e with goals and o b j e c t i v e s p r e v i o u s l y agreed upon by both p a r t i e s . Given t h a t g o a ls and o b j e c ­ t i v e s have been c l e a r l y o u t l i n e d f o r t h e co urses o f f e r e d a t the middle school l e v e l , t h e c r i t e r i a f o r v a ri o u s l e v e l s o f s a t i s f a c t o r y achievement should be c l e a r l y s t a t e d and und erstoo d in advance by t h e student. Which, t h e n , o f t h e s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t methods o f e v a l u a t i n g 4 and r e p o r t i n g s t u d e n t achievement i s most f a i r and v a l i d , and most p r e f e r r e d by middle school e d u c a to r s ? T h is q u e s t i o n has y e t t o be asked o f middle school t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . I t seems a p p r o p r i a t e , t h e n , t o r e p l i c a t e th e S c h a r f f e s t u d y , which was d i r e c t e d toward k i n d e r g a r te n through s i x t h grade t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , w i t h the p o p u l a t i o n being t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1n middle school programs In clu d in g grades s i x , se ven, and e i g h t . I t 1s th e r e s e a r c h e r ' s I n t e n t i o n to de termine 1f the atmosphere o r c l i m a t e 1n a middle s c h o o l , which p r o f e s s e s to p r a c t i c e t h e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a middle school as o u t l i n e d by such w r i t e r s as E lc h orn , Romano, Alexand er, and o t h e r s , w i l l in f a c t r e s u l t in s i m i l a r a t t i t u d e s toward t h e e i g h t d i f f e r e n t s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g methods as was demonstrated by elementary t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1n th e S c h a rf f e s t u d y . One o f t h e a ccepted c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the middle school i s t h a t t h e r e be f u l l p r o v i s i o n f o r s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n which w i l l be personal and p o s i t i v e i n n a t u r e . Since the middle school program s t r e s s e s i n d i v i d u a l i z e d I n s t r u c t i o n , i t follows t h a t e v a l u a t i o n should a l s o be I n d i v i d u a l i z e d , I n c l u d i n g s t u d e n t s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t , w i t h f r e q u e n t s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r - p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s . I t Is s i g n i f i c a n t , t h e n , t o d e te r m in e th e a t t i t u d e s o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who a r e c u r r e n t l y f u n c t i o n i n g 1n middle schools toward t h e v a rio u s systems o f s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g t o be Included 1n t h i s st u d y . Are they 1n acc ord w ith th e p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e middle scho o ls in which th e y a r e f u n c t i o n i n g ? And, a r e they s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than t h e a t t i t u d e s o f K-6 e d u c a to r s ? 5 D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms P u b l i c Sc h oo ls: Pu b lic sch o o ls r e f e r s t o s c h o o l s supported by p u b l i c t a x monies t o meet t h e needs o f l o c a l r e s i d e n t s , and ex clu des a l l p r i v a t e sch oo ls su p p o rte d by t u i t i o n , f e e s , or a f f i l i a t e d with p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s which may r e q u i r e membership o f t h e constitu en ts. Middle Scho ol: Middle school r e f e r s t o p u b l i c , t a x - s u p p o r t e d sc h o o ls i n c l u d i n g g rad e s s i x , seven, and e i g h t e x c l u s i v e l y . Middle School Teachers: Middle school t e a c h e r s r e f e r s t o t h o s e t e a c h e r s c e r t i f i e d and r e g u l a r l y c o n t r a c t e d t o t e a c h in grades s i x , se ven, and e i g h t and who a re a c t i v e l y t e a c h i n g i n a middle school as d e fi n e d above. Middle School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s : Middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e f e r s to any person r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e o v e r - a l l d a i l y o p e r a t i o n o f a middle school and who has the a u t h o r i t y t o recommend th e h i r i n g , s u s p e n s io n , d i s c h a r g e , l a y - o f f , r e c a l l , promotion, t r a n s f e r , a s s i g n ­ ment, reward, o r d i s c i p l i n e o f employees, and i s not a member o f t h e t e a c h e r b a rg a i n in g u n i t . Grade: Grade r e f e r s t o the s p e c i f i c grade l e v e l o r y e a r the s t u d e n t has been in s c h o o l , such as s i x t h g r a d e , se v en th g rad e , o r e i g h t h grade. L e t t e r Grade: L e t t e r grade r e f e r s t o a r a t i n g o f the s t u ­ d e n t ' s achievement on an examination o r in a cou rse by t h e use o f l e t t e r s o f t h e a l p h a b e t with A being t h e h i g h e s t achievement and F indicating fa ilu re . 6 P a s s - F a l l R e p o r ti n g : P a s s - f a l l r e p o r t i n g r e f e r s t o the use o f only two a l t e r n a t i v e s 1n e v a l u a t i n g t h e s t u d e n t ' s achievement 1n a course o r s u b j e c t m a t t e r w i t h th e awarding o f e i t h e r a p a s s i n g mark o r a f a i l i n g mark with no I n t e r m e d i a t e marks, p l u s e s , o r minuses. Cred1t-No C r e d i t R e p o r ti n g : C redlt-no c r e d i t rep orting r e f e r s t o th e use o f only two a l t e r n a t i v e s In e v a l u a t i n g t h e s t u d e n t ' s achievement 1n a cou rse o r s u b j e c t with t h e awarding o f e i t h e r a c r e d i t mark o r a no c r e d i t mark with no I n t e r m e d i a t e symbols, p l u s e s , o r minuses. Blanket Grade R e p o r t i n g : Blanket grade r e p o r t i n g r e f e r s to t h e system o f awarding e very s t u d e n t in a c o u rs e o r s u b j e c t t h e same p a ssin g e v a l u a t i o n mark, r e g a r d l e s s o f d i f f e r e n c e in s t u d e n t a c h i e v e ­ ment, w ith no I n d i c a t i o n o f p l u s e s o r minuses. N a r r a t i v e R e p o r ti n g : Narrative rep o rtin g r e f e r s to d e sc rip ­ t i v e passages which d e s c r i b e , 1n complete s e n t e n c e s , th e s t u d e n t ' s achievement o r p r o g r e s s toward meeting t h e predeterm in ed o b j e c t i v e s . P a r e n t Conference R e p o r t i n g : P a r e n t c o n fe ren c e r e p o r t i n g r e f e r s t o f a c e - t o - f a c e , pe rs o nal m ee ti n g s, e i t h e r a t th e school o r In the home, between t h e t e a c h e r and t h e p a r e n t s o f each s t u d e n t t o e x p la in and d i s c u s s t h e c h i l d ' s achievement and p r o g r e s s toward meeting t h e predeterm in ed c o u rs e o b j e c t i v e s . Check L i s t R e p o r t i n g : Check 1 1 s t r e p o r t i n g r e f e r s t o t h e p r a c t i c e o f compiling a comprehensive l i s t o f a f f e c t i v e and cogni­ t i v e b e h a v i o r s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and e v a l u a t i v e comments, both p o s i ­ t i v e and n e g a t i v e , whereby t h e t e a c h e r checks t h e comments which b e s t d e s c r i b e t h e p r o g r e s s and b e h av io r s o f t h e I n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t . 7 S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n R e p o r ti n g : S elf-evaluatlon reporting re fe rs t o t h e p r a c t i c e o f each s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i n g h i s o r h e r own achievement and p r o g r e s s toward meeting predeterm ined c o u rs e o b j e c t i v e s u t i l i z ­ ing one o r more o f t h e r e p o r t i n g I n str u m e n ts d e s c r i b e d above. A ttitude: A ttitu d e r e fe rs to the teacher or a d m in is tra to r's th in k in g , acting,, o r fe e lin g , e i t h e r p o s itiv e , negative, o r I n d if ­ f e r e n t , toward each o f th e above methods o f s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and reporting. High Middle Sc hool: High middle school r e f e r s t o a school which ranked 1n t h e upper 25 p e r c e n t o f a l l sch o o ls surveyed in t h e middle school i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s u r v e y , which 1s p a r t o f the c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h , t o determine t h e l e v e l o f middle school Implementation o f each I n d i v id u a l s c h o o l . Low Middle School: Low middle school r e f e r s t o a school which ranked in th e lower 25 p e r c e n t o f a l l s c h o o l s surveyed 1n th e middle school I d e n t i f i c a t i o n survey c i t e d above. School S t a t u s : School s t a t u s r e f e r s t o t h e l e v e l o f t r u e middle school Im plementation, high o r low, bein g p r a c t i c e d by each o f t h e I n d i v id u a l p a r t i c i p a t i n g s c h o o l s . P o s s i b l e D e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study The v a l i d i t y o f t h e stu d y may be a f f e c t e d by th e fo llo w in g factors: 1. Only middle sch o o ls I n c l u d i n g grades s i x , s e v e n , and e i g h t w i l l be surve yed. 8 2. Only middle scho o ls in Michigan w i l l be i n c lu d e d in the 3. Michigan t e a c h e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n p e rm its both elementary study. and secondary t e a c h e r s to tea ch grades seven and e i g h t . Some o f the t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s surveyed may have been t r a i n e d to te a c h a t t h e e le m entary o r s e n i o r high school l e v e l s r a t h e r than t h e middle school l e v e l , which could i n f l u e n c e t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g . 4. The assumption must be made t h a t the r esp o nd en ts w i l l respond with t h e i r t r u e a t t i t u d e s toward r e p o r t i n g p r a c t i c e s . 5. The d a ta from middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a r e based upon a r a t h e r small sample o f 39 r es p o n d en ts. Review o f R e la te d L i t e r a t u r e The review o f th e l i t e r a t u r e w i l l i n c l u d e : 1. A d e f i n i t i o n and h i s t o r y o f the middle school c o n c e p t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h o s e concepts which speak t o s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and reporting. 2. A h i s t o r i c a l review o f v a ri o u s methods o f s t u d e n t e v a l u a ­ t i o n and t h e " e v o l u t i o n " o f t h e s e methods. 3. A review o f the l i t e r a t u r e In s u p p o r t o f t h e use o f l e t t e r grades (A B C D F). 4. A review o f the l i t e r a t u r e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e use o f l e t t e r grades. 9 5. A review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e in s u p p o r t o f , o r i n o p p o s i t i o n t o , each o f th e a l t e r n a t i v e forms o f s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g being c o n sid e r e d i n t h i s stud y . 6. A review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e concerning t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t e a c h e r s toward s t u d e n t p e r s o n a l i t y which may a f f e c t t h e grades given to s t u d e n t s . O b j e c t iv e s Research Question 1: Do middle school t e a c h e r s 1n Michigan p r e f e r t h e use o f A B C D F r e p o r t i n g over th e use o f s e l e c t e d a l t e r ­ n a t i v e forms o f r e p o r t i n g ? 1. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward b l a n k e t gradin g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 2. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward check l i s t r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 3. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 4. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward n a r ­ r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F, 5. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward p a r e n t c on feren ces i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 6. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward p a s s f a l l r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 7. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward s e l f e v a l u a t i o n i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 10 Research Question 2 : Michigan p r e f e r Do middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1n t h e use o f AB C D F r e p o r t i n g over t h e use o f s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e forms o f r e p o r t i n g ? 1. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward b l a n k e t g r a d in g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 2. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward check 1 1 st r e p o r t i n g Is t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 3. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t r e p o r t i n g 1s the same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 4. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g 1s th e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 5. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward p a r e n t c on fe ren c es 1s the same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 6. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward p a s s - f a l l r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 7. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F, Research Question 3: I f middle school t e a c h e r s do, o r do n o t , p r e f e r the use o f one o f th e s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s o v e r th e use o f A B C D F, why does t h i s p r e f e r e n c e e x i s t ? Research Question 4 : do n o t , p r e f e r t h e use o f one If middle school ad m in istrato rsdo, or o f the s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s o v e r t h e use o f A B C D F, why does t h i s p r e f e r e n c e e x i s t ? Research Question 5 : To what e x t e n t does a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t between t h e t e a c h e r ' s p r e f e r e n c e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r form o f 11 r e p o r t i n g and t h e t e a c h e r ' s : (1) se x , (2 ) y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , (3) d e g r e e ( s ) h e l d , (4) grade l e v e l t e a c h e r was t r a i n e d t o t e a c h , (5) school s t a t u s ? Research Question 6 : To what e x t e n t does a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t between t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s p r e f e r e n c e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r form o f r e p o r t i n g and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s : (1) sex, (2) y e a r s o f e x p e r i ­ e n c e , (3) d e g r e e ( s ) h e l d , (4) grade l e v e l a d m i n i s t r a t o r was t r a i n e d t o t e a c h , (5) school s t a t u s ? Research Question 7 : To what e x t e n t do t h e t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s d i f f e r , o r have s i m i l a r i t i e s , in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward a p a r t i c u l a r form o f p rog res s r e p o r t i n g ? An alysis o f Data S e l e c t i o n o f Sample Sample s i z e . — Based on i n f o r m a tio n provided by t h e 1977-1978 Michigan Education D i r e c t o r y and Buyer's Guide, t h e r e a r e 235 middle sch o o ls which In clude g rades s i x , seven, and e i g h t 1n Michigan. It 1s t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s e s t i m a t i o n t h a t t h e combined t o t a l o f p r i n c i p a l s and a s s i s t a n t p r i n c i p a l s should provide a p r o j e c t e d t o t a l o f 400 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in t h e p o p u l a t i o n . While n o t a l l sch o o ls l i s t t h e number o f f a c u l t y members in t h e d i r e c t o r y , t h e m a j o r i t y t h a t do In clu d e t h e s e f i g u r e s i n d i c a t e a t o t a l o f appro xim ately 6,000 teachers. The r e s e a r c h e r has e s t i m a t e d a t o t a l o f app rox im ately 6,400 middle school f a c u l t y members in t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n . Accord­ ing t o K r e jc i e and Morgan, t h e minimum sample s i z e o f s c h o o l s from a t o t a l o f 235 should be 148 i n o r d e r t o c o l l e c t s u f f i c i e n t d a t a t o make g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s t o t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n . 2 The r e s e a r c h e r w i l l take t h e l i b e r t y of randomly s e l e c t i n g 160 s c h o o l s ; however, s i n c e the s t u d y Is u l t i m a t e l y t o i n c l u d e each i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r and admin­ i s t r a t o r in t h e sample s c h o o l s , i t i s f e l t t h a t 160 b u i l d i n g s w i l l in v o lv e a much l a r g e r sample o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s than necessary. T h e r e f o r e , o nly th o se sc hools t h a t most exemplify t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the " t r u e " middle school w i l l be i n c lu d e d in t h e s t u d y , as well as th o se sc hools t h a t l e a s t exemplify t h e t r u e middle s c h o o l , in o r d e r t o draw comparisons between t h e a t t i t u d e s of t h e t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s between t h e two groups o f s c h o o l s . A m od if ied Riegle q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l be s e n t t o t h e p r i n c i p a l s o f a l l 160 s c h o o ls s e l e c t e d t o dete rm ine the l e v e l o f implementation o f t h e a c c e p t e d middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Middle school t e a c h e r s . —Teachers i n c l u d e d in t h e sample w i l l be a l l t e a c h e r s employed in t h e "high" middle sc hools as well as from the "low" middle sc h o o l s . Middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . —A d m i n i s t r a t o r s in c l u d e d i n t h e sample w i l l be a l l p r i n c i p a l s and a s s i s t a n t p r i n c i p a l s i n th e high middle schools as well as in t h e low middle s c h o o l s . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f the Survey A sample o f 160 sch o o ls was randomly s e l e c t e d from the 235 middle sch oo ls 1n Michigan. A l e t t e r e x p l a i n i n g the purpose o f t h e s t u d y , along w ith a m o dified R i e g l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e to I d e n t i f y middle ^Robert V. K r e j c i e and Daryle W. Morgan, "Determining Sample Size f o r Research A c t i v i t i e s , " Educationa l and P s ychological Measure­ ment 30 f 19701: 607-10. 13 school p r a c t i c e s was s e n t t o t h e p r i n c i p a l s o f each o f t h e 160 middle schools. The p r i n c i p a l s were asked t o complete th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , I d e n t i f y i n g t h e l e v e l o f Implementation of middle school p r a c t i c e s 1n t h e i r own b u i l d i n g , and r e t u r n i t t o the r e s e a r c h e r . A lso, each p r i n c i p a l was asked t o determine I f h i s o r h e r b u i l d i n g would be w i l l i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e 1n th e n e x t phase o f t h e stu dy . A fter scor­ ing a l l the r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , t h e responding s c h o o ls were ranked a cc o rd in g to l e v e l o f middle school p r a c t i c e s implementation from "high" t o "low." A school w i t h a sc ore o f 65 would be c o n s i d ­ e re d ve ry high and I n d i c a t e s an exemplary middle s c h o o l , whereas a s c o re as low as 20 would I n d i c a t e t h a t the school 1s a middle school In name only and a c t u a l l y p r a c t i c e s few, 1 f a ny, o f t h e a ccepted middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A f t e r ranking t h e sch o o ls a cco rding t o t h e i r numerical s c o r e s on t h e Riegle q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e ranked sc hools were d i v i d e d i n t o f o ur g ro u p s, o r q u a r t l l e s . Those sch o o ls w ith s c o r e s i n th e top q u a r t i l e whose p r i n c i p a l I n d i c a t e d a w i l l i n g n e s s t o p a r t i c i p a t e 1n the f i n a l phase o f t h e st udy and th o se sch o o ls 1n the bottom q u a r t i l e whose p r i n c i p a l I n d i c a t e d a w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e 1n th e f i n a l s t a g e o f t h e s t u d y , were s e l e c t e d t o r e c e i v e t h e f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The s c h o o l s t h a t f e l l 1n t h e second and t h i r d q u a r t i l e , o r t h e middle h a l f , were a l l e l i m i n a t e d . T h is system allowed th e r e s e a r c h e r t o compare t h e a t t i t u d e s o f middle school t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s In " t r u e " middle sch o o ls with t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s 1n b u i l d i n g s which a r e middle s c h o o ls i n name on ly and p r a c t i c e middle school co n ce p ts sparingly. 14 F i n a l l y , each b u i l d i n g in t h e f i r s t and f o u r t h q u a r t i l e s was s e n t a packet o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t o a llo w each member o f t h e adminis­ t r a t i v e and t e a c h i n g s t a f f t o I n d i c a t e h i s / h e r f e e l i n g s and a t t i t u d e s toward l e t t e r grade r e p o r t i n g as compared w i t h t h e s e v e r a l a l t e r n a ­ t i v e s in clu d ed in t h i s s t u d y . Length o f Study The f i n a l survey in s t r u m e n t t o be used was a r e v i s e d form o f the same i n s t r u m e n t used in t h e S c h a r f f e study in o r d e r t o i n s u r e replication. Dr. S c h a r f f e has k in d ly co op erated 1n g r a n t i n g perm is­ s i o n t o use t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e developed by him i n h i s s tu d y o f th e a t t i t u d e s o f elementary t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward t h e use o f A B C D F as compared w ith o t h e r s e l e c t e d methods o f s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g . The In stru m ent was designed t o ta k e a p p ro x i­ mately 20 minutes t o complete. A modified L i k e r t s c a l e was use d, with c h o ic es f o r res ponse s ra nging from " s t r o n g l y agree" t o " s t r o n g l y disagree." A f o u r - p o i n t s c a l e was used in o r d e r to f o r c e respondents to e i t h e r agre e o r d i s a g r e e w ith t h e s t a t e m e n t g i v e n , t h u s a v o id ing t h e chance f o r a r e p e a t e d c l u s t e r on t h e mean p o i n t o f t h e s c a l e . Respondents were then asked open-ended q u e s t i o n s r e q u e s t i n g them t o o f f e r r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e i r re s p o n se s on c e r t a i n Items. Rationale o f f e r e d by respondents on t h e open-ended q u e s t i o n s were then coded 1n o r d e r t o r e p o r t th e d a t a . Treatment o f t h e Data A n a ly sis o f v a r i a n c e f o r r e p e a t e d measure d a ta w i l l be used f o r Research Questions 1 and 2 , u s in g s u b j e c t as u n i t o f a n a l y s i s . 15 These two q u e s t i o n s w i l l have seven hypotheses each and w i l l be t r e a t e d as seven planned c o n t r a s t s . Research Questions 3, 4, 5 , and 6 w i l l be analyzed by c r o s s - t a b l e frequency u s i n g ch1 square t e s t o f homogeneity and ch1 square Independency. Research Question 7 w i l l be answered by d e s c r i p t i v e In fo rm a tio n about th e means and v a r i a n c e by rank o r d e r i n g . th e d a t a . Two computer packages a r e used to analy ze They a r e t h e S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e Social Sciences (SPSS)3 and MULTIVARIANCE. 3 Norman H. N1e e t a l . , S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e S o d a ! Sc ien c es (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975). CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A H i s t o r y o f Reporting Methods The q u e s t i o n o f "Where a r e we now* and how di d we g e t here?" c e r t a i n l y lends I t s e l f t o an h i s t o r i c a l review o f s t u d e n t grading and r e p o r t i n g in American s c h o o l s . However, a thorough a n a l y s i s o f t h i s ty p e could ta k e us back as f a r as p r e - r e v o l u t i o n days o f the e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , and such a review could encompass an e n t i r e d i s ­ s e r t a t i o n on i t s own m e r i t . For purposes o f t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y , we w i l l review t h e p r a c t i c e s o f t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , p a r t i c u l a r l y from 1910 t o t h e p r e s e n t , f o r as Smith and Dobbin t e l l us: . . . The concern f o r s y s t e m a t i c r e p o r t i n g o f l e a r n i n g p r o g r e s s may be d e s c r i b e d g e n e r a l l y 1n two p ha ses : (a) the p e r i o d e x te n d in g roughly from 1910 t o 1940, when r e s e a r c h I n t e r e s t was fo cu sed mainly on t h e mechanical and se m an tic problems o f mark­ i n g ; and (b) t h e p e r i o d from 1940 t o t h e p r e s e n t , d u r i n g which a g r e a t e r I n t e r e s t has c e n t e r e d on Improvement o f marks 1n com­ p r e h e n s i v e n e s s and comm unica tion.* For t h e p a s t s e v e r a l g e n e r a t i o n s , being "graded" has been a b a s i c p a r t o f th e e x p e ri e n c e o f growing up In America. As H1ner states, From t h e time t h e American c h i l d r e c e i v e s h i s f i r s t gold s t a r f o r b r u s h i n g h i s t e e t h u n t i l he g rasp s h i s f i n a l s h e e p s k i n , he 1s graded— he 1s e v a l u a t e d and compared, s o r t e d and c l a s s i ­ f i e d , passed and f a i l e d , promoted and h e ld back; he 1s given ^Ann Z. Smith and J . E. Dobbins, "Marks and Marking Systems," a o f Edu cational Rese arch, 3rd ed. (New York, I 9 6 0 ) , 16 17 p e r c e n t a g e s , A ' s , B ' s , C 's and S ' s and U ' s . During h i s 11 t o 16 y e a r s o f formal s c h o o l i n g , he i s graded hundreds, even thousands o f t i m e s . 2 One w r i t e r , Kirschenbaum, p ro v id es c o n s i d e r a b l e h i s t o r i c a l In fo rm a tio n on t h e s u b j e c t o f g r a d i n g . As he p o i n t s o u t , most t r a i n ­ ing o r e d u c a ti o n a t one tim e took p l a c e p r i m a r i l y w i t h i n t h e family unit. F a t h e r s t r a i n e d t h e i r sons t o fo llo w in t h e i r f o o t s t e p s , and t h e p ro ce ss r e s u l t e d in g e n e r a t i o n s o f t h e fam ily c o n ti n u i n g in t h e same l i n e o f work. L ik ew ise, mothers t r a i n e d th e d a u g h te r s 1n the m a t t e r s o f homemaking and c h i l d r e a r i n g . counted. "Performance was a l l t h a t To be an A farmer you h a r v e s t e d th e most wheat. To be an A h u n t e r you k i l l e d the most game. The p ro d u ct was r e a d i l y v i s i b l e , 3 and suc ce ss o r f a i l u r e was easy t o measure." In e a r l y America, most sch o o ls were t h e one-room v a r i e t y and a l l s t u d e n t s were grouped t o g e t h e r , r e g a r d l e s s o f age o r achievement l e v e l , and one t e a c h e r was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e e n t i r e group. O ften­ times th e o l d e r s t u d e n t s were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t u t o r i n g t h e younger c h i l d r e n in such s i t u a t i o n s . In most c a s e s , t h e c u r r i c u lu m c o n s i s t e d o f b a s i c s k i l l s such as r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g , penmanship, h i s t o r y , and p o s s i b l y geography. G e n e r a l l y , t h e s t u d e n t s showed t h e i r competencies by t h e i r a c t u a l performances i n r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g and r e c i t i n g . Prog­ r e s s r e p o r t s were m ostly d e s c r i p t i v e . The t e a c h e r would w r i t e down the s k i l l s t h e s t u d e n t c ould o r c o u l d n ' t do. This 2 Ray N. Hiner, "An American R i t u a l — GRADING as a C u l t u r a l F u n c t io n ," The C l e a r in g House Magazine 47 (February 1973): 356. 3 Howard Kirschenbaum, Sidney B. Simon, and Rodney U. N a pier, Wad-Ja-Get? (New York: H a rt P u b l i s h i n g C o ., I n c . , 1971), p. 47. 18 was done mostly f o r t h e s t u d e n t ' s b e n e f i t s i n c e he would n o t move t o h i s n e x t s u b j e c t area u n t i l he had mas tered t h e p r e ­ vious one.^ Such t e c h n iq u e s sound very s i m i l a r t o th e mastery l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s o f t o day. And, t h e system o f having o l d e r s t u d e n t s a s s i s t the younger s t u d e n t s 1s a prime example o f t h e pendulum which always seems t o r e t u r n t o models o f e a r l i e r e r a s as t h i s , t o o , 1s a t e c h ­ nique o f t e n advocated by contemporary w r i t e r s . As school e n r o l l m e n t s i n c r e a s e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y d u rin g t h e l a s t q u a r t e r o f the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , the number o f s t u d e n t s c o n ti n u i n g on I n to secondary sch o o ls In creased c o n s i d e r a b l y . Enrollments 1n secondary sch o o ls between 1870 and 1910 I n c r e a s e d from 500 t o 10,000, while e n r o l l m e n t s 1n elementary sc hools I n c r e a s e d from 6,87 1 ,0 00 to 5 almost 18 m i l l i o n . At t h e same tim e , th e secondary sc hools began expanding t h e i r c u r r i c u l a r o f f e r i n g s . I t was d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d t h a t secondary sc ho ols began r e p o r t i n g pupil p r o g r e s s by p e rc e n t a g e s In ord er t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e variou s s t u d e n t s by a b i l i t y . "In a sense, t h i s was t h e beg in ning o f grading as we know 1 t t o d a y . " 6 As more and more s t u d e n t s c on tinu ed on i n t o high s c h o o l , and from t h e r e pursued c o l l e g e t r a i n i n g , t h e need , o r demand, f o r more and more d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n was placed upon high school r e c o r d s . These c o lle g e demands were v e ry in str u m e n ta l in t h e implementation o f grades a t the secondary l e v e l . By the t u r n o f t h e c e n t u r y , p e rc e n t a g e grades became I n c r e a s i n g l y p o p u l a r a t t h e secondary l e v e l , even though the elementary sch o o ls g e n e r a l l y c ontinued w i t h o u t any grades e x c e p t 4 I b 1 d . , p. 51. 5 Ib1d. 6 Ib1d. 19 f o r a few symbols such as S f o r s a t i s f a c t o r y and U f o r u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . So, by e a r l y 1n the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , "Success was no lo n g e r measured in c o m p e t i t i v e d e b a t e , o r 1n t h e s p o r t s arena o r on t h e b a t t l e f i e l d , o r on th e j o b . I t was determined by t h e whim o f the t e a c h e r in th e c la ss ro o m ." ^ The c o n t r o v e r s y over t h e v a l i d i t y o f grades began as e a r l y as 1912 and 1s s t i l l c o n t i n u i n g today. Two noted r e s e a r c h e r s , Starch and E l l i o t , conducted a s tu d y t o t e s t t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f grades as a measure o f s t u d e n t accomplishment which i s s t i l l c i t e d by many s t u d e n t s o f the t o p i c today. T h e i r s t u d y involv ed two E nglish language examina­ t i o n pa pers w r i t t e n by two p u p i l s a t t h e end o f t h e i r f i r s t y e a r in a l a r g e midwest high s c h o o l . The papers were d u p l i c a t e d and s e n t t o 200 high s c h o o l s where t h e p r i n c i p a l E n g lish t e a c h e r s were t o mark t h e papers a cco rding t o t h e p r a c t i c e s and st a n d a r d s o f t h e i r own school. The d i f f e r e n c e s 1n s c o r e s were d r a m a tic . One o f t h e papers v a r i e d from 64 t o 98 p o i n t s , w i t h an averag e o f 8 8 . 2 . The o t h e r Q pa per had a range from 50 t o 97, with an average sc o r e o f 80 .2 . I f a s c o r e o f 75 was c o n s i d e r e d minimal f o r a p a s s i n g g r a d e , both o f t h e s e papers would r e c e i v e gr a d e s rang ing from an A t o an F. S i m i l a r l y , S t a r c h and Ell l o t r e p e a t e d t h e s tu d y using a geometry t e s t p a p e r , which one might e x p e c t t o be more o b j e c t i v e than an English ex am in a tio n; y e t the range was even w i d e r , as t h e s c o r e on one paper g had a range o f 67 p o i n t s . 7 I b i d . , p. 53. t 8 I b 1 d . , p. 55. 9 I b 1 d . , p. 56. 20 As a r e s u l t o f th e S t a r c h and E l l i o t s t u d i e s , e d u ca to r s began moving away from t h e pe rc en ta g e grad in g and moved toward a s y s ­ tem o f fewer marks. One p o p u l a r s c a l e was a t h r e e - p o i n t system which u t i l i z e d E x c e l l e n t , Average, o r Poor. Another system was t h e f a m i l i a r f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e u t i l i z i n g E x c e l l e n t , Good, Average, Poor, and F a l l ­ i n g , which has s i n c e been c o n v erted t o t h e system most o f t e n used today: A, B, C, D, F. To I l l u s t r a t e the e x t e n t o f change t h a t school systems e x p e r i ­ enced s i n c e t h e p i o n e e r s t u d i e s o f S t a r c h and Ell l o t , t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a p u b l i c sch o o ls have undergone e i g h t changes 1n r e p o r t i n g systems s i n c e 1913, and t h e i r secondary sc hools a r e now u t i l i z i n g th e f a m i l i a r f i v e - p o i n t system, o r l e t t e r grades A, B, C, D, So, where a r e we now? f J® To u n d e r l i n e th e pendulum e f f e c t men­ t i o n e d e a r l i e r r e g a r d i n g the e v o l u t i o n o f e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g , Cagle s t a t e s , A b i r d ' s eye view o f t h e h i s t o r y o f marking systems shows us moving from a p e rc e n t a g e t o a f i v e - p o i n t l e t t e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ( u s u a l l y A, B, C, 0 and F), t o a pass o r f a l l , t o c h e c k l i s t s , t o l e t t e r w r i t e r , t o p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , a nd, 1n t h e m a j o r i t y o f c a s e s , back t o th e f i v e - l e t t e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . In most i n s t a n c e s , sch o o ls have abandoned t h e use o f p e rc en ta g es as a to o l f o r showing p u p il p r o g r e s s . 11 Are we r e a l l y back t o "sq uare one"? According t o t h e f i n d i n g s o f S c h a r f f e , ele m e n tary school t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s f a v o r the use o f l e t t e r grades o v e r any o t h e r form o f w r i t t e n r e p o r t , even 10I b 1 d . , p. 67. ^ D a n F. Cagle, "How May We Make t h e E v a l u a t i o n and R eporting o f Student Achievement More Meaningful?" NASSP B u l l e t i n 59 (April 1955): 25. 21 though they hold the p a r e n t - t e a c h e r conference 1n the h i g h e s t esteem as a r e p o r t i n g t e c h n iq u e . S c h a r f f e ' s s t u d y r e p o r t s on e le m entary t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r a t t i t u d e s toward e i g h t d i f f e r e n t r e p o r t ­ ing t e c h n i q u e s , In c l u d i n g l e t t e r g r a d e s , p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , n a r ­ r a t i v e s , check l i s t s , p a s s - f a i l , c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t , b l a n k e t g r a d i n g , 12 and s t u d e n t s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . F u r t h e r r e f e r e n c e w i l l be made t o t h e S c h a rf f e s t u d y th ro u gh o ut t h i s p a p e r . This r e s e a r c h e r b e l i e v e s t h e r e may be some d i f f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s of middle school e d u c a t o r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e t h e middle school i s a r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t I n n o v a tio n which has shown widespread growth throughout the United S t a t e s i n t h e p a s t 20 y e a r s . In Michigan a lo n e , t h e r e a r e now 235 p u b l i c middle sch o o ls housing grades s i x through e i g h t , as w e ll as many o t h e r sch o o ls w ith s l i g h t l y v a ry in g l e v e l s , such as grades f i v e thro ugh e i g h t , o r grades seven 13 and e i g h t . H o p e f u lly , t h e many t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in t h e s e s c h o o l s are f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f " t r u e " middle s c h o o l s and w i l l understand t h a t t h e e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g syste m should be " p ersonal and p o s i t i v e 1n n a t u r e , " and t h a t 1 t should be i n d i v i d u a l ­ i z e d so the s t u d e n t can tak e p a r t 1n a s s e s s i n g h i s own p r o g r e s s and h e lp plan h i s own f u t u r e p r o g r e s s . The middle school e v a l u a t i o n and ^ W i l l i a m G. S c h a r f f e , "A Study o f S e l e c t e d P u b l i c School Elementary Teacher and Elementary A d m i n i s t r a t o r A t t i t u d e s Toward t h e Use o f Grades a s Compared With S e l e c t e d A l t e r n a t i v e Forms o f Pupil P r o g r e s s R ep o rtin g " ( P h . D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1977), p. 128. 13 M1ch1qan Education D i r e c t o r y and B uy e r's Guide (Lansing: 1977-1978), pp. 116-222. 22 r e p o r t i n g system a l s o c a l l s f o r p e r i o d i c p a r e n t - t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t 14 c o n fe r e n c e s . This s tu d y wIM compare th e a t t i t u d e s o f p r a c t i c i n g p u b l i c middle school e d u c a to r s In Michigan w ith the a t t i t u d e s o f p r a c t i c i n g p u b l i c e le m e n tary e d u c a to r s in t h e S c h a rf f e s t u d y , t o dete rm ine 1f middle school e d u c a to r s a c t u a l l y " p r a c t i c e what they p r e a c h . " Proponents o f the L e t t e r Grade System The arguments p r e s e n t e d a g a i n s t grades a re f o r m id a b le , t o say the l e a s t . However, t h e r e a r e s t i l l many w r i t e r s who t a k e t h e oppos­ ing view and f e e l they a r e j u s t i f i a b l e 1f n o t n e c e s s a r y . While the p e rc en ta g e o f secondary s c h o o l s using grades 1n r e p o r t i n g s t u d e n t p r o g r e s s i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a v a l i d tes tim o ny f o r e i t h e r th e pro o r con o f t h e argument, t h e r e i s s t i l l evidence t o p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f our n a t i o n ' s school systems s t i l l use e i t h e r l e t t e r g rades o r numerical g r a d e s . In a 1967 st udy by th e NEA which covered a sample o f 600 school s y s te m s , 1t was found t h a t a system o f numeri­ cal o r l e t t e r gra des was used in a b ou t 80 p e r c e n t o f t h e sy ste m s, e x c e p t a t t h e f i r s t grade l e v e l , where t h e p e rc e n t a g e was about 73, 15 and 1n t h e k i n d e r g a r t e n , where 1 t was 17 p e r c e n t . In 1967 a t l e a s t , t h e argument appeared t o be somewhat l i k e t h e weather: everyone t a l k s about 1 t b u t no one does a n y th in g about 14 Nicholas P. Georglady and Louis G. Romano, "Do You Have a Middle School?" Educational L ead ersh ip 31 (December 1973): 240. 15 Robert L. Thorndike and E l i z a b e t h Hagen, Measurement and E v alu atio n 1n Psychology and Education (New York: John Wiley and Sons, I n c . , 1969J , p. 5 / 1 . 23 it. Marks and marking a r e now deeply imbedded in the e d u c a t i o n a l culture. They become t h e b a s i s , in whole o r in p a r t , f o r a wide range o f a c t i v i t i e s i n c l u d i n g t h e c u rr ic u lu m t h a t may be a v a i l a b l e t o t h e s t u d e n t , whether o r no t t h e s t u d e n t 1s e l i g i b l e f o r s c h o l a r ­ s h i p s , whether t h e s t u d e n t i s in f a c t a dm itte d t o s c h o o ls o f h i g h e r l e a r n i n g , and even whe ther c e r t a i n v o c a tio n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s w i l l be a v a i l a b l e t o him a f t e r h i s formal e d u ca tio n i s completed. However, with a l l t h e i r l i m i t a t i o n s , whether th ey be t e c h n i c a l o r h u m a n ita r ia n , in Thorndike and Hagen's view, "marks remain one o f t h e b e s t p r e ­ d i c t o r s o f l a t e r marks, and so a r e im p o r tan t in conveying in fo rm ation about l i k e l i h o o d o f su c ce ss in c o l l e g e g e n e r a l l y , o r in s p e c i f i c i n s t i t u t i o n s o r programs." 1 fi The case 1n f a v o r o f grades i s o f t e n s t a t e d 1n such a way as t o imply a need f o r th e ge neral improvement o f t h e system a t which marks a r e a s s i g n e d t o i n s u r e g r e a t e r v a l i d i t y and c l a r i t y in t h e i r use , but draws t h e l i n e a t t o t a l abandonment o r t o t a l change t o a n o t h e r system o f r e p o r t i n g . One n o t a b l e w r i t e r who t a k e s t h i s p o s i t i o n 1s Robert L. E bel, who b e l i e v e s t h a t no s i n g l e system o f marking i s l i k e l y t o be found t h a t w i l l make th e p ro ce ss o f marking easy and p a i n l e s s o r s a t i s f a c t o r y t o a l l u s e r s . a n o th e r way, "you c a n ' t p l e a s e everybody." Or, t o pu t i t As Ebel s a y s , ". . . n o new marking sy stem , however c l e v e r l y d e v is e d and c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y f o llo w ed , i s l i k e l y t o s o l v e t h e b a s i c problems o f marking. 16I b i d . , p. 573. The 24 r e a l need 1s n o t f o r some new system. Good systems a l r e a d y e x i s t . " 17 From an a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s p o i n t o f view, l e t t e r grades o r some comparable numerical system o f marking a r e probably the s i m p l e s t system o f rec o rd in g s t u d e n t achievement. While marks a r e u s u a l l y given p e r i o d i c a l l y during t h e s e m e s te r on some form o f r e p o r t c a r d , which r e f l e c t the average o f a l l work completed 1n c l a s s du rin g t h e marking p e r i o d , th ese marking p e ri o d grades a r e then averaged t o show a f i n a l mark f o r the e n t i r e c o u r s e . In most c a s e s , t h i s 1s the only mark t h a t w i l l appear 1n t h e permanent recor ds o f t h e s t u d e n t . I t I s e asy t o e s t a b l i s h a g r a d e - p o i n t - a v e r a g e ; 1 t 1s e a s y t o rank s t u d e n t s a cco rd ing to GPA, and h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n a l I n s t i t u t i o n s and employers g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e t h e y can gain some I n s i g h t s i n t o t h e s t u d e n t ' s p o t e n t i a l f o r f u r t h e r stu dy o r vo c atio n a l placement a cc o rd­ in g t o t h e s e marks o r g r a d e - p o i n t - a v e r a g e s . Writers such as Ebel b e l i e v e t h i s 1s a f a i r and workable system . As he s t a t e s , Marks a r e n e c e ssa r y . I f th ey a r e I n a c c u r a t e , I n v a l i d , o r m e a n in g le ss, the remedy l i e s l e s s 1n de-emphasizing marks than In a s s i g n i n g them more c a r e f u l l y so t h a t they more t r u l y r e p o r t t h e e x t e n t o f Im portant achieve ments. I n s t e a d o f seek­ ing t o minimize t h e i r Importance o r se ek ing t o f i n d some l e s s p a i n f u l s u b s t i t u t e , perhaps i n s t r u c t o r s should devote more a t t e n t i o n t o Improving t h e v a l i d i t y and p r e c i s i o n o f marks th ey a s s i g n and t o minimizing m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f marks by s t u d e n t s , f a c u l t y and o t h e r s who use th em .18 Another w r i t e r who t a k e s a r a t h e r s t r o n g sta n d i n s u p p o r t o f th e n e c e s s i t y o f grades 1s Spray, who b e l i e v e s the a b o l i t i o n o f grades 17Robert L. E bel, Measuring Educational Achievement (Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t l c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1965), p. 398. l 8 I b 1 d . , p. 401. 25 would be u n r e a l i s t i c c o n s i d e r i n g the needs and demands o f both b u s i n e s s and h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . He speaks o f s o c i e t y in terms o f t h e I n d i v i d u a l ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith h i s f e l l o w man, and t h e s o r t i n g and o r d e r i n g , o r r a n k i n g , o f I n d i v id u a l s t u d e n t s a ccord ing t o achievement 1n o r d e r t o s a t i s f y t h e demands o f h i g h e r I n s t i t u t i o n s o f l e a r n i n g o r employment as n e c e s s a r y t o t h e o v e r - a l l s o c i e t a l p l a n . In t h i s r e g a r d , Spray s t a t e s , "School marks s e r v e p recedented and s o c i a l l y evolved purposes which, 1n th e f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e , cannot o t h e r w is e be s e r v e d . Educators may r e s t a s s u r e d t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e o f marking 19 and r e p o r t i n g s t u d e n t achievement 1n school I s here t o s t a y . " While Spray se es grades as e s s e n t i a l and advocates t h e i r c o n tinu ed u se , he does b e l i e v e they a r e o f t e n used In such a way as t o l i m i t t h e i r value 1n communicating p r o g r e s s t o p a r e n t s . As o t h e r w r i t e r s have s a i d In o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e l e t t e r g r a d e s , no one can be c e r t a i n j u s t what a "C" a c t u a l l y means. Unless t h e r e 1s some su p p le ­ mental r e p o r t t o accompany the g r a d e , a c h e c k l i s t , a l e t t e r , o r pos­ s i b l y a c o n fe r e n c e , the p a r e n t has no way t o de termine i f t h e "C" i n d i c a t e s average work f o r a s t u d e n t o f low a b i l i t y , high a b i l i t y , c l a s s a v e r a g e , n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s , o r what. Spray b e l i e v e s grades should be used b u t a t the same tim e , t h e y shou ld be based upon t h e s t u d e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o perform 1n the c o u r s e , and t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n could be made by the use o f p a s t performance, t e s t s c o r e s , and t e a c h e r judgment. 19 "As a c c u r a t e l y as p o s s i b l e , a d e t e r m i n a t i o n sho uld be made Cecil 0. Spray, "Meaningful Grade R e p o r ti n g , " The C l e a r in g House 43 (F ebruary 1969): 338. 26 o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s a b i l i t y In t h e p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t . " 20 Spray advo­ c a t e s as many as f i v e d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t y l e v e l s f o r t h e v a ri o u s c o u rs es being o f f e r e d , and t h e s e l e v e l s might be r e f e r r e d t o as "phases." From an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o i n t o f view, such l e v e l s might c r e a t e a m u l t i t u d e o f s c h e d u l i n g problems. A lso , t h e r e may be some problems w i t h disagreem ent between th e school and t h e home as to which phase t h e y o u n g s t e r w i l l be a ss i g n e d t o , as the system lea d s t o t h e same p h i l o s o p h i c a l arguments t h a t a r e made a g a i n s t t r a c k i n g . N o tw ith stan d in g t h e s e arguments, Spray 1s n o t a lo ne 1n h i s o pinio n r e g a r d i n g the system o f a s s i g n i n g grades a cc o rd in g t o t h e v a ry in g l e v e l s o f a b i l i t y o f s t u d e n t s . Kvaraceus adopts a s u p p o r t i v e view by s t a t i n g t h e f o llo w in g : The only way e v a l u a t o r s 1n school can so lv e t h i s p e r s o n a l i t y - s p l i t t i n g dilemma 1s t o pro vide two marks: one I n d i c a t i n g t h e l e v e l o f t h e p u p i l ' s performance measured a g a i n s t h i s p o t e n t i a l ; t h e o t h e r r e p o r t i n g h i s achievements a g a i n s t th e performance o f o t h e r p u p i l s o f h i s own age o r g r a d e . 21 One o f t h e s t r o n g e s t p o s i t i o n s taken 1n f a v o r o f n o t only g r a d e s , b u t more g e n e r a l l y , c o m p e t i t i o n , 1s t h a t o f G r e n ls . He b e l i e v e s nongraded sch o o ls w ith s o - c a l l e d I n d i v i d u a l i z e d programs a r e a n\yth. While sch o o ls may p r o f e s s t o have such a program, p a r e n t s w i l l o f t e n make such demands a s , " I know you have a non­ graded program, b u t what grade 1s Johnny 1n t h i s y e a r ? " Grenls 20I b i d . , p. 340. ^ W i l l 1am C. Kvaraceus, "DANGER Handle With Ca re!" J o u r n a l 48 (December 1959): 27. NEA 27 c o n t i n u e s , " I f t h e p a r e n t i s i n s i s t e n t enough, he i s u s u a l l y t o l d . " 22 Grenis makes h i s p o i n t a g a i n s t nongraded programs i n t h a t he d i s ­ a g re e s w ith t h e co ncept o f a c h i l d being allowed t o move a t h i s own pa ce . He f e e l s t h a t " t o conduct an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d program l o g i c a l l y 23 l e a d s t o e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e s t u d e n t 1n a vacuum." F u r t h e r speak ing on c o m p e t i t i o n , Grenis s t a t e s , E x cellence f o r t h i s s t u d e n t w i l l c o n ti n u e t o be measured 1n terms o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s having s i m i l a r a p t i t u d e s , motiva­ t i o n s , and g o a l s . There i s n o th in g b a s i c a l l y wrong with c r e a t i n g a c o m p e ti t iv e group c l i m a t e . Why t h e r e l u c t a n c e to see I t f o r what i t 1s and admit i t openly?*4 He c o n t i n u e s : We a r e h e l p i n g c h i l d r e n t o l i v e as members o f a c o m p e ti t iv e s o c i e t y . L et us a c c e p t th e id ea t h a t e x c e l l e n c e w i l l be rewarded. I d e a l l y , every c h i l d 1s a win ner—who d o e s n ' t win every t i m e . " Opponents o f t h e Grading System In reviewing t h e l i t e r a t u r e on g rad in g and s t u d e n t r e p o r t i n g p r a c t i c e s , t h i s r e s e a r c h e r has found t h a t t h e preponderance o f the w r i t e r s a r e a g a i n s t grades (A B C D F) f o r t h r e e main r e a s o n s . F irst, t h e use o f grades tend s t o cause some s t u d e n t s t o s t r i v e f o r t h e high grade f o r t h e p r e s t i g e i t w i l l b r i n g t o them 1n t h e eyes o f t h e i r p a r e n t s , t h e i r p e e r s , and i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r l e a r n i n g and p o s s i b l y employment, r a t h e r than t o promote l e a r n i n g f o r t h e sake o f s e l f improvement o r t o s a t i s f y t h e i r n a t u r a l I n q u i s i t i v e n a t u r e . Second, 22 Michael G r e n i s , " I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , Grouping, Competi­ t i o n , and E x c e l l e n c e , " Phi D e lta Kappan 57 (November 1975): 199. 23I b i d . , p. 200. 24I b i d . , p. 199. 25I b i d . , p. 200. 28 th e use o f grades w i l l Induce an e a r l y sense o f f a i l u r e and d i s c o u r a g e th e s t u d e n t who may need a b i t more time t o m as te r th e s u b j e c t m a t t e r . T h i r d , the use o f grades t e l l s us l i t t l e about th e s k i l l s t h a t s t u ­ d e n ts have a c q u i r e d 1n a given s u b j e c t , 1n t h a t a nC" f a i l s t o i n d i ­ c a t e whether t h e s t u d e n t ach iev ed an average amount o f l e a r n i n g compared to h i s c l a s s m a t e s , n a t i o n a l norms, o r a c c ord in g t o h i s I n d i ­ vi dual a b i l i t y . One o f the w r i t e r s who has covered t h e Iss u e o f g rading and s t u d e n t r e p o r t i n g r a t h e r thoroughly i s Wrinkle, who says o f t h e above Issues, Except 1n a very l i m i t e d s e n s e , A B C D F marks c annot convey s i g n i f i c a n t In fo rm a tio n r e g a r d i n g the achievement, p r o g r e s s , f a i l u r e o r su c ce ss o f t h e s t u d e n t . A mark, u n l e s s I t s mean­ ing 1s r e s t r i c t e d t o one d e f i n e d v a l u e , cannot be i n t e r p r e t e d s i n c e I t 1s u s u a l l y a composite Index r e p r e s e n t i n g th e average o f a v a r i e t y o f d i f f e r e n t v a l u e s . Does an A mean s u p e r i o r achievement on an a b s o l u t e s c a l e o f v a l u e s , high achievement 1n comparison with t h e achievement 1n r e l a t i o n t o t h e s t u d e n t ' s I n d i v id u a l a b i l i t y ? You d o n ' t know, and so you c a n ' t t e l l what t h e A m e a n s. 26 F u r t h e r , 1n the realm o f I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , Wrinkle s t a t e s , "[Marks] do n o t r e p r e s e n t f i x e d v alu es 1n terms o f which th e y can be 27 interp reted ." As m o t i v a t o r s , Wrinkle views grades 1n a n e g a t i v e manner as he w r i t e s , "The need f o r marks as p e r s u a s i v e d e v i c e s , as p r e s s u r e I n s t r u m e n t s , t o Induce an i n c r e a s e d a p p l i c a t i o n o f s t u d e n t e f f o r t 1s based on an assumption t h a t s t u d e n t s do n o t want t o do what 28 the school wants them t o do." 26 William L. Wrinkle, Improving Marking and R e po rtin g Prac­ t i c e s (New York: R i n e h a r t and Company, 1947), p. 34. 27I b 1 d . , p. 35. 2 8 I b i d . , p. 34. 29 As many w r i t e r s p o i n t o u t , t h e co n fu sion e x i s t s where an a t t e m p t 1s made t o summarize pu p il p r o g r e s s 1n terms o f a s i n g l e l e t t e r grade and have I t s meaning be c l e a r and p r e c i s e t o t h e s t u d e n t and p a r e n t . The q u e s t i o n remains whether t h e a ss i g n e d mark r e p r e ­ s e n t s l e v e l o f achieve ment, gain 1n achieve ment, o r some combination o f th e two? Should e f f o r t be I n c l u d e d , o r should high a c h i e v e r s be given good marks r e g a r d l e s s o f e f f o r t ? Should p u p i l s be marked 1n terms o f t h e i r own p o t e n t i a l l e a r n i n g a b i l i t y o r 1n r e l a t i o n t o t h e achievement o f t h e i r c l a s s m a te s ? As Gronlund p o i n t s o u t , such con­ f u s i o n must be e l i m i n a t e d 1 f t h e marks a r e t o be e f f e c t i v e . The r e p o r t s sho uld (1) c l a r i f y t h e g o a ls o f t h e s c h o o l , (2) i n d i c a t e t h e p u p i l ' s s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses In l e a r n ­ i n g , (3) provide g r e a t e r un d e rs tan d in g o f the p u p i l ' s p e r s o n a l so c lajg d ev e lo p m e n t, and (4) c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e p u p i l ' s motivaFrom the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o i n t o f view, a s i n g l e l e t t e r grade tends t o be p r e f e r r e d , l a r g e l y because such marks a r e compact and can be e a s i l y rec o rd ed and averaged. With t h e I n c r e a s e d use o f machines f o r r o u t i n e c l e r i c a l work, t h i s advantage w i l l probably assume even g r e a t e r importance 1n t h e f u t u r e . Most l a r g e r school d i s t r i c t s now have t h e s e r v i c e s o f computers f o r r o u t i n e d u t i e s o f the p a s t , such as sc h e d u l i n g c l a s s e s , marking r e p o r t c a r d s , and figuring grade-polnt-averages. In most c a s e s , t h e r e 1s very l i t t l e space l e f t on t h e r e p o r t card f o r d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n s o r I n t e r p r e ­ t a t i o n s o f th e g r a d e s . 29 (New York: Norman E. Gronlund, Measurements and E v a l u a t i o n in Teaching Macmillan P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1965), p. 373. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF SAGINAW PUPIL PROGRESS REPORT I trHon \ / VE3BER JR . HIGn Mur*N' ■ 03 / 1^/61 1700?30QQ9 01 02 03 05 06 07 Office Indus Arts Health Hoc. Stud 3 English 8 Algebra 1h i; tf A t r W O f l tl- j U & *A M tO iN t AVf 3.900 M ARM NG H d in D f tlD * f j A lf ltfP II U A-1K 3+1K A 3J B 1K A 1KL B 20 Crane H. Io o ta lo B. Busch J . 'Jefmcr H. Snyder J . M cCarty II. C ijW U lA T lV f TOTALS '* t U T S t A V .I D SUVttARf l/A A il t 'j t l f (H l/fH S m P T H IRD 1 M crutH ! 3 nori * auy p a re n t i t t i n o * AND MAKE 1 73-79 A-A L- /.-1J A-1J A 1J A IK A 1JL A IK O F FI't l- GOOD •, J FAI» 4 *00« • r O lRERtfi'1 ■! J ' . ' t V f D * in cinjfn'iMip i*, r e o u i v s d ro • a u tm( r « o o i ARRANGEMENTS A MEETING A i ' h ruf A i.u^e.lA TE IFA't-fR S IH O U R IIR P * » « A HRjT strowo A-1J A-1J A ?J A-1MK A 1KL A IX 8 i: IG »f r | | I V •v * t 1 * ’’ + (All r, .M r" ►V?* H »p\ r - . V . A 'r W A * *fD»1 IfM A M S .»*• i*»jf •irM*|* lOllfitM niTH iUlH IA| . » l«*A» . -\1 | fel *H| A' •» ■ # *+ • * frAft*.'t*FP„* I f ,1 a p jt a v ; * PARENTS COPY I l l u s t r a t i o n 2 . 1 . —Example of a typ ic al r e p o r t card c u r r e n t ly being used, where l e t t e r grades f o r achievement, numerical marks f o r c i t i z e n s h i p , and comments on c h a r a c te r are a l l used. 31 Another a r e a o f concern f o r Gronlund i s t h e f a c t t h a t most s i n g l e marks on a r e p o r t c ard a c t u a l l y r e p r e s e n t th e averag e o f a l l t h e work completed by t h e s t u d e n t w i t h i n a given marking p e r i o d o r s e m e s te r . The s t u d e n t may have shown mastery t o th e h i g h e s t de gree on c e r t a i n mathematical o p e r a t i o n s , performed a d e q u a te ly on o t h e r s , and e x p e r i e n c e d c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y on o t h e r s . may average o u t t o a C. His f i n a l mark The s i n g l e mark does n o t t e l l th e s t u d e n t o r h i s p a r e n t s where h i s s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses 11e. In t h i s r e g a r d , Gronlund p o i n t s o u t , As t y p i c a l l y use d, l e t t e r grades have r e s u l t e d In an u n d e s i r ­ a b l e emphasis on marks as ends 1n t hem se lve s. Many p u p i l s and p a r e n t s view them as g oa ls t o be a c h i e v e d , r a t h e r than as means f o r u n d e rs t a n d i n g and Improving p u pil development. While t h i s 1s n o t e n t i r e l y th e f a u l t o f t h e marking syste m, t h e la c k o f I n f o r m a tio n provided by a s i n g l e l e t t e r grade pro bab ly con­ t r i b u t e s t o t h i s m is u s e . 30 Another well-known w r i t e r , John H o l t , r e c o g n i z e s t h i s same problem o f l a c k o f c l a r i t y 1n th e grades and o f f e r s t h e fo llo w in g su g g e s t i o n : I f we have t o submit a grade o r r e p o r t c ard once a t e r m , o r q u a r t e r , o r s e m e s t e r , t h a t should be t h e o nly mark we giv e t h e c h i l d 1n t h a t p e r i o d . How t h e n do we g e t t h e grade? When I t a u g h t n i n t h , t e n t h , and e l e v e n t h grade E n g l i s h , I graded n\y s t u d e n t s on what I f e l t t o be a c r o s s s e c t i o n o f t h e i r b e s t w o r k .31 He goes on t o p o i n t o u t t h e example o f a v e r a g i n g a s e r i o u s w r i t e r ' s b e s t work a g a i n s t h i s w o r s t , which would be t o t a l l y u n a c c e p t a b l e in 30I b i d . , p. 375. 31 John H o l t , " I Oppose T e s t i n g , Marking, and G r a d in g ," Today's Education 60 (March 1971): 29. 32 the f i e l d o f l i t e r a t u r e . The same i s t r u e o f an a r t i s t . Only t h e b e s t work 1s e v e r s o l d . Holt f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t 1 f grades must be g i v e n , t h e y should be given . . . as l e n i e n t l y as p o s s i b l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t h e low end. Put a s a f e t y n e t under everybody. To n\y n i n t h , t e n t h and e l e v e n t h g r a d e r s I made 1 t c l e a r t h a t nobody 1n c l a s s would g e t lower than a C-, wha tever t h e y might o r might no t do. T his a t l e a s t f r e e d them from t h e burden o f f a i l u r e . Free o f 1 t , th ey went on t o do good work, very o f t e n b e t t e r work than they had done b e f o r e . 3 2 The a r e a o f I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f marks, d e te r m in in g t h e i r mean­ i n g , i s o f major concern t o n e a r l y e very w r i t e r who speaks 1n o p p o s i t i o n t o the use o f g r a d e s . In s u p p o r t o f t h e concerns o f H o l t , Davis comments, Schools and c o l l e g e s o f t e n d e f i n e l e t t e r marks o f A, B, C, D, o r E 1n terms o f p e r c e n t a g e s . One c o l l e g e , f o r example, s t a t e s 1n I t s c a t a l o g t h a t A *> 90-100 p e r c e n t ; B * 80-89 p e r ­ c e n t ; C = 70-79 p e r c e n t ; D * 60-69 p e r c e n t ; E ■ 0-59 p e r c e n t . Taken l i t e r a l l y , t h i s s t a te m e n t means t h a t a s t u d e n t who g e t s a s c o r e o f 65 p e r c e n t on any exam ination should be given a mark o f D; one who g e t s a s c o r e o f 89 p e r c e n t should be given a mark o f B, e t c . F o r t u n a t e l y , no one t a k e s t h e s t a t e m e n t l i t ­ e r a l l y because 1 t 1s s e l f - e v i d e n t t h a t t o g e t 65 p e r c e n t on a d i f f i c u l t exam in atio n might be t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f g e t t i n g 89 p e r c e n t on an easy e x a m i n a t i o n . 33 Davis p o i n t s o u t t h a t marks given by d i f f e r e n t t e a c h e r s o r even by the same t e a c h e r 1n d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s a r e n o t comparable. For example, an A from one t e a c h e r may r e p r e s e n t t h e same l e v e l o f 32I b 1 d . , p. 29. 33 F r e d e r i c k B. Davis, Edu cational Measurements and T h e i r I n t e r p r e t a t i o n (Belmont, Cal1f o r n l a : Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g Company, I n c . , 1964), p. 299. 33 performance as a C from a n o t h e r t e a c h e r . This th e o r y 1s s up p orte d by the e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h by S t a r c h and E l l i o t 1n 1913. One o f th e f e a r s o f t e n e x p re ss ed to t h i s w r i t e r by t e a c h e r s 1s t h e i r concern over " a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . " Schools a r e now d ev elop in g minimum performance o b j e c t i v e s , s e v e r a l s t a t e s a d m i n i s t e r s t a t e w i d e assess ment t e s t s , and some school systems a r e r e f u s i n g t o g r a d u a t e s e n i o r s who f a l l t o pass exa m in atio ns o f minimal e x i t s k i l l s . At the extreme l e v e l , l a w s u i t s have been f i l e d a g a i n s t boards o f e d u c a ti o n a f t e r g r a d u a t i n g s t u d e n t s who cannot r e a d . But t o t h i s p o i n t , Holt s a y s , "Make no m is ta k e abo ut 1 t , 1 f you have t o send c h i l d r e n on t o t h e i r n e x t c l a s s with l a b e l s around t h e i r n e cks, t h e b e t t e r l a b e l s 35 you can g iv e them, the b e t t e r o f f they w i l l b e . " Following t h e same l i n e o f thought c oncern ing a t t i t u d e s and labels, P riestley w rites, Under t r a d i t i o n a l g rad in g sy s te m s, a c h i l d Is l a b e l e d a suc­ c e s s o r f a i l u r e long b e f o r e he completes h i s s c h o o l i n g . No c h i l d e n t e r i n g th e f i r s t grade t h i n k s o f h i m s e l f as a f a i l u r e . Yet by th e time a c h i l d f i n i s h e s h i s p u b l i c sc h o o l in g 12 y e a r s l a t e r , he w i l l , more l i k e l y th a n n o t , have been t a u g h t t h a t he 1s a f a i l u r e . And he w i l l b e l i e v e 1 t . 36 P r i e s t l e y d e s c r i b e s h i s own e x p e r i e n c e s as a c la ssro om t e a c h e r and t h e problems he has e ncou n tere d w ith t h e t r a d i t i o n a l g rad in g s y s ­ tem. He has found t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d A ' s and B's on t h e i r w r i t t e n assignments tended t o c o n ti n u e t o exce l and r e c e i v e 3^ P e t e r Doe v s . San F r a n c i s c o U n ified School D i s t r i c t , 1972; C a l i f o r n i a Supreme Court r e f u s e d t o h e a r t h e case 1n 1976. 3£iH o l t , "I Oppose T e s t i n g , " p. 30. 36E r n e s t P r i e s t l e y , "The Only Good Grades Are Good Grad es," Changing Education 4 (Spring 1970): 17. 34 high g r a d e s . On th e c o n tra ry * th o se who r e c e i v e d C 's and D's tended t o c o n ti n u e r e c e i v i n g low marks, and 1n f a c t , t h e i r grades d e c l i n e d . He found t h a t t h e only grades t h a t se r v e d as m o ti v a to r s t o t h e s t u ­ d e n ts were the "good" g r a d e s , w hile t h e poor grades proved t o be discouraging f a c t o r s . Of t h e s t u d e n t s whose achievement might no t w a r r a n t high g rades 1n the t r a d i t i o n a l s e n s e , P r i e s t l e y s t a t e s , " [S c h o o l] should be a p la c e where we l e a r n how t o handle l i f e suc­ c essfully. There 1s no p l a c e in school f o r l a b e l s and c a t e g o r i e s o f f a i l u r e . " 37 The co ncept o f l a b e l i n g s t u d e n t s w ith t h e i r school grades seems t o be t h e predominant f a c t o r in t h e works o f many w r i t e r s on the m atter of re p o rtin g . B r a n tl e y follows t h i s l i n e o f t h ou g ht when he s t a t e s , " I t 1s a f a c t t h a t some p u p i l s a r e 'made1 through marks 38 w h ile o t h e r s a r e ' w r e c k e d . ' " B ra n tley d e s c r i b e s what he c o n s i d e r s t o be t h e Ideal s i t u a t i o n as f o l lo w s : An Idea l school s i t u a t i o n would be one 1n which t h e t e a c h e r Is f r e e t o t e a c h boys and g i r l s who a r e i n t e r e s t e d 1n l e a r n i n g - both t e a c h e r and pupil being unconcerned about t h e r e c o r d i n g o f a judgment, t h e mark. T his Ideal s i t u a t i o n would e l i m i n a t e t h e plan o f young people being s u b j e c t e d t o judgments ba sed , too o f t e n , on to o l i t t l e o b j e c t i v e e v id e n c e . Because o f our I d ea l s i t u a t i o n being 1n t h e f u t u r e , t e a c h e r s must c o n ti n u e assuming th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p a s s i n g judgments on young p e o p le . These judgments b r i n g j o y and happin ess t o some; t o o t h e r s a f e e l i n g o f b i t t e r n e s s and r e s e n t m e n t ; and t o o t h e r s , a s p i r i t c ru shed t o such an e x t e n t t h a t f u r t h e r school a t t e n d a n c e becomes o b j e c ­ t i o n a b l e t o th em .39 37I b 1 d . , p. 17. 38 G. D. B r a n t l e y , "An A n a ly sis o f C u r r e n t P r a c t i c e s 1n t h e Use o f t h e Report C a rd ," NASSP B u l l e t i n 26 (January 1942): 67. 39I b 1 d . , p. 67. 35 One outspoken w r i t e r , Brian P a t r i c k McGuire, speaks o u t a g a i n s t grades from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f a h i g h l y s u c c e s s f u l s t u d e n t . A f t e r g r a d u a t i n g from a u n i v e r s i t y w ith honors and a very high gradep o i n t a v e r a g e , he looks back on h i s e x p e r i e n c e s with grades as a dehumanizing e x p e r i e n c e which l i m i t e d h i s c a p a c i t y f o r i n q u i r y and self-m otivation. McGuire s t a t e s , " I have become convinced t h a t t h e t r a d i t i o n a l l e t t e r - g r a d i n g system should be e li m i n a t e d i n p r e c o l l e g e 40 e d u c a t i o n , f o r i t disc o u rag e s l e a r n i n g more than i t encourages 1 t . " F u r t h e r , "My major o b j e c t i o n t o g radin g as I e x perien c ed i t i s t h a t grades I n s t e a d o f merely symbolizing what had been l e a r n e d u s u a l l y 41 became the s o u g h t - a f t e r g o a l . " McGuire saw each t e a c h e r as a s e p a r a t e c h a l l e n g e as he c a t e r e d to h i s t a s t e s and p r e f e r e n c e s . The more o b s e r v a n t and a s t u t e p u p i l s would know t h e I n s t r u c t o r ' s p e r s o n a l i t y and e x p e c t a t i o n s s u f ­ f i c i e n t l y w i t h i n a few weeks o f t h e c o u rs e and knew how much p r e p a r a ­ t i o n was n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e f i r s t e x am in atio n. I f s u c c e s s f u l , such a system would y i e l d t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e grades f o r the l e a s t p o s s i b l e work. This same p o i n t , in e s s e n c e , 1s argued by many w r i t e r s in t h a t s t u d e n t s w i l l t e n d t o c a t e r t o t h e whims o f I n s t r u c t o r s and produce only t h a t which i s n e c e s s a r y t o s a t i s f y h i s s t a n d a r d s f o r a high mark and w i l l seldom go beyond I n t o an a re a o f genuine I n q u i r y . As McGuire f u r t h e r s t a t e s , 40 Brian P. McGuire, "The Grading Game," Today's Education 58 {March 1969): 32. 36 The demands o f academic e f f i c i e n c y deadened I n t e l l e c t u a l c u r i ­ o s i t y . I f a c e r t a i n c h a p t e r was no t r e q u i r e d f o r an examina­ tio n* we would ig nore 1 t . The narrow p u r s u i t o f grades becomes a poor s u b s t i t u t e f o r d i s c o v e r i e s o f th e world. The g rad in g system p r o v id e s a b r e e d i n g ground f o r m e d i o c r i t y and cyn ic ism. Learning g e t s l o s t In a maze o f p o i n t s , minuses, and p l u s e s . 42 The Idea o f t h e A, B, C on t h e r e p o r t card g ivin g a f a l s e sense o f v alu es t o t h e l e s s a p t s t u d e n t as well as doing damage t o the s u p e r i o r s t u d e n t 1s s u pp o rte d by Brlmm. He s t a t e s , Thosands o f s u p e r i o r s t u d e n t s 1n our high sch o ols today can meet t h e req u ire m e n ts f o r an A w i t h o u t " cr a ck in g a book." I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o convince a s t u d e n t t h a t he 1s n o t working when he r e c e i v e s t h e h i g h e s t p o s s i b l e marks on h i s r e p o r t c a r d . The a n t i q u a t e d d e v ic e we a r e u sing l u l l s t h e I n f e r i o r s t u d e n t s I n t o a f a l s e se nse o f s e c u r i t y and a t th e same time encourages m e d i o c r i t y In th e s u p e r i o r s t u d e n t s . 43 While most would a gre e t h a t marks should n o t be used in a p u n i t i v e way, we have a l l heard o f I n s t r u c t o r s who a llo w t h e a t t i ­ tudes and s o c i a l b e h a v i o r o f th e s t u d e n t to e n t e r I n t o t h e i r e v a l u a ­ tions. As Brlmm f u r t h e r o b s e r v e s , Most t e a c h e r s temper t h e t e s t r e s u l t s with as " a t t i t u d e " and " e f f o r t . " The degree t o e n t e r i n t o the mark Is seldom d e f i n e d and, knows e x a c t l y what a C means. I t may mean dent who works hard o r a very good s t u d e n t t u d e . 44 such g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s which t h e s e t r a i t s as a r e s u l t , no one a below-average s t u ­ who has a poor a t t i ­ McGuire e x p re s s e d h i s concerns o v e r the e l i t i s t c l i q u e s t h a t may r e s u l t from m a i n t a i n i n g honor r o l l s based upon academic g r a d e s . I t should be p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e National Honor S o c i e t y , which 1s o r g an iz ed 1n many s e n i o r high sch o o ls 1n America, was e s t a b l i s h e d by 4 2I b 1 d . , p. 34. 43 R. P. Brlmm, "Report C a r d s - - Y e s t e r d a y and Today," C l e a r i n g House 33 (September 1958): 17. 37 t h e Natio nal A s s o c i a t i o n o f Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s (NASSP) in 1921. By 1925, t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n f e l t t h e need t o e s t a b l i s h honor s o c i e t i e s f o r younger s t u d e n t s 1n t h e secon da ry sch o o ls 1n o r d e r t o s t i m u l a t e them toward g r e a t e r academic growth. As t h e NASSP p u ts 1 t , The need t o s t i m u l a t e s c h o l a r s h i p 1n high sch o o ls c l o s e l y emu­ l a t e d th e c o l l e g e d e s i g n . S i m i l a r re a so n in g su pp o rted t h e concept o f t h e National J u n i o r Honor S o c i e t y as a means t o encourage academic performance d u r in g e a r l y a d o le sc e n c e . Although NASSP adopted t h e co ncept o f a Nationa l J u n i o r Honor S o c i e t y 1n 1925, I t was n o t u n t i l February 24, 1929, In S t . L o u is , M i s s o u r i , t h a t the N atio n al J u n i o r Honor S o c ie ty was a u t h o r i z e d by t h e Executive Committee o f t h e NASSP.48 I t might be well t o examine t h e requ ire m e nts f o r membership in t h e J u n i o r Natio nal Honor S o c i e t y . From t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f s c h o l a r ­ s h i p , t h e r u l e s s t a t e , "The minimum grade p o i n t averag e r e q u i r e d f o r membership I s 85 p e r c e n t , a "B" a v e r a g e , o r I t s e q u i v a l e n t . Schools may s t i p u l a t e an averag e h i g h e r than 85 p e r c e n t , b u t they cannot lower 47 1t." The r u l e s f u r t h e r s t i p u l a t e , "Schools w i t h no n -graded, p a s s f a l l , o r o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e systems should develop a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n 48 dard s f o r meeting t h e s c h o l a r s h i p r e q u i r e m e n t . " While we g e n e r a l l y t h i n k o f honor s o c i e t y members as b ein g high academic a c h i e v e r s , I t should be remembered t h a t t h e r e a r e f o u r o t h e r c r i t e r i a f o r membership, which I n c lu d e c i t i z e n s h i p , s e r v i c e , l e a d e r s h i p , and c h a r a c t e r . The d e f i n i t i o n s o f each o f t h e s e q u a l i t i e s 45 * Nationa l J u n i o r Honor S o c ie ty Handbook (Reston, V i r g i n i a : Natio nal A s s o c i a t i o n o f Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s , 1947), p. 4. 4 6 I b 1 d . , p. 6. 4 7 I b 1 d . , p. 12. 4 8 I b 1 d . , p. 34. 38 w i l l n o t be d i s c u s s e d a t t h i s tim e , bu t s u f f i c e 1 t t o say t h a t only t h o s e s t u d e n t s who a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be very " s p e c i a l " a r e I n v i t e d t o become members. The f i n a l d e c i s i o n as t o whe ther o r n o t an I n d i ­ vidual meets t h e c r i t e r i a r e s t s w ith a committee o f f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1n each i n d i v i d u a l s c h o o l . I t Is t h i s e n t i r e concept o f s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g s p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o r a t t e n t i o n because o f t h e i r school g r a d e s , and t h e Idea o f s a t i s f y i n g t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f a group o f t e a c h e r s , t h a t McGuire f i n d s so o b j e c t i o n a b l e . To I l l u s t r a t e t h e Importance and p r e s t i g e placed on Honor S o c i e t y membership by I t s members, former P r e s i d e n t Ge rald Ford used h i s membership 1n h i s 1976 campaign f o r r e e l e c t i o n t o the p r e s i d e n c y . One o f t h e f i l m s used by t h e mass media ( t e l e v i s i o n ) In clud e d p i c ­ t u r e s o f Mr. Ford bein g In du cted as a s t u d e n t 1n Grand R apid s, Michigan. He was again r e i n d u c t e d a t th e 1976 n a t i o n a l co n ven tio n o f t h e NASSP 1n Washington, D.C., where he was a keynote sp e a k e r . If this w riter may be Indu lged f o r a b i t o f e d i t o r i a l i z i n g , t h e n a t i o n ' s v o t e r s a p p a r e n t l y d i d n o t see h i s high school s c h o l a s t i c achievements as s i g n i f i c a n t enough t o r e e l e c t him f o r a f u l l term . Among t h e forem ost w r i t e r s 1n t h e a r e a o f t e s t i n g , g r a d i n g , and r e p o r t i n g a r e Robert Thorndike and E l i z a b e t h Hagen, who b e l i e v e t h a t t h e l e t t e r grade system I s a s a t i s f a c t o r y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e v ic e f o r r e c o r d i n g p u r p o s e s , b u t th ey a l s o f e e l t h a t I t 1s I n s u f f i c i e n t 1n p r o v i d in g Immediate feedback t o th e s t u d e n t and t h e p a r e n t as t o t h e academic p r o g r e s s being r e a l i z e d . They b e l i e v e t h e s t u d e n t needs c o n s t a n t I n f o r m a t io n about h i m s e l f t o guide h i s l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s 39 and t o he lp him make p l a n s f o r h i s f u t u r e . He needs t o know where h i s s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses l i e , and t h e d a i l y e x e r c i s e s , r e c i t a ­ t i o n s , and q u i z z e s provide t h i s type o f fee dback. I t i s most impor­ t a n t t h a t such work be c o r r e c t e d by t h e t e a c h e r and r e t u r n e d t o th e s t u d e n t immediately In o r d e r t o keep him up t o d a t e on h i s p r o g r e s s . Thorndike and Hagen b e l i e v e t h a t p e r i o d i c grades o r marks on r e p o r t c ards a r e too remote from the a c t u a l l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s t o pro vid e 49 specific direction. Most s t u d e n t s have e x p e r ie n c e d s i t u a t i o n s where t e a c h e r s have a s s i g n e d w r i t t e n work t o be completed and tu r n e d i n by a c e r t a i n d e a d l i n e , only t o have 1 t s i t 1n a p i l e on t h e t e a c h e r ' s desk for days o r weeks a t a time b e f o r e being c o r r e c t e d and r e t u r n e d . Thorndike and Hagen d i s c u s s a stu dy o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f e le m e n ta r y school c h i l ­ dren on which s u b j e c t s were most Im p orta n t f o r them t o l e a r n . I t was found t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n tended t o ag re e t h a t s p e l l i n g and a r i t h m e t i c were most Im portant because t h e s e were t h e p apers t h e i r t e a c h e r s graded and r e t u r n e d . Here a g a i n , 1 t 1s t e s t i n g and immediate f e e d ­ back t h a t a re c e n t r a l , r a t h e r than a mark on a r e p o r t card once in 50 s i x o r e i g h t weeks. A s t u d y by White and Boehm produced s i m i l a r r e s u l t s 1n t e s t i n g th e a t t i t u d e s o f e le m e n ta r y c h i l d r e n toward v a ri o u s s u b j e c t s 1n t h e c u rr i c u lu m . The c h i l d r e n ranked t h e i r s u b j e c t s 1n o r d e r o f importance as f o llo w s: 49 r e a d i n g , a r i t h m e t i c , s p e l l i n g and w r i t i n g , Thorndike and Hagen, Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n , p. 572. o0 I b i d . , p. 573. 40 and s o c i a l s t u d i e s and s c i e n c e . I t was found t h a t c h i l d r e n b e l i e v e d s p e l l i n g and a r i t h m e t i c t o be most Important because t h e s e were t h e papers a s s i g n e d most o f t e n , on a r e g u l a r b a s i s , and t h e s e pa pers were graded and r e t u r n e d t o them most promptly. I t was p o i n te d out t h a t t h e r e s u l t s may a l s o imply t h a t p u p i l s respond t o the world o f l e a r n i n g in terms o f r e p e a t e d work demands and I t s e v a l u a t i o n , r a t h e r 51 than t o b a s i c concepts o r p r i n c i p l e s l a i d down 1n t h e c u rr i c u lu m . The p o i n t being made by White and Boehm i s simply t h a t c h i l ­ dren a t the e le m e n tary school level a r e a l r e a d y lookin g a t l e a r n i n g and Importance o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r 1n terms o f grades and t e a c h e r re q u i r e m e n ts , r a t h e r than a n a t u r a l c u r i o s i t y . Would I t not be p o s s i b l e , with a d i f f e r e n t emphasis, t o r a i s e t h e l e v e l o f Importance 1n t h e minds o f c h i l d r e n toward s o c i a l s t u d i e s and s c i e n c e ? The S c h a r f f e s tu d y r e v e a l e d t h a t ele m e ntary t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a l s o view l e t t e r grades as im p o r tan t I n d i c a t o r s o f academic su c ce ss and w o r th , as they ranked t h i s r e p o r t i n g system as being second only t o p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s . Even s o , t h e y did n o t view p a r e n t c o n fe renc es as s u f f i c i e n t i n r e p o r t i n g by th em selv es. Some s o r t o f w r i t t e n r e p o r t was viewed as being n e c e s s a r y t o accompany t h e p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , and t h e w r i t t e n r e p o r t form most fav o re d was 52 t h e l e t t e r g rad e . 5^Mary A l i c e White and Ann Boehm, " C h i l d ' s World o f Learn­ ing: W ritten Workloads o f P u p i l s , " Psychology 1n the Schools 8 (1967): 73. ^ S c h a r f f e , " A t t i t u d e s , " p. 128. 41 P a r e n t Conferences One form o f s t u d e n t r e p o r t i n g which r e c e i v e s wide s u p p o r t from many segments o f th e community o f e d u c a to r s as well as p a r e n t s 1s the p e r i o d i c p a r e n t - t e a c h e r - ( s t u d e n t ) c o n fe ren c e. Whether sc hed uled on a r e g u l a r b a s i s o r on an Informal b a s i s a cco rd in g t o n eed , t h e p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e o f f e r s t h e t e a c h e r and p a r e n t t h e oppor­ t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s In c o n s i d e r a b l e more d e t a i l t h e p r o g r e s s and achievements o f t h e y o u n g s t e r . There a r e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r q u e s t i o n s from both p a r t i e s t o c l a r i f y th e I n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s and to gain b e t t e r I n s i g h t s I n t o th e c h i l d ' s stu d y h a b i t s o r o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p r i v a c y a t home. One w r i t e r , John A. Walecka, b e l i e v e s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to r e p o r t on th e growth o f p u p i l s 1n t h e sch o o ls through p a r e n t c o n f e r ­ ences o f f e r s t h e most e f f e c t i v e means t o c o o r d i n a t e th e schools with the many a g en cie s i n vo lv e d 1n t h e e d u c a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n . He f u r t h e r b e l i e v e s t h a t 1n o r d e r t h a t t h e c h i l d may have s e c u r i t y i n h i s e n v i ­ ronment, which 1s one o f t h e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e middle s c h o o l , t he r e l a t i o n s between the p a r e n t s and th e t e a c h e r s should be very 53 close. I t would follo w t h a t such a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p would cause both p a r e n t and t e a c h e r t o f e e l much more com fo rtab le 1n de velopin g a mutual goal o f h e l p i n g t h e c h i l d a ch iev e t o th e f u l l e x t e n t o f h i s ab ilities. 53 Along t h e s e same l i n e s o f t h o u g h t , Baker s a y s , "Anything John A. Walecka, "Improving P u p i l - T e a c h e r and P a r e n t Teacher R e l a t i o n s h i p s , " Elementary School Jo u r n a l (September 1942); c i t e d i n A. P u r l , "REPORTS To PARENTS: An Annotated B i b l i o g r a p h y ," Texas Outlook 29 (November 1945): 38. 42 which I n c r e a s e s th e u n d e rs ta n d in g and s t r e n g t h e n s t h e bonds between 54 home and school works t o u l t i m a t e advantage o f th e c h i l d r e n . " Also s u p p o r t i n g th e id ea o f c l o s e c o o p e r a t i o n between home and school i s L a s k e r , who s t a t e s , "Not o n ly a r e p a r e n t s informed, b u t t h e y have c o n t r i b u t e d toward [ o u r ] goals and philosophy through 55 t h e i r s u g g e s t i o n s and p a r t i c i p a t i o n . " Alexan der, f u r t h e r s u p p o r t ­ ing t h e m e r i t s o f p a r e n t - c o n f e r e n c e s , a dd s, "My b e l i e f —which has been s t r e n g t h e n e d by many comments from p a r e n t s and o t h e r s — i s t h a t the s i n g l e most e f f e c t i v e r e p o r t i n g medium i s t h e t e a c h e r - p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e . Most w r i t e r s agre e t h a t In a d d i t i o n t o th e added time r e q u i r e d in s c h e d u l i n g p a r e n t - t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , t h e r e I s s t i l l a need t o m a in ta in some s o r t o f r e c o r d o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s p r o g r e s s o r achievement. In some c a s e s , i t i s advocated t h a t t h e same type o f t r a d i t i o n a l r e c o r d i n g method can be used, whether I t be l e t t e r g r a d e s , numerical g r a d e s , check l i s t s , n a r r a t i v e s , o r o t h e r , and t h a t t h e c on fe ren c e s e r v e s t o expand upon t h e r e c o r d i n g t ec h n iq u e t o add a c l e a r e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g f o r a l l concerned as t o t h e c o r r e c t I n t e r p r e t a ti o n o f the w r itte n r e p o r ts . As Copland e x p l a i n s , 54 Harold V. Baker, " Reporting Pupil P r o g r e s s t o P a r e n t s , " Report o f t h e S i x t h Annual Conference on Elementary E d u ca tio n , Boulder, C olorado, J u l y 6 - 1 7 , 1942; c i t e d 1n A. P u r l , "REPORTS TO PARENTS; An Annotated B i b l i o g r a p h y , " Texas Outlook 29 (November 1945): 39. 55 Dorothy L a s k e r , "The P a r e n t - T e a c h e r C o n fe re n ce ," NEA J o u r n a l (December 1959): 22. ^ W i l l i a m M. Alexan der, "Reporting t o P a r e n t s — WHY? WHAT? HOW?" NEA J o u r n a l 48 (December 1959): 17. 43 E f f i c i e n t l y a r r a n g e d , such a meeting can be one o f t h e b e s t ways o f e n a b l i n g t h e r e p o r t t o f u l f i l l I t s b a s i c alm s. I t acknowledges t h a t , In any complex f i e l d , communication, t o be e f f e c t i v e , must be two-way.57 T h is open l i n e o f communication between the home and school, the c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t can be e s t a b l i s h e d between p a r e n t and t e a c h e r r e c u r s over and o ve r 1n th e themes o f w r i t e r s 1n f a v o r o f the p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n fe r e n c e . The o p p o r t u n i t y t o c l a r i f y ; t o remove t h e mystery o f e x a c t l y how well th e y o u n g s t e r 1s a c t u a l l y doing 1n school and t o develop a c o o p e r a t i v e , working r e l a t i o n s h i p between a l l concerned 1s emphasized f r e q u e n t l y . Adams d e s c r i b e s th e Impor­ t an c e o f t h e p a r e n t - t e a c h e r co n fe rence 1n t h e fo llo w in g manner: Through a c o n f e r e n c e , a v a r i e t y o f d a t a and t h e i r I n t e r r e l a ­ t i o n s h i p s can be I n t e r p r e t e d . The p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f misunder­ s t a n d i n g a r e d im i n i s h e d . The p a r e n t has t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to p r e s e n t h i s q u e s t i o n s and problems. The t e a c h e r o b t a i n s In fo rm a tio n o f v a lu e con ce rn ing t h e s t u d e n t ; and, perhaps most I m p o r ta n t, a good c on fe ren c e l e a d s t o c o o p e r a t i v e p l an nin g by t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s . 58 Another w r i t e r , Thomas, e x p r e s s e s s i m i l a r r a t i o n a l e by s t a t i n g , In a c on fe ren c e t h e t e a c h e r can be s p e c i f i c about t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e c h i l d 1n s c h o o l , th e p a r t i c u l a r s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses o f h i s work. In a d d i t i o n , th e p a r e n t can ask q u e s t i o n s , can u n d e rs ta n d b e t t e r t h e school program, and c a n , with t h e t e a c h e r , plan f o r t h e c h i l d ' s f u t u r e growth 1n a more r e a l i s t i c manner.5* Gronlund t a k e s e x a c t l y t h e same p o s i t i o n 1n s t a t i n g , "The p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n fe ren c e has t h e [ a d d i t i o n a l ] advantage o f p r o v i d in g 57 R. E. Copland, "School R e p o r t s . " Educational Research 8 (June 1966): 199. CO Georgia Sachs Adams, Measurement 1n E d u ca tion , Psychology, and Guidance (New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1966), p. 516. 59 Murray R. Thomas, Judging S tu d e n t P ro gre ss (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1954), p. 294. 44 p a r e n t s w ith an o p p o r t u n i t y t o ask q u e s t i o n s , d e s c r i b e t h e p u p i l ' s home l i f e , and d i s c u s s p l a n s f o r t h e p u p i l ' s f u r t h e r development." 6Q P a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s have o f t e n been c r i t i c i z e d from t h e admin­ i s t r a t i v e p o i n t o f view In t h a t t h e y a r e d i f f i c u l t t o r e c o r d , and th ey a r e Im po ssibl e t o o r g a n i z e s i n c e secondary t e a c h e r s have many more s t u d e n t s than ele m e n tary t e a c h e r s . Brlmm p o i n t s o u t t h a t such c o n fe r e n c e s a r e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y p o s s i b l e a t t h e secondary l e v e l and they would be one o f t h e b e t t e r ways o f r e p o r t i n g p u p i l p r o g r e s s . Regarding th e value o f th e c o n f e r e n c e s , Brlmm s t a t e s , A s i n g l e obscure mark on a r e p o r t c a r d can t a k e on r e a l mean­ ing when a p a r e n t and pu pil can d i s c u s s 1 t w i t h a p r o f e s ­ s i o n a l l y t r a i n e d p e rs o n . In a d d i t i o n , such an arrangement o f f e r s an e x c e l l e n t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e p a r e n t t o s t u d y the r e s u l t s o f s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s as well as o t h e r ev id e nce o f e d u c a t i o n a l g r o w t h .61 On t h e m a t t e r o f o r g a n i z i n g th e c o n fe r e n c e s 1n such a manner t h a t w i l l not r e q u i r e each t e a c h e r t o conduct over 100 d i f f e r e n t c o n f e r ­ e n c e s , Brlmm o f f e r s th e f o l lo w in g s u g g e s t i o n : In t h i s s o r t o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l I n f o r m a t io n con ce rn in g a pu p il must be f u n n e le d t o t h e one t e a c h e r who 1s t o hold t h e c o n f e r e n c e . Report c a r d s , t e s t r e s u l t s , anecd ota l r e c o r d s , and o t h e r I n f o r m a t io n must go t o t h i s t e a c h e r c o u n s e l o r . Then he can do t h e b e s t j o b 1n I n t e r p r e t i n g t h e p u p i l ' s work and h i s p r o g r e s s 1n s c h o o l . 62 In t h e c a s e o f middle s c h o o l s , t h i s c o o r d i n a t i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and c o n fe ren c e may well r e s t w ith t h e home-room t e a c h e r , which would reduce t h e number o f c o n fe r e n c e s t o a workable number. 60 Gronlund, Measurements, p. 376. ^ B rim m , "Report C a r d s , " p. 19. Any i n d i v i d u a l 45 p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o nferen ce between o t h e r t e a c h e r s and t h e p a r e n t could be arr a n g ed on an I n d i v i d u a l b a s i s as t h e need a r i s e s . The S c h a r f f e s t u d y r e v e a l e d t h a t p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n fe ren c es were the most p r e f e r r e d method o f r e p o r t i n g over a l l o t h e r methods considered. However, t h e d i f f e r e n c e was s l i g h t between t h i s method and t h e l e t t e r grade (A B C D F) system . The d i f f e r e n c e was l e s s than .05 de gre es o f c o n f i d e n c e , o r as s t a t e d 1n h i s s t u d y , "No s i g ­ n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s In the a t t i t u d e s o f t e a c h e r s and ad m inis­ t r a t o r s between p a r e n t - c o n f e r e n c e s and A B C D F. They a r e about equal 1n c h o i c e . With a l l t h e advan tag es o f p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n fe r e n c e s d i s ­ cussed by w r i t e r s , t h i s r e s e a r c h e r has found no w r i t e r who advocate s the use o f c o n fe r e n c e s as th e o nly method o f r e p o r t i n g . R a th e r , t h e c on fe ren c es a r e recommended as a supplement t o some o t h e r form o f w ritten report: t o c l a r i f y , expand, and d i s c u s s ways the home and school might work t o g e t h e r f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e c h i l d . As S c h a r f f e s t a t e s , "This method o f p a r e n t - t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t c o n t a c t 1s deemed t o be v a l u a b l e by th e s e l e c t e d r espo n dents and give s u p p o r t f o r P a r e n t Conference usage r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e type o f w r i t t e n r e p o r t which might 64 be o f f e r e d by t h e s c h o o l . " In most c a s e s , w r i t e r s who d i s c u s s t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n fe r e n c e s do n o t Imply t h a t t h e p r o c e ss 1s no t wort hy, b u t r a t h e r th ey c i t e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s a d v a n t a g e s along 63S c h a r f f e , " A t t i t u d e s , " p. 101. 64I b i d . , p. 128. 46 w ith t h e problems o f varying s k i l l s o f t e a c h e r s who a re charged w ith conductin g th e c o n f e r e n c e s . On t h e one hand, i t 1s d i f f i c u l t t o r ec o rd th e r e s u l t s o f the confe rence 1n a b r i e f , c o n c i s e manner f o r permanent r e c o r d s , and t h e time r e q u i r e d f o r conducting such con­ f e r e n c e s I s g r e a t e r than t h a t r e q u i r e d f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g a simple l e t t e r g ra d e . statin g , Wrinkle d e s c r i b e s h i s s e n tim e n ts on c o nferen ces by . . such c o n fe ren c es a r e g e n e r a l l y good, e s p e c i a l l y 1n g e t t i n g a c q u a in t e d and c l e a r i n g up c o n fu s in g p o i n t s about w r i t t e n 65 reports." However, he goes on to s a y , Although t h e c o n fe ren c e p l a n Is e f f e c t i v e f o r r e p o r t i n g pur­ p o s e s , and 1s h i g h l y d e s i r a b l e e n t i r e l y a p a r t from t h e r e p o r t ­ ing f u n c t i o n , 1 t does n o t r e s u l t 1n a r e c o r d . And t h e school has to m a i n t a i n a r e c o r d . T h e r e f o r e , 1 t cannot be th ou g ht o f as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r c o nv en tio na l r e p o r t i n g p r a c t i c e s . Reports f o r school rec o r d purposes would s t i l l have t o be made by th e t e a c h e r . 66 Regarding t h e burden o f t e a c h e r t i m e , Wrinkle s a y s , "The most s e r i o u s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e c o nfe renc e plan 1s t h a t 1t demands a heavy time Investm ent. Even though th e time s p e n t 1s well s p e n t , r e p o r t i n g 1s rega rded as a r e g u l a r p a r t o f t h e t e a c h e r ' s day 1n a d d i t i o n t o h i s r e g u l a r t e a c h i n g l o a d . " 67 While f a v o r i n g t h e concept o f p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s , Lasker p o i n t s o u t t h e need f o r t h oro ug h ly p r e p a r i n g t e a c h e r s t o con­ d u c t such c o n fe r e n c e s s k i l l f u l l y and t a c t f u l l y . She p o i n t s o u t , "Although th e p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n fe ren c e 1s e x c e l l e n t 1n I t s purpose 65 Wrinkle, Improving Marking, p. 53. 66 I b i d . 67I b 1 d ., p. 54. 47 and p o t e n t i a l , i t can do more harm than good u n l e s s i t 1s handled £n s k i l l f u l l y by the classroom t e a c h e r . " N a r r a t i v e Reports The n a r r a t i v e l e t t e r to p a r e n t s t o r e p o r t pupil p r o g r e s s i s c e r t a i n l y n o t a new form o f r e p o r t i n g as 1t has been used in many e le m entary sch o o ls f o r q u i t e some time and i s s t i l l w idely used a t th at level. This r e s e a r c h e r found few secondary sch o o ls u sing t h i s t ec h n iq u e a t the p r e s e n t t im e , probably f o r t h e reason t h a t i t i s a d m i t t e d l y more time consuming and most secondary t e a c h e r s a re involv ed In programs o f v a ryin g d egre es o f d e p a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n r e s u l t ­ ing in more s t u d e n t s than most s e l f - c o n t a i n e d ele m e n tary t e a c h e r s would normally have. However, t h e r e a r e w r i t e r s who advocate the use o f t h e n a r r a t i v e l e t t e r a t t h e secondary l e v e l . Next t o t h e p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s , I t I s f e l t t h a t t h i s t ec h n iq u e allows the t e a c h e r a b e t t e r o p p o r t u n i t y to e x p l a i n 1n more d e t a i l t h e p r o g r e s s and achievement of the stu d e n t. I t r e q u i r e s more th ou g ht and plan ning on t h e p a r t o f t h e t e a c h e r , and 1 t w i l l t a x t h e i r a b i l i t y t o compose a c l e a r , p r e c i s e , and y e t b r i e f w r i t t e n d e s c r i p ­ t i o n o f t h e y o u n g s t e r ' s achieve ment. As Thomas puts 1 t , A c a p a b le t e a c h e r who w r i t e s l u c i d l y can c r e a t e an I n t e r e s t ­ ing and very u s e f u l l e t t e r f o r p a r e n t s . However, some t e a c h ­ e r s e i t h e r do n o t e x p r e s s themselves well 1n w r i t i n g o r do no t keep adequate e v a l u a t i o n d a ta t o form a s p e c i f i c r e p o r t o f the p u p i l s ' p r o g r e s s . 69 en L asker, " P a r e n t - T e a c h e r C on fere nce," p. 21. 69 Thomas, Judging Stu dent P r o g r e s s , p. 296. 48 No w r i t e r has I n d i c a t e d t h e n a r r a t i v e l e t t e r system 1s e a s i e r or f a s t e r , bu t r a t h e r , th e y i n d i c a t e I t 1s c l e a r e r 1f p r o p e r l y prepared. I t I s g e n e r a l l y f e l t t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a l t e a c h e r s have the a b i l i t y to p r e p a r e e f f e c t i v e n a r r a t i v e s ; however, some a t t e n t i o n must be given t o I n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g t o b e t t e r p r e p a r e them f o r the task. Thomas c o n t i n u e s , To I n c r e a s e t h e meaningful ness o f l e t t e r s home, some school systems which p r e f e r t h i s type o f r e p o r t have o rganized 1nserv1ce workshops d uring which l e t t e r - w r i t i n g I s d i s c u s s e d and a n aly ze d. Others have developed e x t e n s i v e l i s t s o f com­ monly used ( b u t meaningful) st a te m e n t s around which t o b u i l d l e t t e r s t h a t d e s c r i b e a c c u r a t e l y how well I n d i v id u a l c h i l d r e n a r e meeting t h e b e h a v io r a l g o a ls o f th e s c h o o l . 70 As mentioned, one o f t h e f r e q u e n t c r i t i c i s m s o f the n a r r a ­ t i v e l e t t e r a t t h e secondary l e v e l 1s t h a t I t i s t o o burdensome t o the t e a c h e r , p a r t i c u l a r l y when t h e t e a c h e r i s Involved with o v e r 100 s t u d e n t s each day. In some c a s e s , th e same comments a r e used over and o v e r and th e l e t t e r s begin t o a l l sound a l i k e and t h e r e p e t i t i o n i s a l l to o e v i d e n t . The ty p e o f evid ence needed f o r t h e l e t t e r must be g a t h e r e d more e f f e c t i v e l y , and t h i s can be done by a p r o f e s s i o n a l , 71 w ell-train ed teacher. Even though 1 t may be somewhat more time consuming t o p r e ­ p a r e , t h e n a r r a t i v e l e t t e r 1s s a i d t o be more advantageous and mean­ i n g f u l than t h e s i n g l e l e t t e r o r numerical g rad e . As Adams p o i n t s out, ^ F r e d E. H a r r i s , "What About C u r r e n t P r a c t i c e s 1n Grading, Promoting, and R epo rting t o P a r e n t s ? " Understanding t h e Child 73 (April 1954): 38. 49 The Informal l e t t e r has many advantages as a medium f o r r e p o r t ­ in g t o p a r e n t s . The l e t t e r can be I n d i v i d u a l i z e d t o h i g h l i g h t t h e s p e c i a l s t r e n g t h s and needs o f an I n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t . I t can be h i g h ly a n a l y t i c a l In th o se a r e a s o f th e s t u d e n t ' s development 1n which s p e c i f i c problems a r e being met. A c a r ­ bon copy o f t h e l e t t e r c o n s t i t u t e s a permanent rec ord t h a t sh ould be f i l e d f o r use by l a t e r t e a c h e r s . 72 To r e l i e v e t h e burden o f w r i t i n g o u t a complete n a r r a t i v e l e t t e r and t o avoid some o f t h e problems o f t e a c h e r l i m i t a t i o n s 1n w r i t i n g s k i l l s * some systems have developed programs whereby a r a t h e r complete s e t o f v a r i o u s comments 1s prep a red f o r t h e t e a c h e r simply to check o f f . These comments a r e pre pa red 1n advance t o speak t o many t r a i t s and could be s e l e c t e d by t h e t e a c h e r t o d e s c r i b e the a p p r o p r i a t e p r o g r e s s made by t h e s t u d e n t . This minimizes t h e time Involved and p r e v e n t s t e a c h e r s from making s t a t e m e n t s which may be m isinterpreted. Smith says o f t h i s system* "This method I s an e x c e l ­ l e n t one, s i n c e good d e s c r i p t i o n s by a number o f t e a c h e r s combine to give a r e a s o n a b l y complete p i c t u r e o f development 1n r e l a t i o n t o the 73 objectives discussed." From t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o i n t o f view, one o f t h e most f r e ­ quent c r i t i c i s m s o f n a r r a t i v e s I s t h e problem o f s a t i s f y i n g g r ad e p o i n t - a v e r a g e req u ire m e n ts f o r c o l l e g e r e g i s t r a r s and p o t e n t i a l employers. Along w ith t h i s , n a r r a t i v e l e t t e r s w i l l a l s o r e q u i r e more f i l i n g space 1n t h e school a r c h i v e s . th e view, "so be 1 t . " 72 73 Proponents o f n a r r a t i v e s tak e Cummins proposes t h a t l e t t e r grades be Adams, Measurement i n E d u c a ti o n , p. 516. Eugene Randolf Smith, A p p r a is i n g and R e porting Stu d en t P r o g r e s s {New York: Harper and B r o t h e r s , 1942), p. 489, 50 a b o l i s h e d and r e p l a c e d with p e r s o n a l i z e d and d e t a i l e d e v a l u a t i o n s from each t e a c h e r . Thus a s t u d e n t , i n s t e a d o f r e c e i v i n g a "vague and c r u s h i n g C" might r e c e i v e the fo llo w in g e v a l u a t i o n : J a n e R o b e r ts , E n glish 10: J a n e , y o u r work has been e x tre m e ly uneven t h i s se m e s te r . You began w i t h two f a i r l y well conceived e s s a y s (on Thoreau and Hawthorne) b u t y o u r e s s a y s on Emerson, Whitman, and B i l l y Budd were vague and u n d e r- n o u r i s h e d . You simply d i d n ' t t a k e them anywhere. A lso, y o u r w r i t i n g s t y l e i s s t i l l to o choppy and d i s o r g a n i z e d . There a re n o t c l e a r t r a n s i t i o n s from s e n t e n c e t o se n t e n c e and paragr aph t o p a r a ­ graph. You a l s o seem t o have d i f f i c u l t y narrowing yo u r t h e s i s t o a manageable scope. Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n in c l a s s i s l i v e l y and e n t h u s i a s t i c , altho u gh you do n o t l i s t e n t o your c l a s s ­ m ates' Idea s as a t t e n t i v e l y as you might. . . Cummins concedes t h a t such r e p o r t s a r e more d i f f i c u l t to w r i t e and w i l l t a k e more p r e p a r a t i o n and t h o u g h t , b u t he b e l i e v e s the r e a d e r w i l l u n d e rs tan d much more about t h e p r o g r e s s and achievement o f t h e s t u d e n t than a si m ple "C." What o f the re q u ire m e n ts o f c o l l e g e s and f u t u r e employers? As Cummins says f u r t h e r , And f o r t h o s e admiss io ns o f f i c e r s who argue t h a t t h e y need grades t o reach t h e i r d e c i s i o n s , I can only r e p l y : you have (1) Colle ge Board s c o r e s , (2) C o u n s e l o r 's r e p o r t s , (3) T e a c h e r s ' recommendations, (4) I n t e r v i e w s . (5) Essays w r i t t e n by t h e a p p l i c a n t — i s t h i s n o t enough?7** Of t h e s e v e r a l w r i t e r s reviewed on t h e m a t t e r o f n a r r a t i v e l e t t e r s , Marshall p r o v id e s a ve ry s u p p o r t i v e summ arltive view. He b e l i e v e s t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t o grades i s d e s c r i p t i o n , a minimal amount o f t a c i t r e c o g n i t i o n o f " f l o a t i n g " q u a l i t i e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 74 Paul Cummins, " D e - e s c a l a t e G ra des," J o u r n a l o f Secondary Education 45 (A p ril 1970): 190. He 51 b e l i e v e s t h a t n o t only w i l l d e d ic a t e d t e a c h e r s b l e s s t h i s o pp o rtu ­ n i t y , but s t u d e n t s and p a r e n t s w i l l t o o , w h i l e t h e y a re b e n e f i t i n g by b e t t e r t e a c h i n g . And a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , employers, and o t h e r s w i l l heave a sig h o f r e l i e f and say " a t long l a s t " —e x c e p t t h o s e t o whom r i t e s , r u l e s , and r i t u a l s a r e more i m p o r t a n t than t h e t h i n g s with which t h e t h r e e R 's d e a l . He quotes t h e dean who o b j e c t e d v i g o r o u s l y t o a move unanimously approved: for i t . " "But t h e r e i s no p l a c e on t h e card Marshall f u r t h e r b e l i e v e s , Teaching i s a p r i v i l e g e , as well as an o b l i g a t i o n , o f th o se who a re h i r e d t o t e a c h . Grading i s a r e s t r i c t i o n on t e a c h i n g . The f l o a t i n g d e s c r i p t i o n , c o n c i s e and r e a l l y d e s c r i p t i v e , i s as f a r as a t e a c h e r need go 1n any r e c o r d . Even t h a t 1s u s u a l l y to o much, because so l i t t l e o f i t i s e v e r n e e d e d .76 Marshall b e l i e v e s grades a re to o o f t e n f r u i t l e s s l y d e b ated . To s e t them a g a i n s t p a s s e d / f a i l e d , p a s s e d / n o t p a s s e d , t h e use o f r e l a t i v e words, o r r e d e f i n i t i o n s o f t h e symbols i s only u s e l e s s l y to compare members o f th e same s p e c i e s . He b e l i e v e s f u r t h e r t h a t t o accomplish any p r o g r e s s gra des have t o be s e t a g a i n s t something which 1s u sa b le and t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t in c o n ce p t. Grading, r a n k i n g , and r e l a t i v i t y can be c o n t r a s t e d with p e r t i n e n t d e s c r i p t i o n and an e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e personal concern o v e r va lu e s as such. " th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , no t I t s v a l u e , i s s i g n i f i c a n t . " va lue only when a p p r o p r i a t e l y used. He b e l i e v e s I t becomes a He f u r t h e r s t a t e s , "Slowness is not a s in ; i t c h aracterizes. B r i l l i a n c e 1s a v i r t u e only when i t 77 I s a p p l i e d 1n t h e r i g h t p l a c e ; 1 t can mark a f a u l t . " 76 Max S. M a r s h a l l , Teaching Without Grades ( C o r v a l l i s : S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1968), p. 131. 77 I b i d . , p. 136. Oregon 52 N a r r a t i v e r e p o r t s proved t o be t h e t h i r d c h o ic e o f e le m e n tar y t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , a c c o rd ing t o th e S c h a r f f e s t u d y , o f th e e i g h t d i f f e r e n t methods o f s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g te c h n iq u e s c o n s i d e r e d . However, t h e d i f f e r e n c e between n a r r a t i v e s and the s e con d -c h oice l e t t e r grade system was found t o be I n s i g n i f i ­ cant. "There I s n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r f e e l i n g toward n a r r a t i v e s and A B C D F. The two methods a r e about equal 1n t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r a t t i t u d e toward 78 them." S c h a r f f e f u r t h e r s t a t e s , "The co n clu sio n 1s reached t h a t t h e s e methods [ n a r r a t i v e s ] , l i k e P a r e n t Conferences and Grades, a re held In some esteem and can be c o n sid ere d as u s e f u l means o f r e p o r t 79 1ng 1n the e le m e n tary sch o o ls s u r v e y e d ." The arguments a g a i n s t t h e use o f n a r r a t i v e l e t t e r s in r e p o r t ­ in g s t u d e n t p r o g r e s s a r e very s i m i l a r t o t h e arguments a g a i n s t the use o f p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n fe ren c es 1n t h a t they a r e very time consuming and r e q u i r e a s k i l l o f w r i t t e n communication t h a t i s n o t equal among t h e t e a c h e r s who must p r e p a r e t h e l e t t e r s . Most w r i t e r s would probably concede t h a t l e t t e r s would be u se f u l 1n e x p l a i n i n g some o f th e I n d i v id u a l t r a i t s t h e c h i l d may have which c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e l e v e l o f ach iev ement, b u t t h e co nce p t o f using t h e l e t t e r as t h e only means o f r e p o r t i n g and t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e amount o f t e a c h e r time r e q u i r e d t o p r e p a r e t h e l e t t e r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t h e secondary ^ S c h a r f f e , " A t t i t u d e s , " p. 101, 79I b 1 d . , p. 129. 53 l e v e l , 1s o f t e n q u e s t i o n e d . W ri n k l e 's c r i t i c i s m o f t h e n a r r a t i v e l e t t e r 1s summed up as fo llo w s: The I n f o r m a l - l e t t e r plan o f r e p o r t i n g 1s I m p r a c ti c a l f o r t e a c h ­ e r s who work w ith l a r g e numbers o f s t u d e n t s because 1 t Involves to o much tim e. As with the c onfe rence p l a n , i t 1s most work­ a b l e in e le m e n tary schools which do n o t have d e p a r t m e n t a l iz e d programs and p o s s i b l y 1n c o re programs a t th e h lg h-s chool l e v e l , where one t e a c h e r may work with one group o f s t u d e n t s t h r e e o r f o u r tim es d a l l y . 80 Wrinkle goes on t o s a y , One d i f f i c u l t y 1n t h e use o f the I n f o r m a l - l e t t e r plan o f r e p o r t i n g 1s t h a t many t e a c h e r s cannot o r a t l e a s t do n o t do an e f f e c t i v e j o b o f making themselves understood 1n w r i t i n g . The p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n involved 1n t h e use o f t h e Informal l e t t e r a r e p r e s e n t t o a g r e a t e r degree than 1n t h e use o f t h e formal p r i n t e d form. A blank s h e e t o f paper imposes no r e s t r i c t i o n s on what t h e t e a c h e r may say o r how he may say I t . 8 ' Ra th e r than w r i t i n g a l e t t e r 1n t h e p u r e s t form, some systems provide an o u t l i n e form which p r o v id e s space f o r t h e t e a c h e r t o d e s­ c r i b e c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s work. There may be a spa ce f o r t h e t e a c h e r t o d i s c u s s " s t r e n g t h s , " "weakne ss es ," and "recommendations f o r Improvement." The form may even o f f e r a more d e t a i l e d breakdown which could In clu d e v a r i o u s s u b j e c t m a t t e r such 82 as r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g , d i s c u s s i o n s k i l l s , o r c l a s s p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Klrshcenbaum p o i n t s o u t t h a t any w r i t t e n e v a l u a t i o n , I n c l u d i n g t h e o u t l i n e form d e s c r i b e d above, o f f e r s c e r t a i n d i s a d v a n t a g e s . T each ers a r e allowed t o be even more s u b j e c t i v e th an usual 1n e v a l u a t i n g students. 80 82 They may u n c o n sc io u s ly minimize t h e s t r e n g t h s and focus Wrinkle, Improving H a r k in g , p. 54. Klrschenbaum, Simon, and N a p i e r , Wad-Ja-Get?. p. 294. 54 on t h e weaknesses o f s t u d e n t s they d i s l i k e . He p o i n t s ou t t h a t t e s t s c o r e s averaged o u t I n t o a l e t t e r grade ten d t o p r e v e n t t h i s kind o f s u b j e c t i v i t y . 83 In a d d i t i o n t o a g r e e i n g w ith c r i t i c i s m s o f f e r e d by o t h e r w r i t e r s In t h e a r e a o f n a r r a t i v e s being to o time consuming and c r e a t i n g a d d i t i o n a l work f o r th e school r ec o rd s o f f i c e , Klrschenbaum a l s o a g re e s t h a t no t a l l t e a c h e r s a r e s k i l l e d 1n w r i t i n g m eanin gful, helpful in d iv id u a liz e d e v a lu atio n s. He p o i n t s o u t t h a t some t e a c h ­ e r s w i l l r e l y to o h e a v i l y upon c e r t a i n vague c l i c h e s such as " e x c e l ­ l e n t , " " f a i r , " " p o o r , " "needs Improvement," "good w o r k e r ," o r 84 " ca p a b le o f b e t t e r work." Self-Eva!uatlon The concept o f s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n would p robably n o t Imply t h a t s t u d e n t s would p r e p a r e t h e i r own e v a l u a t i o n s o r g r a d e s , and t h e s e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s would be t h e o nly r e c o r d s r e t a i n e d . More th an l i k e l y , s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s would be used 1n c o n ju n c ti o n w i t h o t h e r typ es o f r e p o r t s , o r p o s s i b l y averaged i n t o th e t e a c h e r e v a l u a t i o n s . And, t o be s u c c e s s f u l o r u s e f u l , a g r e a t deal o f p r e p a r a t i o n must go I n t o t h e plan 1 f t h e s t u d e n t 1s t o be a c c u r a t e and h o n e s t 1n h i s own evaluation. The s t u d e n t must have a c l e a r u n d e rs t a n d i n g o f t h e g o a ls and o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e course o r assignm ent and t h e c r i t e r i a f o r which a t t a i n m e n t I s t o be measured. The s t u d e n t might w r i t e out a n a r r a t i v e d e s c r i b i n g h i s a t t a i n m e n t o f cours e o b j e c t i v e s , o r s i m p l e r y e t , an i n s t r u m e n t 1n t h e form o f a c h e c k l i s t could be 83 I b i d . , p. 295. 84Ib1d. 55 developed on which t h e s t u d e n t could check o f f the s k i l l s he had a c q u i r e d 1n t h e c o u r s e . I f a formula 1s developed 1n advance by th e t e a c h e r and s t u d e n t which d e s c r i b e s th e number o f o b j e c t i v e s needed t o w a r r a n t an A, B, C, o r p a s s / f a l l , o r even o t h e r typ es o f r e p o r t i n g symbols, t h e s t u d e n t could a l s o determine h i s grade a f t e r checking the s k i l l s o r o b j e c t i v e s he had a t t a i n e d . Such a system Is most l i k e l y t o be e f f e c t i v e and s u c c e s s f u l I f th e s t u d e n t has a hand 1n d e te r m in in g the g o a ls and o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e course as well as d e v elop in g t h e r e p o r t i n g I n s t r u m e n t . The advantages o f t h e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n system a r e s e v e r a l . F i r s t , 1 t 1s an I m po rta nt l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e f o r s t u d e n t s t o e v a l u ­ a t e t h e i r own s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses. Second, s e l f - e v a l u a t l o n might encourage s t u d e n t s t o ta k e more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s e t t i n g t h e i r educational g o als. T h i r d , w h ile 1 t may o r may n o t be an a dv an tag e , s t u d e n t s a r e o f t e n found t o be h a r d e r on them selves than 85 the t e a c h e r might have been. Teel and Teel f e e l s t r o n g l y t h a t s t u d e n t s e l f - e v a l u a t l o n t e a c h e s c h i l d r e n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y toward t h e i r own cla ss ro om p e r f o r ­ mance and promotes an awareness o f t h e purpose s o f academic t r a i n i n g . They sum up t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward t h i s te c h n iq u e as f o l lo w s : C h ild r e n can be given a b e t t e r Idea o f t h e i r p r o g r e s s toward s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n 1 f t h e c la ssro om procedure makes them aware o f what 1s happening t o them. Teachers who u t i l i z e such procedures as t e a c h e r - p u p i l p l ann ing a r e t e a c h i n g p u p i l s t o know the g oa ls o f t h e c la s s w o r k , t o a n aly ze p o s s i b l e approaches t o a c h i e v e the g o a l s , and t o a p p r a i s e t h e i r own 85I b i d . , p. 296. 56 p r o g r e s s . Regular e v a l u a t i o n s e s s i o n s help c h i l d r e n r e a l i z e t h e i r own c o n t r i b u t i o n s . 86 There a r e a number o f d i s a d v a n t a g e s t o s e l f - e v a l u a t l o n . F irst, s t u d e n t s w i l l u s u a l l y t a k e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n very s e r i o u s l y , b u t as t h e n o v e l t y wears o f f they tend t o pu t l e s s thought I n t o t h e p r o c e ss and as time wears on, t h e i r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s become l e s s a c c u r a t e . Often, they t i r e o f t h e p r o c e s s and a re c o n t e n t t o r e t u r n t o t h e system o f the t e a c h e r performing t h i s d u ty . Second, when s t u d e n t s l i k e and r e s p e c t t h e i r t e a c h e r s th ey w i l l t r y t o e v a l u a t e and grade themselves f a i r l y ; however, 1 f th ey l a c k r e s p e c t o r d i s l i k e t h e i r t e a c h e r s , th ey a r e a p t t o t a k e advantage o f th e s i t u a t i o n and e v a l u a t e and grade 87 themselves as h i g h l y as p o s s i b l e . The f i n d i n g s o f t h e S c h a r f f e s t u d y I n d i c a t e t h a t s e l f e v a l u a t i o n was "found t o be h e ld 1n low esteem by t e a c h e r s and admin­ istrato rs alike." And, "The c o n c lu sio n t h a t can be reach ed 1s t h a t p o s s i b l e e f f o r t s t o I n s t i t u t e t h e s e r e p o r t i n g p r a c t i c e s 1n t h e sch oo ls surveyed would be met w ith some d egre e o f r e s i s t a n c e from t e a c h e r s 88 and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a l i k e . " Blanket Grades B lan k e t grad in g r e p r e s e n t s s t i l l a n o t h e r s t e p toward the e q u a l i t a r f a n end o f t h e continuum. In t h i s c a s e , e v e r y s t u d e n t r e c e i v e s t h e same grade f o r t h e c o u rs e o r a ssig n m e n t, w i t h o u t r eg a rd 86 Dwight Teel and Eugenia T e e l , " P u p i l s Report i n T h e i r Own Way," NEA J o u r n a l 48 {December 1959): 19. 87 Klrschenbaum, Simon, and N a p i e r , Wad-Ja-Get?, p. 297. 88S c h a r f f e , " A t t i t u d e s , " p. 129. 57 to any d i f f e r e n c e s in q u a l i t y o f work. No one f a i l s . I t i s taken f o r g ranted t h a t a l l s t u d e n t s w i l l meet minimum s t a n d a r d s and no real e f f o r t i s made t o d i s t i n g u i s h among s t u d e n t s with r e s p e c t t o e f f o r t , achievement, o r a b i l i t y . The concept i s somewhat s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f s t r i c t mastery l e a r n i n g in t h a t a l l s t u d e n t s a r e expected t o learn th e m a t e r i a l , even i f i t may tak e some lo n g e r than o t h e r s . This system o f grading i s somewhat r a r e and i s u s u a l l y not used in the p u r e s t form, as Miner p o i n t s o u t: "Even th ose who want to e l i m i ­ n a te grades a l t o g e t h e r w i l l o f t e n recommend they be rep la c e d by w r i t ­ ten e v a l u a t i o n s which, when examined, prove t o be very s i m i l a r in c o n te n t i f no t in form t o grades i n a c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d o r an 89 e f f o r t system ." As a system o f e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g , t h i s r e s e a r c h e r has found no evidence t h a t b l a n k e t grading has e v er been used by an e n t i r e school system, o r even by an e n t i r e s c h o o l. I t 1s u s u a l l y not the type o f system t h a t would r e c e i v e endorsement by t h e a d m i n i s t r a ­ tiv e hierarchy. In most s i t u a t i o n s i t i s used as a form o f p r o t e s t by the t e a c h e r t o de monstrate t o th e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , p a r e n t s , and s t u d e n t s t h a t grades a r e unimportant and t h a t t h e focus w i l l be on learning. The I n d iv id u a l t e a c h e r w i l l u s u a l l y announce a t th e b egin ­ ning o f the cou rse t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s who complete t h e minimum r e q u i r e d work s a t i s f a c t o r i l y w i l l a l l r e c e i v e t h e same b l a n k e t g r a d e , u s u a l l y a 8 , and whose who do n o t complete th e work a r e given e x t r a 89 H iner, "American R i t u a l , " p. 360. 58 time and a t t e n t i o n u n t i l they m aste r t h e m a t e r i a l . Blanket g rading 1s a form o f c o n t r a c t grading as well as a mastery appro ach, and 1 t 1s Important t o remember t h a t 1 t 1s used 1n I n d iv id u a l classrooms o n l y ; 1t i s ne ver used by the whole sc hool. The advantages o f b l a n k e t grading a r e s i m i l a r t o th ose o f p a s s / f a l l g rading In t h a t s t u d e n t s a re more r e l a x e d , l e s s anx io u s , and l e s s c o m p e ti t iv e . There may be a b e t t e r l e a r n i n g atmosphere with s t u d e n t s more w i l l i n g to ta k e r i s k s , d i s a g r e e with the t e a c h e r , and e x p lo r e th e s u b j e c t on t h e i r own. There 1s no reason t o c h e a t or "brown-nose," and some s t u d e n t s may do more work than usual a f t e r 90 being f r e e d from the usual p r e s s u r e s o f g rad in g . On the o t h e r hand, t h e r e a r e some d e f i n i t e disa d v an tag e s t o the b l a n k e t grading system. a l i m i t e d amount o f feedback. As with p a s s / f a l l , s t u d e n t s a re given There 1s no d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between the accomplishments o f d i f f e r e n t s t u d e n t s ; t h e r e f o r e , c o l l e g e s and employers may be r e l u c t a n t t o a cc ep t such g rad e s. Also, some s t u ­ dent may do even l e s s work 1 f f r e e d from t h e p r e s s u r e s o f g rad e s. And, as p o in te d out e a r l i e r , many t e a c h e r s use t h i s system as a p r o t e s t which may plac e th e t e a c h e r 1n jeo pardy with a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 91 o f f i c i a l s 1n t h e sc h o ol. From the t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r p r e f e r e n c e s t a n d p o i n t , the S c h a r f f e study I n d i c a t e d t h a t both groups o f e d u c a to r s a t the elementary l e v e l c l e a r l y chose the t r a d i t i o n a l l e t t e r grades 90 Klrschenbaum, Simon, and N apier, Mad-Ja-Get?. p. 305. 91 I b i d . , p. 307. 59 (A B C D F) o v e r b l a n k e t grad in g and t h a t " p o s s i b l e e f f o r t s t o I n s t i t u t e t h e s e r e p o r t i n g methods 1n t h e sch o o ls surveyed would be met w ith some de gree o f r e s i s t a n c e from t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a l i k e . " 92 Check L i s t s Another a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l l e t t e r grade 1s the check 1 1 s t . T his system u t i l i z e s a r a t h e r e x h a u s t i v e 1 1 s t o f s k i l l s o r t r a i t s r e l a t i v e t o t h e course* and t h e t e a c h e r simply checks o f f th o se Items on t h e 1 1 s t t h a t d e s c r i b e t h e s t u d e n t ' s p r o g r e s s . In some cases* the check 1 1 s t may be used 1n c o n ju n c ti o n w i t h some o t h e r form o f r e p o r t i n g . I . e . , t o c l a r i f y the r a t i o n a l e f o r a l e t t e r grade. The check 1 1 s t can be used t o d e s c r i b e p r o g r e s s 1n s e v e r a l a r e a s such as academic growth* work and s t u d y h a b i t s * s o c i a l behavior* and pos­ s i b l y g e n e r a l appeara nce. As with o t h e r r e p o r t i n g form s, check l i s t s have both advan­ t a g e s and d i s a d v a n t a g e s . A d i s a d v a n t a g e , as H a r r i s p o i n t s out* 1s t h a t "check l i s t s proved t o have t h e same major weakness as o t h e r forms o f r e p o r t i n g p r e v i o u s l y de veloped. They o f t e n f a i l e d t o commu­ n i c a t e s u f f i c i e n t meaning t o s e r v e as a b a s i s f o r e f f e c t i v e home93 school r e l a t i o n s . " O ther d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h t h e check 1 1 s t , as Gronlund p o i n t s out* a r e In "keeping th e 1 1 st o f b e h a v i o r s t a te m e n t s 92S c h a r f f e , " A t t i t u d e s , " p. 130. 93 H a r r i s , "Current P r a c t i c e s 1n G ra d in g ," p. 38. 60 down to a workable number and 1n s t a t i n g them in such simple and c oncise terms t h a t they a re r e a d i l y understood by a l l u se r s o f the 94 reports." One example o f a vague remark o ften used on check l i s t s i s "capable o f b e t t e r work." The thought t h a t u s u a l l y e n t e r s the r e s e a r c h e r ' s mind when se eing t h i s comment i s "Who I s n ’ t?" Another weakness mentioned by Gronlund 1s th e age-o ld admin­ i s t r a t i v e problem o f r e c o rd in g the check l i s t f o r permanent r e c o r d s . High schools s t i l l tend t o I n s i s t upon a s i n g l e mark f o r permanent record s and tend t o use the check l i s t only f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f c l a r i ­ f i c a t i o n to p a r e n t s . However, n o tw ith s ta n d in g t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e s , he does acknowledge c e r t a i n advantages in t h a t check l i s t s provide the s t u d e n t with a somewhat d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f the p u p i l s ' s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses, so t h a t c o n s t r u c t i v e a c t i o n can be taken t o h e lp him Improve h i s l e a r n i n g . They a l s o provide th e p u p i l s , p a r e n t s , and 95 o t h e r s with a f r e q u e n t reminder o f the goals o f th e s c h o o l. One d i f f i c u l t y with check l i s t s t h a t comes t o the mind o f t h i s r e s e a r c h e r 1s t h a t the q u e s t io n might be r a i s e d as t o why c e r ­ t a i n t r a i t s o r p o s i t i v e behav iors on t h e 1 1 st were n o t checked. One method o f avoid ing t h i s type o f problem 1s t o u t i l i z e modern data p r o c e s s in g in p r i n t i n g r e p o r t cards so t h a t only tho se t r a i t s o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which a r e checked w i l l a c t u a l l y be p r i n t e d on th e c a r d . Cagle d i s c u s s e s a survey taken o f p a r e n t s to determine th e type o f r e p o r t most p r e f e r r e d t o t e l l them what they want t o know about t h e p ro g res s o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n : ^ G ro n lu n d , Measurements, p. 376. 61 The p a r e n t s were unanimously agreed t h a t th ey wanted something more s p e c i f i c and su ggested a check 1 1 s t arrangement o f some kind. A f t e r a few more meetings t h e v a r i o u s Items were grouped 1n t h r e e g eneral c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : (1) s tu d y h a b i t s , (2) a t t 1 t u d e - 1 n t e r e s t , (3) a d ju s tm e n t. Twenty check l i s t Items were In clud ed In t h e t h r e e groups. Following each Item, f i v e rows o f blanks were plac ed with t h e headings as f o llo w s: out* s t a n d i n g , above a v e r a g e , a v erag e , needs t o Improve, u n s a t i s ­ factory. I r o n i c a l l y , the f i v e c a t e g o r i e s a re comparable t o t h e f i v e l e v e l s u s u a l l y used In th e t r a d i t i o n a l l e t t e r grade system. In stud y in g th e a t t i t u d e s o f e le m e n tary t e a c h e r s and admin­ i s t r a t o r s toward check 1 1 s t r e p o r t i n g , S c h a r f f e found t h a t t h e r e was very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e toward t h i s method as compared t o t h e l e t t e r grade system, even though t h e e d u c a t o r s surveyed d i d f a v o r l e t t e r grades s l i g h t l y . Check L i s t R e p ortin g and N a r r a t i v e R e p o r ti n g , w h ile not p r e ­ f e r r e d over P a r e n t Conferences o r Grades, emerged as the t h i r d and f o u r t h c h o ic es o f t e a c h e r s and t h e f o u r t h and t h i r d c h o i c e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The c o n c l u s i o n 1s rea ched t h a t t h e s e methods, l i k e P a r e n t Conferences and Grades , a r e he ld 1n some esteem and can be c o n s i d e r e d as u s e f u l means o f r e p o r t i n g 1n t h e e le m e ntary sch o o ls surveyed. P a s s - F a l l R epo rting In s t a t i n g a case a g a i n s t a t w o - l e t t e r system such as p a s s f a l l , S-U, o r even c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t , w r i t e r s have tak e n two r a t h e r predominant p o s i t i o n s on th e m a t t e r . b i l i t y 1s d i s p u t e d . F i r s t , the m atter of r e l i a ­ By r e l i a b i l i t y , v a r i o u s w r i t e r s t a k e t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t I n d i v i d u a l s using t h e In f o r m a t io n w i l l have l i t t l e b a s i s t o de termine t h e s k i l l s a c t u a l l y m aste re d by t h e s t u d e n t , and w i l l have 96Cagle, " E v alu atio n and R e p o r t i n g , " p. 25. ^ S c h a r f f e , " A t t i t u d e s , " p. 129. 62 no way t o d ete rm ine rank o r d e r o f s t u d e n t s a c c o rd in g t o achievement. The t w o - l e t t e r syste m , when used a lo n e w i t h o u t any accompanying i n f o r ­ mation o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n , im p lies t h a t a l l s t u d e n t s who passed have achieve d a t th e same l e v e l . Speaking t o t h e problem o f r e l i a b i l i t y , Ebel s t a t e s , The use o f fewer marking c a t e g o r i e s i s no t r e q u i r e d by u n r e l i a ­ b i l i t y o f t h e b a s i s f o r marking. On t h e c o n t r a r y , th e use o f t h e very few c a t e g o r i e s a g g r a v a t e s t h e problem o f u n r e l i a b i l i t y . I f maximum r e l i a b i l i t y o f In fo rm a tion i s t h e g o a l , a f i v e l e t t e r system i s b e t t e r than a t w o - l e t t e r sy stem , and t h e use o f t en c a t e g o r i e s in marking i s b e t t e r than five.®® A number o f s t u d i e s have been conducted t o t e s t t h e l e v e l o f achievement t h a t a c t u a l l y t a k e s p l a c e by comparing t h e grades s t u ­ d e n ts earned under t h e f i v e - l e t t e r system w ith t h e grades they would have earn ed i f t h e i r a c t u a l achievement under t h e t w o - l e t t e r system would have been c o n v e r te d t o th e f i v e - l e t t e r system. Do s t u d e n t s a c t u a l l y l e a r n more f o r t h e sake o f l e a r n i n g t o s a t i s f y a n a t u r a l c u r i o s i t y i f t h e c o m p e ti t io n a s p e c t o f g rad in g 1s removed? c i t e d by Weber would I n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s 1s n o t t h e c a s e . Studies "Studies o f l e t t e r grade achievement under p a s s / f a l l g rad in g show c o n s i s t e n t results: grades go down. A f u l l l e t t e r grade d r o p , from an A t o 99 a B, i s not t h e e x c e p t i o n b u t t h e r u l e . " In c i t i n g s p e c i f i c s t u d i e s , Weber a d d s , " P r i n c e t o n d i s c o v e r e d t h a t both s t u d e n t s and t e a c h e r s l i k e p a s s / f a i l g r a d i n g , even though 72 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u ­ d e n ts s t a t e d t h a t they worked c l o s e r t o t h e i r c a p a c i t y 1n graded 98 E b e l , Measuring E d ucation al Achievement, p. 423. ^ C a t h e r i n e A. Weber, " P a s s / F a i l : Does I t Work?" NASSP B u l l e t i n 58 (April 1974): 104. co u rs es than i n p a s s / f a l l c o u r s e s . " 100 The P r i n c e t o n r e p o r t f u r t h e r concluded t h a t s t u d e n t s earn ed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r grades 1n t h e c o m p e t i t i v e l y graded cours es than 1n t h e p a s s / f a l l s u b j e c t s . Also c i t e d by Weber, "Following th e study conducted a t B r a n d e l s , 1 t was found t h a t a l l b u t the c o l l e g e s e n i o r s a chieved s1gn l f l c a n t l y lower grades under the p a s s / f a l l o p t i o n . " 101 Sim ilarly Weber p o i n t s o u t , A s tu d y a t t h e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o f New York a t C o r tla n d r e p o r t s t h a t n o t only d id grades go down under a p a s s / f a l l o p t i o n , b u t even a f t e r r e t u r n i n g to c o nventio nal g rad in g t h e former p a s s / f a l l s t u d e n t s c o ntinu ed t o r e c e i v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower grades than t h e " c o n t r o l s " who had n o t been allowed p a s s / f a l l c o u rs e s d u r i n g t h e s t u d y . '02 Another a u t h o r , Klrschenbaum, c i t e s more o f t h e s p e c i f i c d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f p a s s / f a l l r e p o r t i n g as f o l lo w s : a. b. Freed from th e p r e s s u r e s o f t r a d i t i o n a l g r a d i n g , some s t u d e n t s do l e s s work than u s u a l . The s t u d e n t in danger o f f a l l i n g s t i l l l a b o r s under a l l t h e p r e s s u r e s normally a s s o c i a t e d w ith t r a d i t i o n a l g r a d i n g . P/F I s no h e l p t o o ur po o r e r s t u d e n t s . 103 Klrschenbaum f u r t h e r p o i n t s o u t t h a t w h ile t h e o b j e c t i v e o f p a s s / f a l l i s to implement an He 1 t h e r - o r " s i t u a t i o n 1n e v a l u a t i n g and r e p o r t i n g w i t h no middle ground, some systems have In t r o d u c e d a t h i r d l e v e l which weakens th e concept and l e a n s back 1n t h e d i r e c t i o n * o f more o p t i o n s . One v a r i a t i o n mentioned 1s t h e modified p a s s / f a l l which adds one c a t e g o r y t o de note o u t s t a n d i n g work. This m o d if i c a ­ t i o n 1s c a l l e d H o n o r s /P a s s / F a ll (H/P/F, as we ll as L 1 m 1 ted /P as s/F a 1 l) . As Klrschenbaum p o i n t s o u t , t h e a d d i t i o n o f t h e s e o p t i o n s b r i n g s 100 103 I b i d . , p. 104. 102 Ibid. Klrschenbaum, Simon, and N a p i e r , Wad-Ja-Get?. p. 304. 64 th e t o t a l grades p o s s i b l e under t h e system t o f o u r ( [ 1 ] Honors, [ 2 ] P a s s , [ 3 ] L im ite d , [ 4 ] F a l l ) , which 1s only one grade l e s s than t h e A B C D F system o f r e p o r t i n g . 104 The concept o f p a s s / f a l l 1s n o t t o t a l l y w i t h o u t s u p p o r t . B r am lette o f f e r e d f i v e p o s s i b l e b e n e f i t s t o be d e r i v e d from t h e use o f such a system: (1) I n c r e a s e s emphasis on l e a r n i n g , (2) d e c r e a s e s emphasis on marking, (3) encourages t h e p o o r e r s t u d e n t , (4) f o r c e s s t u d e n t s to e v a l u a t e th e m se lv e s, and (5) encourages b e t t e r a t t i t u d e s 1n p a r e n t s who want a s u p e r i o r c h i l d b u t have I n s t e a d an average c h i l d . 105 G e n e r a lly sp e a k i n g , the e f f e c t o f p a s s / f a l l on s t u d e n t achievement I s s u s p e c t . I t would appear t h a t any school system choosing t o adopt th e two-grade system would f i n d c o n s i d e r a b l e p r e s s u r e placed upon 1 t by o u t s i d e concerns t o expand t o the m o d if i ­ c a t i o n s mentioned by Klrshcenbaum. Such imminent p r e s s u r e s might a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d a d i s a d v a n t a g e t o t h e p a s s / f a l l method o f r e p o r t i n g . R e f e r r i n g back t o t h e S c h a r f f e s t u d y , e le m e n tary t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s d id n o t f a v o r th e p a s s / f a l l system when compared w ith t h e l e t t e r grade system. The methods o f Blanket Grading, Pa ss -Fa11, Cred1t-No C r e d i t , and S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n a r e found t o be h e ld In low esteem by t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a l i k e . I t can be concluded t h a t t h e s e methods would f i n d l i t t l e s u p p o r t 1n t h e s c h o o ls l 0 4 I b 1 d . , p. 306. 105Metle B r a m l e t t e , " I s t h e S and U Grading System S a t i s ­ f a c t o r y o r U n s a t i s f a c t o r y ? " Texas Outlook 26 (April 1941): 29-30; c i t e d i n S c h a r f f e , " A t t i t u d e s , " p. 42. 65 surveyed and cannot be c o n s i d e r e d as v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o P a r e n t Con fe re nce s, Grades, Check L i s t s o r N a r r a t i v e s . 106 Cred1t-No C r e d i t Reporting The d i f f e r e n c e s between c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t r e p o r t i n g and p a s s fa11 a r e few, 1n t h a t both systems u t i l i z e only two l e v e l s w i t h no middle ground. As mentioned e a r l i e r , some school systems have used m o d i f i c a t i o n s such as honors and l i m i t e d p a s s , b u t unde r t h e p u r e s t s e n s e , both systems u t i l i z e an " e 1 t h e r - o r " d e c i s i o n . The advantage o f th e c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t system 1s t h a t t h e co ncept o f f a i l u r e 1s removed which may encourage s t u d e n t s t o e l e c t d i f f i c u l t c o u r s e s , out o f personal I n t e r e s t , t h a t t h e y might no t e l e c t o t h e r w i s e 1 f t h e i r l i m i t e d background might r e s u l t 1n a low o r f a l l i n g mark. S tu d en ts who f e e l the need o r p r e s s u r e t o b r i n g home high marks and m a in ta in a high grad e >p o 1n t-av e rag e may be r e 1u c t a n t t o gamble on a f o r e i g n language o r a c h e m is tr y c o u r s e , even though t h e y may p e r s o n a l l y wish t o e x p l o r e such s u b j e c t s . Under t h e c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t o p t i o n , t h e "no c r e d i t " o f t e n does n o t a p p e a r In t h e s t u d e n t ' s permanent r e c o r d s a t a l l 1 f he f a l l s to meet minimum s t a n d a r d s f o r p a s s i n g t h e c o u r s e , thus e l i m i n a t i n g a l l t h r e a t s o f f a i l u r e . One w r i t e r s u p p o r t i n g the c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t p lan s t a t e s . To use a system t h a t does n o t c o n t a i n f a i l u r e , s t u d e n t s a r e encouraged t o t r y h a rd c o u r s e s . Edu cation 1s then expanded. Even I f t h e s t u d e n t does n o t p a s s , he can c o n ti n u e through t h e r e s t o f t h e s e m e s te r t o a s s i m i l a t e a c e r t a i n amount o f ^ S c h a r f f e , " A t t i t u d e s , " pp. 129-30. 66 knowledge* perhaps enough t o allow him t o pass a second time I f he t r i e s t h e cours e a g a i n . 107 Gerhard has w r i t t e n e x t e n s i v e l y on t h e Importance o f school s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e as t h e y r e l a t e t o development o f s e l f - c o n c e p t * which o f f e r s f u r t h e r s u p p o r t o f a system t h a t removes t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of failure. There 1s n o t one s l i v e r o f doubt t h a t s e l f - c o n c e p t I s a p r e ­ r e q u i s i t e t o l e a r n i n g ; t h a t 1 t 1s a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o a l l o f o u r a c t i o n s . How we view o u r s e l v e s and how o t h e r s view us a r e communicated and dete rm ine o ur b e h a v i o r s . I f we view o u r s e l v e s n e g a t i v e l y o r a r e viewed n e g a t i v e l y , 1n many c ase s the r e s u l t s a r e s e l f - d e f e a t i n g o r d e s t r u c t i v e b e h a v i o r s . 108 She f u r t h e r s t a t e s , The school c u r r i c u lu m should be e x p e r i e n c e - b a s e d r a t h e r than p r i m a r i l y symbol-based. I t should p r ov ide f o r d i r e c t , p u r­ p o s e f u l , c o n c r e t e e x p e r i e n c e s , and I n s u r e a l a r g e measure o f su c ce ss f o r each p u p i l . P u p i l s who e x p e r i e n c e su c ce ss w i l l d e r i v e s a t i s f a c t i o n from l e a r n i n g , which 1n t u r n w i l l keep t h e c y c l e moving. The l e a r n i n g environment should be open and t h r e a t - f r e e . P u p i l s should n o t be f e a r f u l o f making m i s t a k e s , f o r most o f us have l e a r n e d f a r more from o u r mis­ t a k e s than from our s u c c e s s e s . *09 G e r h a r d 's comments n o t only s u p p o r t a system whereby f a i l u r e 1s removed, such as a c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t syste m , b u t she a l s o , w i t h o u t making d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e , a p p ea rs t o s u p p o r t t h e middle school c h a r ­ acteristics. Educational Research S e r v i c e , Pass-Fa11 Pla n s (Washington, D.C.: American A s s o c i a t i o n o f School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s and National Education A s s o c i a t i o n , November 1971), p. 2; c i t e d 1n S c h a r f f e , " A t t i t u d e s , " p. 44. 108 Muriel Gerhard, E f f e c t i v e Teaching S t r a t e g i e s With t h e Behavioral Outcomes Approach (West Nvack, N.Y.: P a r k e r P u b l i s h i n g Co ., I n c . , 1971), p. 55. l 0 9 I b 1 d ., p. 56. % 67 The d isa d v an tag e s o f t h e c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t system a re t h e same as t h e d isa d v an tag e s o f t h e p a s s / f a l l system mentioned e a r l i e r , but It 1s f e l t t h a t the prime d i f f e r e n c e , t h a t o f not p ro v id in g ac a t e ­ gory o f f a i l u r e , w a r r a n ts t h i s s e p a r a t e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . And, 1 t must be mentioned t h a t elementary t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s surveyed 1n the S c h a r r f e stu dy looked upon t h e c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t system o f s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g w ith d i s f a v o r . The methods o f Blanket Grading, P a s s - F a 1 l , Credlt-No C r e d i t , and S e l f E valu ation a r e found t o be held 1n low esteem by t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a l i k e . I t can be concluded t h a t t h e s e methods would f i n d l i t t l e s u p p o r t In the s c h o o ls s u r ­ veyed and cannot be c o n s i d e r e d as v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s to P a r e n t C o nfere nces, Grades, Check L i s t s o r N a r r a t i v e s Reporting Techniques and Middle School Concepts In any stud y o f middle school t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r a t t i ­ tudes toward v a rio us e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g t e c h n i q u e s , 1 t 1s Impor­ t a n t t o c o n s i d e r how v a ri o u s te c h n iq u e s f i t t h e middle school c o n c e p t. There a r e 18 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e t r u e middle school t h a t a r e g e n e r a l l y a cc ep ted by p r a c t i t i o n e r s . These i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : ^ 1. Continuous p r o g r e s s 2. M u l t i - m a t e r i a l approach 3. F l e x i b l e s c h ed u le s 4. Provisions fo r a p p ro p ria te s o d a ! experiences 5. A p p r o p r ia te p h y s i c a l e x p e r i e n c e s and In tr a m u r a l a c t i v i t i e s 6. P r o v i s i o n s f o r team t e a c h i n g 110S c h a r f f e , " A t t i t u d e s , " pp. 129-30. ^ G e o r g i a d y and Romano, "Do You Have a Middle School?" p. 239. 68 7. Planned gradualis m 8. P r o v i s i o n s f o r e x p l o r a t o r y and enrichment a c t i v i t i e s 9. App rop riate guidance s e r v i c e s 10. P r o v i s i o n s f o r independent stu d y 11. Basic s k i l l r e p a i r and e x te n s i o n 12. A c t iv i t ie s f o r c re a tiv e experiences 13. Full p r o v i s i o n f o r e v a l u a t i o n 14. Community r e l a t i o n s emphasis 15. Adequate s t u d e n t s e r v i c e s 16. Auxiliary s t a f f i n g 17. Security 18. I n t e r - d i s c i p l i n a r y approach For purposes o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n a t t h i s p o i n t , p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n w i l l be given t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c number 1, co ntin uo u s p r o g r e s s ; c h a r a c t e r i s t i c number 5, a p p r o p r i a t e p h y sic al e x p e r i e n c e s and In tr a m u r a l a c t i v i t i e s ; and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c number 13, f u l l p ro ­ vision for evaluation. Georglady and Romano d i s c u s s c o ntin u ou s p r o g r e s s 1n t h e f o l lowing manner: R e g ard less o f c h ro n o l o g i c a l a g e, s t u d e n t s should be allowed t o p r o g r e s s a t t h e i r own I n d i v i d u a l r a t e s . This t r a n s e s c e n t s t a t e o f growth 1s one 1n which i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s a r e most pronounced. Forcing s t u d e n t s I n t o a r i g i d c h r o n o l o g i c a l group­ ing p a t t e r n ig n o res t h i s im p o r ta n t developmental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and d e f e a t s t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f e d u c a t i o n a l p l a n s . I n s t e a d , t h e c u r r i c u lu m must be b u i l t on c o n tinu o us p r o g r e s s , p e r m i t ­ t i n g each s t u d e n t t o move thro ugh s e q u e n t i a l l e a r n i n g a c t i v i ­ t i e s a t h i s own r a t e . **2 112I b i d . , p. 238. 69 I t would seem from t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f contlnous p rog res s t h a t the Id ea l middle school s e t t i n g would avoid p i t t i n g one s t u d e n t a g a i n s t ano th er 1n any s o r t o f comparison o f t h e i r achievement on a predetermined les so n o r s e t o f o b j e c t i v e s , simply because n o t a l l s t u d e n ts approach the middle school a t t h e same s t a g e o f r e a d i n e s s . I t Implies Independent study which r e q u i r e s Independent e v a l u a t i o n . I t a l s o Implies t h a t s t u d e n t s t r e a t e d as I n d i v i d u a l s and being allowed t o p ro g r e s s a t t h e i r own I n d iv id u a l r a t e s 1s 1n d i r e c t con­ t r a s t t o any system o f comparing one s t u d e n t with an o th e r o r 1n any manner u t i l i z i n g a "normal c u rv e ," 1n e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g systems. Bloom, H a stin g s, and Madaus s t a t e t h i s p o s i t i o n as fo llo w s: I f we a re e f f e c t i v e 1n o ur I n s t r u c t i o n , the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f achievement should be very d i f f e r e n t from the normal c urv e. In f a c t , we may even I n s i s t t h a t our e d u ca tion al e f f o r t s have been unsuccess ful to t h e e x t e n t t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f achievement approximates the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . 1 ' 3 This concept su pp o rts t h e idea o f th e "pyramid" e f f e c t , o r mastery l e a r n i n g . Each In d iv id u a l s t u d e n t must have the time and o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o b u i ld s o l i d foun d atio ns o f b a s i c s k i l l s on which to b u i l d more advanced s k i l l s . While some s t u d e n ts may grasp concepts q u i c k l y , I t may take o t h e r s a b i t l o n g e r . The middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t speaks t o a p p r o p r i a t e physical exp erien c es and Intram ural a c t i v i t i e s may a t f i r s t seem I n a p p r o p r i a t e 1n t h e c o n t e x t o f e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g . However, a review o f t h e f u l l d i s c u s s i o n on t h i s m a t t e r 1s warr anted: 113 Benjamin S. Bloom, J . Thomas H a s t i n g s , and George F. Madaus, Handbook on Formative and Summatlve E valuation o f Stude nt l e a r n i n g (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971), p. 45. 70 Highly c o m p e t i t i v e a t h l e t i c programs a r e no t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t r a n s e s c e n t s , who a r e g e n e r a l l y unprepared f o r t h e s e r i o u s p r e s s u r e s t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s g e n e r a t e . I n s t e a d , p h y sic al educa­ t i o n c l a s s e s should c e n t e r t h e i r a c t i v i t y on h e lp i n g s t u d e n t s u n d e rs ta n d and use t h e i r b o d i e s . A s t r o n g In tram ural program which encourages widespread p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1s g r e a t l y p r e f e r r e d t o a c o m p e t i t i v e , s e l e c t e d program o f a t h l e t i c s which b e n e f i t s only a few. The s t r e s s should be on t h e development o f body management s k i l l s . 114 For purposes o f our d i s c u s s i o n a t t h i s p o i n t , we w i l l not concern o u r s e l v e s w ith a t h l e t i c c o m p e ti t io n p e r s e , bu t r a t h e r with the co nce pt o f c o m p e ti t io n . Competition 1s not an acc ep ted co ncept o f t h e middle s c h o o l , whether 1t 1s c o m p e ti t io n on th e p la y in g f i e l d o r 1n t h e cla ssro om . I t I s f e l t by most middle school advocates t h a t the t r a n s e s c e n t I s n o t e m o t i o n a l ly p r e p a r e d f o r c o m p e titio n and t h e emotional p r e s s u r e s t h a t accompany i t . I t i s believed th a t the l e t ­ t e r grade system o f e v a l u a t i n g and r e p o r t i n g s t u d e n t p ro g r e s s I s c o m p e t i t i v e 1n n a t u r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y when a normal curve 1s used as the c r i t e r i o n f o r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e g r a d e s . Such systems p l a c e p r e s s u r e on s t u d e n t s whether t h e p r e s s u r e s be s e l f - i n d u c e d , whether th ey o r i g i n a t e 1n th e home, o r wh eth er th e y a r e a r e s u l t o f p e er p r e s s u r e s t o a void being seen as f a i l u r e s In t h e eyes o f t h e i r classm ates. H a r r is sums up t h e i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f c la ssro om com­ p e t i t i o n 1n t h e fo llo w in g manner: Competition means l i t t l e f o r t h e c h i l d who always l o s e s o r f o r t h e one who always wins. The e f f e c t s o f c o m p e ti t io n f o r e i t h e r c h i l d may be damaging, however; n e i t h e r g a in s an adeq uate con­ c e p t o f s e l f . Most cla ssroom l i v i n g I s a c o o p e r a t i v e v e n tu r e 1 f I t 1s s u c c e s s f u l . Unequal c o m p e t i t i v e advan tag es produce a poor atmosphere f o r c o o p e r a t i o n . I * 5 1U 115 Georglady and Romano, "Do You Have a Middle School?" p. 239. H a r r i s , " C u r r e n t P r a c t i c e s i n G r a d in g ," p. 39. 71 One o f th e arguments f r e q u e n t l y o f f e r e d by a d vo cate s o f l e t t e r grades and " l e a r n i n g t o f a l l " 1s t h a t the concept 1s a way of l i f e . I t 1s s a i d t h a t a d u l t s w i l l s u f f e r many f a i l u r e s th r o u g h ­ o u t t h e i r l i v e s and s t u d e n t s must l e a r n t o deal w ith f a i l u r e 1 f th ey a r e t o s u r v i v e 1n t h e r e a l w orld. But, c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s argument, t h i s w r i t e r can t h i n k o f few, I f any , r e a l - 1 1 f e s i t u a t i o n s o u t s i d e t h e cla ss ro om where l e t t e r grades a r e used to I n d i c a t e r e a l - 1 1 f e failure. Employees a r e e v a l u a t e d , t r u e , b u t t h e p ro ce ss u s u a l l y Inv o lv es n a r r a t i v e s , perhaps a check l i s t , and almost always a p e r ­ sonal d i s c u s s i o n between the e v a l u a t o r and t h e e v a l u a t e e . G e n er a lly s p e a k i n g , a d u l t s would n e v er a c c e p t t h e ty pe o f e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g which 1s u s u a l l y f o r c e d upon s t u d e n t s . Harris describes such a comparison as fo llo w s: A t e a c h e r went t o a c l i n i c f o r a thorough p h y sic a l examina­ t i o n . There she e x p e r ie n c e d t h e usual X -ra y s, blood c o u n t s , r e f l e x c h ec k s, a l l e r g y a n a l y s i s , and e n d l e s s I n t e r r o g a t i o n . When t h e exam ination was com pl eted, she I n q u i r e d , "What 1s t h e answer, Doctor?" And t h e d o c t o r r e p l i e d , "Miss J o n e s , y o u r grade 1s B . " ' 16 Wax o f f e r s a n o t h e r comparison by s t a t i n g , " S tu d e n ts a r e m anipulated t o compete f o r rewards by t e a c h e r s who p r o t e s t v i o l e n t l y , t o t h e p o i n t o f s t r i k i n g , i f asked t o a c c e p t a m e r i t pay proposal In v o lv in g com petitio n ."^7 Wax f u r t h e r d e s c r i b e s th e e f f e c t s o f c o m p e t i t i o n 1n the cla ss room and t h e e f f e c t s o f f a i l u r e : l 1 6 I b 1 d . , p. 39. 117Joseph Wax, "COMPETITION: Educational I n c o n g r u i t y , " Phi D e l ta Kappan 57 (November 1975): 179. 72 Classroom d e f e a t I s only th e pebble t h a t c r e a t e s widening ripples of h o s tility . I t 1s s e l f - p e r p e t u a t i n g . I t 1s r e i n ­ fo r c e d by p e e r c e n s u r e , p a r e n t a l d i s a p p r o v a l , and l o s s o f self-concept. I f t h e cla ssroom 1s a model, and 1f t h a t c la ssro om models c o m p e t i t i o n , a s s a u l t 1n th e hallways should s u r p r i s e no o n e . 118 Wax very a p t l y summarizes h i s contempt f o r c o m p e titio n 1n t h e class room as f o l lo w s : "Races should be r u n . Scores should be k e p t . I t Is n e i t h e r t h e r a c e nor the s c o r e t h a t 1s I n e v i t a b l y c o m p e t i t i v e . I t Is c o m p e t i t i o n ' s p u n i t i v e e f f e c t upon t h e l o s e r and t h e d l s p r o p o r 119 t l o n a t e reward f o r t h e winner t h a t de grades and b r u t a l i z e s . " Most germane to t h e t o p i c under s t u d y h e re 1s middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c number 13, which c a l l s f o r f u l l p r o v i s i o n f o r e v a l u a ­ tion. Georglady and Romano d e s c r i b e t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c as f o l lo w s : The middle school program should p r o v id e a system o f e v a l u a t i o n t h a t 1s p erso nal and p o s i t i v e In n a t u r e . I f an I n d i v i d u a l i z e d program 1s t o be c a r r i e d on, t h e n t h e e v a l u a ­ t i o n should be I n d i v i d u a l i z e d . The s t u d e n t should be e n cour­ aged t o a s s e s s h i s own p r o g r e s s and plan f o r f u t u r e p r o g r e s s as w e l l . The p r e s e n t common g rad in g system u s i n g l e t t e r gr ades p r o v i d e s l i t t l e In fo rm atio n u s e f u l In u n d e r s t a n d i n g h i s pro g­ r e s s and h i s a r e a s o f needed Improvement. As p a r t o f an e f f e c ­ t i v e e v a l u a t i o n syste m, s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r c o n fe r e n c e s on a r e g u l a r l y sc heduled b a s i s a r e v a l u a b l e . A d d i t io n a l c o n f e r ­ ences I n c l u d i n g p a r e n t s can a i d 1n r e p o r t i n g p r o g r e s . The whole atmosphere 1n conductin g e v a l u a t i o n should be c o n s t r u c ­ t i v e and p o s i t i v e r a t h e r th an c r i t i c a l and p u n i t i v e . 120 While many w r i t e r s and t h e o r i s t s might a g re e t h a t t h e p r i n ­ c i p l e s o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a t r u e middle school would be e q u a l l y sound and d e s i r a b l e 1n any s c h o o l , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e t r a d i t i o n a l j u n i o r high s c h o o l , 1 t 1s a l s o f e l t by middle school a d vo cate s t h a t most o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e n o t p r e s e n t 1n t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o o l s . 118I b i d . l l 9 I b 1 d . , p. 198. 120 Georglady and Romano, "Do You Have a Middle School?" p. 240. 73 The s t u d e n t s g e n e r a l l y do n o t take an a c t i v e r o l e In p la n n in g t h e i r own programs, n or a r e p a r e n t s given ample o p p o r t u n i t y t o provide Input. The a s p e c t o f e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g , however, 1s one c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t o f t e n s t i m u l a t e s more c o n tr o v e r s y and emotion than most o f t h e o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Adm inistrators often p re f e r a simple system r e q u i r i n g a minimum o f r e c o r d i n g s p a c e , c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s s 1 11 g e n e r a l l y demand a simple d e v ic e such as a l e t t e r grade o r a numerical s c o r e t h a t can be averaged and compared w ith o t h e r s t u d e n t s , many p a r e n t s s t i l l r e l a t e t o t h e simple l e t t e r grade and any th ing e l s e 1s found t o be c o n f u s i n g , t e a c h e r s them­ s e l v e s a r e d i v id e d and o f t e n p r e f e r th e sim ple l e t t e r grade t h a t r e q u i r e s a minimum o f time and e f f o r t on t h e i r p a r t , and f i n a l l y , t h e s t u d e n t s themselves a r e o f t e n so I n d o c t r i n a t e d 1n t h e l e t t e r grade system t h a t th e y too become accustomed t o r e c e i v i n g them. It becomes an I s s u e with many I n d i v i d u a l s Involved 1n t h e system o f e v a l u a t i n g and r e p o r t i n g ; however, proponents o f the middle school c oncept f e e l 1 t 1s e s s e n t i a l t h a t a more p e rs on al and p o s i t i v e p r o ­ gram o f r e p o r t i n g be u t i l i z e d . In d e s c r i b i n g t h e Importance o f t o t a l s t u d e n t Involvement 1n t h e e v a l u a t i o n system , H a r r i s s t a t e s . Good grad in g p r a c t i c e s e volv e I n t o good e v a l u a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s . Here th e c h i l d 1s t h o r o u g h ly Involved. He c o n s i d e r s h i s r o l e , h i s g o a l s , h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n , and h i s growth. I t 1s only as he ga in s an I n c r e a s i n g l y a c c u r a t e p e r s p e c t i v e o f h i m s e l f t h a t h i s r o l e In t h e l e a r n i n g p ro ce ss becomes c l e a r . 121 The emphasis upon p o s i t i v e and n o n p u n l ti v e forms o f e v a l u a t i o n 1s t h e c e n t r a l theme o f middle school advocates as opposed t o t h e 121 H a r r i s , "C u rren t P r a c t i c e s 1n G r a d in g ," p. 39. 74 c o m p e ti t iv e n a t u r e o f the "normal curve" and t h e f e e l i n g o f f a i l u r e t h a t 1s t r a n s m i t t e d t o s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e low grades i n th e t r a d i ­ t i o n a l A B C D F system o f r e p o r t i n g . The fo llo w in g r a t h e r len g th y st a te m e n t sums up t h i s a t t i t u d e r a t h e r w e l l . The e f f e c t o f t h i s system on the u n su c ce ss fu l s t u d e n t s — and th e l a r g e s t f r a c t i o n o f th ose who begin e d u c a ti o n a r e u n su c ce ss fu l a t some s t a g e 1n t h e system— i s n o t o f c e n t r a l concern to t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The system o f c a t e ­ g o r i z i n g s t u d e n t s i s g e n e r a l l y designed t o approximate a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n o f marks (such as A,B,C,D,F) a t each grade o r l e v e l . Since th e system i s h i g h l y c o n s i s t e n t from one gr ade o r lev e l t o th e n e x t , o ur r e s e a r c h f i n d s t h a t some s t u d e n t s a r e rewarded with an A o r B a t each g r a d e , whereas o t h e r s a r e reminded over and o ver again t h a t th ey a r e 0 o r F s t u d e n t s . The r e s u l t o f t h i s method o f c a t e g o r i z i n g i n d i ­ v i d u a l s 1s t o convince some t h a t they a r e a b l e , good, and d e s i r a b l e from t h e vi ewpoint o f the system and o t h e r s t h a t they a r e d e f i c i e n t , bad, and u n d e s i r a b l e . I t 1s n o t l i k e l y t h a t t h i s c o n t i n u a l l a b e l i n g has b e n e f i c i a l consequences f o r t h e I n d i v i d u a l ' s e d u c a ti o n a l development, and 1t 1s l i k e l y t h a t i t has an un f a v o r a b le i n f l u e n c e on many a s t u d e n t ' s s e l f - c o n c e p t . To be p h y s i c a l l y (and l e g a l l y ) Imprisoned 1n a school system f o r t e n o r twelve y e a r s and t o r e c e i v e n e g a t i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e p e a t e d l y f o r t h i s p e rio d o f time must have a major d e tr im e n ­ t a l e f f e c t on p e r s o n a l i t y and c h a r a c t e r d e v e l o p m e n t . '22 Bloom, H a s t i n g s , and Madaus f u r t h e r s t a t e , "The s c h o o ls must s t r i v e t o a s s u r e a l l s t u d e n t s o f s u c c e s s f u l l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s 1n 123 t h e realms o f Ideas and s e l f - d e v e l o p m e n t . " Another middle school a d v o c a te , Musholt, i n s u p p o r t o f Bloom, states, A composite p o r t r a i t o f t h e s u c c e s s f u l s t u d e n t would show t h a t he has a r e l a t i v e l y high o pin io n o f h i m s e l f and i s o p t i ­ m i s t i c about h i s f u t u r e performance. He has c o n fi d e n c e 1n h i s g en eral a b i l i t y and in h i s a b i l i t y as a s t u d e n t . He needs fewer f a v o r a b l e e v a l u a t i o n s from o t h e r s . He f e e l s t h a t he 122 Bloom, H a s t i n g s , and Madaus, Handbook, p. 7. 123I b i d . , p. 44. 75 works h a r d , 1s l i k e d by o t h e r s t u d e n t s , and 1s g e n e r a l l y p o l i t e and h o n e s t . This i s 1n s t a r k c o n t r a s t t o t h e s e l f image o f t h e m a j o r i t y o f u n su c c e ss f u l s t u d e n t s . 124 Musholt b e l i e v e s 1 t 1s a " pers onal t r a g e d y and a s o c i a l waste" f o r s t u d e n t s t o spend y e a r a f t e r y e a r r e c e i v i n g f a i l i n g grades which c o n t i n u a l l y r e i n f o r c e th e f e e l i n g s o f f a i l u r e , I n s e c u r i t y , low s e l f - w o r t h , and c e r t a i n l y a profound d i s l i k e f o r school and l e a r n i n g . The m a j o r i t y o f a v a i l a b l e s t u d i e s I n d i c a t e t h a t u n su c ce ss fu l s t u d e n t s m a i n t a i n s e l f a t t i t u d e s t h a t a r e p e r v a s i v e l y nega­ t i v e . They tend t o see themselves as u n a b le , I n a d e q u a t e , and l e s s s e l f - r e l i a n t than t h e i r more s u c c e s s f u l p e e r s . S t u ­ de n ts w ith n e g a t i v e s e l f - i m a g e s o f a b i l i t y r a r e l y perform well In s c h o o l . 125 I t should be c l e a r t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e form of e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g d i s c u s s e d by middle school advocates as compared with t r a d i t i o n a l r e p o r t i n g t e c h n iq u e s In clu d e s t u d e n t In put 1n the p la n n i n g ; th e s e t t i n g o f r e a l i s t i c goals a cc o rd in g t o i n t e r e s t , r e a d i n e s s , and need; s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n along with t e a c h e r e v a l u a t i o n 1n a p o s i t i v e , n o n t h r e a t e n i n g manner; and t h e u t i l i z a t i o n o f f r e q u e n t p u p i l - t e a c h e r - p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , as opposed t o systems I n v o lv in g only t e a c h e r o r school system i n p u t and the l a b e l i n g o f s t u d e n t s w ith u n c l e a r , s i m p l i s t i c marks which I n s t i l l f e e l i n g s o f f a i l u r e , and tend to compare I n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s u n f a v o r a b ly w ith t h e i r p e e r s . Georglady, R l e g l e , and Romano summarize t h e e sse n c e o f e v a l u a ­ t i o n 1n t h e middle school by s t a t i n g , Wayne Musholt, "S e lf-C on ce p t and t h e Middle S c h o o l," NASSP B u l l e t i n 58 (April 1974); 67. 76 The middle school program should provide an e v a l u a t i o n o f a s t u d e n t ' s work t h a t 1s p e r s o n a l , p o s i t i v e 1n n a t u r e , non* t h r e a t e n i n g , and s t r i c t l y I n d i v i d u a l i z e d . The s t u d e n t should be allowed t o a s s e s s h i s own p r o g r e s s and plan f o r f u t u r e prog r e s s . A s t u d e n t needs more in f o r m a tio n than a l e t t e r grade p r o v i d e s , and he needs more s e c u r i t y than t h e t r a d i t i o n a l s y s ­ tem o f f e r s . T r a d i t i o n a l systems seem t o be p u n i t i v e . The middle school y o u n g s t e r needs a s u p p o r t i v e atmosphere t o gene­ r a t e c o n fid e n c e and a w i l l i n g n e s s t o e x p lo r e new a r e a s o f l e a r n i n g . 12® Summary At one p o i n t 1n e a r l y America, " s t u d e n t s " were t a u g h t p r i ­ m a r i l y by t h e i r p a r e n t s In th e home. They l e a r n e d f a n n i n g , h u n t i n g , homemaking, b l a c k s m l t h i n g , o r wha tever o t h e r s k i l l s t h e i r p a r e n t s had t o pa ss down through g e n e r a t i o n s o f t h e fam ily s t r u c t u r e . The o nly c r i t e r i o n f o r s u c c e ss was t h e y o u n g s t e r ' s a b i l i t y t o perform the t a s k p r o f i c i e n t l y . L i t t l e 1s w r i t t e n about t h e r e p o r t i n g systems used in e a r l y American s c h o o l s f o r t h e few s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d a formal e d u c a t i o n u n t i l th e p e r i o d beg in ning roughly from 1910. As more and more s t u d e n t s e n t e r e d t h e p u b l i c school systems a t t h i s tim e , i t became n e c e s s a r y t o develop r e p o r t i n g t e c h n i q u e s . E arly t e c h n iq u e s u t i l i z e d g e n e r a l l y were p e rc e n ta g e g r a d e s , followed by numerical g r a d e s , and t h e five-symbol l e t t e r grade system as we know i t to day (A 8 C D F ) . Such a system allowed comparisons and rank ing s o f s t u d e n t s t o s a t i s f y t h e demands o f c o l l e g e s and employers. The v a l i d i t y o f t h e f i v e - p o i n t l e t t e r grade system came under c l o s e s c r u t i n y by e a r l y r e s e a r c h e r s such as S t a r c h and E l l i o t t in 126 Nicholas P. Georglady, Ja ck P. R i e g l e , and Louis G. Romano, " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Middle S c h o o l s , " NASSP B u l l e t i n 58 (Aorll 19741: 72. 77 s t u d i e s conducted in 1912, and such q u e s t io n s o f v a l i d i t y have con­ tin u e d today. As a r e s u l t o f such r e s e a r c h showing l e t t e r grades t o be u n r e l i a b l e , o t h e r systems o f s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g have been Intro duced and t r i e d . However, the predominant system o f r e p o r t i n g i s s t i l l shown to be t h e f i v e - p o i n t system. Alternative r e p o r t i n g techniq ues t o the A B C D F system con sidere d Included the follo w in g seven methods: blanket grading, n a rr a tiv e s , paren t-te ach er c o n f e r e n c e s , p a s s - f a l l , c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t , check l i s t s , and s e l f evaluation. Various w r i t e r s c i t e d were found to sup p o rt and oppose each o f t h e s e systems when compared t o the l e t t e r grade. The primary study c i t e d In t h i s c h a p t e r was th e S c h a rffe s t u d y , which t e s t e d elementary t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r a t t i t u d e s toward each o f the seven r e p o r t i n g techniq ues when compared with t h e l e t t e r grade system. I t was found t h a t p a r e n t - t e a c h e r confe renc es were favored h i g h e s t followed by l e t t e r g r a d e s , check l i s t s , n a r r a t i v e l e t t e r s , b l a n k e t g r a d in g , p a s s - f a l l , c r e d 1 t- n o c r e d i t , and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . Even though p a r e n t confe ren ces were t h e f i r s t choic e o f both t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , 1t was found t h a t t h i s system 1s only advocated as a supplement t o some s o r t o f w r i t t e n r e p o r t . A review o f middle school concepts as r e l a t e d t o s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g r e v e a l s t h a t th e pro ce ss should be p o s i t i v e and n o n p u n l tl v e , and 1 t should be h i g h l y I n d i v i d u a l i z e d r a t h e r than being based on the "normal c u r v e . " The s t u d e n t 1s t o t a k e an a c t i v e r o l e 1n planning h i s own program t o meet h i s g o a ls and needs by u t i l i z i n g f r e q u e n t t e a c h e r - p u p i l planning s e s s i o n s , and the r e p o r t i n g 78 system should In volve p u p i l - t e a c h e r - p a r e n t meetings on a r e g u l a r basis. The w r i t e r s reviewed advocated t h e use o f n a r r a t i v e l e t t e r s , c o n f e r e n c e s , s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , and some forms o f check l i s t s as p r i ­ mary r e p o r t i n g sy ste m s, and they found no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e f i v e - p o i n t , o r l e t t e r g r a d e , system o f r e p o r t i n g . The emphasis o f t h e s e w r i t e r s 1s t o avoid comparing s t u d e n t s w ith one a n o t h e r and c r e a t i n g a c o m p e t i t i v e atmosphere 1n t h e middle s c h o o l , as t h e t r a n s e s c e n t 1s n o t e m o t i o n a l l y mature enough t o deal w i t h t h i s ty pe of s itu a tio n . The review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l e d t h a t gr ades have remained t h e primary system o f r e p o r t i n g s i n c e e a r l y 1n t h e t w e n t i e t h century f o r several reasons: (1) From t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e view, th ey a r e e a s y t o r e c o r d ; (2) t h e y can be a v erag e d , which f a c i l i t a t e s t h e comparing and o r d e r i n g o f s t u d e n t s ; (3) they a r e easy f o r t h e c l a s s ­ room t e a c h e r t o r e c o r d ; (4) p a r e n t s a r e accustomed t o grades and b e l i e v e they u n d e rs ta n d t h e i r meaning; (5) s t u d e n t s have come to e x p e c t grades and th ey seem t o b e l i e v e th ey u n d e rs tan d them; and (6) h i g h e r I n s t i t u t i o n s o f l e a r n i n g as well as p o t e n t i a l employers have c o n tin ued to demand gr a d e s from t h e i r p o t e n t i a l c o n s t i t u e n t s . CHAPTER I I I DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY This c h a p t e r w i l l d e s c r i b e t h e t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n , sampling p r o c e d u r e s , the de sign and v a l i d a t i o n o f t h e survey I n s t r u m e n t s , and the s t a t i s t i c a l methods u t i l i z e d t o analyze th e d a t a . P o pu la tio n and Sample The t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n f o r t h i s s t u d y was th e t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1n t h e p u b l ic middle sch o o ls In Michigan t h a t housed grades s i x , se v en , and e i g h t e x c l u s i v e l y . During t h e 1977-1978 school y e a r t h e r e were 235 sch o o ls I d e n t i f i e d 1n t h e "Blue Book'^ t h a t In clu d e th e above grade l e v e l s . According to K r e jc l e and 2 Morgan, t h e minimum sample s i z e from t h i s p o p u l a t i o n should be 148 sch o o ls 1n o r d e r t o c o l l e c t s u f f i c i e n t d a t a t o make g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s to the to ta l population. All o f t h e middle sch o o ls l i s t e d 1n t h e Blue Book were numbered by the r e s e a r c h e r , c o n s e c u t i v e l y , from 1 through 235. A t a b l e o f random numbers was then used t o I d e n t i f y t h e needed sample t o be surv e y ed . However, t h e r e s e a r c h e r took t h e l i b e r t y o f ^Michigan Education D i r e c t o r y and B u ye r's Guide (Lansing: 1977-1978JI 2 Robert V. K r e jc le and Daryle W. Morgan, "Determining Sample Size f o r Research A c t i v i t i e s , " Educational and P sy ch olo gica l Measurement 30 (1970): 607-10. 79 80 I d e n t i f y i n g a t o t a l o f 160 sc hools In t h e hope t h a t the added number would p ro v id e a b r o a d e r base f o r s e l e c t i n g t h e sample t o be used 1n t h e f i n a l phase o f the s t u d y . 3 Since th e c u r r e n t stu d y was u l t i m a t e l y t o In clu d e each I n d i ­ v id u a l t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r 1n t h e middle sch o o ls I d e n t i f i e d 1n the sample, 1 t was f e l t t h a t using a l l 160 sch o o ls would Involve a much l a r g e r sample o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s than n e c e s s a r y , along with t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e s u l t i n g number o f i n d i v i d u a l q u e s t i o n ­ n a i r e s would, In t u r n , c r e a t e massive problems o f coding f o r t h e researcher. I t was f e l t t h a t on ly th o se sch o o ls t h a t most exemplify the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the " t r u e " middle school should be in c lu d e d 1n t h e s t u d y , as well as th o se sc ho o ls t h a t l e a s t exem plify t h e t r u e middle school 1n o r d e r t o draw comparisons between t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t he t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s between the two groups o f s c h o o l s . T h e r e f o r e , 1 t was determined t h a t a modified R legle q u e s t i o n n a i r e would be s e n t to t h e p r i n c i p a l s o f a l l 160 s c h o o l s s e l e c t e d , t o d etermine t h e le v e l o f implementation o f t h e a c c e p te d middle school characteristics. The development, v a l i d a t i o n , and s c o r i n g p ro ce ­ du res used f o r t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r 1n t h i s chapter. All r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were s c o r e d and ranked a ccord ing t o t h e le v e l o f implementation o f middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 1n each s c h o o l . 3 Richard P. Runyan and Audrey Haber, Fundamentals o f Behavioral S t a t i s t i c s (Reading, Mass.: Addlson-Wesley P u b l i s h i n g C o ., 1968), p. 276. 81 Development and V a l i d a t i o n o f Survey Inst ru m en ts As s t a t e d e a r l i e r In t h i s c h a p t e r , I t was determined t h a t middle sch o o ls should be s e l e c t e d f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1n t h e stu dy accord in g t o t h e i r t e n d e n c i e s t o p r a c t i c e e s t a b l i s h e d middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , o r conversely, t h e i r reluctance to p r a c tic e these esta b lis h e d procedures. In o r d e r t o I d e n t i f y t h e s e sch o o ls I t was n e c e s s a r y t o e i t h e r develop a com pletely new I n str u m e n t f o r t h i s purpose o r u t i l i z e an e x i s t i n g In s t r u m e n t which a l r e a d y had been v a l i d a t e d and used 1n o t h e r s t u d i e s . This r e s e a r c h e r e l e c t e d t h e l a t t e r method and s e l e c t e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e developed by Jack R leg le f o r use 1n h i s 1970 d i s s e r t a t i o n , which s t u d i e d Implementation o f t h e same middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 1n Michigan middle s c h o o l s . 4 The In str u m e n t In clu d ed a t o t a l o f 62 I t e m s , a l l m u l t i p l e c h o i c e , which allowed each res ponding a d m i n i s t r a t o r t o s e l e c t answers t h a t b e s t d e s c r i b e d t h e de gree o f " t r u e " middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Imple­ m e n ta tio n 1n h i s o r h e r b u i l d i n g . The R leg le q u e s t i o n n a i r e u t i l i z e d anywhere from one t o s i x Items which spoke t o each o f t h e 18 middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s l i s t e d 1n C ha pter I I o f t h i s s t u d y . Further, R l e g l e a s s i g n e d each p o s s i b l e resp on se f o r t h e s e m u l t i p l e choic e items a numerical " s c o r e , " depending upon the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e res ponse t o middle school g o a l s . The h i g h e r t o t a l s o f t h e s e s c o r e s I n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e res ponding s c h o o l s were, 1n f a c t , p r a c t i c i n g 4 Ja ck D. R l e g l e , "A Study o f Middle School Programs t o Determine t h e C u r r e n t Level o f Implementation o f Eig hteen Basic Middle School P r i n c i p l e s " (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e Univer­ s i t y , 1971). 82 middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , while the lower t o t a l sc ores i n d i c a t e d the responding sc hools were middle schools in name only. For th e purposes o f the c u r r e n t s t u d y , the r e s e a r c h e r did not fe e l i t was n e ce ssa ry t o use the Rlegle in stru m e n t in i t s e n t i r e t y , and a system was u t i l i z e d t o pare i t down t o an a b b re v i a t e d form. To do t h i s , th e Instrument was reo rga nize d so t h a t a l l items p e r t a in * ing t o a p a r t i c u l a r middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c appeared on a s e p a r a t e page. For example, t h e Rlegle Instrum ent had two Items which d e a l t with "continuous p r o g r e s s , " and both o f t h e s e Items were placed on the f i r s t page. Riegle had s i x items p e r t a i n i n g to " m u l t i - m a t e r i a l s appro ach," and a l l s i x o f t h e s e items were placed on t h e second page. This approach was followed th ro u g h o u t, r e s u l t i n g in an 18-page modi­ f i e d R leg le q u e s t i o n n a i r e with each page d e a l in g with a s p e c i f i c middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . The r e s u l t i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e 1s shown in Appendix A. I t was then decided t h a t only one Item on each page d e a lin g with each s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c would be r e t a i n e d . The system u t i l i z e d t o determine which Items would be r e t a i n e d was t o s e l e c t a panel o f f i v e j u d g e s , o r middle school e x p e r t s , throughout th e United S t a t e s to r a t e a l l o f th e Items as t o t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s 1n d e s c r i b ­ ing middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . method 1s s t a t e d as follo w s: The r a t i o n a l e f o r using t h i s "Not only should t h e Items c o n ta in the common t h r e a d o f t h e a t t i t u d e under s t u d y , but between them they should a l s o cover t h e f u l l range o f t h e a t t i t u d e , and cover I t 1n a balanced way." F u r t h e r , "The assessment o f c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y i s 83 e s s e n t i a l l y a m a t t e r o f judgement; t h e judgement may be made by th e s u r v e y e r o r , b e t t e r , by a team o f judges engaged f o r t h e p u r p o s e . " 5 The f i v e judges s e l e c t e d , as sug g e ste d by Dr. Louis Romano o f Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , were as fo llo w s; Dr. Mary Compton U n i v e r s i t y o f Georgia Athens, Georgia Dr. John Swalm U n i v e r s i t y o f Northern Colorado G r e e le y , Colorado Dr. Conrad T o e t f e r S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o f New York a t B uffalo Amherst, New York Dr. Nicholas Georglady Miami U n i v e r s i t y Oxford, Ohio Dr. Daniel B ir d , P r i n c i p a l Eaton Rapids J r . High School Eaton Rapid s, Michigan The r e o r g a n i z e d R l e g l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was s e n t t o each o f th e f i v e ju d g e s w ith t h e I n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t th e y were t o r a t e o r rank the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the Items on each page. For example, page one o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e had two Items t h a t d e a l t with con tin uo u s p r o g r e s s . The j u d g e s were asked t o r a t e t h e b e s t o f t h e s e two I t e m s , as e f f e c ­ t i v e middle school I n d i c a t o r s , w i t h t h e numeral 1 , and t h e second b e s t item with a numeral 2. The r es p o n se s were th en weighted 1n r e v e r s e so t h a t any Item r a t e d number one by a panel member would be given two p o i n t s , and c o n v e r s e l y , an Item r a t e d second would be given 5 C. A. Moser and G. K alto n, Survey Methods i n S o c ial I n v e s t i ­ g a t i o n . 2nd ed. (New York: Basic Books, I n c . , 1972), p. 356. 84 only one p o i n t . The p o i n t s f o r each Item from a l l f i v e ju d g e s were then t o t a l e d , and th e Item w ith t h e h i g h e s t s c o r e was r e t a i n e d from t h e f i r s t page d e a l i n g w i t h continuous p r o g r e s s . Page two o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e had s i x I te m s, a l l d e a l i n g with the m u l t i - m a t e r i a l s approach. The same procedure was followed whereby the ju d ges were I n s t r u c t e d t o r a t e th e b e s t m u l t i - m a t e r i a l s I n d i c a t o r w ith t h e numeral 1, th e second b e s t with t h e numeral 2 , t h i r d b e s t w ith 3, and so on. Again, r e sp on se s were weighted 1n r e v e r s e with t h e f i r s t ch oic e from each judge being awarded s i x p o i n t s , th e second choic e was awarded f i v e p o i n t s , t h i r d c h o ic e f o u r p o i n t s , and so on. The p o i n t s f o r each Item from a l l f i v e jud g es were t o t a l e d and t h e Item with t h e h i g h e s t number o f combined p o i n t s was r e t a i n e d from the second page. The r e s u l t i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e from t h i s p a r i n g down procedure was an l8- 1tem In stru m en t de signed t o measure t h e r a t e o f Implemen­ t a t i o n o f middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s In t h e 160 s c h o o l s s e l e c t e d a t random 1n the S t a t e o f Michigan, a l l o f which I n c lu d e grades s i x , se ven , and e i g h t . By u t i l i z i n g t h e p r o c e ss o f s c o r i n g each j u d g e ' s r a n k in g s o f the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f items 1n t h e v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s , as d e s c r i b e d above, 1 t was a simple m a t t e r o f d e te r m in in g which Item s c o r e d h i g h e s t a f t e r t o t a l i n g the scores o f a l l fiv e judges. Only t h e ite m s w ith the h i g h e s t combined s c o r e s were r e t a i n e d and a l l o t h e r s were dropped. However, I t was f e l t t h a t a t e s t o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n t r a t e o f a g r e e ­ ment among t h e f i v e jud ges was n e c e s s a r y , even though t h e ' i t e m s 85 s e l e c t e d t o be Included on t h e middle school p r a c t i c e s q u e s t i o n n a i r e would remain I n t a c t . Page one o f t h e m o dified R legle q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n ta in e d only two m u l t i p l e choic e Items r e l a t e d t o continuous p r o g r e s s . In t h i s c a s e , t h e ra nkings o f the f i v e ju d g e s were unanimous, 1n t h a t a l l f i v e s e l e c t e d t h e f i r s t Item as being b e s t and t h e second Item as being second b e s t . No t e s t was conducted t o determine t h e l e v e l o f a g re e ­ ment in t h i s s i t u a t i o n , s i n c e t h e r e 1s o b v io u sly no q u e s t i o n 1n the case o f a unanimous c h o ic e . elim inated. Item one was r e t a i n e d and Item two was L ik ew ise, page 14 Included only two Items d e a l i n g with the t e a c h e r ' s r o l e 1n p ro v id in g guidance s e r v i c e s t o s t u d e n t s , and a g a i n , t h e cho ic e o f t h e f i v e ju d g e s was unanimous In s e l e c t i n g the f i r s t Item as t h e b e s t I n d i c a t o r . second Item was e l i m i n a t e d . T h e r e f o r e I t was r e t a i n e d and th e There was no need t o t e s t t h e l e v e l o f agreement h e r e , s i n c e a l l ju d g e s made t h e same s e l e c t i o n . Page e i g h t had only one ite m d e a l i n g with d e p a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n and page 17 had only one Item d e a l i n g w ith a u x i l i a r y s e r v i c e s . There­ f o r e t h e l i m i t a t i o n o f c h o ic e s f o r c e d t h e judges t o be unanimous 1n t h e i r choices. No t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n t agreement was n e c e s s a r y . On a l l pages where t h e r e were t h r e e o r more ite m s t o be ranked, t h e Kendal1-W t e s t , C o e f f i c i e n t o f Concordance, was s e l e c t e d t o be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r d e te r m in in g l e v e l o f agreement among t h e f i v e S j u d g e s . The s t a t i s t i c used t o conduct t h i s t e s t 1s W = 1/12 K^tN^-N)'* The Kendall-W t e s t was a p p l i e d t o Items on pages 2 , 3, 4 , 5 , 6 , 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18. Table 3.1 I l l u s t r a t e s t h e manner 86 1n which t h e responses o f th e f i v e judges a r e compiled when rank in g t h e o r d e r o f p r e f e r e n c e o f t h e s i x Items on page two o f t h e m odified Rleg le q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Table 3.1 . —T a b u l a t i o n o f j u d g e s ' s c o r e s f o r u t i l i z a t i o n o f Kendall-W sta tistic a l test. Judges Questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 A 5 4 6 3 1 2 B 1 6 5 2 4 3 C 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 6 5 2 3 4 E 4 3 1 2 5 6 Sum o f Rankings 17 24 21 12 15 16 Mean - 17 + 24 + 21 + 12 + 15 + ',16 ** 17 1/ *35 • S « (17-17.5)2 + (24-17.5)2 + (21-17.5)2 + (12-17.5)2 + (15-17.5)2 + ( 1 6 - 1 7 . 5 ) 2 = 9 3 .5 . „ S 93.5 1122 1122 n __ W “ 1/12 K^(NJ-N) “ 1/12 • 52(63-6) “ 25 • (216-6) = 5250 = 0,21 T h is te c h n iq u e a c t u a l l y p r o v i d e s two measures o f t h e l e v e l o f agreement among t h e f i v e j u d g e s . F i r s t , t h e c r i t i c a l va lu e o f S, 1n t h i s c a s e 9 3 . 5 , can be compared with f i g u r e s 1n t h e Table o f 87 C r i t i c a l Values o f S 1n th e Kendall C o e f f i c i e n t o f Concordance.® For s i g n i f i c a n t agreem ent, S must be equal t o o r g r e a t e r than 182.4. In t h i s c a s e , 93.5 f a l l s c o n s i d e r a b l y s h o r t ; t h e r e f o r e , 1 t can be concluded t h a t t h e r e Is no s i g n i f i c a n t agreement among the f i v e judges. F u r t h e r , with a p o s s i b l e va lu e o f W b ein g anywhere between zero and one, w ith a value o f one I n d i c a t i n g a b s o l u t e agreem ent, t h e W * 0.21 found 1n t h i s c ase would i n d i c a t e a low l e v e l o f agreement. In u sin g t h i s t e s t on each o f the pages mentioned e a r l i e r , 1 t was found t h a t t h e r e was no t s i g n i f i c a n t agreement a t t h e .05 le v e l o f c o n fid e n ce on pages 2 , 3 , 5, 6 , 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, o r 18. There was agreement, however, on page f o u r , d e a l i n g w ith t h e e x t e n t clu b a c t i v i t i e s were a v a i l a b l e 1n t h e s c h o o l s , w i t h a c r i t i c a l valu e o f W equal t o 168, which 1s g r e a t e r than t h e valu e o f 112.3 I n d i c a t e d as minimum In th e Table o f C r i t i c a l Values o f S f i c i e n t o f Concordance. in t h e Kendall Coef­ Also , page f o u r produced a W = .6 7 2, which approaches the a b s o l u t e agreement l e v e l o f 1 . 0 . There was a l s o agreement on page n i n e , which d e a l t w ith I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f e x p l o r a ­ t o r y programs a v a i l a b l e in t h e s c h o o l s . The c r i t i c a l S v a lu e was equal t o 178.8, which i s g r e a t e r than th e va lu e o f 112.3 I n d i c a t e d as minimum on t h e Table t a b l e c i t e d above. Page nine produced a W «.4492. 3 .2 shows t h e l e v e l s o f agreement among t h e f i v e ju d g e s f o r each o f t h e 18 pages o f t h e r e o r g a n i z e d R l e g l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , as well as t h e middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e s c r i b e d by t h e items on each o f t h e pages. Sidney S i e g e l , Non-Parametric S t a t i s t i c s (New York: H i l l , 1956), p. 286. McGraw- 88 Table 3 . 2 . — Rankings o f l e v e l s o f agreement among ju d g es on each page o f t h e r e o r g a n i z e d R legle q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Page 1 Middle School C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Number o f Items W S ignificant Agreement Continuous Progress 2 1.0 Yes Teacher Guidance Role 2 1.0 D e part m ental1z a t l on 1 1.0 Yes Yes A u x i l i a r y S e r v ic e s 1 1.0 Yes 4 Clubs 5 .672 Yes 9 E x p lo r a to r y Nature 5 .4492 Yes 10 Guidance S e rv ice 4 .36 No 18 Community V olunteers 2 .36 No 12 S k i l l Re p air * 4 .328 No 3 F l e x i b l e Scheduling 3 .28 No 5 Ph ysica l A c t i v i t i e s 3 .28 No E v a l u a t i o n and Reporting I n tra-M ural Programs 3 4 .28 .23 No No 2 M u l t i - M a t e r i a l Approach 6 .21 No 7 Team Teaching 4 .20 No 13 Dramatics 6 .16 No 11 Independent Study 3 .04 No 16 Community R e l a t i o n s 4 .04 No 14 8 17 15 6 I t should be emphasized a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t no e f f o r t 1s being made t o show t h a t any Items on t h e R l e g l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e a r e I n e f f e c ­ tive. All o f h i s Items were v a l i d a t e d by a team o f middle school e x p e r t s and h i s panel o f j u d g e s a gre ed t h a t a l l Items were very good. T his r e s e a r c h e r a l s o a g re e s t h a t each Item on th e R le g le In stru m en t 1s very e f f e c t i v e and 1 t 1s b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e panel o f ju dg es engaged f o r t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y would a l s o a g re e on t h i s p o i n t . However, t h e 89 s tu dy was a complete and d e t a i l e d d i s s e r t a t i o n on t h e I s s u e o f middle school Implementation and t h e more complete q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d e s i r e d f o r t h a t p urp ose. The c u r r e n t s tu d y 1s u l t i m a t e l y I n t e r e s t e d 1n middle school t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r a t t i t u d e s toward g rad in g and r e p o r t i n g t e c h n i q u e s , and the m odified R legle In s t r u m e n t 1s used f o r only the phase o f I d e n t i f y i n g t h e l e v e l o f middle school Implementa­ t i o n 1n t h e sch oo ls r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e I n d i v id u a l r e s p o n d e n t s . The c u r r e n t panel o f e x p e r t s was asked t o perform t h e d i f f i ­ c u l t t a s k o f I d e n t i f y i n g t h e " b e s t " Items o u t o f a f i e l d o f Items t h a t th ey would p robably a g re e a r e a l l ve ry good. I t was no t s u r p r i s ­ ing t o t h i s r e s e a r c h e r t h a t t h e r e was l i t t l e agreement on t h e p a r t o f the j u d g e s . S e l e c t i o n o f Sample f o r Final Survey The a b b r e v i a t e d R leg le q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a s shown 1n Appendix B, was then s e n t t o th e p r i n c i p a l s o f each o f th e 160 middle sch o o ls s e l e c t e d a t random from t h e 235 p u b l i c s c h o o l s 1n Michigan housing gr ades s i x , se v en , and e i g h t . Of th e 160 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s s e n t o u t , 120 were completed and r e t u r n e d f o r a r e t u r n r a t e o f 75 p e r c e n t . At t h e end o f each o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was a page r e q u e s t ­ ing a commitment on t h e p a r t o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o Involve them­ s e l v e s and t h e i r s t a f f s 1n t h e f i n a l s t a g e o f t h e surv e y on a t t i t u d e s toward t h e v a r i o u s methods o f s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g . If t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s agre ed t o ask t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f members t o p a r t i c i p a t e , a space was pro vided t o I n d i c a t e t h e number o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1n t h e b u i l d i n g who should r e c e i v e t h e ne xt 90 questionnaire. Table 3 . 3 shows t h e p e rc e n t a g e o f re s p o n se and commlt- ment o f the a v a i l a b l e s c h o o l s . Table 3 . 3 . — Response and commitment o f s e l e c t e d s c h o o l s . T o ta l Number Returned Pprcp n t Number Conmltting Percent o f Committing Respondents 160 120 75 50 41.7 Each p o s s i b l e m u l t i p l e choic e res ponse on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a s s i g n e d a numerical " sc o r e " ran g in g from a high o f f o u r , down t o the lowest p o s s i b l e s c o r e o f z e r o . The high s c o r e s o f f o u r p o i n t s i n d i c a t e d a high degree o f Implementation o f t h e middle school c h a r ­ a c t e r i s t i c d e s c r i b e d 1n th e p a r t i c u l a r ite m 1n q u e s t i o n , and s c o r e s o f z e r o o r one p o i n t i n d i c a t e d a low degree o f im plementa tio n o f t h e characteristic. The assignment o f p o i n t s was developed and v a l i d a t e d by Dr. R leg le f o r h i s o r i g i n a l s t u d y and t h e assignm ents o f p o i n t s f o r each ite m can be seen on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e shown In Appendix B. The t o t a l s c o r e s on the r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ranged from a high o f 75 p o i n t s , which I n d i c a t e s a high degree o f middle school Imple­ m e n t a t i o n , down t o a low o f 18 p o i n t s . I n d i c a t i n g a low de g re e o f commitment t o middle school p r a c t i c e s . T ab le 3 . 4 shows t h e range o f s c o r e s o f th e responding s c h o o l s , d i v i d e d I n t o ap pro x im ate ly f o u r equal g r o u p s , t h e number o f s c h o o ls resp o nd in g 1n each g r ou p , and t h e number o f sch o o ls 1n each group t h a t have I n d i c a t e d a w i l l i n g n e s s t o p a r t i c i p a t e 1n t h e f i n a l s t a g e o f t h e r e s e a r c h . 91 Table 3 . 4 . — Scores o f responding sch o o ls and number o f schools committed t o c o n ti n u e p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Range o f Scores Number o f Respondents Number o f Committing Schools F irst Q uartlle 18-39 29 15 Second Q uartlle 40-47 31 8 T hird Q uartlle 48-54 31 12 Fourth Q uartlle 55-75 29 15 120 50 T otals Rath er than I n c lu d e a l l sch o o ls responding t o t h e survey on middle school p r a c t i c e s , a t o t a l o f 50 t h a t agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e 1n the t h i r d and f i n a l s t a g e o f t h e s t u d y , 1 t was decided t o l i m i t the s t u d y t o only t h o s e committed s c h o o l s 1n t h e to p s c o r i n g group with s c o r e s ran g in g between 55 and 75, and t h e sch o o ls i n c l u d e d in t h e bottom group w i t h s c o r e s ran ging between 18 and 39. This would allow th e r e s e a r c h e r t o compare t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a ­ t o r s 1n t h e 15 middle s c h o o ls t h a t most exem plify t h e t r u e middle school w i t h t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n t h e 15 s c h o o ls t h a t f a l l c o n s i d e r a b l y s h o r t o f middle school g o a l s . In a d d i t i o n , both g r o u p s , s e p a r a t e l y and combined, can be compared w i t h t h e a t t i ­ tud es o f ele m e n tary t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s surveyed 1n t h e Scharffe study. 92 Table 3 .5 shows t h e number o f s c h o o l s , t e a c h e r s , and adminis t r a t o r s from th e high implementation middle scho o ls and t h e low i n p le m e n t a t l o n middle sch o o ls t h a t committed themselves t o p a r t i c i ­ p a te 1n t h e t h i r d phase o f the stu d y . Table 3 . 5 . — High implementation and low Implementation p a r t i c i p a n t s 1n th e stu d y. Schools Teachers A d m i n is tr a t o r s High Implementation 15 516 34 Low Implementation 15 394 30 30 910 64 T otals The combined t o t a l o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s p r o v i d e s a p o t e n t i a l t o t a l o f 974 resp o nd en ts 1n t h e t e a c h e r - a d m l n l s t r a t o r a t t i ­ tude survey toward v a rio u s s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g t e c h n i q u e s . V a l i d a t i o n o f th e Final Survey In strum ent The Pupil Prog ress R eporting Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , which was t h e primary d a t a - g a t h e r 1 n g In s t r u m e n t used 1n t h i s s t u d y , 1s alm ost Iden­ t i c a l t o t h e In s t r u m e n t developed and v a l i d a t e d by William G. S c h a r f f e 1n h i s s tu d y o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f ele m e n tary t e a c h e r s and a d m l n l s t r a 7 t o r s toward v a r i o u s pupil e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g t e c h n i q u e s . Since ^William G. S c h a r f f e , "A Study o f S e l e c t e d P u b l i c School Ele­ mentary Teacher and Elementary A d m i n i s t r a t o r A t t i t u d e s Toward t h e Use o f Grades as Compared With S e l e c t e d A l t e r n a t i v e Forms o f Pupil Pro gress Re porting" (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1977). 93 t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y I s a r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h e S c h a r f f e stud y a t t h e middle school l e v e l * a conscious e f f o r t was made t o make as few changes as p o s s i b l e 1n o r d e r t o m a in ta in t h e I n t e g r i t y o f t h e o r i g i ­ nal q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and t o avoid t h e n e c e s s i t y o f r e v a l i d a t i n g t h e Instrument. The only changes n e c e s s a r y were t o change t h e word "elementary" t o "middle sch o ol" on Items 13, 20, 23, 28, and 34 on s e c t i o n two o f t h e I n s t r u m e n t , and Item 53 on s e c t i o n f o u r was changed t o r e f l e c t p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g o f t h e re spo n den ts t h a t would I n c l u d e secondary school l e v e l s as well as ele m e ntary and h i g h e r e d u c a tio n l e v e l s . A lso, Item 54 was e l i m i n a t e d s i n c e t h i s was used t o code t h e f o u r s t a t e s used 1n t h e S c h a r f f e s t u d y , w h ile only Michigan sch o o ls a r e I n clud e d 1n t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y . In modify­ ing the S c h a r f f e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h i s r e s e a r c h e r i n a d v e r t e n t l y n e g l e c t e d t o i n c l u d e a q u e s t i o n t o I d e n t i f y whether each i n d i v i d u a l respondent was a t e a c h e r o r an a d m i n i s t r a t o r . To remedy t h i s s i t u a ­ t i o n , t h e l e t t e r t h a t was s e n t t o each a d m i n i s t r a t o r a lo ng w i t h t h e p a ck e t o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e I n str u m e n ts completed by each a d m i n i s t r a t o r be I d e n t i f i e d by w r i t i n g t h e word "adm inis­ t r a t o r " on t h e to p o f t h e f r o n t page. Fortunately, th is request was met by each o f t h e responding s c h o o l s . The m od ified S c h a r f f e I n s t r u m e n t used 1n t h e c u r r e n t s tu d y can be seen 1n Appendix C. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e , while developed and v a l i d a t e d by S c h a r f f e , b e a r s some e x p l a n a t i o n a t t h i s p o i n t . s e c t i o n s r e q u i r i n g f o u r pages. I t 1s p r e s e n t e d 1n f o u r s e p a r a t e S e c tio n o ne, page o ne. I n c l u d e s gen­ e r a l I n s t r u c t i o n s as well as d e f i n i t i o n s o f each o f th e e i g h t g rad in g and r e p o r t i n g systems being c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e s t u d y . 94 Se c tio n two, page two, o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e In c lu d e s 40 s t a t e m e n t s which a r e a l l e i t h e r pro o r con r e g a r d i n g each o f th e e i g h t g rad in g and r e p o r t i n g system s. A f t e r each s t a t e m e n t th e resp on d en t 1s asked t o e i t h e r s t r o n g l y a g r e e , a g r e e , d i s a g r e e , o r strongly disagree. The responden t must s e l e c t some degree o f a g r e e ­ ment o r d isagreem en t and has no o p t io n f o r a "middle o f t h e road" re s p o n se . There a r e s e v e r a l a r e a s o f concern which were Involved 1n a r r a n g i n g o r o r d e r i n g of t h e 40 Items developed by S c h a r f f e In s e c t i o n two o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . F i r s t , a ge neral e v a l u a t i o n o f each p a r ­ t i c u l a r r e p o r t i n g method was so u g h t . To g e t t h i s , opposing Items were used t o I n s u r e c o n s i s t e n c y o f r e s p o n s e s . An example would be Item n i n e , which rea d s " S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t i n g 1s r e a l l y u n f a i r because th e h o n e st kids g e t h u r t , " while Item 26 rea d s " S e l f e v a l u a t i o n I s a system which could h e lp t o e l i m i n a t e c h e a t i n g . " Table 3 .6 shows t h e opposing g e n eral items f o r t h e r e p o r t i n g methods. The second a r e a o f concern d e a l s w i t h s t u d e n t w e l f a r e and t h e manner 1n which each Item d e s c r i b e s t h e r e s p o n d e n t 's f e e l i n g s 1n t h i s r e g a r d . Again, u sing s e l f - e v a l u a t l o n as an example, Item 20 reads " S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t i n g I s o f l i t t l e o r no use f o r t h e middle school g r a d e s , " as compared t o ite m 34 which rea d s " S e l f e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t i n g 1s a very v a l u a b l e t e a c h i n g t o o l f o r middle school g r a d e s , 6 - 7 - 8 . " Table 3 .7 shows t h e opposing s t u d e n t concern Items f o r a l l methods c o n s i d e r e d In t h e s t u d y . 95 Table 3 . 6 . —Opposing ite ms o f a g e n eral e v a l u a t i o n n a t u r e . R eporting Method Item Opposing Item 2 33 Check L i s t R ep o rtin g 12 36 Credit-No C r e d i t 13 28 Blanket Grading A B C D F (Grades) (se e e x p l a n a t i o n below) N a r r a t i v e Rep orting 7 39 P a r e n t Conferences 14 40 Pass-Fa1l 11 3 9 26 Self-Evaluation NOTE: Items 8 ( 16, and 38 a l l g iv e l e t t e r grades p o s i t i v e t r e a t ­ ment. However, s i n c e t h e A B C 0 F system i s being compared w i t h each o f t h e seven a l t e r n a t i v e methods, t h e items t h a t f a v o r each o f the a l t e r n a t i v e systems can be c o n s i d e r e d as opposing t o t h e l e t t e r grade system. Conse quently, items 1, 6 , 10, 15, 24, 30, and 32 f a v o r a l t e r ­ n a t i v e s o v e r A B C D F. Respondents f a v o r i n g t h e s e Items would be ex pected t o oppose items 8 , 16, and 38 and v i c e v e r s a . Table 3 . 7 . —Opposing items o f s t u d e n t co ncern . Item Opposing Item 21 25 4 17 Cred1t-No C r e d i t 19 37 A B C D F (Grades) 22 31 N a r r a t i v e Re porting 18 P a r e n t Conferences 23 27 5 Pass-Fa1l Self-Evaluation 29 35 20 34 R e porting Method Blanket Grading Check L i s t R ep ortin g 96 The t h i r d concern o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was t o dete rm ine t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s a t t i t u d e toward l e t t e r grades as compared t o the s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s c o n sid e r e d 1n t h e s t u d y . l e t t e r grades 1n a p o s i t i v e manner. Items 8 , 16, and 38 t r e a t In c o n t r a s t , w h ile items 1 , 6 , 10, 15, 24, 30, and 32 do n o t speak d i r e c t l y 1n o p p o s i t i o n t o l e t t e r g r a d e s , th ey do speak o f th e a l t e r n a t i v e s as p r e f e r a b l e o ve r l e t t e r grades. Two o t h e r Items speak t o l e t t e r g r a d e s ; Item 22 s t a t e s t h a t l e t t e r grades a r e " u n f a i r " t o s t u d e n t s , while by c o n t r a s t , Item 31 cla im s l e t t e r grades a r e "about as f a i r as you can g e t . " S e c ti o n t h r e e o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e c a l l e d f o r e i g h t openended r es p o n se s where the resp o nd en ts a r e asked t o o f f e r r a t i o n a l e f o r some o f t h e answers 1n s e c t i o n two. For example, Item 41 a s k s , "Refe r back t o s t a te m e n t number t h r e e i n s e c t i o n two about Pass-Fa1l reporting. Why d id you respond the way you d i d ? " The r e s e a r c h e r a tte m p te d t o c a t e g o r i z e t h e open-ended resp o nses I n t o f i v e a r e a s : stu d en t-o rien ted responses, teach er-o rien ted responses, parento r i e n t e d r e s p o n s e s , combination r e s p o n s e s , and " o t h e r . " An example o f a s t u d e n t - o r i e n t e d respo n se t o t h e above q u e s t i o n might b e , " P r e s s u r e 1s removed from s t u d e n t s t o t r y t o e a r n high g r a d e s . " The o t h e r seven open-ended q u e s t i o n s ask t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o r e f e r back t o s t a t e m e n t f i v e about p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , s t a t e m e n t 12 about check l i s t r e p o r t i n g , s t a t e m e n t 15 about n a r r a t i v e s , s t a t e m e n t 16 about A B C D F, s t a t e m e n t 19 about c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t , s t a t e m e n t 33 about b l a n k e t g r a d e s , and s t a t e m e n t 34 about s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . In each c ase th e r esp on d en t 1s asked t o e x p l a i n why t h e y a g re ed o r d i s ­ agreed with t h e s t a t e m e n t s . 97 Item 49 o f s e c t i o n t h r e e asks t h e responden t t o rank each o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods from t h e i r " f a v o r i t e " down t o t h e i r least favorite. This Item n o t on ly s e r v e s t o produce a " f a c e - t o - face" ranking o f the e i g h t t e c h n i q u e s . I t a l s o s e r v e s t o v a l i d a t e t h e r e spo n se s o f the f i r s t two s e c t i o n s o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . S e c tio n IV o f t h e I n str u m e n t asks f o r personal demographic d a ta such as s e x , y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , d e g r e e ( s ) h e l d , and under­ graduate t r a in in g . While an a t t l t u d l n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s one o f t h e most d i f f i ­ c u l t i n s t r u m e n t s t o v a l i d a t e , S c h a r f f e went t o c o n s i d e r a b l e l e n g t h s t o do j u s t t h a t . A f t e r f i r s t d e velopin g t h e In stru m en t t o t e s t th e a t t i t u d e s o f e le m e n tary t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s toward th e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g t e c h n i q u e s , he sought th e In p u t and s u g g e s t i o n s o f members o f h i s own d o c t o r a l committee. A fter incorporating t h e i r suggestions, t h e In s t r u m e n t was p i l o t e d 1n two e le m e n tary sch o o ls 1n S h i e l d s , Michigan. A d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e p i l o t study t o v a l i d a t e t h e O In s t r u m e n t 1s Include d In Chapter I I I o f t h e S c h a r f f e s t u d y . S t a t i s t i c a l Methods Used in Data A n a ly sis Repeated measure w i l l be used f o r Research Questions 1 and 2 u sin g s u b j e c t as u n i t o f a n a l y s i s . The seven hypotheses f o r each o f t he q u e s t i o n s w i l l be t r e a t e d as seven planned c o n t r a s t s . Research Question 1 : Do middle school t e a c h e r s 1n Michigan p r e f e r t h e use o f A B C D F r e p o r t i n g o v e r t h e use o f s e l e c t e d a l t e r ­ n a t i v e forms o f r e p o r t i n g ? ^ S c h a r f f e , " A t t i t u d e s , " Chapter I I I . 98 1. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward b l a n k e t g rad in g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 2. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward check 1 1 s t r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 3. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 4. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward n a r ­ r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g I s the same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 5. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s 1s t h e same a s t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 6. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward p a ssf a l l r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 7. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward s e l f e v a l u a t i o n i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. Research Question 2 : Do middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in Michigan p r e f e r the use o f A B C D F r e p o r t i n g over th e use o f s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e forms o f r e p o r t i n g ? 1. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward b l a n k e t grad ing 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 2. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward check 1 1 s t r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 3. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 4. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g I s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 99 5. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward p a r e n t c o n fe ren c es 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 6. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward p a s s - f a i l r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 7. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward se lf-ev alu atio n reporting is the same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. Questions 3, 4 , 5, and 6 w i l l be analyzed by c r o s s t a b l e frequency u sin g chi sq uare t e s t o f homogeneity and chi sq uare in d e ­ pendency. Research Question 3 : I f middle school t e a c h e r s do, o r do n o t , p r e f e r the use o f one o f t h e s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s over t h e use o f A B C D F, why does t h i s p r e f e r e n c e e x i s t ? Research Question 4 : do n o t , p r e f e r t h e use o f one If middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s do, o r o f t h e s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s o ver t h e use o f A B C D F, why does t h i s p r e f e r e n c e e x i s t ? Research Question 5 : To what e x t e n t does a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t between th e t e a c h e r ' s p r e f e r e n c e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r form o f r e p o r t i n g and t h e t e a c h e r ' s : (1) s e x , (2) y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , (3) d e g r e e ( s ) h e l d , (4) grade l e v e l t e a c h e r was t r a i n e d t o t e a c h , (5) school s t a t u s ? Research Question 6 : To what e x t e n t does a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t between t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s p r e f e r e n c e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r form o f r e p o r t i n g and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s : (1) s e x , (2) y e a r s o f e x p e r i ­ e n c e , (3) d e g r e e ( s ) h e l d , (4) grade l e v e l a d m i n i s t r a t o r was t r a i n e d t o t e a c h , (5) school s t a t u s ? 100 Research Question 7 w i l l be t e s t e d by d e s c r i p t i v e Inform atio n about t h e means and v a r i a n c e by rank o r d e r i n g . Research Question 7 : To what e x t e n t do t h e t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s d i f f e r , o r have s i m i l a r i t i e s , 1n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward a p a r t i c u l a r form o f p r o g r e s s r e p o r t i n g ? Summary The t h i r d c h a p t e r has d e s c r i b e d th e t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n and t h e p rocedure used t o I d e n t i f y t h e sample. Also d e s c r i b e d were t h e methods o f v a l i d a t i n g In stru m en ts u t i l i z e d 1n s e l e c t i n g p a r t i c i p a t ­ ing sch o o ls which were drawn from th e sample. Three surv e y I n s t r u ­ ments were r e q u i r e d f o r t h e s t u d y , I n c l u d i n g a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o be completed by recognized middle school " e x p e r t s , " a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o be completed by middle school p r i n c i p a l s t o dete rm ine t h e l e v e l o f Implementation o f e s t a b l i s h e d middle school co ncepts 1n each o f t h e sch o ols 1n t h e sample, and f i n a l l y , a q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r middle school t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o d ete rm ine t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward A B C D F r e p o r t i n g as compared with seven a l t e r n a t i v e r e p o r t ­ ing t e c h n i q u e s . The development and v a l i d a t i o n o f each o f t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s 1s d i s c u s s e d . The f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o be completed by middle school t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1s d i s c u s s e d 1n con­ s i d e r a b l e d e t a i l , I n c l u d i n g the concerns being s t u d i e d as well as t h e manner 1n which t h e i n d i v i d u a l Items a r e c ro s s - c h e c k e d t o i n s u r e con­ s i s t e n c y o f resp o nses by t h e I n d i v id u a l r e s p o n d e n t s . The seven r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s a re s t a t e d along w i t h seven hypothes es f o r both Research Questions 1 and 2. Repeated measure was 101 used f o r Research Questions 1 and 2 u sing s u b j e c t a s u n i t o f a n a l y s i s . The seven hypothes es f o r each o f t h e s e q u e s t i o n s were t r e a t e d as seven planned c o n t r a s t s . Research Questions 3, 4 , 5 , and 6 were analyzed by c r o s s t a b l e frequency u sing ch1 sq u a re t e s t o f homogeneity and chi sq uare Independency. Research Question 7 was t e s t e d by d e s ­ c r i p t i v e In fo rm a tio n about t h e means and v a r i a n c e o f rank o r d e r i n g . CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF DATA The purpose o f t h i s stud y has been t o I n v e s t i g a t e t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1n Michigan p u b l i c middle sch o o ls toward s e v e r a l s e l e c t e d s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g methods. More sp e ­ c i f i c a l l y , t h e r e s e a r c h e r sought t o determine t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward l e t t e r grades (A B C D F), and whether o r n o t t h e y favored t h i s method o r one o f the a l t e r n a t i v e methods d i s c u s s e d 1n t h e s t u d y . The d a ta p r e s e n t e d 1n t h i s c h a p t e r were compiled from t h e r es p o n se s o f a sample o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1n p u b l i c Michigan middle s c h o o ls d u r ­ ing t h e 1977-1978 school y e a r . S t a t i s t i c a l Methods A n a ly sis o f v a r i a n c e f o r r e p e a t e d measure d a t a was used f o r Research Quest ions 1 and 2 using s u b j e c t as u n i t o f a n a l y s i s . These two q u e s t i o n s each have seven hypotheses and were t r e a t e d as seven planned c o n t r a s t s , and each s u b j e c t was used as t h e u n i t o f a n a l y s i s . Research Questions 3, 4 , 5, and 6 were analy ze d by c r o s s t a b l e f r e ­ quency using chi sq uare t e s t o f homogeneity and ch1 s q u a re Indepen­ dency. Research Question 7 was answered by d e s c r i p t i v e In fo rm a tio n such as t h e means, v a r i a n c e s , and rank o r d e r i n g o f t h e e i g h t methods t h a t a r e p r e f e r r e d by t h e t e a c h e r s and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . 102 103 S t a t i s t i c a l Findings The f i n d i n g s p r e s e n t e d below a r e o rg an ized 1n t h e o r d e r o f t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s being answered. S i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o f each t e s t was s e t a t a lp h a * .001 l e v e l t o c o n t r o l f o r t h e o v e r - a l l p r o b a b i l i t y o f type 1 e r r o r ( a l p h a ) o f t h e e n t i r e stu d y t o be about .01. A n a l y s i s o f Variance o f Repeated Measure Data Research Question 1: Do middle school t e a c h e r s in Michigan p r e f e r the use o f A B C D F r e p o r t i n g o v e r th e use o f s e l e c t e d a l t e r ­ n a t i v e forms o f r e p o r t i n g ? The above r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n was answered by t e s t i n g th e f o l ­ lowing seven h ypotheses: 1. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward b l a n k e t g rad in g 1s t h e same a s t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C 0 F. 2. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward check 1 1 s t r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 3. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward c r e d l t - n o c r e d i t r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 4. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 5. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 6. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward p a s s - f a l l r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 104 7. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n I s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward ABCDF. To a n aly ze t h e seven hypotheses above, a r e p e a t e d measure a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was used. The d e sig n t r e a t e d t h e 484 s u b j e c t s as a combined group o f o b s e r v a t i o n s w h ile each I n d i v i d u a l was con­ s i d e r e d as one u n i t o f a n a l y s i s . The e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods were t he r e p e a t e d f a c t o r s which had e i g h t l e v e l s . In I n t e r p r e t i n g Table 4.1» 1 t should be p o i n te d ou t t h a t t h e so urce o f v a r i a t i o n s r e f l e c t t h e seven hypothes es ( o r seven planned c o n t r a s t s ) In Research Question 1. El through E8 a r e t h e e i g h t e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g methods being c o n s i d e r e d 1n t h e s t u d y . El ■ b l a n k e t g r a d i n g , E2 ■ check 1 1 s t , E3 » c re d 1 t - n o c r e d i t , E4 * grades (A 8 C 0 F ) , E5 * n a r r a t i v e s , E6 = p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , E7 ** p a s s - f a l l , and E8 ** s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . The magnitude o f t h e con­ t r a s t d i f f e r e n c e was found by s u b t r a c t i n g t h e averag e ran k in g by t h e t e a c h e r s o f t h e l e t t e r grade method from t h e average ranking o f each o f th e o t h e r seven methods. T able 4.17 r e p o r t s t h e averag e ran k in g o f each method by t h e t e a c h e r s . Findings. — 1. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward b l a n k e t g r a d i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward ABCDF . The h y p o t h e s i s 1s r e j e c t e d a t .001 l e v e l s . F urtherm ore, t h e magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t 1s 4 . 9 9 4 , which 1s very high. Thus, t h e t e a c h e r s have c l e a r l y chosen A B C D F o v e r b l a n k e t g r a d i n g . This r e s u l t can be seen i n more d e t a i l l a t e r 1n t h i s c h a p t e r by Table 4 . 1 . —Result o f a n a l y s i s o f variance f o r repeated measure data f o r Research Question 1, Hypotheses 1 through 7. Source o f Va riation Magnitude o f the Contrast Difference df Hypothesis Mean Square Mean Square of the Error Term Univariate F Sig. Level 1. E1-E4 4.994 1 6033.19 2.82 2139.4 .0001* 2. E2-E4 1.457 1 513.30 3.26 157.6 .0001* 3. E3-E4 2.998 1 2174.34 3.51 619.2 .0001* 4. E5-E4 1.333 1 429.55 4.05 106.1 .0001* 5. E6-E4 1.017 1 249.99 3.58 69.9 .0001* 6. E7-E4 3.227 1 2519.74 3.01 838.1 .0001* 7. E8-E4 3.595 1 3126.74 4.44 704.2 .0001* NOTE: Degrees o f freedom f o r e r r o r * 483. *The t e s t i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .001 l e v e l . 106 s tu d y i n g Table 4.17 which shows t h a t t e a c h e r s ranked b l a n k e t grading as t h e i r e i g h t h choic e o f t h e e i g h t methods c o n s i d e r e d . 2. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward check 1 1 s t r e p o r t i n g 1s the same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward ABCDF. The h y p o t h e s is 1s t he r e j e c t e d a t .001 l e v e l s . The magnitude o f c o n t r a s t Is 1 .457 as t h e t e a c h e r s have chosen A B C D F o ver check 1 1 s t r e p o r t i n g . Fu rth er* as can be seen on T able 4.17* t e a c h e r s have ranked check 1 1 st r e p o r t i n g as t h e i r f o u r t h cho ic e o f t h e e i g h t methods c o n s i d e r e d . 3. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F . The h y p o t h e s is 1s the c o n t r a s t 1s 2 .9 9 8 . r e j e c t e d a t .001 l e v e l s . As i g n i f i c a n t The magnitude o f d i f f e r e n c e 1n attitu d e exists as the t e a c h e r s have chosen A B C D F o v e r c r e d l t - n o c r e d i t r e p o r t i n g . Table 4.17 shows t h a t t e a c h e r s have ranked c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t as t h e i r f i f t h ch oic e o f t h e e i g h t methods c o n s i d e r e d . 4. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g I s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F . The h y p o t h e s is i s r e j e c t e d a t .001 l e v e l s . The magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t 1s 1.333 as t h e t e a c h e r s have shown a p r e f e r e n c e f o r A B C D F over n a rr a tiv e rep o rtin g . L a t e r In t h i s c h a p t e r , T able 4.17 shows t h a t n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t s were t h e t h i r d cho ic e 1n rank ing by th e teachers. 5. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward p a r e n t c o nfe renc e r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F . 107 The h y p o t h e s is 1s r e j e c t e d a t .001 l e v e l s . A B C D F was p r e f e r r e d by th e t e a c h e r s over p a r e n t conferen ce r e p o r t i n g even though th e magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t was only 1.017. Table 4.17 shows t h a t t e a c h e r s have s e l e c t e d p a r e n t c on fe ren c es as t h e i r second choic e o f the e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods being c o n s i d e r e d . 6. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward p a s s - f a l l r e p o r t i n g 1s the same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F . The h y p o t h e s is 1s r e j e c t e d a t .001 l e v e l s . There i s a s i g ­ n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e 1n t h e a t t i t u d e s toward p a s s - f a l l r e p o r t i n g and A B C D F sta n d s o u t as the p r e f e r r e d method. c o n t r a s t 1s 3.227, which I s q u i t e l a r g e . The magnitude o f t h e Table 4.17 shows t h a t t e a c h e r s ranked p a s s - f a l l r e p o r t i n g as t h e i r s i x t h choic e o f t h e e i g h t methods c o n s id e re d . 7. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward s e l f e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t i n g 1s the same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward ABCDF. The h y p o t h e s is 1s r e j e c t e d a t .001 l e v e l s . The A B C D F method 1s th e choic e o f the t e a c h e r s over s e l f - e v a l u a t l o n , and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward t h e two methods a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . The magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t 1s high a t 3 .5 9 5 , and Table 4.17 shows t h a t t e a c h e r s have ranked s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n as t h e i r se v en th c h o ic e o f t he e i g h t methods c o n s i d e r e d . As can be seen by reviewing Table 4 . 1 , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between t h e a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward A B C D F and each o f t h e seven a l t e r n a t i v e methods o f e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g . By examining the magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t d i f f e r e n c e s , 1 t can be seen 108 t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s In a t t i t u d e a r e much more pronounced w ith some methods o v e r o t h e r s . There I s l e s s d i f f e r e n c e between E6, p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , E5, n a r r a t i v e s , and E2, check 1 1 s t , as compared with E4, l e t t e r g r a d e s , than between E l , b l a n k e t g r a d i n g , and l e t t e r g r a d e s . Research Question 2 : Michigan p r e f e r Do middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s In th e use o f A B CD F r e p o r t i n g o v e r t h e use o f s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e forms o f r e p o r t i n g ? The above r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n was answered by t e s t i n g t h e f o l ­ lowing seven hypotheses: 1. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward b l a n k e t g rad in g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward ABCDF. 2. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward check l i s t r e p o r t i n g 1s th e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward ABCDF. 3. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward c r e d l t - n o c r e d i t r e p o r t i n g . 1 s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F . 4. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward ABCDF. 5. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward p a r e n t c o nfe renc es Is t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward ABCDF. 6. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward p a s s - f a l l r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward ABCDF. 7. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F . To a n aly ze th e seven hypothes es above, a r e p e a t e d a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was a g a in used. The d e sig n t r e a t e d s u b j e c t as t h e u n i t 109 o f a n a l y s i s and t h e r e p o r t i n g method was t h e r e p e a t e d f a c t o r , which had e i g h t l e v e l s . The ANOVA t a b l e , T able 4 . 2 , I l l u s t r a t e s t h e r e s u l t s o f the a n a l y s i s by r e p e a t e d measurements. Findings. — 1. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward b l a n k e t g r a d in g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward ABCDF. The h y p o t h e s is I s r e j e c t e d . F urtherm ore, t h e magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t 1s 4 .6 0 6 , as th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have c l e a r l y chosen A B C D F over blanket grading. The r e s u l t I s shown 1n f u r t h e r d e t a i l l a t e r 1n t h i s c h a p t e r by s t u d y i n g Table 4 . 1 7 , which shows t h a t admin­ i s t r a t o r s ranked b l a n k e t g ra d in g as t h e i r e i g h t h choic e o f t h e e i g h t methods c o n s i d e r e d . 2. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward check 1 1 st r e p o r t i n g Is t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward ABCDF. The h y p o t h e s is c annot be r e j e c t e d . A dm inistrator a t t i t u d e s toward check 1 1 st r e p o r t i n g do n o t vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e i r a t t i ­ tud es toward A B C D F . The magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t d i f f e r e n c e i s .921; t h e r e f o r e the a t t i t u d e o r t h e p r e f e r e n c e f o r one over the o t h e r 1s very c l o s e . Table 4 .1 7 i n d i c a t e s t h a t check 1 1 s t r e p o r t i n g was ranked as t h e f o u r t h c h o ic e by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o f t h e e i g h t methods considered. 3. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward c r e d l t - n o c r e d i t r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F . The h y p o t h e s is 1s r e j e c t e d . A d m i n i s t r a t o r s have c l e a r l y chosen A B C D F o v e r c r e d l t - n o c r e d i t r e p o r t i n g . As can be seen 1n Table 4 . 2 . —Result o f a n aly sis o f variance f o r repeated measure data f o r Research Question 2, Hypotheses 8 through 14. Source o f Variation Magnitude o f the Contrast Difference df Hypothesis Mean Square Mean Square of the Error Term Univariate F Sig. Level 1. E1-E4 4.606 1 402.84 2.72 148.3 2. E2-E4 .921 1 16.11 3.14 5.1 .0296 3. E3-E4 3.000 1 170.95 3.32 51.4 .0001* 4. E5-E4 .763 1 11.06 4.09 2.7 .1086 5. E6-E4 -.079 1 .12 3.31 6. E7-E4 3.369 1 215.51 3.31 65.2 .0001* 7. E8-E4 2.658 1 134.18 4.36 30.8 .0001* NOTE: Degrees o f freedom f o r e r r o r * 37. *The t e s t 1s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .001 l e v e l . .03 .0001* .8510 Ill Table 4.17 l a t e r 1n t h i s c h a p t e r , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ranked c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t as t h e i r s i x t h cho ic e o f t h e e i g h t methods c o n s i d e r e d . And, the magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t d i f f e r e n c e s 1s 3 .0 0 0 , which i s q u i t e large. 4. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. The h y p o t h e s is c annot be r e j e c t e d . The a t t i t u d e o f adminis­ t r a t o r s toward n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g d i d n o t va ry s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. The magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t d i f ­ f e r e n c e was only .7 63 , and Table 4.17 shows t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s s e l e c t e d n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g as t h e i r t h i r d c h o ic e o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods c o n s i d e r e d . 5. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward p a r e n t c on fe ren c es 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C 0 F. The h y p o t h e s is cannot be r e j e c t e d . The a t t i t u d e o f adminis­ t r a t o r s toward p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s d i d n o t vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C 0 F. However, Table 4.17 I n d i c a t e s t h a t p a r e n t c o n fe ren c es were t h e f i r s t c h o ic e o f t h e methods c o n sid e r e d by a narrow margin. The magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t d i f f e r e n c e was a n e g a t iv e ( - ) . 0 7 9 . 6. Ho; The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward p a s s - f a l l r e p o r t i n g I s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. The h y p o t h e s i s Is r e j e c t e d . The a t t i t u d e o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s de monstrate s a c l e a r p r e f e r e n c e f o r A B C 0 F o v e r p a s s - f a l l r e p o r t i n g with t h e magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t d i f f e r e n c e being a s i z a b l e 3.369. 112 Table 4.17 shows t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have ranked p a s s - f a l l as t h e i r s even th choic e o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods c o n s i d e r e d . 7. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. The h y p o t h e s is 1s r e j e c t e d . The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have c l e a r l y chosen A B C D F over s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t i n g . The magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t d i f f e r e n c e 1s 2 .6 5 8 , and Table 4 .1 7 shows t h a t adminis­ t r a t o r s ranked s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n as t h e i r f i f t h c h o ic e o f th e e i g h t methods c o n s i d e r e d . A review o f Table 4 .2 shows t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between t h e a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward A B C D F and b l a n k e t g r a d i n g , c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t , p a s s - f a l l , and s e l f evaluation. A d m i n i s t r a t o r s c l e a r l y p r e f e r r e d A B C D F over each o f t h e s e e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g methods. Table 4 .2 a l s o shows t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s between t h e a t t i t u d e s o f the a d m i n i s t r a ­ t o r s toward A B C D F and check 1 1 s t , n a r r a t i v e s , and p a r e n t c o n f e r ­ ences. F u r t h e r , p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s were p r e f e r r e d o ver A B C D F. Cross T a b u l a t i o n Technique Research Question 3 : I f middle school t e a c h e r s do, o r do n o t , p r e f e r t h e use o f one o f t h e s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s o ver the use o f A B C D F, why does t h i s p r e f e r e n c e e x i s t ? Teachers were asked t o respond t o e i g h t open-ended q u e s t i o n s , Items 41 through 48 on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , each o f which asked f o r s p e c i f i c r a t i o n a l e f o r r es p o n se s given on e i g h t p rev iou s s t a t e m e n t s . To answer Research Question 3 , a c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n t ec h n iq u e was used 113 whereby t h e ranking t e a c h e r s gave t o t h e A B C D F method was compared with t h e i r r a t i o n a l e f o r e i t h e r a g re e i n g o r d i s a g r e e i n g with s t a t e ­ ment 16 o f s e c t i o n two o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . ^ asks: For example, q u e s t i o n 45 "Refe r back t o s t a te m e n t number 16 about A B C D F. you a g r e e / d i s a g r e e t h e r e ? " Why did I f t h e responden t answers t h e q u e s t i o n w i t h a s t a t e m e n t such as "I agre e because I t ' s e asy f o r t e a c h e r s t o r e c o r d , " the r e s e a r c h e r coded the res po nse as b e in g t e a c h e r o r i e n t e d . I f t h e r es po n dent answered t h e q u e s t i o n w ith a s t a t e m e n t such as "I d i s a g r e e d because grades a re dehumanizing f o r s t u d e n t s , " t h e r e s e a r c h e r coded the response as s t u d e n t o r i e n t e d . Answers t o the open-ended q u e s t i o n s were coded 1n s e v e r a l ways, I n c l u d i n g s t u d e n t o r i e n t e d , t e a c h e r o r i e n t e d , p a r e n t o r i e n t e d , s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r combination, s t u d e n t - p a r e n t com bi nation, t e a c h e r - p a r e n t combination, s t u d e n t t e a c h e r - p a r e n t combination, and " o t h e r , " which might be no response a t a l l , o r something I n d e c i s i v e such as " I d o n ' t know." F i n d i n g s . — Using t h e Chi Square f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t degre e o f a s s o c i a t i o n t e s t o f asso ciatio n to t e s t between p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e A B C D F method and t h e reasons given f o r t h i s shows th e raw Chi Square t e s t 1s 49.318 and t h e t e s t 1s s i g n i f i c a n t a t .72. n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t a lp h a * .0 5 . p r e f e r e n c e , T able 4.3 w i t h 56 d e g re es o f freedom, T h e r e f o r e , t h e a s s o c i a t i o n 1s I t can be concluded t h a t p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e A B C D F r e p o r t i n g method and reasons f o r t h i s p r e f e r e n c e are not rela te d . ^Statement number 16 r e a d s : system which h a s n ' t been b e t t e r e d . " "A B C D F 1s a darn good g rad in g Table 4 . 3 . - - Cross ta b u la tio n o f te a c h e r rankings o f the A B C 0 F method and the o r ie n ta tio n o f t h e i r r a t i o n a l e f o r assigning a p a r t i c u l a r rank. Teacher Rankings o f ABC0 F 11 n 9c n 0 % % n % Student Teacher Parent StudentParent StudentTeacher 53 11.1 134 28.0 20 4.2 26 5.4 10 2.1 3 7 1.5 37 7.7 4 4 3 0 0 10 2.1 24 5.0 1 18 3.8 1 1 .6 10 2.1 .4 10 2.1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 .6 0 0 0 0 1 .8 27 5.6 35 7.3 22 4.6 4A n % 10 2.1 3C n 3 % C 0 n 7/ n O Column Total 2 % 3 % .6 n 5 1.0 4 93 19.4 240 50.1 % n % Raw Chi Square = 49.318 .8 .6 .8 4 2 .2 .2 .2 1 .2 Other Row Total 13 2.7 16 3.3 275 57.4 2 7 1.5 64 13.4 4 .8 48 10.0 0 0 7 1.5 38 7.9 3 .6 20 4.2 .2 16 3.3 2 .2 .4 0 0 1 2 .4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 .2 2 56 Degrees o f Freedom StudentTeacherParent .4 1 .2 .2 .6 .8 .4 1 TeacherParent 0 0 .2 5 1.0 Significance = .7240 1 .2 .2 19 4.0 0 0 7 1.5 0 0 11 2.3 38 7.9 479 100.0 Alpha = .05 115 t h a t 5 7 .4 p e r c e n t , o r 275, o f t h e t e a c h e r s gave A B C D F t h e i r h i g h e s t rank. Of t h e s e , 134 gave t e a c h e r - o r i e n t e d r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e i r c h o ic e . The number o f t e a c h e r s who f a v o r A B C D F f o r s t u d e n t - o r i e n t e d r e a so n s drops r a t h e r s h a r p l y t o 53. Research Question 4: I f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s do, o r do n o t , p r e f e r t h e use o f one o f t h e s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s o ver the use o f A B C D F, why does t h i s p r e f e r e n c e e x i s t ? F i n d i n g s . — With such a small sample o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s t h a t might be l i s t e d as r a t i o n a l e f o r s e l e c t i n g p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s as the most p r e f e r r e d r e p o r t i n g method, 1t 1s not p r a c t i c a l t o t e s t f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e a t any l e v e l o f alp ha t h a t would be m ea ning fu l. I n s t e a d , Table 4 . 4 does I l l u s t r a t e t r e n d s o f admin­ i s t r a t o r choices. Of t h e 13 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who ranked p a r e n t c o n f e r ­ ences as t h e i r f i r s t c h o i c e , o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e i r r a t i o n a l e 1s f a i r l y e v en ly d i v i d e d among t h e p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s . Most o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a ­ t o r s c o n s i d e r e d needs o f p a r e n t s 1n some way f o r t h e i r reason f o r p re fe rrin g parent conferences. No one r a t e d p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s lower t h a n f i f t h c h o i c e , and o nly one a d m i n i s t r a t o r r a t e d t h i s method lower than f o u r t h . Chi Square A n a ly sis Research Que stion 5 : To what e x t e n t does a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t between t h e t e a c h e r ' s p r e f e r e n c e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r form o f r e p o r t i n g and t h e t e a c h e r ' s : (1) s e x , (2) y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , (3) d e g r e e ( s ) h e l d , (4) grade l e v e l t e a c h e r was t r a i n e d t o t e a c h , (5) school s t a t u s ? Table 4 . 4 . —A dm inistrator rankings o f p aren t conference rep o rtin g and th e o r ie n ta tio n o f t h e i r r a t i o n a l e f o r assign ing a p a r t i c u l a r rank. Administrator Rankings o f Parent Conferences 1I 9 L o O A H £ 9 Column Total N = 39 StudentTeacher TeacherParent StudentTeacherParent Student Teacher Parent StudentParent n % 2 5.1 2 5.1 2 5.1 2 5.1 0 0 3 7.8 1 2.6 1 2.6 13 33.4 n 1 2.6 0 0 2 5.1 2 5.1 0 0 2 5.1 0 0 2 5.1 9 23.0 1 2.6 2 5.1 0 0 3 7.7 0 0 2 5.1 0 0 2 5.1 10 25.6 2 5.1 0 0 0 0 2 5.1 0 0 1 2.6 0 0 1 2.6 6 15.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.6 6 15.4 4 10.2 4 10.2 10 25.6 0 0 8 20.6 6 15.4 39 100.0 % n % n % n % n % 1 2.6 Other Row Total 117 F i n d i n g s . —Table 4 . 5 shows t h e r e s u l t s o f u s i n g t h e Ch1 Square t e s t o f a s s o c i a t i o n t o t e s t a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between sex and each o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. Since none o f t h e Ch1 Square t e s t s f o r a s s o c i a t i o n between sex and each o f t h e e i g h t methods 1s s i g n i f i c a n t a t .0 0 1, 1 t can be concluded t h a t t h e t e a c h e r ' s sex does n o t have a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e x p re ss ed p r e f e r e n c e o r a t t i t u d e toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. Table 4 . 5 . —- R e la ti o n s h i p between t e a c h e r sex and e v a l u a t i o n and reporting preferences. Ch1 Square Test Variables df S i g n i f i c a n t Levels o f t h e Ch1 Square T e s t Sex and Bl an ket Grading 6.785 6 Sex and Check L i s t 5.824 6 .3412 .4432 Sex and Cred1t-No C r e d i t 3.694 6 .7180 Sex and Grades (A B C D F) 7.236 6 .2996 17.380 6 .0080 Sex and P a r e n t Conferences 4.668 6 .5870 Sex and P a s s - F a i l 6.163 6 .4052 10.869 6 .0924 Sex and N a r r a t i v e s Sex and S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n Alpha = .001 N ■ 480 F i n d i n g s . - - Y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e 1s a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r 1n t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e toward b l a n k e t g r a d i n g , as can be seen 1n Table 4 . 6 . However, e x p e r i e n c e was n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g t h e e x p r e s s e d a t t i t u d e o f t e a c h e r s toward check 1 1 s t , c r e d l t - n o c r e d i t , 118 grades (A B C D F ) , n a r r a t i v e s * p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , p a s s - f a l l , and self-evaluation. Table 4 . 6 . —R e l a t i o n s h i p between t e a c h e r e x p e r i e n c e and e v a l u a t i o n and reporting preferences. S i g n i f i c a n t Levels o f t h e Chi Square Test Ch1 Square Test df 100.556 42 .0000* Experience and Check L i s t 47.076 42 .2726 Experience and Cre dlt-No C r e d i t 43.811 42 .3946 Experience and Grades 54.572 42 .0925 Experience and N a r r a t i v e s 55.723 42 .0763 Experience and P a r e n t Conferences 42.933 42 .4311 Experience and P a s s - F a l l 36.231 42 .7214 Experience and Self-Evaluation 41.619 42 .4876 V a r ia b l e s Experience and Blanket Grading Alpha » .001 N = 480 ♦Significant. In f i n d i n g e x p e r i e n c e as a s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e , T able 4 . 7 f u r t h e r I l l u s t r a t e s t h a t t h e younger t e a c h e r s a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o look upon b l a n k e t grad in g w ith d i s f a v o r . Twenty-nine t e a c h e r s 1n t h e c a t e gory o f 20 y e a r s o r l e s s r a t e d b l a n k e t g r a d in g no lower th an f o u r t h choice. No one 1n th e 31 y e a r o r o v e r c a t e g o r y r a t e d b l a n k e t g rad in g h i g h e r th a n seventh c h o i c e . However, t h e r e s e a r c h e r r e c o g n i z e s t h a t Table 4 . 7 . —Relationship between teach er preference f o r blanket grading and years of experience. Years o f Experience 1 1- 5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41+ Column Total First Choice Second Choice Third Choice Fourth Choice Fifth Choice Sixth Choice 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 .2 0 0 .4 .6 6 1.2 0 0 3 % 0 0 .6 8 1.7 14 2.9 19 4.0 32 6.7 103 21.5 179 37.3 n 1 0 0 4 .8 5 1.0 10 2.1 12 2.5 21 4.4 108 22.5 161 33.5 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 .2 .8 18 3.7 77 16.0 119 24.8 0 0 1 .2 n % n .2 % n 1 n n % n % n % 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .4 2 3 .6 % .2 1 .2 % .2 .6 8 1.7 8 1.7 Seventh Choice Eighth Choice 3 Row Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .6 7 1.5 10 2.1 5 1.0 3 16 3.3 33 6.9 39 8.1 77 16.0 299 62.3 480 100.0 Raw Chi Square = 100.555 N = 480 .6 8 1.7 42 Degrees o f Freedom Significance * .0000 Alpha * .001 .2 120 o nly 22 t e a c h e r s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e " over 30" gro up, and even a s i z a b l e m a j o r i t y o f t h e younger t e a c h e r s r a t e d b l a n k e t g rad in g very low. F i n d i n g s . —The r e s u l t s o f t h e Chi Square t e s t o f a s s o c i a t i o n t o t e s t the s i g n i f i c a n c e between t h e t e a c h e r s ' h i g h e s t degree and t h e i r r e p o r t i n g method p r e f e r e n c e s a r e shown in Table 4 . 8 . the Chi Square t e s t s i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t .001. None o f T h e r e f o r e , i t i s con­ cluded t h a t the t e a c h e r s ' c o l l e g e degree has no r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e i r e x p re s s e d p r e f e r e n c e o r a t t i t u d e toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t ­ ing methods. Table 4 . 8 . — R e l a t i o n s h i p between t e a c h e r s ' h i g h e s t degree and reporting preferences. Chi Square Test df Degree and Blanket Grading 18.306 28 .9182 Degree and Check L i s t 24.889 28 .6339 Degree and Credit-No C r e d i t 26.238 28 .5599 Degree and Grades 32.850 28 .2413 Degree and N a r r a t i v e s 29.006 28 .4122 Degree and P a r e n t Conferences 35.675 28 .1511 Degree and P a s s - F a i l 21.938 28 .7841 Degree and S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n 38.434 28 .0905 Variables S i g n i f i c a n t Levels o f t he Chi Square T e s t Alpha ** .001 N ® 451 (some t e a c h e r s d id n o t respond t o t h e q u e s t i o n , and a few o t h e r s responded i n c o r r e c t l y ) 121 F i n d i n g s , —Table 4 .9 shows t h e r e s u l t s o f u s in g t h e Chi Square t e s t o f a s s o c i a t i o n t o t e s t f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e t e a c h e r s ' u n d e rg ra d uate t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g and t h e i r rank­ ings o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. 1s s i g n i f i c a n t a t .001. None o f t h e Ch1 Square t e s t s T h e r e f o r e , I t can be concluded t h a t t h e t e a c h e r ' s u n d e rg ra d u ate t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g does n o t have a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p to e x p re ss ed p r e f e r e n c e o r a t t i t u d e toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. Table 4 . 9 . — R e l a t i o n s h i p between t e a c h e r u n d e rg ra d u ate t r a i n i n g and reporting preferences. Ch1 Square Test df T r a i n i n g and B lanket Grading 153.086 147 .3518 T r a i n i n g and Check L i s t 143.804 147 T r a i n i n g and Cred1t-No C r e d i t 136.373 147 .5629 .7265 T r a i n i n g and Grades (AB CD F) 124.414 147 .9104 T r a i n in g and N a r r a t i v e s 182.128 147 .0245 T r a i n i n g and P a r e n t Conferences 163.712 147 .1641 T r a i n i n g and P a s s - F a i l 135.997 147 .7340 T r a i n i n g and S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n 140.914 147 .6291 V a r ia b l e s Alpha - .001 S i g n i f i c a n t Levels o f t h e Ch1 Square T e s t N = 478 F i n d i n g s . — School s t a t u s was n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t 1ng e x p re s s e d t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e s toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods c o n s i d e r e d . To a m p lify t h i s p o i n t , as was found In t e s t i n g t h e f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s o f Research Question 1, t e a c h e r s c l e a r l y 122 p r e f e r r e d l e t t e r grades o v e r a l l o f th e seven a l t e r n a t i v e methods c o n s i d e r e d , and t h i s p r e f e r e n c e was I n d i c a t e d by t e a c h e r s from high middle s c h o o l s as well as low middle s c h o o l s . Table 4.10 I l l u s t r a t e s t h e lac k o f s i g n i f i c a n c e 1n th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between school s t a t u s and r e p o r t i n g p r e f e r e n c e s . T able 4 . 1 0 . - - R e l a t i o n s h i p between school s t a t u s and t e a c h e r e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g p r e f e r e n c e s . u „ i . L 1oc vanaD ,es Ch1 Square Test aT S i g n i f i c a n t Levels o f t h e Ch1 Square T e s t School S t a t u s and Blanke t Grading 6.351 6 .3851 School S t a t u s and Check L i s t 8.797 6 .1853 School S t a t u s and C r e d l t Ho C r e d i t School S t a t u s and Grades School S t a t u s and N a r r a t i v e s 11.005 6 .0882 6.193 6 .4020 8.0 70 6 .2330 School S t a t u s and P a r e n t Conferences 1.942 6 .9250 School S t a t u s and P a s s - F a l l School S t a t u s and S e l f E v alu atio n 5.631 6 .4657 2.610 6 .8559 Alpha = .001 N ■ 480 Research Question 6: To what e x t e n t does a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t between t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s p r e f e r e n c e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r form o f r e p o r t i n g and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s : (1 ) s e x , (2) y e a r s o f e x p e r i ­ e n c e , (3) d e g r e e ( s ) h e l d , (4) grade l e v e l a d m i n i s t r a t o r was t r a i n e d t o t e a c h , (5) school s t a t u s ? 123 F i n d i n g s . —T able 4.11 shows t h e r e s u l t s o f u s i n g t h e Chi Square t e s t o f a s s o c i a t i o n t o t e s t a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between sex and each o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. Since none o f the Chi Square t e s t s f o r a s s o c i a t i o n between sex and each o f t h e e i g h t methods I s s i g n i f i c a n t a t .0 0 1 , i t can be concluded t h a t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s sex does not have a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e x p re s s e d p r e f e r e n c e o r a t t i t u d e toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. Table 4.11 . —R e l a t i o n s h i p between a d m i n i s t r a t o r sex and e v a l u a t i o n and reporting preferences. Chi Square Test Variables df S i g n i f i c a n t Levels o f t h e Ch1 Square T e s t Sex and Blanket Grading Sex and Check L i s t 6.825 5 .2340 3.877 5 .5673 Sex and Credit-No C r e d i t 12.667 6 .0486 Sex and Grades 4.234 6 .6450 Sex and N a r r a t i v e s 4.330 5 .5029 Sex and P a r e n t Conferences 4.222 Sex and Pass-Fa1l 6.045 4 6 .3767 .4182 Sex and S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n 4.868 6 .5608 Alpha = .001 N = 39 Findings; Years o f e x p e r i e n c e 1s not a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g an a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s p r e f e r e n c e f o r any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t ­ ing methods. When examining each o f t h e c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n s t h a t were conducted t o develop Table 4 . 1 2 , I t was found t h a t e x p e r i e n c e and r e p o r t i n g p r e f e r e n c e was c o r r e l a t e d c l o s e s t w ith l e t t e r g r a d e s , b u t 124 even s o , i t i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t .001. In t h a t c a s e , 14 o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n t h e 21-30 y e a r group s e l e c t e d grades as t h e i r f i r s t ch oic e o f t h e e i g h t methods. Table 4 . 1 2 . — R e l a t i o n s h i p between a d m i n i s t r a t o r e x p e r i e n c e and e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g p r e f e r e n c e s . V a r ia b l e s Ch1 Square Test df S i g n i f i c a n t Lev els o f the Chi Square T e s t Experience and Blanket Grading 16.021 20 .7153 Experience and Check L i s t 19.379 20 .4973 Experience and C r e d l t No C r e d i t 19.175 24 .7426 Experience and Grades Experience and N a r r a t i v e s 34.653 24 .0737 9.330 20 .9788 Experience and P a r e n t Conferences Experience and P a s s - F a l l 9.388 16 .8966 18.777 24 .7637 23.749 24 .4760 Experience and S e l f Evaluation Alpha ■ .001 N = 39 F i n d i n g s . —The r e s u l t s o f th e Chi Square t e s t o f a s s o c i a t i o n t o t e s t t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e between t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' h i g h e s t degree and t h e i r r e p o r t i n g method p r e f e r e n c e s a r e shown in Table 4 .1 3 . None o f t h e Ch1 Square t e s t s i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t .001. Therefore, i t i s concluded t h a t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' c o l l e g e de gree has no r e l a t i o n ­ s h i p t o t h e i r e x p re ss ed p r e f e r e n c e o r a t t i t u d e toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. 125 T able 4 . 1 3 . —R e la tio n s h ip between th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' h i g h e s t degree and r e p o r t i n g p r e f e r e n c e s . Chi Square Test df S i g n i f i c a n t Levels o f t h e Chi Square T e s t Degree and Blanket Grading 20.144 15 .1665 Degree and Check L i s t 15.215 18 .6472 Degree a n dC red lt- N o C r e d i t 23.401 15 .0760 Degree and Grades 42.084 21 .0041 Degree and N a r r a t i v e s 19.294 18 .3739 Degree and P a r e n t Conferences Degree and P a s s - F a l l 7.333 13.591 15 21 .9478 .8865 Degree and S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n 25.918 21 .2096 V a r ia b l e s Alpha ■ .001 N “ 37 F i n d i n g s . —Table 4 .1 4 shows th e r e s u l t s o f u s in g t h e Chi Square t e s t o f a s s o c i a t i o n t o t e s t f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' u n d e rg ra d u ate t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g and t h e i r ran king s o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. t e s t s 1s s i g n i f i c a n t a t .001. None o f t h e Chi Square T h e r e f o r e , 1 t can be concluded t h a t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' u n d e rg ra d u ate t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g does not have a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e x p r e s s e d p r e f e r e n c e o r a t t i t u d e toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. 126 T able 4 . 1 4 . — R e la tio n s h ip between a d m i n i s t r a t o r und erg rad uate t r a i n i n g and r e p o r t i n g p r e f e r e n c e s . Chi Square Test Variables df S i g n i f i c a n t Levels o f t h e Chi Square T e s t T r a i n i n g and Blanket Grading 35.937 50 T r a i n i n g and Check L i s t 47.280 60 .9328 .8836 66.144 60 .2732 101.205 70 .0074 T r a i n i n g and N a r r a t i v e s 48.418 60 .8582 T r a i n i n g and P a r e n t Conferences 32.460 50 .9742 T r a i n i n g and Pass -F a1l 48.902 70 .9713 T r a i n i n g and S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n 68.060 70 .5488 T r a i n i n g andCred1t-No Credit T r a i n i n g and Grades Alpha - .001 N » 39 F i n d i n g s . — School s t a t u s was n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t ­ ing e x p re ss ed a d m i n i s t r a t o r a t t i t u d e s toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t ­ ing methods c o n s i d e r e d . The manner 1n which a d m i n i s t r a t o r s as a group e x p re ss e d t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward l e t t e r grades In comparison t o t h e seven a l t e r n a t i v e methods c o n s i d e r e d 1n t h i s study was no t a f f e c t e d by whether th ey a r e employed 1n a high middle school o r a low middle s c h o o l . T able 4.15 I l l u s t r a t e s the l a c k o f s i g n i f i c a n c e 1n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between school s t a t u s and r e p o r t i n g p r e f e r e n c e . T able 4 . 1 5 . • • R e l a t i o n s h i p between school s t a t u s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g p r e f e r e n c e s . Chi Square Test V a r ia b l e s df S i g n i f i c a n t Levels o f t h e Ch1 Square T e s t School S t a t u s and Blanket Grading 6.087 5 .2978 School S t a t u s and Check L i s t 3.792 5 .5797 School S t a t u s and C r e d l t No C r e d i t 5.344 6 .5005 School S t a t u s and Grades 9.626 School S t a t u s and N a r r a t i v e s 4.744 6 5 .1413 .4479 School S t a t u s and P a r e n t Conferences 2.068 4 .7232 School S t a t u s and Pass-Fa1l 2.428 6 .8764 School S t a t u s and S e l f E v alu atio n 5.780 6 .4483 Alpha = .001 N e 39 R e s u l ts o f Rank Ord erin g Research Question 7 : To what e x t e n t do t h e t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s d i f f e r , o r have s i m i l a r i t i e s , In t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward a p a r t i c u l a r form o f p r o g r e s s r e p o r t i n g ? F i n d i n g s . —T able 4 .1 6 r e p o r t s means, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , and rank o r d e r i n g , o r o r d e r o f p r e f e r e n c e , o f each o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods f o r t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . All res po n se s In Table 4 .1 6 a r e take n from Item 49 o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , which asks resp on d ents t o rank each o f t h e e i g h t methods 1n o r d e r o f p r e f e r e n c e with a ranking o f 1 being t h e i r f i r s t c h o ic e and a ranking o f 8 being t h e i r l a s t choice. Ranking was based on means, and t h e mean ran k in gs Table 4 . 1 6 , —Means and standard de via tions o f ranking o f e i g h t rep ortin g methods by teachers and a d m in istr a to r s. ■ * ' i■ -=-j i j, ra Reporting Method X Teachers S.D. Ranking X Administrators S.D. Ranking Grades Narra­ tives Parent Confer­ ences PassFail S e lf Evalua­ tio n 4.155 1.157 2.490 2.174 4.384 4.752 1.701 1.624 1.756 1.959 1.834 1.660 1.934 8 4 5 1 3 2 6 7 6.184 2.500 4.579 1.579 2.342 1.500 4.947 4.237 1.353 1.538 1.621 1.840 1.713 1.751 1.659 1.822 8 4 6 2 3 1 7 5 Blanket Grades Check List CreditNo Credit 6.151 2.614 1.433 N = 484 t e a c h e r s, 38 adm inistrators Rank 1 = most p r e f e r r e d ; Rank 8 = l e a s t pr e f e r r e d 129 can be i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e lo w e st mean s c o r e i s t h e h i g h e s t - r a n k i n g method. Thus, t h e ranking can be i n t e r p r e t e d as I n d i c a t i n g t h a t most o f th e t e a c h e r s , and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , found b l a n k e t grad ing t o be t h e i r l a s t choic e o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods c o n sid e r e d in t h i s s t u d y . Sta nd ard d e v i a t i o n 1n Table 4.16 i n d i c a t e s degree o f a g re e ­ ment in ranking t h e e i g h t methods on t h e p a r t o f t h e t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r groups. The s m a l l e r t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n , t h e b e t t e r t h e agreement about t h e rank o f each method o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r group. For example, in s e l e c t i n g grades as th e f i r s t c h o ic e o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods, t h e t e a c h e r group has a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1 .7 5 6 , and i t I n d i c a t e s a r e a s o n a b l e de gree o f agreement among t h e t e a c h e r s 1n s e l e c t i n g grades as t h e i r f i r s t c h o i c e . The h i g h e s t s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n was 1.959 f o r n a r r a t i v e s as t h e t h i r d ch oic e o f r e p o r t i n g methods, which would i n d i c a t e t h a t more t e a c h e r s had disa g ree m e n ts on t h a t s e l e c t i o n than t h e y d i d with t h e l a s t ch oic e o f b l a n k e t g r a d e s . The s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1.433 and mean s c o r e o f 5.151 would I n d i c a t e t h a t b l a n k e t g ra ding was e a s i l y t h e l a s t c h o ic e by t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e 484 t e a c h e r s . In examining t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r g r ou p , t h e r e was s l i g h t l y more agreement w i t h i n t h e group 1n t h e i r ran k in g s than t h e r e was w ith t h e t e a c h e r group. The l a r g e s t s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n was 1.840 in s e l e c t i n g A B C D F as t h e i r second c h o i c e . The s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r the f i r s t t h r e e c h o i c e s , 1.7 51, 1.840, and 1.713 f o r p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , g r a d e s , and n a r r a t i v e s r e s p e c t i v e l y would i n d i c a t e l i m i t e d m ix tu re on 130 t h e p a r t o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1n making t h e i r f i r s t t h r e e s e l e c t i o n s . As w ith t e a c h e r s , t h e low est s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n was 1.353 f o r b l a n k e t g r a d e s , which I n d i c a t e s a re a s o n a b l y high m a j o r i t y o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a ­ t o r s s e l e c t e d 1 t as t h e i r l a s t c h o ic e . The s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n 1n t h e t e a c h e r group and t h e adm inis­ t r a t o r group 1n ranking t h e e i g h t methods ranges from 1.433 t o 1.959 and from 1.353 t o 1.84 0 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . These two ranges a r e n o t wide, and they a r e very c l o s e In t h e i r low magnitudes. d e v i a t i o n s o f each o f the Thus, t h e s t a n d a r d e i g h t methods I n d i c a t e a rea so n a b ly u n i t e d f e e l i n g among th e t e a c h e r group and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r group as t o t h e i r rankings. While t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s I n d i c a t e g en eral agreement 1n ran k in g methods by t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r gr o u p s, 1t 1s ap pro p­ r i a t e t o t e s t th e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s 1n rankings by u t i l i z i n g t h e Spearman Rank C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t t e s t (Spearman Rho). Table 4.1 7 shows a s1de-by-s1de comparison o f t h e t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r rankings o f t h e e i g h t methods. The Spearman Rho t e s t 1s conducted t h u s : N 1»6Edl2 * -i£ii- - 1 - btE ■i - Hsr ■i - -of52 ■-9°« This r e s u l t Is s i g n i f i c a n t a t .01 s i n c e .9048 exceeds t h e 2 t a b l e d value o f .833 f o r t h i s t e s t . I t can be concluded t h a t t h e r e 2 Sidney S i e g e l , Nonparametric S t a t i s t i c s f o r t h e Behavioral Sc ien c es (New York: McGraw-Hill Book C o ., 1956), p. 284. 131 I s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e 1n t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t e a c h e r s and admin­ i s t r a t o r s as de monstrated by t h e i r rankings o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. Table 4 . 1 7 . — Comparison o f t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r ranking o f e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. R eporting Method Teacher Ranking A dm inistrator Ranking El Bl an ket Grading 8 8 E2 Check L i s t 4 4 E3 Cred1t-No C r e d i t 5 6 E4 Grades (A B C D F) 1 2 E5 3 2 3 E6 Narratives P a r e n t Conferences E7 Pass-Fa1l 6 7 E8 Self-Evaluation 7 5 1 N * 484 t e a c h e r s * 38 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s C o n sis te n cy o f t h e Responses While t h e r e 1s no way t o be c e r t a i n t h a t r esp o nd en ts a r e e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r t r u e a t t i t u d e s when responding t o Items on an a t t l t u d i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e , 1 t 1s p o s s i b l e t o d ete rm ine I f t h e res po n se s are c o n s is te n t. Items 1 through 40 on t h e I n str u m e n t ask t h e respon­ dent t o e i t h e r s t r o n g l y agree* a g r e e , d i s a g r e e , o r s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e . Table 4 . 1 8 l i s t s th e Items which speak t o each o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods 1n e i t h e r a p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e s t a t e m e n t . p o s i t i v e s t a t e m e n t about b l a n k e t g r a d i n g : Item 25 1s a "Blanke t g rad in g 1s 132 c h a l l e n g i n g t o kids because i t p uts them on t h e i r h o n o r . ” also p o sitiv e : off k id s.” Item 33 i s ” 1 l i k e b l a n k e t g rad in g because i t t a k e s p r e s s u r e I f t h e r espo n dent e x p r e s s e s a f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e toward e i t h e r one o f t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s , i t i s expected t h a t h e /s h e w i l l a l s o e x p re ss a f a v o r a b l e res po nse f o r t h e o t h e r ite m. Or, c o n v e r s e l y , i f t h e y d i s a g r e e w ith one o f the s t a t e m e n t s 1t I s exp ec te d t h a t th ey would d i s a g r e e w ith both o f them. Item two i s a n e g a t i v e s t a t e m e n t about b l a n k e t g rad in g : "The b l a n k e t g r a d i n g method 1s something I r e a l l y d o n ' t c a r e f o r , " and t h i s s t a t e m e n t i s compared w ith ite m 25, which was shown above t o be positive. T h e r e f o r e , i f th e r esp o nd en t a g re e s with Item two, 1 t i s expected t h a t h e/s h e would d i s a g r e e w ith Item 25. T able 4.18 l i s t s a l l t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items t h a t were matched a g a i n s t each o t h e r f o r ex p ec te d agreement o r disa g ree m e n t t o determine c o n s i s t e n c y o f responses. Using t h e Chi Square T e s t w ith a lp ha = .0 0 1 , i t I s found t h a t res p o n d en ts were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o n s i s t e n t on a l l comparative answers. Summary o f Findings The f i n d i n g s o f t h e s t u d y a re summarized by t h e follo w ing 17 statem ents: 1. A B C D F i s t h e r e p o r t i n g method most p r e f e r r e d by middle school t e a c h e r s , follo w ed 1n o r d e r o f p r e f e r e n c e by p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , n a r r a t i v e s , check 1 1 s t , s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t , p a s s - f a i l , and b l a n k e t g r a d i n g . 133 Table 4 . 1 8 . — Cross t a b u l a t i o n o f p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items t o t e s t c o n s i s t e n c y o f a t t l t u d l n a l r es p o n se s toward g rad in g and r e p o r t i n g methods. Cross T a b u l a t i o n o f Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items Blanket Grading Check L i s t CredltNo C r e d it Grades Ch1 Square Test UT Significance of Ch1 Square T e s t +25 +33 250.619 16 .000 - 2 +25 94.228 16 .000 -21 +33 137.055 16 .000 -21 +25 135.763 16 - 2 -21 218.849 16 .000 .000 - 2 +33 180.994 16 .000 - 4 +36 114.021 16 .000 * 4 +17 109.494 16 .000 - 4 -12 -12 +36 167.099 16 .000 93.045 16 .000 -12 +17 102.891 16 .000 +17 +36 351.106 16 .000 -37 +28 183.139 16 .000 -37 -13 274.961 16 .000 -19 +28 90.474 16 .000 -19 -13 -13 147.660 16 .000 +28 285.284 16 .000 + 8 +16 297.476 15 .000 +16 +31 322.737 12 .000 + 8 +31 207.674 20 .000 +38 +31 251.581 16 .000 + 8 +38 288.895 20 .000 +16 +38 216.904 12 .000 134 Table 4 . 1 8 . --C o n tin u e d . Cross T a b u l a t i o n o f Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items Narratives P a ren t Conferences Pass-Fail SelfE v a lu a tio n Chi Square Test UT Significance of Chi Square T e s t -27 +39 120.875 16 .000 -27 +18 115.966 16 .000 -27 - 7 16 .000 - 7 +39 136.771 306.172 16 .000 - 7 153.037 205.850 16 .000 +18 +18 +39 16 .000 - 5 +40 216.164 12 .000 —5 +23 168.381 16 .000 - 5 -14 240.844 16 .000 -14 +40 244.950 12 .000 -14 +23 169.116 16 .000 + 3 +35 54.987 20 .000 -29 + 3 87.315 20 .000 -29 123.560 16 -11 +35 -29 120.123 16 .000 .000 -11 + 3 158.207 20 .000 -11 +35 39.842 16 .000 -20 +26 109.836 16 .000 -20 +34 291.097 16 .000 -20 - 9 16 .000 - 9 +26 146.494 76.176 16 .000 - 9 +34 79.665 16 .000 +26 +34 213.552 16 .000 Alpha = .001 N = 519 + i n d i c a t e s p o s i t i v e i te m s ; - i n d i c a t e s n e g a t i v e items 135 2. P a r e n t co n ference r e p o r t i n g i s t h e method most p r e f e r r e d by middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , followed In o r d e r o f p r e f e r e n c e by g r a d e s , n a r r a t i v e s , check 1 1 s t , s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t , p a s s - f a l l , and b l a n k e t g r a d i n g . 3. While middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s s e l e c t e d p a r e n t con­ f e r e n c e s as most p r e f e r r e d and middle school t e a c h e r s s e l e c t e d grades as most p r e f e r r e d , t h e r e 1s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e 1n t h e i r ran k in gs o f t h e e i g h t methods by t h e two groups. 4. I t was 1n th e I n t e r e s t s o f t e a c h e r s t h a t A B C D F was s e l e c t e d as the most p r e f e r r e d method by middle school t e a c h e r s . Of the 275 t e a c h e r s who s e l e c t e d A B C D F as t h e i r f i r s t c h o i c e , 134 o f f e r e d t e a c h e r - o r i e n t e d r a t i o n a l e as t h e re a s o n . 5. P a r e n t - o r i e n t e d r e sp on se s were most o f t e n o f f e r e d by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s In s e l e c t i n g p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s as t h e i r most p r e f e r r e d r e p o r t i n g method. However, th e small sample o f 39 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were f a i r l y evenly d i v id e d among t h e p o s s i b l e respo n ses t o t h e q u e s t i o n . 6. The sex o f a middle school t e a c h e r 1s n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r 1n t h e i r e x p re s s e d a t t i t u d e toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods c o n s i d e r e d . 7. Years o f e x p e r i e n c e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g a t e a c h e r ' s a t t i t u d e toward b l a n k e t g r a d i n g . Younger t e a c h e r s a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o look upon b l a n k e t grad in g with d i s f a v o r . 8. Years o f e x p e r i e n c e 1s n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g a middle school t e a c h e r ' s a t t i t u d e toward check 1 1 s t , c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t , grades, n a r r a tiv e s , parent conference, p a s s - f a l l , or s e l f evaluation. 136 9. Degree h e ld by middle school t e a c h e r s 1s n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods c o n s i d e r e d . 10. Level o f t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g {elementary* middle s c h o o l , j u n i o r high s c h o o l , high s c h o o l , h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n ) o f middle school t e a c h e r s I s n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods c o n s i d e r e d . 11. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e can be d e t e c t e d between a t t i t u d e s o f t e a c h e r s employed In high middle sch o o ls as compared w i t h a t t i t u d e s o f t e a c h e r s employed 1n low middle s c h o o l s . School s t a t u s Is not a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g t h e a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. 12. The sex o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s I s n o t a s i g n i f i ­ c a n t v a r i a b l e a f f e c t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t ­ ing methods. 13. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e can be d e t e c t e d 1n th e a t t i t u d e s o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods when compared w i t h t h e i r y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e as e d u c a t o r s . 14. The h i g h e s t degre e he ld by t h e middle school a d m i n i s t r a ­ t o r s 1s not a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. 15. The u n d e rg r a d u a te t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g o f t h e middle school adm inistrators is not a s ig n ific a n t fa c to r a ffe ctin g t h e i r a ttitu d e toward any o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. 16. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e can be d e t e c t e d between a t t i ­ t ud es o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s employed 1n high middle s c h o o l s as compared 137 w ith a t t i t u d e s o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s employed in low middle s c h o o l s . School s t a t u s 1s n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g t h e a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward any o f th e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. 17. There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the o v e r - a l l ran kings o f t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods In o r d e r o f p r e f e r e n c e by the middle school t e a c h e r s as compared t o t h e o v e r - a l l ran king s by the middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . While t e a c h e r s ranked grades as f i r s t choic e and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ranked p a r e n t c o n fe ren c es as f i r s t c h o i c e , t h e o v e r - a l l ran kin gs between t h e two groups a r e very s i m i l a r . CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY The purpose o f t h i s c h a p t e r I s t o p r o vid e a b r i e f r e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e purpose o f t h e s t u d y , r e s e a r c h p r o c e d u r e s , and c o n c lu s io n s d e ri v e d from s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . The r e s e a r c h e r w i l l u t i l i z e the f i n a l s e c t i o n t o make recommendations f o r f u r t h e r s t u d y . R a ti o n a l e f o r the Study The arguments f o r and a g a i n s t l e t t e r grades 1n e v a l u a t i n g and r e p o r t i n g s t u d e n t achievement have gone on f o r many y e a r s , as can be seen 1n th e review o f l i t e r a t u r e where a r t i c l e s from t h e 1930s were cited. In reviewing t h e l i t e r a t u r e , t h e r e s e a r c h e r found more w r i t e r s a g a i n s t l e t t e r grades th a n 1n f a v o r o f them, y e t t h e p r a c t i c e o f using l e t t e r grades has p e r s i s t e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y 1n secondary s c h o o l s . Since t h e r e a r e o t h e r methods a v a i l a b l e , 1 t seems a p p r o p r i a t e t o study t h e a t t i t u d e s o f e d u c a t o r s toward A B C D F as compared t o s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e r e p o r t i n g methods. A s t u d y o f a t t i t u d e s o f e le m e n tary school t e a c h e r s and admin­ i s t r a t o r s toward s e l e c t e d r e p o r t i n g methods was conducted by S c h a r f f e i n 1977, but such a s t u d y had n o t p r e v i o u s l y been done a t t h e se co n­ dary l e v e l . The t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y 1s th e t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1n Michigan p u b l i c middle s c h o o l s w ith 138 139 grades s i x , s e v e n , and e i g h t . I t 1s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e t o s tu d y a t t i t u d e s o f e d u c a t o r s a t t h i s l e v e l s i n c e th e t r u e middle school co n ce pt in c l u d e s an e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g philo so ph y which pro v id es s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n which w i l l be personal and p o s i t i v e 1n n a t u r e , I n c l u d i n g s t u d e n t s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t w ith f r e q u e n t s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r - p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s . And, 1 t 1s a p p r o p r i a t e t o compare t h e a t t i t u d e o f middle school e d u c a to r s w i t h e le m e n tary school e d u c a t o r s as d e s c r i b e d 1n the Scharffe study. Summary o f Methodology The i n t e n t o f t h e r e s e a r c h e r was t o r e p l i c a t e t h e S c h a r f f e s t u d y and determine t h e a t t i t u d e s o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t t h e middle school l e v e l . A survey was used t o determine t h e middle school e d u c a t o r s ' a t t i t u d e s toward A B C D F when compared w ith seven a l t e r n a t i v e r e p o r t i n g methods, which were b l a n k e t g r a d i n g , check l i s t s , cred1t-no c r e d i t , n a r r a t iv e s , p a s s - f a l l , parent conferences, and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . considered: The fo llo w in g demographic v a r i a b l e s were a l s o (1) s e x , (2) d e g r e e ( s ) h e l d , (3) y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , (4) grade l e v e l e d u c a t o r was t r a i n e d t o t e a c h , and (5) school s t a t u s . Objectives Knowing t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e S c h a r f f e s t u d y , 1 t was t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s o b j e c t i v e t o d ete rm ine whether middle school e d u c a t o r s would sh a re t h e a t t i t u d e s o f e le m e n tar y e d u c a t o r s toward A B C D F. The e le m e ntary e d u c a t o r s ranked p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s as t h e i r f i r s t c h o ic e o f t h e e i g h t methods c o n s i d e r e d , and t h e y ranked A B C D F as 140 t h e i r second c h o ic e . To determ ine th e a t t i t u d e s o f middle school t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , t h e f ollo w ing r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s were developed: Research Question 1 : Do middle school t e a c h e r s 1n Michigan p r e f e r the use o f A B C D f r e p o r t i n g over t h e use o f s e l e c t e d a l t e r ­ n a t i v e forms o f r e p o r t i n g ? 1. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward b l a n k e t g rad in g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 2. Ko: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward check 1 1 s t r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 3. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A 8 C D F. 4. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 5. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s i s the same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 6. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward p a s s - f a i l r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 7. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school t e a c h e r s toward s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. Research Question 2 : Do middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1n Michigan p r e f e r t h e use o f A B C D F r e p o r t i n g o v e r t h e use o f s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e forms o f r e p o r t i n g ? 1. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward b l a n k e t g rad in g 1s th e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 141 2. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward check l i s t r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 3. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward c re d 1 t - n o c r e d i t r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 4. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 5. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 6. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward p a s s - f a l l r e p o r t i n g 1s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. 7. Ho: The a t t i t u d e o f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t i n g i s t h e same as t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward A B C D F. Research Question 3: I f middle school t e a c h e r s do, o r do n o t , p r e f e r t h e use o f one o f t h e s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s over t h e use o f A B C D F, why does t h i s p r e f e r e n c e e x i s t ? Research Question 4: I f middle school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s do, o r do n o t , p r e f e r t h e use of one o f t h e s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s o v e r t h e use o f A B C D F, why does t h i s p r e f e r e n c e e x i s t ? Research Question 5 : To what e x t e n t does a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t between t h e t e a c h e r ' s p r e f e r e n c e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r form o f r e p o r t i n g and t h e t e a c h e r ' s : (1) s e x , (2) y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , (3) d e g r e e ( s ) h e l d , (4) grade l e v e l t e a c h e r was t r a i n e d t o t e a c h , and (5) school status? Research Question 6 : To what e x t e n t does a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t between th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s p r e f e r e n c e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r form o f 142 r e p o r t i n g and the a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s : (1) s e x , (2) y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , (3) d e g r e e ( s ) h e l d , (4) grade l e v e l a d m i n i s t r a t o r was t r a i n e d t o t e a c h , and (5) school s t a t u s ? Research Question 7 : To what e x t e n t do t h e t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s d i f f e r , o r have s i m i l a r i t i e s , in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward a p a r t i c u l a r form o f p r o g r e s s r e p o r t i n g ? Samp!e A sample o f 160 middle s c h o o ls was randomly s e l e c t e d from the * t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n o f 235 middle sch o o ls in Michigan d u r i n g t h e 1977-1978 school y e a r . A middle school i d e n t i f i c a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e was s e n t to p r i n c i p a l s o f the sch o o ls t o dete rm ine t h e l e v e l o f Implementation o f middle school p r a c t i c e s 1n each b u i l d i n g and t o ask f o r a commitment from sch o o ls t o p a r t i c i p a t e 1n t h e f i n a l s t a g e o f t h e s t u d y . One hundred twe nty-one sch o o ls responded and 50 o f f e r e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e f u r t h e r 1n t h e s t u d y . This t o t a l group was d i v i d e d I n t o f o u r l e v e l s o f middle school Im ple m entation, and 1 t was dete rmined t o I n c lu d e t h e top 25 p e r c e n t and th e bottom 25 p e r c e n t in o r d e r t o compare t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e high middle s c h o o ls w i t h t h e low middle s c h o o l s . The middle 50 p e r c e n t was e l i m i n a t e d . The 15 high middle sch o o ls and 15 low middle s c h o o l s produced a sample o f 910 t e a c h e r s and 64 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Of t h e 30 s c h o o ls t h a t agre ed t o p a r t i c i p a t e , 25 r e t u r n e d t h e p a c k e ts o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ; however, n o t a l l t e a c h e r s in t h e s c h o o l s responded. Of t h e t o t a l o f 910 p o t e n t i a l t e a c h e r r e s p o n d e n t s , 484, o r 53 p e r c e n t , r e t u r n e d a 143 questionnaire to t h e i r building p rin c ip a l. T h i r t y - n i n e o f t h e 64 adm inistrators returned a questionnaire. Data C o l l e c t i o n The f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e was an In stru m en t o f 53 Ite m s, o r i g i n a l l y developed and v a l i d a t e d by S c h a r f f e t o study e le m entary e d u c a t o r s ' a t t i t u d e s toward r e p o r t i n g methods, and was r e v i s e d where n e c e s s a r y t o meet th e needs o f t h e middle school st u d y . Of t h e 53 I t e m s , 40 were s t a t e m e n t s about the e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods c o n s i d e r e d r e q u i r i n g res po n dents t o s e l e c t t h e i r l e v e l o f agreement o r disa gree m e nt from a f o u r - p o i n t L l k e r t s c a l e . E ig h t Items were open-ended q u e s t i o n s t o e x p lo r e r e s p o n d e n t s ' reasons f o r a g r e e i n g o r d i s a g r e e i n g w ith some o f t h e f i r s t 40 s t a t e m e n t s . One Item r e q u i r e d r esp o n den ts t o rank t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods from 1 through 8 , w ith 1 being most p r e f e r r e d and 8 being l e a s t p r e f e r r e d , and f i v e Items asked f o r demographic d a t a such as s e x , e x p e r i e n c e , d e g re es h e l d , and u n d e rgra du ate t r a i n i n g o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t. I t was e s t i m a t e d t h a t the e n t i r e q u e s t i o n n a i r e could be completed 1n ap p ro x im ate ly 20 m in utes. Data A n alysis Data were programmed and analyzed thro ugh the use o f t h e SPSS s t a t i s t i c a l computer package a v a i l a b l e f o r use 1n the Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y CDC 6000 computer. Analysis o f variance f o r repeated measure d a t a was used f o r Research Questions 1 and 2 u sing s u b j e c t as u n i t o f a n a l y s i s . Questions 3, 4 , 5, and 6 were an alyze d by c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n using ch1 s q u a re t e s t o f homogeneity and chi sq u a re 144 independency. Question 7 was answered by d e s c r i p t i v e In form a tion about t h e means and v a r i a n c e by rank o r d e r i n g . Lim itations One o f the l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e st udy i s t h e small sample s i z e o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (3 9 ) . Most s c h o o ls 1n t h e surv ey had only one a d m i n i s t r a t o r and on ly one o r two sch o o ls had more than two adminis­ trators. While th e r e s e a r c h e r t a k e s comfort In t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e f i n d i n g s based on respo n ses o f 484 t e a c h e r s , h i n d s i g h t su g g e sts t h a t perhaps t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r p o r t i o n o f t h e stud y might b e t t e r have been d esigned t o c o ver many more i n d i v i d u a l s 1n a d d i t i o n a l s c h o o l s . Another U m i a t l o n o f t h e s t u d y i s evidenced by t h e wide v a r i e t y o f r es p o n se s t o Item 53 o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e d e a l i n g w ith the grade l e v e l t h e res p o n d en ts a r e t r a i n e d t o t e a c h . Michigan School Code^ p e rm its both e le m entary and secondary c e r t i f i c a t e d personnel t o te a c h seventh and e i g h t h grade s u b j e c t s . Conse quently, o nly 30, o r 6 . 5 p e r c e n t , o f t h e res p on d ents were a c t u a l l y t r a i n e d t o te a c h 1n th e middle school a cco rdin g t o t h e i r r es p o n se s t o item 53. While t h e d i r e c t i o n s on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e c l e a r l y I n s t r u c t e d t h e res p o n d en ts t o complete a l l I te m s, t h i s was n o t always c a r r i e d out. T h e r e f o r e , t h e v a lu e o f N 1s n o t t h e same f o r each s e t o f d a t a . These d i f f e r e n c e s a r e n o t c r i t i c a l t o t h e o v e r - a l l f i n d i n g s , however, s i n c e some o f t h e d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n s o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e a r e Indepen­ d e n t o f one a n o t h e r . 1S t a t e o f Michigan General School Laws, p r e p a r e d by the L e g i s l a t i v e S e r v i c e Bureau f o r t h e S t a t e Board o f E d u c a ti o n , 1973, R 390.1101, p. 742. 145 Conclusions The A B C D F r e p o r t i n g method was t h e f i r s t ch oic e o f t h e e i g h t methods c o n s i d e r e d by t e a c h e r s as a group. I t 1s concluded t h a t t h i s method 1s s t i l l held 1n t h e h i g h e s t esteem by t h e middle school t e a c h e r s who p a r t i c i p a t e d 1n t h i s s t u d y . As can be seen 1n one o f t h e l a t e r c o n c lu sio n s In t h i s c h a p t e r , most t e a c h e r s gave t e a c h e r - o r i e n t e d reasons f o r making t h i s c h o i c e . While 1t would be Impossible t o 1 1 s t a l l t h e v a ri o u s open-ended respo nses given In s e c t i o n two o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e r e seemed t o be an overwhelming number o f I n d i v i d u a l s who agreed t h a t "A B C D F i s a d a m good g rad in g system which h a s n ' t been b e t t e r e d " f o r p u r e l y mechanical r e a s o n s . Many t e a c h e r s I n d i c a t e d 1 t was t h e only method t h a t could be used with as many as 150 s t u d e n t s ; an yth in g e l s e would be to o time consuming and would Involve f a r to o much work. Another p o i n t f r e q u e n t l y made by t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a l i k e 1s t h e b e l i e f t h a t th e A B C D F method 1s understood by everyone con cern ed. They b e l i e v e an A o r a C on a r e p o r t c ard w i l l have a d e f i n i t e meaning t o t h e s t u d e n t , t e a c h e r , p a r e n t , and employer, and any change from t h i s t r a d i t i o n would Involve a d d i t i o n a l work, and a t t h e l e a s t , con fuse t h o s e who make use o f student evaluation re p o rts. These a r e t h e r a t i o n a l e f r e q u e n t l y o f f e r e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t s , bu t th e r e s e a r c h e r f e e l s t h e r e may be a n o th e r u n s t a t e d reason f o r t h e la c k o f f a v o r found in some o f th e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o A B C D F, 1n t h a t t h e r e may be some degree o f f e a r o f t h e unknown. Users b e l i e v e they know about g r a d e s , u n de rstand g r a d e s , and any d e p a r t u r e from t h i s system would merely be change f o r the sake o f change. 146 P a r e n t confe re nce r e p o r t i n g was t h e second cho ic e o f middle school t e a c h e r s , which le a d s t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o t h e co n clu sio n t h a t even though the method was s e l e c t e d as second c h o i c e , t e a c h e r s f e e l 1 t i s Im porta nt t o m ain tain a t e a c h e r - p a r e n t c o n t a c t , r e g a r d l e s s o f what system o f recorded w r i t t e n r e p o r t i n g might be u t i l i z e d . This should be an encouraging f i n d i n g f o r t h e middle school a d v o c a te , In t h a t p a r e n t - t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t c o n fe r e n c e s a r e an I n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e e s t a b l i s h e d middle school p h ilo s o p h y . However, p a r e n t c o n fe ren c es a r e a l s o time-consuming, i n v o lv e a g r e a t deal o f p l a n n i n g , u s u a l l y r e q u i r e t e a c h e r s t o work beyond t h e normal t e a c h i n g day t o accommo­ d a te working p a r e n t s , and th e r e s u l t o f the con feren ces 1s d i f f i c u l t t o summarize 1n permanent r e c o r d form. These f a c t o r s a r e a l l 1n d i r e c t c o n t r a s t t o the reasons o f t e n s t a t e d f o r p r e f e r r i n g t h e sim­ p l i s t i c A B C 0 F method. Again, w h ile I t 1s Im possible to 1 1 s t every open-ended response o f f e r e d 1n s u p p o r t o f p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s , such conments as "I have found them u seful through t e n t h g r a d e , " " v a l u a b le a t a l l l e v e l s , " "they can give I n s i g h t t o a c h i l d ' s p ro blem s," and " p a r e n t con feren ces allow t h e t e a c h e r and p a r e n t a g r e a t e r i n s i g h t I n t o t h e s t u d e n t ' s development" were commonly o f f e r e d by t h e res pon­ dents. While t h e r e s e a r c h e r found 1 t somewhat s u r p r i s i n g t h a t middle school t e a c h e r s would f a v o r two methods so h i g h l y t h a t a r e q u i t e oppo­ s i t e as f a r as middle school p hilo sophy I s c on cern ed, second th o ug h t I n d i c a t e s t h e outcome might well be e x p e c te d . F a m i l i a r i t y with t h e two methods might well have been h i g h l y I n f l u e n t i a l . Since t h e r e 1s 147 no middle school c e r t i f i c a t i o n requirement 1n Michigan, t h e middle school f a c u l t i e s a r e made up o f combinations o f secondary* and elem entary-trained tea ch e rs. The r e s e a r c h e r knov/s o f no ele m e ntary school t h a t does not now p r a c t i c e p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s , a t l e a s t through t h e e a r l y g r a d e s , and 1 t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t t h i s t r a i n i n g and e x p e r i e n c e has had a s t r o n g I n f l u e n c e on th e r e p o r t i n g p r e f e r e n c e s o f t h i s group o f e l e m e n t a r y - t r a i n e d middle school t e a c h ­ ers. F u r t h e r , even t h e s e c o n d a r y - t r a i n e d middle school t e a c h e r s a r e somewhat f a m i l i a r w ith th e p a r e n t co nferen ce r e p o r t i n g method e i t h e r as p a r e n t s o r s t u d e n t s them selv es,, a t l e a s t t o t h e degree t h a t t h e r e would n o t be a f e a r o f the unknown. N a r r a t i v e r e p o r t i n g and check l i s t s were ranked t h i r d and f o u r t h by t e a c h e r s ; t h e r e f o r e i t 1s concluded t h a t t h e s e methods a r e seen as being somewhat worthy o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Again, w h ile t h e middle school advocate may be d i s a p p o i n t e d t h a t t h e s e methods ranked only t h i r d and f o u r t h , a n o t h e r review o f Table 4.1 1s somewhat e ncour­ a g in g . The magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t d i f f e r e n c e f o r n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t ­ ing was only 1.333 and t h e magnitude o f t h e c o n t r a s t d i f f e r e n c e f o r check 1 1 st r e p o r t i n g was only 1.457. These f i g u r e s compare f a v o r a b l y w ith t h e magnitude o f 1.017 f o r p a r e n t c o n f e r e n c e s . Even though A B C D F was c l e a r l y favo red over a l l t h e s e methods, p a r e n t c o n f e r ­ e n c e s , n a r r a t i v e s , and check l i s t s were n o t t h a t f a r b e h in d. But a g a i n , t e a c h e r s seem t o p e r c e i v e n a r r a t i v e s as bein g a g r e a t deal o f work. Common comments o f f e r e d Included " 1 t 1s Im possible with 33 s t u ­ d e n ts p e r c l a s s p e r h o u r , " " th e y may be good b u t t h e y ' r e I m p r a c t i c a l 148 when d e a l i n g with o v e r 300 s t u d e n t s , " " f o r g e t 1 t ; to o many s t u d e n t s — time c o u n t s . " On th e p o s i t i v e s i d e , " n a r r a t i v e s would a llo w a much more p e r s o n a l i z e d e v a l u a t i o n , " " n a r r a t i v e s a r e very d i r e c t and t o the p o i n t , " " w r i t t e n r e p o r t s can e x p l a i n d i f f e r e n c e s . " As f o r check 1 1 s t r e p o r t i n g , some o f t h e n e g a t i v e r a t i o n a l e o f f e r e d Included " 1 t has been g r o s s l y o v e r- u s ed and m is u se d ," " 1 t does n o t e x p l a i n 1 f t h e s t u d e n t d id well on t h e o b j e c t i v e o r j u s t b a r e l y made 1 t , " "check l i s t s a r e Impersonal and make b l a n k e t s t a t e ­ m e n ts." From th e p o s i t i v e s i d e , " I f p r o p e r l y done could have v a l u e , " " I t 1s more h e l p f u l than a l e t t e r grade 1n l e t t i n g a s t u d e n t and h i s / h e r p a r e n t s know where they s t a n d . " As can be seen on t h e l a s t page o f t h e Middle School P r a c t i c e s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , Appendix 8, th e q u e s t i o n was asked o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , "Reporting system most commonly used 1n yo u r b u i l d i n g ? " Of a l l t h e r e spo n se s r e c e i v e d , n o t one a d m i n i s t r a t o r l i s t e d e i t h e r w r i t t e n n a r ­ r a t i v e s o f check l i s t r e p o r t i n g . E i t h e r o f t h e s e methods would be a s i g n i f i c a n t d e p a r t u r e from p r e s e n t middle school p r a c t i c e s , even though 1 t 1s p o s s i b l e t o computerize n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t s In such a way t h a t combinations o f a p p r o p r i a t e comments can be s e l e c t e d t o d e s c r i b e , 1n complete s e n t e n c e s , t h e p r o g r e s s o f t h e s t u d e n t w i t h o u t sounding c o l d , u n f e e l i n g , o r "canned." The r e s e a r c h e r has seen such r e p o r t s and found them t o be thorough and q u i t e p erso nal 1n n a t u r e . And, as 1s an Im p o rta nt c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r a l l t e a c h e r s co n ce rn e d , such com­ p u t e r i z e d r e p o r t s inv o lv e a minimum o f time f o r p r e p a r a t i o n on t h e p a rt o f the teacher. As f o r check l i s t s , t h i s system has been used 149 In t h e m i l i t a r y f o r many y e a r s , and v a r i a t i o n s o f t h e check l i s t a re f r e q u e n t l y used in e v a l u a t i n g employee performance i n t h e world o f work. However, t e a c h e r s see i t as only mod erate ly f a v o r a b l e in e v a l u a t i n g s t u d e n t performance. I t would seem t h a t more experimen­ t a t i o n w i t h t h i s system might i n c r e a s e I t s p o p u l a r i t y a t t h e middle school leve l i f t e a c h e r s can be shown t h a t i t can r e p o r t a c c u r a t e l y w i t h o u t o v e r l y t a x i n g t h e i r tim e . C r e d i t - n o c r e d i t , p a s s - f a l l , s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , and b l a n k e t grades were ranked f i f t h , s i x t h , s e v e n t h , and e i g h t r e s p e c t i v e l y , and i t i s concluded t h a t t h e s e methods a r e held 1n low esteem by t h e middle school t e a c h e r s . Teachers l e f t l i t t l e doubt about t h e i r f e e l i n g s toward t h e s e methods. As can be seen again by rev iewing Table 4 . 1 , t h e magnitudes o f t h e i r c o n t r a s t d i f f e r e n c e s were 2 .9 9 8 , 3 .2 2 7 , 3 .9 5 9 , and 4.994 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Teachers se e t h e s e methods as simply too " f a r o u t , " .and from t h e i r comments, i t Is do u btful t h a t any amount o f p e r s u a s i o n w i l l a l t e r t h e i r view s. Some t y p i c a l comments were "Most o f us l i k e rewards. I c a n ' t se e many s t u d e n t s working f o r c r e d i t no c r e d i t ; 1 t d o e s n ' t g ive any i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e l e v e l o f a b i l i t y . " " I t [ p a s s - f a l l ] assumes a p o l a r i t y 1n e d u c a t i o n a l a b i l i t y . think t h a t I t e x i s t s . I don’ t T h e r e ' s g o t t o be some i n t h e m id d l e . " "It [ s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n ] i s t h e whim o f t h e s t u d e n t and how he f e e l s t h a t d a y ." "Blanke t grades a r e u s e l e s s . " There was minimal s u p p o r t f o r c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t and p a s s - f a l l , u s u a l l y f o r e l e c t i v e c o u r s e s , bu t t e a c h e r s 1n s u p p o r t o f t h e s e two methods even f o r t h i s purpose were few and f a r between. Again, t e a c h e r s f e e l t h e need t o communicate 150 some l e v e l o f q u a l i t a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n on s t u d e n t work as well as s o r t and rank t h e i r s t u d e n t s . While o v e r - a l l ran k in g s o f t h e methods by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s did n o t vary g r e a t l y from t h e t e a c h e r r a n k i n g s , th ey d id s e l e c t p a r e n t c o n fe ren c es as most p r e f e r r e d , followed by gr ades as second c h o ic e . A d m i n i s t r a t o r s agre ed with t e a c h e r s in ranking n a r r a t i v e s and check l i s t s as t h i r d and f o u r t h c h o i c e s . S elf-evaluatlon, credit-no c r e d i t , p a s s - f a i l , and b l a n k e t grades were ranked f i f t h , s i x t h , s e v e n t h , and e i g h t h c h o i c e s . The r e s e a r c h e r concludes t h a t admini s­ t r a t o r s f a v o r the f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n f e r e n c e , accompanied by g r a d e s , as the permanent w r i t t e n d e v i c e . Perhaps the s i m i l a r i t i e s 1n adminis­ t r a t o r p r e f e r e n c e s and t e a c h e r p r e f e r e n c e s was t o be e x p e c t e d , In t h a t most a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a r e n o t t h a t f a r removed from t h e i r previous teaching r o le s . However, t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s e x p e r i e n c e 1n both r o l e s l e a d s t o some u n d e rs t a n d i n g o f t h e r e v e r s a l in A B C D F and p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s as favored by th e two g roups. So o f t e n , perh aps u n f o r ­ t u n a t e l y , the a d m i n i s t r a t o r 1s c o n t a c t e d In c a se s o f p a r e n t d i s a g r e e ­ ment o r d isa p p r o v al o f t h e grade a s s i g n e d t o t h e i r c h i l d . I t 1s t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r who must smooth r u f f l e d f e a t h e r s , a r r a n g e c o n f e r e n c e s , p r ov ide a d d i t i o n a l I n f o r m a t i o n , and 1n s h o r t , compensate f o r any Inadequacies in th e r e p o r t i n g method being u t i l i z e d by c a l l i n g upon public r e la tio n s s k i l l s . I t 1s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h e y would f a v o r t h e p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n fe r e n c e as t h e I n i t i a l ' a n d dominant r e p o r t i n g method. With s k i l l f u l t e a c h e r s c o nd u ctin g t h e s e c o n f e r e n c e s , confu­ sio n and m is u n d er s ta n d in g could be reduced t o minimal l e v e l s . 151 While a t a l l y of t h e reasons o f f e r e d on the open-ended q u e s t i o n s f o r s e l e c t i n g A B C D F as t h e most p r e f e r r e d method r e v e a l e d most t e a c h e r s gave t e a c h e r - o r i e n t e d r e s p o n s e s , t h e Chi Square t e s t o f a s s o c i a t i o n found no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between r a t i o n a l e and t h e s e l e c t i o n o f A B C D F. And w h ile most a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o f f e r e d p a r e n t - o r i e n t e d reaso ns f o r s e l e c t i n g p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s as most p r e ­ f e r r e d , the Chi Square t e s t o f a s s o c i a t i o n did n o t f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between th e re a so ns o f f e r e d and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' s e l e c ­ tion. At t h i s p o i n t i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o compare t h e r a n k in g s o f t h e e i g h t methods by middle school t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h th e rankings o f the same methods by e le m e n ta r y t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . According to t h e S c h a r f f e s t u d y , e le m e n tary t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s s e l e c t e d p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s as f i r s t c h o i c e , A B C D F as second c h o i c e , t e a c h e r s s e l e c t e d check l i s t as t h i r d ch o ic e and n a r r a t i v e s as f o u r t h choic e w h ile t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e v e r s e d t h e s e two methods, both groups ranked p a s s - f a i l as f i f t h , s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n as s i x t h , c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t as s e v e n t h , and b l a n k e t grades as e i g h t h c h o i c e . The ran k in gs by e le m e n tar y e d u c a t o r s and t h e r a n k in g s by mid­ d l e school e d u c a t o r s , as shown i n Table 4 .1 7 , were t e s t e d t o d ete rm in e the r a t e o f agreement among t h e f o u r groups by u t i l i z i n g t h e c o e f f i ­ c i e n t o f concordance (Kendal1-W) t e s t . The r e s u l t i n g c o r r e l a t i o n was fi?n 07 M= 672 = 0 .9 2 . This can be c o n s i d e r e d ve ry h i g h , s i n c e p e r f e c t c o r r e l a t i o n would be 1 . 0 . To f u r t h e r t e s t t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f 2 W = 0 . 9 2 , Chi Square was a p p l i e d and i t was found t h a t X - 25 .7 6. R e f e r r i n g t h i s va lu e t o t h e t a b l e o f c r i t i c a l v a lu e s o f Chi Square, i t was found t h a t t h e c o r r e l a t i o n has a p r o b a b i l i t y o f o c c u r r e n c e by chance o f p < .001. I t i s concluded w ith c o n s i d e r a b l e a ssu r a n c e t h a t t he agreement among t h e e le m entary e d u c a to r s and middle school admin­ i s t r a t o r s 1n ranking th e e i g h t methods i s h i g h e r than i t would be by chance. I t was found t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between s e x , d egre es h e l d , unde rg ra d u ate t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g , o r school s t a t u s which a f f e c t e d e i t h e r t e a c h e r s o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e toward t h e e i g h t r e p o r t i n g methods. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t * r e l a t i o n s h i p between e x p e r i e n c e o f t e a c h e r s and b l a n k e t g r a d i n g , in t h a t o l d e r , more e x p e r ie n c e d t e a c h e r s a r e more l i k e l y t o look upon t h i s method with d i s f a v o r . However, y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e had no s i g ­ n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward o t h e r methods, nor d i d th e y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e v a r i a b l e s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e e x p re ss ed a ttitu d e s of adm inistrators. In c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e f i n d i n g s , s e v e r a l p o i n t s need t o be c o n s i d e r e d . F i r s t , a v a r i a b l e t h a t was n o t con­ s i d e r e d 1n t h e study was one d e a l i n g with t r a d i t i o n . I t is the r e s e a r c h e r ' s b e l i e f t h a t many e d u c a t o r s s t i l l tend t o te a c h t h e same way they themselves were t a u g h t . I t 1s re a s o n a b l y s a f e t o assume t h a t most t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were " r a i s e d " on grades them­ s e l v e s as s t u d e n t s . They a r e a t l e a s t f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e i r use whereas t h e y a r e n o t , as e x p re ss ed by a d m i n i s t r a t o r re spo n ses t o th e f i n a l Item on t h e Middle School I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , now p r a c t i c i n g any o t h e r form o f r e p o r t i n g . I t is conceivable, in the 153 r e s e a r c h e r ' s view, t h a t t h e r e might have been some d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e f i n d i n g s i f more e d u c a to r s in t h e sample had e x p erien c ed using some o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e r e p o r t i n g methods. Another v a r i a b l e which d id not o f f e r the d i v e r s i t y in back­ ground hoped f o r by the r e s e a r c h e r was t h e und erg radu ate t e a c h e r training. Almost a l l res p o nd en ts 1n t h e sample i n d i c a t e d t r a i n i n g 1n e i t h e r e le m e n tary o r high school l e v e l s e x c l u s i v e l y , o r they checked combinations o f e le m e n ta r y , middle s c h o o l , j u n i o r high s c h o o l , o r high s c h o o l. Not one responden t i n d i c a t e d t r a i n i n g e x c l u s i v e l y a t th e mid­ d l e school l e v e l . Even though th ey a r e employed In middle s c h o o l s , most o f the e d u c a to r s a t t h i s l e v e l r e c e i v e d t h e i r I n d o c t r i n a t i o n and i n - s e r v i c e 1n the middle school concepts w h ile on th e j o b . A middle school advocate would q u i t e n a t u r a l l y assume, a t l e a s t 1n t h e a re a o f e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g , t h a t t h e I n d o c t r i n a t i o n and i n - s e r v i c e pro­ grams have n o t been s u c c e s s f u l . The o v e r - a l l f i n d i n g s lead t o t h e co n clu sio n t h a t both t e a c h ­ e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a r e c o m f o r ta b le w i t h g r a d e s . However, both groups might be r e c e p t i v e to some i n n o v a t i v e p i l o t programs Involvin g more e x t e n s i v e use o f p a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s a t th e middle school l e v e l , n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t s , and perhaps check l i s t s . Blanket g r a d e s , p a s s - f a i l , c r e d i t - n o c r e d i t , and s e l f - e v a l u a t l o n methods would most l i k e l y be met with c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s i s t a n c e . Implications I t i s the r e s e a r c h e r ' s candid o p i n io n t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e c u r r e n t stud y on middle school t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r a t t i t u d e s 154 toward A B C D F as compared t o seven s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e r e p o r t i n g methods w i l l be s u r p r i s i n g t o no one. This was no t th e b e l i e f a t the o n s e t o f t h e s t u d y , bu t as th e r e s e a r c h e r became more and more engro ssed 1n c o l l e c t i n g d a ta and d i s c u s s i n g t h e p r o j e c t with c o l ­ l e a g u e s , I t became q u i t e a p p a r e n t t h a t f e e l i n g s and a t t i t u d e s a r e deeply e n t r e n c h e d , n o t only 1n t h e s p e c i f i c a r e a o f e v a l u a t i o n , bu t In m a t t e r s o f e d u c a ti o n in g e n e r a l . The f i n d i n g t h a t was most s u r p r i s i n g t o the r e s e a r c h e r , and most d i s a p p o i n t i n g , was t h e r e s u l t i n g comparison o f a t t i t u d e s between h 1 g h - s t a t u s middle school s t a f f members and l o w - s t a t u s middle school s t a f f members. Educators 1n h1gh-1mplementat1on middle scho o ls favored A B C D F as much as e d u c a to r s from low middle s c h o o l s . was n o t e x pec te d . This I t p o i n t s ou t t h a t t h e middle school p hilo sophy 1s n o t h e ld I n t a c t by th e p r a c t i t i o n e r s . While most o f th e 18 middle school co nce p ts a r e r e a d i l y acc ep ted by most e d u c a to r s a t a l l l e v e l s , grade r e p o r t i n g remains t o be a very emotional I s s u e . Unless t h e s e a t t i t u d e s can be changed and more e f f e c t i v e , n o n t h r e a t e n i n g , and open e v a l u a t i o n methods can be Implemented, t h e middle school d i a l o g u e may be "much ado about n o t h i n g . " This 1s a c h a l l e n g e t o middle school a d v o c a t e s , and t h i s r e s e a r c h e r 1s c o n f i d e n t t h a t t h e c h a l l e n g e w i l l e v e n t u a l l y be met. Change simply f o r t h e sake o f change would be mere f o l l y , but on t h e o t h e r hand, Improvement o f any kind r e q u i r e s change. I t seems t h a t e d u c a t o r s , p a r e n t s , s t u d e n t s , em p loy ers, and h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n have been w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t change 1n a r e a s o f updated c u r r i c u l a . 155 modern school p l a n t s w i t h open c la s s ro o m s , many I n n o v a t i v e cla ss ro om t e a c h i n g t e c h n i q u e s , and even , t o a l e s s e r d e g r e e , bu sing and I n t e ­ g r a t i o n , b u t they a r e s t i l l u n w i l li n g to a c c e p t change In c e r t a i n a r e a s such as e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g . The I m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e f i n d ­ ings a r e t h a t e d u c a t o r s w i l l c o ntinu e t o l a b e l s t u d e n t s 1n a q u a l i ­ t a t i v e manner, s t u d e n t s w i l l c o n ti n u e to pass from one l e v e l t o th e n e x t w i t h poor g r a d e s , and t h e f u t u r e w i l l c o n ti n u e t o hold a s o c i e t y o f ranked and o r d e r e d c i t i z e n r y o f I n e s c a p a b l e I n e q u a l i t y . The r e s e a r c h e r does n o t b e l i e v e such a c o n d i t i o n needs t o be I n e v i t a b l e 1n e d u c a ti o n o r s o c i e t y , a t l e a s t as f a r as e q u a l i t y o f I n d i v id u a l o p p o r t u n i t y f o r m astery 1s concerned. I t should n o t be a c c e p t a b l e f o r an e d u c a t i o n a l system t o produce C and D s t u d e n t s who have l e a r n e d a l i t t l e o r p a r t o f th e s k i l l s o f f e r e d over a p e r i o d o f y e a r s 1n sc h o o l. With t h e p r e s e n t g r a d i n g system t h e r e 1s no way t o know which o f t h e s k i l l s were mas tered and which s k i l l s have been m is sed. Some o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e r e p o r t i n g methods would speak t o t h e s e problems by o f f e r i n g more s p e c i f i c In f o r m a tio n about s k i l l s m aste red . Narra­ t i v e s and check 11 st r e p o r t i n g , f o r example, have t h e c a p a b i l i t y o f o u t l i n i n g very c l e a r l y t h e l e v e l o f m aste ry 1n a given s u b j e c t . Even c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t and p a s s - f a l l , w h i l e they do n o t o u t l i n e s p e c i f i c s k i l l s , a t l e a s t can be I n t e r p r e t e d as I n d i c a t i n g a dequate m aste ry o r a f a i l u r e t o absorb s u f f i c i e n t s k i l l s t o be a b l e t o u t i l i z e t h e t r a i n ­ ing 1n t h e world o f work. To gi ve examples o f t h e Inadequacy o f grades 1n the a r e a o f l i f e - r o l e com p e te n cie s, no one would a llo w a "D" mechanic t o r e p l a c e 156 t h e brakes on t h e i r a u to m o bile , no one would allow a "C" o r "D" d e n t i s t to r e p a i r t h e i r t e e t h . In t h e s e and many o t h e r l i f e - r o l e s i t u a t i o n s mas tery has been r e q u i r e d b e f o r e t h e p r a c t i t i o n e r was allowed t o p r a c t i c e h i s / h e r t r a d e . These a r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s in e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g t h a t r e q u i r e more In n o v atio n 1n e d u c a tio n In g en eral and middle school l e v e l s In p a r t i c u l a r . The e v a l u a t i o n p ro cess must be open, h o n e s t , c l e a r , n o n t h r e a t e n i n g , and p rov ide s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n f o r improvement. S p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n f o r improve­ ment, 1n p a r t i c u l a r , 1s not p ro vided by A B C D F. Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Study Now t h a t r e s e a r c h has been conducted on th e a t t i t u d e s o f e l e mentary and middle school t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward grades as compared with s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e r e p o r t i n g methods, 1 t would be a p p r o p r i a t e t o expand on t h e s e works f o r f u r t h e r u n d e rs ta n d in g which might le a d t o development o f more Improved e v a l u a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s . R e se arch e rs might c o n s i d e r t h e f o l lo w in g q u e s t i o n s : How a c c u r a t e l y does t h e l e t t e r grade a s s e s s a c t u a l a c h i e v e ­ ment in a given c o u rs e o r u n i t o f study? Would a time s tu d y r e f l e c t a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e 1n t e a c h e r - a d m l n i s t r a t o r work time between u s i n g grades as compared w ith a l t e r n a t i v e methods? What e f f e c t do A B C D F g r a d e s have on t h e s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n o f students? What a r e t h e a t t i t u d e s o f p a r e n t s toward A B C D F as com­ p a re d w ith s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e forms o f pu p il p r o g r e s s reporting? What a r e t h e a t t i t u d e s o f employers toward A B C D F as com­ pared w ith s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e forms o f p up il p r o g r e s s reporting? 157 What r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between grades earn ed and Michigan S t a t e Educational Assessment T e s t r e s u l t s ? There a r e c e r t a i n l y many more a r e a s o f I n q u i r y t h a t might be c o n sid ere d 1n c o n t i n u i n g th e s tu d y o f a l t e r n a t i v e r e p o r t i n g methods. I t seems t h a t g r a d e s , w h i l e th e y have only been used f o r l e s s than 100 y e a r s , have become so we ll e n tr e n c h e d 1n our e d u c a ti o n a l system t h a t we seem t o have f o r g o t t e n t h a t o t h e r methods were once used. And, c e r t a i n l y o t h e r e d u c a tio n systems thro ug h ou t t h e world a r e f i n d i n g o t h e r methods s a t i s f a c t o r y . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h may. Indeed, show t h a t gra des a r e t h e most e f f e c t i v e r e p o r t i n g method and " h a v e n ' t been b e t t e r e d , " but I t only seems l o g i c a l t h a t t h i s view w i l l remain foremost w i t h o u t hope f o r change w i th o u t more widespread p i l o t t r i a l s o f a l t e r n a t i v e methods. Reflections Throughout th e p r o c e s s o f con d uctin g t h i s s t u d y , th e r e s e a r c h e r found h i m s e l f watching t h e r e t u r n i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s c a r e f u l l y and hop­ ing the a t t i t u d e s o f middle school t e a c h e r s would r e f l e c t c e r t a i n f e e l i n g s t h a t would be 1n harmony w ith e s t a b l i s h e d middle school p hilo sop h y. I t was hoped t h a t p a r e n t c o n fe ren c e r e p o r t i n g , n a r r a ­ t i v e s , check l i s t s , and some s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n would emerge as most p r e ­ f e r r e d , and t h a t A B C D F would be ranked much lower i n o v e r - a l l standings. While t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s c h o ic e s r e s u l t i n a somewhat d i f ­ f e r e n t ranking than t h o s e given by r e s p o n d e n ts 1n t h i s s t u d y , t h e r e 1s some c o n s o l a t i o n 1n t h a t most o f h i s c h o ic e s were ranked 1n th e top f o u r o r f i v e by most o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s 1n t h i s s t u d y . I t seems t h a t more c o n s i d e r a t i o n must be given t o " r e a l world" needs 1n d e te r m in in g e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g methods. This r e s e a r c h e r I s n o t aware o f a s i n g l e b u s i n e s s o r p l a c e o f employment t h a t u t i l i z e s A B C D F i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e work o f I t s employees. Labor unions and p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s would n e v er agre e t o such a system. As p r i n c i p a l o f a secondary s c h o o l , t h i s r e s e a r c h e r 1s faced w i t h t h e f r e q u e n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f e v a l u a t i n g t e a c h e r s and p r o v i d in g a w r i t t e n r e c o r d o f t h e s e e v a l u a t i o n s which become a p a r t o f the i n d i v i d u a l ' s personnel r e c o r d . While t h e p ro cedure 1s f a r from p e r f e c t , 1 t In vo lv es p r e - e v a l u a t i o n c o n f e r e n c e s , agreement on g oa ls and o b j e c t i v e s , c la ssro om o b s e r v a t i o n s , u t i l i z a t i o n o f a check l i s t , a n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t , a p o s t - e v a l u a t i o n c o n f e r e n c e , and th e s i g ­ n a t u r e s o f both t h e t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r . T h is same procedure 1s follo w ed 1n e v a l u a t i n g the work o f s e c r e t a r i e s , c u s t o d i a n s , p a ra p r o f e s s i o n a l s , and l i t e r a l l y a l l employees 1n t h e s c h o o l . Suppose t h i s p rocedure were a r b i t r a r i l y changed t o a sim ple l e t t e r grade t o d e s c r i b e t h e employee's performance. The r e s e a r c h e r p r e d i c t s a w i l d c a t s t r i k e would pro bab ly t a k e p l a c e . Why, t h e n , a r e g rade s c o n s i d e re d so Im porta nt 1n e v a l u a t i n g s t u d e n t achievement? How can th e y perform a f u n c t i o n f o r c h i l d r e n and d e s c r i b e perfor m ance, and be used by school o f f i c i a l s and f u t u r e employers f o r many y e a r s , 1 f they cannot accomplish t h e same t h i n g fo r adults? This r e s e a r c h e r b e l i e v e s p a r t o f t h e problem 1s t h a t e d u c a t o r s must r e a l i z e t h e manner 1n which grades l a b e l s t u d e n t s w ith a stamp o f q u a l 1 t y - - n o t so much from t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f q u a l i t y 1n 159 r e l a t i o n t o work a c h i e v e d , b u t more from t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f q u a l i t y o f the In d iv id u a l. An "A o r B person" 1s seen as more d e s i r a b l e than a "C o r D p e r s o n . " The grade t a k e s on a very person al meaning t o th e r e c i p i e n t and t o o t h e r s who I n t e r p r e t those g r a d e s . Oeep down, t e a c h e r s r e a l i z e t h i s and would not s u b j e c t themselves t o th e same system o f l a b e l i n g . No t e a c h e r s would v o l u n t a r i l y a c c e p t a system t h a t might l a b e l them as a C o r D t e a c h e r , n o r would any o t h e r employee group a c c e p t such a p la n . Another f a c t o r which a f f e c t s th e t e a c h e r and a d m i n i s t r a t o r p r e f e r e n c e f o r grades as th e w r i t t e n record o f achievement 1s the b e l i e f t h a t the system r e q u i r e s the l e a s t amount o f time on the p a r t of the educator. This may o r may n o t be t r u e , and as s t a t e d e a r l i e r In t h i s c h a p t e r , more p i l o t p r o j e c t s u t i l i z i n g o t h e r r e c o r d i n g methods may prove t h i s view t o be f a l s e . The middle school co ncept speaks very well t o t h e I s s u e s r a i s e d here and o f f e r s v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o grades as th e primary r e p o r t i n g method. However, t h e very t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s employed 1n o ur middle s c h o o l s a re n o t In c o n c e r t w ith t h e s e views. I t seems a p p r o p r i a t e , t h e n , t h a t t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g I n s t i t u t i o n s might ta k e t h e l e a d 1n p r e p a r i n g f u t u r e middle school t e a c h e r s and adminis­ t r a t o r s t o b e t t e r u n d e rs ta n d the advantages and d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e v a r i o u s r e p o r t i n g methods. So f a r , th e " d i s c i p l e s " o f t h e middle school concept t h a t have been s e n t o u t from o u r c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r ­ s i t i e s a r e de ep ly e n tr e n c h e d with t r a d i t i o n a l t h o ug h t on e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g methods. 160 Second, i t appears t h a t middle school p r i n c i p a l s , as we ll as c e n t r a l o f f i c e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , must assume a g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 1n pro v id in g l e a d e r s h i p and I n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g f o r t e a c h i n g s t a f f s . I f such t r a i n i n g can be accompanied by Implementation o f school p o l i c i e s and p r a c t i c e s c o n s i s t e n t with middle school c o n c e p t s , 1t may be p o s s i b l e t o p o s i t i v e l y a f f e c t th e a t t i t u d e s o f t e a c h e r s toward middle school c o n c e p t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y 1n r eg a rd t o e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g methods. T h i r d , w h ile a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t e a c h e r a s s o c i a t i o n s would n o t a g r e e , t h e S t a t e Board o f Education might well look f u r t h e r I n to t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f adding a middle school c e r t i f i c a t i o n c a t e g o r y which might be more e f f e c t i v e than t h e p r e s e n t middle school e n d o rs e ­ ment program. The r e s e a r c h e r has long b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e p r e s e n t o v e rla p p in g system o f p e r m i t t i n g both ele m e n tary and high school t e a c h e r s t h e l i c e n s e t o tea ch a l l se venth and e i g h t h grade s u b j e c t s was 111 a d v is e d . The thought t h a t grades a r e demanded by s t u d e n t s , p a r e n t s , h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , and employers has n o t been e x p lo r e d deeply enough. I f t h i s s i t u a t i o n 1s a c t u a l , 1 t 1s t h e jo b o f middle school advocates t o provide t h e e d u c a ti o n and I n - s e r v i c e t o t h e above groups t o e n l i g h t e n them t o o t h e r methods more In tu ned t o t h e r e a l w orl d. APPENDICES APPENDIX A MIDDLE SCHOOL IDENTIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE 162 APPENDIX A MIDDLE SCHOOL IDENTIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE I. I n s t r u c t i o n s : Using t h e boxes below, p l e a s e r a t e t h e items as t o t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n i d e n t i f y i n g a middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . The " b e s t " o r most e f f e c t i v e Item should be r a t e d with th e numeral ( 1 ) , and th e second b e s t should be r a t e d ( 2 ) . j— j Continuous p r o g r e s s programs a r e : n o t used a t t h i s tim e. used only w ith s p e c i a l groups. used only f o r t h e f i r s t two y e a r s . used only by some s t u d e n t s f o r a l l t h e i r y e a r s a t t h i s sch o o l. used by a l l t h e s t u d e n t s f o r t h e i r e n t i r e program. □ Continuous p r o g r e s s programs a r e planned f o r a s t u d e n t o ve r a span o f : one c a l e n d a r y e a r . two c a l e n d a r y e a r s . th ree calendar ye ars. more than t h r e e c a l e n d a r y e a r s . 163 164 II. I n s t r u c t i o n s : Again, using the boxes below, p l e a s e r a t e the Items as t o t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s 1n I d e n t i f y i n g a middle school c h a r a c t e r ­ i s t i c . The b e s t o r most e f f e c t i v e Item should be r a t e d with th e numeral ( 1 ) , second b e s t with ( 2 ) , and so on, r a t i n g a l l s i x Items. j— | The m u lt i - t e x t b o o k approach t o l e a r n i n g 1s c u r r e n t l y : used In a l l o r n e a r l y a l l c o u rs e s . used 1n most c ou rs es . used In a few c o u r s e s . n o t used 1n any c o u r s e s . |— j The m a t e r i a l s c e n t e r has a paid s t a f f o f : more than one c e r t i f i e d l i b r a r i a n . one c e r t i f i e d l i b r a r i a n . a part-tim e lib r a r ia n . no c e r t i f i e d l i b r a r i a n . □ The I n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s c e n t e r 1n th e b u i l d i n g houses: more than 5000 books. between 4000 and 5000 between 3000 and 4000 between 2000 and 3000 between 1000 and 2000 l e s s than 1000 books. books. books. books. books. □ For classroom I n s t r u c t i o n , a u d i o - v i s u a l m a t e r i a l s o t h e r than motion p i c t u r e s a re used: □ Which o f the fo llo w in g types o f m a t e r i a l s a r e housed 1n you r In stru ctio n al m aterials center? very f r e q u e n t l y by most o f t h e s t a f f . very f r e q u e n t l y by a few o f t h e s t a f f and o c c a s i o n a l l y by the o t h e r s . o c c a s i o n a l l y by a l l o f the s t a f f . very r a r e l y by most o f the s t a f f . very r a r e l y by any s t a f f member. Note: film strips. co llections (coins, Insects, a r t , e t c . ) . motion p i c t u r e s (I n c l u d e t h i s 1 f you a r e a member o f a central se rv ic e ). micro f i l m s . overhead t r a n s p a r e n c i e s . phonograph r e c o r d s . d i t t o a n d / o r mlmeo machines. photo o r thermal copy machines. maps, g l o b e s , and c h a r t s . d i s p l a y c a se s o r a r e a s . S e c ti o n I I i s c o ntin ued on t h e f ollow ing page. 165 □ Which o f t h e f o l lo w in g t y p e s o f m a t e r i a l s a r e housed 1n y o u r in s tr u c tio n a l m ateria ls center? g eneral l i b r a r y books. c u r r e n t newspapers. below grade l e v e l r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l s . c u r r e n t magazines. f i l e s o f p a s t I s s u e s o f newspapers. above grade l e v e l r e a d in g m a t e r i a l s . c ard c a t a l o g u e o f m a t e r i a l s housed. student publications. f i l e s o f p a s t I s s u e s o f magazines. 166 III. □ I n s t r u c t i o n s : Again, r a t e t h e fo llo w in g Items as t o t h e i r e f f e c t l v e n e s s In i d e n t i f y i n g middle school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s u s i n g the same pro cedures followed on t h e f i r s t two s e c t i o n s (pages) o f th is questionnaire. The b a s i c time block used t o b u i l d t h e schedu le 1s: a t e n t o twenty minute module. a t h i r t y minute module. a f o r t y minute module. a s i x t y minute module. a combination o f time so d i v e r s i f i e d t h a t no b a s i c module 1s d e f i n e d . Which o f t h e below b e s t d e s c r i b e s y o u r s c h ed u le a t p r e s e n t ? trad itio n al. t r a d i t i o n a l , modified by " b l o c k - t i m e , " " r e v o l v i n g p e r i o d , " o r o t h e r such r e g u l a r l y o c c u r r i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n s . f l e x i b l e t o the d e g r e e , t h a t a l l p e r i o d s a re scheduled but a r e no t I d e n t i c a l In l e n g t h . f l e x i b l e t o the degree t h a t changes o ccur w i t h i n d e fi n e d general time l i m i t s . f l e x i b l e t o the degree t h a t s t u d e n t s and t e a c h e r s c o n t r o l t h e d a l l y time usage and changes occur r e g u l a r l y . _____ other □ The m a s te r c l a s s time s c h ed u le can be changed by t e a c h e r s when need a r i s e s by: p lann in g with o t h e r t e a c h e r s on a d a l l y b a s i s . planning with o t h e r t e a c h e r s on a weekly b a s i s . seeking a d m i n i s t r a t i v e approval f o r a s p e c i f i c change. r e q u e s t i n g a change f o r next se m e s te r . r e q u e s t i n g a change f o r n e xt y e a r . other 167 IV. Instructions: sections. P le a s e fo llo w t h e same procedu re as w i t h p r e v io u s j— j Spo ns or ship f o r c lu b a c t i v i t i e s 1s handled by s t a f f members who: a r e a s s i g n e d s p o n s o r sh ip s w i t h o u t a d d i t i o n a l pay. a r e paid t o assume clu b sp o n s o r s h i p s t h a t a r e a s s i g n e d . v o l u n t e e r t o assume clu b s p o n s o r s h i p s w i t h o u t pay. a r e paid f o r s p o n s o r sh ip s t h a t they v o l u n t e e r t o assume. s t a f f members do n o t work w ith clu b a c t i v i t i e s . □ At p r e s e n t , app ro x im ate ly what p e r c e n t o f y o u r s t u d e n t body r e g u l a r l y p a r t i c i p a t e s 1n a t l e a s t one c lub a c t i v i t y ? □ School s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s a r e he ld a t t h i s sc h o o l: none as we have no clu b program. 25 p e r c e n t o r l e s s . 25 t o 50 p e r c e n t . 50 t o 75 p e r c e n t . 75 t o 100 p e r c e n t . During th e Afternoon During th e Evening Grade s i x Grade seven Grade e i g h t j— | School dances a r e held f o r : grade s i x . grade seven. grade e i g h t . j— ] A clu b program f o r s t u d e n t s 1s o f f e r e d f o r : grade s i x . g rade seven. grade e i g h t . 168 V. P l e a s e fo llo w the same i n s t r u c t i o n s . | The p h y sic a l e d u c a ti o n program 1s: h i g h ly I n d i v i d u a l i z e d . mod era te ly I n d i v i d u a l i z e d . s lig h tly individualized. not I n d i v i d u a l i z e d a t a l l . □ The p h y s i c a l e d u c a tio n program s e r v e s : All Stu d e n ts Some Students No Stude nts Grade s i x Grade seven Grade e i g h t □ What degree o f emphasis does t h e p h y s i c a l e d u c a ti o n program give t o th e c o m p e ti t iv e and developmental a s p e c t s o f t h e program f o r boys and g i r l s ? P l e a s e check t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s p a c e s . Boys C om petitive Aspects Developmental Aspects G irls ___ High ___ High ___ Medium ___ Medium ___ Low ___ Low ___ High ___ Medium ___ High ___ Medium ___ Low ___ Low 169 VI. P l e a s e f o l l o w t h e same I n s t r u c t i o n s . j— I I n t e r - s c h o l a s t i c c o m p e titio n 1s c u r r e n t l y : no t o f f e r e d a t t h i s s c h o o l . o f f e r e d In one s p o r t only. o f f e r e d In two s p o r t s . o f f e r e d 1n s e v e r a l s p o r t s . □ In tram ura l a c t i v i t i e s o f t e n use th e same f a c i l i t i e s as I n t e r ­ s c h o l a s t i c a c t i v i t i e s . When t h i s cause s a time c o n f l i c t , how do you s c h ed ule o r r e s o l v e t h e c o n f l i c t ? t h i s does n o t happen because we have no I n t r a m u r a l s . t h i s does not happen because we have no I n t e r - s c h o l a s t i c program. I n t r a m u r a l s tak e f i r s t p r i o r i t y and o t h e r s schedule around t h e i r n e eds. I n t e r - s c h o l a s t i c a c t i v i t i e s ta k e f i r s t p r i o r i t y and o t h e r s must s c h ed u le around t h e i r needs. ________ _______ _______ _________________ other In tram ura l a c t i v i t i e s a r e sched uled f o r : All S tud en ts Grade s i x Grade seven Grade e i g h t □ The i n tr a m u r a l program i n c l u d e s : team games. Individual s p o r ts . v a r i o u s c lu b a c t i v i t i e s . other Boys Only G irls Only No Students 170 V II . P l e a s e f o llo w t h e same I n s t r u c t i o n s . |— | Team t e a c h i n g programs o p e r a t e f o r : a ll students. nearly a ll students. about h a l f o f the s t u d e n t s . only a few o f t h e s t u d e n t s . none o f t h e s t u d e n t s . □ What p e r c e n t a g e o f you r t e a c h i n g s t a f f 1s Involved 1n team te a c h i n g programs? □ A s t u d e n t 1n g rades seven o r e i g h t av erag e s about how many minutes p e r day 1n a team t a u g h t s i t u a t i o n ? □ A s t u d e n t 1n grade s i x averag e s about how many minutes p e r day In a team t a u g h t s i t u a t i o n ? o v e r 90 p e r c e n t . between 60 and 90 p e r c e n t . between 30 and 60 p e r c e n t . l e s s than 30 p e r c e n t . none. 180 minutes o r more. 130 t o 180 min utes. 90 t o 130 m in utes. 40 t o 90 m in ute s. l e s s than 40 m in utes. 180 minutes o r more. between 130 and 180 m in u te s. between 90 and 130 m in u te s. between 40 and 90 m in u te s. l e s s than 40 m in u te s. 171 VIII. P l e a s e f o l lo w the same I n s t r u c t i o n s . I— | Which o f t h e f o l lo w in g b e s t d e s c r i b e s y o u r school program as I I 1 t e v olv e s from e n r o l l m e n t t o completion o f t h e l a s t grade ( I . e . , grades s i x through e i g h t ) ? c om pletely s e l f - c o n t a i n e d program f o r t h e e n t i r e grade span. c om p lete ly d e p a r t m e n t a l i z e d f o r t h e e n t i r e grade span. modified d e p a r t m e n t a l i z e d program ( b l o c k - t i m e , c o re program, e t c . ) . program moves from l a r g e l y s e l f - c o n t a i n e d t o d e p a r t ­ mentalized. program moves from l a r g e l y s e l f - c o n t a i n e d t o p a r t i a l l y departmentalized. other 172 IX. P le as e fo llo w the same i n s t r u c t i o n s , j— | I n s t r u c t i o n i n music i s r e q u i r e d : for for for not □ one y e a r . two y e a r s . three years. a t a l 1. Instru ctio n in a r t is required fo r a ll students for: one y e a r . two y e a r s . three y ears. not a t a l l . □ The amount o f s t u d e n t sch ed ule time s e t a s i d e f o r e l e c t i v e c o u rs es s t u d e n t s may s e l e c t : □ S tud en ts a re allowed to e l e c t c o u rs e s o f I n t e r e s t from a range o f e l e c t i v e o f f e r i n g s : □ d e c r e a s e s w ith each s u c c e s s i v e grade. i s th e same f o r a l l g r a d e s . I n c r e a s e s with each s u c c e s s i v e g rade. v a r i e s by grade l e v e l but n o t 1n any s y s t e m a t i c manner. does no t e x i s t a t any grade l e v e l . in grade in grade in grade not a t a six. seven. eight. ll. E l e c t i v e s c u r r e n t l y o f f e r e d in t h i s b u i l d i n g a r e (check th o se you o f f e r from t h i s l i s t and add any n o t l i s t e d ) : art band vocal music drawing drama journalism f o r e i g n language fam ily l i v i n g unified a r t s orchestra wood shop speech ty p in g natural resources creative w riting o t h e r _____________ o t h e r _____________ other P le a s e fo llow t h e same i n s t r u c t i o n s . Guidance s e r v i c e s a r e a v a i l a b l e upon r e q u e s t f o r : a l l s t u d e n t s e very day. a l l s t u d e n t s n e a r l y e very day. most o f t h e s t u d e n t s on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . a l i m i t e d number o f s t u d e n t s on a l i m i t e d b a s i s . other ______ Guidance s t a f f members: always work c l o s e l y w ith th e t e a c h e r s con ce rn ing a s t u d e n t . o f t e n work c l o s e l y with t h e t e a c h e r s concern ing a s t u d e n t . seldom Involve t h e t e a c h e r s 1n t h e i r work w ith t h e s t u d e n t s . always work Indep en d en tly o f t h e t e a c h e r s . Guidance c o u n s e l o r s a r e : n o t exp ec te d t o h e lp t e a c h e r s b u i l d t h e i r guidance s k i l l s . ex p ec te d t o h e lp t e a c h e r s b u i l d t h e i r guidance s k i l l s . e x p e c te d t o h e lp t e a c h e r s b u i l d t h e i r guidance s k i l l s and t h e y a r e r e g u l a r l y encouraged t o work In t h i s a r e a s . other ____ ______ How do y o u r guidance c o u n s e l o r s handle group guidance s e s s i o n s : Regular Se ssio ns Several Times Per Year Grade s i x Grade seven Grade e i g h t S p e c ia l S essio n s Only None 174 XI. P le a s e fo llo w th e same I n s t r u c t i o n s . I— | Independent s tu d y o p p o r t u n i t i e s a r e provided f o r : All Students Some Stude nts No Students Re gular Clas s Time Time Scheduled f o r Independent Study □ How much time would you e s t i m a t e the averag e s t u d e n t spends 1n Independent s t u d y f o r each grade l i s t e d below? minutes minutes minutes none a t □ per per per all. day 1n grade s i x . day 1n grade seven. day 1n grade e i g h t . S tud e nts working 1n Independent s tu d y s i t u a t i o n s work on topics t h a t are: we have no Independent s t u d y programs. a s s i g n e d t o them by the t e a c h e r . o f p erso nal I n t e r e s t and approved by t h e t e a c h e r . o f p e rs o nal I n t e r e s t and u n r e l a t e d to cla ssro om work. other 175 XII. P le a s e follo w t h e same I n s t r u c t i o n s . □ The amount o f time p rov ided 1n th e class room f o r I n s t r u c t i o n 1n th e b a s i c l e a r n i n g s k i l l s : □ C l i n i c s o r s p e c i a l c l a s s e s t o t r e a t t h e problems o f s t u d e n t s with poor b a s i c l e a r n i n g s k i l l s a r e : □ D a ily I n s t r u c t i o n 1n a developmental r e a d i n g program 1s pro vided f o r : I n c r e a s e s w i t h each s u c c e s s i v e g r a d e . remains c o n s t a n t w ith each s u c c e s s i v e grade. d e c r e a s e s w ith each s u c c e s s i v e g r a d e . v a r i e s g r e a t l y due t o t h e I n d i v i d u a l i z e d program t e a c h e r s operate. n o t a v a i l a b l e a t t h i s tim e. a v a i l a b l e t o a l l s t u d e n t s needing such h e l p . a v a i l a b l e o n ly t o the most c r i t i c a l l y handicapped l e a r n e r s . _______________________________________ o t h e r _____________ All Stu d e n ts Poor Readers Only Not a t All Grade s i x Grade seven Grade e i g h t □ S t u d e n ts with poor b a s i c s k i l l s can g e t s p e c i a l h e lp 1n t h e fo llo w in g a r e a s . (Check only t h o s e a r e a s where s p e c i a l h e lp on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s 1s pro vid ed by s p e c i a l s t a f f members t r a i n e d t o t r e a t such s i t u a t i o n s ) reading. spelling. physical education. mathematics. grammar. o t h e r _________________ other 176 XIII. P l e a s e fo llo w the same I n s t r u c t i o n s . |— 1 Concerning school d r a m a ti c a l a c t i v i t i e s , most s t u d e n t s : do n o t g e t e x p e r i e n c e s 1n c r e a t i v e d r am a tic s w hile e n r o l l e d In t h i s b u i l d i n g . g e t a t l e a s t one o r two o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o use t h e i r a c t i n g s k i l l s w hile e n r o l l e d in t h e b u i l d i n g . □ Concerning a s t u d e n t newspaper, o ur school ha s: □ Dramatic p r o d u c t i o n s a t t h i s school a r e produced from: □ This school has o r a t o r i c a l a c t i v i t i e s such as d e b a t e , p u b l i c address, e tc ; : no o f f i c i a l s t u d e n t school p a per. an o f f i c i a l s t u d e n t school p a p e r t h a t p u b l i s h e s no more th an f o u r I s s u e s p e r y e a r . an o f f i c i a l school p a per t h a t p u b l i s h e s f i v e o r more Issues per y ear. o t h e r _________________________________________________ purchase d s c r i p t s o n ly . m a t e r i a l s w r i t t e n by s t u d e n t s o nly. m a t e r i a l s w r i t t e n by s t u d e n t s and pur chase d s c r i p t s . o t h e r ___________ ___ ______ as p a r t o f I t s planned program o f i n s t r u c t i o n . as p a r t o f I t s e n ri ch m en t program. n o t I n clu de d 1n school a c t i v i t i e s . o t h e r ____________ ______ ____________________ □ □ T a l e n t shows a r e : n o t a p a r t o f o u r program. produced by s t u d e n t s a t each grade l e v e l . produced once a y e a r on an a l l - s c h o o l b a s i s . produced a t each grade l e v e l w ith some o f t h e a c t s e n t e r i n g an a l l - s c h o o l show, other Dramatic p r e s e n t a t i o n s by s t u d e n t s a r e : n o t a p a r t o f t h e school program. a p a r t o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s program. a p a r t o f c e r t a i n c l a s s a c t i v i t i e s planned by t e a c h e r s . other 177 XIV. □ P le a s e follo w the same I n s t r u c t i o n s . In t h e o p e r a t i o n a l design o f t h i s school t h e r o l e o f the t e a c h e r as a gu idance person 1s: given a very s t r o n g emphasis. encouraged. mentioned t o t h e s t a f f but n o t emphasized. l e f t s t r i c t l y t o t h e I n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r ' s pe rs o nal m otivation. n o t Im porta nt 1n our guidance o p e r a t i o n a l plan and t h e r e f o r e n o t encouraged a t a l l . other As a general p o l i c y , 1n t h e t e a c h e r - p u p l l r e l a t i o n s h i p : no formal p r o v i s i o n s a r e made f o r t h e t e a c h e r t o prov ide s p e c i f i e d guidance s e r v i c e s . t e a c h e r s a re e xpecte d t o p ro v id e guidance s e r v i c e s f o r a ll of th e ir pupils. t e a c h e r s a re e xpecte d t o p rov id e guidance s e r v i c e s t o only a l i m i t e d number o f p u p i l s , other 178 XV. P l e a s e f o l lo w t h e same I n s t r u c t i o n s . A s t u d e n t ' s academic p r o g r e s s 1s fo r m a lly r e p o r t e d t o p a r e n t s two times p e r y e a r , f o u r times p e r y e a r , s i x times p e r y e a r , o t h e r _______________ □ P a r e n t - t e a c h e r o r p a r e n t - t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t c o n fe r e n c e s a r e h e ld on a school-wide b a s i s : not a t a l l . once p e r y e a r . twice p e r y e a r . t h r e e times p e r y e a r . f o u r times p e r y e a r . f i v e o r more times p e r y e a r . Formal e v a l u a t i o n o f s t u d e n t work 1s r e p o r t e d by use o f : a s t a n d a r d r e p o r t c ard w i t h l e t t e r g r a d e s . t e a c h e r comments w r i t t e n on a r e p o r t i n g form. pa re n t-te ac h er conferences. s t a n d a r d r e p o r t c ard w ith number g r a d e s . parent-teacher-student conferences. other 179 XVI. P le a s e f o llo w th e same I n s t r u c t i o n s . Community s e r v i c e p r o j e c t s by t h e s t u d e n t s a r e : not a p a r t o f o ur program. c a r r i e d o u t o c c a s i o n a l l y f o r a s p e c i a l purpose. an Important p a r t o f the planned e x p e r i e n c e s f o r a l l s t u d e n t s w hile e n r o l l e d In t h i s b u i l d i n g . This school c u r r e n t l y has: no p a r e n t s ' a parents' a parents' a parents' organization. o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t 1s r e l a t i v e l y i n a c t i v e . o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t 1s a c t i v e . o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t 1s very a c t i v e . In r e g a r d t o community r e l a t i o n s t h i s school c u r r e n t l y : does n o t send o u t a p a r e n t s ' n e w s l e t t e r . sends o u t a p a r e n t s ' n e w s l e t t e r whenneed a r i s e s . sends o u t a p a r e n t s ' n e w s l e t t e r on ascheduled b a s i s . uses a d i s t r i c t - w i d e n e w sletter to send o u t in f o r m a ti o n r e la te d to t h i s school. uses t h e commercial newspaper. o t h e r __________________________________________________ □ The s t a f f p r e s e n t s In f o r m a t io n a l programs r e l a t e d t o t h e sch o o l's functions: when r e q u e s t e d by the p a r e n t s . once o r tw ice a y e a r a t r e g u l a r p a r e n t s ' m ee tin g s. a t open house programs. a t r e g u l a r l y sched uled "sem in ar ty pe" meetings planned for in te re s te d parents, other 180 XVII. □ P l e a s e follo w th e same I n s t r u c t i o n s . From t h e s p e c i a l i z e d a r e a s l i s t e d below, check each s e r v i c e which 1s a v a i l a b l e t o s t u d e n t s 1n you r b u i l d i n g . (Note t h a t a s e r v i c e need n o t be housed w i t h i n th e school b u i l d i n g to be a v a i l a b l e t o y o u r s t u d e n t s . ) guidance c o u n s e l o r s . school n u r s e . school p s y c h o l o g i s t . v is itin g teacher. speech t h e r a p i s t . diagnostician. c l i n i c se rv ic e s fo r the emotionally d istu rb ed . s p e c i a l e d u c a ti o n programs f o r t h e m e n ta lly ha ndicapped. special reading teach er. others 181 XVIII. P l e a s e fo llo w th e same I n s t r u c t i o n s . Teaching teams a r e o r g an iz ed t o Inclu d e : f u lly c e r t i f i e d teachers. para-professlonals. c le r ic a l helpers. student teachers. o t h e r s _____________________________ □ From t h e fo llo w in g 1 1 st check t h o s e ty p es o f a u x i l i a r y h e l p e r s a v a i l a b l e in y o u r b u i l d i n g : p a id p a r a - p r o f e s s l o n a l s . v o l u n t e e r h e l p e r s from t h e community. v o l u n t e e r h e l p e r s from th e s t u d e n t body. s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s and I n t e r n s . high school " f u t u r e t e a c h e r s " s t u d e n t s . o t h e r s ________________________________________________ Thank you ve ry much. Your a s s i s t a n c e has been g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d . APPENDIX B MIDDLE SCHOOL PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE 182 APPENDIX B MIDDLE SCHOOL PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE In stru ctio n s: On each of the items on the follow ing few pagest please check the phrase that best describes the current practices in your building. Which of the follow ing best describes your schedule at present? 0 t r a d itio n a l. 1 tra d itio n a l, modified by "block-time*" revolving period," or other such regularly occuring m odifications. fle x ib le to the degree that a l l periods are scheduled but are not id en tica l in length. 2 _3___flexib le to the degree that changes occur within defined general time lim its . ** fle x ib le to the degree that students and teachers control the d a lly time usage and changes occur regularly. other For classroom in stru ctio n , audio-visual m aterials other than motion pictures are used: ** very frequently by most of the s t a f f . 3 very frequently by a few of the s ta ff and occasionally by others. 2 occasion ally by a l l o f the s t a f f . I very rarely by most o f the s t a f f . 0 very rarely by any s t a ff member. Continuous progress programs are: 0 not used a t th is time* 1 used only with sp ecia l groups. 2 used only for the f i r s t two years. _^__jused only by some students for a l l th eir years a t th is school. ** used by a l l the students for th e ir en tire program. 183 184 Intramural a c t iv it ie s often use the same f a c i l i t i e s as in ter-sch o la stic a c t iv it ie s . When th is causes a time c o n flic t, how do you schedule or resolve the co n flict? 0 This does not happen because we have no Intramurals. This does not happen because we have no in te r-sch o la stic program. Intramurals take f i r s t p rio rity and others schedule around their needs* 0 In ter-sch o la stic a c t iv it ie s take f i r s t p rio rity and others must schedule around th eir needs. other__________________________________________________________ What percentage of your teaching s ta ff i s Involved in team teaching programs? ** Over 90 per cen t. 3 Between 60 and 90 per cent. 2 Between 30 and 60 per cent. 1 Less than 30 per cen t. 0 None. Which of the following best describes your middle school program as i t evolves from enrollment to completion of the la s t grade ( i . e . grades s ix through eight)? 0 Completely self-contained program for the en tire grade span. 0 Completely departmentalised for the en tire grade span. 1 Modified departmentalised program (block-tim e, core, e t c . ) . 2 ftrogram moves from la rg ely self-contained to departmentalised. 3 Program moves from la rg ely self-contained to p a rtia lly departmentalized. Other___ 185 At present, approximately what par cant of your atudant body regularly p articip ates In a t le a s t ona club a ctiv ity ? 0 Nona as we hava no club a c tiv ity program. 1 25 par cant or la s s . 2 25 to 50 par cant. 3 50 to 75 par oant. ‘7 5 to 100 par cant. What dagraa of emphasis doas tha physical education program giva to the competitive and developmental aspects o f tha program for boys and g ir ls? Please check tha appropriate spaces. Girls Boys 0 High Competitive Aspects 2 Medium Low Developmental Aspeots 0 High _2__Medium 4 Low ^ High U Hlah 3 Medium 3 Medium 0 Low 0 Low Students are allowed to e le c t ooursea o f in te r e st from a range of e le e tiv e o fferin g si 1 in grade s ix . 1 i n grade seven. 1 i n grade eig h t. 0 not a t a l l . 186 Guidance services are available upon request fort k al l students every day. al l students nearly every day. 2 mo st of the students on a regular b a sis. 1 a lim ited number of students on a lim ited b a sis. ______other___________________________________________ Students working in independent study situ a tio n s work on topics th a t are: 0 we have no independent study programs. 1 assigned to them by the teaoher. 2 of personal in te r e s t and approved by the teacher. 2 of personal in te r e s t and unrelated to classroom work. other____________________________________________________ The amount of time provided in the classroom for in stru ction in the basic learning s k ills : 0 i ncreases with each successive grade. 0 remains constant with each successive grade. 2 decreases with each successive grade. U va ries greatly due to the individualised program teaohers operate. Concerning school dramatic a c t i v i t i e s , mofct students: 0 do not get experiences in creative dramatics while enrolled in tb is building. k get a t le a s t one or two opportunities to use th e ir acting s k i l l s while enrolled in th is building. 187 In the operational design of th is school the ro le of the teaoher as a guidance person is" h given a very strong emphasis. 3 encouraged. 2 mentioned to the s t a ff but not emphasized. 0 l e f t s t r ic t ly to the individual teachor*s personal m otivation. ______ oth er_________________________________________________________ Formal evaluation o f student vork i s reported by use of: 1 a standard report card with le t t e r grades. 2 teacher comments written on a reporting form. 3 parent-teacher conference. 1 standard report card with number grades. ** parent-teaoher-student conference • ______other_____________________________________________ This school currently has: 0 no parents* organization. 1 a parents* organization that i s r e la tiv e ly a c tiv e . 2 a parents' organization that i s a c tiv e . 3 a parents* organization that i s very a c tiv e . 188 From tbs sp ecialized areas 11stad below, chack aach aarvlca which la availab le to students in your building (note that a aarvlca nead not be houaed within tha achool building to be available to your stud en ts). 1 guidance counselors. 1 achool nuraa. 1 school psychologist. 1 ^ vis it in g teacher. ..3— .speech th erap ist. 1 diagn ostician . 1 clin ic services for the emotionally disturbed. 1 sp ecial education programs for the mentally handicapped, sp ecia l reading teacher. other_________________________________________________________ Teaching teams are organised to include: 1 fu llv c e r tifie d teachers. 1 para-p rofesslonals• 1 cle r ic a l helpers. 0 student teaohers. others_____________________________ 189 Pitas* eonpl«t* th* follow ing lt* n s. Yes* Th* s t a ff In our school w ill partlelpat* In th* study of a ttitu d es towards d iffer en t techniques of student evaluation and reporting. No. We w ill be unable to p a rticip a te. Contact Person School School Phone( ) Addres s__________________ __________________ ZIP__________________________________ Number of teachers, Grades 6-7-8 In clu sive Number of administrators in your buildin g Reporting systhm most commonly used in your building: (Example: S I U; ABCDF; Parent Conferences t e t c .) Your prompt return of th is questionnaire Is greatly appreciated. Cheek her* i f you would lik e a summary of the r e s u lts . Again, thank you very much for your cooperation. APPENDIX C PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING QUESTIONNAIRE 190 APPENDIX C PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING QUESTIONNAIRE Michigan S tate University D epartm ent of Educational Administration end H igher Education PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS: This questionnaire will Uke about ISminutes to complete. Ouestions deal withvarious ways of reportingpupil progress. Respondtoall questions. Necessary definitions are given InSection One. Please read the definitions before proceeding to the statements InSection Two. Asoft feed pencil only should be used in sections two and four—do net use pens, magic markers or other such instruments. SECTION ONE BLANKET GRADING: Giving a com mon m ark to all stu d en ts. Usually, stu d en ts are inform ed in ad ­ vance of th e work a s to w hat th e com m on mark will be for all. CHECK LIST REPORTING: Use of a prepared listing of com m ents from w hich certain ones are chosen for u se by th e te ac h er and "checked o f f a s b ein g appropriate to r th e child. CREDIT-NO CREDIT: The stu d en t receives either credit for the class or he doesn't. T here is no m iddle ground. A "N o C redit" mark, however, d o es not always m ean "failure." GRADES: A B C D F, S I U, o r som e num bering system su ch a s I 2 3 4 5. Often, plus (—) or m inus (—) sym bols a re used to help clarify the grade. NARRATIVE REPORTS: A " le tte r home” to the parents eith er w ritten by h and or with th e aid of a com ­ puter. PARENT CONFERENCE REPORTING: A face-to-face m eeting with p aren ts for the specific purpose of discussing th e stu d e n t's academ ic an d social progress in school. PASS-FAIL REPORTING: The stu d e n t e ith e r "p a sse s" the cla ss or he "fails" th e class. T here is no m iddle ground. SELF EVALUATION REPORTING: The stu d e n t d ecid es w hat his grade or mark wilt be. Usually, th e te ac h er con­ fers with th e stu d e n t along th e way, b u t th e decision rem ains th e stu d e n t’s. NOTE: After reading th e definitions, p lease proceed to S ection Two of th e questionnaire. Refer back to the definitions if necessary. PROCEED TO SECTION TWO ON THE NEXT PACE 192 IMCC MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Pupil P re g re it Reporting Q uettionnaire SECTION TWO Pleat* do net omit any ilemt on thii page. If you have ovettiont about th* meaning of a certain type of reporting practice, pleat* refer bach to the defi­ nition! given on page 1. W itha pencil retpond to the itemi unrig th* K EY . key- ■■■■■ > SA— Strong Agreement —reatty in tune with yourown pereonal feeling!. A— Agreement —pertiap! with tome reterv*. tiont. Youagree more than youditagree. 0— Oitagreement —with tome retervationt. Youditagree more than youagree. SD— Strang Ditagreement —almoit totally out of tune with your own pereonal feelingi. IA KEY 1. Self Evaluation reporting it better than giving a "grade".................................................. 2. The blanket grading method it tomething • t1reporting it good far kid! and meant more to them than other method! 11. Narrative reporting it very helpful to kidt. etpecla'ly when it’* uted with mattery level reporting 19. Only highly motivated ttudenft can benefit fromCredit*No Credit reporting 20. Self Evaluationreportingit of littleornoute forth*middleachool gradet .................... 21. Kidt lot* their Incentive to learn when blanket giadmg it uted ..................................................... 22. ABCDFgrading It unfair to ttudenlt 71 Patent Conference*areabtolutelynecettaryal middletchoolleveli. 6-7-8 24. 1prefer the ute of Patt*Fa)l reporting over th* ute of AB C0 F ................................ 21 Blanket Grading it challenging to kidt becautt it putt them"ontheir honor 21 Self Evaluation it a tyttem which would help to eliminate cheating 27. Narrative Report! are Inhuman, became th* tyttemattumet that all kidt fit th* tame mold. 21. Credit ■NoCredit reportingit avaluablemethodlorth*middletehod gradet, 6-7-8 29. Patt'Fail reporting it cruel to children ........ . ............................ .............. 30. Check Litt reporting it certainly better than ABC0 F .................................. 31. In termt of faimett to ttudenlt, the A B C0 F reporting method it about at fair at you can get 32. Patent Conferencei are tar and away better than A B C0 F grading................. ...................................................... 33. 1like blanket grading becaut* it take* prettur* off kidt 34. Sell Evaluationreportingit averyvaluableteachingtool formiddletchoolgiadet.6'7-B 31 Forkidt, th* Patt*Fail method it probablythe teatt cruel method w* can ute . 31 Check Litt reporting it a very effective method which can ttand on itt own menu 37. No ttudent really ever benclitt fromthe Credit*No Credit marking tytlem...................... .............................. 31. ABC0 Fgive* a prettygood idea of how ttudentt are doing 31 Narrative report! come cloter to accuracy than mctt any other formof reporting 40 Parent Conference* are eitremcly valuable for the parent*, the teacher and the student . . 1. 2. 3 4. 1 6. 7. 1 9 10 11. 12. 13. 14. 11 16. 17, 11 19. 20 21. 72 21 74. 21 26. 27, 21. 79 30 31 32. 11 34. 36 36 17. IS. 39 43. SA BA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA BA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SO A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A O D O D D P D D D D D D D D D 0 0 0 0 0 0 p A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A b £ p P so so SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SO Id SD SP |D 1° P v> p i° 0 v A P 10 * P ID A p SO 193 SECTION THREE W hen responding to thete queitions please keep your ttatementt at concise at pottible while ttiil making the point cleat. Respond to each question. Do not leave blaniit. Feel free to abbreviate. 41. Refer back to ttatement number three in Section Two about Pa»‘Fail reporting. W hy did you retpond the way you did? 47. Lookat ttatement number fire InSection Twoabout Parent Conferences W hy did you agree orditagree with the ttatement? 41, Reler to ttatement number twetea on Check litt reporting. W hydid you retpond the way you did? 44. Reviewttatement number fifteen on narratives W hy d>d you egrre/ditegree? 41. Refer back to ttatement number titleen about AB CDF. W hy did you agree/disagree there? 46. Look at ttatement number nineteen about Credit •No Credit. W hy did you retpond the wayyou did? 47. Inrttponding to ttatement number thirty-three on blanket grading, why did you agree/ditagree? 48. Looking at ttatement number thirty-four on Self Evaluation reporting, why did you agree/ditagree? 194 49. W e have considered tight different ways of repotting pupil progress in this questionnaire. The eight methods ere listed below inalphabetical order. Please rankthe methods in order of your preference for themas an educator. Use a scale of one (1) through eight (I) with the number one (II indicating your favorite method and so onthrough number eight indicat­ ing the method you least favor. METHOD RANK BLANK ETG RADING CH ECKLIST5 CREDIT-NOCREDIT GRADES IABCOF) NARRATIVES PARENTCONFERENCES PASS-FAIL SELF EVALU A TIO N 12 3 4 5 6 7 9 12 3 4 5 67 1 12 3 4 5 67 8 12345678 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 3 4 5 67 8 12 3 4 5 67 8 PLEASEG OO NTOSECTIO NFO UR SECTION FOUR Please fill in the correct response to the items below. M ale Female 51. Number ol years of paid experience In education. Include this year as year one il a first year teacher, and as a full year if an experienced educator. 1 52. W hat Is the highest college degree you hold? No degree Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree M asters Degree Educational Specialist Ed.0. PtvD, 1- 5 6-10 11*20 21*30 30*40 40or m ore 53. Yourundergraduateteachertrainingwas in (checkoneormorel: Elementary M iddleSchool JuniorHighSchool HighSchool HigherEducation THIS SPACE * 0+n S l l N APPENDIX D LETTER TO FIVE JUDGES WHO VALIDATED THE MIDDLE SCHOOL PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE 195 APPENDIX D LETTER TO FIVE JUDGES WHO VALIDATED THE MIDDLE SCHOOL PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LAMING • MICHIGAN • m i i C O l l F C t O f r D ltA T K T N DCF A H rM lN T O f A D W N U T E A T IO N AN D MFCH r * EDUCATION E M C * IO N H A IL December 2 * 1977 Dr. Mary Conpton U niversity of Goergla Athens* Georgia Dear Dr* ConptonI Your nano was suggested to ne by the chairman of my d o ctoral eosnittee* Dr* Louis Romano* a t Michigan S ta te U niversity. 1 wculd lik e to ask you to help ne v a lid a te a questionnaire which is designed to id e n tify interm ediate schools th a t most exemplify middle schools according to th e eighteen c h a ra c te ris tic s li s t e d on th e enclosed sh eet. Z w ill be studying the a ttitu d e s of middle school teachers and ad m in istrato rs in Michigan towards sev eral d if f e r e n t methods of student ev alu atio n and reporting* But f i r s t * I must id e n tify "tru e" middle schools* To do th is* I w ill be using an Instrument used by Dr* Jack Rlegle in h is d is s e r ta tio n whloh was completed in 1970. Dr. R leg le's study also Involved id e n tif ic a tio n of tru e middle schools* and Dr* Romano was also h is chairman. I t i s the suggestion o f my oommittee th a t a panel of middle school experts be asked to r a te th e items on th e instrum ent in an e f f o r t to pare i t down to one or two items th a t w ill e ffe c tiv e ly id e n tify each of the eighteen middle school c h a r a c te r is tic s . X have grouped the items in such a way th a t they can be rated num erically. Would you be so kind as to read th e items on each page and r a te the "b eat" or most e ffe c tiv e d e sc rip to r with the numeral (l)* th e next most e ffe c tiv e d e sc rip to r a ( 2 )* and so or* follow ing th e same procedure on each sectio n ! Your ra tin g s w ill help me determine whloh d e sc rip to rs can be elim inated in paring down the q u estio n n aire. You may be In te re ste d in knowing th a t th e oth er middle sohool s p e c ia lis ts being asked to help v a lid a te th is instrum ent are as follows* Dr* Conrad T oetfer S ta te U niversity of New York a t Buffalo Amherst* New York Dr* Joe Reymer White Pigeon Publie Schools White Pigeon* Michigan 196 Dr* John Swaim U niversity of Northern Colorado G reeley, Colorado Dr* Nicholas Georglady Miami U niversity Oxford* Ohio 197 Your assistance on this project will be greatly appreciated. When the final study on evaluation and reporting (grading) attitudes is completed, I will plan on sending you a summary of the results. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Robert Crane 198 EIGHTEEN CHARACTERISTICS OF A MIDDLE SCHOOL 1. Continuous Progress 2. Multi-Material Approach 3. Flexible Schedules 4. Provisions for Social Experiences 5. Appropriate Physical Experiences and Intramural Activities 6. Team Teaching 7. Planned Gradualism 8. Exploratory and Enrichment Studies 9. Adequate Guidance Services 10. Provision for Independent Study 11. Basic Skill Repair and Extension 12. Creative Experiences 13. Individualized Evaluation 14. Community Relations Emphasis 15. Student Services 16. Auxiliary Staffing 17. Security 18. Inter-Disciplinary Approach Louis G. Romano and Nicholas P. Georgiady, "Do You Have a Middle School?" Educational Leadership, ASCD, December 1973. APPENDIX E INITIAL LETTER TO MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ASKING THEM TO COMPLETE MIDDLE SCHOOL PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE 199 APPENDIX E INITIAL LETTER TO MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ASKING THEM TO COMPLETE MIDDLE SCHOOL PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY (U IIU O f I DE CA TION I A i l IA N M M . ' M U M K .A N • « M ll D I P A H 1 M I M O f A tlM lM llA A T I O S A M I HIG H ER ED UCA TION l A I C k K I N IIA II January 3 0 , 1 9 78 factor th* auspices of th* Department of A dm lnlstration and Higher Education, College o f Eduoatlon, Mlohlgan S tat* U n iv ersity, a study la being eonduet*d concerning c u rren t p ra o tic s s in middle schools throughout Michigan* Th* survey *nolos*d w ill help us id e n tify sow* of th* p rev ailin g p ra c tic e s , and In the near fu tu re , a sm aller sample of siiddl* school teach ers and ad m in istrato rs w ill receive a q u estio n n aire requesting th e i r a ttitu d e s toward various stu d en t evaluation and rep o rtin g techniques* The enclosed survey w ill take only th ree to fiv e minutes to complete, and the data from i t w ill provide us w ith a sampling fo r the second stage o f th* study* 6 * assured th a t th a data w ill be c o n fid e n tia l as no on* w ill see i t except th e research s ta ff* No in d iv id u al or school w ill aver be id e n tifie d by name in any report* Only people auoh as y o u rse lf can provide th * data we need about middle school p ra o tic s s , th e re fo re we are asking th a t you re tu rn the completed survey in th* enclosed stamped envelope a t your e a r l i e s t convenience. W* know you w ill want to oooperate in th is im portant study, and we look forward to your prompt reply* S in cerely y o u rs, Dr* Louis Romano Professor Department of A dm inistration Robert Crane Research D irector 19 Io ta Place Saginaw, Michigan 46603 200 APPENDIX F FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SCHOOLS THAT AGREEO TO PARTICIPATE FURTHER IN STUDY 201 4 APPENDIX F FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SCHOOLS THAT AGREEO TO PARTICIPATE FURTHER IN STUDY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY C O t t l G L o r t D L 'C A l l O N D C T A M T M I.N T O t B A IT L A N itM G ‘ M IC H IG A N ■ < u l l A D M J N H T A A T IO N A N D H I G H t R t D U C A T I O N tK I C K I O N H A I L February 20* 1978 V# want to thank you fo r promptly com pleting and retu rn in g th * Klddlo S chool’P ra c tic e s q u aatio n n aira th a t was ra e a n tly aant to you* and va alao want to express our ap p rec iatio n fo r your w illin g n e ss to p a r tic ip a te In th a n ax t phaaa o f our atudy on th a a ttltu d a a o f Riddle achool taaohara and a d m in istrato rs towarda v ario u s methods of re p o rtin g atu d an t achievement. In th a near fu tu ra you w ill raoaiva a paokat of quaatlonnalraa w ith ln a tru o tlo n a to d la tr lb u ta than to your p ro fe ssio n a l s t a f f . Tha q u aatio n n aira la designed to taka only f lf ta a n to twenty minutes to co n p lata and y a t th a d ata wa w ill g ath er from i t w ill be a a a a n tia l to th e aueeaaa of th a roaearch p r o je c t. Your achool la one of about t h i r t y R iddle achools in Michigan aalaetad to p a r tic ip a te in th is re search progran. You w ill rece iv e your pack et of n a to r ia ls In th a near future* and ag ain , your aaalatan ca la g re a tly a p p rec iate d . S in cerely y o u rs, D r. Louis Rosano P ro fesso r D epartnent of A dm inistration Robert Crane Research D irector 19 Io ta Place Saginaw, Michigan bSfiOJ 202 APPENDIX G LETTER TO PRINCIPALS ACCOMPANYING FINAL QUESTIONNAIRES 203 APPENDIX G LETTER TO PRINCIPALS ACCOMPANYING FINAL QUESTIONNAIRES MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY C O ll t o t o r I O C C A SIO N D ttA H T M fM I A IT l A V W V j • MM.HK/AA • «H li» O* A D M 1M ITH A 1IO N A M I M IU I IH T D IC A T IO N THICK TON MAI I Karoh 10, 1978 Efeolosad la your paokat o f m a tsria ls fo r tho f in a l phaao o f our study of mlddla aehool taaohar and ad m in istrato r a ttltu d a a toward* various stu d sn t ev alu atio n and re p o rtin g techniques* Thar# should bs an ample supply o f q u aatlo n n alrss fo r aaoh msmbor of your p ro faaalo n al s t a f f as w all as a stamped, sslf-ad d rasasd envelops f o r tha rs tu r n o f th a mats ria ls * Plaaaa d la tr lb u ta th a q u aatlo n n alrss to aaoh o f your tsaeh sra and a tta in ts tr a to r s . Whlls th a In s tru c tio n s a ra on th a q u s s tlo n n a lrs, I would a p p rso la ts your rasilndlng your s t a f f to bo aura to uaa a s o f t lo ad p a n e li, and ask thorn to answor a l l quastlons* A lso, I t la n so sssary th a t th a ad m in istrato rs f i l l o u t a qu aatio n n aira aa w all a s th a toaohars* I t would bo h s lp fu l i f you could o o llo o t tha eonplotod q u aatlo n n alrss and rs tu r n thsm w ithin ono wook from th a tlma you reoslve th a n . Again, Ploasa bs asaursd th a t a l l rasponsoa w ill bo hold In eonfidanoo and no In d iv id u als or schools w ill ovar bo montlonad In tha f i n a l rap o rt* As s ta ta d In o a r llo r oorrospondanoa, your oooparatlon and tha w ilU ngnsas o f your s t a f f to a s s i s t In th is p ro is o t I s g ro a tly apprsolatod* S lnoaraly yours. Dr* Louis Romano fro fs s s o r Dapartmant of A dm inistration Robort Crana Rosaaroh D lrootor 19 Io ta Place Saginaw, Mlohlgan h8 6 0 3 204 APPENDIX H FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SCHOOLS LATE IN RETURNING QUESTIONNAIRES 205 APPENDIX H FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SCHOOLS LATE IN RETURNING QUESTIONNAIRES MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY coilic.1 o r im tA iio N w rA m tiiM or a d ' h n i i i i An ra tio s a n d m c h ta i a m i n c • m k h k .a s * « n tDtxATicrs IK IC K tO N H A U A pril 10, 1??B Most of tha Pupil Progress Saporting Q uestionnaires have baan returned and tha responses are read ; to be tabulated tc complete our study. However, we have r.ot as y e t received the packet of completed q u estio n n aires from your b u ild in g . We can appreciate the f a c t th a t th is i s a busy tin e of year and th ere are other day to day o b lig atio n s th a t oonsune your tin e , b u t we have only a very U n ite d number of schools p a rtic ip a tin g in th is study and we d esp erately need responses frcn your school. I f you have alread y completed the questio n n aires aH n ailed then back In tha envelope th a t was provided, we thank you, ar.d we w ill be sending you a summary of the re s u lts in the near fu tu re . I f you have net returned the packet as y e t, please do sc r ig h t away. Thanking you once again, we ranaln S in cerely , Dr* Louis Romano P rofessor of A dm inistration Robert Crane 19 Io ta Flace Saginaw, Kichigan W6C3 206 APPENDIX I TABULATION OF RESPONSES ON PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING QUESTIONNAIRE 207 APPENDIX I TABULATION OF RESPONSES ON PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING QUESTIONNAIRE T able II . —Frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r re spo n ses t o q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f open-ended Items and Item 49. Item 1. S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n b e t t e r than grade SA A D SD 2 . B lanket g r a d 1 n g - - d o n ' t care fo r SA A D SD 3. P a s s - f a l l v a lu a b le a t any grade le v e l SA A D SD 4. Check l i s t l i t t l e meaning f o r k id s SA A D SD 5. P a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s no v a lu e to students except e a rly grades SA A D SD SA A D SD 20 123 3.6 21 .7 52.0 21.9 34 49 .6 33.7 10.2 6.1 109 3.7 23.7 52.8 19.4 76 5 .9 28 .0 51.9 13.5 296 2.3 6 .6 38.1 52 .8 122 292 278 189 57 21 133 296 33 157 291 13 37 214 208 Relative Frequency (Percent) 209 T able I I . —C ontinued. Item 6. Cre d1t-no c r e d i t b e t t e r than A B C SA A SA A D 3 10. Blanket g rading b e t t e r th an A B C SA A D SD 11. P a s s - f a l l no valu e f o r kids any age SA A D SD 12. Check 1 1 st l i t t l e use t o anyone SA A D SD 22 13.5 64.0 17.5 3.9 40 8 .9 44 .0 39 .4 7.1 294 .5 3.9 42.4 52.4 44 9.8 23 .0 5 8 .8 7 .8 92 1 .4 13.5 6 8 .3 16.4 105 328 SD 9. S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n u n f a i r to h o n e s t kids SA A D SD 105 3 .2 18.7 58.5 18.7 18 D 8. A B C gives good Idea how s t u d e n t s a r e doing SA A D SD 197 308 SD Relative Frequency (Percent) 3.2 18.7 54.9 35.1 51 0 7. N a r r a t i v e s In a d e q u a t e , and I n a c c u r a t e SA A SD 76 359 98 50 247 221 3 22 238 55 129 330 8 76 383 210 T able II . —C ontinued. Item 13. C r e d l t - n o c r e d i t no use f o r middle school SA A D SD 14. P a r e n t c o n fe ren c es a f a r c e SA A D SD 15. N a r r a t i v e s b e t t e r than A BC DF SA A D SD 16. A B C darn good; h a s n ' t been b e t t e r e d SA A D SD 17. Check 1 1 s t good f o r kids and means more SA A D SD 18. N a r r a t i v e s h e l p f u l t o k i d s , used w ith mas tery SA A D SD 19. Only h i g h l y m o tiv a te d bene­ f i t from c r e d 1 t - n o c r e d i t SA A D SD SA A D SD 59 Relative Frequency (Percent) 46 10.5 30.1 50 .4 8 .2 276 2 .0 7.1 41.2 49.2 41 8 .4 44.9 39.0 7 .3 30 8.0 41.2 45.5 5 .3 29 .7 29.6 62.9 5 .2 14 10.5 62.2 22 .8 2 .5 40 7.3 35.7 49 .6 7.1 169 283 11 40 231 47 252 219 45 231 255 4 166 353 59 349 128 41 200 278 211 Table I I . —Continued. I ■ — ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I M ■■■ Item 20. S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n l i t t l e use f o r middle school SA A D SD 21. K1ds l o s e I n c e n t i v e when b l a n k e t g rad in g used SA A D SD 22. A B C u n f a i r t o s t u d e n t s SA A D SD 23. P a r e n t c o n fe ren c e n e c e s s a r y 1n middle school SA A D SD 24. P r e f e r p a s s - f a l l o ver A B C SA A D SD 25. Blanket g rad in g c h a l l e n g i n g t o kids because 1 t puts them on "honor" SA A D SD 26. S e l f - e v a l u a t l o n help s elim in ate cheating SA A D SD SA A D SD 67 R elative Frequency (Percent) 27 11.9 34.9 47.1 4.8 9 22.5 5 9.0 15.3 1.6 129 2.3 11.9 62 .4 23 .0 11 33.2 43.1 21 .0 2 .0 187 .9 8.6 56.1 33.3 155 .5 6.8 63 .3 27.6 105 1.2 16.6 62.6 18.7 196 264 126 331 86 13 67 350 186 242 118 5 48 315 3 38 355 7 93 351 212 T able II . —Continued. Item 27. N a r r a t i v e s Inhuman SA A D SD 28. Cred1t>no c r e d i t v a lu a b le f o r middle school SA A D SD 29. P a s s - f a l l c ru e l t o c h i l d r e n SA A D SD 30. Check 1 1 s t b e t t e r than A B C D F SA A D SD 31. A B C about as f a i r as can g e t SA A D SD 32. P a r e n t c o nfe renc es b e t t e r than A B C SA A D SD 33. Like b l a n k e t g r a d i n g , t a k e s p r e s s u r e o f f kid s SA A D SD SA A D SD 11 Relative Frequency (Percent) 100 2 .0 11.8 67.2 17.8 87 25.0 56.3 15.5 48 4.3 20.1 65.4 8 .6 61 22 .5 22 .5 62 .6 10.9 19 11.6 50 .3 33.2 3.4 44 7 .7 2 5 .3 57.0 7.8 170 .9 6 .6 61 .3 30.3 66 377 12 2.1 140 316 24 113 367 16 126 351 65 282 186 43 142 320 5 37 344 213 Table I I . —C ontinued. Item 34. S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n v a lu a b le In middle school SA A 0 SD 35. P a s s - f a l l l e a s t c r u e l f o r kids SA A D SD 36. Check l i s t can s t a n d on own m e r i t s SA A D SD 37. No s t u d e n t b e n e f i t s from credlt-no c re d it SA A D SD 38. A B C g iv e s good Idea o f how s t u d e n t s a r e doing SA A D SD 39. N a r r a t i v e s c l o s e r t o accuracy than o t h e r forms SA A D SD 40. P a r e n t c o n fe r e n c e s v a lu a b le fo r p a re n ts, te a ch e rs, students SA A D SD SA A D SD 14 R ela t1 ve Frequency (Percent) 67 2 .5 40.1 44 .6 11.9 65 1.4 19.3 66 .0 11.6 31 43 .9 47.4 5 .5 40 4.3 18.2 69.7 7.1 8 16.4 69 .5 11.2 1 .4 25 7.8 44 .4 4 2 .8 4 .5 8 41 .9 46.7 9.8 1.4 225 250 8 108 370 10 1.8 246 266 24 102 391 92 390 63 44 249 240 235 262 55 214 Table II . — Continued. (Items 41-48 iare open-ended r e s p o n s e s ) (Item 49 1s a ran k in g o f r e p o r t i n g methods 50. Sex Male Female 286 233 51. Years o f Experience 6 1 181 1- 5 171 6-10 15 11-20 132 21-30 4 31-40 10 40+ 52. D egre e(s) h e ld None A sso ciate's B a c h e l o r 's M aster's Ed.S. Ed.D. Ph.D. 53. 0 2 259 213 12 1 1 Unde rgraduate t r a i n i n g 119 Elementary 32 Middle 60 J u n i o r high 125 High school Higher e d u c a ti o n 3 Many o f t h e t e a c h e r s and admini s­ t r a t o r s l i s t e d com binations o f u nd e rg ra d uate t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g . Those combinations a r e not Included 1n t h e s e f i g u r e s . BIBLIOGRAPHY 215 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Georgia Sachs. Measurement In E d u ca tio n . Psychology, and Guidance. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1966. Alexander, William L. Improving Marking and R e porting P r a c t i c e s In Elementary and Secondary S c h o o l s . New York: R i n e h a r t , 1947. Al exander, William M. "Reporting t o P a r e n t s —Why? What? How?" NEA J o u r n a l 48 (December 1959): 15-28. Baker, Harold V. "R eporting Pupil Pro gress t o P a r e n t s . " Report o f t h e S i x t h Annual Conference on Elementary E d u ca tion , Bou lder, Colorado, J u l y 6 - 1 7 , 1942. Bloom, Benjamin S . ; H a s t i n g s , J . Thomas; and Madaus, George F. Handbook on Formative and Summatlve E v a l u a t i o n o f Student L e a r n i n g . New York: McGraw-Hill Book C o ., 1971. B r a d f l e l d , James M., and Moredock, H. S t e w a r t . Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n In E d u c a ti o n . New York: Macmillan, 1957. B r a m l e t t e , Metle. " I s th e S and U Grading System S a t i s f a c t o r y o r U n s a t i s f a c t o r y ? " Texas Outlook 26 (April 1941): 29-30. B r a n t l e y , G. 0 . "A n aly sis o f C u r r e n t P r a c t i c e s 1n t h e Use o f the Report C a rd." NASSP B u l l e t i n 26 ( Ja n u a r y 1942): 67-76. Brlmm, R. P. " R eport-C ards— Yesterday and Today." (September 1958): 17-19. C l e a r i n g House 33 Cagle, Dan F. "How May We Make t h e E v a l u a t i o n and R e p o rtin g o f S tu d e n t Achievement More Meaningful?" NASSP B u l l e t i n 59 (April 1955): 24-30. Copland, R. E. "School R e p o r t s . " 196-208. Educational Research 8 (June 1966): Cummins, P a u l. " D e - e s c a l a t e G r a d e s ." 45 (April 1970): 188-91. J o u r n a l o f Secondary Education Da vis, F r e d e r i c k B. Educational Measurements and T h e i r I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Belmont, CallTTi Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g C o ., I n c . , 1964. 216 217 P e t e r Doe v s. San F r a n c is c o U n ified School D i s t r i c t , 1972; C a l i f o r n i a Supreme Court r e f u s e d t o h e a r case In 1976. E bel, Robert L. Measuring Educational Achievement. N . J . : P r e n t l c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1965. Englewood C U f f s , ________ . "Sh all We Get R1d of G rades." The I n t e r c h a n g e . P o r t l a n d , Maine: Department o f Research and E v a l u a t i o n , P o r t l a n d P u b l i c Sc h o o ls, May 1975. R e p rin ted from NCME Measurement 1n Educa­ t i o n 5 ( F a l l 1974). ----------------------------------------E ducationa l Research S e r v i c e . Pass-Fa11 P l a n s . Washington, D.C.: American A s s o c i a t i o n o f School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s and Nationa l Education A s s o c i a t i o n , November 1971. Georglady, Nicholas P . ; R l e g l e , Jack P . ; and Romano, Louis G. " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Middle S c h o o ls ." NASSP B u l l e t i n 58 (April 1974): 72-77. Georglady, Nicholas P . , and Romano, Louis G. "Do You Have a Middle School?" Educational Lea dersh ip 31 (December 1973): 26-29. Gerhard, M u rie l. E f f e c t i v e Teaching S t r a t e g i e s With t h e Behavioral Outcomes Approach. West Nyack, N.Y.: P a r k e r P u b l i s h i n g C o . , I n c . , 1971. G r e n l s , Michael. " I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n , Grouping, C o m p etition , and E x c e l l e n c e . " Phi D e lta Kappan 57 (November 1975): 199-200. Gronlund, Norman E. Measurements and E valuatio n 1n T e a c h i n g . York: Macmillan, 1965. New H a r r i s , Fred E. "What About C u rren t P r a c t i c e s 1n Gra ding, Promoting, and R eporting t o P a r e n t s ? " Unde rstanding t h e C hild 73 (April 1954): 34-42. H ln e r, Ray N. "An American R i t u a l —GRADING as a C u l t u r a l F u n c t i o n ." The C l e a r i n g House Magazine 47 (February 1973): 356-61. H o l t , John. " I Oppose T e s t i n g , Marking, and G ra din g." Education 60 (March 1971): 29-31. Today's K1rschenbaum, Howard; Simon, Sidney B .; and N a p i e r , Rodney W. Wad-Ja-Get? New York: Hart P u b l i s h i n g C o ., I n c . , 1971. K r e j c l e , Robert V., and Morna, Daryle W. "Determining Sample Siz e f o r Research A c t i v i t i e s . " E d u cational and P s y c h o lo g ic a l Measurement 30 (1970): 607-10. Kvaraceus, William C. "DANGER Handle With C a re!" (December 1959): 27-28. NEA J o u r n a l 48 218 L asker, Dorothy. "The P a r e n t - T e a c h e r C o n fe re n ce ." (December 1959): 21-22. M a r s h a ll , Max S. Teaching Without Grades. U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 15)68. McGuire, Brian P. "The Grading Game." 1969): 32-34. NEA J ou rna l 48 C orvallis: Oregon S t a t e Tod ay's Education 58 (March Michigan Education D i r e c t o r y and B uyer's Guide. 1977-1978. Lansin g, Michigan, Moser, C. A ,, and Kalton, G. Survey Methods 1n Social I n v e s t i g a t i o n . 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books, I n c . * T 9 7 2 . Musholt, Wayne. "S e lf -C o n c e p t and the Middle School." 58 (April 1974): 67-71. NASSP B u l l e t i n National J u n i o r Honor S o c i e t y Handbook. R eston, V i r g i n i a : A s s o c i a t i o n o f Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s , 1974. Nle, Norman H . , e t a l . S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. National S o d a ! Sciences. Palmer, 0 . "Seven C l a s s i c Ways o f Grading D i s h o n e s t l y . " In Educa­ t i o n a l and P s ych o lo gical Measurement. E d it e d by D. A. Payne and R. F. McMorrls. Waltham, Mass.: B l a l s d e l l P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1967. P r i e s t l e y , E r n e s t . "The Only Good Grades Are Good Grades." Education 4 (Spring 1970): 17. Rlegle, Changing J a c k D. "A Study o f Middle School Programs t o Determine t h e C u r r e n t Level o f Implementation o f Eighteen Basic Middle School P r i n c i p l e s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1971. Runyan, Richard P . , and Haber, Audrey. Fundamentals o f Behavioral S t a t i s t i c s . Reading, Mass.: Addlson-Wesley P u b l i s h i n g Co ., 1968. S c h a r f f e , William G. "A Study o f S e l e c t e d P u b l i c School Elementary Teacher and Elementary A d m i n i s t r a t o r A t t i t u d e s Toward t h e Use o f Grades as Compared w i t h S e l e c t e d A l t e r n a t i v e Forms o f Pupil P ro gre ss R e p o r t i n g . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e Uni­ v e r s i t y , 1977. S i e g e l , Sidney. 1956. Non-Parametrlc S t a t i s t i c s . New York: McGraw-Hill. 219 Simon, Sidney B. "Grades Must Go." School Review 78 (May 1970). Smith, Ann Z . , and Dobbins, J . E. "Marks and Marking Systems." Encyclopedia o f Educational R e s e a r c h . 3rd ed. New York: T96CT Smith, Eugene R . , e t a l . A pp ra is ing and Recording S tu den t P r o g r e s s . New York: Harper, 1942. Spray, Cecil 0. "Meaningful Grade R e p o r t i n g . " 43 (February 1969): 338-41. The C l e a r i n g House S t a t e o f Michigan. General School Laws. Lansing: L e g i s l a t i v e S e r v i c e Bureau, S t a t e Board o f E d uca tio n, 1973. T e e l , Dwight, and T e e l , Eugenia. " P u p i l s Report 1n T h e i r Own Way." NEA J o u r n a l 48 (December 1959): 19-20. Thomas, Murray R. Judging S tu de n t P r o g r e s s . Green and Company, 1954. New York: Longmans, Thorndik e, Robert L . , and Hagen, E l i z a b e t h . Measurement and Evalua­ t i o n 1n Psychology and E d u c a ti o n . New York: John Wiley and Sons, I n c . , 1969. Walecka, John A. "Improving P u p l l - T e a c h e r and P a r e n t - T e a c h e r Rela­ t i o n s h i p s . " Elementary School J o u r n a l 29 (September 1942); c i t e d In A. P u r l . "R EPO ftfs TO PARENTS: An Annotated B i b l i o g ­ ra p h y ." Texas Outlook 29 (November 1945): 38. Wax, Jo seph . "COMPETITION: Educational I n c o n g r u i t y . " Kappan 57 (November 1975): 197-98. Weber, C a th e r in e A. " P a s s / F a l l : Does I t Work?" (April 1974): 104-106. Ph1 Delta NASSP B u l l e t i n 58 White, Mary A l i c e , and Boehm, Ann. " C h i l d ' s World o f Learnin g: W ritten Workloads o f P u p i l s . " Psychology 1n t h e Schools 8 (1967): 70-73. Wrinkle, William L. Improving Marking and R eporting P r a c t i c e s . York: R i n e h a r t and Company, 1947. New