INFORMATION TO USERS
T he m ost advanced technology has b een used to photograph and
reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UM I films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any
type o f computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a com plete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

University Microfilms International
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

O rder N u m b er 9102 6 9 0

A longitudinal investigation o f school a d m in istra to rs’ practices
and a ttitu d es related to th e use o f the M ichigan E ducation
A ssessm ent Program test results
Jencka, Christopher G., Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1990

UMI

300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

A LONGITUDINAL INVESTIGATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS’ PRACTICES
AND ATTITUDES RELATED TO THE USE OF THE MICHIGAN
EDUCATION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM TEST RESULTS

By
Christopher G. Jencka

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the requirements
f o r t h e degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f Educational Admi nis tra tio n

ABSTRACT

A LONGITUDINAL INVFSTIGATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS’ PRACTICES
AND ATTITUDES RELATED TO THE USE OF THE MICHIGAN
EDUCATION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM TEST RESULTS
By
C hr istopher G. Jencka

The purpose o f t h i s

study was t o d e s c r i b e

the

attitudes

and

p r a c t i c e s o f elementary s c h o o l , j u n i o r high /midd le s c h o o l ,

and high

school

relative

to

p r i n c i p a l s in a l l

their

test

use o f th e Michigan

results.

school,

A sample o f

and high

The s u r v e y
question.
r es ear ch

Michigan p u b l ic

school

Education

elementary

principals

had 20 f o r c e d - c h o i c e

was

school

d istricts

Assessment
school,

junior

surveyed

questions

Program

in

under

investigation,

to

h igh/m idd le
spr ing

1988.

and one o p e n - e n d e d

The data were analyzed t o provide answers
questions

(MEAP)

examine

t o th e

four

relationships

between th e e x t e n t o f p r i n c i p a l s ’ use o f the MEAP r e s u l t s and o th er
selected variables,

and t o examine r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the e x t e n t

o f use o f the assessment r e s u l t s f o r one purpose ( e . g . , t o determine
instructional

p riorities)

and th e e x t e n t o f use f o r o t h e r purposes

( e . g . , t o determine need f o r new programs).
Given

the

lim itation s

c o n c l u s i o n s were drawn:
part,

responsible

for

of

the

study,

the

follow ing

(1) Bu il di ng p r i n c i p a l s were, f o r t h e
determining

procedures

for

us ing

th e

major
most
MEAP

C hr istopher G. Jencka
results

in

their

principals
results,

were

buildings.

responsible

for

procedures

and n e a r l y o n e - f o u r t h o f the high

t h e i r guidance c o u n s e lo r s
(2)

Less than h a l f o f
for

in itiated

high

us ing

school

or o t h er personnel

A m aj o ri t y o f p r i n c i p a l s

the

school
MEAP

the

principals

that

gave

responsibility;

p lan s or were required to

devel op p la n s ad dre ssi ng t h e needs i d e n t i f i e d by t h e MEAP t e s t ;

(3)

Teachers

the

were

involved

in

b u ild in g-level

com mittees

in

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f th e assessment r e s u l t s in almost h a l f
o f th e s c h o o l s in Michigan; (4) The MEAP r e s u l t s were used "quite a
bit " by p r i n c i p a l s in determining s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e i r
reading

and m a t h e m a t i c s

achievem ent

1ev el

of

informing th e school
students;

(5)

The

the

programs,

in

students

in

instructional

needs;

and

(6)

th eir

MEAP was

seen

being

to students

improvements,

Elementary

as

school

and

levels

"quite"

general
and

junior

for

of their

u s e fu l

and p a r e n t s ,

d ia g n o s in g

and

the

sch ools,

community o f the achievement

communicating achievement l e v e l s
for

determ ining

st ud en t
h igh /m idd le

when

planning
le a rn in g
school

p r i n c i p a l s b e l i e v e d the MEAP t o be more u s e f u l and made g r e a t e r use
o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s than did high school p r i n c i p a l s .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Several
st ud y.

peop le

have

co n t r ib u t e d

to

the

completion

of

this

Among t h o s e most g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged are:

Dr. Lawrence L e z o t t e , who helped i n s p i r e me t o begin t h i s quest
in t h e summer o f 1985.
My d i s s e r t a t i o n committee ch a ir p e r so n , Dr. John Suehr, f o r h is
guidance

and

committee,

con fid en ce

Dr.

Charles

in

my e f f o r t s ,

Blackman,

Dr.

and

Louis

my

d issertation

Romano,

and

Dr.

Jack

Bain, f o r t h e i r support and guidance.
Michael DuPuis and Ingham Intermediate School D i s t r i c t f o r the
support and a s s i s t a n c e with the immense amount o f data invo lve d in
t h i s stud y.
Dr.

Edward

Roeber

for

his

tech n i cal

and

inform ational

a s s i s t a n c e and support.
Sue

Cooley

for

her

knowledge,

expertise,

and

dedication

to

my

completing a f i n i s h e d , q u a l i t y study.
Finally,
da u g ht e rs ,
W it h o u t

A llison

th eir

completion

this

of

dissertation
and

support,
my

is

Whitney,

d ed ic a te d
and

assistance,

do cto ra l

program

possible.

iv

to

my

f a m il y:

especially

my

wife,

Jann.

and

love,

encouragement,
simply

would

not

have

been

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ......................................................................................................

vii

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

BACKGROUND.............................................................................................

1

I n tr od u ct io n ...................................................................................
R at io n al e f o r th e S t u d y ............................................................
Statement o f the Problem and Purpose o f the
Research ........................................................................................
Methodology ........................................................................................
D e f i n i t i o n o f T e r m s ......................................................................
Summary and O v e r v i e w .................................................................

1
4
5
9
10
11

REVIEW OF LITERATURE......................................................................

13

Intr o du cti on
...................................................................................
......................................................................
Nationwide S t u d i e s
New J e r s e y ....................................................................................
F l o r i d a .............................................................................................
New Y o r k ........................................................................................
Michigan S tu d i e s
..........................................................................
S t e e l e ’ s 1976 S t u d y .....................................................................
S e c t i o n 1: P r e s e n t a t i o n and A n a l y s i s o f Data,
Major Q u e s t i o n s ......................................................................
S e c t i o n 2: A n a l y s is o f Data t o Determine the
Nature o f R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between (1) The Extent
t o Which School P r i n c i p a l s Use MEAP Test
R e s u l t s and (2) Other S e le c t e d V ari ab le s . . .
S e c t i o n 3:
I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n A n a l y s i s Among
S e l e c t e d MEAP Test Usage V ari ab le s ........................
S t e e l e ’ s Conclusions ............................................................
Summary.................................................................................................

13
14
15
16
19
21
29

40
43
45

DESIGN OF THE STUDY..........................................................................

46

I n tr od u ct io n ...................................................................................
Population and Sample .................................................................
Design o f t h e I n s t r u m e n t ........................................................
Data C o l l e c t i o n ...............................................................................
Data A n a l y s i s ...................................................................................

46
46
48
49
49

v

31

38

Page

IV.

V.

D e l i m i t a t i o n o f th e S t u d y ........................................................
L im i t a t io n s o f t h e S t u d y ........................................................
Summary.................................................................................................

51
51
51

PRESENTATION OF THE D A T A ..............................................................

52

I n t r o d u c t i o n .............................................. .....................................
Survey Returns ...............................................................................
R e s u l t s o f Data Analyses f o r th e Four Research
Q u e s t i o n s ........................................................................................
Research Question 1 ...................................................................
Research Question 2 ...................................................................
Research Question 3 ...................................................................
Research Question 4 ...................................................................
R e s u l t s o f the Chi-Square Analyses
.................................
Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s
........................................
Junior High/Middle School P r i n c i p a l s
........................
High School P r i n c i p a l s
........................................................
The Total G r o u p ..........................................................................
C o r r e l a t io n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r "Extent o f Use" o f
th e MEAP R e s u l t s f o r S e l e c t e d P u r p o s e s ......................
Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s
.........................................
Ju nio r High/Middle School P r i n c i p a l s
........................
High School P r i n c i p a l s ........................................................
The Total G r o u p ..........................................................................
Summary..................................................................................................

52
54
56
56
62
69
99
126
127
131
135
136
139
140
145
152
158
161

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
REFLECTIONS........................................................................................

163

Summary.................................................................................................
R at io n al e f o r th e S t u d y ........................................................
Purpose o f the R e s e a r c h ........................................................
Methodology .
..........................................................................
F i n d i n g s ........................................................................................
C o n c l u s i o n s ........................................................................................
Recommendations f o r Future Research and P r a c t i c e .
R e f l e c t i o n s ........................................................................................

163
163
164
164
165
178
180
183

A.

SURV EY .......................................................................................................

186

B.

COVER LE TTE R..........................................................................................

192

C.

FOLLOW-UP LETTER

................................................................................

193

D.

CHI-SQUARE TABLES ................................................................................

194

APPENDICES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

...........................................................................................................
vi

212

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.

Page
Number o f Surveys Sent and Returned, According t o
t he S ix S t r a t a Used by the Michigan Department
o f E d u c a t i o n ........................................................................................

55

MEAP Assessment R e s u l t s Received by Elementary S c h o o l ,
Jun ior High/Middle S c h o o l , and High School
P r i n c i p a l s , and th e Total Group ...............................................

57

When Elementary S c h o o l , Junior High/Middle S c h o o l ,
and High School P r i n c i p a l s , as Well as the Total
Group, Received MEAP Reports ...................................................

58

Pe r so n ( s ) Res pon sib le f o r Determining Procedures
f o r Use o f the 1988 MEAP R e s u l t s ..........................................

60

Whether P r i n c i p a l s Were Required t o Develop a Plan
o f Action t o Overcome Needs I d e n t i f i e d by the
MEAP R e s u l t s ........................................................................................

61

T ea ch er s’ Involvement in A n a l y s i s and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n
o f th e MEAP R e s u l t s ..........................................................................

63

7.

MEAP Reports That P r i n c i p a l s Shared With Teachers . . .

64

8.

A s s i s t a n c e P r i n c i p a l s Provided t o Teachers t o
Help Them I n t e r p r e t the 1988 MEAP R e s u l t s .......................

65

Purposes f o r Which Teachers Were Encouraged to Use
the 1988 MEAP In dividual R e s u l t s ..........................................

67

Extent t o Which Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s Used the
MEAP Test R es u l t s f o r 14 S e l e c t e d P u r p o s e s ...................

72

Extent t o Which Junior High/Middle School P r i n c i p a l s
Used t h e MEAP Test R e s u l t s f o r 14 S e l e c t e d Purposes .

79

Extent t o Which High School P r i n c i p a l s Used the MEAP
Test R e s u l t s f o r 14 S e l e c t e d P u r p o s e s .................................

86

Extent t o Which t h e Total Group o f P r i n c i p a l s Used
t he MEAP Test R e s u l t s f o r 14 S e l e c t e d Purposes . . .

93

2.

3.

4.
5.

6.

9.

10.

11.
12.
13.

v ii

Page
Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ’ A t t i t u d e s Regarding
th e Impact o f t h e HEAP on the I n s t r u c t i o n a l
Programs in Their Sch oo ls ............................................................

101

Ju n io r High/Middle School P r i n c i p a l s ’ A t t i t u d e s
Regarding t h e Impact o f th e MEAP on th e I n s t r u c ­
t i o n a l Programs in Their Schools ..........................................

104

High School P r i n c i p a l s ’ A t t i t u d e s Regarding the
Impact o f the HEAP on t h e I n s t r u c t i o n a l Programs
in Their S chools
...............................................................................

108

The Total Group’ s A t t i t u d e s Regarding the Impact o f
t h e MEAP on th e I n s t r u c t i o n a l Programs in Their
Scho ols ......................................................................................................

112

Elementary School P ri n ci p al s ’ A t t i t u d e s Regarding the
U s e f u l n e s s o f the MEAP Test R es u l t s f o r S e l e c t e d
Purposes .................................................................................................

116

Jun ior High/Middle School P r i n c i p a l s ’ A t t i t u d e s
Regarding the U s e f u l n e s s o f the MEAP Test R es u l t s
f o r S e l e c t e d Purposes .....................................................................

119

High School P r i n c i p a l s ’ A t t i t u d e s Regarding the
U s e f u l n e s s o f t h e MEAP Test R es u l t s f o r S e l e c t e d
Purposes ..................................................................................................

122

The Total Group’ s A t t i t u d e s Regarding th e U s e f u l n e s s
o f th e MEAP Te st R e s u l t s f o r S e l e c t e d Purposes . . .

125

R e s u l t s o f Chi-Square Analyses f o r "Extent o f Use"
o f th e MEAP R e s u l t s and S e le c t e d V ari ab le s
...................

128

C o r r e l a ti o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r S e l e c t e d Uses o f the
MEAP Assessment R e s u l t s : Elementary School
Principals
.............................................................................................

141

C o r r e l a ti o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r S e l e c t e d Uses o f the
MEAP Assessment R e s u l t s : Junior High/Middle
School P r i n c i p a l s ...............................................................................

146

C o r r e l a ti o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r S e l e c t e d Uses o f the
MEAP Assessment R e s u l t s : High School P r i n c i p a l s

. .

153

C o r r e l a t io n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r S e le c t e d Uses o f the
MEAP Assessment R e s u l t s : Total Group .................................

159

viii

Page

D.l

D.2
D.3

D.4

D.5
D.6

D.7
D.8

D.9

D.10

D .ll
D.12
D.13

D.14

Chi-Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by Plan
Requirement— Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ........................

194

Chi-Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by Establishment
o f B u il di ng Committee--Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s .

195

Chi-Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by MEAP’ s Impact
on I n s t r u c t i o n a l Program--Elementary School
P r i n c i p a l s .............................................................................................

196

Chi-Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by MEAP’ s Use­
f u l n e s s f o r S e l e c t e d Purposes--Elementary School
P r i n c i p a l s .............................................................................................

197

Chi-Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by Percentage o f
Minority S tu den ts -- El em en ta ry School P r i n c i p a l s . .

.

198

Chi-Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by Perso n( s)
R es po n sib le f o r Determining U s e - -J u n io r High/
............................................................
Middle School P r i n c i p a l s

199

Chi-Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by Plan Requirem en t- -J uni or High/Middle School P r i n c i p a l s
...................

200

Chi -Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by Establ ishmerit
o f B u il di ng Committee--Junior High/Middle School
P r i n c i p a l s .............................................................................................

201

Chi-Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by MEAP’ s Impact
on I n s t r u c t i o n a l Pr o g r a m -J u n io r High/Middle
School P r i n c i p a l s ...............................................................................

202

Chi-Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by MEAP’ s Useful n es s f o r S e l e c t e d Purposes—Jun ior High/Middle
School P r i n c i p a l s ...............................................................................

203

Chi-Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by MEAP’ s Impact
on I n s t r u c t i o n a l Program--High School P r i n c i p a l s
.

.

204

Chi-Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by MEAP’ s Useful n es s f o r S e l e c t e d Purposes--High School P r i n c i p a l s

.

205

Chi-Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by Perso n( s)
R es pon sib le f o r Determining U se --T ot al Group

. . . .

Chi-Square R e s u l t s : Extent o f Use by Plan Require­
m ent-Total G roup

ix

206

207

Page

D.15
D.16
D.17
D.18

Chi-Square R e s u l t s :
Extent o f Use by Establishment
o f Buil din g Committee--Total Group ......................................

208

Chi-Square R e s u l t s :
Extent o f Use by MEAP’ s Impact
on I n s t r u c t i o n a l Program--Total Group .................................

209

Chi-Square R e s u l t s :
Extent o f Use by MEAP’ s U s e f u l ­
n e s s f o r S e l e c t e d Purpos es--Total Group ............................

210

Chi-Square R e s u l t s :
Extent o f Use by Percentage o f
Minority S t u d e n t s - - T o t a l Group ...............................................

211

x

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND
Intro duc tio n
In January 1970, th e Michigan Department o f Education began the
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e M i c h ig a n E d u c a t i o n a l
h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as MEAP.
Board o f

Education,

legislature
1969

and

A s s e s s m e n t Program,

The MEAP "was i n i t i a t e d by t h e S t a t e

supported by t h e Governor,

in itially

s u bse qu en tly

through the enactment o f t h e Public Acts
under Act

38 o f

the

Pu b li c

(Michigan Department o f Education, 1974, p. i i i ) .
State

Board

of

and funded by the

Education

had

in

p lac e

a

Acts

of

of

1970"

At t h a t tim e, the

six-step

educ at ion al

management system d es ign ed t o a s s i s t l o c a l d i s t r i c t s in the planning
o f d i s t r i c t programming and e v a l u a t i o n o f stud ent performance.

The

s i x s t e p s o f t h e c y c l i c a l planning model were (1) th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
o f common g o a l s ,

(2) the development o f performance o b j e c t i v e s ,

the asse ssm en t o f ed u ca tio n al
system s,
programs,

(5)

the

and ( 6 )

evaluation

needs,

(4)

and

testin g

r ec o m m e n d a t i o n s

for

(Michigan Department o f Education, 197 4) .

the

analysis
of

educational

1

of delivery
systems

or

improvement

The MEAP was des igned to

g a th e r data r e l a t e d t o s t e p t h r e e o f t h e model,
e d u ca tio n al needs.

these

(3)

t h e assessment o f

2

The f i r s t MEAP t e s t s were given in grades 4 and 7 on an e v e r y pupil b a s i s in t h e areas o f read ing , mathematics, and t h e mechanics
o f w r i t t e n E n g li sh .

Grade four was s e l e c t e d

because i t

is

end o f t h e "very important primary y e a r s , " and grade 7 was
because

it

is

at

the

"end o f

the

elementary

at the
selected

sequence"

(Michigan

Department o f Education, 1975, p. 5 ).
During the f i r s t four y e a r s , the MEAP was a sta nd ar d iz ed normr e f e r e n c e d t e s t de signed t o rank s t u d e n t s from h i g h e s t
Results

were

reported

provided, however,
provide

in

percentiles.

The

data

to

that

lowest.
the

MEAP

"did not adequately se rve the purpose o f MEAP to

information on th e

status

and prog res s

of

Michigan

basic

s k i l l s education" (MEAP, 1988, p. 1 ) .
Beginning with the 1973-74 school y e a r , two s i g n i f i c a n t changes
were made with th e MEAP:

(1)

January t o September, and (2)
r ep la ce d

with

the t e s t i n g

d a t e s were moved from

the norm-referenced as se ss m en ts were

objective-referenced

assessments.

The

objective-

re fe r e n c e d t e s t s were de sig ned t o measure, more a c c u r a t e l y ,

certain

o f th e reading and mathematics o b j e c t i v e s developed as part o f s t ep
two o f the S t a t e Board o f Education’ s ed u cat ion al management system,
"development o f performance o b j e c t i v e s . "

C urrently , th e MEAP t e s t s

are based on S t a t e Board o f Education approved " e s s e n t i a l s k i l l s , " a
r e v i s e d v e r s io n o f t h o s e i n i t i a l
Because

no w r i t t e n

e v o l u t i o n o f MEAP t e s t i n g
Edward

Roeber,

MEAP

"performance o b j e c t i v e s . "

documentation
since

Su perviso r

1976,
for

is

available

as

this

re s e a r c h e r

in te rv ie w ed

the

State

of

to

Michigan,

the

in

3

December 1988 f o r the f o l l o w i n g s y n o p s is o f s i g n i f i c a n t changes over
the l a s t 12 y e a r s .
In 1976, major r e v i s i o n s o f the reading and mathematics t e s t s
give n t o th e s t a t e ’ s fourth and seventh graders were begun.

In an

e f f o r t t o q u el l l o c a l d i s t r i c t r e s i s t a n c e t o a p e r c e iv e d "top-down"
mandate o f t h e o b j e c t i v e s t e s t e d and t e s t format, an e f f o r t was made
t o garner "g reater f i e l d

support" o f l o c a l

was s u c c e s s f u l , and th e newly r e v i s e d

educators.

That e f f o r t

assessment t e s t s

were p i l o t

t e s t e d and giv en ac ro s s the s t a t e on a co n t in u in g b a s i s , s t a r t i n g in
f a l l 1980.
Also begun in 1976 were reading and mathematics t e s t s f o r t en th
g ra d er s .

The t e s t s

started

number o f high s c h o o l s .

on a vo lun tar y

Each year t h e r e a f t e r ,

basis

with

and f o r reaso ns th a t

can only be surmised ( i . e . , p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h e r s
eventual

s t a t e mandate f o r t e n th -g ra d e t e s t i n g ) ,

anticipated

interest,

ev er y - p u p il

in p a r t ,

testing

the S t a t e

Board o f

an

the number o f high

s c h o o ls i n t e r e s t e d in t e s t i n g inc re ase d s i g n i f i c a n t l y .
of that

a limited

As a r e s u l t

Education

f o r the ten th grade in 1977.

approved

The l e g i s l a t u r e

mandated the t e s t i n g beginning in f a l l 1979.
Starting

in

fall

1985,

the

state

offered,

and

c o n t in u e s

to

o f f e r , h e a lt h t e s t i n g on a voluntary b a s i s f o r grades 4, 7, and 10.
S ci e n c e t e s t i n g was mandated on an e ve r y- pu p il b a s i s at the f o u r t h ,
se ve n th ,

and t en th grades in 1986-87, on a vo lu n ta ry

88,

was required

and

f a l l 1988.

again

of

all

b a s i s in 1987-

th e aforementioned

students

in

4

The S t a t e Board o f Education and th e

legislature

co n t in u e t o

examine and e v a l u a t e the s t a t e ’ s assess men t program and, as always,
there i s

some i n t e r e s t

in c o n s i d e r i n g a d d i t i o n a l

ot h er academic areas and a t o th er grade l e v e l s .

testing,

both

in

The S t a t e Board o f

Education has approved, when funds become a v a i l a b l e , t h e s h i f t i n g o f
science

and h e a lt h

testing

writing

assessment

has

t o grades

been

5,

approved

8,
for

and 11.
grades

A v ol u n t ar y
3,

6,

and

9.

F i n a l l y , t h e s t a t e i s d ev el op in g an employabi1 i t y - s k i 11 s assessment
program f o r high school

students.

This assess men t may be used in

t h e f u tu r e t o endorse the diplomas o f high school grad ua tes (Roeber,
1988).
Cur ren tly,

the

state

spends

$1,500,000

on

MEAP t e s t i n g

for

approximately 320,000 s t u d e n t s in grades 4, 7, and 10.
R at io n a le f o r th e Study
In 1976,

Donald J.

S t e e l e conducted a study f o r th e do cto ra l

degree at The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .

The purpose o f S t e e l e ’ s study

was to determine the a t t i t u d e s t h a t Michigan school

a d m in is t r a t o r s

held toward the MEAP and the uses th ey made o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s .
Although a study r e l a t i v e t o t e a c h e r s ’ u ses o f and a t t i t u d e s toward
t h e MEAP had been done by Aquino (1975) b ef o re t h e S t e e l e st ud y, no
data were a v a i l a b l e concerning a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ’ us es o f and a t t i t u d e s
toward the MEAP.

At t h a t time , th e MEAP had been giv en t o s t u d e n t s

in grades 4 and 7 f o r s i x y e a r s .
In th e ensuing 12 y e a r s
Michigan

has

continued

s i n c e t h e S t e e l e st u d y ,

assessing

thousands

of

the S tate o f

students,

on

an

5

e v e r y - p u p il

basis,

as

to

their

achievement

levels

mathematics, and s c i e n c e (beginning in 19 8 7) .

in

rea d in g ,

The t e s t i n g o f t e n t h -

grade s tu d e n t s in th e areas o f reading and mathematics was added in
f a l l 1979.
the

Add it ion al sample and v olu nt ary t e s t i n g has been done in

areas

of

art,

career

com petencies, m etrics,
ed uc ati on
m illion s

(MEAP,
of

music,

198 8) .

d ollars

over

development,
physical

A lso ,

the

the

past

health,

education,

State

of

life

and s p e c i a l

Michigan

12 y e a r s

in

role

the

has

spent

continued

development, p re p a r a t io n , s c o r i n g , and a d m in is t r a t io n o f the MEAP.
Given t h e

importance o f the MEAP both

in

terms

of

the

data

gen era te d r e l a t i v e t o st ude nt achievement l e v e l s

at the

i n d iv i d u a l

student,

and the

financial

school

building,

and d i s t r i c t

levels,

investment by the s t a t e over the pa st 12 y e a r s , i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t
a

comprehensive

study

be

conducted

to

determine

how

the

data

ge nerated by the t e s t are c u r r e n t l y used by b u i ld in g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
This research w i l l provide va lu ab le i n s i g h t s f o r Michigan Department
o f Education personnel

and othe r i n t e r e s t e d

p a r t i e s concerning the

actual uses o f MEAP r e s u l t s by elementary s c h o o l , j u n i o r hig h/middle
school,

and high school

administrators.

It w ill

a l s o support the

c o n t i n u a t i o n , t e r m i n a t i o n , or m o d i f i c a t i o n o f curre nt p o l i c i e s

and/

or p r a c t i c e s r e l a t i v e t o t h e MEAP (Roeber, 1988).
Statement o f the Problem and Purpose o f t h e Research
Not s i n c e 1976 has a comprehensive study been made t o a s c e r t a i n
th e a t t i t u d e s o f Michigan school a d m in is t r a to r s toward the MEAP and
t h e uses they make o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s .

The purpose o f t h i s study

6

was t o d e s c r i b e th e curre nt a t t i t u d e s

and p r a c t i c e s

school,

m i d d l e / j u n i o r high s c h o o l ,

related

t o t h e use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

districts

in Michigan,

with c e r t a i n
investigated.

p r in c i p a l

and high

school

in a l l

o f elementary
a d m in is t r a t o r s

562 p u b l ic

school

As in 1976, fo u r re s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s ,
characteristics

along

and demographic da ta ,

were

Those four research q u e s t i o n s , along with updated and

c u r r e n t l y r e l e v a n t s u b q u e s t io n s , are d e l i n e a t e d below:
1.

What

district-level

made f o r Michigan school

administrative

provisions

are

p r i n c i p a l s ’ use and d i s s e m i n a t i o n

being
of

the

MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
a.

Who determines s c h o o l - l e v e l procedures f o r use o f the

MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
b.

Which MEAP t e s t

re p o r t s

are being

provided t o

school

p r i n c i p a l s from the o f f i c e o f the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , and when are
t h e s e re p o r t s rec ei ve d ?
c.

Are

school

principals

req uired

to

ana lyze

the

MEAP

school r e s u l t s and develop a pi an o f a c t i o n t o overcome needs
identified?
2.

What a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s are Michigan school

p a l s making t o i n v o lv e t e a c h e r s in the a n a l y s i s ,

p rinci-

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and

use o f the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
a.
analyze
b.

Are p r i n c i p a l s e s t a b l i s h i n g b u i l d i n g t e s t committees to
and i n t e r p r e t the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
Areschool p r i n c i p a l s p rov idi ng ap p ro p ria te MEAP t e s t

r e s u l t s and explan at ory m a t e r i a l s t o class roo m t e a c h e r s ?

7

c.
effort

Are p r i n c i p a l s p ro vid ing a s s i s t a n c e t o t e a c h e r s
to

help them b e t t e r

understand and use t h e

in an

MEAP t e s t

results?
d.

For what purposes

are p r i n c i p a l s

encouraging t e a c h e r

use o f th e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
3.

For what purposes and t o what e x t e n t

are Michigan

school

p r i n c i p a l s using the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
a.

Are th e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s being used t o determine the

general l e v e l o f achievement o f the stud ent body?
b.
school

Are the

MEAP t e s t

results

community o f the general

being

level

used

of

to

inform

achievement

of

the
the

student body?
c.
of

Are the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s being used to determine areas

strength

and w e a k n e s s

w ithin

the

cu rricu lar

areas

of

read ing , mathematics, and s c i e n c e ?
d.

Are

the

MEAP t e s t

results

being

used

to

determine

instructional p r io r itie s ?
e.
the

Are the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s being used as a c r i t e r i o n fo r

placement

of

students

in

particu lar

programs,

i.e .,

remedial reading or mathematics programs?
f.

Are the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s being used t o determine need

f o r new programs?
g.

Are the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s being used t o determine the

e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs?
h.

Are the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s being used to analyze te a c h e r

performance?

8

i.

Are t h e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s being used t o document need

f o r determining a l l o c a t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s , i . e . , time , m a t e r i a l s ,
personnel?
j.

Are t h e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s being used t o prepare propos­

a l s f o r funding a g en ci es ?
k.

Are th e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s being used t o determine need

f o r i n s e r v i c e educa tion programs f o r t e a c h e r s?
1.

Are t h e MEAP t e s t

results

being

used

to

predict

the

f u t u r e academic s u c c e s s o f st ude nt s?
4.

What a r e

the

a t t i tudes

of

M i ch ig a n

school

principal s

regarding t h e value o f t h e MEAP and the u t i l i t y o f the t e s t r e s u l t s
provided by the program?
a.

How u s ef ul

planning

are th e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l

decisions

that

the

p r in c i p a l

makes

or

shar es

in

making?
b.

How u s e f u l are the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s f o r e v a l u a t i n g the

e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs?
c.

How u s e f u l

are

the

MEAP t e s t

results

for

informing

pa ren ts and community groups about t h e s t a t u s and p ro gre ss o f
st ud en t achievement in a p u b l ic school?
A secondary purpose o f t h i s
findings

of

th is

study

with

i n v e s t i g a t i o n was t o c o n t r a s t the
those

of

the

S teele

study.

To

f a c i l i t a t e a comparison o f the f i n d i n g s o f the s t u d i e s , many o f the
o r i g i n a l resear ch q u e s t i o n s and survey were r e t a i n e d .
of

the

Steele

study

are d i s c u s s e d

in

relation

to

The f i n d i n g s
this

study

in

9

Chapter IV.

I t should be noted t h a t S t e e l e was c o n t a c t e d

in f a l l

1989, and he gave h i s permission t o r e p l i c a t e t h e stud y.
Methodology
To determine

cu rre nt

attitudes

s c h o o l , j u n i o r h igh/m idd le s c h o o l ,

and

and high

r e l a t e d t o t h e use o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s ,
s am ple o f t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d s c h o o l
currently

has

1,871

elementary

s c h o o l s , and 631 high s c h o o l s .
analyses

u se d

were

the

at

Michigan

school

of

elementary

a d m in is t r a t o r s

t h i s r e s e a r c h e r surveyed a
ad m in istrators.

schools,

768

junior

M i ch ig a n
h igh/m idd le

The re s ea r ch d e s i g n and s t a t i s t i c a l

resu lt

of

con su ltation

Dep artm en t o f E d u c a t i o n p e r s o n n e l , t h e
C o n s u lt a ti o n

practices

State

w ith

M i c h ig a n

D ep a rt m en t o f

Research

University,

and t h e

Department

of

Planning and Ev aluation, Ingham In term ediate School D i s t r i c t .
The survey

used

in

this

study

had 20 q u e s t i o n s

requiring

f o r c e d - c h o i c e r e s p o n s e and one o p e n - e n d e d q u e s t i o n .
Department

of

Education

computers

containing

a

elementary s c h o o l s , j u n i o r h igh/m idd le s c h o o l s ,
t h e s t a t e were used t o determine t h e school

1ist

M i c h ig a n
of

all

the

and high s c h o o l s

buildings

a

incl ude d

in
in

t he random sample.
To in su re a v a l i d l o n g i t u d i n a l comparison o f th e S t e e l e stud y,
noted e a r l i e r in t h i s ch a p t e r , a co re o f r e p l i c a t e d survey q u e s t i o n s
was used.

Certain q u e s t i o n s were e i t h e r

based

on

their

study

(i.e .,

re l e v a n c e

to

added respon se

the

4 to

a b b re v ia t ed

or

1988 MEAP a s se ss m en t s
Question

7,

pertaining

deleted,
and
to

this
MEAP

vi d eo ; added area o f s c i e n c e t o Question 9; d e l e t e d q u e s ti o n r e l a t e d

10

t o a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ’ recommendation o f support regarding th e f u t u r e o f
the

HEAP;

st u d e n t s

and

d eleted

attending

questions

regarding

the a d m i n i s t r a t o r ’ s

school

fam ily

income

and t h e

of

age o f

the

building administrator.
In a d d i t i o n , a small sample o f elementary s c h o o l s , j u n i o r h i g h /
middle s c h o o l s ,

and high s c h o o l s was chosen f o r f o ll o w - u p t el e p h o n e

i n t e r v i e w s by t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o c l a r i f y t h e w r i t t e n re s p o n se s and t o
v e r i f y the u ses i n d i c a t e d on t h e returned s u rv ey s .
Analysis

of

the

dat a

collected

was

used

to

(1)

provide

a

d e s c r i p t i o n and d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e res p on se s regarding the resea rc h
questions

under

relationships

in vestigation

between

the

extent

in

th is

study,

of

adm inistrative

(2)

exa m in e

use

of

MEAP

r e s u l t s and o t h er s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s , and (3) examine r e l a t i o n s h i p s
between "extent o f use" o f assess men t r e s u l t s

f o r one purpose and

the "e xtent o f use" f o r o t h e r purposes (su r ve y items a through o ) .
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms
The f o l l o w i n g terms are d i s c u s s e d as t h ey are used w it h i n the
co n t e x t o f t h i s stud y.
Classroom L i s t i n g Reports summarize f o r an e n t i r e classroom the
information

co nt ain ed

on

th e

In dividu al

Student

Reports

(MEAP,

1988 ).
E ssential

sk ills

refer

t o minimal

approved by t h e S t a t e Board o f Education,

performance o b j e c t i v e s ,
f o r Michigan s t u d e n t s

in

the areas o f a r t , read ing , w r i t i n g , s p e a k i n g / 1 i s t e n i n g , h e a l t h , 1 i f e
r o l e com pe ten ci es , mathematics, music, p h y s i c a l

ed u c a t io n ,

science,

11

s o c i a l s t u d i e s , and computer educa tion ( Questions and Answers About
MEAP. 198 8) .
Indi vidual Student Report i n d i c a t e s attainment or nonattainment
o f each o b j e c t i v e t e s t e d f o r i n d iv i d u a l s t u d e n t s (MEAP, 1988).
MEAP r e f e r s t o t h e Michigan Educational Assessment Program.
Norm-referenced t e s t r e f e r s t o an assessment t h a t i s de s ig n ed
to

determine

a student’s

achievement

relative

to

that

of

o t h er

s t u d e n t s (same y ea r in s c h o o l ) ta k in g the same t e s t .
Objective-referenced
d esi gn ed t o

test

refers

to

an

assessment

that

is

i n d i c a t e a s t u d e n t ’ s achievement r e l a t i v e to a s e t

of

o b j e c t i v e s or c r i t e r i a .
School

and D i s t r i c t .

Summary Reports

are

used

to

repo rt

the

a ssessment data f o r each school w it h in the d i s t r i c t and the o v e r a l l
d istr ic t results.
Summary and Overview
The need

for

th e

study was

established

in

Chapter

I.

The

chap ter included a h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f the MEAP, going back to
i t s in c e p t i o n in 1970.
rationale

for

this

The S t e e l e study conducted in 1976 and the

study

were

discussed.

Also

included

were

a

statem ent o f the problem and purpose f o r th e r e s e a r c h , as well as a
d e s c r i p t i o n o f data c o l l e c t i o n , p r e s e n t a t i o n , and a n a l y s i s .
Chapter II c o n t a i n s a review o f the 1 i t e r a t u r e r e l e v a n t t o t h i s
study:

a review o f n a ti o n a l s t u d i e s , a review o f Michigan s t u d i e s ,

and a review o f t h e S t e e l e study o f 1976.

12

Chapter I II i n c l u d e s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p o p u la t io n and sample
for

th e

stud y,

a

description

of

the

survey

ins trument,

d at a -

c o l l e c t i o n procedures and data an a ly s es used, and t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f
th e stud y.
Chapter IV c o n t a i n s a review o f the f i n d i n g s from th e survey o f
elementary

school,

junior

high/middle

school,

high

school,

and

" t o t a l group" p r i n c i p a l s .
In Chapter V t h e study i s summarized, f o ll o w e d by c o n c l u s i o n s ,
recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r es ea r ch , and r e f l e c t i o n s .

CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introdu cti on
The Michigan

Educational

co n s i d e r a b l e

assessment

educators.

This

Assessment

inf ormation,

w riter

Program (MEAP)

which

in vestigated

is

school

made

available

Resources

Information

Center

(ERIC),

In tern ation al,
and

to

adm in istrators’

p r a c t i c e s and a t t i t u d e s r e l a t e d t o the use o f the MEAP.
c o n t a i n e d in D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s

generates

Literature
Educational

professional

works

is

The review o f r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e i s o f f e r e d in t h r e e p a r t s .

In

reviewed in t h i s chap ter.

part one,

the w r i t e r reviews

nationwide s t u d i e s

that

investigated

t h e uses and a t t i t u d e s o f school

a d m in is t r a t o r s r e l a t i v e t o

testing

the w r i t e r examines

programs.

In part two,

in v estig a ted

the

ad m in is t r a t o r s

relative

MEAP.

uses

In part t h r e e ,

and

to

attitu d es

school

of

testing

studies

M i c h ig a n

programs,

school
that

school

including

the

the w r i t e r reviews t h e most s a l i e n t f i n d i n g s

o f a 1976 study in which Michigan school

adm inistrators’ practices

and

MEAP t e s t

attitu d es

related

to

the

use

of

resu lts

were

cu rre nt

data

investigated .
The

purpose

of

this

study

was

to

r e l a t i v e t o the f i n d i n g s o f the 1976 study.
r e s ea r ch er

determine

With t h a t in mind, the

attempted t o demonstrate through the

13

literatu re

review

14

t h a t the few s t u d i e s t h a t have examined va ri ou s a s p e c t s o f t h e MEAP
have f a i l e d t o produce curre nt

information regarding t h e a t t i t u d e s

Michigan a d m in is t r a t o r s hold toward th e MEAP and t h e uses they make
o f th e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s .

Nationwide S t u d i e s
Part

I

investigated

of

this

the

review

attitudes

focuses
of

on

school

nationwide

studies

a d m in is t r a t o r s

that

relative

to

school t e s t i n g programs and the u ses they make o f program r e s u l t s .
New J er s ey
In f a l l
Educational

1972,

the

state

of

New J e r s e y

began

Program (NJEP), a s t a t e w i d e t e s t i n g

the

New J er s ey

program,

to a ssess

achievement in the b a s ic s k i l l

areas o f reading and mathematics o f

all

students.

fourth-

and t w e l f t h - g r a d e

were expanded to inc lu d e a l l

In f a l l

1975,

s t u d e n t s in grades 4,

The NJEP was designed t o provide u s ef ul

7,

the

10,

tests

and 12.

information t o ed u cat ion al

d e c i s i o n makers on the s t a t e and l o c a l l e v e l s concerning t h e s t a t e ’ s
ed u cat ion al system.
to

provide

diagnostic
d istrict

More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e assessment was intended

information
testing

strengths

and

concerning
to

s t u d e n ts

determine

and weaknesses

so

in

pupil,
that

need

class,

of

further

school,

instruction

and

could

be

planned a c c o r d i n g ly (Rojas, 197 7) .
In May 1976, the New J er s ey Bureau o f Research and Assessment,
New J e r s e y

Department o f

Education,

d i s t r i c t s ’ use o f assessment d a t a .

conducted

a

survey

of

local

The survey focu sed on four broad

c a t e g o r i e s o f the s t a t e w i d e t e s t i n g program:

(1)

program changes,

15

(2)

instructional

d issem ination

changes,

of

(3)

administrative

inform ation.

Survey

changes,

and

questionnaires

(4)
were

d i s t r i b u t e d t o a l l l o c a l d i s t r i c t s u p e r in t e n d e n t s , and approximately
h a l f o f t h e d i s t r i c t s responded (Rojas, 1977).
In th e ca te go r y o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e changes, data were c o l l e c t e d
in th e areas o f use o f funds, use o f s t a f f ,

a d d it io n o f s t a f f ,

i n s e r v i c e workshops 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 .

and

O verall, t e s t

information was used t o i n i t i a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e changes by 36.8% o f
t h e responding d i s t r i c t s .

Twenty-two and f i v e - t e n t h s p er ce nt o f the

d i s t r i c t s i n d i c a t e d a d i f f e r e n t use o f funds in both t h e reading and
math a r e a s .

A d m i n is t r a t iv e

changes

concerning

occurred in 41.7% o f th e r e p o r t i n g d i s t r i c t s ,
in

scheduling.

The

addition

r e s p o n d i ng di s t r i c t s .

In t h e

concerning t h e i n i t i a t i o n
level,

an

average

methodology,

of

of

of

staff
area

the

in

reading in c o n t e n t a re as ,

staff

8.6% o f

admini s t r a t i ve

i n s e r v i c e workshops,

16.6% i n i t i a t e d

of

20% o f which occurred

resulted

of

use

at

workshops

in

changes

the d i s t r i c t
the

b a s i c reading

the

areas

sk ills,

of

basic

mathematics s k i l l s , and " o t h e r . "
In

addition

to

the

school

a d m in is t r a t o r s did

NJEP,

Gary G a p p e r t ,

then

above-noted

per ce nt a ge s

c o n s id e r and use data
A ssistant

indicating
ge n era te d

Commissioner,

that

by the

D ivision

of

Research, Planning and Ev alu at ion , noted in h i s cover l e t t e r t o the
R o ja s

document

that

"We were

pleased

to

note

u t i l i z a t i o n o f the s t a t e w i d e t e s t i n g program r e s u l t s "
p. 1)

the

exten sive

(Rojas,

1977,

16

Flo ri d a
The

Fl or id a

S ta tew ide

Assessment

Program t e s t s

students

on

t h e i r achievement o f s t a t e w i d e o b j e c t i v e s

in t h e b a s i c s k i l l

of

The

objective-referenced

are

a d m in is te re d

mathematics,

tests,
fall

r e a d in g ,

and w r i t i n g .

which measure e n t r y - l e v e l

o f each y ea r.

sk ills,

in

R e s u l t s are provided f o r each s t u d e n t ,

d i s t r i c t , and the s t a t e

areas

the

school,

(Owen & Haynes, 19 77 ).

Information about use o f th e s t a t e w i d e asse ssm en t r e s u l t s was
of

in terest

legislature.

to

the

Depa rtme nt

In March 1976,

of

Education

a survey

of

and

parents,

the

state

teachers,

and

a d m in is t r a t o r s was conducted j o i n t l y by the C o l l e g e o f Communication
a t Fl o ri d a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and the Student Assessment
t h e Flo rid a Department o f Education.

Two l e v e l s

received

d istrict

and

used

assessment

b u i ld in g p r in c i p a l s .

data:

S e c t io n

o f a d m in is t r a t o r s
administrators

t o a l l 67 d i s t r i c t su p e ri n t en d en t s and t o a l l

Surveys were sent

p r i n c i p a l s o f s c h o o ls

with grade 3 and/or grade 6 (approximately 1,5 0 0 s c h o o l s ) .
79% o f the

and

For the survey each was t r e a t e d as a s ep a ra t e

group and r e c e iv e d a p p r o p r i a t e l y worded s u r v e y s .

sent,

of

principal

surveys were

returned

Of t h o se

and 48% o f

the

s u pe ri n te n d en t surveys were returned.
The q u e s t i o n s on each q u e s t i o n n a i r e can be s ep ar at ed i n t o f i v e
c a t e g o r i e s , each o f which can be seen t o ask a major q u e s t i o n about
t h e use o f or the a t t i t u d e toward the a ssessmen t t e s t and r e s u l t s .
The f i v e

categories

are

(1)

State wid e Assessment R e s u l t s ,

A d m i n is t r a t iv e

Information

Regarding

(2) Value and Use o f Student Reports,

17

(3)

Value and Use o f School

Reports,

(4)

Use o f S ta te w id e Minimal

O b j e c t i v e s , and (5) Type o f Test Information D es ire d .
Specific

survey q u e s t i o n s were asked r e l a t i v e

broad c a t e g o r i e s ,

or major q u e s t i o n s ,

to

noted above.

each o f the
Following

are

s e l e c t e d p r i n c i p a l - and s u p e r in t e n d e n t -r e s p o n s e per ce nt ag e s gleaned
from the survey r e s u l t s .

The q u e s t i o n s reviewed below were s e l e c t e d

by cho osing t h o s e q u e s t i o n s most r e l e v a n t t o the p r e s e n t study.

In

a d d i t i o n , ca te g o r y 4 r e l a t e s t o cl assroom t e a c h e r s ’ use o f s t a t e w i d e
objectives.

P r i n c i p a l s and s u pe ri n t en d en ts were not g ive n q u e s t i o n s

r e l a t i v e t o ca t e g o r y 4.
Major q u e s ti o n 1:

"What a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

information

is

needed

t o a ssu re proper and thorough d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f State wid e Assessment
results?"
Two o f the survey q u e s t i o n s design ed t o answer major q u e s ti o n 1
were:
1.

"How much s t a t e w i d e t e s t i n g

should be done?"

Thirty-six

perce nt o f the p r i n c i p a l s i n d ic a t e d t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r a l l grade s,
and 36% in d i c a t e d t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r i n t e r m i t t e n t gr ad es .
three

percent

of

the

responding

p r e f er en ce f o r i n t e r m i t t e n t gr ad es .

superintendents

Sixty-

in d icated

a

No c l a r i f i c a t i o n as t o meaning

o f " i n t e r m i t t e n t grades" was g i v e n .
2.

"Who should r e c e i v e t e s t i n g r e s u l t s ? "

F o r t y - e i g h t percent

o f the p r i n c i p a l s and 69% o f the s u p e r in t e n d e n t s thought the t e s t i n g
results

should be made a v a i l a b l e t o the general

and ed u cat ion al a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

public,

teachers,

18

Major q u e s t i o n 2:

"What i s

the

extent

of

use

and r e l a t i v e

va lu e o f th e stud ent reports?"
Two o f the survey q u e s t i o n s designed t o answer major q u e s ti o n 2
were:
1.

"How much a d d i t i o n a l

information about t h e s t u d e n t ’ s a c a ­

demic s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses do the St at ew ide Assessment r e s u l t s
add t o information you alrea dy have a v a il a b l e ? "
of

the

prin cipals

" co n si d e r a b le . "

indicated

"some,"

F o r t y - t h r e e percent

whereas

35%

in d icated

Th ir ty -o n e percent o f the s u p e r in t e n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d

"some," and 34% i n d ic a t e d "c o n sid e ra b le ."

Twenty-two p er ce n t o f the

s u p e r in t e n d e n t s i n d ic a t e d t h a t the assessment r e p o r t s added "a g re at
deal"

of

a d d it io n a l

weaknesses.
with

information

Principals

students,

about

and t e a c h e r s ,

indicated

only

a student’s
t h os e

10% and

strengths

working more

7% t o

that

and

closely

question,

respectively.
2.

"How do you

reports

for

students?"
rated

th e

making
Almost

value

as

rate

the

value

in stru ction al
one-third
"high."

(32%)

of

the

i n d iv i d u a l

decisions
of

the

Superintendents

about

groups

responding
were

st udent

not

of

principals
asked

this

s p e c i f i c question.
Major q u e s t i o n 3:

"What i s

the

extent

of

use

and r e l a t i v e

va lue o f th e school reports?"
One o f the survey q u e s t i o n s des igned t o answer major q u e s t i o n 3
was:
1.

"How v al u a b le i s the School Report o f S ta te w id e Assessment

R e s u l t s f o r making d e c i s i o n s about the s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses

of

19

th e

school’ s

principals
Again,

instructional

i n d ic a te d

program?"

"some,"

with

Forty-three

p erc en t

35% i n d i c a t i n g

of

" co n s i d e r a b le . "

s u p e r in t e n d e n t s seemed t o value t h e asse ssm ent r e s u l t s

than p r i n c i p a l s ,

the

more

as 34% i n d i c a t e d "some" and 56% responded t h a t the

information was o f "c on siderable" v a l u e .

No i n d i c a t i o n was made as

t o why s u p e r in te n d e n t s seemed t o value t h e assessment r e s u l t s

more

than p r i n c i p a l s .
Major q u e s t i o n
used

in

planning

4:

"Are s t a t e w i d e

strategies

for

minimal

in s t r u c t i o n ? "

objectives
As

noted

w ide ly
above,

p r i n c i p a l s and s u p e r in te n d e n t s were not q u es tio n ed in t h i s area.
Major q u e s t i o n 5:

"Which type o f t e s t

results

inf ormation i s

more d e s ir a b le - - n o r m r e f e r e n c e d or c r i t e r i o n referenced?"
One o f t h e survey q u e s t i o n s des igned t o answer major q u e s ti o n 5
was:
1.
you

"For school r e p o r t s , which kinds o f t e s t information would

r a t h er

h a v e - - in f o r m a t io n

about

how

th e

school

compared

to

n a t io n a l norms or infor ma tion about the s c h o o l ’ s academic s t r e n g t h s
and weaknesses?"

This

question

elicited

response o f any q u e s t i o n in the survey.

the

highest

percentage

S e v e n t y - f i v e p erc en t o f the

p r i n c i p a l s and 94% o f t h e s u pe ri n t en d en t s responding in d i c a t e d t h a t
t hey p re f er re d "mostly data on achievement o f s p e c i f i c

sk ills,

and

some comparison t o n a t io n a l norms."
New York
In

1975,

the

program in reading

state

of

New York

and mathematics.

began

a

statewide

testing

The program was d es ign ed

to

20

a s s u r e t h a t eve ry
attained
"bas ic

basic

st u d en t who r e c e i v e d

sk ills

competency

in

tests"

reading

a high

school

and mathematics.

became a graduation

diploma had
Passing

the

requirement in 1979

(New York S t a t e Education Department, 1980).
In e a r l y 1978,

t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f th e S t a t e

o f New York,

S t a t e Education Department, D i v i s i o n o f Educational T e s t i n g ,

the

in iti­

ated a survey d es ign ed t o determine t h e e x t e n t t o which th e program
was a c h i e v i n g i t s g o a l s ,

its

impact upon s t u d e n t s and s c h o o l s ,

and

i t s p o t e n t i a l f o r s t r e n g th e n in g the q u a l i t y o f ed u ca tio n in New York
State

(New York S t a t e

Education Department,

survey forms were prepared:
f o r c h i e f school

19 80 ).

Two d i f f e r e n t

one f o r high school p r i n c i p a l s and one

administrators.

Response r a t e s were 82% f o r high

school p r i n c i p a l s and 96% f o r c h i e f school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
High

school

principals

surveyed on 23 t o p i c s .

and c h i e f school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

The t o p i c s

were

ranged from t h e pe rc e nt ag e o f

t e n t h and e l e v e n t h grad ers who had completed th e

basic

competency

t e s t requ ire men ts, t o t h e procedures used to provide s p e c i a l help to
students

failin g

the basic

competency

test,

to

th e views o f high

school p r i n c i p a l s and c h i e f school ad m in is t r a t o r s about t h e approp­
r i a t e n e s s o f t h e b a s i c competency t e s ^ s

as a minimum standard f o r

grad uation from high s c h o o l .
In

terms

of

survey

question

top ics

r e l a t i v e to

the

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ’ a t t i t u d e s toward and uses f o r th e b a s i c competency
tests,

i t was found t h a t 78% o f the c h i e f school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and

78% o f the high school p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r the

21

"adult context" f o r measurement o f b a s i c s k i l l s knowledge v er s u s the
"school

context"

addition,

f o r measurement

of

basic

sk ills

i t was found t h a t 59% o f c h i e f school

knowledge.

In

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and

63% o f high school p r i n c i p a l s thought t h e b a s i c competency t e s t s as
a minimum standard f o r graduation from high school were "too low."
Only 41% o f t h e c h i e f

school

a d m in is t r a t o r s

and 37% o f

the

high

school p r i n c i p a l s thought the competency t e s t s as a minimum standard
f o r graduation were " a p p r o p r i a t e . "
Michigan S tu di es
This
that

section

have

o f the

provided

involvement

of

review c o n t a in s

k n o wl ed g e

Michigan

and

school

a discussion

inform ation

a d m in is t r a t o r s

of

studies

related

in

to

school

the

testing

programs and t h e purposes f o r which t e s t r e s u l t s are used.
From 1958 t o 1976, t h e Michigan School T e s t in g S e r v i c e ,
of

School

inquiries

Services,
in t o

University

the

Michigan s c h o o ls

nature

of

(Brzezinski,

o f Michigan,
testing

197 6).

conducted

programs

and

four

Bureau
major

practices

in

The f i r s t o f th e s t u d i e s was

completed during the 1958-59 school y e a r .

Frank Womer, d i r e c t o r o f

the T e s t in g S e r v i c e , was c h i e f i n v e s t i g a t o r .

The membership 1 i s t o f

t h e Michigan 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 was used to
determ ine

the

d istricts

were

d istricts

(Womer,

principals

s am ple

population.

o b t a in ed ,

piayed

t e s t i n g programs.

195 9).
a

representing
The

significant

Responses
about

results
role

in

from

50% o f
in d i c a t e d

many

276
the

surveyed

that

aspects

school

of

school
school

Secondary school p r i n c i p a l s were found t o be l e s s

22

f r e q u e n t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g t e s t r e s u l t s t o pare nts and
t e a c h e r s than were elementary p r i n c i p a l s .
Twenty p erc en t o f t h o s e p r i n c i p a l s responding i n d i c a t e d using
t e s t r e s u l t s f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e purposes o f (1) development o f
continuous

programs

of

teacher

e d u ca tio n al

research,

and (3)

in service,

(2)

evaluation

improvement o f p u b l ic r e l a t i o n s .

of
In

a d d i t i o n , about 70% o f t h e responding p r i n c i p a l s reported us ing t e s t
resu lts

for

three

p ri m ar y

admini s t r a t i v e

identification

o f the exceptional

in

classes,

particular

19 5 9) .

This

in itial

and

(3)

inq u ir y

child,

(2)

evaluation
of

school

purposes:

(1)

placement o f s t u d e n t s
of

curriculum

administrators

(Womer,
provided

ev i d e n c e o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e involvement in t e s t programs and i n s i g h t
into

specific

uses.

The

interest

that

was

gen erated

supported

conducting t h e subsequent study f i v e ye a rs l a t e r .
During
Service,

the 1963-54

again

school y e a r ,

under the d i r e c t i o n

th e
of

Michigan School

Frank Womer,

T e s t in g

conducted

the

second st ud y .

This study d i f f e r e d somewhat from i t s p r e d e c e s s o r in

that,

as

as w ell

pr ov id in g

information

regarding

programs

and p r a c t i c e s

in Michigan,

what changes

had occurred during t h e f i v e - y e a r i n t e r v a l between the

two s u r v e y s .
or

514

p r im a r i ly
program

or

were

other

responsible
and

purpose was t o determine

Of t h e 524 p u b l i c school d i s t r i c t s in th e

d istricts,

counselors

an a d d i t i o n a l

testing

in t h e

responding d i s t r i c t s .

re p re se nt ed

pupil

personnel

for

development

selection of

in

th e

results.

specialists
of

sp ecific

state,

th e

were

By

1963,

th e

group

d is t r ic t ’s

tests

in

This compares with 32% in 1959.

93%,

testing

50% o f

the

Principals

23

were most r e s p o n s i b l e in 29% o f th e d i s t r i c t s and s u p e r in t e n d e n t s in
13% o f th e d i s t r i c t s .
Over t h e f i v e - y e a r per io d from 1959 through 1963,

t h e primary

purposes f o r which a d m i n i s t r a t o r s used achievement r e s u l t s remained
th e same.
child,
in

Those purposes were (1) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f th e e x c e p t i o n a l

(2) e v a l u a t i o n o f curriculum,

particular

classes.

The

1963

and (3) piacement o f s t u d en t s
study

also

r e v e a le d

a

small

i n c r e a s e in th e use o f t e s t r e s u l t s f o r t h e purpose o f ed u cat ion al
re se ar ch and a d e c r e a s e in usage f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e purpose o f
i n s e r v i c e ed u ca tio n and p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s .
The t h i r d

in

this

Testing

Service

was

Richard

Watson,

Acting

Service,

series

of

conducted
Director

surveys

during
of

and W i l l i a m S c h m a l g e m e i e r ,

by t h e

th e

the

Michigan

1968-69

Michigan

school
School

Advisory A ss o c ia te

Watson, were c h i e f i n v e s t i g a t o r s f o r the stud y.

School
year.
T e s t in g
to

The purpose f o r the

t h i r d study was d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f th e two p re v io us s t u d i e s
that the f i r s t

Dr.

in

two sought t o determine changes in t e s t use between

1958-59 and 1 963 -6 4.

The t h i r d study, as noted in t h e i r r e p o r t ,

. . . w i l l not do t h a t .
Rather, e f f o r t s w i l l be made to
d e s c r i b e some o f t h e a p p a r e n t i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s be tw ee n
c e r t a i n p i e c e s o f repo rted in fo rm at io n .
In t h i s s e n s e the
d i r e c t i o n o f th e p r e s e n t repo rt i s more a p r e s c r i p t i o n f o r
t e s t i n g use than a document f o r p a s t performance. (Watson &
Schmalgemeier, 1970, p. 3)
The r e s u l t s o f th e t h i r d study were based on a respo nse r a t e o f
84%.

The data showed t h a t t h e primary a d m i n i s t r a t i v e purposes f o r

t e s t r e s u l t s were (1) e v a l u a t i o n o f curriculum and (2)
o f ed u ca tio n a l g o a l s .

development

In a d d i t i o n , t h e data r e v e a le d t h a t "the most

24

important

use

of

test

results

is

inv o lv ed

in

th e

relationship

between t e a c h e r and student" (Watson & Schmalgemeier, 1970, p.
In t h e

1970

questionnaire,

Watson

and

Schmalgemeier

asked

"organized t e s t i n g programs" but gave no d e f i n i t i o n .

16).
about

Eighty-eight

p erc en t o f t h e responding d i s t r i c t s s a id th ey had org anized t e s t i n g
programs.

T h i r t y - n i n e perce nt o f the responding d i s t r i c t s

reported

th ey had a t e s t i n g committee, o f which 84% f u n c t io n e d f o r th e e n t i r e
d istrict.

Regarding membership o f the d i s t r i c t t e s t i n g committees,

the

most

three

p rin cipals

re p re sen ted

(81% o f

the

groups

were

com m ittees),

principals
counselors

or

assistant

(75% o f

the

c o m m i t t e e s ) , and t ea ch er s (44% o f the c o m m i t t e e s ) .
The fourth and f i n a l study in the s e r i e s by t h e Michigan School
T e s t in g S e r v i c e was conducted in 1976 and was a j o i n t e f f o r t o f the
Department

of

Education

and the Michigan

School

T e s t in g

Service.

Department o f Education s t a f f were i n t e r e s t e d in t h e study because
of

c o n ti n u in g

initiated

concern

(1970)

as

MEAP was

to

what

having

extent,
on t e s t i n g

if

any,
in

the

local

recently
d istricts.

Frank Womer, o f the Michigan School T e s t in g S e r v i c e , was i n t e r e s t e d
because he had been inv olved in t h e t h r e e p rev io us s t u d i e s and t h i s
study was seen as a chance t o g at h er l o n g i t u d i n a l
B rze zin sk i
report,

was p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r ;
"Testing

in

data.

Evelyn J.

the f o l l o w i n g data come from her

M ichigan,

a

T w en t y - Y ea r

P e r s p e c t i ve"

( B r z e z i n s k i , 1976).
Because o f a d e s i r e t o keep t h e survey b r i e f y e t t o dev el op one
t h a t would g ath er a wide v a r i e t y o f data about t e s t i n g programs, two

25

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d e s ig n e d .

A sample o f d i s t r i c t s was s e l e c t e d to

r e c e i v e q u e s t i o n n a i r e 1, which was seen as re q u ir in g more time to
co mp lete.

All o t h e r K-12 d i s t r i c t s r e c e i v e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e 2.

Some

q u e s t i o n n a i r e items appeared on both s u rv ey s .
A b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e 1970 surveys t h a t were
most r e l e v a n t t o t h i s study f o l 1ows.

Q u es tio n n a ir e s 1 and 2 and the

q u e s t i o n s t h a t appeared on both instruments are reviewed.
A respo nse r a t e o f 80% was achieved from the

Q u es tio n n a ir e 1 .
149

d istricts

p er ce nta ge

of

that

were

questionnaires

guidance or c o u n s e lo r s
groups

of

sent

individuals

questionnaire

(30%)

was completed

from i n d iv i d u a l
who

1 . The

most o f t e n

by d i r e c t o r s

schools.
completed

highest

The t h r e e

s u p e ri n te n d en ts

or

their

deputies

i n s t r u c t i o n or curriculurn (15%).

othe r

the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

were d i r e c t o r s or s t a f f o f resea rc h e v a l u a t i o n or t e s t i n g
(19%),

of

services

(15%), and d i r e c t o r s

of

"Smal1" numbers o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

were completed by b u i ld in g p r i n c i p a l s and o t h e r s ( B r z e z i n s k i , 197 6) .
When asked how the MEAP had a f f e c t e d
program,

42 respondents

s a id

it

prompted them t o

using oth er o b j e c t iv e - r e f e r e n c e d
testing

program.

When asked t o

the d i s t r i c t ’ s

testing

use or c o n s id e r

a s s e s s m e n t s as

part

i n d i c a t e which o f th e

of

th eir

suggestions

t h a t appeared in a Michigan Department o f Education p u b l i c a t i o n f o r
using

state

assessment

data were used,

105 o f the

155 responding

d i s t r i c t s reported us ing MEAP data in at l e a s t one o f the s u gg est ed
ways.

S e v e n t y - f i v e o f t h os e d i s t r i c t s

i n d i c a t e d th ey made p e r i o d i c

r e p o r t s t o the board o f educ at ion on p ro gre ss made in i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of

the

assessm ent

data

and u s e

of

the

resu lts.

Forty-eigh t

26

d istricts

i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y appointed curriculum study groups to

review t e s t r e s u l t s and r e l a t e them t o te a c h in g s t r a t e g i e s used.
When asked a short- ans we r q u e s t i o n about what the most frequ en t
use o f MEAP data was, 61 d i s t r i c t s responded.
data t o work with

i n d iv i d u a l

s t u d e n t s on i d e n t i f i e d nee ds ,

used t h e data f o r curriculurn rev ie w .

d istrict

and 18

An item on th e survey was used

in an attempt t o determine a d d i t i o n a l
from which l o c a l

Of t h o s e , 20 used the

training

and/or e x p e r i e n c e s

personnel might b e n e f i t .

I t was e v i d e n t

t h a t b u i l d i n g - b a s e d s t a f f were most in need o f a d d i t i o n a l

training

regarding t e s t i n g a c t i v i t i e s f o r both norm-referenced and o b j e c t i v e referenced

tests.

The

p rin cip a ls/a ssista n t
in terp retin g

prin cipals

resu lts

objective-referenced
(47% and 50%,

highest

(47%

results

respectively),

and

percentages
and t e a c h e r s
54%,

were
in

seen

the

for

areas

resp ectiv ely ),

of

applying

f o r stud ent or curriculum improvement
and applying

norm-referenced

results

f o r student or curriculurn improvement (50% and 46%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .
Qu es tio n n a ire 2 .
d istricts.

Three

hundred

return r a t e o f 96%.
surveys.

Q ues tio nn air e 2 was s e n t t o 379 publ i c K-12
sixty-two

d istricts

responded,

for

a

No data are a v a i l a b l e as to who completed the

As s t a t e d b e f o r e ,

q u e s t i o n n a i r e 2 was l e s s

comprehensive

than q u e s t i o n n a i r e 1.
D i s t r i c t s were asked i f t he y had a d i s t r i c t t e s t committee (not
asked

in q u e s t i o n n a i r e

s a i d no.

1).

Fo rt y- f ou r perce nt s a id y e s ,

and 54%

When asked t o determine th e degree t o which va ri ou s groups in
the d i s t r i c t

were

groups

clearly

that

personnel

The

same

of te s ts ,

were

com m ittees.

their
w ere

teachers,
three

groups

batteries

review o f t h e t e s t i n g
groups

in

surfaced

sp ecia lists,

principals.
selection

inv o lv e d

as

Curriculurn

programs,

counselors
and

or

the

three

other

pupil

p rin cipal s /a s s is t a n t

were

most

in v ol v e d

or groups o f b a t t e r i e s ,

program.

m e n t io n e d

testing

Not s u r p r i s i n g l y ,

rep resentatives
d irectors

and

in

the

and o v e r a l l

t h e same t h r e e

ondi s t r i c t

test

superintendents

were

re p re se nt ed on only about o n e - t h i r d o f the d i s t r i c t committees.

(It

should be noted t h a t a small perce nta ge o f d i s t r i c t s , perhaps 20% to
25%, had curriculum d i r e c t o r s . )
Questions common t o both q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .

D i s t r i c t s were asked

t o 1 i s t how they used t e s t r e s u l t s w it h in the d i s t r i c t .

The area

r e c e i v i n g the h i g h e s t response r a t e f o r t e s t use was counsel ing o f
s t u d en t s

(58

item s).

Other

stu d en t l e a r n in g d i f f i c u l t i e s

uses

mentioned

most were

and p la c i n g s t u d e n t s .

d ia gn o s in g

Not c o n s i d e r i n g

the use o f t h e MEAP, about o n e - t h i r d o f the sampled K-12 di s t r i c t s
and o n e- f o u rt h o f t h e d i s t r i c t s responding t o q u e s t i o n n a i r e
objective-referenced

tests.

Most t e s t i n g

was done on

2 used

a pre/post

b a s i s in September or October and May.
R e l a t i v e t o the purpose o f the pr es en t st ud y , B r z e z i n s k i ’ s data
re ve a le d t h a t over the 17 y ea rs between t h e i n i t i a l
conducted

by

the

School

Testing

Service,

p r in c i p a l s ’ r o l e with st ude nt t e s t i n g changed.

and l a s t study

o v e r a l 1,
In 1959,

building
principals

were most o f t e n mentioned as t h o s e "primarily r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t e s t

28

program development and s e l e c t i o n "
1976, however,

(Brzezinski,

1976,

p.

1).

By

"the person mentioned most o f t e n as most inv o lv ed in

t h e development and review o f th e t e s t i n g program was t h e c o u n s el o r
or o t h e r pupil personnel s p e c i a l i s t " (P- 1 2 ) .
In

spring

E va lu at io n ,

1986,

Michigan

I n t e r m e d i a t e Sc h oo l
Testing

Practices

the

O ffice

of

Technical

A ssistan ce

State

Board

of

Education,

and

Di s t r i c t

conducted the

and Needs.

The purpose

the

and

Ingham

S u rve y o f D i s t r i c t

of

the

survey

was

to

g a t h er data r e l a t i v e t o d i s t r i c t t e s t i n g programs and t o determine
di s t r i c t needs as to the "development, implementation o f t e s t s

and

t e s t i n g programs, and the r e p o r t i n g of t e s t r e s u l t s " (Michigan S t a t e
Board o f Education, 1987, p. 9 ) .
562 d i s t r i c t s in Michigan.

Surveys were s en t t o a l l

o f the

Four hundred n in et ee n d i s t r i c t s returned

s u r v e y s , f o r a response r a t e o f 79.8%.
As

seen

na tio n w id e,
d istrict
routine
selection

in

previously

reviewed

t h re e groups o f school

testing

programs

a d m in is t r a t io n

of

o f new t e s t s ) .

and c o u n s e l o r s .

In f a c t ,

both

as d ef in ed

development

in t h i s
of

new

Those groups were p r i n c i p a l s ,

stud y,
tests,

and
in
is
and

teachers,

t h e t h r e e groups were ranked in the top

t h r e e in each o f the aforementioned a r e a s .

P r i n c i p a l s were ranked

number one in development and review o f new t e s t s ,
s e l e c t i o n o f new t e s t s ,

Michigan

personnel were most inv o lv e d

(involved,
tests,

studies,

number one

in

and number two in r o u t i n e a d m in is t r a t io n o f

t e s t s (91.3% f o r p r i n c i p a l s and 91.6% f o r t e a c h e r s ) .
When asked t o what e x t e n t MEAP r e s u l t s were used on a school
and d i s t r i c t b a s i s ,

98% o f the responding d i s t r i c t s

indicated that

29

HEAP r e s u l t s were used by school p er s o n n el .
indicated,

in

descending

(1)

to

determ ine

are ta ug ht in which g ra d es ,

(2)

t o re p or t t o the

essential

sk ills

board

educa tion

of

reports,

and

(3)

to

on

order,

were

The h i g h e s t t h r e e areas

interpretation

a n al y ze ot h er

of

test

test

data

data

which

and

and r e l a t e

use

of

these

to

assessment r e s u l t s .

S t e e l e ’ s 1976 Study
In 1976, S t e e l e conducted a study at The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
e n t i t l e d "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f A d m i n is t ra t iv e P r a c t i c e s and A t t i t u d e s
Related to the Use o f Michigan Educational Assessment Program Test
Results."

The purpose o f t h e S t e e l e study was "to d e s c r i b e school

adm inistrators’ p ractices
Michigan Educational
and j u n i o r

high

districts"

and a t t i t u d e s

Assessment

schools

in

( S t e e l e , 1976 ).

regarding

Program t e s t

all

531

results

Michigan

K-12

the

use

of

in elementary
p u b l ic

school

In t h a t the purpose o f t h e p re s en t study

was t o determine curre nt data r e l a t i v e t o th e f i n d i n g s o f the S t e e l e
study ,

a

thorough

review

of

the

Steele

study

is

warranted

and

follows.
The S t e e l e

study was designed

to

ga th er data

on four

major

q u e s t i o n s , namely:
1.

What d i s t r i c t - l e v e l

administrative

provisions

are

being

made f o r t h e use and d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
2.
teachers
results?

What
in

provisions
the

are

analysis,

school

principals

interpretation,

and

making
use

of

to

i n v o lv e

MEAP t e s t

30

3.

For what purposes and t o what e x t e n t are school p r i n c i p a l s

u sing th e t e s t r e s u l t s produced by MEAP?
4.

What are

the

attitudes

of

school

regarding th e va lu e o f MEAP and t h e

principals

u tility

of

the

in Michigan
test

results

produced by the program?
In

a d d it io n

to

these

four

major

questions,

information

was

sought in th e areas o f school and p r i n c i p a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
The S t e e l e

study c o n s i s t e d

one op en -end ed-response

o f 23 f o r c e d - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s

question.

Approximately

one-half

of

and
the

q u e s t i o n s were de signed t o g at h er data on the four major q u e s ti o n s
noted above.

The second h a l f o f t h e survey was design ed t o gath er

demographic data r e l a t i v e t o the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
p r i n c i p a l s and t h e i r work s e t t i n g s .
November 1975 t o a l l
one-half
returned

of

the

o f t h e responding

Survey instruments were s e n t in

o f t h e es t im a t ed 875 j u n i o r high s c h o o l s

estim ated

by January 1,

2,417

1976,

were

elem entary
included

in

school s .
the

and

Surveys

results.

The

survey return r a t e was 74% f o r t h e elementary p op ula tio n and 76.2%
f o r the j u n i o r high p o p u l a t io n .
In an e f f o r t t o " f a c i l i t a t e a c l e a r and meaningful a n a l y s i s o f
th e

data

gathered"

(Steele,

1976,

p.

95),

Steele

p re sen ted

and

analyzed the data in t h r e e s e c t i o n s , namely:
1.

P r e s e n t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f elementary and j u n i o r high
school p r i n c i p a l s ’ respo nse s t o t h e major q u e s t i o n s under
i n v e s t i g a t i o n in t h i s stud y, s p e c i f i c a l l y :
a.

What d i s t r i c t - w i d e p r o v i s i o n s are being made f o r p r i n ­
c i p a l s ’ use o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?

31

2.

3.

b.

What p r o v i s i o n s are p r i n c i p a l s making t o i n v o l v e t e a c h ­
e r s in the a n a l y s i s , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and use o f MEAP
t e s t results?

c.

To what e x t e n t are p r i n c i p a l s using MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s
f o r s p e c i f i c purposes?

d.

What are t h e a t t i t u d e s o f school p r i n c i p a l s toward the
va lu e o f MEAP and the u t i l i t y o f the t e s t r e s u l t s
produced by the program?

P r e s e n t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f data t o determine th e nature
o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p r i n c i p a l s ’ resp on ses regarding
e x t e n t o f us e o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s and p r i n c i p a l s ’
respo nse s t o q u e s t i o n s from th e f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s :
a.

D istrict-level
test results.

p r o v i s i o n s f o r p r i n c i p a l s ’ use o f MEAP

b.

P r i n c i p a l s ’ p r o v i s i o n s f o r t e a c h e r involvement and use
o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s .

c.

P r i n c i p a l s ’ a t t i t u d e s toward MEAP and the t e s t r e s u l t s
produced by the program.

d.

S e l e c t e d school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

e.

S e l e c t e d p r in c i p a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

P re se n ta t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f data t o determine c o r r e l a t i o n s
between school p r i n c i p a l s ’ resp on se s regarding t h e i r e x t e n t
o f use o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s and 12 s e l e c t e d purposes.

What f o l l o w s i s a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f how S t e e l e pr es en te d and
analyzed h i s data f o r each s e c t i o n (1, 2, and 3) and a review o f h i s
most s a l i e n t f i n d i n g s f o r each o f the t h r e e s e c t i o n s .
S e c t io n 1: P re se nt a t io n and Anal ys is
o f Data, Ma.ior Questions
S e c t i o n 1 data p r e s e n t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s .

For S e c t i o n 1 o f h i s

stud y, S t e e l e used frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s d i s p l a y i n g raw counts and
perc ent age s f o r elementary and j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s .
s am ple

design

of

his

study

included

all

of

the

In t h a t the
jun ior

h ig h

32

p r i n c i p a l s in Michigan and the use o f a 1:2 sampling r a t i o f o r the
elementary p r i n c i p a l s , a weighted perce ntage s c o r e was computed f o r
the

nonscale-type

q u e s ti o n s

to

indicate

more

accurately

combined u n iv er s e o f elementary and j u n i o r high school
responded t o the survey q u e s t i o n s .
were

calculated

for

those

how the

principals

Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s

questions

re q u ir in g

a

re sp on se

to

an

eight-point scale.
S e c t io n 1 review o f f i n d i n g s .
d esi gn ed

to

(C a t e g o r ie s

ga th er

data

1 through 4)

S e c t io n 1 survey q u e s t i o n s were

relative

to

the

four

under i n v e s t i g a t i o n

major

in t h e

questions

Steele

study.

What f o l l o w s i s a statement o f each major q u e s ti o n as s t a t e d above
and a b r i e f review o f S t e e l e ’ s f i n d i n g s .
Major Question 1;

What d i s t r i c t - w i d e p r o v i s i o n s are being made

f o r p r i n c i p a l s ’ use o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
Ninety-two percent o f the responding elementary p r i n c i p a l s and
87% o f the j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s i n d ic a t e d t h a t they were r e c e i v i n g
t h e i r s c h o o l s ’ Indi v i d u a l
Summary,
still

and School

a m a j o r it y ,

principals

S t u d e n t C la s s r o o m Li s t i ng,

Summary Reports.
of

the

elementary

A s m a ll e r
(61%)

percentage,

and j u n i o r

i n d i c a t e d t h a t they were r e c e i v i n g

C la s s r o o m

high

the D i s t r i c t

yet
(66%)

Summary

Report.
In terms o f when the p r i n c i p a l s were r e c e i v i n g th e m a j o r it y o f
the above-mentioned r e p o r t s ,

83% o f the elementary and j u n i o r high

p r i n c i p a l s were r e c e i v i n g the re p o rt s by t h e end o f January.
two

percent

of

the

elementary

principals

were

receiving

Fiftytheir

33

r e p o r t s in November, whereas s l i g h t l y l e s s than h a l f o f t h e j u n io r
high p r i n c i p a l s were r e c e i v i n g t h e i r re p o r t s by t h a t time .
S ix t y - t w o percent o f the elementary p r i n c i p a l s and 47% o f the
j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r
determining

school-level

procedures

for

r e s t e d with t h e b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s .

use o f

MEAP t e s t

results

S ix perce nt o f the elementary

p r i n c i p a l s and 26% o f th e j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s in d i c a t e d t h a t the
b u i l d i n g guidance co u n s e lo r was the "primary agent" f o r determining
how t o use MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s .
Only 12% o f the elementary and j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d
t h a t they were required t o develop

improvement plans based on the

needs i d e n t i f i e d by the MEAP r e s u l t s .
Based on the
were

"generally"

reports

and

in

above a n a l y s i s ,
p ro vid ing

a timely

Steele

school

concluded t h a t d i s t r i c t s

principals

fashion,

but

that

with

the

they

were

appropriate
"deferring

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " t o t h e b u i l d i n g a d m in is t r a to r s f o r determining MEAP
usage plans at the school l e v e l .
Major Question 2:

What p r o v i s i o n s are school p r i n c i p a l s making

t o i n v o l v e t e a c h e r s in t h e a n a l y s i s ,

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and use o f MEAP

t e s t results?
Only 48% o f t h e elementary p r i n c i p a l s

and 47% o f the j u n io r

high p r i n c i p a l s e s t a b l i s h e d b u il d in g committees t o i n v o l v e t e a c h e r s
in "the a n a l y s i s , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and use o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s . "
Whereas l e s s than h a l f o f the elementary (47%) and j u n i o r high
(40%) p r i n c i p a l s were p ro vid ing t e a c h e r s with the D i s t r i c t
Report,

90% o f

the

elementary

principals

were

prov iding

Summary
their

34

teachers

th e

Individual

Student

Reports,

85% were

pr o vi d in g

the

Classroom L i s t i n g Reports, 86% were p rov idi ng t h e Classroom Summary
Reports, and 81% were providing t h e School Summary Reports.
S i m i l a r l y , at the j u n i o r high l e v e l , 92% o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s were
pro vidin g

th e

Individual

Student

Reports,

84% were

pr ov id in g

the

Classroom L i s t i n g Reports, 79% were p rov idi ng t h e Classroom Summary
Reports, and 73% were providing t h e School Summary Reports.
Most elementary p r i n c i p a l s helped t e a c h e r s understand MEAP t e s t
r e s u l t s by (1) conducting s t a f f meetings t o d i s c u s s th e MEAP (82%),
(2)

distributing

MEAP l i t e r a t u r e

(83%),

and

(3)

p ro v id in g

MEAP

manuals.
Most j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s helped t e a c h e r s understand the MEAP
by

(1)

conducting

staff

d i s t r i b u t i n g MEAP t e s t

meetings

folders

to

discuss

(77%),

(3)

the

MEAP (76%),

p rov idi ng

(2)

MEAP manuals,

and (4) p r e s e n t in g the MEAP f i l m s t r i p .
N i n e t y -f o u r percent o f the elementary p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d th a t
they encouraged t e a c h e r s t o use MEAP in d i v i d u a l st u d en t t e s t r e s u l t s
to a s s e s s st ude nt s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses,

whereas 80% encouraged

t e a c h e r s t o use MEAP r e s u l t s t o plan i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs.
Junior
test

high

results

i n d iv i d u a l

principals

to

st udent

plan

also

encouraged

instructional

test

results

to

teachers

programs
assess

(77%)

st u d en t

to
and

use

MEAP

to

use

strengths

and

weaknesses (94%).
Based

on t h e

above

data,

S teele

concluded

that

although

" p r i n c i p a l s [were] providing a s s i s t a n c e t o help t e a c h e r s understand

35

MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s by d i s t r i b u t i n g a p p ro p ri at e m a t e r i a l s and holding
t e a c h e r meetings they [were] not e s t a b l i s h i n g b u i l d i n g committees to
analyze and i n t e r p r e t MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s . "
elementary and j u n i o r high
use in d iv i d u a l

levels,

st ud en t t e s t r e s u l t s

were

Principals,
"encouraging"

a t both the
teachers

to

t o determine s tu d e n t s t r e n g t h s

and weaknesses and to plan i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s .

Major Question 3:

For what purposes and to what extent are

school principals using the t e s t r e s u lts produced by MEAP?
Major Question 3 was p re se nt ed on th e survey instrument as a
series

of

13

sta tem en ts

that

su g g es t e d

"potential

purposes"

fo r

which MEAP r e s u l t s could be used by b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s.
Principals

were

asked

to

rate

their

"extent

p o t e n t i a l purposes on an e i g h t - p o i n t Liker t s c a l e .
on t h e s c a l e

ranged from 1 through 8 .

of

use"

6,

and "extensive"

standard d e v i a t i o n s

use
for

the

Numerical v a lu e s

Principals

were asked

denote "very 1 i t t l e " use by re co rd ing a 1 or 2 on the s c a l e ,
use by recording a 3 or 4,

of

to

"some"

"quite a bit" o f use by reco rd ing a 5 or

by re co rd ing
each

a 7 or 8 .

"potential

use"

Mean

s co re s

and

were c a l c u l a t e d

and

used f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n purposes.
As S t e e l e noted in h i s summary o f Major Question 3,
of

sim ilarity"

principals’

surfaced

(elementary

when
and

an a n a l y s i s
junior

high)

e x t e n t o f use o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s .
test

results

was

achievement l e v e l s ,

seen

in

the

areas

was made o f
re sp on se s

"some areas
the

school

regarding

the

"Quite a b it " o f use o f MEAP
of

(1)

determining

st udent

(2) determining s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the

c u r r i c u l a r area o f mathematics,

and

(3)

determining

strengths

and

36

weaknesses in th e c u r r i c u l a r area o f rea d in g.

On the avera ge, the

elementary and j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s in d i c a t e d "some" use o f MEAP
r e s u l t s f o r th e purposes o f (1) informing t h e school community,
determining i n s t r u c t i o n a l
a llo ca tio n .

p riorities,

A "majority"

of

and (3)

the

(2)

determining re so u rce

elem entary

and

ju n ior

h ig h

p r i n c i p a l s in d i c a t e d "very 1 i t t l e " use o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s f o r f i v e
purposes:
a n al y zi ng
n eeds,

(1) determining th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s
teacher

(4)

performance,

preparing

(3)

o f new programs,

determining

funding p r o p o s a ls ,

teacher

and (5)

(2)

inservice

predicting

f u tu r e

academic s u c c e s s o f s t u d e n t s .
Two purposes r e c e i v e d d i f f e r i n g s c o r e s from t h e elementary and
junior

high

principals

principals.
in d i c a t e d

placement o f

"very

students,

in d i c a t e d "some."

Fifty-five
1ittle "

whereas

perce nt

use

of

57% o f t h e

of

the

u s e,

elementary

MEAP r e s u l t s

junior

high

fo r

principals

In terms o f using MEAP r e s u l t s t o determine need

f o r new programs, 51% o f the elementary p r i n c i p a l s
1ittle"

the

whereas the m aj ori ty o f j u n i o r

in d i c a t e d

"very

high p r i n c i p a l s

(51%)

i n d i c a t e d at l e a s t "some" use f o r t h a t purpose.
A n a l y s i s o f S t e e l e ’ s data showed t h a t p r i n c i p a l s ’ use o f MEAP
test

results

ranged,

in

general,

from "very

b i t , " depending on the s p e c i f i c purpose,

1ittle "

and t h a t

to

"quite

a

"elementary and

j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s [used] MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s t o a s i m i l a r e x t e n t
for

some purposes,

and t o

( S t e e l e , 1976, p. 1 39 ) .

a differing

extent

f o r ot h er purposes"

37

Major Question 4:

What a ttitu d es

do school

principals

in

Michigan hold toward the value o f MEAP and the u t i l i t y of the t e s t
r e s u lts produced by the program?
Using an e i g h t - p o i n t Liker t s c a l e , p r i n c i p a l s could denote the
e x t e n t to which they supported s ta tem en ts de s ig n ed t o answer Major
Question 4.
recording

Recording a 1 or 2 in d i c a t e d

a 3 or 4 i n d i c a t e d

indicated

"quite

"extensive"
well

a bit"

support.

"some support,"

of

support,

Frequency

as mean s co re s

"very 1 i t t l e "

and

and standard

and

support,

rec o rd in g
a

7 or

pe rcentage

deviations,

8

a 5 or 6
in d icated

distributions,

were

calculated

as
and

displayed.
As S t e e l e noted in h i s
and j u n i o r
"some"

high

impact

development

principals

in

of

the

"on the

believed

that

following

to

cu rricu lar

confirming

tentative

p ro b le m s

judgments

a v e r a g e , " elementary

MEAP t e s t

four areas : (1)

a more comprehensive

atten tion

facilitating

summary,

testing
not

results

had

encouraging
program, (2)

previously

about c u r r i c u l a r

the
c a l 1 ing

noted,

problems,

a more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d approach t o t e a c h i n g .

(3)

and

(4)

In terms

o f i n f l u e n c i n g community a t t i t u d e s toward th e s c h o o l , S t e e l e

found

that

(57%)

the

m ajority

of

elem entary

(55%)

and

ju n ior

p r i n c i p a l s saw MEAP r e s u l t s as having "very 1 i t t l e "

the

h ig h

impact.

Both elementary and j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d t h a t ,

"on

a v e r a g e ,"

for

MEAP t e s t

resul ts

were

(1)

"quite" u s e fu l

d ia gn os ing stud ent l e a r n in g needs and (2) o f "some" u s e f u l n e s s
the

purposes

of

analyzing

the

relation ship

a l l o c a t i o n and st ude nt achievement o f minimal

b et w ee n

objectives,

for

resource
planning

38

for instructional

improvement,

and communicating s t a t u s

o f stud en t

learning to parents.
"Very l i t t l e "

support was seen from both groups o f p r i n c i p a l s

f o r th e f o l l o w i n g recommendations:

(1) to e l i m i n a t e a l l e v e r y - p u p il

t e s t i n g and in t ro d u ce a s t a t e w i d e sampling procedure,
MEAP back t o

norm-referenced t e s t i n g ,

and

(3)

to

(2) t o change

discontinue

the

assessment program.
Steele

saw t h a t ,

"in g e n e r a l ," p r i n c i p a l s

believed

r e s u l t s were having an impact on the i n s t r u c t i o n a l
th e r e s u l t s

were u s e f u l

that

MEAP

program and th a t

f o r some s p e c i f i c p urp oses.

In a d d i t i o n ,

"the m a jo ri ty o f school p r i n c i p a l s o f f e r e d ’ very 1 i t t l e ’ support f o r
th e recommendation to d i s c o n t i n u e the assessment program"

(Steele,

1976 ).
S e c t i o n 2: A n a l y s i s o f Data t o Determine
t h e Nature o f R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between
(1) The Extent t o Which School
P r i n c i p a l s Use MEAP Test R es u l t s
and (2) Other S e l e c t e d V a ri ab le s
Section

2 data

s e c t i o n o f h i s st ud y ,

presentation

and

analysis.

For

S t e e l e used c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s

the

second

t o determine

t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p r i n c i p a l s ’ e x t e n t o f use
o f MEAP r e s u l t s and s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s
characteristics,

principals’

and use o f MEAP t e s t
p rin cip a ls’
calculated

use

of

provisions

results,
MEAP t e s t

( e . g . , school
for

and school
resu lts).

c o n t in g en cy c o e f f i c i e n t s

and p r i n c i p a l

teacher

d istrict
In

understanding
provisions

add ition ,

to determine the

S teele

strengths

r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the v a r i a b l e s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

for

of

Only the

39

r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t met th e c h i- s q u a r e c r i t e r i o n

o f s i g n i f i c a n c e at

th e .05 l e v e l were analyzed and d i s c u s s e d .
S e c t i o n 2 review o f f i n d i n g s .

S e c t io n 2 survey q u e s t i o n s were

d es ign ed t o examine the nature o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p r i n c i p a l s ’
e x t e n t o f use o f MEAP r e s u l t s and ot h er v a r i a b l e s .

What f o l l o w s i s

a review o f S t e e l e ’ s most s a l i e n t f i n d i n g s .
When c o n s i d e r i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between "the e x t e n t t o which
school

principals

are

using

MEAP t e s t

results

vs.

district-w ide

p r o v i s i o n s f o r p r i n c i p a l s ’ use o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s , "

S t e e l e found

that

(1) elementary p r i n c i p a l s who r e c e iv e d MEAP r e s u l t s

more

1ikely

to

use

the

results

"very

1it t l e "

p r i n c i p a l s who r e c e i v e d the r e s u l t s e a r l y ,

than

and (2)

1 a t e were
elementary

elementary

and

j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP r e s u l t s " e x t e n s i v e ly " when they
were required t o develop a plan o f t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e .
When c o n s i d e r i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between "the e x t e n t to which
school

p rin cipals

are

using

MEAP t e s t

resu lts

p r i n c i p a l s are making t o

i n v o lv e t e a c h e r s

r e s u lt s ," S teele

that

found

those

vs.

provi s io n s

in the use o f MEAP t e s t

p rincipals

who e s t a b l i s h e d

b u i l d i n g - l e v e l committees to analyze and i n t e r p r e t MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s
were more 1 i k e l y t o be using MEAP t e s t

results

"extensively"

were p r i n c i p a l s who were not choosing t o e s t a b l i s h

committees

than
for

t h a t purpose.
When c o n s i d e r i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between "the e x t e n t t o which
school

principals

principals

are

us ing

MEAP t e s t

results

hold toward MEAP and the t e s t

vs.

results

the

attitudes

provided by the

40

program,"
results

Steele

were

found

having

that

" qu ite

those prin cipals
a bit " or

who

" ext en siv e"

indicated
impact

that

on

the

instructional

program o f t h e

school were more l i k e l y t o be making

"quite a b it "

and "e x te n siv e" use o f the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s than were

p r i n c i p a l s who thought th e t e s t r e s u l t s were having "very 1 i t t l e " or
"some" impact.
F i n a l l y , when c o n s i d e r i n g th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between "the e x t e n t
t o which school p r i n c i p a l s are using MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s v s .

selected

school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s e t t i n g s in which p r i n c i p a l s perform t h e i r
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , " S t e e l e found t h a t

elementary

and

j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s made "quite a bit" or "exte nsi ve" use o f MEAP
t e s t r e s u l t s i f they performed t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
(1) in urban versus rural or suburban s e t t i n g s ,
a high er

perce nta ge

of

perce nta ge o f m i n o r i t i e s ,
income

levels

v ers u s

m inorities

versu s

(2) in s c h o o l s with

schools

with

a

smaller

and (3) in s c h o o l s with the lo w e s t fa mily

schools

with

average

or

high

fa m il y

income

levels.
S e c t i o n 3:
I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n A n a l y s is Among
S e l e c t e d MEAP Test Usage V a ri a b le s
Section

3

data

s e c t i o n o f h i s stud y,

presentation

and

S teele calculated

analysis.

For

intercorrelations

elementary and j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s among the t o t a l
items used in S e c t i o n 2 o f h i s stud y.

the

third

f o r both

sample o f the

All c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s

with a s i z e o f g r e a t e r than .50 were d i s c u s s e d .
S e c t i o n 3 review o f f i n d i n g s .
design ed

to

determine whether

S e c t i o n 3 survey q u e s t i o n s were

"extent

of

use

for

one

purpose

is

41

l i k e l y t o be a s s o c i a t e d wit h e x t e n t o f use f o r another p u r p o s e ( s ) ."
What f o l l o w s i s a review o f S t e e l e ’ s most s a l i e n t f i n d i n g s .
Elementary prin cip als:
elementary

principals

S t e e l e found t h a t th e e x t e n t t o which

were

using

MEAP t e s t

results

to

determine

s t u d e n t s ’ achievement l e v e l s was 1 i k e l y t o be s i m i l a r t o the e x t e n t
to

whi ch

they

in stru ction al

were

u s i ng

p rio rities,

MEAP

test

resu lts

and s t r e n g t h s

to

determ ine

and w e a k n e s s e s

in

the

c u r r i c u l a r areas o f reading and mat hem at ics .
The

extent

to

which

MEAP r e s u l t s

were

used

by

elementary

p r i n c i p a l s "to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the c u r r i c u l a r
area

of

reading"

was

associated

determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l
weaknesses

in

the

with

p riorities,

curricular

three

(2)

area

(1)

to

t o determine s t r e n g t h s

and

of

purposes:

mathematics,

and

(3)

to

extent

to

determine the general achievement l e v e l o f s t u d e n t s .
Lik ew ise ,

the

three

purposes

associated

with

the

which MEAP r e s u l t s were used by elementary p r i n c i p a l s "to determine
s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the c u r r i c u l a r area o f mathematics" were
(1)

t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e c u r r i c u l a r area o f

re a d i n g ,

(2)

to

determine

instructional

p riorities,

and

(3)

to

determine t h e general achievement l e v e l o f s t u d e n t s .
Sim ilarly,

th e e x t e n t

t o which elementary p r i n c i p a l s

us in g MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s "to determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l

reported

p r i o r i t i e s " was

seen as comparable t o the e x t e n t t o which t hey used MEAP r e s u l t s f o r
each

of

the

achievement

follow ing

levels

of

purposes:

students,

(2)

(1)
to

to

determ ine

determine

general

strengths

and

42

weaknesses in the c u r r i c u l a r area o f mathematics,

(3)

t o determine

s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the c u r r i c u l a r area o f r e a d in g , and (4)
t o document need in the a l l o c a t i o n o f school r e s o u r c e s .
The e x t e n t t o which elementary p r i n c i p a l s
test

results

"to

determine

comparable t o t h e e x t e n t
document

need

in

the

need

for

new programs"

t o which t hey

allocation

of

reported us ing MEAP
was

used MEAP r e s u l t s

school

resources

and

seen

as

(1)

to

(2)

to

determine e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs.
The e x t e n t t o which elementary p r i n c i p a l s
test

resu lts

resources"
resu lts

"to

was

(1)

document

comparable

to

need

to

d e t e r m i ne

the

in

the

extent

reported us ing MEAP

al 1 o c a t i o n

t o which

instructional

of

they

pri o r i t i e s

school

used

and

MEAP

(2)

to

determine need f o r new programs.
Junior
principals
general

high

principals:

reported

level

of

us ing

The

MEAP

achievement

of

extent

to

which

test

results

"to

th e

stud ent

body"

junior

high

determine
was

seen

s i m i l a r to the e x t e n t t o which they reported us ing MEAP r e s u l t s
to

determine

mathematics

strengths
and (2)

and weaknesses

in

t o determine s t r e n g t h s

the

curricular

and weaknesses

the
as
(1)

area

of

in

the

c u r r i c u l a r area o f read ing .
As with elementary p r i n c i p a l s , the e x t e n t t o which j u n i o r high
p r i n c i p a l s reported using MEAP r e s u l t s
weaknesses

in

the

curricular

as

s i m i l a r t o the e x t e n t t o which they reported us ing MEAP r e s u l t s

(1)

level

of

mathematics"

was

and

seen

t o determine t h e general

area

"to determine s t r e n g t h s

o f achievement o f the st ud en t body,

43

(2) t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in th e c u r r i c u l a r area o f
r e a d i n g , and (3) t o determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s .
In

add ition ,

the

extent

re p or te d using MEAP r e s u l t s

to

w hich j u n i o r

high

prin cipals

"to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses

in th e c u r r i c u l a r area o f reading" was seen as comparable t o the
e x t e n t t o which they reported u sin g MEAP r e s u l t s
the

gen eral

determ ine

level

of

strengths

achievement

of

and w e a k n e s s e s

the
in

(1)

stud ent

the

t o determine
body,

curricular

(2)

to

area

of

mathematics, and (3) t o determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s .
The e x t e n t t o which j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s rep orted us ing MEAP
r e s u l t s "to determine need f o r new programs" was seen as 1 i k e l y to
be s i m i l a r

to

the

extent

t o which th ey used MEAP r e s u l t s

determine the a l l o c a t i o n o f school r e s o u r c e s ,

(1)

to

(2) t o p la c e s t u d en t s

in remedial programs, and (3) t o determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new
programs.
Finally,

the e x t e n t

us ing MEAP r e s u l t s
comparabl e t o

to which j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s

reported

"to p la c e s tu d en t s in new programs" was seen as

the

extent

to

whi ch

they

used

MEAP r e s u l t s

that

"the

findings

to

determine the need f o r new programs.
S t e e l e ’ s Conclusions
In

his

conclusion,

Steele

noted

of

this

r e s ea r ch p o in t t o c e r t a i n co n cl u s io n s " r e l a t i v e t o the p r a c t i c e s and
a t t i t u d e s o f elementary and j u n i o r high school
MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s in Michigan s c h o o l s .

p r i n c i p a l s ’ use o f

44

The m aj o ri ty o f elementary and j u n i o r high school p r i n c i p a l s in
Michigan made use o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s .

The most e x t e n s i v e use o f

th e r e s u l t s was f o r t h e purposes o f determining t h e general l e v e l o f
achievement o f s t u d en t s in the s c h o o l , and determining s t r e n g t h s and
weaknesses

in

the

curricular

areas

of

reading

and

mathematics.

P r i n c i p a l s not only supported the c o n t i n u a t i o n o f MEAP but supported
a "gradual

expansion" t o o t h e r academic areas and grade l e v e l s

as

w ell.
Ex ten si ve
with

use o f MEAP r e s u l t s

numerous

attitudes.
d istricts

d istrict

Ext ens ive
that

and

use

Ex ten siv e

associated

use

MEAP r e s u l t s

had requirements
b a s ed

was

"significantly

b u ild in g-p rin cip al

of

improvement p i a n s

was

o f b u il d in g

on n e e d s
with

ensured

that

b u i ld in g

principals

results

were

received

from the

was

practices
seen

principals

id en tified

Michigan

in

and

school

t o develop

by MEAP r e s u l t s .

local-d istrict

received

a s so c ia t e d "

practices

results

soon

Department

of

after

th at
the

Education.

Those p r i n c i p a l s who were making e x t e n s i v e use o f MEAP thought the
r e s u l t s were " u s e f u l " and were "having an impact on a s p e c t s o f the
instructional

program"

results

was

teacher

committees

results.
principals

their

with

to

the

"analyze

school.

Ext en siv e

es ta b li s h m e n t
and

of

interpret"

use

of

MEAP

building-level
the

assessm ent

In a d d i t i o n , e x t e n s i v e use o f MEAP r e s u l t s by j u n i o r high
in Michigan was a s s o c i a t e d with the es t a b li s h m e n t

d istrictw id e
principal

associated

of

com mittee,

central

office

person n el,

or

of a

school

as t h e "agent r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining procedures f o r

use o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s . "

45

Conclusions drawn by S t e e l e from th e demographic data were t h a t
exten sive

u s e o f MEAP r e s u l t s

was

associated

p r i n c i p a l s who worked in urban s e t t i n g s
m in o ri ty
le v e l,

students
extensive

and

low-income

use

was

with

high

fam ilies.

seen

in

w ith

At

schools

elem entary

p e rc e n t a g e s

the

junior

with

the

of

high

highest

per ce nt a ge s o f min ori ty s t u d e n t s and with p r i n c i p a l s who had earned
an Educational S p e c i a l i s t , Ed. D. , or Ph.D. d egr ee .
Summary
In t h i s
reviewed

in

in vestig a ted

ch a p ter ,
th r e e
the

1i t e r a t u r e

sections.
uses

and

related to the present
Studies

in

which

a ttitu d es

of

school

the

study was
researchers

adm inistrators

r e l a t i v e t o nationwide school t e s t i n g programs were reviewed in the
f i r s t section.
uses

and

attitu d es

investigated
MEAP.

The second part was a review o f s t u d i e s in which the

relative

of

Mi c h i g a n

to

school

In the t h i r d s e c t i o n ,

school

testing

admi ni s t r a t o r s

programs,

t h e most s a l i e n t

were

including

findings

of

the

a 1976

study o f Michigan school p r i n c i p a l s ’ p r a c t i c e s and a t t i t u d e s r e l a t e d
t o th e use o f the MEAP were reviewed.

The r e s e a r c h e r attempted to

demonstrate t h a t the few s t u d i e s t h a t have examined v a ri ou s a s p e c t s
o f the MEAP have f a i l e d t o provide curre nt information regarding the
a t t i t u d e s Michigan p r i n c i p a l s hold toward the MEAP and the u ses they
make o f the assessment r e s u l t s .

CHAPTER I I I

DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Intr odu cti on
The purpose o f t h i s study was t o d e s c r i b e curre nt a t t i t u d e s and
p r a c t i c e s o f elementary s c h o o l , j u n i o r high /midd le s c h o o l ,

and high

school a d m in is t r a t o r s r e l a t e d t o th e use o f the MEAP r e s u l t s in a l l
562 school d i s t r i c t s
study was the
Education

result

p e r s o n n e l;

in Michigan.

The resea rc h d es ig n used in the

of

consultation

the

Department

Ingham Intermediate School D i s t r i c t ;

with
of

of

the

ins trument,

data

Planning

Department

and

of

E v al u at io n ,

and the Department o f Research

C o n s u l t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
d e s ig n

Michigan

The p o pul at ion and sample,

collection,

data

analysis,

and

l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e study are d i s c u s s e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g paragraphs.
Population and Sample
The u n iv e r s e f o r t h i s study was t h e 1,871
768 j u n i o r h igh /m idd le s c h o o l s ,

and 631 high

The

was

source

building

of

data

incl ude d

collection

in the

survey.

the

elementary s c h o o l s ,
schools

p r in c i p a l

Given the

in Michigan.

of

large

each

school

number in

the

u n iv e r s e f o r t h i s stud y, t h e re s e a r c h e r used the t ec hn iqu e o f random
sampling.

As s t a t e d by Weiss and H as s et t ( 1 9 82 ) , random sampling i s

used "to make in f e r e n c e s

(educated g u e s s e s )

about a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

of

on

from

a

p o p u l a t io n ,

based

data

obtained
46

a

sample

of

the

47

population" (p. 1 9 6) .

Upon c o n s u l t a t i o n with Michigan Department o f

Education personnel exper ien ced with p u b l i c school
determined

that

741

elementary

school

surveys,

prin cipals,

hig h /m id d le school p r i n c i p a l s , and 260 high school

299

it

was

ju n ior

p r i n c i p a l s would

be incl uded in th e survey.
In

that

a

geographic

representation

surveys returned was d e s i r e d ,

of

the

state

for

the r e s e a r c h e r employed a procedure

used by th e MEAP in conducting i t s surveys o f Michigan s c h o o l s .
M i ch ig a n Department o f

E d u c a t io n has

1 i s t i n g o f the elementary s c h o o l s ,
high

schools

state.

w it h in

six

the

an a l p h a b e t i z e d

c om p u t er

j u n i o r h ig h /m id d le s c h o o l s ,

geographic

and

community

types

Samples f o r t h i s study were drawn from t h e s e

The

six

for

and
the

areas or

strata:
Stratum 1:

Urban d i s t r i c t s o f Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland
Counties

Stratum 2:

Urban d i s t r i c t s o f o u t s t a t e southern lower p e n i n ­
s u l a , exc lu di ng d i s t r i c t s in Stratum 1

Stratum 3:

Suburban d i s t r i c t s o f Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland
Counties

Stratum 4:

Suburban d i s t r i c t s o f o u t s t a t e southern lower
p e n i n s u l a , exc lu di ng d i s t r i c t s in Stratum 1

Stratum 5:

Rural d i s t r i c t s o f o u t s t a t e southern lower p e n i n ­
su la

Stratum 6:

All d i s t r i c t s o f northern lower p e n in s u l a and a l l
d i s t r i c t s o f the upper p en in s u l a

The number o f sample members drawn from each
d irect

prop ortio n

to

h igh /m idd le s c h o o l s ,

th e

number

of

elementary

stratum was
schools,

in

junior

and high s c h o o ls w it h in each stratum and the

t o t a l number o f sample members d e s i r e d f o r th e s t a t e .

48

Design o f the Instrument
To ensure a v a l i d l o n g i t u d i n a l comparison o f t h e r e s u l t s o f the
S t e e l e study noted in t h e R at io n a le f o r th e Study p o r t io n o f t h i s
d i s s e r t a t i o n , a co re o f survey q u e s t i o n s used by S t e e l e was r e t a i n e d
and used.

The survey q u e s t i o n s were modified by t h i s r e s e a r c h e r and

reviewed by Michigan Department o f Education personnel
accurately
overall
school

th e

academic

relevance
year.

elem entary
principals

areas

o f th e

currently

assessed

survey f o r MEAP t e s t i n g

In a d d i t i o n ,

11

of

the

Ingham Intermediate School D i s t r i c t .

K-12

sch ool,

reflect
and

f o r th e

t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was p i l o t

s c h o o l , ju n io r high/m iddle
representing

being

to

1988-89

tested

and h ig h

school

the

by

school

districts

in

the

Their r es p o n se s were used as a

guide t o make f u r t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e survey.
The survey used t o g a t h e r data f o r t h i s
Pa rt

1,

question,

w hich
was

comprised
used t o

11

study had two p a r t s .

forced-choice

g a t h e r data

and

relative

to

one

the

open-ended

four

research

q u e s t i o n s o f th e stud y, namely:
1.

What

d istrict-level

made f o r Michigan school

administrative

provisions

are

p r i n c i p a l s ’ use and d i s s e m i n a t i o n

being
o f the

MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
2.

What a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s are Michigan school

p a l s making t o i n v o l v e t e a c h e r s in th e a n a l y s i s ,

p rinci­

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and

use o f the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
3.

For what purposes and t o what e x t e n t

p r i n c i p a l s using the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?

are Michigan school

49

4.

What a r e t h e

attitu d es

of

M i c h ig a n

school

prin cipals

regarding th e value o f th e MEAP and t h e u t i l i t y o f t h e t e s t r e s u l t s
provided by th e program?
Three q u e s t i o n s in Part 1 required a re sp on se t o an e i g h t - p o i n t
L ik er t s c a l e .
Part

2,

which

comprised

nine

forced-choice

questions,

was

de sig n ed t o g at h er demographic data r e l a t i v e t o th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
o f t h e school

p r i n c i p a l s and t h e i r school

buildings,

e.g .,

highest

d egree h e ld , number o f y e a r s in curre nt a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n , and
total

school

en ro ll m en t.

(A copy o f

the

complete

survey may be

found in Appendix A . )
Data C o l l e c t i o n
The s i x - p a g e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , along with a co ver l e t t e r (Appendix
B)

from

the

Superintendent

researcher
for

and

Technical

David

Assistance

L.

Donovan,

Assi s t a n t

and

E v a lu a t io n ,

Michigan

Department o f Education, was mailed t o survey p a r t i c i p a n t s t h e f i r s t
week o f

April

e n ve lo pe .

1989.

Also

included was

a re tu r n - a d d r e s s e d

re p ly

A f t e r a two-week p er i o d , a fo ll o w - u p l e t t e r (Appendix C)

was s e n t , reminding nonrespondents o f th e need f o r t h e i r r e s p o n s e s .
Because the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was not machine s c o r a b l e ,

re s p o n se s were

keypunched on a computer ta p e f o r a n a l y s i s .
Data A n a l y s is
The a n a l y s i s
parts.

o f data

for

this

study was

conducted

in

t h re e

F i r s t , per centages and raw coun ts were c a l c u l a t e d to provide

a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the resp on se s

f o r ele m en ta ry,

junior

h igh/m idd le

50

s c h o o l , high s c h o o l , and " t o ta l group" p r i n c i p a l s regarding t h e four
re se ar ch q u e s t i o n s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n in t h i s stud y.
Second,
significance

chi-square
of

an alysis

relationships

use" o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s

was

between

u se d

the

to

determ ine

principals’

the

"e xt en t

of

(Research Question 3) and t h e i r re sp on se s

t o q u e s ti o n s from the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s :
1.

D i s t r i c t - l e v e l p r o v i s i o n s f o r p r i n c i p a l s ’ use o f MEAP t e s t
r e s u l t s (Research Question 1 ) .

2.

P r i n c i p a l s ’ p r o v i s i o n s f o r t e a c h e r involvement and use of
MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s (Research Question 2 ) .

3.

P r i n c i p a l s ’ a t t i t u d e s toward the MEAP and t h e t e s t r e s u l t s
provided by the program (Research Question 4 ) .

4.

S e l e c t e d school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

5.

Selected principal c h a r a c t e r is t ic s .

Third,

correlation

coefficien ts

were

computed

to

examine

r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the "extent o f use" o f MEAP assessment r e s u l t s
f o r one purpose t o th e

"ex ten t o f use" o f MEAP assessment

for

For

o th er

purposes.

example,

a n a ly s e s

determine whether t h e r e was a r e l a t i o n s h i p
which

principals

used

MEAP

results

to

were

between

results

conducted
the

"determine

extent

to
to

instructional

p r i o r i t i e s " and the e x t e n t t o which p r i n c i p a l s used MEAP r e s u l t s t o
"determine

need

for

new

p r o g r a m s ."

The

strength

r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v a r i a b l e s was determined by the
Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t .

size

of

the

o f the

51

D e l i m i t a t i o n o f t h e Study
The study was l i m i t e d t o elementary s c h o o l , j u n i o r h igh/m idd le
school,
stu d y ,

and high school
although

high/m iddle

principals

generalizable

sch ools,

and

to

h ig h

in Michigan.
the

Findings o f t h i s

elementary

schools

in

schools,

Michigan,

junior
are

not

n e c e s s a r i l y g e n e r a l i z a b l e t o s c h o o ls in o t h e r s t a t e s .
L im i t a t io n s o f t h e Study
The study was l i m i t e d by f a c t o r s

i n t r i n s i c t o the use o f any

survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i n c l u d i n g (a) t h e b i a s o f th e re sp o n d en ts,

(b)

th e v a l i d i t y o f t h e study depending on the w i l l i n g n e s s and a b i l i t y
o f th e respondents t o provide the needed in fo rm at ion ,

and (c )

the

p o s s i b i l i t y o f m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s ta tem en ts in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
Summary
An overview o f t h e re se ar ch d esi g n
III.
s tu d y,

was

presen ted

in

Chapter

Included were a d i s c u s s i o n o f th e pop ulat ion and sample o f the
a d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e survey instrument,

d a t a - a n a l y s i s procedures used in the r e s e a r c h ,
o f t h e stud y.

data-collection

and

and the l i m i t a t i o n s

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA
I n tr o du ct io n
The purpose o f t h i s

study was t o d e s c r i b e

the

attitudes

p r a c t i c e s o f elementary s c h o o l , j u n i o r h igh /m idd le s c h o o l ,
school

and

and high

a d m in is t r a t o r s r e l a t i v e t o the use o f the 1988 MEAP r e s u l t s .

This chap ter c o n t a i n s the p r e s e n t a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n o f data f o r
this

st ud y.

In th e f i r s t

section,

f r e q u e n c i e s and pe rc e nt ag e s are

p re se nt ed t o provide a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the
school,

j u n i o r h ig h /m id d le

school,

re s p on se s

and high school

o f elementary
principals,

as

well as o f the t o t a l group, regarding the four major q u e s t i o n s under
i n v e s t i g a t i o n in t h i s st ud y.

Total group r e f e r s t o t h e aggre gat e o f

elem en ta ry, j u n i o r h ig h /m i d d le , and high school p r i n c i p a l r e s p o n s e s .
The four re se ar ch q u e s t i o n s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n in t h i s study are:
1.

What

d istrict-level

made f o r Michigan school

administrative

provisions

are

p r i n c i p a l s ’ use and d is s e m i n a t i o n

being
o f the

MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
2.

What a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s are Michigan school

p a ls making t o i n v o l v e t e a c h e r s in the a n a l y s i s ,

princi­

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and

use o f the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
3.

For what purposes and t o what e x t e n t

p r i n c i p a l s us ing t h e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?

52

are Michigan school

53

4.

What a r e t h e

attitu d es

of

M i c h ig a n

school

p rin cipals

regarding t h e v a lu e o f t h e MEAP and th e u t i l i t y o f the t e s t r e s u l t s
provided by t h e program?
In t h e second s e c t i o n , r e s u l t s o f c h i- s q u a r e a n a l y s e s are used
to

d e t e r m i ne

the

sign i fican ce

of

relation sh ip s

p r i n c i p a l s ’ "e x te n t o f use" o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s
3)

and

th eir

responses

to

the

questions

b e tw e e n

the

(Research Question

from

the

follow ing

categories:
1.

D i s t r i c t - l e v e l p r o v i s i o n s f o r p r i n c i p a l s ’ use o f MEAP t e s t
r e s u l t s (Research Question 1 ) .

2.

Pr i n ci p al s ’ p r o v i s i o n s f o r t e a c h e r involvement and use o f
MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s (Research Question 2 ) .

3.

Pr i n ci p al s ’ a t t i t u d e s toward the MEAP and th e t e s t r e s u l t s
provided by t h e program (Research Question 4 ) .

4.

S e l e c t e d school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

5.

Selected principal c h a r a c t e r is t ic s .

The t h i r d

section

c o n t a in s

the co r r ela tio n

were computed t o examine t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s

coefficients

between t h e

that

"ex ten t

use" (Question 9 o f t h e survey) o f MEAP assess men t r e s u l t s

of

f o r one

purpose and th e "extent o f use" o f MEAP r e s u l t s f o r o t h er purposes.
The

data

are

p re se nt ed

for

hig h/m idd le s c h o o l , and high school
total

group.

th e

elementary

school,

junior

p r i n c i p a l s s e p a r a t e l y and as a

The data were analyzed using t h e S t a t i s t i c a l

Package

f o r the S o c ia l S c ie n c e s (SPSS-X, 1986).
The purpose o f t h i s study was t o d e s c r i b e curre nt a t t i t u d e s and
p r a c t i c e s o f b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s r e l a t e d t o t h e use o f th e 1988 MEAP
results.

A secondary purpose was t o compare t h e s e cu rr e nt data with

54

th e f i n d i n g s o f S t e e l e ( 1 9 7 6 ) .

Each s e c t i o n noted above i n c l u d e s a

d i s c u s s i o n o f whether t h e curre nt f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with t h o se
of S teele.
1976,

Because th e MEAP was giv en on ly in grades 4 and 7 in

comparisons

with

the

Steele

study

are

lim ited

to

data

for

elementary and j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s and items common
t o both s t u d i e s .
Survey Returns
One thousand
schools,
during

three

hundred

j u n i o r hig h/m idd le
the

first

week

of

surveys

schools,
April

and high

1989.

were

returned

as

of

May

1,

w ithin

each

statistical
Because

s u bgr oup

and

for

to

schools

elementary
in Michigan

hundred

forty-one

299 t o j u n i o r hig h/m idd le

Seven hundred n i n e t y - o n e surveys

1989.

i n a c c u r a t e l y completed p o r t io n s

sent

Seven

surveys were s e n t t o elementary s c h o o l s ,
s c h o o l s , and 260 t o high s c h o o l s .

were

Because

of

o f some s u r v e y s ,
the

total

om issions

the to ta l

grou p

noted

and

number
in

the

for

the

a n a ly s e s may vary.
a

geo graphic

surveys was d e s i r e d ,

representation

of

the

state

samples f o r t h i s study were drawn from the s i x

geogra ph ic and community t y p e s ,

or s t r a t a ,

f o r Michigan as used by

t h e Michigan Department o f Education ( s e e Chapter I I I ) .

The number

o f s c h o o l s drawn from each stratum was in d i r e c t pro po rti on t o the
number o f elementary s c h o o l s , j u n i o r h igh/m idd le s c h o o l s ,
s c h o o l s w it h in each stratum and th e t o t a l
d e s i r e d f o r the s t a t e .
stratum f o r each school

and high

number o f sample members

The number o f surveys s en t and returned per
type i s shown in Table 1.

As seen in the

55

table,

only

one

stratum

(junior

h igh/m idd le

school,

Stratum

1--

25.6%) had l e s s than a 50% return r a t e .

Table 1 . - -Number o f surv eys s en t and re tu rne d, according t o the s i x
s t r a t a used by t h e Michigan Department o f Education.

Stratum

Schools in
Stratum

Surveys
Sent

Surveys
Returned

% o f Surveys
Returned

Elementary Schools

1
2
3
4
5
6
Total

255
287
428
384
236
281

100
100
169
152
94
112

53
61
89
98
67
72

5 3 .0
53. 5
52 .6
6 4 .4
71. 2
64. 2

1,871

741

440

59.2

Ju n io r High/Middle S ch oo ls
1
2
3
4
5
6

99
67
135
137
169
161

39
26
52
53
66
63

10
18
32
30
48
37

25. 6
69. 2
6 1 .5
56.6
72.2
58.7

Total

768

299

175

58. 5

High Schools

1
2
3
4
5
6

47
49
101
134
152
148

20
20
42
55
63
60

14
16
32
33
37
45

70. 0
80.0
58.1
6 0 .0
58.7
75. 0

Total

631

260

177

6 8 .0

56

R e s u l t s o f Data Analyses f o r the Four Research Questions
In t h i s s e c t i o n ,

f r e q u e n c i e s and p er ce nta ge s are presen ted to

provide a d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e re sp on se s o f elementary s c h o o l ,
h igh /m idd le s c h o o l ,
total

group,

investigation

and high school

regarding
in

this

the

principals,

four

stud y.

Part

as well

research
1 of

th e

junior

as o f the

questions
survey,

under

Information

About the A d m i n is t r a ti v e Use o f 1988 MEAP Test R e s u l t s , was designed
t o ga th er information r e l a t i v e t o the four resea rc h q u e s t i o n s .
Research Question 1
What d i s t r i c t - l e v e l
f o r Michigan school
MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
The

following

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s are being made
p r i n c i p a l s ’ use and d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f the

questionnaire

items

were

desig ned

to

answer

Research Question 1:
1.

Which 1988 MEAP assessment re p o r t s did you r e c e i v e ?

2.

During which month did you r e c e i v e the m a jo ri ty o f the
r e p o r t s you checked in Item 1?

3.

Who was p ri m a ri ly r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining procedures
f o r the use o f 1988 MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s in your sch ool ?

4.

Were you required t o develop a plan o f a c t i o n t o overcome
needs i d e n t i f i e d by the 1988 MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?

P r i n c i p a l s ’ re sp on se s to

Item 1,

"Which 1988 MEAP assessment

r e p o r t s did you re ce ive ?" are shown in Table 2.
An examination o f Table 2 i n d i c a t e s t h a t the v a s t m aj o ri ty o f
p r i n c i p a l s were r e c e i v i n g

the

re p o r t s d i s t r i b u t e d

by the Michigan

Department o f Education concerning the MEAP as se ssm en t.
per ce nt a ge s

were

seen with

the

in d iv id u al

stud ent

The h ig h e s t

reports

(total

group 97.3%), with elementary p r i n c i p a l s having the h i g h e s t response

57

rate

of

98.6%).

d istrict

The

lowest

summary r e p o r t s

(77.2%).

The

data

also

at

response
each

show

rate

level

that

can

and

only

be

for

seen

the

3% o f

for

total

the

the

group

principals

i n d i c a t e d "none o f the above" t o Item 1.

Table 2 . --MEAP assessment r e s u l t s r e c e i v e d by elementary s c h o o l ,
j u n i o r h igh/m idd le s c h o o l , and high school p r i n c i p a l s ,
and the t o t a l group.
Elementary
School
Principals
(N=430)

Reports
Received

Junior High/
Middle School
Principals
(N=l65)

N

%

N

%

Individual
Student

424

98 .6

161

9 7. 6

Classroom
Listing

421

9 7. 9

149

Classroom
Summary

405

94.2

School
Summary

419

D istrict
Summary

N

%

138

94.5

723

9 7. 3

90. 3

115

78.8

685

9 1. 7

145

87.9

119

81.5

669

89.9

97 .4

101

9 7 .6

138

94.5

718

96.8

336

78.1

126

76. 4

106

7 2 .6

568

77 .2

2

.5

0

2

.3

P r i n c i p a l s ’ respon ses t o
the ma jo rit y o f the

shown in Table 3.

N

Total
Group
(N=785)

%

None o f
the above

receive

High
School
Principals
(N=l46)

0

Item 2,

0

0

"During which month did you

r e p o r t s you

checked

in

Item 1?"

are

58

Table 3 . --When elementary s c h o o l , j u n i o r hig h/m idd le s c h o o l , and
high school p r i n c i p a l s , as well as t h e t o t a l group,
r e c e i v e d MEAP r e p o r t s .

Elementary
School
Principals
(N=406)

Month

N

High
School
Principals
(N=147)

Junior High/
Middle School
Principals
(N=l50)
N

%

%

N

%

Total
Group
(N=703)
N

%

November 1988

238

5 8. 6

93

62.0

71

48 .2

402

57.1

December 1988

124

30.5

43

28. 6

48

32.6

215

30.5

37

9.1

10

6.6

16

1 0 .8

63

8.9

February 1989

5

1.2

3

2.0

4

2. 7

12

1.7

A f t e r Febru­
ary 1989

2

.5

1

.7

8

5. 4

11

1.5

January 1989

Inspection
indicated
checked

of

that
in

Table

they

Item

3

shows

received

1 during

that

th e

57. 1% o f

m aj o ri ty

November

the

o f the

1988.

Another

principals

reports

they

30.5% o f

the

p r i n c i p a l s in d i c a t e d t h a t t he y r e c e i v e d the r e p o r t s during December
1988.

As MEAP r e s u l t s are t y p i c a l l y r e c e i v e d at the d i s t r i c t

during the l a s t
data

show

week in October or the f i r s t week in November,

that

local

d istricts

were

assess men t data t o the b u i l d i n g l e v e l .
th e

principals

indicated

that

th ey

prompt

level
these

in

d istrib u tin g

In a d d i t i o n ,

only 12.1% o f

received

MEAP r e s u l t s

during

January, February, or a f t e r February, 1989.
A h igh er
(62%)

received

perce ntag e
th e

of

reports

junior
in

h igh/m idd le

November

school

than e i t h e r

principals
elementary

59

principals

(58.6%) or high

four-tenths

p erc en t

of

school

the

high

principals
school

(48.2%).

principals

Five

indicated

and
th a t

t h ey r e c e i v e d the r e p o r t s a f t e r February 1989.
Responses o f elementary s c h o o l , j u n i o r h igh /m idd le s c h o o l ,
high school p r i n c i p a l s , as well as the t o t a l group, t o Item 3,

and
"Who

was p r im a r i ly r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining procedures f o r th e use o f
1988 MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s in your school?" are shown in Table 4.
Examination o f Table 4 r e v e a l s t h a t ,
principals

(total

procedures

f o r th e use

Almost

seven

indicated
determine

group =60.2%) were r e s p o n s i b l e

out

that
use

in most c a s e s ,

th e
of

of

o f the 1988 MEAP r e s u l t s
t en

(69.4%)

building
the

of

p r in c i p a l

assessment

the
had

school

o f c o u n s e lo r s
levels,

the

at

relative

in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

the

results.

the junior

responsibility
Given

of

the

to

relative

and t h e more common

h igh/m idd le

perce nta ge s

determining

elementary p r i n c i p a l s

absence o f c o u n s e lo r s at the elementary l e v e l
position

for

b u i ld in g

school

building

and high
co u n s e lo r s

having the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r determining use o f MEAP r e s u l t s i s not
unexpected.

Only 1.7% o f the elementary p r i n c i p a l s

b u i l d i n g c o u n s e lo r s determined use o f MEAP r e s u l t s .

i n d i c a t e d th a t
Eighteen

and

t h r e e - t e n t h s perce nt o f t h e j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s and
24.8% o f the high school p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d b u i ld in g c o u n s e lo r s as
th e persons r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining procedures f o r use o f the
MEAP r e s u l t s .

60

Table 4 . - - P e r s o n ( s ) r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining procedures f o r use
o f th e 1988 MEAP r e s u l t s .

R es ponsible
P er son (s )

N

Central
office
personnel

Junior High/
Middle School
Principals
(N=l53)

Elementary
School
Principals
(N=402)
%

High
School
Principals
(N=137)

%

N

N

Total
Group
(N=732)

%

N

%

64

1 5 .9

20

13.1

29

2 1 .2

116

1 5. 8

26

6.5

14

9.2

6

4.4

46

6.3

279

6 9. 4

81

5 2 .9

56

40.9

441

6 0. 2

B u il d i n g level
committee

26

6.5

10

6.5

12

8.8

52

7.1

Building
guidance
co u n s e lo r

7

1.7

28

18. 3

34

24.8

77

10. 5

Districtw ide
committee
Buil din g
p r in c i p a l

The study p a r t i c i p a n t s ’ re sp on se s t o Item 4, "Were you required
t o develop a plan o f a c t i o n t o overcome needs i d e n t i f i e d by th e 1988
MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ? " are shown in Table 5.
As shown in Table 5,

a f a i r l y equal

proportion o f elementary

p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d t h a t plans were required (33%), t h a t plans were
not required (33.7%), and t h a t plans were developed but not required
(33.3% ).

A greater

discrepancy

hig h/middle

school

and

principals,

respectively,

high

was

schools,

revealed

with

at

47% and

the

ju n ior

46.6% o f

the

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t plans were not r eq u ir ed .

61

Total group respo nse showed t h a t 40.2% o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s responding
to the

survey i n d i c a t e d t h a t plans were not r eq u ir ed .

principals

were

most

needs

often

required

address

the

id en tified

Overall,

59.9% o f the p r i n c i p a l s

(33%)

by t h e
sa id

to

Elementary

develop

MEAP a s s e s s m e n t
that

plans

to

resu lts.

plan s were devel ope d,

whether or not they were requ ired.

Table 5 . --Whether p r i n c i p a l s were required t o de velop a plan o f
a c t i o n t o overcome needs i d e n t i f i e d by the MEAP r e s u l t s .

Plan
Requirement

Elementary
School
Principals
(N=427)

Junior High/
Middle School
Principals
(N=l66)
N

%

High
School
Principals
(N=l46)

N

%

Yes, plan
required

141

3 3. 0

44

26.5

44

30.1

238

30.4

No, plan not
required

144

3 3. 7

78

4 7. 0

68

4 6 .6

315

40. 2

142

33 .3

44

26. 5

34

23.3

231

2 9 .5

Plan not
r eq u ir ed ,
but plan
developed

The preceding f i n d i n g s

N

%

Total
Group
(N=784)

are somewhat c o n s i s t e n t

N

%

with t h o s e

of

S t e e l e ’ s study but a l s o r e f l e c t inc re ase d awareness and use o f MEAP
resu lts

by b u i l d i n g

p rin cip als.

In

1976,

92% o f

elem entary

p r i n c i p a l s and 87% o f j u n i o r hig h/middle school p r i n c i p a l s r e c e i v e d
Indi vid ua l Stu dent, Classroom L i s t i n g , Classroom Summary, and School
Summary Reports

as compared t o 98.6% and 97.6%,

respectively,

in

62

1988.

Response r a t e s f o r elementary p r i n c i p a l s

high /midd le school

principals

(78.1%)

and j u n i o r

(76.4%) who r e c e i v e d D i s t r i c t

Summaries in 1988 were c o n s id e r a b ly high er than t h o s e

Report

in 1976 f o r

elementary (61%) and j u n i o r high/middle school p r i n c i p a l s (66%).
1976,

only

12% o f

elementary

and

junior

high/m iddle

In

school

p r i n c i p a l s were required t o develop improvement plan s based on th e
needs

id en tified

by t h e

MEAP,

as

compared

to

33% and

26.5%,

r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f elementary and j u n i o r high p r i n c i p a l s in 1988.
Research Question 2
What a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s are Michigan school p r i n c i p a l s
making to i n v o lv e t e a c h e r s in the a n a l y s i s , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and
use o f the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
Survey q u e s ti o n s designed t o answer Research Question 2 are:
5.

Did you e s t a b l i s h a b u i l d i n g - l e v e l committee t o i n v o l v e
t e a c h e r s in the a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e 1988
MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s f o r your school?

6.

Which assessment re p o r ts did you share with t e a c h e r s in
your school?

7.

What a s s i s t a n c e did you provide t o help t e a c h e r s under­
stand and i n t e r p r e t the 1988 MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?

8.

For what purposes have you encouraged t e a c h e r s t o use the
1988 MEAP in d iv i d u a l student t e s t r e s u l t s ?

Study p a r t i c i p a n t s ’ resp onses t o Item 5,
building-level

committee

to

i n v o lv e

teachers

"Did you e s t a b l i s h
in

the

analysis

a

and

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the 1988 MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s f o r your school?" are
shown in Table 6.

63

Table 6 . - - T e a c h e r s ’ involvement in a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f
t h e MEAP r e s u l t s .
Elementary
School
Principals
(N=425)

Teachers
Involved?

N

Junior High/
Middle School
Principals
(N=166)

%

N

High
School
Principals
(N=147)

%

N

Total
Group
(N=783)

%

N

%

Yes

224

52 .7

83

5 0. 0

64

43.5

389

4 9. 7

No

201

4 7. 3

83

5 0. 0

83

56 .5

394

50.3

As

shown

in

Table 6,

total

group

responses

were

evenly

d i s t r i b u t e d between the y e s - n o c h o i c e s f o r Item 5 (49.7% y e s ,
n o ).

High

(43.5%)

school

t ha n d i d

principals

appeared

t h e i r elem entary

to

involve

school

50.3%

teachers

(52.7%)

and

less

junior

h igh/m idd le school (50%) c o u n t e r p a r t s .
P r i n c i p a l s ’ re sp on se s t o Item 6,

"Which assess men t r e s u l t s did

you share with t e a c h e r s in your school?" are shown in
An

Table

7.

i n i t i a l review o f Table 7 shows t h a t elementary p r i n c i p a l s

consistently

shared more o f the a v a i l a b l e MEAP r e p o r t s with t h e i r

s t a f f than did j u n i o r high /midd le school and high school p r i n c i p a l s .
The on ly ex c e p t i o n was t h a t a s l i g h t l y h igh er perce nta ge o f j u n i o r
h igh/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s (89.7%) shared d i s t r i c t summaries than
did t h e i r elementary school co u n te rp a rt s (89.1%).
school

principals

staffs

( f o r example, only 40% shared d i s t r i c t

teachers).

least

often

shared

reports

with

Conve rsely ,
their

high

t ea ch in g

summaries with t h e i r

64

Table 7 . --MEAP re p o r t s t h a t p r i n c i p a l s shared with t e a c h e r s .
Elementary
School
Principals
(N=430)

Assessment
Report
Shared

High
School
Principals
(N=l47)

Junior High/
Middle School
Principals
(N=l65)

N

Total
Group
(N=787)

%

N

%

N

Individual
Student

380

88.4

132

80.0

93

6 3 .3

644

81.8

Classroom
Listing

369

85.8

125

75.8

91

61.9

615

78.1

Classroom
Summary

349

8 1 .2

116

70 .3

96

6 5. 3

594

7 5 .5

School
Summary

383

89.1

148

89.7

122

83.0

691

87.8

D istrict
Summary

251

6 0 .0

79

4 7 .9

59

40.1

422

5 3 .6

1

.2

1

.6

5

3.4

7

.9

None o f
t h e above

%

Total group re sp on se s showed t h a t School

N

%

Summary Reports were

t h e most o f t e n shared with t e a c h in g s t a f f s (87.8%) and t h a t D i s t r i c t
Summary Reports were the l e a s t shared MEAP re p or t (53.6%).
o f the p r i n c i p a l s
with t h e i r

staffs.

Only 9%

i n d ic a t e d t h a t "none o f th e repor ts " were shared
The data d i s p l a y e d

in Table 4 are c o n s i s t e n t

with t h o s e d is p la y e d in Table 2 in t h a t t o t a l group r es p o n se s showed
t h a t the MEAP report l e a s t o f t e n giv en t o b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s was
the

D istrict

Summary Report

(77.2%),

and t h e

re p or t

least

give n t o te a c h e r s was the D i s t r i c t Summary Report (53.6%).

often

65

P rincipals’

r es p o n se s

to

Item

7,

"What

assistance

did

you

pr ovide t o help t e a c h e r s understand and i n t e r p r e t t h e 1988 MEAP t e s t
r e s u l t s ? " are shown in Table 8.
Table 8 . - - A s s i s t a n c e p r i n c i p a l s provided t o t e a c h e r s t o help them
i n t e r p r e t th e 1988 MEAP r e s u l t s .
Elementary
School
Principals
(N=427)

Assistance
Provided

Conducted
teacher
meeting
Provided
MEAP manuals
Distributed
MEAP t e s t
data
Provided
MEAP video
Requested
inservice
assistance
Other ( s e e
Appendix)

Inspection
responses,

Junior High/
Middle School
Principals
(N=l62)

High
School
Principals
(N=132)

N

%

N

%

354

82.9

117

7 2 .2

77

55.8

574

7 4 .4

265

62.1

82

50.6

85

61.6

457

59. 3

334

7 8 .2

127

78.4

101

73. 2

594

77.0

16

3.7

3

1.9

2

1.4

22

2.9

55

1 2. 9

29

17.9

24

1 7. 4

112

1 4 .5

64

1 5 .0

22

13.6

18

13.0

109

14.1

of

Table

77% o f

the

8

shows

principals

that,

N

in

%

Total
Group
(N=771)

terms

distributed

of

st u d en t

provided w it h in Michigan Department o f Education f o l d e r s .

N

total
test

%

group
data

The t h r e e

subgroups were c o n s i s t e n t on t h i s item (78.2% f o r ele m ent ary ,

78.4%

66

f o r j u n i o r h igh /m idd le s c h o o l ,
2.9% o f

the

p rincipals

and 73.2% f o r high

presented

the

video

A s s e s s i n g Curriculum Needs With MEAP R e s u l t s . "

school).

Only

" Id en tifying

and

This low p er ce nta ge

may well be a r e s u l t o f p r i n c i p a l s ’ not being aware o f th e vid eo or
u n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f th e vi d eo soon a f t e r t e s t r e s u l t s were r e c e i v e d .
Elementary p r i n c i p a l s e x h i b i t e d the h i g h e s t p erc en ta ge o f re s p o n se s
(82.9%) and high school p r i n c i p a l s the lo w e s t (55.8%) when i t came
t o con ducting t e a c h e r meetings t o an aly ze MEAP r e s u l t s .
Subgroup perce nta ge s in the "other" item were c o n s i s t e n t (14.1%
f o r the t o t a l

group) and cont aine d comments r e l a t i v e t o a c t i v i t i e s

not included in the survey.

A sample o f comments from each subgroup

follows:
Elementary s c h o o l :
I condensed the r e s u l t s i n t o a s h o r t ,
1 i s t e d the o b j e c t i v e s which were l o w e s t .

reada ble

I analyzed r e s u l t s
etc.

in r e l a t i o n t o o th er d a t a - - s e x ,

I consulted
d istrict.

the

with

reading

and

math

re p o rt
age,

consultant

for

and
ra ce ,

the

Junior hig h /m id d le s c h o o l :
I n s e r v i c e provided by area s t a f f .
Met with department heads t o ana lyze da ta .
I developed s t r a t e g i e s f o r prov iding and improving i n s t r u c t i o n
f o r th e high needs a r e a s .
High s c h o o l :
I met w i t h ea c h t e a c h e r
improvement p o s s i b l e .

in

sp ecific

areas

to

d iscu ss

Department c h a i r p e r s o n s / c l i n i c i a n have c o n t a c t with in d iv i d u a l
s u b j e c t area t e a c h e r s .

67

Wrote c r i t i q u e o f r e s u l t s and o f f e r e d t o go over r e s u l t s
depth with any s t a f f member.
Study p a r t i c i p a n t s ’ re s p o n se s

to

Item 8 ,

in

"For what purposes

have you encouraged t e a c h e r s t o use the 1988 MEAP i n d iv i d u a l student
t e s t r e s u l t s ? " are shown in Table 9.

Table 9 . -- Pur po se s f o r which t e a c h e r s were encouraged t o use the
1988 MEAP in d i v i d u a l r e s u l t s .

Purpose

Elementary
School
Principals
(N=429)

Junior High/
Middle School
Pr in ci p a l s
(N=163)

%

8 3. 4

112

80.6

649

84.0

134

82 .2

105

7 5 .5

640

82.8

19.1

30

18.4

20

14. 4

144

18 .6

349

81.4

115

70.6

87

62.6

582

75.3

208

4 8 .5

62

38. 0

61

43.9

350

4 5 .3

29

6.8

13

8.0

7

5.0

49

6.3

%

To dia gn o s e
students’
strengths

362

84.4

136

To plan
instructional
programs

371

86.5

82

To communi­
cate per­
formance t o
parents
To m ot iv a te
l e a r n in g
Other

Total
Group
(N=773)

N

N

To group
s t u d e n ts

High
School
Principals
(N=l39)

N

%

N

%

68

Examination o f Table 9 shows t h a t , a s i d e from t h e "other" item
on t h e

survey,

using MEAP r e s u l t s

l e a s t o f t e n checked by re sp o n d en ts.

t o group s t u d e n ts was t h e

area

As a t o t a l group, only 18.6% o f

t h e respondents in d i c a t e d t h a t they encouraged t e a c h e r s t o use MEAP
r e s u l t s as a help when st ud en t grouping d e c i s i o n s were made.

This

low perce nta ge i s b e t t e r understood, however, when one r e c a l l s t h a t
the

MEAP a s s e s s e s

st ud en t

achievement

relative

to

th e

essential

s k i l l s developed by Michigan educators and not a broad spectrum o f
sk ills,

i n c l u d i n g t h o s e t h a t may go beyond b a s ic or core g r a d e - l e v e l

objectives.
The two h i g h e s t p er ce nta ge s were seen f o r elementary p r i n c i p a l s
in the areas o f d ia g n o sin g s t u d e n t s ’ s t r e n g t h s (84.4%) and planning
instructional
was

programs (86.5%).

consistently

low

for

The purpose o f m o tiv a tin g s t u d e n t s

each

level,

with

only

the

elementary

p r i n c i p a l s (48.5%) approaching the 50% l e v e l .
Subgroup p er ce nta ge s
consistent,

with

the

for

total

the

group

"other"

item were

perce ntage

at

again

6.3%.

fairly

Comments

r e l a t i v e t o purposes not included in th e survey included the f o l l o w ­
ing sample:

El ementary sch o o l:
To r e v i e w our b a s i c
science.

in stru ction al

programs,

sp ecifica lly

Plan and e v a l u a t e i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs.
To determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses o f curriculum.

Junior high/middle sch o o l:
To ret e ac h weak ar e a s .

69

I d e n t i f y needs f o r school improvement plan .
High s c h o o l :
j o b done?

Educational

a c c o u n t a b i l i t y - - a r e we g e t t i n g

the

To g e t s c o r e s up in ot h e r areas in th e f u t u r e .
The preceding f i n d i n g s were c o n s i s t e n t with t h o s e o f th e S t e e l e
st u d y ,

with th e e x c e p t i o n

middle

school

School

Summary Reports with t h e i r s t a f f s

principals

89%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
p rin cipals

and

that

1976 on ly

and 81% o f

in 1988.
36% o f

in

73% o f j u n i o r

elementary

principals

high/
shared

as compared t o 89.7% and

In a d d i t i o n , in 1976, 42% o f elementary
junior

high/m iddle

school

p rin cipals

encouraged t h e i r t e a c h e r s t o use MEAP r e s u l t s t o communicate stud en t
performance

to

parents,

respectively,

in 1988.

as

compared

to

81.4%

and

70.6%,

Research Question 3
For what purposes and t o what e x t e n t
p r i n c i p a l s using the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?

are

Michigan

school

For Research Question 3, elementary s c h o o l , j u n i o r h igh/m idd le
s c h o o l , and high school p r i n c i p a l s were asked t o respond t o a s e r i e s
o f 14 s t a t e m e n t s , r e p r e s e n t i n g a broad spectrum o f uses o f t h e MEAP
results.

The 14 s e l e c t e d

purposes were 1 i s t e d

in

Item 9 o f

the

survey as f o l l o w s :
a.

To determine the general achievement l e v e l o f the f o u r t h - ,
s e v e n t h - , or t en t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s in your s c h o o l .

b.

To inform the school community o f the general achievement
l e v e l o f th e f o u r t h - , s e v e n t h - , or t e n t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s in
your s c h o o l .

c.

To determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in th e area o f mathe­
matics.

70

d.

To determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e area o f re a d ­
in g .

e.

To determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in th e area o f
science.

f.

To determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s .

g.

To document need in the deter mina tion o f school re s ou rc e
a l l o c a t i o n ( i . e . , p eo p le , time , m a t e r i a l s , and s p a c e ) .

h.

To determine

placement o f s t u d en t s in "remedial" programs.

i.

To determine need f o r new programs.

j.

To determine

k.

To analyze t e a c h e r performance.

the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs.

1.

To i d e n t i f y s t a f f - d e v e lo p m e n t needs f o r t e a c h e r s .

m.

To prepare prop os als f o r funding.

n.

To p r e d i c t s t u d e n t s ’ f u tu r e academic s u c c e s s .

o.

Others, p l e a s e s p e c i f y .

The "other"

item was included

so t h a t

purposes not addressed in the survey.

respondents

could

indicate

A sample o f t h o s e n a r r a t i v e

re s p o n se s i s given a f t e r each p r in c i p a l group.
Using

an e i g h t - p o i n t

Likert

scale

(1

through

8),

principals

rated the e x t e n t t o which they used the 1 i s t e d purposes o f t h e 1988
MEAP r e s u l t s .

A s co re o f 1 or 2 i n d i c a t e d a r a t i n g o f "very 1 i t t l e "

u s e , a 3 or 4 i n d i c a t e d a r a t i n g o f "some" use , a 5 or 6 in d i c a t e d a
r a t i n g o f "quite a bit" o f use , and a 7 or 8 in d i c a t e d the r e s u l t s
were used " e x t e n s i v e l y . "
In t h e f o l l o w i n g pa ges,
(elementary

school,

junior

data are presented
high/middle

school,

f o r each
and

high

subgroup
school

71

principals).

Total group data are pr es en te d as part o f th e summary

f o r Research Question 3.
Elementary

school

p rincipals.

Elementary

school

principals’

res p on se s concerning each o f t h e 14 s e l e c t e d u ses o f t h e 1988 MEAP
results,

as well

Table 10.
results

as t h e i r mean r a t i n g f o r each u s e ,

are

shown in

The e x t e n t t o which elementary p r i n c i p a l s used th e MEAP

f o r each o f the

14 s e l e c t e d

purposes

is

discussed

in

the

f o l l o w i n g paragraphs.
a.

To determine t h e general

achievement l e v e l

o f the fourth-

grade s t u d e n t s in your s c h o o l .
This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 5 . 0 9 ,
on t h e average,

elementary p r i n c i p a l s were us ing

indicating

that,

th e MEAP r e s u l t s

"quite a bit" t o determine general achievement l e v e l s o f s t u d e n t s in
th eir schools.

Only 5.3% o f the p r i n c i p a l s c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e i r use

o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h i s purpose as "very 1 i t t l e . "

(See Table

10.)

b.

To inform t h e school

community o f t h e general

achievement

l e v e l o f t h e f o u rt h - g ra d e s t u d e n t s in your s c h o o l .
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 4 . 7 2 ,
the

average,

"quite

a bit"

elementary
to

achievement l e v e l
third

inform

principals
the

were

school

using

indicating th at,
th e

community o f

o f s t u d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

MEAP r e s u l t s
the

(See Table 1 0 . )

general

Approximately one-

(34.6%) c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e i r use o f the MEAP r e s u l t s

purpose as "some."

on

for th is

Table 1 0 . - -E x te n t t o which elementary school p r i n c i p a l s used th e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s fo r 1^
s e l e c t e d purposes.

Extent o f Use
P o s s i b l e Use

Very
L ittle

Some

Quite
a Bit

S.D.

Mean

Ex tensive

N

%

23

5. 3

130

3 0. 3

93

45.0

83

1 9 .4

1.61

5.09

34

10.3

147

34.6

173

4 0. 7

61

1 4. 4

1.66

4.72

To determine s t r e n g t h s and
weaknesses in mathematics

9

2.1

80

1 8 .6

218

50. 7

123

2 8 .6

1.43

5.66

To determine s t r e n g t h s
and weaknesses in reading

16

3.8

83

19.3

211

49.0

120

2 7 .9

1.50

5.56

To determine s tr en gt h s
and weaknesses in s c i e n c e

57

13. 4

141

33.0

133

31. 2

96

2 2 .5

1.91

4.74

To determine i n s t r u c ­
t io n a l p r i o r i t i e s

29

6.8

127

2 9 .6

186

43. 3

88

2 0. 5

1.63

5.02

To document need f o r
resource a l l o c a t i o n

160

38.0

166

39 .3

78

1 8. 5

18

4.3

1.69

3.27

To determine general
student achievement
levels
To inform the school
community

N

%

Table 1 0 . --Continued.

Extent o f Use

-

P o s s i b l e Use

Very
L ittle
N

Quite
a Bit

Some
%

N

%

N

S.D.

Mean

4.1

1.74

2.76

Ext ensive
%

N

%

To determine remedial
student placement

231

54.6

129

3 0. 5

46

10 .9

To determine need f o r
new programs

191

45 .5

153

36 .5

63

15.1

12

2.9

1.65

2.99

To determine new
program e f f e c t i v e n e s s

214

51.6

122

29.4

67

16.1

12

2.9

1.71

2.85

To analyze t eac her
performance

304

75.3

78

19.3

17

4.2

5

1. 2

1 .3 8

1.92

To i d e n t i f y s t a f f development needs

130

3 0. 8

145

3 4 .4

112

26 .6

35

8.3

1.89

3.66

To prepare funding
proposals

310

74.6

65

15. 6

32

7. 7

9

2.1

1.58

2.11

To p r e d ic t s t u d e n t s ’
future academic s u cce ss

221

52.9

130

31.1

56

13.4

11

2.6

1.67

2.70

4

40.0

0

0

4

40. 0

2

20. 0

2.74

4.00

Other

17

74

c.

To determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e area o f mathe­

matics.
Elementary p r i n c i p a l s gave t h i s purpose a mean r a t i n g o f 5 . 6 6 ,
indicating

that,

on the average,

they were us ing t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

"quite a b it " to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e area o f
mathematics

in t h e i r

schools.

This purpose had the

s c o r e o f th e 14 s e l e c t e d u ses o f the MEAP r e s u l t s .
responding

principals

in d i c a t e d

"very

1it t le "

h i g h e s t mean

Only 2.1% o f the

use

in

this

area.

(See Table 1 0 . )
d.

To

determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses

in

the

area

of

r e a d in g .
This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 5 . 5 6 ,
on

the

average,

elementary

principals

were

indicating that,

also

using

the

MEAP

results

"quite a bit" t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the

area o f

reading in t h e i r s c h o o l s . As

the p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d "very l i t t l e

in mathematics, only 3.8% o f
use in t h i s area .

(See Table

10 .)
e.

To

determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses

in

the

area

of

science.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 4 . 7 4 ,
the

average,

elementary

principals

were

using

indicating that,
the

on

MEAP r e s u l t s

"quite a bit " to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f
s c i e n c e in t h e i r s c h o o l s .
i n d i c a t e d "very l i t t l e "
mathematics.

A higher percentage o f p r i n c i p a l s (13.4%)

use in t h i s area as compared t o reading and

(See Table 1 0 . )

75

f.

To determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s .

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 5 . 0 2 ,
th e

average,

"quite

elementary

a bit"

schools.
g.

to

principals

determine

were

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on

using

instructional

th e

MEAP r e s u l t s

priorities

w it h in

their

(See Table 1 0 . )
To document need in t h e d ete rm in at io n o f school

re s o u rc e

a l l o c a t i o n ( i . e . , p e o p le , t im e, m a t e r i a l s , and s p a c e ) .
Elementary p r i n c i p a l s gave t h i s purpose a mean r a t i n g o f 3 . 2 7 ,
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the average, th ey were using t h e MEAP r e s u l t s to
"some" e x t e n t
Thirty-eight

to

determine

percent

re so u rce

allocation

in

o f t h e elementary p r i n c i p a l s

their

schools.

indicated

"very

1 i t t l e " use in t h i s area, and only 4.3% i n d i c a t e d "exten siv e" use o f
th e MEAP r e s u l t s t o determine re so u rce a l l o c a t i o n .
h.

(See Table 1 0 . )

To determine piacement o f s t u d e n t s in "remedial" programs.

This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 2 . 7 6 ,

indicating

that,

on t h e average, elementary p r i n c i p a l s were making "some" use o f the
MEAP r e s u l t s
programs.

to

determ ine

piacement

of

students

A m a jo ri ty o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s (54.6%)

"very 1 i t t l e "

use in t h i s

area.

(See Table 1 0 . )

in

remedial

however,

indicated

This f i n d i n g

is

not s u r p r i s i n g because the MEAP i s giv en in grades 4, 7, and 10 and
t h e r e f o r e would have 1 imi ted use f o r placement

in t h e o t h er K-12

g rad es.
i.

To determine need f o r new programs.

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 2 . 9 9 ,
th e average,

elementary p r i n c i p a l s

were making

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on
"some"

MEAP r e s u l t s t o determine th e need f o r new programming.

use

of

the

Only 2.9%

76

o f the elementary p r i n c i p a l s

indicated

"e xtensive"

u s e,

and 45.5%

in d i c a t e d "very l i t t l e " use o f the MEAP r e s u l t s in t h i s area .

(See

Table 1 0 . )

j.

To determine the e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f new programs.

Elementary p r i n c i p a l s gave t h i s purpose a mean r a t i n g o f 2 . 8 5 ,
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on th e average, they were making "some" use o f the
MEAP r e s u l t s

to

determine

new-program e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

A m a jo ri ty

(51.6%) o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d , however, t h a t "very 1 i t t l e " use
was made o f the MEAP r e s u l t s when determining the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f
new programs.

k.

(See Table 1 0 . )

To analyze teacher performance.

This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 1 . 3 8 ,
on the average,
"very 1 i t t l e "

to

indicating

that,

elementary p r i n c i p a l s were using the MEAP r e s u l t s
analyze

teacher

performance.

More

than

three-

f o u r t h s (75.3%) o f the p r i n c i p a l s in d ic a t e d "very 1 i t t l e " use o f the
MEAP r e s u l t s in t h i s area .

1.

(See Table 1 0 . )

To id e n tify staff-development needs for teachers.

The mean r a t i n g fo r t h i s purpose was 3 . 6 6 ,
th e

average,

elementary

principals

made

indicating that,

"some"

use

of

r e s u l t s t o i d e n t i f y s t a f f - d e v e lo p m e n t needs f o r t e a c h e r s .

the

on

MEAP

However,

34.9% o f the p r i n c i p a l s did i n d i c a t e

"quite a bit" or "exte nsi ve"

use o f the MEAP r e s u l t s in t h i s area.

(See Table 1 0 . )

m.

To prepare proposals for funding.

This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 2 . 1 1 ,

indicating that,

on the average, elementary p r i n c i p a l s made "very l i t t l e "

use o f the

77

MEAP r e s u l t s t o prepare p rop os als f o r funding.

Almost t h r e e - f o u r t h s

(74.6%) o f the p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d "very l i t t l e "

use in t h i s area.

(See Table 1 0 . )

n.

To predict students* future academic success.

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 2 . 7 0 ,
t h e av erage ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on

elementary p r i n c i p a l s were making

"some"

MEAP r e s u l t s t o p r e d i c t s t u d e n t s ’ academic s u c c e s s .
m ajority

(52.9%)

o f the responding

1 i t t l e " use in t h i s area.
o.

p rin cipals

use

of

the

Again, a s i i g h t
in d icated

" ver y

(See Table 1 0 . )

Others, p l e a s e s p e c i f y .

The

following

principals

relative

MEAP r e s u l t s :

are
to

some

of

the

comments

the purposes

made

by

elementary

f o r which th ey used the

"To determine material

needs--SEMS,

s c i e n c e , " "To determine alignments o f t e s t i n g

AIMS,

etc.

1988
for

and c u r r i c u l u m , " and

"To g e n e r a t e v a r i a b l e s f o r u n i v e r s i t y course w o r k . "
The preceding f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with t h o s e o f t h e S t e e l e
study with

the

ex c e p t i o n

of

Items

b and

f.

Steele

found

that

elementary p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP r e s u l t s t o "some" e x t e n t (mean =
3.08)

"to

inform the

level

o f the

school

fo u rt h -g ra d e

community o f

s tu d en ts

in

the

their

general
s c h o o l ,"

achievement
whereas

the

f i n d i n g s o f the pres en t study i n d ic a t e d t h a t elementary p r i n c i p a l s
used the MEAP r e s u l t s "quite a bit" (mean = 4 . 7 2 ) f o r t h i s purpose.
A ls o , S t e e l e found t h a t elementary p r i n c i p a l s used t h e MEAP r e s u l t s
to

"some"

p riorities,"

extent
whereas

(mean
the

= 4.21)
findings

"to
of

the

determ ine
present

in stru ction al
study

indicated

78

t h a t elementary p r i n c i p a l s used the HEAP r e s u l t s "quite a bit " (mean
= 5 . 0 2 ) f o r t h i s purpose.
Junior high/m iddle school

p rin cip a ls.

Junior h igh /m idd le

school p r i n c i p a l s ’ re s p o n se s concerning each o f the 14 s e l e c t e d uses
o f th e 1988 HEAP r e s u l t s , as well as t h e i r mean r a t i n g f o r each use ,
are shown in Table 11.

The e x t e n t t o which t h e s e p r i n c i p a l s used

t h e HEAP r e s u l t s f o r each o f th e 14 s e l e c t e d purposes i s d i s c u s s e d
in t h e f o l l o w i n g paragraphs.

a.

To determine the general achievement level o f the seventh-

grade students in your sch o o l.
This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 4 . 7 3 ,
on t h e average, j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school
results
levels

"quite
in

their

principals
indicated

a

bit "

to

schools.

indicated

determine
Twelve

"exte nsi ve"

"very 1 i t t l e "

indicating that,

p r i n c i p a l s used th e HEAP

general

stud en t

and n i n e - t e n t h s

perce nt

use o f the r e s u l t s

use o f the HEAP r e s u l t s

achievement
of

the

and on ly 3.1%

for th is

purpose.

(See Table 1 1 . )

b.

To inform the school community o f the general achievement

level o f the seventh-grade students in your sch o ol.
Jun ior h igh/m idd le school
rating of 4.98,

p r i n c i p a l s gave t h i s

purpose a mean

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the average, th ey used th e HEAP

r e s u l t s "quite a bit" t o inform the school community o f the general
achievement l e v e l

o f students

in t h e i r

school.

Almost

one-fifth

(18.8%) o f the p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d t h a t they used the HEAP r e s u l t s
" e x t e n s i v e ly "
are a.

and only

(See Table 1 1 . )

5.5% i n d i c a t e d

"very

1i t t l e "

use

in

this

Table 1 1 . - - E x t e n t t o which j u n i o r high/middle school p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s fo r
14 s e l e c t e d purposes.
Extent o f Use
P o s s i b l e Use

Very
L ittle

Quite
a B it

Some

S.D.

Mean

Extensive

%

N

%

5

3.1

72

4 4 .2

65

39.9

21

1 2 .9

1.4 9

4.73

To inform the school
community

9

5.5

53

32.1

72

43.6

31

18.8

1.6 4

4.9 8

To determine s tr e n g t h s and
weaknesses in mathematics

5

3.0

37

22. 7

82

50.3

39

2 4. 0

1.5 4

5.39

To determine s t re n g th s
and weaknesses in reading

6

3.6

45

27.‘

81

4 9 .3

32

1 9 .5

1.5 5

5.19

To determine s t r e n g th s
and weaknesses in s c i e n c e

24

14. 6

35

3 9. 7

52

3 1. 7

23

14.1

1.83

4.39

To determine i n s t r u c ­
t io n a l p r i o r i t i e s

23

14.1

65

39.8

56

34.4

19

11. 7

1.73

4.42

To document need for
resource a l l o c a t i o n

74

45.1

63

38.5

24

14.6

3

1.8

1.61

3.02

N

To determine general
student achievement
levels

N

%

Table 1 1 . --Continued.
Extent o f Use
P o s s i b l e Use

Very
L ittle
N

Quite
a Bit

Some
%

N

%

S.D.

%

N

Mean

Ext ens ive
N

%

To determine remedial
student placement

72

4 4 .4

51

31.5

33 2 0 .4

6

3.7

1 .8 0

3.12

To determine need fo r
new programs

64

39.5

63

38.9

30

18. 5

5

3.1

1.6 2

3.20

To determine new
program e f f e c t i v e n e s s

86

54.2

46

28 .9

35

15. 7

2

1.2

1.5 9

2.76

To analyze tea ch er
performance

128

8 0. 5

22

13 .8

9

5. 7

0

0

1.2 0

1.75

To i d e n t i f y s t a f f development needs

66

4 0 .9

56

34.8

34

21.2

5

3.1

1. 76

3.13

To prepare funding
proposals

107

6 7 .8

36

22.7

13

8.2

2

1.3

1. 52

2.18

To p r e d ic t s t u d e n t s ’
future academic s u cc es s

84

52.5

51

3 1 .9

21

13.1

4

2.5

1 .6 8

2.66

Other

2

1

20.0

40.0

1

20.0

1

20.0

2.96

3.60

81

c.

To determine strengths and weaknesses in the area o f mathe­

matics.
This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 5 . 3 9 ,

indicating that,

on the average, j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s used t h e MEAP
results

"quite a bit" t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the

area o f mathematics
principals

in

th eir

schools.

rated t h i s use as e i t h e r

A total

of

74.3% o f

the

"quite a bit " or " e x t e n s i v e . "

As with elementary p r i n c i p a l s , t h i s was the h i g h e s t rated use o f the
MEAP r e s u l t s .

Only 3% o f the p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d

in t h i s area.

(See Table 1 1 . )

d.

To determine strengths

"very 1 i t t l e " use

and weaknesses

in

the

area of

reading.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 5 . 1 9 ,
th e

average,

results

junior

"quite

hig h/middle

elementary

principals

a bit" to determine s t r e n g t h s and

area o f reading in t h e i r
th e

school

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on
used

th e

MEAP

weaknesses in the

s c h o o l s . This r a t i n g was c o n s i s t e n t with

principals’

rating

in

that

this

was

h i g h e s t rated purpose f o r the j u n i o r hig h/middle school

the

second

principals.

(See Table 1 1 . )

e.

To determine strengths

and weaknesses

in

the

area of

scien ce.
This purpose r e c e iv e d a mean r a t i n g o f 4 . 3 9 ,

indicating

that,

on the average, j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s made "some" use
o f the MEAP r e s u l t s

t o determine

area

th eir

of

deceiving,

science

in

however,

strengths

sch ools.

This

and weaknesses
finding

is

in the

somewhat

in t h a t 45.8% o f the j u n i o r hig h/m idd le school

82

p r i n c i p a l s gave t h i s use a r a t i n g o f "quite a bit " or " e x t e n s i v e . "
Fourteen and s i x - t e n t h s

p erc en t

o f th e p r i n c i p a l s

1 i t t l e " use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s in t h i s a re a .

f.

in d i c a t e d

(See Table 1 1 . )

To determine instructional p r i o r i t ie s .

Juni or hig h /m id d le school p r i n c i p a l s gave t h i s
rating of 4.42,

indicating

use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s
th eir
the

"very

schools.

g.

gave

on th e average,

t o determine

Once a ga in ,

principals

" extensive."

that,

this

however,

purpose

purpose a mean

t hey made "some"

instructional

p riorities

a high perce nta ge

a rating

of

"quite

in

(46.1%)

of

a

or

bit"

(See Table 1 1 . )

To document need in the determination o f school resource

a llo c a tio n ( i . e . , people, time, m aterials, and sp ace).
This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 3 . 0 2 ,

indicating that,

on th e avera ge, j u n i o r hig h/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s made "some" use
o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s to document need in the deter mina tio n o f school
r es o u r c e
"very

allocation.

1ittle"

use

Forty-five
of

the

" ex te n siv e" use in t h i s a re a .

h.

and o n e -t e n th

MEAP r e s u l t s

and

percent

only

1.8%

indicated
indicated

(See Table 1 1 . )

To determine placement o f students in "remedial" programs.

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 3 . 1 2 ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on

th e avera ge, j u n i o r hig h /m id d le school p r i n c i p a l s made "some" use o f
th e MEAP r e s u l t s t o determine placement o f s t u d e n t s
programs.

(See

Table

11.)

As with

the

in

elementary

"remedial"
principal s ’

r a t i n g in t h i s ar ea , t h e MEAP was give n only in the seventh grade

83

during a s t u d e n t ’ s j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school y e a r s and would t h e r e ­
f o r e have l i m i t e d u t i l i t y t o a s s i s t with grouping co nc er ns.
i.

To determine need f o r new programs.

Jun ior h igh /m idd le school
rating of 3.20,

p r i n c i p a l s gave t h i s

indicating that,

on the average,

purpose a mean

th ey

made "some"

use o f the MEAP r e s u l t s t o determine need f o r new programs.

Almost

40% (39.5%) in d i c a t e d "very 1 i t t l e " use f o r t h e MEAP r e s u l t s in t h i s
area .

(See Table 1 1 . )
j.

To determine t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs.

This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 2 . 7 6 ,

indicating that,

on th e ave rage, j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s made "some" use
o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s t o determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs.
It should be no ted,
"very 1 i t t l e "

however, t h a t 54.2% o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d

use f o r the MEAP r e s u l t s

in t h i s

area.

(See Table

11.)
k.

To a n aly ze t e a c h e r performance.

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s

purpose was 1 . 2 0 ,

the lo w e s t r a t i n g

g iv e n by the j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s ,

indicating that,

on the average, th e p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP r e s u l t s
to

analyze t e a c h e r performance.

"very 1 i t t l e "

Only one out o f f i v e

principals

made "some" use or "quite a bit " o f use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s in t h i s
area,

and no p r i n c i p a l

in d i c a t e d making e x t e n s i v e use o f t h e MEAP

r e s u l t s to ana lyze t e a c h e r performance.
1.

(See Table 1 1 . )

To i d e n t i f y s t a f f - d e v e l o p m e n t needs f o r t e a c h e r s .

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 3 . 1 3 ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on

th e av era ge , j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s made "some" use o f

84

the

MEAP

results

to

assist

with

development needs f o r t e a c h e r s .
m.

th e

id en tification

of

staff-

(See Table 1 1 . )

To prepare p rop os als f o r funding.

This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 1 . 5 2 ,
on t h e

average,

junior

h igh /m idd le

school

indicating that,

principals

made

"very

1 i t t l e " use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s t o prepare funding p r o p o s a ls .

Only

9.5% o f th e p r i n c i p a l s in d i c a t e d "quite a bit " or "e xtensive" use o f
the MEAP r e s u l t s in t h i s ar ea .
n.

(See Table 1 1 . )

To p r e d i c t s t u d e n t s ’ f u t u r e academic s u c c e s s .

Junior hig h/middle school
rating

of 1.68,

indicating

p r i n c i p a l s gave t h i s

that,

on the

average,

purpose a mean
they made "very

1 i t t l e " use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s t o p r e d i c t s t u d e n t s ’ f u tu r e academic
success.
"quite

F i f t e e n and s i x - t e n t h s percent o f the p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d
a

purpose.
o.

bit"

or

extensive"

use

of

the

MEAP r e s u l t s

for

this

(See Table 1 1 . )
Others, p l e a s e s p e c i f y .

Two

comments

made

by

junior

h igh/m idd le

school

principals

r e l a t i v e t o ot h er purposes f o r which they used the 1988 MEAP r e s u l t s
are as f o l l o w s :

"To determine minimum l e a r n in g o b j e c t i v e s " and "To

demonstrate the poor c o r r e l a t i o n

between MEAP s c i e n c e

results

and

science ed u cation ."
The preceding f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with th o s e o f the S t e e l
study with the ex c e p ti o n o f Items b and n.

S t e e l e found t h a t j u n i o r

h igh/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP r e s u l t s t o "some" e x t e n t
(mean

=

3.34)

"to

inform

the

school

community

of

the

general

85

achievement l e v e l
whereas

the

o f the

findings

of

se vent h-grad e
the

pr es en t

s tu d e n t s
study

in t h e i r

indicated

school,"

that

junior

h ig h /m id d le school p r i n c i p a l s used the r e s u l t s "quite a b it " (mean =
4 . 9 8 ) f o r t h i s purpose.

A ls o , S t e e l e found t h a t j u n i o r hig h /m id d le

school p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP r e s u l t s "very 1 i t t l e "

(mean = 2 . 2 6 )

"to p r e d i c t s t u d e n t s ’ f u t u r e academic s u c c e s s , " whereas t h e f i n d i n g s
of this

study i n d i c a t e d

that

j u n i o r h igh/m idd le

school

principals

made "some" (mean = 2 . 6 6 ) use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h i s purpose.
High

school

p r in c i p a l s .

High

school

principals’

re s p o n se s

concerning each o f the 14 s e l e c t e d uses o f the 1988 MEAP r e s u l t s , as
we ll as t h e i r mean r a t i n g f o r each u s e, are shown in Table 12.

The

extent

for

each

t o which high school
of

the

14

selected

principals

purposes

is

used the MEAP r e s u l t s
discussed

in

th e

f o i l owing

paragraphs.
a.

To determine t h e general

achievement l e v e l

o f the tenth-

grade s t u d e n t s in your s c h o o l .
This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 4 . 0 8 ,
on the

average,

"some" e x t e n t

to

high

school

determine

principals
th e

general

t e n t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

used the

indicating

that,

MEAP r e s u l t s

achievement

level

of

to
the

More than one out o f four

(28.7%) made very 1i t t l e use o f the MEAP r e s u l t s and o nly 11.7% made
"e xt en si ve " use o f the r e s u l t s in t h i s area.
b.

(See Table 1 2 . )

To inform t h e school community o f t h e general

achievement

l e v e l o f t h e t e n t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s in your s c h o o l .
High school p r i n c i p a l s gave t h i s purpose a mean r a t i n g o f 4 . 2 8 ,
indicating that,

on the average,

they made "some" use o f t h e MEAP

Table 1 2 . -- E xt en t t o which high school p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s f o r 14 s e l e c t e d
purposes.
Extent o f Use
P o s s i b l e Use

Very
L ittle
N

To determine general
student achievement
levels

Some

Quite
a B it
N

%

S.D.

Mean

Ext ensive
%

27

28 .7

24

2 5 .5

32

34.1

11

11. 7

2.11

4.0 8

26

25.7

25

2 4 .8

31

30.7

19

1 8 .8

2.24

4.2 8

8

5.6

27

1 8. 4

70

47.9

41

28.1

1 .5 8

5.48

To determine s t re n gt h s
and weaknesses in reading

10

6.9

29

2 0. 0

67

46 .2

39

26 .9

1.6 9

5.38

To determine s t r e n g t h s
and weaknesses in s c i e n c e

28

19 .7

36

25. 4

54

38.0

24

1 6 .9

1.95

4.55

To determine i n s t r u c ­
tional p r io r it ie s

25

17.2

57

39. 3

46

31.7

17

1 1 .8

1.81

4.23

To document need fo r
resource a l l o c a t i o n

59

42.7

45

32.6

28

20.3

6

4.3

1.80

3.20

To inform the school
community
To determine s t r e n g t h s and
weaknesses in mathematics

Table 1 2 . --Continued.

Extent o f Use
P o s s i b l e Use

Very
L ittle
N

Quite
a B it

Some
%

N

%

N

S.D.

Mean

Ex tensive
%

N

%

To determine remedial
student placement

56

40.9

43

3 1 .4

22

1 6 .0

16

11 .7

2.1 2

3.3 9

To determine need f o r
new programs

54

39.1

46

3 3 .3

30

2 1 .7

8

5.8

1 .8 6

3.35

To determine new
program e f f e c t i v e n e s s

78

56.5

40

28. 9

17

12.3

3

2.1

1. 63

2.64

To analyze tea ch er
performance

104

81.2

18

14.1

5

3.9

1

.8

1.1 9

1.76

To i d e n t i f y s t a f f development needs

69

50.4

37

27. 0

28

20 .5

3

2.2

1.7 9

2.86

To prepare funding
proposals

88

6 7 .2

29

22.1

12

9.2

2

1.5

1 .5 0

2.16

To p r e d ic t s t u d e n t s ’
future academic s u c c e s s

71

53. 0

44

32.8

17

12.7

2

1.5

1.6 6

2.60

Other

0 0

0

0

0 0

0 0

0 0

88

results

to

inform th e school

community o f th e general

achievement

l e v e l o f th e t e n t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

Tw en t y - f iv e and

seven-tenths

that

perce nt

of

the

principals

indicated

r e s u l t s were used "very l i t t l e " f o r t h i s purpose.

c.

the

MEAP

(See Table 1 2 . )

To determine strengths and weaknesses in t h e area o f mathe­

m atics.
This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 5 . 4 8 ,

indicating

that,

on th e av erage , high school p r i n c i p a l s used th e MEAP r e s u l t s "quite
a bit"

to

determ ine

strengths

As

junior

mathematics.

with

and w e a k n e s s e s
high /midd le

in

school

the

and

area

of

elementary

p r i n c i p a l s , t h i s area was rated th e h i g h e s t o f t h e 14 s e l e c t e d uses
of

th e

MEAP

results

h ig h /m id d le school

(5.66

for

principals).

f o r t h e o t h er two l e v e l s

elementary

and

5.39

A1so c o n s i s t e n t

with

for
the

junior
figures

(2.1% f o r elementary and 3.0% f o r j u n i o r

hig h /m id d le school p r i n c i p a l s ) i s t h a t on ly 5.6% o f the high school
principals

in d i c a t e d

determine

strengths

"very

1ittle"

and weaknesses

use

of

in t h e i r

the

MEAP r e s u l t s

mathematics

to

programs.

(See Table 1 2 . )

d.

To determine

strengths

and weaknesses

in

the

area of

reading.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 5 . 3 8 ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on

t h e av erage , high school p r i n c i p a l s made "quite a bit " o f use o f the
MEAP r e s u l t s
reading.
principals,

t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses

This
as

area

was

rated

second

h igh est

i t was by elementary and j u n i o r

in the area o f
by

high

hig h /m id d le

school
school

89

principals.

Also c o n s i s t e n t was the low perce ntag e (6.9%) seen in

th e "very l i t t l e " column.

e.

To determine

(See Table 1 2 . )

strengths

and weaknesses

in

the

area of

s cie n c e.
High school p r i n c i p a l s gave t h i s purpose a mean r a t i n g o f 4 . 5 5 ,
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the average, they made "quite a bit " o f use o f
t h e MEAP r e s u l t s t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e area
of

science.

however,

indicated

purpose.

f.

Almost

one out

of

"very 1 i t t l e "

five

(19.7%)

cf

(See Table 1 2 . )

To determine instructional p r i o r it i e s .

av erage ,

results

g.

principals,

use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h i s

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 4 . 2 3 ,
the

the

to

high

school

determine

principals

instructional

made

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on

"some"

p riorities.

use
(See

of

the

MEAP

Table

12.)

To document need in the determination o f school resource

a llo c a tio n ( i . e . , people, time, m aterials, and sp ace).
This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 3 . 2 0 ,
on th e average,
results

high school

t o document need

al 1o c a t i o n .

S Iigh tly

that,

p r i n c i p a l s made "some" use o f th e MEAP

in the

more

indicating

deter mina tio n

th a n

of

school

three-fourths

re so u rce

(75.3%)

of

the

p r i n c i p a l s in d i c a t e d "very 1 i t t l e " or "some" use o f the MEAP r e s u l t s
f o r t h i s purpose.

h.

(See Table 1 2 . )

To determine piacement o f students in "remedial" programs.

High school p r i n c i p a l s gave t h i s purpose a mean r a t i n g o f 3 . 3 9 ,
indicating
"some"

that,

extent

to

on

the

average,

determine

they

placement

used
of

the

MEAP r e s u l t s

students

in

to

"remedial"

90

programs.

S l i g h t l y more than four out o f ten

in d i c a t e d "very l i t t l e "
Table

12.)

As

h igh /m idd le

MEAP a s s e s s e s

principals

use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s in t h i s area .

noted

school

(42.7%)

when

and

discussing

elementary

on ly " e s s e n t i a l

the

school

skills"

findings

principals,

and i s

for

(See
junior

because

admin iste red

the

at only

one grade l e v e l , i t s u s e f u l n e s s f o r stud en t placements i s minimal.
i.

To determine need f o r new programs.

This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 3 . 3 5 ,
on the av erage ,
results

high school

p r i n c i p a l s made "some" use o f th e MEAP

t o determine need f o r new programs.

"exte nsi ve" use in t h i s area .
j.

Only 5.8% i n d i c a t e d

(See Table 1 2 . )

To determine t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs.

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 2 . 6 4 ,
the

average,

results

to

schools.

high

school

determine

the

Eighty-five

principals,

however,

principals

made

effectiveness

and f o u r - t e n t h s

of

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on

"some"

use

of

new programs

perce nt

made "very 1 i t t l e "

r e s u l t s f o r t h i s purpose.
k.

indicating that,

of

the
in

th e high

MEAP
their

school

or "some" use o f the MEAP

(See Table 1 2 . )

To a n a ly ze t e a c h e r performance.

High school p r i n c i p a l s gave t h i s purpose a mean r a t i n g o f 1 . 1 9 ,
indicating that,
1ittle"

to

rating

was

on th e avera ge,

an al y ze

teacher

consistent

with

they used t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

performance.
that

of

the

(See

Table 1 2 . )

elementary and

"very
This
junior

h igh/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s ; o f th e 14 s e l e c t e d purposes, t h i s one
r e c e i v e d the lo w e s t r a t i n g o f p r i n c i p a l s at a l l t h r e e l e v e l s .

91

1.

To id e n tif y staff-development needs for teachers.

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 2 . 8 6 ,
the

av era ge ,

results

to

staffs.

high

school

identify

Slightly

principals

made

staff-development

more

than

one-half

"some" use

needs

for

(50.4%)

i n d i c a t e d "very 1 i t t l e " use in t h i s area .

m.

indicating th at,

their

of

th e

the

MEAP

t e a c h in g
principals

(See Table 1 2 . )

To prepare proposals for funding.

This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 2 . 1 6 ,
on t h e a ver age ,

high school

indicating that,

p r i n c i p a l s made only "some" use o f the

MEAP r e s u l t s t o prepare p ro p os a ls f o r funding.

n.

of

on

(See Table 1 2 . )

To predict stu d en ts’ future academic success.

High school p r i n c i p a l s gave t h i s purpose a mean r a t i n g o f 2 . 6 0 ,
indicating

that,

"some" e x t e n t

on t h e

to p r e d i c t

average,

they

used

th e

MEAP r e s u l t s

s t u d e n t s ’ f u t u r e academic s u c c e s s .

to
More

than o n e - h a l f (53%) o f the p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d "very 1 i t t l e " use o f
t h e MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h i s purpose.

o.

(See Table 1 2 . )

Others, please sp e c ify .

One high

school

principal

wrote in another purpose f o r which

t h e 1988 MEAP r e s u l t s were used:
low-achieving

"To develop l e s s o n s f o r groups o f

s tu d en ts w it h i n c l a s s e s - - t o

assess

new math tex tb oo k

su itab ility."
Total

group.

In

th is

section,

the

findings

for

Research

Question 3 are d i s c u s s e d in terms o f the t o t a l group, as well as f o r
i n d i v i d u a l subgroups.

This s e c t i o n a l s o s e r v e s as a summary o f the

e x t e n t t o which the MEAP r e s u l t s were used f o r va ri ou s purposes by

92

elem entary sc h o o l,

ju n io r high/m iddle s c h o o l,

and h ig h

school

p r i n c i p a l s in Michigan.
The t o t a l group’ s re s p o n se s concerning each o f t h e 14

selected

u ses o f t h e 1988 MEAP r e s u l t s , as well as t h e i r mean r a t i n g

f o r each

u s e, are shown in Table 13.
principals
purposes
a.

used

the

The e x t e n t t o which t h e t o t a l group o f

MEAP r e s u l t s

for

each

of

the

14

selected

o f the

fourth-,

i s d i s c u s s e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g paragraphs.
Todetermine t h e general achievement l e v e l

s e v e n t h - , or t en t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s in your s c h o o l .
This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 4 . 8 9 ,
on t h e average,

b u il d in g p r i n c i p a l s used th e MEAP r e s u l t s

bit " t o determine the general
th e ir schools.

indicating that,

achievement l e v e l

(See Table 1 3 . )

fo r elementary p r i n c i p a l s
school p r i n c i p a l s .

"quite a

o f th e s t u d e n t s in

Ratings ranged from a high o f 5.0 9

t o a low o f 4 . 0 8 f o r j u n i o r h igh/m idd le

Elementary p r i n c i p a l s had the h i g h e s t perce nta ge

(45%) f o r the r a t i n g o f "quite a b i t . "
b.
level

To inform t h e school community o f t h e general
of

the

fourth-,

s e v e n t h - , or

achievement

tenth-grade students

in your

school.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 4 . 7 2 ,
th e average,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on

b u il d in g p r i n c i p a l s made "quite a bit" o f use o f the

MEAP r e s u l t s

to

achievement l e v e l s

in f o rm
o f the

the

school

students

in t h e i r

principals

of

school s .
gave

th e

the

general

(See Table

13.)

Junior hig h/middle

rating

( 4 . 9 8 ) and high school p r i n c i p a l s gave th e lo w e s t mean r a t i n g

(4.28)

to th is

purpose.

school

community

h i g h e s t mean

Table 1 3 . - - E x t e n t t o which the t o t a l group o f p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s f o r 14
s e l e c t e d purposes.

Extent o f Use
P o s s i b l e Use

Very
L ittle

Quite
a Bit

Some

S.D.

Mean

Exte ns ive

N

%

N

%

N

56

7.6

240

33.0

305

4 1. 9

127

1 7 .5

1 .6 9

4.89

To inform the school
community

82

11.2

238

32.4

291

40.8

115

15 .7

1.7 5

4.72

To determine s tr e n g t h s and
weaknesses in mathematics

23

3.0

155

1 9. 8

384

49 .2

219

28 .0

1.5 0

5.57

To determine s t r e n g t h s
and weaknesses in reading

33

4.2

168

21 .6

375

4 8. 0

205

26 .2

1.5 6

5.45

To determine s t r e n g t h s
and weaknesses in s c i e n c e

112

14. 5

261

3 3. 6

250

3 2 .2

153

19 .7

1 .9 0

4.63

83

10. 6

267

34 .2

303

38.8

128

16. 4

1.73

4.71

301

39.2

298

38.9

139

18.1

15

3.8

1.69

3 .2 3

To determine general
student achievement
levels

To determine i n s t r u c ­
t io n a l p r i o r i t i e s
To document need f o r
resource a l l o c a t i o n

%

Table 1 3 .--Continued.
Extent of Use
P o s s i b l e Use

Very
L ittle
N

Quite

a Bit

Some

S.D.

Mean

Ext ensive

%

To determine remedial
student placement

370

4 8. 4

243

31.8

107

1 4. 0

45

5.9

1 .8 6

3.01

To determine need fo r
new programs

321

42. 2

280

36.8

134

17. 6

27

3.5

1.6 9

3.1 5

To determine new
program e f f e c t i v e n e s s

393

52.1

228

30. 2

114

15.1

20

2.6

1 .6 8

2.82

To analyze tea ch er
performance

562

76. 7

131

17.8

34

4.7

.8

1.31

1.87

To i d e n t i f y s t a f f development needs

280

36. 7

257

3 3 .7

183

2 4. 0

43

5.6

1.8 5

3.3 8

To prepare funding
proposals

537

71 .9

139

18 .6

58

7.8

13

1.7

1.53

2.12

To p r e d ic t s t u d e n t s ’
fu ture academic s u cce ss

394

52.2

239

3 1 .7

102

13. 6

19

2.5

1.6 9

2.71

6

40.0

1

6.6

5

33.4

3

20.0

2.72

3.86

Other

95

c.

To determine strengths and weaknesses in the area o f mathe­

matics.
The

total

group’ s

indicating that,
bit"

of

use

mean

rating

on the average,

of

the

for

this

purpose

was

5.57,

b u i ld in g p r i n c i p a l s made "quite a

MEAP r e s u l t s

to

determ ine

strengths

weaknesses in the area o f mathematics in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

and

This was

th e h i g h e s t rated use , not only f o r the t o t a l group but a l s o f o r the
elementary

school

principals

(mean

=

5.66),

junior

hig h/middle

school p r i n c i p a l s (mean = 5 . 3 5 9 ) , and high school p r i n c i p a l s ( 5 . 4 8 ) .
Only 3% o f

the

total

group

r e s u l t s f o r t h i s purpose.

d.

made

"very

1i t t l e "

use

of

in

the

the

MEAP

(See Table 1 3 . )

To determine strengths

and weaknesses

area of

reading.
This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 5 . 4 5 ,

indicating

that,

on the average, b u il d in g p r i n c i p a l s made "quite a bit " o f use o f the
MEAP r e s u l t s t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e i r reading
programs.

(See Table 1 3 . )

each o f the subgroups

This purpose was rated second h i g h e s t by

(elementary p r in c i p a l s ’ mean = 5 . 5 6 ,

hig h/middle school p r i n c i p a l s ’ mean = 5 . 1 9 ,

high school

junior

principals’

mean = 5 . 3 8 ) .

e.

To determine strengths

and weaknesses

in

the

area of

scien ce.
This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 4 . 6 3 ,
on t h e average,
bit"

to

programs.

indicating

b u i ld in g p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP r e s u l t s

determ ine

strengths

and w e a k n e s s e s

S l i g h t l y more than o n e - t h i r d (33.6%),

in

th eir

however,

that,

"quite a
scien ce
indicated

96

that

"some" use was made o f th e HEAP r e s u l t s

in t h i s

area .

(See

Table 1 3 . )
f.

To determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s .

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 4 . 7 1 ,
t h e a ver ag e,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on

b u i ld in g p r i n c i p a l s made "quite a bit " o f use o f the

MEAP r e s u l t s t o determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s in t h e i r s c h o o l s .
Almost four out o f ten (38.8%) o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s in d i c a t e d "quite a
b it " o f u s e.

Percentages ranged from 10.6% i n d i c a t i n g "very 1 i t t l e

use o f MEAP r e s u l t s
use.

in t h i s

area o f 16.4% i n d i c a t i n g

"e xtensive"

(See Table 1 3 . )
g.

To document need in t h e det erm ina ti on o f school

re s o u rc e

a l l o c a t i o n ( i . e . , p e o p le , ti m e , m a t e r i a l s , and s p a c e ) .
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 3 . 2 3 ,
the

avera ge,

ex t en t"

to

b u il d in g

principals

document need

in the

a l l o c a t i o n s in t h e i r s c h o o l s .
h.

used

the

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on

MEAP r e s u l t s

deter mina tio n

of

"some

re so u rce

(See Table 1 3 . )

To determine piacement o f s t u d e n t s in "remedial" programs.

This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 3 . 0 1 ,
on th e

school

to

avera ge,

building

principals

made

r e s u l t s t o determine placement o f s tu d e n t s

"some"

indicating
use

of

the

that,
MEAP

in "remedial" programs.

Means ranged from a low o f 2 .7 6 f o r elementary p r i n c i p a l s t o a high
o f 3 . 3 9 f o r high school
MEAP t e s t

principal s.

i s administered

(See Table 1 3 . )

in the t e n t h grade,

Because the

th e high er mean f o r

high school p r i n c i p a l s may mean t h a t t h e data gen erated by th e MEAP
can be

used f o r an a d d i t i o n a l two y e a r s .

each subgroup r e l a t i v e

to t h is question,

As noted in comments f o r
th e MEAP, which a s s e s s e s

97

"essential" s k i l l s ,
and would

i s c u r r e n t l y g ive n on ly in grades 4,

therefore

seem t o

have

lim ited

u tility

7,

across

and 10
a K-12

system.
i.

To determine need f o r new programs.

The mean r a t i n g

f o r t h i s purpose was 3 . 1 5 , i n d i c a t i n g

t h e average, b u i l d i n g

p r i n c i p a l s made "some" use

t o determine need f o r new programs.
j.

t h a t , on

o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

(See Table 1 3 . )

To determine t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs.

This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 2 . 8 2 ,

indicating

that,

on t h e av erage , b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP r e s u l t s t o "some"
e x t e n t t o determine th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s

o f new programs.

More than

h a l f (52.1%) o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s , however, in d i c a t e d "very 1 i t t l e " use
for

the

MEAP r e s u l t s

" ext en siv e" use .
k.

in

th is

area

and

only

2.6%

indicated

(See Table 1 3 . )

To an al y ze t e a c h e r performance.

The mean r a t i n g
t h e average, b u i l d i n g

f o r t h i s purpose was 1 . 8 7 , i n d i c a t i n g

p r i n c i p a l s made "very 1 i t t l e " use o f t h e MEAP

r e s u l t s t o an a ly ze t e a c h e r performance.
t h e MEAP r e s u l t s ,

t h a t , on

Of the 14 s e l e c t e d u ses f o r

t h i s one had the lo w es t mean f o r the t o t a l

group

as w el l as f o r each o f th e subgroups (elementary p r i n c i p a l s ’ mean =
1 . 9 2 , j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s ’ mean = 1 . 7 5 , high school
p r i n c i p a l s ’ mean = 1 . 7 6 ) .
"quite

a bit "

or

"e xtensive"

purpose.

Conversely,

principals

indicated

13.)

Only 5.5% o f the t o t a l

more

use

than

"very l i t t l e "

of

the

MEAP r e s u l t s

three-fourths
use

group i n d i c a t e d

in t h i s

of

th e

area .

for

this

responding
(See Table

98

1.

To id e n tify staff-development needs for teachers.

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 3 . 3 8 ,
the

average,

extent

to

b u i ld in g p r i n c i p a l s

identify

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on

used t h e HEAP r e s u l t s

staff-development

needs

for

"some"

teachers.

ranged from a high o f 3 . 6 6 f o r elementary p r i n c i p a l s
2 . 8 6 f o r high school p r i n c i p a l s .

to

to

Means
a low o f

In terms o f t o t a l group r es p o n se ,

more than seven out o f te n (70.4%) o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s in d i c a t e d "very
l i t t l e " or "some" use o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s in t h i s area.

(See Table

13.)

m.

To prepare proposals for funding.

This purpose r e c e i v e d a mean r a t i n g o f 2 . 1 2 ,
on t h e average,

b u i ld in g p r i n c i p a l s made "very l i t t l e "

MEAP r e s u l t s t o prepare p rop os als f o r funding.

n.

indicating

that,

use o f the

(See Table 1 3 . )

To predict stu d en ts’ future academic success.

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s purpose was 2 . 7 1 ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on

the average, b u il d in g p r i n c i p a l s made "some" use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s
to

predict

students’

future

(52.2%) o f the p r i n c i p a l s

academic

indicated,

success.

More

than

half

however, t h a t they made "very

1 i t t l e " use o f the MEAP r e s u l t s in t h i s area.

o.

Others, please sp e c ify .

"Other" purposes
subgroup p r e s e n t a t i o n s .

specified

by respondents

were

noted

in

the

99

Research Question 4
What are th e a t t i t u d e s o f Michigan school p r i n c i p a l s regarding
the va lu e o f th e MEAP and t h e u t i l i t y o f the t e s t r e s u l t s
provided by the program?
For Research Question 4, elementary s c h o o l , j u n i o r h igh/m idd le
sch ool,

and

questionnaire
scale.

h ig h

school

principals

Items 10 and 11,

again

were

a s k ed

to

respond

using

an e i g h t - p o i n t

to

Likert

In the f o l l o w i n g p age s, each q u e s ti o n i s s t a t e d , f o ll o w e d by

t h e re s p on se s t o t h a t q u e s t i o n .

For each q u e s t i o n ,

t h e data

are

p re se n te d f o r each subgroup (elementary s c h o o l , j u n i o r h igh/m idd le
s c h o o l , and high school p r i n c i p a l s ) .

Total group data are presen ted

as part o f a summary f o r each item f o r Research Question 4.
10.

Using the above s c a l e [1 and 2 = very 1 i t t l e , 3 and 4 =
some, 5 and 6 = q u i t e a b i t , 7 and 8 = e x t e n s i v e l y ] , r a t e
th e e x t e n t MEAP r e s u l t s have had an impact on t h e i n s t r u c ­
t i o n a l program in your s c h o o l :
a.

In encouraging the development
t e s t i n g program.

o f amore comprehensive

b.

In c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n t o a c u r r i c u l a r problem(s) not
p r e v i o u s l y noted f o r your s c h o o l .

c.

In confirming previ ous t e n t a t i v e judgments about a
c u r r i c u l a r problem(s) in your s c h o o l .

d.

In f a c i l i t a t i n g a more 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 a l
approach t o t e a c h i n g .

e.

In i n f l u e n c i n g community a t t i t u d e s toward your s c h o o l .

f.

In narrowing the curriculum t o
o b j e c t i v e s in a s u b j e c t area.

g.

In narrowing i n s t r u c t i o n t o j u s t t h e MEAP t e s t e d sub­
j e c t areas (mathematics, read ing , and s c i e n c e ) .

h.

Others, p l e a s e s p e c i f y .

j u s t the MEAP t e s t e d

100

Elementary school

p rincipals.

Elementary

r es p o n se s concerning each o f th e seven

school

areas o f

principals’

impact

listed

in

Item 10, as well as the mean r a t i n g o f th e e x t e n t o f impact in each
ar ea , are shown in Table 14.

In the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs, each area

o f impact i s d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y .

"Other" areas not 1 i s t e d in the

q u e s t i o n n a i r e but mentioned by respondents are a l s o c i t e d .

a.

Encouraging the development o f a more comprehensive t e s t in g

program.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 3 . 2 5 ,
averag e,

elementary

principals

thought

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the

th e

MEAP had

had

impact in encouraging a more comprehensive t e s t i n g program.
four out o f ten

(38.2%) p r i n c i p a l s ,

however,

had "very 1 i t t l e " impact in t h i s area.

b.

In

c a llin g

atten tion

to

"some"
Almost

thought t h e MEAP had

(See Table 1 4 . )

a curricular

problem(s)

not

previously noted for your sch o ol.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 2 0 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
avera ge,
imp act

elementary
in

p ro b le m s

in

principals
t h i s area.

c.

callin g
th eir

principals

thought

atten tion

to

sch ools.

Alm os t

the

MEAP had

p reviously
one

unknown

out

i n d i c a t e d the MEAP had had "quite

had

"some"

cu rricu lar

of

three

a bit "

of

(32.2%)
impact

in

(See Table 1 4 . )

In confirming previous te n ta tiv e judgments about a curricu­

lar problem(s) in your sch o o l.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 1 9 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
ave rage,

elementary

principals

believed

the

MEAP had

had

"some"

T a b l e 1 4 . - - E l e m e n t a r y sc h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ’ a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g t h e i m p a c t o f t h e MEAP on t h e
i n s t r u c t i o n a l pr ogr am s i n t h e i r s c h o o l s .

Extent o f Impact
Area o f Impact

Very
L ittle

Some

N

%

Encouraging a more com­
prehensive t e s t i n g program
C all in g a t t e n t i o n to
curriculum problems
Confirming previous j ud g­
ments about c u r r i c u l a r
problems
F acilitatin g individual­
ized i n s t r u c t i o n
Influe ncin g community
attitudes
Narrowing the curriculum
to j u s t MEAP t e s t e d items
Narrowing i n s t r u c t i o n to
j u s t MEAP t e s t e d su b j ec t
areas
Other

Quite
a Bit

S.D.

Mean

Ext ensive
%

160

3 8. 2

167

39.9

73

1 7 .4

19

4.5

1. 74

3.25

79

18 .6

159

3 7. 6

136

3 2. 2

49

1 1. 6

1.81

4.2

64

15.1

177

4 1. 9

151

3 5. 7

31

7.3

1.64

4.19

125

2 9. 8

202

48.1

82

1 9. 5

11

2.6

1 .5 8

3. 40

98

23.2

151

35.6

125

29 .6

49

1 1. 6

1. 90

4.07

293

6 9. 9

100

2 3. 9

16

3.8

10

2.4

1.47

2.12

316

75 .6

82

1 9 .6

12

2. 9

8

1.9

1. 35

1.94

5

62 .5

2

25.0

1

12. 5

0

0

1. 80

2.12

102

impa ct

in c o n f i r m i n g p r e v i o u s

ten tative

c u r r i c u l a r problem(s) in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

d.

In f a c i l i t a t i n g

judgments

rela tiv e

to

(See Table 1 4 . )

a more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d

in str u c tio n a l

approach to teaching.
The

mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 3 . 4 0 , i n d i c a t i n g

av erage ,

elementary p r i n c i p a l s

thought

the

HEAP

t h a t , on the

had

had "some"

impact in f a c i l i t a t i n g a more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d approach t o t e a c h in g in
th e ir schools.

Only 2.6% o f the p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d an "e xtensive"

impact by th e MEAP in t h i s area.

e.

In influencing community a ttitu d es toward your sch o o l.

The

mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 0 7 , i n d i c a t i n g

average,
impact

(See Table 1 4 . )

elementary p r i n c i p a l s
in

influencing

believed

community

the

attitudes

t h a t , on the

MEAP had
toward

had "some"

their

schools.

Almost o n e - f o u r t h ( 23.2%) o f the p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d "very 1 i t t l e "
impact in t h i s area, however.

f.

(See Table 14 . )

In narrowing the curriculum to j u s t the MEAP tested objec­

t iv e s in a subject area.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 2 . 1 2 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
average,
1it t l e "

elementary p r i n c i p a l s
impact

MEAP t e s t e d

thought

the

MEAP

had

had

in narrowing t h e i r school s ’ curriculum t o

objectives

in

a

subject

area.

Only

6.2%

"very

just

the

of

the

elementary p r i n c i p a l s in d i c a t e d t h a t the MEAP had had "quite a bit"
o f impact in t h i s area .

g.

(See Table 1 4 . )

In narrowing in stru ction to j u s t MEAP tested subject areas

(mathematics, reading, and s c ie n c e ).

103

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 1 . 3 5 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
average,
little"
area.

elementary
impact

in

principals
narrowing

believed

instruction

the
to

MEAP had
just

the

had

"very

MEAP t e s t e d

Less than 5% (4.8%) o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d "qui te a bit"

or "e xtensive" impact by t h e MEAP in t h i s ar ea .

h.

(See Table 1 4 . )

Others, please sp e c ify .

Some o f the comments made by elementary p r i n c i p a l s r e l a t i v e to
the

impact t h e MEAP had had in areas not

were:

incl ude d

on t h e

survey

"Have reaff ir med our commitment t o e x c e l l e n c e and equity" and

" S h i f t i n g focu s to s c i e n c e and mathematics."
The preceding f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with t h o s e o f t h e S t e e l e
study with the ex c e p t i o n o f

Item e .

Steele

found t h a t elementary

principals

thought the MEAP had had "very 1 i t t l e "

impact

2.4 8)

influencing

their

"in

community

attitudes"

toward

(mean =
schools,

whereas th e f i n d i n g s o f t h e pr es ent study i n d i c a t e d t h a t elementary
p r i n c i p a l s thought the MEAP had had "some impact

(mean = 4 . 0 7 )

in

t h i s area.
Junior h igh/m iddle school
school

p rin cip a ls.

Junior

high/m iddle

p r i n c i p a l s ’ resp on se s concerning each o f th e seven areas o f

impact 1 i s t e d in Item 10, as well
o f impact
paragraphs,

in each area,
each area o f

areas not l i s t e d
are a l s o c i t e d .

as the mean r a t i n g o f t h e e x t e n t

are shown in Table 15.
impact i s d i s c u s s e d

In t h e

following

separately.

"Other"

in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e but mentioned by respondents

T a b l e 1 5 . - - J u n i o r h i g h / m i d d l e sc h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ’ a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g t h e im p a c t o f t h e MEAP
on t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l p ro gra m s i n t h e i r s c h o o l s .

Extent o f Impact
Area o f Impact

Very
L ittle
N

Quite
a Bit

Some

N

%

S.D.

Mean

Ext ensive
%

Encouraging a more com­
prehensive t e s t i n g program

63

3 8 .4

52

31.7

42

25 .6

7

4.3

1.81

3.36

Ca lling a t t e n t i o n to
curriculum problems

37

22. 5

55

3 3. 6

62

37.8

10

6.1

1.71

4.1 8

34

20.7

56

34. 2

64

39.0

10

6.1

1.71

4.14

F a c ilita tin g individual­
ized i n s t r u c t i o n

61

37. 3

64

39.0

35

21.3

4

2.4

1.63

3.2 8

In flu en cin g community
attitudes

25

15.1

64

3 9 .0

56

3 4 .2

19

1 1 .6

1.82

4.32

112

69. 2

38

23. 4

11

6.8

1

.6

1.3 6

2.14

121

74. 7

32

19. 8

8

4.9

1

.6

1.2 5

1.92

6

66.7

0

0

1

11.1

2

22.2

3.06

3.11

Confirming previous j ud g­
ments about c u r r i c u l a r
problems

Narrowing the curriculum
to j u s t MEAP t e s t e d items
Narrowing i n s t r u c t i o n to
j u s t MEAP t e s t e d s u b j e c t
areas
Other

105

a.

In encouraging the development o f a more comprehensive

t e s t in g program.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 3 . 3 6 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
average, j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s b e l i e v e d th e MEAP had
had

"some"

im p a ct

in

encouraging

the

development

comprehensive assessment program in t h e i r s c h o o l s .
principals

i n d i c a t e d an "exte nsi ve"

of

a more

Only 4.3% o f the

impact in t h i s

ar ea ,

and more

than o n e - t h i r d (38.4%) thought t h e MEAP had had "very 1 i t t l e "
on t h e i r t e s t i n g programs.

b.

impact

(See Table 1 5 . )

In c a llin g attention to a curricular problem(s)

in your

sch o o l.
As shown in Table 15,
i n d i c a t i ng
principals
attention

that,
believed

to

curricula.

on

a

the mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s

the

the

average,

MEAP had

previously

unnoted

junior

had

"some"

problem(s)

item was 4 . 1 8 ,

high/m iddle
impact
in

in

th eir

school
calling
school s ’

F o r t y - t h r e e and t h r e e - t e n t h s perce nt o f th e p r i n c i p a l s

i n d i c a t e d e i t h e r "quite a bit" or "extensive"

impact in t h i s

area,

however.

c.

In confirming previous te n ta tiv e judgments about a curricu­

la r problem(s) in your sch o ol.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 1 4 ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the

averag e, j u n i o r hig h/middle school p r i n c i p a l s b e l i e v e d t h e MEAP had
had "some" impact in confirming previous judgments about c u r r i c u l a r
problem(s) in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

d.

In f a c i l i t a t i n g

approach to teaching.

(See Table 1 5 . )

a more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d

in str u c tio n a l

106

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 3 . 2 8 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
average, j u n i o r h ig h /m id d le school p r i n c i p a l s thought th e MEAP had
had "some" impact in f a c i l i t a t i n g more 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 in
their

schools.

More

than

one-third

thought the MEAP had had "very l i t t l e "

of

the

principals

impact in t h i s

(37.3%)

area .

(See

Table 1 5 . )

e.

In influencing community a ttitu d es toward your sch o o l.

As shown in Table 15, the mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s
in d ica tin g

that,

principals

thought

on

the

average,

jun ior

the MEAP had had "some"

high/m iddle
impact

a t t i t u d e s o f the community about t h e i r school s .
h i g h e s t mean f o r j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school

item was 4 . 3 2 ,

in

school

influencing

This item had the

principals

f o r Question

10 and the lo w e s t pe rc e nt ag e o f response in the "very 1 i t t l e " column
( 15 . 1%) .

f.

In narrowing the curriculum to j u s t the MEAP tested o b ject­

ives in a subject area.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 2 . 1 4 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
average, j u n i o r hig h /m id d le school p r i n c i p a l s b e l i e v e d the MEAP had
had "very 1 i t t l e "

impact in t h i s area.

J u s t 7.4% o f the p r i n c i p a l s

i n d i c a t e d t h a t the MEAP had had "quite a bit " or "e xt en siv e" impact
in narrowing t h e i r curriculum.

g.

(See Table 1 5 . )

In narrowing in stru ction to j u s t the MEAP tested subject

areas (mathematics, reading, and s c ie n c e ).
As shown in Table 15,
in d icatin g

that,

on

the

t h e mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s
average,

ju n ior

item was 1 . 2 5 ,

high/m iddle

school

107

principals

believed

n a r r o w in g
(74.7%)
area .

th e

in stru ction

o f th e

MEAP

had

in t h e i r

principals

had

"very

schools.

indicated

little"

impact

in

A lm o s t t h r e e - f o u r t h s

"very l i t t l e "

impact

in

this

This item had the lo w e s t mean f o r j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school

p r i n c i p a l s f o r Question 10.

h.

Others, please s p e c ify .

Some

of

principals
incl uded

the

comments

relative
in

sections,

a

the

to the

made

attempt

junior

high/m iddle

impact th e MEAP had had

survey were

real

by

is

as

follow s:

made

to

in

"Especially

remediate

weak

school

areas
in

not

English

areas"

"Discouraged the c o n t i n u a t i o n o f the comprehensive t e s t i n g

and

program

p r e v i o u s l y in p la c e (time c o n s t r a i n t s ) ."
The preceding f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with t h o s e o f the S t e e l e
study in t h a t each area common t o t h i s
was rated i d e n t i c a l l y
and so o n ) .

study and the S t e e l e

in terms o f impact ( i . e . ,

very 1 i t t l e ,

some,

However, th e S t e e l e study i n d i c a t e d a mean o f 2 . 5 7 f o r

item 3 ( i n f l u e n c i n g community a t t i t u d e s ) , j u s t

.07 i n t o the

classification .

a mean o f

item e ,

study

also

The cu rre nt

in the

study

indicated

"some" c l a s s i f i c a t i o n y e t with

high er mean (o n ly .18 from "quite a b i t " ) .
hig h/m idd le school

principals

"some"

4.32

for

a c o n s id e r a b ly

This means t h a t j u n i o r

in 1988 thought th e MEAP had a more

s i g n i f i c a n t impact than did p r i n c i p a l s in 1976.
High

school

principals.

High

school

principals’

concerning each o f th e seven areas o f impact 1 i s t e d
w el l

resp on se s

in Item 10,

as the mean r a t i n g o f the e x t e n t o f impact in each area ,

shown in Table 16.

as
are

In the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs, each area o f impact

T a b l e 1 6 . - - H i g h s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ’ a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g t h e i m p a c t o f t h e MEAP on t h e
i n s t r u c t i o n a l p ro gr a m s i n t h e i r s c h o o l s .

Extent o f Impact
Area o f Impact

Very
L ittle
N

%

Encouraging a more com­
prehensive t e s t i n g program

57

40 .5

C all in g a t t e n t i o n to
curriculum problems

36

2 4 .8

32

F a c i l i t a t i n g in d iv id u al ized i n s t r u c t i o n
Influe ncin g community
attitudes

Confirming previous ju d g­
ments about c u r r i c u l a r
problems

Narrowing the curriculum
to j u s t MEAP t e s t e d items
Narrowing i n s t r u c t i o n to
j u s t MEAP t e s t e d su b j ec t
areas
Other

Quite
a Bit

Some

N

S.D.

Mean

Ext ensive
%

3 4. 7

26

18. 5

9

6.3

1.85

3.27

47

32.5

45

31.0

17

11 .7

1.92

4.05

22. 2

48

3 3. 4

43

2 9 .9

21

1 4 .6

1.93

4.16

57

4 0 .5

54

3 8. 3

27

19.1

3

2.1

1.6 8

3.10

36

25.5

45

31.9

43

30.5

17

12.1

2.01

4.05

109

78 .4

23

16. 6

7

5.0

0

0

1.45

1.87

112

8 1. 2

20

14.5

6

4. 3

0

0

1.0 8

1.71

2

66.7

0

0

0

0

1

33.3

3.46

3.00

109

is discussed separately.

"Other" areas not l i s t e d

in th e q u e s t i o n ­

n a i r e but mentioned by respondents are a l s o c i t e d .

a.

In encouraging the development

o f a more comprehensive

t e s t in g program.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 3 . 2 7 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
av erage,
impact

high
in

school

encouraging

th e ir schools.
principals

principals

b e l i e v e d th e HEAP

a more comprehensive

had had

assessment

"some"

program in

S l i g h t l y more than four out o f ten (40.5%) o f t h e s e

in d i c a t e d

"very l i t t l e "

impact

in

this

area ,

however.

(See Table 1 6 . )

b.

In c a llin g atten tion to a curricular problem(s) not previ­

ously noted for your sch o o l.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 0 5 ,
average,
im pa ct

high
in

school

c a l 1 ing

principals

atten tion

problems in t h e i r school s.

c.

to

thought

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the

the MEAP

previously

had

un not ed

had

"some"

cu rricular

(See Table 1 6 . )

In confirming previous te n ta tiv e judgments about a curricu­

lar problem(s) in your sc h o o l.
As shown in Table 16, the mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s

item was 4 . 1 6 ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the average, high school p r i n c i p a l s b e l i e v e d the
MEAP had had "some" impact in confirming judgments about c u r r i c u l a r
problems in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

This item had the h i g h e s t mean f o r high

school p r i n c i p a l s f o r Question 10.

d.

In f a c i 1i t a t i n g

approach to teaching.

a more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d

in str u c tio n a l

110

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 3 . 1 0 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
avera ge,

high school

p r i n c i p a l s thought

th e

MEAP

had had "some"

impact in f a c i l i t a t i n g a more 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 a l
by t h e t e a c h e r s in t h e i r b u i l d i n g s .

Only 2.1% i n d i c a t e d "exte nsi ve"

impact by the MEAP and more than four out o f ten
"very 1 i t t l e "
e.

approach

impact by th e MEAP in t h i s area .

(40.5%) i n d i c a t e d

(See Table 1 6 . )

In i n f l u e n c i n g coranunity a t t i t u d e s toward your s c h o o l .

The mean r a t in g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 0 5 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
average,
impact

high school
in

p r i n c i p a l s b e l i e v e d the

influencing

community

S I i g h t l y more than o n e - f o u r t h
"very 1 i t t l e "
f.

attitudes

(25.5%)

impact in t h i s area.

MEAP
toward

had had "some"
their

o f th e p r i n c i p a l s

schools.
indicated

(See Table 1 6 . )

In narrowing t h e curriculum t o j u s t t h e MEAP t e s t e d o b j e c ­

t i v e s in a s u b j e c t area .
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 1 . 8 7 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
average,
1it t le "

high school
impact

p r i n c i p a l s thought

the

MEAP

Only 5% o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d

impact by the

MEAP,

and

1it t le "
g.

"very

in narrowing the curriculum in s u b j e c t areas a s s e s s e d

by the MEAP.

eight

had had

four-tenths

"quite a bit " o f

and none i n d i c a t e d "exten sive " impact. Seventyperce nt

of

the

principals

impact o f MEAP r e s u l t s in t h i s area.

in d i c a t e d

"very

(See Table 1 6 . )

In narrowing i n s t r u c t i o n t o j u s t t h e MEAP t e s t e d o b j e c t i v e s

in a s u b j e c t area .
As shown in Table 16,

the mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s

item was 1 . 7 1 ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on t h e average, high school p r i n c i p a l s b e l i e v e d the
MEAP had had "very l i t t l e "

impact in narrowing i n s t r u c t i o n t o the

Ill

MEAP t e s t e d

areas o f mathematics,

r e ad in g ,

e i g h t out o f ten (81.2%) o f th e p r i n c i p a l s

or s c i e n c e .

More than

in d i c a t e d "very l i t t l e "

impact in t h i s area , and none o f them i n d i c a t e d " ext en siv e" impact.

h.

Others, please s p e c ify .

A sample o f comments made by high school p r i n c i p a l s r e l a t i v e to
the

impact

f o l 1ows:
please

t h e MEAP had had in areas not
" S h i f t i n g grade l e v e l s

the

state,

i . e . , moving

"Encouraging an o v e r a l l

included

in

in which co u rs es

b io lo g y

survey

are o f f e r e d

from grade

emphasis o f b u i l d i n g

the

9 to

10"

instructional

to
and

sk ills,

s t r a t e g i e s , and t e c h n i q u e s . "
Total
Question

grou p.

4,

In

this

questionnaire

section,

Item 10,

th e

findings

are d i s c u s s e d

the

impact

of

the

MEAP on

the

This s e c t i o n a l s o

o f the t o t a l

instructional

Research

in terms o f the

t o t a l group, as well as f o r in d iv i d u a l subgroups.
s e r v e s as a summary o f t h e a t t i t u d e s

for

group regarding

programs

in

their

schools.
The t o t a l

group’ s re s p on se s

concerning the

selected

MEAP impact, as well

as t h e i r mean r a t i n g f o r each area,

in

findings

Table

17.

The

concerning

each

area

of

areas

of

are shown
impact

are

pr es en te d in th e f o l l o w i n g paragraphs.

a.

In encouraging the development o f a more

comprehensive

te s t in g program.
This item had a mean r a t i n g o f 3 . 2 6 ,

indicating that,

on the

a verag e, the t o t a l group b e l i e v e d the MEAP had had "some" impact on
t he development o f

a more comprehensive

testing

program in

their

T a b l e 1 7 . - -T h e t o t a l g r o u p ’ s a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g t h e i m p a c t o f t h e MEAP on t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l
p r ogr am s i n t h e i r s c h o o l s .

Extent o f Impact
Area o f Impact

Very
L ittle
N

Some

Quite
a B it

S.D.

Mean

Exte ns ive
%

%

Encouraging a more com­
prehensive t e s t i n g program

297

38.7

288

37.6

146

1 9. 0

36

4.7

1.7 6

3.26

Ca lli ng a t t e n t i o n to
curriculum problems

156

20.2

278

35.8

262

33.8

79

1 0 .2

1 .8 0

4.21

137

17. 6

294

3 8 .0

279

36.1

64

8.3

1.71

4.1 8

F a cilitatin g individual­
ized i n s t r u c t i o n

255

33. 3

342

44.5

153

19. 9

18

2. 3

1.6 0

3.31

Influen cing community
attitudes

166

21 .6

275

3 5. 7

241

3 1. 2

89

1 1. 5

1.9 0

4.14

Narrowing the curriculum
to j u s t MEAP t e s t e d items

546

71 .6

169

22.2

35

4.7

13

1.7

1.4 0

2.08

579

76.1

144

19 .0

27

3.6

11

1.5

1.2 9

1.91

14

58.3

4

16.7

3

12.5

3

12.5

2.45

2. 87

Confirming previous j ud g­
ments about c u r r i c u l a r
problems

Narrowing i n s t r u c t i o n to
j u s t MEAP t e s t e d s u bj ec t
areas
Other

113

schools.
fairly
pals

to

The mean s c o r e s

of

th e

three

subgroups

fell

w it h i n

a

narrow range, from a low o f 3 . 2 5 f o r th e elementary p r i n c i ­
a high o f 3 . 3 6

f o r j u n i o r hig h /m id d le

school

principals,

i n d i c a t i n g s i m i l a r p e r c e p t i o n s o f the HEAP in t h i s area .

(See Table

17.)

b.

In c a l l i n g

attention

to a curricular

problem(s)

in your

school.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 2 1 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
average, the t o t a l

group thought the HEAP had had "some" impact in

c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n t o a p r e v i o u s l y unnoted c u r r i c u l a r problem(s)
th e ir schools.

in

Again, mean s c o r e s f e l l w i t h i n a narrow range, from

a high o f 4 . 2 0 f o r elementary p r i n c i p a l s to a low o f 4 . 1 6 f o r high
school p r i n c i p a l s .
c.

(See Table 1 7 . )

In confirming previ ous t e n t a t i v e judgments about a c u r r i c u ­

l a r problem(s) in your s c h o o l .
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 1 8 ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the

average, the t o t a l group b e l i e v e d the MEAP had had "some" impact in
confirming t e n t a t i v e judgments about a c u r r i c u l a r problem(s)
p r in c ip a ls ’ schools.

Again,

only a s i i g h t

v a ri a n c e e x i s t e d

in the
among

t h e mean r a t i n g s o f t h e t h r e e subgroups (el ementary p r i n c i p a l s ’ mean
= 4.19,

junior

h igh/m idd le

school

school p r i n c i p a l s ’ mean = 4 . 1 6 ) .
d.

In

f a c i 1it a t in g

p r i n c i p a l s ’ mean

= 4.14,

high

(See Table 1 7 . )

a more

in d iv id u a lized

in stru ction al

the mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s

item was 3 . 3 1 ,

approach t o t e a c h i n g .
As shown in Table 17,
indicating that,

on the average,

the t o t a l

group b e l i e v e d the MEAP

114

had

had

"some"

im p a ct

in

i n s t r u c t i o n in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

fa cilita tin g

more

in d iv id u a lized

I t appears t h a t elementary p r i n c i p a l s

p er ce iv ed a g r e a t e r impact o f t h e MEAP in t h i s

area

(mean = 3 . 4 0 )

than did e i t h e r j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school or high school

principals

(means = 3 . 2 8 and 3 . 1 0 , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .
e.

In i n f l u e n c i n g correnunity a t t i t u d e s toward your s c h o o l .

This item had a mean r a t i n g o f 4 . 1 4 ,
average, the t o t a l
in flu en cin g

on the

group thought t h e MEAP had had "some" impact in

community a t t i t u d e s

hig h/m idd le school

toward t h e i r

sch o o ls.

Junior

p r i n c i p a l s had the h i g h e s t mean ( 4 . 3 2 ) ,

elementary and high school
4.05, r e s p e c t iv e ly ).
f.

indicating th at,

p r i n c i p a l s had s i m i l a r means

whereas

(4.07

and

(See Table 1 7 . )

In narrowing t h e curriculum t o j u s t t h e MEAP t e s t e d o b j e c ­

t i v e s in a s u b j e c t ar ea .
As shown in Table 17,
indicating that,

on th e avera ge,

had had "very 1 i t t l e "
th e

MEAP t e s t e d

school

the mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s

group thought th e MEAP

impact in narrowing l o c a l

objectives

principals

th e t o t a l

in

item was 2 . 0 8 ,

a particular

curricula to ju st

subject

showed t h e lo w es t mean ( 1 . 8 7 ) ,

ar ea .

High

with j u n i o r

high

p r i n c i p a l s the h i g h e s t at 2 . 1 4 and elementary p r i n c i p a l s at 2 . 1 2 .
g.

In narrowing i n s t r u c t i o n t o j u s t t h e MEAP t e s t e d

subject

areas (mathematics, r e a d i n g , and s c i e n c e ) .
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 1 . 9 1 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
average,

the t o t a l

group b e l i e v e d

the MEAP had had "very 1 i t t l e "

impact in narrowing i n s t r u c t i o n in Michigan s c h o o l s t o j u s t t h e MEAP

115

tested

subject

ag ain,

high

areas

school

o f mathematics,

principals

elementary p r i n c i p a l s

reading

showed

showed the

th e

highest

and

lowest
(1.94,

science.

Once

mean

(1.71)

and

still

w it h i n

the

"very l i t t l e " c a t e g o r y ) .
h.

Others, p l e a s e s p e c i f y .

Comments by t h e t o t a l

group were

included in t h e subgroup p r e s e n t a t i o n s .
In t h e f o l l o w i n g pages, re sp on se s t o q u e s t i o n n a i r e Item 11 are
presented

f o r each subgroup and f o r th e t o t a l

Item 11 i s r e s t a t e d
11.

as i t appeared in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

Using the s c a l e provided above [1 and 2 = very 1 i t t l e ,
3 and 4 = some, 5 and 6 = q u i t e a b i t , 7 and 8 = e x t e n ­
s i v e l y ] , r a t e th e e x t e n t t o which you b e l i e v e MEAP t e s t
r e s u l t s are u s ef ul t o you f o r the f o l l o w i n g purposes.
a.

Dia gn os is o f st udent l e a r n in g ne eds.

b.

A n a l y s is o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e a l l o c a t i o n
o f school re s o u r c e s and st ud en t achievement o f mini mal o b j e c t i v e s .

c.

Planning f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l

d.

Communicating s t a t u s o f st ud en t l e a r n i n g t o parents
and s t u d e n t s .

Elementary
resp onses

group o f p r i n c i p a l s .

school

p rincipals.

concerning the

s e l e c t e d purposes,

are shown in Table 18.

Elementary

usefulness

as well

improvements.

o f th e

MEAP t e s t

as t h e i r mean r a t i n g

Findings

regarding

school

the

principal s ’
results

for

f o r each purpose,
usefulness

o f the

MEAP r e s u l t s f o r each o f th e four s e l e c t e d purposes are d i s c u s s e d in
the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs.

T a b l e 1 8 . - - E l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ’ a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e MEAP t e s t
r e s u l t s fo r se le c te d purposes.

Extent o f U se f ul ne ss
Purpose

Very
L ittle
N

Diagnosis o f student
lear nin g needs
Anal ysis o f r e l a t i o n s h i p
between a l l o c a t i o n o f
school res ou rce s and
student achievement o f
minimal o b j e c t i v e s
Planning f o r i n s t r u c ­
t io n a l improvements
Communicating s t a t u s o f
student le a rn in g to
parents and stude nts

Quite
a Bit

Some
%

N

%

N

S.D.

Mean

Ext ensive
%

N

%

47

11.0

148

3 4 .6

165

3 8 .7

67

15.7

1. 75

4.70

154

3 6. 5

159

37. 7

87

20 .6

22

5.2

1.77

3.36

33

7.6

121

28 .4

187

43.8

86

20.2

1.67

5.03

33

7. 7

146

34.1

184

43.0

65

15.2

1.64

4.81

117

a.

Diagnosis o f student learning needs.

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 7 0 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t ,
average,
"quite"

elementary
u s ef ul

in

principals
terms

of

rated

the

d ia gn os in g

HEAP
st u d en t

test

on th e

results

learning

as

needs.

F i f t e e n and s e v e n - t e n t h s perce nt o f the p r i n c i p a l s ra ted the MEAP’ s
usefulness

in

this

area

as

" e x t e n s i v e , " and

1 i t t l e " use f o r MEAP r e s u l t s in t h i s area .

b.

Analysis o f t h e rela tio n sh ip

11% i n d i c a t e d

(See Table

"very

18.)

between the a llo c a tio n

of

school resources and student achievement o f minimal o b je c tiv e s .
As shown in Table 18,
indicating that,
MEAP t e s t

this

on the average,

results

item had a mean r a t i n g
elementary p r i n c i p a l s

had "some" u s e f u l n e s s

in t h i s

area .

of

3.36,

thought the
More than

o n e - t h i r d (36.5%) o f t h e s e p r i n c i p a l s , however, rated th e MEAP t e s t
r e s u l t s as having "very 1 i t t l e " u s e f u l n e s s in t h i s area.

c.

Planning for in structional improvements.

This item had a mean r a t i n g o f 5 . 0 3 ,
average,

indicating

elementary p r i n c i p a l s b e l i e v e d t h e MEAP t e s t

"quite" u s ef ul
schools.

in planning f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l

that,

on the

results

were

improvements in t h e i r

S I i g h t l y more than two out o f ten (20.2%) o f the p r i n c i -

p a ls rated the MEAP’ s u s e f u l n e s s as " e x t e n s i v e , " and o nly 7.6% saw
the MEAP as

having

"very 1 i t t l e "

usefulness

in

this

area .

(See

Table 1 8 . )

d.

Communicating statu s o f student learning to parents and

students.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 8 1 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
average, elementary p r i n c i p a l s rated t h e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s as being

118

"quite"

useful

in communicating the l e v e l

parents and s t u d e n t s .

More than o n e - t h i r d

having "some" u s e f u l n e s s ,

of

st u d en t

learning

to

(34.1%) saw t h e MEAP as

and o nly 7.7% thought t h e MEAP had "very

1 i t t l e " u s e f u l n e s s in t h i s a rea .

(See Table 1 8 . )

The preceding f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with t h o s e o f t h e S t e e l e
study with

the exception

of

Items c and d.

In 1976,

Elementary

p r i n c i p a l s rated th e MEAP as having "some" u s e f u l n e s s (mean = 4 . 4 0 )
when "planning f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l improvements" and when "communicat­
ing

status

3.31).

of

st u d en t

The f i n d i n g s

learning
of

this

r e s u l t s were seen as being

to

parents

study

and st udents"

in d i c a t e d

"quite" u s ef ul

that

in t h e s e

the

(mean

=

MEAP t e s t

areas

(means =

5. 03 and 4 . 8 1 , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .
Junior h igh /m id d le school
school

p rin cip a ls.

Junior high/m iddle

p r i n c i p a l s ’ r es p o n se s concerning the u s e f u l n e s s o f the MEAP

t e s t r e s u l t s f o r s e l e c t e d purposes, as well as t h e i r mean r a t i n g fo r
each purpose, are shown in Table 19.

Findings regarding t h e u s e fu l -

n ess o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r each o f the four s e l e c t e d purposes are
d i s c u s s e d in th e f o l l o w i n g paragraphs.

a.

Diagnosis o f student learning needs.

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 5 8 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
average,

j u n i o r h ig h /m id d le

results

as

needs.

Close t o h a l f

test

"quite" u s e f u l

results

area, however.

school

principals

rated

in terms o f d ia g n o s in g

(43.3%)

had "very 1 i t t l e "
(See Table 1 9 . )

o f the p r i n c i p a l s
or only

th e MEAP t e s t

st ud en t

le a r n in g

bel iev ed t h e MEAP

"some" u s e f u l n e s s

in t h i s

T a b l e 1 9 . - - J u n i o r h i g h / m i d d l e sc h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ’ a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e MEAP
t e s t r e s u l t s fo r s e le c te d purposes.

Extent o f U se f ul ne ss
Purpose

Diagnosis o f student
lea rnin g needs
Anal ysis o f r e l a t i o n s h i p
between a l l o c a t i o n o f
school re so ur ce s and
student achievement o f
minimal o b j e c t i v e s
Planning f o r i n s t r u c ­
t io n a l improvements
Communicating s t a t u s o f
student le a rn in g to
parents and st ud en ts

Very
L ittle

Quite
a Bit

Some
N

N

%

21

1 2. 8

50

3 0 .5

63

39.1

58

24

14.7

17

10 .6

Mean

%

N

72

4 3. 9

21

1 2 .8

1.72

4.5 8

36.0

35

2 1. 8

5

3.1

1.73

3.24

51

31 .3

65

39.9

23

14.1

1.8 0

4.57

54

3 3. 5

68

42.2

22

13.7

1.66

4.75

%

N

S.D.
Extensive
%

120

b.

Analysis o f the relatio n sh ip

between the a llo c a tio n

of

school resources and student achievement o f minimal o b je c tiv e s .
As shown in Table 19,
in d icatin g

that,

on

th e mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s

the

average,

ju n ior

item was 3 . 2 4 ,

high/m iddle

school

p r i n c i p a l s ra te d t h e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s as having "some" u s e f u l n e s s
in t h i s

ar ea .

A1 most f ou r out o f ten

(39.1%)

of

th e

principals

i n d i c a t e d "very 1 i t t l e " u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s f o r t h i s
purpose.

c.

Planning for in stru ction al improvements.

This item had a mean r a t i n g o f 4 . 5 7 ,
average,
u s ef ul

principals

rated

when planning

for

the

MEAP t e s t

instructional

(46%) o f t h e s e p r i n c i p a l s ,

however,

indicating
scores

as

that,
being

improvements.

on the
"quite"

Almost h a l f

b e l i e v e d the MEAP t e s t

results

had only "very 1 i t t l e " or "some" u s e f u l n e s s f o r t h i s purpose.

(See

Table 1 9 . )

d.

Communicating sta tu s o f student learning to parents and

students.
The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 7 5 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
average,
results

j u n i o r hig h/m idd le
as

"quite" u s ef ul

school

principals

rated

when communicating the

l e a r n i n g t o pare nts and s t u d e n t s .

the

level

MEAP t e s t
of

student

Close t o o n e - t h i r d (33.5%) o f the

p r i n c i p a l s b e l i e v e d the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s had only "some" u s e f u l n e s s
and

10.6%

purpose.

believed

they

had

"very

1ittle"

usefulness

for

this

(See Table 1 9 . )

The preceding f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with t h o s e o f the S t e e l e
study with th e e x c e p t i o n o f Items c and d.

In 1976,

junior high/

121

middle
"some"

school

principals

usefulness

in

rated
te r m s

the
of

MEAP t e s t

results

"planning

for

as

having

in stru ction al

improvements" and "communicating t h e s t a t u s o f st u d en t l e a r n in g to
p are nt s and students"
findings

of

this

(means = 4 . 4 8 and 3 . 5 7 ,

study

r e v e a le d

that

resp ectively).

junior

hig h/m idd le

The
school

p r i n c i p a l s rated t h e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s as being "quite" u s ef ul

for

both purposes (means = 4 . 5 7 and 4 . 7 5 , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .
High

school

concerning

the

usefulness

pur poses, as well
in Table 20.

p rincipals.
of

High
the

school

principal s ’

MEAP t e s t

results

res ponses

for

as t h e i r mean r a t i n g f o r each purpose,

selected
are shown

Findings regarding the u s e f u l n e s s o f the MEAP r e s u l t s

f o r each o f the four s e l e c t e d purposes are d i s c u s s e d in t h e f o l l o w ­
ing paragraphs.

a.

Diagnosis of student learning needs.

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item
average,
having

high
"some"

school

was4 . 3 9 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the

p r i n c i p a l s rated

usefulness

in

terms

of

the

MEAP

test

d ia g n o sin g st ud en t

ne eds.

C on versely,

15.5% thought the MEAP t e s t

1ittle"

usefulness,

and 13.7% b e l i e v e d the r e s u l t s

u s e f u l n e s s f o r t h i s purpose.

b.

results

results

as

le a r n in g
had "very

had "e xtensive"

(See Table 2 0 . )

Analysis o f t h e rela tio n sh ip

between the a llo c a tio n

of

school resources and student achievement o f minimal o b je c tiv e s.
As shown

in Table 20,

t h i s item had a mean r a t i n g

of

3.36,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the a ver age , high school p r i n c i p a l s thought the
MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s had "some" u s e f u l n e s s in t h i s area .

Only 23.1% o f

T a b l e 2 0 . - - H i g h s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ’ a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s
fo r se le c te d purposes.

Extent o f U se f ul ne ss
Purpose

Very
L ittle
N

Diagnosis o f student
lear nin g needs
Analysis o f r e l a t i o n s h i p
between a l l o c a t i o n o f
school resou rce s and
student achievement o f
minimal o b j e c t i v e s
Planning f o r i n s t r u c ­
t io n a l improvements
Communicating s t a t u s o f
student le a rn in g to
parents and s tud en ts

Quite
a B it

Some
%

N

%

N

S.D.

Mean

Ext ensive
%

N

%

24

16.6

50

3 4. 5

51

35.2

20

13 .7

1,83

4.39

46

33.1

61

43.8

22

15 .9

10

7.2

1.82

3.3 6

21

14.6

51

3 5. 4

52

36.1

20

13 .9

1.82

4.47

19

13.3

48

3 3. 6

52

36 .4

24

1 6. 8

1.86

4.66

123

t h e p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d "qui te a bit " or "e xtensive" u s e f u l n e s s o f
t h e MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h i s purpose.

c.

PIanning for instructional improvements.

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 4 7 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
averag e,
having

high

school

"some"

principals

useful ness

when

improvements in t h e i r s c h o o l s .
t h e high school

principals

rated

th e

MEAP t e s t

pianning

for

results

as

instructional

Fourteen and s i x - t e n t h s percent o f

rated the MEAP r e s u l t s

as having

"very

1 i t t l e " u s e f u l n e s s in t h i s area, and 13.9% s a id they had "extensive"
u s e f u l n e s s f o r t h i s purpose.
d.

(See Table 2 0 . )

Communicating s t a t u s

o f st ud en t

learning

to

parents

and

students.
As shown in Table 20,
in d icatin g th at,
MEAP t e s t

results

the mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s

on the average,
as

being

high school

"quite"

us efu l

principals

rated

the

when communicating

the

l e v e l o f stud ent le a r n i n g t o parents and s t u d e n t s .
rated as

"quite" u s ef ul

item was 4 . 6 6 ,

The r e s u l t s were

by 16.8% o f the p r i n c i p a l s

and as having

"very 1 i t t l e " u s e f u l n e s s by 13.3%.
Total

group.

Question 4,

In

this

questionnaire

section,

Item 11,

the

findings

are d i s c u s s e d

Research

in terms o f the

t o t a l group, as well as f o r in d iv i d u a l subgroups.
s e r v e s as a summary o f t h e a t t i t u d e s

for

This s e c t i o n a l s o

o f the t o t a l

group regarding

t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s f o r s e l e c t e d purposes.
The t o t a l
MEAP r e s u l t s

group’ s re sp on se s
for

four

specific

concerning the
purposes,

as

usefulness

well

as

o f the

their

mean

124

rating

for

each

purpose,

are

shown

in

Table

21.

The

findings

con cerning each purpose are presen ted in the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs.

a.

Diagnosis o f student learning needs.

As shown in Table 21, t h e mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s

item was 4 . 6 4 ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on th e average, t h e t o t a l group rated the MEAP t e s t
results

as

being

"quite"

u s ef ul

n eeds.

Elementary school p r i n c i p a l s gave th e h i g h e s t r a t i n g o f 4 .7 0

( q u i t e u s e f u l ) and high school
usefulness).

when dia g n o sin g

stud en t

le a r n in g

p r i n c i p a l s t h e lo w e s t at 4 . 3 9 (some

Junior hig h/middle

school

principals

rated

t h e MEAP

r e s u l t s as "quite" u s ef ul by j u s t .08 p o i n t s (mean = 4 . 5 8 ) .

b.

Analysis o f the rela tion sh ip

between the a llo c a tio n

of

school resources and student achievement o f minimal o b jectiv es.
This item had a mean r a t i n g o f 3 . 3 5 ,
averag e,

the

total

group

rated

the

"some" u s e f u l n e s s f o r t h i s purpose.
the

usefulness

of

the

indicating that,

MEAP t e s t
All

MEAP r e s u l t s

in

results

as

on the
having

subgroups rated s i m i l a r l y
th is

area

p r i n c i p a l s ’ mean = 3 . 3 6 , j u n i o r hig h/middle school

(elem entary

p r i n c i p a l s ’ mean

= 3 . 2 4 , high school p r i n c i p a l s ’ mean = 3 . 3 6 ) .

c.

Planning for instructional improvements.

The mean r a t i n g f o r t h i s item was 4 . 8 3 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the
av era ge ,

th e

total

group

rated

the

MEAP t e s t

results

as

being

"quite" u se ful when planning f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l improvements in t h e i r
schools.
(5.03)

Elementary
and

high

school

school

principals

principals

the

gave

the

lo w es t

highest
(4.47).

hig h /m id d le school p r i n c i p a l s rated th e MEAP r e s u l t s at 4 . 5 7 .

rating
Junior
High

T a b l e 2 1 . - - T h e t o t a l g r o u p ’ s a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s f o r
se le c te d purposes.

Extent o f U se f ul ne ss
Purpose

Very
L ittle
N

Diagnosis o f student
le arn ing needs
A nalysis o f r e l a t i o n s h i p
between a l l o c a t i o n o f
school res ou rce s and
student achievement o f
minimal o b j e c t i v e s
Planning f o r i n s t r u c ­
t io n a l improvements
Communicating s t a t u s o f
student le a rn in g to
parents and s tud en ts

Quite
a Bit

Some
%

N

%

N

S.D.

Mean

Exten sive
%

N

%

94

12.0

264

3 3 .9

307

3 9 .4

115

14 .7

1.75

4.64

274

3 5. 9

294

3 8 .4

159

20. 7

38

5.0

1.77

3.35

80

10.2

135

30. 3

323

41 .7

138

1 7 .8

1.74

4.83

72

9. 3

262

33.8

325

4 1. 9

116

15. 0

1. 68

4.77

126

school p r i n c i p a l s were th e only subgroup t o r a t e th e MEAP r e s u l t s as
being u s ef ul t o "some" e x t e n t f o r t h i s purpose.

d.

(See Table 2 1 . )

Communicating status o f student learning to parents and

students.
The mean s co re
av erage ,

the

total

f o r t h i s item was 4 . 7 7 ,

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , on the

group

test

rated

t h e MEAP

"quite" u s e f u l when communicating th e l e v e l

results

as

being

o f st u d en t l e a r n i n g to

pare nts and s t u d e n t s .

All t h re e subgroups rated t h e MEAP r e s u l t s as

being

in

"quite"

u s ef ul

this

area

(elementary

school

principal s ’

mean = 4 . 8 1 , j u n i o r high/middle school p r in c i p a l s ’ mean = 4 . 7 5 , high
school p r i n c i p a l s ’ mean = 4 . 6 6 ) .
R es u l t s o f the Chi-Square Analyses
In t h i s s e c t i o n , r e s u l t s o f the c h i- s q u a r e a n a l y s e s are used to
determine the s t a t i s t i c a l
p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent

s i g n i f i c a n c e o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the

o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s

(Item 9 a -o )

p r i n c i p a l s ’ resp on se s t o Research Questions 1, 2, and 4,

and

as well

as

p r i n c i p a l and b u il d in g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
To determine p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f the MEAP assessment
results,

the

scores

on

the

scale

of

1

(very

1i t t l e )

through

8

( e x t e n s i v e l y ) f o r each item o f Item 9 were t o t a l e d and then d iv id e d
by

the

numbers

re sp on den ts.

of

items

Items 1,

6,

that
7,

were

endorsed

by

the

i n d iv i d u a l

and 8 were not incl ude d in th e

chi-

square a n a ly s e s because c h i- s q u a r e does not lend i t s e l f t o q u e s t i o n s
with m u l t i p l e resp on se s (SPSS-X, 1986).

127

T hose r e l a t i o n s h i p s

t h a t met t h e

s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l

chi-square

are d i s c u s s e d

criterion

in t h i s

of

section.

The

r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t met t h a t c r i t e r i o n are i d e n t i f i e d by an a s t e r i s k
in Table 22.
Table 22 c o n t a in s th e r e s u l t s o f t h e c h i - s q u a r e
"extent

of

use"

of

the

MEAP a s s e s s m e n t

resu lts

analyses
and

fo r

selected

v a r i a b l e s from Research Questions 1, 2, and 4, as w ell as p r in c i p a l
and b u i l d i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

Numerous v a r i a b l e s were found t o be

s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e e x t e n t t o which b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s
Michigan were

using

the

found t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y

MEAP assess men t
sign ificant

results.

The

f o r the t h r e e

in

variables

subgroups

and

th e t o t a l group are d i s c u s s e d in the f o l l o w i n g pages.
Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s
A requirement t o

deve lo p a plan o f

action

t o overcome

i d e n t i f i e d bv the 1988 MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s .As shown

in Table

needs
22,

a

s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between elementary
p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f

use" o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

t hey were required t o

devel op a plan o f

action

i d e n t i f i e d by the 1988 MEAP assessment r e s u l t s .
t h e p er ce nta ge s

in the c e l l s

o f Table D.l

and whether or not
t o overcome

An examination o f

(Appendix D)

t h a t elementary p r i n c i p a l s who used th e MEAP r e s u l t s
were more

1i k e l y

to

de velop

a plan

of

action

needs

to

indicates

" e x t e n s i v e ly "
overcome

needs

i d e n t i f i e d by the MEAP assessment than were t h o s e p r i n c i p a l s who did
not use the MEAP r e s u l t s

extensively.

The c h i - s q u a r e

table

also

shows t h a t 38.5% o f the p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t i n g " ex te n si v e" use o f the

Table 2 2 . -- R e s u l ts o f c h i- s q u a r e a n aly se s f o r "e x te n t of use" o f the HEAP r e s u l t s and s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s .

Elementary School
Principals

Selected Variables
N

df

X2

Junior High/Middle School
Principals
p

N

df

X2

High School
Principals

p

N

df

X2

Total Group
P

N

df

X2

P

District-level Provisions
for Principals’ Use:
Hontli HEAP results received
Person responsible for
determining use
Plan requirement

404

16

11.64364

.768

152

20

18.09516

.581

139

12

7.29078

.837

738

20

17.15591

.642

400
427

16
8

20.65743
25.59774

.192
.001*

153
166

16
8

39.95774
18.10528

.000*
.019*

137
146

16
8

15.02721
13.04231

.522
.110

732
784

16
8

26.24788
46.80696

.050*
.000*

Principals’ Provisions for
Teacher Use:
Building committee estab­
lished

425

4

15.62384

.003*

166

4

17.99840

.001*

147

4

5.56061

.234

783

4

27.99623

.000*

433

16

323.10975

.000*

166

16

152.00511

.000*

147

16

111.98308

.000*

791

16

665.33868

.000*

433

16

416.29480

.000*

166

16

72.62378

.000*

147

16

154.65034

.000*

791

16

702.33826

.000*

431
428
426

8
16
8

6.55953
10.82287
13.37774

.584
.820
.099

163
163
162

8
16
8

12.00935
23.23899
2.80649

.150
.107
.945

146
145
145

8
16
8

2.95568
17.09255
7.99229

.937
.379
.434

786
782
779

8
16
8

7.15142
13.21693
11.02600

.520
.056
.200

433

12

26.39684

.009*

165

12

19.20058

.083

147

12

9.60414

.650

785

12

33.54037

,000*a

430
429
431
430

4
12
12
16

7.49084
16.46591
12.05264
22.78834

.112
.170
.441
.119

165
166
162
166

4
12
12
16

6.43175
6.43638
7.78052
18.23382

.169
.892
.802
.310

147
145
143
146

4
12
12
16

3.85972
3.22189
16.29174
20.46874

.425
.993
.178
.199

784
781
776
784

4
12
12
16

2.85110
8.81011
11.05228
12.80527

.583
.719
.524
.686

Principals’ Attitudes Toward
HEAP Assessment Results:
Impact of assessment
results on instructional programs
Usefulness of HEAP
assessment results
School Buildina Character­
istics:
Location of school
Total school enrollment
School setting
Percentage of minority
students
Principal Characteristics:
Gender
Highest academic degree
Years as administrator
Years in position

*Significant at the .05 level.

129

MEAP r e s u l t s

developed plan s

o f action

even though th e y were not

required t o do s o .
E s t a b l i s h a b u i l d i n g - l e v e l committee t o i n v o l v e t e a c h e r s in the
analysis

and

in terp retation

of

the

19 88

MEAP

resu lts.

A

s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between elementary
p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s and whether or not
they e s t a b l i s h e d a b u i l d i n g - l e v e l

committee t o

involve teachers

in

the a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e 1988 MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e i r
schools.

(See Table 2 2 . )

An examination o f th e per ce nt a ge s in the

c e l l s o f Table D.2 (Appendix D) s u g g e s t s t h a t elementary p r i n c i p a l s
who made "exte nsi ve"
establish

use o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s

a building-level

committee

to

were more 1 i k e l y

involve

teachers

in

to
the

a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e 1988 MEAP r e s u l t s than were th o s e
who did not use the MEAP r e s u l t s e x t e n s i v e l y .
Impact

of

the

MEAP assessment

program in t h e i r s c h o o l s .
significant

relationship

results

on

th e

As shown in Table 22,
was

found

"extent o f use" o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s

between

instructional

a statistically

elementary

and t h e i r

principal s ’

attitudes

impact they b e l i e v e d the MEAP had had on t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l
in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

about the
programs

An examination o f the per ce nt a ge s in the c e l l s o f

Table D.3 (Appendix D) s u g g e s t s t h a t elementary p r i n c i p a l s who made
"extensive" use o f the MEAP r e s u l t s were more 1 i k e l y t o b e l i e v e t h a t
the MEAP had had an " ext ens iv e" impact on t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs
in

their

schools

than were p r i n c i p a l s

"quite a bit " or "some."

who used

the

MEAP r e s u l t s

130

P rin cip als’
as se ssm en t

attitu d es

resu lts.

toward

the

A statistically

usefulness

sign ificant

found between elementary p r i n c i p a l s ’ "ex ten t o f

of

the

MEAP

relationship
use"

of

th e

was
MEAP

r e s u l t s and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h o s e r e s u l t s
for selected
22.)

purposes

(Item 11,

An examination o f th e

a-d)

in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

per ce nt a ge s in t h e

cells

(See Table

o f Table D.4

(Appendix D) s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s t h a t elementary p r i n c i p a l s who made
" ex ten siv e"

use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

MEAP r e s u l t s
schools.

was

"e xtensive"

for

also

th e

bel iev ed the

selected

use o f the

purposes

in

their

Only 9% o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s who made "exte nsi ve" use o f the

MEAP r e s u l t s thought t h e r e was "very 1 i t t l e " or "some" u s e f u l n e s s o f
th e MEAP r e s u l t s f o r the purposes i n d i c a t e d .
Percentage o f m in o ri ty s t u d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

As shown in

Table 22, a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between
elementary p r i n c i p a l s ’ "e xtent o f use" o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s and the
approximate
in d icated
percentages

perce ntag e
in

o f m in o ri ty

questionnaire

in the c e l l s

Item

students
16.

o f Table D.5

in

An

their

schools,

exam ination

(Appendix D)

as

of

suggests

the
that

elementary p r i n c i p a l s who made "e xtensive" use o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s
came from s c h o o l s with very low p er ce nta ge s

(0% t o 9%) o f min ori ty

s t u d e n t s or from b u i l d i n g s with the high er p erc en ta ge o f mi n o ri ty
s t u d e n t s (10.6% t o 100%).
The pr eceding f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with t h o s e o f th e S t e e l e
study
this

in t h a t
st u d y ,

tables,

the variables
as w ell

found t o

be s i g n i f i c a n t l y

as t h e c o n c l u s i o n s drawn

were a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d

in t h e

related

in

from th e chi -square
Steele

st ud y.

Two

131

additional
the

relationships,

Steele

principals

stud y.
used

however, were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t

Those

were

t h e HEAP r e s u l t s

the

extent

and th e

to

which

setting

in

elementary

in which

their

s c h o o l s were l o c a t e d and t h e month in which t h e p r i n c i p a l s r e c e i v e d
t h e m aj o ri ty o f t h e i r MEAP r e p o r t s .
principals
more

S t e e l e found t h a t elementary

"who work in elementary s c h o o l s

1ik ely

to

be

using

MEAP t e s t

in

resu lts

urban s e t t i n g s
’ qu ite

a b it’

are
or

’ e x t e n s i v e l y ’ than are p r i n c i p a l s who work in elementary s c h o o l s in
suburban

or

principals

rural

settin gs."

Steele

"who r e c e i v e MEAP t e s t

also

results

found
late

that

elementary

are more 1 i k e l y t o

use MEAP r e s u l t s ’ very 1 i t t l e ’ than are p r i n c i p a l s who r e c e i v e t e s t
results e a r ly ."

Ju nio r High/Middle School P r i n c i p a l s
Person p ri m a ri ly r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining procedures f o r the
use

of

the

19 88

MEAP

assessm ent

resu lts.

A sta tistica lly

s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school
p rin cip als’

"extent

of

use"

of

the

MEAP r e s u l t s

and

persons

p r im a r i ly r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining procedures f o r t h e use o f the
1988 MEAP assessment r e s u l t s .

(See Table 2 2 . )

An examination o f

t h e per ce nt ag e s in t h e c e l l s o f Table D.6 (Appendix D) s u g g e s t s t h a t
j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s who made " ex te n si v e" use o f the
MEAP r e s u l t s were more l i k e l y t o be in s c h o o l s where the p r i n c i p a l
or a d i s t r i c t wide committee determined procedures f o r the use o f
the

1988 MEAP t e s t

results.

A ls o ,

building

principals

who made

132

"very l i t t l e " or "some" use o f th e HEAP r e s u l t s were more l i k e l y t o
be in s c h o o l s where th e b u i l d i n g guidance c o u n s e l o r was th e person
p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining procedures f o r the use o f the
as se ssm en t r e s u l t s .
A requirement t o dev el op a plan o f

action

i d e n t i f i e d bv th e 1988 HEAP assessment r e s u l t s .
22,

a

statistically

sign ificant

j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school

relationship

to

overcome needs

As shown in Table
was

found

Letween

p r i n c i p a l s ’ "e xt en t o f use" o f th e HEAP

r e s u l t s and whether or not they were requ ired t o develop a pi an o f
a c t i o n t o overcome needs

identified

by th e 1988 MEAP r e s u l t s .

An

examination o f th e per ce nt a ge s in the c e l l s o f Table D.7 (Appendix
D)

suggests

that

junior

high/m iddle

school

p rin cipals

making

"e xte nsi ve" or "quite a bit" o f use o f the HEAP r e s u l t s were more
1 i k e l y t o be in b u i l d i n g s

t h a t were requ ired t o develop plans

of

a c t i o n t o overcome needs i d e n t i f i e d by t h e MEAP assessment r e s u l t s
than were p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t i n g "very 1 i t t l e " or "some" use.
Established a b u ild in g -le v e l

committee t o

involve teachers

in

t h e a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the 1988 MEAP assessment r e s u l t s .
A statistically

significant

r e l a t i o n s h i p was found

between

h ig h /m id d le

school p r i n c i p a l s ’ "e xtent o f use" o f th e

and whether

or not

th ey e s t a b l i s h e d

junior

MEAP r e s u l t s

a b u i l d i n g - l e v e l committee to

i n v o l v e t e a c h e r s in th e a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e 1988 MEAP
assessment

results

examination

o f the

D)

that

suggests

for

their

schools.

(See

Table 2 2 . )

An

per ce nt ag e s in t h e c e l l s o f Table D.8 (Appendix
junior

hig h/middle

school

principals

who

made

133

"e xt en si ve "

use

of

th e

MEAP r e s u l t s

were

schools that estab lish ed b u ild in g -le v el
principals
clearly

who did

an

not

inverse

establish

likely

to

be

in

committees than were t h o s e

use th e MEAP r e s u l t s

relationship

i n d i c a t e d "very 1 i t t l e "

more

existed

in

extensively.
that

A ls o ,

principals

who

use o f the MEAP r e s u l t s were not l i k e l y t o

a building-level

committee

to

involve

teachers

in

the

a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the assessment r e s u l t s .
Impact

of

th e

program in t h e i r

MEAP assessment

schools.

results

on

the

As shown in Table 2 2 ,

instructional

a statistically

s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school
p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s
about t h e impact they thought the MEAP had had on the i n s t r u c t i o n a l
programs in t h e i r s c h o o l s .
cells

o f Table D.9

school

An examination o f the per ce nt a ge s in the

(Appendix D)

suggests

p r i n c i p a l s who made "extensive"

that

junior

h igh /m idd le

or "quite a bit"

o f use o f

the MEAP r e s u l t s were more 1i k e l y t o b e l i e v e t h a t the MEAP had had
"quite a bit" or an "e xtensive" impact on th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs
in

th eir

schools

than were p r i n c i p a l s

who made

"very 1 i t t l e "

or

"some" use o f the MEAP r e s u l t s .
P rin cip als’ attitu d es
assessm ent

resu lts.

As

toward
shown

in

the

useful ness

Table

22,

a

of

the

MEAP

sta ti sti cally

s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school
p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s
toward t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h o s e r e s u l t s f o r s e l e c t e d purposes
11, a-d) in t h e i r s c h o o l s .
cells

(Item

An examination o f th e pe rc e nt a ge s in the

o f Table D.10 (Appendix D) s u g g e s t s

that

junior

h igh /m idd le

134

school p r i n c i p a l s who made "e xtensive"

or "quite a bit "

o f use o f

t h e MEAP r e s u l t s a l s o ra te d the u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e s e l e c t e d purposes
as "qui te a bit " or " e x t e n s i v e . "

Only 5.4% o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s who

made " ext en siv e" use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s rated t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f the
s e l e c t e d purposes as "very 1 i t t l e . "
These

preceding

findings

are

consistent

with

those

of

the

S t e e l e study in t h a t a l l o f the v a r i a b l e s found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y
related

in t h i s

st ud y ,

as well

as the

conclusions

drawn from the

c h i - s q u a r e t a b l e s , were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d

in the S t e e l e

Two

were

addi t i onal

statistically

relation sh ip s,

sign ificant

in

the

however,
Steele

stud y.

found
Those

study.
to

be

were

the

e x t e n t t o which j u n i o r hig h /m id d le school p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP
r e s u l t s and th e p er ce nta ge o f m in o ri ty s t u d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o ls and
the

highest

college

degree

held by the p r i n c i p a l s .

Steele

founH

t h a t j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s "who work in s c h o o l s with
th e h i g h e s t p er ce nta ge o f m ino ri ty s t u d en t s (10.6% t o 100%) are more
1 i k e l y t o be making ’ q u i t e a b i t ’ or ’ e x t e n s i v e ’ use o f MEAP r e s u l t s
than are p r i n c i p a l s who work in s c h o o l s with lower per ce nt a ge s o f
m in o r i t y s t u d e n t s
hig h /m id d le school

(0% t o

10.5%)."

Steele

also

found t h a t

p r i n c i p a l s who had earned e i t h e r

junior

a Educational

S p e c i a l i s t degree or an Ed.D. or Ph.D. degree were more l i k e l y
be making ’ q u i t e a b i t ’ or

’ e x t e n s i v e ’ use o f MEAP r e s u l t s "

were j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school

"to
than

p r i n c i p a l s who had earned e i t h e r

B.A. or an M.A. as t h e i r h i g h e s t d egr ee .

a

135

High School P r i n c i p a l s
Impact

of

th e

MEAP assessment

program in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

A statistically

was found between high school
MEAP r e s u l t s

D .ll

on

the

instructional

sig n ific a n t relationship

p r i n c i p a l s ’ "e xtent o f use" o f the

and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s about th e impact t he y thought the

MEAP had had on the i n s t r u c t i o n a l
Table 2 2 . )

results

programs in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

(See

An examination o f the perc ent age s in th e c e l l s o f Table

(Appendix D)

suggests

that

high

school

principals

who made

" ext en siv e" use o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s were more 1 i k e l y t o t h in k t h a t
those r e s u lt s
programs

in

had had an "extensive"
their

schools

than were

b i t , 11 "some," or "very 1 i t t l e "
th e p r i n c i p a l s who i n d i c a t e d
had "very 1 i t t l e "

on th e

principals

instructional

who had

"quite

a

use o f th o s e r e s u l t s .

Only 5.4% o f

"extensive" use thought

the MEAP had

impact on t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs.

P rin cip als’ attitu d es
assessm ent

impact

resu lts.

As

toward
shown

the

in

usefulness

Table

22,

a

of

the

MEAP

sta tistica lly

s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between high school

principal s ’

"extent o f use" o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward the
u s e f u l n e s s o f t h os e r e s u l t s f o r s e l e c t e d purposes (Item 11, a-d)

in

th eir schools.

of

Table D.12

An examination o f the p er ce nta ge s in the c e l l s

(Appendix D)

suggests

th a t

high

school

principals

who

made "extensive" use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s a l s o rated the u s e f u l n e s s
o f th e s e l e c t e d purposes as " e x t e n s i v e . "

136

The Total Group
Person p r im ar il y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining procedures f o r use
o f t h e 1988 MEAP assessment r e s u l t s .
tistica lly
group’ s

significant

"e xtent

of

relationship

use"

of

the

As shown in Table 22,
was

found

MEAP r e s u l t s

between
and

the

the

a sta­
total

p e r s o n ( s)

p r im a r i ly r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining t h e procedures f o r use o f the
1988 MEAP assessment r e s u l t s .

An examination o f t h e per ce nt a ge s in

th e c e l l s o f Table D.13 (Appendix D) s u g g e s t s t h a t t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p
was t r u e r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e degree o f use.
A requirement t o develop
id en tified

bv

the

1988

a plan o f a c t i o n

MEAP t e s t

to

resu lts.

overcome needs

A sta tistica lly

s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between the t o t a l group’ s "extent
o f use" o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s and whether or not th ey were required to
d evelop a plan o f a c t i o n t o overcome needs i d e n t i f i e d
MEAP assessment r e s u l t s .
p er ce nta ge s

in

Table

(See Table 2 2 . )

D.14

(Appendix D)

p r i n c i p a l s who made "e xtensive"
l i k e l y t o be in b u i l d i n g s
action

by t h e 1988

An examination

suggests

that

o f the

total-group

use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s were more

t h a t were requ ired t o d ev el op

plan s o f

to

overcome needs

identified

by t h e MEAP r e s u l t s .

Almost

one-third

(32.8%) o f the

principals

indicating

use o f

" ext en siv e"

t h e MEAP r e s u l t s were 1 i k e l y t o be in b u i l d i n g s t h a t developed plans
of

action

even

though

they

were

not

requ ired

to

do

so.

A ls o ,

t o t a l - g r o u p p r i n c i p a l s who i n d i c a t e d "very 1 i t t l e " or "some" use o f
t h e MEAP r e s u l t s were more 1 i k e l y t o be in b u i l d i n g s t h a t were not

137

requ ired t o develop plans o f a c t i o n t o overcome needs i d e n t i f i e d by
t h e 1988 MEAP assessment r e s u l t s f o r t h e i r s c h o o l s .
Established a b u ild in g -le v el

committee t o

involve teachers

in

t h e a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e 1988 MEAP a ssessmen t r e s u l t s .
A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between th e t o t a l
group’ s "e xtent o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s and whether or not they
established a building-level
analysis
22.)

committee t o

and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

o f the

involve

teachers

1988 MEAP r e s u l t s .

An examination o f th e perce nta ge s in t h e c e l l s

in the

(See

Table

o f Table D.15

(Appendix D) s u g g e s t s t h a t p r i n c i p a l s who made " ext en siv e"

use o f

t h e MEAP r e s u l t s were 1i k e l y t o be in s c h o o ls t h a t were requ ired to
establish
analysis

building-level
and

committees

interpretation

of

the

to
1988

involve

teachers

in

MEAP r e s u l t s .

the

Further

examination s u g g e s t s t h a t p r i n c i p a l s who made "very 1 i t t l e "

use o f

t h e MEAP r e s u l t s were not 1i k e l y t o be in s c h o o l s t h a t were required
to e sta b lish
building
results

building-level

principals

committees.

who made

"quite

It

a bit "

should
of

be noted

use

appeared to have a 50/50 chance o f being

of

in

that

th e

MEAP

schools

that

were required t o e s t a b l i s h b u i l d i n g - l e v e l committees.
Impact
program

in

sign ificant

of

the

MEAP assessment

sch ools.
relationship

As

shown

was

found

in

results

on

the

Table

22,

a

between

instructional
sta tistica lly

principals’

extent

of

use" o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s about th e impact they
thought

the

MEAP had had on the

instructional

programs

in

their

138

schools.

An examination o f t h e per ce nt a ge s

in t h e c e l l s

o f Table

D.16 (Appendix D) s u g g e s t s t h a t p r i n c i p a l s who made " ex te n si ve " use
o f the MEAP r e s u l t s were more l i k e l y t o f e e l t h a t t h o s e r e s u l t s had
had an

"exten sive "

impact

on

s c h o o ls

than were p r i n c i p a l s

the

instructional

program

in

who used t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

their

"quite

a

b i t , " "some," or "very 1 i t t l e . "
Princi p a l s ’ a t t it u d e s
assessment

resu lts.

toward

the

A statistically

useful ness

significant

of

the

MEAP

relationship

was

found between the p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s
and t h e i r

attitudes

toward

the

s e l e c t e d purposes (Item 11, a-d)
An

examination

of

the

usefulness

of

those

in t h e i r s c h o o l s .

p er ce n t ag e s

in

the

results

for

(See Table 2 2 . )

cells

of

Table

D.17

(Appendix D) s t r o n g l y s u g g e s t s t h a t p r i n c i p a l s who made "e xtensive"
use

of

th e

MEAP r e s u l t s

also

believed

that

results

were

" e x t e n s i v e ly " f o r th e s e l e c t e d purposes in t h e i r s c h o o l s .
of

the

principals

thought t h e r e was

who made

"e xtensive"

"very 1 i t t l e "

or

use

of

th e

used

Only 9.6%

MEAP r e s u l t s

"some" u s e f u l n e s s

o f th e MEAP

r e s u l t s f o r the purposes i n d i c a t e d .
Percentage o f m in o r i t y s t u d e n t s in Michigan s c h o o l s .
in

Table

22,

a sta tistica lly

between p r i n c i p a l s ’
approximate
indicated

in

"e xt en t

perce nta ge
Item 1 6 ) .

of

sign ificant
use"

o f mi n o ri ty

of

relationship

As shown
was

t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

s t u d en ts

in

An examination o f t h e

th eir

found

and the

schools,

p e rc e n t a g e s

as

in the

c e l l s o f Table D.18 (Appendix D) s u g g e s t s t h a t p r i n c i p a l s who made
"exte nsi ve" use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s were in s c h o o l s with a very low
perce ntag e (0 t o .9%) o f m in or i t y s t u d en ts or t h e h i g h e s t p er ce nta ge

139

increment in t h e surv ey,

10.6% t o 100% m in o r i t y s t u d e n t s .

Almost

70% (69.2%) o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s who in d i c a t e d " ex ten siv e" use o f the
HEAP r e s u l t s

came from s c h o o l s with t h e s e p er ce n t a ge s

o f m in o ri t y

students.
C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r "Extent o f Use"
o f th e MEAP R e s u l t s f o r S e l e c t e d Purposes
C orrelation

co efficien ts

were

computed

to

e x am in e

the

r e l a t i o n s h i p s between elementary s c h o o l , j u n i o r hig h/m idd le s c h o o l ,
high s c h o o l , and t o t a l group p r i n c i p a l s ’ "e xtent o f use" o f t h e MEAP
assess men t r e s u l t s f o r one purpose and the "e xtent o f use" o f t h o s e
results

f o r o t h e r purposes

(Item 9,

a-n).

For example,

a n a ly s e s

were conducted t o determine whether t h e r e was a r e l a t i o n s h i p between
th e e x t e n t t o which p r i n c i p a l s used th e MEAP r e s u l t s

"to determine

s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f mathematics" and th e e x t e n t
t o which t h ey used t h o s e r e s u l t s "to determine placement o f s t u d e n t s
in remedial programs."

The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e a n a l y s e s are d i s c u s s e d

in t h i s s e c t i o n .
The

strength

determined

by t h e

coefficient.
correl ation

of

the

size

Because
matrices,

of
of
an

criterio n for s t a t i s t i c a l
alpha

level

significance

protected
of

the

relation ships
the
the
alpha

variables

Pearson product-moment
large

number

level

of

significance.

against

b et w ee n

Type

correlations.

I

of

.001

correlation

variables
was

was

chosen

in

the

as

the

The use o f such a s t r i n g e n t
er r o r

A ls o ,

when determining

because

of

the

the

unique

c h a r a c t e r o f t h e data c o l l e c t e d f o r t h i s study and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s

140

o f the co r r e la tio n s ,

it

was de cided t h a t

h igh er would be d e s ig n a t e d
a b s o lu t e va lu e o f
.65

to

.79

,50 t o

stro ng

as

correlations

significant.

likely"),

and

.50 and

Correlations

.64 were co n s id er ed moderate

("very

of

.80

to

.99

with

an

("likely"),
very

strong

( " e x c e e d in g l y l i k e l y " ) .
In

th e f o l l o w i n g p age s, data are pr es en te d f o r each subgroup

(elementary

school,

junior

high /midd le

school,

and

high

school

p r i n c i p a l s ) s e p a r a t e l y , f o ll o w e d by th e r e s u l t s f o r t h e t o t a l

group

of principals.
Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s
The

correlation

coefficien ts

for

for

selected

elementary school

u ses

principals

o fthe
are

MEAP

assessment

results

shown in

Table 23.

C o r r e l a t i o n s meeting th e c r i t e r i o n f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e

are

noted with an a s t e r i s k .
S tatistically
extent

to

determ ine

s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were found between the

which elementary
the

general

achievement

s t u d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s
results

"to

mathematics"
the

area

moderate,

of

sim ilar.

determine

used
level"

the
of

strengths

and

(.5786).

for these

the

weaknesses

( .5 9 2 8 ) and "to determine s t r e n g t h s
reading"

MEAP r e s u l t s

"to

fourth-grade

and the e x t e n t t o which they used t h o s e

suggesting that i t

MEAP r e s u l t s

principals

is

Both

area o f

and weaknesses

c o r r e l a t i o n s were

l i k e l y the

purposes

in t h e

in

seen as

"extent o f use" o f the

by e l e m e n t a r y

p rin cipals

was

Table 2 3 . - - C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s e l e c t e d uses o f t h e MEAP assessm ent r e s u l t s :

Elementary school p r i n c i p a l s .

Use of the MEAP Assessment Results

9a

9b

9c

9d

9e

9f

9g

9h

9i

9j

9k

91

9m

9n

.4310

.5928

.5786

.3378

.4675

.3904

.3139

.3544

.2465

.2114

.3974

.2424

.3039

.3224

.3148

.2864

.2781

.3018

.2371

.3104

.2669

.2150

.2342

.2634

.2135

.8431*

.5169*

.6501*

.4644

.2286

.3126

.2896

.2344

.4183

.2072

.3201

.5166*

.6126*

.4212

.2725

.2773

.2687

.2483

.4128

.2161

.3263

.4121

.3456

.1545

.2617

.2618

.1958

.3033

.2134

.2126

.5410*

.3073

.4286

.3822

.2937

.5419*

.3136

.3996

.4251

.5027*

.4051

.3379

.4632

.4619

.3477

.3939

.4120

.3292

.2697

.4078

.3831

.6279*

.3680

.4628

.4925

.3105

.4856

.4526

.3578

.3524

.4579

.31999

.3683

.4056

.3846

9b
9c
9d
9e
9f
9g
9h
91
9j
9k
91
9m

.4001

Key to uses:
9a
9b
9c
9d
9e
9f
9g
9h
9i
9j
9k
91
9m
9n

=
•=
=
«
=
=
=
=
■=
=
=
=
=

To determine general achievement level of students in your school.
To inform school community
of students’ general achievement level.
To determine strengths and weaknesses in the area of mathematics.
To determine strengths and weaknesses in the area of reading.
To determine strengths and weaknesses in the area of science.
To determine instructional priorities.
To document need in determination of school resource allocation.
To determine placement of students in "remedial" programs.
To determine need for new programs.
To determine effectiveness of new programs.
To analyze teacher performance.
To identify staff-development needs for teachers.
To prepare proposals for funding.
To predict students’ future academic success.
♦Significant at the .001 level.

142

S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were a l s o found between
t h e e x t e n t t o which elementary p r i n c i p a l s used t h e MEAP r e s u l t s "to
determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in th e area o f mathematics"

for

th e f o u rt h - g ra d e s t u d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o ls and th e e x t e n t t o which
t h e y used t h o s e r e s u l t s
the

area o f

reading"

p riorities"

"to determine s t r e n g t h s
(.8431)

(.6501 ) .

Both

and

and weaknesses

"t o d e t e r m i n e

correlation s

were

in

in stru ction al

seen

as

strong,

s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t i s h i g h l y 1 i k e l y t h a t t h e "ex ten t o f use" o f the
MEAP r e s u l t s

for

these

purposes

by e l e m e n t a r y

prin cipals

was

sim ilar.
As shown in Table 23, a moderate c o r r e l a t i o n was found between
t h e e x t e n t t o which elementary p r i n c i p a l s used t h e MEAP r e s u l t s "to
determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f mathematics"

and

the e x t e n t t o which they used t h o s e r e s u l t s "to determine s t r e n g t h s
and weaknesses

in the

area o f s ci en ce "

(.5169)

in t h e i r

school s .

These data s u g g e st t h a t i t i s 1 i k e l y t h a t the "extent o f use" o f the
MEAP r e s u l t s

by e l e m e n t a r y

prin cipals

for

these

purposes

was

sim ilar.
S tatistically
between
results

the

extent

"to

sign ificant
to

which

elementary

determine s t r e n g t h s

reading" in t h e i r s c h o o ls
results

"to

science"

(.5166)

(.6126).

correlations

found

principals

and weaknesses

used
in th e

to

exist

the
area

MEAP
of

and the e x t e n t t o which th ey used t h o s e

determine s t r e n g t h s
and

were

"t o

and weaknesses

determine i n s t r u c t io n a l

in th e

area

of

p riorities"

The s t r e n g t h o f both r e l a t i o n s h i p s was seen as

moderate,

143

suggesting
results

that

it

likely

that

the

"e xt ent

of

use"

of

the

MEAP

f o r t h e s e purposes by elementary p r i n c i p a l s was s i m i l a r .

As

shown in Table 23,

a s t a t is t ic a lly significant

correlation

was found between t h e e x t e n t t o which elementary p r i n c i p a l s used the
MEAP r e s u l t s "to determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s " and t h e e x t e n t
t o which

they

determ ination
id en tify

u s ed
of

those
school

resu lts
resource

staff-developm ent

needs

"t o document
a l 1ocation "
for

nee d

(.5410)

teachers"

in

the

and

(. 5419).

"to
The

s t r e n g t h o f both r e l a t i o n s h i p s was seen as moderate, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t
it

is

1ikely

that

the

"ex ten t

of

use"

of

th e

MEAP r e s u l t s

by

elementary p r i n c i p a l s f o r t h e s e purposes was s i m i l a r .
A statistically
extent

to

s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found between the

which elementary

principals

document need in the d et er m in at io n

used

the

o f school

re s o u r c e

and "to determine need f o r new programs" ( . 5 0 2 7 ) .
t h e c o r r e l a t i o n was seen as moderate,

MEAP r e s u l t s

"to

allocation"

The s t r e n g t h o f

suggesting that i t

is lik e ly

t h a t the "ex ten t o f use" o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes by
elementary p r i n c i p a l s was s i m i l a r .
As

seen

in Table 23,

a s t a t is t ic a lly significant

correlation

was found between th e e x t e n t t o

which elementary p r i n c i p a l s

the

need

MEAP r e s u l t s

"to

determine

for

new programs"

determine th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs" ( . 6 2 7 9 ) .
of

the

correlation

was

seen

as

moderate,

p r i n c i p a l s f o r t h e s e purposes was s i m i l a r .

and

"to

The s t r e n g th

suggesting

1 i k e l y t h a t th e "extent o f use" o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

used

that

it

is

by elementary

144

Of t h e 11 c o r r e l a t i o n s

found t o

be s t a t i s t i c a l l y

sign ificant

f o r elementary p r i n c i p a l s in t h i s st u d y , seven were c o n s i s t e n t with
t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e S t e e l e st ud y.
elementary

principals

used

the

Those are t h e e x t e n t t o which
MEAP

results

"to

determine

the

gen eral achievement l e v e l " o f the s tu d en t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s with the
e x t e n t t o which t h ey used the r e s u l t s

"to determine s t r e n g t h s

and

weaknesses in the area o f mathematics" and "to determine s t r e n g t h s
and
used

weaknesses
th e

in the area o f reading";

results

mathematics"

with

"to

determine

the

extent

determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l
the r e s u l t s

the

the

p riorities" ;

extent

determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l

strengths

t o which they

"to determine s t r e n g t h s

reading" with

the e x t e n t

to

t o which they

and

used

weaknesses

the

results

in
"to

t h e e x t e n t t o which they used
andweaknesses

w hich

they

in th e area o f

used t h e

resul ts

"to

p r i o r i t i e s " ; t h e e x t e n t t o which th ey used

t h e r e s u l t s "to determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s " with the e x t e n t
to

w hic h

they

u s ed

the

d et er m in a t io n o f school
they

used

the

resul ts

"to

document

need

re so u rce a l l o c a t i o n " ; the e x t e n t

results

"to document need

in

the

in

the

t o which

d et er m in a ti on

of

r es ou rc e a l l o c a t i o n ’ with the e x t e n t t o which they used t h e r e s u l t s
"to determine need f o r new programs"; and the e x t e n t t o which they
used

th e

extent

results
to

whi ch

"to

determine

they

u se d

need
the

for

new programs"

resul ts

"to

with

the

d e t e r m i ne

the

e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs."
Two c o r r e l a t i o n s found
but

not corroborated

elementary

principals

in

to
th is

used

the

be s i g n i f i c a n t
study
MEAP

were

the

results

in the S t e e l e
extent
"to

to

study
which

determine

the

145

general achievement l e v e l " o f t h e s t u d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s with the
e x t e n t t o which th ey used the r e s u l t s

"to determine

priorities";

t hey

determine

and th e

placement

extent
of

to

which

students

in

remedial

e x t e n t t o which they used the r e s u l t s
programs."

used

instructional

the

results

programs"

with

"to
the

"to determine need f o r new

The S t e e l e study did not in cl ud e Item 9 e ,

"to determine

s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f s c i e n c e . "
Junior High/Middle School P r i n c i p a l s
The

correlation

assessment
shown

coefficients

results

in

Table

statistical

for

junior

24.

for

selected

hig h/middle

C orrelations

us es

school

meeting

the

of

the

MEAP

principals

are

criterion

for

s i g n i f i c a n c e are noted with an a s t e r i s k .

Statistically

sign ificant

c o r r e l a t i o n s were found between the

e x t e n t t o which j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school

p r i n c i p a l s used th e MEAP

r e s u l t s "to determine the general achievement l e v e l " o f t h e se ven th grade s t u d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s
those

results

achievement
(.6150),

(1)

level

(2)

"to
of

area

weaknesses

inform the
the

school

seven th -g rad e

community o f th e general
students

in

their

school"

"to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f

mathematics" ( . 6 8 5 2 ) ,
the

and the e x t e n t t o which they used

of
in

(3) "to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in

reading"
th e

(.6204),

area

instructional p rio r ities"
d ete rm in at io n

of

of

(4)

s cie nce "

"to

determine

(.5045),

(5)

strengths
"to

and

determine

( . 5 7 2 9 ) , and (6) "to document need in the

school

reso urc e

allocation"

(.5120).

The

Table 2 4 . - - C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s e l e c t e d uses o f t h e MEAP assessment r e s u l t s :

J u n i o r h igh/m id dle school p r i n c i p a l s .

Use of the MEAP Assessment Results

9a

9b

9c

9d

9e

9f

9g

9h

9i

9j

9k

91

9m

9n

.6150*

.6852*

.6204*

.5045*

.5729*

.5120*

.3566

.3682

.4121

.2297

.3942

.2634

.3243

.5690*

.4882

.3538

.4026

.3702

.3284

.3241

.3048

.1376

.3702

.2412

.2881

.8469*

.5444*

.6703*

.4767

.3282

.3525

.3164

.1888

.3153

.2558

.1978

.5406*

.6661*

.4768

.2882

.3654

.3488

.2194

.3457

.1895

.1507

.5476*

.5264*

.1911

.2635

.3119

.1721

.2638

.1262

.2062

.6389*

.3332

.4335

.4968

.2952

.3990

.2829

.2095

.4125

.5149*

.5019*

.3784

.4709

.4017

.2937

.4917

.5134*

.4102

.4102

.3859

.4840

.7124*

.3501

.4901

.4517

.3952

.4848

.5198*

.4743

.4888

.5401*

.3925

.3695

.4628

.2925

9b
9c
9d
9e
9f
9g
9h
9i
9j
9k
91

.3307

9m

Key to uses:
9a
9b
9c
9d
9e
9f
9g
9h
9i
9j
9k
91
9m
9n

=
=
=
=
*
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

To determine general achievement level of students in your school.
To inform school community of students’ general achievement level.
To determine
strengthsandweaknessesinthearea
of
mathematics.
To determine
strengthsandweaknessesinthearea
of
reading.
To determine
strengthsandweaknesses inthearea
of
science.
To determine
instructionalpriorities.
To document need in determination of school resource allocation.
To determine placement of students in "remedial" programs.
To determine need for new programs.
To determine effectiveness of new programs.
To analyze teacher performance.
To identify staff-development needs for teachers.
To prepare proposals for funding.
To predict students’ future academic success.
♦Significant at the .001 level.

147

correlation

between the e x t e n t t o which j u n i o r h igh /m idd le

p rincipals

used

the

HEAP r e s u l t s

"t o

determ ine

the

school
general

achievement l e v e l " o f t h e s tu d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s and t h e e x t e n t
to

which

weaknesses

t hey

used

in

the

suggesting that i t
MEAP r e s u l t s
principals

for

was

those
area

results

"to determine

o f mathematics"

was

i s very l i k e l y t h a t th e
these

purposes

sim ilar.

by th e

co n sid er ed

and

strong,

"e xtent o f use" o f the

junior

The remaining

strengths

h igh /m idd le

c o r r e l a t i o n s were

school
seen

as

moderate, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i s 1 i k e l y t h a t the "extent o f use" o f the
MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes by the p r i n c i p a l s was s i m i l a r .
S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were a l s o found between
t h e e x t e n t to which j u n i o r high/middle school
MEAP r e s u l t s

"to

in f o r m

the

school

principals

community

of

used the

the

general

achievement l e v e l " o f the s tu d en t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s and the e x t e n t
to

which

they

used

those

results

"to determine

weaknesses in the area o f mathematics" ( . 5 6 9 0 ) .
seen as moderate,

suggesting that i t

strengths

and

The c o r r e l a t i o n was

i s 1 i k e l y t h a t th e "extent o f

use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes was s i m i l a r .
As shown

in Table 24,

statistically

significant

were found between the e x t e n t t o which

junior

p rin cipals

determ ine

used

t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

"to

correlations

h igh /m idd le

school

strengths

and

weaknesses in the area o f mathematics" and the e x t e n t t o which they
used t h o s e r e s u l t s (1) "to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the
area o f reading" ( . 8 4 6 9 ) ,

(2) "to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses

in the area o f scienc e" ( . 5 4 4 4 ) , and (3) "to determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l

148

p riorities"
junior

(.6703).

hig h/middle

The c o r r e l a t i o n between th e e x t e n t
school

principals

used

th e

t o which

MEAP r e s u l t s

determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in th e area o f mathematics"

"to
and

t h e e x t e n t t o which they used t h o s e r e s u l t s "to determine s t r e n g t h s
and weaknesses

in

the

area

of

s ci en ce "

was

co n s id er ed

moderate,

s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t i s l i k e l y t h a t th e "extent o f use" o f t h e r e s u l t s
f o r t h e s e purposes by the p r i n c i p a l s was s i m i l a r .
between the e x t e n t

t o which p r i n c i p a l s

The c o r r e l a t i o n s

used the MEAP r e s u l t s

"to

determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f mathematics"

and

the e x t e n t t o which they used t h o se r e s u l t s "to determine s t r e n g t h s
and

weaknesses

instructional

in

the

area

priorities"

of

reading"

were con si d ere d

the "extent o f use" o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s

and

"t o

strong,

determine

suggesting

th a t

f o r t h e s e purposes by the

j u n i o r hig h/middle school p r i n c i p a l s was very 1 i k e l y t o be s i m i l a r .
S tatistically

s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were found between the

e x t e n t t o which j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP
results
reading"

"to

determine

and

the

strengths

extent

to

and

which

weaknesses

they

used

in

the

those

area

results

determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in th e area o f sc ie n ce "
and

"t o

determ ine

correlation
results

"to

in stru ction al

between t h e e x t e n t
determine

p riorities"

and

weaknesses

"to

( .5 4 0 6 )

(.6661 ) .

The

used

MEAP

t o which p r i n c i p a l s

strengths

of

in

the

the
area

of

reading" and "to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f
s ci en ce " was cons ide red moderate, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t i s 1 i k e l y th a t
the "extent o f use" o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s f o r both purposes by t h e s e
p r i n c i p a l s was s i m i l a r .

The c o r r e l a t i o n between th e e x t e n t t o which

149

principals

used

the

HEAP r e s u l t s

"to

determine stre n g th s

weaknesses in reading" and "to determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l
was co n sid er ed s t r o n g ,
"e x te n t

of

use"

of

indicating that

th e

it

MEAP r e s u l t s

and

priorities"

i s very 1 i k e l y t h a t the

for

both

purposes

by

the

p r i n c i p a l s was s i m i l a r .
As shown in Table 24,
were found between the
p rincipals

u se d

weaknesses in th e
those
" to

results

extent

significant

t o which j u n i o r

t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

correlations

h igh/m idd le

school

"t o d e t e r m i n e s t r e n g t h s

and

area o f s ci en ce " and the e x t e n t t o which they used

"to determine

document

allocation"

statistically

need

in

(.5264).

suggesting that i t

instructional

the
The

priorities"

determ ination

correlations

i s 1 i k e l y t h a t the

were

of

(.5476)

and

school

resource

con sid ere d

moderate,

"extent o f use" o f th e MEAP

r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes by j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school

principals

was s i m i l a r .
A statistically

significant

c o r r e l a t i o n was found between the

e x t e n t t o which j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school
results

"to determine

instructional

p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP

priorities"

and the

extent

to

which they used t h o s e r e s u l t s "to document need in the deter mina tio n
o f re so u rce a l l o c a t i o n " ( . 6 3 8 9 ) .
to

which

they

p riorities"

used

the

The c o r r e l a t i o n between the e x t e n t

MEAP r e s u l t s

and "to document need

in

"to

determine

instructional

the

det erm ina ti on

of

school

re s ou rc e a l l o c a t i o n " was co n sid er ed moderate, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t
1ikely

that

the

"extent

of

use"

of

purposes by the p r i n c i p a l s was s i m i l a r .

the

MEAP r e s u l t s

for

is

these

150

S tatistically

s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were found between the

e x t e n t t o which j u n i o r hig h/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s used t h e MEAP
results

"to document need in t h e det erm ina ti on o f

allocation"
determine

and t h e
need

effectiveness

for
of

extent

t o which

new programs"

new programs"

c o n s id er ed moderate,

they

( .5 1 4 9 )

(.5019).

suggesting that i t

school

used t h o s e

re s o u rc e

results

"to

determine

the

and

"to

The

correlations

i s 1 ik ely that the

were

"ex ten t

o f use" o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes by the p r i n c i p a l s was
sim ilar.
A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was a l s o found between
t h e e x t e n t t o which j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school
MEAP r e s u l t s

"to d e t e r m i n e

programs"

and t h e

d e t e r m i ne

the

extent

piacement

to

effectiven ess

which
of

of

they
new

c o r r e l a t i o n was co n s id er ed moderate,

principals

students

in

used t h o s e

programs"

suggesting

used the
remedial

results

"to

(.5 1 3 4 ).

that

it

The

is

1ikely

t h a t the "ex ten t o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes by
j u n i o r h igh /m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s was s i m i l a r .
As shown in Table 24,
was

found

p rin cipals

between th e
u se d

the

programs"

and t h e

determ ine

the

correlation
results

a statistically

extent to

which

MEAP r e s u l t s

extent

to

effectiven ess

between the e x t e n t

which
of

junior

"t o

correlation

h igh/m iddle

d e t e r m i ne

they
new

significant

ne ed

used t h o se

programs"

t o which p r i n c i p a l s

school
for

results

(.7 1 2 4 ).
used t h e

new
"to
The
MEAP

"to determine need f o r new programs" and "to determine t h e

effectiveness of

new programs"

was

co n sid er ed s t r o n g ,

indicating

151

t h a t i t i s very l i k e l y t h a t th e "e xte nt o f use" o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s
f o r t h e s e purposes by the p r i n c i p a l s was s i m i l a r .
A statistically

s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found between the

e x t e n t t o which j u n i o r hig h /m id d le school p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP
results

"to determine t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s

extent

to

which

development

they

needs

used

f o r t ea ch er s"

co n sid er ed moderate,

of

those

new programs"

and the

r e s u l t s "t o i d e n t i f y

(.5198).

suggesting that i t

staff

The c o r r e l a t i o n

was

i s 1 i k e l y t h a t t h e "extent

o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes by th e p r i n c i p a l s was
sim ilar.
Finally,
between
used

the

the

extent

a statistically
extent

to

which j u n i o r

MEAP r e s u l t s

to

which

development

"to

they

needs

significant

f o r t ea ch er s"

co n sid er ed moderate,

high /midd le

analyz e
u s ed

relationship

teacher

those

was

school

found

principals

performance"

and

r e s u l t s "to i d e n t i f y

(.5401).

suggesting that i t

The c o r r e l a t i o n

i s 1 i k e l y t h a t the

the
staff
was

"extent

o f use" o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes by th e p r i n c i p a l s was
sim ilar.
Of the

20

correlations

found

h igh /m idd le school

principals

with th e

o f the S t e e le

findings

to

in t h i s

be

sign ificant

stud y,

stud y.

for

junior

e i g h t were c o n s i s t e n t

Those are the

extent

to

which j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s used th e MEAP r e s u l t s "to
determine the general
schools

and t h e

achievement l e v e l " o f the

extent

to

which

they

used

students
those

in t h e i r

resu lts

determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f mathematics"

"to
and

"to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f reading"; the

152

e x t e n t t o which they used the r e s u l t s

"to determine s t r e n g t h s

and

weaknesses in the area o f mathematics’ with t h e e x t e n t t o which they
used th e r e s u l t s "to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e area
o f reading" and "to determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s " ; t h e e x t e n t
to

whi ch

weaknesses

they

used

the

resu lts

"to

determine

strengths

in the area o f reading" with the e x t e n t

and

t o which they

used the r e s u l t s "to determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s " ; th e e x t e n t
to

w hic h

they

d ete rm in at io n

u se d

of

the

school

resu lts

reso urc e

which they used the r e s u l t s

"to

document

allocation"

with

nee d
the

in

the

extent

to

"to determine need f o r new programs";

and t h e e x t e n t t o which t he y used the r e s u l t s "to determine need fo r
new programs" with the e x t e n t

t o which they used the

results

"to

determine th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs."
One c o r r e l a t i o n found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t in the S t e e l e study but
not

corroborated

high /m idd le school

in

this

study

principals

was

the

extent

to

used the MEAP r e s u l t s

which

junior

"to determine

placement o f s t u d en t s in remedial programs" and the e x t e n t t o which
they used the r e s u l t s
S t e e l e study did not

"to determine need f o r new programs."
in cl ud e Item 9e,

"to determine s t r e n g t h s

The
and

weaknesses in the area o f s c i e n c e . 11
High School P r i n c i p a l s
C orrelation

co efficien ts

for

selected

uses

of

the

MEAP

assessment r e s u l t s f o r high school p r i n c i p a l s are shown in Table 25.
C o r r e l a t i o n s meeting the c r i t e r i o n f o r s t a t i s t i c a l
noted with an a s t e r i s k .

s i g n i f i c a n c e are

Table 2 5 . - - C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s e l e c t e d uses o f t h e HEAP assessment r e s u l t s :

High school p r i n c i p a l s .

Use of the MEAP Assessment Results

9a

9b

9c

9d

9e

9f

9g

9h

9i

9j

9k

91

9m

9n

.7372*

.4999

.4642

.3592

.3152

.2765

.2600

.2270

.3020

.2364

.1354

.1755

.1438

.5087*

.4957

.3887

.2556

.1624

.2169

.2850

.3822

.2195

.2661

.2254

.1824

.8725*

.6237*

.5863*

.4214

.3284

.4326

.3972

.2499

.4286

.2773

.2727

.6414*

.6228*

.4439

.2703

.3612

.4541

.2484

.4708

.3131

.2542

.4978

.2975

.0908

.3746

.3584

.3092

.4118

.2619

.2821

.5438

.3850

.4654

.4776

.3315

.5325*

.3439

.3432

.4167

.5617*

.6203*

.3055

.4123

.4320

.3666

.5883*

.4191

.1568

.2863

.4151

.3760

.6269*

.3205

.4712

.4324

.4898

.4438

.5321*

.5273*

.4252

.5129*

.2338

.3780

.5443*

.3674

9b
9c
9d
9e
9f
9g
9h
9i
9j
9k
91

.3926

9m

Key to uses:
9a
9b
9c
9d
9e
9f
9g
9h
9i
9j
9k
91
9m
9n

=
=
=
«
=
=
=
«
=
=
=
=
=

To determine general achievement level of students in your school.
To inform school community of students’ general achievement level.
To determine strengths and weaknesses in the area of mathematics.
To determine strengths and weaknesses in the area of reading.
To determine strengths and weaknesses in the area of science.
To determine instructional priorities.
To document need in determination of school resource allocation.
To determine placement of students in "remedial" programs.
To determine need for new programs.
To determine effectiveness of new programs.
To analyze teacher performance.
To identify staff-development needs for teachers.
To prepare proposals for funding.
To predict students’ future academic success.
♦Significant at the .001 level.

154

A statistically
extent

s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found between the

t o which high

school

principals

used t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

"to

determine t h e general achievement l e v e l " o f the t e n t h - g r a d e s t u d en t s
in t h e i r s c h o o l s and t h e e x t e n t t o which they used t h o s e r e s u l t s "to
inform

the

(.7272)

of

school
the

community o f

students

in

the

their

general achievement

schools.

This

level"

correlation

was

con sid er ed s t r o n g , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t i s very l i k e l y t h a t t h e e x t e n t
t o which high school p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP r e s u l t s "to determine
the general

achievement l e v e l "

very 1 i k e l y

t o be

s i m i l a r t o the e x t e n t t o which they

used t h os e

results

inform the school community o f the general

achievement

"to

o f th e s tu d en t s

in t h e i r s c h o o l s was

l e v e l " o f the s tu d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s .
As shown in Table 25,
was a l s o

a statistically

sign ificant

found between the e x t e n t t o which high school

correlation
principals

used the MEAP r e s u l t s "to inform the school community o f t h e general
achievement l e v e l " o f th e s t u d en ts in t h e i r s c h o o ls and t h e e x t e n t
to

which

they

used

those

results

"to

determine

weaknesses in the area o f mathematics" ( . 5 0 8 7 ) .
seen

as

moderate,

suggesting

that

it

is

and

The c o r r e l a t i o n was

1ikely

p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

strengths

that

high

school

f o r both purposes

was s i m i l a r .
S tatistically
extent

s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were found between the
used th e MEAP R e s u l t s

"to

determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f mathematics"

and

(1)

to which high school

principals

"to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in th e area o f reading"

155

(.8725),

(2)

s ci en ce "

(.6237),

(.5863).

"to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e area o f
and (3)

The c o r r e l a t i o n

principals

"to determine

instructional

p riorities"

between the e x t e n t t o which high school

u se d t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

"to

determine

strengths

and

weaknesses in th e area o f mathematics" and "to determine s t r e n g t h s
and weaknesses in th e area o f reading" was co n s id er ed very s t r o n g ,
suggesting

that

it

is

exceedingly

1ik ely

that

the

principals’

"extent o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes was s i m i l a r .
The c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e e x t e n t t o which high school

principals

used t h e MEAP r e s u l t s "to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the
area o f mathematics"
results

"to

and the e x t e n t

determine

strengths

to

and

which

t h ey

weaknesses

used

in

the

th e

MEAP

area

of

s ci en ce " and "to determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s " were con si d ere d
moderate,

suggesting

that

th e p r i n c i p a l s ’

"e x te n t

of

use"

of

the

MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes was 1 i k e l y t o be s i m i l a r .
As shown in Table 25,

statistically

sign ificant

were found between the e x t e n t t o which high school

correlations

p r i n c i p a l s used

the MEAP r e s u l t s "to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in th e area
o f reading"

and the e x t e n t

t o which

they

used

those

results

determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in th e area o f s c ie n c e "
and

"to

determine

instructional

p riorities"

c o r r e l a t i o n s were cons ide red moderate,

suggesting

(.6 2 2 8 ).
that

"to

( .6 4 1 4 )
Th es e

principals"

e x t e n t o f use" o f the meap r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes was 1 i k e l y to
be s i m i l a r .
A statistically
extent

s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found between the

to which high school

principals

used t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

"to

156

determine
us ed

instructional

those

teachers"

resu lts
(.5 3 2 5 ).

p riorities"

"to

and t h e

id en tify

staff

This c o r r e l a t i o n

extent

to

development

which

they

needs

for

was c o n s i d e r e d m o d e r a t e ,

s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p r i n c i p a l s ’ "ex ten t o f use" o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s fo r
t h e s e purposes was 1 i k e l y t o be s i m i l a r .
S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were a l s o found between
th e e x t e n t t o which high school p r i n c i p a l s used t h e MEAP r e s u l t s "to
document need in the d ete rm in at io n o f

school

re s o u rc e

and the e x t e n t t o which they used t h o s e r e s u l t s

allocation"

"to determine need

f o r new programs" ( .5 6 1 7 ) and "to determine t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new
programs"

( . 6 2 0 3 ) . These

correlations

were

co n s id e r e d

moderate,

s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s
f o r t h e s e purposes was 1 i k e l y t o be s i m i l a r .
As shown in Table 25,

a statistically

significant

correlation

e x i s t e d between the e x t e n t t o which high school p r i n c i p a l s used the
MEAP r e s u l t s
programs"

and

determine need

"to

determine

the
for

extent

placement
to

which

new programs"

of
they

(.5883).

students

in

used t h o s e
This

’remedial’

results

correlation

"to
was

co n sid er ed moderate, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p r i n c i p a l s ’ "ex ten t o f use" o f
the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes was 1 i k e l y t o be s i m i l a r .
A statistically
extent

s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found between the

t o which high school

principals

used th e MEAP r e s u l t s

"to

determine need

f o r new programs" and the e x t e n t t o which th ey used

those

"to determine

results

(.6269).

the

effectiveness

This c o r r e l a t i o n was co n sid er ed moderate,

of

new programs"
suggesting that

157

p r i n c i p a l s ’ "ex ten t o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes
was l i k e l y t o be s i m i l a r .
A lso

shown

correlations

in

were

Table

found

25

is

that

between th e

statistically

extent

to

which

sign ificant
high

school

p r i n c i p a l s used t h e MEAP r e s u l t s "to determine th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f
new programs" and t h e e x t e n t t o which they used t h o s e r e s u l t s

"to

identify

"to

prepare

staff

development

p rop os als

for

needs

funding"

for

tea chers"

(.5273).

( .5 3 2 1 )

and

These c o r r e l a t i o n s

were

co n s id er ed moderate, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f
t h e MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes was 1 i k e l y t o be s i m i l a r .
S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s a l s o were found between
th e e x t e n t t o which high school p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP r e s u l t s "to
an alyz e t e a c h e r performance" and the e x t e n t t o which they used t h o s e
r e s u l t s "to i d e n t i fy s t a f f development needs f o r t ea ch er s"
Thi s

correlation

was

considered

moderate,

(.5129).

suggesting

that

p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes
was 1 i k e l y t o be s i m i l a r .
A statistically
extent

significant

to which high

identify

staff

principals

development needs

which they used t h o s e
(.5443).

school

c o r r e l a t i o n was found between the

results

used the MEAP r e s u l t s

f o r teach ers"

"to prepare

and the

p rop os als

This c o r r e l a t i o n was cons ide red moderate,

for

extent

"to
to

funding"

suggesting that

p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes
was l i k e l y t o be s i m i l a r .

158

The Total Group
C orrelation

co efficien ts

assessment r e s u l t s
Table

26.

for

f o r th e t o t a l

C o r r e l a ti o n s

selected

uses

of

group o f p r i n c i p a l s

meeting

the

criterion

the

MEAP

are shown in

for

statistical

s i g n i f i c a n c e are noted with an a s t e r i s k .
As shown in Table 26,

statistically

significant

correlations

were found between the e x t e n t t o which t o t a l - g r o u p p r i n c i p a l s

used

t h e MEAP r e s u l t s "to determine the general achievement l e v e l " o f the
s t u d e n ts in t h e i r s c h o o ls

and the e x t e n t t o which th ey used t h o s e

resu lts

the

(1)

"to

in f o rm

school

community

of

the

general

achievement l e v e l " (.5 3 9 4 ) o f the s t u d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s ,
determine

strengths

and

weaknesses

in

th e

area

of

(2) "to

mathematics"

( . 5 9 3 9 ) , and (3) "to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area
of

reading"

(.5684).

The

correlations

were

seen

as

moderate,

s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p r in c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s f o r
t h e s e purposes was 1 i k e l y t o be s i m i l a r .
S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were a l s o found between
the e x t e n t t o which t o t a l -group p r i n c i p a l s used t h e MEAP r e s u l t s "to
determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f mathematics" and
the

extent

to

which

t hey

s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses

used

those

results

(1)

in the area o f reading"

"to

(.8575),

determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in th e area o f s c ie n c e "
and

(3)

"to

determine

instructional

priorities"

determine
(2)

"to

(.5582),

(.6233).

The

c o r r e l a t i o n between the e x t e n t t o which t h e t o t a l - g r o u p p r i n c i p a l s
used the MEAP r e s u l t s "to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the

Table 2 6 . - - C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s e l e c t e d uses o f th e MEAP assessm ent r e s u l t s :

Total group.

Use of the MEAP Assessment Results

9a

9b

9c

9d

9e

9f

9g

9h

91

9j

9k

91

9m

9n

.5394*

.5939*

.5684*

.3847

.4770

.3906

.2783

.3202

2970

.2186

.3705

.2185

.2865

.4091

.3809

.3045

.2952

.2735

.2359

.2984

2733

.1925

.2571

.2496

.2240

.8575*

.5582*

.6233*

.4589

.2780

.3502

3229

.2246

.4027

.2285

.2914

.5617*

.6136*

.4422

.2800

.3212

3327

.2386

.4156

.2282

.2843

.4542

.3738

.1577

.2789

.2884

.2092

.3178

.1908

.2319

.5545*

.2981

.4140

,4320

.2895

.5194*

.3046

.3366

.4230

.5263*

.4791

.3300

.4433

.4329

.3415

.4766

,4350

.1568

.2863

.4151

.3760

.6522*

.3314

.4351

.4607

.3662

.4465

.4611

.3986

.3851

.4759

.3204

.3610

.4324

.3534

9b
9c
9d
9e
9f
9g
9h
91
9j
9k
91

.3835

9m

Key to uses:
9a
9b
9c
9d
9e
9f
9g
9h
9i
9j
9k
91
9m
9n

= To determine general achievement level of students in your school.
=
To inform school community
of students’ general achievement level.
«To determine
strengths and weaknesses in the area of mathematics.
=
To determine strengths and weaknesses in the area of reading.
=
To determine strengths and weaknesses in the area of science.
=
To determine instructional priorities.
= To document need in determination of school resource allocation.
» To determine placement of students in "remedial" programs.
= To determine need for new programs.
= To determine effectiveness of new programs.
= To analyze teacher performance.
- To identify staff-development needs for teachers.
= To prepare proposals for funding.
= To predict students’ future academic success.
♦Significant at the .001 level.

160

area o f mathematics" and t h e e x t e n t t o which they used t h o s e r e s u l t s
"to determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e area o f reading" was
seen as very s t r o n g , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t was e x c e e d i n g l y 1 i k e l y t h a t
th e

p rincipals’

"e xtent

purposes was s i m i l a r .

o f use" o f t h e

MEAP

results

for

these

The c o r r e l a t i o n s between th e e x t e n t t o which

t o t a l - g r o u p p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP r e s u l t s "to determine s t r e n g t h s
and weaknesses in the area o f mathematics" and t h e e x t e n t t o which
th ey used th o s e r e s u l t s

"to determine s t r e n g t h s

and weaknesses

in

th e area o f s cie nc e" and "to determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s " was
seen as moderate, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t was 1 i k e l y t h a t th e p r i n c i p a l s ’
"e xtent o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes was 1 i k e l y to
be s i m i l a r .
S tatistically
extent

s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were found between the

to which t o t a l - g r o u p

principals

used the

MEAP r e s u l t s

"to

determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f reading" and the
e x t e n t t o which they used t h o s e r e s u l t s "to determine s t r e n g t h s and
weaknesses

in

in stru ction al

the

area

of

p riorities"

sci en ce "

( .5 6 1 7 )

(.6136).

The

c o r r e l a t i o n s was seen as moderate,

and

"to

strength

determine
of

these

s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the p r i n c i p a l s ’

"extent o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes was 1 i k e l y to
be s i m i l a r .
S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s a l s o were found between
th e e x t e n t t o which t o t a l - g r o u p p r i n c i p a l s used th e MEAP r e s u l t s "to
determine

instructional

priorities"

and the

extent

to

which

they

used th o se r e s u l t s "to document need in the det erm ina ti on o f school

161

re s ou rc e

allocation"

(.5545)

and

needs f o r teach ers" ( . 5 1 9 4 ) .

"to

identify

staff

development

The s t r e n g t h o f t h e s e c o r r e l a t i o n s was

seen as moderate, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p r i n c i p a l s ’ "e x te n t o f use" o f the
MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes was 1 i k e l y t o be s i m i l a r .
As shown in Table 26,

a statistically

sign ificant

was found between the e x t e n t t o which t o t a l - g r o u p

correlation

principals

used

th e MEAP r e s u l t s "to document need in t h e d et er m in a ti on o f re s o u r c e
allocation"

and the

extent

t o which t hey

determine need f o r new programs" ( . 5 2 6 3 ) .

used

those

results

"to

This c o r r e l a t i o n was seen

as moderate, s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f t h e MEAP
r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes was 1 i k e l y t o be s i m i l a r .
Finally,
between the

a

statistically

extent

significant

t o which t o t a l - g r o u p

correlation

principals

was

used

found

th e

MEAP

r e s u l t s "to determine need f o r new programs" and the e x t e n t t o which
they

used

programs"

those

results

(.6522).

"to

This

determine

the

correlation

effectiveness

was

considered

of

new

strong,

s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t was very 1 i k e l y t h a t p r i n c i p a l s ’ "ex ten t o f use"
of

th e

MEAP r e s u l t s

for

these

purposes

was

very

1ikely

to

be

sim ilar.
Summary
The data r e l a t i v e t o the four resea rc h q u e s t i o n s o f t h e st ud y,
th e c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s f o r the "extent o f use" o f MEAP r e s u l t s , and
t h e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r "extent o f use" o f MEAP r e s u l t s f o r
s e l e c t e d purposes were reported in t h i s ch a p t e r .

Chapter V c o n t a i n s

162

a summary o f

the

major

fin d in gs,

conclusions

based

on

those

f i n d i n g s , and recommendations f o r p r a c t i c e and f o r f u r t h e r re s e a r c h .

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS

This

ch ap ter

contains

th e

following

subsections:

summary,

c o n c l u s i o n s , recommendations, and r e f l e c t i o n s .
Summary
R at io n al e f o r t h e Study
In

1970,

the

adm inistration
(MEAP).

M i c h ig a n

o f the

Department

M i ch ig a n

of

Education

Educational

began

Assessment

the

Program

The f i r s t MEAP t e s t s were give n in grades four and seven on

an ev e r y - p u p il

b a s i s in t h e areas o f rea d in g, mathematics,

mechanics o f w r i t t e n E n g li sh .
assessments,

Donald J.

Steele

In 1976,

after

four y ea rs

conducted d oct ora l

and the
o f MEAP

resea rc h

at

The

Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y t o determine school p r i n c i p a l s ’ p r a c t i c e s and
a t t i t u d e s regarding the use o f MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s .

In th e ensuing 12

y e a r s , Michigan has continued a s s e s s i n g thousands o f s t u d e n t s , on an
e v e r y - p u p il b a s i s , in t h e areas o f read ing , mathematics, and s c i e n c e
(beginning

in 1 98 7 ) .

The t e s t i n g

o f tenth-grade

areas o f reading and mathematics was added in f a l l

students
1979.

in the

Not s i n c e

1976 has a comprehensive study been administered t o a s c e r t a i n more
cu rre nt data r e l a t i v e

t o Michigan school

toward and u ses o f the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s .

163

administrators’ a ttitu d es

164

Purpose o f the Research
The purpose o f t h i s

study was t o d e s c r i b e t h e

attitudes

and

p r a c t i c e s o f elementary s c h o o l , j u n i o r h igh /m idd le s c h o o l ,

and high

school p r i n c i p a l s in a l l

relative

to

their

use

questions,

the

MEAP r e s u l t s .

As

in

What

d istricts

1976,

a l o n g w i t h u p d a te d and r e l e v a n t

investigated.
1.

of

Michigan p u b l i c school

four

research

subquestions,

were

The four re s ea r ch q u e s t i o n s are as f o l 1ows:
d istrict-lev el

made f o r Michigan school

administrative

provisions

are

p r i n c i p a l s ’ use and d is s e m i n a t i o n

being
o f the

MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
2.

What a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s are Michigan school

princi-

p a ls making t o i n v o lv e t e a c h e r s in the a n a l y s i s , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and
use o f the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
3.

For what purposes and t o what e x t e n t

are Michigan school

p r i n c i p a l s using the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ?
4.

What a r e t h e

attitu d es

of

M i ch ig a n

school

p rin cipals

regarding the value o f th e MEAP and the u t i l i t y o f th e t e s t r e s u l t s
provided by the program?
Methodology
To determine
r e s u l t s by school
of

elementary

principals

in

q u e s ti o n s

and

cu rre nt

adm inistrators,

school,

junior

Michigan.
one

attitudes

The

open-ended

toward

and

u ses

of

th e

MEAP

t h e r e s e a r c h e r surveyed a sample

h igh/m idd le
survey
question.

school,

cont aine d

and high
20

Michigan

Education computers were used t o determine the school

school

forced-choice
Department

of

buildings

to

165

in c l u d e

in

th e

comparison

with

random sampling.
th e

Steele

q u e s t i o n s was used.

To ensure

stud y,

a

core

a valid
of

longitudinal

replicated

survey

Questions were e i t h e r ab breviated or d e l e t e d ,

based on t h e i r r e l e v a n c e t o th e 1988 MEAP assessment and t h i s stud y.
A n a l y s i s o f th e data was used t o

(1)

provide answers t o

re se ar ch q u e s t i o n s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n

in t h i s

study;

the

(2)

four

examine

r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the e x t e n t o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e use o f the MEAP
r e s u l t s and o th er s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s (c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s e s ) , and (3)
examine

relationships

between

the

"extent

of

use"

of

th e

MEAP

assessment r e s u l t s f o r one purpose and the "e xtent o f use" o f t h o se
r e s u l t s f o r o t h er purposes ( c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s ) .
Findings
The f o l l o w i n g i s a summary o f t h e most s a l i e n t f i n d i n g s o f the
data

a n a ly s e s

analyses

for

for

the

"extent

fo ur
of

resea rc h

use"

of

the

questions,

the

chi-square

MEAP r e s u l t s ,

and

the

c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r "extent o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r
selected

purposes.

elementary
principals.
de ri ved

sch ool,

Findings
ju n ior

are

d esignated

high/m iddle

as

sch ool,

p ertain ing
or

high

to

school

I f no such d e s i g n a t i o n i s mentioned, th e f i n d i n g s were

from data

for

the

total

group

of

principals.

A brief

summary o f how t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study d i f f e r e d from t h o s e o f the
S t e e l e study i s included a t the end o f t h i s s e c t i o n .
Research Question 1 .
level

For Research Question 1,

"What d i s t r i c t -

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s are being made f o r Michigan school

p r i n c i p a l s ’ use and d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f the MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ? " i t was

166

found t h a t ,

by f a r ,

MEAP r e p o r t s

the m a j o r it y o f p r i n c i p a l s were r e c e i v i n g the

gen erated

by th e

Michigan

Department

of

Education.

Only .3% i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h ey did not r e c e i v e any o f t h e r e p o r t s sent
to

local

d istricts.

Most o f th e p r i n c i p a l s

m a jo ri ty o f re p o r t s
January.

in November;

only

(57.1%)

12% r e c e i v e d

received
reports

the

after

In most c a s e s (60.2%), the b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s (69.4% f o r

elementary and 52.9% f o r j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school

p r i n c i p a l s ) were

r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining procedures f o r use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s .
Less than h a l f (40.9%) o f the high school p r i n c i p a l s in d i c a t e d th at
t hey were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining procedures f o r using the MEAP
results;

24.8% o f

responsibility.
pals,

them in d i c a t e d

One-third

(33%)

that

their

counselors

had

o f the elementary school

26.5% o f t h e j u n i o r hig h/middle school

principals,

th a t

p rinci-

and 30.1%

o f the high school p r i n c i p a l s reported t h a t improvement pians based
on needs i d e n t i f i e d by t h e MEAP were re q u ir ed .
out o f ten p r i n c i p a l s
needs

identified

by

(59.9%)
the

MEAP

O v e r a l l , almost s i x

i n d ic a t e d t h a t plan s t o address the
results

were

either

req uir ed

or

i n i t i a t e d by t h e p r i n c i p a l .
Research

Q u e s t i on

2.

administrative provisions
involve teachers

in the

For

Research

are Michigan school
analysis,

Q u e s t i on

2,

"What

p r i n c i p a l s making to

interpretation,

and use

of

the

MEAP t e s t r e s u l t s ? " i t was found t h a t approximately o n e - h a l f (49.7%)
o f the p r i n c i p a l s e s t a b l i s h e d a b u i l d i n g - l e v e l
teachers
With

in the

only

one

analysis
exception

and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
(89.7% o f

p r i n c i p a l s reported shar ing school

ju n ior

committee t o i n v o lv e
of

th e

MEAP r e s u l t s .

high/m iddle

summary r e p o r t s ,

school

as compared to

167

89.1% o f e l e m e n t a r y

p rin cip als),

elementary p r i n c i p a l s

shared t h e MEAP r e p o r t s with t h e i r

than

did

junior

hig h /m id d le

a much h i g h e r

school

or

high

percentage

school

of

teachers

principals.

Merely .9% o f the p r i n c i p a l s did not share any o f th e re p o r t s with
th eir

teachers.

A pproxim ately

three-fourths

(74.4%)

of

the

p r i n c i p a l s conducted t e a c h e r meetings t o analyz e assessment r e s u l t s
and d i s t r i b u t e d MEAP t e s t

data

(77%) from w it h in th e t e a c h e r t e s t

r e s u l t s f o l d e r s provided by the Michigan Department o f Education as
a way o f a s s i s t i n g t h e i r s t a f f s with understanding and i n t e r p r e t i n g
t h e MEAP r e s u l t s .
high/m iddle
p rin ci pals

Seventeen and n i n e - t e n t h s perce nt o f t h e j u n i o r

school

prin cipals

requested

evaluation ,

and

i n s e r v i ce

or guidance

elementary p r i n c i p a l s .

staff,

Principals

17.4%

of

assi stance
as

the

of

compared

h ig h

central
to

offi ce,

only

encouraged t e a c h e r s

school

12.9% o f
to

use the

in d i v i d u a l stud en t t e s t r e s u l t s from t h e MEAP most in the areas o f
d ia g n o s in g stud en t academic s t r e n g t h s

and weaknesses,

f o r planning

t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs, and t o communicate st u d en t performance
to

pare nts

and s t u d e n t s .

Fewer than

two

out

of

ten

principals

(18.6%) encouraged t e a c h e r s t o use th e r e s u l t s f o r st ud en t grouping
purposes.
Research

Question

3.

For

Research

Question

3,

"For

what

purposes and t o what e x t e n t are Michigan school p r i n c i p a l s us ing the
MEAP t e s t

results?"

it

was

found

that

principals

used

th e

MEAP

r e s u l t s "quite a bit " t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e i r
reading

and

mathematics

programs

and

"very

1i t t l e "

to

prepare

168

p ro p os al s f o r funding and t o ana lyze te a c h e r performance.

Findings

a t each school b u il d in g l e v e l were c o n s i s t e n t ex ce p t f o r t h e purpose
o f "determining the general

achievement l e v e l "

t h e i r s c h o o l s and "informing the school
achievement

level

p rin cipals

used

purposes,

o f the

students

w h e re a s

elem entary

p r i n c i p a l s used the r e s u l t s

to

and

students

in

community" o f th e general

in t h e i r

t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

o f th e

schools.

"some"

ju n ior

"quite a bit "

High school

extent

for

high/m iddle

these
school

f o r t h e s e p urp oses.

In

a d d i t i o n , elementary p r i n c i p a l s used th e MEAP r e s u l t s "quite a bit"
to

determine

school

instructional

and high school

p riorities,

whereas

junior

h igh/m idd le

p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP r e s u l t s

to

"some"

e x t e n t f o r t h o s e purposes.
Research Question 4 .
a t t i t u d e s o f Michigan school

For Research Question 4,

"What are the

p r i n c i p a l s regarding the va lu e o f the

MEAP and the u t i l i t y o f the t e s t r e s u l t s provided by t h e program?"
i t was found t h a t each p r i n c i p a l
having on ly
schools.

"some"
Two

group rated t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

impact on t h e

exceptions

were

instructional
in

the

areas

programs
of

of

as

their

"narrowing

the

curriculum t o j u s t the MEAP t e s t e d o b j e c t i v e s in a s u b j e c t area" and
"narrowing

instruction

to

just

the

(mathematics, read ing , and s c i e n c e ) .
MEAP r e s u l t s

as having

MEAP

"very 1 i t t l e "

f o r s e l e c t e d purposes,

subject

areas"

Each p r i n c i p a l group rated the
impact

terms o f the e x t e n t to which p r i n c i p a l s
being u s ef ul

tested

in

those

areas.

rated the MEAP r e s u l t s

each p r i n c i p a l

In
as

group i n d i c a t e d

t h a t t h o se r e s u l t s were "quite" u s ef ul f o r "communicating th e s t a t u s
o f st ud en t le a rn in g t o par ent s and students" but rated t h e r e s u l t s

169

as

having

o nly

"some"

u tility

between t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f school
o f minimal

objectives."

for

a n a ly zi n g

th e

"relationship

r e s o u r c e s and st ud en t achievement

Elementary school

and j u n i o r hig h/m idd le

school p r i n c i p a l s rated t h e MEAP r e s u l t s as being "quite" u s e f u l f o r
"diagnosing st ud en t l e a r n i n g needs" and "planning f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l
improvements," but high school p r i n c i p a l s ra ted the MEAP r e s u l t s as
having on ly "some" u t i l i t y in t h o s e a r e a s .
Chi-square a n a l y s e s .
that

elementary

principals

r e s u l t s were more l i k e l y
needs

R e s u l t s o f t h e c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s e s showed

id en tified

who made

"exte nsi ve"

t o develop

by t h o s e

results,

use

of

a plan o f a c t i o n
to

establish

the

MEAP

t o overcome

a building-level

committee t o i n v o lv e t e a c h e r s in the a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f
the r e s u l t s ,
impact

and t o b e l i e v e t h a t th e MEAP r e s u l t s had an e x t e n s i v e

on t h e

instructional

program

in

their

schools

than

t h os e

elementary p r i n c i p a l s who did not use the MEAP r e s u l t s e x t e n s i v e l y .
A ls o ,

the

elementary

of

the

r e s u l t s b e l i e v e d the u s e f u l n e s s o f th e r e s u l t s was " ext ens iv e"

for

selected

for

purposes

instructional
addition,

principals

in

th eir

who

made

sch ools,

extensive

e .g .,

when

use

pianning

improvement and d ia g n o s in g st ud en t l e a r n in g ne eds.

those

principals

who made e x t e n s i v e

use

of

the

In

results

were more 1 i k e l y t o come from b u i l d i n g s with a very low perce nta ge
(0% t o .9%) o f min ori ty s t u d e n t s or from s c h o o l s with a much high er
p erc ent ag e (10.6% t o 100%) o f m in o r i t y s t u d e n t s .
Results

of

the

chi-square

a n a ly s e s

also

showed

that

junior

high /midd le school p r i n c i p a l s who made "exte nsi ve" use o f th e MEAP

170

results

were

principal

more

or

a

likely

to

districtw ide

u sing th e r e s u l t s .

be

in

schools

committee

where

determined

Ju n io r hig h/m idd le school

the

b u il d in g

procedures

for

p r i n c i p a l s who made

"very 1 i t t l e " or "some" use o f th e r e s u l t s were more 1 i k e l y t o be in
schools

where t h e

p r im a r i ly

building

responsible

results.

Those

"e xt en si ve "

use

for

junior
of

guidance

determining
h igh /m idd le

th e

c o u n s e l o r was
procedures
school

MEAP r e s u l t s

were

the

for

principals
also

1i k e l y

person

using

the

who

made

to

be

in

s c h o o l s t h a t were re qu ir ed t o develop plans o f a c t io n t o overcome
needs i d e n t i f i e d by the MEAP r e s u l t s and in s c h o o ls t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d
building-level
results.

committees

to

involve

te a c h e r s

in

an a ly zi ng

the

Jun ior hig h /m id d le school p r i n c i p a l s who made "extensive"

or "quite a bit " o f use o f the r e s u l t s were more 1i k e l y t o b e l i e v e
those

results

instructional

had "quite

a bit"

or

an

"extensive"

impact on the

program in t h e i r s c h o o l s and rated the u s e f u l n e s s o f

the MEAP r e s u l t s as "quite a bit" or " e x t e n s i v e . "
The c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s e s a l s o showed t h a t high school p r i n c i p a l s
who made " ext en siv e" use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s were more 1 i k e l y
b elieve

that

instructional

those

resu lts

had

an

"extensive"

imp act

on

to
the

programs in t h e i r s c h o o l s and t h a t the u s e f u l n e s s

of

t he r e s u l t s f o r s e l e c t e d purposes was " e x t e n s i v e . "
Overall,
responsible

th e
for

building

principals

determining

r e s u l t s in t h e i r b u i l d i n g s .
selected
belief

purposes

that

was

the

procedures

the
for

persons
us ing

p r im a ri ly
the

MEAP

E x t en s iv e use o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s f o r

strongly

th e MEAP r e s u l t s

were

associated

had an

with

"extensive"

the

principals’

impact on t h e i r

171

i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs and t h a t th e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h o s e r e s u l t s was
"extensive."
C or re la t io n

coefficien ts.

Numerous

correlation

coefficients

f o r s e l e c t e d uses o f th e MEAP r e s u l t s by elementary p r i n c i p a l s met
the

criterion

for

sta tistica l

sign ifican ce.

The

f o l 1 owing

c o r r e l a t i o n s were seen as "strong," s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t was "highly
1 ik el y"
these

that

principals’

purposes

was

"ex ten t o f use" o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s

s i m i 1a r :

the

extent

to

which

for

elem entary

p r i n c i p a l s used the r e s u l t s t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in
th e area o f mathematics and in the area o f rea d in g , and t o determine
instructional p r io r it ie s .
Those c o r r e l a t i o n s seen as "moderate," s u g g e s t i n g t h a t

it

was

"1 ikely " t h a t p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s

for

these

purposes was s i m i l a r ,

which

elementary

were as

principals

used

follows:

the

(1)

results

to

the

extent

determine

general achievement l e v e l s o f the s t u d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s ,

to
the

and to

determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in th e areas o f mathematics and
reading;

(2)

the

extent

t o which

principals

used

the

results

to

determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f mathematics and in
the area o f s c i e n c e ;
results

to

determine

(3)

the

e x t e n t t o which p r i n c i p a l s

instructional

p riorities

and

weaknesses in the areas o f reading and s c i e n c e ;
which

elementary

instructional
results

to

prin cipals

priorities

document need

and
in

u s ed
the

the

extent

reso urc e

(4)

resu lts
to

which

allocation

used the

strengths

and

the extent to
to

determ ine

t he y
and

to

used

the

identify

172

s t a f f - d e v e lo p m e n t
elementary

needs

principals

for

used

det erm ina ti on o f school

teachers;
the

(5)

results

the

to

extent

document

re s o u rc e a l l o c a t i o n

to

need

which
in

the

and t o determine need

f o r new programs; and (6) the e x t e n t t o which elementary p r i n c i p a l s
used th e

results

to

determine th e

need

for

new programs

and

to

determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs.
Several c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s e l e c t e d u ses o f the MEAP
results

by j u n i o r h igh/m idd le

for s t a t i s t i c a l
as

"strong,"

school

significance.
suggesting

principals

met th e c r i t e r i o n

The f o l l o w i n g c o r r e l a t i o n s were seen

that

it

was

"highly

1 ik el y"

that

the

p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h o s e purposes
was

sim ilar:

principals
level

(1)

used

the

the

extent

results

o f the s t u d en t s

to

in t h e i r

to

which j u n i o r

determine

the

p rin cipals

used

the

general

school

achievement

s c h o o l s and t o determine s t r e n g t h s

and weaknesses in the area o f mathematics;
these

h ig h /m id d le

resu lts

to

(2) t h e e x t e n t t o which

determ ine

strengths

and

weaknesses in the area o f mathematics and in t h e area o f reading and
to

determine

instructional

priorities;

(3)

th e

extent

to

which

p r i n c i p a l s used the r e s u l t s t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in
t h e area o f reading and t o determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l

priorities;

and

(4)

principals

used

t h e e x t e n t t o which j u n i o r h igh/m iddle

school

t h e r e s u l t s t o determine need f o r new programs and t o determine the
e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs.
The f o l l o w i n g c o r r e l a t i o n s were seen as "moderate," s u g g e s t i n g
t h a t i t was "1 ikely " t h a t p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f th e MEAP
results

f o r t h e s e purposes was s i m i l a r :

(1)

the extent

t o which

173

j u n i o r h igh/m idd le school
th e general

p r i n c i p a l s used the r e s u l t s t o determine

achievement l e v e l

o f the s t u d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s and

t o inform t h e school community o f t h e general
t h e s t u d e n t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s ,
in

the

areas

p riorities,

of

reading

r es ou rc e a l l o c a t i o n ;
the

resu lts

to

need

in

to
the

determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l
deter min atio n

the school

community

achievement l e v e l o f t h e i r s tu d en ts and t o
weaknesses

in

the

of

school

(2) t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e s e p r i n c i p a l s
in f o rm

area

of

of

t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses

and s c i e n c e ,

and t o document

achievement l e v e l

of

the

used

general

determine s t r e n g t h s

mathematics;

(3)

the

extent

to

and

which

p r i n c i p a l s used the r e s u l t s t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in
t h e area o f mathematics and in the area o f s c i e n c e ;
t o which j u n i o r high /midd le school

principals

(4) the e x t e n t

used t h e r e s u l t s

to

determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f reading and in the
area o f s c i e n c e ;

(5) the e x t e n t t o which p r i n c i p a l s used t h e r e s u l t s

t o determine s t r e n g t h s
determine

and weaknesses

instructional

p riorities,

and t o

de ter m ina ti on o f re so u rce a l l o c a t i o n ;
principals

used the r e s u l t s

in the

area o f

document

t o determine

instructional

(7)

th e e x t e n t t o which j u n i o r hig h/middle school

th e

results

document

need

in

need

to

in

the

(6) the e x t e n t t o which t h e s e

and to document need in t h e de termi nation o f re so u rce

to

science,

the

priorities
allocation;

principals

deter mina tion

of

used

reso urc e

a l l o c a t i o n , t o determine need f o r new programs, and t o determine the
effectiveness

of

new

programs;

p r i n c i p a l s used the r e s u l t s

(8)

the

extent

to

t o determine placement o f

which

these

students

in

174

remedial

programs

programs;

(9)

and

to

the e x t e n t

determine

the

effectiven ess

t o which p r i n c i p a l s

of

new

used th e r e s u l t s

determine t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs and t o

identify

to

staff-

development needs f o r t e a c h e r s ; and (10) the e x t e n t t o which j u n i o r
h igh/m idd le school

principals

used th e r e s u l t s

to

ana lyze t e a c h e r

performance and t o i d e n t i f y s t a f f - d e v e l o p m e n t needs f o r t e a c h e r s .
Numerous c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s e l e c t e d u ses o f t h e MEAP
r e s u l t s by high school p r i n c i p a l s met t h e c r i t e r i o n f o r s t a t i s t i c a l
significance.

The f o l l o w i n g

correlations

were

seen

as

"strong,"

s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i t was "highly 1 ik el y" t h a t p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f
use" o f t h e MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes was s i m i l a r :
extent

to

which

high

school

determine t h e general
schools

and

achievement
extent

to

to
level

which

principals

achievement

in f o r m
of

the

these

the

level

school

s tu d e n t s

principals

used t h e
of

the

MEAP r e s u l t s

students

community

in

their

used

the

(1)

of

schools
results

in

the
to

their

the

general

and

(2)

to

the

determine

s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area o f mathematics and in th e area
o f reading.
The f o l l o w i n g c o r r e l a t i o n s were seen as "moderate," s u g g e s t i n g
t h a t i t was " li k e l y "
results

that

p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f th e MEAP

f o r t h e s e purposes was s i m i l a r :

high school

(1)

th e e x t e n t

p r i n c i p a l s used the MEAP r e s u l t s t o

t o which

inform t h e school

community o f the general achievement l e v e l o f the s t u d e n t s in t h e i r
schools

and t o determine

strengths

and weaknesses

in th e

area o f

mathematics; (2) the e x t e n t t o which high school p r i n c i p a l s used the
results

to

determine

strengths

and

weaknesses

in

th e

area

of

175

mathematics

and

in

the

instru ction al

p riorities;

area

of

scien ce,

and

to

determ ine

(3) t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e s e p r i n c i p a l s

used t h e r e s u l t s t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e area
of

reading

and

instructional
principals

in

the

area

priorities;

(4)

used the r e s u l t s

of

the

scien ce,
extent

t o determine

to

and
which

which

principals

used

d et er m in a ti o n o f school
new programs,

the

results

to

reso ur ce a l l o c a t i o n ,

determ ine
high

instructional

and t o i d e n t i f y s t a f f - d e v e lo p m e n t needs f o r t e a c h e r s ;
to

to

school

p riorities

(5) th e e x t e n t

document

need

in

the

t o determine need f o r

and t o determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s

o f new programs;

(6) the e x t e n t t o which high school

p r i n c i p a l s used th e r e s u l t s to

d e t e r m i ne

in

piacement

of

students

remedi al

programs

and

to

determine need f o r new programs; (7) the e x t e n t t o which high school
p r i n c i p a l s used the r e s u l t s t o determine need f o r new programs and
t o determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s

o f new programs;

(8)

t h e e x t e n t to

which p r i n c i p a l s used the r e s u l t s t o determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f
new programs, t o i d e n t i f y s t a f f - d e v e lo p m e n t needs f o r t e a c h e r s ,
to

prepare

school

pr op os a ls

principals

for

funding;

used t h e r e s u l t s

(9)
to

th e

extent

to

analyze te a c h e r

and t o i d e n t i f y s t a f f - d e v e lo p m e n t needs f o r t e a c h e r s ;

which

and
high

performance
and (10)

the

e x t e n t t o which high school p r i n c i p a l s used the r e s u l t s t o i d e n t i f y
s t a f f - d e v e l o p m e n t needs f o r t e a c h e r s

and t o prepare p r o p o s a ls

for

fun ding .
Several c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s e l e c t e d us es o f t h e MEAP
results

by the

total

group

of

principals

met

the

criterion

for

176

statistical

significance.

The f o l 1owing c o r r e l a t i o n s were seen as

"strong," s u g g e s t i n g t h a t

it

was "highly l i k e l y "

that

p rincipals’

"extent o f use" o f the MEAP r e s u l t s f o r t h e s e purposes was s i m i l a r :
(1)

the e x t e n t

t o which p r i n c i p a l s

used t h e r e s u l t s

t o determine

s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e area o f mathematics and t o determine
s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in th e area o f rea di ng; and (2) the e x t e n t
to

which

principals

used

th e

results

to

determine

need

for

new

programs and t o determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f new programs.
The f o l l o w i n g c o r r e l a t i o n s were seen as "moderate," s u g g e s t i n g
t h a t i t was " li k e l y "
results

f o r t h e s e purposes was s i m i l a r :

principals
level

t h a t p r i n c i p a l s ’ "extent o f use" o f the MEAP

used

of

the

the

results

s t u d en t s

to

in

(1)

determine

their

schools,

community o f the general achievement l e v e l
schools,

the

the e x t e n t
general

to

t o which

achievement

inform

the

school

o f t h e s t u d e n t s in t h e i r

and t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the areas o f

mathematics and reading; (2) the e x t e n t t o which p r i n c i p a l s used the
results

to

determine
in

strengths

mathematics

and

the

instructional

priorities;

area
(3)

and
of

weaknesses
scien ce,

th e e x t e n t

in

and

the
to

area

of

determine

t o which p r i n c i p a l s

used

the MEAP r e s u l t s t o determine s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in the area
o f s c i e n c e and t o determine i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s ;
to

which

principals

used

the

results

to

determine

(4) the e x t e n t
instructional

p r i o r i t i e s , t o document need in th e det erm ina ti on o f school resou rce
allocation ,
and (5)

and t o

the extent

identify
t o which

staff-development
principals

needs

used t h e

for

teachers;

MEAP r e s u l t s

to

177

docum ent

need

in

th e

d e te rm in a tio n

of

resource

a llo c a tio n

and

to

determine need f o r new programs.
Comparison o f

results

with

those

of

the

Steele

study.

What

f o l 1ows i s a b r i e f summary o f how t h e most n o t a b l e f i n d i n g s o f the
S t e e l e (1976) study d i f f e r from t h o s e o f t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h .
A greater

perce nta ge

of

elementary

and

junior

hig h/middle

school p r i n c i p a l s r e c e i v e d

b u i ld in g MEAPr e p o r t s from c e n t r a l

office

personnel

in

in

school

buildings

required

1988

than
to

de velop

1976, and t h e
plans

to

p erc en ta ge

address

of

st ud en t

academic

needs i d e n t i f i e d by the MEAP has more than doubled--from 12% in 1976
t o 30.4% in 1988 ( t o t a l g r o u p ) .
A much high er perce nta ge o f elementary and j u n i o r h igh/m idd le
school p r i n c i p a l s shared school summary re p o r t s with t h e i r s t a f f s in
1988 than in 1976 (92% o f elementary p r i n c i p a l s

and 87% o f j u n i o r

h igh/m idd le school p r i n c i p a l s in 1976, compared t o 98.6% and 97.6%,
r e s p e c t i v e l y , in 198 8).
In 1976,

Steele

found t h a t elementary

and j u n i o r

h igh/m idd le

school p r i n c i p a l s used th e MEAP r e s u l t s t o "some" e x t e n t "to inform
the

school

s t u d en ts

community

in t h e i r

of

the

schools,

general

achievement

as opposed t o

"quite

levels"
a bit "

of
for

the
both

groups in 1988.
In 1976,
school

Steele

principals

found t h a t elementary and j u n i o r

thought

t h a t the MEAP r e s u l t s

hig h/middle

had "very 1 i t t l e "

impact in " in f l u e n c i n g community a t t i t u d e s " toward t h e i r s c h o o l s , as
c o n t r a s t e d with t h i s

study’s findings

that those

principal

thought th e MEAP r e s u l t s had "some" impact in t h a t area.

groups

178

In

1988,

principals
"planning

both

believed
for

elem entary
the

MEAP

instructional

and

junior

results

were

improvements"

high/m iddle
"quite"

and when

school

us efu l

when

"communicating

t h e s t a t u s o f st ud en t l e a r n in g t o parents and s t u d e n t s , " as compared
wit h 1976, when p r i n c i p a l s b e l i e v e d the MEAP r e s u l t s had only "some"
u s e f u l n e s s in t h o s e a r e a s .
Steele

found t h a t

elementary

principals

who worked

s e t t i n g s were more 1 i k e l y t o use the MEAP r e s u l t s

in urban

"quite a bit" or

" e x t e n s i v e l y " than were p r i n c i p a l s who worked in suburban or rural
settings.

S t e e l e a l s o found t h a t elementary p r i n c i p a l s who r e c e iv e d

t h e MEAP t e s t

results

"very 1 i t t l e "

than were p r i n c i p a l s

early.

late

were more l i k e l y

to

who r e c e i v e d

use t h o se
the

N e it h e r o f t h e s e f i n d i n g s was corroborated

results

test

results

in the pr esent

stud y.
Conclusions
From th e

preceding

findings,

s ev er a l c o n c l u s i o n s were

r e l a t i v e t o t h e a t t i t u d e s and p r a c t i c e s o f Michigan school
administrators

regarding

th eir

use

of

th e

1988

drawn

b u i ld in g

MEAP assessment

results:
1.

The v a s t m a jo ri ty o f b u il d in g a d m in is t r a t o r s r e c e i v e d the

MEAP r e p o r t s

generated

Department o f

Education,

for

th eir

and most o f

r e p o r t s from the c e n t r a l o f f i c e s in
2.

b u ildings

Bu il di ng p r i n c i p a l s were,

the

by

the

principals

a timely

M ic h ig an

received

the

fashion.

f o r the most p a r t ,

responsible

f o r determining procedures f o r using the assessment r e s u l t s in t h e i r

179

schools.

However,

fewer than h a l f o f t h e high school

principals

i n d i c a t e d t hey were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r determining procedures f o r MEAP
u s e , and n e a r l y on e- f o u rt h o f the high school p r i n c i p a l s gave t h e i r
school c o u n s e lo r s or ot h er school personnel t h a t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .
3.

A m a jo ri ty o f p r i n c i p a l s

in itiated

plans or were required

t o deve lo p plans addr es sin g the needs i d e n t i f i e d by the MEAP.
4.

Almost a l l

o f the p rin cip a ls

shared at l e a s t

some o f the

MEAP r e p o r t s with t h e i r s t a f f s ; elementary p r i n c i p a l s shared by f a r
the most r e p o r t s .
5.

Teachers were invo lve d in b u i l d i n g - l e v e l

committees in the

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f the assessment r e s u l t s in almost h a l f
o f th e s c h o o ls in Michigan.
6.
planning

Diagnosing
for

students’

instructional

academic

programs,

academic performance t o parents

strengths
and

and

w ea k n e ss es ,

communicating

and s t u d e n t s

were

students’

areas

in

which

p r i n c i p a l s most encouraged t e a c h e r use o f the MEAP r e s u l t s .
7.

The MEAP assessment

results

were

used

"quite

a bit"

by

p r i n c i p a l s in determining s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in t h e i r reading
and m a t h e m a t i c s pr og ra m s,

in d e t e r m i n i n g

the general

a ca d em ic

achievement l e v e l o f the s t u d en t s in t h e i r s c h o o l s , and in informing
th e school community o f t h e achievement l e v e l s o f s tu d e n t s in t h e i r
school s;

the

resul ts

were

used

much

less

to

analyze

teacher

performance.
8.
even l e s s

Principals

believed

o f an impact,

the MEAP r e s u l t s

o v e r a l l , on t h e i r

had only

"some" or

instructional

programs,

180

but thought th e MEAP r e s u l t s were "quite" u s e fu l when communicating
achievem ent

lev els

to

students

and

parents,

planning

for

i n s t r u c t i o n a l improvements, and d ia g n o s in g st u d en t l e a r n i n g needs.
9.

Ex ten siv e

use

of

th e

MEAP r e s u l t s

s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d with p r i n c i p a l s ’ b e l i e f
had an "exte nsi ve"

that

impact on t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l

by

principals

t h e MEAP r e s u l t s
programs and t h a t

t he u s e f u l n e s s o f th e r e s u l t s was " e x t e n s i v e . "
10.

P r i n c i p a l s used t h e MEAP r e s u l t s t o a s i m i l a r e x t e n t when

e v a l u a t i n g t h e i r reading and mathematics programs and somewhat l e s s
so when e v a l u a t i n g t h e i r s c i e n c e programs.
11 .

E le m e n t a r y

and

junior

high/m iddle

b e l i e v e d the MEAP r e s u l t s were more u s ef ul

school

principal s

and made g r e a t e r use o f

t h o s e r e s u l t s than did high school p r i n c i p a l s .
Recommendations f o r Future Research and P r a c t i c e
Based on the f i n d i n g s o f t h i s stud y, th e f o l l o w i n g recommenda­
t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r research are o f f e r e d :
1.

Investigation

is

needed

to

determine whether

there

is

a

r e l a t i o n s h i p between the "extent o f use" o f MEAP r e s u l t s f o r va ri o us
purposes

at

the

b u i ld in g

level

and

the

achievement

levels

of

s t u d e n t s , as measured by the MEAP, at the b u i l d i n g l e v e l .
2.

Research i s

needed t o determine whether t h e r e

is

a rela­

t i o n s h i p between the e x t e n t o f te a c h e r involvement in t h e a n a l y s i s
and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

o f MEAP r e s u l t s

and

the

resu ltin g

teacher

commitment t o in cl u d i n g t h e o b j e c t i v e s t e s t e d by t h e MEAP in t h e i r
i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs.

was

181

3.

Research i s

tional

commitment"

needed t o
(policy

e d u c a t io n , c e n t r a l o f f i c e ,
relationship

with

the

understand t h e

and p r a c t i c e

impact o f

in p l a c e

" in stitu ­

at t h e

board o f

and b u il d in g l e v e l s ) t o th e MEAP and i t s

"e xtent

of

use"

of

MEAP r e s u l t s

at

the

d i s t r i c t and b u i l d i n g l e v e l s and the impact on st ud en t achievement
levels.
4.

Research i s required t o determine whether MEAP improvement

p l a n s , which in c l u d e t e a c h e r involvement and p a r t i c i p a t i o n ( i n p la c e
in

about

half

of

the

d istricts

in

Mic higa n) ,

have

an

impact

on

st u d en t achievement l e v e l s .
5.
for

Given the r e l a t i v e l y low r a t i n g

each

building

level

for

survey

("very l i t t l e "

q u e s ti o n

10)

that

r e s u l t s had in terms o f t h e impact on the i n s t r u c t i o n a l
schools,

further

investigation

is

d es ig n t h e MEAP t o in c r e a s e i t s

to

"some"

th e

MEAP

programs in

needed t o determine how b e s t

instructional

to

value and u t i l i t y to

l o c a l d i s t r i c t s and s c h o o l s .
6.
whether

Additional

resea rc h

d ifferen ces

exi st

efforts
b etw een

should
the

focu s

on determining

d istricts

in

the

six

geo graphic and community ty p es used by the Department o f Education
in Michigan (noted in Chapter I I I )

in terms o f board o f e d u c a t io n ,

central

practices

office,

and b u i l d i n g - l e v e l

relative

to

t h e MEAP

and r e s u l t i n g st ud en t achievement l e v e l s .
7.

Further i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s needed t o determine why some p r i n ­

c i p a l s have a more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward the MEAP and va lu e the
results,
other

at t h e b u i ld in g

building

and in d iv id u al

administrators.

This

stud en t

levels,

resea rc h

should

more than
focus

on

182

determining the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h o s e p r i n c i p a l s
in st ud en t

assessment data a n a l y s i s ,

training

in

(e.g .,
use

of

training
specific

data provided by the HEAP).
8.

This study should be r e p l i c a t e d in f i v e y e a r s t o determine

th e a t t i t u d e s and p r a c t i c e s o f school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e l a t i v e t o the
MEAP in 1 i g h t o f any a d d i t i o n a l academic areas and grade l e v e l s t h a t
may be t e s t e d ( s c i e n c e t e s t given in grades 5, 8 , and 11 as o f f a l l
1989) and t o e s t a b l i s h

a current data base regarding th e MEAP and

school a d m in is tr a t o r s in Michigan.
Based

on

the

fin d in gs

of

th is

study,

the

f o l 1 owi ng

recommendations f o r f u t u r e p r a c t i c e are o f f e r e d :
1.
with

The Michigan Department o f Education must c o n t in u e t o work

local

bo a rd s o f e d u c a t i o n ,

su p erin ten d en ts,

and b u i l d i n g

p r i n c i p a l s to i n c r e a s e th e perc ei ved va lu e and u t i l i t y

o f the MEAP

in terms o f l o c a l p r a c t i c e r e l a t i v e t o t h e MEAP and d e s i r e d outcomes
for children.
2.
with

Local

th eir

boards

staffs

of

and

education

and

community

to

s u p e r in t e n d e n t s
determ ine

o b j e c t i v e s are t o play in t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l
publicize

that

role

so

the

community

may

the

must
role

work
MEAP

programs and then to
judge

th e

assessment

r e s u l t s in the proper p e r s p e c t i v e .
3.

Local

boards

of

education

and

administrators

must

also

guard a g a i n s t overemphasizing how well t h e i r s t u d e n t s perform on the
MEAP.

In t h a t MEAP o b j e c t i v e s are co n s id er ed minimal or " e s s e n t i a l "

ob jectives,

they

do n o t

represent,

nor

are

they

intended

to

183

represent,
children.

a w ell-rounded,

enriched

curriculum

for

M i ch ig a n

Pl ac in g to o much o f an emphasis on t h e MEAP and how well

t h e i r s t u d e n t s s co re ( f o r the p o s i t i v e p u b l ic r e l a t i o n s v a l u e ,

for

example) may le a d t o a narrowing o f the curriculum t h a t s t u d e n t s are
t au g h t.
Reflections
In a d d i t i o n
this

st u d y ,

to

o t h er

the formal
more

a n a ly s e s

personal

and f i n d i n g s

observations

and

repo rted
insights

in
are

offered:
1.

Considering the

S t e e l e study in 1976

immense amount o f data generated by the

and t h i s study,

o v e r a l l c o n s i s t e n c y o f the r e s u l t s .

the w r i t e r was s t ru ck by the

The r e l a t i v e l y few r e s u l t s t h a t

d i f f e r e d , however, were o f no s u r p r i s e give n the f a i r l y high p r o f i l e
that

th e

newspapers
d istricts

MEAP has
and

assumed

school

over

the

newsletters.

years

each

Principals

do use the MEAP more today t o

w in t er
and

inform t h e i r

in

their

local
school

communities

about t h e achievement l e v e l s o f t h e i r s t u d e n t s , and they do b e l i e v e
t h a t th e MEAP can be an i n f l u e n c e on l o c a l community a t t i t u d e s about
t h e i r s c h o o l s (whether t hey 1 ike i t or n o t ) .
2.

In a d d i t i o n , numerous comments made by p r i n c i p a l s

surveys re p re se nt ed

stro ng and varied op in io n s

on the

about the MEAP

and

made t h i s w r i t e r even more aware o f the sometimes i n t e n s e p o l a r i t y
o f o p in io n s t h a t Michigan ad m in is t ra t or s hold toward the MEAP.
t h e most p a r t,

For

comments were mixed and ranged from q u i t e n e g a t i v e ,

1 ik e "MEAP i s viewed p ri m a ri ly as a propaganda t o o l " and "MEAP t e s t s

184

are

a

farce,"

to

benchmark t o o l , "

p ositive

comments

like

"MEAP i s

"MEAP i s very v a lu a b le as i t

an

excellent

encourages educators

t o meet t h e needs o f our s t u d e n t s , " and "We a p p r e c i a t e th e feedback
in math and read ing ."
3.

Given t h a t the MEAP i s ad ministered t o te n th graders in the

s t a t e on an ev e r y - p u p il b a s i s and t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t amount o f data
is

generated

i m p e r a t i ve
involved,

for

that

more

to

student

high

school

in a le a d e r s h i p r o l e ,

o n e- f o u rt h
b u i ld in g

rela tiv e

of

the

high

school

procedures

p rincipal s

lev els,
become

with MEAP t e s t i n g .
principals

guidance c o u n s e lo r was t h e

determining

achievement

for

use"

is

d irectly

Approximately

indicated

that

p ri m a ri ly

responsible

"person
of

it

their

their

MEAP r e s u l t s .

The

w r i t e r s u s p e c t s t h i s f i g u r e i s low and t h a t o th er b u i l d i n g personnel
play t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e with the MEAP.
"leader" d i r e c t l y

Not having t h e b u il d in g

inv o lv ed with the MEAP sends a strong s i g n a l

b u i ld in g s t a f f and s t u d e n t s t h a t MEAP t e s t i n g
not important.

use

are

The p r i n c i p a l ’ s d i r e c t involvement i s n e c e s s a r y to

help ensure t h a t s tu d e n t s
members

and the r e s u l t s

to

th e

results

do t h e i r
to

b es t

program f o r

and t o ensure t h a t
overall,

desired

staff

student

outcomes.
4.

Finally,

p a ls’ attitudes

i f a more comprehensive study r e l a t i v e t o p r i n c i ­
and p r a c t i c e s

regarding the

t h i s w r i t e r s t r o n g l y recommends t h a t
investigated
study

exclusively

s ep ar at e

p rincipals).

from

of

junior

th e

i n d iv i d u a l

others

h igh/m idd le

This would al l o w

for

MEAP i s

(an

carried

b u i ld in g l e v e l s

elementary

school

ou t,

and

p r in c i p a l

high

survey development t o

be

school
be more

185

tailored

to

the d if f e r e n t

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f da ta .

levels

and a more focu sed a n a l y s i s

and

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
SURVEY

186

SURVEY OF ADMINISTRATIVE USES OF THE FALL 1988
MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT TEST RESULTS
Mailing Instructions:

Return one copy by April 28 in the
envelope accompanying this survey.

Directions:

Please circle your response to each
question. Do not sign your name to
the survey.
Please answer all
questions in terms of your uses of
the 1988-89 (Fall 1988) Michigan
Education Assessment Program (MEAP)
test r e s u l t s .
You indicate your voluntary agree­
ment to participate by completing
and returning this questio n n a i r e .

PART I: Information About The Administrative Use Of
1988 MEAP Test Results
1.

Which 1988 MEAP assessment reports did you receive?
(Circle all that apply)
(1) Individual Student Reports
(2) Classroom Listing Reports
(3) Classroom Test Item Analysis
(4) School Summary Reports
(5) District Summary Reports
(6) None of the Above

2.

During which month did you receive the MAJORITY of
the reports you checked in item 1?
(Circle ONE only)
(1) November, 1988
(2) December, 1988
(3) January, 1989
(4) February, 1989
(5) After February,

3.

1989

Who was PRIMARILY
responsible for determining
procedures for the use of 1988 MEAP test results in
your school?
(Circle ONE
only)
(1) Central office personnel
(2) A district-wide committee
(3) The building principal
(4) A building-level committee
(5) A building guidance counselor(s)

187

4.

Were you REQUIRED to develop a plan of action to
overcome needs identified by the 1988 MEAP test
results?
(Circle ONE only)
(1) Yes
(2) No
(3) Not required, but a plan has been developed

5.

Did you establish a building level committee to
involve teachers in the analysis and interpretation
of the 1988 MEAP test results for your school?
(Circle ONE only)
(1) Yes
(2) No

6.

Which assessment reports did you share with teachers
in your school?
(Circle ALL that apply)
(1) Individual Student Reports
(2) Classroom Listing Reports
( 3 ) Classroom Test Analysis Reports
(4) School Summary Report
( 5 ) District Summary Report
(6) None of the Above

7.

What assistance did you provide to help teachers
understand and interpret the 1988 MEAP test results?
(Circle ALL that apply)
(1) Conducted teacher meeting to analyze test
results.
(2) Provided manuals and other interpretive aids
developed by the Michigan Department of
Education.
(3) Distributed test data within the teacher test
results folders provided by the Michigan
Department of Education.
(4) Presented Michigan Department of Education video
tape "Identifying and Addressing Curriculum Needs
with MEAP Results."
( 5 ) Requested inservice assistance of central office,
evaluation, or guidance personnel.
(6) Others, please specify______________________________

188

8.

For what purposes have you encouraged teachers to use
the 1988 MEAP individual student tests results?
(Circle ALL that apply)
(1) To diagnose students' strong and weak points.
(2) To plan instructional programs.
(3) To group students in accordance with similar
needs.
(4) To communicate student performance to parents
and students.
(5) To motivate increased student learning.
(6) Others, please specify______________________________

NOTE:

For the following questions (9-11), please respond
by choosing the number from the scale below which
most accurately reflects your response to each
item.
Place your response in the blank provided
to the left of each item.
i
i
i
5
6 { 7
8
1
2
3
4
Extensively
S C A L E : Very
Quite
Some
Little
a Bit
J
i
i
E X A M P L E : A "4" response shows your perception to be
"Some" (but more toward "Quite a B i t ).
A "3" response shows your perception to be
"Some" (but more toward "Very L i t t l e " ).

9.

Using the scale provided a b o v e , rate the extent to
which you have USED the 1988 MEAP test results for the
following p u r p o s e s :
a.

To determine the general achievement level of
the fourth, seventh and/or tenth grade
students in your s c h o o l .

b.

To inform the school community of the general
achievement level of the fourth, seventh and/or
tenth grade students in your s c h o o l .

c.

To determine strengths
area of MATHEMATICS.

and weaknesses

in the

d.

To determine strengths
area of READING.

and weaknesses

in the

e.

To determine strengths
area of SCIENCE.

and weaknesses

in the

f.

To determine instructional priorities.

189

g.

To document need in the determination of school
resource allocation (i.e., people, time,
materials and space).

h.

To determine placement of students in
"remedial" programs.

i.

To determine need for new programs.

j . To determine the effectiveness of new programs.
k.

To analyze teacher performance.

1.

To identify staff development needs for
teachers.

m.

To prepare proposals for funding.

n.

To predict students"

o.

Others, please specify
..

r

1
1

SCALE
10.

future academic success.

2

Very
Little

3
4
Some

j

i

5
6
Quite
a Bit

7
8
Extensively
i

Using the above scale, rate the extent MEAP
assessment results have had an IMPACT on the
instructional program in your s c h o o l .
a.

In encouraging the development of a more
comprehensive testing p r o g r a m .

b.

In calling attention to a curricular
problem(s) not previously noted for your
school.

c.

In confirming previous tentative judgments
about a curricular problem(s) in your school.

d.

In facilitating a more individualized
instructional approach to teaching.

e.

In influencing community attitudes toward your
school.

f.

In narrowing the curriculum to just the MEAP
tested objectives in a subject a r e a .

g.

In narrowing instruction to just the MEAP
tested subject areas (Mathematics, Reading and

190

Science).
h.

11.

12.

Others, please specify

Using the scale provided above, rate the extent to
which you believe MEAP test results are USEFUL to
you for the following purposes.
a.

Diagnosis of student learning needs.

b.

Analysis of the relationship between the
allocation of school resources and student
achievement of minimal objectives.

c.

Planning for instructional improvements.

d.

Communicating status of student learning
to parents and students.

Use the space on the reverse side to make additional
comments about the strengths and weaknesses of the
MEAP and the test results provided if you desire to
do so (be brief).

PART II; Descriptive Information About School and
Principal
13.

Which category best describes the location of your
school?
(Circle ONE only)
(1) Tri-County Metropolitan Area (Wayne, Oakland and
Macomb Counties).
(2) Lower Peninsula, excluding Tri-County
Metropolitan Area.
(3) Upper Peninsula.

14.

What is the total student enrollment in your school?
(Circle ONE only)
(1) 150 students or less
(2) 151 to 300 students
(3) 301 to 500 students
(4) 501 to 1,000 students
(5) More than 1,000 students

15.

Which of the following terms best describes the
setting in which your school is located?
(Circle ONE only)
(1) Rural
(2) Urban
(3) Suburban

191

16.

What is the approximate percentage of minority
students in your school?
(Circle ONE only)
(1) 0 to 0.9%
(2) 1 to 2.5%
(3) 2.6 to 10.5%
(4) 10.6 to 100%

17.

Please indicate whether you are male or female.
(Circle)
(1) Male
(2) Female

18.

What is the highest degree you hold?
(Circle ONE only)
(1) B.A., B.S.
(2) M . A . , M.S.
(3) Ed. Specialist
(4) P h . D . , Ed.D.

19.

For how many years have you held an administrative
position?
(Circle ONE only)
(1) 5 years or less
(2) 6 to 10 years
(3) 11 to 20 years
(4) More than 20 years

20.

For how many years have you held your present
position?
(Circle ONE only)
(1) 1 year or less
(2) 2 to 5 years
(3) 6 to 10 years
(4) 11 to 20 years
( 5 ) More than 20 years

21.

Is your school an elementary,
school, or high school?
(Circle ONE only)
(1) elementary school
(2) junior high/middle school
(3) high school

junior high/middle

APPENDIX B

COVER LETTER

192

STATE O F

M IC H IG A N

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P .O . B o x 3 0 0 0 8
L a n s in g , M ic h ig a n 4 6 9 0 9
D O N A L D L U l'M lS
S u p » iin k iid in l
u l I 'u N ir I m lr u iitu n

April 4, 1989

D ear P rincipal:

ST A T E ftO ARO O F EDUCATION
C H E R R Y H JaC O U U S
P r n id s n t
A N N E T T A M IL L E R
h e ? tr m d e n l
DOROTHY HCARDM ORf
S te reta rv
R O L L IL H O F G O O D
T r rasurrt
D R . G U M E C 1 N D O SA LA S
V iS H f. M e g o t ?
BA R B A R A U llM O U C 'H L L L t
M A R IL Y N F. L U N D Y
BA R B A R A R O B E R T S M A SO N
g o v

. ja m e s j b l a n c h a r d
F.\ O Q h io

T his p a s t fall, your sc h o o l p articip ated in th e a n n u a l M ichigan E d u catio n al A s s e s s m e n t P rogram
(MEAP) te s ts of m a th e m a tic s, read in g a n d sc ie n c e . T h e M EAP re su lts w e re re tu rn e d to you later in
th e sc h o o l y e a r.
W e a r e in te re ste d in obtaining inform ation a b o u t ad m in istrato rs' u s e of th e 1 988-89 M EAP te s t
re su lts. In a n effort to g a th e r this inform ation, th e M ichigan D ep artm en t of E d u catio n a n d
Mr. C hris J e n c k a , a M ichigan S ta te University d o cto ral c a n d id a te a n d a n ad m in istrato r in th e
W illiam ston C om m unity S ch o o l District, a re co o p erativ ely conducting a sta te w id e stu d y of
ele m e n ta ry , m iddle/junior-high a n d high school principals. T h e re su lts o f th is su rv ey will b e u s e d
to m a k e longitudinal c o m p a riso n s to a sim ilar stu d y c o n d u c te d during th e 1 9 7 4 -7 5 sc h o o l y e a r. T he
e n c lo s e d q u e s tio n n a ire will b e u se d to g a th e r th e n e c e s s a ry inform ation.
Y our sc h o o l h a s b e e n random ly s e le c te d to particip ate in this stu d y . W e h o p e th at you will b e
willing to in v est a few m in u tes of your tim e a n d fill o u t th e e n c lo s e d q u e stio n n a ire . P le a s e co m p le te
a n d return th e q u e stio n n a ire in the e n c lo s e d e n v e lo p e by A pril 2 8 ,1 9 8 9 . Y our participation will
h elp a s s u r e th at th e d a ta re p re s e n ts the view s of all principals in M ichigan.
B e a s s u r e d th a t th e q u e s tio n n a ire s th e m se lv e s will b e held in th e stric te st c o n fid e n c e . No
identification of principal, school o r sc h o o l district will b e provided, nor is su c h identification
r e q u e s te d from you in com pleting th e su rv ey . T h e n u m b e rs on th e return e n v e lo p e in d icate th e g ra d e
level of th e M EA P te s t given in your sc h o o l a n d th e g e o g ra p h ic a r e a of th e S ta te . N o identification of
y our individual sc h o o l building is p o ssib le. You m ay c h o o s e not to particip ate at all o r n ot to a n sw e r
certain q u e s tio n s w ithout penalty.
W e k now th a t y o u will b e in te re ste d in th e re su lts of this study. T h erefo re, a n a b s tra c t of th e
stu d y will b e av ailab le upon re q u e s t by co n tactin g Mr. J e n c k a in W illiam ston at th e a d d r e s s sh o w n
below . T h e a b s tra c t will b e available by D e c e m b e r 1 ,1 9 8 9 .
W e th an k you in a d v a n c e for your w illingness to co m p lete th e e n c lo s e d su rv e y . If you h a v e any
q u e s tio n s a b o u t this stu d y or the su rv ey , p le a s e feel free to c o n ta c t Mr. J e n c k a .
S incerely,

Principal
W illiam ston E lem en tary S chool
4 1 6 H ighland S tre e t
W illiam ston, Ml 4 8 8 9 5
(517) 6 5 5 2 1 7 4
E n clo su re

David L. D onovan
A ssista n t S u p e rin te n d e n t
Office of T ech n ical A s sista n c e
a n d E valuation
(517) 3 7 3 -8 3 7 4

APPENDIX C

FOLLOW-UP LETTER

193

S T A T E O F M ICHIGAN
STATE 0O A RO O f EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

i Ml KHY II

M l OKI' S
»/
A N N ! I I A M il I I K
I l /'». w./fW
m K ' H m t' l AKII M. lKI

P O B ox 30008
L a n s in g . M ic h ig a n 4 8 9 0 9

h

I M I S M I ) I III M I S
Su| Vnni <nilr iu
»l‘ I’u b ln In ilru iiio ii

H<
I)k

>1

I II

IH 'I '

(iU M M IM H i

*4SlU h

\s

j i M i n \ K a n i ' M f U ' i i i n 11
MAH I M S I
I I'M .'.
U A H I I A R S K O b l - . K l S M A S ' >'

April

21,

1989
fiOV

JAM ES J B E A M H A R D
f < O f: , n

Dear Principal,
Recently you should have received a letter from
David Donovan and myself concerning the voluntary
survey of the uses of the Michigan Education Assessment
Program

(MEAP)

test results

in your building.

with the letter was a survey.

Enclosed

The purpose of this letter

is to remind you to complete the survey and return
me by April

28.

it to

Since only a sample of schools was

selected to participate
that the principal

in this study,

we are hopeful

in each selected school completes and

returns the survey.
If you have completed

the survey and returned

appreciate the time you took to do so.
do so, my hope is that you will

it,

I

If you have yet to

take a few minutes

to

complete and return it.
If you have misplaced the survey another copy can be
obtained by calling me at home or Williamston Elementary
School at 517-655-2174.

Once again,

assistance.
Appreciatively

517-339-0104
5557 Wood Valley
H a s l e t t , Mi. 48840

I thanK you for your

APPENDIX D
CHI-SQUARE TABLES

194

Table D .l .- - C h i- s q u a r e r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by p l a n r e q u i r e m e n t - elem entary school p r i n c i p a l s .

Plan Requirement
Extent o f Use
No

Not Required
But Developed

Total

Yes
Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. %

20
2 2 .5
1 4 .2

42
47.2
29.2

27
30.3
19.0

89
20.8

Some

n
Row %
Col. %

31
2 9 .5
2 2. 0

42
40.0
29.2

32
30.5
22.5

105
2 4 .6

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. %

39
32.5
27. 7

41
34.2
28.5

40
33.3
28.2

120
2 8 .0

Extensively

n
Row %
Col. %

49
45.0
34.8

18
16.5
12.5

42
38.5
29.6

109
25.5

Total

n
Row %

141
33.0

144
33.7

142
33.3

427
10 0 .0

C h i-s q u a re = 25.59774
df = 6
p = .001

195

Table D.2 . - - C h i- s q u a r e r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f
b u i ld i n g co m m ittee --e lem e n ta ry school p r i n c i p a l s .

Bu il di ng Committee
E s t a b li s h e d
Extent o f Use

Total
Yes

No

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. %

36
40.4
16.1

53
59.6
26.4

89
20.9

Some

n
Row %
Col. %

54
5 1 .4
24.1

51
48.6
25.4

105
24 .7

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. %

60
50 .4
2 6 .8

59
49.6
29.4

119
2 8. 0

Extensively

n
Row %
Col. %

70
64.8
3 1. 3

38
35.2
1 8 .9

108
2 5. 4

Total

n
Row %

224
52 .7

201
4 7 .3

425
100.0

C h i - s q u a r e = 15.62384
df = 4
p = .003

196

T a b l e D .3 . - - C h i - s q u a r e r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by MEAP’ s i m p a c t on
i n s t r u c t i o n a l program --elem entary school p r i n c i p a l s .

MEAP’ s Impact
Extent o f Use

Total
Very
L ittle

Some

Quite
a Bit

Exten­
sive

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col . %

50
55.6
61.7

21
2 3. 3
2 1 .0

17
18.9
13.1

2
2.2
1.7

90
20.8

Some

n
Row %
Col, . %

18
16.8
22 .2

38
35.5
38.0

31
29.0
23.8

20
18.7
17. 4

107
24. 7

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col . %

11
9.1
1 3 .6

33
2 7 .3
33.0

47
38.8
3 6. 2

28
23.1
24.3

121
2 7. 9

Extensively

n
Row %
Col . %

1
.9
1.2

8
7.2
8.0

35
31.5
2 6. 9

65
58.6
56.5

111
2 5 .6

n
Row %

81
18. 7

100
23.1

130
30.0

115
2 6 .6

433
100.0

Total

C h i- s q u a r e = 323.10975
d f = 16
p = .000

197

T able D.4 . - - C h i- s q u a r e r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by MEAP’ s u s e f u l n e s s
f o r s e l e c t e d p u rp o s e s --e le m e n ta ry school p r i n c i p a l s .

MEAP’ s U s e f u l n e s s
Extent o f Use

Total
Very
L ittle

Some

Quite
a Bit

Extensive

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. , %

47
5 2 .2
67.1

26
28.9
23.0

14
1 5. 6
12.0

2
2.2
1.6

90
20.8

Some

n
Row %
Col. . %

14
13.1
2 0 .0

42
39.3
37.2

35
32.7
2 9 .9

16
15.0
1 2 .5

107
24. 7

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. . %

8
6.6
11. 4

36
29.8
31.9

44
36.4
37.6

32
2 6 .4
25.0

121
27.9

Extensively

n
Row %
Col. . %

1
.9
1.4

9
8.1
8.0

23
20 .7
19. 7

78
7 0 .3
60.9

111
25.6

n
Row %

70
1 6 .2

113
26.1

117
2 7 .0

128
29.6

433
100. 0

Total

C h i- s q u a r e = 416.29480
d f = 16
p = .0 00

198

Table D.5 . --C h i-s q u a re r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by p e r c e n t a g e o f
m in o rity s tu d e n ts -- e le m e n ta ry school p r i n c i p a l s .

Percentage o f Minority Students
Extent o f Use

Total
0-.9%

1.0-

2.6-

10.6-

2.5%

10.5%

100%

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. %

45
50.0
2 4 .2

16
17.8
1 7. 0

11
1 2 .2
20.4

18
20.0
18 .2

90
20.8

Some

n
Row %
Col. %

44
41.1
2 3 .7

27
25. 2
28.7

16
1 5 .0
29.6

20
18 .7
20. 2

107
24. 7

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. %

57
47.1
30.6

26
2 1 .5
27. 7

19
1 5. 7
3 5. 2

19
15 .7
19 .2

121
15 .7

Extensively

n
Row %
Col. %

37
33.3
1 9. 9

24
21.6
25.5

8
7.2
14.8

42
37.8
42.4

111
2 5 .6

Total

n
Row %

186
43.3

94
21. 7

54
12 .5

99
2 2 .9

433
100.0

C h i - s q u a r e = 2 6 .3 9 6 8 4 0
d f = 12
p = .009

199

Table D.6 . --C h i-sq u are r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by p e r s o n ( s ) r e s p o n ­
s i b l e f o r d e te r m in in g u s e - - j u n i o r h i g h /m id d le school
principals.

Pe r so n (s ) Respo ns ible
Extent o f Use

Total
C.O.

D.C.

B.P.

B.Com.

B. Coun.

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. %

5
1 2. 2
25.0

..

25
61.0
30.9

3
7.3
30.0

8
19.5
28.6

41
26.8

Some

n
Row %
Col. %

7
16.7
35.0

3
7.1
21 .4

18
42.9
22 .2

3
7.1
30.0

11
2 6 .2
39.3

42
2 7 .5

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. %

5
13.5
25.0

1
2.7
7.1

24
64.9
29.6

__

7
18.9
25.0

37
2 4 .2

Extensively

n
Row %
Col. %

3
9.4
15.0

9
28.1
64 .3

14
43.8
17 .3

4
12.5
40.0

2
6.3
7.1

32
2 0 .9

Total

n
Row %

20
13.1

14
9.2

81
5 2 .9

10
6.5

28
18. 3

153
100.0

Chi-square = 39.95774
d f = 16
p = .000
Key:

C.O. = c e n t r a l o f f i c e , D.C. = d i s t r i c t w i d e committee, B.P. =
b u i ld in g p r i n c i p a l , B.Com. = b u i l d i n g committee, B.Coun. =
b u i ld in g c o u n s e lo r .

200

Table D.7 . --C h i-s q u a re r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by p l a n r e q u i r e m e n t - j u n i o r h ig h /m id d le school p r i n c i p a l s .

Plan Requirement
Extent o f Use
Yes

No

Not Required
But Developed

Total

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. %

5
11.8
1 1 .4

26
5 5. 6
32.1

15
33.3
34.1

45
27.1

Some

n
Row %
Col. %

8
18.2
18.2

26
59.1
3 3 .3

10
2 2. 7
2 2. 7

44
2 6. 5

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. %

15
38.5
34.1

14
35.9
17 .9

10
25.6
22.7

39
2 3 .5

Extensively

n
Row %
Col. %

16
43 .2
36. 4

12
32.4
15 .4

9
2 4. 3
20.5

37
22 .3

Total

n
Row %

44
26 .5

78
4 7 .0

44
26.5

166
100 .0

C h i - s q u a r e = 18.18528
df = 8
p = .0 19

201

Table D .8 .--C h i-s q u a re r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f
b u ild in g c o m m itte e --ju n io r high/m iddle school p r i n c i p a l s .

Bu ilding Committee
E s t a b li s h e d
Total

Extent o f Use
Yes

No

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. %

13
2 8 .9
15 .7

32
71.1
38.6

45
27.1

Some

n
Row %
Col. %

19
43. 2
22 .9

25
56.8
30.1

44
2 6 .5

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. %

24
61.5
28 .9

15
38.5
18.1

39
23 .5

Extensively

n
Row %
Col. %

26
70 .3
3 1 .3

11
2 9. 7
1 3. 3

37
22 .3

Total

n
Row %

83
50.0

83
5 0 .0

166
100 .0

C h i-sq u a re = 17.99840
df = 4
p = .001

202

T a b l e D .9 . - - C h i - s q u a r e r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by MEAP’ s im p a c t
on i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o g r a m - - j u n i o r h i g h / m i d d l e s c h o o l
principals.

MEAP’ s Impact
Total

Extent o f Use
Very
L ittle

Some

Quite
a Bit

Exten­
sive

..

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. %

25
5 5 .6
7 3 .5

10
22. 2
38.5

11
22. 2
1 5 .9

Some

n
Row %
Col. %

7
15 .9
2 0 .6

8
18.2
30.8

20
4 5 .5
31 .7

9
2 0. 5
2 2. 0

44
26 .5

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. %

2
5.1
5.9

4
10 .3
15 .4

18
46.2
28 .6

15
38.5
3 6. 6

39
23 .5

Extensively

n
Row %
Col. %

4
10.8
1 5 .4

15
4 0. 5
2 3 .8

17
4 5 .9
4 1 .5

36
22 .3

Total

n
Row %

26
23.1

63
3 0. 0

41
2 6. 6

164
100.0

C h i - s q u a r e = 152.00511
d f = 16
p = .000

34
18.7

45
27.1

203

Table D .1 0 .--C h i-s q u a re r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by MEAP’ s u s e f u l ­
n ess f o r s e l e c t e d p u r p o s e s - - j u n i o r h ig h /m id d le school
principals.

MEAP’ s U se f u l n e ss
Extent o f Use

Total
Very
L ittle

Some

Quite
a B it

Exten­
sive

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. %

25
5 5.6
6 1 .0

14
31.1
35.9

2
4.4
4.7

4
8.9
9.8

45
27.1

Some

n
Row %
Col. %

11
2 5 .0
2 6 .8

15
34.1
38.5

12
27.3
27. 9

5
11 .4
12. 2

44
26.5

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. %

2
5.1
4.9

6
15. 4
15. 4

17
4 3 .6
39.5

14
35.9
34.1

39
2 3 .5

Extensively

n
Row %
Col. %

2
5.4
4.9

4
1 0. 8
10.3

12
3 2 .4
27. 9

18
48.6
4 3. 9

37
22 .3

Total

n
Row %

41
24.7

39
23 .5

43
25. 9

41
24. 7

166
100. 0

C h i-s q u a re = 72.62378
d f = 16
p = .000

204

Table D.1 1 . - - C h i - s q u a r e r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by MEAP’ s i m p a c t on
i n s t r u c t i o n a l program --high school p r i n c i p a l s .

MEAP’ s Impact
Extent o f Use

Total
Very
L ittle

Some

Quite
a B it

Exten­
sive

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. %

28
56.0
7 0 .0

10
20.0
41.7

11
2 2 .0
26.8

1
2.0
2.6

50
34.0

Some

n
Row %
Col. %

5
17.2
12.5

5
17 .2
20.8

12
41.4
29. 3

7
24.1
17.9

29
19. 7

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. %

5
16.7
12 .5

6
2 0. 0
25. 0

11
3 6. 7
26.8

8
2 6 .7
2 0. 5

30
20 .4

Extensively

n
Row %
Col. %

2
5.4
5.0

3
8.1
12 .5

7
1 8 .9
17.1

23
62.2
5 9. 0

37
25.2

Total

n
Row %

40
27.2

24
16 .3

41
2 7 .9

39
2 6. 5

147
100.0

C h i-sq u a re = 111.98308
d f = 16
p = .000

205

Table D.1 2 . --C h i-s q u a re r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by MEAP’ s u s e f u l n e s s
f o r s e l e c t e d p u r p o s e s - -h ig h school p r i n c i p a l s .

MEAP’ s U s e f u l n e s s
Extent o f Use

Total
Very
L ittle!

Some

Quite
a B it

Exten­
sive

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. %

26
5 2 .0
72 .2

14
2 8. 0
40.0

10
20.0
25.0

Some

n
Row %
Col. %

6
20 .0
16.7

13
44.8
37.1

5
1 7 .2
12.5

5
17.2
14.7

29
19 .7

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. %

4
13.3
11.1

6
70.0
17.1

14
46.7
35.0

6
2 0 .0
1 7 .6

30
2 0 .4

Extensively

n
Row %
Col. %

2
5.4
5.7

11
2 9 .7
2 7 .5

23
62.2
67.6

37
25.2

Total

n
Row %

35
2 3. 8

40
27 .2

34
23.1

147
100 .0

C h i- s q u a r e = 154.65034
d f = 16
p = .000

36
24. 5

50
34.0

206

Table D.1 3 . - - C h i- s q u a r e r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by p e r s o n ( s ) r e s p o n ­
s i b l e fo r determ ining u s e - - to ta l group.

P er son (s ) Res pon sib le
Total
1U l u 1

Extent o f Use
C.O.

D.C.

B.P.

B.Com.

B. Coun.

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. , %

28
1 5 .3
24.1

9
4.9
1 9 .6

114
62.3
25.9

11
6.0
2 1. 2

21
11.5
2 7 .3

183
2 5 .0

Some

n
Row %
Col. , %

30
1 6 .9
25.9

11
6.2
23 .9

105
59 .0
23.8

10
5.6
19. 2

22
1 2 .4
28.6

178
24 .3

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. . %

19
10 .3
1 6 .4

8
4.3
17.4

123
66.5
2 7. 9

14
7.6
2 6 .9

21
11.4
2 7 .3

185
25.3

Extensively

n
Row %
Col . %

37
2 0 .7
31.9

16
8.9
34.8

97
54.2
2 2 .0

17
9.5
3 2. 7

12
6.7
15.6

179
2 4 .5

Total

n
Row %

116
15.8

46
6.3

441
60 .2

52
7.1

77
10.5

732
100 .0

Chi-square = 26.74788
d f = 16
p = .050
Key:

C.O. = c e n t r a l o f f i c e , D.C. = d i s t r i c t w i d e committee, B.P. =
b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l , B.Com. = b u i ld in g committee, B.Coun. =
b u i l d i n g co u n s e lo r .

207

T able D.1 4 . - - C h i- s q u a r e r e s u l t s :
t o t a l group.

E x t e n t o f u s e by p l a n r e q u i r e m e n t - -

Plan Requirement
Extent o f Use
No

Not Required
But Developed

Total

Yes
Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. %

34
17. 7
14 .3

106
55. 2
33.7

52
27.1
22.5

192
24 .5

Some

n
Row %
Col. %

51
2 7 .4
21 .4

84
4 5. 2
26 .7

51
2 7 .4
22.1

186
23 .7

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. %

68
33.5
2 8 .6

72
35.5
2 2 .9

63
31.0
27. 3

203
2 5. 9

Extensively

n
Row %
Col. %

82
42.1
3 4 .5

49
25.1
15 .6

64
32.8
2 7. 7

195
24. 9

Total

n
Row %

238
30.4

315
4 0 .2

231
2 9. 5

784
100.0

C h i- s q u a r e = 46.80696
df = 8
p = .000

208

Table D.1 5 . - -C h i-s q u a re r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f
building co m m ittee--to tal group.

Buil din g Committee
E s t a b li s h e d
Extent o f Use

Total
Yes

No

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. %

70
36.3
1 8 .0

123
6 3. 7
31.2

193
24.6

Some

n
Row %
Col. %

91
48.9
2 3 .4

95
51.1
24.1

186
23.8

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. %

101
50 .0
26.0

101
50.0
25.6

202
25.8

Extensively

n
Row %
Col. %

122
62.9
31.4

72
37.1
18 .3

194
24.8

Total

n
Row %

389
4 9. 7

394
50 ,3

783
10 0. 0

C h i - s q u a r e = 2 7 .9 9 62 3
df = 4
p = .000

209

Table D.1 6 . --C h i-sq u are r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by MEAP’ s i m p a c t
on i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o g r a m - - t o t a l g r o u p .

MEAP’ s Impact
Extent o f Use

Total
Very
L ittle

Some

Quite
a Bit

Exten­
sive

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col. . %

108
55. 7
66.7

44
2 2. 7
2 7. 7

39
20.1
1 5. 6

3
1.5
1.5

194
24.5

Some

n
Row %
Col. . %

31
16 .5
19.1

53
2 8. 2
3 3. 3

68
36.2
2 7. 2

13
19.1
1 7. 5

188
23.8

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. . %

19
9.3
11.7

46
2 2 .5
2 8 .9

81
39.7
32.4

56
27.5
27 .2

204
25.8

Extensively

n
Row %
Col, . %

3
1.5
1.9

16
8.1
10.1

62
31.5
24.8

111
56.3
53.9

197
24.9

Total

n
Row %

162
2 0. 5

159
70.1

250
31.6

206
26.0

791
100 .0

C h i- s q u a r e = 665.33868
d f = 16
p = .000

210

Table D.1 7 . - - C h i- s q u a r e r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by MEAP’ s u s e f u l n e s s
f o r s e le c te d p u r p o s e s - -to ta l group.

MEAP’ s U s e f u l n e s s
Extent o f Use

Total
Very
L ittle

Some

Quite
a Bit

Extensive

Very l i t t l e

n
Row %
Col, . %

103
53.1
66.9

57
2 9 .6
2 9. 2

27
13.9
12.6

6
3.1
2.8

194
24. 5

Some

n
Row %
Col, . %

32
17. 0
2 0 .8

73
38.8
37.4

54
2 8. 7
2 5. 2

28
1 4. 9
12 .9

188
23.3

Quite a b i t

n
Row %
Col. , %

15
7.4
9.7

49
2 4. 0
75.1

84
4 1. 2
39.3

55
2 7 .0
25 .3

204
2 5. 8

Extensively

n
Row %
Col, . %

3
1.5
1.9

16
8.1
8.2

48
2 4. 4
2 2. 4

128
6 5. 0
59 .0

197
24 .9

Total

n
Row %

154
19 .5

195
24.7

214
27.1

217
27. 4

791
100.0

C h i - s q u a r e = 7 0 2 .3 3 8 2 6
d f = 16
p = .000

211

Table D.1 8 . --C h i- s q u a r e r e s u l t s :
E x t e n t o f u s e by p e r c e n t a g e o f
m inority s tu d e n t s - - to t a l group.

Percentage o f Minority St udents
Extent o f Use

Total
0- .9%

Very l i t t l e

Some

Quite a b i t

10. 6-

2.5%

10.5%

100%

42
21.8
2 2. 6

31
16.1
2 7. 7

37
19.2
23.0

193
24.6

,

83
43.0
2 5 .5

n
Row %
Col, %

48
25.7
2 5 .8

32
17.1
28.6

33
17.6
20.5

187
23.8

.

74
39.6
22. 7

n
Row %
Col, %

92
45. 3
28.2

49
24.1
26. 3

34
1 6 .7
30.4

28
13.8
17.6

203
2 5. 9

n
Row %
Col, %

72
36.9
22.1

45
23.1
24.2

15
7.7
1 3 .4

63
32.3
39.1

195
24.8

n
Row %

326
41.5

186
23.7

112
14. 3

161
20.5

785
10 0 .0

.

Total

2.6-

n
Row %
Col, %

,

Extensively

1. 0-

C h i - s q u a r e = 3 3 .5 4 0 3 7 0
d f = 12
p = .009

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aquino, Anthony F. " A tt it u d e s o f Fourth and Seventh Grade Teachers
Toward the 1974-75 Michigan Educational Assessment Program and
Their Use o f th e R e s u l t s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Wayne S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , 1975.
B r z e z i n s k i , Evelyn J. T e s t i n g in Michigan: A Twenty-Year P er sp ec­
t i v e . Ann Arbor: U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, Bureau o f School
S e r v i c e s , 1976.
Michigan S t a t e Board o f Education.
"The S t a t u s o f T e s t in g in
M i ch ig an ." Lansing: Michigan S t a t e Board o f Education,
January 1987.
(Mimeographed.)
Michigan Department o f Education. Educational Assessment: The
Michigan Pl a n . Lansing: Michigan Department o f Education,
1975.
_________ . O b j e c t i v e s and Procedures. 1974-75. F i r s t Report.
Lansing: Michigan Department o f E d u c a t i o n , , 1974.
Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). Michigan Educa­
t i o n a l Assessment Program Handbook. Lansing: Michigan S t a t e
Board o f Education, 1988.
New York S t a t e Education Department.
"Report t o the Board o f
Regents on th e Bas ic Competency T es t in g Program." Albany:
D i v i s i o n o f Educational T e s t i n g , New York S t a t e Education
Department, May 1980.
(ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No.
ED 181 076)
Owen, P a t r i c i a W., and Haynes, Judy L. "Assessing Assessment: A
Review o f P a r e n t s ’ , T e a ch er s ’ , and A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ’ A t t i t u d e s
Toward and U t i l i z a t i o n o f Stat ew ide Assessment R e s u l t s . " Paper
presen ted at th e annual convention o f the Fl or id a Education
Research A s s o c i a t i o n , T a l l a h a s s e e , F l o r i d a , January 1977.
(ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 144 948)
Questions and Answers About t h e MEAP.
Board o f Education, Ju ly 1988.

Lansing:

Michigan S t a t e

Roeber, Edward. MEAP S u pe rv is or , Michigan Department o f Education.
I n te rv ie w , 1988.

212

213

Rojas, V i r g i n i a P. D i s t r i c t U t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e S ta te w id e T e s t i n g
Program (Occasional Papers in Ed uca tion). Bureau o f Research
and Assessment, New J e r s e y S t a t e Department o f Education, 1977.
SPSS-X U s e r s ’ Guide.

2nd ed.

New York:

SPSS, Inc, 1986.

S t e e l e , Donald J . , J r .
"An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f A d m i n is t r a t iv e Prac­
t i c e s and A t t i t u d e s Related t o th e Use o f Michigan Educational
Assessment Program Test R e s u l t s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , The Ohio
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1976.
Watson, Richard, and Schmalgemeier, William L. Michigan S ch ool s:
The Organization and Management o f Their T e s t in g Programs. Ann
Arbor: U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, Bureau o f School S e r v i c e s ,
1970.
Weiss, N e i l , and H a s s e t t , Matthew.
York: Addison-Wesley, 1982.

Intro duc tor y S t a t i s t i c s .

New

Womer, Frank B. T e s t in g Programs in Michigan S c h o o l s . Ann Arbor:
Michigan School T e s ti n g S e r v i c e , U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, 1959.