Upload
others
View
11
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Effective Schools Project
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.
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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.
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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-
Effective Schools Project
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-
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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-
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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-
Effective Schools Project
(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-
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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.
Effective Schools Project
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.
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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-
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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-
Effective Schools Project
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;
Effective Schools Project
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-
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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.
Effective Schools Project
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.
Effective Schools Project
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
Effective Schools Project
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
Scale score is mean item score.
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
Note. Scale statistics reported here are taken from the
School Action Effectiveness Study (Gottfredson, 1982).
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
Scale score is mean item score. Range is 0 to 1.
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
School Action Effectiveness Study (Gottfredson, 1982).
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
Note. Scale statistics reported here are taken from the
School Action Effectiveness Study (Gottfredson, 1982).
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
Scale score is mean item score. Range is 1 to 5.
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
Scale score is mean item score.
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
Scale score is mean item score. Range is 1 to 4.
Mean = 3.15SD = .58
Alpha = .75
Note,. Items are adapted from the Youth in Transi
tion Study (Bachman, 1975).
x10-
68
Effective Schools Project
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
0 Never heard of the word
Which of the following responses first comes to your mind when you see the word ODIOUS?
0 Bad humored
0 Ill-smelling
1 Detestable
0 Never heard of the word
Which of the following responses first comes to your mind when you see the word ORISON?
0 Song
0 Constellation1 Prayer
0 Never heard of the word
Which of the following responsesfirst comes to your mind when you see the word SACROSANCT?
0 Sacrificial
0 Dormant
1 Inviolable
0 Gullible
0 Never heard of the word
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
0 Never heard of the word
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
Page 1 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
Page 2 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
Page 3 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
Year0 Pimlico + Calverton
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
Year0 Pimlico + Calverton
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
Calverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984
.
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
BEST' COPY AVAILABLE
+
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.
BEST' COPY AVAILABLE
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
Calverton and Pimlico, 1983 & 1984
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
Year0 Pimlico + Calverton
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