UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

School closure : the effects of forced transfer on students entering grades eleven and twelve Neumann, Ann Louise 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 N49.pdf [ 6.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054333.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054333-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054333-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054333-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054333-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054333-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054333-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054333-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054333.ris

Full Text

SCHOOL  CLOSURE:  STUDENTS  THE  EFFECTS  ENTERING  OF  GRADES  FORCED  ELEVEN  TRANSFER  AND  TWELVE  by  ANN B.A.,  LOUISE  University  A THESIS THE  of  SUBMITTED  NEUMANN  B r i t i s h  IN  REQUIREMENTS MASTER  Columbia,  1970  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  FOR  DEGREE  THE  OF  OF  ARTS  in THE  FACULTY  Department  We  accept to  THE  OF  of  thesis  as  required,  UNIVERSITY  OF  Psychology  conforming  standard  BRITISH  December  © Ann  STUDIES  Counselling  this the  GRADUATE  Louise  COLUMBIA  1979  N e u m a n n , 1980'  OF  ON  In  presenting  ments  for  an  Columbia, able for be  for  I  thesis  advanced agree  granted  tives.  It  thesis  for  and  copying  the  of  Head  at  the  of  is  understood gain  the  Library  this  I  fulfilment University  shall  further  thesis  for  my D e p a r t m e n t that  copying  shall  not  be  permission.  Department  of  Counselling  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V 6 T 1W5 December  p a r t i a l  study.  by  financial  in  degree  that  reference  extensive  written  this  17,  1979  Psychology Columbia  make agree  of it  by  the  freely  that  his  a v a i l -  permission purposes  may  representa-  publication  allowed  require-  B r i t i s h  scholarly or  or  of  of  without  this my  ABSTRACT  The  purpose  how  senior  has  been  gated  students  phased-out  was  the  performance, school  of  the  the  naire ,  and  the  As a  the  forced  external  of  and  There  mental  and  of  students  the  school  and  The  were  three  one  were year  findings  and  academic  performance  from  academic  the  transfer.  2.  not  from  d i f f e r  transfer.  The  3»  after  academic  adjustment  from  the  to  Test  The  Point  of  two  the  independent  PersonQuestion-  independent  level.  Group  this  high  instruments  grade  in  of  Grade  and  Control  groups  prior  the  variables.  transfer  variable,  design  study,  two  two  school  the  closure  of  study  were:  was experi-  populations.  A l l  Delbrook  high  closure. of  this  transferred of of  self-concept two  the  twelve.  a b s e n t e e i s m were  self-concept  With  on  i n v e s t i -  Neumann R e s e a r c h  performance  the  problem  the  drawn  the  school  Index,  conclusions of  and  their  California  manipulated  tested  social  investigate  the  sample  control,  when  transfer  the  to  List,  school  five  was  specific  eleven  dependent  force  school  quasi-experimental--Nonequivalent  used.  to  Check  study  school  grades  Sentiment  measure  new The  forced  incidence  were  an  of  Ad.jective  School  variables  a  closed.  entering  the  to  and  to  self-concept,  a l i t y ,  selected  longitudinal  adjust  effect  students  Average,  this  the  students  the of  students  not  The differ  not  required  to  transferred  students  did  the  exceptions,  did  1.  students  the  social  not  required  adjustment  of  the t r a n s f e r r e d students d i d not d i f f e r from the s o c i a l ment o f the students not r e q u i r e d to t r a n s f e r . who  adjust-  The students  t r a n s f e r r e d a f t e r grade e l e v e n d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from  the o t h e r groups on two measures o f s o c i a l adjustment and had some d i f f i c u l t y  i n t e g r a t i n g i n t o t h e i r new  school.  4.  The grade  l e v e l a t which students were f o r c e d to change s c h o o l s d i d not prove to be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n t h e i r t o t a l adjustment to t h e i r new  school.  The s u b j e c t i v e measures i n d i c a t e , however,  t h a t the s t u d e n t s e n t e r i n g grade twelve were more n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t e d by the change of schools than the students e n t e r i n g grade e l e v e n i n the a r e a of s o c i a l  adjustment.  Supervisor  iv  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  Page Abstract Table  of  i i Contents  iv  List  of  Tables  vi  List  of  Figures  v i i  Acknowledgements  v i i i  CHAPTER I  I N T R O D U C T I O N TO Nature  of  Purpose  THE  the  of  of  Declining  1  Problem  2  Study  4  the  Definition  STUDY  4  Terms enrollment  bi4  phase-out Forced  or  required  school  transfer  Swing-shift  5  Academic  5  performance  Self-concept  5  Social  6  adjustment  6  Format  II  REVIEW  OF  THE  Declining Reasons  LITERATURE  8  Enrollment  for  Responses  to  the  Decline  Declining  Hypotheses  III  5  8 in  Enrollment  Enrollment  9 11 19  METHODOLOGY  25  Instruments Academic  25 Performance  25  Self-Concept  25  Social  28  Adjustment  V  CHAPTER  Page  III  Subjects  33  Population  33  Samples  3^  Procedure  .  38  Contact  with  Testing  Session  School  1977  38 39  Session  Research  Scoring  May  38  Closure  Testing The  Parents  and  May  1978  39  Design Data  ^0  Analysis  k2  Scoring  k2  S t a t i s t i c a l  IV  RESULTS  AND  Analysis  ^3  DISCUSSION  ^5  Samples  ^5  Results  ^7  Hypothesis  I  ^7  Hypothesis  II  ^9  Hypothesis  III  52  Hypothesis  IV  65  Discussion  V  SUMMARY  AND  66  CONCLUSIONS  Restatement  of  • Description Limitations Principal  the  of  76  Problem  Procedures  of  the  Findings  76 Used  76  Study  78  and  79  Conclusions  Recommendations Suggestions  for  82 Future  Research  8^4-  Bibliography  87  APPENDIX A  Measurement  B  Tables:  Instruments  Analysis  of  Dependent  91Variables  ........  106  vi  LIST  OF  TABLES  TABLE ' 1  Page Internal  Consistency  and  Stability  Estimates  31  for  the  2  The  Research  3  A  k  Analysis  5  Summary  6  Summary of A n a l y s i s of Measurement No. 1 of S o c i a l Adjustment: Five S o c i a l Adjustment S c a l e s : CTP  53  Summary of A n a l y s i s of Measurement S o c i a l Adjustment: S u b t e s t s of the  5^  7 8 9 10 11  12  13  Ik  15 16  SSI  Summary  of of  of  Design  kl  Descriptive Covariance  Analysis  of  Data  of  of  Grade  Sample Point  Self-Concept  Adjusted Means: Measurement Adjustment--Subtests of the  Groups  Average  Measures  No. SSI  2  Adjustment  A n a l y s i s of Covariance: Measurement Social Adjustment—Absenteeism  k6  ...  ^9  . . . .  50  of  No. 2 of Social SSI--D.10 vs D . l l  Means: Measurement No. 2 of S o c i a l Subtests of the SSI—D.12 vs D . l l  ..  ... —  56 No.  3  of 57  Summary of A n a l y s i s of Measurement No. k of S o c i a l Adjustment—School Involvement Scales t h e NRQ  of  A d j u s t e d Means: Measurement No. 4 of S o c i a l A d j u s t m e n t — S c h o o l Involvement S c a l e s of the H . 1 1 P v s D . l l a n d D.10 v s D . l l  NRQ  Means: Measurement School Involvement D.12 v s D . l l  56  No. k of S o c i a l Adjustment S c a l e s o f t h e NRQ  58  59 —  60  Summary of A n a l y s i s of T - T e s t s : Measurement No. k of S o c i a l Adjustment—Sentence Completion S c a l e f r o m t h e NRQ  6l  Summary of o f t h e NRQ  62  Responses  to  Question  No.  2,  Part  A Summary of S t u d e n t s ' P e r c e p t i o n s of Their Roles at School: Reported i n Percentages  III  63  v i i  LIST  OF  FIGURES  FIGURE  Page  1.  Analysis  of  GPA:  Group  comparisons  2.  A n a l y s i s of s e l f - c o n c e p t Group comparisons  48  measures: 51  v i i i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I Tolsma a l l over  would  to  (Chairman),  the  help,  the I  like  allowing  me  Todd  support,  past  would  thank  three also  to  the  Rogers, and  members and  of  my  Charlie  encouragement  committee, Ungerleider,  they  have  given  Bob for me  years.  like  conduct  to  thank  this  School  study  in  D i s t r i c t  North  No.  Vancouver  44  for  schools.  1  CHAPTER  I  I N T R O D U C T I O N TO T H E S T U D Y  In  North  seriously America known the  affecting  i s  as  "declining  secondary to  number  Board school  close of  2,500 led  In  to  seats  to  the  teaching  tion f i n a l  that  should  On  economically  steadily  continued with  decreasing  to  agitate  -  was of  and task  School  forces  should  the  pro-  be  closure  body,  and  f o r an alternative  i t s traditions  was e v e n t a l l y  i n  an excess  the school  and academic  and a neighbouring  school  made,  reputa-  closed.  not by the  plan  The school  arsonist.  2 8 , 1977»  or  Secondary  would  insufficient  i n enrollment  meetings  the community,  however,  by f i r e .  Numerous  one  schools  a n d 1983 l e a v i n g  Delbrook  of  be r e t a i n e d  b u t by an  be a n  the five drop  1973t  the d i s t r i c t  3 0 , 1979 w a s s e t a s t h e d a t e  Delbrook  January  destroyed be  staff  of  would  f i l l  percent  1975  that  section  i s  as September that  i s  North  phenomena  had concluded  there to  1975).  Members  decision,  trustees,  a f i f t y  (Fulton,  occur.  arguing  students  throughout  This  As early  Vancouver  the western  a phenomena w h i c h  districts  experienced.  enrollment."  between  and June  Columbia,  school  1980 b e c a u s e  the proposal  phased-out would  i n  fact,  occur  being  i n North  secondary  question. jected  by  B r i t i s h  numerous  presently  School  have  Vancouver,  Delbrook  Secondary  As the r e b u i l d i n g educationally student  of  virtually  the school  justified  population,  was  i n light  Delbrook  was  could of  not  the  closed  2  permanently  as  1977  Delbrook's  a l l  twelve to  enrolled  attend  that a  of  any  these  new  of  June  in  1977.  students  Consequently,  students  another  school  school.  30,  in  school.  the  were  effect  Delbrook  grades  Although  d i s t r i c t ,  in  Attending  entering  i t  September  nine  they  must  being was  in  could  be  choose  recognized  forced  to  longer  one  no  through  transfer of  to  their  alternatives.  Nature  Excluding not  be  ing  number  as  a  an  unusual of  result  1977)  and  school  of  therefore  expected  to  bringing  about  programs. be  close  a  The school  i t  faced  the  is  the  against  of  enrollments  investigating  the  is  are  a  the  that  a  the  of  impact  the  the  problems  of  in  forced  declining  to  close  Warner,  consequences  as  a  educational w i l l  on  complicated  need  the  decision  during, to  by  the  factors.  from  decreasing  literature. enrollment  be  of  before,  educational  and  w i l l  means  savings  the  of  trustees  their  students,  arising the  1978;  phase-out  one  w i l l  increas-  enrollment  of  Thus  and  An  School  economic  school.  reflected  the  operation  economic,  be  closure  controversial  the  to  pupil  school  particularly of  years.  evaluated.  impact  situation  (Henderson,  declining  in  this  five  going  prospective  p o l i t i c a l , of  and  f i r e ,  next  important  the  becomes  complexity  the  the  consider  economies  Problem  enrollment  with  closure  of  schools  studied  involved,  school  interplay  be  However,  balanced  after  within  seriously  individuals and  one  declining  closures  the  occurrence  secondary  administrators  to  the  of  on  Researchers school  3  districts school  have  boards  concentrated can  effectively  how  school  boards  the  smooth  closure  pared of  to  deal  teachers,  positive best The  morale  u t i l i z e  on  ary  where  school time the  the  of  research  with  concerns.  s p e c i f i c a l l y  students. a  school  A  closure,  elementary information a l l  the  dents  few  school which  people  have  been  date  articles but  has  directly the  on  a  alleviate  to  and  effects  of  school  discuss  the  been  least  closure portion  of  teach-  making  closure  reactions reactions  descriptions  are  based  a  rigorously.  school  attention.  closure,  on to  the  by  and  identified  describe  collected  affected  pupil  of  the  anxieties  the  a  deal  helping  to  these  with  of  concerns  been  articles  second-  great  have  briefly  the  substantial  school  can  declining  ways  adjust  the  a  surfaced.  developing  a  pre-  buildings.  of  studies  and  not  school  First,  parents  be  boards  s p e c i f i c a l l y  out.  ensure  retraining  school  than  to  maintain  no  these  pupils  to  recently  "their"  must  effects  rather  studying  to  boards  how  the  how schools;  teachers,  and  Secondly, to  small  unoccupied  to  as:  community  order  dealing  given  purport  to  in  only  stand  of  address  received  has  devoted  closure  Finally,  and  particular,  which  surplus  school  school.  been  recommendations  which  in  the  as  the  school  emphasized  facts  has  neighbourhood  faced  how  literature  three  with  teachers;  problem  the  and,  had  its  topics  and m a i n t a i n  policies  elementary  attention  community  such  course  diverse  work  classrooms  the  closures,  of  ers  the  reviewing  and  issues  of  run  school;  amongst  enrollment  On  a  retirement  has  such  and must  of  surplus  research  school  can  with and  on  of  on  Thus the  of stu-  4  Purpose  In assist that  order  students  they  concerns purpose about  for in  students of  this  and  who  are  been  phased-out  investigated  the  academic performance, high  the  school  the  types  of  to  a  new  is  essential  problems  was  to  school  school and  entering  and The  learn  when  S p e c i f i c a l l y ,  forced  to  experience.  therefore,  self-concept,  students  i t of  transfer  closed.  effect  counsellors  school,  the  to  adjusted  lem  of  particular  study  and  Study  a new  forced  students  adjustment  in  to  longitudinal  was  the  understand  senior  had  and  adjusting  recognize  how  school  teachers  of  more  their  the  prob-  transfer the  grades  on  social eleven  and  twelve.  Definition  The  following  terms  1.  Declining  enrollment:  the is  number steadily  dents than  2.  of  a  Phase-out:  refers  over  The  are  gradually  creasing For  the  example,  number  reduced number a  of  to  enrolled That  the of  in  is  process students  grades  school  the  number  study.  in  d i s t r i c t of  stu-  significantly  less  that  of  system.  closing  attending  a t t r i t i o n taught  school  this  situation  a  leaving  through  secondary  the  i s ,  system  students  to  throughout  refers  school of  Terms  used  decreasing.  number  time.  be  students  entering the  w i l l  of  being  and  within  a  school  the by  school  de-  the  phased-out  school. would  5  not  3.  accept  any  following  the  Forced  required  or  where  in  school  a  was  high  phased-out  Swing-shift:  is  i n  share  7:30  a.m.  1977  and  from  May,  and  June  in  went  12:30  cause has  to  of do  himself"  the  and  which  where  f a c i l i t y . a  to  is  that  be"  of  enroll they  had  school  day.  Each  When  during  two  was  February  p.m.  defined  as  for  school  school  Delbrook  it  5:10  school  during  in  session  and  March  A p r i l ,  is  in  person's with  ( p . l ) .  the In  as  about  basic  "a  1969i  system  p » l ) «  year  of  as  his "the  success most  a  in  failure  question  of  what  he  perceives  student schoo]  important  or  study,  beliefs he  How  success  this  student's  himself--what  1973» to  the  the  year.  defined  (Gazda,  argued a  to  to  l a t t e r  situation  p.m.  June  a person  Combs  the  swing-shift,  (GPA)  holds  as  on  Average  himself  September  1977.  which  views  school  because  half  p.m.  is  to  the  refers  transfer  the  the  12:10  Self-concept:  himself  must  school  -perf ormance:  Point  transfer:  than  to  only  to  eight  closed.  one  for  from  measured  6.  and  School  Grade  other  grade  close.  attending  Secondary  Academic  to  school  refers  session  into  students  been  populations  5.  decision  situation  previously  4.  students  and,  single  educationally believes  self-concept  was  about  6  measured,  by  four  scales  —self-confidence, sonal from  the  Adjective  Check  self-control,  l a b i l i t y ,  and  adjustment—and the  California  personal  worth,  sense  personal  of  from  five  Test  personal  of  freedom,  per-  adjustment  scales  Personality—sense  self-reliance,  feeling  and  total  of  List  of  belonging,  personal  adjust-  ment .  7.  Social the  adjustment:  student  attitude forced  towards  Social  from  school  School  of  the  and  the  and  extent  by  and  the  total  incidence  of  the  and  social  adjust-  Personality--  social  Neumann  the  school.  a n t i - s o c i a l  the  student's  which  the  of  which  towards to  five  Test  s k i l l s ,  to  a c t i v i t i e s  towards  California  Index,  degree  school;  school  measured  relations,  the  school the  in  social  Sentiment  Questionnaire,  and  as new  loyalty  was  standards,  encies,  new  involved  feeling  scales  his/her  his/her  adjustment  social  the  a  to  defined  transfer;  becomes  develops  ment  adapts  school  student  is  tendadjustment--,  Research  absenteeism.  Format  The  remainder  following  manner.  address  the  ing  review  the  study  w i l l  issues  be  of  of  this  The  four  raised, the  thesis null w i l l  w i l l  in  organized  hypotheses be  literature.  presented  be  d e t a i l .  established  stated  in  In  next  the  The  in  Chapter  testing  II  chapter,  the to followthe  instruments,  7  the  subjects,  analysis  w i l l  analyzing cations  the  in  open  with  tions  of  the  procedure,  a l l  "be  an the  described.  results  terms  of  of  the  overview study,  the  the  the a  Recommendations  be  chapter  for  future  The  research.  study  and  w i l l  study,  summary  conclusions. made.  Chapter  hypotheses.  of  and  research  of  based  close  w i l l  f i n a l  be  on a  of  of  to  impliw i l l  the  l i m i t a -  findings  findings  number  data  devoted  their  principal  these  the  chapter  discussion the  with  IV  and  discussing  The a  design,  w i l l  and then  suggestions  8  CHAPTER REVIEW  OF T H E  Declining  Declining  enrollment  cators,  administrators,  Between  i960  United Salt one  States  Lake  1972  the  clined  by  (Brody, and  school  1976;  Epstein,  1976).  there  from  their  ment the  1972  has been Ontario  that  at  least  be  drop  the United  to  1982  Force this  another  schools  The begin  of  June less  forty  schools  Between  students  decline  Salt  1975 c r i t i c a l  Lake  i n the  the  de-  i n  becoming of  19751 than  students  i s  during  time.  decade  City  total ex-  1977).  In  downward  edu-  i n the  of  1975) •  600,000  experiencing  on School  w i l l  out  elementary  States  steadily  decade.  As  closing  (Moore,  percent  (Warner, are  schools  65,070. schools  of  to  the present  Superintendent  an eleven  boards  at  The s i t u a t i o n  counterparts.  1978),  secondary  a  Thomas,  decreasing  Task  alone  i n  school  American  (Henderson, for  w i l l  D.  to  American  with  Canadian to  of  importance  elementary  anticipated  year  percent,  to Dr.  of  twenty-four  2.7  population  tending  school  of  boards  91,853  City  t h e number  according  Schools,  a problem  from  a n d New Y o r k  a n d 1976  Enrollment  t h e number  had closed  1975-76  i s  LITERATURE  and school  decreased  City  hundred  during  a n d 197^  II  Ontario,  since  1971  F a c i l i t i e s trend task to  i s  similar  elementary  e n r o l l -  and, according and the  predicted  force  problems  experience  a  Community to  further  to  continue projects  significant  9  r e d u c t i o n i n s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n which w i l l 1980's.  l a s t throughout  F i g u r e s o b t a i n e d from B r i t i s h Columbia Research and  N o r t h Vancouver S c h o o l Board i n J u l y 1979  S i n c e 1973,  Between September 1976  and June  1979,  s c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n decreased by 7«6 p e r c e n t o r  16,861 s t u d e n t s .  I n N o r t h Vancouver the d e c l i n e i n e n r o l l m e n t  has been even g r e a t e r . elementary  enroll-  "the t o t a l s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n i n the p r o v i n c e  d e c l i n e d by 5«6 p e r c e n t . the secondary  the  indicate that B r i t i s h  Columbia i s f a c e d w i t h an e q u a l l y s e r i o u s drop i n p u p i l ment.  the  Over the p a s t s i x y e a r s the number of  s t u d e n t s i n the d i s t r i c t d e c l i n e d by 20 p e r c e n t  and  t h e number of secondary  s t u d e n t s by 14.5  percent e q u a l l i n g a  t o t a l r e d u c t i o n of 17.7  p e r c e n t o r 1,924  students.  Thus i t can  be seen t h a t d e c l i n i n g e n r o l l m e n t i s becoming an i n c r e a s i n g l y s e r i o u s c o n c e r n throughout  North  America.  O v e r - a l l , the emphasis i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e i s on the need for school d i s t r a c t s ,  and s u b s e q u e n t l y the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n ,  t o r e c o g n i z e the s e v e r i t y of the d e c l i n e and the f a r r e a c h i n g e f f e c t s i t may  have on the e d u c a t i o n a l system.  s a y s , ' " t h e most s e v e r e problem ness.  As Dr. Thomas  i s d e v e l o p i n g p u b l i c aware-  No one r e a l l y wants t o b e l i e v e t h a t d e c l i n i n g  ment i s g o i n g t o o c c u r " (Warner, 1977* p - 1 3 ) «  enroll-  Once awareness  develops, i t i s then p o s s i b l e to design a systematic  approach  f o r d e a l i n g w i t h a s i z e a b l e r e d u c t i o n i n student p o p u l a t i o n .  Reasons f o r the D e c l i n e i n E n r o l l m e n t The f i r s t q u e s t i o n which tends t o a r i s e i n a d i s c u s s i o n about d e c l i n i n g e n r o l l m e n t i s "why  i s i t occurring?"  Two  major  10  factors rates  are generally  cited:  and geographic  the  United  States  the  number  o f women  mobility.  h i t  a record  of  prime  twenty-nine--was  at  1973.  a m i l l i o n  the  there  number  (Epstein, the  of  of  26.1  births,  or  (Rideout, fallen  of  live  a birth 1975).  below  A variety to  explain  sult of  bearing they ing  unwanted  want  to wait  until  Secondly,  explore  roles  increased  of  than  institutions  and/or  has  also  more  children.  rise  i n the cost  control  and the  of  of  a r e now a b l e that  movement  because  living,  settled  of  children  r e -  prevalence  plan  Many before  has encouraged  when  are  choos-  having women  a to  such  as  motherhood.  courses  at  post-second-  the work for  as a  women a r e  to  family.  roles  are taking  entering  fewer  1975).  sociologists  i n birth  acceptable  Finally,  by  1973  has  (Moore,  First,  Couples  live i n  rate  babies.  abortion,  birth  population,  proposed  though  Ontario  a  fewer  traditional  o f women  i n  123,601  growth  In  even  or  f e r t i l i t y  been  are financially  ary  have  have  to  to  dramatically  that  159i245,  i n i960  i n  although  i n i960  indicate  from  births  million.  had increased  population  towards  t h e women's  number  i t  zero  eleven  than  the Canadian  are having  they  births  of  f e r t i l i t y  years—twenty  per thousand  and the size  other  made  15.6  children.  child.  An  of  attitude  a family  4.35 m i l l i o n  population,  advancements  liberal  of  approximately  explanations  why women  high  statistics  Presently  of  of medical  a more  rate  the point  t h e number  decreased  per thousand  and  i960  childbearers  births  the birth  In  fewer  Canadian  i n  childbearing  a low of  potential  1976).  number  rate  were  changes  force.  couples inflation  to  This decide  and the  are becoming  movement not  to  constant  increasingly  11  expensive to  have  tions  to  much  Consequently,  couples  smaller  families  those  (Epstein, The  to  raise.  areas,  economic  cause  geographic  urban  centers  Brody  explains,  to  of  declining  rural  lished  suburban  areas  cities  increasing,  where  are available.  plentiful  ment a  from  Ontario  (Rideout,  largest  school learn  how t o  advantages Legget  of  educators out,  how t o  Superintendent  directly  related  living  of  are moving  some  (1967,  tend  to  metropolitan  In  Canada,  f o r  to  Alberta  where  is  the  p.32). i n  estab-  With  un-  communities  instance, jobs  As  taking  older,  settle  from  are lower.  pattern  out of  as w e l l "  i n  costs  migration  Declining  to  many  are  people  more  option  250 s t u d e n t s  run a small Mercer  school  Island  declining  to  keep i n  attributed effectively and provide (1977).  School  open  schools  order  to to  to  open  enjoy them.  i n  an  a  and the As  run schools  Craig  District,  enroll-  population  be two o p t i o n s  schools  have  with  the student  is  constantly  the British of  dealing  seem t o  smaller  have  Enrollment  do when  There  The f i r s t  a maximum p o p u l a t i o n example  also  where  research  on what  administer  points  to  of  diminishes.  d i s t r i c t .  is  1975).  body  concentrates  district  genera-  families  families  Responses  The  previous  enrollment  and also  communities  employment  migrated  tending  of  Many  "the population  o u t o f many  have  situation  mobility.  people  jobs  are  1976).  present  the other  than  today  with  excellent Currie,  argues  that  12  declining an  enrollment  educational  istrators with  a diminishing  cational tunity  student  class  community  childhood  programs,  f o r  However,  as enrollment  sound  trustees  then  with  must  to  situation.  The  second  discussed  closure  one o r more  the key to  lations and  program  usually  (1975,  p.41).  makers  must  must  consider  students  no l o n g e r a small  school  a school  schools.  aimed at  the student  i n general.  Epstein their  As Keough  emphasizes  solutions  on f a c t  and anxieties  even-  School  coping  the phase-out  and  i n the f i e l d  "the  the  but at  agree  public  teachers,  that  and  and t h e one most  says,  of  may  feasible  of  an effective body,  early  p.32).  functioning.  the books-building-budget  (1976)  the concerns  i s  oppor-  talented,  the point  board, i s  edu-  more  1976,  method  out  attention,  and the  Researchers  phase-out  more  economically  an alternative  to  be an  provide  decline  f o r  State  positive  (Brody,  i n the literature,  outweighs  base  to  admin-  pointing  should  the gifted  a smooth  the community  problem  keep  option.open  frequently  that  i s  consider  the  of  continues i t  of  or  faced  New Y o r k  centers,...to  f o r  boards  agrees,  enrollments  the handicapped"  when  educationally  1976)•  a number  and give  programs  programs  be reached  size  of  for opportunities  Nyquist,  c a n have  education  and more  tually  Ewald  school  look  (Brody,  "Declining  reduce  develop  programs  to  disaster  on the attitudes  He u r g e s  body  enrollment  effects.  to  depending  of Education,  declining  be a n e d u c a t i o n a l  trustees.  educational  Commissioner  to  renaissance  and school  improved  that  can either  r e -  parents people annoyance"  decision-  t h e same  the people  time  whose  13  lives E.  w i l l  be  changed  Eisenberger,  a  by  several  articles  for  closing  of  cation with  the  a  and  and  be  spent  on  activities  teachers  in  their  point  are,  however,  Faust's to  school  affecting that and  closure. the  closure  therefore  fought  required  emotional  similar  that  parents,  "their"  rules  tional fies  a  a  sense  of  "It home  is  away  should  head"  the  that  must  students prior  and  to  towards even  the  the this  level.  approach  p o l i t i c a l  Cincinnati  must  ease  illustrate  and  He  in  time  Eisenberger's  in  communi-  to  elementary  preservation  is  expressed  Binghamton, children  possession from be  (I976,  school  for  factors  and  found  the  schools  though  concludes  the  that  be  recognized  by  Dr.  the  and  the  accordingly.  surrounding  secondary  to  ownership  closing  in  and a  at  public  techniques  the  has  directly  school  used  renovations.  view  Schools  school the  of  their  school  teachers,  atmosphere  when  a  new  and  the  need  public  social  schools  co-ordinated  school.  that  heart  of  of  neighbourhood  ally  a for  point  Superintendent  two  the  the  both  their  supports  of  extensive  nature  decision-making A  f e l t  aid  appropriate  studied  prepare  of  Katherine  concurs  suggests  examples  (1977)  He  the  she  to  to  The  only  research  communities  schools  a  (1975)•  to  a variety  designed  school.  stresses  Finally,  adjustment  the  how  involving  using  anxieties.  transfer  She  for  of  researcher,  describing  for  tensions  actual  cited  school.  public;  decision-making;  closing  frequently  written the  the  home.  New  get in  People  p.58).  Rideout  closure  rather  than  sense w i l l  when  of an  He  observes  emotional  every  but  the  York.  very  closed,  Grenis,  i t adds a  of  the  agree is  about  ration-  theirs,  that  school  elementary  word--  the  the emo-  intensischool  is  14  involved.  Often  the secondary  the  community  and  i t s reputation Another  of  has a strong  factor  a community  closings of  tend  a lack  fear  that  that  i t  gests  the  to  go  discarding  of  equate  concerned  that  with  a school  of  their  board  i s  sions,  and concerns  school  closure—neighbours,  a  boomerang  parents the  have  school  1974). a  In  school  school  effect  to  court  other  cases,  of  decline,  of  failure,  "The community the end of  homes unable  drop  to  In  dis-  are a v i t a l  part  of  away  values,  of  1975;  because are  w i l l  1977).  affected and  closure  Brody,  ten-  by  a  teachers--  school  prevent  districts, by  1976;  taking Averson,  the closure  and the staff  were  such  the anxieties,  (Rideout,  they  the  they  school  (Williams,  a school  Generally,  from  Lastly,  students,  to  fearful,  the  prevented  t h e movement  community;  involves  p.19)•  a number  to  sug-  by the people  parents,  seems  are considering  reduce  and  He  property  to  school  agrees.  a movement  l e d by the p r i n c i p a l  i n question.  emotional, Fulton  (1975,  the  the neighbourhood  can occur.  board  unwillingness that  people  area  experienced  successfully  has been  of  the  is  which  i s  important"  schools  to  frequently  i n a n age when  the closure  the values  " i t  school  a school  p.32).  traditions  to the  and  (1975) •  a very  schools  Furthermore,  taxpayers  i s  1976,  of  as extremely  If  It  i s  tradition  of  people.  a school  (Brody,  the closing  of pride  as a mark  downhill.  issue"  attachment  the closure  be viewed  community  identity  cause  accept  has a long  can contribute  of  or  of  which  the closing  community.  sense  a source  by many  that  ruption  to  emotional  of v i t a l i t y  w i l l  traumatic  i s  school  of  of the  not included  i n any  15  of  the preplanning feel  or  a lack  decision-making and, as Epstein  "if  they  may  react  "by e n l i s t i n g  and  hoard  action.  campaign  to  country"  (1976,  To to  If  a school  a system  i s  and, according  duct  of  declining  a  task  of  every  The in  force  major  or  alternatives 1977)•  plans  mine  c r i t e r i a  reducing renting  to Warner,  to  to  of  f o r  of  students;  they  administrative  principals  from  leading  throughout  f o r  the  the  i s  of  education"  composed  a school  to  (1977»  the next  i s  closure to  study  the school and to  a f i n a l  decision  the school to  ten years  closing; u t i l i z i n g  buildings;  and to surplus  assisting  educational  of  step of  i s  community  than  having  Once to  s e t up  (Eisenberger, declining  1976).  enrollment  the schools, a set  c a n b e made needs  open  representatives  to  (Warner,  develop  establish space;  long-  to  policies  disposing parents  and handling  and  of  the future;  displaced  services;  bypro-  a  p«15).  recommend  into  may r e -  harmful  board,  board  students.  hostility  the children  need  school  and the  the most  findings;  school  improving  staff,  on the  the  "The f r a c t u r i z a t i o n  the group  five  staffs;  school  that  i s  between  community  committee by  which  extending  system  established,  report  on their  school  fight  documented  the education  Simultaneously,  term  office,  i n the literature  developed,  affected  objective  community  to  of  the teaching  advisory  the district;  the  not  has been  group  been  communications  available  communication  have  enrollment.  harmful  funds  support  instances  the emphasis  sult  limited  the central  p.33).  a strong  f a r more  with  community  and the community,  such  is  rapport  Numerous  summarize,  develop  board  save  of  explains,  deterf o r : or  and  any  busing  16  problems  (Brody,  trators  who h a v e  that  i f  these  w i l l  be accepted  be  To of  1975,  a school  children  Rideout,  that,  justing  t o new s u r r o u n d i n g s  w i l l to  have  cite  his  "some  a tough  any data  report  special how  a  of  limited  number  similar  view  ment  consider  a  change  of  by  the need  t o DeGow  of  districts.  and advises  1977),  task  consider  when making  f a i l s In  DeGow, the describes  affect  the impact decisions  (1975)  only  holds  stresses  their  1976,  Epstein  conducted  a survey  are  enrollwhich  recommenda-  f o r the "Series  a  a  tions . In  of  to  on declining  and psychological  on students,  he  and  are relevant  forces  others  Dr.  students  Rideout  a d -  emphasizes  any f i n a l  his points  the emotional  may impose  before  adapt,  assumption.  can adversely  to  how  trouble  However,  District,  school  follow-up  methods;  this  inner-city  on the students many  p.42).  1974;  impact  closures  l i t t l e  (Warner,  School  an inner-city  school  encounter  enrollment  the  discusses  school  he h a s b a s e d  He s t r e s s e s  closure  due to  (1975,  the Phoenix  Unfortunately,  to  i t "  experienced  students.  made.  of  studied  briefly  w i l l  1978).  and no s y s t e m a t i c  Keough  w i l l  close  Averson,  Henderson,  have  to  i s  closure  1976;  and i n s t r u c t i o n a l  upon w h i c h  problems  school  time  of  the closure  these  children  on declining  Superindendent  seem t o  schools  stating  Faust,  and adminis-  a school  the decision  1975;  on the students  change  of  and the actual  1976;  identified.  who must  educators  i n the closing  (Epstein,  few researchers  been  of  are followed,  1976;  closure  have  involved  by t h e community  smooth  date,  studies  been  The consensus  guidelines  relatively  Eisenberger,  1976).  of  17  Education, garding to  U.S.A."  declining  "Education  representing that  time,  declines  of  students  the  43  report  unknown:  seen  at  Student  students.  grams,  to  and  a  asked  to  America.  were  and  level.  out  personal,  districts  enrollment  the  the  aspect reactions  districts  192—students  fear  buildings,  concern  school  having students  needs  a c t i v i t i e s , offerings  and  about  peer-influenced  course  At  unique  Secondary  Extracurricular extent  of  further  positions.  276  The  principals,  a  subscribers  replied.  to  re-  The  regarding  According  had  trends  experiencing  data  teachers,  leaders  lesser  current  3 Canadian provinces  section--92  more  the  respond  includes  leadership  elementary  North  phased-out.  this  having  in  elementary  it  unfamiliar  as  establish  districts  the  that  to  re-establish  were  and  those  being  responded  classmates. to  is  to  were  states of  to  enrollment  primarily  this  order  U.S.A."  192  of  which  in  than  athletic  were  of  pro-  most  concern. The reaction the  respondents  were  observed  their  students  results  were  appear  Number  of  in  actually  asked  to  classify  district  when  transferred  to  a a  Districts  Student  data,  unanswered.  obtained sented  the  and  was  student  closed  school.  and  The  Reaction  Positive Negative Mixed No r e a c t i o n  5 21  left  new  of  below:  10  this  type  school  56  Examining  the  data  it  There they  therefore  i t  becomes is  no  apparent  indication  submitted. cannot  be  Grade  that of  many  how  the  levels  are  established  if  questions  the  are  respondents not  pre-  reactions  18  cited  above  ondary  equally  students.  represent  Finally,  the  over  views  f i f t y  indicating  that  they  were  involved  not  answer  this  question.  Epstein  the  survey  by  dents  are  students  reacting are  This  about, the to  a  the  survey  indicates  new  presented if  effects  to  i t of  i t it  percent  of  phase-out  summarizes  is  important  must  a  not  not  new  be  closure  and  the  sec-  districts  activities  this to  did  section  know  assumed  not  the  very  how  that  of  stuthe  really  Perhaps  trans-  and  v a l i d it  is  to  "quickly facts  true.  regarding  especially  the  known  Respondents  no  research  out,  is  data  subsequent  but  students,  carried  recent  adaptable  (p.35),  further on  most  l i t t l e  and  contention.  and  the  involved.  are  school"  that  of  very  students  closure  is  some  fact,  students  true  school  level,  the  that  support  in  school  on  their  is  contains  that, a  school  to  secondary  of  argued  acclimatize  that  which  effect  fer  and  that  elementary  unconcerned.  report,  published,  ever,  stressing  in  of  How-  the  those  consequences  are  at  could  the be  costly. To ment  summarize,  deals  school  available  school  level  perience known the  with  research as  impact  how  discusses  closing  a  a  attached  surplus the  are  only while  very  school  to  small  schools.  problem  Thus  school,  secondary  declining  increasingly  schools  enrollment. close  regarding  problems  support,  secondary  to  the  administering  community  decreased  about  literature  recognizing  population;  closing, of  with  the  at now  has  on  a  the  the  and  majority  elementary  beginning  is  dwindling  schools; The  a great  l i t t l e  enroll-  deal known  people  to  ex-  is about involved.  19  Hopefully-this  research  Administrators, sure of  of  the  dent new  a  secondary  implications  is  negatively  school  simply  and  the  the  grade  istrators  could  are  at  moved  with  that  mining  a  to  eleven  their  after  less  new  grade  self-concept  of  to  make  must  their  be  by  variable  which  which  this  as  being  f u l l y If,  the  q u e s t i o n — i s  grade  level  students have  school as  who  a  new  are  than  students  measured  social  by  occurs,  more  who  are  their  that  in  a  admin-  students dealing deter-  .  research  d i f f i c u l t y to  stu-  is  is  transfer  academic  to  the  The  forced  a  then  study  school? to  possible  affect  significant  forced  significantly  as  clo-  example,  that  This  data.  the  transfer  ensuring  l e v e l .  to  to  transfer by  about  for  forced  needed  aware  determines  problem  adjustment  some  decisions  decisions.  affected  at  provide  grade  w i l l  and  w i l l  c r i t i c a l  that  ten,  order  school,  level  student's is  in  avoid  exact  hypothesis grade  a  project  after adjusting  transfer  performance,  adjustment.  Hypotheses  Hypothesis I  HQ: There  is  no  difference  formance  of  grade  to and  transfer twelve  to  a  ten new  of  grade  required  to  transfer  (GPA).  as  and  measured  ten  by  and for  the  eleven  school  respectively,  formance  twelve  between  and  for  academic  students grades  per-  forced  eleven  the  academic  per-  eleven  students  not  grades  their  eleven  Grade  Point  and Average  20  H.  :  The  academic  performance  transferring September formance twelve  H. A  H  :  of  new  school  differs  from  Handsworth were  by  not  their  academic  for  students  grade  twelve  in  the  academic  per-  students  entering  grade  transfer  as  required  to  GPA.  performance  :  transferring  to  in  1977  September  a  new  of  Delbrook  of  grade  Delbrook  in  1976-77  transfer  as  measured  The  academic  school  differs  formance  students  twelve w  n  for  from  by  the  students were  o  grade  not  their  performance  of  twelve  academic  per-  enrolled forced  in  to  GPA.  Delbrook  students  3 transferring  to  in  1977  September  performance grade as Hypothesis II  a  Delbrook  2  f l A  The  1977  who  measured  to  of  H^:  fer  is  grade to  a  by  no  differs  were  their  ten  and  new  school  eleven  not  grades  eleven  scales  from  and  the  for  the  students  from  grade  eleven  the  academic  students  entering  required  to  transfer ''  between  eleven  and  for  GPA.  difference  respectively, and  school  Handsworth  eleven.who  measured  There of  of  a new  the  students grades  forced  eleven  self-concept  not  required  twelve  Adjective  as  self-concept  of  to  measured  Check  List  to  and  transtwelve  grade  transfer by  four  (ACL)  ten for  21  and  five  personal  California  The  Test  to  September  a  new  1977  Handsworth not  four  scales  adjustment  from scales  self-concept  ferring  to  September grade  a  new  1977  twelve  1976-77  of  Delbrook  school  differs  required  ACL  from  the  school  students  measured  by  four  scales  personal  adjustment  ferring  to  September of who by  a  new  1977  Handsworth were four  not  adjustment  differs  required from  scales  from  to  the  who by  twelve  in  ACL the  students grade the  and CTP.  in  Delbrook  transfer  the  from  trans-  self-concept  of in  as  and  five  CTP.  trans-  eleven  in  self-concept grade  transfer ACL  of  personal  students  entering  the  from  for  twelve  measured  five  to  Delbrook  students  scales  as  the  from  school  in  self-concept  grade  forced  scales  twelve  grade  enrolled  not  of  for from  were  trans-  CTP.  Delbrook  differs  self-concept  the  and  the  (CTP).  grade  transfer  the  from  students  entering  to  of  for from  who  The  scales  Personality  students  were  The  of  self-concept  ferring  adjustment  eleven  as  measured  five  personal  22  Hypothesis III  H :  There  Q  is  no  difference  justment  of  grade  to  transfer  and  twelve  ment  of  quired as  A  :  f l  A  grade to  the  ten  transfer by  CTP,  five the  incidence  The  social  of  and  social  social  ad-  students grades  the  forced  eleven  social  students  grades  School  the  for  eleven  for  the  eleven  school  and  Neumann R e s e a r c h  not  eleven  Questionnaire  re-  and  adjustment  Sentiment  adjust-  twelve  scales  Index  (SSI)  (NRQ),  and  absenteeism.  adjustment  of  Delbrook  students  l transferring  to  in  1977  September  twelve  :  f l  2  of  who  were  by  the  the  The  CTP,  a  new  school  differs  Handsworth  measured  of  l  new  the  justment  H  a  and  respectively,  measured  from  H  to  ten  between  not  five  from  required  the  grade  the  students  social  SSI,  for  to  social  and  ad-  entering  grade  transfer  as  adjustment  NRQ,  twelve  scales  the  from  incidence  absenteeism.  social  adjustment  transferring  to  in  1977  September  a  new  of  grade  Delbrook  in  1976-77  transfer  as  from  incidence  of  Delbrook  school  differs  justment  scales  of  twelve  for  from  students grade  the  students  social enrolled  who  were  not  measured  by  five  social  the  the  CTP,  absenteeism.  SSI,  the  twelve  forced  adin  to  adjustment  NRQ  and  the  23  H. A  :  The  social  adjustment  of  Delbrook  students  3 transferring  to  in  1977  September  justment eleven  of  who  were  by  the  the  of  new  school  differs  Handsworth  measured CTP,  a  not  five  from  required  the  grade  the  students  social  SSI,  for  to  social  ad-  entering  grade  transfer  as  adjustment  NRQ,  eleven  scales  from  and  the  incidence  between  the  academic  self-concept,  and  the  absenteeism.  Hypothesis HQ: There  IV  is  no  difference  performance, adjustment transfer  the  of  to  grade  a  the  academic  the  social  new  eleven  school  for  performance,  adjustment  students  of  the  to  transfer  to  a  new  eleven  as  measured  by  their  from  the  ACL,  five  personal  from  the  CTP,  five  social  CTP,  the  SSI,  the  forced twelve  ten  and  school GPA,  for  four  the  grade scales  adjustment  and  and  students  adjustment  NRQ,  to  self-concept,  grade  forced  the  grade  social  scales  scales  from  incidence  absenteeism. H  :  f l  A  The  academic  performance  of  Delbrook  students  1  transferring  to  in  1977  September  performance to  a  1977  new as  of  a new  school  differs  Delbrook  school measured  for  from  grade  the  students  for  grade  eleven  by  their  GPA.  twelve  academic transferring  in  September  of  24  The  self-concept  ferring  to  September Delbrook for by  new  1977  eleven  scales  Delbrook  school  differs  students  grade four  a  of  in  from  the  The  adjustment  to  September ment  of  school  a  new  1977  for  ACL the  of  school  to 1977  and  for from  grade the  social  adjustment  absenteeism.  SSI,  the  NRQ,  new as  of  school  measured personal  students twelve  transferring  five  the  a  social  in  the  in  CTP.  eleven  by  twelve  five  Delbrook  students  trans-  self-concept  grade  measured CTP,  from  differs  Delbrook  the  September  scales  ferring  from  grade  transferring  adjustment  social  for  students  September  and  the  transin  adjustto  1977  scales  a  new  as from  incidence  of  25  CHAPTER  III  METHODOLOGY  Instruments  Academic  Performance  Academic dents* GPA  Grade  was  sion  performance Point  defined  policy.  his/her with  the  i c a l  values  Average  by  the  This  f i n a l  exception  C-/P=1.00,  and  Although  in of  a  GPA  accepted  tem  is  is  is  a It  therefore  and  by  the  at  that  a l l  the  of  each  end  of  B r i t i s h  that  Education B=3.00,  the  as  the  stu-  school  Columbia's  student's  subjects  A=4.00,  defined  GPA w a s  year.  admis-  based  on  he/she  enrolled  in  10  11.  numer-  and  C+=2.50,  The  C=2.00,  F=0.00.  i t  is  (GPA)  Physical  were:  performance, student  operationally  University  means  marks  used  was  a  a  not  a  standardized  referent into  standard  parents  of  the  which  determines  University  accepted students  measure  by in  of  academic  whether  B r i t i s h  B.C.'s that  of  or  not  Columbia.  educational  sys-  system.  Self-Concept  Self-concept Check the  List  was  measured  by  four  and  five  of  the  California  Test  of  Personality.  described  below.  personal  scales  from  adjustment Each  of  the  scales  these  Adjective drawn  measures  from are  26  The  Adjective 1952 1971  The  Check  Revision Manual  Adjective  Gough  Check  strument  rather  sists  300 a d j e c t i v e s  a  of  person.  scribe  One  appropriate.  test be  was  by  for  confidence, These  scales  could  be  of  Reviewers  of  particularly  as  diagnostic  analyzes sented  the  to  However,  There  by  each  test a  if  excellent  research  in  line  the  this  1972).  study.  The  ACL  the  of  his  relevant and of  independent are note  that  as  an  Rorer is  that,  argues  if and  special was  in  this  are  that  l i t t l e  has  on  of  the  i n -  the  day  which  if  can  adjustment.  this  which study.  scores.  need  one  in  theory  the or  carefully  concrete  data  pre-  the  ACL.  of  appropriately, potential  the  s e l f -  weaknesses a  demost  study:  in  and v a l i d i t y  used  as  standard  there  r e l i a b i l i t y  either  of  are  self-concept  inventory  very  feels  personal the  con-  attributes  variables to  i n -  It  individual he  variables  reported  research  device.  self-concept  24 d i f f e r e n t  aspects  device  user's  have  or  are  a  describe  interpreted  there  counters  to  adjectives  l a b i l i t y ,  ACL  the  selection  to  the  Heilburn  primarily  be  four  device.  is  and.  can  viewed  an  (Buros,  off  four  scale  manual,  Vance  test  are  the  the  establish  with  used  s e l f - c o n t r o l ,  affected  results  commonly  himself  represent  is  or  this  only  (ACL)  diagnostic  results  of  but  List  checking  The  view  a  of  written.  scored  The  than  use  himself  dividual's  List;  for  the  ACL  is  development  needs  or  theoretical  therefore  an  acceptable  preference test  for  27  The  California  Test  of  Personality.  Secondary Level F o r m A A 1953 Revision The around sonal  California  the  concept  and  feelings  social of  Test of  personal measure  feeling  of  belonging,  nervous  symptoms,  justment  were  The and  only  opinion,  "the  adapted  to  (Buros,  19^9,  the  f i r s t as  the  consistency  sense  of  20  for  each  formula.  The  defined been  as  de-  self-reliance, freedom  from  tendencies. total  reflect  how  states worded  for  In  personal  a person  that, and  which  in  are  they  personal  ad-  feels  his  w e l l -  are  intended"  Mental  Measurement  a  degree but  r e l i a b i l i t y  that  justify  problems"  in  the  sense  critique  Yearbook  for  the  r e l i a b i l i t y  their  (Buros,  his  use  1959,  for  the  diagnosis  p.102)  He  and of  of  personal  feeling the  of  CTP  belong-  there and  is  the  is  social  not  individual that  worth  for  that  subscales  notes  2262  personal  personal,  of  using  of  were:  comments  t o t a l , of  computed  consisted  r e l i a b i l i t i e s  freedom--r=.91;  Sims  was  sample  self-reliance—r=.82;  F i f t h  of  subscale The  reported  Buros'  a l i t y  test  levels  M.  "to  per-  self-concept.  s k i l l f u l l y  Verner  ficient  of  is  have  worth,  plus  between  p.26).  students.  adjustment  balance  withdrawing  Tiegs  organized  freedom,  Shaffer  i n g - - ^ . 91.  fair  is  subscales  subscales  this  developmental  adjustment--r=.90; —r=.87»  from  four  are  six  a  and  adjustment  personal  situations.  Kuder-Richardson  secondary  of  in  as  personal  a measure  asked  new  of  freedom  questions  Internal the  and  used  with  sense  and  Clark  (CTP)  Personal  it--sense  questions  deals  adjustment  security  to  study  l i f e  Personality  adjustment.  veloped  this  of  Thorpe,  sufperson-  norms  of  28  this  edition  edition  and  are are  considerably based  representative. 1953  and  therefore  The  authors  argue, They  also of  free  of  the  the  of  manual  "school  o f f i c i a l s  and  finding  it  most  The  instrument  of  the  test  Therefore, ure  of  a  Social  the  subject's  that  the and  authors  the  adjustment  at  of  study.  the  to  studies  the  is  CTP.  the  these  pre-  reported  presenting  specific  psychologists"  are  using  the  test  that  "in  the  concludes this  they  for  with it  since  test  is  as  valid  as  p.103)• is  argue  CTP was  this  about  that  it  is' not  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  about  revised  "testify  c l i n i c a l  Sims  CTP  in  problem  numbers"  1959,  geographically  validity  than  "many  earlier  manual which,  much  adjustment  doubts  study  major  rather  (Buros,  the  used  the  the  been  information  However,  of  not  be  in  increasing  called  grave  this  is  that  diagnosis  though  have in  that  this used  a given  i t  of  point  Reviewers  of  solely  the  as  in  good  personality  i s .  aspect  a  a  test. meas-  time.  Adjustment  Social justment  area  criticism  for  even  data  example,  instruments" major  problems  The  valuable.  defined  such  charge.  in  w i l l  for  are  90 s t u d i e s  that  states  which  correlational  and  For  those  have  studies  further  validity  and  vaguely  a  samples  scores  and  that  than  however,  seven  content  generalities.  figures,  raw  instrument"  available  sentation in  the  indicate the  large  norms,  cite  establish  value is  The  on  better  adjustment  scales  drawn  was from  measured the  by  five  California  of  Test  the of  social  ad-  Personality,  29  the  School  and  the  Sentiment  incidence  Index,  of  the  Neumann R e s e a r c h  absenteeism.  Each  Questionnaire,  instrument  is  described  below. The  California  Test  of  Personality:  Secondary Level F o r m A A 1953 Revision  cept  As  stated  of  l i f e  adjustment  adjustments. security social  Social  and  six  s k i l l s ,  encies,  school  tions.  In  social  social  the  study, were  used  as  norming  been  freedom  f i r s t  a measure each  The  social  of  designed This  School to  global  give  global  attitude  is  social i t — tend-  plus  total  adjustment. using  secondary  r e l i a b i l i t i e s  and  rela-  stu-  were:  social school  data  were  relapre-  CTP.  Instructional Objectives Exchange  Sentiment a  of  computed  2262  validity the  social  Index:  Secondary Level 1970 E d i t i o n The  was  tendencies—r=.84; and  and  community  social  were  con-  a n t i - s o c i a l  subscales  of  the  measure  standards--r=.91;  discussion  Sentiment  to  and  subscale  r e l i a b i l i t y  preceding  feelings  from  four  Tiegs  personal  as  relations,  and  around  developed  reported  Further  School  defined  sample.  t i o n s - - ^ . 84 .  The  between  There  a n t i - s o c i a l  the  for  Clark  organized  20 f o r m u l a .  adjustment—r=.89;  in  is  family the  consistency  is  balance  only  skills--r=.86;  sented  a  standards,  relations,  adjustment  in  as  CTP  subscales.have  Kuder-Richardson  dents  the  adjustment  social  this  Internal the  previously,  Thorpe,  Index  (SSI)  estimate  broken  down  is  of  a  research  attitude  into  five  instrument  towards  school.  subgroups:  30  i)  Teachers, teacher  i i )  i . e . ,  behaviour  authority  sonal  relationship social  attitude  given ent  to  economic  week  sistency The  as  a  of  as  problem  of  group,  rather  within  that  has  been  over  levels. The  types  item  in  a  and  of  low,  toward in  study,  within  the  structure  the  peer  individuals  the 1.  orientation particular  revised. who  index  technique  school.  The  test  was  from  three  and  high  socio-  were was  toward  were  medium,  analysis  r e l i a b i l i t y  Table  of  students  s t a b i l i t y  computed w i t h appear  tested  represented Two  learn-  to  particular  general  independent  secondary  test-retest was  one's  carefully  a n d who  the  group.  i . e . ,  1,000  toward  an  solving.  regarding  relationships than  as  reflected  interest  climate  a  and  attitude  voluntarism,  feeling  one's  center,  towards  willingness  one's  i . e . ,  entity,  curiousity,  i . e . ,  instruc-  p u p i l .  social  subjects,  in  of  system.  attitude  and  about  interper-  climate,  independent  teachers,  mode the  to  rule-enforcing  experience,  General,  results  to  intellectual  r e l i a b i l i t y . two  and  school  one's  Peer,  states  his  and  feelings  and  teacher  structure  i . e . ,  schooling, SSI  of  Learning,  and  The  control,  opportunity  school,  v)  respect  extracurricular  ing  iv)  and  toward  rule-making  subjective  with  tion,  School  i i i )  one's  used  to  determined and  Kuder-Richardson  the 20  differ-  determine using  internal formula.  a con-  31  TABLE Internal  Consistency and  1  S t a b i l i t y  Internal Scale  Estimates for  Consistency Index  the  SSI  Test-Retest S t a b i l i t y Index  r  =  .88  r  =  A9  Teacher  r  =  .73  r =  .71  Learning  r  =  .68  r  =  .62  r  =  .77  r  =  .64  Peer  r  =  .71  r  =  .71  General  r  =  .79  r  =  .68  Total  score  Structure  Source:  W. fives  and  climate  Popham,  James  1972  Popham,  Exchange,  a director  states  of  the  Instructional  Objec-  that:  It s h o u l d be e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t h e m e a s u r e s u n d e r a n a l y s i s deal w i t h a f f e c t i v e , not cognitive, learner goals. T h e s e e d u c a t o r s who have been accustomed to expect r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s of approximately .80-.90 must r e c a l l t h a t one m i g h t a n t i c i p a t e more s t a b i l i t y and p e r h a p s more intern a l consistency from a measure of mathematical competency or i n t e l l e c t u a l aptitude than from a measure of o n e ' s more v a c i l l a t i n g s e l f - e s t e e m o r a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s c h o o l (1972, p . 1 1 ) . Given  this  information,  the  SSI  appeared  appropriate  for  use  in  this  study. While original  the  form  researcher for  the  May  was  allowed  1977  to  testing  permitted  to  use  an  altered  form  principal  of  Carson  Graham,  the  of  the  school  the  session, test to  in  which  SSI she  was  May  1978.  most  of  its only The the  32  Delbrook  students  Teachers:  Authority  remaining be  the  SSI  reworded no  of  provide  I  Form  II  ual's  actual role to  In  to in  II,  sentences  I  the  opportunity forms A.  to of  by  school in  his  this based  those  the  teacher"  her  advisors  changes.  The  meaning.  to  the  Further,  study.  Appendix  school  student  on  the  divided  to  A  A.  used in  in  social  measures  his  this  school,  study.  adjustment  the  his  to  individ-  perception and  re-  Form  to  l i s t  what  he/she  is  the  coming  school  is  about  replaced  responses nine one  and  a  given  of  series  to  Form  these the  about  scoring  includes  a  different  provides data  by  I  his  addition,  specific  questionnaire  developed  In  into  also  It  was  a c t i v i t i e s ,  represents  more  changes  him/her  question  (NRQ) tests  setting.  loyalty  questionnaire obtain  other  schools.  the  sentence  the  the  concerns  easily  Form  of  a  asks  and what  incomplete  in  Questionnaire  investigate  school,  each  external  in  "My  and  these  essential  appears  that  beginning  by  scale,  Neumann  involvement  were  their  SSI  and  researcher  altered  the  Questionnaire:  provided  only  Form  responses  Appendix  the  omitted  the  groups  that  1978  which  to  complete  Both  of  to  be  1977  not  at  by  maintained made  required  statements  seriously  transferring  question  forward  of  thought  Neumann R e s e a r c h  occur  year.  not  Form  data  actions  Control,  Neumann R e s e a r c h  which  a  was  were  designed  his  and  each v e r s i o n  The  of  was  transferred,  number  statements  The  was  a  It  comparisons  copy  It  scales,  rewritten.  that  had  looking  of I.  These  categories  and  categories.  researcher the key  i n -  sample appear  with  an  groups. in  33  Absenteeism: This dent  measure  involves  t o t a l l i n g  has been marked absent  assumption culty  behind  adjusting  behaviour  of  during  the measure  to  is  a new s c h o o l  t h e number  the school  that i s  of  days  year.  stu-  The  one i n d i c a t i o n  an increase  a  basic  of  i n the  d i f f i -  deviant  absenteeism.  Subjects  Population  The  subjects  Delbrook  10  classified ed  (D.10)  during  enrolled  of  population.  1977  four  students  on swing-shift  destroyed marily  the Delbrook  middle  Saxon with  to  only  year.  total  classified  those  ten, eleven, students  of  such  the months  of  February  School  percent  building.  and who  through the f i r e  class  and was b a s i c a l l y  being  Chinese,  a  equalled  The p o p u l a t i o n  East  were  members  students  following  enroll-  carrying  considered  number  Balmoral School  group  students  a n d who were  were  as  and the control  Only  t o M a y 1976  upper-middle three  i n grades  school  spent at  (D.ll)  per semester  The  groups  included  School  prior  courses  11  (D.12)  t h e 1976-77  i n Delbrook  These  12  Secondary  of  390.  experimental  and Delbrook  minimum this  the  as Delbrook  at Delbrook  twelve  for  June which  was  p r i -  Anglo-  Indian,  and  African. The worth  10  subjects (H.10)  for  the  control  and Handsworth  11  groups  c l a s s i f i e d as  (H.ll)  included  those  Handsstudents  34  enrolled during at  at  the  Handsworth 1976-77  Handsworth  mum o f  seven  tion.  The  ulation  was  basically East  school  prior  to  courses  total  Only  I976  of  such  with  to  in  grades  students  a n d who  considered  middle  Anglo-Saxon and  May  number  School  year.  were  primarily  Indian,  Secondary  were  of  three  f e l t  that  were  percent  mini-  popula-  350.  class  The  and  being  eleven  enrolled  a  this  equalled  upper-middle  only  who  and  carrying  members  students  ten  pop-  was  Chinese,  African.  Samples  For should  each  not  evitably are  group  be  less  arises  described  in  i t than  separately  12  grade  students  12  place  the 1976.  A l l  12-2  in  1977  only  exceptions  in  were 12-2  students  May  allow  were  dents  who  did  tion;  and  those  A  were  selected  sample  mortality Each  of  size  which the  to  a  11  qualify  students  follows.  i n -  samples  enroll  in  A l l English  meet Delbrook  grad-  used  to  section  of  each  course  enrolled  in  English  for  students in  as  was  selected  class  to  computer  into  were  not  i n i t i a l  studies.  order  students  an E n g l i s h  for  required in  requirements.  June  ed  to  the  below.  students  and E n g l i s h  uation  75  longitudinal  Delbrook  12-1  was  who  semester as who  the  were  were  of  absent  not  those this from  in  12-1  sample.  two;  members  randomly  or The  enrolls t u populaschool  35  when  the-testing  dents  in  this  took  sample  Delbrook  11  grade  students  11  Studies  used  of  each  Social  to  who  were  not  members  this  absent  17  size  not  write  for  the  following  take  the  June  1978,  the  from  tests the  or  grade  students  domly in  students  and E n g l i s h place  June  1976.  the  of  students were  not  from  a  a  in  qualify  as  who  took  place.  Mortality  students did  not  in  who  do  so  January;  As  follows.  was  section  total  class  enroll  computer  into  students  to of  71•  as  to  in  selected  7 refused  equalled  A  enrolled  school.  selected  section  students  The  and  a  15  88.  tests  to  were  3 graduated  required  into  testing  1978.  Social  computer  Studies  those  the  absent  were  A  were  did  1 moved;  10-2.  There  and  set  size  were  who  A l l  order  1977  s a m p l e was  reasons:  were  May  Social  May  second  sample  10  10-1  a  this by  stu-  in  students  exceptions  when  school;  Delbrook 10  of  in  students  in  students  students  did  6 withdrew  in  school  enroll  11-2  A l l  population;  from  original  totalled  those  the  11-2  only  enrolled  two; of  The  of  follows.  requirements.  1976.  or  as  to  Studies  place  June  11-1  sample.  semester  The  in  Studies  the  were  randomly  number  selected  required  graduation  course  for  were  The  76.  were  and S o c i a l  meet Delbrook was  was  students  11-1  place.  of  in  used of  seven  A l l English  to  each  rancourse  sections  36  of  English  sections May  10  were  1977-  "being not  in  randomly  The  only  selected  enrolled  those  semester  for  in  students  two  selected  students the  did  population;  and  those  from  school  the  testing  inal  size  14  of  students  write  the  this by  second  set  following  reasons:  write  the  tests  June  1978,  the  Handsworth grade  11  Studies  11  place  students  in  order  In  A  into  order  to  one  of  obtain  and  those  held  at  The  only  students  did  not  qualify  as  was  these  9*30  members  do  did  so  not  for  the  As  to of  71.  as  follows.  enroll  in  A l l  Social  requirements  three  group  classes  to  randomly  classes  in  June  of  approximately  classes 10:30  who  had  no  of  totalled  school.  and  were  orig-  refused  a.m.  sample  absent  used  three  ed  the  of  the  two  for  one  of  The  who  graduation  sample  only  selected  to  a  students,  ing  of  not  from  two;  were  9 either  computer  80  chosen.  did  selected  meet  students  members  who  equalled  attend  mornings.  students  1976.  to  as  students  required  to  12  Mortality  and  were  were  of  85.  absent  size  chance  place.  tests  were  sample  expected  Friday  of  no  took  The  5 moved  or  students  and were on  11  1978.  in  semester  students  s a m p l e was  May  in  these  sample  the  qualify  this  when  were  of  the  had  class  not  five  for  who  sample  an E n g l i s h who  and  those  this  were  a.m.  chance  need-  were of  be-  students  who  population;  those  37  students  who  tember  1977;  school  when  of  this  dents and As  and  for  this  ures  those  1978,  the  possible  10  10  to  10  and  classes  on  Tuesday  randomly  place  tions  June  in  no  were  a.m.  chance  those  the  students  who  this  population;  ring  to  a  students place.  new who  The  Mortality  the  A  students  selected did  not  those  school were  in  39  for  the  to  for  two  one  of  that  meas-  who  by  9:30  sec-  a.m. who  sample  1977;  of  and had  were  members  were  to  three  students  as  used  sample  the  at  the  this  of  group  was  a  A l l  Social  three  obtain two  in  large  computer  the  students  is  follows.  enroll  qualify  of  as  three  September  size  reason  data  only  when  The sample  held  students  absent  original  totalled  only  The  for  the  to  those  school  session.  of  into  order  size  stu-  except  78.  selected  mornings.  and  40  from  participation.  of  chosen.  being  size  required  In  was  Sep-  original  testing  equalled  one  needed  of  size  the  80 s t u d e n t s ,  were  second  i t  attend  1976.  approximately classes  to  The  absent  from  were  were  Studies  place.  student  students  students  were  withdrew  collect  without  who  in  students the  in  school  43  sample  discrepancy  new  totalled  Five for  a  Mortality  a b s e n t e e i s m when  Handsworth  10:30  took  83.  show  to  students  testing  1978.  mentioned  grade  transferring  was  not  June  was  the  May  38 d i d  GPA  i t  and  sample  by  of  were  of  transferand  testing  those  took  sample was  73•  May  Four  1978.  38  students  withdrew second  from  school  for  the  the  sample  ism  when  i t  equalled  69.  crepancy  in  the  of  possible  to  collect  mentioned  testing  size  was  without  session.  34  size  and  except  the  did of  sample for  not  and for  is  1978,  absenteethe  that  the  show  June  GPA  reason  data  student  As  for  The the  35  two  dis-  i t  was  measures  participation.  Procedure  Contact  with  On given her  the  to  Monday  each  parents.  study. the  Parents  This  were  sellors. actual  absences  Testing  of  could  asked  be  study  were  given  wrote  the  English  contact were  was  in  groups  their the  to  school from  parents  so  a  take  the  child  included  Two  1977,  explained  removed  not  May  to  letter  was  home  to  his/  purpose  of  the  participate  and  inform  the  sample.  the  in  coun-  The  that  intentional  refused  permission.  1977  last one  including  sample  wish  avoided.  the  week  briefly  not  to  testing  the  The  the  students  During  sellors,  did  S e s s i o n May  CTP,  in  third  letter  who  These  date  the  student  Parents  study  of  10  days  hour  SSI, the  and S o c i a l  of  the  of  May  1977,  continuous ACL,  and  researcher, Studies  the  a l l  students  testing. NRQ.  gave  up  the one  the  students  Delbrook  administered  teachers  The  in  coun-  tests. hour  of  39  class  time  Students  so  who  that  required  questionnaire  School  after  to  attend  Testing  the  Delbrook  group.  were  during  school  permitted  to  hours.  complete  the  School  closed  on  June  in  school  of  their  the  on September  1977.  choice  Deland  began  1977-  1978  of  testing  1978.  At  Carson  11  group  were  next  day  tests  6,  30,  place  Graham  a l l  tested  in  the  Delbrook  10  group  administered  by  the  the  were  took  during of  the  same  last  students  cafeteria was  the  as  in  one  tested  large  similar-  counsellors  as  1977-  May  Handsworth,  not i t  school  justify  must was  periods  a  problem  research  occur  on  out  of  a modular  throughout  student  in  the  the  cafeteria  was  sent  to  a l l  students  was  given. date  and  class  study  the  the  each  The  during  time  or  principal class  not  students  Therefore,  did  at  f e l t  time a l l .  have  he  and  stated  As  this  several  notice  was  requesting  that  he/she  write  on  afternoon.  A  second  notice  show  a  second  date  a  given  did  was  not  low,  student  the to  up  and  researcher  notify  sent  free  a  who  turnout  phoned  testing  day.  in  As  arose.  system,  tests  third  time  session  May  The  At  of  of  The  each  school  f i n a l  days  that  enrolled  that  ten  could  occur  school.  S e s s i o n May  The  in  extra  Secondary  students  i l y .  could  Closure  Delbrook brook  testing  then  him/her  of  to  a  series  set the  a  40  time  and  worth  place.  control  nature  of  the  It  appears  that  groups  was  second  testing  the  negatively  The  sample  size  affected  by  social like  Campbell  and  settings  in  Research  experimental  procedures  (e.g.  he  mental  stimuli  ity  randomize'  ible" ible an  lacks  (1966, to  use  when  and  true  to  case  experimental manipulated  determining  which  students  groups.  a l l  of  the  the  school  closing,  two  of  control  not  being  ed  during  randomly Every  closed. school select  effort  was  groups  made  assignment  ciated  with  was  classes to  would  as  one  lead  study  for  rather  pretest-posttest  the  data  to  the  but  for  of  and  poss-  i t  poss-  was  not  reasons.  F i r s t , thereby  experimental were the  exposed  the  that  to  subjects  different  for  school  were  being  researcher  the  testto  students. lack  invalidity  group  experi-  experiment  individual  of  even  a b i l -  subjects  chances  control  collection  the  the  select  than  sources  something  variable  school  necessary  to  two  of  similar a l l  reduce  true  independent  in  a  of  scheduling  a  members  natural  measurement),  this  necessary from  i t  of  many  exposures  makes  the  were  Secondly,  t o t a l  random  the  it  of  design  students  hours,  was  whom  which  force  the  the  (the  external  As  over  Design  "introduce  scheduling of  control  the  voluntary  Group  are  can  whom  f u l l  In  there  to  the  p.34). a  his  and  exposures)  Control  researcher  into  when  the  Hands-  Design  explain,  the  design the  though  to  Stanley  which  the  session.  Quasi-Experimental—Nonequivalent  As  of  design.  not  of asso-  41  There mental  were  and  five  three  designated  the  and  a  number  May  1977-  The  and  grade  level  different  control.  school  which  Each  indicated  the  dependent and  variables  were  because  most Table  concern  to  selected parents,  2 i l l u s t r a t e s  the  The  Group as of May 1977  counsellors, design  of  the  forced were  the  name  which  school  in  transfer  academic  per-  dependent  the  and  drawn  subjects  The  teachers  experi-  sample was  represented  of  a  two  areas  of  students.  study.  2  Research  Type  the  adjustment.  they  TABLE  level  were  design,  assigned  variables  social  actual  this  which  grade  variables  self-concept,  was  from  the  formance,  in  group  population  independent and  groups  Design  M a y 1977 Testing  Forced School Transfer  M a y 1978 Testing  Delbrook (D.10)  10  Experimental  0  X  0  Delbrook (D . 1 1 )  11  Experimental  0  X  0  Delbrook (D . 1 2 )  12  Control  0  Handsworth (H .10)  10  Control  0  0  Handsworth (H .11)  11  Control  0  •0  42  There control  were  groups  Handsworth nal  this  of  reasons study.  population  the  study  and m a t u r a t i o n .  provided group  in  school  validity  history  several  the  only  Delbrook  population.  to  That  a  i s , 12  group  from  the  Delbrook  11  group,  groups  of of  were  i t  in  Scoring  groups  control  the  the was  May  the  1977  possible  and D a t a  their  the  the  inters  factors  as  Delbrook  from  test  test  three  12,  experimental  drawn  1978  of  such  have  from  ensure  group,  comparing  to  drawn  to  for  students  with  decided  selected  comparing  Delbrook  was  two  other  group by  i t  controlling  The  the  these  were  "by  from  similar  The  opportunity  11  why  data  data  to  the  same  obtained  obtained  determine  grade  12  how  year.  Analysis  Scoring  A l l test  four  with  an  tests  abnormal  Approximately sure  100  five  accuracy.  ographic  tribution  rected  The  was  for and  and  any  score  scores This  entered  run  hand  percent  information.  percent,  checked  were  on  or of  an the  were  the  recoded.  the  unusual tests  was  researcher.  profile  were  along then  Any  by  was  Any rescored.  rechecked with  A  sample  incorrect  to  en-  pertinent  keypunched,  computer.  variable  i r r e g u l a r i t i e s .  by  coded  data  into  every  scored  verified  frequency group  dem-  and  data were  diswas cor-  43  S t a t i s t i c a l  Analysis  Following for  Research  major  test  randomly priate  suggestion  Design  of  it  the  this  reduces sample  10  and  Delbrook  Delbrook  11  and  Handsworth  comparing  Delbrook  and  from  edition  The  level  of  There for  section sired an  simple gram The  the  level  NRQ.  of  ANOVA of  the  covariance  was  at  was  selected  from set  the at  the  appro-  groups  the  the  school  school. to  i n -  When analyze  selected  Sciences and  and  10,  analyze  used  for  the  school  and  was  (S.P.S.S.),  Bent,  1979)-  11  was  that  it  post-test  used.  S . P . S . S . , .01.  Delbrook  12  involvement  given  inappropriate.  (ANOVA)  was  the  Delbrook  variance  been  .01.  this,  of  significance  at  the'  maturation,  to  and  was  Social  and  and  12  used  program  available  tests of  of  Steinbrenner,  set  pre-measures  Because  i t  11,  not  Handsworth  role  computer  for  was  and  10  was  interaction  comparing  excluding  The  and  absenteeism,  Jenkins,  Delbrook  When  Delbrook  Package  Hull,  no  compare  analysis  for  and  standardized  the  analysis  NRQ,  significance  were  of  to  (Nie,  GPA,  have  variables  ANCOVA w a s  11,  only.  S t a t i s t i c a l  7th  the  12  absenteeism  the  group  of  the  (ANCOVA)  particularly  regression  Delbrook  11,  results,  section  GPA  (Gay,  is  (1966)  Stanley  samples  analysis  and  and  covariance  When  1976).  Delbrook  volvement  of  selection  and  test  of  possible  history,  standardized  Campbell  used.  type  any  testing  of  analysis  10,  significance  selected,  as  between  the  In  this  was  de-  results, instance,  The  computer  7th  edition.  pro-  44  Finally, I)  of  the  to  1978  analyze  NRQ,  lected  (S.P.S.S.,  of  questions  the  actions  to  It was 45  the  must  chosen  differ Thus  the  for  noted this  chance  hypothesis,  in  NRQ  order  the  that  alone  probability  Therefore,  Chi  for  completion  independent  square  dealing  a  study.  significantly  the  t-test  1979). in  sentence  was with  section  (Part  s a m p l e s was  applied  to  role  school  at  the  se-  results and  re-  transfer.  he  variables,  the  the  As  five  of  making reduce  of  the  would  on  to  level  conservative groups  dictate  percent a the  type  of I  were that  the  was  of  significance  compared the  of set  was  if  quite  rejecting to  on  groups  variables  error  chances  significance  level  equal  over  would oC = high.  a  true .01.  .05-  45  CHAPTER RESULTS  The results  purpose of  chapter. sults The  the  of  this  w i l l  be  chapter  is  according  conclude  to  analyses  description  presented  w i l l  s t a t i s t i c a l  a  DISCUSSION  chapter  s t a t i s t i c a l  Following  AND  IV  with  a  present  described  and in  the  of  the  f i n a l  to  the  relevant  detailed  discuss  the  preceeding  samples,  the  re-  hypotheses.  discussion  of  the  findings.  Samples  Before i t ple ed  was  necessary  groups from  Table  detailed  1977  From  the  groups  i t  appropriate  worth  School As  in the  both  s i f i e d  follow-up Prime  were  in  summary  descriptive drawn to  from  select  Chapter  Handsworth  as  the  test  degree  of  the  to  two  could  which  the  descriptive  Questionnaire  results  two  scores  i t  similar control  is  would  occur, five  data  obtain-  presented  appear  populations groups  sam-  from  that and  the  in the  that Hands-  population.  noted  samples  A  the  Neumann R e s e a r c h  sample was  of  determine  differed.  the  3-  to  analysis  did  control  differ,  Handsworth groups  (H.11P).  as An  III,  10  the  there  was  groups.  In  original  (H.10)  and  a  high  order  mortality  rate  indicate  that  to  Handsworth  Handsworth  11  groups  were  (H.ll)  Handsworth  10  Prime  (H.10P)  examination  of  Table  3 indicates  and  clasthe  and Handsworth that  there  11  46  TABLE 3 A Summary o f D e s c r i p t i v e  D a t a o f Sample Groups  H 10 N=69  H10P N=34  D 10 N=71  H 11 N=78  HHP N=4o  D 11 N=71  D 12 N=76  Female  46.495  52.995  59.2*  55-1%  62.5%  57-7%  50.0%  Male  53.6%  47.195  40 . 395  44.995  37-5%  42 . 395  50.0%  B.  Mean Age i n Y e a r s  14.96  14.94  15.06  16.01  16.03  16.07  17.04  C.  Number o f S i b l i n g s None One Two Three Four F i v e to eight Mean No r e s p o n s e  2.9$ 42.695 25.095 22.1% 4.495 3-0$ I.96 1  2.9$ 35-3% 23.5# 32.495 3-0% 2.9% 2.12 0  4.295 23.9% 47.995 14.195 2.8% 1.1% 2.26 0  6,495 25-6% 31.2% 23.1% 5-1% 2.6% 2.05 0  7.5% 22.5% 40.095 25.0% 5.0% — 1.98 0  4.395 28.6% 3lM° 21.495 1.2% 7.1% 2.13 1  1.3% 26.3% 42.195 22 . 495 5-3% 2.6% 2.17 0  A.  D.  Gender  Position  i n Family  r  Only c h i l d Oldest c h i l d Middle c h i l d Youngest c h i l d No r e s p o n s e E.  Father's  Socio-economic  Mother's  Socio-economic  Parent's  6.8% 17.695 24.395 51.3% 4  '8.3% 8 .395 16.795 66.7% 4  4.395 22.895 28.695 44.395 1  1.495 28.395 31-5?5 38.3% 3  61.8 84.095 15-995 — - —  61.5 37.995 21.195 — — -  63.0 77.995 19.195 1 .595  65.3 76.795 16.495 5-595  65.0 79.595 10.3% 7.795  58.5 75-895 15 -195 9.195  1 .595 5  1.495 5  2.5% 1  65-4 75-795 8 .195 10 .895 1.495 4.095 2  51.8 41.895 3-095  51.2 43.895 4.195  51.2 58 .095 1.495 5-395  51.0 40 .095 1.495 2.995  34.995 2  55-795 6  1  3  Status 50.8 56.795 1.595 1.5%.  41.0 48.595 3.095 —  40 . 39? 2  48.595 0  1.595 53-7% 4  1.495 50.7% 5  50.9 41.795 5 .595 — 2.895 50.0% 4  26.295  25.095  34.395  42.395  50 .095  48.695  41.395  73.895  75.095  65.1%  51.7%  50.0%  51.495  58.795  Education  Neither parent attended u n i v e r s i t y E i t h e r or both Barents attended u n i v e r s i t y . .*.  Note:  4.395 18.695 32.995 44.395 1  1  Median Job c l a s s i f i e d on s c a l e Job u n c l a s s i f i a b l e Self-employed Deceased Housewife No r e s p o n s e G.  3-0% 23.595 29.495 44.195 0  Status  Median Job c l a s s i f i e d on s c a l e Job u n c l a s s i f i a b l e Self-employed Unemployed Deceased No r e s p o n s e F.  2.9% 29.095 26.195 1+2.095 0  Frequencies  p r o v i d e d f o r no r e s p o n s e .  Percentages  appropriately  adjusted.  47  appear the  to  be  only  follow-up  slight  differences  between  the  original  and  groups.  Results  Hypothesis  I  There grade for  ten  is and  grades  formance fer  for  Point  sults  eleven  and  twelve  as  the  the  academic  of  GPA w a s  variable  academic  performance  the  hypothesis  null the  Delbrook  of  a  not  i t  12  the  new  by  school  academic  required their  school of  to  per-  trans-  Grade  for  between  d i f f e r e n t i a l  not  experimental  was  not  rejected.  12  students  to  for  the  did  i t  the  obtain year was  and  feas-  the  In re-  significant  groups  appear  the  prior  comparisons.  significant  the  groups  possible  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  does  grade  performance  a l l  of  and  of  experimental  i l l u s t r a t e d  any  either  academic  students  of  11 and  w i l l  transfer  the  was  are  No  It  was  Consequently,  made 4.  l e v e l . a  study  student's  covariance  found  had  forced  study.  Table  .01 probability  dependent  of  this  in  this  June,  comparisons  presented in  in  Delbrook  analysis  five  As  every  11 and  commencement  1 the  and  measured  performance  GPA?  recorded  an  asked  variables,  their  Delbrook  difference at  question  by  use  respectively,  a  of  (GPA).  f i r s t  are  to  students  o f f i c i a l l y  Figure  transfer  eleven  is  to  to  forced  and  measured  ible  performance  ten  affect  the  academic  grade  as  to  students  the  twelve  independent  of  between  and  Average  level,  GPAs  eleven  grades  two  difference  eleven  of  The the  no  compared  that  either  effect  groups.  on  i n the  Therefore,  The  academic  not  differ  performance  from  the  48  1975-76  Comparison Grade Grade  #1s  #2:  vs  ^  D. 1 0 — _ >D^11  #3:  Grade  11  GPA.  .Grade  12  GPA  Comparison 11  #4:  ->D.1Q  D.10  S ' l t ^ - ^ D  10 G P A 11 G P A 12 G P A  Comparison  Grade  D .11-  D.ll  1977-78  D.10  10 G P A 11 G P A  Comparison Grade Grade Grade  D . l l vs  1976-77  D.12  vs  ,  1  2  -  s  " - ^ S ' ! J ^  vs  u u.i^  D.ll D  D . l l  lot  D  4  N  ^ A n  n ^  2  H . l l D D .. ll l l ^-  GPA  n . 11"«  Grade  12  Slut  GPA  Comparison  #5:  Grade  10 G P A  Grade  11  D.10  vs  H.10 P/ ^ 1  .llf  GPA  .11^  D o t t e d a r r o w s go f r o m Solid lines represent  Figure  1.  Analysis  covariate to comparison.  of  GPA:  dependent  Group  variable.  comparisons  49  4  TABLE Analysis  of Covariance  of  Groups  Grade Point  Sources  Average  MS  DF  F  P  D  .10  vs  D.ll  (77-78  vs  76- •77)  Group Residual  1 139  0.783 0.425  1.840  .177  D  .10  vs  D.ll  (77-78  vs  77- 78)  Group Residual  1 139  0.080 0.313  0.257  .613  D  .12  vs  D.ll  (76-77  vs  77- •78)  Group Residual  1 145  0.010 0.244  0.041  .840  H.ll  vs  D.ll  (77-78  vs  77- •78)  Group Residual  1 146  0.042 0.192  0.219  .640  H.10  vs  D.io  (77-78  vs  77- •78)  Gro up Residual  1 137  0.083 0.366  0.227  .635  academic  performance  of  the  corresponding  three  alternative  hypotheses  to  this  f i r s t  alternative  hypothesis  to  the  academic school demic  performance  for  grade  performance  school  for  GPA—were  grade not  Hypothesis  II  There  is  ten  and eleven  grades grade  eleven  of  twelve of  Delbrook i n  i n  fourth  students 1977  September  Delbrook  eleven  n u l l  students  groups.  hypothesis n u l l  The  and  the  hypothesis—the  transferring  to  differs  the  from  transferring  1977  September  control  as  to  measured  a  a  new aca-  new  by  their  supported.  no  difference  students and twelve  t e n and eleven  between  forced  to  the  transfer  respectively,  students  not  self-concept to  and the  required  to  of  grade  a new s c h o o l self-concept transfer  for  for of  50  grades  eleven  Adjective from  of  as  The  second  two  l e v e l ,  to  Test  four  scales  from  analyze  the  the  scales the  made  during  one  significant.  exception The  from  none  results  are  of  Analysis  was  school  w i l l  either  transfer  and  experimental  ACL  and  five  of  ad-  ANCOVA  12 and  used).  the  groups  personal  previously,  ANOVA w a s  was  Delbrook  The  group  self-concept  meas-  2.  of  the  findings  summarized  of  in  were  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  Table  5«  A  more  5 Self-Concept  D.10 vs H.10P  Scale  (CTP).  the  stated  the scales  of  analysis  Figure  from  adjustment  when D e l b r o o k  (where  the  scales  study  forced  As  TABLE Summary  this  the  except  comparisons  With  in  four  personal  Personality  CTP?  data  in  by  self-concept  compared  i l l u s t r a t e d  five  variables,  were  are  and  raised  students  ures  measured  of  question  affect by  as  (ACL)  independent  measured  used  List  California  justment  11  Check  twelve  the  the  grade  and  Measures  D.10 vs D . l l  D . l l vs H.11P  D . l l vs D.12  CTP  Sense  of  personal  Total  personal  freedom  ..  adjustment  ..  ns ns ns ns ns  ns ns ns ns ns  ns ns ns ns ns  ns X ns ns ns  ns ns ns ns  ns ns ns ns  ns ns ns ns  ns ns ns ns  ACL  Note:  ns X  = no s i g n i f i c a n t difference = significant difference at  .01 level  of  significance  51  1976-77 Comparison Grade Grade Grade  10 11 12  #1:  12  vs  D.10 D.10D. 1 1 -  Self-concept Self-concept Self-concept  Comparison #2: Grade  D . l l  D.12  vs  #3:  D . l l  Grade  11  Self-concept  Grade  12  Self-concept  ~ -  ->  D . 1 2 4vs  ->  D . l l  ^  D . l l * H.llPi'  H.11P D . l l H.ll-~. "  C o m p a r i s o n #4:  D.10  Grade  10  Self-concept  Grade  11  Self-concept  Note:  vs  H.10P D.10— H.10P-,  2.  Analysis  *T  ^ D . 1 0 ' ^H.lOPj,  D o t t e d a r r o w s go f r o m Solid lines represent  Figure  D.10*  D.llvU  D . l l  Self-concept  Comparison  1977-78  of  c o v a r i a t e to comparisons.  self-concept comparisons  dependent  measures:  variable.  Group  52  detailed cept  presentation  measures The  ference on  the  means  one  between scale  Sense  12.16  scored  13-09.  proposed 11  on  ten  on  and  Appendix  the  s t a t i s t i c a l  the  12  E)  analyzed  data,  the  second  forced did  to not  students  differ  who  did  alternative  hypothesis  to  the  of  Delbrook  eleven ACL  Delbrook  in  and  in  students  September  students  September  five  not  personal  the  n u l l  differs to  measured  adjustment  a  d i f -  of  the  students  hypothesis  of  10  Delbrook  school  for  schools.  hypothesis  fourth  D.  students  self-concept  change  null  and  students  n u l l  new  transferring  1977  as  a  from  transferring 1977  to  12  11  self-concept  transfer  C,  11  Delbrook  Delbrook  The  s e l f - c o n -  examination  the  rejected.  B,  Delbrook  An  that  of  significant  while  this  twelve  and  worth.  showed  to  grade  A,  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  personal  hypotheses  of  Tables,  students  alternative  concept  B,  analysis  scale  be  twelve  eleven  was  Table  this  cannot  and  of  B,  students  eleven  in  Delbrook  (Appendix  Based  the  exception  scored  and  appears  of  and  grades of  The the  grade three  second  hypothesis—the  s e l f -  to  for  from new  a  new  the  school  self-concept  school  for  by  four  scales  scales  from  the  grade  from  the  CTP—were  not  supported.  Hypothesis  There grade school  ten for  adjustment  III  is and  no  eleven  grades of  difference  students  eleven  grade  between  ten  and and  the  forced twelve  eleven  to  social  adjustment  transfer  to  respectively, students  not  a  and  of  new the  required  social to  53  transfer c i a l  for  grades  adjustment  (CTP),  the  The the  two  level, as  by  the  five  NRQ,  and  parisons  made  when  the  as  sons  those  made w h e n Two  ment.  and  the  incidence  of  the in  were  analysis  TABLE Summary  of  Analysis Five  of  Social  Anti-social  Note:  ns  tendencies  = no s i g n i f i c a n t significance  of  was  school the  from  and  the The  the  2 and  the  either  experimental  Figure  of  Research  w i l l  absenteeism?  to  Personality  transfer  scales  used  so-  absenteeism.  study  are  five  Neumann  test  those  five  groups  group  results  shown  measure  grade  CTP,  group in  social  social  of  the comare  compariFigure  1.  adjust-  adjustment  6  Adjustment  (Fdm).  the  by  standardized  Measurement  Scale  Test  of  of  absenteeism  tests  the  this  forced  incidence  i l l u s t r a t e d  of  in  adjustment  analyzing  measured  (SSI),  adjustment  social  analyzing  summary  the  as  California  Index  variables,  standardized  A  twelve  the  asked  social  the  same  from  question  independent affect  and  Sentiment  (NRQ),  f i n a l  measured  SSI,  scales  School  Questionnaire  eleven  No.  1  of  Scales:  Social  Adjustment:  CTP  D.10 vs H.10P  D.10 vs D . l l  D . l l vs H.11P  D . l l vs D.12  ns ns ns ns ns  ns ns ns ns ns  ns ns ns ns ns  ns ns ns ns ns  difference  at  .01  level  of  .  54  scales  drawn  hensive  from  CTP  presentation  data  Table  appears  the  groups  were  found  on  the  five  The  social  adjustment  of  the  transferred  CTP  was  No  the  in  I,  the  B.  of  presented  and  by  Appendix  is  not  significant  significantly  in  6.  A more  Tables  differences social  F,  students  affected  by  G,  between  adjustment  compreH,  any  of  scales.  as  measured  either  independent  variable. A  summary  ardized Table J  test  7 while  through  of  used the  the to  School measure  specific  Sentiment social  results  of  Analysis  of  Scale  Note:  ns X  adjustment, appear  in  second  is  stand-  located  Appendix  B,  in  Tables  7  Measurement  Subtests  Teacher:  the  M.  TABLE Summary  Index,  of  No.  the  D.10 vs H.10P  2 of  Social  Adjustment:  SSI  D . l l vs D.10  D . l l vs D.12  ns  ns  ns  ns ns ns ns ns ns  ns ns ns X ns ns  ns ns ns X ns ns  D . l l vs H.11P  interpersonal  = no s i g n i f i c a n t difference - s i g n i f i c a n t difference at  .01 level  of  significance  55  No the  significant  Handsworth  perimental in a  both  D . l l in  vs  the  means the  groups  D.12)  there  than  limited  the  in  11  the  was  a on  Tables  students other  D.10  8 and  Delbrook  and  for  the  social  of  to  Delbrook  12 s t u d e n t s  study.  yzed  with  were  found  obtain  in  any  of  In  terms  of  of  this  the by  the null  Table  social  the  that  in  ex-  However,  compared vs  D.10  to  and  difference  examination both  lower  These  of  the  cases, on  the  results  , Peer  provide  hypothesis  to  hypothesis  a l l  of  the  prior the  case of to  as of  the  this to  the  at  third  GPA,  it 11  was and  commencement  attendance  made  the  Delbrook  significant  comparisons  data  was  of  anal-  differences  the  .01  prob-  10). the  adjustment did  groups.  hypothesis  selected  record  year  measure,  absenteeism, control  in  s t a t i s t i c a l l y the  this  As  attendance  for  No  (see  measured  the  ANCOVA.  level  as  An  alternative  a b s e n t e e i s m was  Consequently  a b i l i t y  jected  scale.  alternative  adjustment.  possible  this  (D.ll  significantly  third  Delbrook  D . l l ) . was  when  hypothesis.  incidence of  vs  the  significant  students.  hypothesis  identified  to  11 group  9 shows  scored  second  measure  H.11P  population  Peer  the  null  and  s t a t i s t i c a l l y the  were  compared  Delbrook  for  The  to  the  scores  were  support  fourth  ment  vs  in  Delbrook  obtained  presented  scale  where  from  scores  groups  (H.10P  drawn  Delbrook  null  control  instances  group  differences  plus  of  null the  hypothesis experimental from  the  was  not  groups,  social  reas  not  differ  adjust-  The  three  alternative  hypotheses  the  third  alternative  hypothesis  56  TABLE Adjusted  Means:  Measurement  Subtests  of  8 No.  relationships  vs  ..  No.  Subtests  the SSI—D.12  2 of  Scale Teacher:  methodology  Teacher:  interpersonal  10  Delbrook  38.71 33*52 28.93 55.63  38.87 33.02 29-32 53.11  192.14  187.77  11  15.81 17-63  9  Measurement of  Adjustment—  D . l l  17-85 17-51  TABLE  School climate Peer Learning Global score  Social  Delbrook  Teacher: methodology Teacher: interpersonal General School climate Peer Learning Global score  General  of  the SSI--D.10  Scale  Means:  2  Social vs  Adjustment— D . l l  Delbrook  relationships  ..  37-18 31.11 29-37 55-46 17-52 17-77  188.40  12  Delbrook  38.83 33.20 29-45 53-13 15-73 17-62  I87.96  11  57  TABLE Analysis  of  Covariance:  Social  Measurement  3  No.  of  Adjustment—Absenteeism  Sources  Groups  10  DF  MS  F  P  D.10 v s D . l l .£77-78 v s 76- 77)  Group Residual  1 139  452.392 83.024  5.449  .021  D.10 v s D . l l (77-78 v s 7 7 -•78)  Group Residual  1 139  259.282 67.361  3.849  .052  D.12 v s D . l l (76-77 v s 77-•78)  Group Residual  1 lll4  206.214 61.677  3.343  .070  H.ll  1 146  141.199 62.936  2.244  .136  (77-78 v s 77-•78)  Group Residual  H.10 v s D . 1 0 (77-78 v s 77-•78)  Group Residual  1 137  3.070 83.600  0 .037  .848  to  vs  D . l l  the fourth  students  dents  differs  transferring  1977--were  not  Through data  about  lected.  11  specific Q.  to  to  social  a new s c h o o l  from  the  social  a new s c h o o l  f o r  adjustment grade  adjustment for  grade  of  twelve of  Delbrook i n  Delbrook  eleven  i n  Sepstu-  September  supported.  t h e Neumann R e s e a r c h  the students'  The  identified Table  hypothesis—the  transferring  1977  tember  null  second  section  the specific  presents results  actual of  Questionnaire  involvement both  a c t i v i t i e s  an overview are reported  of  forms  of  students  i n  more school  the  B,  was  col-  questionnaire  engaged  the s t a t i s t i c a l  i n Appendix  specific  i n at  findings  Tables  N  school. while  through  58  11  TABLE Summary  of  Analysis School  of  Measurement  Involvement  4  No.  Scales  of  D.10 vs  H.10P  Scale  No.  of  social  No.  of  positions  No. No.  of of  elected positions held. committees belonged to.  No. No.  of of  productions attended social service  Note:  ns X  A  review  between  ment  as  This  finding  that  the  new  the  social  the  who  that  ..  s t a t i s t i c s  Handsworth by  does  for  were  the  at  10P  the  not  the  Adjustment—  NRQ  D . l l vs  D . l l vs  D . l l vs  D.10  H.11P  D.12  ns ns ns ns ns  ns X X X ns  X X X X ns  X X ns ns ns  ns ns ns ns ns ns  ns ns ns ns ns ns  X ns ns ns ns X  ns ns ns ns ns ns  ns ns  ns ns  ns ns  ns ns  support  grade  of  required  the  other did  third  Delbrook in  to  three  d i f f e r  level  that 10  involvement  of  significance  there in  is  scale  students 1977  students  no  social of  alternative  September  Handsworth  not  groups  reveals  the  eleven of  .01  and Delbrook  school  adjustment  adjustment  Looking ent  of  social  Social  held:  measured  school  eleven  attended.  = no s i g n i f i c a n t difference = s i g n i f i c a n t difference at  ence  a  events  of  d i f f e r -  adjust-  the  NRQ.  hypothesis  transferring differs  entering  to  from grade  transfer. comparisons  made,  significantly  on  i t  some  is  appar-  aspects  59  of  school  involvement.  significant ed  the  difference  lower  score  as  In  every  was  instance  found,  indicated  the  in  Means:  Involvement  H.11P  vs  of of  D.10  • 1.95 . 1.29 . .62 .60 . .6?  s o c i a l events attended. teams t r i e d out f o r . . .  held:  positions-  No. No.  of of  elected positions held. . committees belonged to. .  .24  . . .  .33 .52 2.01  .  productions attended... social service  .36 .12  11  than  other  any  volvement  students  in  Handsworth productions  the  group  team  IIP  attended during  vs  sports  students.  than  the  was  13.  Finally, IIP  1.01  1.33 .96 .78 .71  .40  .33 • 30 • 47  they  and  school that  of  .42  .37 .44  .08 .25 .15 .39 • 43 1.26  .06  .13 .25 .51 .98  .17 .26  .19 .12  .14  social year.  events Their  Delbrook  attended  students.  1.17 .50  .40  .12 .22 .49 1.07  dances  than  --  Comparison #2 D . l l D.10  .19 .13  1977-78  less  Handsworth  obtain-  D . l l  .14  .21  fewer  the  group  :NRQ  .05  .40  .  Delbrook  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  Adjustment-  Comparison #1 D . l l H.11P  of  of of  and  of S o c i a l  No.  No. No.  12  Scales of  D . l l and  Scale  No. No.  4  Measurement No.  School  11  Delbrook  Tables  a  12  TABLE Adjusted  where  To  fewer  10  i n and  school  summarize,  6o  TABLE Means:  Measurement School  No.  of  4  Involvement  D.12  13 Social  Scales  vs  of  Adjustment-the  D . l l  Scale No. No. No. No. Spo No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.  of of of of rts of of of of of of of of  dances attended s o c i a l events attended teams t r i e d out f o r t e a m s made supporter positions held: coach/timer/referee.. elected positions held committees belonged to clubs belonged to production roles productions attended social service a c t i v i t i e s ..other a c t i v i t i e s  these  findings  there  is  no  p a r t i a l l y  difference  eleven  students  eleven  and  grade  ten  ents  twelve and  Part  I  give  school.  The  presented  in  Tables  S  brook school  the  a  students  and  than  transfer  1 9 7 8 NRQ  summary  as  to  subjective  T,  11 s t u d e n t s and  the  of  in  Appendix rated  having  not  10  a  the  D . l l  2.00 1.95 63 59 53 .18 24 16 45 22 72 18 19  1.20 .58 .37 .34 .45 .05 .14 .12 .22 .47 .94 .18 .13.  hypothesis  new  A) of  to  for  states ten  and  grades  adjustment  of  transfer.  allowed their  that  of. grade  school  social  required  (Appendix  the  respond-  adjustment  to  sentence  completion  Table  and  in  more  According  to  the  results,  Del-  less  involved  in  B.  themselves  more  Delbrook  and  D.12  adjustment  to  evaluation the  form  null  social  students  analysis  the  in  respectively  eleven  of  to  R,  forced  reject  NRQ  trouble  14  as  being  getting  and Handsworth  along IIP  responses detail  with  is in  other  students.  61  TABLE Summary  of  Analysis  of  14  T-Tests:  Adjustment—Sentence  Measurement  Completion  Scale  Note:  ns X  negative  in  the  other  ing  to  with  other  the  Delbrook  their  students.  note  that  In  the  11 students  be  accepted  by  and w i l l dents  be we  find  B,  These  our no  Table themes  11 s t u d e n t s  light  prior  in  new  the  of  to  and  our  concerns  get  too  about  big?  these  D.10 vs D . l l ns ns ns ns X X ns X  .01 level  of  significantly of  their  transfer  school  NRQ  i t  is  as  we  expressed  them; are  in  Handsworth issues  at  than  interest-  were:  with  more  school  frequently  along  Social  H.11P vs D . l l  results,  most  the  new  school  size  of  ns ns ns ns X X ns X ns  were  these  concerns  students  involved  expressed  Appendix  and  as  the  about  three  Delbrook  to  . . .  11 students  feelings  by  able  students  4 the  ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns  = no s i g n i f i c a n t difference = s i g n i f i c a n t difference at the significance  Furthermore,  from  H.10P vs D .10  Scale  Getting" along  No.  a l l  w i l l  we  w i l l  we  Delbrook; 11  stu-  (see  U). emerge  gave  to  again the  in  the  question,  responses  Delbrook  "What  your  are  be  10  feelings  62  now  about  sponses, tive  which  in  the  having  and 10  brook  change  schools as  negative,  are  summarized  in  Table  11  students  accepting  the  neutral,  15.  It  trouble  adjusting  transfer  to  school  that  of  to  Question  2,  No.  Note:  Percentages  (see  Appendix  fered  in  cally  affected the  B,  roles  types  Table  V)  for  of  to  were  analyzed  with  level  Part  roles by  the  held  a  new  the  Del-  III  held  transfer. by  the  Chi  Delbrook 11 N = 71  Delbrook  response  how  Table  students  the  two  two  do  shows are  was  students groups when no  groups'  Appendix  school 16  the  there  the  (see  by  However,  Square,  between  at  NRQ  3  transfer.  significance  students  of  38.2 30.9 30.9  comments made  the  difference of  no  i l l u s t r a t e s  reaction  .01  The  adjusted  the  significant  the  that  8  their  responses  at  of  to  22.2 41.3 36.5  responses  comparison  posi-  15  negative responses neutral responses positive responses  Number  A  or  did.  Responses  no  re-  than  D e l b r o o k 10 N = 71 % of % of % of  The  appears  had more  TABLE of  September?"  c l a s s i f i e d  students  Summary  last  were  nature,  Delbrook  school  to  not that  B,  difthe  s t a t i s t i responses  Table  seem t o  W).  have  been  any  changes  in  matched by  changes  in  63  16  TABLE A Summary  of  Students'  Perceptions  Reported  in  Their  Roles  at  School  Percentages  H.10P  Role  m  of  H.11P  D.10  D . l l  i  Outsider Loner Follower Leader: small Leader: large  group group  3'0 12.1 39.^ 33^ 12.1  6.0 10.5 38.8 32.8 11.9  group group  3*3 10.0 30.0 36.7 20.0  1.6 8.1 31.2 50.0 9.4  0.0 3-2 6.5  3.7 13.0 38.9 33.3  0.0 8.1 35.1 51.4 5.4  3.4 3.4 32.2 49.1 11.9  48.4 41.9  l l . l  1228 Outsider Loner Follower Leader: small Leader: large  the  roles  D.10 W),  and  of  to  D . l l  were  no  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  using  Chi  When H.10P Square  (see  significant  was  compared  Appendix  B,  differences  to  Table between  groups. Thus,  limited  grade  the  of  twelve of  eleven To groups  subjective  support  adjustment  ment  students.  H.11P  there  the  Handsworth  for  Delbrook in  summarize, was  not  students  students  September  obtained  alternative  September  Delbrook in  the  data  1977  from  the  hypothesis  transferring differs  transferring  NRQ  that  to  a  provides the  new  from  the  social  to  a  new  school  of  the  social  school  adjustfor  grade  1977. the  affected  social by  adjustment  either  independent  experimental  variable  for  when  64  measured out  of  by  seven  teeism. found of  for  were of  found  the  in  of  the  the  hypotheses 11  ferring differ were brook in  from  not  not  support  1977  been  w i l l  new the  social  students  September  to  differ  students  to  a  from to  both  the a  for  grade  and to  differ  entering  a  of  social  11  and  Thus fourth of  n u l l Delbrook  for  eleven  students  trans-  twelve  new  school  for  who  1977  grade  of  not  who Del-  twelve  adjustment were  w i l l  students  adjustment  twelve  of  grade  September  social  of twelve  adjustment  Delbrook in  grade  social  grade  v a r i -  school  grade  the  por-  adjustment  for  three  of a  the  from  were  differences  independent  school  ad-  who  social  twelve  adjustment  and  did  school  number  SSI.  social  new of  the  a  any  adjust-  new  adjustment  new  adjustment  transfer;  w i l l  by  on  results  eleven  on  third  social  affected  transferring  1977  the  a  Delbrook  the  hypotheses--the  social school  of  10  significant  D.12,  and  scale  the  transferring  the  forced  Handsworth  that  transferring  students  a  H.11P,  to  from  group  absen-  social  grade  S t a t i s t i c a l l y  does  the  differs  entering  Peer  have  that  transfer  1977  the  students  to  to  and  alternative  September;  forced  experimental  suggest  may  September  Delbrook in  and  The  Delbrook in  data  students  ables.  NRQ  hypothesis  six  differences  s t a t i s t i c a l  D.10,  groups,  significant  CTP,  of  The  students  the  incidence  measures.  transfer.  between  other  scales tion  to  the  the  and Delbrook  September  Handsworth  required  and  from  10P  students in  scales  Handsworth  alternative  eleven  SSI,  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  adjustment  the  of  no  adjustment  the  groups  Delbrook  justment not  the  social  grade  from  were  between  of  social  scales  support  ment  five  There  the  not  the  of required  65  to  transfer--are  tained  from  the  Hypothesis  NRQ  is  no  the  forced  to  academic  justment school  of  for  the  five  social the  transfer  grade  ten  five  of  detail was  as  10  therefore  f i r s t  the  the  B)  the  Delbrook  the  second  revealed  of  significant 11  students  to  scale  subjective  of  10  the  data  ob-  SSI.  school  forced  measured  to  by  adjustment from  related  the  A  to of  of  for  performance,  grade  grade and  their  CTP,  the  a  and ad-  new  four  from  stu-  social  to  GPA,  scales  twelve  the  transfer  eleven  scales  the  CTP,  SSI,  the  NRQ,  brief  compared  to  alternative  hypothesis  was  pre-  of  the  three  summary  of  the  results  follows.  in  GPA was  found  Delbrook  the  found.  (see  (see  was  Table  5,  dependent  Table  Table  Delbrook  students  was  were  rejected.  analyzed,  between  the  While  these  Delbrook two  When  and Anal-  Appen-  B,  differences  11  4)  rejected.  significant  hypothesis  adjustment  11  hypothesis  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  differences  difference  measures  and  this each  significant  alternative  were  academic  self-concept,  analysis  students  social  the  adjustment  new  the  data the  was  no  a  scales  self-concept  dix  measures  the  absenteeism.  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  of  Peer  social  as  reviewed.  when Delbrook  ysis  by  between  personal  s t a t i s t i c a l  variables No  the  students  adjustment  incidence  in  the  performance,  ACL,  The sented  and  grade.eleven  from  and  by  difference  self-concept,  dents  and  supported  IV  There the  p a r t i a l l y  between  and  so  the  four  s t a t i s t i c a l l y 10  and  the  Delbrook  groups  did  not  differ  66  significantly  on  the  the  of  absenteeism,  incidence  SSI,  they  (see  Table  ment  as  14).  did  the  some  To  Delbrook  significant and  adjustment  and  on  NRQ  for  out  of  on  the  Peer  when  social  the  third  were  differences therefore  of  Delbrook  this  in  there  the  hypothesis  were  two was  10  CTP,  on  the  the SSI  involve-  and  12,  Table  adjustment  did  hypothesis. the  self-con-  students no  and  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  instances not  of  school  performance,  compared,  except  social  alternative  academic  adjustment  of  of  the  scales  scale  Table  11,  from  seven  aspects  Table  analysis  the  scales  six  several  (see  s t a t i s t i c a l  students  11  and  the  support  the  social  significantly 8)  by  conclude,  and  above,  Table  measured  provide  cept,  differ  7,  Thus,  five  mentioned  rejected.  Discussion  The was of  f i r s t  academic GPA  tween  of  rejected.  studied  forced  ated  in  results  study. been  is  the  N o v e m b e r . 1977  was  were the  no  on  as  null  of  the  short-term performance  academic  planned  in  effect  on  the  research "He  GPA.  was  of  not  s t a t i s t i c a l  original  not  and  effect  performance  be-  was  (1972) .  students  no  the  analysis  difference  Nickens  transfer  if  study  existing  had  academic  this  hypothesis  with  of  in  s t a t i s t i c a l  significant  findings  that  if  the  The  questionable  same  of  consistent  schools  remembered  It  review  performance  transfer  investigated  compared.  transferring be  A  there  groups  academic  must  have  that  especially  school  this  would  These  the  that It  in  the  197D,  (Webb,  variable  performance.  indicated any  found  dependent  had  a examined  results been  research  evaludesign.  67  By ed  the  their  end  of  concern  experiencing  at  1977  October  about  the  Carson  a  number  d i f f i c u l t i e s  Graham.  As  one  of  parents  Delbrook parent  had  express-  students  were  stated,  I am v e r y d i s t u r b e d t o l e a r n t h a t u p t o t h e t i m e of w r i t i n g i t would appear that the ex-Delbrook students, e s p e c i a l l y the grade twelve students, are lagging beh i n d the r e g u l a r C a r s o n Graham s t u d e n t s . My i n f o r m a t i o n i s t h a t a t D e l b r o o k a s t u d e n t who h a d a r e a s o n a b l y g o o d r a t i n g i s now h a v i n g d i f f i c u l t y a t Carson Graham and i t would appear t h a t the s t u d e n t s most a f f e c t e d are those taking academic courses. May I request that you investigate the s i t u a t i o n i n order t h a t t h e s e s t u d e n t s may be a s s i s t e d t o r e a c h t h e performance l e v e l expected of them a t t h i s stage of their education.  Furthermore,  according  the  teaching  staff  were  d i f f i c u l t i e s  being  experienced  pecially  grade  twelves.  the  mathematics This  and  out  the  subject  areas  schools.  For  were  taught  ter  each hours  Math  of  as  a  11, Math  grade  material  covered  in  course  weekly.  At  the  twelve,  i t  can  content  11 and  at  in the  Math  two 12  Delbrook  the  content  one  five  taught  seen  that  greatly.  one  semester  hours  of  had  these  and  were  11 d i f f e r e d  the  six  three  be  find  with  12B—with  students  es-  teachers  differently  semester  into  to  Delbrook  Graham Math  academic  d i f f i c u l t .  course  completely  the  of  students,  seemed  particularly  the  members  about  Delbrook  students  that  divided  Math  the  unexpected.  and Math  by  of  The  counsellors,  concerned  by  Carson  one  Although  end  at  12 was 12A,  very  June  presented  instruction. the  not  instructions  11 and Math  --Math  was  example,  school  courses  previous  was  the  also  science  situation  pointed  to  quarof  courses  weekly  the  same  course  the  amount  Furthermore,  of  68  those  following because  Carson  did  the  in  as  a  on  a l l  academic nor  Self-concept  were  and  is  therefore were  again,  found.  concept  i t  As  11  percent  less  instructional  swing-shift. more  in  the  semester  Consequently,  trouble  time  Delbrook  with  Math  12  school  year  the  coping  than  did. by  group  were  the  end  However,  a  of  the  functioning  student's  performance  in  i t  must  grades  at  their  be  cautioned  and  specific  was  the  second  with  one  exception,  Research very  20  show,  of  Math  in  former  this  subject  Dellevel  that  study  areas  the any  were  analyzed.  stable  would  significantly  transfer.  have  proficiency.  identified  gated  on  students  results  based  changes not  seem t o  students  is  was  in  enrolled  received  school  academic  GPA  students  f i r e  Graham  As brook  the  the  students  of  11  Delbrook  Combs  be  on  this  (Combs,  topic  by  no  a  if  variable  indicates  the  single  i n v e s t i -  significant  1969» 1971;  surprising  affected  dependent  that  Rogers,.  students' event  such  differences the  s e l f -  1951)  and  self-concepts as  a  school  states,  The s e l f - c o n c e p t i s s o m e t h i n g w h i c h i s l e a r n e d , and these b e l i e f s about the s e l f develop a high degree of s t a b i l i t y over time. A p e r s o n l e a r n s who he i s a n d w h a t he i s . . . Once i t (self-concept) is learned, i t then begins to determine future experience (1969, p.l). and Once e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e s e l f - c o n c e p t t h e r e a f t vides a screen through which everything is heard, e v a l u a t e d and understood. Once t h e concept i s f i r m l y established, i t i s d i f f i c c h a n g e (1971, p.3)•  er proseen, selfu l t to  69  The  one  scale  the  Delbrook  appears grade in  on w h i c h 12  that,  students  according  twelve  their  the  increased  11  Delbrook  was to  Sense  this  their their  of  and  possible  explanation  personal  measure,  sense  a b i l i t y ;  students  of  feelings  differ  worth  changing  being of  did  being  (CTP).  schools  worthy;  from  their  capable  and  It in belief at-  tractive . One sonal  worth  leaving the in  ter  order  "very  f e l t  compensate  belong  to  the  doesn't  care  'family  feeling'  by  of  about  each  11  were  l e f t  other,  not  11  B,  a  students  many, g r o u p s " ;  people  being  sociable  (Delbrook's)";  Delbrook"  provide  some  Sense  being  Perhaps,  i t  Carson  was  of  such  the  the "I  as  coldest  staff  miss  support  bet-  Graham 19?8)  (NRQ,  and  by  identified  that  and  per-  regretted  V).  they  "one  of  accepted  Table  out,  than  in  students  believing  "clique"  grad  increase  Appendix  Delbrook  our  of  they  feeling  people—too  way  the  Delbrook  (see  a Delbrook  unsociable in  the  that  for  with  Comments  schools  of  students  strongly  "clique".  many  and  Graham  to  more to  that  Delbrook  Carson  even  is  for  for  the this  supposition. The was  called  measured and  variable  adjustment.  several  as  measure  feelings i t .  Delbrook  of  any  students'  of of  the the  in  adjustment  perspectives.  the  social  Analysis  between  of  investigated  Social  different  (1953), a u t h o r s  differences the  dependent  social  from  Tiegs  justment to  third  CTP,  data groups  self-concepts  and  was  of  no  compared. remained  and  Clark,  social  developed  revealed  study  viewed  Thorpe,  conceived  security  this  six  adscales  significant Given  stable  that throughout  70  the  study  and  adjustment  perspective  that  measured  of  absenteeism.  probable  that  incidence  did  not  the  SSI  occur  absentee  measured  reaction  the  more  negative  to  run  only  and  staff  few'  ...  on  for  of  "even we  scale.  feelings  people a l l  are  five  very  impersonal";  miss  the  though s t i l l  close  Delbrook  the made  the  are  11  12  the  group  by  students.  the  Delbrook  Graham  f o y e r - - a l l these  with are  totally  teachers  a  much  students  l e f t  is  'selected  was  going  struc-  were  other  "Delbrook  of  students  Carson  around  students and  d i f -  perspective  peer  by  relations  Delbrook  truancy indicated  regarding  that  in  a c t i v i t i e s  of  significant  the  the  feel  "live"  was  d i f f i -  and Delbrook  comments  school  is  10  within  "I  having  Delbrook  expressed  as:  that  from  feelings  with  be-  It  analysis  no  the  groups.  Delbrook  relationships  such  was  school.  Their  NRQ  "I  the  than  the  school  there  adjustment  consistent  school";  Carson,  of  are  revolve  and  rate  specific  the  those  the  that  lower  the  S t a t i s t i c a l  and  social  a  Peer  than  findings  students  1961).  (Coleman,  from  deviant  was  climate  to  as  a  school  out  of  a f f a i r s . "  The brook  incidence  study,  i t  and  Carson  this  human  surprising.  viewed  adapting,  ture  at  next  were  in  whole";  In  was  to  not  students  significantly  closer  school  are  transfer  on  11  results  related  the  students  These  the  highly  if  The  scored  by  new  the  behaviour.  deviant  a  is  that  this  student  1969),  of  increase  ference  1952, to  hypothesized  would  self-concept  adjustment  was  culties  the  (Coombs,  Social  haviour  that  11  last  quote  students  is  did  perhaps not  the  integrate  key as  to  explaining  well  as  why  expected.  DelMany  71  of  these  students  ex-Delbrook Old  school  dering  continued  students  rather  r i v a l r i e s ,  once  integration. Carson  rather  as  individuals.  Carson  already  contributed  to  not  arise  seem t o  cause  every the  one  to  and  consequently The  the  of  ficant saw  the  This the  finding  and  by  in  same  the  attend  the  than  D.12  than  H.11P  and and  of  these  180  students  groups The  Graham  is  social  groups  from  of  the  more  in  situation  with the  events  the  F i r s t ,  D.10  the  the  along  is  11 students  did  did  try  out  D.10;  and  did  hold  for  and  fewer  make  and  fewer  on  that  Delbrook  Delbrook  H.11P;  did.  felt  feeling  groups  group  results  scales  other  11 with  Involvement  a l l  s i g n i -  students  cited  than  Anal-  revealed  School  than  was  viewed.  students  subjective  was  school)  Delbrook  H.11P  a c t i v i t i e s  This  eleven  was  NRQ  previously 11  be-  adjustment  getting  and  Delbrook  school  the  of  probably  did  forming.  measure  d i f f i c u l t y than  students. of  scale  were social  this  areas.  school  involved  their  which  three  senior  enter-  l i k e l y  secondary  in  students  students  a  having  social  that  hin-  students  grade  questionnaire.  fewer  fact  class  d i f f i c u l t i e s .  completion  analysis  single  11  entering  Secondly,  ported  a  Delbrook  continue  students  as  IIP  the  seemed to  or  students.  700  scale.  Handsworth  Graham  10  consistent  less  new  Carson  Delbrook  Delbrook  is  were  as  the  new  in  themselves  well-established  perception  sentence  students  Peer  they  many  differences  as  The  of  (Carson  perspective  themselves  other  the  students'  fourth  ysis  with  school  as  integration  of  new  Graham  members  the  than  Furthermore,  to  ed  view  encouraged,  transferred than  to  10 sup-  found  indeed fewer sports  administrative  dances teams  positions  72  with  teams 10  Delbrook H.10P  and  students  group  in  Coleman His  research  pation  attend  any  where  they  Ironically,  new  they  their  new The  cantly and  as  were  most  unhappier  Handsworth  IIP  in  " w i l l  we  are  in  directly  The  the  these that  third be  as  forward  to  one  was  to  a  peer  d i f f i c u l t y  their  appears  p a r t i c that  social  center  a c t i v i t i e s .  greatest  able  p a r t i c i -  having  that  It  school  findings.  related  were  surprising  Delbrook?",  looking  for  extracurricular  was  that  get  concern as  aspect  getting  the  dents  l i k e l y  to  Gump  size  of  (1964)  very  involved  in  showing  that  students  who  attend  in  a c t i v i t i e s  a l l  areas  than  indicates  their  students one  in  of  involved of  in  school  involved  a  with  why  the  that  to  in  the a  of  Delbrook  11  school  d i s stu-  a c t i v i t i e s  were  exception  10  Delbrook  (1975)  school  large  s i g n i f i -  preceeding  small  Grabe  were  than  diversity  small  attending  reason  school  school. a  students  with  found in  are  participation  their  ties  participate  in  11  Delbrook  students,  and  research  is  their  the  with  Barker  more  from  showed  decrease.  while  finding,  cussion.  and  H.11P.  school. third  are  did  group  students  not  viewed  1977,  we  explanation  11  is  participate  students  school  which  longer  in>May  11  i t  significantly  peer  Delbrook  a c t i v i t i e s  no  could  one  a c t i v i t i e s  peers,  school  students  our  that  their  these  Delbrook  school  than  a c t i v i t i e s .  adolescent  the  Given  in  these  productions  differ  of  approval.  ipation  of  not  provides  valued  to  did  school  (1961)  in  relating  fewer  of  school. students  concurred, involved academic This were  less  73  involved  i n school  ham n o r m a l l y its as  large  12--over on  1500  i t  school  would  support  On t h e b a s i s  that  students  would  this  remained  as actively  Delbrook  and d i d not differ  Furthermore, the  size To  about  appeared  expressed  and  people  graduation to  the students  Graham most  (30.9$) w e r e longer  have  been  frequently that  possible  there  to close  more  11  cited  students one must  10  refer  students were  i n  about  to  Thirty-eight  students  at Delbrook;  relationship  their percent  Graham at  Five i s  Delbrook  are outsiders; and i t wasn't  The two drawbacks who gave  neg-  the move.  to  a neutral  was t o o b i g a n d t h a t  a close  of  students  d i d react  feeling  by those  school  students.  was a f a m i l y  Delbrook.  11  positive  Carson  Delbrook  i t  students.  comments:  better  the school  t o have  were  schools.  their  much c l o s e r ;  would  10P  dissatisfaction with  throughout  b i g and impersonal;  11  Graham,  t o change  too  were  students  c r i t e r i -  a small  Graham as they  than Delbrook  of Carson  Delbrook  Handsworth  why t h e Delbrook  having  the students  themes  Graham  to the size  comments of  of Carson  i n Carson  i t  11 a n d  the extent  of Delbrook  However,  from  10  the Delbrook  understand  atively  involved  defines  research,  from  to decrease  Gra-  "because  i n grades  of available  The a c t i o n s  assumption.  school  met the population  transferring  be expected  involvement.  580  above  Delbrook  Carson  1975), G r a b e  (Fulton,  has a population  school.  school  their  2,000  t o be exact.  be concluded  a large  Although  n o t he c l a s s i f i e d as a large  i s under  because  of a small  might to  would  population  i n 1977-78.  activities  with  Carson comment  i t was no a l l the  f a i r  74  students  in  the  reflect  the  l y - k n i t  group  a n d who  were  class  which  dents  were  class  was  possible  dents  fact of  people  looking  been  to  friends  being  extended  family.  size  of  Delbrook*s  recreate  the  family  center  of  negatively  their to  substantially  resentment  and/or  from  a  very  grade  a  Delbrook.  disappointment  of  it  in  was  prevailed  the  at  the  stu-  Graham  comments  having  im-  outsiders  Carson  Their  stu-  graduating  Consequently,  aspects  eight  these  the  which  close-  graduating  and where  became  class.  those  of  where  atmosphere  students  were  Suddenly,  the  the  school  comments  since  members  times  these  these  students  a  Furthermore,  so  had  forward  to  11  Delbrook  who  an  Basically,  to  four to  class.  transfer  reacted  their  the  resembled  than  differed  that  forced  Delbrook. rather  graduating  to  which  reflect  transfer  schools. Many  of  the  negative  (Appendix  B,  Table  School.  When  Delbrook  Secondary  cript,  87  V)  asked  percent  comments made  reflect 1977  in  School of  students  answered  brook  11  students  and  quarters  of  to  "old"  their  in the  Carson  response  the  Delbrook  they  11  to  the  would on  In of  same  students  Delbrook  loyalty like  their  students  "yes".  percent  Delbrook  80  77  name  of  question. a  trans-  percent  percent  10  Delbrook  expressed  Delbrook  graduation  and  1978,  the  to  students  of  of  students Over  Del-  Delgave  three-  continuing  loyalty  school. 10  students  Graham w i t h  transfer.  74  the  continuing  appear  Delbrook  10  affirmative  if to  brook  an  a  by  In  on  a more  fact,  21  the  whole  open,  percent  appear  less of  r i g i d  the  to  have  attitude  students  had  enrolled towards hoped  75  to had  transfer not  tional  to  closed areas  The  majority  son  Graham  happy  at  Carson as  not  i t  Graham  for  provides  offered  by  these  students  (see  Table  15,  their  new  school.  programs  any  of  and  grade  other have  eleven in  fine  school  reacted  Appendix  B,  even  in  arts the  if  Delbrook  and  d i s t r i c t .  favourably  Table  V)  voca-  and  to  Car-  seem  76  CHAPTER SUMMARY  The overview to  purpose of  the  summarize  of  this  study;  the  recommendations;  to  to  purpose  understanding new  school  closed. forced  when  The  and  how  their  and  grades  problem on  social  eleven  total  study.  The  365  of  tions--Delbrook School—and basis were  of  their  c l a s s i f i e d  were  placed  school as  the  of  future  brief  the to  study;  propose  research.  Problem  study  school  school  of  was  to  students  had  academic  of  been was  gain  high  an  adjusted  to  phased-out  and  the  of  effect  performance, school  Procedures  school  Secondary  were  of  a  the  students  drawn School  into  and  one  grade.  Delbrook  11  participated  from  high  two  and of  school  Handsworth five  The  two  sample  in  Secondary  experimental  and Delbrook  10.  this  popula-  groups  They  a  en-  Used  students  a  self-  twelve.  high  subjects  present  implications;  areas  adjustment  and  to  investigated  the  Description  A  high  previous  transfer the  of  is  limitations  longitudinal  senior  their  the  identify  this  specific  school  concept, tering  of  of  chapter  state  Restatement  The  CONCLUSIONS  f i n a l  findings and  AND  V  on  the  groups were  77  composed in  of  those 1977  September  had  been  three 10,  control  1977-  Design  was  A  selected  the  to  form  IV)  f i r e  students  for  this  the  and  were  the  and  of  scales  the  records. the  ANCOVA,  not  study  sample  the  assess  personal  the to  during  SSI,  the  last  the  researcher,  GPA the  and data  results  computer. and  The  incidence being were three  t - t e s t s .  ten  of  analysis  and  force  were  randomly existed  adjustments  were  made.  three  dependent  performance;  five and  scales  the  May  May  the  incidence The  1977  1978.  and Delbrook  the  one  hour  calculated  o f f i c i a l  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  procedures  the  adjust-  adjustment. of  four  from  social  administered  from  Group  transfer,  absenteeism were  obtained  collated  of  Control  Sep-  Table  days  days  in  (see  social  including  ANOVA,  schools  examined  NRQ,  ten  The  Handsworth  have  adjustment  determine the  may  the  and  closed.  school  academic  self-concept;  CTP, used  to  Secondary,  external  were  s t a t i s t i c a l  evaluate  five  that  school  and  students  groups  last  The  11,  an  forced  individual  new  and  change  because  the  1978,  June  did  a  Delbrook  Handsworth  during  battery.  to  phased-out  variable,  to  measure  occurred  posttesting  test  by  to  from  counsellors,  in  ACL  a b s e n t e e i s m were  pretesting  12,  selected  scales  ment  school,  then  appropriate  used  used  old  transfer  Differences  five  GPA was  were  to  who  than  samples.  variables.  CTP  and  Delbrook  rather  measures  from  their  independent  between  Chapter  forced  Quasi-experimental--Nonequivalent  classes  i n i t i a l l y  Six  of  u t i l i z e d  manipulated total  by  groups,  composed  tember  3,  because  destroyed  were  and  students  school  analyzed  employed  were  78  Limitations  1. a  The new  students  school  in  in  this  affected  by  these  students  expected  1977  when  the  Secondary were  to  would  have be  be  more  intense  than  years  Secondly,  the  t l i n g  these  a l l y  high  a l l  students,  Due  procure  to  drawn last  only to  in  May  the  fire  instruments.  The  student  body  which  the  class  of  on  It  affected two  Handsworth  one is  their  i t  Delbrook  period  had  change  were  very  building be  order  and  aware  schools. unset-  was  v i r t u -  held  to  may  been  to  to  they  Therefore  transfer  who  was  in  accommodate  impossible  experimental  Members  possible  groups of  group. that  responses  Secondary  the  control  control  control  March  swing-shift.  the  populations.  1977.  In  matched the in  to  classes  away.  went  students  formed  other  Delbrook  stuF i r s t ,  u n t i l  classes.  f i r e  of  ways.  phase-out  required  for  groups  to  Originally,  students  the  transfer  that  1977.  the  circumstances,  different  graduating  be  the  blocks  schools  30,  of  following As  declared  reactions  would  other  Delbrook  graduating  their  to  important  from  during  necessary  groups  two  June  two  they  unavoidable  two  on  reactions  three  the  Therefore  from  tested quent  school  control  exactly.  that  was  in  forced  from  o f f i c i a l l y  f i n a l  the  Study  were  graduate  students.  another  2.  to  months  i t  who  closures  close  that  five  destroyed,  the  the  the  differ  Delbrook  recognized  several  for  would  formed  must  1977  Board  attended  i t  for  school  School  School  have  study  September  dents  of  groups  to  events  were  School.  were  group  was  subse-  measuring  drawn  Any  groups  Delbrook's This  the  to  from  inherent  the  79  differences have  been  3.  It  dents sign.  not  1977  principal  for  as of  Delbrook  November  given  the  c r i t i c i s m  academic  progress  t i l e  and  that  negative testing  (Chapter  regards testing  to  regarding  the  The esis  indicated  groups 1978  results  was  the  standing While  the  Delbrook collected academic  not  Carson  to  11  students  indicated  performance in  Graham  the (see  of  Chapter  the  students' that  very  have  the  d a t a was  the  vola-  could  request,  testing  November collected  school  of  the  appear  of  transfer.  an  prior  to  hypoth-  experimental As  over-all  was  of  specific offered  the  transfer.  have  the  subjectively effects  subject  at  June  academic  m a i n t a i n e d by  short-term  to  f i r s t  the  long-term,  negative in  the  transfer.  standing  programs IV)  was  in  Conclusions  achieved  over  the  de-  not  time  f e l t  time  forced  school  observed  academic  his  proficiency  that  were  that  performance  forced  academic  level  at  and  academic  academic  Differences  of  school  he  stu-  could  about  objective  the  their  data  No  that  had  in  the  research  he  students  at  s t a t i s t i c a l  equal  and  students  test  that  students  analysis.  original  expressed  the  students  to  tested  Delbrook  Findings  by  data  Furthermore,  effects  Delbrook  10  being  of  affected  the  the  students  the  Delbrook  Graham f e l t  cancelled.  Principal  in  Therefore,  short-term  in  and  researcher  IV).  these  repercussions. s e s s i o n was  the  Carson  the  with  for  planned  having  situation  students  adjusted  possible  November  The  justify  Handsworth  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  was  in  between  areas.  Delbrook  caused  on  some  and of  80  the  i n i t i a l  academic  d i f f i c u l t i e s  experienced  by  many  of  the  indicated  that  the  students. Analysis concept  of  of  the  the  Delbrook  forced  school  tually  experienced  there cept six  was of  of  them  feel  of  the  NRQ  a  great  to  students  with  the  hypothesis  of  is  the  of  less  sport  11  their  peers  did  indeed  Finally,  these  students  were  of  new  with  having  their to  of  school that  (Ap-  negathey  as  they  dances experinew  collected  data  Delbrook  11  following with  and  the  many  school  on  analysis  their  the  made  impact  were  into  unhappy  to  Graham  events  deteriorate  change  that  F i r s t l y ,  subjectively  relationship  note  However  Secondly,  the  While  s e l f - c o n -  l i t t l e  students  that  atmosphere  had  integrating  and  to  by  ac-  worth.  responsible  social  a c t i v i t i e s .  students  the  transfer.  such  s e l f -  affected  Carson  and/or  the  in  d i f f i c u l t y  to  students.  by  in  interesting  Delbrook  areas  change  transfer  Delbrook  11  personal  transfer  school  the  negatively  Delbrook  independent,  Objectively  fact  dissatisfaction  These  team  deal  impersonal  graduating  three  class.  attested  transfer.  that  the  sense  i t  how  significantly  organized  graduating  and  in  of  not  significant  forced  revealed  affected  in  up,  adjustment  participated  enced  grown  Generally,  the  increased  on  was  fact,  students,  commented  V).  tively  and  10  Table  social  In  s t a t i s t i c a l l y  more  B,  an  hypothesis  students  transfer.  Delbrook them  pendix  the  no  second  the size  expressed  in  their  year. findings to  the  provide  fourth  support  null  for  hypothesis  the  third  which  was  alternative based  on  the  81  supposition schools  would  students er a  they year  that  the  affect  definitely were  grade  level  his/her  to  some  students  seemed  to  without  d i f f i c u l t y .  higher  than  Delbrook  11 s t u d e n t s  referred  to  group  any  on  above  measure  Over-all, change total  schools  measures  of  indicated the  measures suggest affected the  term  their  Delbrook the  that  the  grade  the  negative  effects that  are  grade  school  for  grade  While  the  forced  effects  on  of  the  a  one  10  schools of  student  from  the  NRQ  10P  forced  factor  in  variable  and  only  SSI  and  of  the  were  affected  students.  The  regarding were  than  was  performance  the  grade  sufficient students  more  be  their and  two the  NRQ,  more  transfer  by  do  emotionally tens.  magnitude  not  to  subjective  the  to  However, warrant  transferred  to  a  twelve. school  Delbrook  transfer  generally  students,  i t  is  effects  were.  As  session  was  cancelled,  changes  in  dependent  measured.  the  Therefore,  the  not  short-term  objectively  students  Handsworth  the  be  students  significantly  scales  tensive  not  wheth-  Academic  scale  students  eleven  to  10  significant  this  comments  not  or  scored  the  a  11 students  eleven  change  from  11  problems  age  the  which  be  by  Delbrook  students'  on  school.-  affected  the  by  at  adjustment,  the  Delbrook  Delbrook  They  transferred  adjustment.  to  new  own  the  differ  level  prove  not  than  not  and  recommending new  not  to  hand,  social  did  social  transfer  of  grade  were  that  did  the  adjustment  self-concept  and  student  adjustment  their  On  the  other  a  adjustment.  younger. adjust  the  which  social  experienced  compared  at  i t  had  no  known  November  was  longhow  testing  variables not  ex-  could  possible  to  82  determine  if  the  d i f f i c u l t i e s ively the of  academic It  adjustment It the  was  is  that  possible  these be  large fer ring  the  of  affected students  that  impact  a  forced  also  the  of  rather  i s ,  the  a  do  to  and  transfer  to  f a l l  social  affected. study  of  and  rather this  study on  the  adjustment  of  two  while have  in  transfer  effects  cannot  were  the  this  school  social  the  one  of  purpose  forced  appear  experience,  and  the  s t a t i s t i c s  Therefore,  not  in  temporarily  group  Subject-  deterioration  students  on  adjustment  schools. a  findings  than  student.  whole  their  indicate  self-concept,  students  changed  self-concept  were  That  as  by  the  s t a t i s t i c s . the  experiencing  Delbrook  based  individual  students  did  are  performance,  groups  on  the  reached  were  they  the  students  remembered  investigate  academic  however, of  individual to  after  performance  of  must  students  months  data,  conclusions  than  ly  three  collected  1977-  Delbrook  of  the  the  been  conclude  trans-  transfersignificantthat  a l l  of  unaffected.  Recommendations  Evaluating  the  findings  of  comes  apparent  that-  although  the  seems  to  be  minimal,  social  adjustment  should  be  from  one  designed to  make  with  which  the  were  taken  to  improve  school  to  another.  to the  make  the  to  study,  of  transferring  exception  of  specific  significantly  and  a  longitudinal  impact  ease  The  transition  adjustment  this  new  the  following phase school  schools  easier.  and  of  measures  transition  recommendations  smoother  be-  aspects  affected,  students'  it  are  consequently  83  1.  To  ensure  that  d i f f i c u l t i e s school  i l a r i l y  each  have  to  their  To  ensure  the tion  w i l l  If  d i f f i c u l t y  the  i t  year  twelve, is  prior  to  Secondly,  transferring  grade  graduation  some  input  tion.  Finally,  in  Spring  the  dents  To  should  ensure  those  at  the  before and  presented  sim-  students academically  the  the  social  transfer.  dance  or  a  so  F i r s t l y , recreation  should  that  the  council  school,  be  of  of  the  members  "new"  students  their  elections  the  into  integra-  representatives  organization  new  smoothly  that  students  student  especially  gradua-  are  transferring  held stu-  participate.  that  the  there  one  or  transfer  transferring  grade  offered  the  a  committee  i f  programs  to  as  eleven  into  at  entering  be  is  students,  the  held.  have  individual  redesigned  occurs,  suggested  be  the  be  integrate  such  of  in  attending,  adjusting  transferring  grade  body,  social  could  academic  offered  content  this  events  day  be  should  course  school.  the  entering  joint  experience  school.  that  begin  not  differences  closure,  the  l i t t l e  student  basic  students  that  new  of  do  academic programs  school  so  those  3.  the  in  the  the  integrated  should  2.  which  after  students  because  systems,  schools and  the  at two  twelve, the  new  teams  composed  participate school,  during of  students,  the  athletes  i t  is  especially in  athletic  suggested  school from  the  term  both  that  prior  schools.  m  It  is  the  the  two  researcher's  schools  opinion  should  be  that  competition  de-emphasized  and  "between  cooperation  stressed.  4.  To  ensure  tablish of  the  of  that  that  at new  least  transferring  one  school,  school  settings  the  on  forced  to  adapted  ior  a  high  viously,  term  in  Unfortunately, of  the  cellation, school order on  high  significant  is  the this  need  design would  a to  of have  transfer  had  s e s s i o n was  and  her  were  not  i t  the is  who  d i f f i c u l t i e s .  school  transfer As  stated  included  a  been  Delbrook  on  the  cancelled. as  about  impact  It a  essential  and  fur-  on  sen-  the  a  is  and  forced  that  the  shortstudents.  the  opinion  of  Effects  pre-  November  the  result  collected of  have  needed.  study  that  were  closure  what  objectively  understand  transfer.  ascertained  data  group  unanswered  studied.  this  advisors  transfer  students  forced be  counsellors  the  school  a  areas  of  to  member  small  of  following effects  in  students  the  valuable  school  few  the  year  remain  very  f u l l y  a  result  with  some  to  after  staff  es-  Research  s t i l l  students  researcher  prior  quickly  a  that  students  questions  original  of  the  Future  the  school  session which  effects  that as  suggested  occasions  for  with  of  short-term  the  testing  new  number  school  shown  schools  their  research The  has  change  to  However, ther  study  is  with  several  Suggestions  This  relationship  i t  meet  students  of  the  forced  analyzed.  school  can-  In  transfer  short-term  85  effects A  be  carefully  second  information ior  high  twelve grade the  school  who  had  which  of  would  who  had  used  answers  to  be  the  forced  determining  how  successfully  the  impact  ance, and  the  of  students  phased-out  rather ary  forced  over  schools than  time.  over  and  who  w i l l  be  after  grade  10  study  would  months  as  one  a  grade  to  the  the  level  new  academic of  school  be  closed  the  case  which  over  of  at  factor  school?"  perform-  grade  particularly  and  on  investigated  adjustment a  with  significant  which  on  a  the  adjust  would  in  Such  "Is  enrolled-in  phased-out  grade  schools  social  study  sen-  11  transfer  the  on  grade  schools  be  transfer  compared  study.  they  would  were This  five  change  school  self-concept,  eleven  most  a  this  pertinent  after  question,  are  study  which  changed  students  desirable  one  provide  school  schools  i n  to  would  forced  changed  variables  further  Another  as  impact  students  dependent  which  the  project  students  students  provide  in  research  about  twelve  studied.  ten  was useful  several  Delbrook  years,  Second-  School. The  high  studies  school  students vide tions  students.  forced  useful to  a  proposed  to  A  far  study  transfer  information school  so  have  a l l  focusing  afer  about  closure  have  a  grade group  not  to  dealt  on  the  eight of  with  adjustment  or  nine  students  date  senior  been  would  whose  of pro-  reac-  systematically  examined. As was  to  groups  previously investigate of  students.  noted, the  the  effects  Now,  purpose of  further  the  of  this  forced  research  is  longitudinal school needed  transfer to  study on  86  determine students  how and  individuals  a to  "besides on  to  determine  ways  be  reduced.  A  aimed  especially fying new  school.  affects  deleterious  investigating  the  students  the  effects  which  any  study  which  develops  at  easing  the  entering ways  of  the  resulting and  transition  grade  helping  effects  involved,  in  those  effective  any  transfer  individual  which  certain  experience.  transfer  programs  school  identify  may  Finally, school  forced  twelve, such  i t  is  of  a  also  negative  important  effects  implements of  forced  can  counselling  transferring  students,  would  assist  in  i d e n t i -  students  adjust  to  their  67  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Averson, R.G. Implications of decreasing student enrollments. Paper presented at the American Association of School Administrators Annual Convention, Atlantic City: 1974. ( E R I C D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e N o . E D 087 120) B a r k e r , R . , & Gump, P . B i g school, small size and student behaviour. Stanford, University Press, 1964. Beck, W.W., J r . Everybody got into a school. American School Board  school: high school California: Stanford  t h e a c t when B l a c k w e l l c l o s e d J o u r n a l , J u n e 1976, 163, 35;  46. Blishen, B.R. & McRoberts, N.A. A revised socioeconomic index for occupations i n Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, F e b r u a r y 1976, r3_, 7 1 - 7 9 . Brody, J . A . How t o c l o s e apart i n the process.  a school and not tear American School Board  Buros, O.K. (Ed.). Gryphon Press,  i n print.  1976,  Campbell, mental Coleman,  1961.  16J, 3 1 - 3 4 .  Tests  I96I.  D.T. & Stanley, J . C . designs f o r research. P.  The a d o l e s c e n t  Highland  your community Journal, June  Park,  New J e r s e y :  Experimental and quasi-experiChicago: Rand M c N a l l y , I966.  society.  New Y o r k :  Free  Press,  Combs, A . W . The s e l f - c o n c e p t . Paper presented at the Meeting on E d u c a t i o n f o r t h e C u l t u r a l l y D i s a d v a n t a g e d , Everett, W a s h i n g t o n : J a n u a r y I969• Combs, A . W . , A v i l a , D . L . , & P u r k e y , W.W. H e l p i n g relationships: basic concepts f o r the helping professions. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971. Combs, A . E . , & T a y l o r , C. Self-acceptance Journal of Consulting Psychology, A p r i l  and adjustment.  1952, 16, 8 9 - 9 1 .  Declining enrollment. T h e b e s t o f E R I C N o . 12. D o c u m e n t R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e N o . E D 112 454) Declining enrollments. The b e s t Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e  o f E R I C N o . 23. N o . E D 131 523)  1975.  1976.  (ERIC  (ERIC  8&  E i s e n b e r g e r , K.E. C l o s i n g a s c h o o l : some ways t o ease t h e trauma. S c h o o l Management, August-September 1974, 18, 3 3 - 3 6 . E i s e n b e r g e r , K.E. How t o p r e p a r e t h e p u b l i c f o r t h e c l o s i n g of a neighbourhood s c h o o l . American S c h o o l Board J o u r n a l , June 1975, 162, 4 2 - 4 4 . E i s e n b e r g e r , K.E. E n r o l l m e n t d e c l i n e : t h e t a s k f o r c e . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e American A s s o c i a t i o n of S c h o o l A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , A t l a n t i c C i t y : 1976. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 125 1 2 9 ) . E i s e n b e r g e r , K.E. How t o l e a r n t o manage d e c l i n e i n your s c h o o l system. American S c h o o l Board J o u r n a l , J u l y 1978, 165, 3 5 - 3 8 . E p s t e i n , C.B. D e c l i n i n g e n r o l l m e n t : c u r r e n t t r e n d s i n s c h o o l p o l i c i e s and -programs. S e r i e s o f e d u c a t i o n , U.S.A. s p e c i a l r e p o r t s , 1 9 7 6 . ( E R I C Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 130 4 5 0 ) . F a u s t , J.F. The s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e c l o s i n g of schools i n a p e r i o d of d e c l i n i n g enrollments i n a l a r g e urban s c h o o l system ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of C i n c i n n a t i , - 1 9 7 6 ) . Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, 37, 4011-A - 4012A~ ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 7 6 - 3 0 , 254). F o r c e s e , D.P. & Siemens, L.B. S c h o o l - r e l a t e d f a c t o r s and t h e a s p i r a t i o n l e v e l s of Manitoba s e n i o r high school students. 1965. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 027 104). F u l t o n , N.A. D e c l i n i n g enrolments: t h e f a c t s and i s s u e s . Rep o r t t o t h e Board o f S c h o o l T r u s t e e s , S c h o o l D i s t r i c t No. 4 4 , N o r t h Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: J a n u a r y 1976. Gay, L.R. E d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h : competencies f o r a n a l y s i s and a p p l i c a t i o n . Columbus, Ohio: C h a r l e s E. M e r r i l l P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1976. Gazda, G.M. Human r e l a t i o n s development, a manual f o r e d u c a t o r s . Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, 1973. G l a s s , G.V., & S t a n l e y , J.C. S t a t i s t i c a l methods i n e d u c a t i o n and p s y c h o l o g y . Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1970/ Goldman, L. Using t e s t s i n c o u n s e l l i n g (2nd e d . ) . Pacific P a l i s a d e s , C a l i f o r n i a : Goodyear P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1971. Grabe, M. B i g s c h o o l , s m a l l s c h o o l : impact o f t h e h i g h s c h o o l environment. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n Annual M e e t i n g , Washington, D.C: 1975. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 106 6 8 5 ) .  89  Grenis,  M.  American  How  to  School  close and  a  school  University,  without  s p i l l i n g  September  1976,  blood.  49_, 5 8 - 5 9 .  Henderson," H.B. S c h o o l f a c i l i t i e s , the community, and d e c l i n i n g enrolment: a handbook of suggestions f o r Ontario boards of education. M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n , O n t a r i o : 1978. Keough, W.F., enrollment  162,  40-42.  Jr. How t o m a k e slide. American  Leggett, S. You d o n ' t cause enrollment i s F e b r u a r y 1977, 164, Moore, ing May  the best of your s c h o o l d i s t r i c t ' s S c h o o l B o a r d J o u r n a l , J u n e 1975»  always have dwindling. 27-28.  to c l o s e American  a school just beSchool Board Journal,  H.W. Declining enrollments. Paper presented at the Meetof S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s and D i r e c t o r s , Halifax, Nova S c o t i a :  1975.  Nickens, J.M. "Transfer shock" or " t r a n s f e r ecstasy"? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research Association, Chicago: 1972. (ERIC Document Reprod u c t i o n S e r v i c e N o . ED 06l 925). Nie, N.H., Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K., & D.H. S t a t i s t i c a l p a c k a g e f o r t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s (7th Toronto: 1979. P a c k , K. & W e i s s , use out of a l l J o u r n a l , June  E.H. that  1975,  Bent, ed.).  A n d s p e c i f i c a l l y , how t o m a k e productive yawning space. American School Board  162,  44-45.  Popham, J.W. E m p i r i c a l based r e v i s i o n of a f f e c t i v e measuring instruments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the C a l i f o r n i a Educational Research A s s o c i a t i o n , San Jose, C a l i f o r n i a : November 1972. Pound, J . H . T . How t o c l o s e a s c h o o l w i t h o u t e n r a g i n g t h e public. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the N a t i o n a l School B o a r d s A s s o c i a t i o n , S a n F r a n s i s c o : 1976. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e N o . E D 122 456). P u b l i c a t i o n manual of the (2nd ed.). Baltimore,  1974.  American Psychological Association Maryland: Garamond/Pridemark Press,  Rideout, E.B. (Principal Investigator), Murray, J . S . , Sylvester, C , & H a r r i s , M. Meeting problems of d e c l i n i n g enrolment. Toronto, Ontario: The O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s i n E d u cation, 1975. . Rogers, C.R. Company,  Client-centered 1951.  therapy.  Boston:  Houghton  M i f f l i n  90  Rorer, L.G. Review of the A d j e c t i v e Check L i s t . In ( E d . ) , The s e v e n t h m e n t a l m e a s u r e m e n t s y e a r b o o k . B a r k , New J e r s e y : Gryphon P r e s s , 1972.  O.K. Buros Highland  Shaffer, L.F. Review of the C a l i f o r n i a Test of P e r s o n a l i t y . O.K. B u r o s ( E d . ) , The t h i r d m e n t a l m e a s u r e m e n t s y e a r b o o k . New B r u n s w i c k , New J e r s e y : Rutgers University Press, 19^9.  In  Sims, V.M. Review of the C a l i f o r n i a Test of P e r s o n a l i t y . In O.K. B u r o s (Ed..), The f i f t h m e n t a l measurements y e a r b o o k . H i g h l a n d P a r k , New J e r s e y : Gryphon Press, 1959Turabian, K.L. A manual f o r d i s s e r t a t i o n s (4th e d . ) .  1973.  w r i t e r s of term papers, theses Chicago: University of Chicago  Vance, F.L. Review of the A d j e c t i v e Check L i s t . In ( E d . ) , The s e v e n t h m e n t a l m e a s u r e m e n t s y e a r b o o k . P a r k , New J e r s e y : Gryphon P r e s s , 1972.  and Press,  O.K. Buros Highland  W a r n e r , C. Declining enrollment conference report. Arizona S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n , P h o e n i x : 1977. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e N o . E D 144 229). Webb, S . C . E s t i m a t e d e f f e c t s of f o u r f a c t o r s on academic p e r formance before and a f t e r t r a n s f e r . J o u r n a l of Experimental E d u c a t i o n . 1971, 21, 78-84. Wickstrom, R.A. School Board,  1977.  School d i s t r i c t perspectives. North Vancouver North Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia: December  Williams, R.B. D e c l i n i n g e n r o l l m e n t s : w o r k i n g paper number two. Paper presented to the North Vancouver School D i s t r i c t Task Force on D e c l i n i n g E n r o l l m e n t , North Vancouver, B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a : F e b r u a r y 1977*  9'i  APPENDIX  MEASUREMENT  A.  INSTRUMENTS  92-  SCHOOL  SENTIMENT  INDEX:  Secondary 1970  Directions: you agree or  For each disagree  A) B) C) D)  i i i i  f f f f  you you you you  statement, "by m a r k i n g  strongly agree disagree strongly  T h e r e a r e no r i g h t o r h o n e s t l y as you c a n .  wrong  Edition •  indicate the extent the answer sheet:  answers,  so  respond  2.  I  3.  My t e a c h e r s school.  4.  Each morning  5.  My  school  6.  My in  teachers class.  7.  I  8.  My  9.  Students  10.  My  11.  I  12.  My  13.  When  I'm  14.  This  school  15.  I n m o s t o f my c l a s s e s , i n d i v i d u a l assignments which are i n t e r e s t i n g  best  often  I  give  at  many  do  deserve  run  things  coming  some  nervous  very  the  item  grades  to  I  do  outside  of  school.  choice  at  that  in  what  they  study  school. are  too  d i f f i c u l t .  friendly.  make t h e i r  subjects  interesting  to  homework.  interested  school, is  and  the  to  assignments  to  to  are  each  rules.  students  aren't  try  in  forward  rushed  having  teachers  look too  here  teachers  interested  allow  feel  I  to  school.  are  has  teachers  hate  in  which  disagree  M y t e a c h e r s r a r e l y e x p l a i n t o me w h y I earn on assignments and t e s t s . my  to  agree  1.  do  Level  I'm like  in  what  usually a  I  have  to  say.  unhappy.  prison. students to them.  can  choose  me.  as  93  16.  If I did something second chance.  17.  My  18.  I  19.  My  20.  I would know.  21.  My  22.  School  23.  Whenever upset.  24.  I  25-  My  26.  School  27.  My  28.  I  29.  My  30.  I  31.  My  32.  I'm  33.  My  teachers  explain  assignments  clearly.  34.  In  school  have  memorize  too  many  35.  The  going  school  36.  If my  37•  Students is run.  38.  My  teachers  have  encouraged  39•  My  teachers  have  been  teachers enjoy  give  working  teachers  teachers  I'm  a  teachers the  home  classes very  main  a  their new  to  too  I  are  just  busy  would  other  get  a  work.  students.  subjects. than  concerned  good  place  are  of  the  play  one  about  me.  offices  much p r e s s u r e  me t o o  I  already  much  in  at  school,  I  feel  school.  work.  for  making  friends.  a  d i f f i c u l t  boring.  don't from  of  try  to  school  too  reason  understand whenever  I  assignment. young  people.  can.  big.  to for  in  what  enough  voice  f a i r  goes  to  I had a s e r i o u s problem, s c h o o l I c o u l d go to. have  know  with  sport  one  give  interested  I  that  I  me.  is  are  school,  projects  personally  challenge  teachers stay  like  called  there  is  class  learn  depresses  teachers  like  on  are  at  assignments  really  rather  think  wrong  I  in  me to  on  don't  at  this  facts.  is  to  know  me.  think  learn. one  determining  to  school.  teacher  how  for  this  myself.  in  school  94 40.  I  41.  My t e a c h e r s tests.  42.  I  43.  My  44.  Teachers  45.  I  get  46.  I  attend  47.  I  like  48.  I  think  49.  I  really  50.  My  teachers  51.  It  is  52.  I  have  53-  My  54.  I  55'  Each  56.  Our  57>  I  58.  My  59•  I  60.  M y t e a c h e r s s t i l l r e s p e c t me a s p o o r l y o n my s c h o o l w o r k .  61.  I  62.  There's  63.  My  64.  I  65.  My  usually  really  don't  get  won't  like  teachers  most  of  many  to my  would  to  is get  teachers to  do  teachers enjoy  the  teachers  go I  to  look  so  of  my  teachers  after  show new  are  a  lack  student with  those  school  a l l  forward  their  opinion.  talk  a l l  the  time.  at  in  my  than  preparation. find of  which year  to  toward  of to  in  the  deserve  feel in  the  friends  my I  l i f e  learn  the  most.  long. beginning lost  in  of  the  school. crowd.  class. students.  class.  my  what here.  f a i r l y .  here.  teachers.  a  person  friends  even  when  do.  school.  me k n o w  me  on  class.  most  I  social  he  school.  grade  work  grade  different  often  better  let  a  I  privacy  w i l l  school.  to  my  friendly  good  this  large,  the  are  school no  a  classes  September school  part  relationship  to  at  a c t i v i t i e s .  too. o l d - f a s h i o n e d .  frequently  like  what  creative.  teachers are  for  of  be  right to  school  idea  kids  me t o  many  events.  my  I'm  good  usually  my  teachers  favourite  like  allow  school  feel  a  the  listening  talk  in  me a n y  of  recognize  d i f f i c u l t  try  give  don't  tired  involved  is  expected  of  me.  I've  done  95  66.  There  67i  My  68.  I  69.  My  70.  I I  71.  At  72.  If I thought student body  73'  My  74.  My t e a c h e r s j u s t d o n ' t going to college.  75-  I  76.  Teachers  77•  My  78.  Lunch  79.  My  teachers  80.  If  I  81.  My  teachers  have  82.  My  teachers  often  83.  I  are  many  teachers often  closed  like  buy  are  liked school do n o w . school,  more  time  had  follow  work  at  the  care  is  not  people.  discipline.  in  elementary  care like  grade  about to  run  changes  about  just  cannot  often  choice,  was  what  is  help  school  than  me. for  with  students  control  individual  school  are  with  I'd  than  school me  I  here.  money.  really  discuss  give  the  when  students  young  own  I could win, office.  my  teachers  with  my  people  school  of  concerned  better  w i l l  at  with  too  other  teachers  do  working  books  teachers  groups  an  elected  me. if  they  are  not  assigned.  their  classes.  w i l l i n g l y .  fun.  impatient. I  wouldn't  go  to  school  at  a l l .  "pets." waste  school  too  rules.  much t i m e  explaining  things.  96  SCHOOL  SENTIMENT  INDEX:  Secondary Revised  Directions: you agree or  For each disagree  A) B) C) D)  i i i i  f f f f  you you you you  strongly agree disagree strongly wrong  answers,  2.  I  3.  My t e a c h e r s school.  4.  Each  5.  My  6.  I  7.  At  8.  Students  9.  School  subjects  10.  I  having  11.  My  12.  When  I'm  13-  This  school  14.  If I did something second chance.  15-  I  am o f t e n  16.  I  enjoy  17-  I would know.  in  school often  has  feel  school,  hate  I  at  look too  many  to  are  do  run  given  working rather  respond  deserve  to  each  the  item  grades  I  to  play  coming  at  assignments very  to  I  do  outside  of  school.  made  school. that  are  too  d i f f i c u l t .  friendly. interesting  here.  homework.  I'm like  in  a  wrong  class a  what  usually  new  I  have  to  say.  unhappy.  prison. at  assignments on  things  rules.  interested  school, is  I  the  and nervous  aren't are  in  forward  am g i v e n  here  teachers  interested  rushed  I  so  school.  are  morning  which  disagree  It i s r a r e l y e x p l a i n e d t o me w h y earn on assignments and t e s t s . best  to  agree  1.  my  1978  statement, i n d i c a t e the extent by m a r k i n g t h e answer sheet:  T h e r e a r e no r i g h t or honestly as you can.  do  Level  Edition  school,  cthat  projects sport  I  know  I  are  just  busy  with  than  other  play  one  would  get  work.  students. I  already  a  as  97  18. My t e a c h e r s a r e p e r s o n a l l y concerned about me. 19. S c h o o l depresses  me.  20. Whenever I'm c a l l e d t o one o f t h e o f f i c e s a t s c h o o l , I f e e l upset. 21.  I t h i n k t h e r e i s too much p r e s s u r e  i n school.  22. I am g i v e n t o o much work a t s c h o o l . 2 3 . S c h o o l i s a good p l a c e f o r making f r i e n d s . 24. I l i k e the c h a l l e n g e o f a d i f f i c u l t assignment. 2 5 . My t e a c h e r s don't t r y t o understand  young p e o p l e .  26. I s t a y home from s c h o o l whenever I c a n . 27. My c l a s s e s a r e t o o "big. 28. I'm v e r y i n t e r e s t e d i n what goes on a t t h i s s c h o o l . 29. My assignments a r e c l e a r l y e x p l a i n e d . 3 0 . I n s c h o o l I have t o memorize t o o many f a c t s . 31.  The main r e a s o n f o r g o i n g t o s c h o o l i s t o l e a r n .  3 2 . I f I had a s e r i o u s problem, I don't know one t e a c h e r i n my s c h o o l I c o u l d go t o . 33• S t u d e n t s is run.  have enough v o i c e i n d e t e r m i n i n g how t h i s  school  34. A t s c h o o l I am encouraged t o t h i n k f o r m y s e l f . 35• I u s u a l l y don't g e t i n v o l v e d i n many s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s . 36. I am n o t g i v e n any i d e a what w i l l be on c l a s s t e s t s . 37• I r e a l l y l i k e most o f t h e k i d s a t t h i s s c h o o l . 38. I n c l a s s I get t i r e d of l i s t e n i n g a l l the time. 39» I a t t e n d many s c h o o l  events.  40. I l i k e t o t a l k t o my t e a c h e r s a f t e r  class.  41. I t h i n k my t e a c h e r s a r e t o o o l d - f a s h i o n e d . 42. I r e a l l y f e e l I'm p a r t o f my s c h o o l . 43. I t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r a new s t u d e n t t o f i n d f r i e n d s here.  •98  44.  I  45.  My  46.  I  47.  Each  48.  Our  49;  I  :  have  a  good  favourite would  relationship classes  like  to  September school  usually  is  go I  to  I  deserve  I  try  52.  I  like  53•  There's  no  54.  I  enjoy  the  55'  I  am g r a d e d  56.  There  57.  My  58.  I  often  59.  I I  l i k e d school do n o w .  60.  At  61.  If I body  62.  My t e a c h e r s j u s t d o n ' t going to college.  63.  I  64.  My  65.  Lunch  66.  My  teachers  67.  If  I  68.  My  teachers  69.  In  class  too  much  70.  I  follow  the  school  good  school  are  books  thought office.  the  most.  beginning lost  in  in  of  the  school. crowd.  class.  the  students.  class.  my f r i e n d s  do.  here.  I  the  with  could  own  when  I  was  often  choice, have  in  run  elementary  about  for  about  just  not  people.  care  me.individual is  here.  money.  I'd  care  students  young  really  than  school  are  with  win,  work  of  my  people  give at  groups  better  school  teachers  had  l i f e  working  other  time  learn  school.  closed  l i k e  buy  more  I  teachers.  f a i r l y .  many  school,  than  at  social  my  my  long.  feel  towards  in  better  privacy  teachers  do  work  which  the  grade  51.  do  to  often  friendly  of  year  I  My  to  in  large,  the  are  most  a l l  forward  50.  teachers  those  school  look  so  get  are  with  an  help  is  elected  if  student  they're  assigned.  w i l l i n g l y .  fun.  impatient. I  wouldn't  go  to  school  at  a l l .  "pets." time  is  rules.  wasted  than  me.  students  what  school  explaining  things.  not  -99  -NEUMANN A.  GENERAL 1.  RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE:  BACKGROUND  NAME: F i r s t  2.  Middle  AGE':  Last  BIRTHDAY: Day  3.  GRADE:  4.  Number  5.  Your  6.  Father's  Occupation:  7.  Mother's  Occupation:  8.  Did  9.  From  10.  of  brothers  either which  of  in  and  the  your  school  8  Grade  GRADE  10  parents do  9  you  attend  expect  you  Grade 11  AND  sisters:  entered  10  DELBROOK  graduate? the  school  11  Grade STUDENTS from  you  are  12  Grade  ONLY.  (i)  Would you have g r a d u a t e d had not occurred?  (ii)  I f y o u a n s w e r e d NO e x p l a i n graduated from Delbrook.  (iii)  For the  (iv)  W o u l d y o u l i k e t h e name o f D e l b r o o k S e c o n d a r y to appear on y o u r g r a d u a t i o n t r a n s c r i p t a l o n g t h e name o f y o u r new s c h o o l ?  SCHOOL 1.  university?  to  Delbrook  why  you  what reasons have you chosen s c h o o l you named above?  YES B.  Year  family:  C i r c l e the grade when presently attending.  FOR  Month  SCHOOL:  position  Grade 11.  1977  May  to  if  would  the  not  transfer  f i r e  have  to  School with  NO  INVOLVEMENT  Place an X beside you at school. I  am o n e  I  am a  of  the  statement  the  leader  of  leaders a  small  below  in  my  group  which  best  describes  grade. of  people  in  my  grade.  looI am a f o l l o w e r who p r e f e r s o f my g r a d e suggest(s). I am a mates .  loner  I am a n mates . 2.  F i l l I  in  the  blanks.  school  I  tried  I  made  out the  of  year  school  dances  events  terms  I  school  the  my  teams  teams  and  participated  k  I  attended  1  I was i t i e s  involved i n the f o l l o w i n g at school t h i s year:  m  I  also  n  My  school  this  only.  year.  games  next your  following  council/school  clubs  productions this  social  following  a c t i v i t i e s  as a timer).  L  productions  the  about school and what are  the  school  school school  favourite  When y o u t h i n k ing forward to point form.  school  in  class-  were:  attended  to  I  in  my  s c h o o l a t h l e t i c programme (e.g. coach, referee,  joined  involved  class-  teams:  I  was  leader(s)  year.  attended  classmates  following  this  this  I was a member of t h e f o l l o w i n g government committees:  the  my  in  school  by  with  Answer  school  in  do  the  by  following  participated  to  what  ignored  for  I was e l e c t e d positions:  3.  and  l i t t l e  do  am o f t e n  social  I supported the as a spectator.  h  have  outsider  attended  Other  I  and  to  this  year.  year.  service  school  activ-  a c t i v i t i e s  are:  year, what concerns?  are you lookAnswer in  101  NEUMANN  RESEARCH  QUESTIONNAIRE:  May  1978  NAME: GRADE: PART  1.  SCHOOL:  I:  The f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s a r e i n c o m p l e t e . Read each sentence. Choose the response which completes the s e n t e n c e so t h a t i t i s t r u e f o r y o u a n d UNDERLINE i t .  My  course A) B) C)  2.  My  The  k.  My  6.  In  7.  more demanding a b o u t t h e same l e s s demanding  I  I  C)  feel  last load last  year. last year. year.  are  used  the courses I took l a s t year. courses I took l a s t year. the courses I took l a s t year. this  year  are  than those used l a s t year. as those used l a s t year. than those used l a s t year. I  am  doing  in  school  a c t i v i t i e s  is  greater than last year. a b o u t t h e same a s l a s t year. less than last year. I  get  along  with  other  students  better than last year. a b o u t t h e same a s l a s t year. less well than last year.  have A) B)  is  better than last year. a b o u t t h e same a s l a s t year. not as w e l l as l a s t year.  general, A) B) C)  year  standards  involvement A) B) C)  year  more i n t e r e s t i n g t h a n a b o u t t h e same a s t h e less interesting than  Academically A) B) C)  5.  this  grading  A) B) C)  this  h e a v i e r t h a n my c o u r s e l o a d a b o u t t h e s a m e a s my c o u r s e l i g h t e r t h a n my c o u r s e l o a d  courses A) B) C)  3.  load  made  more new f r i e n d s t h a n I d i d l a s t year. a b o u t t h e same number o f new f r i e n d s a s last year. f e w e r new f r i e n d s t h a n I d i d l a s t year.  I  did  102  8.  I  enjoy A) B) C)  9.  For  the  more t h a n about the less well Grade  12  Graduation A) B) C)  PART 1.  II:  size  of  my  school  I did last year. same a s I d i d l a s t year. than I did last year.  students  and  its  only.  associated  a c t i v i t i e s  more e n j o y a b l e t h a n I expected. as e n j o y a b l e as I expected. less enjoyable than I expected.  SCHOOL  INVOLVEMENT  Place an X beside you at s c h o o l . I  am o n e  I am a grade.  the  of  statement  the  leader  leaders  of  a  below  in  small  my  I am a mates .  loner  I am a n mates . the  and  outsider  F i l l  in  blanks.  a)  I  attended  b)  Other  c)  I  tried  d)  I  made  e)  I supported the as a s p e c t a t o r .  f)  I  school  out the  have  for  people  do  what  to  do  in  with  in  of  year  school  dances  events  school  teams  this  teams  class-  my  class-  only.  year.  attended  school  school  the  I  this  leader(s)  my  Answer  terms  my  the  by  '  in  of  ignored  following  participated  describes  grade.  to  l i t t l e  best  am o f t e n  social  and  which  group  I am a f o l l o w e r w h o p r e f e r s o f my g r a d e suggest(s).  2.  is  were:  this  •  year.  teams:  and  attended  games  s c h o o l a t h l e t i c programme as a (e.g. coach, referee, timer).  103  PART 1.  g)  I was e l e c t e d positions:  h)  I was a member o f t h e f o l l o w i n g government committees:  i)  I  joined  j)  I  participated  k)  I  attended  1)  I was ities  involved i n the f o l l o w i n g at school this year:  m)  I  also  n)  My  III:  was  the  my  classmates .  following  in  involved  school  Graham  to  in  only  council/school  productions this  social  following  activities  following  school ,  productions  the  Students  the  clubs:  school  this  year.  year.  service  school  activ-  a c t i v i t i e s :  are:  are  to  do  this  section.  If y o u h a d t h e c h o i c e , w o u l d y o u l i k e t h e name o f Delbrook Secondary School to appear on your g r a d u a t i o n transcript a l o n g w i t h t h e name o f y o u r new s c h o o l ? YES  2.  school  school  favourite  Carson  by  What last  a r e y o u r f e e l i n g s now September? (Use back  NO about h a v i n g to change schools of page i f you need more room.)  io4 SCORING  May A.  1977  KEYS  FOR  NEUMANN  Background  Q u e s t i o n s #1, #3, #9, i n f o r m a t i o n needed by  8. 11. B.  #10, the  # l l - - i , i i , i i i researcher.  provide  general  A g e : d e t e r m i n e d i n y e a r s a s o f D e c e m b e r 31, 197&. N u m b e r o f s i b l i n g s : n o n e , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 o r m o r e . Position in family: only, oldest, middle, youngest. Father's occupation) Classified using Blishen's revised Mother's occupation) socioeconomic index for occupations in Canada. Parent's education: Y e s , No - - p e r c e n t a g e s used. (iv) Y e s , No — percentages used.  School  Involvement  1.  Role  2.  Questions c, d, f, g, h, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or m o r e . a) b) e) n)  3.  QUESTIONNAIRES  Edition  General  2. 4. 5. 6. 7.  RESEARCH  at  school:  percentages i ,  used. j ,  k,  1 and  m are  scored:  Dances: 0, 1, 2, 3 o r m o r e Social Events: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 o r m o r e . Sports Supporter: N o — a t t e n d e d fewer than t h r e e games. Y e s - - a t t e n d e d t h r e e or more games. Favourite a c t i v i t i e s : Social Sports Productions Course work S o c i a l and s p o r t s S o c i a l and productions S p o r t s and p r o d u c t i o n s A l l a c t i v i t i e s  Responses  naturally  divided  into  nine  groups.  105  May  Edition  1978  Part  I;  Sentence  completion  1. A A - n e g a t i v e ; 2.  3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  AAAAAAAA-  -  positiv negativ positiv positiv positiv positiv positiv positiv  Weightings: Part  Part 2.  II:  School Scored  e e e e e e e e  ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;  B- -  BBBBBBBB-  n n n n n n n n n  e e e e e e e e e  u u u u u u u u u  negative=l,  t t t t t t t t t  r r r r r r r r r  a a a a a a a a a  l l l l l l l l l  C- - p o s i t i v e C- -negative c- - p o s i t i v e c- - n e g a t i v e c- - n e g a t i v e c- - n e g a t i v e c- - n e g a t i v e c- - n e g a t i v e c- - n e g a t i v e  n e u t r a l= 2 ,  Involvement t h e same a s P a r t  B  in  positive=3  the  May  1977  edition.  III: Positive response: only t r a n s f e r were made. No a b o u t D e l b r o o k a n d no n a b o u t t h e new s c h o o l .  p o s i t i v e comments about the p o s i t i v e comments were made e g a t i v e comments w e r e made Weight=3.  Neutral response: e i t h e r t h e comment was completely n e u t r a l or t h e r e were an e q u a l number of p o s i t i v e and/ o r n e g a t i v e comments a b o u t D e l b r o o k a n d t h e new s c h o o l . Weight=2. N e g a t i v e r e s p o n s e : o n l y n e g a t i v e comments about the t r a n s f e r were made. No p o s i t i v e c o m m e n t s w e r e m a d e a b o u t t h e new s c h o o l a n d o n l y p o s i t i v e comments w e r e made a b o u t D e l b r o o k . Weight=l.  106  APPENDIX  B  T A B L E S : ANALYSIS  OF D E P E N D E N T  VARIABLES  107  TABLE Analysis  A  of Covariance: Measures of Self-Concept Handsworth 1 0 P v s D e l h r o o k 10  Scale  Sources  DF  Group Residual  1 103  Group Residual  l  MS  F  p  CTP Self-reliance  Sense  Sense  of  of  Feeling  Total  personal  personal  of  worth  freedom  belonging  personal  adjustment  13-713 3.820  3.590  .061 .980  103  0 .002 0 .001 3-187  Group Residual  1 103  1.694 4.180  o.4o5  .526  Group Residual  1 103  3.969 4.922  0.806  .371  Group Residual  1 103  76.019 64.995  1.170  .282  Group Residual  l  34.083 60.729  0.561  .456  Group Residual  l  190.480 38.548  4.941  .028  Group Residual  l  89.649 56.317  1.592  .210  Group Residual  l  4.473 77.778  0.058  .811  ACL Self-confidence  Self-control  Personal  Lability  *p  <  .01  adjustment  103 103 103 103  108  TABLE Analysis  B  of Covariance: Measures of Self-Concept D e l b r o o k 10 v s D e l b r o o k 11  Scale  Sources  DF  MS  F  Group Residual  1 138  0.9^3 3.263  0.289  • 592  7.413 3.201  2.316  .130  6.725  2.049  .155  0.024  .878  P.  CTP Self-reliance  Sense  of  personal  worth  Group Residual  1 138  Sense  of  personal  freedom  Group Residual  1 138  Group Residual  1 138  0.102 4.299  Group Residual  1 138  11.128  0.186  .667  Self-confidence  Group Residual  1 138  2.513 58.904  0.043  • 837  Self-control  Group Residual  1 138  15-548  43 .003  0.362  .549  Personal  Group Residual  1 138  1.595 62.815  0.025  .874  Group Residual  1 138  64.725  8.086  0.125  .724  Feeling  Total  of  belonging  personal  adjustment  3.281  59.811  ACL  Lability  *p  <  .01  adjustment  10.9  TABLE C A n a l y s i s o f C o v a r i a n c e : Measures o f S e l f - C o n c e p t Handsworth I I P v s Delbrook 11  Sources  DF  MS  F  Group Residual  1 107  0.508 3.382  0.150  .699  Sense o f p e r s o n a l w o r t h  Group Residual  1 107  20.827 3.916  5.318  .023  Sense o f p e r s o n a l freedom  Group Residual  1 107  1.110 3.858  0.288  • 593  F e e l i n g of belonging  Group Residual  1 107  9.990 4.887  2.044  .156  T o t a l personal adjustment  Group Residual  1 107  158.760 69.439  2.286  .133  Group Residual  1 107  278.642 54.654  5.098  .026  Self-control  Group Residual  1 107  0.001 44.015  0 .000  .995  P e r s o n a l adjustment  Group Residual  1 107  175.390 58.048  3.021  .085  Lability  Group Residual  1 107  243.945 65.558  3-721  .056  Scale CTP Self-reliance  ACL Self-confidence  * p < .01  P  110  TABLE Analysis  of  D  Variance: Measures of D e l b r o o k 12 v s D e l b r o o k  Scale  Sources  DF  Group Residual  Self-Concept 11  MS  F  1 146  22.345 5-787  3.861  .051  P  CTP Self-reliance  Sense  of  personal  worth  Group Residual  1 146  31.932 4.186  7.629  .006*  Sense  of  personal  freedom  Group Residual  1 146  4.899 5.446  0.900  .344  Group Residual  1 146  1.647 5.428  0.303  .583  Group Residual  1 146  377.937 117.033  3.229  .074  Self-confidence  Group Residual  1 146  247.124 85.196  2.901  .091  Self-control  Group Residual  1 146  87.034 74.380  1.170  .281  Personal  Group Residual  1 146  304.238 81.122  3.750  .055  Group Residual  1 146  343.857 82.700  4.158  .043  Feeling  Total  of  belonging  personal  adjustment  ACL  Lability  *p  <  .01  adjustment  I l l  TABLE  E  Means: Measures of Self-Concept D e l b r o o k 12 v s D e l b r o o k 11  D.12  Scale  D . l l  CTP Self-reliance  9.87  10.64  Sense  of  personal  worth  12.16  13.09  Sense  of  personal  freedom  12.15  12.51  12.41  12.62  Feeling  of  belonging  67.36  70.55  Self-confidence  49.24  51.84  Self-control  46.70  48.24  Personal  47.24  50.12  49.76  52.82  Total  personal  adjustment  ACL  L a b i l i t y  adjustment  112"  TABLE Analysis  of  F  Covariance: Measurement No. 1 of S o c i a l F i v e S o c i a l A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e s o f t h e CTP Handsworth 10P vs D e l b r o o k 10  Scale  Sources  DF  MS  Adjustment—  F  P  Social  standards  Group Residual  1 105  7.530 2.940  2.561  .113  Social  s k i l l s  Group Residual  1 105  3.483  0.888  .348  Group Residual  l  0 .030 5.629  0.005  .942  Group Residual  l  6.079 3.452  1.761  .187  Group Residual  l  37-935 62.229  0-/610  .437  Anti-social (Fdm) School  Total  *p  <  tendencies  relations  social  .01  adjustment  105 105 105  3.924  113  TABLE Analysis  of  G  Covariance: Measurement No. 1 of S o c i a l F i v e S o c i a l A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e s o f t h e CTP D e l b r o o k 10 v s D e l b r o o k 11  Scale  Sources  DF  MS  Adjustment—  F  P  Social  standards  Group Residual  1 138  1.053 3.464  0.304  .582  Social  s k i l l s  Group Residual  1 138  O.697 3.455  0.202  .654  Group Residual  1 138  0.170 5.352  0.032  .859  Group Residual  1 138  0 .244 3.852  0.063  .802  Group Residual  1 138  6.032 48.509  0.124  .725  Anti-social (Fdm) School  Total  *p  <  tendencies  relations  social  .01  adjustment  114-  TABLE Analysis  of  H  Covariance: Measurement No. 1 of S o c i a l F i v e S o c i a l A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e s o f t h e CTP Handsworth IIP vs Delbrook 11  Scale  Sources  DF  MS  Adjustment—  F  P  Social  standards  Group Residual  1 107  2.067 2.648  0.781  .379  Social  s k i l l s  Group Residual  1 107  0.073  .787  Group Residual  1 107  0.237 3.250 0.498 4.986  0 .100  • 753  Group Residual  1 107  0.026 5.048  0.005  .943  Group Residual  1 107  0.213 44.169  0.005  .945  Anti-social (Fdm) School  Total  *p  <  tendencies  relations  social  .01  adjustment  115  TABLE Analysis  of  Variance: Measurement No. 1 of S o c i a l Adjustment— F i v e S o c i a l A d j u s t m e n t S c a l e s o f t h e CTP Delbrook 12 v s D e l b r o o k 11  Scale Social  Social  standards  s k i l l s  Anti-social (Fdm) School  Total  *p  <  tendencies  relations  social  .01  I  adjustment  Sources  DF  Group Residual  1  0.051 4.977  0.010  .919  Group Residual  1  17.297 5.759  3.003  .469  Group Residual  1  7-577  0.735  • 393  Group Residual  1  2.471 5.303  0 .466  .496  Group Residual  1  185.889 91.758  2.026  .157  146 146 146 146 146  MS  10.313  F  P  116  TABLE Analysis  of  Covariance: Measurement No. 2 of S o c i a l Subtests of the SSI Handsworth 1 0 P v s D e l b r o o k 10  Scale Teacher:  Methodology  Teacher:  Interpersonal Relationships  General  School  Climate  Peer  Learning  Global  *p  <  Score  .01  J  Sources  DF  Group Residual  Adjustment—  MS  F  1 101  5.866 12.288  0.477  .491  Group Residual  1 101  21.396 13.111  1.632  .204  Group Residual  1 101  O.676 13.707  0.049  .825  Group Residual  1 101  8.622 32.273  O.267  .606  Group Residual  1 101  2.003  0.326  .569  Group Residual  1 101  0.056 3.770  0.015  • 903  Group Residual  1 101  233.236 228.830  1.019  .315  6.149  P  117-  TABLE K A n a l y s i s o f C o v a r i a n c e : Measurement No. 2 o f S o c i a l Adjustment-Subtests of the SSI D e l b r o o k 10 vs D e l b r o o k 11  Scale  Sources  DF  MS  F  Teacher: Methodology  Group Residual  1 138  0.935 17-779  0.053  .819  Teacher: I n t e r p e r s o n a l Relationships  Group Residual  1 138  8.734 15.368  0.568  .452  General  Group Residual  1 138  5.208 18.523  0.281  .597  School Climate  Group Residual  1 138  221.593 39-714  5-580  .020  Peer  Group Residual  1 138  142.766 23.034 6.198  Learning  Group Residual  1 138  0.436 5.730  O.076  .783  G l o b a l Score  Group Residual  1 138  664.056 316.775  2.096  .150  *p < .01  P  .000*  118  TABLE L A n a l y s i s o f C o v a r i a n c e : Measurement No. 2 o f S o c i a l A d j u s t m e n t — Subtests of the SSI Handsworth I I P v s D e l b r o o k 11  Sources  DF  MS  F  Teacher: Methodology  Group Residual  1 107  3.810 18.3^0  0 .208  .649  Teacher: I n t e r p e r s o n a l Relationships  Group Residual  1 107  0.268 14.979  0.018  .894  General  Group Residual  1 • 107  0 .001 0 .000 18.816  School Climate  Group Residual  1 10 7  141.747 39.121  3.623  .060  Peer  Group Residual  1 107  21.280 5.820  3.656  .059  Learning  Group Residual  1 10?  0.512 6.047  0.085  • 772  G l o b a l Score  Group Residual  1 107  164.947 319.978  0.515  .474  Scale  *p < .01  P  • 994  119  TABLE M A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e : Measurement No. 2 o f S o c i a l Subtests of the SSI D e l b r o o k 12 v s Delbrook 11  Scale  Adjustment—  Sources  DF  Teacher: Methodology  Group Residual  1 146  100.465 27.763  3.619  .059  Teacher: I n t e r p e r s o n a l Relationships  Group Residual  1 146  161.862 23.989  6.747  .010  General  Group Residual  1 146  0.203 24.998  0.008  .928  Group Residual  1 146  200.158 45.047  4.443  .037  Peer  Group Residual  1 146  117.972 18.821 6.268  Learning  Group Residual  1 146  0.793 8.661  0.092  .763  Global Score  Group Residual  1 146  7.310 437.610  0.01?  • 897  School  Climate  *p < .01  MS  F  P  .000*  120  TABLE Analysis  of  N  Covariance: Measurement No. 4 of S o c i a l S c h o o l I n v o l v e m e n t S c a l e s o f t h e NRQ H a n d s w o r t h 10P v s D e l b r o o k 10  Scale  Adjustment  P  Sources  DF  attended  Group Residual  1 101  5.867 1.089  events  Group Residual  1 101  0 .093 0.111 0.839  • 739  Group Residual  1 101  0.497 0.817 0 .609  .368  Group Residual  1 101  0.135 0.528  0.256  .614  Group • Residual  1 101  0.745 0 .182  4.080  .046  No. of p o s i t i o n s held: coach/timer/referee  Group Residual  1 101  0.357 0.196  1.824  .180  No. of held  elected  General Residual  1 101  0.759 0.165  4.6o6  .034  No. o f member  committees of  Group Residual  1 101  0 .018 0.129  0.138  .711  No.  of  clubs  Group Residual  1 101  1.080 0.298  3.623  .060  No.  of  production  Group Residual  1 101  0.052 0.729  0.072  .789  No. of productions attended  Group Residual  1 101  0.554 0.942  0.588  .445  No. o f s o c i a l activities  Group Residual  1 101  0.266 0.139  1.916  .169  Group Residual  1 101  0 .201 0.230  0.874  .352  No.  of  dances  No. of s o c i a l attended No. for  of  teams  tried  No.  of  teams  made  Sports  No.  *p  supporter  of  <  out  other  .01  positions  a  belonged  to  roles  service  activities  MS  F  5-388  .022  —  121  TABLE Analysis  of  0  Covariance: Measurement No. 4 School Involvement Scales of Delbrook 10 v s D e l b r o o k  of S o c i a l t h e NRQ 11  F  Sources  DF  attended  Group Residual  1 138  0.868 1.161  0.748  .389  events  Group Residual  1 138  7.250 0.741  9.780  .002*  Group Residual  1 138  4.578 0 .483  9.480  .003*  Group Residual  1 138  4.176 0 .424  9.841  .002*  Group Residual  1 138  0.038 0 .184  0.206  .651  No. of p o s i t i o n s held: coach/timer/referee  Group Residual  1 138  0.024 0.118  0.207  .650  No. of held  elected  General Residual  1 138  0.417 O.I63  2.551  .113  No. of member  committees of  Group Residual  1 138  0.023 . 0.153  0.150  • 699  No.  of  clubs  Group Residual  1 138  0.586 0.299  1.964  .163  No.  of  production  Group Residual  1 138  0.189 0.713  0 .266  .607  No. of productions attended  Group Residual  1 138  2.541 0.943  2.695  .103  No. of s o c i a l activities  Group Residual  1 138  0.007 0.239  0.029  .864  Group Residual  1 138  0.670 0.212  3.156  .078  Scale No.  of  dances  No. of s o c i a l attended No. for  of  teams  tried  No.  of  teams  made  Sports  No.  *p  supporter  of  <  out  other  .01  positions  a  belonged  to  roles  service  activities  MS  Adjustment--  P  122  TABLE Analysis  of  P  Covariance: Measurement No. 4 of S o c i a l S c h o o l I n v o l v e m e n t S c a l e s o f t h e NRQ Handsworth I I P vs Delbrook 11  Scale  Adjustment—  Sources  DF  Group Residual  1  Group Residual  1 107  0.929  Group Residual  1  2.031 0.280  7.249  .008*  Group Residual  1  2.202 0.309  7.129  .009*  Group Residual  1 107  I.O67  5.858  .017  No. of p o s i t i o n s held: coach/timer/referee  Group Residual  1 107  2.480 0.149  No. of held  elected  General Residual  1  0.005  0.050  .823  No. o f member  committees of  Group Residual  1  0.397 0 .211  1.879  .173  No.  clubs  Group Residual  1  107  0.292 0 .245  1.195  .277  Group Residual  l  0.019  0  No. of productions attended  Group Residual  1  No. of s o c i a l activities  Group Residual  1.036 0.359  2.887  .092  107  Group Residual  1  0.171  0.895  .346  107  0.191  No.  of  dances  attended  No. of s o c i a l attended No. for  of  No.  of  teams  teams  Sports  No.  No.  *p  of  events  tried  made  supporter  positions  other  < .01  a  belonged  of production  of  out  to  roles  service  activities  107  107 107  107 107  107  107 1  MS  F  1 5 . 8 7 8 15.970  P .000*  0.994  15.010 1 6 . 1 6 0  0.182  16.696  0 .104  .023  0.808  18.601 16.175 1.150  .000*  .000*  .879  .000*  123  TABLE Analysis  of  Q  Variance: Measurement No. 4 of S o c i a l S c h o o l I n v o l v e m e n t S c a l e s o f t h e NRQ Delbrook 12 v s D e l b r o o k 11  Scale  Sources  DF  attended  Group Residual  1 146  23.507 18.886 1.245  .000*  events  Group Residual  1 146  68.376 44.531 1.535  .000*  Group Residual  1 146  2.474 0.806  3.071  .082  Group Residual  1 146  2.255 0.723  3.120  .079  Group Residual  1 146  0.24 9 .• 0.989 0.252  .322  No. of p o s i t i o n s held: coach/timer/referee  Group Residual  1 146  0.620 0.133  4.656  .033  No. of held  Group Residual  1 146  0.359 0.280  1.282  .259  Group Residual  1 146  0.040 0.250  0.161  .688  Group Residual  1 146  1.896 0.465  4.076  .045  Group Residual  1 146  2.306 0.502  4.597  .034  No. of productions attended  Group Residual  1 146  1.825 0.853  2.138  .146  No. of s o c i a l activities  Group Residual  1 146  0.000 0.236  0.002  .965  Group Residual  1 146  0.131 0.217  0.603  .439  No.  of  dances  No. of s o c i a l attended No. for  of  teams  tried  No.  of  teams  made  Sports  out  supporter  elected  positions  No. of committees belonged to No.  of  clubs  No.  of  production  No.  *p  of  <  other  .01  belonged  to  roles  service  activities  MS  Adjustment—  F  P  124  TABLE  R  of T - T e s t s : Measurement No. 4 of S o c i a l S e n t e n c e C o m p l e t i o n S c a l e f r o m t h e NRQ, H a n d s w o r t h 10P v s D e l b r o o k 10  Analysis  Adjustment— 1978  TVALUE  DF  0.66 0.72  -1.11  103  .268  2.59 2.56  0.56 0.53  0.22  103  .825  34 71  1.38 1.38  0.49 0.54  0.02  103  • 985  H.10P D.10  34 71  1.73  0.71  -2.61  103  .010  involvement  H.10P D.10  34 71  2.26 2.20  0.71 0.73  0.45  103  .655  Getting along with other students  H.10P D.10  34 71  2.53 2.55  0.56 0.53  -0.18  103  .860  Making  H.10P D.10  34 71  2.41  2.72  0.66 0.56  -2.47  103  0.15  H.10P D.10  34 71  2.00 1.94  0.43 0.86  0.36  103  .723  Course  load  Course  Grade  interest  standard  Academic  School  performance  new  Size  of  *p  .01  <  friends  school  GROUP  N  MEAN  S.D.  H.10P D.10  34 71  1.47 I.63  H.10P D.10  34 71  H.10P D.10  2.14  O.76  P  125  TABLE Analysis  S  of T - T e s t s : Measurement No. 4 of S o c i a l Adjustment— S e n t e n c e C o m p l e t i o n S c a l e f r o m t h e NRQ, 1978 D e l b r o o k ' 1 0 vs Delbrook 11  GROUP  N  MEAN  S .D.  ITVALUE  DF  D. D.  10 11  71 71  1.63  0.72  -1.57  140  .118  1.85  0.87  D. D.  10 11  71  2.56 2.39  0.53  1.53  140  .128  D. D.  10 11  71 71  1.38 1.46  0.54  -0.86  14 0  .393  D. D.  10 11  71 71  2.14 2.24  0.76  -O.76  14 0  .448  involvement  D. D.  10 11  71 71  2.20 1.72  0.73 0.68  4.05  140  .000*  Getting along with other students  D. D.  10 11  71 71  2.55 2.24  0.53 0.64  3.14  140  .002*  Making  D. D.  10 11  71 71  2.72 2.52  0.56  1.86  140  0.69  .066  D. D.  10 11  71 71  1.94  0.86  3.08  140  .002*  1.52  0.77  Course  load  Course  interest  Grade  standard  Academic  School  Size  *p  <  performance  new  of  .01  friends  school  71  P  0.76 O.63 0.78  126-  TABLE Analysis  T  of T - T e s t s : Measurement No. 4 of S o c i a l Adjustment— S e n t e n c e C o m p l e t i o n S c a l e f r o m t h e NRQ, 1978 Handsworth IIP vs Delbrook 11  GROUP  N  H.11P D . l l  TVALUE  MEAN  S .D.  40  1.87  109  .863  71  0.88 0.87  0.17  1.84  H.11P D . l l  40 71  2.55 2.39  0.60 O.76  1.11  109  .270  H.11P D . l l  4o 71  1.60  0.50 0.63  1.17  109  .245  H.11P D . l l  40  2.05  109  .224  2.24  0.78 0.78  -1.22  71  H.11P D . l l  40  2.52 1.72  0.60 0.68  6.26  109  .000*  71  Getting along with other students  H.11P D . l l  40  2.55  2.24  0.50 0 .64  2.63  109  .009*  71  Making  H.11P D.ll  40  2.52 2.52  O.60 O.69  0.03  109  .976  H.11P D . l l  40  2.20 1.52  0.56 0.77  4.87  109  .000*  71  H.11P D . l l  4o 71  1.95 1.90  0.75 0.70  0 .34  109  .733  Course  load  Course  Grade  interest  standard  Academic  School  Size  performance  involvement  new  of  school  Graduation  *p  <  .01  friends  71  1.46  DF  P  12?  TABLE A  Summary o f R e s p o n s e s Neumann R e s e a r c h Figures  RESPONSE CLASSIFICATION  U  t o P a r t B, Q u e s t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e : May  = No.  of  #3 of 1977  the  responses  ATTITUDE  H.10  H . l l  D.10  D . l l  6 2  7 0  2 0  10  14  3  2 23  0 17  Concerned about Looking forward to  0 0  1 0  8 0  7 0  Concerned about Looking forward to  13 10  12 8  10 3  11 5  Concerned about Looking forward to  1 18  1 20  0 19  12 15  Getting along with other students  Concerned about Looking forward to  0 0  0 0  10 0  17 1  Making  Concerned about Looking forward to  1 10  1 8  1 36  1 30  Concerned about Looking forward to  0 0  0 0  8 0  13 0  Concerned about Looking forward to  0 3  3 33  0 2  3 13  Course  load  Concerned about Looking forward to  5 2  Course  interest  Concerned about Looking forward to  4  Grade  standard  Academic  performance  Involvement  Size  of  new  in  friends  school  Graduation  school  128  TABLE  V  Representative Part  Sample of Student Reactions to Forced School Transfer: III, Q u e s t i o n #2 o f t h e NRQ, 1 9 7 8  D e l b r o o k 10 S t u d e n t Comments Posi tive  their  Delbrook 11 Student Comments  Comments  Positive  Comments  1. Carson is a better school a n d a d j u s t i n g t o t h e new school i s not d i f f i c u l t .  1.  2. i t up  2. I did not mind. Carson immensely.  I enjoyed, the change for m a d e me f e e l m o r e g r o w n and more s e l f - r e l i a n t .  Good—positive—challenged.  I've  enjoyed  3. I t w a s g o o d b e c a u s e I f e l t as t h o u g h I was t a k i n g a s t e p forward in l i f e . I t m a d e me feel older.  3. I ' m l u c k y t h e s c h o o l d i d burn down. Compared to Carson, Delb r o o k was t h e p i t s .  4. I enjoy the change. The people are n i c e r and there are more a c t i v i t i e s .  4 . S i n c e a t t e n d i n g C a r s o n my a t tendance r e c o r d i s p e r f e c t and I have a c h i e v e d honor r o l l standings. A t t e n d i n g D e l b r o o k was a waste of time and I'm g l a d I had to change.  5. I ' m g l a d I c a m e t o Carson because I met a l o t of friends I w o u l d n ' t have otherwise.  5. I t ' s good. I met a l o t new p e o p l e t h a t I p r o b a b l y would have met.  6.  6. I am h a p p y I c h a n g e d . There is a greater v a r i e t y of courses a n d I h a v e m e t new friends.  Excellent'.  Neutral  Comments  Neutral  of never  Comments  1. I'm g l a d I changed schools f o r a l l t h e new f r i e n d s I've made b u t I m i s s t h e c l o s e atmosphere that the students and teachers of Delbrook had.  1. I would have l i k e d to have stayed at Delbrook f o r the academic p a r t of s c h o o l . I'm g l a d came t o C a r s o n f o r t h e sports.  2. Not g r e a t l y a f f e c t e d way. Happy here and a t brook .  2 . I was but f i n d  either Del-  s a t i s f i e d at Carson fine.  Delbrook  I  129 TABLE  V—continued  D e l b r o o k 10 S t u d e n t Comments  Delbrook 11 Student Comments  3. I would have l i k e d to have stayed i n Delbrook but Carson i s a good s c h o o l and I enjoy i t here.  3. C h a n g i n g s c h o o l s h a s n o t rea l l y a f f e c t e d me. I enjoy Carson except i t i s too b i g and you c a n ' t meet everyone.  4.  4. The c h a n g e w a s n ' t a s I thought i t would be.  Didn't  bother  me.  5. I t d i d n ' t make much f e r e n c e to me.  Negative  dif-  Comments  1. I wish rebuilt.  2. I s t i l l leave.  had  been  regret  having  to  as  5. I d i d n ' t mind changing schools. The o n l y t h i n g w h i c h I m i n d e d was the s i z e of t h e s c h o o l I went to. Negative  Delbrook  bad  Comments  1. This school i s too b i g and i m personal. It i s much h a r d e r for an> individual's personality to shine through. Last year there were more people h e l p i n g p e o p l e . 2.  Ripped  o f f ! '.  3. I don't l i k e changing' schoo l s and I f e e l it- has affected me g r e a t l y . I enjoyed Delbrook and d i s l i k e i t here'.  3. C h a n g i n g s c h o o l s w o u l d have been O.K. i f I was i n g r a d e 8 - 1 0 , but, switching i n your l a s t year of high school i s tough.  4. I d i d n ' t want to l e a v e Delb r o o k b e c a u s e I f e l t i t was fantastic. I s t i l l wish there was a "Delbrook."  4 . I s t i l l do n o t l i k e t h e idea of coming to Carson. I went to Delbrook f o r 4 years and yet could not graduate from t h e r e .  5. I f e e l like Delbr I thought school in  5. I think i t is the worst thing that c o u l d have happened. With e v e r y t h i n g s o u n s t a b l e my m a r k s dropped. Even though Delbrook students are going to school at C a r s o n , we a r e s t i l l D e l b r o o k and are t o t a l l y l e f t out of Carson a f f a i r s .  6.  A  i t was t h e p i t s . I o o k t h e way i t was. i t was the best North Van..  hassle'.  6. I f e e l C a r s o n i s Delbrook had a more of t r e a t i n g the s t u d s o n I'm j u s t one of  too crowded. p e r s o n a l way ents, at Carthe crowd.  130  TABLE W Summary  of  Questions  from  the  NRQ  Analyzed  with  Comparison Responses  to  transfer  D.10  vs  Chi  Square  3C  D.ll  2  4.04  Role  at  school  1977  H.10P- vs  D.10  0.07  Role  at  school  1978  H.10P  vs  D.10  3.16  Role  at  school  1977  H.11P  vs  D.ll  4.98  Role  at  school  1978  H.11P  vs  D.ll  1.10  p < .01 df = 2  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054333/manifest

Comment

Related Items