document resume - ericdocument resume ed 264 250 tm 850 493 author gottfredson, denise c. title the...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 264 250 TM 850 493

AUTHOR Gottfredson, Denise C.TITLE The Johns Hopkins-Baltimore City Public Schools

Effective School Project. Report No. 357.INSTITUTION Johns Hopkins Univ., Baltimore, Md. Center for Social

Organization of Schools.SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.PUB DATE Feb 85GRANT NIE-G-83-0002NOTE 218p.PUB TYPE Tests/Evaluation Instruments (160) -- Reports -

Research /Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC09 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Educational Assessment; Educational Cooperation;

*Educational Research; *Evaluation Methods; JuniorHigh Schools; Outcomes of Education; *ProgramDevelopment; Program Effectiveness; *ProgramEvaluation; *School Effectiveness; SchoolInvolvement; Student Behavior; TeacherCharacteristics

IDENTIFIERS *Baltimore City Public Schools MD; *ProgramDevelopment Evaluation Method

ABSTRACTThe Effective Schools Project is a test of a general

method for improving organizational effectiveness. Themethod--Program Development Evaluation (PDE)--calls forresearcher-practitioner collaboration in the design, implementation,and evaluation of programs to increase school effectiveness. TwoBaltimore City junior high schools are working with Johns Hopkinsresearchers to reduce school disorder, increase attendance, andimprove educational attainment. Both schools used the PDE method todesign programs during 1982-83 and implemented them during 1983-84.The present evaluation shows that the schools are improving as aresult of the project. Large and consistent increases were observedin staff morale, effective administration, and in teachers' reportsof their schools as places where innovative planning and actionoccur. Findings also imply decreased school disruption and increasedachievement. This report describes the projects, summarizes data onimplementation, and recommends ways to facilitate the application ofthe PDE method in future projects. Appendices include profiles ofschool climate, non-Effective School Battery scales, teachercharacteristics measures, and results for all program outcomes,(Author/LMO)

******************************************************k************e***

Raproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

Report Na 357February 1985THE JOHNS HOPKINS BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS PROJECTDenise C. Gottfredson

U.N. °VARMINT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUC TIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC/

This document has been (*Produced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor Omen have been made to improvereproduction quality.

ermarmasemvaaraerarmarrearneerierese;arearaorsorad

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

pOInt* of view or opinions meted in this docu. TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESmolt do cm lisceessulY represent official NIE INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."position or poky. ,

111111,

STAFF

EDWARD L. MCDILL, Co-DIRECTOR

JAMES M. MCFARTLAND, CD-DIRECTOR

KARL L. ALEXANDER

HENRY J. BECKER

JOMILLS H. BRADDOCK, II

RUM H. CARTER

ROSLYN L. CHESTER

MICHAEL COOK

%BERT L. CRAIN

DORIS R. ENTWISLE

JOYCE L. EPSTEIN

JAMES FENNESSEY

DENISE C. GOTTFREDSON

GARY D. GOTTFREDSON

LINDA S. GOTTFREDSON

EDWARD J. HARSCH

JOHN H. HOLLIFIELD

3

BARBARA J. HUCKSOLL

RN10NA M. HUMPHREY

Lois G. HYBL

NANCY L. KARWEIT

HAZEL G. KENNEDY

MARSHALL B. LEAVEY

GRETCHEN ft LUEBBE

NANCY A. MADDEN

ALEJANDRO POKES

ROBERT E. SLAVIN

VALARIE SUNDERLAND

GAIL E. THOMAS

L. THOMAS WEBB

JANICE G, [DAMS

The Johns Hopkins-Baltimore City Public Schools

Effective Schools Project

Grant No. NIE-G-83-0002

Denise C. Gottfredson

Johns Hopkins University

Report No. 357

February, 1985

Published by the Center for Social Organization of Schools, supported in partas a research and development center by funds from the National Institute of

Education, U. S. Department of Education. The opinions expressed in thispublication do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the NationalInstitute of Education, and no official endorsement by the Institute should be

inferred.

Center for Social Organization of SchoolsThe Johns Hopkins University3505 North Charles Street

Baltimore, MD 21218

Printed and assembled by VSP Industries2440 West Belvedere Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21215

The Center

The Center for Social Organization of Schools has two

primary objectives: to develop a scientific knowledge ofhow schools affect their students, and to use this knowledgeto develop better school practices and organization.

The Center works through three research programs to

achieve its objectives. The School Organization Programinvestigates how school and classroom organization affectsstudent learning and other outcomes. Current studies focus

on parental involvement, microcomputers, use of time inschools, cooperative learning, and other organizational fac-

tors. The Education and Work Program examines the relation-ship between schooling and students' later-life occupational

and educational success. Current projects include studiesof the competencies required in the workplace, the sourcesof training and experience that lead to employment, collegestudents' major field choices, and employment of urban

minority youth. The Delinquency and School EnvironmentsProgram researches the problem of crime, violence, vandal-ism, and disorder in schools and the role that schools play

in delinquency. Ongoing studies address the need to developa strong theory of delinquent behavior while examiningschool effects on delinquency and evaluating delinquencyprevention programs in and outside of schools.

The Center also supports a Fellowships in EducationResearch program that provides opportunities for talentedyoung researchers to conduct and publish significantresearch and encourages the participation of women andminorities in research on education.

This report, prepared by the Delinquency and SchoolEnvironments Program, reports on a collaborative effort toimprove two Baltimore City junior high schools.

-i-

xrrecttve mcnooIs rroject

Acknowledgements

The Effective Schools Project requires the collaboration of many people.I wish to thank the following people for their contributions to this project:

Nisha Advani, Lois Hybl, and Donald Rickert served AS the Hopkins liai-sons for the Pimlico project. Lois Hybl also provided secretarial assistance

for the entire project. Gary Gottfredson served as an advisor to the project,and Renee Castenada, Robert Kirchner, John Kilgallon, and Abhijit Mazumder

provided research assistance. Ruth Carter and Barbara Bennett provided train-ing for teachers in Student Team Learning.

The following people have served on planning committees: At CalvertonBerlette Adesalu, Toni Grant, Richard Holley, Paul Llufrio, Leewood Macer,Pamela Moore, Patricia Morris, Raymond Puryear, Isabell Richmond, NadyaSchwartz, Joan Tillery, Marcelina West, and Marguerita Wilson have served.Juanita Addison, Charles Dunard and Phyllis Green also helped to implement theprogram at Calverton. At Pimlico, Alice Black, Thelma Blumberg, Lynda Burton,Samuel Burton, Robin Dodd, Maurice Dorsey, Osceola Duplessy, Barbara Elder,Tom Frasier, Lenore Friedlander, Andrew Giles, Andrew Levy, Joyce McNeill, andH. Raynor Parker have been on the planning committee. Lucinda Crummedy has

helped to implement Student Team Learning at Pimlico. From the central admin-

istration of the BCPS, Lynn Linde, Patrick Perriello, Irene Pinn-Hill, andCharles Thomas have served on the planning committees. Other current orformer Baltimore City Public School personnel who have assisted with the proj-ect are Thomas Foster, Craig Cutter, and Lawrence Howe from the Evaluation andResearch Division, Alice Pinderhughes and Irving McPhail from the Superinten-dent's Office, Robert Lloyd, of the Pupil Services Division, and Gaye Brownand Ruth Morrow from the Staff Development Office.

Samuel Burton, Clay Sands and Jawanza Jamal from the Northwest Youth Ser-vices provided teacher training in Reality Therapy. Dr. Colonel Hawkins of

the Department of Special Education at Coppin State University collaboratedwith the Calverton program in implementing the College Intern Program.

The teachers at both schools are an integral part of the program. Sev-

eral teachers have contributed far beyond the call of duty: Isabell Richmond

has shared with the project her expertise in Student Team Learning techniques.She has given freely of her own time to promote the use of these techniques.Marguerita Wilson has contributed her time to moving the extracurricularactivities component forward, and Pamela Moore has helped to plan and organize

teacher training sessions. Charles Dunard has shared his expertise in Asser-

tive Discipline techniques. These are just a few of the teachers who haveprovided outstanding service for their schools. All have cared enough to try

the new techniques and to share with the planning committee their opinionsabout the techniques. I wish to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of

these and all teachers who have helped to move the program forward.

ti


Abstract,

The Effective Schools Project is a test of a general method for improvingorganizational effectiveness. The methodProgram Development Evaluation(PDE)- -calls for researcher-practitioner collaboration in the design, imple-mentation, and evaluation of programs to increase school effectiveness. Ttio

Baltimore City junior high schools are working with Johns Hopkins researchersto reduce school disorder, increase attendance, and improve educationalattainment.

Both schools used the PDE method to design programs during 1982-83 andimplemented them during 1983-84. The present evaluation shows that theschools are improving as a result of the project. Large and consistentincreases were observed in staff morale, effective administration, and inteachers' reports of their schools as places where innovative planning andaction occur. Findings also imply decreased school disruption and increasedachievement.

This report describes the projects, summarizes data on implementation,and recommends ways to facilitate the application of the PDE method in futureprojects.


Table of Contents

The Program Development Evaluation Method 1

Initiating the Project 3

The Calverton Program (CARE) 5

The Pimlico Project--BBP 11

Interim Evaluation of Program Outcomes 15

Results 18

Discussion 23

Conclusions and Recommendations 29

References 31

Appendix A: Spring, 1983 School Climate Profiles

Appendix B: NonESB Scales

Appendix C: Teacher Characteristics Measures

Appendix D: Results for All Program Outcomes


The Johns Hopkins-Baltimore City Public SchoolsEffective Schools Project

Many urban schools are troubledby low academic performance and highdropout rates. These problems areespecially common in low income com-munities where poor student perfor-mance is often coupled with highlevels of school disorder and delin-quent behavior (Gottfredson & Gott-fredson, in press). Methods to helpcreate beneficial and lastingchanges in school practices areneeded to reduce these problems.Despite accumulating research oneducational technologies andadvances in our understanding ofways schools might be more effec-tive, we lack useful and easilyapplied methods to help unlessschools adopt and implement moreeffective arrangements.

The Effective Schools Projectis a test of a general method forimproving organizational effective-ness. The method--Program Develop-ment Evaluation (G. Gottfredson,1984; Gottfredson, Rickert, Gott-fredson & Advani, 1984)--calls forresearcher-practitioner collabora-tion in the design, implementation,and evaluation of programs toincrease school effectiveness. Two

Baltimore City junior high schoolsare working 'with Johns Hopkinsresearchers to reduce schooldisorder, increase attendance, andimprove educational attainment.This report describes the programsthat have been designed using thePDE method, reports on the level ofimplementation of the program compo-nents during the first of two yearsof operation, and presents earlyevaluation results.

-1-

The Program Development EvaluationMethod

The PDE method has beendescribed in detail elsewhere (Gott-fredson, 1984; Gottfredson, Rickert,Gottfredson & Advani, 1984.) Figure

1 shows the steps in applying themethod. Researchers collaboratewith school personnel to defineproblems and set organizationalgoals, specify theories of action onwhich to base the school improvementprogram, define measurable objec-tives based on the theory, selectinterventions with a high likelihoodof achieving these objectives, iden-tify and plan to overcome obstaclesto the implementation of the inter-ventions selected, and developdetailed implementation standards toserve as blueprints for the inter-ventions. Educators and researcherswork together to evaluate their pro-grams and use the resulting informa-tion to further improve the program.Planning and program developmentbecome part of the everyday routinein the school, creating a spiral ofimprovement.

Assumptions

The PDE method makes the fol-lowing assumptions about organiza-tional change:

1. Projects guided by explicit theo-ries that can be translated intoaction will be most effective.

2. Projects will be implemented withmost enthusiasm, be strongest,and contribute most to knowledgeof school improvement if thetheory on which the project isbased is regarded as sensible byproject implementers and accordswith evidence from previousresearch and evaluation.

9

Figure 1

The Program Development Evaluation Method

MeasurableProblems Goals

Feedback System- Data Gathering- Inference

Benchmarks,Standards, Tasks

----ft- Theory ofAction

MeasurableObjectives

Choice ofInterventions

Force FieldAnalysis

Source. Cottfredson, G. D. (1984). A theory-ridden approach to

proeram evaluation. American PsEtologist, 39, 1101-1112.

-2 -10 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

3. Effective implementation of anintervention or innovation ismore likely if blueprints for theintervention are available and ifimplementation is guided by dataabout the extent to which projectactivities accord with the blue-print.

4. Effective adoption of an innova-tion is more likely when explicitplans for adoption are availableand when these plans are likelyto overcome obstacles to organi-zational change.

5. Projects will become more effec-tive in the presence of "evalua-tion pressure." Evaluation pres-sure takes many forms, some ofwhich are pressure to focus ontheory, and to heed relevantinformation from previousresearch and evaluation and fromcurrent data about programstrength, fidelity and effective-ness.

6. Organizations that internalizethese principles will be moreeffective than those that simplycomply with them (Gottfredson,1984; pp. 1101-1102).

The method is rational. It

assumes that the effectiveness oforganizations with clear goals willincrease as rational behaviorincreases. The method explicitlyrejects the expectation that schoolsmust work as loosely coupled systems(Weick, 1984) using ad hoc manage-ment methods. Schools are fre-quently loosely coupled, but weassume that loose coupling ofteninhibits school effectiveness. The

PDE method attempts to tighten man-agement by developing explicit stan-dards for performance, communicatingthese standards, assessing compli-ance or noncompliance with the stan-dards, and adjusting performance.

-3-

11


Initiating the Project

In May, 1982, researchers fromthe Center for Social Organizationof Schools approached the BaltimoreCity Public School system to suggesta collaborative sc000l improvementproject. At initial meetings withthe Deputy Superintendent for Evalu-ation and Research and personnelfrom the Division of Pupil Ser-iceswe discussed the PDE method and sug-gested a three-year project involv-ing two city junior high schools(Delinquency Program, 1982). The

school system agreed to free upstaff time for project activitiesand allow changes in job descrip-tions that would enable the develop-ment of a program without any addi-tional staff or other substantialcosts. Johns Hopkins researcherscommitted their time and researchresources to organization develop-ment and evaluation using the PDEmethod. School system personnelselected two schools that were nottargeted by other major projects,that were perceived as receptive tothe kind of assistance that would beprovided by the project, and whosekey staff and student populationwere likely to remain stable for athree-year period--Calverton andPimlico Junior High Schools.

Principals of the schools werebriefed on the project and asked toform working groups of key personnelfrom their schools. These workinggroups were to represent the majorgroups and departments in the school(i.e., guidance, administration,teaching). Persons with leadershipskills and whose jobs could be rede-fined to allow sufficient time forplanning and implementing the proj-ects were to he selected. Each team

consisted of one or two schooladministrators, one teacher, one ortwo guidance counselors, a schoolpsychologist, and a social worker.One school also included a parent

liaison worker, and the otherincluded a counselor from a commu-nity youth service agency and aneducational specialist from a commu-

nity planning organization. Person-

nel from the central guidance ser-vices office and attendance servicesprogram also joined both groups.

A two-day orientation sessionwas held for the planning committees

in October, 1982. Evidence about

previous school improvement effortswas reviewed, and the groupsreceived training in the PDE method.The planning process began at thisorientation with a consideration ofthe schools' major problem areas.

The planning groups met sepa-rately each month from Octoberthrough June to plan comprehensiveschool improvement projects to beimplemented the following year. The

planning included specification ofprogram goals, consideration andprioritization of major sources of

the schools' problems, and specifi-cation of program objectivesdirected at the primary sources of

the problems. Measures were devel-

oped for every goal and objectiveand surveys were designed to assessprogress towards these goals and

objectives. In April, the planningteams administered surveys to allteachers and Gtudents in theirschools to obtain baseline informa-tion for their evaluations and toprovide information to be used to

refine program plans. The surveyswere based on the Effective SchoolBattery (Gottfredson, 1985) but sup-plemented with items necessary toassess all goals and objectives.

During this first planning yearthe Calverton Junior High Schoolteam oriented the entire schoolstaff to the project and soughtstaff participation in subcommit-tees. The team decided to implementits program on a trial basis in the


seventh grade unit only, and itrecruited volunteer teachers toteach in the seventh-grade unit.They named their program CalvertonReaching for Excellence (CARE), andthey planned a six-day training ses-sion for teachers and administratorsin the seventh-grade unit to be heldjust before the opening of schoolthe following Fall.

During the first ;ear the Pim-lico planning group determined itsgoals, elaborated several causes ofthe school's problems, and decidedupon a name for their pro-gram--Building a Better Pimlico(BBP). It had difficulty, however,in prioritizing the causes of theproblems and focusing on a workablenumber of program objectives. By

the end of the school year it hadnot made a final decision aboutwhich of several possible interven-tions to implement during the1983-84 school year. High on the

list of possibilities were theclassroom instructional and manage-ment strategies that Calverton hadplanned, so the Pimlico committeetook advantage of the trainingopportunity and recruited somevolunteer teachers to attend theFall workshop with Calverton.

The 1983-84 school year beganwith the six-day training workshopattended by 16 Calverton and 10 Pim-lico teachers, administrators fromboth schools, planning committeemembers, and central office person-

nel. Tuo behavior management tech-niquas--Assertive Discipline (Canter& Canter, 1976) and Reality Therapy(Glasser, 1969)--and an instruc-tional technique--Student TeamLearning (Slavin, 1980)--were cov-ered. Survey results from thepreceding Spring's survey were dis-cussed, and teachers from eachschool worked in groups to plansolutions to some of the most

-4- 12

pressing problems indicated by thesurveys. Based on survey results,the Calverton group planned to forma Fzioolty Advisory group to open up

lines of communication betweenfaculty and administration. They

also developed a plan to change theschool's procedure for moving stu-dents to the c. eteris at lunchtime.

The school's current procedure--onethat had been established withoutteacher consultation--was bothersometo many teachers. Revising theprocedure was important because itindicated to teachers that theadministration was willing to acceptteacher advice, and it gave teachersa renewed sense that they could makea difference in the how the schoolis run. The Pimlico group agreedthat discipline vas their highestpriority problem and that a largesource of the problem was lack ofclarity about the school rules.They began work on a disciplinepolicy for the school.

The Calverton Program (CARL)

After the workshop, the Calver-ton gtdup began a monthly process ofmonitoring each program component,comparing progress to the implemen-tation standards (Calverton Reach4ngfor Excellence, 1983) that had beenspecified the year before, andrevising the plan to increase feasi-bility. Calverton's 1983-84 programis presented below. Following eachprogram component's description isan account of progress made in thatarea during the 1983-84 year.Information about level of implemen-tation comes from monitoring recordskept throughout the year and animplementation survey completed by11 of the 27 teachers participatingin the program at the end of theschool year.


Career Exploration

The objective of this componentis to increase students' perceptionsof the relevance of school to theirlives. The Career Exploration com-ponent of CARE has three parts:Resource sessions expose students topositive community role models whohave volunteered to inform studentsabout the skills required to obtainand perform jobs in their fields.All students in the seventh gradeunit were to experience one of thesesessions per month, and the presen-tations were to be made to smallgroups of students (no more thanthree classrooms per session). The

second part of the Career Explora-tion intervention called for 90% ofthe students in the seventh gradeunit to go on a career-related field.trip during the year. Finally,

mini-courses covering the followingtopics were to be presented to stu-dents in their classrooms:

-13

Assessing vocational interests

Using occupational informationDeveloping individualized guid-ance plans

coursework to careers

Improving self-presentationClarifying valuesImproving decision-makingskillsApplying for jobsPreparing for summer work

Guidance counselors were to presentthese lessons to students in theirclassrooms so that each classroomreceived one course per month.

Career Exploration -- Actual.

Implementation. Eight resource ses-

sions were held, and most classesattended all eight. The sessionscovered occupations in the following

areas: skilled trades, personal andpublic services, health professions,transportation, professional and

semi-professional occupations, and

military services. The field-trip

subcomponent was less successful:

Only seven of the twenty-one classes

went on career-related field trips.

Lack of transportation money made itimpossible to meet the standard of

one trip per class. Nine "mini-

courses" on career-related topicswere to be presented to all class-

rooms. Roughly 50% of the materialto be covered in these courses wascovered by the end of the year.Students were to learn about typesof c-reers, to assess their ownoccupational aspirations and toresearch their aspired careers tolearn about the necessary qualifica-tions and skills. These sessions

were completed by all studentsexcept special education students,but the process was more taxing for

the guidance counselor conductingthe courses than expected. Activi-

ties planned for the second semester

were curtailed. The decision-making

skills and values clarificationcourses were postponed until thenext year, and sessions on the rele-vance of seventh grade subjects to

careers, applying for jobs, and jobmarket trends were cancelled. Only

the individualized guidance plans, a

part of the program that was man-dated by the central guidanceoffice, was accomplished during thesecond semester.

Parent Inform

The objective of this interven-tion is to increase family members'support for their children's educa-tional activities. It seeks to keep

parents and other family membersinformed about their children's pro-

gress in school. All students inthe seventh grade unit were to writea monthly letter to their families

reporting their attendance and home-work assignment completion for each

of their classes. The information

for the letters would come from


classroom charts which were to be

updated daily. The letters wouldenable parents to monitor theirchildren's progress and to request

teacher conferences.

Parent Inform--Actilal Implemen-

tation. Charts for recording home-work completion and attendance inthe classroom proved cumbersome formany teachers, and even when thecharts were maintained as planned,getting the information from thecharts onto a letter for the parentsand getting the letter home proveddifficult because it required coor-dination across all of the students'

classrooms. Some teachers managedto send the letters home despite thelogistical problems, but only 7 of

the 11 teachers who completed theimplementation survey reported thattheir classes sent letters home totheir parents at least once. This

component was substantially revisedfor the 1984-85 school year.

Parent Volunteer

The objective of this interven-tion, like Parent Inform, is toincrease family members' support fortheir children's educational activi-

ties. This component is designed to

increase the involvement of thefamily members of students at riskof falling behind in or dropning out

of school. The rationale is that as

parents become more familiar with

the school and more involved inschool activities, the degree towhich they value education and sup-port their children's educationalactivities will increase.

According to the plan, the

parent liaison worker would recruit

parents to work as aides in theschool and, with the help of teach-

ers, would develop a "job bank"describing jobs to be done andskills required to do the jobs. A

team composed of the parent liaison

-6-

14

worker, teacher volunteers, andparents would train the new parentvolunteers before they were placed

in their jobs. Parents would be

rewarded for their participationwith certificates for completedtraining, recognition at award cere-monies, and mention in a monthlyflyer, a quarterly newsletter, andon the bulletin board. The stan-dards for Parent Volunteer calledfor at least thirty-five activevolunteer workers in the school bythe end of the school year.

Parent Volunteer--Actual Imple-mentation. Twenty-seven parentsworked in the school during the1983-84 school year. One parentworked full-time, every day, andthree others worked approximately50% time throughout the year. The

other twenty-three parents were notas active: On average they workedabout seven hours per month. The

entire volunteer intervention addedapproximately 6.3 full-time equiva-lent workers to the Calverton staff.

These workers were generallynot well integrated into the schoolculture, however. Many of thevolunteer hours were not used pro-

ductively by the Calverton staff.Only three of the eleven teacherswho answered the implementation sur-vey reported using a volunteer inhis or her classroom. The component

is being strengthened for the1984-85 school year to includeclearer statements of the volun-teers' duties, better training forteachers in ways to use parentvolunteers, and more careful super-vision of the volunteers as theywork.

-7-


Community Support

This intervention is designedto increase community support andadvocacy for the school. It has

three parts: The first' seeks to

increase the base of community sup-port for Calverton by using themedia, a newsletter, and meetings tomake the community more aware of theschool and its needs. The secondcomponent seeks to stimulate jobopportunities for Calverton stu-dents. The third component, called"Adopt-a-School," seeks to identifyresources in the community that can

be put to use at Calverton.

One piece of "Adopt-a-School"is the College Intern intervention,which places student interns fromlocal colleges at Calverton. These

interns assist in publishing news-letters, tutoring or counseling stu-dents, monitoring the cafeteria,organizing cultural enrichmentactivities, and collecting and tabu-lating data for the evaluation ofproject CARE. They also offer gen-eral assistance in classrooms, thelibrary and the school offices.

Community SupportActualImplementation. Only the College

Intern segment of this interventionwas implemented during the 1983-84school year. Each of four collegeinterns worked with teachers intheir classrooms for twelve hoursduring the 1983-84 school year.

A committee of school personnelworked on plans for the rest of theintervention to be implemented inthe 1984-85 year.

Classroom Management Innovations

These innovations were directedat decreasing classroom disruptionby establishing clear and fairrules, by enforcing the rules con-sistently, and by increasing

15

students' decision-making and con-

flict resolution skills. Two class-

room management techniques--Asser-tive Discipline (Canter & Canter,1976) and Reality Therapy (Glasser,1969)--were to be used in the proj-ect CARE classrooms. The techniques

use complementary approaches and areintended to promote a calm, orderly

classroom atmosphere.

Assertive Discipline stressespreplanning, taking initiative, andsetting direction. It (a) sets

clear, consistent limits and speci-fies consequences for students;(b) provides uniform follow-through;and (c) offers students warmth, sup-port and rewards for appropriatebehavior.

Reality Therapy also stresses

clear rules and consistent applica-tion of consequences, but it placesmore emphasis on getting the studentto make a commitment to change hisor her behavior. By increasing stu-dent-teacher interaction and posi-tive involvements with others, Real-ity Therapy is expected to foster instudents a stake in conformity. In

addition, Reality Therapy helps theteacher guide students through arational thought process that helpsthem see the futility of misbehaviorand choose a different course ofact ion.

Both techniques help theteacher focus on student behav-iors--to reduce undesirable behav-iors and substitute desirable behav-

iors. Both techniques assign stu-dents the responsibility for theiractions: Assertive Discipline bymaking explicit that students choosenegative or positive consequences bytheir actions, and Reality Therapyby training students to engage in arational decision-making process todevelop a plan of action.

-8-


A peer support network wasplanned to help teachers applyAssertive Discipline and RealityTherapy techniques in their class-rooms. CARE teachers were to visiteach others' classrooms weekly toobserve and monitor implementation.A standardized observation bookletwas created for this purpose. The

observation data were to be used tostructure biweekly cluster meetingdiscussions focused on resolvingimplementation difficulties. (The

grade units at Calverton are subdi-vided into clusters of classroomssuch that each cluster contains oneteacher from each of the major sub-ject areas. Each teacher teachesonly students in his or her cluster,and the clusters of teachers areencouraged to work together as a

team.)

Classroom Management Innova-tions--Actual Implementation. Thisarea was partially implemented dur-ing the 1983-84 school year. All

but one of the 27 seventh gradeteachers received training in Real-ity Therapy, and 16 received theAssertive Discipline training. The16 teachers who attended the Augustworkshop developed a set of uniformclassroom rules and consequences.These were posted in every class-room. Some teachers successfullyapplied the Assertive Disciplinetechniques, and some tried but gaveup after initial failure. We do not

know exactly how many teachers usedthe technique during the 83-84 year.

Reality Therapy's classroommeetings were used by at least sevenof the 11 teachers who completed theimplementation survey--they reportedusing the technique with a total ofnine different classrooms. Of the

seven, five held frequent meet-ings--between 12 and 84 meetings for

the year. The average number ofmeetings per class was 10. We do

16

not know if Glasser's (1974)"ten- steps" were used. The planning

committee decided to deemphasizethis strategy in favor of the Asser-tive Discipline approach for the

following year.

The peer support network wasnot established. Instead, aresearcher observed classrooms onceduring the year and provided feed-back to teachers about their perfor-mance at that time.

Classroom Instructional Innovations

The objective of these innova-tions is to decrease negative peerpressure, increase motivation toachieve, improve academic self -con-

cept, and increase positive partici-pation in the classroom. Student

Team Learning (STL; Slavin, 1980)techniques were to be used on anongoing basis in all seventh gradeclassrooms. These teaching strate-sies were to be integrated with thehastery Learning (Block & Anderson,1975) strategies that the teacherswere learning as part of a city-wide

initiative. Mastery Learning and

Student Team Learning structure dif-ferent components of the learningprocess to increase learning. Mas-

tery Learning allows the studentample time to master the curriculummaterials before proceeding to the

next instructional objective. The

Student Team Learning Tech-niques--Teams-Games-Tournament, Stu-dent Teams/Achievement Divisions,and Jigsaw II motivate students tolearn academic material by estab-lishing competitions for team reward

or recognition. Teams are composed

of four or five students of differ-ing ability. The team members studytogether and coach one another inpreparation for class-wide tourna-ments or individual tests. Points

are awarded to teams on the basis of

their members' improvement over


their awn past performance or on thebasis of their performance in atournament in which students competeagainst individuals of similar abil-

ity levels.

The same peer support networkdescribed above under the classroommanagement innovations was to pro-

vide information and implementationassistance to teachers as theyimplemented these new techniques.

Classroom Instructional Innova-tions--Actual Implementation. All

teachers in the seventh grade unitreceived training in STL. At least

19 of the 27 teachers used STL dur-ing the year. These 19 consented to

an observation by the researchscientist working with the project,

and 13 were actually observed. Of

the 11 teachers who completed animplementation survey at the end of

the year, eight reported having usedSTL, and five were frequent users.These surveys and observations tellus that at least 16 of the 21 sev-

enth grade classrooms were exposedto STL. The intensity of STL use

varied from classroom to classroom.One class used the techniques foronly four lessons during the year,others for as many as 51. Of those

classrooms using STL, the averagenumber of lessons was 30, according

to the implementation surveys.

Extracurricular Activities

These activities are directedat increasing students' attachmentto school, sense of school pride,and the extent to which students arerewarded for nonacademic accomplish-

ments. They were designed to,involve students--especially stu-dents who do not typically partici-pate in school activities--in a wide

array of extracurricular activities.

-9-

A student survey was to beadministered in early Fall to deter-mine which activities would be ofinterest to students. Facult5, and

staff volunteers were to berecruited to help student teamsorganize clubs and implement the

activities. Each club would appointa representative to a committeeresponsible for publicizing every

activity. At least 50% of the stu-dents in the unit and 70% of thespecial education students were toparticipate in at least one extra-curricular activity during the year.

Extracurricular Activities--Ac-

tual Implementation. The facultymember in charge of this componentsurveyed all students and schoolstaff in October, 1983. Students

expressed 'an interest in fifteen

different clubs, and thirteen ofthese were established. We docu-mented that six of them actuallymet, involving 165 students. Nine

more clubs that were requested at alater date or were requested byschool staff were also established,involving 223 students. We do notknow how close we came to meetingour standard of 50% of the seventhgrade students and 70% of the' spe-

cial education students participat-ing in these activities becauseindividual records of attendancewere not kept. We do know that sev-

enth graders were overrepresentedamong the participants, and we esti-mated that nearly half of 'them par-

ticipated at least once during theyear.

School Discipline Review and Revi-

sion

The objective of this component

is to increase consistency of ruleenforcement and the extent to whichstudents believe in the school

rules. An underlying principlewhich guides the CARE approach to

-10-


discipline in the classroom and inthe school is that teachers areresponsible for the management oftheir classrooms. The interventionseeks to provide teachers with theskills, information, and supportthey need to become successfulclassroom managers and to limitunit-level disciplinary action tomajor disciplinary problems.

School rules, consequences forbreaking school rules, and a disci-plinary referral system were to be

established. All teachers in theseventh grade unit were to use thediscipline referral system asintended, and the administrators inthe school were to follow throughconsistently with the consequencesspecified in the discipline guide.

School Discipline Review andRevision--Actual ImplemenfFtion.Committee members produced a disci-pline guide and a discipline refer-ral form, and they established'procedures for referring students tothe office. The guide was reviewed

with all teachers. The referralforms and procedures were usedschool-wide. One thousand eighty-seven referrals were made during the

year. All but four of the 87 teach-ers in the school used the form for

at least one referral during theyear. The range of referrals wasfrom 0 to 80, and the mean number ofreferrals was 12. This average ismisleading because a few teachersreferred an unusually large numberof students to the office. The

modal number of referrals was one,and only eight teachers made morethan 30 referrals during the year.We know that the referral forms werenot used for all rule infractions in

the school because there were 715disciplinary removals for which no

referral form was filed. Nkuly of

these were probably 'violations thatoccurred in hallways or other common

18

areas, but some were probablyincidents that should have beenreferred to the office according tothe procedures in the guide.

Data from the analysis of thereferral forms indicated that indi-vidual administrators were applyingthe standard consequences for ruleinfractions to different extents.For example, despite rough equiva-lence across units of types ofinfractions referred to the office,one administrator sent a much largerpercentage of referred students homethan did other administrators.

These differences were not resolvedduring the first year of programimplementation.

The Pimlico Project--BBP

During the summer of 1983 a newprincipal and two new assistantprincipals came to Pimlico, and wewere told that Pimlico Junior HighSchool was to become Pimlico Middleschool in the Fall of 1984. We metonce with the new principal toexplain the project and the progressto date. We discussed possible rea-sons for the slow progress duringthe previous year. The new princi-pal supported the program, and sheworked with us to narrow down theinterventions and group them intocategories for easy presentation.

She assigned three new team memberswith leadership skills to the team.

The first meeting of theenlarged team was not successful.The group was large and our briefpresentation of the PDE process, thehistory of the project, and thegoals for the year provided aninadequate orientation. People wereconfused about the project, how itrelated to their other duties, andthe role of the Hopkins researchers.After this meting two of the newcommittee members chose not to con-tinue with the project, and the

11


principal requested a cutback inmeeting time.

Under the new arrangements,subcommittees were to meet onehalf-day per month rather than thefull committee for one day permonth. The discipline subcommittee,the first to meet, worked on plansto implement a specific disciplinereview component and presented themto the principal for approval. Atthat time, discrepancies between thephilosophy on which the previousyear's plans were based and the phi-losophy of the new principal becameapparent.

By December, 1983, it wasapparent that the new planningarrangements were not effective. Ameeting with the principal to dis-cuss roadblocks to effectivenessresulted in the principal becoming amore integral part of the planningprocess and allocating more stafftime to the project. By that timeshe was more familiar with herfaculty and was able to appoint fourstrong members to the team.

This was a turning point forthe Pimlico project. The interven-tions recommended during the 82-83year, and the objectives and theoryunderlying each, were reexamined.Some interventions were eliminatedand the remaining ones werestrengthened. Implementation stan-dards were established, and obsta-cles to implementation wereassessed. The newly composed teamzeroed in on implementation diffi-culties in the school. It analyzedthe reasons for lack of support forproject activities and designedactivities aimed at gaining support.The team planned and executed aseries of staff briefings followedby a survey of all teachers toascertain the success of the brief-ing effort. Only 54% of the staff

19

responded to the survey, but all ofthose reported that they couldexplain the project goals to an out-sider, and between 84 and 97%reported that they could describethe various components of the proj-

ect.

Progress on specific programcomponents was slow during the 83-84school year because the committeehad to focus much of its resourceson creating a structure in theschool that would facilitate programimplementation during the followingyear. A more effective structurewas needed to move the program for-ward. The team oriented the staffto the project (as described above)and designed structures to enhancecommunication and teamwork. Much

effort would have been saved if theoriginal team had resembled therevised team more closely, and ifthere had been sufficient time towork with the new principal beforethe school year began to betterintegrate the project into her plans

for the school. This integration'

proceeded at a slow pace, and wasnot complete until the end of the1983-84 school year.

The BBP project planned during1982-83 was modified considerablyduring the 1983-84 school year as weworked with the new school adminis-tration to coordinate the BBP planswith those of the principal. The

following pages describe the initialplan for BBP. This program was, forthe most part, not implemented dur-ing the 83-84 school year. Excep-

tions are described following eachcomponent description.

Student Affective Interventions

This set of activities has sev-

eral objectives: (a) Improve stu-dents' and public's perception thatPimlico is a safe school to attend;

-12-


(b) increase the degree to whichstudents are rewarded for positivebehavior; (c) increase positiveattachments to teachers and peers;and (d) improve students' conflictresolution skills. There were threemajor activities planned in thisarea: A school safety campaign,attendance interventions, and peer

counseling.

School Safety Campaign. This

campaign sought to (a) teach alter-natives to fighting; (b) increasethe clarity and consistency ofschool rules, by a re-evaluating thedisciplinary structure and pilotingeffective classroom management stra-tegies; and (c) gain media coverageof Pimlico's efforts to improve itsclimate.

School Safety Campaign--ActualImplementation. A discipline guide

was produced. This guide statedschool rules and consequences forbreaking the rules, and it clarifiedthe procedure teachers and adminis-trators woad use in dealing withbehavior problems. The guide was

given to teachers and reviewed withthem. Classroom rules and conse-quences for breaking them wereposted in every classroom. A disci-plinary referral form was designedand teachers were told how to usethe form. Sixty-one of the 78teachers used the referral system tomake at least one referral. Of

those who used the form, the modalnumber of referrals was one for theyear, and the average number was 14.A few teachers made large numbers ofreferrals (as many as 109), but 92%of the teachers made fewer than 30referrals and 80% made fewer than 20

referrals.

An effort to expand the varietyof disciplinary options in theschool was unsuccessful. The in-

school suspension center planned by

20

the discipline committee was neveropened because the principal feltthat it could not be staffed(options for staffing were not tho-roughly explored by the committeebecause the principal also discour-aged the idea of the center).Teachers were asked to use indivi-dual discipline recording forms tomonitor their reactions to misbehav-ior in the classroom, but the pur-pose of the form was not made clearto the teachers until the end of theschool year and the use of the formswas not monitored. The use of these

forms was limited--even teachers onthe planning committee did not usethem. Plans to provide feedback andassistance to teachers who used onlya narrow range of consequences werenever carried out.

Attendance Interventions. Pre-

liminary plans included two atten-dance-related interventions.(a) Competitions among clusters(groups of students who travel fromclass to class together sharing thesame set of teachers) for awards forthe best overall attendance and the"most improved" attendance, and(b) student attendance teams with arotating team leader responsible forcalling other team members everyevening to encourage attendance.

Attendance Interventions--Ac-tual Implementation. The plannedattendance interventions were not

implemented. Instead, students with

perfect attendance received quar-terly certificates.

Peer Counseling. The BaltimoreCity Public Schools guide, "PeerCounseling in the Guidance Program,"was to be the model for a peer faci-litator intervention. This inter-

vention would focus on improvingconflict resolution skills and coun-seling students experiencing diffi-culties.

-13-


Peer Counseling -- Actual

Implementation. Ten students wereselected to become peer counselorsand eight of these completed tentraining sessions, or half of thetraining. No counseling was done.

Teacher Morale and Competency Build-in

The objectives for this set ofactivities are to increase teachermorale, commitment, and knowledgeand use of sound teaching and class-room management techniques. Gener-

ally, this program component was tofacilitate communication and thespread of ideas; to recognize out-standing professional contributions;and to create a framework forassistance, collaboration, andfriendly social interaction amongmembers of the staff. The specificteaching and classroom managementtechniques targeted were(a) increase the degree to whichteachers reward students for posi-tive behavior, (b) increase degreeof "critical thinking" as opposed to"giving correct responses II among

students, (c) improve teacher-stu-dent interaction in the classroom,(d) increase the proportion of stu-dents for whom the level of instruc-tion is appropriate, and(e) decrease classroom disturbances.Staff development would be needed tohelp teachers do these activities.

Social Club. A "Pimlico SocialClub" was to to increase teachers'sense of belonging to a team.

Social Club--Actual Implementa-tion. Five social activities were

planned. One was not held. Anotherwas attended by only three or fourpeople. A Christmas party and apotluck luncheon held at the schoolwere both well-attended, and anoff-campus picnic was attended byabout thirty people.

21

Staff Development. The general

staff development plan was to expose

all teachers to each innovation,then to work intensively with a sub-

set to ensure quality implementa-tion. The first subset of teacherswho receive intensive assistancewere to assist with the follow-upactivities for the next group, and

so on.

The specific techniques orskills to be included in the staffdevelopment activities were:

1. Reality Therapy (see previousdescription),

2. Student Team Learning (STL)

(see previous description),

3. Classroom grouping strategies,

4. Questioning skills, and

5. Skill at relating differentsubject areas to one another.

Staff Development--ActualImplementation. Ten teachersreceived training in Reality Ther-apy, Assertive Discipline and Stu-dent Team Learning at the August

1983 workshop. We do not know to

what extent the techniques wereimplemented by these teachersbecause activities aimed at orient-ing the staff to the project tookpriority over monitoring the class-

rooms of the teachers. Plans to

extend these techniques to otherteachers in the school and to con-trol the quality of the implementa-tion effort were made during the1983-84 year.

All teachers were trained inReality Therapy in a one and one-half day workshop in January, 1984.Implementation monitoring showedthat the teachers were not imple-menting the techniques as planned.Progress was slowed while the


planning committee turned its atten-tion to resolving basic problems oflack of teacher involvement in theplanning for the project and stafflack of understanding about theproject. Plans for complete imple-

mentation of the Reality Therapytechniques were made for the follow-ing school year.

Community Support

The objectives of this compo-nent are to (a) increase communitysupport and advocacy for the school,and (b) increase the level of socialcontrol of truancy by the surround-ing community. BBP planned to:

1. Invite local business persons totalk to small groups about theimportance of school attendance;

2. Encourage local stores to offer"give-aways" as rewards forimproved attendance or to postlists of names of students whose

attendance improved;

3. Seek the help of community groupsin identifying truants; and

4. Invite churches to hold inter-church school attendance pro-

grams.

Community Support--ActualImplementation. None of the plannedactivities in this area were carried

out. Instead, a "Meet the Princi-pal" night was held in September tointroduce the community to the BBP

project. A committee of 12 repre-sentatives from interested communityorganizations was formed. This

group met monthly from Novemberthrough June. About eight of the 12members attended the meeting regu-

larly. The group planned and car-ried out another "Meet the Princi-pal" meeting in April to discuss theconversion of the school to a middle

-14- 22

school. This meeting waswell-attended. The group also soli-cited donations from local busi-nesses to be used to reward studentsfor good behavior, attendance, andachievement. We have not documentedthe extent to which this effort suc-ceeded.

Interim Evaluation of Program Out-comes

Measures

The primary evaluation instru-ment for the Effective Schools Proj-ect (ESP) is a set of surveys admin-istered to all teachers and studentsin both schools in April of eachyear. Additional measures are takenfrom school records. The basis ofthe surveys is the Effective SchoolBattery (ESB) Teacher Survey andStudent Survey (Gottfredson, 1985).The ESB Student Survey was modifiedfor the present project. It pro-vides measures of most of the ESPgoals and objectives, but for somewe had to add items from other sur-veys or develop our own measures.We deleted some of the ESB scales toensure that the survey could be com-pleted in a two-hour period.Details of the scale constructionand psychometric properties of theEffective School Battery scales areincluded in the ESB manual. Appen-dix B contains information about thenon-ESB scales.

Evaluation Design

The design called for compari-sons of gain scores for each of theprogram schools from one year to thenext with gain scores for two otherjunior high schools that wereclosely matched to the projectschools on racial composition andenrollment. Table 1 shows demo-graphic characteristics of the proj-ect and comparison schools.


Unfortunately, the absence of aspecific prior agreement about theevaluation requirements resulted inthe school system's decision toforego the survey administration inthe comparison schools. The DeputySuperintendent of Planning,Research, and Evaluation could notjustify the disruption and extrawork entailed in administering sur-veys to students who were not in theprogram schools. For all outcomesmeasured by the survey we will com-pare each project school to its ownbaseline.

An additional comparison ismade possible by the design of Cal-verton's program. Because the com-mittee chose to intervene in theseventh grade only, we are able tocompare the Spring, 1984 measuresfor the experimental seventh gradeto Spring, 1983 measures for thepreceding cohort of seventh graders.Similarly, 1985 measures of the1983-84 seventh grade cohort (whichwill then be in the eighth grade)will be compared with the precedingtwo years' cohorts of eighth grad-ers. For all Effective School Bat-tery measures we report pre and postpercentile ranks for the schoolswith respect to approximately 70secondary schools in predominantlyinner-city, minority schools whichadministered the ESB between 1981and 1983.

Differences between the experi-mental cohort and the nonexperimen-tal cohort may arise from factorsother than the treatment. Timeschange. To the extent that cohortsof youths are affected by changes intheir environments, the comparisonof experimental and nonexperimentalcohorts will reflect these differ-ences rather than or in addition todifferences attributable to the pro-gram. Also, each cohort of studentshas a different unit administrator.

Table 1

PretreatmInt Data for Effective Schools Project

Schools and Two Comparison Schools

Enrollment 1981

1982

1983

Calverton

1395

13 57

1488

Lemmela

12761437

1344

Pimlico

17221483

1425

Greenspringa

1746

1617

1468

Attendance Rate 1981 79% 81% 83% 81%

1982 80% 81% 82% 76%

1983 77% 76% 79% 77%

Mean Grade Equivalent

California Achievement

Test in ReadingGrade 7 1981 6.4 6.2 6.4 6.3

1982 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.1

1983 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.4

Grade 8 1981 7 .9 7 .6 7.9 7.3

1982 8.1 7 .8 8.0 8.3

1983 8.0 7 .9 8.0 8.0

Grade 9 1981 8.1 8.1 8.5 8.4

1982 8.2 8.5 8.7 8.4

1983 8.7 8.5 8.3 8.5

Note. All schools have approximately 100% black student population.

aComparison school.

Table 2

Pre-Project Means and Standard Deviations on Teacher

Characteristics and Behaviors for Experimental and

Nonexperimental Teachers -- Fall, 1983

Behavior/Characteristic

Experimental

SD N

am. Ws Oa..

Nonexperimental

N SD NVow.=

Structured Teaching Style 3.38 .55 15 3.34 .67 26

Vocabulary .35 .23 14 .39 .25 26

Have used (proportion)

Student Team Learning .79 .42 14 .76 .44 29

Assertive Discipline .79 .42 14 .80 .41 25

Reality Therapy .39 .51 13 .38 .49 24

Mastery Learning .96 .25 16 .97 .19 28

Note. No difference between experimental and nonexperimental

teachers is significantly different from zero.

-;17 25

To the extent that the amministratoraffects the educational climate inthe unit, the comparison of experi-mental to nonexperimental units willreflect these differences. The

final analysis of program effective-ness will include a comparison ofeach cohort's growth over its own

baseline. Greater improvement forthe experimental unit would add toevidence of program effectiveness.

The comparison of experimentalwith nonexperimental teachers atCalverton is more problematical

because 19 of the 27 experimentalteachers volunteered or wereselected by the principal to parti-cipate in the program. It is possi-

ble that experimental teachers andnonexperimental teachers were dif-

ferent before they were exposed tothe program. We examined teacherevaluation ratings made by princi-pals at the end of the the 1982-83school year. The average rating forCARE teachers was 50.9 (SD.23.3) andfor other teachers it was 47.7(SD- 20.8), a non-significant differ-

ence. However, we have no evidencethat the teacher evaluation is avalid indicator of any teacher qual-ity that is of interest to thisstudy, and we were able to obtainratings for only 72 and 61% of thetreatment and control teachergroups, respectively.

A second source of informationabout experimental and nonexperimen-tal teacher pre-intervention differ-ences at Calverton comes from a sur-

vey completed by teachers during the

first faculty meeting in Fall 1982.This survey was intended to measureteacher characteristics and behav-iors related to project outcomes andto level of implementation of theprogram. Appendix C describes themeasures used from this survey. If

the experimental teachers differedon these dimensions prior to treat-

Effective Schoolc; Project

ment, we would have more reason tobelieve that post-treatment differ-ences would be due at least in partto the particular teachers selectedfor the program rather than to theprogram itself. Table 2 shows that

the experimental and nonexperimentalteachers did not differ on vocabu-lary or teacher structuredness, twomeasures which, according to priorresearch (Program on Teaching Effec-tiveness, 1978), differentiateteachers on implementation success.The hard evidence we have about pre-treatment differences between theexperimental groups, then, suggeststhat the Calverton teacher groupswere similar on those characteris-tics that would most likely lead todifferences in the outcomes of the

study. Softer evidence also sup-

ports this suggestion: The princi-

pal of the school believes that thegroups were similar before the pro-gram started.

Results

We do not expect to see bigdifferences on the measures of thelong-term goals of the ESP schoolsafter one year of partial implemen-tation. The purpose of this initialoutcome evaluation is to check ourprogress in those areas that weresufficiently implemented to beexpected to have made a differenceduring the first year. Results for

all outcome measures appear inAppendix D. The following sectionhighlights result:8 for the few pro-gram components that were imple-

mented.

Student Outcomes

Student Behavior. Many of the

program components targeted student

behavior. The ones that would heexpected to have their largest andmost direct effect on student behav-ior are the school-wide discipline

-18-

revisions put in place in bothschools, and the two behavior man-agement techniques, Reality Therapyand Assertive Discipline. If the

latter two were implemented stronglyenough to make a difference, wewould expect to see the largeotbehavior changes in Calverton's sev-enth grade unit, where trainedteachers were clustered and whereteachers were most encouraged to usethe techniques. The evidence showsthat student behavior did notimprove very much in Calverton'sseventh grade unit, at least accord-ing to students. Student reports ofDelinquency, suspensions, and Rebel-lious Autonomy (an attitude that thestudent can do whatever he or shewants and that what other peoplethink doesn't matter) were elightlylower but their reports of rebelli-ous behavior in the classroom wereslightly higher than the previousyear's seventh grade. The teachers'reports indicate that the behaviormanagement strategies had a smallpositive effect on classroom order,however. Teachers' reports ofclassroom order in the experimentalunit at Calverton were at the 24thpercentile while all other teachers'reports were at the 9th percentile.

Students at Calverton in gen-eral reported significantly lessdelinquent behavior in 1984 then in1983, but the decline is due mainlyto the 1983 8th grade reporting sig-nificantly less delinquent behaviorthan the previous year's 8th grade.Students' reports of their ownbehavior do not show an improvementat Pimlico; instead, the data show astatistically significant increasein drug use. Teachers at bothschools, however, reported increasesin Classroom Order--Pimlico from the9th to the 16th percentile and Cal-verton from the 4th to the 12th per-centile. Neither of these differ-ences was statistically significant.


Although students did notreport improved behavior, studentsand teachers at both schoolsreported that their schools weresafer at the end of the first yearof the program than they were theprevious year. The differences inthe teacher reports are highly sig-nificant.

To summarize, the data ondelinquency and disruption outcomesshow both schools have become saferplaces, and that teachers in bothschools reported more orderly class-rooms (although the differences werenot large). The increase in Class-room Orderliness was most marked inCalverton's experimental unit. Stu-

dent self-reports of misconduct,however, diverge from this generalpicture.

Increasing the clarity of rulesand the consistency of rule enforce-ment may have increased safety atboth schools. Pimlico and Calvertonboth developed and disseminated dis-cipline guides, instituted disci-plinary referral systems and postedclassroom rules. Consistent withthis explanation, we would expect tosee an increase in student reportsof Clarity of Rules in both schools.Both schools did increase: Calver-

ton from the 89th to the 91st per-centile and Pimlico from the 78th tothe 92nd percentile. Neither ofthese differences is large or sta-tistically significant, but bothschools were high on this dimensionto begin with. It is unlikely thatthese relatively small increases inperceptions of Rule Clarity wouldlead to such large increases inschool Safety. Pimlico placed post-ers dealing with school safetyaround the school, and at Calvertonincreased perceptions of Safety mayhave resulted from improved class-room management. Factors unrelatedto the project may also have

-19-

resulted in reports of increasedSafety in the schools.

Academic achievement. It is

premature to expect a noticeableincrease in academic achievement at

either school. Most of the programcomponents at both schools aredirected at changing students' atti-tudes about school--increasing theirmotivation to attend school and tolearn. The intervention most likelyto have a direct and fairly immedi-ate influence on academic achieve-ment is Student Team Learning. We

have no evidence about the extent towhich the ten Pimlico teachers whowere trained in these techniquesactually used them, but we know that

most of Calverton's experimentalteachers used the techniques atleast once, and that most of thestudents in the unit were exposed tothem. At least five of the experi-mental teachers used the techniquesregularly. Hence we would expect tosee the largest improvement inachievement among Calverton seventhgrade students, but we do not expecta large jump even there because theprogram was only partially imple-mented. {The research demonstratingthe effectiveness of this techniquetypically involves continuous usefor a period of at least six weeks(Slavin, 1983)). All grade levels

in both schools improved slightly onthe Canfornia Achievement Test.Calverton's seventh grade did notfare better than any other grade on

these tests. On measures of gradesand promotion, the seventh gradeunit at Calverton looks worse thanthe eighth and ninth grades, butthis is because each year the low-est-achieving students drop out ofschool, raising the average achieve-ment levels of the remaining stu-dents. Seventy-five, eighty, andninety-one percent of the seventh,eighth and ninth grades, respec-tively, were promoted to the next


grade, but the number of students ineach grade level tells us somethingabout the 'extent tc which dropout is

affecting the improvement in aca-demic achievement: The seventhgrade had 628 students, the eighthhad 557 and the ninth bad 429 stu-dents. A more relevant comparisonis that between the percentage ofprevious year's seventh graders andthe experimental scventh grade'spromotion rates. Only 621 of theprevious year's seventh grade waspromoted to the eighth grade, ascompared to 751 of the experimentalseventh grade.

Student Team Learning tech-niques provide rewards in the formof peer acceptance and recognitionfor academic achievement. If the

technique is working we would expectstudents to report increased rewardsfor academic performance. Indeed,

students in both schools reportedreceiving significantly more rewardsin school after one year of treat-

ment. Calverton went from the 27thto the 42nd percentile overall, andthe CARE unit increased to the 54thpercentile - -a highly significant

increase. Pimlico went from the21st to the 58th percentile. Pimli-

co's large increase suggests thatthe STL techniques were used morethan we know. It is also possiblethat the score was raised by theincrease in rewards for attendanceand good behavior that were part ofother interventions. We have nohard data on the extensiveness ofthese interventions.

Student Attitudes. Student

attitudes were a third major areatargeted for improvement. Theextracurricular activities at Cal-verton aimed to increase student-teacher interaction and to promoteliking for school and sense ofbelonging among students. Reality

Therapy classroom meetings at both

schools aimed primarily to increaseattachment to school and sense ofbelonging, but if properly imple-mented they should also increaseteacher respect for students, andshould enhance students' self-con-cepts and interpersonal competen-cies. Pimlico's scores r-flected apositive change on many of the meas-ures targeted by the Reality Therapy

classroom meetings. Its studentsliked school much better than in theprevious year and felt more of asense of belonging. These differ-

ences are statistically significant.Self-concept and teacher respect forstudents also increased, but notsignificantly. Interpersonal Compe-

tency did not increase. The reportsof Calverton's students are less

clear-cut. They reported likingtheir school better than others inthe city, but grew significantlyless attached to people in their

school. An examination of the gradebreakdown for these results showsthat the negative trend is due pri-marily to one of the nonexperimentalunits in the school. Students inthe experimental unit reported feel-ing a little less alienated andtheir reports of Attachment toSchool remained even with reports ofthe previous year's seventh grade.Student reports of teacher respectalso showed no change in the experi-mental unit, and their self-conceptssuffered somewhat. Student Inter -

personal Competency and teachers'reports of Interaction with Studentsincreased.

One explanation consistent withthis pattern of findings is thatReality Therapy classroom meetingsincreased Attachment to School,Self-Concept, and Respect for Stu-dents, and that Pimlico but not Cal-verton implemented this strategywell enough to bring about thesechanges in the students. At Calver-

ton, the decreases in alienation andincreases in Student-Teacher


Interaction are more likely due tothe extracurricular activities com-ponent than the Reality Therapy com-

ponent. Calverton's differences onthese measures were not large enoughor consistent enough to concludethat any component was very success-ful at bringing about the desiredchanges. Pimlico's changes are lar-

ger and more consistent, and likelydue at least in part to the RealityTherapy. Reality Therapy was the

only large-scale staff developmentexercise undertaken at Pimlico dur-

ing the year. Although we have no

data on actual implementation of thetechniques, we do know that all theteachers received the training. At

Calverton, all teachers in theexperimental unit also received thetraining, but these teachers haddiffic-alty integrating all the new

activities at once. The planningcommittee chose to deemphasize Real-ity Therapy in favor of some of theother activities for the 1983-84

year.

Relevance of School. Anotherarea Calverton focused on wasincreasing students' perceived rele-

vance of school. The Career compo-

nent, which was implemented nearlyup to the standards specified by theplanning committee, aimed toincrease students' perceptions ofthe relevance of school. We have

several measures of relevance of

school. We asked students to tellus if they had any career goals atall, whether they were learningthings in school that would helpthem achieve their career goal, howmany of their subjects they thoughtthey had to master in order to reachtheir career goal, and whether theyfelt that they were learning thingsin school that would help them get a

good job in the future. We also

asked a number of questions pertain-ing to the importance of educationin general. These general items

-21- 29

form a scale called relevance of

school. Students in the experimen-

tal unit at Calverton improved on

all of these measures except the

relevance of school scale. Only two

of the ten comparisons for the other

grades (2 grade levels x 5 measures)

showed improvement. The magnitude

of the improvement for the experi-

mental unit is large. For example,

only 63% of the previous year's sev-

enth grade answered "yes" to "Are

you learning things that will help

you achieve your career goals"?

Seventy-one percent of the experi-

mental seventh grade answered affir-

matively, and this percentage washigher than any of the other grade

levels as well as for Pimlico stu-

dents in general. Pimlico improved

on most of these career - related

measures also, but the improvement

was not as great as in Calverton's

seventh grade. (No component of

Pimlico's BBP program was directed

at this objective.)

Teacher Outcomes

Community Involvement. Calver-

ton and Pimlico both planned to

increase community involvement in

the school. At Calverton the parent

volunteer intervention was imple-

mented well enough to be expected to

make a measurable difference. The

Pimlico Community Advisory Committee

was implemented with some success,

but was not highly visible to teach-

ers and students in the school.

Hence we would expect to see some

increase in Calverton teachers'

reports of Parent and CommunityInvolvement, and less of an increase

in Pimlico teachers' reports. This

is exactly what we found. Calverton

teacher reports rose from the 56th

to the 78th percentile, and Pimli-

co's from the 33rd to the 35th. The

experimental teachers at Calvertou

reported even higher Parent and Com-

munity Involvement - -up to the 83rd

percentile. This makes sense


because the parent volunteer efforts

were concentrated in the experimen-

tal unit.

School Climate. At least as

important as the goals and objec-

tives of each program component are

indicators of the school Llimate in

general. ESB climate profiles for

Spring 1982 showed that both schools

were characterized by low morale,

lack of teamwork among faculty and

administrators, and a general low

level of planning and innovative

action (see Appendix A). Over the

duration of the project, both plan-

ning teams worked hard to create

stIuctures and arrangements in their

schools that would facilitate

change. These organizational devel-

opment activities--a primary focus

for both schoolspaid off. Survey

results show that both schools

improved significantly in Morale.

Both schools imprr-ved on teachers'

reports that tlieir schools are

places where innovative planning and

action occur, and at Pimlico this

improvement was highly significant

(from the 7th to the 43rd percen-

tile). In both schools teachers'

reports indicated increases in the

effectiveness of administration on

the Smooth Administration scale. At

Calverton this dimension showed sig-

nificant improvement: from the 3rd

to the 12th percentile. Teacher Job

Satisfaction and Professional Devel-

opment also increased in both

schools. Teachers in the experimen-

tal unit at Calverton scored well

above the teachers in the rest of

the school on the Planning and

Action and the Smooth Administration

scales. This set of findings is

promising because we know that

morale, a spirit of innovation, and

teamwork enhance organizational

development efforts (Berman &

McLaughlin, 1976). We expect that

the advances made in these areas

will pay off in other areas.

-22--

30

Discussion

An open examination of the fac-tors that advanced and impeded pro-ductivity during the first two pro-gram years will help us to learnabout the conditions necessary forsuccessful organizational develop-ment efforts in schools. The obsta-cles and resources described beloware typical of those that are likelyto be encountered in some middle andsecondary schools in any large city.

Resources

People. An important conclu-sion to be drawn from the ESP isthat the schools are rich in termsof human resources. The people whohave worked on the Effective SchoolsProject deserve high praise fortheir commitment to improving theirschools. The planning committeemembers and teachers implementingthe programs never hesitated to con-tribute their time and talent tothis effort. The planning committeemembers persisted through long,often taxing planning meetings andthey bore the burdon of introducingthe project to school staff anddefending it. The difficulty ofmaintaining an open dialogue in theface of multiple obstacles cannot beunderestimated. But the peopleworking on the Effective SchoolsProject have persisted through sev-eral such difficult situations.

Teachers are the backbone ofthe Effective Schools Project. If

they choose not to act, the programcannot move forward. The teachershave often proven open to change andhave provided important insightsinto the project. They have neverrefused to implement any componentof the program. Instead, they haveworked with the planning committeeto iron out bugs that impeded pro-gress. All have cared enough to trythe new techniques and to share with


the planning committee their opin-ions about the techniques.

The administrators in bothschools deserve credit for workingto move the program forward. Their

jobs are difficult--often like walk-ing a narrow line with teacherdemands on one side and centraladministration demands on the other.Principals must be sensitive to thewelfare of their staff at the sametime they faithfully implement dis-trict policies that are often unpo-pular with staff. All this must bedone while trying to juggle theassorted problems of 1500 studentsand their parents. It is no wonderthat these administrators sometimesfind it hard to sit down and rumi-nate about the roots of theirschools' problems or develop perfor-mance standards with their staff.The administrators ',n this projecthave remained open to the organiza-tional development activitiesimposed by the Effective SchoolsProject despite the sometimes pain-ful nature of the information usedto guide project activities. There

have been times that they have beencautious about releasing the inf or-mation to certain groups that mightmisinterpret the information, butthey have never refused to allowinformation to be gathered and dis-cussed.

The planning committee membersproved to be a major resource. Ateacher from Calverton coordinatedthe CARE project at the school whileteaching a full load of classes dur-ing the 1983-84 school year, and iscurrently contributing a substantialportion of her study leave time tocarrying out the project at Calver-ton. A counselor from NorthwestYouth Services has been an activeparticipant in the Pimlico planningcommittee--even when attending themeetings meant giving up his ownfree time. He and other staff from

-23-

NYS have provided training in Real-ity Therapy to teachers at both

schools. A district administratorhas continued as an active member ofboth planning teams after retirementmade his participation completelyvoluntary. A counselor at Calvertonput forth Herculean effort to imple-

ment the Career Exploration activi-

ties almost singlehandedly duringthe 1983-84 school year. All plan-

ning committee members, past andpresent, have served the projectwell with their persistence, hardwork and insight.

Evaluation resources. Central

staff and school staff have collabo-rated in the evaluation of the proj-

ect. They have helped us use cen-trally located student records forevaluation purposes as well as to

assist the schools in implementingparts of their program. For exam-

ple, central attendance records wereused to generate a list of chronicnonattenders to be targeted for ser-vices at Pimlico. Prior collabora-

tions with school projects in bigcities have raised our awarenessabout the complexities of maintain-ing a data base for a large, highly

mobile population. It is a credit

to the Baltimore City Public Schoolsthat their data base is sufficientlyaccurate and current to make it use-

ful for current project assistanceas well as the more traditional

reporting function.

Support. Staff at all levels

of the BCPS system have voiced sup-port for the Effective Schools Proj-ect. The support of district levelsupervisors, subject area coordina-tors and the superintendent are anessential factor in any school

improvement effort. The entire

project would be thwarted at theoutset without their support. Sup-

port has been shown in a variety of

ways: The Deputy Superintendent ofPlanning, Research and Evaluation


addressed the planning committees atthe initial workshop; the Superin-tendent met with members of theplanning committee after the firstyear to learn about the project and

to offer her support. Subject Area

Coordinators, Regional Superinten-dents and Executive Directors underthe Superintendent have kept them-selves informed about the project

and have attempted to coordinatetheir other activities with projectactivities. Staff development per-sonnel have assisted with teacher

training activities. The system has

contributed funds for substituteteachers to cover classes of teach-

ers who were being trained, and

recently offered matching funds fora grant being sought from a local

fund for educational excellence.

Obstacles

A requirement for the successof any school improvement ef-fort--indeed any organizationaldevelopment effort--is that informa-

tion is to be valued. Informationabout problems and obstacles are tobe cherished as much as informationabout progress and resources. Pro-

gress can be made only when diffi-

culties are openly recognized and

confronted. Common sense and accu-

mulated experience converge inimplying that educational leaderswho identify and confront problems

are more effective than those who

ignore these problems. It is a sign

of the wisdom and maturity of thefaculty, principals, and districtadministrators participating in theEffective Schools Project that theyshare with us this view of the value

of information. Despite the pres-

sures that often exist in largebureaucracies to behave as if prob-

lems do not exist, the EffectiveSchools Project has operated primar-ily in an atmosphere of frank and

open discussion.

-24-

32

Staff stability. Instabilityin staffing can be a huge problemfor school-improvement efforts, andthe assumptions underlying the PDEmethod help us to understand why.The method assumes that an innova-tion will be implemented most faith-fully when the implementers under-stand and accept the theoryunderlying the effort. The theory-generating segment of the PDE modelis time consuming, involving carefuland systematic consideration of themajor factors contributing to theorganization's problems. The pro-cess involves long hours of discus-sion, during which evidence aboutcauses is discussed, accepted orrejected by the group, and zarefullytranslated into clear objectives.Interventions are carefully tailoredto those objectives. Persons whopersist through the entire processhave a clear understanding of therationale for their program and thechoice of interventions. Personsmerely informed about the results ofthe process have less of an under-standing of why the specific inter-ventions were selected, and personsmerely told to implement the inter-vention have no understanding.

Both planning committeesstarted out with ten members. They

both lost three by the start of thesecond year. These three werereolaced with four new members inone school and seven new members in

the other. By the beginning of thethird year, staff turnover againresulted in the loss of two and fourplanning committee members from the

two respective teams.

Turnover also affected the pro-

gram at the teacher-implementerlevel. Of the 27 teachers in Cal-verton's seventh grade unit during1983-84, eight, or 30%, were trans-ferred in too late to include themin the Fall teacher training. This

last minute transferring of teachers

-25-


caused a major setback for the pro-gram: A large proportion of theteachers in the unit did not receivethe initial orientation to the pro-,gram and the rationale behind thechoice of interventions; they did

not receive the initial trainingnecessary to implement the classroominnovations. The implementation ofthe classroom interventions wasslowed considerably while we triedrepeatedly to find time for the restof the teachers to be trained. One

of the three segments of the train-ing was not offered again until thefollowing Fall.

During the summer months of

1983 the principal and two assistantprincipals at Pimlico Junior Highretired or were transferred, and anew assistant principal was placedin the seventh grade unit at Calver-ton. The head of the guidancedepartment at Calverton, who chairedthe planning committee, also trans -

f erred to another school. All of

these changes were made over thesummer months between the planningyear and the first year of implemen-tation, making it impossible to pre-pare the new planning groups for theproject before the beginning of theschool year. In some cases we wereunaware of staff changes until afterthe beginning of the school year.This high degree of staff turnoverappears typical in this school sys-tem and school personnel are accus-tomed to starting each year with asense of uncertainty.

Selection of schools. Pullen;

Miles and Taylor (1980) suggest thatthe overriding selection criteriafor projects like the ESP must be"OD readiness" as opposed to per-ceived urgency or need for services.According to Fullan et al., "readi-ness" is greatest when the followingconditions are present:

33

1. A spirit of collaborationexists, and open communication

is possible and valued.

2. The administration is supportive

of (or at least not negative

toward) the OD intervention.This includes district supportfrom central administrators as

well as the principal's commit-

ment, support, and involvement.Financial investment is a good

indicator of potential success

of the program.

3. The organization does not have a

history of one failed innovation

after another.

4. All members of the staff areinvolved in the decision to par-

ticipate in the project. Fullen

et al. suggest three or four

meetings over a two-month period

to introduce OD and describe how

it works to the staff. They

also suggest that the commit-ments (in terms of staff time

and resources) that each of theorganizations will make to theOD effort and the time line forthe project should be specified

and agreed upon before the proj-

ect is started.

The Fullan et al. criteria for

OD readiness appear sensible, but

were these criteria always applied

in school improvement initiatives,

the schools most in need of improve-

ment would never be selected. One

aim of the ESP is to learn how tobring about the conditions Fullan et

al. describe. The two schools par-

ticipating in the ESP would havebeen rated low on the OD readinesscriteria when the project began, andthey would be rated considerably

higher now.

Climate assessments show that

when the project began, both schools


were demoralized. Little spirit of

collaboration existed between the

faculty and administration at Cal-verton--the climate was character-ized by mistrust and fear of admin-

istrators among teachers. In the

Spring of 1982, during the planningyear for the project, Calverton and

Pimlico scored at the 7th and 6thpercentiles on staff Morale on the

norms for the ESB. They scored at

the 3rd and 23rd percentiles onteacher perceptions of staff-admin-istration cooperation. Teachers

were initially unwilling to let

observers into their classrooms for

fear that information derived fromthe observations would be usedagainst them by the principal. Some

teachers even expressed reluctanceto use the disciplinary referral

system because they feared whatmight happen if the school adminis-tration thought that they were hav-

ing a problem controlling theirclassrooms. During the faculty

meeting at which the program wasfirst introduced to teachers, at

least one faculty member wonderedwhy the system would try such a pro-

gram at Calverton. He felt that

Calverton's situation was hopeless.

The second "OD readiness" cri-terion has to do with support. The

schools would have scored high onthis factor in terms of support from

the central administration. Pimlico

was initially weak on principal sup-

port and involvement but improved

drastically in the second year.

The thin. criterion is theabsence of a history of failed pro-

grams. Many different programs have

been tried :n the school system.Some teachets try to wait-out newprograms, ho?ing that the programwill disappear before the teacher

has to act. New initiatives areoften met with skepticism by schoolpeople, and there are often insuffi-

-26-

3 4

cient resources to work intensivelywith the school personnel to over-come the skepticism and to providesufficient support to implement the

program well. Our schools wouldprobably have received low scores onthe third "OD readiness" criterion.

Finally, school staff were nota part of the decision to join theEffective Schools Project. One of

the first year's activities was toengage teachers in a dialogue aboutthe project and to gain their sup-

port. No dialogue occurred at Pim-lico in the first year, but a seriesof activities at Calverton was suc-cessful at gaining support from manyteachers.

The positive results achievedin the first two years of the proj-ect show that school improvementefforts can lead to progress even indifficult schools, although theexperience also illustrates the val-idity of Fullan et al.'s "readiness"criteria. Progress has certainlybeen slowed while the project hasattempted to create conditions likethose recommended by Fullan et al.

Clear Understandings. Fullan

et al. also recommend written agree-ments about the scope of the proj-ect. Our experience leads to thesame conclusion. Although we wroteour expectations in a proposal docu-ment (Delinquency Program, 1982) anda letter (dated 5118/82), the state-ments were not clear enough. After

initial meetings with the schoolsystem we thought we had agreed toan experimental design involvingcomparison schools and that the sys-tem would provide certainresources--including staff develop-ment personnel time and materialsfor teacher training. When we wereready to administer the baselinesurvey to the treatment had controlschools we were informed that nosurvey could be given in the control

-27-


schools, and when we contacted thestaff development office for train-ing assistance, we learned that theyhad not been informed by the formerDeputy Superintendent for Researchand Development that their assist-ance had been promised, and theycould provide only a fraction of theassistance that we requested. Such

misunderstandings eat up valuablestaff time and slow progress whileresolutions are sought.

Professional discretion versus

Programmatic implementation. This

problem appears common in schoolinterventions. Much of the specula-tion about the importance of localinitiative in program implementation(Berman & McLaughlin, 1976) appearsrelated to the perceived need forflexibility during implementation toallow each locality to modify a pro-gram to suit its own needs. Flexi-

bility is good in principle, but ifthe program being implemented is aspecific, well-engineered set ofprocedures developed over a Longperiod of time in diverse settings,modifications may be at odds withthe theory or technology undergird-ing the intervention and may under-mine its efficacy.

We found it difficult to copewith this problem in the EffectiveSchools Project. The desire forprofessional discretion is sometimesmanifested in the planning stage asa reluctance to specifying concreteperformance standards for school

staff. This reluctance is more com-

mon for nonteaching positions thanfor teaching positions. Staff mem-

bers do not find it as objectionableto specify the instructional methodsand curriculum to be used by ateacher as to specify a counselingstrategy or standards for disciplin-ing students referred to the office.The methods and materials used toperform the guidance and administra-

35

tive functions are determined at the

school-level with assistance from

the central office. This arrange-

ment affords more discretion to

school personnel. Assistant princi-

pals are free to exercise their own

administrative style in disciplining

students. The same holds for

counselors in counseling students

and principals in supervising the

school staff. School staff, parti-

cularly guidance and administrative

staff, were frequently resistant to

specifying implementation standards

for their own performance. This

resistance sometimes made it diffi-

cult to implement the PDE method.

Desire for professional discre-

tion appears more at the implementa-

tion stage than at the planning

stage with teachers. Their methods

and materials are more standardized

than are guidance counselors' and

administraters'. Teachers seemwilling to accept the idea of stan-

dards for their own performance, but

they often modify the standards for

their own convenience or so that

they better suit their own teaching

styles.

Integration of project into

school operations. The PDE process

is a management tool based on a spe-

cific philosophy of management.Differences between the PDE philoso-

phy and the management philosophy

that governs an organization can

reduce the efficacy of the PDE pro-

cess. The PDE process may operate

in tandem with a management system

which is philosophically at odds

with it for some time. Clashes in

styles become apparent only occa-

sionally, and are often brushed off

or ignored. In both of the Effec-

tive Schools Project schools the

administration of the school is

guided by a different philosophy

than is the PDE process. The prin-

cipals have a top-down orientation;


the PDE method calls for staff

participation. The principals are

intuitive; PDE is information-dri-

ven.

A loose management style often

characterizes schools (Weick, 1984).

This style sometimes affects the

everyday operation of educational

programs by undermining schedules.

"Things come up" that prevent syste-

matic activities from being imple-

mented according to schedule. Of

course this is true in any organiza-

tion, but in some schools it seems

to be the rule. Programmatic activ-

ities are seldom carried out asplanned because some more immediate

problem supersedes the planned

activity. A see" attitude

pervades the schools.

Crisis management does not mesh

well with the PDE method. The PDE

method relies on long-term program-matic reform, on persistence, on

far-sightedness. Short-term crisis

management is often neeied, but it

steals the resources necessary for

long-term reform.

Building-level leadership. The

ratio of full-time school-based to

other Pimlico planning committee

members was low, and leadership was

lacking among the school-based mem-

bers. The principal was congenial

and caring, but he failed to provide

the support necessary for team mem-

bers to implement their plans when

they got back into the school. He

was reluctant to orient the entire

faculty to the project because he

wanted to iron out all of the bugs

in the plan before presenting it.

No other team members from the

school assumed a leadership role.

The most active members of the com-

mittee were personnel from the cen-

tral staff and from community organ-

izations.

36

Part of the difficulty inselecting interventions to addressPimlico's objectives may haveresulted from changes in the Hopkinsstaff person working with the group.The original researcher assigned tothis project left Hopkins it themiddle of the first year and wasreplaced by a researcher who wasless skilled at keeping the group ontask. Lack of leadership in thegroup coupled with a less assertivefacilitator slowed the group's pro-gress.

By the end of the school year,the group was still struggling witha long list of program objec-tives--trying to narrow the list tofocus a program on the most pressingproblems, but unable to concludewhich were the most important.Evaluative information from surveys,interviews or observations wouldhave helped at this point, but werenot available. We tried to rely on

the impressions of the planninggroup members, but priorities dif-fered.

Pressed for time, the groupdecided to try the classroom innova-tions that the Calverton group haddecided upon. They were among themany interventions being consideredby the group, and the training ses-sion seemed a good opportunity.Planning committee members hastilyoriented the faculty and recruitedvolunteers to attend the Fall train-ing. Of the twenty-three teacherswho volunteered, ten attended the

August training. We discoveredlater that the volunteers were notclear about what they had volun-teered for. They had signed up pri-marily to obtain the inservicecredit being offered.

In retrospect we should havealtered the planning team composi-tion early in the year to include

-29-


leaders from the school, and weshould have provided more assistanceto the researcher who was strugglingto bring some closure to the pro-cess. It would also have been help-ful to include the principal'ssupervisor, the Regional Superinten-dent, on the committee.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Although the ESP is still inprogress, some conclusions andrecommendations can be made now.The schools participating in thisproject are improving. Staff

Morale, staff perceptions of theirschools as organizations which planand act to improve, and cooperationbetween the staff and the adminis-tration are higher after one year ofprogram implementation than theywere the prior year. These differ-ences are large and statisticallysignificant. These are promisingchanus because they create theneceTsary conditions for real, last-ing innovations.

Also promising are preliminaryfindings of improvements in outcomesof the specific program components.Students in Calverton's experimentalunit report that school is morerelevant to their lives than didseventh graders in the previousyear's cohorts. They also reportreceiving more rewards for theirschool work. Students at Pimlicoare less alienated than they were ayear ago and like school more. Stu-

dents and teachers in both schoolsthink that their schools are saferplaces than they were the previousyear.

Despite difficulties in apply-ing the Program Development Evalua-tion method in these two schools,the method appears to be robust.Recommendations at this point in theproject suggest ways to facilitate

the application of PDE in future

projects:

1. Provide training in the PDEmethod to school staff and theirsupervisors before the projectbegins. We kicked off the projectwith a training and orientationworkshop fot the planning committeemembers and the central office per-sonnel assigned to the project.This was not enough. School staff

have many supervisors, and all ofthem need to understand what the PDEmethod entails. Ideally the higher-level managers would use the PDEmethod or a similar planning tool togenerate their own management plansAnd to supervise their staff. But

the higher-level managers must atleast have an appreciation for thekind of systematic planning thatundergirds the program activities sothat they will be less likely tomake decisions or take actions thatdisrupt these plans. School staffshould have more early understandingabout what they are getting into.Consensus on the principles underly-ing the PDE method must be gainedbefore the start of the project.Agreement with the basic ideas ofplanning, evaluation, schedules andquality-control standards for per-formance cannot be assumed. Ideally

the project would be discussed with


the entire staff and volunteerswould be recruited to serve on theplanning committee. This committeewould then receive training in thePDE method before beginning to plan.

2. Staff stability must beensured. There must be a commitmentat all levels to maintain the keypersonnel in the school during theinitial years of the project. Even-tually the culture of the organiza-tion will change enough so thatstaff instability has a minimaleffect on project effectiveness, butin the early years it is crucialthat key people remain in theschool.

3. School improvement is possi-ble. The Effective Schools Projectdemonstrates that difficult schoolswill improve under an intensiveorganizational development interven-tion. However, additional experi-mentation is required to learn themost efficient way to structure theorganizational development interven-tion. We need, for example, tostudy the effects of giving centraladministrators a more meaningfulrole in the process, and of involv-ing school-level staff intensivelyfor only a subset of the planningsteps.


References

Bachman, J. G. (1975). Youth in Transition (ICPSR 3505) Documentation manual,

Volume I. Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social

Research.

BBP: Building a Better Pimlico. (1983). Working document.

Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1976). Implementation of

vention. Educational Forum, 40, 345-370.

educational inter-

Block, J. H., & Anderson, L. W. (1975). Mastery learning

instruction. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.

CARE: CAlverton Reaching for Excellence. (1983). Working document.

Canter, L., & Canter M. (1976). Assertive Discipline. Los Angeles, CA: Lee

Canter & Associates, Inc.

in classroom

Delinquency Program. (1982) School system-researcher collaboration for school

improvement. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social

Organization of Schools.

Fullan, H., Miles, M. B., & Taylor, G. (1980). Organization development in

schools: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 50,

121-183.

Glasser, W. (1969). Schools without failure. New York: Harper & Row.

Glasser, W. (1974, December). A new look at discipline. Learning, pp. 6-11.

Gottfredson, G. D. (Ed.). (1982). School action effectiveness study: First

interim report (Report No. 325). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University,Center for Social Organization of Schools. (ERIC Document' Reproduction Ser-

vice No. ED 222 835)

Gottfredson, G. D. (1984). A theory-ridden approach to program evaluation.

American Psychologist, 39, 1101-1112.

Gottfredson, G.Odessa, FL:

Gottfredson, G.Odessa, FL:

D. (1985). The Effective School Battery Student Survey.Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

D. (1985). The Effective School Battery Teacher Survey.Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Gottfredson, G. D. (1985). Effective school battery: User's manual. Odessa,

FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.


Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D.C. (in press). Victimization in schools.

New York: Plenum.

Gottfredson, G. C., Rickert, D. E., Jr., Gottfredson, D. C. & Ad7ani, N. (in

press). Standards for program development evaluation. Psychological Docu-

ments.

Program on Teaching Effectiveness. (1978). An experiment on teacher effec-

tiveness and parent-assisted instruction in the third grade. California:

Stanford University, Center for Educational Research at Stanford.

Slavin, R. E. (1980). Using student team learning (rev. ed). Baltimore, MD:

The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools,

The Johns Hopkins Team Learning Project.

Slavin, R.E. (1983). Cooperative Leamin. New York: Longman.

Weick, K. E. (1982). Administering .cation in loosely coupled schools. Phi

Delta Kappan, 63, 673-676.

-32-4


Appendix A: Spring, 1983 School Climate Profiles

e

SCHOOL PSYCIIOSOCItL CLIMATE

1LACHER REPORIS

Measure

Safety

11E21 coW% YAVirlferE

Very

Percentile low

;i9

:.1.'

C omn; tmen t 24

Morale 7

Planning and action 38

Smooth administration, 3

!:

Resources 12

Good race relations 5

Pa rent/ c °minim i ty

invoi vement,

Student influence

56

32

Individualized 59instruction

In tedro Lion of groups

Avoidance of the use of

grades as a sanction

24

45

Low

Moderatelylow

Calverton Jr. HighSpring 1983

III1'1::

III.

;Oh:

i :1

:1 11.1!1.. ill

IMPROVEPENT NEEDED

2 BEST caw AVAILABLE4

No 37

43

44

SC! OOL COMPOSITIONAL CLIMATE

MAIER CHARACTERISIICS

Measure Pe rcen. . ,

i It'

Job satisfaction 3

Interaction with 35

S tudents

Professionaldevelopment

lion-authoritarianatti tudes

32

15

Pro-integrationa tti tudes

36

Vict imia tion 95

Disruption 96

t , -.

Low expectations 90

Type A sanctions 89

Type B sanctions 72

I

--------, -

nu com vAyratre

Verylow

.x

41

:r1

-..:

.4,

Low1/

11"all!I

t.A

7r7rr"

/

I/

11111111.1

111110:

Moderatelylow

;. .

11AT:11i

.. Ii.

1 111;11 1

1

I

TuiI

11

1,

11Iiifli

LowModerately

low

Average

Calverton Jr. HighSpring 1983

Moderatelyhigh

VeryHigh high

I

1

Average

JIModerately

high

VeryHigh high

MDT COPY AVAILAILI

g" 37 45

EeL COW vrivirvare

SCOW_ PSYCIOSOCIAL CLIMATE

STUDENT' rEPORTS

Measure Nrcvnti le

24

Verylow Low

' I :

1:IIIII'1!::11 1 11,!.1.!

-!,Safety

Clarity of rules

Fairness of rules

Student influence

IndividualizedInstruction

Student-teacherinteraction

92

43

46

12

27

19

1

I t

, .

.!:!!

Ls..1'

;III.

:'!!'.;'.*

,i;,

, It

111

i!!

.:.1

.T%

!'111i

1!

;

.0.

Respect for students

A 9

N..254

IMPROVEI EDT NEEDCD

SW COPY AVAILABLE

Ave rag

Calverton Jr. High

Spring 1983

Moderately Very

high High hi.h

47

VERY MOO

IlEet CQb,& wwwvere

SCHOOL CUMPOSIIIONAL CLIMATE: STUOEHI CHARACTERISIICS ANO BEHAVIOR

Measure

,

Percentile

61

. 53

95

------.

WM/ 00,

Delinquency

Drug involvementm1 I ..Serious delinquency

negative peer influence

Rebellious autonomy

Alienation

School punishment

Interpersonal competency

Attachment to school

Belief in rules

expect post-high school

School effort

School rewards

32

1)6

57

84

52

18

35

77

Parental, education

Eprentalcullphasis on education..

:1,:f.iorit to N'i 'Mt.;

48

1:11I!

$!!:,

...--~ -V

Avera e

Calverton.Jr. High

Spring 1983

Moderately Very

Hi.h hi.h

II1 111111 1111 . HMI

11011

1 I 1 1111111111111

IffiifilirlifiififfilffilIt

111ffilirliii

HMO

1 11011 MIMI

111 11111111111r---1-$- i11'it...,1..,1.,.; ,.1.!Pill!!:1.1:q 11 I

.. !.!

..4......1.0.11...,,,1111lIlhillil1 )141'107MiilUtili

:#-:1 '1.1..ii.L.

11

!:I

Ir

1.1111.1[......t-T.,

.1411T. iPI'.

.. [1

ill

lo

11111

1 :1

1 .1 I. 11111111111 111111111

[111"1111I f li ? MEM1

iilililidlihi I 1111

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

N 254 49

SCHOOL PSYCHOSOCIAL CLIMATE

TEACHER REPORTS

Measure

Safety

Very

Percentile low

41,

Commitment

Morale

Planning and action

1

6

6

7

Smooth administration 23

Resources

Good race relations

31

ir2

Parent/com&nityin

Student influence

33

II

Individualizedinstruction

55

Integration of groups 13

Avoidance of the use of

grades as a sanction

50

2

Emu CQbA vAvsrverE

1;!

I .

..:1.

IfT

I t'

IMPROVEPENT NEEDED

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Pimlico Jr. HighSpring 1983

Moderately

Average 1...high.,

11.1. 1.1 .. . , ., S:

..1 .1 . to. i il 1 Ilt il il ^.I

!:1!; ' ' I o ! 1 ' 1 I , k . III i l+,...:

l.".""'..1 111 ; 1 TT 111i .1'I

;1 !'1 .

. i ."71:11" I ' 7 i lii ! i .

t1.",_ i 1. , . 1 . !

. !I:,.....-r.r., ..,...rt-r-

II.,

i 11 11.i '1 11!

4 1

[IT 1 IFTT1 II:

i I

I 1111 III. ..

1 li.._...

; II

il,.

- 1'

1 i. TnT --.77111

I

I-1,' j.;

ii

! I

I I

[... t;

I '

0 i I

N 39

51

:11:

!..11

II

1 I I MI 1111111111111 IMO II

i mom 11 ii Nil MIMII II Hi um m up I 00111111 11111191111

III 11 1111111111111111111111111111111111111M111111111111111111111111111MIE

II 111111111 I IMM1111111111111111111111111111101111111111011111111 .111

1 ll 11 1111111111111111111111iIII 111111111111111111011111111111111illi

11111111111111111111411111111111111111111111111111111011111111

1 11 111 1 111111111 1111110111111111111111111111111111111111111111MIN

1111111 IIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111111111M111111111111111111111111111111111 1111119

m II IM11111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101111011115111111

i IC i Pi r I.. 11111,11111c1111111111111111011111111111111111110111110111111

11

111111111111 111111111111111011111111111111111111111111101111111 II 1

11111111111011101111100111110111111111111101 111111111111111 II 1 ill

111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111ill

MI1111111111 111111111111 111111111 111111111111111 1111

mum 10 NI 11111111101111111

I II 11111111 III 1111 11

co

56

com vontivere

SCHOOL COMPOSITIONAL CLIMATE: STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIOR

Measure

Very

Percentile low

Delinquency

Drug involvement

Serious delinquency

Negative peer influence

Rebellious autonomy

Alienation

Schooljunishment

Interpersonal competency

Attachment to school

Belief in rules

43

33

58

43

38

95

94

26

47

111

Moderatelylo Avera(

?Julien Jr. HighSpring 1913

Moderately VeryHi h hi.h

111111111111111111iiiiii

II IIIIll

1111Bilimmuniiiiiir

%expect post -high scho

School effort S'

School rewards _22

Parental education

Parental emphasis on education 59

Attachment, to parents 84

"911111111 11'1111111 11111111111111111

I 1 I

I lI

J..

111111111111111

1111111111111111111111

-r

MIT COPY AVAILABLE

5 N -267

".1....1

Appendix I

This appendix describes the item content of student scales derived

from sources other than the Effective School Battery (Gottfredson, in

press). The scales are found on the following pages:

SelfReported Delinquency (Total) B1

SelfReported Serious Delinquency E3

SelfReported Drug Use B4

Rebellious Autonomy B5

Attachment to Parents 86

Parental Emphasis on Education E7

Rebellious Behavior in School BB

Nonacademic Rewards B9

Relevance of School B10

Self-Reported Delinquency (Total)

In the last year have you . . .

...purposely damaged or destroyed property belonging to a school?0 No1 Yes

...purposely damaged or destroyed other property that did not belong to you,not counting family or school property?

0 No1 Yes

...stolen or tried to steal something0 No1 Yes

...carried a hidden weapon other than0 No

Yes

...been involved in gang fights?0 No

1 Yes...sold marijuana or other drugs?

0 No

1 Yes...hit or threatened to hit a leacher

0 No

1 Yes

...hit or threatened to hit other studepts?0 No1 Yes

...taken a car for a ride (or drive) without the owner's permission?0 No

1 Yes...used force or strong-arm methods to get money or things from a person?

0 No

1 Yes...stole= or tried to steal things worth less than $50?

0 No1 Yes

...stolen or tried to steal something from a school, such as someone's coatfrom a classroom, locker, or cafeteria, or a book from the library?

0 No

1 Yes

...broken or tried to break into a building or car to steal something or

just to look around?0 No

1 Yes

...smoked cigarettes?0 No

1 Yes

...drunk beer, wine, or "hard" liquor?0 No

1 Yea

...smoked marijuana (grass, pot, ganja)?0 No1 Yes

worth more than $50?

a plain pocket knife?

or other adult at school?

B1

59

In the last year have you...

...taken some other drugs?

0 No

1 Yes...gone to school when you were drunk or high on some drugs?0 No1 Yea

...sniffed glue, paint, or other spray?0 No1 Yea

Scale score is mean item score.

Male

Range is 0 to 1.

Female

Mean= .16 Mean = .10

Mdn. = .11 Mdn. .05

SD= .18 SD= .13

Alpha = .86

..000.............Note. Scale statistics reported here are taken from the School Action Effec-

tiveness Study (Gottfredson, 1982).

" 6

Self-Reported Serious Delinquency

In the last year have you......purposely damaged or destroyed property

belonging to a school?

...purposely damaged or destroyed otherProperty that did not belong to you, notcounting family or school property?

...stolen or tried to steal something worth

more than $50?

...carried a hidden weapon other than a

plain pocket knife?

...been involved in gang fights?

...hit or threatened to hit a teacher or

other adult at school?

...taken a car for a ride (or drive) without

the owner's permission?

used force or strong-arm methods to get

money or things from a person?

stolen or tried to steal something worth

less than $50?

...stolen or tried to steal something at

school, such as someone's coat from a class-

room, locker, or cafeteria, or a book from

the library?

...broken or tried to break into a building

or car to steal something or just to look

around.

Yes No

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

1


Male

Range is 0 to 1.

Female

Mean - .12 Mean = .04

Mdn. - .00 Mdn. = .00

SD = .19 SD= .10

Alpha - .82

Note. Scale statistics reported here are taken from the

School Action Effectiveness Study (Gottfredson, 1982).

B3

61

SelifIcnortld Drug Use

In the last year have you... Yes No

...smoked cigarettes? 1 0

...drunk beer, wine, or "hard" liquor? 1 0

...smoked marijuana (grass, pot, ganja)? 1 0

...taken some other drugs? 1 0

...gone to school when you were drunkor high on some drugs? 1 0

sniffed glue, paint, or other spray? 1 0

Scale score is mean item score. Range is 0 to 1.

Male Female

Mean = .22 Mean = .21

Mdn. = .18 Mt. = .02

SD = .27 SD = .27

Alpha = .78



B4

62

Rebellious Autonomy

True False

I don't like anybody telling me what do do. 1 0

Whether or not I spend time on homework

is my own business. 1 0

I should not have to explain to anyone

how I spend my money 1 0


Male Female

Mean a .62 Mean a .63

Mdn. a .64 Mdn. a .68

SD .33 SD a .35

Alpha a .47

Nos.. Scale statistics reported here are taken from the


35

3.16RMAVA 't WC 1%11.13

Attachment to_Parents

Bow much do you want to be like the kind of person your mother (or guar

dian) is?1 Very much like her1 Somewhat like her0 A little like her0 Not very much like her0 Not at all like her

Now close do you feel to your parents (or guardians)?

1 Extremely close1 Quite close

0 Fairly close

0 Not very close

Bow much do you want to be like the kind of person your father (or guar

dian) is?I Very much like him1 Somewhat like him0 A little like him0 Not very much like him0 Not at all like him

All in all, how much do you like your parents (or guardians)?

1 Like them more than anyone else likes theirs0 Like them a lot

0 Like them some0 Neither like nor dislike them0 Dislike them

I would not care if my parents were a little disappointed in me.

0 True1 False

I have lots of respect for my parents.

1 True

0 False

Scale score is mean item score. Range is 0 to 1. Alpha a .57

Male Female

Mean a .61 Mear .59

Mdn. a .66 MAU. a .66

SD a .30 SD a .27

Note. Scale statistics reported here are taken from the School Action

Effectiveness Study (Gottfredson, 1982).

B6

mist COPY AVAILABLE 64

Parental Emshasig on Education

Do your parents want you to go, to college someday?

1 Yes, very much0 Yes0 No0 No, not at all0 Not sure

My parents keep close track of how well I am doing in school.

1 True

0 False

My mother (or guardian) helps me with my homework.

1 True

0 False

Score is mean item response. Range is 0 to 1.

Male Fatale

Mean = .52 Mean = .57

Mdn. = .51 Mdn. = .58

8D = .30 SD = .30

Alpha ot .51

,..00011WMF10000....141104.1



37

65

Rebellious Behavior in School

How often do yo 3o the following things? . . .

Fight or argue with other students

Argue with your teachers

Goof-off in class so others can't work

Come late to school

Do things that you know will make the teacher

angry

Cheat on tests

Copy someone else's assignments

Come late to class

Responses to all items are as follows:

5 Almost always

4 Often3 Sometimes2 Seldom1 Never


Mean 1.87

SD .63

Alpha . .74

Note.. This scale is taken from the Youth in Transi-

tion Study (Bachman, 1975).

38

66

Nonacsdeji Revardi

Raw oftpn do the following things happen to you in

your school?

Teachers say nice things about things I do other,

AllILDIL1012211f2d.

I get a chance to do the things that I can do

well.

Ia the last month have any of these things happened

to you in school?

Did you win an award or prize for something thatyou did other than schoolwork?

Responses to the first two items are:

1 = Often2 = Sometimes3 = Hardly ever

Responses to the third item are

1 = Yes2 = No


Mean = 1.90SD = .42

Alpha = .40

-39-

Relevance of School

Row much do you agree with the following statements?

In school I learn more about things I want to

know.

School gives me a chencs to learn many interest

ing things.

When I'm in school I feel I'm doing something

that is really worthwhile.

In school I am improving my ability to think and

solve problems.

In school I am learning the things I will need to

know to be a good citizen.

All people should have at least a high school

education.

An education will help me to be a mature adult.

A high school diploma is the only way to get

ahead.

Responses to all items are as follows:

4 = Very much

3 = Pretty much2 = A little1 = Not at all


Mean = 3.15SD = .58

Alpha = .75

Note,. Items are adapted from the Youth in Transi

tion Study (Bachman, 1975).

x10-

68


Appendix C: Teacher Characteristics Measures

,b90

Table Cl

Teacher Characteristics Scales

Structured Teaching Style (STS)

rage 1. or

Classrooms differ in many ways depending upon the philosophy and goals of the teaching staff,

needs of children, etc. Each statement in Column A is matched with a contrasting statement inColumn B. For each pair, place an X inside the parentheses which comes closest to describingyour own classroom.

Column A

Almost

AlwaysLike A

SomewhatLike A and

SomewhatLike B

AlmostAlwaysLike I Column

Children work independently (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Children work under adultsupervison

Emphasis on emotional needs (1.) (2) (3) (4) (5) Emphasis on subject matter

Various activities takeplace at the same time

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) All the class is engagedin the same activity

Children choose their own

activities and materials

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Teaching staff determinesactivities and materials

Individual needs dominant (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Group needs dominant

Children interact freely

with each other

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Children do not interactfreely with each other

Children change places

freely

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Children have assignedseats

4,11,,Vocabulary

Which of the following responses

0 Suspicious

1 Unruly0 Wiaked

0 Never heard of the word

Which of the following responses

0 Chemical0 Sign1 Appease

0 Scold

I Never heard of the word

first comes to your mind when you see the word MNTLACTABLE?

first comes to your mind when you see the word PLACATE?

Cl 70

MD... II.

Page 2 of 2

Table C1 (cont.)

Vocabulary (Cont.)

010.1.110.40

Which of the following responses first comes to your mind when you see the word LIMPID?

1 Transparent

0 Sea animal

0 Lame0 Never heard of the word.

Which of the following responses first comas to your mind when you see the word PHLEGMATIC?

0 Happy

0 Spasmodic1 Sluggish


Which of the following responses first comes to your mind when you see the word ODIOUS?

0 Bad humored

0 Ill-smelling

1 Detestable


Which of the following responses first comes to your mind when you see the word ORISON?

0 Song

0 Constellation1 Prayer


Which of the following responsesfirst comes to your mind when you see the word SACROSANCT?

0 Sacrificial

0 Dormant

1 Inviolable

0 Gullible


Which of the following responsesfirst comes to your mind when you see the word HIATUS?

0 Animal

1 Gap

0 Calamity0 Never heard of the word

Which of the following responses first comes to your mind -ten you see the word HARBINGER?

1 Forerunner

0 Well-tailored

0 Fortune-teller


Note. Scale score is the average item response.Alpha Reliability equals .65 for STS and .73

for Verbal Ability.

C2

Appendix D

This appendix contains comparisons of 1983 to 1984 scores for each

school on all outcomes. Table DI shows the scale scores and percentiles

for all survey measures as well as the t-value for the comparison of the

1984 to the 1983 score. Table D2 shows attendance, achievement, and

discipline data from central school records. Pages D5 to D50 contain

graphs showing change from 1983 to 1984 by school for the survey mea-

sures. Pages D51 to D73 show similar graphs by grade level for COver-

ton. On all graphs stars following the schoJ1 name indicate statistical

significance of the difference between the 1983 and 1984 scores. One

star indicates significance at the 2.<.05 level and two stars at the

2<.01 level.

Graphs Showing 1983-84 Change, by School Page

Teacher Reports of School Climate

Safety D5

Moral: D6

Planning and Action D7

Smooth Administration D8

Resources D9

Race Relations D10

Parent/Community Involvement D11

Student Influence D12

Avoidance of the Use of Grades as a Sanction D13

Teacher Characteristics

Pro-integration Attitudes

Job Satisfaction

Interaction with Students

Personal Security

Classroom Orderliness

Professional Development

Nonauthoritarian Attitudes

Student Reports of School Climate

Safety

Clarity of Rules

Fairness of rules

Student Influence

Student-Teacher Interaction

Respect for Students

Student Characteristics

Negative Peer Influence

Interpersonal Competency

Alienation

Attachment to School

Belief in Rules

Parental Education

Educational Expectations

School Rewards

School Punishment

School Effort

73

Non-ESB Student Characteristics

Self-Reported Delinquency D37

Self-Reported Serious Delinquency (Total) D38

Self-Reported Drug Involvement D39

Rebellious Autonomy D40

Percent with Career Goals D41

Percent Learning Useful Things D42

I like my school . . . D43

I stick to course of action D44

Number of subjects I must master D45

Rebellious Behavin in School D46

Nonacademic Rewards D47

Percent Suspended This Term D48

Attachment to Parents D49

Parental Emphasis on Education D50

Graphs Showing 1983-84 Change, by Grade, Calverton

Student Reports of School Climate

Safety D51

Clarity of Rules D52

Fairness of Rules D53

Student Influence D54

Student-Teacher Interaction D55

Respect for Students D56

Student Characteristics

Interpersonal Competency D57

Alienation D58

Attachment to School D59

Belief in Rules D60

Educational Expectations D61

School Rewards D62

School Effort D63

Non-ESB Characteristics

Self-Reported Serious Delinquency D64

Self-Reported Drug Involvement D65

Percent with Career Goals D66

Percent Learning Useful Things D67

I like my school . . . D68

I stick to course of action D69

Rebellious Behavior in School D70

Nonacademic Rewards D71

Percent Suspended This Term D72

Parental Emphasis on Education D73

of 3

Table D1

Means and Percentiles for All Effective Schools

Project Survey Measures--1983 and 1984

Measure

Calverton Pimlico

1983 1984 1983 1984

Effective Schools Battery: Teacher Reports of School Climate

Safety 3.12 (9) 3.44 (30) 3.07** 2.71 (1) 3.14 (10) 4.18**

Morale 1.34 (7) 1.47 (26) 3.03** 1.34 (6) 1.43 (18) 2.01*

Planning and Action 1.53 (38) 1.59 (56) 1.59 1.35 (7) 1.54 (43) 4.53**

Smooth Administration 1.41 (3) 1.50 (12) 2.15* 1.56 (23) 1.57 (24) .08

Resources 2.06 (12) 2.35 (31) 1.69 2.35 (31) 2.27 (24) -.47

Race Relations 1.10 (5) 1.39 (38) 2.99** 1.42 (42) 1.37 (34) -.49

Parent/Community Involvement 1.30 (56) 1.38 (78) 1.54 1.23 (33) *1.24 (35) .09

Student Influence 1.40 (32) 1.52 (61) 1.97* 1.29 (11) 1.41 (35) 2.16*

Avoidance of the Use of 1.83 (45) 1.78 (28) -.95 1.62 (2) 1.69 (7) 1.60

Grades as a Sanction

Effective School Battery: Teacher Characteristics

Pro-integration Attitudes 2.90 (36) 3,08 (60) 1.29 3.02 (50) 2.89 (34) -,88

Job Satisfaction 2.48 (3) 2.54 (7) .49 2.45 (2) 2.46 (3) .10

Interaction with Students 2.18 (35) 2.31 (56) .96 2.22 (41) 2.11 (24) -.94

Personal Security .76 (5) .75 (3) -.16 ./9 (11) .80 (14) .31

Classroom Orderliness 2.18 (4) 2.37 (12) 1.11 2.30 (9) 2.42 (16) .94

Professional Development 1.47 (32) 1.55 (61) 1.47 1.40 (14) 1.47 (33) 1.41

Nonauthoritarian Attitudes 2.28 (15) 2.36 (22) .49 2.44 (30) 2.21 '(9) -1.63

Effective School Battery: Student Rep,.:*1 of School Climate

Safety .68 (16) .71 (28) 1.34 .65 (8) .69 (19) 1.74

Clarity of Rules .79 (89) .79 (91) .19 .76 (78) .80 (92) 1.01

Fairness of Rules .62 (49) .57 (24) -1.19 .60 (41) .62 (50) .40

Student Influence .39 (50) .38 (46) -.17 .35 (36) .41 (59) .92

Student-Teacher Interaction .69 (37) .69 (38) .04 .65 (28) .64 (27) -.07

Respect for Students .96 (20) .95 (18) -.21 .96 (20) ,1.00 (29) .63

Dl

lik.11AVA Yq03 Ta

of 3

Table D1 (Continued)

Crlverton

Measure1983 1984 t 1983

Effective School Battery: Student Characteristics

Pimlico

1984

Negative Peer Influenceb .24 (55) .25 (62) 1.26 .23 (48) .22 (43) -.84

Interpersonal Competency .74 (25) .76 (35) 1.23 .75 (32) .75 (28) -.38

Alienations .44 (85) .42 (75) -1.78 .46 (90) .41 (71) -3.20**

Attachment to School .67 (49) .65 (37) -2.18* .66 (44) .68 (53) 1.58

Belief in Rules .66 (39) .70 (68) 3.37** .69 (64) .70 (68) .49

Parental Education 2.05 (43) 2.08 (45) .53 2.14 (50) 2.25 (58) 1.85

X Expecting Post-High SchoolEducation .81 (77) .72 (53) -4.30** .77 (67) .79 (74) 1.84

School Rewards .23 (27) .26 (42) 2.50* .21 (21) .29 (58) 5.56 * *.

School Punishment se .34 (96) .33 (95) -.94 (92) .31 (91) -.33

School Effort .62 (58) .60 (49) -1.13 .58 (36) .59 (39) .37

Self-EsteemInvolvement

.76 -c .74 --c -1.63dd d d

.73 --"'d d

.75 --'

%.19 --d

1.25d-...

Additional Student Characteristics111,

Self-Reported Delinquency .18 (64) .16 (54) -2.56* .14 (42) .14 (47) 1.03

S-R Serious Delinquency .13 (73) .11 (55) -3.20** .10 (49) .10 (51.) .46

S-R Drug Involvement .21 (41) .20 (38) -.90 .16 (28) .18 (34) 2.20*

Rebellious Autonomy .63 (41) .61 (39) -.88 .59 (36) .58'(35) -.76

Attachment to Parents .66 (84) .66 (83) .31 .66 (85) .67 (86) .31

Parental Emphasis onEducation .62 (74) .59 (61) -2.12* .60 (64) .65 (83) 3.07**

2 With Career Goals .87 .89 1.49 .89 s.91 .97

X Would Fight if eisked .72 .72 .31 .69 .69 -.01

"I stop to consider whetheror not what I am doingis helping me to achieve

my goals 3.17 3.14 -.64 3.13 '3.15 ..25

eastCOPY AVAILARI

D2

77

of 3Table D1 (Continued)

10

CalvertonMeasure

1983 1984 t 1983

Additional Student Characteristics (Cont.)1111,

X "I.ant.n4ng *hire= in school

that will help youachieve your career goal" .65 .67 .94 .67

"I like my school better

than other junior highschools in the city" .71 1.821.98 2.02

% Ever Retained .45 .43 -.66 .39"I am learning things in

school that will help me

oC get a good job in the

3.27)10 future" 3.30 -.76 3.31.44 "Once I have decided on

a a course of action I

0 stick with it" 2.99 3.03 .81 2.86oi Number of subjects student

t feels he/she must master3.82 3.83CO

to reach career goals .20 3.60Prestige of Occupational

Aspirations 50.2 50.2 -.34 50.4Relle.11ious Behavior in

hool 1.87 1.90 .83 1.86No ademic Rewards 1.89 1.91 1.07

1.0 1.851.96

Re ance of School .25% Sylepended this Term .39 .42 1.04

1.86.34

__11,4r____-___-___. ....... .. ......................________ ...... _____ ..........

. ...Pimlico

1 984

.....OmP0.......1.0.410

.69 1.01

2.00 3.38**.50 4.53**

3.33 .38

3.12 4.97**

3.96 3.39**

51.8 1.51

1.83

1.89-.95

-2.72**1.83 -1.11.42 2.81**

__-_-____la

Note. Percentiles appear in parentheses next to mean scale scores. Percentiles are avai-lable only for Effective School Battery survey measures and other measures that wereincluded in the normative sample for the Effective School Battery. 1983 means are basedon 790 and 732 student surveys and 37 and 39 teacher surveys from Calverton and Pimlico,respectively. 1984 means are based on 1160 and 824 student surveys and 57 and 62 teachersurveys from Calverton and Pimlico, respectively.

aAlienation is "Social Integration "in the ESB with the scoring reversed (Soc..a1 Integra-gion = 1 - Alienation).

Negative Peer Influence is "Positive Peer Associations" in the ESB with the scoringreversed (Positive Peer Associations = 1 - Negative Peer Influence).cThis scale lacks one item that is included in the ESB scale by the same name. Normativedata are not available.

Format of involvement items on 1983 survey differed from that on the 1984 survey. Com-Earisons are not meaningful.

School Punishments is "Avoidance of School Punishments" on the ESB with the scoringreversed (Avoidance of School Punishments = 1 - School Punishments).

*2<.05

**2<.01

ant COPY AVAILAPI

D3

78

Table D2

1983 -1984 Attendance, Achievement and DisciplineData from School Records

--_---

-...Enrollment

..........................Calverton

1471

Lomeli"

1199

.............Pimlico

1200

e...0m,Greenspringa

13 57

Annual Attendance Rate 77% (-2%) 78% (-1%) 79% (-2%) 76% (-2%)

Disciplinary Removals% students removed 35.8% (-3.5%) 21.9% (-1.8%) 37'.4% (+12.3%) 40.8% (+26.7%)Number of removals/enrollment 64.6% (-7.2%) 29.6% (-7.7%) 71.3% (+29.5%) 70.4% (+52.9%)

Epri",,, 1984 Mean Grade Equivalent,California Achievement Test,Reading Comprehension

Grade 7 6.4 (+.1) 6.7 (+.4) 6.3 (No change) 6.7 (+.4)Grade 8 8.0 (No change) 8.0 (+.2) 8.0 (No change) 8.2 (i .3)Grade 9 8.7 (+.4) 8.7 (+.3) 8.4 (-.1) 8.7 (+.3)

fm.

Note. All statistics were provided by the Office of Research and Evaluation, Baltimore City Public Schools. Num-

bars in parentheses summarize change over the average of the preceding three years.

%omparison schools.)0<Jo0C

00*4

ill 79

1INIST COPY /tvi

e

s

MST COPY AVAILAKIE

3.4

U)...J._ 1

(Y. 3.1

a) 3

81

7.9

2.8

7,7 o 1

COCA iffiviryorE1001 Safety laeocnrs)Calvert6n and Pimlico, 1983 8!: 1984

1983

ilii()Yeot

c_%iilvort(..1) *

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

0.30

0.10

1984

1.46

1.48

1.44

1.42

1.4

1.36

1.34o)

1.32

1.3

1.28

1.26

1.24

6E21 MA viveirvorEMoralePimlico, 1983 1984

1 2?

1.'"?

1983

.L0

83

4

Ye LitColverton

BEST copy AVAILABLE

0.26

0 18

1984

84

1.6

1.58

1.56

1.54

1.52

1.5

1.48

1.46

1.44

1.42

1.4

1.38

BE2L CObA VAviinferF.

o---;ool Planning an ActionCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

0.56

0.43

1.3685 -6.07

1.341983

YetirF Calvt-t

1984

BST COPYAV /ISLE

1.62 -,

Smooth AdministrationCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

1.6 -

1.58

1.56 00.23

1.54- -

1.52

1.5

1.48

1.46

1.44

1.42

1.4

1.38

1.361983

87LI Pimlico

1)8

Year+ Calverton *

BEST COPY MAILABLE

0.24

sEas. COM wivirverE

R t------- s o LA rce sCalverton and P1m11,..o, 1983 dc 1984

ocr

M

89

ii Pimlico

OUT COPtr AVA1LP.''IP)

Year+ Calverton

0.31

0.24

1984

90

1.6

BELL CObA IMAM.

aoe RelationsC.,_11.,4-rtrJri and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

1.5 -

t1J

L6 1 4

1.3 -I

-

1

0.91983

91 [ l I it1 c,

listCOP? AMIABLE

1)1 0

z t

(%i Ivor t * *

0.380.34

1984

92

93

1.42

DEM C.ObA vAvirvarsParent and Community InvolvementCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 At 1984

1.4 -1.38 -1.36

1.34 -1.32 -

1.3

1.28

1.26 -1.24 -

0.331.22

1.2

1.18

1.16 -1.14 -1.12

1983

0 Pimlico

RP COPY AVAILABLE

Dii

Year+ Calverton

0.78

0.35

198494

1.55

0E01 CObA worrverE

Student InfluenceCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

. ..

1.25

1.'" -

1.151983

Yearo Pimlic.:. * + Calverton *

95 MST COPT AVAILABLE

D12

0.61

0.35

1984

96

nei. CObA VAVIrVerE

Avoidance of Use of Grades as Sanction1.86

1.84

1.82

1.8

1.78

1.76....,

C5

a : 1.74a)et' 1.72Lcp

o 1.70

F-cp 1.68

1.66

Calverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

1.64 -

1 .62 -fa-e:Gr---------1.6 -

1.581 97 1983

Year0 Pimlico + Calverton

D13

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

0.28

.

0.07

198498

SEEL CObA Ifillfiriiiro integration AttitudesCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 cSe: 1984

99

0 PimlicoD14

_srCOPY AVAISA111.1

Year+ Calverton

100

101

BE2L CObA YAInnnitrE

Job SatisfactionCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

2.8

2.7

2.6

a aat

2.4

2.3 -

2.2

2.11983

YearPirnlico + Calverton

MST COPY AVAILABLE

D1.5

2.362.34 -2.32

2.32.28 -2.262.242.22

2.22.182.162.142.12

2.1

2.082.062.04

1983

OM COM vAvtrverE

Interaction with StudentsCalverton and PIMIICQ, 1983 do 1984

103

0 Pimlico

Mt COPY AVAILABLE

D16

Year+ Calverton

104

0.56

0.24

1984

105

0.870.860.850.840.830.820.81

0.80.790.780.770.760.750.740.730.720.71

0.70.690.680.67

1983

BEILL COM vAvnevers

VictimizationCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

t

YearPimlico + Calverton

MIT COPY AVAILABLED17

0.14

0.03

1061984

Lai

20

2.45

11601 CObA VAVIrVirE

Classroom OrderlinessCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

2.4

2.35

2.3

2.25

2.9

2.15

2.1

2.051983

107

Pim ,ico

say COPY AVAILAILE

1.118

Year+ Ca lverton

0.16

0.12

1984

108

1.551.541.531.521.51

1.5.

1.4.9S0 1.481.470

0- 1 .46e 1.45L.

.co 1.440v- 1.43co

1.421.41

1.4.

1.391.38

t 109 1.37

Pr- essiona\ Deve\op entBE2X. COW.Itmarvers

Cotverton and PIrn\lco, 1983 Et 1984.0.61

0.33

1983

o Pimlico

NEST COPY AVASABLE

D19

YearGalveston

1984 110

BM CObA Vitifird BMNona uthoritarian AttitudesCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

111


MST COPY AVAILABLE

D20

112

(. 113

0.73

0.72

0.71

0.7

0.69

0.68

0.67

am. CObA ItAvirvere

School Safety (Students)Calverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

0.66

0.65

0.64

0.63

0.62

0.61

0.6

0.591983

Year0 Pimlico + Ca lverton

BEST' COPY AYAILABL I-

D21

0.28

0.19

1141984

0.880.870.860.850.84 -0.83 -0.820.810.8 -

0.790.780.77 -0.760.750.74 -,0.730.720.71

0.70.690.680.67

1983

0E01 CObA vtivintor t

Clarity of RulesCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

0.89

115

0 Pimlico

IIIIIST COPY AVAILABLE

D22

Year+ Ca lverton

0.920.91

1984

116

OWL CObA vAvirverE

Fairness of RulesCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 ac 1984

0.74

0.72

0.7

0.68

0.66

0.64 -

0.62

0.6

0.58

0.56

0.54

0.52

0.5

117 0.481983

Pimlico

D23

Year+ Calverton

0.50

0.24

118

1984

CObA wonnfarE

Student InfluenceCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

. ..

119


NW COPY AVAILABLE

D24120

0.46

1

Dm CObJ vAvsrvsrE

StudentTeacher InteractionCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

0.9

0.8

0.7 0.3700.2-8

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.38

0.27

121 0.31983 '984

YearPimlico + Calverton

D25

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

122

1.2

BEei CObA vAvcrvarti<espect for StudentsCcflverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

(3-&-r-ter-----0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.751983

1230 Pirniico

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

D26

Year+ Ca lverton

0.29

0.18

1984

124

2o0o

cna)Zc0a)

rEal. CObA yAvirverE

Negative Peer Influence0.33

Calverton and Pimlico, 1983 8 1984

0.320.31

0.30.290.280.270.260.25 0.620.24 =

Lol ,....

0.23 .

0.22 0.430.21

0.20.193.180.170.16 -1

0.151253.14

1983 1984

Year0 Pirroico + Calverton

D27

..EST COPY AVAILABLE

126

C0(1)

0.8

CObA vionrvarE

Interpersonal CompetencyCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

0.79

0.78

0.77

0.76

0.75

0.74

0.73

0.72

0.71

0.7 -

0.32

0.691983

127

ri Pimlico

BEST COPY AVAILA BLE

D28

Year+ Calverton

128

0.35

0.28

1984

0.51

sEei. CObA vAvirverE

AlienationCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 ar. 1984

0.5

0.49 --

0.48

0.47

0.46 s 90

0.45'

0.44

0.43

0.42

0.41

0.4

12.391983

4

ft

a

Year0 Pimlico * * + Ca lverton

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

D29

I.

0.75

0.71

1984

130

C0w2

0.72

mei COM. vmftrvorE

School AttachmentCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

0.71 '

0.7

0.69

0.68

0.67

0.66

0.65

0.64

0.63

0.621983

1........--:"

31

Year0 Pirrilicc.. + Ca Iverton *

INUIT COPY AVAILABLIE

D30

0.53

0.37

1984

132

200

(i)

0.73

0.72

0.71

0.7

0.69

0.68

0.67

0.66 v.39

0.65

0.64

0.63

1330.62

BE21 CObA VAY1IVEIrE

Belief in RulesCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

1983

0 Pimlico

D31

BEST' COPY AVAILABLE

Year+ Calverton * *

0.68

1984

134

BEIM. CObA VAVirt.igrE. . Parental Education2.7


.

a)

(L5 2.3V)

o 2.2zw 2. 1L.oa. 2

135

0 Pimlico

&OrrCOPY AVAILABLE

D32

Year+ Calverton

1984

136

BM CqbA vAvsrverE

Educational ExpectationsCalvert On and Pimlico, 1983 at 1984

31983

0 Pimlico


+

D33

YearCcilverfon * *

0.74

0.53

1984

138

0.31

0.3

0.29

0.28

0.27

-ou) 0.26Lo 0.25a)

(t 0.246o 0.23.coO 0.22 --

0.21

0.2 -

0.19

0.18

0.171983

11E21 CObA viwinforeSchool Rewards

Calverton and Pimlico, 1983 (Sc 1984

1 ,

139

I-, Pimlico * *

BEST' COPY AVAII.ABLX

D34

Year+ Calverton *

140

0.58

0.42

1984

0.46

0.44

0.42

0.4--

0.38

0.36

0.34

0.32 -0.3

0.28

0.26 -0.24 --

0.22

141. 0.2 -

M*4 L VAvortnr-F:

School PunishmentsCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

0.96

0.181983

Firrilic

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

YearCalvet-ton

D35

0.95

0.91

1984

142

0.74

0.72

0.7

0.68

0.66a)L.

0.64u

(1),-0.62

MU CObA vitvirverE School EffortCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

0.6

0.58 -E-4.

0.490.39

0.56 -

0.54

0.52

0.5

0.48 -

0.4611983 1984

143

0 Pimlico

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Yeor+ Calverton

D36 144

0.2

SeaRr5v5fet Delinquency (TotalCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

0.19 -

0.42

145 0.121983

C7 PimlicoD37

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Year+ Calvet-ton *

0.54

0.47

1461984

0.16

ern corAvtrfrr'Serious DelinquencyCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

0.15

0.14

0.13

0.12

0.11

0.1 00.1-9

0.09

0.08

0.071983

YearPimlico + Calverton * *

1.47BEST COPY AVAILABLE

D38

0.55

0.51

1984

148

c0Q)

2

0,24

11/6""Fr17,Prfu g InvolvementCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

0.23 -1

0.22

0.21

0.2

0.19

0.18

0.17

0.16 -e-e-:-Z8-------- .

0.15

0.14

0.13 -149 1983

0 Pimlico *D39

Year+ Calverton

0.38

0.34

1984

150

t

a)

6*C.)0

0.78,- -7 L:21-1 . l V

0.740.72

0.70.680.660.64'

BM CObA VAITIMCE

-ebellious AutonomyColverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

00.62

.-4-1---______

0.60.580.560.540.5',

0.50.480.460.44

1983

0.39

il] 0.35

151

[3 Pit-rill,: c.


D40

,'ear+ Calverton

1984

152

0.96

0.950.94

0.93

0.920.91

0.9

0.89

0.880.87

0.86

0.85

0.840.83

0.82

pet ct o"). vAyivere,3tuaents with Career GoaCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

153 0.81

0.81983

Pimlico

Km- COPY AVAILABLE

D41

Year+ Calverton

1984

154

0.78

0.76

0.74

0.72

0.7

0.68

0.66

0.64 -I

0.62 --

0.6

0.58

0.56 -

FittsileTtrIstrEearning Useful Things

0.541983


Pirroico155

BEST COPY AVAILMILE

1)42

Year+ Calverton

156

1984

L

(f)

CC)

2

2.2

Thisvtossrare

Student Likes I his SchoolCalvertc'n and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

2.1

2

157 1.61983

Firririco *

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

.'e :1r

1)43

+

eastCOPY AVAILABL.

1984

158

3.2

BE21:CObA vAviryere OM CObA vmstrver

I StICk to Course of ActionCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

2.61983

o Pimlico * *Year

+ Calverton

1984

160

4.3

4.2-

3.4-

M Li sitEeilibalVs". e rrE School SubjectsCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984 1

Z .3

1613.2

1983

Pimlico * *

MUT COPY AVAILASLI

D45

Year+ Calverton

1984

162

2.022

1.98

1.96

1.941.92

1.9

1.88

1.86

1.84

1.82

1.8

1.78

1.76

1.74

1.721983

Rebeactusimairehavior in School(1.-5)Colverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

163

0 Pimlico

D46

Year+ Calverton

1984

164

2.02

elogc*tailkfg m c RewardsCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

2.012

1.99 -1.981.971.96

(I) 1.95CC

1.94o 1.93uO 1.92C 1.910Z 1.9

1.89a.)io 1.88 -

i7)1.871.861.85 -1.84 -1.831.82

165 1983

Year* * + Calverton

NS' COPY AVAIL

,AI

D4 7

0.5

0.48 -

0.46

0.44

0.42

0.4

0.38

0.36 -

0.34

0.32

0.3 -

0.28

0.26

Betcctr6dents SuspendedCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

0.241983

16q Pimlico *

Riser COPY AVARABLED48

Year+ Calverton

1984

168

0.78

0.76

0.74

0.72

0.7

0.68

0.66

0.64

0.62

0.6

0.58

0.56

0.54

AMterliffT nt to ParentsCalverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

169 1983


D49

ma COPY AVAILABLE

0.860.83

1984170

inin0.c

tw

(3c20

a_

0.68

0.67

0.66

0.65

0.64

0.63

0.62

0.61

0.6

0.59

0.58

0.57

0.56

0.55

am. cobiaAvirvergParental Emphasis on EducationCa!verton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984

171

Pimlico * *

surCOPY AVAILA1512

D50

Year+ Calverton *

172

0.76

gol Cola wottnrsrE

School Safety (Students)Calverton Jr. 1-figh, 1983 & 1984

0.75

0.74

0.73 -

0.72

0.71

0.7

0.69 -

0.68

0.67 -

0.66 -

0.65

0.64 -

7.63013

0.621983

ci Seventh

:ek.liT COPY AVAILABLE

Year+ Eighth

D5 I

o Ninth

174

1984

0.880.870.860.850.840.830.820.81

0.80.790.780.770.760.750.740.730.720.71

0.70.690.680.67

1983

''."'cobA'v "Tirbrity of RulesCalverton Jr. HTgh, 1983 & 1984

0 Seventh

175

Year+ Eighth

D52

vast COPY AVAJLAIKE

Ninth

1984

116

0.74

0.72 -

0.7

0.68 -

0.66 -

0.64

0.62

0.6 -

0.58 -

0.56

0.54

0.52

0.5

. OM mg. vitvinterE

Fairness of RulesCalverton Jr. HIgh, 1983 et 1984

0.481983

1770 Seventh

"MIT COPY AVAILAAI

Year+ Eighth

D53

0 Ninth *

1984

i f8

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

8Ee1 C0bA VAIIIIVarE

Student InfluenceCalverton Jr. High, 1983 & 1984

0.3

0.25 -

0.21983

o Seventh

179NIT COPY AVAILABLE

Year+ Eighth

D54

o Ninth

1984

180

0.9

an. COP wonrverE

StudentTeacher InteractionCalverton Jr. WO, 1983 de 1984

0.8

in

0.5

0.4

181 0.31983

a Seventh.

BUT COPY AVA1LAP'

Year+ Eighth

D55

<> Ninth

%

1984

1.2

1.15 -

1.1 -

1.05L0O.O 1

c4-

0.95"o

(73 0.9

0.85

0.8 -

868.1. CObA VAYIFVfc.;

Respect for StudentsCalverton Jr. High, 1983 & 1984

0.751983

.1.11.10.

o Seventh

183 UST COPY MAILABLE

D56

YearEighth Ninth

1984

184

0.8

0.79

0.78

0.77

0.76

0.75

0.74

0.73

0.72

0.71

0.7

0.69 -

0.68 -

9E I CObA vAvirvarE

Interpersonal CompetencyCaiverton Jr. High, 1983 & 1984

185).671983

0 Seventh

PEST COPY AVAILABLE

a

D5

YearEighth

0.51

0.5

0.49

0.48 -

0.47 -

0.46

0.45

0.44

0.43

0.42

0.41

0.4

0.39

. .

REAL COW. yAvsrvaeAlienation

Calverion Jr. High, 1983 de 19847it

1983

Seventh

187BEET COPY AVAILABLE

Year+ Eighth

D58

O Ninth

1

1984

188

i

0.71

BM CObA lowtrvorE

School AttachmentCalverton Jr. I-ITgh, 1983 & 1984

0.7

0.69 -.1.

0.68

0.67

0.66

0.65

0.64

0.63 -

0.62

189 0.611983

Seventh

WIT COPY AVAILABLE

Year+ Eighth

D59

c. Ninth * *

c

ca02

0.73

itgaLCObAVAVIrIVINT

Belief in RulesCalverton Jr. High, 1983 Sc 1984

0.72 -

0.71

0.7

0.69

0.68

0.67

0.66 -

0.65

0.64 -

0.63 -

0.621983

191

o SeventhYear

+ Eighths a Ninth

D60

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

1984

192

3.9

3.8

(i)3.7

III

3.6

9EV. CObA vAvinforE

Educational Expectations(1 6)Ca Iverton Jr. High, 1983 & 1984

-

-

-

3.2 -

3.1

193 31983

0 Seventh

REV COPY AVAILABLE

Year+ Eighth

D61

o Ninth

1941984

00

0

0.33

0.32

0.31

CObA VAVITNETFchool RewardsCalverton Jr. High, 1983 & 1984

0.3

0.29

0.28

0.27

0.26

0.25

0.24 -E

0.23

0.22

0.21

0.2

0.191983

195

o Seventh *

MT COPY AVAILABLE

Year+ Eighth

D62

Ninth

1984

196

70

55

69

68 -67

66a)L 650

tn 64

63w.c 62uti)

c 610e 60

59

58

57

56

ne.l. COMA worfirverE. School Effort

Calverton Jr. High, 1983 & 1984

197 1983

SeventhYear

+ Eighth 0 Ninth

D63

1981984

0.17

0.16

0.15

0.14

. .eni CObit,vorvers

SR Serious DelinquencyCalverton Jr. High, 1983 & 1984

0 Seventh

199

Year+ Eighth *

OUT COPY AVAILMLE

D64

o Ninth

200

Ca

2

0.27

C.26

0.25

0.24

0.23

0.22

0.21

0.2

0.19

0.18

0.17

201 0.161983

BM COW wtvirverE

SR Drug InvolvementCaiverton Jr. High, 1983 & 1984

Seventh

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Year+ Eighth

D65

0 Ninth

0.96

0.95 --

0.94

0.930.920.91

0.9

NU COM vAvirvars

Pct. With Career GoalsCalve rto n Jr. High, 1983 Sc 1984

0.89

0.880.87

0.86

0.85

0.840.830.820.81

0.81983 1984

203

0 Seventh

OMIT COPY AVAILABLE

D66

YearEighth o Ninth

204

0.78

0.76

0.74

0.72

0.7

0.68

0.66

0.64c

0.62

0.6

0.58

0.56 -

205 0.54

tiEei CObA. VAVIrVElfE

Percent Learning Useful ThinsCalverton Jr. High, 1983 & 1984

1983

0 Seventh *

Barr COPY AVAILABLE

Year+ Eighth e> Ninth

D67

1984

206

2.2

BE21 caw. vtonrairE

Student Likes This SchoolCalverton Jr. High, 1983 & 1984

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.61983

YearSeventh + Eighth o Ninth

207BUT COPY AVAILABLE

D68

1984

208

3.16

3.14 -

3.12

3.1 -

3.08 -

fl) 3.06 -L0

N 0 3.04

oc 3.02 -2 3 -

2.98 -

2.96 -

2.94

2.92

209 2.9

BEeJ. CObA wonrverE

I Stick to Course of ActionCalverton Jr...High, 1983 & 1984

1983

[-.) Seventh

* JUST COPY AVAILABLE

Year+ Eighth 0 Ninth

D69

1984

2.08

2.06

2.04

2.02 -2

1.98 -1.96

1.94

1.92

1.9

1.88 -1.86

1.84

1.82

1.8 -1.78

1983

11E404 CObA VAVITVIVE,,

Rebellious Behavior in School(1 5)Calverton Jr. High, 1983 & 1984

o SeventhID

211

UST' COPY MILAN I.'

Year+ Eighth o Ninth

D70

1984

212

2.02

BE £ CObA litivirvirNonacademic RewardsCalverton Jr. High, 1983 Se 1984

2.012

a)1.99

L.o 1.98oO 1.97V) 1.96L.u 1.953a) 1.94

ce 1.93ii 1.92ao 1.91D

L 1.9o 1.89

C-1.881.87

2 1.86Cl, 1.85

1.841.83 -

2131.821983

o Seventh

,111WCOPY AVAILABLE

Year+ Eighth

D71

0 Ninth * *

1984

seseicabA VAVITVEIrE,

% Students SuspendedCalverton Jr.. High, 1983 & 1984

4 ...

1.72 -

1.7 -

1.68 -

1.66

1.64

1.62 -

1.6

1.58

1.56

1.54- -

1.52 -

1.51983

0 Seventh

215OMIT COPY "MAW

Year+ Eighth

D72

o Ninth

216

1984

0.660.650.640.63 -0.620.61

0.60.590.580.57 -0.560.55 -0.540.530.52 -0.51

217 0.51983

Parental Emphasis on EducationCalvei-ton Jr. High, 1983 & 1984

YearSeventh + Eighth

BEST COPY AVAILABLE D7i

o Ninth * *

2181984

document resume - ericdocument resume ed 264 250 tm 850 493 author gottfredson, denise c. title the...

Documents